Backscattering TMS

Junko Katayama

What I did

I computed the backscattering noise on the each surface of BRT and GPT lenses.

• Simple estimation• Including radiation pressure• up-conversion• up-conversion using the relative motion

between ETM and TMS elements

BRTGPT

ETM

QPD

B1 B2

B3 B4

G1 G2

G3 G4

TMS

Transmission Monitor System

Simple estimation

Φ(t) << 1h = sqrt(fsc) * T/L * δx

fsc = |overlap integral|2 * RAR

Simple estimationon each surface of lenses

Including radiation pressure

• h = G*sqrt(fsc*T*Pcav/Pin)/L*4pi/λ*δx

(G is given by Aso-san)

• Transfer Function (Simple pendulum)TF = 1/(1-ω2/ω0

2+iω/ω0*1/Q)

Including radiation pressurewith TF

up-conversion

Esc*eiΩt[cos(φ(t))+isin(φ(t))]φ(t) << 1h = G*sqrt(f_sc*T*Pcav/Pin)/L*4pi/λ*δx

φ(t) >> 1Up-conversion ; φ(t) → sin(φ(t))

Pφ(ω) → Psinφ(ω) ≡ Pa(ω)

Pφ(ω)

autocorrelation function

From Aso-san slides ‘ScatteringWorkshop’

already know

want to know

Pφ(ω) & Pa(ω)

Pφ(ω) & Pa(ω)adding peek

up-conversion with TF

at low frequency :ETM moves larger, as much as the seismic motion→ We should consider the relative motion between ETM and TMS elements.

using relative motionbetween ETM and TMS

xrelative = (xETM2 + xTMS

2)1/2

ETM element

xETMxTMS

up-conversion with TFcomparing normal & using relative motion

From last slide, we can say that the consideration of relative motion makes almost no difference in the noise estimation.

..we can find this reason in the next two slides. ETM motion and its contribution to h are enough smaller than TMS motion at > 1 Hz.

up-conversion with TFcomparing normal & using relative motion

comparing ETM & TMS motion

ETM contribution to h

Conclusion

• TMS should be suspendedSimple pendulum is enough for TMS

• ETM motion is quite smaller than TMS motion → no need to consider the relative motion