During this period 1992-96, research on data analysis algorithms made use of detector noise curves taken from the Science article. Unfortunately two of the figures in the article (Figs. 7 and 10) which gave the noise curve were inconsistent, and also inconsistent with the parameters given in the article. The GRASP parameters/ directory contains a noise curve corresponding to Fig. 7, and another noise curve, generally called the ``Cutler and Flanagan" approximation, which is an approximation to the curve used in Fig. 10.
Note that the noise level in Fig. 7 in the Science article [38] is a factor of 3 in [or a factor of in ] lower than that of Fig. 10 in between Hz and Hz. Kip Thorne has informed us that Fig. 10 is the correct figure and Fig. 7 is in error, and that the error does not appear in the corresponding figure V.4 of the 1989 LIGO proposal. The error can be seen by inserting the parameter values , , and given in [38] into the standard equation for suspension thermal noise due to viscous damping, as given in, e.g., Eq. (4.3) of Reference [15]. The resulting noise level is a factor of 3 higher than the noise level shown in Fig. 7, and agrees with the noise level of Fig. 10. Note however that the noise curve of Fig. 7 has been adopted and used by several researchers as the ``advanced ligo noise curve", and that the GRASP ``advanced" advanced noise curve is that of Fig. 7.
The Cutler and Flanagan approximation to the advanced ligo noise curve is