LSC/VIRGO Stochastic Analysis Review

Agenda: Tues, 19 December 2006

The only item on the agenda this time is the latest version of the Allegro 
paper, which is posted at: 

http://www.lsc-group.phys.uwm.edu/sbwg/review/projects.html

Please download and review if you have not done so already.
  

Minutes

+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 20061219-minutes.txt - minutes from the Dec 19 Stochastic Review telecon.
|
|  Author        : Warren G. Anderson (warren@gravity.phys.uwm.edu)
|
|  Last Modified : Tue Jan 23 04:00 PM 2007 C
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Attending: Warren, Stuart, Robert, Harry

Comments on new Allegro paper draft:

Intro
- LLO is used for both IFo and for observatory facility - please
  differentiate.
- list of possible sources should be quoted as examples so as not to give an
  impression of comprehensiveness.
- Fig 1 with two spectra for Omega(f) still confusing.

Section II
- Why is there an assymetry between x-arm and y-arm in Fig 2?
- Second sentence below Fig. 2 runs on - split at comma?
- Mention that Eq.s 2.1 - 2.3 are for long wavelength limit.
- "A1-L1" is undefined abbreviation.
- Suggested replacement for second last sentence of section:
  "For certain ranges of these three parameters the Livingston-Allegro
   detector pair offers the best constraints on theory that can be inferred
   from any current observation."
- Last sentence doesn't need to be in parenthesis.


Section III
- paragraph 2 - "round trip" not really appropriate for Fabry-Perot - work in
  wording about finesse of cavity.
- paragraph 3 - environmental forces need not be "random".
-             - "indistinguishable" not really true - "mimic" would be better.
- paragraph 4 - error signal q(t) "recorded", not "measured".
- III-B-1 - second paragraph seems to begin a bit informally - leave out "to
  check".
- Fig 3 - y-axis in 1/root Hz needs effective bandwidth to make sense.
- Is it worth explaining differences between curves for different
  ortientations in the caption of Fig 3?
- better to use j to label samples in last sentence of III.A as is done
  elsewhere in paper.

Section IV
- In eq.s 4.1 and 4.2 and surrounding text, it is probably better to reserve i
  for the sqrt of -1. Capital letters have been used to label detectors
  in the past.
- Table I - explain why N63W is used instead of N62W.
- second column page 6 - what is the "dimensional factor"?
- justify choices of numbers quoted on page 7, eg why df=0.25Hz.
  for stationarity cut is 20%.

Related Email

Subject: Re: Reminder: Stochastic review telecon tomorrow
From: Warren G Anderson 
To: John T Whelan 
CC: Nelson Christensen ,
    Stuart Anderson ,
    Robert Schofield ,
    Harry Ward ,
    Martin McHugh , 
    Warren Johnson 
Date: 2006-12-19 15:36

Hi,

The review went through the first 7 pages of the new manuscript and came up 
with the following suggestions/questions at todays review telecon:

Intro
- LLO is used for both IFo and for observatory facility.
- list of possible sources should be quoted as examples so as not to give an
  impression of comprehensiveness.
- Fig 1 with two spectra for Omega(f) still confusing.

Section II
- Why is there an assymetry between x-arm and y-arm in Fig 2?
- Second sentence below Fig. 2 runs on - split at comma?
- Mention that Eq.s 2.1 - 2.3 are for long wavelength limit.
- "A1-L1" are undefined abbreviations.
- Suggested replacement for second last sentence of section:
  "For certain ranges of these three parameters the Livingston-Allegro
   detector pair offers the best constraints on theory that can be inferred
   from any current observation."
- Last sentence doesn't need to be in parenthesis.


Section III
- paragraph 2 - "round trip" not really appropriate for Fabry-Perot - work in
  wording about finesse of cavity.
- paragraph 3 - environmental forces need not be "random".
-             - "indistinguishable" not really true - "mimic" would be better.
- paragraph 4 - error signal q(t) "recorded", not "measured".
- III-B-1 - second paragraph seems to begin a bit informally - leave out "to
  check".
- Fig 3 - y-axis in 1/root Hz needs effective bandwidth to make sense.
- Is it worth explaining differences between curves for different
  ortientations in the caption of Fig 3?
- better to use j to label samples in last sentence of III.A as is done
  elsewhere in paper.

Section IV
- In eq.s 4.1 and 4.2 and surrounding text, it is probably better to reserve i
  for the sqrt of -1. Capital letters have been used to label detectors
  in the past.
- Table I - explain why N63W is used instead of N62W.
- second column page 6 - what is the "dimensional factor"?
- justify choices of numbers quoted on page 7, eg why df=0.25Hz, why threshold
  for stationarity cut is 20%, etc.


We will continue the review when we meet again in the new year (possibly on 
Jan 16, although the date is still to be determined).

Warren


-- 
+================[ WARREN G. ANDERSON ]====================+
| 15 Sierra Vista Terr. SW          (403) 212-1426 HOME    |
| Calgary AB, T3H-3C4, CANADA                              |
+----------------------------------------------------------+
| P.O. Box 413,                     (414) 559-5366 US CELL |
| Dept. of Physics                  (414) 229-3323 OFFICE  |
| Milwaukee WI, 53201, USA          (414) 229-5589 FAX     |
+==========================================================+

$Id: 061219.html,v 1.1 2007/02/13 22:43:55 warren Exp $