Agenda and Minutes, 19 December 2006
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 AndersonTo: 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 $