LSC/VIRGO Stochastic Analysis Review

Navigation

Review Home
StochReview List/Archive
Stochastic ilog
Stochastic list/Archive
LSCsoft CVS
LSC, LIGO
VIRGO
ALLEGRO

Docs

Conferences 2007
Edit these pages

Review

Overview
Members
Minutes
Status of Reviews

Agenda and Minutes, 21 Oct 2010

Agenda: Thurs, 21 Oct 2010

- Continued discussion of S5 H1-H2 paper
  

Minutes

Minutes of Oct 21, 2010 Stochastic Review Telecon

Attending: Warren, Robert, Alan, Nelson, Stuart

- Robert feels that the calibration line study should be de-emphasized. Robert
  would like to see an estimate of the size of the coupling mechanism that Vuk
  suggests as a candidate for the calibration line study.

- Will defer on questions of less than 1s time shifts until we can read the
  link Vuk sent.

- Debate over strength of statements about what upper limits we can set will
  also be deferred.

Section I Intro
- Robert reminds us that H1 and H2 don't respond to GWs exactly equally, as
  claimed in this section.

- Warren - How can we say that separated sites are "crucial" in a paper where
  we argue we can set limits from a single site?

- II Common noise

-  Robert- main coupling mechanism for magnetic fields is permanent magnets,
   not coil drivers.

- PEMs should perhaps not be used as a noun.

- Robert wants to remove "(for H2 and H1 respectively)" since PEMs at all
  places monitor both instruments.

- "mains power supply"->"mains current" and this coupling is not limited to LLO.

- "Typically the pulsar search codes can ..." should perhaps be left out
  unless it was actually done.

- "These lines were caused ..." -> "These lines were likely caused ..." - and
  there was residual 1Hz coherence after duotones started being used, so
  perhaps even "These lines were likely caused primarily ..."

- Nelson will send Robert links to lines found in PEM studies for S5 H1-L1.

- Robert insists it needs to be made clear that PEM channels are most
  sensitive to environmental signals than the interferometer in this section.
  This has been measured to be true by environmental noise injections.

- Robert thinks non-linear upconversion is unnecessarily emphasized and the
  that bulk of coherences are cause by linear couplings.

- Number 2 - kleinewelle triggers were removed even for non-coincident glitches.

- Number 4 - there are quite a few more than 99 PEM channels. Robert wants to
  see list of which ones were chosen to make sure he agrees they are the 99
  most important. Nelson will provide.

- Number 6 - de-emphasize calibration line study again. Robert and Alan agree
  on this point.

III A

- "Most of these correlations arise ...same experimental hall" Robert points
  out this is technically only true for corner station.

- "This can be captured by bi-coherence techniques ..." Robert isn't sure
  that's true, should be left out. Also, he thinks that coherence methods do
  show upconversion, for instance in sidebands of 60 Hz. 

- Warren would like to know why we didn't use bicoherence techniques.

- Can we find another symbol for gamma_i,Z so it is not confused with gamma
  overlap?

- "We have developed two methods" - but six were listed on the previous page.

- How was 2 selected as threshold for SNR_TS - is there a technical document?
  Warren would like to see a study. Look at playground link in technical
  document. Nelson will try to describe that better.
$Id: 20101021.html,v 1.1 2010/10/21 22:38:30 warren Exp $