1. Pipe baffle shaking tests S.Braccini, C.Bradaschia, I.Fiori, F.Paoletti Mid Baffle First Baffle

2. 1410 m West No DAQ hammer shake quiet MID BAFFLE EXCITATION

3. NO EFFECT ON DARK FRINGE Mid baffle seismic noise is not now limiting the sensitivity (Noise upper limit can be set)

5. Constant TF K  4 x 10 -15 m -1 hammer shake quiet 6 x 10 -22 1.5 x 10 -7

6. Upper limit by mid baffle for any constant TF process Adv Sensitivity ……. Another step…Beyond single baffle

7. Upper limit for diffraction on all baffles AdV Sensitivity Upper Limit Theory with detected seismic noise We know the weight of each baffle with respect to the central one (dominant) where we have just set un upper limit OTHER REMARKS Same seismic noise on all pipe mid baffles No special effect on a single baffle North Pipe could be different

8. A) No hypothesis Mid baffle seismic noise does not affect present sensitivity (but only scarce upper limit can be set) B) Flat TF hypothesis Good upper limit for seismic noise by Mid baffle CONCLUSIONS FROM MID BAFFLE TEST C) Extension to all baffles ( Theoretical Model and Assumptions ) Upper limit for diffraction on all baffles AdV Sensitivity Upper Limit Theory with detected seismic noise Gives us an upper limit for the entire “diffraction noise” It is easy (but not urgent) to improve upper limit…

9. Pipe baffle shaking tests S.Braccini, C.Bradaschia, I.Fiori, F.Paoletti Mid Baffle First Baffle

10. hammer shake quiet Excitation

12. No Effect on DF

13. Present “Safety Margin” (no hypothesis)

14. First Baffle Upper Limit (Flat TF hypothesis)

15. CONCLUSIONS FROM FIRST BAFFLE TEST Conceptually identical to the Mid Baffle ones (but different seismic noise) A) No hypothesis Mid baffle seismic noise does not affect present sensitivity (but only scarce upper limit can be set) B) Flat TF hypothesis Good upper limit for seismic noise by Mid baffle C) Extension to all baffles ( Theoretical Model and assumptions ) Uncoherent sums with different seismic noise (all baffle weight 1)