40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log  Not logged in ELOG logo
Entry  Thu Aug 20 00:21:51 2020, gautam, Update, Electronics, First look at HV coil driver IMG_8724.JPGtimeDomain.pdfHVampNoise.pdf
    Reply  Sun Aug 23 23:36:58 2020, gautam, Update, Electronics, First look at HV coil driver IMG_5379.JPGstabilityCriterion.pdf
       Reply  Wed Aug 26 16:12:25 2020, gautam, Update, Electronics, Test mass coil current requirements coilCurrents.png
       Reply  Tue Sep 1 15:39:04 2020, gautam, Update, Electronics, HV coil driver oscillations fixed testSetup.pdfHVampNoise_driven.pdf
          Reply  Thu Oct 22 11:14:47 2020, gautam, Update, Electronics, HV coil driver packaged into 2U chassis HVampNoise_driven_chassis.pdfHVampNoise_dispUnits.pdfD1900163_measurementSetup.zip
             Reply  Thu Oct 22 13:04:42 2020, rana, Update, Electronics, HV coil driver packaged into 2U chassis 
                Reply  Thu Oct 22 22:01:53 2020, gautam, Update, Electronics, HV coil driver packaged into 2U chassis DACnoiseFilterGain.pdfDACnoiseFilterNoises.pdf
                   Reply  Fri Oct 23 09:03:43 2020, anchal, Update, Electronics, HV coil driver packaged into 2U chassis 
             Reply  Thu Nov 12 14:55:35 2020, gautam, Update, Electronics, More systematic noise characterization powerSupplyNoise.pdfcoherence.pdf
                Reply  Thu Nov 12 15:40:42 2020, Koji, Update, Electronics, More systematic noise characterization 
                   Reply  Mon Nov 16 00:02:34 2020, rana, Update, Electronics, More systematic noise characterization 
                      Reply  Wed Jan 20 10:13:06 2021, gautam, Update, Electronics, HV Power supply bypassing bypassCaps.pdfIMG_9079.jpgIMG_9078.jpgHVampNoise_driven_chassis.pdfprintCoilCurrents.pdf
                         Reply  Mon Feb 1 12:30:21 2021, gautam, Update, Electronics, More careful characterization HVPS.pdfHV_testckt.pdftotalNoise.pdf
                         Reply  Wed Feb 10 21:14:03 2021, gautam, Update, Electronics, Production version of the HV coil driver tested inputDiffRecTF.pdfLVnoises.pdftotalNoise.pdftimeDomainTests.pdf
                            Reply  Fri Feb 26 16:31:02 2021, gautam, Update, Electronics, Production version of the HV coil driver tested with KEPCO HV supplies totalNoise_KEPCO.pdf
                               Reply  Fri Feb 26 20:20:43 2021, Koji, Update, Electronics, Production version of the HV coil driver tested with KEPCO HV supplies 
                                  Reply  Sat Feb 27 17:25:42 2021, gautam, Update, Electronics, Production version of the HV coil driver tested with KEPCO HV supplies 
                                     Reply  Thu May 20 16:56:21 2021, Koji, Update, Electronics, Production version of the HV coil driver tested with KEPCO HV supplies P_20210520_154523_copy.jpg
Message ID: 15675     Entry time: Thu Nov 12 14:55:35 2020     In reply to: 15636     Reply to this: 15676
Author: gautam 
Type: Update 
Category: Electronics 
Subject: More systematic noise characterization 

Summary:

I now think the excess noise in this circuit could be coming from the KEPCO switching power supply (in fact, the supplies are linear, and specd for a voltage ripple at the level of <0.002% of the output - this is pretty good I think, hard to find much better).

Details:

All component references are w.r.t. the schematic. For this test, I decided to stuff a fresh channel on the board, with new components, just to rule out some funky behavior of the channel I had already stuffed. I decoupled the HV amplifier stage and the Acromag DAC noise filtering stages by leaving R3 open. Then, I shorted the non-inverting input of the PA95 (i.e. TP3) to GND, with a jumper cable. Then I measured the noise at TP5, using the AC coupling pomona box (although in principle, there is no need for this as the DC voltage should be zero, but I opted to use it just in case). The characteristic bump in the spectra at ~100Hz-1kHz was still evident, see the bottom row of Attachment #1. The expected voltage noise in this configuration, according to my SPICE model, is ~10 nV/rtHz, see the analysis note.

As a second test, I decided to measure the voltage noise of the power supply - there isn't a convenient monitor point on the circuit to directly probe the +/- HV supply rails (I didn't want any exposed HV conductors on the PCB) - so I measured the voltage noise at the 3-pin connector supplying power to the 2U chassis (i.e. the circuit itself was disconnected for this measurement, I'm measuring the noise of the supply itself). The output is supposedly differential - so I used the SR785 input "Float" mode, and used the Pomona AC coupling box once again to block the large DC voltage and avoid damage to the SR785. The results are summarized in the top row of Attachment #1.

The shape of the spectra suggests to me that the power supply noise is polluting the output noise - Koji suggested measuring the coherence between the channels, I'll try and do this in a safe way but I'm hesitant to use hacky clips for the High Voltage. The PA95 datasheet says nothing about its PSRR, and seems like the Spice model doesn't include it either. It would seem that a PSRR of <60dB at 100 Hz would explain the excess noise seen in the output. Typically, for other Op-Amps, the PSRR falls off as 1/f. The CMRR (which is distinct from the PSRR) is spec'd at 98 dB at DC, and for other OpAmps, I've seen that the CMRR is typically higher than the PSRR. I'm trying to make a case here that it's not unreasonable if the PA95 has a PSRR <= 60dB @100 Hz.

So what are the possible coupling mechanisms and how can we mitigate it?

  1. Use better power supply - I'm not sure how this spec of 10-50 uV/rtHz from the power supply lines up in the general scheme of things, is this already very good? Or can a linear power supply deliver better performance? Assuming the PSRR at 100 Hz is 60 dB and falls off as 1/f, we'd need a supply that is ~10x quieter at all frequencies if this is indeed the mechanism.
  2. Better grounding? To deliver the bipolar voltage rails, I used two unipolar supplies. The outputs are supposedly floating, so I connected the "-" input of the +300 V supply to the "+" input of the -300 V supply. I think this is the right thing to do, but maybe this is somehow polluting the measurement?
  3. Additional bypass capacitors? I use 0.1 uF, 700V DC ceramic capacitors as bypass capacitors close to the leads of the PA95, as is recommended in the datasheet. Can adding a 10uF capacitor in parallel provide better filtering? I'm not sure if one with compatible footprint and voltage rating is readily available, I'll look around.

What do the analog electronics experts think? I may be completely off the rails and imagining things here.


Update 2130: I measured the coherence between the positive supply rail and the output, under the same conditions (i.e. HV stage isolated, input shorted to ground). See Attachment #2 - the coherence does mirror the "bump" seen in the output voltage noise - but the coherence is. only 0.1,  even with 100 averages, suggesting the coupling is not directly linear - anyways, I think it's worth it to try adding some extra decoupling, I'm sourcing the HV 10uF capacitors now.

Attachment 1: powerSupplyNoise.pdf  392 kB  | Hide | Hide all
powerSupplyNoise.pdf
Attachment 2: coherence.pdf  112 kB  Uploaded Thu Nov 12 21:36:02 2020  | Hide | Hide all
coherence.pdf
ELOG V3.1.3-