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  Sat Oct 15 04:53:41 2011, Suresh, Update, IOO, MC WFS Output Matrix determination WFS1P_RespTo_MC1andMC2.pdfWFS1_IQphase20111015_1.pdfWFS2_IQphase20111015_1.pdfWFS1_IQphase20111015_2.pdfWFS2_IQphase20111015_2.pdf
    Reply  Sat Oct 15 10:58:32 2011, rana, Update, IOO, MC WFS Output Matrix determination 
       Reply  Sat Oct 15 16:01:26 2011, kiwamu, Update, IOO, about LOCKIN module 
Message ID: 5668     Entry time: Sat Oct 15 04:53:41 2011     Reply to this: 5669
Author: Suresh 
Type: Update 
Category: IOO 
Subject: MC WFS Output Matrix determination 

After we had a rough idea of what the output matrix looks like (see this elog),
I tried to measure the transfer function coefs (TFCs) between mirror degrees of freedom and the WFS sensors (WFS1, WFS2 and MC_Trans QPD)
I found that the TFCs that I obtained at 10.15 Hz did not have any resemblance to the previously identified output matrix.

The problem, I realised, arises because the various lockins used
in the C1IOO model do not have the same relative phase; So if we try to excite a mirror with one of them
and demodulate a sensor signal on any of the other lockins the resulting output would not have the correct phase
(relative to the 1st lockin output). As a result unless we can reset the phase of all the lockins
simultaneously, we cannot demodulate multiple signals at the same time. (Joe/Jamie, Is it possible to
reset/reinitialise the phase of the CLK signals of the lockings? )


To get around this problem Koji suggested that I use just one lockin and determine all the 36 elements of the transfer matrix with it one at a
time rather than six at a time. When I did that, I got results consistent with the previoulsly determined outmatrix. It, of course, takes six times longer.

The matrix I first got is this one

 

(Mag, Phase) WFS1P WFS2P MC_T_P WFS1Y WFS2Y MC_T_Y
MC1P 0.332 0.518 0.316 0.019 0.066 0.000
  5.832 1.892 8.180 38.285 8.807 0.000
             
MC2P 0.355 1.798 0.342 0.023 0.144 0.000
  72.977 76.683 76.804 -16.364 77.451 71.579
             
MC3P 0.352 0.394 0.254 0.036 0.023 0.000
  2.005 3.249 6.249 5.712 26.349 NAN
             
MC1Y 0.051 0.055 0.058 0.788 1.024 0.001
  15.979 -4.487 -9.707 2.642 1.276 0.000
             
MC2Y 0.142 0.044 0.130 1.966 0.579 0.017
  70.044 83.818 76.397 74.283 76.134 77.269
             
MC3Y 0.044 0.052 0.022 0.080 0.948 0.194
  22.932 14.227 -45.924 9.677 1.125 1.124
             
Which can be  recast as below          
             
             
Magnitude WFS1P WFS2P MC_T_P WFS1Y WFS2Y MC_T_Y
MC1P 0.332 0.518 0.316 0.02 0.07 0
MC2P 0.355 1.798 0.342 0.02 0.14 0
MC3P 0.352 0.394 0.254 0.04 0.02 0
MC1Y 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.788 1.024 0.001
MC2Y 0.14 0.04 0.13 1.966 0.579 0.017
MC3Y 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.080 0.948 0.194

Phase WFS1P WFS2P MC_T_P WFS1Y WFS2Y MC_T_Y
MC1P 5.8 1.9 8.2 38.3 8.8 0.0
MC2P 73.0 76.7 76.8 -16.4 77.5 71.6
MC3P 2.0 3.2 6.2 5.7 26.3 NA
MC1Y 16.0 -4.5 -9.7 2.6 1.3 0.0
MC2Y 70.0 83.8 76.4 74.3 76.1 77.3
MC3Y 22.9 14.2 -45.9 9.7 1.1 1.1

 

Note that when MC2 is excited all the sensors showed a response about 75 deg out of phase with the reference (MC1 --> WFS1_PIT ) This was traced to the fact that while there is a 28Hz Elliptic LP filter on

both MC1 and MC3, while it is absent on MC2.  The Transfer functions  below show the difference in the phase of their response

WFS1P_RespTo_MC1andMC2.pdf

 

Since the MC2 POS is used in servos involving MCL we cannot afford to install a 28 Hz LP filter into the MC2 coil drivers.  However a module with the 28 Hz ELP was switched on, in each of the

 MC2 PIT and YAW filter banks.   I then checked to see if this has affected the relative phase of variour sensors.  The Phase angle between I and Q on each sensor channel was checked and corrected. 

Below are the spectra with the "before" and "after" correction of phases.

Before:

 WFS1_IQphase20111015_1.pdf        WFS2_IQphase20111015_1.pdf

 

Obviously this needed adjustment to reduce Q phase.   

  After twealkng the angle "R":

WFS1_IQphase20111015_2.pdf      WFS2_IQphase20111015_2.pdf

 

And again determined the transfer matrix (below). 

( I , Q ) WFS1P WFS2P MC_T_P WFS1Y WFS2Y MC_T_Y
MC1P 0.236 -0.300 0.229 0.049 -0.008 0.000
  0.015 -0.004 -0.027 0.011 -0.019 0.000
             
MC2P -0.125 -0.962 -0.135 0.114 0.028 0.000
  0.007 -0.052 -0.028 -0.004 -0.002 0.000
             
MC3P -0.225 -0.254 -0.255 -0.026 -0.010 0.000
  0.004 -0.012 -0.010 0.009 0.002 0.000
             
MC1Y -0.059 -0.023 -0.040 0.460 0.705 0.001
  0.004 0.003 0.009 0.009 0.017 0.000
             
MC2Y 0.030 0.190 0.040 -1.144 -0.296 0.015
  0.007 0.006 -0.009 -0.038 -0.009 0.001
             
MC3Y 0.018 -0.108 -0.018 0.134 -0.832 -0.001
  0.017 0.005 0.001 0.006 -0.016 0.000
 

Magnitude WFS1P WFS2P MC_T_P WFS1Y WFS2Y MC_T_Y
MC1P 0.236 0.300 0.231 0.05 0.02 0
MC2P 0.125 0.964 0.138 0.11 0.03 0
MC3P 0.225 0.254 0.255 0.03 0.01 0
MC1Y 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.460 0.705 0.001
MC2Y 0.03 0.01 0.19 1.145 0.296 0.015
MC3Y 0.02 0.11 0.02 0.134 0.832 0.001

Phase WFS1P WFS2P MC_T_P WFS1Y WFS2Y MC_T_Y
MC1P 3.694 0.784 -6.778 13.1 66.67 #DIV/0!
MC2P -3.214 3.100 11.557 -2.05 -4.48 0
MC3P -1.020 2.665 2.158 -19.1 -10.76 NA
MC1Y -3.96 -6.45 -12.14 1.085 1.357 0.000
MC2Y 13.22 41.08 -2.6 1.887 1.706 4.987
MC3Y 42.69 -2.56 -3.73 2.652 1.068 0.000

 

This time the signals are all nearly in the same phase and in agreement with the  outmatrix estimate made earlier.

 

I plugged these TFCs into the matrix inversion code: wfsmatrix2.m.   And get the following inverse:

 

  WFS1P_Act WFS2P_Act MC_Trans_P_Act WFS1Y_Act WFS2Y_Act MC_TRANS_Y_Act
MC1P 1 -0.64        
MC2P -0.27 -1        
MC3P 0.98 -0.65        
MC1Y       -0.26 -1  
MC2Y       1 0.12  
MC3Y       0.16 0.07  

 

I have ignored the MC2_Trans_P and Y sensors for now.

ELOG V3.1.3-