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 2 00:43:55 2012, Jenne, Update, ASS, Major cleanup of the ASS model 
    Reply  Thu Aug 2 23:31:04 2012, Jenne, Update, ASS, Major cleanup of the ASS model 
       Reply  Fri Aug 3 03:24:13 2012, Jenne, Update, ASS, New ASS screens 
Message ID: 7075     Entry time: Thu Aug 2 00:43:55 2012     Reply to this: 7081
Author: Jenne 
Type: Update 
Category: ASS 
Subject: Major cleanup of the ASS model 

[Jamie, Jenne]

We are trying to figure out what the story is with the ASS, and in order to make it more human parse-able, we cleaned up the c1ass.mdl. 

So far, we have made no changes to how the signals are routed.  The local oscillators from each lockin still get summed, and go directly to the individual optics, and the demodulated signals from each lockin go through the sensing matrix, the DoF filters, then the control output matrix, and then on to the individual optics.  So far, so good.

Much of the cleanup work involved making a big library part, which is then called once for PIT and once for YAW in the ass top level, rather than have 2 code-copies, which give Jamie conniptions.  Inside the library part GoTo and From tags were used, rather than having all the lines cross over one another in a big spaghetti mess.

One of the big actual changes to the ass was some name changes. Rather than having mysterious "ASS-LOCKIN(1-30)", they are now named something like "ASS-PIT_LOCKIN_ETMY_TRY", indicating that this is in the pitch set, actuating on ETMY, and looking at TRY for the demodulated signal.  The "DOF" channels are similar to what they were, although we would like to change them in the future.....more on this potential change later.  Previously they were "ASS-DOF(1-10)", but now they are "ASS-PIT_DOF(1-5)" and "ASS-YAW_DOF(1-5)". This channel naming, while it makes things make more sense, and is easier to understand, means that all of the ASS scripts need to be fixed.  However, they all needed updating / upgrading anyway, so this isn't the end of the world.

This channel name fixing also included updating names of IPC (shmem/dolphin/rfm things) blocks, which required matching changes in the SUS, RFM and LSC models.  All 4 models (ASS, SUS, RFM, LSC) were recompiled and installed.  They all seem fine, except there appears to be a dolphin naming mismatch between OAF and SUS that showed up when the SUS was recompiled, which presumably it hadn't been in a while.  We need to figure this out, but maybe not tonight.  Den, if you have time, it would be cool if you could take a look at the OAF and SUS models to make sure the names match when sending signals back and forth.


We also had a long chat about the deeper meaning of the ASS. 

What should we be actuating on, and what should we be sensing?  A potential thought is to rename our DOF channels to actual DoF names: input axis translation, input axis angle, cavity axis translation, cavity axis angle.  Then actuate the dither lines on a cavity degree of freedom, sense the influence on TRX, TRY and an LSC PD (as is currently done), then actuate on the cavity degree of freedom.

Right now, it looks like the actuation is for individual optics, the sensing is the influence on TRX, TRY and an LSC PD, then actuate on a cavity degree of freedom.  So the only change with the new idea is that we actuate in the DoF basis, not the optics basis.  So the Lockin local oscillators would go through the control output matrix.  This makes more sense in my head, but Jamie and I wanted to involve more people in the conversation before we commit. 

The next question would be: how do we populate the control output matricies?  Valera (or someone) put something in there, but I couldn't find anything on the elog about how those values were measured/calculated/came-to-be.  Any ideas?  If we want to dither and then push on isolated degrees of freedom, we need to know how much moving of which optics affects each DoF.  Is this something we should do using only geometry, and our knowledge of optic placements and relative distances, or is this measurable?

ELOG V3.1.3-