40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 130 of 336  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Category Subject
  10411   Tue Aug 19 23:11:15 2014 JenneUpdateGreen LockingYarm Green PDH

 

 Here is a plot of last night's data with both the control and the error point on the same plot, in Volts.  Q is still working, so I don't have a calibration number yet to get these to Hz.

Note in the control spectrum that we have very significant 60Hz lines.  

ErrAndCtrlSpectra_VoltsPerRtHz.png

EDIT:  I also added a new branch to the DCC Document Tree, and 2 leafs (one for each end).  Here's the ALS PDH servo branch: E1400350

  10410   Tue Aug 19 21:40:44 2014 AndresUpdateIMCNew Optical Setup for the IMC

IMC Calculation and Setup

I have been working in the calculation for improving the Gouy Phase separation between the WFSs. I tried different possible setup, but the three big constrains in choosing a good optical table setup are to have a Waist size that range from 1mm-2mm, the Gouy Phase  between the WFSs have to be greater than 75 degrees and there has to be a steering mirror before each WFS. I will be showing the best calculation because that calculation complies with Rana request of having both WFSs facing west and having the shortest beam path. I approximate the distances by measuring with a tape the distance where the current optics are located and by looking at the picture that I took I approximated the distance where the lenses will be placed. I'm using a la mode for calculating the gouy phase different. I attached a picture of the current optical table setup that we have. Using a la mode, I found that the current gouy phase that we have is 49.6750 degrees.

Now, for the new setup, a run a la mode and found a Gouy phase of 89.3728 degrees. I have to create a two independent beam path: one for the WFS1 and another one for WFS2. The reason for this is that a la mode place everything in one dimension so and since the WFS1 will have a divergence lens in order to increase the waist size, and since that lens should not be interacting with the waist size in the WFS2. We need two beam path for each WFS.  A la mode give us the following solution:

For the beam path of the WFS1

    label                z (m)           type             parameters        
    -----                  -----              ----             ----------        
    MC1                   0              flat mirror          none:           
    MC3                   0.1753     flat mirror          none:           
    MC2                   13.4587   curved mirror    ROC: 17.8700 (m)     
    Lens1                 29.3705   lens                  focalLength: 1.0201 (m)
    BS2                    29.9475   flat mirror          none:           
    First Mirror         30.0237   flat mirror          none:           
    Lens3                30.2000    lens                  focalLength: -0.100 (m)
    WFS1                30.4809    flat mirror         none: 

For the beam path of the WFS2

    label                   z (m)             type             parameters        
    -----                    -----                 ----             ----------        
    MC1                    0               flat mirror          none:           
    MC3                    0.1753      flat mirror          none:           
    MC2                    13.4587    curved mirror    ROC: 17.8700 (m)     
    Lens1                  29.3705    lens                   focalLength: 1.0201 (m)
    BS2                     29.9475    flat mirror          none:           
    Second Mirror    30.2650     flat mirror          none:           
    Lens2                 30.4809     lens                  focalLength: -0.075 (m)
    Third Mirror        30.5698     flat mirror          none:           
    WFS2                30.6968      flat mirror          none:  

I attached bellow how the new setup should look like in the second picture and also I include and attachment of the a la mode code.

 I used Mist to be able to see the read out that we get in the WFSs that take the Mode Cleaner Reflection and the QPD that take the transmitted from MC2. In the following, plots I'm misaligned the each mirrors: MC1, MC2 and MC3. The misalignment are in Yaw and Pitch. I'm dividing the WFSs reading by the total power reflect power, and I'm dividing the QPD for the MC2 transmission by the total transmitted power. In my Mist model, I have a laser of 1W and my EOM is modulated at 30MHz instead of 29.5MHz and the modulation depth was calculating by measuring the applied voltage using and Spectrum analyzer. I using Kiwamu measurement of modulation depth efficiency vs the applied voltage, https://dcc.ligo.org/DocDB/0010/G1000297/001/G1000297-v1.pdf,  I got a modulation depth of 0.6 mrad. I put this modulation depth and I got the following plots: The fourth and fifth attachment are for the current optical setup that we have. The sixth and seventh attachment is for the new optical setup. The eighth attachment is showing the mode cleaner cavity resonating. The last attachment contains the plots of WFS1 vs WFS2, MC2_QPD vs WFS1, MC2_QPD vs WFS3 for each mirror misaligned. The last two attachment are the MIST code for the calculation.

We have all the lenses that we need. I checked it last Friday and if everything is good we will be ready to do the new upgrade this coming Friday. For increasing the power, I check and we have different BS so we can just switch from the current setup the BS. Can you let me know if this setup look good or if I need to chance the setup? I would really love to do this upgrade before I leave.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 1: ModeCleanerSetup.PNG
ModeCleanerSetup.PNG
Attachment 2: NewOpticalTableSetupForTheModeCleaner.PNG
NewOpticalTableSetupForTheModeCleaner.PNG
Attachment 3: ReduceWFSPathWorkingOn.m.zip
Attachment 4: MIST_WFSsAndQPDReadingForYaw.png
MIST_WFSsAndQPDReadingForYaw.png
Attachment 5: MIST_WFSsAndQPDReadingForPitch.png
MIST_WFSsAndQPDReadingForPitch.png
Attachment 6: MIST_WFSsAndQPDReadingForYawNewSetup.png
MIST_WFSsAndQPDReadingForYawNewSetup.png
Attachment 7: MIST_WFSsAndQPDReadingForPitchNewSetup.png
MIST_WFSsAndQPDReadingForPitchNewSetup.png
Attachment 8: MISTResonanceCavityReflectionAndTransmissionNewSetup.png
MISTResonanceCavityReflectionAndTransmissionNewSetup.png
Attachment 9: 2Dplots.zip
Attachment 10: ModeCleanerCurrentOpticalTableMIST.zip
Attachment 11: ModeCleanerNewSetupMIST.zip
  10409   Tue Aug 19 18:32:40 2014 ericqUpdateGreen LockingYarm Green PDH

Heading to dinner, going to come back for more green fun, but here's a quick update:

Xarm Peak-to-Peak of the PDH signal in the mixer output is about 70mV when GTRX was about 0.4. The sideband-generating function generator has an output of 2V (forgot to note rms or pp)

Yarm Peak-to-Peak of the PDH signal in the mixer output is about 640uV when GTRX was about 0.71. The sideband-generating function generator has an output of 0.091V (forgot to note rms or pp)

The Yarm signal thus correspondingly has a waaay noisier trace. I would've had scope plots to show here, but the scope freaked out about how large my USB drive capacity was and refused to talk to it >:|

This suggests to me that our modulation depth for the Yarm may be much too small, and may be part of our problems with it. 

  10408   Tue Aug 19 01:01:36 2014 Jenne, RanaUpdateGreen LockingYarm Green PDH

[ Rana, Jenne]

We remeasured the Yend PDH box.

When we first started, the green couldn't hold lock to the arm - it kept flickering between modes.  Changing the gain of the PDH box (from 7.5 to 6.0) helped.

We measured a calibration, from our injection point to our measurement point.

The concept was that we'd take the mixer output, and put that into an SR560, and put the swept sine injection into the other input port of the '560, and use A-B.  So, for this calibration, we left A unplugged, and just had the RF out of the 4395 going to input B of the '560.  The 600 Ohm output of the '560 went to the error point input on the PDH box (during normal operation the mixer output is connected directly to the error point input).  The SR560 was set to gain of 1, no filtering.  I don't recall if we were using high range or low noise, but we tried both and didn't really see a difference between them.

We had the 4395 take that calibration out, and then we measured the closed loop gain up to 1 MHz. (Same measurement setup as above, but we connected the mixer out to the input of the SR560 to close the loop, and made sure we were locked on a TEM00 green mode.) Rana used an ipython notebook to infer the open loop gain from our measurement.  Our conclusion is that we don't have nearly enough gain margin in our loop.  We found the PDH box gain knob at 7.5, and we turned it down to 6.0, but the loop is still pretty borderline. We used the high impedance active probe to measure the error point monitor, since we aren't sure that that point can drive a 50 Ohm load.

YPDH_OLG.pdf

We also measured the error point spectra and the control point spectra.  Unfortunately, the saved data from the analyzer (no matter what is on the screen) comes out in spectrum, not spectral density.  So, we need to check our conversion, but right now to get from Watts power to Volts, we do sqrt(50 ohm * data).  We then need to get to spectral density, and right now we're just dividing by the square root of the bandwith that is reported in the .par file. This last step is the one we want to especially check, by perhaps putting some known amount of noise (from an SR785?) into the 4395, and checking that our calibration math returns the expected noise spectrum.

What still needs to be done is to calibrate this into Hz/rtHz.  To do this, we were thinking that we should look at the error point on a 'scope while the cavity is flashing.

Anyhow, here is the uncalibrated error point spectrum.  Purple is a measurement up to 30kHz, with 30Hz bandwidth.  Blue is a measurement up to 300kHz with 300Hz bandwidth.  The gain peaking schmutz above 10kHz sucks, and we'd like to get rid of it.  We also see the same peak at ~150kHz that Q saw earlier today.  We were using the high impedance probe here too.

YPDH_noise.pdf

 We have the data for the control point (all the data files are in /users/jenne/ALS/PDHloops/Yend_18Aug2014), but we haven't plotted it yet.

Things that need doing:

* (JCD) Think about this box's purpose in life.  What kind of gain do we need?  Do we need more / less than we're currently getting? NPRO freq noise is 1/f and is 10kHz/rtHz at 1Hz (this is from a plot of an iLIGO NPRO from Rana's thesis, but it's probably similar). Talk to Kiwamu; the noise budget in the paper seems to indicate that we had some kind of boost on or something.  Also, if we need much more gain than we already have, we'll definitely need a different box, maybe the PDH2 box that they have over in WBridge.

* (EQ, priority 1) Measure and calibrate error point noise down to lower freq for both arms.  What could we win by putting in a boost? If the residual noise is high, maybe the laser isn't good at following arm, so beatnote isn't good length info for the arm, and we can't succeed.

* (EQ, priority 2) Measure TF of PDH box, and a separate measurement of the Pomona box that is between the mixer and the error point - is that eating a bunch of phase?  It's already an LC circuit which is good, but do we really want a 120kHz lowpass when our modulation frequency is roughly 200kHz?  Ask ChrisW - he worked on one of these with Dmass.

* (EQ, priority 2ish) Measure TF of Xend PDH loop (unless you already have one, up to ~1MHz).

* (JCD) Make DCC tree leaf for PDH box #17.  Take photos of box.

  10407   Mon Aug 18 18:33:57 2014 ericqUpdateGreen LockingYarm Green PDH

So far today, I've been working with the Y-end green PDH locking. Using a SR560 to roll off the AG4395A output to take a loop measurement at the servo output, I measured the following OLG, and inferred the CLG from it. The SR560 really helped it getting good coherence without introducing a big offset that changes the optical gain, thus distorting the loop shape, etc. etc. 

yLoop.pdf

You would think this loop looks pretty good, 10k UGF, and 45 degrees of phase margin, gain peaking is sane, and pretty smooth slope. But, the thing still was flipping out of lock while I measured this. 

I suspect shenanigans at >100k. This is motivated by the fact that I've seen some big noise in the error signal around 150k. I don't have a good noise plot right now, because I'm trying to get a scheme going where I stitch together a bunch of 1 decade spectra from the 4395, but the noise floor isn't consistent across each patch (even though the attenuation stays the same, and I confirmed I'm in "noise" mode). I'm working on a loop measurement up there, too, but I haven't been able to get the right filter/amplitude settings yet. 

So, even though this plot is not totally correct (read: wrong and bad), I include it just for the sake of showing the big honking spike of noise at ~150K.  

crap.pdf

 

  10406   Mon Aug 18 09:42:50 2014 KojiSummaryIOOMCREFL PD charcterization

Riju did the measurement of the MCREFL PD.
I found data files in her directory on the control machine.

I was not sure how much was the transimpedance of the DC out.
I assumed the default number from the circuit diagram which was 66.7Ohm.
This may cause the error in absolute caribration of the transimpedance but the shape does not change.

The RF preamp is gain-peeking at 250MHz.

Here is further characterization of the PD response.
As you can see in the second attachment, the 3dB cut off of the resonance is about 2.3MHz.

The game plan file in dropbox was also modified.

Attachment 1: MCREFLPD_transimpedance.pdf
MCREFLPD_transimpedance.pdf
Attachment 2: MCREFLPD_transimpedance_zoom.pdf
MCREFLPD_transimpedance_zoom.pdf
  10405   Fri Aug 15 20:38:17 2014 ericqUpdateGeneralELOG dump

 A few things that I have neglected to ELOG yet:

  • scripts/offsets/LSCoffsets is a new script that uses ezcaservo to set FM offsets of our LSC PDs. It still warns about large changes, and lets you revert. It reads the FM gain to pick the right gain for the ezcaservo call. 

  • MC refl DC was all over the place today, and has recently been "fuzzier" on the wall StripTool than I like. I touched the MC2 pointing a little bit, and the WFS seemed to find a sweet spot where the refl got steady back at around and under 0.5. I then ran "offload WFS" to try and stay there. 

  • Incidentally, the PMC transmission drifted up to 0.81 at some point today. This is weird, since not too long ago, we were not able to reach this level even with careful alignment. This coincided with the MC power being back up to ~17k, and arms locking at around 0.95. 

  • Last week I quickly tried cranking up the x-end green modulation frequency to ~1.3MHz (corresponding to a notch in the PZT AM response), and using a 550k lowpass on the mixer output, instead of a 70k, to try to buy more phase and increase the UGF. It didn't work. I didn't have a way to tune the mixer phase angle, and the mixer output was super noisy, but there were instants where I could convince myself that a mode was briefly locked to the arm... I'm going to do the Right Thing and characterize the loop properly, to figure out how to get at least 10kHz of control bandwidth out of these things. 

  10404   Fri Aug 15 20:26:37 2014 ericqUpdateGeneralGame plan

Quote:

Q already did the tweak up of the PSL SHG crystal alignment.  HE SHOULD ELOG ABOUT THIS.  What was the final power of green that you got?  Do we have any record of a previous measurement to compare to?

As Jenne mentioned, I did this. 

Specifically, I first tweaked the mirror pointing the IR into the SGH in pitch and yaw to maximize the green power, and then adjusted the little set screws on the side of the SHG to maximize further. Power after the harmonic separator was of order 150uW. On the Y Green BBPD, I got ~48uW, instead of the 40uW Rana, Jenne, and myself saw the other night. 

HOWEVER,

now that I look through old ELOGs, I find some posts by Kiwamu saying the power should be around 650uWand that he was able to get 640uW out. So: I should do this again, systematically, more carefully, etc., etc. (Linked ELOG also states that optimum SHG temperature is alignment dependent...)

 

 

  10403   Fri Aug 15 17:24:44 2014 HarryUpdateGeneralFiber Temp.

 Earlier today Q and I somewhat resurrected my old PER measurement setup so I could run the temperature characterization experiment.

Unfortunately, when I tried to use the fiber illuminator, no light came from the other end, causing me to fail my primary goal for the summer of "don't break anything." The fiber has been re-spooled and labeled appropriately. Also sorry.

In addition to this, Q and I scavenged parts from the telescopes on the PSL and Y End tables, which were either not functional, or needed to have their mode matching adjusted, since we're using the non-PM fibers for FOL, which have a different numerical aperture, and thus slightly different output modes.

Specifically, this is involved removing the rotational mounts, and appropriate beam dumping.

My "calorimeter" still remains intact, in case anyone wants to make this measurement in the future, as this is my last day in the lab.

It's also effective at keeping drinks cold, if you'd rather use it for that.

  10402   Fri Aug 15 14:35:57 2014 ericqUpdateLSCTRY mystery offset gone

One question answered, but another raised. The offset came from LSC-TRY switching to the ETMY-QPD signal from ETMY-TRY (Hi gain pd). 

BUT WHY

TRYmystery.png

  10401   Fri Aug 15 14:09:21 2014 JenneUpdateLSCTRY mystery offset gone

Again unknown, but about 6 hours ago (so ~8am) the offset disappeared. 

Here's a 1-day trend:

TRY_0pt3_offset_gone.pdf

  10400   Fri Aug 15 13:29:31 2014 JenneUpdateGeneralGame plan: 15 Aug

40mToDoList.pdf

The game plan graffle file is now in the 40m dropbox, so anyone can edit it.  Please just make sure to keep the date in the top right corner accurate.

  10399   Fri Aug 15 02:05:55 2014 JenneUpdateLSCALS in-loop spectra

 Not sure why, but Rana and I didn't see the super high Xarm noise with ALS that we reported last night (elog 10382).  

The in-loop ALS noise seems fine.  The out of loop measurement while the ALS is locked is a little tricky, since ALS hold the arms within the POX/POY linear ranges.  

Here is the in-loop noise:

ALS_XY_inloop_noise_14Aug2014_lowBeatFreq.pdf

  10398   Fri Aug 15 01:31:44 2014 JenneUpdateASCPOP QPD to ETMs model wiring complete

I have added a few things to the ASS model, and the ASC sub-block, so that we can send POP QPD information down to the ETMs for CARM angular control after we've reduced the CARM offset and gotten some carrier buildup.  I did not remove our ability to actuate on PRM, so that we can still play with it in PRMIsb cases.

The input matrix has been expanded so that it can send signals to new CARM_YAW and CARM_PIT filter banks.  The corresponding filter banks have been created.  The output matrix was also expanded to take in the 2 new servo outputs, and so it can send signals to both ETMs, pitch and yaw.  I did not include any triggering logic for this new CARM situation, since I assume we'll just turn it on and off with our scripts.  (We haven't really been using the triggering capability of the PRM ASC either lately, although it's all still there).  I added the inputs and outputs of the CARM servos to the list of acquired channels.

The ASC sub-block:

ASC_newCARM.png

I also modified the top level of the ASS model.  This was just a simple addition of summing nodes for the ETMs, similar to what was already in place for the PRM, so that we can send both the ASS dither alignment signals and the ASC servo control signals to the optics.

The ASS top level:

ASSoverview_newCARM.png

I also quickly modified the ASC screen to expose all of the new options:

ASC_screen.png

The ASS model was compiled, and restarted.  As usual, this temporarily removes the biases on the input pointing tip tilts, but the pointing seems to have come back without any trouble.

  10397   Thu Aug 14 23:19:49 2014 ranaSummaryLSCETM Violin fundamental filters moved to LSC

 We used to do violin mode and test mass body mode notches in the SUS-LSC filter modules. Now we want them balanced in the LSC and triggered by the LSC, so they're in the filter modules which go from the the LSC output matrix to the SUS.

01.png

Today, we were getting ETM violin mode ringups while doing ALS hunt and so we moved the bandstops into the LSC. I also changed the bandstop from a wide one which missed the ETMX mode to a double bandstop which gets both the ETMX and the ETMY mode. See attached image of the Bode mag.

03.png

  10396   Thu Aug 14 22:58:59 2014 rana, jenneSummaryGreen LockingALS DIFF tuning

 We've been having trouble tuning the ALS DIFF matrix. Trying to see if the MC2 EXC can be cancelled in ALS DARM by adjusting the relative gains in ALSX and ALSY Phase Tracker outputs.

There's a bunch of intermittent behavior. Between different ALS locks, we get more or less cancellation. We were checking this by driving MC2 at ~100-400 Hz and checking the ALS response (with the ALS loops closed). We noticed that the X and Y readbacks were different by ~5-10 degrees and that we could not cancel this MC2 signal in DARM by more than a factor of 4-5 or so. In the middle of this, we had one lock loss and it came back up with 100x cancellation?

Attached is a PDF showing a swept sine measurement of the ALSX, ALSY, and DARM signals. You can see that there is some phase shift between the two repsonses leading to imperfect cancellation. Any ideas? Whitening filters? HOM resonance? Alignment?

Attachment 1: sweep.pdf
sweep.pdf sweep.pdf
  10395   Thu Aug 14 22:31:12 2014 JenneUpdateLSCTRY gets mystery offset

I don't know why, but TRY has somehow gotten a 0.3 count offset in the last hour. 

Rana and I are witnesses for each other that neither of us has gone into the IFO room in the last several hours (and we're the only ones here).  For some reason though, the TRY PD now has a 0.3 count offset.  We have been doing some ALS locks, but we have not run the offset script in the last several hours.  Closing the green shutter doesn't change things, and we still see the offset when the MC loses lock, so it's not to do with the end or the PSL laser.  We haven't been in there, so there hasn't been a change in the room lights. 

TRY_0pt3_offset.pdf

  10394   Thu Aug 14 22:16:02 2014 JenneUpdateSUSViolin Mode filters for ETMs

The instigator of this was that we were seeing ring-ups of ETMs during our ALS locks this evening.  We measured the ETMY violin resonance to be 624.10 Hz, and Rana found an elog saying that the ETMX was around 631 Hz, so we made a 2 notch filter and added it to FM4 of the LSC-SUS filter banks for both ETMs. 

For the ETMY resonance, we measured the frequency in the DARM spectrum, and when we looked at the FINE_PHASE_OUT channels, the resonance was only in the Yarm sensor.  So, we conclude that it is coming from ETMY.

Also in the realm of filter modules, the FM3 boost for CARM, DARM, XARM and YARM was changed from zero crossing to ramp with a 1sec ramp time.

  10393   Thu Aug 14 20:52:36 2014 ranaUpdateWikiViolin Mode table added to Wiki

Mech Resonance Wiki

I've updated the wiki by trawling the elog for violin entries. Please keep it up to date so that we can make violin notches.

 

  10392   Thu Aug 14 19:33:00 2014 JenneConfigurationIOOMoved MC2 spot

Last night, and again just now, I used the ./MC2_spot_[direction] scripts to center the MC2 spot on the trans QPD.  The MCWFS handled overall alignment to correct for the fact that the ratios in the script aren't perfect.  When I was finished, I ran the MC WFS relief script from the WFS screen.  Last night, and again today, things had drifted until the yaw spot was more than 0.5 counts off.

  10391   Thu Aug 14 19:23:25 2014 ranaHowToIOOHow do I set the FSS offset to make the PZT voltage start at the right place?

 When the IMC locks, we want the FAST OUT of the TTFSS box to be close to zero volts. We also want the control signal from the MC Servo board to be close to 0 V. How to set this up?

With the IMC locked, we just servo the FSS input offset to minimize the MC board output :

ezcaservo -r C1:IOO-MC_FAST_MON -g 0.1 -t 10 C1:PSL-FSS_INOFFSET

I would have used "CDSUTILS", but that seems to have some sort of ridiculous bug where we can't have prefixes on channel names, even on the command line. 

  10390   Thu Aug 14 18:31:45 2014 ericqUpdateLSCLSC Modeling Update

 Based on the game plan, I have created a slew of updated pretty plots about our signals and loops. 

First: With measured arm losses, when do we start to see REFL DC dip? At what arm buildup powers? 

I updated my MIST model with the arm losses I've measured (Y:130ppm, X:530ppm), and some measured transmissions from the wiki, vs. the design parameters, as I used to have. Here is the DC sweep plot which is now hanging up in the control room. 

dcSweep.pdf

In this plot, I also calculated what MIST thinks the full arm power buildup will be as compared to our single arm locking, and I get something of order 200, rather than the 600 we've tossed around in discussions. Nothing else is very different in this plot from the old version; though the REFLDC dip is a little bit wider. 

Now, here are some radiation-pressure inclusive sensing transfer functions, for the anti-spring case (which in Rob's day was easier to lock for unknown reasons):

carm2TRX.pdfcarm2REFLDC.pdf

carm2REFL11.pdfdarm2AS55Q.pdf


Next: Include new AO path TFs into CM model Look at possibilities for engaging AO path 

With these TFs, and the recently measured+fit new AO TF, here are the open loop gains of the slow, digital, SqrtInv-sensed MCL CARM and fast, analog, REFLDC-sensed AO CARM loops for the region of offsets we've achieved and a little lower. The slow digital loop includes the 1k LP that we have used in the past, in addition to the normal CARM filters. I still need to figure out the right sequence of ( offset reduction / crossover frequency motion / overall gain adjustment ) that gets the coupled cavity resonance solidly within the loop bandwidth. 
 
MCLcarmLoop.pdfAOcarmLoop.pdf

 

  10389   Thu Aug 14 18:10:46 2014 HarryUpdateGeneralFiber Temperature Effects Setup

Purpose

We want to characterize the sort of response the fibers have to temperature gradients along them (potentially altering indices of refraction, etc.)

Experimental Setup

I have constructed a sort of two chambered "calorimeter" (by which I mean some coolers and other assorted pieces of recycling.)

The idea is that half of the length of PM fiber resides in one chamber, and the other in the other.

One chamber will remain at an uncontrolled, stable temperature (as measured by thermocouple probe) while the other's temperature is varied using a heat gun.

Using this setup, one can measure losses in power, and effects on polarization within the fiber.

Caveat

This is currently living on the electronics bench until tomorrow morning, and is a little fragile, just in case it needs to be moved.

Attachment 1: tempAffectsSetup.zip
  10388   Thu Aug 14 18:05:05 2014 JenneUpdateGeneralUpdated game plan

Quote:

- Oplevs for PR2, PR3 => Almost impossible.

 Because of the limited table space inside?  That's the main reason I can think of that this method is hard.  Am I missing something?

  10387   Thu Aug 14 18:02:11 2014 KojiUpdateGeneralUpdated game plan

Got the idea of ASC.

- Oplevs for PR2, PR3 => PR2 seems OK. PR3 almost impossible. well turned out not too crazy. We need outside electronics.

- RF QPD => not trivial and very technical but possible. All outside work.

- Better TT => might be a good solution.

  10386   Thu Aug 14 15:51:37 2014 JenneUpdateGeneralUpdated game plan

Quote:

 - ALS

End PDH UGF improvement / post mixer LPF investigation (with in 2 weeks)

- MC/FSS

Riju measured the MC REFL PD transimpedance. See ELOG and related.

- ASC

Why do we want to see less PRM motion? I thought PRC motion was causing
LSC issue of the central part. We wanted to maximize the PRM effect, don't we?
(Or is this to supress ETM motion during full lock?)

 End PDH - good point, thanks.

ASC - Yes, this is so that we can use the POP QPD to feed back to the common ETMs after the CARM offset is already quite small.  We will not use POP DC QPD for PRC any more. 

Also, for future PRC ASC, I keep coming back to this in my head, but maybe it is less painful to install oplevs for PR2, PR3 than it would be to make an RF QPD.  Neither is going to be trivially easy.  But if we had sensors of the tip tilt motions, we could feed all of that back to the PRM to stabilize the PRC.

  10385   Thu Aug 14 15:42:29 2014 KojiUpdateGeneralUpdated game plan

 - ALS

End PDH UGF improvement / post mixer LPF investigation (with in 2 weeks)

- MC/FSS

Riju measured the MC REFL PD transimpedance. See ELOG and related.

- ASC

Why do we want to see less PRM motion? I thought PRC motion was causing
LSC issue of the central part. We wanted to maximize the PRM effect, don't we?
(Or is this to supress ETM motion during full lock?)

  10384   Thu Aug 14 15:10:47 2014 AndresUpdateIMCCalculation for the input mode cleaner

Quote:

Can you please give us some more details on how this design was decided upon? What were the design considerations?

It would be nice to have a shorter path length for WFS2. What is the desired spot size on the WFS? How sensitive are they going to be to IMC input alignment? Are we still going to be recentering the WFS all the time?

 I did the calculation, and I reduced the beam Path. In my calculation, I restricted the waist size at the WFSs to be between 1mm-2mm also the other parameter is that the Gouy Phase different between the WFSs have to be 90 degrees. I also try to minimize the amount of mirrors used. I found the Gouy phase to be 89.0622 degrees between the WFSs and the following table shows the solution that I got from a la mode:

 

  label                         z (m)                   type               parameters         
    -----                         -----                    ----                  ----------         
    MC1                    0                        flat mirror           none:            
    MC3                    0.1753               flat mirror           none:            
    MC2                   13.4587              curved mirror    ROC: 17.8700 (m)       
    Lens1                 28.8172              lens                   focalLength: 1.7183(m)
    BS2                    29.9475              flat mirror           none:            
    First Mirror         30.0237              flat mirror           none:            
    Lens3                 30.1253              lens                  focalLength: -0.100 (m)
    Lens2                 30.1635              lens                 focalLength: 0.1250(m)
    WFS1                 30.2269              flat mirror         none:            
    Second Mirror    30.2650              flat mirror         none:            
    Third Mirror       30.5698              flat mirror         none:            
    Lens4                30.8113              lens                  focalLength: -0.075 (m)
    WFS2                31.0778              flat mirror         none:     
       

In the first image attached below is the a la mode solution that show the waist size in the first WFS, and I used that solution to calculate the solution of the waist size for the second WFS, which is shown in figure 2. I photoshop a picture to illustrate how the new setup it supposed to look like. 

Attachment 1: SolutionForTheModeCleanerSetup00.png
SolutionForTheModeCleanerSetup00.png
Attachment 2: SolutionForTheModeCleanerSetup11.png
SolutionForTheModeCleanerSetup11.png
Attachment 3: PossibleSetupForModeCleaner.PNG
PossibleSetupForModeCleaner.PNG
Attachment 4: alaModeSolution.zip
  10383   Thu Aug 14 14:58:03 2014 JenneUpdateGeneralUpdated game plan

2014_Aug_14.pdf

(Updated as of 4pm)

  10382   Thu Aug 14 02:51:46 2014 JenneUpdateGeneralGame plan

[Jenne, Rana]

* Decided that earlier mode hop scan won't give us the information that we were hoping for.  We need to think about where we can actually see the frequency change.  Can we use the IR beatnote that we will soon have to do this?  We'd only be able to scan one laser temp at a time, but that's okay.  Leave, say, the PSL temperature alone, and scan one of the end laser temps.  Using the PSL as the reference, we will be able to see if the frequency of the end laser goes crazy and jumpy as we pass through a certain temp.  Then, repeat while holding the end laser constant and scan the PSL.  Thoughts?

* Meditated on PSL oplev servo, but I need to make a Matlab script that can evaluate different loops according to a cost function based on elog 9690

* Aligned IFO to IR, then greens to arms (got back to 0.9 for GTRY, but only about 0.5 for GTRX, with the PSL green shutter closed).  Then aligned green beams on the PSL table, since the PSL green pointing had changed a bit from Q's crystal alignment tweak-up earlier today.  Beatnotes are nice and big (see elog 10381 - The Yarm is the larger beatnote, and the Xarm is the smaller one.)

* Was not able to lock ALS comm/diff and hold long enough to get both arms to IR resonance.  Also, saw that TRY's RIN was more than 50%(!!!).  We took a look, and there seems to be much more low frequency noise than there was when the spectrum in the control room was taken for the multicolor metrology paper:

Y_ALS_FINE_PHASE_OUT_noisy_13Aug2014.pdf

* Tried to balance the ALS comm/diff input matrix, with not a lot of success.  First of all, it looks like the Xarm has overall about 10 times more noise!  We were exciting MC2 in position (~88 Hz, about 130 counts I think), and then looking at DARM_IN1 for the peak.  When DARM_IN1 was just one of the 2 ALS error signals (i.e. one matrix element set to zero), versus when both matrix elements were set to 1, we saw a factor of only about 3 in reduction of the peak height.  We were hoping to have better cancellation of this pure CARM signal in the DARM channel.  The Xarm green PDH loses lock every ~5 or 10 minutes, and when we relock it, this cancellation seems different, so we want to try again tomorrow when the ALS is locked on comm / diff, rather than just the free running ALS that we have now.  Although, if the balance of the input matrix changes lock-to-lock, we may need to consider redoing the green PSL table layout so we get a pure DARM beatnote signal like they have at the sites.

* We want to change how the watch script for ALS works, although this is a low-priority task.  Rather than looking at the control signal, we should maybe look at the sum of all the coil outputs, multiplied by a pendulum TF, and use that as a rough displacement sensor.  We want to be careful of pushing too hard at low frequencies, but we want to allow higher frequency actuation without having the watch script shut things down.

* Also, I should put on the to-do list the revamp of the ALS find IR resonance script.

  10381   Wed Aug 13 23:58:49 2014 ranaHowToComputer Scripts / ProgramsHP8591E spectrum analyzer remote scan

Quote:

The script for running continuous scans on HP 8591E spectrum analyzer is located at scripts/general/netgpibdata/HP8591E_contdScan.py

There was no such script in the directory when I looked today, but I found one called HP8591E. Of course, it didn't run because it hadn't been tested from the scripts directory and pointed to some /users/nichin/ stuff.

I modified a couple of lines and then committed it and the default .YML parameter file to the SVN. It runs and produces plots continuously from the scripts directory.

*** also, as you can see, we have mostly recovered the green beat amplitudes after yesterday's FLL attack on the ALS ***

Attachment 1: HP8591E_View.pdf
HP8591E_View.pdf
  10380   Wed Aug 13 23:08:17 2014 ranaUpdateIOOFSS box TFs

As EQ pointed out recently, we're injecting into the FSS error point just after an RF pi filter, but before the VGA. We wondered what the weird filter impedance was doing to our signal if we inject after it. I used LISO to model this FSS common section and attach the plots.

The first plot shows the TF between the Test 1 input and the AD602 VGA input. This is NOT the input that we are actually using.

The second plot shows the TF between the IN1 port (which we are actually using) and the VGA input.

Neither of them shows the 1 MHz bump that we see in the measurements, so I suspect that the board has been modified...the hunt continues. We've got to pop the top of the TTFSS and take photos and measure from IN1 to VGA input.

** FSScomm.fil is now in the LISO SVN. The following command line will run it with two different cases and cat the PDF files into one. If you use an auto-refresh PDF viewer like Okular or Mac Preview, its a nicer display than the usual GNUplot window:

./mfil FSScomm.fil; sleep 1; pdftk FSScomm_run*.pdf cat output FSScomm.pdf

Attachment 1: FSScomm.pdf
FSScomm.pdf FSScomm.pdf
  10379   Wed Aug 13 22:01:57 2014 ranaUpdateIMCCalculation for the input mode cleaner

Nic, Andres, and I discussed some more about the MC WFS project today. We want to shorten the proposed WFS2 path. Andres is going to explore moving the 2" diameter lens in coming up with layouts. We also want the WFS to face west so that we can see the diode face with an IR viewer easily and dump the reflected beams in the razor dumps.

We wondered about fixing the power levels and optical gain:

  1. What is the MC modulations depth? What would happen if we increase it a little? Does anyone know how to set it? Will this help the MC frequency noise?
  2. What is the max power on the WFS? I guess it should be set so that the power dissipation of the detector is less than 1 W with the MC unlocked. So P_diss = (100 V)*(I_tot), means that we should have less than 10 mA or ~50 mW when the MC is unlocked.
  3. Another consideration is saturation. The RF signals are tiny, but maybe the DC will saturate if we use any more power. The quadrants are saturated when unlocked and ~200 mV locked. According to D990249, the DC gain in the head is 1000 V/A. The measured power levels going into the heads (w/ MC unlocked) are: P_WFS1 = 4.9 mW and P_WFS2 = 7.7 mW. We don't have control of the DC gain, but there is a 10x and 100x switch available inside the demod board (D980233). From these numbers, I figure that we're in the 100x position and so the effective DC gain between photocurrent and the DC readback voltages is 100 kOhm. Therefore, we are in no danger of optical or electronics saturation. And the unlocked photocurrent of ~40/100000=0.4 mA => 0.04 W heat generated in the diode, so we're OK to increase the power level by another factor of 2-4 if we want.
  4.  We noticed that the ADC inputs are moving by ~50 counts out of 65000, so we're doing a really bad job of signal conditioning. This was previously noticed 6 years ago but we failed to follow up on it. Feh.

While checking this out, I converted the McWFS DC offsets script from csh to bash and committed it to the SVN. We need to remove the prefix 'feature' that Jamie has introduced to cdsutils so that we can use C1 again.

 

  10378   Wed Aug 13 19:23:09 2014 JenneUpdateLSCPSL, Aux laser mode hop check

This afternoon Q helped me put in some temporary PDs for checking for any mode hopping behavior in our 3 main lasers. 

Q helped me install PDA55s on each of the lasers (I did the ends, he did the PSL) so that we could do the mode hop temperature check.  For the Yend, I took the leakage transmission through the first Y1 steering mirror after the laser. This beam was dumped, so I replaced the dump with a PDA55. For the Xend, the equivalent mirrors are too close to the edge of the table, so I put in a spare Y1, and reflect most of the light to a beam dump.  The leakage transmission then goes to a PDA55.  Note that for both of these cases, no alignment of main laser path mirrors was touched, so we should just be able to remove them when we're through.  For the PSL, I believe that Q took the rejected light from one of the PBSes before the PMC. 

The end temporary PDs are using the TRX / TRY cables, so we will be looking at the C1:LSC-TR[x,y] channels for the power of the end lasers.  The PSL's temporary PD is connected to the PMC REFL cable.  For the end PDs, since I had filter banks available, I shuttered the end lasers and removed the dark offset.  I then changed the gains to 1, so the values are in raw counts.  The usual transmission normalization gains are noted in one of the control room notebooks.

I did a slow ezcastep and ramped the temperature of all 3 lasers over about an hour.  Since we usually use the PSL around FSS slow slider value of zero, I swept that from -10 to +10.  Since we usually use the Xend laser at around 10,000 counts, I swept that from 0 to 20,000.  For the Yend laser, it is usually around -10,000 counts, so I swept it from -20,000 to 0.  ezcastep -s 0.2 C1:ALS-X_SLOW_SERVO2_OFFSET +1,20000 C1:ALS-Y_SLOW_SERVO2_OFFSET +1,20000 C1:PSL-FSS_SLOWDC +0.001,20000

I was looking for something kind of similar to what Koji saw when he did this kind of sweep for the old MOPA (elog #2008), but didn't see any power jumps that looked suspicious.

Here is the PSL:

ModeHopCheck_PSL_13Aug2014.pdf

The Xend:

ModeHopCheck_Xend_13Aug2014.pdf

And the Yend:

ModeHopCheck_Yend_13Aug2014.pdf

  10377   Wed Aug 13 17:37:43 2014 JenneUpdateGeneralGame plan

2014_Aug_13.pdf

Here's the game plan for things that we need to do to get this IFO locked up. 

Red is for things that should be done today, or tomorrow if they don't get finished today (eg. laser mode hopping temperature check).  Orange is for things that will become red once the current red things are gone (eg. inferring the POP QPD gouy phase, and moving it to minimized PRM information).  Green is for things that we'd like to do, but aren't high priority (eg. X green mode matching).  Blue is for things that we should remember, but not plan on working on soon (eg. putting PZTs on the Yend table for green).

TODAY so far:

Q already did the tweak up of the PSL SHG crystal alignment.  HE SHOULD ELOG ABOUT THIS.  What was the final power of green that you got?  Do we have any record of a previous measurement to compare to?

Q helped me install PDA55s on each of the lasers (I did the ends, he did the PSL) so that we could do the mode hop temperature check.  For the Yend, I took the leakage transmission through the first Y1 steering mirror after the laser. This beam was dumped, so I replaced the dump with a PDA55. For the Xend, the equivalent mirrors are too close to the edge of the table, so I put in a spare Y1, and reflect most of the light to a beam dump.  The leakage transmission then goes to a PDA55.  Note that for both of these cases, no alignment of main laser path mirrors was touched, so we should just be able to remove them when we're through.  For the PSL, I believe that Q took the rejected light from one of the PBSes before the PMC.  He mentioned that he bumped something, so had to realign the beam into the PMC, but that he was able to get the transmission back up to 0.802, when we were seeing it in the mid 0.7's for the last several days.

The end temporary PDs are using the TRX / TRY cables, so we will be looking at the C1:LSC-TR[x,y] channels for the power of the end lasers.  The PSL's temporary PD is connected to the PMC REFL cable.  For the end PDs, since I had filter banks available, I shuttered the end lasers and removed the dark offset.  I then changed the gains to 1, so the values are in raw counts.  The usual transmission normalization gains are noted in one of the control room notebooks.

I did a slow ezcastep and ramped the temperature of all 3 lasers over about an hour.  I'll write a separate elog about how that went.

  10376   Wed Aug 13 16:12:55 2014 HarryUpdateGeneralFOL Layout Diagram

Per Q's request, I've made up a diagram of the complete FOL layout for general reference.

FOLLayout2.png

  10375   Wed Aug 13 13:08:24 2014 ranaUpdateIMCCalculation for the input mode cleaner

Can you please give us some more details on how this design was decided upon? What were the design considerations?

It would be nice to have a shorter path length for WFS2. What is the desired spot size on the WFS? How sensitive are they going to be to IMC input alignment? Are we still going to be recentering the WFS all the time?

  10374   Wed Aug 13 10:50:04 2014 AndresUpdateIMCCalculation for the input mode cleaner

  Calculation for the input mode cleaner

I have been working on the calculation for the input mode cleaner. I have come out with a new optical setup that will allow us increase the Gouy phase different between the WFS to 90 degrees. I use a la mode to calculate it. The a la mode solution :

   label            z (m)      type             parameters         
    -----            -----      ----             ----------         
    MC1                    0    flat mirror      none:            
    MC3               0.1753    flat mirror      none:            
    MC2              13.4587    curved mirror    ROC: 17.8700       
    Lens1            29.6300    lens             focalLength: 1.7183
    BS2              29.9475    flat mirror      none:            
    First Mirror     30.0237    flat mirror      none:            
    WFS1             30.2269    flat mirror      none:            
    Second Mirror    30.2650    flat mirror      none:            
    Third Mirror     30.5698    flat mirror      none:            
    Lens2            30.9885    lens             focalLength: 1     
    Fourth Mirror    31.0778    flat mirror      none:            
    Lens3            31.4604    lens             focalLength: 0.1000
    Fifth Mirror     31.5350    flat mirror      none:            
    Sixth Mirror     31.9414    flat mirror      none:            
    WFS2             31.9922    flat mirror      none:    
  

I attached a pictures how the new setup is supposed to look like. 

Attachment 1: ModeCleanerSetup0.PNG
ModeCleanerSetup0.PNG
Attachment 2: alaModeModeCleanersolution.png
alaModeModeCleanersolution.png
  10373   Wed Aug 13 10:49:39 2014 HarryUpdateGeneralWeekly Update

 In the past week, I designed and assembled coupling telescopes for the PSL and Y Arm Lasers

The Y Arm was coupled to ~5mV, and the PSL remains uncoupled.

 

For the next week, I'm planning on working on things like my presentation and/or final report.

Though as of last night, my computer refuses to turn on, so there may be some further "troubleshooting" involved in that whole process.

  10372   Wed Aug 13 03:03:37 2014 ericqUpdateGeneralGreen beatnote troubles

[Jenne, Rana, ericq]

No luck locking tonight, as spent a while trying to figure out the complete absence of the green beatnotes. Long story short, we ended up having to adjust the pointing on the PSL table.

Unrelated to this, we also turned on the noise eater on the PSL laser because why not. 


We hooked the BBPDs directly up to a 300MHz scope to try to see the beat as it happened. We witnessed a very strange intermittent ~800MHz oscillation on the Y BBPD, and weirder still, on both the RF and DC outputs of the PD, and the frequency was independent of the laser temperatures. This is to be investigated in the future, but was not related to the beat note state. 

Some progress was made when we took some components out, and looked at the far field of the PSL-Ygreen overlap, and saw some misalignment, and corrected it. Putting the end laser temperature in the usual area allowed the beat note to be found, with the eventual amplitude of ~-40dBm directly out of the BBPD. The Y green alignment was pretty bad throughout, so this can be improved to bring the beat amplitude up. We should also check and make sure we're well aligned to the SHG with the PSL light. We're leaving the X beat for tomorrow, now knowing that we should be able to get it with careful alignment. 

  10371   Tue Aug 12 23:07:24 2014 HarryUpdateGeneralPSL Telescope

I put the PSL telescope in place, and started coupling to it.

Unfortunately, I was only able to couple about 55 uW into the "fiber coupler" (read: fiber coupled splitter). See picture below:

PSLTelescopePic.png

Additionally, I'm not sure why this is, but both of the splitters we ordered don't split equally, but to 90% and 10% in each output port.

We also found that, since we aren't using the fibers we originally intended to, the specs are a little different, and the waist we're trying to have at the collimator face is now 283 um.

  10370   Tue Aug 12 18:20:13 2014 ericqUpdateIOOFSS box TFs

I made some measurements of the FSS box today, to have TFs for a loop model, but also to see what the difference between the different inputs was. 

As a reminder, the FSS box takes the error signal from the MC servo, does some filtering, and sends out two outputs: one to the laser PZT via KojiBox and Thorlabs HV amplifier, and one to be summed with the PMC modulation signal to the PC. Rana found the schematic at D040105

The MC error signal currently enters via a port called "IN1", but there is also a "Test 1 in," which experiences different filtering. I measured the TFs from each of these inputs to both the FAST and PC outputs. There is also an IN2, that is added after the offset point, but was not able to make a good measurement, for reasons unknown. From these TFs, I inferred the difference between the PC and FAST path, as well as the difference between IN1 and Test 1 in.

Specifically, I plugged the cable that is usually connected to the MC servo output, labelled "TO FSS BOX", into the RF out of the AG4395. I then took a BNC cable from the FAST out, or PC out, and fed it into a mini circuits DC block (BLK-89-S+), and then into input A, after checking on a scope that the signal was roughly zeroed and not too huge. Unbeknownst to me at the time, the PC drive output can be pretty big, and could potentially fry the analyzer's input. Fortunately, I think I avoided this fate. 

FSSbox.pdfFSSfilt.pdf

A ~1.3 MHz bump can be seen here, which would conspire with the bump in the demod board I measured yesterday, to steal even more phase around 1MHz. Maybe we can modify the FSS box to help our gain peaking situation out. 

The data is attached.

RXA: Shazam!

Attachment 3: FSSdata.zip
  10369   Tue Aug 12 14:29:01 2014 ericqUpdateGeneralReasonable alignment restored

I'm leaving the interferometer with the PRM aligned, so that all optics (except SRM) are near the center of their oplev range. I'm curious as to what their variance will be over the next day; this can inform whether we need to improve the ETMY oplev's angular range or not. 

 Here's an 12 hour minute-trend of all of the oplevs. The worst offenders are ITMY pitch and yaw, and ITMX pitch. 

Additionally, ETMY's yaw range is +-30urad, and here we see it wandering by 10 urad in a half day. We probably need more range.  

OLtrend.png

  10368   Tue Aug 12 13:31:58 2014 JenneUpdatePEMSeismometer cables in place, ready for sensors

[TaraV, Jenne]

The short cable from the slab to the sensor has been assembled and installed for the Trillium slab at the corner station.  The corner still needs the sensor and the long cable, both of which are in use by the gyro experiment.

The STS-2 cable that was running to the Xend was pulled, and the new long Guralp cable that Den made was installed with help from Andres.  The Xend just needs the sensor itself, which is also in use in gyro-land.

So, once we get the 2 seismometers and the one cable back from Zach, we should have 3 sensors nicely on the slabs that Den and Steve designed.

  10367   Tue Aug 12 02:09:39 2014 ericqUpdateGeneralReasonable alignment restored

I took over the IFO, after Jenne's locking efforts, which included manual alignment, since the ASS was doing bad things. 

For whatever reason, the Yarm ASS TT gains needed to be flipped back to go in the right direction. I've restored the old BURT snap file, and the ASS seems to work for now.  

Furthermore, I added some FMs to the Yarm ASS to be able to ramp down gains, to be done as new offsets are ramped in, so that a smooth offset transition is possible. The new version of the script works reasonably, but could be smoother still... Once I iron this out, I'll do the same change to the Xarm, and update the buttons. 

In any case, I was able to run ASS on both arms; single arm lock maxed out at around 0.85, maybe because we're only getting 0.78 from the PMC and 16k from the MC? I then aligned and locked the PRM, then reentered the oplevs on all of the PRMI optics. Oddly, the ETMs were at single uRads on their oplevs.

With this arm alignment, I was able to get the green TRX to ~0.55, and thus the beatnote to around -25dBm, which is still lower than we'd like. I didn't touch the Y green alignment, though it is pretty bad, at transmission of below 0.2 when "locked" on the 00 mode. 

When I try to lock things, the initial ALS CARM and DARM locking seems to go fine, actuating on the ETMs for both DoFs, but ETMX is getting kicked during the resonance search every time. Maybe improving green alignment / increasing beatnote amplitudes will hopefully help some.

I'm leaving the interferometer with the PRM aligned, so that all optics (except SRM) are near the center of their oplev range. I'm curious as to what their variance will be over the next day; this can inform whether we need to improve the ETMY oplev's angular range or not. 

  10366   Mon Aug 11 23:50:38 2014 ranaConfigurationWikiDokuWikis are back up

Quote:

Quote:

It looks like auth is broken on the AIC wiki (though working fine on ATF and Cryo). I did some poking around but can't see how anything we did could have broken it.

I went into local.php and changed $conf['useacl'] = 1; to $conf['useacl'] = 0; and it looks like the auth issue goes away (I've changed it back). This isn't a fix (we want to use access control), but it gives us a clue as to where the problem is.

 There was still some residual permissions issue. This is now bypassed and so the ACL is ON and all seems to be back the way it was. I've tested that I can login and edit the wiki.


Some useless knowledge follows here. Please ignore.

After some hours of reading unhelpful DokuWiki blogs, I just put the backup wiki into the local disk on NODUS and then made a soft link to point to that from /users/public_html/wiki/. So this implies that the new NFS setup on chiara is different enough that it doesn't allow read/write access to the apache user on the NODUS/Solaris machine.

  10365   Mon Aug 11 23:32:54 2014 ericqSummaryIOOMC demod measurement

Here's the magnitude plot of the board TF. As mentioned above, this was done with Marconi+Scope, so we were not able to get the phase of this transfer function. 

MCDemod.pdf

Oddly enough, the bump that I saw is not included in Minicircuit's data on the SCLF-5.

Attachment 2: demodLP.txt
# F(Hz) RMS(mV)
1035 38.6
2031 38.47
4031 38.47
8032 38.38
16030 38.10
32030 38.10
64030 38.16
128000 38.10
256000 38.22
... 12 more lines ...
  10364   Mon Aug 11 22:07:31 2014 KojiSummaryIOOMC demod measurement

SCLF-5!? It's surprising as the cut off of the OLTF is just above 1Hz. cf this entry

This means that not the demod board but MC or FSS boards seem to have large attenuation above 1MHz.

In this situation, does SCLF-10/10.7 really help us?

  10363   Mon Aug 11 21:03:48 2014 ericq, ranaSummaryIOOMC demod measurement

We measured the TF of the MC Demod board today.

We set the Marconi to +3dBm and drove the PD IN port of the demod board, starting at 29.5 MHz. Then we looked at the beat signal amplitude in the output of the demod board. So this is a transfer function but with mag only. Plots from Q below.

Rana took the demod board out and took pictures of it. Inside, the post mixer low pass is a SCLF-5 from mini-circuits. This has a lot of cutoff down low. Since the purpose of this filter is only to cutoff the 2f-1f and the 3f-2f products, we need to have a lot of attenuation at 29.5 MHz. One day, we may want to re-instate that notch for the (3*f1- f_MC) beat frequency, but for now we want stability.

So, I recommend that we (Steve) get 3 each of the SCLF-10 and SCLF-10.7 from Mini-Circuits Tuesday morning. Maybe we can put them into a spare board?

Also, we should probably remove the 140kHz:70kHz lead filter which is in the MC servo board. Its out of date. I think it would be fine for us to get a 7-15 kHz UGF for the CM servo and the MC can basically do that already. Mainly we want to fix the high frequency shape to get more stability.

After the measurements and photos, we had to reset the MCWFS offsets to get the WFS to not break the lock. Seems very sensitive to offsets. Hopefully Andres will give us a new Gouy phase telescope.

  10362   Mon Aug 11 10:23:39 2014 steveSummarySUSoplev laser summary updated

Quote:

 

                  2005              ALL oplev servos use Coherent DIODE LASERS # 31-0425-000, 670 nm, 1 mW

    Sep. 28, 2006              optical lever noise budget with DC readout in 40m,  LIGO- T060234-00-R, Reinecke & Rana

    May  22, 2007              BS, SRM & PRM  He Ne 1103P takes over from diode

    May  29, 2007              low RIN He Ne JDSU 1103P selected, 5 purchased sn: T8078254, T8078256, T8078257, T8078258 & T8077178 in Sep. 2007

    Nov  30, 2007               Uniphase 1103P divergence measured

    Nov. 30, 2007               ETMX old Uniphase 1103P  from 2002 dies: .............., running time not known......~3-5 years?

    May 19, 2008               ETMY old Uniphase 1103P from 1999 dies;.....................running time not known.....~    ?

    Oct.  2, 2008                ITMX & ITMY are still diodes, meaning others are converted to 1103P earlier

 

                     JDSU 1103P were replaced as follows:

   May 11, 2011                ETMX replaced, life time 1,258 days  or 3.4 years

   May 13, 2014               ETMX , LT 1,098 days or 3 y

   May 22, 2012               ETMY,  LT 1,464 days or  4 y

   Oct.  5, 2011                BS & PRM, LT 4 years,  laser in place at 1,037 days or 2.8 y

   Sep. 13, 2011               ITMY  old 1103P &    SRM    diode laser replaced by 1125P  ..........old He life time is not known, 1125P in place 1,059 days or 2.9 y

   June 26, 2013              ITMX 622 days or 1.7 y    note: we changed because of beam quality.........................laser in place 420 days or 1.2 y

 

  Sep. 27, 2013               purchased 3 JDSU 1103P lasers, sn: P893516, P893518, P893519 ......2 spares ( also 2 spares of 1125P of 5 mW & larger body )

 

      May  13, 2014             ETMX,  .............laser in place 90 d

      May  22, 2012             ETMY, 

     Oct.  7,  2013             ETMY,  LT  503 d  or  1.4 y............bad beam quality ?

     Aug. 8,  2014              ETMY,  .............laser in place   425 days  or  1.2 y

 

ELOG V3.1.3-