40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 210 of 339  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Categoryup Subject
  10446   Wed Sep 3 18:42:43 2014 JenneUpdateLSCGreen PDH box boosts

From EricQ's simulations reported in elog 10390, we want to transition from ALS comm to DC transmission signals around 500 pm.  However, around 100 pm, the DC transmission signals have a sign flip, so we don't want to have the ALS swing that close to the CARM resonance.  So.  We want to be at about 500 pm, and not touch 100 pm.  So, we don't want our peak ALS motion to go beyond ~400 pm.  Which means that we need to have less than about 40 pm in-loop RMS, to avoid hitting 400 pm.  This is an ALS requirement, but since the analog PDH box is what forces the end laser to follow the arm cavity, and thus give us information about the arm length fluctuations, the PDH residual noise is part of our sensor noise for the full ALS.  So, we need to have the PDH in-loop RMS be less than 40 pm, integrated from a few kHz down to at least 30 mHz. Recall that above the ALS UGF (of about 200 Hz), the sensor noise will be suppressed by 1/f, so we should take that into account when we are looking at the PDH error signal, before we calculate the RMS motion.

Q also measured the in-loop error signal with the current Yend PDH box in elog 10430, and it looks like most of the RMS is coming from a few hundred Hz.  I designed a hack to the PDH board boost that has a zero at about 2kHz, and a gain of 30 at DC, so that we will win by squishing all that RMS.  Also, it shouldn't be too aggressive, so we should be able to leave it on all the time, and still acquire lock of the green laser to the arm, without having to do triggering.

The board schematic is at DCC D1400294.  The boost is also called the "integrator stage", although it will no longer be a simple integrator.

EDIT, JCD:  This cartoon is not correct for the non-boosted state, doesn't include effect of R16.

BoostCartoon.pdf

  10448   Thu Sep 4 00:56:44 2014 JenneUpdateLSCGreen PDH box boosts

Okay, went back to the drawing board with Rana and Koji on PDH box stuff.

Currently (at least for the Yend), in the boost OFF state, we have an overall gain of about 50.  This is crazy big.  Also, the zero in the "transfer function stage" is around 1kHz, however our green cavity pole is (calculated) to be around 20 kHz.  Since these are supposed to cancel but they're not, we have a wide weird flat region in our loop TF.

So.  I calculated the changes to the TF stage that I'll need so that I have an increase of about 20 in DC gain, kept the pole at the same ~20Hz, but moved the zero way out to 18kHz.  I also calculated the changes needed for the integrator stage to make it effective at much higher frequency than it was designed for.  Now the pole is at 75 Hz, and the zero will be at 1.6kHz, and the high frequency gain will stay pretty close to the same with and without the boost.

Planned new TF stage:

TFstage_newDesign_3Sept2014.png

Planned boost stage (with and without boost activated):

BoostNoBoost_newDesign_3Sept2014.png

New boost stage only, so you can see the phase:

BoostOnly_newDesign_3Sept2014.png

The schematic, modified to show my planned changes (which I will put in the DCC after I make the changes):

D0901351-v1_3Sept2014.pdf

  10449   Thu Sep 4 01:28:32 2014 ericqUpdateLSCRecycling cavity lengths

 Going off some discussion we had at lunch today, here is my current knowledge of the state of cavity lengths. 

Acknowledging that Koji changed the sideband modulation frequency recently, the ideal cavity lengths are (to the nearest mm):

  • Lprc = c / ( 4 * fmod) = 6.773 m
  • Lsrc = c / ( 5 * fmod) = 5.418 m

We when last hand measured distances, after moving PR2, we found:

  • Lprc  = 6.752 m = 2.1 cm short
  • Lsrc  = 5.474 m = 5.6 cm long. 

However, when I looked at the sideband splitting interferometrically, I found:

  • Lprc = 6.759m = 1.4 cm short

This is only 5mm from the hand measured value, so we can believe that the SRC length is between 5 and 6 cm too long. I'm building a MIST model to try and see what this may entail. 

  10450   Thu Sep 4 03:12:55 2014 ericqUpdateLSCGreen PDH box boosts

Jenne made her board modifications, and the measured TF agreed with the design. Alas, the green would not lock to the arm in this state. 

I think that the reason is that the new TF does not have nearly as much low frequency gain as the old one, for a given UGF. Thus, for example, the 1Hz noise due to the pendulum resonance, has 30dB less loop gain suppressing it. 

boostedTF.pdf

 

NEED MORE gain.jpg

 

  10451   Thu Sep 4 10:10:23 2014 KojiUpdateLSCRecycling cavity lengths

Com'on. This is just a 60ppm change of the mod frequency from the nominal. How can it change the recycling cav length by more than a cm?

https://wiki-40m.ligo.caltech.edu/IFO_Modeling/RC_lengths

This describes how the desirable recycling cavity lengths are affected by the phase of the sidebands at non-resonant reflection of the arms.

If we believe these numbers, L_PRC = 6.7538 [m] and L_SRC = 5.39915 [m].

Compare them with the measured numbers

  • Lprc = 6.752 m
  • Lsrc  = 5.474 m

You should definitely run MIST to see what is the optimal length of the RCs, and what is the effect of the given length deviations.

  10452   Thu Sep 4 16:45:10 2014 JenneUpdateLSCGreen PDH box boosts

As EricQ mentioned in last night's elog, the modifications were made to the Yend (SN 17) uPDH board.

R31 became 49.9 Ohms, R30 became 45.3kOhm, R24 became 1.02k, R16 became 1k, a new flying resistor is tombstoned up against R24 and connected by purple wire to C6 and it is 20k.  C28 is 183nF and C6 is 100nF.  These numbers were used in Q's simulation last night.

 

 

IMG_1712.JPGIMG_1714.JPG

  10453   Thu Sep 4 18:16:20 2014 ericqUpdateLSCRecycling cavity lengths

Koji correctly points out that I naïvely overlooked various factors. With a similar analysis to the wiki page, I get:

  • Ideal arm length of 37.795 m
  • Ideal PRC length of 6.753 m
  • Ideal SRC length of 5.399 m

This means that:

  • The PRC, measured at 6.759m, is 6mm long. 
  • The SRC, measured at 5.474m, is 7.5 cm long

Next step is to see how this may affect our ability to sense, and thereby control, the SRC when the arms are going. 

MIST simulations and plots are in the attached zip. 

Attachment 1: 2014-09-CavityLengths.zip
  10458   Fri Sep 5 05:32:57 2014 JenneUpdateLSCGreen PDH box boosts

[Rana, Jenne, EricQ]

* Too much gain overall on Yend box, needed attenuator on output to get lock.  Rethought gain allocation.  Resoldered board, installed, Ygreen locks nicely.  Error point and control point spectra, box TF and open loop TF data collected, to be plotted.

* Q replaced the Xend box, with a matching TF.

* Locked both arms individually, Yend has lots of low freq fluctuation, Xend has some.  Can't do out of loop measurement since we're going well beyond the range of the PDH signals (Yarm RIN is between 1/2 and 1.) Plot TRX and TRY spectra with ALS lock vs. IR lock to get an idea of what frequencies we have a problem with.

* Tried comm/diff locking anyway.  Works.  Used cm_up script to get CARM to sqrtInvTrans.  Went to powers of about 0.5 (hard to say really, because of fluctuations), put sine at 611.1 Hz, 200 cts onto ETMs (-1*x, +1*y), looked at TF between ALS diff and AS55Q.  Put that amount into the static power normalization spot for AS55.  In steps of 0.1, reduced ALSdiff input matrix elements and increased AS55->DARM element.  2 (3?) times was able to get to AS55Q for DARM.  Lost lock once unknown reason, while reducing CARM offset.  Lost lock once trying to turn on FM4 LSC boost for DARM.

TRX/TRY spectra:

TRX_TRY_ALSvsIR_4Sept2014.pdf

  10462   Fri Sep 5 21:13:57 2014 JenneUpdateLSCGreen PDH out of loop

I locked the arms with IR, and measured the beatnote spectra to get the out of loop noise for the PDH boxes. 

Unfortunately, we don't have a reference saved (that I can find), so we're going to have to compare to an elog of Koji's from a month ago.  I have created an out of loop ALS reference .xml file in the Templates/ALS folder.

ALS_XY_outOfLoop_5Sept2014.pdf

As we can see from Koji's elog 10302, the Xarm seems to have stayed the same, but the Yarm seems to have increased by about an order of magnitude below 100 Hz.  :(

  10474   Tue Sep 9 00:34:34 2014 JenneUpdateLSCFiguring out where to do DARM->AS55

This afternoon, after Q and Manasa finished recovering from the activities of the morning, I aligned the IFO, and went to the Yend to touch up the alignment of the green to the arm.  I don't know if it was the alignment (I didn't do the PSL table), or I happened to have a good combination of laser temperatures, or what, but the Yend ALS noise was super good.  After that, the low frequency noise contribution is different lock-to-lock, and I haven't discerned a pattern yet.

One thing that we want to try is to get DARM to AS55 so that we're entirely off of ALS (assuming we've already gotten CARM to sqrtInvTrans).  However, according to Q's simulations, we have to get past arm power of a few before we are within the AS55 linewidth.  I have a DTT running showing me the phase between AS55 and ALSdiff as I reduce the CARM offset, but I haven't been able to get close enough to see the sign flip when CARM is on sqrtInvTrans.  If I just sweep through with both CARM and DARM on ALS, I see the sign flip.  I've tried a few different things, but I have not successfully gotten a transition to AS55 while the arm powers were above 1.  Empirically,  I think I want them at at least 3 or 4.

Koji suggested locking the DRMI rather than PRMI, to widen the AS55 linewidth, but I haven't tried that tonight.  Maybe tomorrow night.

I have made a ruidimentary lockloss plotting script, that I have put in ..../scripts/LSC/LockLossData, but I'm not satisfied with it yet.  Somehow it's not catching the lockloss, even though it's supposed to run when the ALS watch/down scripts run.  I'll need to look into this when I'm not so sleepy.

Q, can you please work on figuring out the phase tracker gain tracker?  It will be nice to have that functional so we don't have to fret about the phase tracker gains. 

Manasa, can you please estimate what kind of mode matching we have on the PSL table between the arm greens and the PSL green?  We *do not* want to touch any optics at this point.  Just stick in a power meter to see how much power we're getting from each beam, and then think about the peak height we see, and what that might tell us about our mode overlap.  If we determine it is total crap, we can think about measuring the beams that go either toward the camera, or the DC PDs, since neither of those paths require careful alignment, and they are already picked off from the main beatnote path.  But first, what is our current efficiency?  Yarm is first, then Xarm, since Yarm seems worse (peak height is larger for non-00 modes!)

  10478   Tue Sep 9 14:25:46 2014 jamieUpdateLSCFiguring out where to do DARM->AS55

Quote:

I have made a ruidimentary lockloss plotting script, that I have put in ..../scripts/LSC/LockLossData, but I'm not satisfied with it yet.  Somehow it's not catching the lockloss, even though it's supposed to run when the ALS watch/down scripts run.  I'll need to look into this when I'm not so sleepy.

We developed a fairly sophisticated lockloss script at the sites, which you could try using as well.  It's at:

USERAPPS/sys/common/scripts/lockloss

It requires a reasonably up-to-date install of cdsutils, and the tconvert utility.  It uses guardian at the sites to determine when locklosses happen, but you can use it without guardian by just feeding it a specific time to plot.  It also accepts a list of channels to plot, one per line.

  10481   Wed Sep 10 02:26:20 2014 JenneUpdateLSCDARM -> AS55 optickle

 Q has pointed out that we expect a sign flip in the AS55 signal for DARM as we reduce the CARM offset in the PRFPMI case.  Koji also mentioned that the SRC will help broaden the DARM linewidth.  I wanted to check and think about these things with my Optickle simulation.  Q is working on confirming my results with Mist.

The simulation situation:  

* The demod phase for AS55 is set in the MICH-only case so that the MICH signal is maximized in the Q-phase.  I do not change the demod phase at all in these simulations.

* Cavity lengths (arms, recycling cavities) are the measured lengths.

* I look at AS55 I and Q as DARM sensors (i.e. I'm doing DARM sweeps) as a function of CARM offset, for both PRFPMI and DRFPMI cases.

Spoiler alert!  Conclusions:

* In the PRFPMI case, the DARM signal shows up with approximately equal strength in the I and Q phases, so we suffer only about a factor of 2 if we do not re-optimize the demod angle for AS55.

* In the DRFPMI case, the DARM signal is a factor of 1,000 smaller in the Q-phase than the I-phase, which means that the ideal demod phase angle has moved by about 90 degrees from the MICH-only case.  We must either use the I-phase signal or change the demod phase by 90 degrees in order to acquire lock.

* In the PRFPMI case, there is a sign flip for DARM on the AS55 PD around 100pm, so we don't want to use AS55 for DARM until we are well inside 50pm, and aren't going to fluctuate out of that range.

* In the DRFPMI case, there is no such sign flip, at least out to 1nm, so we can use AS55 for DARM as soon as we see a viable signal.  This is super awesome. The caveat is that the gain changes significantly as we reduce the CARM offset, so we either need a UGF servo (eventually) or careful watching (for now).

* The AS55 linear(-ish) range is much broader in the dual recycled case, which is yet another reason why getting DARM on AS55 will be easier for DRFPMI.

Why didn't we do it already?

* To put the SRM QPD back, we'd also have to move Steve/EricG's laser.  Since I had other things to do, I left the setup for tonight, but I think I will want it for tomorrow night.

* Monday night (and tonight) we can pretty reliably get DARM onto AS55Q for the PRFPMI case, and I don't know what the cause has been for my locklosses, so I thought I'd try to figure that out first.  

Plots!

First up, the current transition we've been trying to handle, PRFPMI DARM to AS55Q.   I also plot AS55I, and we see that the signals are roughly the same magnitude (the x axis isn't the same between these plots! sorry), so we aren't screwed if we don't change the demod phase angle.  We'll be better off once we can do a re-optimization, but this is assuming we are stuck (at first) with our MICH-only demod phase angle.

AS55Q_vs_DARM_PRFPMI_0pm300pm.pngAS55I_vs_DARM_PRFPMI_0pm300pm.png

Next up, the same plots, but for the DRFPMI case.  Note here that there is a factor of about 1000 in the y-axis scales, and also that there is no switch in the sign of the zero-crossing slope for the I-phase.

AS55Q_vs_DARM_DRFPMI_0pm300pm.pngAS55I_vs_DARM_DRFPMI_0pm300pm.png

And here is the same data (DRFPMI case), but zoomed out for the Q-phase, so you can see the craziness of this phase.  Again, this is much smaller than the signals in the I-phase, so I'm not too worried.

AS55Q_vs_DARM_DRFPMI_0pm1000pm.png

Game plan:

* Steve leaves the SRM oplev back in its nominal location (we can worry about aligning the mirror, and aligning the beam on the PD, but please put it back approximately where it came from).

* Try DRMI + 2 arm locking, which I don't think we have ever actually done before.  Hopefully there won't be any tricks, and we can get to an equivalent place and successfully get DARM to AS55.  

* .... Keep going?

  10485   Wed Sep 10 02:53:32 2014 JenneUpdateLSCLocking activities - nothing new :(

[Jenne, EricQ]

No major progress today.  

I fixed a bug in my lockloss script that was asking it to start gathering data just after the lockloss, rather than some seconds beforehand.  Ooops.  Anyhow, with this handy-dandy plotting, I still don't know why we are losing lock when we have PRMI on REFL33, CARM on sqrtInvTrans, and DARM on AS55.  I don't see any oscillations, just the arm power drops off, and a moment later the POP power drops.  

For example, here is one of the best states we got to tonight.  Data for this is in ..../scripts/LSC/LocklossData/1094369700 .  You can re-create the plot by going to ..../scripts/LSC/LocklossData/  and doing ./PlotLockloss.py 1094369700 .  We had set the triggers for the trans PD/QPD such that we were using the QPD transmission signals the whole time (above trans of 0.2).  We saw that the noise at high frequency during low transmission powers for sqrtInvTrans as an error signal was higher using the QPDs than with the Thorlabs PDs, but that both cases are below the noise for ALS.  The arm powers were pretty steady above 3 for the last bit of this lock stretch.  I lost lock while trying to transition DARM over to AS55Q.  CARM was on sqrtInvTrans(QPDs), PRMI on REFL33 I&Q as usual.

LocklossZoom.png

 


Other things from this evening:

* When I was starting, I saw that when I locked the PRMI, the PRM was oscillating in pitch. Oscillation only happened when PRM pitch oplev was on.  I'm not sure what could have changed to make the oplev loop unstable, but the gain was 7.0, and now I have left it at 5.0.

* I recentered the PRM and ITMY oplevs.

* Plugged in the Yend PDH error monitor and pzt output monitors, since I forgot them last week.  Hopefully this will allow the Yend SLOW servo to work, and keep us away from the limits of the PZT range.

  10486   Wed Sep 10 02:59:42 2014 ericqUpdateLSCLocking activities - nothing new :(

Some small things I did tonight which did little to nothing to help:

  • I reset the offsets in the SQRTINV FMs to try and match the DC level of the ALS CARM error signal as best as possible, to avoid moving away from the set-point too much, as I was worried we were wandering into regions of too low optical gain. 
  • I turned off the WFS, and hand tweaked the MC alignment. The WFS loops / matrices definitely have some room for improvement, and I was worried that excess angular motion of the MC was coupling into CARM. MC refl is much calmer in the last ~1.5 hrs since I turned off the WFS. 

My main concern with tonights situation was the huge low frequency fluctuations of TRY while CARM/DARM locked on ALS. We saw this being very smooth very recently, but when one arm is fluctuating by multiple line widths, it isn't surprising that locks aren't stable. I want to know why the out of loop stability is so unpredictable. 

  10487   Wed Sep 10 10:49:39 2014 ManasaUpdateLSCY arm green + PSL green mode overlap

Quote:

Manasa, can you please estimate what kind of mode matching we have on the PSL table between the arm greens and the PSL green?  We *do not* want to touch any optics at this point.  Just stick in a power meter to see how much power we're getting from each beam, and then think about the peak height we see, and what that might tell us about our mode overlap.  If we determine it is total crap, we can think about measuring the beams that go either toward the camera, or the DC PDs, since neither of those paths require careful alignment, and they are already picked off from the main beatnote path.  But first, what is our current efficiency?  Yarm is first, then Xarm, since Yarm seems worse (peak height is larger for non-00 modes!)

Estimate loss along the Y arm beat path:

1. Measured the beam powers (before the beam combiner): 
Y Arm green = 35 uW
Y PSL green = 90 uW

==> Pbeat ~ 2 * sqrt (35 uW * 90 uW) ~ 112 uW

2. Expected power of RF signal
Assuming the PD to have transimpedance ~ 2kV/A and responsivity ~ 0.3A/W, 
the expected power of the RF signal = (Pbeat * Transimpledance* Responsivity)^2 / (2 * 50ohm) ~ 45uW = -13.5 dBm

3. Measured power of Y arm beat signal

Turned OFF the beat PDs and rerouted the RF cables such that the spectrum analyzer was reading the RF signal from the Y beat PD itself (without any amplifiers or the beat box itself in the path).  
Turned ON the beat PDs and the Y arm beat signal power on the spectrum analyzer measured -58dBm
Even if we consider for losses along the length of the cables, we are still at a very bad state. 

4. Bad mode matching??
I don't think mode matching is our main problem here.
Toggling the shutter several times, even with the non-00 modes, the maximum beat power we can see is -50dBm which is still very far from the actual expected value.

  10491   Wed Sep 10 21:05:43 2014 JenneUpdateLSCHoly sensitivity, Batman!

Koji and Manasa did some work on the PSL green situation today (Koji is still writing that log post up), but I just measured the Yarm out of loop sensitivity, and WOAH. 

The beat is -11.5dBm at 42.8 MHz.  Koji said the sweet spot is around 30 MHz.  The out of loop sensitivity is 400 Hz RMS!  Something to note is that the Y beatnote still has a 20dB amplifier before going to the beatbox, but the X does not.  We had been worried about saturation issues with the X, so we took out the amplifier.  However, I might put it back if we win big like this.

Recall from elog 10462 that I had saved a reference of the out of loop noise for both X and Y, but Y was much noisier than X.  The references below are from that elog, and the new Y is in dark blue. (Edit, 9:18pm, updated plot measuring down to 0.01Hz.  This is the new reference on the ALS_outOfLoop_Ref.xml template).

 ALS_Y_outOfLoop_10Sept2014.pdf

EDIT:  (Don't worry, I'm going to measure X too, but right now the beam overlap on the camera is not good, as if something drifted after Koji and Manasa closed up the PSL table)

Touched up the alignment for X on the PSL table.  Current beatnotes are:  [Y, -13.5 dBm, 74.1 MHz], [X, -22 dBm, 13.9 MHz].  Red is the current X out of loop, and I've saved it as the new X reference on the template.

ALS_XY_outOfLoop_10Sept2014.pdf

  10492   Wed Sep 10 22:17:29 2014 KojiSummaryLSCX/Y green beat mode overlap measurement

[Koji Manasa]

We made quantitative inspection of the X/Y green beat setup on the PSL table.

DC output of the BBPD for each arm was measured by blockiing the beams at either or both side of the recombination BS.

The power over lap for the X arm beat note setup was 7.8% and is now 53%.
There is 3dB of headroom for the improvement of the mode overlap.

The power over lap for the Y arm beat note setup was 1.2% and is now 35%.
There is 4dB of headroom for the improvement of the mode overlap.

The RF analyzer monitor for the beat power is about 10dB lower than expected. Can we explain this only by the cable loss?
If not it there something causing the big attenuation?


             XARM   YARM
o BBPD DC output (mV)

 V_DARK:   -  3.3  + 1.9
 V_PSL:    +  4.3  +22.5
 V_ARM:    +187.0  + 8.4


o BBPD DC photocurrent (uA)

I_DC = V_DC / R_DC ... R_DC: DC transimpedance (2kOhm)

 I_PSL:       3.8   10.3
 I_ARM:      95.0    3.3


o Expected beat note amplitude
I_beat_full = I1 + I2 + 2 sqrt(e I1 I2) cos(w t) ... e: mode overwrap (in power)

I_beat_RF = 2 sqrt(e I1 I2)

V_RF = 2 R sqrt(e I1 I2) ... R: RF transimpedance (2kOhm)

P_RF = V_RF^2/2/50 [Watt]
     = 10 log10(V_RF^2/2/50*1000) [dBm]

     = 10 log10(e I1 I2) + 82.0412 [dBm]
     = 10 log10(e) +10 log10(I1 I2) + 82.0412 [dBm]


for e=1, the expected RF power at the PDs [dBm]
 P_RF:      -12.4  -22.6


o Measured beat note power (before the alignment)     
 P_RF:      -23.5  -41.7  [dBm] (38.3MHz and 34.4MHz) 
    e:        7.8    1.2  [%]                         
o Measured beat note power (after the alignment)      
 P_RF:      -15.2  -27.1  [dBm] (26.6MHz and 26.8MHz) 
    e:       53     35    [%]                         

Measured beat note power at the RF analyzer in the control room
 P_CR:      -25    -20    [dBm]
Expected    -17    - 9    [dBm]

Expected Power:
Pin + External Amp Gain (0dB for X, 20dB for Y)
    - Isolation trans (1dB)
    + GAV81 amp (10dB)
    - Coupler (10.5dB)


  10494   Thu Sep 11 02:08:32 2014 JenneUpdateLSCHigher transmission powers

No breakthroughs tonight. 

DRMI didn't want to lock with either the recipe that we used a year ago (elog 9116) or that was used in May (elog 9968).  Being lazy and sleepy, I chickened out and went back to PRFPMI locking. 

Many attempts, I'll highlight 2 here.

(1) I had done the CARM -> sqrtInvTrans transition, and reduced the CARM offset to arm powers of about 7, and lost lock.  I don't remember now if I was trying to transition DARM to AS55, or if I was just prepping (measuring error signal ratio and relative sign).

Zoom_TRXTRYat7_CARMsqrtInvTrans_DARMalsdiff.png

(2) I stopped the carm_cm_up script just before it wanted to do the CARM -> sqrtInvTrans transition, and stayed with CARM and DARM both on ALS.  I got to reasonably high powers, and was measuring the error signal ratios I needed for CARM -> REFL DC and DARM -> AS55.  Things were too noisy to get good coherence for the DARM coefficient, but I thought I was in good shape to transition CARM to REFL DC (which looks like REFL11I, since REFLDC goes to the CM board, and the OUT2 of that board is used to monitor the input to the board. )  Anyhow, I set the offset such that it matched my current CARM offset value, and started the transition, but lost lock about halfway through.  CARM started ringing up here, and I think that's what caused this lockloss.  Could have been the CARM peak, which I wasn't considering / remembering at the time.

ALSonly_TryingTransitionStraightToREFLDC.png

Daytime activity for Thurs:  Lock DRMI, maybe first on 1f signals, but then also on 3f signals.

  10497   Fri Sep 12 00:28:04 2014 ericqUpdateLSCHoly sensitivity, Batman!

I took a quick measurement of the ALS stability, using POX and POY as out of loop sensors, using a CARM calibration line to line POX and POY up to the calibrated PHASE_OUT channels at 503Hz. 

  • X arm RMS ~1kHz
    • Could use more low frequency suppression
  • Y arm RMS ~200Hz

ALSoutOfLoop.pdf

  10498   Fri Sep 12 00:40:23 2014 JenneUpdateLSCDRMI locking

 Tonight I worked on DRMI locking.  

I think the reason the May2014 DRMI recipe wasn't working for me is because I wasn't including the REFL11 -> SRCL element.  I had left it out because (a) I didn't think we should need it and (b) REFL11 is going through the CM board.  

Tonight, I flipped the switch on the CM screen so that OUT2 was seeing REFL11I, not REFLDC, so I had REFL11 in the usual place.  I reset the demod phase, since we had left it at zero for CM stuff. 

Setting demod phases for PRMI:

I locked PRMI on sideband, REFL 33 I&Q and drove PRM.  REFL55 was at 55deg, and I changed it to 33deg to minimize the peak in the Q-phase.  REFL11 was a 0deg, and I set it to 17deg.  I also checked the AS55 phase in the MICH-only case, and changed it from 14.75deg to 24.75 deg.

The May 2014 recipe (elog 9968) calls for adding 25 degrees to the REFL55 phase, so I put REFL55 at 58deg for DRMI locking.

After that, using the parameters in the May2014 recipe, the DRMI just locked.  Awesome!

I checked the demod phases with DRMI lock.  REFL11 stays at 17 degrees.  If I actuate the SRM, I get the largest peak in the I-phase of REFL55 with a phase of -143deg, but the acquisition is best with phase around 55deg.  [Note, as Q points out, I wonder if SRCL is mostly locked with REFL11I for some magical reason, which is why it didn't matter so much that I put a sign flip into REFL55...I wonder if fixing our macroscopic length offset in SRCL will fix this].  I also changed the REFL165 phase from -155.5deg to +145deg.

By looking at transfer functions at an excitation frequency, I expected that I should be able to hold SRCL and MICH on REFL165, with matrix elements -0.085 for REFL165I->SRCL and -0.23 for REFL165Q->MICH.  I was not able to acquire with these values, nor was I able to ramp the matrix elements while keeping lock.

So, I tried moving PRCL to REFL33I, which did work.  I used 1.245*REFL33I->PRCL, but left SRCL and MICH on REFL55 I&Q, with the REFL11I->SRCL element also there. This is where I started trying to get rid of the REFL11I element, but couldn't maintain lock most times, and could never acquire lock without it.

Next up, checking the MICH->SRCL coupling due to the output matrix.  I did as Koji did in elog 8816 , but first I copied the notches in FM10 of MICH over to PRCL and SRCL (old notch freqs were SRCL=566.1Hz, PRCL=675.1Hz, now they're all 475.1Hz).  I drove BS, and checked that the PRM element minimized the peak in REFL33I, the PRCL error signal.  I also added an SRM element to reduce the peak in REFL55I, the SRCL error signal.  I ended up with 0.5*BS, -0.284*PRM, -1.5*SRM for MICH drive, and unity in the PRM and SRM elements for PRCL and SRCL, respectively.

I measured the SRCL open loop gain, and the UGF was pretty low, so I increased the SRCL gain from 0.2 to 0.5 to make the UGF be around 70Hz.  I measured PRCL and MICH also, and they matched their references.

I worked a little bit on trying to remove REFL11 from the SRCL error signal, but didn't get anywhere.  I'm leaving the IFO to Q for the rest of the night.

To sum up, here is the set of parameters that worked for DRMI locking.  (These are saved as the template on the IFO Config screen.):

DEMOD PHASES:

REFL11:  17 deg

REFL33: 140.5 deg (not changed tonight)

REFL55: 58 deg  (58deg for DRMI, 33deg for PRMI)

REFL165: 145 deg

AS55: 24.75 deg

INPUT MATRIX

MICH = 0.15 * REFL55Q

PRCL = 1.245 * REFL33I

SRCL = -0.09 * REFL11I + 1.0 * REFL55I

DOF Triggers

MICH, PRCL, SRCL all on POP22I, 50:10

GAINS

MICH = 1.0

PRCL = -0.02

SRCL = 0.5

FM triggers 

MICH:  35:2, 2 sec delay, FM 2, 3, 6, 9

PRCL:  35:2, 0.5 sec delay, FM 2, 3, 6, 9

SRCL:  35:2, 5 sec delay, FM 3, 6, 9  (always lose lock trying to engage FM2).

OUTPUT MATRIX

MICH = 0.5 * BS +  (-0.284)*PRM + (-1.5)*SRM

PRCL = 1*PRM

SRCL = 1*SRM

  10499   Fri Sep 12 03:49:57 2014 ericqUpdateLSCSome more PRFPMI efforts

 Since DRMI didn't get fully commissioned, I tried my hand at PRFPMI locking with the newly improved ALS performance. 

ALS seemed reliable, I think my main limiting factor was the PRMI locking. We should set up a restore script for PRFPMI that is a superset of the ALS CARM DARM, because the current restore script doesn't put all the vertex settings back, so I was trying to lock for a while without the FM boosts on PRCL and MICH, which really hurt my stability. 

Transitioning to SqrtInv works fine; a couple of times I've gotten to arm power of ~10, and have been able to sit there for a while as I set up excitation line comparisons with the CM board's REFLDC, but the PRC would always lose it before I did anything interesting. 

The PRMI locks with a reasonable MICH offset, I found that adding a offset of 20 to 40 makes the AS spot visibly dimmer, and ASDC falls to ~0.05 from .1-.2. 

I looked into adding a boost to the CARM loop after transitioning to sqrtInv, but we only have 30 degrees of margin, and the error signal is already fairly white, so there isn't much to do, really. 

The ALS locking script is sporadically hanging a fair while, as well, which is strange. Otherwise, not much to report...

  10500   Fri Sep 12 11:25:42 2014 KojiUpdateLSCDRMI locking

This is great.

And I got confused. Is REFL11 going through the CM board?
If so how the demod phase for REFL11 take an effect for the sensing?

Maybe I understood. CM SERVO SLOW has been connected to REFL11I? whitening.
Therefore using REFL11 in the CM SERVO gives us REFL11I at the usual channels.
And then how can we ensure the gain matching between I & Q?

Then is the next step 3f DRMI? How is REFL165 healthy?
I also wonder how the relative phase and modulation depths improves the sensing matrix.

  10501   Fri Sep 12 12:00:59 2014 ericqUpdateLSCDRMI locking

REFL11 I, as seen in digital land, is connected to the slow output of the CM board. I tuned the demod angle of the REFL11 demodulator board by cable length back in ELOG 9850. It would be good to check that the phase is still good. If the CM board gains are at 0dB, we should be able to used the digital angle adjustment as normal. 

  10502   Fri Sep 12 14:11:17 2014 ericqUpdateLSCDRMI locking

We need to get an interferometric estimation of the SRC length error / SRC sideband splitting, because if the 7.5cm hand-measured error is true, it looks like it might be hard to control the DRMI on 3F. 


I did some DRMI sensing simulations, to get an idea if sensing matrix elements might change as the CARM offset changes. Last night, I tried just going to zero CARM offset on ALS, and was having problems keeping the PRMI locked on REFL33, so I wanted to confirm that it should at least work in theory. 

Thus, I simulated what happens to the sensing matrix element in the vertex DoFs as the CARM offset is reduced, in both the PR and SR cases. I normalized all of the elements to PRCL at zero carm offset, to get an idea of what the good relative gains should be for MICH and SRCL. 

In the end, there don't seem to be significant DC gain changes, or demod angle fluctuations, in either the PRFPMI or DRFPMI case, as the CARM offset changes, which is good.

However, the SRC length as hand-measured, seems to mess up the MICH angle in the DRFPMI case, and really lowers the SRCL signal amplitude. 

To be fair, past efforts of simulating demodulation angles haven't always been borne out on the IFO, so we should still forge ahead experimentally until it becomes apparent that there is a real problem. 


Here are the simulations for the IFO as-is:

(A note on the plots. Though they kind of look like Bodes, they're just the sensing element represented as a complex number in the I-Q plane,I being phase=0 and Q = 90)

dcPRCL3F.pdfdcMICH3F.pdfdcSRCL3F.pdf

All three signals are along the I axis in the DRMI case, which seems like it would be tough to control, since we only have 2 3F diodes... We've been using REFL33Q when PRMIing, which is simulated at around 45 deg; it should be easy to verify this empirically. 


Here are the same plots with the SRC length corrected. Now MICH shows up mostly in the Q phase as desired in the DRMI case. SRCL in REFL165 also wins 20dB of optical gain, as well. 

dcPRCL3F_correctSRC.pdfdcMICH3F_correctSRC.pdfdcSRCL3F_correctSRC.pdf

 


To drive the point home, here's a simulated scan of AS110 and REFL55 Q to show the effect of the measured length error:

SRClengthEffects.pdf

 

  10512   Wed Sep 17 01:40:55 2014 JenneUpdateLSCCloser to REFL DC? Maybe?

I tried a bunch of times to reduce my CARM offset so I could jump to REFLDC digitally, but I think I'm maybe being a little ambitious with the arm power I'm trying to get to.

I have modified the carm_cm_up script so that it does my new procedure.  Everything is the same through locking the PRCL and MICH on 3f.  Then it reduces the CARM offset to 1.5 nm.  This is where we *used* to transition to sqrtInvTrans.  Now I have it going a bit farther to 0.5 nm, and arm powers of about 1 before doing that transition.  Also, before it transitions it lowers the CARM gain and engages the 1kHz lowpass in FM9.  A gain of about 4 is fine to keep the gain peaking in the CARM loop to only about 10dB, and sets a UGF of 100Hz which is the peak of the phase bubble with the lowpass engaged. 

Once I got to this point (several times tonight), I turned on CARM and DARM oscillations and looked at the transfer functions between (CARM and REFLDC) and (DARM and AS55Q). I have 2 DTT templates setup for this, in /users/Templates/PRFPMI.  These templates assume that you have your new DARM signal (AS55) going to SRCL_IN1 and your new CARM signal (REFLDC, which is actually REFL11I coming through the CM board) going to MC_IN1. 

I'm not sure why I'm losing lock. I don't see anything terribly telling on the time series plots, in particular none of the loops look like they are oscillating.  Here is one of the better examples from this evening:

Zoom_TRXTRYupto25_1094967592.png

Other notes:

* I realigned the Xgreen on the PSL table (again) to maximize the beatnote amplitude.  Y was fine, but X was very poorly overlapped on the camera.

* I put the SR785 back by the LSC rack and plugged it into the CM board for transfer functions.  Didn't take any tonight.

* We have a small wishlist for scripting things:  (1) DRMI restore script should reset REFL11 to "normal" REFL11.  (2) CARM/DARM acquisition restore script should reset REFL11 to REFLDC.  (3) CARM/DARM acquisition restore should also set PRMI parameters (as Q noted last week).

  10514   Wed Sep 17 15:40:00 2014 ericqUpdateLSCDRMI locking

I have not had any success the past two days in getting an interferometric measurement of the SRC length. 

So, the question posed at today's meeting was: "How precisely do we need to change the SRC length to be able to lock the DRMI on 3F"

The two ways I could think to quantify this are:

  • How much MICH -> [S,P]RCL cross coupling is ok?
  • How much [S,P]RCL ->  MICH cross coupling is ok?

REFL33 should have its phase set to put PRCL along I, and REFL165 should have SRCL along I, so the simulation result that matters is the angle of MICH in these planes. The cross couplings are then given by the appropriate trigonometric projections. In the following plots, I used 10% as the acceptable cross coupling in either direction. 

Result:

dcAngleDiff_srcL.pdf

Thus,

  • To limit the MICH -> [S,P]RCL coupling to 10%, we must hit the ideal length within +- 1.2cm.
  • To limit the SRCL -> MICH coupling to 10%, we must hit the ideal length within +- 2mm.
  • It doesn't look like we can get the REFL33 angle totally to 90 degrees, REFL165 looks more promising.

Code (finesse + pykat + ipython notebook) and plots are attached. 

Attachment 2: drfpmiVertexSensing.zip
  10516   Thu Sep 18 02:42:28 2014 JenneUpdateLSCAO path partly engaged

Tonight was a night of trying to engage the AO path.  The idea was to sit at arm powers of a few on sqrtInvTrans for CARM and ALS for DARM, and try to increase the gain for REFLDC->AO path.

No exciting nit-picky details in locking procedure.  Mostly it was just a night of trying many times. 

The biggest thing that Q and I found tonight was that the 2-pin lemo cable connecting the CM board's SERVO OUT to the MC board's IN2 is shitty.  The symptom that led to this investigation was that I could increase the AO path gain arbitrarily, and have no change in the measured analog CM loop transfer function. We checked that the CM board servo out spit out signals that were roughly what we expected based on our ~2kHz excitation.  However, if we look at digitized signals from the MC board, the noise level was very high, with loads of 60Hz lines, and a teensy-tiny signal peak.  We put a small drive directly into the MC board and could see that, so we determined that the cable is bad.  We have unplugged the white 2-pin lemo, and ran a long BNC cable between the 2 boards.  Tomorrow we need to make a new 2-pin lemo cable so that we can have the lower noise differential drive signal.

After putting in the temporary cable, we do see an excitation sent to the CM board showing up after the MC board.  For this monitoring, the MC_L cable to the ADC has been borrowed, so instead of being the OUT1, the regular length signal, MC_L is currently the OUT2 monitor right after the board inputs. 

At some point in the evening, around 1:15am, ETMX started exhibiting the annoying behavior of wandering off sometimes.  I went in and pushed on the SUS cables to the satellite box, and I think it has helped, although I still saw the drift at least once after the cable-squishing.

Other than that, it has just been many trials.

The best was one where I was holding the arm powers around 4, and got the CM board's AO gain to -8 dB and the MC board's IN2 AO gain to -4 dB. I lost lock trying to increase the CM board gain to -7 dB. 

I took several transfer functions, and used Q's nifty "SRmeasure" script to gather data, and Q made a plot to see the progress.

TF progress plots:

0020.pdf

Time series of that lockloss:

Zoom_TRXTRY4_EngagingAO_1095059162.png

I don't know yet if the polarity of the CM board should be plus or minus.  This series was taken with "minus".  But,  since the phase looked opposite of Q's single arm CM board checkout from several months ago, we did a few trials with the polarity switched to "plus".  I thought we weren't getting as high of AO path gains, so I switched back to "minus", but the last few trials didn't get even as far as the plus trials did.  So, I still don't know which sign we want.

  10519   Thu Sep 18 17:44:55 2014 JenneUpdateLSCOld AO cable pulled

[Q, Jenne]

We pulled the old 2-pin lemo cable after I had a look at the connectors.  When I unscrewed the connector on the MC side, one of the wires came off.  I suspect that it was still hanging on a bit, but my torquing it finally killed it. 

We pulled the cable with the idea of resoldering the connectors, but there are at least 2 places where the cable has been squished enough that the shielding or the inner wires are exposed.  These places aren't near enough the ends to just cut the cable short.

Downs doesn't have a spool of shielded twisted single-pair cable, so Todd is going to get me the part number for the cable they use, and I've asked Steve to order it tomorrow. 

For now, we will continue using the BNC cable that we installed last night - I don't think it's worth resoldering and putting in a crappy 2-pin lemo cable that we'll just throw out in a week.

  10520   Fri Sep 19 04:05:05 2014 ericqUpdateLSCAO path partly engaged

More AO efforts. No huge news. 

Came at AO from each side. For each sign, I lost lock just a few dB from the AO portion of the loop crossing unity gain. Both attempts were about arm powers of 1, which should correspond to ~300pm CARM offset, which I have simulated the crossover as possible with my current loop models (including latest MC loop). The gain steps were usually 6dB in between measurements. 

Positive polarity on CM board screen:

I made it to +5 dB of the last plot here, but the 6th broke it open. Gains on CM In2, CM AO, and MC In2 were -6, -4, -2 on that last, lock breaking, step. 

TFSR785_19-09-2014_020555.pdf

Negative polarity on CM board screen:

Lost it just 2dB above the last trace. Gains were -6, +1, -2 (So, overall 5dB higher than the other polarization)

TFSR785_19-09-2014_033920.pdf

Many things happened in between these two lock stretches, but I'm not sure what may or may not have affected things. They include:

  • Jenne mentioned PRMI being fussy earlier in the evening. I adjusted REFL33 and POP22 angles during a PRMI lock, while CARM was held away with ALS. My simulations suggest that there are small changes to the 3F sensing when the arms are totally absent, but doing it at a finite CARM offset is closer to where we want it, it seems. 
  • I tried using REFL165Q for MICH, since my simulations suggest a better MICH/PRCL angle, which would stave off cross couplings. Lined up excitations, etc., but no luck. 
  • I measured the PRMI loops
    • found PRCL to have ~200Hz UGF, 8dB gain peaking. Maybe a little high, but didn't seem terrible. 
    • MICH had UGF of around 20Hz, with the FM gain at 0.8. By the shape of the phase bubble, the loop seems designed for higher bandwidth. I raised the gain to 2.5 for a 70ishHz UGF, and called in FMs 7 and 9 for additional triggered boosts. Things seemed to stay locked pretty well. 
  • Lower excitation amplitude the second time around, measuring the AO loop. Looking at the CM output spectra, you can see the excitation wailing away; I wanted to avoid it.

The location of the CARM resonance peak lines up with my simulation, which is good, but there appears to be less phase than expected... I tried making sure that we don't have any whitening uncompensated for, but it looked ok. All my AO path loop model contains is the CM board TF (measured and fitted), the IMC seen as an actuator(measured and fitted), and the REFLDC optical TF (simulated in MIST). Maybe the DC path of whatever diode this is coming from needs to be included...

Discontinuities / glitches could be seen in the CM board fast output when MC board gains were changed, which isn't so nice. Incidentally, I notice now that each lock loss corresponded to a step of AO gain on the CM board.

  10521   Fri Sep 19 13:12:07 2014 JenneUpdateLSCAO path glitches

Quote:

Discontinuities / glitches could be seen in the CM board fast output when MC board gains were changed, which isn't so nice. Incidentally, I notice now that each lock loss corresponded to a step of AO gain on the CM board.

Back in May I looked at all the glitches that happen when we change the AO gain slider on the CM board - see elog 9938.   I wonder if the MC IN2 gain slider has the same issues.  I think I'll look at this this afternoon. Maybe we can set the CM board gain someplace, and just use the MC IN2 slider (if it's not as glitchy) for the delicate part where we're just about to cross unity, and then later we can again use the CM board's AO gain.

EDIT:  Yes, the glitches on the CM board AO path are *much* bigger, and more frequent.  Interestingly, the biggest glitches were every 4 dB.  When I went from -29 to -28, again from -25 to -24, -21 to -20, etc.  I saw the largest glitches on the MC IN2 slider going -29 to -28 and -17 to -16, but if there were small glitches at other transitions, they didn't hit my trigger levels.  I think next time I try engaging the AO path I'll try to do the delicate stuff by upping the MC IN2 gain rather than the CM board AO gain.

  10527   Tue Sep 23 17:37:10 2014 ericqUpdateLSCDRMI locking

Rather than using a CAD drawing, I used Gabriele's code from ELOG 9590 to try and judge if we could shorten the SRC by the appropriate length, without clipping the SR3-SR2 beam. 

Specifically, I used these lines:

% Move SRM 7.5 towards SR2, parallel to beam

delta=75;

dAS = BS2-AS; Vector from SRM to SR2

dASmag = sqrt(dAS(1)^2+dAS(2)^2);

dMove = delta*dAS/dASmag;  delta times unit vector

CS = CS+dMove;

draw_sos(CS, 180/pi*angles)

 
to help generate this plot:

SRCcorrection.pdf

 


As a reminder, Gabriele's code used the following logic:

  • We know the nominal dimensions of all of the suspensions
  • We hand measured various distances between features of the suspension structures. (Corner to corner)
  • A global fit, minimizing the maximum error, reconstructed the positions of the suspensions. 
  • Beam positions assumed to be ideally aligned. 
  • Beam trajectories traced out, and optical path lengths estimated (taking into account changing indices of refraction due to flipped mirrors)

In my opinion, this is the best estimate of beam trajectory that we currently have.

Thus, from looking at the plot above, I claim we can correct the SRC length without clipping the beam by moving the SRM forward by the required 7.5cm.

Although the measured distance may be off on the order of a cm (since our PRC correction had a 0.5cm disagreement between interferometric and hand distance measurements), this will nevertheless markedly improve our 3F DRMI sensing, based on my previous ELOG. 

 


Hence, given our discussions last week, Jenne and I will proceed to ready the interferometer for venting in the morning, by following the vent checklist.

Our sole objective for this vent is this move of the SRM. 

Steve, please check the jam nuts, and begin the vent when you get in.  Thanks!

  10531   Wed Sep 24 11:02:38 2014 manasaUpdateLSCMoving SRM

I looked at the CAD layout and it seems like we will clearly be clipping POY if we move SRM by 7.5cm. Since POY is not visible at low power, we cannot be sure about the clipping.

We should have a plan B before we move everything. I suggest we move a combination of SRM and SR2 to get the desired SRC length.
Moving SR2 will require extra effort to walk the beam unclipped through all the 6 output steering mirrors that follow; but there will be little room for error if we use irides to propagate the beam through the first 4 mirrors that are in the BS and ITMY chamber.

  10538   Thu Sep 25 11:33:41 2014 JenneUpdateLSCPOY alignment laser

Quote:

I looked at the CAD layout and it seems like we will clearly be clipping POY if we move SRM by 7.5cm. Since POY is not visible at low power, we cannot be sure about the clipping.

 I was bad and forgot to elog this yesterday (bad grad student!), but I setup a laser pointer to show us where the POY beam is. 

To do this, I removed the tiny mirror that sends the beam to the POY RF PD (so we do not have POY to lock the Yarm right now.  I think Q has successfully been using AS).  The laser pointer goes through 2 temporary steering mirrors, then passes through the place that the tiny mirror usually sits, and then travels along the POY path into the vacuum system.  The idea here is that we should be able to adjust the laser pointer and the temp steering mirrors, and not touch any of the actual POY mirrors, but still get the green beam to go all the way to ITMY.  Yesterday I confirmed that the laser pointer was hitting the in-vac POY pickoff mirror, and today Q and Manasa are doing final adjustment to get the beam all the way to the ITM. 

  10554   Tue Sep 30 17:26:18 2014 ericqUpdateLSCNew AO cable in place

I've installed a new 2pin lemo cable going from the CM servo out to in2 of the MC servo board, and removed the temporary BNC. I used some electrical tape to give the cable some thickness where the lemo head screws on to try to strain relieve the solder joints; hopefully this cable is more robust than the last. 

I put an excitation into the CM board, and saw it come out of MC_F, so I think we're set. 

  10558   Wed Oct 1 19:40:46 2014 ericqUpdateLSCArms IR aligned
Summary:
  • Beamsplitter was put into MC refl path.
  • HWP was rotated to maximize power into PMC. 
  • MC autolocker locked, small alignment tweak led to WFS taking over
  • Light present on REFL, AS and POP!
  • After small adjustments to TTs and ETMY, locked Yarm with AS55, ran ASS. 
  • Adjusted AS camera and RFPD alignment for ASS'd AS beam. 
  • Left arm locked on AS55, aligned new POY beam onto POY11. Centered ITMY oplev while I was there. 
  • After adjusting digital POY11 demod angle with an excitation into ETMY, arms were POX/POY locked and ASS'ed.
  • PRM and SRM eyeball aligned

The IFO is ready for 3F DRMI comissioning 

  10562   Fri Oct 3 03:02:17 2014 ericqUpdateLSCNo luck locking DRMI

I haven't been able to lock the DRMI tonight, neither with 1F and no arms nor 3F and arms held off with ALS... I tried previous recipes, and new combinations informed by simulations I've run, to no avail. 

I touched the alignment of the green beat PD on the PSL table, since the X beatnote was rather low, but wasn't able to improve it by much. I never took a spectrum, since it wasn't my main focus tonight, but the low frequency motion of both arms on ALS, as observed by RIN, was good as I've ever seen it. 

In our WFS work earlier today, Koji and I reset the WFS offsets, and it actually seems to have helped a good deal, in terms of the "fuzz" of MC REFL on the wall striptool. I had previously presumed this to be due to excess angular motion, but perhaps it is more accurately described as an alignment offset that let the nominal angular motion couple into the RIN more. 

  10574   Tue Oct 7 00:18:12 2014 JenneUpdateLSCYgreen PSL alignment, ETMX strain relief

No exciting progress today.  I did PSL green alignment for the Yarm, although I now think that the Xarm green needs realigning too.

Also, I was foiled for a while by ETMX jumping around.  I think it's because the adapter board on the Xend rack didn't have any strain relief.  So, I zip tied the heavy cable in a few places so that it's no longer pulling on the connector.  Hopefully we won't see ETMX misbehaving as often now, so we won't have to go squish cables as often.

  10580   Tue Oct 7 19:40:58 2014 ericqUpdateLSCCM, REFL11 Wiring

I've changed the LSC rack wiring a little bit, to give us some flexibility when it comes to REFL11. 

Previous, the REFL11 demod I output was fed straight to the CM servo board, and the slow CM board output was hooked up to the REFL11I ADC channel. Thus, it wasn't really practical to ever even look at sensing angles in REFL11, since the I and Q inputs were subject to different signal paths/gains. (Also, doing LSC offsets would do wonky things to refl11 depending on the state of the switches on the CM board screen.)

Thus, I've hooked up the CM board slow output into the the previously existing, aptly named, CM_SLOW channel. The REFL11 demod board I output is split to IN1 of the CM board, and the REFL11 I ADC channel. 

So, there is no longer hidden behavior in behind the REFL11 input filters, channels are what they claim to be, and the CM board output is just as easily accessible to the LSC filters as before. 

  10581   Wed Oct 8 03:20:46 2014 JenneUpdateLSCDo we need AO for acquisition?

As part of trying to determine whether we require the AO path for lock acquisition, or if we can survive on just digital loops, I looked at the noise suppression that we can get with a digital loop.

I took a spectrum of POX, and calibrated it using a line driving ETMX to match the ALSX_FINE_PHASE_OUT_HZ channel, and then I converted green Hz to meters. 

I then undid the LSC loop that was engaged at the time (XARM FMs 1,2,3,4,5,8 and the pendulum plant), to infer the free running arm motion. 

I also applied the ALS filters (CARM FMs 1,2,3,5,6) and the pendulum plant to the free running noise to infer what we expect we could do with the current digital CARM filters assuming we were not sensor noise limited.

In the figure, we see that the free running arm displacement is inferred to be about 0.4 micrometers RMS.  The in-loop POX signal is 0.4 picometers RMS, which (although it's in-loop, so we're not really that quiet) is already better than 1/10th the coupled cavity linewidth.  Also, the CARM filters that we use for the ALS lock, and also the sqrtInvTrans lock are able to get us down to about 1 pm RMS, although that is not including sensor noise issues. 

EstimatedNoisePerformance.png

For reference, here are the open loop gains for the LSC filters+pendulum and ALS filters+pendulum that we're currently using.  The overall gain of these loops have been set so the UGF is 150Hz.

 BodeLSCvsALS.png

It seems to me that as long as our sensors are good enough, we should be able to keep the arm motion down to less than 1/10th or 1/20th the coupled cavity linewidth with only the digital system.  So, we should think about working on that rather than focusing on engaging the AO path for a while.

Attachment 3: CARMnoise_7Oct2014.zip
  10582   Wed Oct 8 03:37:44 2014 ericqUpdateLSCPRFPMI, other sign of CARM offset

 [ericq, Jenne]

We attempted some of the same old CARM offset reduction tonight, but from the other direction. (We have no direct knowledge of which is the spring and which is the anti-spring side)

We we able to get to, and sit at, arm powers on the order of 5. Really, we kind of wanted just to push things to try and inform our current ideas of what our limiting factor is, so as to appropriately expend our efforts. 

Candidates include:

  • ALS noise causing excess DARM motion
    • Means we need to DRMI to widen DARM linewidth, avoid sign flip in AS55, IR lock DARM sooner
  • Intolerable sensor noise makes CARM wander too much, changing our plant more than our loops can handle
    • We should work on having live calibrated CARM spectra during lock attempts, to compare with Jenne's noise estimates, and see where/how/why we exceed it. 
  • detuned CARM pole causes loop instability
    • Maybe some sort of notching can get us by
    • AO path could extend bandwidth, getting the pole into the control band 
  • SqrtInv signals losing low frequency sensitivity due to radiation pressure, or DC sensitivity due to transmission curve flattening out
    • Bring in AO path for supplementary bandwidth, which lets us turn up loop gain / engage big boosts
    • Or, switch to REFLDC in digital land, which is nontrivial, due to different optical plant shapes.

We took many digital CARM OLTFs at different offsets; it never really looked like a burgeoning pole was about to make things unstable. The low frequency OLTF data had bad SNR, so it wasn't clear if we were losing gain there. We weren't at arm powers where we would expect the DC transmission curve to flatten out yet, from simulations (which is above a few tens).

My impression from at least our last lock loss was a DARM excursion. However, using the DRMI won't get rid of the second two points.

 

  10583   Wed Oct 8 03:49:42 2014 JenneUpdateLSCPRFPMI, other sign of CARM offset

Other thoughts from talking with Rana earlier:

  • Is it possible to suppress CARM motion enough that we can use just a digital loop?  Can we do without the AO path?  What would said digital loop have to look like?
  • Q points out that there is a zero in the relative transfer function between CARM to transmission, and CARM to REFLDC.  Is that zero invertible?
  • We should look at some limits, like saturation limits.  How much will we need to actuate?
  • Rana is looking at making a more detailed CARM loop model in simulink to see if we can stay stable throughout our CARM offset reduction journey.

Also, Q and I squished on the suspension connectors earlier tonight.  MC2 was going wonky, which we feared might be because we were in that area working on Chiara earlier.  Then, after squishing the MC connectors, the PRM started misbehaving, so we went and gave all the corner suspension connectors another squish.  No suspension glitching problems since then.

  10589   Thu Oct 9 16:31:53 2014 ericqUpdateLSCCARM W/N TFs

In my previous simulation results, I've always plotted W/m, which isn't exactly straightforward. We often think about the displacement that a given mirror actuator output will induce, but when we're locking the full IFO, radiation pressure effects modify the mechanical response depending on the current detuning, making the meaning of W/m transfer functions a little fuzzy.

So, I've redone my MIST simulations to report Watts of signal response due to actual actuator newtons, which is what we actually control with the digital system. Note, however, that these Watts are those that would be sensed by a detector directly at the given port, and doesn't take into account the power reduction from in-air beamsplitters, etc.

As an example, here are the SqrtInv and REFLDC CARM TFs for the anti-spring case:

carm2SQRTinv.pdfcarm2REFLDC.pdf

 

The units of the SqrtInv plot are maybe a little weird, these TFs are the exact shape of the TRX W/N TFs with the DC value adjusted by the ratio of the DC sweep derivatives of TRX and SqrtInv. 

All of the results live in /svn/trunk/modeling/PRFPMI_radpressure/

 

  10591   Thu Oct 9 18:30:59 2014 JenneUpdateLSCCARM W/N TFs

Okay, here (finally) is the optickle version.

I have the antispring case, starting at 501pm and going roughly every 10pm down to 1pm.  I also have the spring case, starting at -501pm and going down every 10pm to roughly -113pm.  Rossa crashed partway through the calculation, which is why it's not all the way.

In the .zip is a .mat file called PDs_vs_CARMoffset_WattsPerNewton.mat, which has (a) a list of the 50 CARM offsets, (b) a frequency vector, and (c) several transfer function arrays.  The transfer function arrays are supposed to be intuitively named, eg. REFLDC_antispring. 

In the .zip file are also the original .mat files that are a result of the tickle calculations, as well as a .m file for loading them and making the plots, etc.  For anyone who is trying to re-create the transfer function variables, I by-hand saved the variable called PD_WperN to the names like REFLDC_antispring.  Just kidding.  Those original mat files are over 100Mb each, and that's just crazy.  Anyhow, I think the .zip has everything needed to use the data from these plots.

Anyhow.  Here are plots of what are in the various transfer function arrays:

 TRX_antispring.pngTRX_spring.png

REFLDC_antispring.pngREFLDC_spring.png

REFL11I_antispring.pngREFL11I_spring.png

Attachment 6: ForElog.zip
  10593   Fri Oct 10 00:20:37 2014 ranaUpdateLSCCARM W/N TFs

 

 Assuming that these Watts/Newtons TFs are correct, I've modeled the resulting open loop gain for CARM. The goal is to design a loop that is stable under a wide range of offsets and also has enough low frequency gain.

The attached PDF shows this. I used a CARM OLG Simulink model:

carm40.png

I've replaced the 'armTF' block with a digital gain of zero. After measuring the open loop gain of all but this piece, I multiply that 'OLG' with the W/N that Jenne extracted from Optickle for CARM->TR (not sqrtInv)

I plot the resulting estimate of the actual OLG in the following plot. Since the CARM-RSE peak is moving down, we use the LP filter that Den installed for us several months ago. To account for the radiation pressure spring, we use some low frequency boosts but not the crazy FM4 filter.

As you can see, the loop is stable from 500 to 200 pm, but then goes unstable around 110 pm. I expect that we will want to do some fancy shaping there or switch from TRX+TRY into something else.

This assumes we have filters 0, 1, 3, 5, and 7 on in the CARM filter bank - still need to add the digital AA/AI to make the loop phase lag a little more accruate, but I think this is looking promising.

 

Attachment 2: carm.pdf
carm.pdf
  10594   Fri Oct 10 03:05:09 2014 ericqUpdateLSCWhich side of optical spring are we on?

 I made some measurements to try and see if any difference could be seen with different CARM offset signs. 

Specifically, at various offsets, I used a spare DAC channel to drive IN1 of the CM board, as an "AO Exciter." I used CM_SLOW to monitor the signal that was actually on the board. I used the CARM_IN1 error signal to see how the optical plant responded to the AO excitation. Rather than a swept sine, I used a noise injection kind of TF measurement. 

Here are plots of CARM_IN1 / CM_SLOW at different CARM FM offsets; I chose to plot this in an attempt to divide out some of the common things like AA and delays and make the detuned CARM pole more evident). The offsets chosen correspond roughly to powers of 2, 2.5, and 3. I tried to go higher than that, but didn't remain locked for long enough to measure the TF. 

comparison.pdf

By eye, I don't see much of a difference. We can zpk fit the data, and see what happens. 

 

  10595   Fri Oct 10 03:25:11 2014 JenneUpdateLSCWhich side of optical spring are we on (simulation)

I have a simulated version of the differences that we expect to see between the 2 different sides of the CARM resonance.  The point is that we can try to compare these results with Q's measured results (elog 10594) to see if we know if we are on the spring or antispring side.


I calculated the same transfer functions vs CARM offset again, although tonight I do it in steps of 20pm because I was getting bored of waiting forever.  Anyhow, this is important because my previous post (elog 10591) didn't have spring side calculations all the way down to 1pm.

This is similarly true for that elog 10591, but here are some notes on how I am currently getting the W/N units out of Optickle.  First of all, I am still using old Optickle1.  I don't know if there are significant units ramifications for that, but just in case I'll write it down.  Nic tells me that to get [W/N] out of Optickle1, I need to multiply sigAC (units of [W/m]) by my simple pendulum (units of [m/N]).  Both of these "meters" in the last sentence are "mevans meters", which are the meters you would get per actuation if radiation pressure didn't exist.  So, I guess they're supposed to cancel out?  I need to camp out in Nic's office until I figure this out and get it untangled in my head.

Plots of transfer functions for both sides of CARM resonance (same as prev. elog), as well as the ratio between the spring and antispring transfer functions at each CARM offset:

TFs_TRX_vsCARMoffset_PRFPMI_antispring.pngTFs_TRX_vsCARMoffset_PRFPMI_spring.pngTFs_TRX_vsCARMoffset_PRFPMI_differentials.png

 

TFs_REFLDC_vsCARMoffset_PRFPMI_antispring.pngTFs_REFLDC_vsCARMoffset_PRFPMI_spring.pngTFs_REFLDC_vsCARMoffset_PRFPMI_differentials.png

TFs_REFL11I_vsCARMoffset_PRFPMI_antispring.pngTFs_REFL11I_vsCARMoffset_PRFPMI_spring.pngTFs_REFL11_vsCARMoffset_PRFPMI_differentials.png

The take-away message from the 3rd column is that other than a sign flip, we don't expect to see very much difference between the 2 sides of the CARM resonance, particularly above a few hundred Hz.  (Note that we do not see the sign flip in Q's measurements because he is looking at CARM_IN1, which is after the input matrix, and the input matrix elements have opposite signs between the signs of the CARM offsets.  So, the sign flip between spring and antispring around the UGF is implied in the measurements, just not explicit).

Also, something that Rana pointed out to me, and I still don't know why it's true:  The antispring transfer functions (at least for the transmission) don't have all the phase features that we expect to see based on their magnitudes.  If you look at the TRX antispring plot, blue trace (which is about 500pm from resonance), you'll see that the magnitude starts flat at DC, has some slope in an intermediate region, and then at high frequencies has 1/f^2.  However, the phase seems to not know about this intermediate region, and magically waits until the 1kHz resonance to flip the full 180 degrees. 

Attachment 10: ForElog_9Oct2014.zip
  10598   Mon Oct 13 12:01:28 2014 ericqUpdateLSCWhich side of optical spring are we on?

 I went back into the DQ channels to look at the TF from AO injection to REFLDC (which is easy to do with this kind of noise injection TF).  

AOInjection_SqrtInv_REFLDC.png

I fear that REFL does not seem to have as much phase under the resonance as we have modeled, lacking about 10-20 degrees. This could result from the zero in the REFL DC response that we've modeled at ~200ish Hz is actually higher. I'll look into what affects the frequency of that feature. 

It is, of course, possible, that this measurement doesn't properly cancel out the various digital effects, but the REFLDC phase curves do seem to settle to (+/-) 90 after the pole as expected. 

DTT XML file is attached. 

Attachment 2: AOinjection_SqrtInv_REFLDC.xml.zip
  10603   Mon Oct 13 21:20:56 2014 JenneUpdateLSCWhich side of optical spring are we on? (No progress)

[Jenne, Diego]

In order to distinguish between the spring and antispring sides of the CARM resonance, we need to have transfer function measurements down to at least 100 Hz (although lower is better). 

We tried to get some transfer functions the same way Q did, but noticed that (a) we couldn't get any low frequency coherence, and (b) that when we increased the amplitude of the white (well, lowpass at 5kHz) noise, the coherence between the AO injection and REFL DC went down.  Not clear why this is.

Anyhow, we tried taking good ol' fashioned swept sine transfer functions, although eventually the lightbulb came on that the AO path has a highpass in it.  Duh, Jenne.  So, we started trying to actuate on MC2 position rather than the AO path laser frequency.  We didn't get too far though before El Salvadore decided to have a few 7.4 earthquakes.  We're bored of aftershocks knocking us out of lock, so we're going to come back to this tomorrow.

 

  10607   Wed Oct 15 02:58:03 2014 JenneUpdateLSCWhich side of optical spring are we on?

Some measurements.  Unclear meaning.  

We tried both positive and negative numbers in the CARM offset, and then looked at transfer functions at various arm powers. The hope is to be able to compare these with some simulation to figure out which side of the CARM resonance we are on.

The biggest empirical take-away is that we repeatedly (3 times in a row) lost lock when holding at arm powers of about 5 with negative CARM offsets.  However, we were repeatedly (2+ times tonight) able to sit and hold at arm powers of 10+ with positive CARM offsets.

 

 

 

I am not sure that we get enough information out of these plots to tell us which side of the CARM resonance we are really on.  Q is working on taking some open loop CARM measurements (actuating and measuring at SUS-MC2_LSC) to see if we can compare those more directly to Rana's plots.

Positive number in the digital CARM offset:

PRFPMI_MC2injection_PosCARMoffset_REFLDC_TRX_response_14Oct2014_TRX.pdf

PRFPMI_MC2injection_PosCARMoffset_REFLDC_TRX_response_14Oct2014_REFLDC.pdf

Negative numbers in digital CARM offset:

PRFPMI_MC2injection_NegCARMoffset_REFLDC_TRX_response_14Oct2014_TRX.pdf

PRFPMI_MC2injection_NegCARMoffset_REFLDC_TRX_response_14Oct2014_REFLDC.pdf

  10608   Wed Oct 15 02:59:04 2014 ranaUpdateLSCCARM W/N TFs

 In my previous elog in this thread, I showed the CARM OLG given some new digital filters and the varying CARM plant (spring side, not anti-spring). Jenne has subsequently produced the TFs for all of the rest of the CARM offsets.

These attached plots for several CARM offsets show that the anti-spring side is much more stable than the spring side and so we should use that. Annecadotedally, we think that positive CARM offsets are more stable when going to arm powers of > 10, so perhaps this means that +CARM = -SPRING.

The first PDF shows the spring OLGs and the 2nd one shows the antispring OLGs. I have put in some gain changes to keep the UGF approximately the same as the offset is changed.

The PDF thumbnails will become visible once Q and Diego install the new nodus.

 UPDATE OCt 16: this is all wrong! bad conversion of filters within the invbilinear.m function.

Attachment 1: spring.pdf
spring.pdf
Attachment 2: antispring.pdf
antispring.pdf
ELOG V3.1.3-