40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 213 of 341  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Categoryup Subject
  10637   Fri Oct 24 02:14:05 2014 JenneUpdateLSCIncreased DARM gain even more

[Jenne, Diego]

We spent the afternoon working on the new scan for IR resonance script.  It is getting much closer, although we need to work on a plan for the fine scanning at the end - so far, the result from the wavelet thing mis-estimates the true peak phase, and so if we jump to where it recommends, we are only at about half of the arm resonance.  So, in progress, but moving forward.

Tonight we repeated the process of reducing the CARM offset and measuring the DARM loop gain as we went.  I'm not sure if I just had the wrong numbers yesterday, or if the gains are changing day-by-day.  The gains that it wanted at given arm buildups were constant throughout this evening, but they are about a factor of 2 higher than yesterday.  If they really do change, we may need to implement a UGF servo for DARM.  New gains are in the carm_cm_up script.

We also actually saved our DARM loop measurements as a function of CARM offset (as indicated by arm buildups).  The loop stays the same through arm powers of 4.  However, once we get to arm powers of 6, the magnitude around 100 Hz starts to flatten out, and we get some weird features in the phase.  It's almost like the phase bubble has a peak growing out of it.  I saw these yesterday, and they just keep getting more pronounced as we go up to arm powers of 7, 8 and 9 (where we lost lock during the measurement).  The very last point in the power=9 trace was just before/during the lockloss, so I don't know if we trust it, or if it is real and telling us something important.  But, I think that it's time to see about getting both CARM and DARM onto a different set of error signals now that we're at about 100pm.

 DARM_23Oct2014.pdf

  10641   Mon Oct 27 19:15:54 2014 ericqUpdateLSCTrying to PRMI on 165

I spent some time trying to debug our inability to get MICH onto REFL165Q while the arms are held off with ALS, to no real success. 

I set up our usual repeatable situation of PRMI on 33 I&Q, arms held off with ALS. I figured that it may help to first sideband lock on REFL55, since 165 is looking for the f2 sidebands and maybe there is some odd offset between the locking points for f1 and f2 or other weirdness. 


REFL 55 settings:

Demod angle 98->126 (was previously set for PRY locking)

PRCL = 0.5 * REFL55 I (UGF of ~200 Hz) (FM gain unchanged from REFL33 situation of -0.02)

MICH = 0.125 * REFL55 Q (UGF of ~60Hz) (same FM gain as 33)

Some REFL55 offset adjusting had to be done in order to not disturb the 33-initiated lock when handing off. 

I also adjusted POP110 phase to zero the Q when locked, and switched the triggering over to 110I


The PRMI can acquire lock like this with arms held off with ALS, no problem. 

Here, I tried to hop over to 165. PRCL was no problem, needing a +1 on 165I. However, I had no success in handing off MICH.   I twiddled many knobs, but none that provably helped. 

I saw indications that the sensing angle in 165 is small (~20deg), which is not consistent with current knowledge of the cavity lengths. We last interferometrically measured the PRC length by letting the PRMI swing and looking at sideband splitting in POP110. At LLO, they did a length measurement by looking at demod angle differences in PRMI carrier vs. sideband locking. (alog8562) This might be worth checking out...

  10649   Wed Oct 29 03:33:38 2014 ericqUpdateLSCTrying to PRMI on 165

 

Short report: Further frustrated by 165 tonight. The weird thing is, the procedure I'm trying with the arms held off on ALS (i.e. excitation line in MICH and PRCL, adjust relative gains to make the signs and magnitudes mach, ezcastep over) works flawlessly with the ETMs misaligned. One can even acquire SB PRMI lock on 165 I&Q, with 80-90 degrees of demod angle between MICH and PRCL. The only real difference in REFL55 settings for misaligned vs. ALS-offset arms is an extra factor of two in the FM gains to maintain the same UGF, so I hoped that the matrix elements for 165 with misaligned arms would hold for ALS-offset arms. 

Alas, no such fortune. I still have no clear explanation for why we can't get MICH on 165Q with the arms held off on ALS. 

I also gave a quick try to measuring the PRCL->REFL55 demod phase difference between carrier and sideband lock (with arms misaligned), and got something on the order of 55 degrees, which really just makes me think I wasn't well set up / aligned, rather than actually conveying information about the PRC length...

  10652   Thu Oct 30 01:21:37 2014 JenneUpdateLSCNo MICH in REFL165

[Koji, Jenne, Diego]

Summary:  We really don't have any MICH signal in REFL 165.  Why is still a mystery.

We made several transfer function measurements while PRMI was locked on REFL33 with the arms held off resonance, and compared those to the case where the ETMs are misaligned.  We fine-tuned the REFL165 demod phase looking at the transfer function between 10-300 Hz (using bandpassed white noise injected in the MICH FF filter bank and looking at REFL165Q), rather than just a single line.  We did that at CARM offset of 3 counts (ALS locked), and then saw that as we reduced the CARM offset, the coherence between MICH injection and REFL165Q just goes down.  Any signal that is there seems to be dominated by PRCL. 

So, we're not sure why having the arms eats the MICH 165 signal, but it does.  Everyone should dream tonight about how this could happen. 

Koji suggested that if the signal is just lost in the noise, perhaps we could increase our modulation depth for 55MHz (currently at 0.26, a pretty beefy number already).  Alternatively, if instead the problem is that the MICH signal has rotated to be in line with the PRCL signal, there may be no hope (also, why would this happen?).

Anyhow, we'd like to understand why we don't have any MICH signal in REFL165 when the arm cavities are involved, but until we come up with a solution we'll stick with REFL33 and see how far that gets us. 

The only really worthwhile plot that I've got saved is the difference in these transfer functions when PRMI-only locked and PRMI+arms locked.  Green is PRMI-only, with the demod phase optimized by actuating on PRM and minimizing the peak in the Q signal.  Blue is PRMI with the arms held off resonance using the ALS signals, with the demod phase set again, in the same way.  We were expecting (at least, hoping) that the blue transfer function would have the same shape as the green, but clearly it doesn't.  The dip that is around 45 Hz can be moved by rotating the demod phase, which changes how much PRCL couples into the Q phase.  Weird.  At ~3nm we had somewhat reasonable coherence to RELF165Q, and were able to pick -102deg as the demod phase where the dip just disappears.  However, as the CARM offset is reduced, we lost coherence in the transfer functions.

MICH_to_REFL165_29Oct2014.pdf

  10654   Thu Oct 30 02:54:38 2014 diegoUpdateLSCIR Resonance Script Status

[Diego, Jenne]

The script is moving forward and we feel we are close, however we still have a couple of issues, which are:

1) some python misbehaviour between the system environment and the anaconda one; currently we call bash commands within the python script in order to avoid using the ezca library, which is the one complaining;

2) the fine scan is somewhat not so robust yet, need to investigate more; the main suspects are the wavelet parameters given to the algorithm, and the Offset and Ramp parameters used to perform the scan.

Here is an example of a best case scenario, with 20s ramp and 500 points:

 

Attachment 1: AllPython_findIRresonance_WL_X_ramp_20_500_2.png
AllPython_findIRresonance_WL_X_ramp_20_500_2.png
Attachment 2: AllPython_findIRresonance_WL_Y_ramp_20_500_2.png
AllPython_findIRresonance_WL_Y_ramp_20_500_2.png
Attachment 3: AllPython_findIRresonance_WL_ramp_20_500_2.png
AllPython_findIRresonance_WL_ramp_20_500_2.png
  10656   Fri Oct 31 02:19:37 2014 ericqUpdateLSCSome SRMI progress

Earlier today, I did some simulations that suggested that PRC lengths on the order of a cm from our current estimated one could result in degenerate PRCL and MICH signals in REFL165 at 3nm CARM offset. I attempted more demod-angle derived cavity PRC length measurements with REFL11 and REFL55, but they weren't consistent with each other...

In any case, adding dual recycling, even with a SRC length off by 1cm in either direction, doesn't seem to exhibit the same possibility, so I spent some time tonight seeing if I could make any progress towards DRMI locking. 

I was able to lock SRY using AS55 in a very similar manner to PRY, after adjusting the AS55 demod angle to get the error signal entirely in I. I used this configuration to align the SRM to the previously aligned BS and ITMY. Oddly, I was not able to do anything with SRX as I had hoped; the error signal looks very strange, looking more like abs(error signal). 

I then was able to lock the SRMI on AS55 I & Q, the settings have been saved in the IFO configure screen.  I've used AS55Q for PRMI locking with a gain of -0.2, so I started with that; the final gain ended up being -0.6. PRMI/PRY gain for prcl is something like 0.01, so since I used a gain of 2 for locking SRX, I started the SRCL gain around 0.02, the final gain ended up being -0.03. I basically just guessed a sign for AS110 triggering. Once I lucked upon a rough lock, I excited the PRM to tune the AS55 angle a few degrees; it was luckily quite close already from the SRY adjustment. AS110 needed a bigger adjustment to get the power into I. (AS55: -40.25->-82.25, AS110: 145->58, but I put AS55 back for PRMI)

I briefly tried locking the DRMI, but I was really just shooting in the dark. I went back and measured various sensing amplitudes/angles in SRMI and PRMI configurations; I'm hoping that I may be able to simulate the right gains/angles for eventual DRMI locking.

  10660   Sat Nov 1 02:13:11 2014 KojiConfigurationLSCLSC settings

I'm leaving the iFO now. It is left with the IR arm mode.

I pretty much messed up LSC configurations for my DRMI locking. If one needs to recover the previous setting, use burtrestore.
I have all records of my LSC settings, so you don't need to preserve it. (Of course we can always use the hourly snapshots
to come back this DRMI setting)

 

  10661   Sat Nov 1 16:06:32 2014 KojiConfigurationLSCDRMI locked

Continued from ELOG 10659


DRMI locking

Following Jenne's elog entry in Aug 2013 (9049), DRMI was configured and locked. The lock was stable, indefinite, and repeatitive.

- DRMI Configuration

Demod phases has not been changed from PRMI

REFL11: WTN 0dB PHASE 21deg, REFL11I x0.1 -> PRCL
REFL55: WTN 21dB PHASE 25deg, REFL55Q x1 -> MICH, REFL55I x1 -> SRCL

AS110 phase was adjusted to maximize Q during the lock: +1deg (AS110Q_ERR was +4400 ~ +5500)

PRCL: GAIN -0.05 FM4/5 ON, Triggered FM 2/3/6/9, Servo trigger: POP22I 20up 10down, No Normaization.
MICH: GAIN +1 FM4/5 ON, Triggered FM 2/3/6/9, Servo trigger: POP22I 20up 10down, No Normaization.

SRCL: GAIN +2 FM4/5 ON, Triggered FM2/3/6/8/9, Servo trigger: AS110Q up 500 down 5, No Normaization.
(FM8 was set to be x2.5 flat gain such that the gain is increased after the lock)

MICH actuation is still BS+PRM and does not include SRCL decoupling yet.
This should be fixed ASAP.

DRMI Calibration

Let's use these entries 

SRM: http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/10664
SRM = (19.0 +/- 0.7) x 10 -9/ f2

PRM: http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/8255
PRM:  (19.6 +/- 0.3) x 10 -9 / f2 m/counts

BS/ITMs http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/8242
BS     = (20.7 +/- 0.1)    x 10 -9 / f2 m/counts
ITMX = (4.70 +/- 0.02)  x 10 -9/ f2
m/counts
ITMY = (4.66 +/- 0.02) x 10 -9/ f2
m/counts

- PRCL Calibration

Lock-in oscillator module 675.13Hz 100 -> +1 PRM

Measurement bandwidth 0.1Hz -> Signal power BW 0.471232 (FLATTOP window)

C1:SUS-PRM_LSC_IN1: 97.45 cnt/rtHz => 4.19 pm/rtHz

REFL11I: 12.55   cnt/rtHz => 3.00e12 cnt/m
REFL11Q:  0.197  cnt/rtHz => 4.70e10 cnt/m
=> 0.90 deg rotated! (GOOD)

REFL33I:  1.63   cnt/rtHz => 3.89e11 cnt/m
REFL33Q:  0.196  cnt/rtHz => 4.68e10 cnt/m
=> 8.32 deg rotated!

REFL55I:  0.0495 cnt/rtHz => 1.18e10 cnt/m
REFL55Q:  0.548  cnt/rtHz => 1.31e11 cnt/m => 84.8 deg rotated! (WHAT!)

REFL165I: 1.20   cnt/rtHz => 2.86e11 cnt/m
REFL165Q: 0.458  cnt/rtHz => 1.09e11 cnt/m
=> 20.9 deg rotated!

- MICH Calibration

Lock-in oscillator module 675.13Hz 100 -> -1 ITMX +1 ITMY

Measurement bandwidth 0.1Hz -> Signal power BW 0.471232 (FLATTOP window)

C1:SUS-ITMX_LSC_IN1: 121.79 cnt/rtHz => 1.26pm/rtHz
C1:SUS-ITMY_LSC_IN1: 121.79 cnt/rtHz => 1.25pm/rtHz

AS55Q:   12.45   cnt/rtHz => 4.96e12 cnt/m (STRONG)

REFL11I:  0.0703 cnt/rtHz => 2.80e10 cnt/m
REFL11Q:  0.0142 cnt/rtHz => 5.66e09 cnt/m
=> 78.5 deg rotated! (WHAT!)

REFL33I:  0.0473 cnt/rtHz => 1.88e10 cnt/m
REFL33Q:  0.0291 cnt/rtHz => 1.16e10 cnt/m => 58.4 deg rotated!

REFL55I:  0.00668cnt/rtHz => 2.66e09 cnt/m
REFL55Q:  0.0261 cnt/rtHz => 1.04e10 cnt/m => 14.4 deg rotated! (OK)

REFL165I: 0.0233 cnt/rtHz => 9.28e09 cnt/m
REFL165Q: 0.0512 cnt/rtHz => 2.04e10 cnt/m => 24.5 deg rotated! (GOOD)

- SRCL Calibration

Lock-in oscillator module 675.13Hz 100 -> SRM

Measurement bandwidth 0.1Hz -> Signal power BW 0.471232 (FLATTOP window)

C1:SUS-SRM_LSC_IN1: 121.77 cnt/rtHz => 5.08pm/rtHz

AS55I:    0.256   cnt/rtHz => 5.05e10 cnt/m
AS55Q:    0.3498  cnt/rtHz => 6.90e10 cnt/m

REFL11I:  0.00624 cnt/rtHz => 1.23e09 cnt/m
REFL11Q:  0.00204 cnt/rtHz => 4.02e08 cnt/m

REFL33I:  0.00835 cnt/rtHz => 1.65e09 cnt/m
REFL33Q:  0.0659  cnt/rtHz => 1.30e10 cnt/m

REFL55I:  0.0201  cnt/rtHz => 3.97e09 cnt/m
REFL55Q:  0.01505 cnt/rtHz => 2.97e09 cnt/m

REFL165I: 0.0238  cnt/rtHz => 4.69e09 cnt/m
REFL165Q: 0.0247  cnt/rtHz => 4.87e09 cnt/m

DRMI Openloop measurements
Servo filter TF measurements

The UGFs were ~250Hz for PRCL and ~100Hz for MICH, and ~250Hz for SRCL, respectively.
MICH showed (presumably) crosscoupling related peak ~350Hz. SRCL had small deviation from the model.
This may also be related to the cross couplig.

The OLTF was modelled by the servo and violin filters TF from foton, estimated TF of the AA/AI filters, and the constant time delay.

Displacement spectra measurement

- PRCL

The OLTF compensation was not actually succesfull at 300Hz, but otherwise the situation is very similar to the one with PRMI.

- MICH

Again the servo compensation at 300Hz was not successful. If we believe that AS55Q is the best MICH sensor, the out-of-loop
noise level of MICH was quite similar to the one in PRMI. We should try to use AS55Q for DRMI MICH for investigation purpose
to see which REFL signal has the best MICH quality. REFL165 seems to be iproved in the signal amplitude. Can we use this
for locking now?

- SRCL

It is in fact difficult to tell what is the correct out-of-loop noise level. AS55I has too much contamination from MICH and is not indicating
useful info. This measurement should be tried once the sensor diagonalization is done.

REFL55I is not seeing anything real abobe 30Hz. We should be able to reduce the UGF and the servo gain.

The absolute motion level of SRCL is something similar to PRCL, rather than MICH.

 

Attachment 1: DRMI_PRCL_OLTF.pdf
DRMI_PRCL_OLTF.pdf
Attachment 2: DRMI_MICH_OLTF.pdf
DRMI_MICH_OLTF.pdf
Attachment 3: DRMI_SRCL_OLTF.pdf
DRMI_SRCL_OLTF.pdf
Attachment 4: DRMI_PRCL_SPE.pdf
DRMI_PRCL_SPE.pdf
Attachment 5: DRMI_MICH_SPE.pdf
DRMI_MICH_SPE.pdf
Attachment 6: DRMI_SRCL_SPE.pdf
DRMI_SRCL_SPE.pdf
  10664   Mon Nov 3 17:56:57 2014 KojiUpdateLSCSRM calibration

SRM Calibration

After the DRMI measurements on Friday, SRY cavity was locked in order to compare ITMY and SRM actuators.

SRY cavity was locked with AS55Q ->  SRM servo with gain of +10?
(My memory is fading. I tried +50 and noticed it was saturated at the limiter. So I thought it was 10)

Then the transfer functions between SRM->AS55Q TF and ITMY->AS55Q TF were measured.

The ratio between two transfer functions was obtained as seen in the second attachment.
The average at f<100Hz was 4.07 +/- 0.15. Therefore the calibration is ... as you can find below


SRM: http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/10664
SRM = (19.0 +/- 0.7) x 10 -9/ f2

PRM: http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/8255
PRM:  (19.6 +/- 0.3) x 10 -9 / f2 m/counts

BS/ITMs http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/8242
BS     = (20.7 +/- 0.1)    x 10 -9 / f2 m/counts
ITMX = (4.70 +/- 0.02)  x 10 -9/ f2
m/counts
ITMY = (4.66 +/- 0.02) x 10 -9/ f2
m/counts

Attachment 1: SRY_SRM_CALIB_RAW.pdf
SRY_SRM_CALIB_RAW.pdf
Attachment 2: SRY_SRM_CALIB.pdf
SRY_SRM_CALIB.pdf
  10668   Wed Nov 5 01:58:54 2014 ericqUpdateLSC3F RFPD RF spectra

Given the checkout of the aLIGO BBPDs happening (aLOG link), wherein the PDs were acting funny, and Koji has made some measurements determining that intermodulation/nonlinearity of circuitry can corrupt 3F signals, I've made a similar measurement of the RF spectra of REFL165 when we're locked on DRMI using 1F signals. Maybe this could give us insight to our bad luck using REFL165...

In essence, I plugged the RF output of the PD into an AG4395, through a 10dB attenuator and downloaded the spectrum. I also did REFL33 as a possible comparison and because why not. The attached plots have the 10dB accounted for; the text files do not. 

REFL165 (Exposed PCB BBPD):

REFL165_DRMIspectrum.png

(What is all that crap between 8 and 9 fmod?)

REFL33 (Gold Box resonant RFPD):

REFL33_DRMIspectrum.png

Attachment 1: Nov52014_3fPD_DRMIspectra.zip
  10669   Wed Nov 5 11:09:44 2014 KojiUpdateLSC3F RFPD RF spectra

If you look at the intermodulation at 14 (4+10) and 16 (6+10), 15 (5+10) would make any problem, thanks to the notch at 1f and 5f.

BUT, this absolute level of 165MHz is too tiny for the demodulator. From the level of the demodulated signal, I can say REFL165 has
too little SNR. We want to amplify it before the demodulator.

Can you measure this again with a directional coupler instead of the direct measurement with an attenuator?
The downstream has bunch of non-50Ohm components and may cause unknown effect on the tiny 165MHz signal.
We want to measure the spectrum as close situation as possible to the nominal configuration.

90MHz crap is the amplifier noise due to bad power bypassing or bad circuit shielding.

I have no comment on REFL33 as it has completely different amplification stages.

  10672   Wed Nov 5 18:08:00 2014 ericqUpdateLSCPSL and AUXY beatnote in IR found

Green beatnotes recovered.

It was just a matter of aligning the arm greens and PSL greens on the PSL table. I suppose something knocked the PSL alignment out of whack... I was also able to simultaneously see the green beatnote and IR beatnote respond to Yend laser temperature. 

Locked arms on POX/POY, checked RMS of ALS-BEAT[X/Y]_FINE_PHASE_OUT_HZ channels. 

  • ALSY: 300Hz RMS
  • ALSX: 700Hz RMS

These seem fine. Locked CARM and DARM on ALS, found IR resonances. 

ALS is back in business 

  10673   Wed Nov 5 22:25:42 2014 ericqUpdateLSC3F RFPD RF spectra

 

Now that I have followed the chain, the PD signal is indeed being amplified at the LSC rack. It goes into a ZFL-1000LN+ amplifier (~23dB gain at 165MHz and 15V supply), followed by a SHP-100 high pass filter, and then enters the RF IN of the demod board. 

I repeated the measurement in two spots.

First, I took a spectrum of the RF MON of the REFL165 demod board during DRMI lock; this was input-referred by adding 20dBm. 

Second, I inserted a ZFDC-10-5 coupler between the high pass and the RF input of the demod board. This was input-referred by adding 10dBm. 

REFL165_demod_DRMIspectrum.png

My calibration isn't perfect; the peaks above the high pass corner seem to be different by a consistent amount, but within a few dBm. 

Thus, it looks like the demod board is getting a little under -40dBm of 165MHz signal at its input. 

  10674   Thu Nov 6 01:48:30 2014 diegoUpdateLSCIR Resonance Script Status

 Tonight I tried some more tests on the script; it seems to work better, with both performance and robustness improved, although the Xarm behaved badly almost all the time. I did not perform all the tests I wanted because the ALS lock was pretty unstable tonight (not only because of the X arm), with more than a few lock losses; after the last lock loss, however, I couldn't restore the Xarm. I'll do some more tests as soon I can recover it, or post the result of the first batch of tests.

In addition, I encountered the following error multiple times, but I have no idea about what could it be:

Thu Nov 06 02:00:13 PST 2014
medmCAExceptionHandlerCb: Channel Access Exception:
Channel Name: Unavailable
Native Type: Unavailable
Native Count: 0
Access: Unavailable
IOC: Unavailable
Message: Virtual circuit disconnect
Context: fb.martian.113.168.192.in-addr.arpa:5064
Requested Type: TYPENOTCONN
Requested Count: 0
Source File: ../cac.cpp
Line number: 1214
 

  10675   Thu Nov 6 01:58:55 2014 KojiUpdateLSC3F RFPD RF spectra

Where is the PD out spectrum measured with the coupler???

  10676   Thu Nov 6 03:29:00 2014 diegoUpdateLSCIR Resonance Script Status

EDIT on X arm: I found different settings in C1SUS_ITMX, with respect to ETMX, ITMY and ETMY (namely LSC/DAMP is OFF and LSC/BIAS is ON); I don't know if this is intended or for some reason ITMX was not recovered properly after the lock loss, so I didn't change anything, but it may be worth looking into that.

 

Still no luck in recovering the X arm, I am giving up for tonight; honestly I didn't try many things, as I don't know well the system and didn't want to mess things up.

 

Preliminary results so far:

I confirm that the best settings for the ramp of the ALS scan are 20s and 500 points; this causes however the script to be fairly slow (80s for the scan/data collection, 7s for the coarse peak finding, 17s for the fine peak finding, total ~2 min); in the best cases the TR*_OUT obtained is around 0.90, as shown in the first plot (early in the evening, all the following plots are in chronological order, if that can help finding the reason for the X arm misbehaviour...):

AllPython_findIRresonance_WL_ramp_20_500_0.png

 

However, after a few minutes somehow the TR*_OUT went down a bit, without any kind of intervention; also, it is visible the instability of the X arm:

AllPython_findIRresonance_WL_ramp_20_500_0_1.png

 

Even when X arm was somewhat stable, its performance and robustness were (far) worse than the Y arm ones:

AllPython_findIRresonance_WL_ramp_20_500_6.png

The following plot shows (about the Y arm only) that there is still some margin, as the maximum value of TRY_OUT is not completely kept at the end of the procedure:

AllPython_findIRresonance_WL_ramp_20_500_7_Y_rise.png

 

Finally the last plot I managed to obtain, before the X arm went completely crazy...

AllPython_findIRresonance_WL_ramp_20_500_9.png

 

The next step, after obviously figuring out the X arm situation, is to try some averaging during the fine scan, I don' t know if this will improve the situation, however it shouldn't impact on the execution time. Tomorrow I'll post something more detailed on the script itself and the wavelet implementation.

  10679   Thu Nov 6 11:49:58 2014 ericqUpdateLSC3F RFPD RF spectra

Quote:

Where is the PD out spectrum measured with the coupler???

 The "coupled" port of the coupler went to the AG4395 input, the output of the Highpass is connected to the "IN", and the "OUT" goes to the demod board. 

  10682   Thu Nov 6 14:41:49 2014 KoijUpdateLSC3F RFPD RF spectra

That's not what I'm asking.

Also additional cables are left connected to the signal path. I removed it.

  10683   Fri Nov 7 02:21:12 2014 ericqUpdateLSC3F RFPD RF spectra

 

After some enlightening conversation with Koji, we figured that the RF amplifier in the REFL165 chain is probably being saturated (the amp's 1dB compression is at +3dBm, has 23dB gain, and there are multiple lines above -20dBm coming out of the PD). I took a few more spectrum measurements to quantify the consequences, as well as a test with the highpass connected directly to the PD output, that should reduce the power into the amplifier. However, I am leaving everything hooked back up in its original state (and have removed all couplers and analyzers...)

I also took some DRMI sensing measurements. In the simple Michelson configuration, I took TFs of each ITMs motion to AS55Q to make sure the drives were well balanced. They were. Then, in the DRMI, I took swept sine TFs of PRCL, SRCL and differential ITM MICH motion to the Is and Qs of AS55 and all of the REFLs. I constrained the sweeps to 300Hz->2kHz; the loops have some amount of coupling so I wanted to stay out of their bandwidth. I also took a TF of the pure BS motion and BS-PRM MICH to the PDs. From these and future measurements, I hope to pursue better estimates of the sensing matrix elements of the DRMI DoFs, and perhaps the coefficients for compensating both SRCL and PRCL out of BS motion. 

I'm leaving analysis and interpretation for the daytime, and handing the IFO back to Diego...

  10685   Fri Nov 7 14:41:18 2014 ericqUpdateLSC3F RFPD RF spectra

Quote:

 After some enlightening conversation with Koji, we figured that the RF amplifier in the REFL165 chain is probably being saturated.

The measurements I took yesterday bear this out. However, even putting the high-pass directly on the PD output doesn't reduce the signal enough to avoid saturating the amplifier.

We need to think of the right way to get the 165MHz signal at large enough, but undistorted, amplitude to the demod board. 


 The current signal chain looks like:

AS Table                                  LSC RACK
[ PD ]----------------------------------->[ AMP ]------>[ 100MHzHPF ]----->[ DEMOD ]
      (1)                                        (2)                 (3)

I previously made measurements at (3). Let's ignore that. 

Last night, I took measurements with a directional coupler at points (1) and (2), to see the signal levels before and after the amplifier. I divided the spectrum at (2) by the nominal gain of the amplifier, 23.5dB; thus if everything was linear, the spectra would be very similar. This is not the case, and it is evident why. There are multiple signals stronger than -20dBm, and the amplifier has a 1dB compression point of +3dBm, so any one of these lines at 4x, 6x and 10x fMod is enough to saturate. 

 165_ampSaturation.png


I also made a measurement at point 4 in the following arrangement, in an attempt to reduce the signal amplitude incident on the amplifier.  

AS Table                                           LSC RACK
[ PD ]->[ 100MHzHPF ]----------------------------------->[ AMP ]--------->[ DEMOD ] 
                                                                (4) 

 Though the signals below 100MHz are attenuated as expected, the signal at 110MHz is still too large for the amplifier. 

165_HPatPD.png


Minicircuits' SHP-150 only has 13dB suppression at 110MHz, which would not be enough either. SHP-175 has 31dB suppression at 110MHz and 0.82dB at 160MHz, maybe this is what we want.

  10686   Fri Nov 7 16:15:53 2014 JenneUpdateLSC3F RFPD RF spectra

I have found an SHP-150, but no SHP-175's (also, several 200's, and a couple of 500's).

Why do you say the SHP-150 isn't enough?  The blue peak at 10*fmod in your plot looks like it's at -12 dBm.  -13 dB on top of that will leave that peak at -25 dBm.  That should be enough to keep us from saturation, right?  It's not a lot of headroom, but we can give it a twirl until a 175-er comes in.  

Koji also suggests putting in a 110 MHz notch, combined with either an SHP-150 or SHP-175, although we'll have to measure the combined TF to make sure the notch doesn't spoil the high pass's response too much.

Quote:

165_HPatPD.png


Minicircuits' SHP-150 only has 13dB suppression at 110MHz, which would not be enough either. SHP-175 has 31dB suppression at 110MHz and 0.82dB at 160MHz, maybe this is what we want.

 

  10687   Fri Nov 7 17:44:10 2014 diegoUpdateLSCIR Resonance Script Status

Yesterday I did some more tests with a modifies script; the main difference is that scipy's default wavelet implementation is quite rigid, and it allows only very few choices on the wavelet. The main issue is that our signal is a real, always positive symmetrical signal, while wavelets are defined as 0-integral functions, and can be both real or complex, depending on the wavelet; I found a different wavelet implementation, and I combined it with some modified code from the scipy source, in order to be able to select different wavelets. The result is the wavelet_custom.py module, which lives in the same ALS script directory and it is called by the script. In both the script and the module there the references I used while writing them. It is now possible to select almost any wavelet included in this custom module; "almost" means that the scipy code that calls the find_peaks_cwt routine is picky on the input parameters of the wavelet function, I may dig into that later. For the last tests, instead of using a Ricker wavelet (aka Mexican hat, or Derivative of Gaussian Order 2), I used a DOG(6), as it also has two lesser positive lobes, which can help in finding the resonance; the presence of negative lobes is, as I said, unavoidable. I attach an example of the wavelet forms that are possible, and in my opinion, excluding the asymmetric and/or complex ones, the DOG(6) seems the best choice, and it has provided slightly better results. There are other wavelet around, but they are not included in the module so I should implement them myself, I will first see if they seem fitting our case before starting writing them into the module. However, the problem of not finding the perfect working point (the "overshoot-like" plot in my previous elog) is not completely solved. Eric had a good idea about that: during the fine scan, the the PO*11_ERR_DQ signals should be in their linear range, so I could also use them and check their zero crossing to find the optimal working. I will be working on that.

Attachment 1: wavelets.nb.zip
  10689   Sat Nov 8 11:35:05 2014 ranaUpdateLSC3F RFPD RF spectra

 

 I think 'saturation' here is a misleading term to think about. In the RF amplifiers, there is always saturation. What we're trying to minimize is the amount of distorted waveforms appearing at 3f and 15f from the other large peaks. Usually for saturation we are worried about how much the big peak is getting distorted; not the case for us.

  10690   Sat Nov 8 16:01:32 2014 ericqConfigurationLSCDRMI sensing

Here are some preliminary results from the sensing sweeps I did the other night. 

Notes:

  • The analog AS55I signal chain is almost certainly busted in some way. This would also explain the odd looking error signals in SRX, and was actually hypothesized by Koji when discussing the SRX oddness. 
  • I used the same mirror calibration numbers from Koji's recent Elogs to turn these into counts/m.
  • MICH was excited via differential ITM motion.  I also performed a TF with BS driven MICH, with the compensating PRM output matrix in place, and it looks different, but I haven't looked too deeply into it yet. 
  • The angles plotted are in regard to the analog I and Q signals (i.e., I took TFs to I_ERR and Q_ERR and then unrotated by the digital rotation angle); this is why I suspect AS55I is broken, as all of the signals are entirely in the analog Q.
  • The amplitudes seem to be roughly consistent with Koji's recent observations. 
  • I still need to cut out the violin-filter-corrupted data points to quote the sensing elements with error bars...

Plots!

 REFL11.pngREFL33.png

REFL55.pngREFL165.png

AS55.png

xml files, and DttData matlab script used to generate these plots is attached. 

Attachment 6: DRMIsensing.zip
  10692   Mon Nov 10 18:11:57 2014 ericqUpdateLSC3F RFPD RF spectra

 Jenne and I measured the situation using a SHP-150 directly attached to the REFL165 RF output, and at first glance, the magnitude of the 165MHz signal seems to not be distorted by the amplifier. 

 165signals.pdf

We will soon investigate whether 165 signal quality has indeed improved. 

  10693   Mon Nov 10 18:23:10 2014 ericqConfigurationLSCDRMI sensing

ARG, I accidentally permuted the digital demod angles. This significantly weakens the argument for believing AS55I is broken... In fact, Jenne and I did some investigations this afternoon that showed that the channel is indeed working. SRX error signal strangeness remains unexplained, however. 

Also, I have yet to compensate for the gain of the violin filters; the actuator calibration numbers I used were for the SUS-LSC FMs, not the LSC FMs where I was injecting. New measurements will be taken soon, as well, since REFL165 is hopefully improved. 

Corrected plots are below. 

REFL11.pngREFL33.png

REFL55.pngREFL165.png

AS55.png

  10695   Tue Nov 11 01:38:23 2014 KojiUpdateLSCNotch at 110MHz

To further reduce the RF power at 110MHz in the REFL165 chain, I made a twin-t notch in a pomona box.

It is tuned at 110.66MHz.

The inductor is Coil Craft 5mm tunable (164-09A06SL 100-134nH).
Without the 10Ohm resister (like a usual notch), the dip was ~20dB. With this configuration, the notch of -42dB was realized.

Q >> Please measure the RF spectrum again with the notch.

 

Attachment 1: twin_t_notch.pdf
twin_t_notch.pdf
Attachment 2: notch_tf.pdf
notch_tf.pdf
  10696   Tue Nov 11 03:48:46 2014 JenneUpdateLSC3f DRMI

I was able to lock the DRMI on 3f signals this evening, although the loops are not stable, and I can hear oscillations in the speakers.  I think the big key to making this work was the placement of the SHP-150 high pass filter at the REFL165 PD, and also the installation of Koji's 110 MHz notch filter just before the amplifier, which is before the demod board for REFL165.  These were done to prevent RF signal distortion.

DRMI 3f:   With DRMI locked on 1f (MICH gain = 1, PRCL gain = -0.05, SRCL gain = 2, MICH = 1*REFL55Q, PRCL = 0.1*REFL11I, SRCL = 1*REFL165I), I excited lines, and found the signs and values for 3f matrix elements.  I was using the same gains, but MICH = 0.5*REFL165Q, PRCL = 0.8*REFL33I and SRCL = -0.2*REFL165I.  Part of the problem is likely that I need to include off-diagonal elements in the input matrix to remove PRCL from the SRCL error signal. 

With the DRMI locked on 1f, I took a sensing matrix measurement.  I don't think we believe the W/ct of the photodiode calibration (we need to redo this), but otherwise the sensing matrix measurement should be accurate.  Since the calibration of the PDs isn't for sure, the relative magnitude for signals between PDs shouldn't be taken as gospel, but within a single PD they should be fine for comparison. 

As a side note, we weren't sure about the MICH -> ITMs balancing, so we checked during a MICH-only, and with the locking apparatus we are unable to measure a difference between 1's for both ITMs in the output matrix, and 1 for ITMX and 0.99 for ITMY.  So, we can't measure 1% misbalances in the actuator, but we think we're at least pretty close to driving pure MICH. 

We kind of expect that SRCL should only be present in the 55 and 165 PDs, although we see it strongly in all of the REFL PDs.  Also, PRCL and SRCL are not both lined up in the I-phase.  So, I invite other people to check what they think the sensing matrix looks like. 

  • The excitation lines (and matching notches) were on from 12:14am (
  • Nov 11 2014 08:14:00 UTC / GPS 1099728856) to 12:20am (
  •  
  • Nov 11 2014 08:20:00 UTC / GPS 
  • 1099729216) for 360sec. 
  • MICH was driven with 800 counts at 675.13 Hz, with +1*ITMY, -1*ITMX. 
  • PRCL was driven with 1000 counts at 621.13 Hz with the PRM. 
  • SRCL was driven with 800 counts at 585.13 Hz using the SRM. 

All 3 degrees of freedom have notches at all 3 of those frequencies in the FM10 of the filter banks (and they were all turned on).  During this time, DRMI was locked with 1f signals. 

DRMI sensing matrix:

 SensMatMeas_10Nov2014_DRMI.png

Earlier in the evening, I also took a PRMI sensing matrix, with the PRMI locked on REFL33 I&Q.  Watch out for the different placement of the plots - I couldn't measure AS55 in the DRMI case, since cdsutils.avg freaked out if I asked for more than 14 numbers (#PDs * #dofs) at a time.

SensMatMeas_10Nov2014_PRMI.png

Rana, Koji and I were staring at the DRMI sensing matrix for a little while, and we aren't sure why PRCL and SRCL aren't co-aligned, and why they aren't orthogonal to MICH.  Do we think it's possible to do something to digitally realign them?  Will the solution that we choose be valid for many CARM offsets, or do we have to change things every few steps (which we don't want to do)? 

Things to work on:

* Reanalyze DRMI sensing matrix data from 12:14-12:20am. 

* Make a simulated scan of higher order mode resonances in the arm cavities.  Is it possible that on one or both sides of the CARM resonance we are getting HOM resonances of the sidebands? 

* Figure out how to make DRMI 3f loops stable.

* Try CARM offset reduction with DRMI, and / or PRMI on REFL 165.

  10698   Tue Nov 11 21:41:09 2014 KojiUpdateLSC3f DRMI sensing mat

Sensing matrix calculation using DTT + Matlab

Note: If the signal phase is, for example,  '47 deg', the phase rotation angle is -47deg in order to bring this signal to 'I' phase.

Note2: As I didn't have the DQ channels for the actuation, only the relative signs between the PDs are used to produce the radar chart.
This means that it may contain 180deg uncertainty for a particular actuator. But this does not change the independence (or degeneracy) of the signals.



=== Sensing Matrix Report ===
Test time: 2014-11-11 08:14:00
Starting GPS Time: 1099728855.0
 

== PRCL ==
Actuation frequency: 621.13 Hz
Suspension (PRM) response at the act. freq.: 5.0803e-14/f^2 m/cnt
Actuation amplitude: 20.3948 cnt/rtHz
Actuation displacement: 1.0361e-12 m/rtHz
 
C1:LSC-AS55_I_ERR_DQ 4.20e+10
C1:LSC-AS55_Q_ERR_DQ -1.91e+11
==> AS55: 1.95e+11 [m/cnt] -24.58 [deg]
C1:LSC-REFL11_I_ERR_DQ 3.17e+12
C1:LSC-REFL11_Q_ERR_DQ -8.04e+10
==> REFL11: 3.17e+12 [m/cnt] -18.20 [deg]
C1:LSC-REFL33_I_ERR_DQ 4.15e+11
C1:LSC-REFL33_Q_ERR_DQ 4.28e+10
==> REFL33: 4.17e+11 [m/cnt] -137.11 [deg]
C1:LSC-REFL55_I_ERR_DQ 1.90e+10
C1:LSC-REFL55_Q_ERR_DQ -9.91e+09
==> REFL55: 2.14e+10 [m/cnt] -58.58 [deg]
C1:LSC-REFL165_I_ERR_DQ -1.16e+11
C1:LSC-REFL165_Q_ERR_DQ -3.14e+10
==> REFL165: 1.20e+11 [m/cnt] 45.20 [deg]
 
 
== MICH ==
Actuation frequency: 675.13 Hz
Suspension (ITMX) response at the act. freq.: 1.0312e-14/f^2 m/cnt
Suspension (ITMY) response at the act. freq.: 1.0224e-14/f^2 m/cnt
Actuation amplitude: 974.2957 cnt/rtHz
Actuation displacement (ITMX+ITMY): 2.0007e-11 m/rtHz
 
C1:LSC-AS55_I_ERR_DQ 2.55e+12
C1:LSC-AS55_Q_ERR_DQ 4.51e+12
==> AS55: 5.18e+12 [m/cnt] 113.51 [deg]
C1:LSC-REFL11_I_ERR_DQ -4.84e+10
C1:LSC-REFL11_Q_ERR_DQ -4.07e+09
==> REFL11: 4.85e+10 [m/cnt] 168.06 [deg]
C1:LSC-REFL33_I_ERR_DQ 2.06e+10
C1:LSC-REFL33_Q_ERR_DQ -9.39e+09
==> REFL33: 2.26e+10 [m/cnt] -167.51 [deg]
C1:LSC-REFL55_I_ERR_DQ 2.52e+09
C1:LSC-REFL55_Q_ERR_DQ -1.02e+10
==> REFL55: 1.05e+10 [m/cnt] -107.09 [deg]
C1:LSC-REFL165_I_ERR_DQ -1.79e+10
C1:LSC-REFL165_Q_ERR_DQ -5.50e+10
==> REFL165: 5.79e+10 [m/cnt] 102.02 [deg]



== SRCL ==

Actuation frequency: 585.13 Hz
Suspension (SRM) response at the act. freq.: 5.5494e-14/f^2 m/cnt
Actuation amplitude: 1176.3066 cnt/rtHz
Actuation displacement: 6.5278e-11 m/rtHz
 
C1:LSC-AS55_I_ERR_DQ -9.90e+10
C1:LSC-AS55_Q_ERR_DQ -1.18e+11
==> AS55: 1.54e+11 [m/cnt] -76.89 [deg]
C1:LSC-REFL11_I_ERR_DQ 2.96e+08
C1:LSC-REFL11_Q_ERR_DQ 4.78e+08
==> REFL11: 5.62e+08 [m/cnt] 41.42 [deg]
C1:LSC-REFL33_I_ERR_DQ -2.93e+09
C1:LSC-REFL33_Q_ERR_DQ 1.23e+10
==> REFL33: 1.27e+10 [m/cnt] -39.63 [deg]
C1:LSC-REFL55_I_ERR_DQ 3.71e+09
C1:LSC-REFL55_Q_ERR_DQ 2.78e+09
==> REFL55: 4.63e+09 [m/cnt] 5.86 [deg]
C1:LSC-REFL165_I_ERR_DQ -1.80e+10
C1:LSC-REFL165_Q_ERR_DQ 2.68e+10
==> REFL165: 3.23e+10 [m/cnt] -26.02 [deg]
 


Demodulation phases of the day

    'C1:LSC-AS55_PHASE_R = -53'
    'C1:LSC-REFL11_PHASE_R = 16.75'
    'C1:LSC-REFL33_PHASE_R = 143'
    'C1:LSC-REFL55_PHASE_R = 31'
    'C1:LSC-REFL165_PHASE_R = 150'

Attachment 1: DRMI_radar.pdf
DRMI_radar.pdf
  10699   Wed Nov 12 00:55:56 2014 ericqUpdateLSCNotch at 110MHz

Quote:

Q >> Please measure the RF spectrum again with the notch. 

The notch filter has been installed directly attached to the output of the SHP-150 at the PD output. Structurally, there is a right angle SMA elbow between the two filters; I set up a post holder under the notch pomona box to prevent torque on the PD. Via directional coupler and AG4395, we measured the output of the REFL165 RF amplifier with the PRMI locked on REFL33. 

Note, the plot below is not referred to the amplifier output, as in my previous plots; it is directly representative of the amplifier output spectrum. 

165_Notched.pdf

There are no RF signals being output above -28dBm, thus I am confident that we are not subject to compression distortion. 

Given the last measurements we made (ELOG 10692), I estimate that the notch has reduced the power at 110MHz by ~33dB, which is 9dB higher than the notch performance Koji measured when he made it. Maybe this could be due to the non-50Ohm impedance of the HPF distorting the tuning, or I physically detuned it when mounting it on the PD. Still, 33dB is pretty good, and may even give us room to amplify further. (ZRL-700+ instead of the ZFL-1000LN+?)

 

  10700   Wed Nov 12 01:30:39 2014 ericqUpdateLSCDRFPMI, PRFPMI HOM resonances

I did some simulations to see if we are susceptible to HOM resonances as we reduce the CARM offset. I restricted my search to HG modes of the Carrier+[-55,-11,0,+11,+55]MHz fields with n+m<6, and used all the real physical parameters I could get ahold of. 

In short, as I change the CARM offset, I don't see any stray resonances within 2nm of zero, either in PRFPMI or DRFPMI. 

Now, the mode matching in my simulation is not the real mode matching our real interferometer has. Thus, it can't tell us how much power we may see in a given mode, but it can tell us about our susceptibility to different modes. I.e. if we were to have some power in a certain mode coming out of the IMC, or present in the vertex, we can see what it would do in the arms. 

Since my simulation has some random amounts of power in each HOM coming into the interferometer, I simply swept the CARM offset and looked for peaks in the power of each mode. Many of the fields exhibited gentle slopes over the range, and we know we ok from 3nm->~100pm, so I made the selection rule that a "peak" must be at least 10 times as big as the minimum value over the whole range, in order to see fields that really do have CARM dependence. 

In the following plots, normalized IFO power is plotted and the locations of HOM peaks are indicated with circles; their actual heights are arbitrary, since I don't know our real mode content. However, I'm not really too concerned, since all I see is some -11MHz modes between 2-3nm of full resonance, where we have no problem controlling things... Also, all of the carrier HOMs effectively co-resonate with the 00 mode, which isn't too surprising, and I didn't include these modes in the plots.

 DRFPMI_HOMscan.pngPRFPMI_HOMscan.png

Finally, I visually inspected the traces for all of the modes, and didn't really find anything else peeking out. 

Code, plots attached.  

Attachment 1: HOMs.zip
  10701   Wed Nov 12 03:22:23 2014 JenneUpdateLSC3f DRMI sensing mat

Koji pointed out something to me that I think he had told me ages ago, and Rana alluded to last night:  Since I'm not tuning my "demod phase" for the sensing matrix lockins, unless I happened to get very lucky, I was throwing away most of the signal.  Lame.  

So, now the magnitude is sqrt(real^2 + imag^2), where real and imag here are the I and Q outputs of the lockin demodulator, after the 0.1Hz lowpass.  (I put in the low pass into all of the Q filter banks).  To keep the signs consistent, I did do a rough tuning of those angles, so that I can use the sign of the real part as the sign of my signal.  When I was PRMI locked, I set the phase for all things acutated by MICH to be 79deg, all things actuated by PRCL to be 20 deg, and when DRMI locked set all things SRCL to be 50deg. 

After doing this, the phases of my sensing matrix output matches Koji's careful analyses.  I don't know where the W/ct numbers I was using came from (I don't think I made them up out of the blue, but I didn't document where they're from, so I need to remeasure them).  Anyhow, for now I have 1's in the calibration screen for the W/ct calibration for all PDs, so my sensing matrices are coming out in cts/m, which is the same unit that Koji's analysis is in. (Plot for comparing to Koji is at end of entry).

While reducing the CARM offset, I left the sensing matrix lines on, and watched how they evolved.  The phases don't seem to change all that much, but the magnitudes start to decrease as I increase the arm power.

For this screenshot, the left plot is the phases of the sensing matrix elements (all the REFL signals, MICH and PRCL), and the right plot is the magnitudes of those same elements.  Also plotted is the TRX power, as a proxy for CARM offset.  The y-scale for the TRX trace is 0-15.  The y-scale for all the phases is -360 to +360.  The y-scale of the magnitude traces are each one decade, on a log scale.

SensMatVsPower_UpToArms10.png

Bonus plot, same situation, but the next lock held for 20 minutes at arm powers of 8.  We don't know why we lost lock (none of the loops were oscillating, that I could see in the lockloss plot).

PRMI_arms8_20minutes.png


Here are some individual sensing matrix plots, for a single lock stretch, at various times.  One thing that you can see in the striptool screenshots that I don't know yet how to deal with for the radar plots is the error bars when the phase flips around by 360 degrees.  Anyhow, the errors in the phases certainly aren't as big as the error boxes make them look.

PRMI just locked, CARM offset about 3nm, CARM and DARM on ALS comm and diff, arm powers below 1:

SensMatMeas_11Nov2014_PRMIarms_ArmPowSmall.png

PRMI still on REFL33 I&Q, CARM and DARM both on DC transmissions, arm powers about 4:

SensMatMeas_11Nov2014_PRMIarms_ArmPow3pt8.png

CARM offset reduced further, arm powers about 6:

SensMatMeas_11Nov2014_PRMIarms_ArmPow6.png

CARM offset reduced even more, arm powers about 7:

SensMatMeas_11Nov2014_PRMIarms_ArmPow7.png


For this plot for comparing with Koji's analysis, I had not yet put 1's in the calibration screen, so this is still in "W"/m, where "W" is meant to indicate that I don't really know the calibration at all.  What is good to see though is that the angles agree very well with Koji's analysis, even though he was analyzing data from yesterday, and this data was taken today.  This sensing matrix is DRMI-only (no arms), 1f locking.

SensMatMeas_11Nov2014_DRMI_fixedMags.png

Bonus plot, PRMI-only sensing matrix, with PRMI held using REFL 33 I&Q:

SensMatMeas_11Nov2014_PRMI_fixedMags.png

 

  10703   Wed Nov 12 18:08:35 2014 JenneUpdateLSCRIN in transmission a problem?

In my previous meditations about RIN, particularly elog 10258, I was only thinking about the RIN contribution at the offset that I was currently sitting at.  Also, In elog 10258 I was comparing to the ALS signals and just said that the trans signals are better which is true, although isn't super helpful when thinking of reduced CARM offsets. 

My summary today is that I think we want to reduce the RIN in arm transmissions by a factor of 3.


Rather than dig around, I just remeasured the RIN, for both the single arm transmissions and the MC transmission.  (Data attached as .xml file)

The RMS RIN for the Xarm is 1.3e-2.  The RMS RIN for the Yarm is 8.9e-3.  The RMS RIN for MCtrans is 4.0e-3.  For the simulations below, I will use 1e-2 as an average RIN for the arms.

RIN_TRX_TRY_MCtrans_12Nov2014.pdf


As an estimate of the RIN's contribution to cavity fluctuations, I divide the RIN by the slope of the CARM transmission peak.  The slope (from optickle) gives me [ delta-W / delta-m ], and the inverse of that gives me [ delta-m / delta-W ].  I multiply this by RIN, which is [ delta-W / W ] to get [delta-m / W]. 

Then, since I'm using the DC transmission signals as my error signals, I use just TRX (normalized to be 1 for single arm resonance) as my Watts.

So, in total, the traces plotted are { TRX * RIN / slope }. 

The 2 plots are the same data, one with linear-x and the other with log-x.  They both include my estimate of the cavity length fluctuations due to RIN at the arm transmission, as well as an estimate of the cavity length fluctuations if the arm RIN was as good as the MC RIN.  I also show the DRFPMI CARM linewidth (23 pm for HWHM), and 1% of that linewidth.  The last trace is 1% of the half-width of the transmission peak, at the current CARM offset.  For example, 1000 pm away from full resonance the half-width is 1000 pm and 1% of that is 10 pm. 

 RINcontribution_12Nov2014_linearXscale.pngRINcontribution_12NOv2014_logXscale.png

What we want to see here is that the solid blue line is below one of the dotted lines.  I think that using the overall linewidth (purple dotted line) isn't really the right thing to look at.  Our goal is to prevent excursions that will get too close to the resonance peak, and cause a lockloss.  A one picometer excursion is a much bigger problem (relatively) below say 100 pm, as opposed to above 100 pm.  So, I think that we should be looking at the half-width of the resonance peak at whatever the current CARM offset is (orange dotted line).  Above 25 pm, the blue line is below the orange line for all offsets plotted.  If we made the arm RIN as good as the MC RIN, that would be true down to 12-ish pm. 

We should be able to safely transition to non-normalized RF signals at 10pm or below.  This implies that (since any RF signals normalized by this RIN-y trans signal will have the RIN), we want to improve the RIN of the transmission PDs by about a factor of 3. (This will lower the blue line such that it crosses the orange dotted line at 10 pm).

 

Attachment 1: RIN_TRX_TRY_MCtrans_12Nov2014_zip.xml.gz
  10705   Wed Nov 12 21:18:32 2014 ericqUpdateLSCDRFPMI, PRFPMI HOM resonances

So, with my last entry, I was guilty of just throwing stuff into the simulation and not thinking about physics... so I retreated to Siegman for some algebraic calculations of the additional Guoy phase accumulated by the HOMs in the arms -> their resonant frequencies -> the arm length offset where they should resonate. Really, this isn't completely precise, as I treated the arms independently, with slightly differing ETM radii of curvature, but I would expect the "CARM Arm" to behave as a sort of average of the two arm cavities in this regard. (EDIT: Also, I didn't really consider the effect of the coupled vertex cavities... so there's more to be done)

The basic idea I used was:

  • Assume ITMs are effectively flat, infinite Rc
  • Use 40mwiki values for ETM curvatures
  • Each additional HG order adds arccos(sqrt(1 - Larm/Rc)) of Guoy phase for a one way trip down the cavity (Eqn 19.19 in Sigman)
  • For each HOM order up to 5 of the carrier and first order sidebands, add the appropriate phase shift 
  • fold it onto +-FSR/2 of the carrier 00 resonance, convert to m

In practice, I threw together a python script to do this all and print out a table. I've highlighted the values within 10nm, but the closet one is 3.8nm

Results:

########## X Arm HOM Resonance Locations in nm ##########
Mode Order:      0     ,      1     ,      2     ,      3     ,      4     ,      5     

Carrier   :          +0,     +156.21,     -219.58,     -63.376,     +92.832,     +249.04
LSB 11    :     +59.563,     +215.77,     -160.02,     -3.8126,      +152.4,      -223.4
USB 11    :     -59.563,     +96.645,     +252.85,     -122.94,     +33.269,     +189.48
LSB 55    :     -234.18,     -77.975,     +78.233,     +234.44,     -141.35,     +14.857
USB 55    :     +234.18,     -141.61,       +14.6,     +170.81,     -204.98,     -48.776


########## Y Arm HOM Resonance Locations in nm ##########
Mode Order:      0     ,      1     ,      2     ,      3     ,      4     ,      5     

Carrier   :          +0,     +154.82,     -222.35,     -67.531,     +87.292,     +242.11
LSB 11    :     +59.313,     +214.14,     -163.04,      -8.218,      +146.6,     -230.57
USB 11    :     -59.313,      +95.51,     +250.33,     -126.84,     +27.978,      +182.8
LSB 55    :     -235.43,     -80.611,     +74.212,     +229.04,     -148.14,     +6.6809
USB 55    :     +235.43,     -141.74,      +13.08,      +167.9,     -209.27,     -54.452
 
Code is attached. Hopefully no glaring mistakes!
 
 
Attachment 1: HOMlist.py.zip
  10707   Thu Nov 13 01:00:37 2014 ranaUpdateLSCRIN in transmission a problem?

 

 I modified the MC2 trans optical setup a little bit: the reflection from the QPD was not dumped and so it was hitting the wall of the black box.

I angled the QPD slightly and moved the dump so that the reflection hit it. The leakage through the 50/50 steering mirror for the QPD was already being dumped and I made sure that that one stayed dumped on its razor dump. After doing this we turned off the WFS and re-aligned the MC2 trans beam onto the QPD to zero the pit/yaw signals. 

  10709   Thu Nov 13 04:28:28 2014 JenneUpdateLSCRIN in transmission a problem?

[Jenne, Rana, Koji]

We did some thinking on what could be causing the excess RIN that we see in the arm transmissions but not in the MC transmission.  Unfortunately, I don't think we have anything conclusive yet. 

We thought about:

  • Test mass oplevs
  • Input tip tilt jitter
  • MC motion

Oplevs

As Rana reported in elog 10708, we tuned the oplev servos for ITMX, ETMX, ITMY and ETMY.  They all now look like the new SRM oplevs that Rana described in elog 10694.  However, when we re-looked at the RIN after the oplev tuning, we did not see a noticeable change.  So, fixing up the oplevs didn't fix up the RIN.

Side notes:

  • Several optics had low gains for suspos, which were increased to give Qs of ~5ish.
  • When we gave ITMX a 500 count step in pitch (the same size used for all other optics in both pit and yaw), it didn't come back afterward.  This is a little disconcerting.  Rana had to move the alignment slider to get it back so that we had MICH fringing at the AS port again.

Input Tip Tilts

Koji did some work, reported in elog 10706, on how much the jitter of the input pointing tip tilts should affect us.  We don't think that they are moving enough to be the cause of the excess RIN that we see.


Mode Cleaner Motion

We see some coherence between MC2 suspit and TRX/TRY, so we suspect that the MC's motion could be causing problems. 

I looked at the WFS vs. TRX & TRY, and saw significant coherence at the 3 Hz stack resonance.  I think it's clear that the WFS can help suppress this motion more.  The WFS noise level was too bad to see any other coherence at other frequencies. (Side note:  We should consider increasing the analog WFS signal.  As Rana mentioned back in 2008 in elog 454, the signal is super small.  Increasing the analog gain could allow us to suppress motion at more frequencies, although it would be a bit of a pain.)

To try and get some more signal, I routed the IPPOS beam over to the PRM oplev temporarily.  The idea was to be able to look at the IPPOS port, but with a fast channel.  I turned off the BS/PRM HeNe, and removed the last steering mirror before the QPD.  I put in 2 Y1 steering mirrors to get the IPPOS beam across the table and pointing at IPPOS.  I took my measurements 3 times, with different beam sizes on the QPD, to try to image different gouy phases.  I used absorptive ND filters (0.6 + 0.1) to get the light level on the PD such that I had about 10,000 counts per quadrant, where 16,000 counts seemed to be the saturation point. I also reset the dark offsets of the QPD quadrants, although they were so small that I don't think it did much.  I also took out the optical lever calibration from counts to microradians, since that number isn't meaningful for what I was doing.  So, the IPPOS signals (using the PRM oplev channels) are in raw ADC counts.  The first measurement had no lens, and the beam was probably at least half the size of the QPD.  The second measurement had a lens, and the beam on the QPD was about half the original size.  The third measurement had the lens closer to the QPD, so that the beam was about 1mm on the diode.  In none of these cases do I see any significant coherence with the TRX/TRY RIN signals, except at 3 Hz. After my measurements I put the oplev back including all of the digital settings, although for now I just left the IPPOS beam dumped on a razor dump, since it wasn't being used anyway.  I need to realign IPPOS when it's not the middle of the night.

Some thoughts that we have:

  • Maybe it's time to resurrect seismic feedforward on MC length, to suppress some of this 3 Hz motion?
  • Maybe we should be using the MC_L path to offload some of the frequency feedback, so that we're not pushing on MC2 so hard (because if we have bad F2P coupling, this creates beam motion)

I have plots for each of my IPPOS vs. TRX/TRY measurements.  The data is attached.  For each, I looked at the transfer function between IPPOS (using the SUS-PRM_OPLEV channels) and TRX/TRY to get the 'calibration' between input beam motion and transmission RIN.  In all cases, at 3 Hz the coefficient was about 1, so in the power spectra on the right side, there is no calibration applied to the IPPOS signals. 

IPPOS vs. Transmission RIN, no lens, big beam on QPD:

RIN_TRX_TRY_IPPOS_NoLens_12Nov2014.pdf

(Just kidding about the other 2 plots - the elog can't handle it.  They're in the zippyzip file though, and I don't think they look qualitatively different from the no-lens case).

 

Attachment 1: zippyzip.zip
  10712   Thu Nov 13 23:42:01 2014 JenneUpdateLSCRIN vs. Seismic

After Kate, Diego and I moved the seismometers to the corner for a huddle test (see elog 10711), I wanted to check the coherence between the seismometers and the arm transmissions.  

First of all, it looks like either the Guralp or the T-240 have their X and Y backwards. Diego is going to check this tomorrow. 

Between 0.9Hz - 3.5Hz, we have pretty strong coherence with the horizontal seismic channels.  Interestingly, between 8-10Hz, the Yarm has pretty strong coherence with the Z-axes of the seismometers (the coherence is only about 0.6, but it's consistent over a 2-ish Hz wide band). 

The MC transmission doesn't have as much coherence with the seismic, which surprised me.  So, we can try some FF to the MC, but we may also have to do some to the arms.

Seismic_TRXTRYandMC_13Nov2014.pdf

  10713   Fri Nov 14 02:43:05 2014 ericqUpdateLSCPRFPMI HOM resonances

I've extended my analysis to the PRFPMI case, with the current working knowledge of radii of curvature and cavity lengths. However, losses were not included.

I do not see any HOM activity within about 20nm of the carrier TM00 resonance. 

Basically, what I did was use the standard formulae for the reflection and transmission coefficients of FB cavities viewed as compound mirrors. However, I modified the normal spatial propagation terms to include the additional Guoy phase accumulated by the HOMs. I created these coefficients for each arm individually, and then used (rX + rY)/2 as a mirror in the PRC, and used that to create the transmission coefficient for the PRFPMI as a whole, as a function of frequency offset from the carrier, spatial mode order and CARM offset. As a check, this produced the correct finesse for the carrier lock to the single arm and PRFPMI. 

Here is a PRFPMI CARM FSR of all of the fields' power transmission coefficients, up to order n+m=5. 

HOMcurves.pdf 

One can observe some split peaks. There are two causes, the biggest effect is the mismatch between ETM radii of curvatures (ETMX:59.48, ETMY:60.26):, followed by asymmetric arm length(X:37.79, Y:37.81). (I judged this by the visual change of the plot when changing different factors). 

In the following plot, I broke down the peaks by mode order:

 HOMpeaks.pdf

Code, plots attached!

 

Attachment 3: prfpmiHOM.zip
  10718   Fri Nov 14 17:08:17 2014 JenneUpdateLSCRIN vs. Seismic

T-240 has a different convention than we use.  It assumes that North is aligned with the Y-axis.  Since this is the new guy, and we've been using the Guralps with North = X for many years, Diego and I rotated the T-240, and put a label on it that N/S is Y, and E/W is X.  Obviously Vert is still Z.

  10720   Fri Nov 14 20:31:13 2014 ericqUpdateLSCRIN in transmission a problem?

I took a quick look at single arm RIN. Actuating on MC2 vs. the ETM, or using AS55 instead of POY11 made no noticeable difference in the arm cavity RIN.  Not too surprising, but there it is.

  10725   Tue Nov 18 15:20:58 2014 JenneUpdateLSCSome lockloss plots from PRFPMI

Elog from ~5am last night:

Tonight was just several trials of PRFPMI locking, while trying to pay more attention to the lockloss plots each time.

General notes: 

I tried once to acquire DRMI on 1f while the arms were held off resonance.  I wasn't catching lock, so I went back to PRMI+arms.  I aligned the PMC, which I noted in a separate elog.  

I was able to hold the PRMI on REFL33I&Q, and have ALS CARM and DARM at zero CARM offset.  The arm would "buzz" through the resonance regularly.  I use the word buzz because that's kind of what it sounded like.  This is the noise of the ALS system.

I think we want to add the transmission QPD angular signals to the frames.  Right now, we just keep the sums.  It would have been handy to glance at them, and see if they were wiggling in the same way that some other signal was waggling. 

All the data files are in /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/LSC/LocklossData.  Each folder is one lockloss.  It includes text files for each trace, as well as any plots that I've made, and any notes taken.  The text files are several MB each, so I'm not going to bog the elog down with them.  There are a few folders that end in "_notInteresting".  These ones are, as one might guess, not interesting.  2 were MC locklosses (I'm not actuating on MC2, so I declared these independent from my work) and one was when I knew that my ALS was bad - the beatnotes weren't in good places, and so the ALS noise was high.


 Folder:  1100342268_POP22goesLow

Working notes:  Lost lock because POP22 went too low.  PRCL and MICH triggered off.  After this, changed PRCL and MICH "down" thresholds to 0.5, from 10.
 

Plots:

ErrorSignals_NothingObviouslyOscillating.pngErrorSignals_Zoom_MICHprclWeird.pngPowers_POP22goesLow.png

Conclusion:  Easy fix.  Changed the down thresholds for MICH and PRCL to be lower, although still low enough that they will trigger off for a true lockloss.  Why though do we lose so much sideband power when the arm transmission goes high?  POP22 dipped below 10 when TRX went above 29.  Does this happen on both sides of the CARM offset?  Quick simulation needed.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Folder:  1100330534_maybePRCLangular

Working notes:  PRFPMI, reducing CARM offset to arm powers of 7.  CARM on sqrtInv, DARM on DCtrans. PRMI on REFL33 I&Q. Don't know why I lost lock.  Maybe angular stuff in PRC? I think POP spot was moving in yaw as it started to go bad.
Note, later:  regathered data to also get POP angular stuff. Don't think it's POP angular.  Not sure what it is.

Plots:

ErrSigs_NothingJumpingAtMe.pngNotPOPangular.png

Conclusion:  I'm not sure what this lockloss was caused by, although it is not something that I can see in the POP QPD (which was my initial suspicion).  It is, like many of the rest of the cases, one where I see significant bounce and roll mode oscillations (error and control signals oscillating at 16 and 24 Hz).  I don't think those are causing the locklosses though.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Folder:  1100334680_unknown_highArmPowers

Working notes:  PRFPMI, carm_up script finished, sitting at arm powers of 8.  CARM, DARM on DC trans.  PRMI on REFL33.   Don't know why lost lock.

Plots:

[Don't have any? - I'll make some]

Conclusion:  Again, I see 16 and 24 Hz oscillations, but I don't think those are causing the lockloss.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Folder: 1100331950_unknown

Working notes: PRFPMI, arms about 8.  CARM, DARM on DC trans.  PRMI on REFL33.  Don't know why I lost lock.

Plots:

More16and24Hz.png

Conclusion: Don't have an answer.

--------------------------------------------------------

Folder: 1100345981_unknown

Working notes: Lockloss while going to arm powers of 7ish from 6ish.  Not POP angular, POP22 didn't go low.

Plots:

ErrSigs_16and24Hz.pngNotPOPsFault.png

Conclusions:  This one wasn't from POP22 going too low, but again, I don't see anything other than 16 and 24Hz stuff.

 

  10726   Tue Nov 18 17:11:30 2014 JenneUpdateLSCSome lockloss plots from PRFPMI

I am still staring at / trying to figure out the latter 4 locklosses posted earlier.  But, I have just included the transmission QPD angular output signals to the frames, so we should be able to look at that with locklosses tonight. 

To get the lockloss plots:  in ..../scripts/LSC/LocklossData/ , first run ./FindLockloss.sh <gps time> .  This just pulls the TRX and TRY data, and doesn't save it, so it is pretty quick.  Adjust the gps time until you capture the lockloss in your plot window.  Then run ./LockLossAutoPlot.sh <gps time> to download and save the data.  Since it has become so many channels, it first makes a plot with all of the error and control signals, and then it makes a plot with the power levels and angular signals.  The data folder is just called <gps time>.  I have started also including a text file called notes inside of the folder, with things that I notice in the moment, when I lose lock.  Don't use .txt for the suffix of the notes file, since the ./PlotLockloss.py <folder name> script that will plot data after the fact tries to plot all .txt files.  I have also been appending the folder name with keywords, particularly _notInteresting or _unknown for either obvious lockloss causes or mysterious lockloss cases.

 

  10727   Tue Nov 18 22:34:28 2014 JenneUpdateLSCSome other plots from PRFPMI

Quote:

I was able to hold the PRMI on REFL33I&Q, and have ALS CARM and DARM at zero CARM offset.  The arm would "buzz" through the resonance regularly.  I use the word buzz because that's kind of what it sounded like.  This is the noise of the ALS system.

Here is a plot of when the arm powers went pretty high from last night.  CARM and DARM were on ALS comm and diff, PRMI was on REFL33 I&Q.  I set the CARM offset so that I was getting some full arm resonances, and it goes back and forth over the resonance.

The Y axes aren't perfect when I zoom, but the maximum TRX value was 98 in this plot, while the max TRY value was 107. 

MICH_OUT was hitting its digital rails sometimes, and also it looks like PRCL and MICH occasionally lost lock for very brief periods of time. 

Glitch-like events in PRCL_OUT are at the edges of these mini-locklosses. I don't know why POPDC has glitch-y things, but we should see if that's real.

TRXmax98_TRYmax107_CARMdarmOnALS_0carmOffset.png

Okay, I've zoomed in a bit, and have found that, interestingly, I see that both POP22 and POP110 decrease, then increase, then decrease again as we pass through full resonance.  This happens in enough places that I'm pretty sure we're not just going back and forth on one side of the resonance, but that we're actually passing through it.  Q pointed out that maybe our demod phase angle is rotating, so I've made some zoom-in plots to see that that's not a significant effect.  I plot the I and Q phases individually, as well as the total=sqrt(I**2 + Q**2), along with TRY (since the increases and decreases are common to both arms, as seen in the plot above).

For POP 22:

Zoom_with_POP22.png

For POP 110:

Zoom_with_POP110.png

I also plot the MICH and PRCL error signals along with TRY and POP22 total.  You can see that both MICH and PRCL were triggered off about 0.1msec after POP22 total this it's first super low point.  Then, as soon as POP22 becomes large enough, they're triggered back on, which happens about 1.5msec later. (The triggering was actually on POP22I, not POP22tot, but the shapes are the same, and I didn't want to overcrowd my plots).

Zoom_with_ErrSigs.png

I am not sure if we consistently lose sideband signal in the PRC more on one side of the CARM resonance than the other, but at least POP22 and POP110 are both lower on the farther side of this particular peak.  I want to think about this more in relation to the simulations that we've done.  One of the more recent things that I see from Q is from September:  elog 10502, although this is looking specifically at the REFL signals at 3f, not the 2f circulating PRCL power as a function of CARM offset.

  10729   Fri Nov 21 02:22:25 2014 ericqUpdateLSCMore ALS PRFPMI exploration

 Similar to what Jenne did the other night, I kept the PRFPMI arm DoFs locked on ALS, in hopes to check out the RF error signals. 

I was able to stably sit at nominally zero offset in both CARM and DARM, tens of minutes at a time, and the PRMI could reacquire without a fuss. Arm powers would rest between 10 and 20, intermittently exhibiting the "buzzing" behavior that Jenne mentioned when passing through resonance. 100pm CARM offset means arm powers of around 10, so since our ALS RMS is on this order, this seems ok. I saw TRX get as high as 212 counts, which is just about the same that I've simulated as the maximum power in our IFO. 

To get this stable, I turned off all boosts on MICH and PRCL except PRCL FM6, and added matrix elements of 0.25 for TRX and TRY in the trigger line for the PRMI DoFs. The logic for this is that if the arm powers are higher than 1, power recycling is happening, so we want to keep things above the trigger down value of 0.5, even if POP22 momentarily drops. 

I also played around a bit with DARM offsets. We know from experience that the ALS IR resonance finding is not super precise, and thus zero in the CARM FM is not zero CARM offset when on ALS. The same obviously holds for DARM, so I moved the DARM offset around, and could see the relative strengths of flashes change between the arms as expected.

I've written down some GPS times that I'm going to go back and look at, to try to back out some information about our error signals. 

Lastly, there may be something undesirable happening with the TRX QPD; during some buzzing, the signal would fluctuate into negative values and did not resemble the TRY signal as it nominally would. Perhaps the whitening filters are acting up...

  10734   Tue Nov 25 02:04:19 2014 JenneUpdateLSCPRFPMI tonight - need some PRCL and MICH tuning at high arm powers

Take-away for the night:  We need to do some more fine-tuning of the PRCL and MICH loops when we have arm resonance.

Koji sat with me for the first part of the night, and we looked back at the data from last week (elog 10727), as well as some fresh data from tonight.  Looking at the spectra, we noticed that last week, and early in the evening today, I had a fairly broad peak centered around ~51Hz.  We are not at all sure where this is coming from.  The PRMI was locked on REFL 33 I&Q, and CARM and DARM were both on ALS comm and diff.  This peak would repeat-ably come and go when I changed the CARM offset.  At high arm powers (above a few tens? I don't know where exactly), the peak would show up.  Move off resonance, and the peak goes away.  However, later in the night, after an IFO realignment, I wasn't able to reproduce this effect.  So.  We aren't sure where it comes from, but it is visible only in the CARM spectra, so there's some definite feedback funny business going on. 

Anyhow, after that, since I couldn't reproduce it, I went on to trying to hold the PRMI at high arm powers, but wasn't so successful.  I would reduce the CARM offset, and instead of a 50Hz peak, I would get broadband noise in the PRMI error signals, that would eventually also couple in to the CARM (but not DARM) error signal, and I would lose PRMI lock. I measured the PRCL and MICH transfer functions while the arms were at some few units of power, and found that while MICH was fine, PRCL was losing too much phase at 100Hz, so I took away the FM3 boost.  This helped, but not enough. I had 1's in the triggering matrix for TRX and TRY to both PRCL and MICH, so that even if POP22 went low, if the arms were still locked then the PRMI wouldn't lose lock unnecessarily, but I was still having trouble.  In an effort to get around this, I transitioned PRMI over to REFL 165 I&Q. 

While the arms were held around powers of 2ish, I readjusted the REFL 165 demod phase.  I found it set to 150 deg, but 75 deg is better for PRMI locking with the arms.  For either acquiring or transitioning from REFL33, I would use REFL165I * -1.5 for PRCL, and REFL 165Q * 0.75 for MICH.  (Actually, I was using -2 for REFL165I->PRCL, and +0.9 for REFL165Q->MICH, but I had to lower the servo gains, so doing some a posteriori math gives me -1.5 and +0.75 for what my matrix elements should have been, if I wanted to leave my servo gains at 2.4 for MICH and -0.02 for PRCL.) I don't always acquire on REFL165, and if it's taking a while I'll go back to putting 1's in the REFL33 I&Q matrix elements and then make the transition. 

With PRMI on REFL 165 I&Q, I no longer had any trouble keeping the PRMI locked at arbitrarily high arm powers.  I was still using 1*POP22I + 1*TRX + 1*TRY for triggering PRCL and MICH.  My thresholds were 50 up, 0.1 down.  The idea is that even if POP goes low (which we've seen about halfway up the CARM resonance), if we're getting some power recycling and the arms are above 1ish, then that means that the PRMI is still locked and we shouldn't un-trigger anything.  I didn't try switching over to POP110 for triggering, because POP22 was working fine.

Earlier in the night, Koji and I had seen brief linear regions in POX and POY, as well as some of the REFL signals when we passed quickly through the CARM resonance.  I don't have plots of these, but they should be easy to reproduce tomorrow night.  Koji tried a few times to blend in some POY to the CARM error signal, but we were not ever successful with that.  But, since we can see the PDH-y looking regions, there may be some hope, especially if Q tells us about his super secret new CESAR plan. 

Okay, I'm clearly too tired to be writing, but here are some plots.  The message from these is that the PRMI loops are causing us to fluctuate wildly in arm transmission power.  We should fix this, since it won't go away by getting off of ALS.  The plots are from a time when I had the PRMI locked on REFL165, and CARM and DARM were still on ALS comm and diff.  All 3 of these colored plots have the same x-axis.   They should really be one giant stacked plot.

HighPower_7pt3sec_Powers.png

HighPower_7pt3sec_ErrAndCtrls.png

HighPower_7pt3sec_AuxErrs.png

Also, bonus plot of a time when the arm powers went almost to 200:

CARMDARMonALScommdiff_StayingAbove5_upTo175_24Nov2014.png

  10736   Wed Nov 26 05:15:48 2014 JenneUpdateLSCPRFPMI tonight PRMI 100Hz osc?

[Jenne, EricQ]

Just to get our day started right, we tweaked up the alignment of the Ygreen to the Yarm (after IR alignment), and also touched up the X beatnote alignment on the PSL table.  Ran the LSC offsets script, and then started locking. 

All of the locking tonight has been based on CARM and DARM held on ALS comm/diff, and PRMI held on REFL165.  Today, CARM was actuated using MC2.  No special reason for the switch from ETMs. The AS port is noticeably darker when using REFL165 instead of REFL33. 

Around 12:33am(ish), we were able to hold the arms at powers of about 100, for almost a minute.  The fluctuations were at least 50% of that value, but the average was pretty high.  Exciting.

Q and I tried a few times to engage the AO path while the arms were held at these high powers.  Q hopefully remembers what the gain and sign values were where we lost lock.  We didn't pursue this very far, since I was seeing the 50Hz oscillation that Koji and I saw the other day.  I increased the CARM gain from 6 to 10, and that seemed to help significantly.  Also, messing with the PRMI loops a bit helped.  Q increased the pole frequency in FM 5 for both MICH and PRCL from 2k to 3k.  While he had Foton open, he made sure that all of the LSC DoF filters use the z:p notation. 

I then did a few trials of trying to transition CARM over to normalized REFL11I.  Now that I'm typing, it occurs to me that I should have checked REFL11's demod phase.  Ooops.  Anyhow, using the phase that was in there, I turned on a cal line pushing on ETMs CARM, and found that using -0.002*REFL11I / (TRX + TRY) was the right set of elements.  I also put an offset of 0.05 into the CARM CESAR RF place, and started moving.  I tried several times, but never got past about 30% normalized REFL11 and 70% ALS comm. 

During these trials, Q and I worked also on tweaking up the PRMI lock.  As mentioned last night, PRCL FM3 eats too much phase (~30deg at 100Hz!), so I don't turn that on ever.  But, I do turn on FM1 (which is new tonight), FM2, 6, 8 and 9.  FM8 is a flat gain of 0.6 that I use so I can have higher gain to make acquisition faster, but immediately turn the gain down to keep the loop in the center of the phase bubble.  MICH needed a lowpass, so in addition to FM2, I am now also triggering FM 8, which is a 400Hz lowpass that was already in there. 

Now, my MICH gain is 2.4, with +0.75*REFL165Q, and PRCL gain is -0.02 with -3*REFL165I.  Triggering for both MICH and PRCL is 1*POP22I + 5*TRX with 50 up, 0.1 down. 

In my latest set of locks, I have been losing lock semi-regularly due to a 100Hz oscillation in either the PRCL or MICH loops.  If I watch the spectra, most times I take a step in CARM offset reduction, I get a broad peak in both the MICH and PRCL error signals.  Most of the time, I stay locked, and the oscillation dies away.  Sometimes though it is large enough to put me out of lock.  I'm not sure yet where this is coming from, but I think it's the next thing that needs fixing.

Here is a shot of the spectra just as one of these 100Hz oscillations shows up.  The dashed traces are the nominal error signals when I'm sitting at some CARM offset, and the solid traces are just after a step has been made. The glitch is only happening in the PRMI, not CARM and DARM. 

PRFPMI_currentErrSigs_25Nov2014.pdf

  10737   Wed Nov 26 22:24:28 2014 JenneUpdateLSCDARM loop improved, other work

[Jenne, Koji]

We have done several things this evening, which have incrementally helped the lock stability.  We are still locking CARM and DARM on ALS, and PRMI on REFL165.

  • Saw peaks in CARM error signal at 24Hz and 29 Hz, so put in moderate-Q resonant gains. 
  • DARM at low frequency was much noisier than CARM.  We discovered that we had put in a nice boost at some point for CARM in FM1, but hadn't transferred that over to DARM.  Copying FM1 from CARM to DARM (so replacing an integrator with a boost below ~10Hz) dropped the DARM noise down to match the CARM noise at low frequencies.
  • Koji noticed that we were really only illuminating one quadrant of the Xend QPD, so we aligned both trans QPDs.  Also, I reset the transmission normalization so that all 4 diodes (Thorlabs and QPDs at each end) all read 1 with good alignment.
  • We've got some concerns about the ASS.  It needs some attention and tuning.
    • The X ASS needs an overall gain of about 0.3.  This may be because I forgot to put the new lower gains into the burt restore after Rana's oplev work, or this may be something new.
    • When Koji did a very careful arm alignment, we turned on the Y ASS and saw it methodically reduce the transmitted power.  Mostly it was moving ETMY in yaw.  Why is the DC response of the ASS not good?  The oplev work shouldn't have affected DC.
    • We don't like the way the ASS offloads the alignment.  Maybe there's a better way to do it overall, but one thought is to have an option to offload (for long-term alignment fixing, so maybe once a day) and another option to just freeze the current output (for the continual tweak-ups that we do throughout the evening).  We'd want the ASS to start up again with these frozen values, and not clear them.
  • ETMY was being fussy, in the same way that ETMX had been for the last few months.  I went down to squish the cables, and found that it was totally not strain-relieved, and that the cable was pulling on the connector.  I have zip tied the cable to the rack so that it's not pulling anymore.
  • At high arm powers, it is hard to see what is going on at the AS port because there is so much light.  Koji has added an ND filter to the AS camera so that we can more easily tweak alignment to improve the contrast.

Something that has been bothering me the last few days is that early in the evening, I would be able to get to very high arm powers, but later on I couldn't.  I think this has to do with setting the contrast at the AS port separately for the sideband versus the carrier.  I had been minimizing the AS port power with the arms held off resonance, PRMI locked.  But, this is mostly sideband.  If instead I optimize the Michelson fringes when the arms are held with ALS at arm powers of 1, and PRM is still misaligned, I end up with much higher arm powers later.  Some notes about this though:  most of this alignment was done with the arm cavity mirrors, specifically the ETMs, to get the nice Michelson fringes.  When the PRM is restored and the PRMI locked, the AS port contrast doesn't look very good.  However, when I leave the alignment alone at this point, I get up to arm powers above 100, whereas if I touch the BS, I have trouble getting above 50.


Around GPS time 1101094920, I moved the DARM offset after optimizing the CARM offset.  We were able to see a pretty nice zero crossing in AS55, although that wasn't at the same place as the ALS diff zero offset (close though).  At this time, the arm powers got above 250, and TRY claimed almost 200.  These are the plots below, first as a wide-view, then zoomed in.  During this time, PRCL still has a broadband increase in noise when the arm powers are high, and CARM is seeing a resonance at a few tens of Hz.  But, we can nicely see the zerocrossing in AS55, so I think there's hope of being able to transition DARM over. 

DARMcrossing_Power.png

DARMcrossing_ErrCtrl.png

DARMcrossing_AuxErr.png

DARMcrossing_Angles.png

Now, the same data, but zoomed in more.

DARMcrossing_Power_Zoom.png

DARMcrossing_ErrCtrl_Zoom.png

DARMcrossing_AuxErr_Zoom.png

DARMcrossing_Angles_Zoom.png


During the 40m meeting, we had a few ideas of directions to pursue for locking:

  • Look into using POX or POY as a proxy for POP and instead of REFL, for CARM control.  Maybe we have some nice juicy SNR.
  • Check the linearity of our REFL signals by holding the arms on (or close to) resonance, then do a swept sine exciting CARM ctrl and taking a transfer function to the RF signals.
  • Q is going to look into the TRX QPD, since he thought it looked funny last week, although this may no longer be necessary after we put the beam at the center of the QPD.
  • Koji had a thought for making it easier to blend the CARM error signals.  What if we put a pole into the ALS CARM signals at the place where the final coupled cavity pole will be, and then compensate for this in the CARM loop.  Since any IR signals will naturally have this pole, we want the CARM loop to be stable when it's present.
  • Diego tells us that the Xarm IR beatnote is basically ready to go.  We need to see how big the peak is so we can put it into the frequency counter and read it out via EPICS.  The freq counter wants at least -15dBm, so we may need an amplifier.
  10743   Mon Dec 1 17:43:22 2014 JenneUpdateLSCReset Yarm trans normalization

After Koji and I reset the transmission normalizations last Friday, he did some alignment work that increased the Yarm power.  So, I had set the transmission normalization when we weren't really at full Yarm power.  Today I reset the normalization so that instead of ~1.2, the Y transmission PDs read ~1.0.

  10746   Tue Dec 2 02:44:45 2014 JenneUpdateLSCTried cav pole compensation trick - fail

[Jenne, Diego]

First, random notes:

  • saw a violin peak in CARM / DARM at 638.0Hz.  Assumed it was one of the ETMs, even though it doesn't match any of the frequencies in our handy-dandy chart: wiki resonances
    • Put an extra notch in the ETM violin filters.
    • Just now realized that I was actuating MC2 at the time for CARM (although 638 is also not what we have in the chart for MC2).  The MC2/ETM violin filters should be shared between eachother.
  • Measured CARM and DARM loops on ALS comm and diff, gains should be 8, not 6.  Fixed in Lock_ALS_CARM_and_DARM script. 
  • MC has been fussy tonight.  I started actuating CARM on ETMs, and that helped, but we've still had several unexplained MC locklosses. 
    • PC and FSS Slow are okay right now, but they have been mad earlier tonight.  Do we need to check the PID tuning for FSS slow?
  • When I first started locking this evening, I was able to hold nice high arm powers (with the usual factor of 2+ RIN), so the IFO seemed okay except for the fussy MC.

Koji suggested last week that we put a cavity pole filter into the ALS error signals, and then compensate for that in the CARM and DARM servos.  The idea is that any RF signals we want to transfer to will have some kind of frequency dependence, and at the final zero CARM offset that will be a simple cavity pole. 

I put a pole at 200 Hz, with a zero at 6 kHz into the LSC-ALS[X,Y] filter banks in FM1, and then also put a zero at 200 Hz with a pole at 6 kHz into both the CARM and DARM servos at FM7.  Ideally I wouldn't have the 6kHz in there, but the compensation filter in the CARM/DARM servos needs a pole somewhere, so I put in the zero in the ALS signals so that they match.  Foton thinks that multiplying the two filters should give a flat response, to within 1e-6dB and 1e-6 deg. 

We can lock CARM and DARM on ALS with the new filters, but it seems to be not very stable.  We've measured transfer functions in both configurations, and between 50-500Hz, there is no difference (i.e., our matching filters are matching, and cancelling each other out).  We sometimes spontaneously lose lock when we're just sitting somewhere with the new configuration, and we cannot run any find IR resonance scripts and stay locked.  We've tried the regular old script, as well as Diego's new gentler script.  We always fail with the regular script during the coarse scan.  With Diego's script, we made it through the coarse scan, but spontaneously lost lock while the script was calculating the location of the peak.  So, we determine that there is something unstable about the new configuration that we don't understand.  Turning off all the new filters and going back to the old configuration is just as robust as always.  Confusing. 

 

  10747   Wed Dec 3 01:18:15 2014 diegoUpdateLSCIR Resonance Script Status

Tonight I started testing a new method for the fine scan:

  • the idea is to use the zero crossings of the PO*11_ERR_DQ signals after (or as an alternative of) the fine scan, but such signals are quite dirty, so I need to find some good way to smooth/filter them;
  • I didn't manage to make many tests, because:
    • once arms were locked fine with ALS, the CARM & DARM lock wasn't very robust, in both acquiring and maintaining lock;
    • during the night, the slow OFSs of the arms misbehaved, and at least once per arm they raised their warning box (independently from each other, and it was hastily recovered), even for values that had been perfectly fine before; I am confused about this;
    • as a result, notwithstanding many tries, the beatnotes are gone;
  • I have enough information to push the script a little further, but I'll do more testing soon;

 

ELOG V3.1.3-