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
IDup Date Author Type Category Subject
  10663   Mon Nov 3 17:43:14 2014 KojiUpdateASCIMC to IFO angular motion

I wonder if this is the coherence caused by the beam itself, or caused by the same ground motion.
Jenne should be able to tell us...

  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
  10665   Tue Nov 4 10:40:46 2014 steveUpdatePEMlab temperatures and particle counts

 

 

Attachment 1: PEM100d.png
PEM100d.png
  10666   Tue Nov 4 14:46:00 2014 manasaUpdateGreen LockingMissing beatnotes

Summary: Cannot find beatnotes between the arms and PSL.

I wanted to measure the ALS out of loop noise before putting stuff on the PSL table for frequency offset locking.

But I was not able to find the beat notes between the arms and PSL green. All I could find while scanning through the end laser temperatures is the beatnote between the X and Y green.

EricQ says that he spent some time yesterday and could not find the beatnotes as well.

Debugging and still could not find:

1. Checked the FSS slow actuator. This was close to zero ~0.003

2. Checked the green alignment on the PSL table. Everything seems fine.

3. Checked the actual PSL laser temperature. It was 31.28deg and not very far from when it was last set at 31.33deg elog.

4. Also checked the end laser temperatures. Both the lasers are ~40deg (where I could see the beatnote between the arms). Based on the plot here and  here , we are very much in the regime where there should be a beatnote between the PSL and the arms.

  10667   Tue Nov 4 19:17:53 2014 ericqUpdateComputer Scripts / ProgramsAnaconda + CDSutils

I've fallen down the rabbit hole of trying to reconcile our desire for newer versions of the Numpy and Scipy python packages with the use of our handy cdsutils tools. 


I've set up an installation of Anaconda python in /ligo/apps/anaconda. Installing pyepics, nds2, and cdsutils was straightforward, but there were a myriad of odd python packages that cdsutils depends on, that are typically installed at the OS level (python-gst, gobject, glib) which I just manually copied over to the anaconda directories. Also, the version of readline that anaconda ships with is somewhat borked (dark voodoo fix was found here: github link. The issue mentioned there wasn't why I needed the fix. Somehow libreadline was causing pyepics initialization to fail). 

I was initially hoping this kind of exercise would be useful, as having a separate python environment that we control buffers us from the system installation and allows us to use whatever version of packages we want, but the amount of hackery I did to get to get cdsutils to work probably didn't result in the most robust solution. (Maybe there was a better way!)

In any case, I have not changed any of our machines' default paths or environment variables. Instead, I have simply created an alias that points to Anaconda python: "apython"


Example:

controls@pianosa|scriptTesting > cat foo.py
import scipy as sp
import sys
from ezca import Ezca
ez=Ezca()
print 'Python Version: '+ sys.version
print 'ez.read test:' + str(ez.read('LSC-TRY_OUT16'))
print 'Scipy Version: '+sp.__version__
 
controls@pianosa|scriptTesting > python foo.py
Python Version: 2.7.3 (default, Feb 27 2014, 19:58:35)
[GCC 4.6.3]
ez.read test:0.0154613731429
Scipy Version: 0.9.0
 
controls@pianosa|scriptTesting > apython foo.py
Python Version: 2.7.8 |Continuum Analytics, Inc.| (default, Aug 21 2014, 18:22:21)
[GCC 4.4.7 20120313 (Red Hat 4.4.7-1)]
ez.read test:0.00307549210265
Scipy Version: 0.14.0

Thus, Diego should now be able to complete his script that needs the newer Scipy, as well as CDSutils. 

Final note: I've tested z (read|write|avg) with $PATH modified to have /ligo/apps/anaconda/bin at the start, and they seem to work. If things seem to hold up, maybe we can replace the default command-line python, but its not strictly necessary. 

  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.

  10670   Wed Nov 5 11:37:29 2014 manasaUpdateGeneralLight from Y end reaches PSL table

[Steve, Diego, Manasa]

Since the beatnotes have disappeared, I am taking this as a chance to put the FOL setup together hoping it might help us find them.

Two 70m long fibers now run along the length of the Y arm and reach the PSL table.

The fibers are running through armaflex insulating tubes on the cable racks. The excess length ~6m sits in its spool on the top of the PSL table enclosure.

Both the fibers were tested OK using the fiber fault locator. We had to remove the coupled end of the fiber from the mount and put it back in the process. So there is only 8mW of end laser power at the PSL table after this activity as opposed to ~13mW.  This will be recovered with some alignment tweaking.

After the activity I found that the ETMY wouldn't damp. I traced the problem to the ETMY SUS model not running in c1iscey. Restarting the models in c1iscey solved the problem.

 

  10671   Wed Nov 5 17:50:29 2014 manasaUpdateGeneralPSL and AUXY beatnote in IR found

Found the IR beatnote between PSL and Y end laser.

Since our goal was to find the beatnote ASAP to recover ALS, I ignored the fine details in alignment. I will revisit the setup to make some improvements in the near future.

1. Coupled the PSL IR beam leaking after the doubler into the fiber. We have only 10% coupling into the fiber at the PSL table right now (6mw); but this will be improved once I get a suitable translation stage for the telescope.

2. PSL IR --> PM980 fiber --->50-50 fiber beam splitter ---> 50-50 fiber beam combiner
  AUX Y ---> PM980 fiber ---> 50-50 fiber beam combiner

The output port of the fiber beam combiner is connected to the fiber coupled broadband RF PD.

3. The RF output of the PD when connected to a spectrum analyzer shows a beatnote of -50dBm. The small amplitude of the beatnote is due to the laser power being attenuated before coupling into the fiber to keep the PD safe.

Attached is photo of how the setup is put on the PSL table. We will put all the stuff in a box once the X setup is also in place.

Attachment 1: PSLsetup.jpg
PSLsetup.jpg
  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.

  10677   Thu Nov 6 10:18:12 2014 SteveUpdateGeneralfiber insulation in cable tray

Quote:

[Steve, Diego, Manasa]

Since the beatnotes have disappeared, I am taking this as a chance to put the FOL setup together hoping it might help us find them.

Two 70m long fibers now run along the length of the Y arm and reach the PSL table.

The fibers are running through armaflex insulating tubes on the cable racks. The excess length ~6m sits in its spool on the top of the PSL table enclosure.

Both the fibers were tested OK using the fiber fault locator. We had to remove the coupled end of the fiber from the mount and put it back in the process. So there is only 8mW of end laser power at the PSL table after this activity as opposed to ~13mW.  This will be recovered with some alignment tweaking.

After the activity I found that the ETMY wouldn't damp. I traced the problem to the ETMY SUS model not running in c1iscey. Restarting the models in c1iscey solved the problem.

 

 AP Armaflex  tube 7/8" ID X 1" wall insulation for the long fiber in wall mounted cable trays installed yesterday.

The 6 ft long sections are not glued. Cable tied into the tray pressed against one an other, so they are air tight. This will allow us adding more fibers later.

 Atm2: Fiber PSL ends  protection added on Friday.

 

Attachment 1: APT07810.jpg
APT07810.jpg
Attachment 2: fromYend.jpg
fromYend.jpg
  10678   Thu Nov 6 11:40:58 2014 SteveUpdateGeneralHe/Ne telescope

Liyuan is measuring the He/Ne telescopes in the Y arm between the tube and CES wall. He'll be here till 1pm

  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. 

  10680   Thu Nov 6 12:53:09 2014 diegoUpdateASCX arm restored

[Diego, Koji]

X arm has been restored, after modifying the two parameters mentioned in http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/10676 (C1SUS_ITMX:  LSC/DAMP and LSC/BIAS); after that, a manual re-alignment of ETMX was necessary due to heavy PIT misalignment. I will check the ALS lock once work on the Y arm is done.

  10681   Thu Nov 6 12:58:28 2014 KojiUpdateIOOWFS offset was reset

IMC WFS operating point seemed to get degraded.

- IMC WFS feedback was relieved.

- WFS servo was turned off.

- IMC alignment was tuned carefully

- /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/MC/WFS/WFS_FilterBank_offsets was run

- WFS servo was turned on again 

  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...

  10684   Fri Nov 7 10:29:56 2014 SteveUpdateGeneralHe/Ne telescope

Quote:

Liyuan is measuring the He/Ne telescopes in the Y arm between the tube and CES wall. He'll be here till 1pm

 Liyuan is continuing his measurement in the Y arm till noon today.

  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
  10688   Sat Nov 8 11:31:51 2014 ranaUpdateComputer Scripts / ProgramsAnaconda + CDSutils

Quote:

I've fallen down the rabbit hole of trying to reconcile our desire for newer versions of the Numpy and Scipy python packages with the use of our handy cdsutils tools. 

 Avoid rabbit holes! What I did at LLO which works is to install an Anaconda in some shared directory and then just make an alias which puts that directory at the head of the path when running the more advanced SciPy installs. It works fine and cannot interfere with our usual operation since its only sourced when running peak find.

  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
  10691   Mon Nov 10 07:36:35 2014 SteveUpdateSUSPRM damping recovered

PRM sus damping recovered and PMC locked.

  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

  10694   Mon Nov 10 23:14:20 2014 ranaSummarySUSSRM: damping gains & Optical Lever servo Tune-up
  1.  tweaked gains for POS, PIT, YAW, SIDE by ~10-20% to get nice ringdowns with Q~5.
  2. Measured bounce rool freqs = 16.43 / 23.99 Hz. Updated the Mech Res Wiki page. Tightened up the bandstops to get back a few deg of phase. Propagated these new bandstops into the SRM SUS damping filter banks.
  3. Made and turned on a LP filters for the loops.
  4. Added a ~0.3 Hz gain boost / bubble.
  5. Set UGF to be ~2.5x below where it rings up. Estimate this to be ~3.5 Hz.
  6. First PDF shows bounce/roll peaks in OSEMs. Notice how f_roll is > sqrt(2)*f_bounce. ??
  7. Second PDF shows the OL spectra with the loops on/off. Previously there was no Boost and no LP (!!) turned on.
  8. 3rd PDF shows the modeled Bode plot of the OLG. yellow/blue is boost off/on
Attachment 1: SRM-BR.pdf
SRM-BR.pdf
Attachment 2: SRM_err_141110.pdf
SRM_err_141110.pdf
Attachment 3: SRM-OLG.pdf
SRM-OLG.pdf
  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.

  10697   Tue Nov 11 19:46:35 2014 diegoUpdateComputer Scripts / ProgramsStatus of the new nodus

The new nodus machine is being brought to life; until installation is finished and everything is fine, the old nodus will be unharmed. For future reference:

New Nodus hardware:

Case: SuperMicro SC825MTQ-R700U

M/B: SuperMicro X8DTU-F

CPU: 2x Intel Xeon X5650

RAM: 3x Kingston KVR1333D3S8R9S (2GB)

         3x Samsung M393B5673EH1-CH9 (2GB)

           Total 12 GB

HDD: Seagate ST3400832AS (400GB)

 

Current software situation and current issues :

1) Ubuntu Server 12.04.5 is installed and updated

2) The usual 'controls' user is present, with UID=1001 and GID=1001

3) Packages installed: nfs-common, rpcbind, ntp, dokuwiki, apache2, php5, openssh-server, elog-2.8.0-2 [from source], make, gcc, libssl-dev [dependencies for elog], subversion

4) Network: interface eth0 is set up (static IP and configuration in /etc/network/interfaces); eth1 is recognized and added, but not configured yet

5) DNS: configuration is in /etc/resolvconf/resolv.conf.d/base (since /etc/resolv.conf is overwritten by the resolvconf program using the 'base' database)

6) ntp is installed and (presumably) configured, but ntpd misbehaves (namely, all the servers are found, but a 

tail /var/log/syslog

shows that no actual synchronization is performed, and the daemon keeps

Listening on routing socket on fd #22 for interface updates

7) dokuwiki apache2 php subversion elog are installed but not configured yet (I need info about their current state, configuration and whereabouts)

8) I copied and merged the old nodus' .bashrc and .cshrc into new nodus' .bashrc, need to know if something has to be added

9) backup frames, backup user dirs and 40m public_html are not set yet, as in #7

 

Is there something missing?

If there is something missing from here (ligo/cds software, smartmontools/hddtemp and similar, or anything else) tell me and I'll set them up.

  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

 

  10702   Wed Nov 12 15:14:09 2014 manasaUpdateGeneralX end AUX laser fiber setup

 I looked at the endtable for possible space to setup optics in order to couple the X end laser into a PM fiber.

Attached is the layout of where the setup will go and what are the existing stuff that will be moved.

ETMXtable.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
  10704   Wed Nov 12 20:11:41 2014 KojiUpdateIOOMC WFS gain reduced again

MC WFS was oscillative at 1Hz. I've reduced the servo gain further (x1, x1, x10, x1, x1, and x10).

The MC mirrors were realigned, and the WFS offsets were reset.

  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
  10706   Wed Nov 12 22:22:11 2014 KojiSummaryIOOEstimation of the angular jitter imposed by the TTs

[Koji, Rana, Jenne]

One coil of the TT produce 36nrad/rtHz at DC.

- C1:IOO-TT2_UL_EXC was excited with 5 count_pk at 0.04Hz.

- LSC_TRY exhibited the symmetric reduction of the transmission from 0.95 to 0.90.

1 - (theta/theta0)^2 /2 = 0.90 / 0.95

=> theta / theta0 = 0.32

- 40m beam waist radius is 3.1mm. This means the divergence angle is 1.1e-4 rad.

=> 1.1e-4*0.32 = 3.6e-5 rad

=> 3.6e-5/5 = 7.2 urad/count (per coil)

- DAC noise 1/sqrt(12 fs), where fs is the sampling rate (fs = 16384)

=> 0.002 cnt/rtHz

- One coil causes 7.2u*0.002 = 14 nrad/rtHz (at DC)

- One suspension cause 29 nrad/rtHz (at DC)

Attachment 1: 03.png
03.png
  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. 

  10708   Thu Nov 13 01:03:28 2014 rana, jenneUpdateSUSOL updates on ITMs and ETMs

 We copied the new SRM filters over onto the OL banks for the ITMs and ETMs. We then adjusted the gain to be 3x lower than the gain at which it has a high frequency oscillation. This is the same recipe used for the SRM OL tuning.

Before this tune up, we also set the damping gains of the 4 arm cavity mirrors to give step response Q's of ~5 for all DOF and ~7-10 for SIDE.

  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
  10711   Thu Nov 13 22:52:48 2014 kateUpdatePEMSeismometers set up for huddle test

Jenne, Diego, Kate

We want to conduct a huddle test with the three 40m seismometers (2 Guralps and 1 Trillium), so we began to get that set up in order. All three are currently sitting on the large granite slab approximately halfway down the length of the MC tube. We had to move all three seismometers: the Trillium had been next to the BS and the Guralps at the end stations. All three are balanced and aligned and we have put the foam box over them. 

The Trillium has not yet been used here, so we had to first wire its power supply. We're now providing its readout box with +/- 20 V. Getting that hooked up required powering down several electronics racks, which involved auxiliary prep work like turning off the suspension watchdogs. We also installed 3 new BNC cables to carry the Trillium x,y,z signals from its box to the CDS AA board. We're using the inputs which had previously been used for recording the STS2 signals. 

We could find only one of the two 'short' Guralp cables, so at the moment just one of the two Guralps is powered and connected to CDS. Jenne made (some time ago) new cables so that we could leave the long cables that run from the corner to each end station in place to preserve the nominal setup. 

Attachment/edit by Jenne: Seismic spectra.  Note that the T240 is connected to the channels that are called STS_1.  I compared the Guralp spectra to our seismic_ref, and they match up pretty well.  The new spectra is maybe a factor of 2 or so above the reference, at a few Hz. Anyhow, the Guralp seems fine.  I am sure that somewhere we have a second short (as in, not 50m long) Guralp cable, I just can't remember right now where it might be.  Also, the T-240 has some seriously crazy noise up around 30Hz.  What's up with that??  I want to ask Zach if he saw this when he had the Trillium, or if it is new.

Seismic_13Nov2014.pdf

Attachment 2: seism_closed.jpg
seism_closed.jpg
Attachment 3: seism_open.jpg
seism_open.jpg
  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
ELOG V3.1.3-