Motivation:

I got some hands-on-experience on using RF photodetectors and the Network Analyzer from Koji. There were newly purchased RF photodetectors from Electro-Optics Technology, Inc.. These were InGaAs Photodetectors with model no.: 120-10050-0001(ET-3010) and 120-10056-0001(ET-3040). The User Guide for the two detectors can be found here. This is the first time we bought the ET-3010 model PD for the 40m lab. It has an operation bandwith >1.5GHz(not tested yet), much higher than other PDs of its kind. This can be used for detecting the output as we 'sweep' the laser frequency for getting data on the optical cavities and the resonating modes inside the cavity. We just tested out the ET-3040 model today but will test out the ET-3010 next week.

Tools and Machines Used:

We worked on the optical bench right in front of the main entrance to the lab. We put the cables, power chords, etc. to their respective places. We used screws, poles, T's, I's, multimeter, Network/Spectrum Analyzer(along with the moving table), a lab computer, Oscilloscope, power supply and the aforementioned PDs for our testing. We took these items from the stack of tools at the Y-arm and the boxes of various different labelled palced near the X-arm. We moved the Network Analyzer(along with the bench) from near the Y-arm to our workplace.

Procedure:

I will include a rough schematic of the setup later.

We alligned the reference PD(High Speed Photoreceiver model 1611) and the test PD(ET-3040 in this case) to get optimal power output. We had set the pump current for the laser at 19.5mA which produced a power of 1.00mW at the output of the fiber couple. At the reference detector the measured voltage was about 1.8V and at the DUT it was about 15mV. The DC transimpedance for the reference detector is 10kOhm and its responsivity to 1064 nm is around 0.75A/W. Using this we calculate the power at the reference detector to be 0.24mW. The DC transimpedance for the DUT is 50Ohm and the responsivity of about 0.9A/W. This amounts to a power of about 0.33mW. After measuring the DC voltages, we connected the laser input to the Network Analyzer and gave in an RF signal with -10dBm and frequency modulation from 100 kHz to 500 MHz. The RF output from the Analyzer is coupled to the Reference Channel(CHR) of the analyzer via a 20dB directional coupler. The AC output of the reference detector is given at Channel A(CHA) and the output from the DUT is given to Channel B(CHB). We got plots of the ratios between the reference detector, DUT and the coupled refernce for the Transfer Function and the Phase. We found that the cut-off frequency for the ET3040 model was at arounf 55 MHz(stated as >50MHz in the data sheet). We have stored the data using the lab PC in the directory .../scripts/general/netgpibdata/data.

Result:

The bandwidth of the ET-3040 PD is as stated in the data sheet, >50 MHz.

Precaution:

These PDs have an internal power supply of 3V for ET-3040 and 6V for ET-3010. Do not leave these connected to any instruments after the experiments have been performed or else the batteries will get drained if there is any photocurrent on the PDs.

To Do:

A similar procedure has to be followed in order to test the ET-3010 PD. I will be doing this tentatively on Monday.

I am adding the text files with the data readings and paramater settings along with the Bode Plot of the data. I plotted these graphs using matplotlib module with python 2.7.

In continuation with the previous(ET-3040 PD) test.

The ET-3010 PD requires to be fiber coupled for optimal use. I will try to test this model without the fiber couple tomorrow and see whether it works or not.

Summary:

In continuation to the previous test conducted on the ET-3040 PD,  I performed a similar test on the ET-3010 model. This model requires a fiber couple input for proper testing, but I tested it in free space without a fiber couple as the laser power was only 1.00 mW and there was not much danger of scattering of the laser beam. The Data Sheet can be found here

Procedure:

The schematic(attached below) and the procedure are the same as the previous time. The pump current was set to 19.5 mA giving us a laser beam of power 1.00mW at the fiber couple output. The measured voltage for the reference detector was 1.8V. For the DUT, the voltage is amplified using a low noise amplifier(model SR-560) with a gain of 100. Without any laser incidence on the DUT, the multimeter reads 120.6 mV. After alligning the laser with the DUT, the multimeter reads 348.5 mV, i.e. the voltage for the DUT is 227.9/100 ~ 2.28 mV. The DC transimpedance of the reference detector is 10kOhm and its responsivity to 1064 nm is around 0.75 A/W. Using this we calculate the power at the reference detector to be 0.24 mW. The DC transimpedance for the DUT is 50Ohm and the responsivity is around 0.85 A/W. Using this we calculate the power at the DUT to be 0.054 mW. After this we connect the the laser input to the Netwrok Analyzer(AG4395A) and give an RF signal with -10dBm and frequency modulation from 100 kHz to 500 MHz.The RF output from the Analyzer is coupled to the Reference Channel(CHR) of the analyzer via a 20dB directional coupler. The AC output of the reference detector is given at Channel A(CHA) and the output from the DUT is given to Channel B(CHB). We got plots of the ratios between the reference detector, DUT and the coupled refernce for the Transfer Function and the Phase. I stored the data under the directory.../scripts/general/netgpibdata/data. The Bode Plot has been attached below and seeing it we observe that the cut-off frequency for the ET-3010 model is atleast over 500 MHz(stated as >1.5 GHz in the data sheet).

Result:

The bandwidth of the ET-3010 PD is atleast 500MHz, stated in the data sheet as >1.5GHz.

Precaution:

The ET-3010 PD has an internal power supply of 6V. Don't leave the PD connected to any instrument after the experimentation is done or else the batteries will get drained if there is any photocurrent on the PDs.

To Do:

Caliberate the vertical axis in the Bode Plot with transimpedance(Ohms) for the two PDs. Automate the procedure by making a Python script for taking multiple set of readings from the Netwrok Analyzer and aslo plot the error bands.

Using Alberto's paper LIGO-T10002-09-R titled "40m RF PDs Upgrade", I calibrated the vertical axis in the bode plots I had obtained for the two PDs ET-3010 and ET-3040.

I am not sure whether the values I have obtained are correct or not(i.e. whether the calibration is correct or not). Kindly review them.

EDIT: Attached the formula used to calculate transimpedance for each data point and the values of other paramaters.

EDIT 2: Updated the plots by changing the conversion for gettin ghte ratio of the transfer functions from 10^(y/10) to 10^(y/20).

Summary:

I have written a code(a basic one which needs a lot of improvements, but still does the job) for taking multiple measurements from the AG4395A. I have also written a separate code for plotting the data taken from the previoius code along with the error bars upto 1 standard deviation.

Details on How To Operate AG4395A:

1. Under 'Measurement' tab, press the 'Meas' button and select the Analyzer Type (Network Analyzer or Spectrum Analyzer).
2. Then under the same options select which 'ratio' needs to be measured (A/R, B/R or A/B).
3. Then press the 'Format' button to select what needs to be measured (Eg - Log|Mag|, Phase, etc.).
4. In order to measure and see two channels at the same time (Eg - Log|Mag| and Phase), press the 'Display' button and select 'Dual Channel'.
5. Using the 'Scale' button we can set the scale/div or use autoscale and also set the attenuator values of the different channels.
6. The 'Bw/Avg' option gives us an averaging option which averages few sets of data to produce the result. In doing this we lose quiet a lot of data and the resulting plot isn't able to give us the information on the statistical errors.
7. This option also allows us to set the 'Intermediate Frequency' Bandwidth. This basically dictates the sampling rate of the Analyzer. The lower the IF bw, the higher is lesser is the noise (due to less uncertainty in Frequency).
8. The 'Cal' button helps us calibrate the Analyzer to the current connections and signals. This is done because there is usually a difference in the 'cable lengths' for the two channels which introduces an extra phase term depnding upon the rf frequency. The calibration can be simply done by removing the Device Under Test (DUT) and diectly connecting the coaxial cables to the channels. After this the 'Calibrate Menu' allows us to calibrate the response using the short, open and thru methods.
9. Now, under the 'Sweep' tab, the 'Sweep' button allows us to select various sweep options such as 'Sweep Time' (Auto, or set a time), 'Number of Points' (b/w 201-801) and 'Sweep Type' (Linear, Log, List Freq. etc.).
10. Using the 'Source' button we can set the source power in dBm units (Usually kept as -20 to -10 dBm).
11. The Scan Range can be set in a few ways such as using the start and end points or using the center and span range/width.
12. After setting up all of the above, we can take the measurement either from the analyzer itself or using one of the control PCs. The command to download the data from AG4395A is netgpibdata -i 192.168.113.105 -d AG4395A -a 10 -f [filename].

Brief Details on How the 'AGmeasure' command works:

AGmeasure is a python script developed by some of the people who work at 40m. It is set as a global command and can be used from within any directory. The source code is in the scripts folder on the network, or else it can also be found in Eric Quintero's git repository. This command accepts at the very least a parameter file. This is supposed to be a .yml file. A template (TFAG4395Atemplate.yml) can be found in the scripts folder or in Eric's repo. There are some other options that can be passed to this command, see the help for more details.

The Multi_Measurement Script:

This script calls the 'AGmeasure' command repetitively and keeps storing the data files in a folder. Right now, the script needs to be fed in th template file manually at prompt.

The Test_Plotting Script:

This script plots the a set of data files obtained from the above mentioned script and produces a plot along with the errors bands upto 1 standard deviation of the data. The format (names) and total number of text files need to be explicitly known, for now at least.

Attachments:​

1. The output test files and the two scripts.
2. This is the 'Bode Plot' for a data set made using the above two scripts.

To Do:

• Improve upon the two scripts to be as compatible as the AGmeasure function itself.
• Try and incorporate the whole script into AGmeasure itself along with improving upon the templates.
• The above details, with some edits perhaps, can go into the 40m wiki too(?).

Update: Increased the font size in the plot. Added a few comments to the two scripts

To Do: Need to consider the transfer function as a single physical quantity (both the magnitude and phase) and then take the averages and calculate the standard deviation and then plot these results. 

EDIT:

The attachment with the test files and the code now also contains a pdf with all the relations/equations I have used to calculate the averages and errors.

I am leaving a script running on the Pianoso for the night. For this purpose, even the AG4395A is kept on. I'll see the result of the script in the morning (it should be complete by then). Just check so before fiddling with the Analyzer.

Thank you.

In continuation to my previous posts, I have been working on evaluating the data on transfer function. Recently, I have calculated the correlation values between the real and imaginary part of the transfer function. Also I have written the code for plotting the transfer function data stream at each frequency in the argand plane just for referring to. Also I have done a few calculations and found the errors in magnitude and phase using those in the real and imaginary parts of the transfer function. More details for the process are in this git repository.

The following attachments have been added:

1. The correlation plot at different frequencies. This data is for a 100 data files.
2. The Test files used to produce the abover plot along with the code for the plotting it as well as the text file containing the correlation values. (Most of the code is commented as that part wasn't needed fo rhte recent changes.)

Conclusion:

Seeing the correlation values, it sounds reasonable that the gaussian in real and imaginary parts approximation is actually holding. This is because the correlation values are mostly quite small. This can be seen by studying the distribution of the transfer function on the argand plane. The entire distribution can be seen to be somewhat, if not entirely, circular. Even when the ellipticity of the curve seems to be high, the curve still appears to be elliptical along the real and imaginary axes, i.e., correlation in them is still low.

To Do:

1. Use a better way to estimate the errors in magnitude and phase as the method used right now is a only valid with the liner approximation and gives insane values which are totally out of bounds when the magnitude is extrmely small and the phase is varying as mad.
2. Use the errors in the transfer function to estimate the coherence in the data for each frequency point. That is basically plot a cohernece Vs frequency plot showing how the coherence of the measurements vary as the frequency is varied.

In order to test the above again, with an even larger data set, I am leaving a script running on Ottavia. It should take more than just the night(I estimate around 10-11 hours) if there are no problems.

Summary:

The following elog describes the procedure followed for generating a sample simulation for a cavity scan, fitting an actual cavity scan and calculating the relevant paramaters using the cavity scan and fit data.

1. Cavity Scan Simulation:

1. First, we define the sample cavity parameters, i.e., the reflectivitie,transmissivities of the mirrors, the RoCs of the mirrors and the absolute cavity length.
2. We then define a frequency range using numpy.linspace function for which we want to take a scan.
3. We then define a function that returns the tranmission power output of a Fabry-Perot cavity using the cavity equations as follows:  where P_t is the transmission power ratio of the output power to input power, t₁,t₂,r₁,r₂ are the transmissivities and reflectivities of the two mirrors, L is the absolute cavity length, f is the frequency of the input laser, c is the speed of light,  is the gouy phase shift with g₁,g₂ being the g-factors for the two cavity mirrors(g=1-L/R). 'n' and 'm' correspond to the TEM_nm higher order mode.
4. We now obtain a cavity scan by giving the above defined function the cavity parameters and by adding the outputs for different higher order mode('n', 'm' values). Appropriate factors for the HOMs need to be chosen. The above function with appropriate coefficients can be used ti also add the modulated sidebands to the total transmission power.
5. To this obtained total power we can add some random noise using numpy modules random.normal function. We need to normalise the data with respect to the max. power transmission ratio.
6. We can now perform fitting on the above data using the procedure stated in the next section and then plot the two data sets using matplotlib module.
7. A similar code to do the above is given here.

2. Fitting a Cavity Scan:

1. The actual data for a cavity scan can be found in this elog entry or attached below in the zip folder.
2. We read this data and separate the frequency data and the transmission data.
3. Using the peakutils module's indexes function, we find the indices of the various peaks in the data set.
4. These peaks are from the fundamental resonances, sideband resonances(both 11MHz and 55MHz) as well as a few HOMs.
5. Each of these resonances follows the cavity equations and hence can be modelled as Lorentzian within small intervals around the peak frequencies. A detailed description of how this is possible is given here and is in the atached zip folder('Functionsused.pdf').
6. We define a Lorentzian function which returns the follows:  where 'a' is the peak transmission value, 'b' is the 'linewidth' of the Lorentzian and  is the peak frequency  about which the cavity equations behave like a lorentzian.
7. We now, using the Lorentzian function, fit the various identified peaks using the curve_fit function of the scipy module. Remember to turn the 'absolute_sigma' parameter to 'True'.
8. The parameters now obtained can be evaluated using the procedure given in the next section.
9. The total transmission power is evaluated by feeding in the above obtained parameters back into the Lorentzian function and adding it for each peak.
10. We can plot the actual data set and the data obtained using the fit of different peaks in a plot using matplotlib module. We can also plot the residuals for a better depiction of the fit quality.  
11. The code to analyse the above mentioned cavity scan data is given here and attached below in the zip folder.

3. Calculating Physically Relevant Parameters:

1. The data obtained from the fitting the peaks in the previous section now needs to be analysed in order to obtain some physically relevant information such as the FSR value, the TMS value, the modulation depths of the sidebands and perhaps even the linear caliberation of the frequency.
2. First we need to identify the fundamental, TEM₀₀ resonances among all the peaks. This we do by using the numpy.where function. We find the peaks with transmission values more than 0.9(or any suitable value).
3. Using these indices we will now calculate the FSR and the Finesse of the peaks. A description of the correlation between the Fit Parameters and the FSR and Finesse is given here.
4. We define a Linear fitting function for fitting the frequency values of the fundamental resonances against the i^th fundamental resonance. The slope of this line gives us the value of FSR and the error in it.
5. The Finesse can be calculated by fitting the linewidth with a constant function.
6. The cavity length can be calculated using the FSR values as follows: .
7. Now, the approximate positions of the sideband frequncies is given by 11*10⁶%FSR and 55*10⁶%FSR away from the fundamental, carrier resonances.
8. The modulation depth, 'm', is given as  where P_c is the carrier transmission power, Ps is the transmission power of the sideband and J_v is the Bessel Function of order 'v'.
9. We define a function 'Bessel Ratio' using which we'll fit the transmission power ratio of the carrier to the sideband for the multiple sideband resonances.
10. We also check for the Linearity in frequency data by plotting Fitting the frequencies corresponding to peaks in the actual data to ones obtained after fitting.
11. After this we attempt to identify the other HOMs. For this we first determine a rough estimate for the value of TMS using the already known parameters of the mirrors,i.e., the RoC. We then look in small intervals (0.5 MHz) around frequencies where we would expect the HOMs to be, i.e., 1*TMS, 2*TMS, 3*TMS... away from the fundamental resonances. These positions are all modulo FSR.
12. After identifying the HOMs, we take the difference from the fundamental resonance and then study these modulo the FSR.
13. We perform a Linear Fit between these obtained values and (n+m).  As 'n','m' are degenerate, we can simply perform the fit against some variable 'k' and obtain the value of TMS as the slope of the linear fit.
14. The code to do the above stated analysis is given here.

Most of the above info and some smaller details can be found in the markdown readme file in this git repo.

The code to produce a cavity scan simulation and then fitting the data and re-evaluating the initiallt set parameters can be found in this git repo.

The 'CavitScanSimulation' python script now produces a cavity scan with custom parameters which can be easily modified. It also introduces the first TEMs(n+m=0,1,2,3,4) to the laser with power going as (1/(2(n+m)+1))^2 {Selected carefully}. The only care that needs to be taken is that the frequency span should be somewhere near an integral multiple of the FSR so that there are equal number of resonances for all modes and sidebands. This code, as of now also calls the 'FitCavityScan' script which performs the fitting procedure on the data generated above{This data is actually written in a '.mat' file} and generates the Fit parameter data files. The Simulation code then calls the 'CalculatingPhysicalParameters' script which evaluates the data based on the Fit parameters and outputs some physically relevant results like the FSR, Finesse, Modulation Depths, TMS{Current Output is the Estimated RoCs of the two mirrors which isn't something we want directly, so it can be modified a bit to output TMS based on the HOMs}. The scripts do some 'Linearity' checks which might not really be of much significance but can be seen as a reference. Also, the ipython notebook will show all intermediate plots for the actual data and data with custom noise, fit data, FSR fitting, linearity checks, Bessel Ratio plot with mod_depths.

Today, I and Jigyasa connected the Ottavia to one of the unused monitor screens Donatella. The Ottavia CPU had a label saying 'SMOKED''. One of the past elogs, 11091, dated back in March 2015, by Jenne had an update regarding the Ottavia smelling 'burny'. It seems to be working fine for about 2 hours now. Once it is connected to the Martian Network we can test it further. The Donatella screen we used seems to have a graphic problem, a damage to the display screen. Its a minor issue and does not affect the display that much, but perhaps it'll be better to use another screen if we plan to use the Ottavia in the future. We will power it down if there is an issue with it.

It has been working fine the whole day(we didn't do much testing on it though). We are leaving it on for the night.

Ottavia had been left running overnight and it seems to work fine. There has been no smell or any noticeable problems in the working. This morning Gautam, Kaustubh and I connected Ottavia to the Matrian Network through the Netgear switch in the 40m lab area. We were able to SSH into Ottavia through Pianosa and access directories. On the ottavia itself we were able to run ipython, access the internet. Since it seems to work out fine, Kaustubh and I are going to enable the ethernet connection to Ottavia and secure the wiring now.  

I just connected the Ottavia to the Netgear box and its working just fine. It'll remain switched on over the weekend.

Keiko, Kiwamu

We noticed that we have used wrong code for MICH degree of freedom for both of the ELOG entries on this topic (cavity lengths tolerance search). It will be modified and posted soon.

 Keiko, Kiwamu

Length tolerance of the vertex part is about 5 mm.

Sorry for my procrastinating update on this topic. In my last post, I reported that the length tolerance of the vertex ifo would be 2mm, based on Kiwamu's code on CVS. Then we noticed that the MICH degrees of freedom was wrong in the code. I modified the code and ran again. You can find the modified codes on CVS (40m folder, analyzeDRMITolerance3f.m and DRMITolerance.m)

In this code, the arm lengths were kept to be ideal while some length offsets of random gaussian distribution were added on PRCL, SRCL and MICH lengths. The iteration was 1000 times for each sigma of the random gaussian distribution. The resulting sensing matrix is shown as histogram. Also, a histogram of the demodulation phase separation between MICH and SRCL is plotted by this code, as these two length degrees of freedom will be obtained by one channel separated by the demodulation phase. We check this separation because you want to make sure that the random length offsets does not make the separation of these two signals close.

The result is a bit different from the previous post, in the better way! The length tolerance is about 5 mm for the vertex ifo. Fig.1 shows the sensing matrix. Although signal levels are changed by the random offsets, only few orders of magnitude is changed in each degrees of freedom. Fig.2 shows that the signal separation between MICH and SRCL at  POP55 varies from  55 to 120 degrees, which may be OK. If you have 1cm sigma, it varies from 50 degrees to 150 degrees.

Fig. 1 Histgram of the sensing matrix including 3f channels, when sigma is 5mm. Please note that the x-axis is in long 10.

 Fig. 2 Histogram of the demodulation phase difference between MICH and SRCL, when sigma is 5 mm. To obtain the two signals independently, 90 is ideal. With the random offsets, the demodulation phase difference varies from 55 degrees to 120 degrees.

My next step is to run the similar code for LLO. 

 To check the demodulation boards for REFL33 and REFL165, a long cable from ETMY (SUS-ETMY-SDCOIL-EXT monitor) is pulled to the rack on Y side.

(1) A filter just after the RF input and (2) transfer function from the RF input to the demodulated signal will be checked for the two 3f demod boards to confirm that they are appropriate for 33 and 165 MHz.

There is a LP filter just after the RF input of an demodulation board (its schematic can be found as D990511-00-C on DCC). I have checked if the 3f freq, 33MHz, can pass  this filter. The filter TF from the RF input to RF monitor (the filter is between the input and monitor) on REFL33 demo-board was measured as shown in Fig. 1. At 33MHz, the magnitude is still flat and OK, but the phase is quite steep. I am going to consider if it is ok for the PDH method or not.

 Fig. 1 Transfer function from the RF input to RF monitor on the REFL33 demodulation board. At 33MHz, a very steep phase is applied on the input signal.

The phase delay due to the RF input filter on the demodulation board will not bother the resulting PDH signals.

I quickly calculated the below question (see the blue sentence in the quote below). I applied an arbitrary phase delay (theta) due to the filter I measured, on the detected RF signal by the photo detector. Then the filtered RF signal is multiplied by cos(omega_m) then filter the higher (2 omega_m) freqency as the usual mixing operation for the PDH signal. As a result, the I signal is delayed by cos(theta) and the Q signal is delayed by sin(theta). Therefore the resulting signals and its orthogonalitity is kept ok. From the sideband point of view, theta is applied on both upper and lower and seems to make the unbalance, however, as it is like a fixed phase offset on both SBs at the modulation frequency, the resulting signals is just multiplied by cos or sin theta for I and Q, respectively. It won't make any strange effect (it is difficult to explain by sentence not using equations!).

Filters at the RF inputs of REFL33 and REFL165 demodulation boards were measured again. The filters will be totally fine for 33MHz and 165MHz.

Last time I forgot to calibrate the cable lengths, therefore the phase delay of the measurement included the cable lengths. This time the measurements were done for REFL33 and REFL165 demod board with calibration. As the cable lengths were calibrated, the shown plots (Fig.1 and Fig.2) do not include the phase delay dues to measurement cables. Please note that the x-axis is in linear. The phase delays of both boards seems to be not too steep (it will not affect anyway, as Kiwamu pointed out in his comment on the previous post). You can see that the two filters do not filter 33MHz and 165MHz component out.

Fig.1 A response of a filter which is placed just after the RF input of the demodulation board for REFL33. X-axis is shown in linear (~50MHz).

Fig.2 A response of a filter which is placed just after the RF input of the demodulation board for REFL165.

I also quickly checked the orthogonality of the demodulation board for REFL33 and REFL165 using function generators and oscilloscope. I checked the frequencies at 1,10,100,1K,10KHz of the demodulated signals. They are fine and ready for 3f signal extraction.

Wait. I am checking the whitening filters of the 33 and 165 demodulation boards.

Also, LSC-REFL33-I-IN1(IN2, OUT) and LSC-REFL165-Q-IN1(IN2,OUT) channels may not be working??

LSC-REFL33-I-IN1(IN2, OUT) and LSC-REFL165-Q-IN1(IN2,OUT) channels are back!

We disconnected and connected again the AA filters then the channels are fixed. Apparently the AA filters just before the digital world were somhow charged and not working... Thank you Kiwamu!

Whitening filters for the REFL33 & 165 demodulated channels were measured and confirmed that they are working. They can be turned on and off by un-white filter switches on the MEDM screen because they are properly linked. The measured filter responses are showen below. (Sorry, apparentyl the thumbnails are not shown here. Please click the attachments.) 

Attachments: (top) Whitening filter for REFL33 demodulation board. (bottom) Whitening filter response for REFL 165 demodulation board.

Keiko, Jamie , Kiwamu

The I and Q orthogonalities of REFL33 and 165 demodulation board were measured by "orthogonality.py"  Python package scipy were addied on Pianosa to run this code. Please note that "orthogonality.py" can be run only on Pianosa.  

The results were:

REFL165

ABS = 1.070274, PHASE = -81.802479 [deg]

if you wanna change epics values according to this result, just copy and execute the following commands

ezcawrite C1:LSC-REFL165_Q_GAIN 0.934340 && ezcawrite C1:LSC-REFL165_PHASE_D -81.802479

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

REFL33

ABS = 1.016008 , PHASE = -89.618724 [deg]

if you wanna change epics values according to this result, just copy and execute the following commands

ezcawrite C1:LSC-REFL33_Q_GAIN 0.984244 && ezcawrite C1:LSC-REFL33_PHASE_D -89.618724

Fig.1 and 2  are the resulting plots for 33 and 165 MHz demod baoards, respectively.You should look at the 3Hz in x axis, as the demodulated signal frequency was set as 3 Hz.

Fig. 1 REFL33 I and Q orthogonality at 3 Hz.

Fig. 2 REFL165 I and Q orthogonality at 3 Hz.

In addition to REFL 33 ans 165, I checked the orthogonality for the other existing three channels.

AS11

ABS = 1.025035  PHASE = -93.124929 [deg]

REFL11]

ABS = 0.920984  PHASE = -88.824691 [deg]

REFL55

ABS = 1.029985 , PHASE = -90.901123 [deg]

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

The demodulated signal was set as 50 Hz (for example LO 11MHz and RF 11MHz+50Hz from function generators.) These AS11, REFL11, REL55, REFL33m REFL165 are the current available channels in terms of the connection to the data system from the demodulation board. I am going to estimate the error next.

 Anamaria, Keiko

- We aligned MICH and were successfully locked MICH using AS55Q. The other mirrors were misaligned so that the other degrees of freedom didn't exist. AS55 was fed back to BS. The f2a filters on BS suspension were required to lock, because the pos feedback was unbalanced to angle degrees of freedom.

- We tried to lock PRCL next, however, because we aligned the MICH and the REFL beam paths were changed, REFL PDs didn't have the light anymore. The REFL paths were modified now, so we will try the PRCL locking next.

- We couldn't confirm REFL55 signals although we alined the REFL paths to REFL55 PD.

The demodulation phases and gains for the all existing channels, AS11, REFL11,REFL55, REFL165, and REFL33, were adjusted by the command "ezcawrite" commands. 

Scripts are: 

REFL165 ezcawrite C1:LSC-REFL165_Q_GAIN 0.934340 && ezcawrite C1:LSC-REFL165_PHASE_D -81.802479

ezcawrite C1:LSC-REFL33_Q_GAIN 0.984244 && ezcawrite C1:LSC-REFL33_PHASE_D -89.618

 New channels, POP55 and POY11 are connected to the rack and now available on the data system.

POX11 I is not working. I didn't investigate what was wrong. Please make sure when you come to need POX11.

The orthogonalities of POY11 and POP55 were measured and already adjusted. The results are below:

POY11

ABS = 0.973633 

PHASE = 92.086483 [deg]

ezcawrite C1:LSC-POY11_Q_GAIN 1.027081 && ezcawrite C1:LSC-POY11_PHASE_D 92.086483

POP55

ABS =  1.02680579

PHASE =  88.5246 [deg]

ezcawrite C1:LSC-POP55_Q_GAIN 0.973894 && ezcawrite C1:LSC-POP55_PHASE_D 88.524609

 Keiko, Paul, Kiwamu

We found that POP beam is clipped by the steering mirrors inside the tank. POY beam is also likely to be clipped inside. Also the hight of POY beam is too high (about 5 cm higher than the normal paths) at the first lens. These imply the input pointing is bad.

 Here I note the procedure for the demodulation board orthogonality check for the future reference.

1. prepare two function generators and make sure I an Q demodulation signals go to the data acquisition system.

2. sync the two generators

3. drive the function generator at the modulation frequency and connect to the LO input on the demod board

4. drive the other function generator at the modulation frequency + 50Hz  the RF in

5. run "orthogonality.py"  from a control computer scripts/demphase directory. It returns the amplitude and phase information for I and Q signals. If necessary, compensate the amplitude and phase by the command that  "orthogonality.py" returns.

If you want to check in the frequency domain (optional):

1. 2. 3 are the same as above.

4. drive the function generator at the LO frequency + sweep the frequency, for example from 1Hz to 1kHz, 50ms sweep time. You can do it by the function generator carrier frequency sweep option.

5. While sweeping the LO frequency, run "orthogonality.py"

6. The resulting plot from "orthogonality.py" will show the transfer function from the RF to demodulated signal. The data is saved in "dataout.txt" in the same directory.

 Keiko, Anamaria

We started to investigate the AM modulation mistery again. Checking just after the EOM, there are AM modulation about -45dBm. Even if we adjust the HWP just before the EOM, AM components grow up in 5 mins. This is the same situation as before. Only the difference from before is that we don't have PBS and HWP between the EOM and the monitor PD. So we have a simpler setup this time.

We will try to align the pockells cell alignment tomorrow daytime, as it may be a problem when the crystal and the beam are not well parallel. This adjustment has been done before and it didn't improve AM level at that time.

 Keiko, Anamaria, Koji

We were not able to establish the stable DRMI tonight. We could lock MICH and PRCL quite OK, and lock the three degrees of freedom at somewhere strange for several seconds quite easily, but the proper DRMI lock was not obtained.

When MICH and PRC are locked to the carrier, REFL DC PD reading dropps from ~3000 counts to 2600~2700 counts as REFL beam is absorbed to PRC. We'll try to lock PRC to sidebands - but flipping gain sign didn't work today, although it worked a few days ago. 

POP beam (monitor) is useful to align PRM.

 Modulation resonator box is removed and the modulation depth is small right now.

I have broke the BNC connector on the modulation resonator box. The connector was attached by the screw inside very loosely and when we connect and disconnect the BNC cables from outside, extra force was applied to the cable inside and it was broke. It is being fix by Kiwamu and will be back in a bit.

Resonator box and the modulations are back now. But the modulation depth seems to be a bit smaller than yesterday, looking at the optical spectrum analyser.

Keiko, Suresh

AM modulations are still there ... the mechanical design for the stages, RF cables, and connections are not good and affecting the alignment.

I write the activity in the time series this time - Because we suspect the slight EOM misalignment to the beam produces the unwanted AM sidebands, we tried to align the EOM as much as possible. First I aligned the EOM tilt aligner so that the maximum power goes through. I found that about 5% power was dumped by EOM. After adjusting the alignment, the AM modulation seemed be much better and stable, however, it came up after about 20 mins. They grew up up to about -40dBm, while the noise floor is -60 dBm (when AM is minimised, with DC power of 8V by PDA225 photodetector).

We changed the EOM stage (below the tilt aligner) from a small plate to a large plate, so that the EOM base can be more stable. The EOM stands on the pile of several black plate. There was a gap below the tilt aligner because of a small plate.  So we swapped the small plate to large plate to eliminate the springly gap. However it didn't make any difference - it is the current status and there is still AM modulations right now.

During above activities, we leaned that the main cause of the EOM misalignment may be the RF cables and the resonator box connected to the EOM. They are connected to the EOM by an SMA adaptor, not any soft cables. It is very likely applying some  torc force to the EOM box. The resonator box is almost hunging from the EOM case and just your slight touch changes EOM alinment quite a bit and AM mod becomes large. 

I will replace the SMA connector between the resonator box and EOM to be a soft cable, so that the box doesn't hung from EOM tomorrow. Also, I will measure the AM mod depth so that we compare with the PM mod depth.

I created 3 kinds of LSC matrices, PRMI condition with carrier resonant in PRC, PRMI condition with SB resonant in PRC, and DRMI with SB resonant in PRC. The matrices are with AS55 and REFL11 which are used for locking right now. The signal numbers are written in log10, and the dem phases are shown in degrees.

From CR reso PRMI to SB reso PRMI, demodulation phases change  ----

PRMI - Carrier resonant in PRC

            PRCL      MICH  SRCL

PRMI - SB resonant in PRC

DRMI - SB resonant in PRC

AM modulation depths are found to be 50 times smaller than PM modulation depths.

m(AM,f1) ~ m(AM, f2) = 0.003 while m(PM, f1)=0.17 and m(PM, f2)=0.19.

Measured values;

* DC power = 5.2V which is assumed to be 0.74mW according to the PDA255 manual.

*AM_f1 and AM_f2 power = -55.9 dBm = 2.5 * 10^(-9) W.

AM f2 power is assumed to be the similar value of f1. I can't measure f2 (55MHz) level properly because the PD (PDA255) is 50MHz bandwidth. From the (P_SB/P_CR) = (m/2) ^2 relation where P_SB and P_CR are the sideband and carrier power, respectively, I estimated the rough the AM modulation depths. Although DC power include the AM SB powers, I assumed that SB powers are enough small and the DC power can be considered as the carrier power, P_CR. The resulting modulation depth is about 0.003.

On the other hand, from the OSA, today's PM mod depths are 0.17 and 0.19 for f1 and f2, respectively. Please note that these numbers contains (small) AM sidebands components too. Comparing with the PM and AM sideband depths, AM sidebands seems to be enough small.

The signal offset due to the AM modulation is estimated by a simulation for PRCL for now. Please see the result below.

Too see how bad or good the AM modulation with 1/50 modulation depths of PM, I ran a simulation. For example I looked at PRCL sweep signal for each channel. I tried the three AM modulation depths, (1) m_AM=0 & m_PM = 0.17 (2) m_AM = 0.003 & m_PM = 0.17 which is the current modulation situation (3) m_AM = 0.17 & m_PM = 0.17 in which AM is the same modulation depth as PM.  For the current status of (2), there are offsets on signals up to 0.002 while the maximum signal amplitude is 0.15. I can't tell how bad it is.... Any suggestions?

(1) m_AM=0 & m_PM = 0.17. There is no offset in the signals.

(2) m_AM = 0.003 & m_PM = 0.17. There are offsets on signals up to 0.002 while the maximum signal amplitude is 0.15.

(3) m_AM = 0.17 & m_PM = 0.17. There are offsets on signals up to 0.1 while the maximum signal amplitude is 0.2.

I will look at MICH and SRCL in the same way. 

Keiko, Anamaria

Tonight we want to measure the LSC matrix for PRMI and compare the simulation posted last night (#5495).

First. we locked MICH and PRCL, and measured the OLT to see how good the locking is. The following rough swept sine plots are the OLTs for MICH and PRCL. The gain setting was -10 and 0.5 for MICH and PRCL, respectively. Integrators were off. Looking at the measured plots, MICH has about 300 Hz UGF, when the gain is -20, and PRCL has about 300 HZ UGF, too, when the gain is 0.8.

As these lokings seemed good, so we tried the LSC matrix code written by Anamaria. However it is not working well at this point. When the script add excitations to the exc channels, they kick the optics too much and the lockings are too much disturbed...

Also, we have been trying to lock PRC with the SB resonant, it doesn't work. Looking at the simulated REFL11I (PRCL) signal (you can see it in #5495 too), the CR and SB resonances have the opposite signs... But minus gain never works for PRCL. It only excites the mirror rather than locking.

AM modulation will add offset on SRCL signal as well as PRCL signal. About 2% of the signal amplitude with the current AM level. MICH will not be affected very much.

From #5504, as for the AM modulation I checked the MICH and SRCL signals in addition to the last post for PRCL, to see the AM modulation effect on those signals. On the last post, PRCL (REFL11I) was found to have 0.002 while the maximum signal amplitude is 0.15 we use . Here, I did the same simulation for MICH and SRCL.

As a result, MICH signals are not affected very much. The AM modulation slightly changes signal slopes, but doesn't add offsets apparently. SRCL is affected more, for REFL signals. All the REFL channels get about 0.0015 offsets while the signal ampliture varies up to 0.002. AS55I (currently used for SRCL) has 1e-7 offset for 6e-6 amplitude signal (in the last figure) - which is the same offset ratio comparing with the amplitude in the PRCL case -

(1) MICH signals at AS port with AM m=0

(2) MICH signals at AS port with AM m=0.003

(3) SRCL signals at AS/REFL port with AM m=0

(3) SRCL signals at AS/REFL port with AM m=0.003

From the night day before yesterday (Sep 22nd, Thursday night. Sorry for my late update), there are more AM modulations than I measured in the previous post. It is changing a lot, indeed! Looking at the REFL11 I and Q signals on the dataviewer, the signal offset were huge, even after "LSCoffset" script. Probably the modulation index of AM was same order of PM at that time. The level of AM mod index is changing a lot depending on the EOM alingment which is not very stable, and also on the environment such as temperature .

To reduce AM modulations, here I note some suggestions you may want to try :

* Change the SAM connectors between RF resonator and EOM to be a soft but short connector, so that the resonator box doesn't hung from the EOM.

* Change the RF resonator base to be stable posts. Now several black plates are piled to make one base.

* Install a temperature shield

* Also probably you want to change the BNC connector on the RF resonator to be SMA.

* Be careful of the EOM yaw alignment. Pitch seemed to be less sensitive in producing AM than yaw alignment.

 I wrote an RAM simulation script ... it calculates the LSC signal offset and the operation point offset depending on the RAM modulation index.

Configuration : RAM is added on optC1, by the additional Mach-Zehnder ifo before the PRM.

 Both are for PRCL sweep result. Note that REFL33I is always almost zero. Next step: Check the LSC matrix with matrix at the offset operation point.

 On the right figure, you see the non-zero operation points even when RAM mod index = 0. Apparently they come from non-zero loss of the model.  (Each mirror of 50ppm loss was assumed).

GOAL : To lock the central part of ifo

Here is the plan:

Mon - assemble all the cables from PDs and mixers, and check the CDS channels. Prepare the beamsplitters.

Tue - The current paths to REFL11 and REFL55 will be modified to the four paths to REFL11, 33, 55, 165. And the PDs will be placed.
Wed, Thu - during waiting for the ifo available with vacuum, help aligning the POP, POX, POY. In parallel, a simulation to find the PRC length SRC 
length tolerance will be proceeded.

Fri - When the ifo becomes available with vacuum, the sensing signals by 3-f scheme will be obtained with proper demodulation phases.

Sat - Try to lock the central part of the ifo with the new 3-f signals.

Koji and Kevin

We unpacked the Innolight 2W laser, took an inventory, and scanned the operations manual.

[Edit by KA]

The scanned PDFs are placed on the following wiki page

http://lhocds.ligo-wa.caltech.edu:8000/40m/Upgrade_09/PSL

We will measure the P-I curve, the mode profile, frequency actuator responses, and so on.

Koji and Kevin measured the output power vs injection current for the Innolight 2W laser.

The threshold current is 0.75 A.

The following data was taken with the laser crystal temperature at 25.04ºC (dial setting: 0.12).

Koji and Kevin measured the vertical beam profile of the Innolight 2W laser at one point.

This data was taken with the laser crystal temperature at 25.04°C and the injection current at 2.092A.

The distance from the razor blade to the flat black face on the front of the laser was 13.2cm.

The data was fit to the function y(x)=a*erf(sqrt(x)*(x-x0)/w)+b with the following results.

Reduced chi squared = 14.07

x0 = (1.964 +- 0.002) mm

w  = (0.216 +- 0.004) mm

a  = (3.39  +- 0.03) V

b  = (3.46  +- 0.03) V

The vertical beam profile of the Innolight 2W laser was measured at eight points along the axis of the laser.

These measurements were made with the laser crystal temperature at 25.04°C and the injection current at 2.091A. z is the distance from the razor blade to the flat black face of the front of the laser.

The voltage from a photodiode was measured for the razor at a number of heights. Except for the first two points, one scan was made with the razor moving down and a second scan was made with the razor moving up. This data was fit to

y = a*erf(sqrt(2)*(x-x₀)/w) + b with the following results:

The values for w and its uncertainty were estimated with a weighted average between the two scans for the last six points and all eight points were fit to

w = w₀*sqrt(1+(z-z₀)²/z_R²) with the following results:

chi^2/ndf = 17.88

w₀ = (0.07 ± 0.13) mm

z₀ = (-27 ± 121) mm

z_R = (65 ± 93) mm

It looks like all of the data points were made in the linear region so it is hard to estimate these parameters with reasonable uncertainty.