40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 33 of 341  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Category Subjectup
  8773   Thu Jun 27 21:45:48 2013 ranaUpdatePEMBLRMS are going crazy

Its an increase in the microseismic peak. Don't know what its due to though.

Attachment 1: useism.pdf
useism.pdf
  7745   Mon Nov 26 18:36:17 2012 JenneUpdatePEMBLRMS back

Quote:

 I got two seismometers and one microphone back from Tara.

They are now near the Gurlap under the MC.

 I have finally plugged GUR1 back in....it is down at ETMY for now, since that's where the cable was.  BLRMS are back up on the projector.

  11849   Fri Dec 4 18:20:36 2015 gautamUpdateCDSBLRMS for IMC setup

[ericq, gautam]

BLRMS filters have been set up for the coil outputs and shadow sensor signals. The signals are sent to the C1PEM model from C1MCS, where I use the library block mentioned in the previous elog to put the filters in place. Some preliminary observations:

  1. The entire operation seems to be computationally quite expensive - just for the 3 IMC mirrors, the average CPU time for C1PEM increased from ~50 usec (before any changes were made to C1PEM) to ~105 usec just as a result of installing 420 filter modules with no filter coefficients loaded (3 optics x 10 channels x 14 filter banks) to ~120 usec when all the BP and LP filters for the BLRMS blocks have been loaded and turned on (Attachment #1). Eric suggested that it may be computationally more efficient to do this without using the BLRMS library part - i.e. rather than having so many filter modules, do the RMS-ing using a piece of C code that essentially just implements the same SOS filters that FOTON generates, I will work on setting this up and checking if it makes a difference. The fact that just having empty filter modules in the model almost doubled the computation time suggests that this approach may help, but I have to think about how to implement some of the automatic checks that having a filter bank in place gives us, or if these are strictly necessary at all...
  2. While restarting the C1PEM model, we noticed that some of the optics were shaking - looking at the CPU timing signals for all the models on C1SUS revealed that both the C1SUS model and the C1MCS model were geting overclocked when C1PEM was killed (see the sharp spikes in the red and green traces in Attachment #2 - the Y scale in this plot is poor and doesnt put numbers to the overclocking, I will upload a better screenshot that Eric took once I find it). The cause is unknown.
  3. Yesterday, I noticed that when C1PEM was restarted, the states of the filter bank switches were not reverted to their states in the SDF tables. They are showing up as changes, but it is unclear why we have to manually revert them. I have also not yet added the states of the newly installed filters (BPs and LPs for the MC BLRMS blocks) to the SDF tables. 

Unrelated to this work: we cleaned up the correspondence between the accelerometer numbers and channels in the C1PEM model. Also, the 3 unused ADC blocks in C1PEM (ADC0, ADC1 and ADC2) are required and cannot be removed as the ADC blocks have to be numbered sequentially and the signals needed in C1PEM come from ADC3 (as we found out when we tried recompiling the model after deleting these blocks).

Attachment 1: c1pem_timing.png
c1pem_timing.png
Attachment 2: C1SUS_overclocked.png
C1SUS_overclocked.png
  11844   Thu Dec 3 18:18:48 2015 gautamUpdateCDSBLRMS for optics suspensions - library block

In order to be consistent with the naming conventions for the new BLRMS filters, I made a library block that takes all the input signals of interest (i.e. for a generic optic, the coil signals, the local damping shadow sensors, and the Oplev Pitch and Yaw signals - so a total of 12 signals, unused ones can be grounded). The block is called "sus_single_BLRMS". Inside the block, I've put in 12 BLRMS library blocks, with each input signal going to one of them. All the 7 outputs of the BLRMS block are terminated (I got a compiling error if I did not do this). The idea is to identify the optic using this block, e.g. MC2_BLRMS. The BLRMS filters inside are called UL_COIL, UR_COIL etc, so the BLRMS channels will end up being called C1:SUS-MC2_BLRMS_UL_COIL_0p01_0p03 and so on. I tried implementing this in C1PEM, but immediately after compiling and restarting the model, I noticed some strange behaviour in the seismic rainbow STS strip in the control room - this was right after the model was restarted, before I attempted to make any changes to the C1PEM.txt file and add filters. I then manually opened up the filter bank screens for the RMS_STS1Z bandpass and lowpass filters, and saw that the filter switches were OFF - I wonder if this has something to do with these settings not being updated in the SDF tables? So I manually turned them on and cleared the filter hitsory for all 7 low pass and band pass filter banks, but the traces on the seismic striptool did not return to their nominal levels. I manually checked the filter shapes with Foton and they seem alright. Anyways, for now, I've reverted to the C1PEM model before I made any changes, and the seismic strip looks to be back at its normal level - when I recompiled and restarted the model with the changes I made removed, the STS1Z BLRMS bandpass and lowpass filters were ON by default again! I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong here, I will investigate this further. 

  12064   Tue Apr 5 14:16:34 2016 gautamUpdateCDSBLRMS for optics suspensions - library block UPDATED

As discussed in a Wednesday meeting some time ago, we don't need to be writing channels from BLRMS filter modules to frames at 16k (we suspect this is leading to the frequent daqd crashes which were seen the last time we tried setting BLRMS up for all the suspensions). EricQ pointed out to me that there conveniently exists a library block that is much better suited to our purposes, called BLRMS_2k. I've replaced all the BLRMS library blocks in the sus_single_BLRMS library block that I made with there BLRMS_2k blocks. I need to check that the filters used by the BLRMS_2k block (which reside in /opt/rtcds/userapps/release/cds/common/src/BLRMSFILTER.c) are appropriate, after which we can give setting up BLRMS for all the suspensions a second try...

  9744   Sun Mar 23 14:20:07 2014 ranaHowToLSCBLRMS screens

 We should make screens like this for the LSC signals, errors, ALS, etc.

Attachment 1: blrms.png
blrms.png
  5835   Mon Nov 7 16:42:56 2011 JenneUpdateAdaptive FilteringBLRMS's to monitor OAF channels

I copied Mirko's PEM BLRMS block, and made it a library part.  I don't know where such things should live, so I just left it in isc/c1/models.  Probably it should move to cds/common/models.  To make the oaf compile, you have to put a link in /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/core/branches/branch-2.1/src/epics/simLink , and point to wherever the model is living. 

I then put BLRMSs on the control signals coming into the OAF, and after the Correction filter bank in the Adapt blocks, so we can check out what we're sending to the optics.

  7016   Tue Jul 24 02:12:14 2012 MashaUpdatePEMBLRMS, MEDM, Triangulation

Today I worked with the BLRMS channels, re-triangulated the seismometers (the STS is now on the very end of the Y-arm, while the GUR2 is on the X-arm - this GUR2 cable will need to be either extended or replaced - Jenne and I will look at parts tomorrow), and added 0.01 - 0.03 Hz and 0.03 - 0.1 Hz RMS channels (However, the MEDM files for these are not yet complete - I will finish these tomorrow) in order to be able to better see earthquakes. I also did some things for the neural network project, including beginning Simulink tutorials so that I can run my code by applying a force on a damped harmonic oscillator + white noise until it stops.

I will explain the methodology behind the new RMS filters tomorrow morning, when the seismometers have settled down and I can make coherence plots.

I'll post a better E-log tomorrow when it's not 2 in the morning.

  2210   Mon Nov 9 12:09:10 2009 AlbertoOmnistructureEnvironmentBNC Cable Laid Down from South End to East VErtex

I laid down the floor a BNC cable from the Y End table to the BNC Chamber. The cable runs next to the east wall.

I'm leaving the cable because it can turn useful in the future.

I'm tying the end of the cable to a big threaded steel rod on the side of the BS chamber.

I've also labeled as TRY

Attachment 1: DSC_0986.JPG
DSC_0986.JPG
  8016   Wed Feb 6 20:00:06 2013 ManasaUpdateElectronicsBNC cables piled up at every corner

 [Yuta, Steve, Manasa]

There are cables piled up around the access connector area which have been victims of stampedes all the time. I have heard these cables were somehow Den's responsibility. 

Now that he is not around here:

I found piled up bnc's open at one end and with no labels lying on the floor near the access connector and PSL area. Yuta, Steve and I tried to trace them and found them connected to data channels. We could not totally get rid of the pile even after almost an hour of struggle, but we tied them together and put them away on the other side of the arm where we rarely walk.

There are more piles around the access connector...we should have a next cleanup session and get rid of these orphaned cables or atleast move them to where they will not be walked on.

109393779.png

 

 

 

  9927   Thu May 8 00:40:39 2014 ericqUpdateLSCBNC vs. 2pin LEMO for AO

 I've checked that the 2pin lemo connector that was run some time ago from the LSC rack to the MC board does indeed transmit signals. To try and evaluate its suitability I did the following:

  • Generated a 5mVpp 1.3kHz signal with an SR785 and fed that into CM board In1, all boosts off, 0dB AO gain. 
  • Both BNC and LEMO connected to CM servo out
  • One of BNC or LEMO connected to IN2 of MC servo, input gain of 30dB but disabled, OUT2 switched to AO and fed to Agilent spectrum analyzer. 
  • Terminated MC IN2 for comparison. 

No real difference was seen between the two cases. The signal peak was the same height, width. 60Hz and harmonics were of the same amplitude. Here are the spectra out to 200k, they are very similar. 

AOcablesWide.pdf

Mode cleaner was locked during this whole thing. This may interfere with the measurement, but is similar to the use case for the AO path. If ground loop / spurious noise issues keep occurring, it will be worthwhile to examine the noise of the CM and MC servo paths, inputs and outputs more carefully. 

  13118   Sat Jul 15 01:28:53 2017 jigyasaUpdateCamerasBRDF Calibrations

This evening, Gautam helped me with setting up the apparatus for calibrating the GigE for BRDF measurements.
The SP table was chosen to set up the experiment and for this reason a few things including a laser and power meter (presumably set up by Steve) had to be moved around.

We initially started by setting up the Crysta laser with its power source (Crysta #2, 150-190 mW 1064 laser) on the SP table. The Ophir power meter was used to measure the laser power. We discovered that the laser was highly unstable as its output on the power meter fluctuated (kind of periodically) between 40 and 150 mW. The beam spot on the beam card also appeared to validate this change in intensity. So we decided to use another 1064 nm laser instead.
Gautam got the LightWave NPro laser from the PSL table and set it up on the SP table and with this laser the output as measured by the same power meter was quite stable.

We manually adjusted the power to around 150 mW. This was followed by setting up the half wave plate(HWP) with the polarizing beam splitter (PBS), which was very gently and precisely done by Gautam, while explaining how to handle the optics to me.
 On first installing the PBS, we found that the beam was already quite strongly polarized as there seemed to be zero transmission but a strong reflection.
With the HWP in place, we get a control over the transmitted intensity. The reflected beam is directed to a beam dump.
I have taken down the GigE(+mount) at ETMX and wired a spare PoE injector.
We tried to interface with the camera wirelessly through the wireless network extenders but that seems to render an unstable connection to the GigE so while a single shot works okay, a continuous shot on the GigE didn’t succeed.

The GigE was connected to the Martian via Ethernet cable and images were observed using a continuous shot on the Pylon Viewer App on Paola. 

We deliberated over the need of a beam expander, but it has been omitted presently. White printer paper is currently being used to model the Lambertian scatterer. So light scattered off the paper was observed at a distance of about 40 cm from the sample.
While proceeding with the calibrations further tonight, we realized a few challenges.

While the CCD is able to observe the beam spot perfectly well, measuring the actual power with the power meter seems to be tricky. As the scattered power is quite low, we can’t actually see any spot using a beam card and hence can’t really ensure if we are capturing the entire beam spot on the active region of the power meter (placed at a distance of ~40cm from the paper) or if we are losing out on some light, all the while ensuring that the power meter and the CCD are in the same plane.

We tried to think of some ways around that, the description of which will follow. Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks a ton for all your patience and help Gautam! :) 

More to follow.. 

  13119   Sat Jul 15 13:40:59 2017 ranaUpdateCamerasBRDF Calibrations

Power meter only needed to measure power going into the paper not out. We use the BRDF of paper to estimate the power going out given the power going in.

  13121   Sun Jul 16 11:58:36 2017 jigyasaUpdateCamerasBRDF Calibrations

 

From what I understood froom my reading, [Large-angle scattered light measurements for quantum-noise filter cavity design studies(Refer https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2528)], we do the white paper test in order to calibrate for the radiometric response, i.e. the response of the CCD sensor to radiance.‘We convert the image counts measured by the CCD camera into a calibrated measure of scatter. To do this we measure the scattered light from a diffusing sample twice, once with the CCD camera and once with a calibrated power meter. We then compare their readings.’

But thinking about this further, if we assume that the BRDF remains unscaled and estimate the scattered power from the images, we get a calibration factor for the scattered power and the angle dependence of the scattered power!

Quote:

Power meter only needed to measure power going into the paper not out. We use the BRDF of paper to estimate the power going out given the power going in.

 

  13122   Sun Jul 16 12:09:47 2017 jigyasaUpdateCamerasBRDF Calibrations

With this idea in mind, we can now actually take images of the illuminated paper at different scattering angles, assume BRDF is the constant value of (1/pi per steradian), 

then scattered power Ps= BRDF * Pi cosθ * Ω, where Pi is the incident power, Ω is the solid angle of the camera and θ is the scattering angle at which measurement is taken. This must also equal the sum of pixel counts divided by the exposure time multiplied by some calibration factor. 

From these two equations we can obtain the calibration factor of the CCD. And for further BRDF measurements, scale the pixel count/ exposure by this calibration factor.  

Quote:

 

From what I understood froom my reading, [Large-angle scattered light measurements for quantum-noise filter cavity design studies(Refer https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2528)], we do the white paper test in order to calibrate for the radiometric response, i.e. the response of the CCD sensor to radiance.‘We convert the image counts measured by the CCD camera into a calibrated measure of scatter. To do this we measure the scattered light from a diffusing sample twice, once with the CCD camera and once with a calibrated power meter. We then compare their readings.’

But thinking about this further, if we assume that the BRDF remains unscaled and estimate the scattered power from the images, we get a calibration factor for the scattered power and the angle dependence of the scattered power!

Quote:

Power meter only needed to measure power going into the paper not out. We use the BRDF of paper to estimate the power going out given the power going in.

 

 

  4858   Wed Jun 22 18:41:23 2011 NicoleSummarySUSBROKEN bread board circuit box and L9337 LED Current Versus Voltage Curve

NOTE: The potentiometers on the bread board circuit box (the one I have been using with the signal generator, DC power, LED displays, and pulse switches) is BROKEN!

The potential across terminals 1 and 2 (also 2&3) fluctuates wildly and there dial does not affect the potential for the second potentiometer (the one with terminals 4, 5, and 6).

This has been confirmed by Koji and Jaimie.  PS I didn't break it! >____<

 

NEVERTHELESS, using individual resistors and the 500 ohm trim resistor, I have managed to get the current versus forward voltage plot for the Hamamatsu L9337 Infared LED

LED_I_vs_V_exp_plot.png

  12054   Wed Mar 30 11:35:24 2016 steveUpdatesafetyBS visitor's viewport is protected with lexan

Quote:
The four horizontal viewports of arms are protected
by 3/8" thick, 8.5" OD Lexan disk of MR10 Polycarbonate.

ITMX, ETMX, ITMY and ETMY ccd cameras are not focused now.


BS visitor's viewport glass is now covered with Lexan MR10

Note:
this Lexan cover is in vertical orientation so becomes lose when the black anodized cover is removed.
It needs to be held in place

while it's housing is taken off.
  16586   Fri Jan 14 12:01:21 2022 AnchalUpdateElectronicsBS & ITMY feedthroughs labeled and connected to Sat Amps

I labeled all the newly installed flanges and connected the in-air cables (40m/16530) to appropriate ports. These cables are connected to the CDS system on 1Y1/1Y0 racks through the satellite amplifiers. So all new optics now can be damped as soon as they are placed. We need to make more DB9 plugs for setting "Acquire" mode on the HAM-A coil drivers since our Binary input system is not ready yet. Right now, we only have 2 such plugs which means only one optic and be damped at a time.

 

  10802   Tue Dec 16 00:20:06 2014 diegoUpdateOptical LeversBS & PRM OL realignment

[Rana, Diego]

We manually realigned the BS and PRM optical levers on the optical table.

  5322   Tue Aug 30 10:49:29 2011 steveUpdateSUSBS & PRM damping restored

I have restored the damping of BS and PRM. Today is janitor day. He is shaking things around the lab.

  11233   Wed Apr 22 11:21:51 2015 SteveUpdateOptical LeversBS & PRM oplevs are back to normal

BS & PRM oplev is restored. Note: the F -150 lens was removed right after the first turning mirror from the laser. This helped Rana to get small spot on the qpd.

It also means that the oplev paths are somewhat different now.

 

 

 

  11087   Mon Mar 2 17:02:01 2015 ericqUpdateLSCBS - PRM decoupling

Using PRX, I remeasured the relative actuation strengths of the BS and PRM to see if the PRM correction coefficient we're using is good. 

My result is that we should be using MICH -> -0.2655 x PRM + 0.5*BS.

This is very close to our current value of -0.2625 x PRM, so I don't think it will really change anything.


Measurement details:

The reason that the BS needs to be compensated is that it really just changes the PRM->ITMX distance, lx, while leaving the PRM-ITMY distance, ly, alone. I confirmed this by locking PRY and seeing no effect on the error signal, no matter how hard I drove the BS. 

I then locked PRX, and drove an 804Hz oscillation on the BS and PRM in turn, and averaged the resultant peak heights. I then tried to cancel the signal by sending the excitation with opposite signs to each mirror, according to their relative meaured strength.

In this way, I was able to get 23dB of cancellation by driving 1.0 x PRM - 0.9416 * BS. 

Now, in the PRMI case, we don't want to fully decouple like this, because this kind of cancellation just leaves lx invarient, when really, we want MICH to move (lx-ly) and PRCL to move (lx+ly). So, we use half of the PRM cancellation to cancel half of the lx motion, and introduce that half motion to ly, making a good MICH signal. Thus, the right ratio is 0.5*(1.0/0.9416) = 0.531. Then, since we use BS x 0.5, we divide by two again to get 0.2655. Et voila.

  6965   Thu Jul 12 02:12:42 2012 yutaUpdateSUSBS 3.3 Hz motion

I tried to reduce BS 3.3 Hz motion with local damping. 3.3 Hz probably comes from the stack, but I want to reduce this because PRMI beam spot is moving in this frequency.
I tried it by putting some resonant gains to oplev servo and OSEM damping servo, but failed.

What I learned:
  1. BS OSEM input matrix diagonalization looks impressively good. Below is the spectra of oplev pitch/yaw and OSEM pos/pit/yaw/side comparing with and without damping (REF is without). You can see mechanical resonances are well separated. Also, damping servos don't look like they are adding noise at 3.3 Hz.
BSdam.png

  2. 3.3 Hz motion is not stationary. Amplitude is sometimes high, but sometimes low. Amplitude changes in few seconds. You can even see 3.3 Hz in the dataviewer, too.

  3. I set new oplev gains. I lowered them so that UGFs will be ~ 2.5 Hz. I turned ELP35 on.

C1:SUS-BS_OLPIT_GAIN = 0.2 (was 0.6)
C1:SUS-BS_OLPIT_GAIN = -0.2 (was -0.6)

  4. All OSEM sensors feel about the same amount of 3.3 Hz motion.

  5. OLPIT and OLYAW reduces if you put 3.3 Hz resonant gain to oplev servo, but it is maybe not true since they are in-loop error signals. You can't see the difference from OSEM sensors. Below is oplev pitch/yaw and OSEM pos/pit/yaw/side comparing with and without 3.3 Hz resonant gain (REF is without).
BSOLSUSresonantgain.png

  6955   Wed Jul 11 03:53:41 2012 yutaUpdateLSCBS 3.3 Hz motion on MI

It is not as dramatic as PRMI, but I could see BS 3.3 Hz motion at AS and REFL when MI is locked at dark fringe.
Below is uncalibrated spectra of REFLDC and ASDC when
  Red: MI is locked at dark fringe
  Blue: there's no light (PSL shutter closed)

We have to do something to get rid of this.

REFLDCASDCMIlocked.png

  16866   Thu May 19 19:05:59 2022 AnchalUpdateBHDBS Chamber all work finished, BHD path setup

[Anchal, Paco, Yuta]

BS Oplev Path

  • The changed position of PRM (40m/16863) meant that BS oplev path is getting clipped by the PRM SOS tower.
  • We had to move BSOL ~ 16 cm North and ~ 1.7 cm East.
  • This means that the BS Oplev input beam is now coming behind TT2 instead of infront of it.
  • We also had to align the beam such that input and returning beam are colinear.
  • This meant we, had to change the mount of the upstream beamsplitter in the in-air table so that we can use that for separating the return beam.
  • Again, we should order 2 inc visible BS for this path.
  • Half of the return beam is making its way all the way back to the laser head. I'm not sure if that can be an issue for our oplev loops.
  • We kept the SRM Oplev path same using irises on the table.

PRM Oplev

  • Again, due to changed position of PRM and BS Oplev, it became very hard to setup oplev for PRM.
  • We found a special position which allows us to catch returning beam through the center of the window.
    • But this returning beam is not prompt reflection from PRM, it is reflection of the HR surface.
    • We are hitting about ~5 mm from the edge of PRMOL mirror (because we cannot move the mirror anymore south to avoid clipping BS and SRM input oplev beams)
    • We put in a 1.1m focal length lens in the input beam to narrow the beam on PRMOL so that it doesn't clip
  • We did not put any lens for the return beam. The sensitivity of this oplev might be low due to slighlty bigger beam on the QPD than others (SRM, BS). We can revisit and insert a lens later if required.

Interferometer alignment and PRM alignment

  • The work on BS table did not change the table balance much. We got back the alignment pretty much instantly.
  • We were able to maximize the arm transmissions.
  • Then we used a beam card with hole to check for reflection from PRM and used PRM (mostly pitch correction) to get the return beam back in same way.
  • This recovered REFL beam on the camera. We used REFLDC signal to align PRM better and maximized it.
  • We centered BS, SRM and PRM oplevs after this point.

LO beam mode correction and spatial overlap

  • We tried changing the distance between LO3 and LO4 to get a better output LO beam.
  • We also tried to swap the LO4 mirror with the spare mirror but we had the same result.
  • Eventually, we decided to move LO3 back to East and LO4 to the west edge of the table. This made the beam sizes comparable.
    • Future exercise: We think that LO1 or LO2 might be significantly off-spec in their ROCs which might cause this issue.
    • We should rerun the calculations with the ROC values of LO1 and LO2 written in the datasheets and figure out the correct LO3-LO4 length required.
    • We can make this change in the next vent if required.
  • After the beam sizes were looking approximately similar but more iterations of changing length and realigning are required.

Remaining tasks before pumpdown

  • Push/pull too bright/dark OSEMs in the SOSs (40m/16865).
  • Finish LO beam mode correction and spatial overlap.
  • Center all oplevs, note all beam positions on camera, and note down all DC PD values at proper alignment.
  13437   Tue Nov 21 11:37:29 2017 gautamUpdateOptical LeversBS OL calibration updated

I calibrated the BS oplev PIT and YAW error signals as follows:

  1. Locked X-arm, ran dither alignment servos to maximize transmission.
  2. Applied an offset to the ASC PIT/YAW filter banks. Set the ramp time to something long, I used 60 seconds.
  3. Monitored the X arm transmission while the offset was being ramped, and also the oplev error signal with its current calibration factor.
  4. Fit the data, oplev error signal vs arm transmission, with a gaussian, and extracted the scaling factor (i.e. the number which the current Oplev error signals have to be multiplied by for the error signal to correspond to urad of angular misalignment as per the overlap of the beam axis to the cavity axis.
  5. Fits are shown in Attachment #1 and #2.
  6. I haven't done any error analysis yet, but the open loop OL spectra for the BS now line up better with the other optics, see Attachment #3 (although their calibration factors may need to be updated as well...). Need to double check against OSEM readout during the sweep.
  7. New numbers have been SDF-ed.

The numbers are:

BS Pitch     15  /  130    (old/new)     urad/counts

BS Yaw       14  /  170    (old/new)     urad/counts

Quote:

I bet the calibration is out of date; probably we replaced the OL laser for the BS and didn't fix the cal numbers. You can use the fringe contrast of the simple Michelson to calibrate the OLs for the ITMs and BS.

 

Attachment 1: OL_calib_BS_PERROR.pdf
OL_calib_BS_PERROR.pdf
Attachment 2: OL_calib_BS_YERROR.pdf
OL_calib_BS_YERROR.pdf
Attachment 3: VertexOLnoise_updated.pdf
VertexOLnoise_updated.pdf
  13439   Tue Nov 21 16:28:23 2017 gautamUpdateOptical LeversBS OL calibration updated

The numbers I have from the fitting don't agree very well with the OSEM readouts. Attachment #1 shows the Oplev pitch and yaw channels, and also the OSEM ones, while I swept the ASC_PIT offset. The output matrix is the "naive" one of (+1,+1,-1,-1). SUSPIT_IN1 reports ~30urad of motion, while SUSYAW_IN1 reports ~10urad of motion.

From the fits, the BS calibration factors were ~x8 for pitch and x12 for yaw - so according to the Oplev channels, the applied sweep was ~80urad in pitch, and ~7urad in yaw.

Seems like either (i) neither the Oplev channels nor the OSEMs are well diagonalized and that their calibration is off by a factor of ~3 or (ii) there is some significant imbalance in the actuator gains of the BS coils...

Quote:
 

Need to double check against OSEM readout during the sweep.

 

Attachment 1: BS_oplev_sweep.png
BS_oplev_sweep.png
  5235   Mon Aug 15 10:02:27 2011 kiwamuUpdateSUSBS OSEM adjustment done

[Suresh / Kiwamu]

 Adjustment of the OSEMs on BS has been done.

All the bad suspensions (#5176) has been adjusted. They are waiting for the matrix inversion test.

  14541   Mon Apr 15 10:20:44 2019 gautamUpdateOptical LeversBS Oplev PIT was oscillating

The AS spot on the camera was oscillating at ~3 Hz. Looking at the Oplevs, the culprit was the BS PIT DoF. Started about 12 hours ago, not sure what triggered it. I disabled Oplev damping, and waited for the angular motion to settle down a bit, and then re-enabled the servo - damps fine now...

Attachment 1: BS_OL_oscillating.png
BS_OL_oscillating.png
  16912   Tue Jun 14 08:41:36 2022 JCUpdateOPLEV TablesBS Oplev Table Sketch

[JC]

Lately, I have been working on a 3d sketch of the BS OPLEV Table on SolidWorks. This is my progress so far, a few of the components I will have to sketch myself, such as the HeNe laser and photodiodes. This will just be a general layout of the HeNe laser, optics, and photodiodes.

Attachment 1: BS_OPLEV_Table.PNG
BS_OPLEV_Table.PNG
  15749   Wed Jan 6 16:18:38 2021 gautamUpdateOptical LeversBS Oplev glitchy

As part of the hunt why the X arm IR transmission RIN is anomalously high, I noticed that the BS Oplev Servo periodically kicks the optic around - the summary pages are the best illustration of this happening. Looking back in time, these seem to have started ~Nov 23 2020. The HeNe power output has been degrading, see Attachment #1, but this is not yet at the point where the head usually needs replacing. The RIN spectrum doesn't look anomalous to me, see Attachment #2 (the whitening situation for the quadrants is different for the BS and the TMs, which explains the HF noise). I also measured the loop UGFs (using swept sine) - seems funky, I can't get the same coherence now (live traces) between 10-30 Hz that I could before (reference traces) with the same drive amplitude, and the TF that I do measure has a weird flattening out at higher frequencies that I can't explain, see Attachment #3.

The excess RIN is almost exactly in the band that we expect our Oplevs to stabilize the angular motion of the optics in, so maybe needs more investigation - I will upload the loop suppression of the error point later. So far, I don't see any clean evidence of the BS Oplev HeNe being the culprit, so I'm a bit hesitant to just swap out the head...

Attachment 1: missingData.png
missingData.png
Attachment 2: OLRIN.pdf
OLRIN.pdf
Attachment 3: BS_OL_P.pdf
BS_OL_P.pdf
Attachment 4: BS_OL_suppression.pdf
BS_OL_suppression.pdf
  6369   Wed Mar 7 04:08:48 2012 kiwamuUpdateSUSBS SIDE gain was too low

The BS SIDE damping gain seemed too low. The gain had been 5 while the rest of the suspensions had gains of 90-500.

I increased the gain and set it to be 80.

 

I did the "Q of 5" test by kicking the BS SIDE motion to find the right gain value.

However there was a big cross coupling, which was most likely a coupling from the SIDE actuator to the POS motion.

Due to the cross coupling, the Q of 5 test didn't really show a nice ring down time series. I just put a gain of 80 to let the Q value sort of 5.

I think we should diagonalize the out matrices for all the suspensions at some point.

  15510   Sat Aug 8 07:36:52 2020 Sanika KhadkikarConfigurationCalibration-RepairBS Seismometer - Multi-channel calibration

Summary : 

I have been working on analyzing the seismic data obtained from the 3 seismometers present in the lab. I noticed while looking at the combined time series and the gain plots of the 3 seismometers that there is some error in the calibration of the BS seismometer. The EX and the EY seismometers seem to be well-calibrated as opposed to the BS seismometer.

The calibration factors have been determined to be :

BS-X Channel: \small {\color{Blue} 2.030 \pm 0.079 }

BS-Y Channel: \small {\color{Blue} 2.840 \pm 0.177 }

BS-Z Channel: \small {\color{Blue} 1.397 \pm 0.182 }


Details :

The seismometers each have 3 channels i.e X, Y, and Z for measuring the displacements in all the 3 directions. The X channels of the three seismometers should more or less be coherent in the absence of any seismic excitation with the gain amongst all the similar channels being 1. So is the case with the Y and Z channels. After analyzing multiple datasets, it was observed that the values of all the three channels of the BS seismometer differed very significantly from their corresponding channels in the EX and the EY seismometers and they were not calibrated in the region that they were found to be coherent as well. 


Method :

Note: All the frequency domain plots that have been calculated are for a sampling rate of 32 Hz. The plots were found to be extremely coherent in a certain frequency range i.e ~0.1 Hz to 2 Hz so this frequency range is used to understand the relative calibration errors. The spread around the function is because of the error caused by coherence values differing from unity and the averages performed for the Welch function. 9 averages have been performed for the following analysis keeping in mind the needed frequency resolution(~0.01Hz) and the accuracy of the power calculated at every frequency. 

  1. I first analyzed the regions in which the similar channels were found to be coherent to have a proper gain analysis. The EY seismometer was found to be the most stable one so it has been used as a reference. I saw the coherence between similar channels of the 2 seismometers and the bode plots together. A transfer function estimator was used to analyze the relative calibration in between all 3 pairs of seismometers. In the given frequency range EX and EY have a gain of 1 so their relative calibration is proper. The relative calibration in between the BS and the EY seismometers is not proper as the resultant gain is not 1. The attached plots show the discrepancies clearly : 
  • BS-X & EY-X Transfer Function : Attachment #1
  • BS-Y & EY-Y Transfer Function : Attachment #2

          The gain in the given frequency range is ~3. The phase plotting also shows a 180-degree phase as opposed to 0 so a negative sign would also be required in the calibration factor. Thus the calibration factor for the Y channel of the BS seismometer should be around ~3. 

  • BS-Z & EY-Z Transfer Function : Attachment #3

The mean value of the gain in the given frequency range is the desired calibration factor and the error would be the mean of the error for the gain dataset chosen which is caused due to factors mentioned above.

Note: The standard error envelope plotted in the attached graphs is calculated as follows :

         1. Divide the data into n segments according to the resolution wanted for the Welch averaging to be performed later. 

         2. Calculate PSD for every segment (no averaging).

         3. Calculate the standard error for every value in the data segment by looking at distribution formed by the n number values we obtain by taking that respective value from every segment.

Discussions :

The BS seismometer is a different model than the EX and the EY seismometers which might be a major cause as to why we need special calibration for the BS seismometer while EX and EY are fine. The sign flip in the BS-Y seismometer may cause a lot of errors in future data acquisitions. The time series plots in Attachment #4 shows an evident DC offset present in the data. All of the information mentioned above indicates that there is some electrical or mechanical defect present in the seismometer and may require a reset. Kindly let me know if and when the seismometer is reset so that I can calibrate it again. 

Attachment 1: BS_X-EY_X.png
BS_X-EY_X.png
Attachment 2: BS_Y-EY_Y.png
BS_Y-EY_Y.png
Attachment 3: BS_Z-EY_Z.png
BS_Z-EY_Z.png
Attachment 4: timeseries.png
timeseries.png
  5648   Tue Oct 11 03:35:16 2011 kiwamuUpdateLSCBS actuator reponse at low frequency : measured

The response of the BS actuator in a low frequency regime has been measured.

After the measurement I did a coarse fit to see if the low frequency data agree with the high frequency response which I have measured two weeks ago (#5583)
So far it shows a good agreement with the high frequency data (see the plot below). Tomorrow I will do a serious fitting.
Once the calibration of BS is done, the low frequency responses of ITMs, PRM and SRM will be done by simply exciting BS and comparing them (maybe at a couple of frequency points around 0.1Hz).
BSactuator.png

(Measurement)

 + With free swinging MICH, the sensor (AS55_Q) was calibrated into counts/m.

     => The peak-peak counts was about 110 counts. So the sensor response is about 6.5x108 counts/m

 + Locked Michelson with AS55_Q and the signal was fedback to BS.

 + Set the UGF high enough so that the open loop gain below 10 Hz is greater than 1.

 + With DDT's swept sine measurement, C1:LSC-MICH_EXC was excited with a big amplitude of 40 counts.

 + Took a transfer function from C1:LSC-MICH_OUT to C1:LSC-MICH_EXC.

 + Calibrated the transfer function into m/counts by dividing it with the sensor response.

Quote from #5641
One possible reason is that my actuator responses are not so accurate below 1Hz.
I will measure the DC response of all the actuators and it will completely determine the shapes of the actuator responses except for the region around the resonance.

  5649   Tue Oct 11 15:14:50 2011 ranaUpdateLSCBS actuator reponse at low frequency : measured

Quote:

The response of the BS actuator in a low frequency regime has been measured.

 

This seems like an error prone method for DC responses due to the loop gain uncertainty. Better may be to use the fringe hopping method (c.f. Luca Matone) or the fringe counting method

  5656   Wed Oct 12 17:53:01 2011 kiwamuUpdateLSCBS actuator response : fitting done and histroy of delays

An update on calibration of the BS actuator : A fitting has been done.

(Fitting)

 I used LISO for fitting the complex transfer function.
Because the data points around 1 Hz didn't have big coherence a few data points, which had coherence of less than 0.9, were excluded.
Also the fitting of the Q-factor wasn't successful due to the lack of good data points around the resonance.So I left Q fixed to be 5 in the fitting.
 

(Fitting result)

G =  2.18060874008e-8 +/- 6.425e-10 (2.95%)
f0 =  1.0100491195 +/- 1.51e-2 (1.49%)  [Hz]
Q = 5 (fixed)
delay =  423.2753462089e-6 +/- 4.989e-6 (1.18%)  [sec]

bode_BSactuator.png

 

(History of delay)
 Because we have been observing several different amount of delays in different configurations, perhaps it is worth to summarize those numbers.
     description  delay [usec]   elog entry
       MICH lock (BS actuation)  423 this entry
       LSC feed forward path  127 #5218
       MICH lock (BS actuation)  600 #4638
      ALS on X arm (ETMX actuation)  330 #4196
      RFM (from c1lsc to c1sus)  125 #4153
      from ADC to DAC (all the front end machine)  38-110 #3961
      from ADC to DAC (c1sus)  124 #3838
     RFM (c1ioo and c1sus)   8-62 #3855

Quote from #5648
Tomorrow I will do a serious fitting.

  7350   Thu Sep 6 16:46:44 2012 JenneUpdateSUSBS aligned, target removed

Q and I aligned the BS such that we were hitting the center of ETMX. The ETMX cage does not have OSEM setscrew holes on the front, so it is not possible to put the targets that Steve made on this optic.  So, I put the freestanding ruler in front of the optic, with the edge of the ruler at the center (as viewed from above) of the optic.  Then Eric steered the BS until we were hitting the 5.5" mark, and roughly half of the beam was obscured by the ruler.

We then aligned ITMX such that the prompt reflection was colinear with the incoming beam. 

I checked the 2 spots through the BS, heading to the AS port.  (2 spots since MICH hasn't been locked / finely aligned yet).  They were being clipped on the 2nd output PZT.  I adjusted the knobs of the first output PZT to center the spots on the 2nd PZT.  Note that the output PZTs' power is still off, and has been off for some unknown length of time.  I had found them off when prepping for the vent a week or two ago.  So the current alignment depends on them staying off.  We don't really need them on until we're ready to employ our OMC.

The beams now look nicely unclipped on the AS camera, and we're aligning MICH.

  806   Wed Aug 6 22:19:07 2008 YoichiUpdateSUSBS alignment
Koji, Yoichi

We realized that we did not pay attention to the BS alignment while working on the alignment of the ITMX today. Because we were injecting the ALM laser (absolute length measurement laser) from the AS port, the ITMX alignment depends on the BS alignment.
The BS optical lever was not centered and the sum was about 2000cnt, which is low compared, for example, to the SRM oplev.
So we were not sure if the BS was in a good alignment or not.
So we decided to move the BS to center the QPD.
In doing so, we also moved the ITMX so that we do not lose the ALM laser beam coming back to the AS port.
When the BS oplev was centered, the sum of the QPD was still about 2000. So it was not far off centered.
After the tweaking, we were able to see some interference between the light reflected by the ITMY and ITMX at the AS port (actually this is the bright port for the ALM laser). By tweaking the ITMY, we were able to see Michelson fringes at the AS port.
If we believe the ALM laser alignment is still good after the vent, the ITMX, ITMY, BS and SRM should be now in a good alignment condition.
The OSEM values for the ITMX, BS, SRM seem to be ok (0.9+/-0.2). The ITMY LL is a bit low (~ 0.45).
  7392   Fri Sep 14 21:03:02 2012 DenUpdatePEMBS and AS tables

I've measured seismic and acoustic noise on BS and AS tables. It seems that horizontal motion of BS table is ~1.5-2 times more then AS table in the frequency range 5-50 Hz.

Edit by Den: this was POI table, not BS!

vert.png  horiz_4_50.png

acoustic.png      coh.png

  7395   Sat Sep 15 20:27:54 2012 DenUpdatePEMBS and AS tables

Quote:

I've measured seismic and acoustic noise on BS and AS tables. It seems that horizontal motion of BS table is ~1.5-2 times more then AS table in the frequency range 5-50 Hz.

Edit by Den: this was POI table, not BS!

 This seismic measurement is for BS and AS tables.

bs_as_h.jpg       bs_as_v.jpg

  7396   Mon Sep 17 07:57:58 2012 ranaUpdatePEMBS and AS tables for REFL change

 

 This was in response to my suggestion to move the REFL beam path to the table containing the BS/PRM Oplevs. From this seismic data it is clear that the BS table is no worse than the AS table, so we should plan to make the layout change during the next vent.

  6903   Mon Jul 2 18:27:25 2012 yutaUpdateGeneralBS and ITMX chambers closed

[Koji, Steve, Jamie, Jenne, Yuta]

We opened BS and ITMX chambers, took lots of photos, and closed them with heavy doors.
I turned off high voltage power supplies for PZTs and blocked PSL beam. We are ready for the pumping tomorrow.

Important photos we took:
  - positions of green optics at BS chamber, which was moved on the vent on Aug 2011
  - positions of PZT mirrors and cable connectors at BS chamber, which will be replaced with tip-tilts on the next vent
  - arrow on PR2 pointing HR (it was correct)
  - tried to take photos of clipping IR beam at BS OSEM holder from ITMX chamber
 
 We also took bunch of other photos.


Beam dump needed at BS chamber:
  We also checked some un-dumped beams at BS chamber. We need dumps;
  - behind MMT1, for unwanted transmitted beam
  - behind IPPOSSM3, for unwanted transmitted beam (IPPOSSM3 is the last mirror in BS chamber for IPPOS)

  7329   Fri Aug 31 17:26:54 2012 SteveUpdateGeneralBS camera

Steve and Eric

Placed pick up mirror for BS face and PRM back. I will ask Jamie to clamp it.

There will be an other camera set up to view the face of PRM

Attachment 1: BS_PRM.png
BS_PRM.png
  7772   Sat Dec 1 00:24:37 2012 Den, AyakaUpdateAlignmentBS chamber

Today at 11:13 AM the stack of invacuum BS table was kicked and IFO misaligned. We adjusted PZT2 voltage by ~20 V in yaw such that IPPOS was restored. Then we could lock arms.

push.png

  7773   Sat Dec 1 13:56:38 2012 ranaUpdateAlignmentBS chamber

 

 Whoever was working around the BS chamber at 11 AM on Friday should admit it now and take the punishment.

For those of you who like to do work on the interferometer without reporting it in the elog because you think that what you did doesn't affect anything, this is your example of how our time can be wasted by such laziness.

  7784   Tue Dec 4 18:53:50 2012 AyakaUpdateAlignmentBS chamber

BS chamber seemed to be kicked again around 10:00 am today.

I moved PZT mainly in YAW and locked both arms. I adjusted the beam to be almost on the center of both ETM by sights.

BSchamb1204.pdf

  3105   Wed Jun 23 12:52:35 2010 kiwamuUpdatePhotosBS chamber before cleaning up

  2800   Tue Apr 13 20:02:02 2010 KojiUpdateSUSBS chamber opened, PRM/SRM SOS removed from the table

Bob, Steve, and Koji

We opened North heavy door of the BS chamber in the afternoon.

In the evening, Koji worked on the PRM/SRM removal.

- Cleaned up the OPLEV mirrors to create some spaces near the door.

- Clamped PRM/SRM.

- Removed OSEMs. Made a record of the OSEMs. The record is on the wiki (http://lhocds.ligo-wa.caltech.edu:8000/40m/Upgrade_09/Suspensions)

- Found the SOSs are quite easy to remove from the table as they are shorter than the MOSs.

- Put a new Al sheet on a wagon. Put the SOSs on it. Wrapped them by the Al foils.

- Carried it to the clean room. They are on the right flow bench. Confirmed the wires are still fine.

- Closed up the chamber putting a light door.

Attachment 1: IMG_2384.jpg
IMG_2384.jpg
  3332   Fri Jul 30 12:46:38 2010 KojiConfiguration40m UpgradingBS chamber status
Attachment 1: BS_layout_Jul_29_2010.png
BS_layout_Jul_29_2010.png
  16574   Tue Jan 11 14:21:53 2022 PacoUpdateElectronicsBS feedthroughs and in-vac cables installed

[Paco, Yehonathan, Chub]

The BS chamber 10" flange with 4 DSUB-25 feedthroughs has been installed with the cables connected at the in-vac side. This is the second of two flanges, and includes 4 cables ordered vertically in stacks of 2 & 2 for [[LO2-1, LO2-2, PR3-1, PR3-2]] respectively.

ELOG V3.1.3-