40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 184 of 339  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Categoryup Subject
  12690   Thu Dec 29 21:35:30 2016 ranaSummaryIOOIMC WFS tuning

The WFS gains are supposedly maximized already. If we remotely try to increase the gain, the two MAX4106 chips in the RF path will oscillate with each other.

We should insert a bi-directional coupler (if we can find some LEMO to SMA converters) and find out how much actual RF is getting into the demod board.

Attachment 1: Screen_Shot_2017-01-03_at_5.55.13_PM.png
  12691   Thu Dec 29 21:48:32 2016 ranaUpdateIOOMC AutoLocker hung because c1iool0 asleep again

MC unlocked, Autolocker waiting for c1iool0 EPICS channels to respond. c1iool0 was responding to ping, but not to telnet. Keyed the crate and its coming back now.

There's many mentions of c1iool0 in the recent past, so it seems like its demise must be imminent. Good thing we have an Acromag team on top of things!

Also, the beam on WFS2 is too high and the autolocker is tickling the Input switch on the servo board too much: this is redundant / conflicting with the MC2 tickler.

  12723   Mon Jan 16 21:03:47 2017 ranaSummaryIOOMCL / MCF / Calibration

Oot on the streets and in the chat rooms, people often ask, "What is up with the MC_F calibration?".

Not being sure of the wiring in the c1ioo model, I have formed this screencap of today's model and put it here. The MC_LENGTH and MC_FREQ are the filter banks which would calibrate these channels. In the filter banks there were various version of a 'dewhite' filter. They were all approximately z=150, p=15, g =1 @ DC, but with ~1% differences. I don't trust their provenance and so I've enforced symmetry and fixed their names to reflect what they are (150:15). I have also turned on one filter in MC_FREQ so that now the whitening of the Pentek Interface board is compensated.

Why is this TF 1/f? It should be -20 dB/decade if MC_F is in units of Hz* and MCL is a pendulum response. Perhaps its because the combination of the Koji summing box, the Thorlabs HV driver, and the Pomona box forms an additional 1/f ? IF so, this would explain the TF we see. Once we get confirmation from Koji, we can load the TF into the MC_FREQ filter bank and then MC_F will be in units of Hz (as will the summary pages).

(along the way I've also turned off the craaaazzzy servo input enable tickling that gets put in the MC AutoLocker every April Fool's leap year - resist the temptation)

Since we have a frequency counter system here and some oscillators, I wonder if we can just calibrate the MC_L and MC_F directly using a mixer lashed up to one of the counters. If so, and we can get the stabilized laser frequency noise down below 10 mHz/rHz, maybe this is a viable alternative method to the photon calibrators. Counting zero crossings is more honest than counting photons.

Attachment 1: c1ioo_zoom_MCLF.png
Attachment 2: MCL.pdf
  12732   Wed Jan 18 12:34:21 2017 ericqSummaryIOOMCL / MCF / Calibration

In the filter banks there were various version of a 'dewhite' filter. They were all approximately z=150, p=15, g =1 @ DC, but with ~1% differences. I don't trust their provenance and so I've enforced symmetry and fixed their names to reflect what they are (150:15).

The filters were made in response to a measurement of the pentek whitening boards in 2015 (ELOG 11550), but this level of accuracy probably isn't important.

  12748   Tue Jan 24 01:04:16 2017 gautamSummaryIOOIMC WFS RF power levels


I got around to doing this measurement today, using a minicircuits bi-directional coupler (ZFBDC20-61-HP-S+), along with some SMA-LEMO cables.

  • With the IMC "well aligned" (MC transmission maximized, WFS control signals ~0), the RF power per quadrant into the Demod board is of the order of tens of pW up to a 100pW.
  • With MC1 misaligned such that the MC transmission dropped by ~10%, the power per quadrant into the demod board is of the order of hundreds of pW.
  • In both cases, the peak at 29.5MHz was well above the analyzer noise floor (>20dB for the smaller RF signals), which was all that was visible in the 1MHz span centered around 29.5 MHz (except for the side-lobes described later).
  • There is anomalously large reflection from Quadrant 2 input to the Demod board for both WFS
  • The LO levels are ~-12dBm, ~2dBm lower than the 10dBm that I gather is the recommended level from the AD831 datasheet

We should insert a bi-directional coupler (if we can find some LEMO to SMA converters) and find out how much actual RF is getting into the demod board.


I first aligned the mode cleaner, and offloaded the DC offsets from the WFS servos.

The bi-directional coupler has 4 ports: Input, Output, Coupled forward RF and Coupled Reverse RF. I connected the LEMO going to the input of the Demod board to the Input, and connected the output of the coupler to the Demod board (via some SMA-LEMO adaptor cables). The two (20dB) coupled ports were connected to the Agilent spectrum analyzer, which have input impedance 50ohms and hence should be impedance matched to the coupled outputs. I set the analyzer to span 1MHz (29-30MHz), IF BW 30Hz, 0dB input attenuation. It was not necessary to turn on averaging to resolve the peaks at ~29.5MHz since the IF bandwidth was fine enough.

I took two sets of measurements, one with the IMC well aligned (I maximized the MC Trans as best as I could to ~15,000 cts), and one with a macroscopic misalignment to MC1 such that the MC Trans fell to 90% of its usual value (~13,500 cts). The peak function on the analyzer was used to read off the peak height in dBm. I then converted this to RF power, which is summarized in the table below. I did not account for the main line loss of the coupler, but according to the datasheet, the maximum value is 0.25dB so there numbers should be accurate to ~10% (so I'm really quoting more S.Fs than I should be).

WFS Quadrant Pin (pW) Preflected(pW) Pin-demod board (pW)

IMC well aligned

1 1 50.1 12.6 37.5
2 20.0 199.5 -179.6
3 28.2 10.0 18.2
4 70.8 5.0


2 5 100 19.6 80.0
6 56.2 158.5 -102.3
7 125.9 6.3 11.5
8 17.8 6.3


WFS Quadrant Pin (pW) Preflected(pW) Pin-demod board (pW)

MC1 Misaligned

1 1 501.2 5.0 496.2
2 630.6 208.9 422
3 871.0 5.0 866
4 407.4 16.6


2 5 407.4 28.2 379.2
6 316.2 141.3 175.0
7 199.5 15.8 183.7
8 446.7 10.0 436.7


For the well aligned measurement, there was ~0.4mW incident on WFS1, and ~0.3mW incident on WFS2 (measured with Ophir power meter, filter out).

I am not sure how to interpret the numbers for quadrants #2 and #6 in the first table, where the reverse coupled RF power was greater than the forward coupled RF power. But this measurement was repeatable, and even in the second table, the reverse coupled power from these quadrants are more than 10x the other quadrants. The peaks were also well above (>10dBm) the analyzer noise floor 

I haven't gone through the full misalginment -> Power coupled to TEM10 mode algebra to see if these numbers make sense, but assuming a photodetector responsivity of 0.8A/W, the product (P1P2) of the powers of the beating modes works out to ~tens of pW (for the IMC well aligned case), which seems reasonable as something like P1~10uW, P2 ~ 5uW would lead to P1P2~50pW. This discussion was based on me wrongly looking at numbers for the aLIGO WFS heads, and Koji pointed out that we have a much older generation here. I will try and find numbers for the version we have and update this discussion.


  1. For the sake of completeness, the LO levels are ~ -12.1dBm for both WFS demod boards (reflected coupling was negligible)
  2. In the input signal coupled spectrum, there were side lobes (about 10dB lower than the central peak) at 29.44875 MHz and 29.52125 MHz (central peak at 29.485MHz) for all of the quadrants. These were not seen for the LO spectra.
  3. Attached is a plot of the OSEM sensor signals during the time I misaligned MC1 (in both pitch and yaw approximately by equal amounts). Assuming 2V/mm for the OSEM calibration, the approximate misalignment was by ~10urad in each direction.
  4. No IMC suspension glitching the whole time I was working today yes


Attachment 1: MC1_misalignment.png
  12757   Wed Jan 25 18:18:08 2017 KojiSummaryIOOMCL / MCF / Calibration

jiSome notes on the FSS configuration: ELOG 10321

  12759   Fri Jan 27 00:14:02 2017 gautamSummaryIOOIMC WFS RF power levels

It was raised at the Wednesday meeting that I did not check the RF pickup levels while measuring the RF error signal levels into the Demod board. So I closed the PSL shutter, and re-did the measurement with the same measurement scheme. The detailed power levels (with no light incident on the WFS, so all RF pickup) is reported in the table below.

IMC WFS RF Pickup levels @ 29.5MHz
WFS Quadrant Pin (pW) Preflected
1 1 0.21 10.
2 1.41 148
3 0.71 7.1
4 0.16 3.6
2 1 0.16 10.5
2 1.48 166
3 0.81 5.1
4 0.56 0.33

These numbers can be subtracted from the corresponding columns in the previous elog to get a more accurate estimate of the true RF error signal levels. Note that the abnormal behaviour of Quadrant #2 on both WFS demod boards persists.

  12818   Fri Feb 10 13:04:32 2017 ranaUpdateIOOMC AutoLocker hung because c1iool0 asleep again

c1iool0 was down again. Rather than key the crate, this time I just pushed the reset button on the front and it came back.

As move towards the wonderfulness of AcroMag, we also have to buy a computer  to handle all of these IOCs. Let's install the new c1iool0 over by the SUS computer.

  12857   Tue Feb 28 21:05:44 2017 ranaSummaryIOOMC Length offset changes MCWFS offsets

The input offset on the MC length servo board changes the lock point of the length loop (by how much? need to calibrate this slider into meters & Hz).

The SUM signal on the MC WFS is ~few 1000. This is several times larger than the pit/yaw signals. This is bad. it means that the TEM00 mode on the WFS (or what the WFS interperets as a TEM00) is larger than the TEM01/10 that its supposed to measure.

So if the beam moves on the WFS head it will convert this large common mode signal into a differential one.

We moved the MC Servo offset around from -3 to +3 V today and saw that it does affect the transmitted light level, but we need to think more to see how to put the offset at the real center of the resonance. This is complicated by the fact that the MCWFS loops seem to have some several minutes time constant so things are essentially always drifting.

  1. Characterize and juice up the WFS loops.
  2. Figure out how to set the MC length loop offset. Is this bad offset changing the zero point of the MC WFS loops?
  3. If so, it may be a source of excess jitter noise in the interferometer.

I changed the McREFL SMOO to make it easier to use this noisy channel to diagnose small alignment changes:


  12878   Thu Mar 9 20:38:19 2017 ranaConfigurationIOOMC lock acquisition settings changed; no more HOM locks

The MC was sort of misaligned. It was locking on some vertical HOMs. So I locked it and aligned the suspensions to the input beam (not great; we should really align the input beam to the centered spots on the MC mirrors).

With the HOMs reduced I looked at the MC servo board gains which Guatam has been fiddling with. It seems that since the Mod Depth change we're getting a lot more HOM locks. You can recognize this by seeing the longish stretches on the strip tool where FSS-FAST is going rail-to-rail at 0.03 Hz for many minutes. This is where the MC is locked on a HOM, but the autolocker still thinks its unlocked and so is driving the MC2 position at 0.03 Hz to find the TEM00 mode.

I lowered the input gain and the VCO gain in the mcdown script and now it very rarely locks on a HOM. The UGF in this state is ~3-4 kHz (I estimate), so its just enough to lock, but no more. I tested it by intentionally unlocking ~15 times. It seems robust. It still ramps up to a UGF of ~150 kHz as always. 'mcdown' commited to SVN.

  12897   Tue Mar 21 21:21:58 2017 gautamUpdateIOOWFS filter banks updated

The arrangement of filters in the WFS loop filter banks have been altered, Rana will update with details of the motivation behind these changes. Here is how the screen looks now:

I have updated the C1IOO SDF table, and also the mcwfson script to reflect these changes. The latter has been svn committed.

  12905   Fri Mar 24 12:21:27 2017 gautamSummaryIOOMCL / MCF / Calibration

I repeated this measurement as follows:

  1. Added a filter in the MC_F filterbank (FM9) to account for the Pomona box between the PZT control signal and the laser PZT (pole@2.9Hz). So the filter bank at the time of TF measurement looks like this:
  2. Measured TF from driving MC2 (with C1:SUS-MC2_MCL_OUT channel) to C1:IOO-MC_F, which is the output of the above filter bank. The response is the expected 1/f^2 shape of the free optic
  3. From this transfer function, the magnitude is 0.0316 ct/ct. Using the value of 6nm/ct for the MC2 actuator gain that I found in a previous elog entry, I calibrated the MC_F output into Hz using the calibration factor 3.95MHz/ct (FM10 in the above filterbank).

Here is a calibrated MC_F spectrum:

RXA: I've added this plot of the free-running noise of the Lightwave NPRO which is probably similar to our Innolight Mephisto. Seems like the laser is quieter than MC_F everywhere below 100 Hz.

Attachment 2: MCF_cal.pdf
Attachment 3: MCFTF_mag.pdf
Attachment 4: MCFTF_phase.pdf
Attachment 5: MCFTF_coh.pdf
Attachment 6: FreqNoiseReq.pdf
  12907   Mon Mar 27 12:48:36 2017 ranaSummaryIOOMCL / MCF / Calibration

What readouts do we have for the PMC length? If we could have a calibrated & whitened error and control signal for the PMC up to 16 kHz, perhaps we could see at what frequencies we can use it as a faux-RefCav.

  12912   Mon Mar 27 22:40:44 2017 KojiSummaryIOOMCL / MCF / Calibration

In http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/11793 I posted the calibrated PMC free-running displcament with/without IMC locked. Unfortunately, this measurement was done with a part of the IMC electronics not perfect (https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8081/40m/11794). I did the same measurement after the fix, but there is no low freq data http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/11795.

Assuming we have the similar error signal leve in the low freq band as The entry 11793, the IMC is considered to be noisier than the PMC between 0.8 and 4Hz. But we should do the same measurement with the current electronics.

The PMC calibration can be found in this entry http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/11780

  13426   Tue Nov 14 08:54:37 2017 SteveUpdateIOOMC1 glitching
Attachment 1: MC1_glitching.png
  13467   Thu Dec 7 16:28:06 2017 KojiUpdateIOOLots of red on the FE status screen

Once the RT machines were back, we launched only the five IOPs. They had bunch of red lights, but we continued to run essential models for the IFO. SOme of the lights were fixed by "global diag reset" and "mxstream restart".

The suspension were damped. We could restore the IMC lock. The locking became OK and the IMC was aligned. The REFL spot came back.

At least, I could confirm that the WFS ASC signals were not transmitted to c1mcs. There must be some disconneted links of IPC.

  13474   Thu Dec 14 07:07:09 2017 ranaUpdateIOOLots of red on the FE status screen

I had to key the c1psl crate to get the PMC locking again. Without this, it would still sort of lock, but it was very hard to turn on the loop; it would push itself off the fringe. So probably it was stuck in some state with the gain wrong. Since the RF stuff is now done in a separate electronics chain, I don't think the RF phase can be changed by this. Probably the sliders are just not effective until power cycling.


Once the RT machines were back, we launched only the five IOPs. They had bunch of red lights, but we continued to run essential models for the IFO. SOme of the lights were fixed by "global diag reset" and "mxstream restart".

The suspension were damped. We could restore the IMC lock. The locking became OK and the IMC was aligned. The REFL spot came back.

At least, I could confirm that the WFS ASC signals were not transmitted to c1mcs. There must be some disconneted links of IPC.

I then tried to get the MC WFS back, but running rtcds restart --all would make some of the computers hang. For c1ioo I had to push the reset button on the computer and then did 'rtcds start --all' after it came up. Still missing IPC connections.

I'm going to get in touch with Rolf.

  13485   Fri Dec 15 19:09:49 2017 gautamUpdateIOOIMC lockloss correlated with PRM alignment?


To test the hypothesis that the IMC lock duty cycle is affected by the PRM alignment. Rana pointed out today that the input faraday has not been tuned to maximize the output->input isolation in a while, so the idea is that perhaps when the PRM is aligned, some of the reflected light comes back towards the PSL through the Faraday and hence, messes with the IMC lock.

A script to test this hypothesis is running over the weekend (in case anyone was thinking of doing anything with the IFO over the weekend).


I've made a simple script - the pseudocode is the following:

  • Align PRM
  • For the next half hour, look for downward transitions in the EPICS record for MC TRANS > 5000 cts - this is a proxy for an MC lockloss
  • At the end of 30 minutes, record number of locklosses in the last 30 minutes
  • Misalign PRM, repeat the above 3 bullets

The idea is to keep looping the above over the weekend, so we can expect ~100 datapoints, 50 each for PRM misaligned/aligned. The times at which PRM was aligned/misaligned is also being logged, so we can make some spectrograms of PC drive RMS (for example) with PRM aligned/misaligned. The script lives at /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/SUS/FaradayIsolationTest/FaradayIsolCheck.py. Script is being run inside a tmux session on pianosa, hopefully the machine doesn't crash over the weekend and MC1/CDS stays happy.

A more direct measurement of the input Faraday isolation can be made by putting a photodiode in place of the beam dump shown in Attachment #1 (borrowed from this elog). I measured ~100uW of power leaking through this mirror with the PRM misaligned (but IMC locked). I'm not sure what kind of SNR we can expect for a DC measurement, but if we have a chopper handy, we could put a chopper (in the leaked beam just before the PD so as to allow the IMC to be locked) and demodulate at that frequency for a cleaner measurement? This way, we could also measure the contribution from prompt reflections (up to the input side of the Faraday) by simply blocking the beam going into the vacuum. The window itself is wedged so that shouldn't be a big contributor.

Attachment 1: PSL_layout.JPG
  13486   Mon Dec 18 16:45:44 2017 gautamUpdateIOOIMC lockloss correlated with PRM alignment?

I stopped the test earlier today morning around 11:30am. The log file is located at /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/SUS/FaradayIsolationTest/PRM_stepping.txt. It contains the times at which the PRM was aligned/misaligned for lookback, and also the number of MC unlocks during every 30 minute period that the PRM alignment was toggled. This was computed by:

  • continuously reading the current value of the EPICS record for MC Trans.
  • comparing its current value to its values 3 seconds ago.
  • If there is a downward step in this comparison greater than 5000 counts, increment a counter variable by 1.
  • Reset counter at the end of 30 minute period.

I think this method is a pretty reliable proxy, because the MC autolocker certainly takes >3 seconds to re-acquire the lock (it has to run mcdown, wait for the next cavity flash, and run mcup in the meantime).

Preliminary analysis suggests no obvious correlation between MC lock duty cycle and PRM alignment.

I leave further analysis to those who are well versed in the science/art of PRM/IMC statistical correlations.

  13533   Thu Jan 11 18:50:31 2018 gautamUpdateIOOMCautolocker getting stuck

I've noticed this a couple of times today - when the autolocker runs the mcdown script, sometimes it doesn't seem to actually change the various gain sliders on the PSL FSS. There is no handshaking built in to the autolocker at the moment. So the autolocker thinks that the settings are correct for lock re-acquisition, but they are not. The PCdrive signal is often railing, as is the PZT signal. The autolocker just gets stuck waiting to re-acquire lock. This has happened today ~3 times, and each time, the Autolocker has tried to re-acquire lock unsuccessfully for ~1hour.

Perhaps I'll add a line or two to check that the signal levels are indicative of mcdown being successfully executed.

  13547   Mon Jan 15 11:53:57 2018 gautamUpdateIOOMCautolocker getting stuck

Looks like this problem presisted over the weekend - Attachment #1 is the wall StripTool trace for PSL diagnostics, seems like the control signal to the NPRO PZT and FSS EOM were all over the place, and saturated for the most part.

I traced down the problem to an unresponsive c1iool0. So looks like for the IMC autolocker to work properly (on the software end), we need c1psl, c1iool0 and megatron to all be running smoothly. c1psl controls the FSS box gains through EPICS channels, c1iool0 controls the MC servo board gains through EPICS channels, and megatron runs the various scripts to setup the gains for either lock acquisition or in lock states. In this specific case, the autolocker was being foiled because the mcdown script wasn't running properly - it was unable to set the EPICS channel C1:IOO-MC_VCO_GAIN to its lock acquisition value of -15dB, and was stuck at its in-lock value of +7dB. Curiously, the other EPICS channels on c1iool0 seemed readable and were reset by mcdown. Anyways, keying the c1iool0 crate seems to have fixed the probelm.


I've noticed this a couple of times today - when the autolocker runs the mcdown script, sometimes it doesn't seem to actually change the various gain sliders on the PSL FSS. There is no handshaking built in to the autolocker at the moment. So the autolocker thinks that the settings are correct for lock re-acquisition, but they are not. The PCdrive signal is often railing, as is the PZT signal. The autolocker just gets stuck waiting to re-acquire lock. This has happened today ~3 times, and each time, the Autolocker has tried to re-acquire lock unsuccessfully for ~1hour.

Perhaps I'll add a line or two to check that the signal levels are indicative of mcdown being successfully executed.


Attachment 1: MCautolkockerStuck.png
  13689   Mon Mar 19 23:44:00 2018 gautamUpdateIOOIMC loop checkup

[koji, gautam]

  1. I began my investigations by measuring the voltage noise of the demod board outputs with an SR560 (G=100) and SR785 in the audio band.
    • Measurement made with PSL shutter closed, LO input of demod board driven with the nominal level of ~2.5dBm, RF input terminated.
    • Motivation was to look for any noise features.
    • Expected noise level is ~2nV/rtHz (Johnson noise of 50ohm) since there are no preamp electronics post SCLF-5 LP filter on this board.
    • Attachment #1 shows the results of the measurement for a few scenarios. Spectra only shown for the I channel but the Q channel was similar. The LO=+5dBm curve corresponds to driving the input at 5dBm with a marconi, to see if the label of the nominal level being +5dBm had anything to it.
    • The arches above 1kHz seemed suspicious to me, so I decided to investigate further.
  2. Looking at the IMC Demod board schematic, I I saw that there were 2 ERA-5SMs in there which are responsible for amplifying the 29.5MHz signal which serves as the LO to the oscillators.
  3. I pulled the demod board out and tested it on the electronics workbench. Koji and I couldn't make sense of the numbers we were seeing (all measurements made with Agilent analyzer and active FET probe with 100:1 attentuator).
  4. We eventually concluded that the ERA-5SMs were not exhibiting the expected gain of ~20dB. So we decided to swap these out.
  5. This sort of measurement is not ironclad as the output of the ERA-5SM goes to the mixer whose input impedance is dynamically varying as the diodes are switching. So even after replacing the suspect amplifiers with new ones, we couldn't make the numbers jive.
  6. We suspected that the new amplifiers were getting saturated. The 3dB saturation point for the ERA-5SM is spec'ed as ~19dBm.
    • We "measured" this by varying the input signal level and looking for deviation from linearity.
    • We saw that there was ~1dB compression for ~13dBm output from the ERA-5SM (after correcting for all attenuators etc). But this number may not be accurate in the absolute sense because of the unknown input impedance of the mixer.
    • Moreover, looking at the spec sheet for the mixer, JMS-1H, we found that while it wasn't ideal to operate the mixer with the LO level a few dBm below the expected +17dBm, it probably wasn't a show stopper.
  7. So we figured that we need 10dB of attenuation between the "nominal" LO input level of 2.7dBm and the input of the demod board in order to keep the ERA-5SM in the linear range. This has now been implemented in the form of an SMA attenuator.
  8. IMC locked straight away. But I noticed that PC drive RMS level was unusually large.
  9. I found that by increasing the "IN1" gain of the CM board to 12dB (from 2dB) and the "VCO gain" to 10dB (from 7dB), I could recover a transfer function with UGF ~140kHz and PM ~30degrees (need more systematic and wider span measurements of this, and also probably need to optimize the crossover gains). See Attachment #2 for my quick measurement tonight.
  10. Updated mcup to reflect these new gains. Tested autolocker a few times, seems to work okay.
  11. While it presumably was a good thing to replace the faulty amplifiers and prevent them from saturating, this work has not solved the primary problem of excess frequency noise on the PSL.

It is not clear to me why installing an attenuator to prevent amplifier saturation has necessitated a 10dB increase in the IN1 gain and 3dB increase in the VCO gain. Initially, I was trying to compensate for the gain by increasing the FSS "Common Gain" but in that setting, I found an OLTF measurement impossible. The moment I enabled the excitation input to the CM board, the lock was blown, even with excitation amplitudes as small as -60dBm (from the Agilent network analyzer).

This may also be a good opportunity to test out one of the aLIGO style FET mixer demod boards (recall we have 2 spare from the 4 that were inside the ALS demod box). I'm going to ask Steve to package these into a 1U chassis so that I can try that setup out sometime. From a noise point of view, the aLIGO boards have the advantage of having a x100 preamp stage straight after the mixer+LPF. We may need to replace the lowpass filter though, I'm not sure if the one installed is 1.9MHz or 5MHz.

I've left an SR785 and AG4395 near 1X2 in anticipation of continuing this work tomorrow.

Unrelated to this work - seems like the WFS DC and RF offsets had not been set in a while so I reset these yesterday. The frequent model restarts in recent times may mean that we have to reset these to avoid using dated offset values.

Attachment 1: IMC_RF_noise.pdf
Attachment 2: IMC_OLTF_20180320.pdf
  13690   Tue Mar 20 16:53:03 2018 gautamUpdateIOOIMC loop checkup

Re-measured the demod board noises after replacing the suspect ERA-5SMs, with LO driven by a marconi at the "nominal" level of 2.5dBm, and RF input terminated. Attachment #1 is the input referred voltage noise spectra. I used the FET low noise pre-amp box for this purpose. I cannot explain the shape of the spectra above 1kHz. I tried doing the measurement on a minicircuits mixer (non-surface mount) and found the shape to be flat throughout the SR785 span. Unclear what else could be going on in the demod board though, all the other components on it are passive (except the ERA-5SMs which were replaced). I considered adopting a PMC style demod setup where we do the demod using some separate Minicircuits Mixer+LowPass filter combo. But the RF flashes for the IMC monitored at the RFmon port are ~0.2Vpp, and so the RF input to the mixer is expected to be ~2Vpp. The minicircuits mixer selection guide recommends choosing a diode mixer with LO level at least 10dBm above the expected RF input signal level, and we don't have any standalone mixers that are >Level 7. I've asked Steve to package the aLIGO demod board in the meantime, but even that might not be a plug and play replacement as the IF preamp stage has ~120degrees phase lag at 1MHz, which is significantly higher than the existing board which just has a SCLF5 low pass filter after the mixer and hence has <45degrees phase lag at 1MHz.

Attachment 1: IMC_RF_noise.pdf
  13693   Tue Mar 20 21:08:03 2018 gautamUpdateIOOIMC loop checkup

This elog by koji inspired me to consider power supply as a possible issue.

The demod board receives +/-24V DC (which is regulated down to +/-15V DC by 7815/7915), and also +15V DC via the backplane. The ERA-5SM receives DC power from the latter (unregulated) +15V DC. I can't think of why this is the case except perhaps the regulators can't source the current the amp wants? In any case, it doesn't look feasible to change this by cutting any traces on the PCB to me. While I had the board out, I decided to replace the JMS-1H mixers in a last ditch effort to improve the demod board noise. Unfortunately I'm having trouble de-soldering these MCL components from the board. So for now, I'm leaving the demod board out, IMC unlocked. Work will continue tomorrow. 

  13694   Tue Mar 20 22:44:45 2018 gautamUpdateIOOIMC loop checkup

After some persistence, I managed to get the mixers off.

  • Having gotten the mxiers off, I decided to temporarily solder on 50ohms between the LO pin pad and ground on the demod board and measure the RF signal levels in the LO chain with the active probe again.
  • Today, with this change, I confirmed that the ERA-5SM begins to saturate closer to the +19dBm advertised on its datasheet. So we need only 2dB of attenuation at the input to have 17dBm at the LO pin of the mixer, assuming 50ohm input impedance.
  • But this begs the question - what does minicircuits mean by a Level-YY mixer? Do they expect YY dBm delivered to a 50ohm load? Or do we need to supply YY dBm accounting for the dynamically changing input impedance of the mixer, as monitored by a high impedance probe?
  • I soldered on some new mixers (JMS-1H) I procured from Downs earlier today.
  • Re-installed the demod board in the eurocrate.

Unfortunately, the coherent noise between the arms persists so the sensing noise injection must be happening elsewhere. frownIMC seems to lock fine though so I'm leving the autolocker on

  13696   Wed Mar 21 15:52:45 2018 gautamUpdateIOOMC error point calibration

As discussed at the meeting, I decided to calibrate the MC error point into physical units of Hz/rtHz (a.k.a. the PDH discriminant). This is to facilitate the debugging of the hypothesized excess IMC sensing noise. I did this as follows.

  1. Trust the POX calibration that was last updated in Aug 2017.
  2. Hook up spare DAC channel (piped from LSC rack to 1X2) to IN2 of IMC CM board.
  3. Inject excitation into MC error point via "IN2" input of the common board. For an excitation of 30cts with the IN2 gain at -32dB, I was able to see a peak in the calibrated X arm control signal that was ~x10 above the nominal noise level around 150Hz without seeing any nonlinear coupling effects in the DTT spectrum (I'm assuming 150Hz is sufficiently above the UGF of the X arm locking loop such that no loop correction is necessary).
  4. Took a spectrum of the IMC error signal, teed off into the SR785 at the I output of the demod board with the same linewidth as the DTT spectrum.
  5. Confirmed that without any excitation,
  6. Did the math to make these two peaks line up. The resulting calibration is: 13kHz/Vrms.

Math details:

  • DTT peak height @ 150 Hz with Hanning window, 25 avgs = 1.97e-4 nm/rtHz (See Attachment #1).
  • X arm cavity length = 37.79m, using which the above number becomes 1.47 Hz/rtHz.
  • Peak height in SR785 spectrum with Hanning window, 25 avgs = 1.13e-4 Vrms/rtHz (See Attachment #2).
  • Dividing, we get 13kHz/Vrms.

Using this, I can now make up a noise budget of sorts for the IMC sensing.

gautam 20180327 4.30pm: I re-checked the PDH error signal calibration using the oscilloscope method. Attachment #3 shows the PDH I and Q error signals and also the output of the RF monitor port, during a TEM00 flash. This attachment should be compared to Attachment #2 of elog 12822, and the answer lines up quite well. From my Finesse model of the IMC, I calculated that the x-axis of the PDH horn-to-horn is ~12.3kHz. Comparing to the top row of Attachment #3, I get a PDH error signal calibration of ~12.4kHz/Vrms, which lines up well with the number quoted above. So I trust my calibration, and hence, the y-axis of my noise budgets in reply to this elog.

Attachment 1: IMC_PDHdisc_20180321.pdf
Attachment 2: IMC_PDHdisc785_20180321.pdf
Attachment 3: IMC_oscope.pdf
  13697   Wed Mar 21 17:31:21 2018 gautamUpdateIOOMC error point calibration

I did a preliminary noise budget of the transmitted frequency noise of the IMC. Attachment #1 shows the NB. I'm going to use this opportunity to revisit my IMC modeling. Some notes:

  1. The blue, green and red traces are from my measurement of the voltage noise of the demod board with LO driven by Marconi, RF input terminated, measured using the FET preamp + SR785, and calibrated into Hz/rtHz using the number from the immediate preceeding entry.
  2. The grey trace is measured by closing the PSL shutter, manually engaging the POX11 whitening, and looking at the calibrated POX. This sensing noise is ~100x higher than the IMC curves - but I think this makes sense as for the IMC, I am measuring directly at the output of the demod board, whereas for POX, the signal goes through the whole whitening infrastructure first.
  3. The purple trace is the calibrated X-arm control signal converted to Hz/rtHz.
  4. I've only showed the region up to ~1kHz as this is where the excess noise was seen in the original ALS study that precipitated this whole investigation.

Conclusion: From this study, assuming my PDH discriminant calibration was correct, looks like IMC demod / POX11 demod electronics noises are not to blame (this surprises me since there were apparently so many things wrong on the demod board, and yet that wasn't the worst thing in the IMC chain it would seem frown). The POX11 photodiode "dark" noise is also not the problem I think, given the grey curve. Next curve to go on here is the demod board noise with the PSL shutter closed but the IMC REFL PD connected to the RF input (or maybe even better, have light on the PD, but macroscopically misalign MC2 so there is no 29.5MHz PDH signal), just to make sure there isn't anything funky going on there...


Using this, I can now make up a noise budget of sorts for the IMC sensing.


Attachment 1: IMC_RF_noise_calib.pdf
  13698   Wed Mar 21 21:13:44 2018 gautamUpdateIOOIMC noise budget

I've added two curves to the NB. Both are measured (with FET preamp) at the output of the demod board, with the LO driven at the nominal level by the Wenzel RF source pickoff (as it would be when the IMC is locked) and the RF input connected to the IMC REFL PD. For one curve, I simply closed the PSL shutter, while for the other, I left the PSL shutter open, but macroscopically misaligned MC2 so that there was no IMC cavity. So barring RFAM, there should be no PDH signal on the REFL PD, but I wanted to have light on there. I'm not sure if I understand the difference between these two curves though, need to think on it. Perhaps the IMC REFL PD's optical/electrical response needs to be characterized?


Next curve to go on here is the demod board noise with the PSL shutter closed but the IMC REFL PD connected to the RF input (or maybe even better, have light on the PD, but macroscopically misalign MC2 so there is no 29.5MHz PDH signal), just to make sure there isn't anything funky going on there...


Attachment 1: IMC_RF_noise_calib.pdf
  13703   Mon Mar 26 10:15:20 2018 ArijitUpdateIOOPMC and IMC re-locked

[Gautam, Arijit]

PMC and IMC re-aligned and re-locked. Both cavities are staying locked. Arm cavities are also locked.

  13705   Mon Mar 26 21:25:55 2018 ranaSummaryIOOMC2 Trans table has issues

Gautam, Rana

While at the MC2 table, we noticed that it has some optical problems:

  1. There is an ND filter mounted to the beam reducing lens. ND filters are illegal, Steve. It causes too much scattering noise. We should instead have a beamsplitter and a dump.
  2. One of those bad U100-AC28 mounts is in use. This is one of those ones with plastic clips that Osamu liked, but the plastic gets in the way of the beam. Needs to be removed.
  3. Reflections from the QPD and the PDA255 are not dumped. This causes noise. Bad.
  4. The QPD transimpedance should be reduced so that it can handle more light. I don't know what it has now, but its probably 10-100 kOhm.

We estimated that the power in the IMC is (1 W)*Finesse/pi = 500 W. The MC2 Transmission spec is < 10 ppm, so the power on the table is probably ~5 mW. Since the PDA255 has a transimpedance of 10 kOhm and a max output power of 10V, it can handle up to ~1 mW. Probably we can get the QPD to handle 4 mW.

Gautam, Steve  3-27

We measured MC2 transmitted power right at the uncoated window ~2.5 mW  The beam was just a little bigger than the meter.

Attachment 1: 20180326_201929.jpg
  13706   Mon Mar 26 21:40:26 2018 gautamSummaryIOOMC2 classical radiation pressure noise

[rana, gautam]

we measured the RIN of the MC2 transmission using the PDA255 I had put on the MC2 trans table sometime ago for ringdowns. Attached are (i) spectra for the RIN, (ii) spectra for the classical rad. pressure noise assuming 500W circulating power and (iii) a tarball of data and code used to generate these plots.

We took a full span measurement (to make sure there aren't any funky high-freq features) and a measurement from DC-800 Hz (where we are looking for excess noise). The DC level of light on the photodiode was 2.76V (measured using o'scope)

I'll add this to the noise budget later. But the measured RIN seems consistent with a 2013 measurement at 100Hz (though the 2013 measurement is using DTT and so doesn't have high frequency information).

Attachment 1: IMC_RIN.pdf
Attachment 2: IMC_RadPress.pdf
Attachment 3: MC2_radPress.tgz
  13708   Tue Mar 27 01:39:44 2018 gautamUpdateIOOPSL noise eater was off

While Kevin and Arijit were doing their MC_REFL PD noise measurements (which they will elog about separately shortly), I noticed a feature around 600kHz that reminded me of the NPRO noise eater feature. This is supposed to suppress the relaxation oscillation induced peak in the RIN of the PSL. Surprisingly, the noise eater switch on the NPRO front panel was set to "OFF". Is this the normal operating state? I thought we want the noise eater to be "ON"? Have to measure the RIN on the PSL table itself with one of the many available pick off PDs. In any case, as Attachment #1 showed, turning the noise eater back on did not improve the excess IMC frequency noise.

Attachment 1: IR_ALS_20180326.pdf
  13711   Tue Mar 27 19:32:03 2018 arijitUpdateIOOPSL noise eater was off

Kevin, Gautam and Arijit

We made a measurement of the MC_REFL photodiode transfer function using the network analyzer. We did it for two different power input (0dB and -10dB) to the test measurement point of the MC_REFL photodiode. This was important to ensure the measurements of the transfer function of the MC_REFL photodiode was in the linear regime. The measurements are shown in attachment 1. We corrected for phase noise for the length of cable (50cm) used for the measurement. With reference to ELOG 10406, in comparison to the transimpedance measurement performed by Riju and Koji, there is a much stronger peak around 290MHz as observed by our measurement.

We also did a noise measurement for the MC_REFL photodiode. We did it for three scenarios: 1. Without any light falling on the photodiode 2. With light falling on the photodiode, the MC misaligned and the NPRO noise eater was OFF 3. With light falling on the photodiode, the MC misaligned and the NPRO noise eater was ON. We observed that the noise eater does reduce the noise being observed from 80kHz to 20MHz. This is shown in attachment 2.

We did the noise modelling of the MC_REFL photodiode using LISO and tried matching the expected noise from the model with the noise measurements we made earlier. The modeled noise is in good agreement with the measured noise with 10Ohms in the output resistance. The schematic for the MC_REFL photodiode however reveals a 50Ohm resistance being used. The measured noise shows excess noise ~ 290MHz. This is not predicted from the simplied LISO model of the photodiode we took.

Discussion with Koji and Gautam revealed that we do not have the exact circuit diagram for the MC_REFL photodiode. Hence the simplified model that was assumed earlier is not able to predict the excess noise at high frequencies. One thing to note however, is that the excess noise is measured with the same amplitude even with no light falling on the MC_REFL photodiode. This means that there is a positive feedback and oscillation in the op-amp (MAX4107) at high frequencies. One way to refine the LISO model would be to physically examine the photodiode circuit.

We also recorded the POX and POY RF monitor photodiode outputs when the interferometer arms are independently stabilized to the laser. Given the noise outputs from the RF photodiodes were similar, we have only plotted the POY RF monitor output for the sake of clarity and convenience.


While Kevin and Arijit were doing their MC_REFL PD noise measurements (which they will elog about separately shortly), I noticed a feature around 600kHz that reminded me of the NPRO noise eater feature. This is supposed to suppress the relaxation oscillation induced peak in the RIN of the PSL. Surprisingly, the noise eater switch on the NPRO front panel was set to "OFF". Is this the normal operating state? I thought we want the noise eater to be "ON"? Have to measure the RIN on the PSL table itself with one of the many available pick off PDs. In any case, as Attachment #1 showed, turning the noise eater back on did not improve the excess IMC frequency noise.


Attachment 1: MCREFL_TF.pdf
Attachment 2: MCREFL_SPECTRUM.pdf
  13712   Tue Mar 27 23:37:35 2018 gautamUpdateIOOMC REFL PD removed

I've removed the MC REFL PD unit from the AS table for investigation. So MC won't lock.

PSL shutter was closed and location of PD was marked with sharpie (placing guides to indicate position wasn't convenient). I also kapton taped the PD to minimize dust settling on the PD while I have it out in the electronics area. Johannes has the camera, and my cellphone image probably isn't really high-res enough for diagnostics but I'm posting it here anyways for what it's worth. More importantly - the board is a D980454 revision B judging by the board, but there is no schematic for this revision on the DCC. The closest I can find is a D980454 Rev D. But I can already see several differences in the component layout (though not all of them may be important). Making a marked up schematic is going to be a pain indecision. I'm also not sure what the specific make of the PD installed is.

The lid of the RF cage wasn't on.

More to follow tomorrow, PD is on the electronics workmench for now...

gautam 28 March 2018: Schematic has been found from secret Dale stash (which exists in addition to the secret Jay stash). It has also been added to the 40m electronics tree.

Attachment 1: IMG_6955.JPG
  13715   Wed Mar 28 21:31:39 2018 gautamUpdateIOOMC REFL PD removed

I re-installed the MC REFL photodiode. Centered beam on the PD by adjusting steering mirror to maximize the DC signal level (on o'scope) at the DC monitoring port. Curiously, the DC level on the scope (high-Z) was ~2.66V DC, whereas the MEDM screen reports ~twice that value, at ~5.44 "V". We may want to fix this "calibration" (or better yet, use physical units like mW). Noise-eater On/Off comparison of MC error signals to follow.

  13716   Wed Mar 28 21:47:37 2018 arijitUpdateIOOMCREFL_PD Optical response measurement

Kevin, Gautam and Arijit

We did a optical measurement of the MCREFL_PD transimpedance using the Jenny Laser set-up. We used 0.56mW @1064nm on the NewFocus 1611 Photodiode as reference and 0.475mW @1064nm on the MCREFL_PD. Transfer function was measured using the AG4395 network analyzer. We also fit the data using the refined LISO model. From the optical measurement, we can see that we do not have a prominent peak at about 300MHz like the one we had from the electrical transimpedence measurement. We also put in the electrical transimpedence measurement as reference. RMS contribution of 300MHz peak to follow.


As per Rana`s advice I have updated the entry with information on the LISO fit quality and parameters used. I have put all the relevant files concerning the above measurement as well as the LISO fit and output files as a zip file "LISO_fit" . I also added a note describing what each file represents. I have also updated the plot with fit parameters and errors as in elog 10406.

Attachment 1: LISO_fit_with_info.pdf
Attachment 2: LISO_fit.zip
  13719   Thu Mar 29 17:57:36 2018 arijitUpdateIOOMCREFL_PD Optical response measurement

Kevin, Gautam and Arijit

Today we performed the in-loop noise measurements of the MCREFL-PD using the SR785 to ascertain the effect of the Noise Eater on the laser. We took the measurements at the demodulated output channel from the MCREFL-PD. We performed a series of 6 measurements with the Noise Eater ''ON'' and ''OFF''. The first data set is an outlier probably, due to some transient effects. The remaining data sets were recorded in succession with a time interval of 5 minutes each between the Noise Eater in the ''ON'' and ''OFF'' state. We used the calibration factor of 13kHz/Vrms from elog 13696 to convert the V_rms to Hz-scale.

The conclusion is that the NOISE EATER does not have any noticeable effect on the noise measurements.

ALS beat spectrum and also the arm control signal look as they did before. coherence between arm control signals (in POX/POY lock) is high between 10-100Hz, so looks like there is still excess frequency noise in the MC transmitted light. Looking at POX as an OOL sensor with the arm under ALS control shows ~10x the noise at 100 Hz compared to the "nominal" level, consistent with what Koji and I observed ~3weeks ago.

We tried swapping out Marconis. Problem persists. So Marconi is not to blame. I wanted to rule this out as in Jan, Steve and I had installed a 10MHz reference to the rear of the Marconi.

Attachment 1: NOISE_EATER_On_OFF.pdf
  13721   Fri Mar 30 06:14:31 2018 ranaUpdateIOOMCREFL_PD Optical response measurement

the noise eater on/off measurements should be done for 0-100 kHz and from the demod board output monitor

  13724   Fri Mar 30 22:37:36 2018 KevinUpdateIOOMCREFL_PD Optical response measurement

[Gautam, Kevin]

We redid the measurement measuring the voltage noise from the REFL PD demod board output monitor with an SR785 with the noise eater on and off. We used a 100x preamp to amplify the signal above the SR785 noise. The SR785 noise floor was measured with the input to the preamp terminated with 50 ohms. The spectra shown have been corrected for the 100x amplification.

This measurement shows no difference with the noise eater on or off.


the noise eater on/off measurements should be done for 0-100 kHz and from the demod board output monitor


Attachment 1: REFLPD_DemodBoard.pdf
  13728   Thu Apr 5 04:36:56 2018 KevinUpdateIOOCoil driver noise

[Gautam, Kevin]

We measured the MC coil driver noise at the output monitors of the coil driver board with an SR785 in order to further diagnose the excess IMC frequency noise.

Attachments 1 and 2 show the noise for the UL coils of MC3 and MC2 with various combinations of output filters engaged. When the 28 Hz elliptic filter is on, the analog dewhitening filter is off, and vice versa. The effect of the analog low pass filter is visible in MC3, but the effect of the digital low pass filter is swamped by the DAC noise.

We locked the arms and measured the ALS beatnote in each of these filter combinations, but which filters were on did not effect the excess IMC frequency noise. This suggests that the coil drivers are not responsible for the excess noise.

Attachment 2 shows the noise for all five coils on MC1, MC2, and MC3 as well as for ITMY, which is on a different DAC card from the MCs. All filters were on for these measurements.


Attachment 1: MC3.pdf
Attachment 2: MC2.pdf
Attachment 3: CoilDriver.pdf
  13730   Thu Apr 5 12:13:18 2018 KojiUpdateIOOCoil driver noise

Why is MC2 LR so different from the others???

  13737   Fri Apr 6 21:39:09 2018 gautamUpdateIOOMC2 suspension health checkup

While Kevin is working on the MC2 electronics chain - we disconnected the output to the optic (DB15 connector on coil driver board). I decided to look at the 'free' freeswinging MC2 OSEM shadow sensor data. Attachment #1 suggests that the suspension eigenmodes are showing up in the shadow sensors, but the 0.8Hz peak seems rather small, especially compared to the result presented in this elog.

Maybe I'll kick all 3 MC optics tonight and let them ringdown overnight, may not be a bad idea to checkup on the health of the MC suspensions/satellite boxes... [MC suspensions were kicked @1207113574]. PSL shutter will remain closed overnight...


Why is MC2 LR so different from the others???


Attachment 1: MC2_Freeswinging.pdf
  13738   Fri Apr 6 22:23:53 2018 KevinUpdateIOOCoil driver noise



Why is MC2 LR so different from the others???

The previous measurements were made from the coil driver output monitors. To investigate why the MC2 LR coil has less noise than the other coils, I also measured the noise at the output to the coils.

The circuit diagram for the coil driver board is given in D010001 and a picture of the rack is on the 40m wiki here. The coil driver boards are in the upper left quadrant of the rack. The input to the board is the column of LEMOs which are the "Coil Test In" inputs on the schematic. The output monitors are the row of LEMOs to the right of the input LEMOs and are the "FP Coil Volt Mon" outputs on the schematic. The output to the coils "Coil Out" in the schematic are carried through a DB15 connector.

The attachment shows the voltage noise for the MC2 LR coil as well as the UL coil which is similar to all of the other coils measured in the previous measurement. While the LR coil is less noisy than the UL coil as measured at the output monitor, they have the same noise spectrum as measured at the output to the coils themselves. So there must be something wrong with the buffer circuit for the MC2 LR voltage monitor, but the output to the coils themselves is the same as for the other coils.

Attachment 1: MC2_coil_driver.pdf
  13741   Mon Apr 9 18:46:03 2018 gautamUpdateIOOFurther debugging
  1. I analyzed the data from the free swinging MC test conducted over the weekend. Attachment #1 shows the spectra. Color scheme is same for all panels.
    • I am suspicious of MC3: why does the LR coil see almost no Yaw motion?
    • The "equilibrium" values of all the sensor signals (at the IN1 of the coil input filters) are within 20% of each other (for MC3, but also MC1 and MC2).
    • The position resonance is also sensed more by the side coil than by the LR coil.
    • To rule out satellite box shenanigans, I just switched the SRM and MC3 satellite boxes. But coherence between frequency noise as sensed by the arms remain.
  2. I decided to clean up my IMC nosie budget a bit more.
    • Attachment #2 shows the NB as of today. I'll choose a better color palette for the next update.
    • "Seismic" trace is estimated using the 40m gwinc file - the MC2 stack is probably different from the others and so it's contribution is probably more, but I think this will suffice for a first estimate.
    • "RAM" trace is measured at the CM board input, with MC2 misaligned.
    • The unaccounted noise is evident from above ~8 Hz.
    • More noises will be added as they are measured.
    • I am going to spend some time working on modeling the CM board noise and TF in LTspice. I tried getting a measurement of the transfer function fron IN1 to the FAST output of the CM board with the SR785 (motivation being to add the contribution of the input referred CM board noise to the NB plot), but I suspect I screwed up something w.r.t. the excitation amplitude, as I am getting a totally nonsensical shape, which also seems to depend on my input excitation amplitude. I don't think the output is saturated (viewed during measurement on a scope), but perhaps there are some subtle effects going on.
Attachment 1: MC_Freeswinging.pdf
Attachment 2: IMC_NB_20180409.pdf
  13744   Tue Apr 10 14:28:44 2018 gautamUpdateIOOFurther debugging

I am working on IMC electronics. IMC is misaligned until further notice.

  13746   Wed Apr 11 01:34:31 2018 gautamUpdateIOOActivities today

[kevin, gautam]

activities done today - details/plots/data/evidence tomorrow.

  1. Checked XARM loop shape. Updated NB code to fetch POX data from NDS and undo loop shape rather than using calibration filter bank.
  2. Checked POX loop calibration (m/ct). Number I was using was 8e-13. Tonight we measured 9e-13. Updated filter bank.
  3. Tried to get Y arm green ALS going.
    • Improved GTRY from ~0.05 to 0.3.
    • Tried to improve mode matching onto BBPD on PSL table to see a green beat.
    • But we were unsuccessful.
    • I think I got the near and far field alignment right, and the EY laser temp is set such that I can see an IR beat @~30MHz (so green beat should be at 60 MHz).
    • But I couldn't see anything with scope or with HP spec analyzer.
    • More tomorrow. Motivation to get green ALS working is to get some more confidence that the excess noise is indeed on the PSL light.
  13762   Wed Apr 18 19:02:15 2018 gautamUpdateIOOMC spot centering scripts

I'm working on fixing these (and the associated MEDM scripts) up so that we can get some reliable readback on how well centered the spots are on the MC mirrors. Seems like a bunch of MEDM display paths were broken, and it looks like the optimal demod phases (to put most of the output in I quadrature) are not what the current iteration of the scripts set them to be. It may well be that the gains that convert demodulated counts to mm of spot offset are also not correct anymore. I ran the script ~4times in ~1 hour time span, and got wildly different answers for the spot centering each time, so I wouldn't trust any of those numbers atm...

As you can see in Attachment #1, I stepped the demod phase of one of the servos from -180 to 180 degrees in 5degree increments. The previously used value of 57degrees is actually close to the worst possible point (if you want the signal in the I quadrature, which is what the scripts assume).

I used Attachment #2 to change up the demod phases to maximize the I signal. I chose the demod phase such that it preserved the sign of the demodulated signal (relative to the old demod phases). I also made some StripTool templates for these, and they are in the MC directory. Doing the spot centering measurement with the updated demod phases yields the following output from the script:

spot positions in mm (MC1,2,3 pit MC1,2,3 yaw):
[0.72506586251144134, 7.1956908534034403, 0.54754354165324848, -0.94113388241389784, -3.5325883025464959, -2.4934027726657142]

Seems totally unbelievable still that we are so far off center on MC1 yaw. Perhaps the gains and calibration to convert from counts to mm of spot offset need to be rechecked.

Attachment 1: MCass_demodPhase.png
Attachment 2: MCass_demodPhases.png
  13765   Thu Apr 19 00:03:51 2018 gautamUpdateIOOMore IMC NBing


As shown in the Attachments, it seems like IMC DAC and coil driver noise is the dominant noise source above 30Hz. If we assume the region around the bounce peak is real motion of the stack (to be confirmed with accelerometer data soon), this NB is starting to add up. Much checking to be done, and I'd also like to get a cleaner measurement of coil driver and DAC noise for all 3 optics, as there seems to be a factor of ~5 disagreement between the MC3 coil driver noise measurement and my previous foray into this subject. The measurement needs to be refined a little, but I think the conclusion holds.


  1. I had a measurement of the MC3 coil driver noise from ~2weeks ago when I was last working on this that I had not yet added to the NB.
  2. Today I added it. To convert from measured voltage noise to frequency noise, I assumed the usual 0.016N/A per coil number, which is probably a large source of systematic error.
  3. I define the "nominal" IMC operating condition as MC1 and MC3 having the analog de-whitening filters switched on, but MC2 switched off.
  4. So length noise should be dominated by coil driver noise on MC1 and MC3, and DAC noise on MC2.
  5. The measurement I had was made with the input to the coil driver board terminated in 50ohms. Measurement was made in-situ. The measurement has a whole bunch of 60Hz harmonics (despite the Prologix box being powered by a linear power adapter, but perhaps there are other ground loops which are coupling into the measurement). So I'd like to get a cleaner measurement tmrw.
  6. To confirm, Koji suggested some On/Off test by driving some broadband noise in the coils. I figured toggling the analog de-whitening, such that the DAC noise or coil driver electronics dominate is an equally good test.
  7. Attachment #2 shows the effect in arm error and control signal spectra. Note that I engaged analog de-whitening on all 3 optics for the red curves in this plot. But even leaving MC2 de-whitening off, I could see the read curve was below the black reference trace, which was taken with de-whitening off on all 3 optics.


Since I sunk some time into it already, the motivation behind this work is just to try and make the IMC noise budget add up. It is not directly related to lowering the IR ALS noise, but if it is true that we are dominated by coil driver noise, we may want to consider modifying the MC coil driver electronics along with the ITM and ETMs.

Attachment 1: IMC_NB_20180409.pdf
Attachment 2: IMC_coils_20180418.pdf
  13770   Thu Apr 19 17:15:35 2018 gautamUpdateIOOMore IMC NBing


Today, I repeated the coil driver noise measurement. Now, the coil driver noise curve in the noise budget plot (Attachment #1) is the actual measurement of all 12 coils (made with G=100 SR560). I am also attaching the raw voltage noise measurement (input terminated in 50ohms, Attachment #2). Note that POX11 spectrum has now been re-measured with analog de-whitening engaged on all 3 optics such that the DAC noise contribution should be negligible compared to coil driver noise in this configuration. The rows in Attachment #2 correspond to 800 Hz span (top) and full span (bottom) on the FFT analyzer.


The main difference between this measurement, and the one I did middle of last year (which agreed with the expectation from LISO modeling quite well) is that this measurement was done in-situ inside the eurocrate box while last year, I did everything on the electronics benches. So I claim that the whole mess of harmonics seen in the raw measurements are because of some electronics pickup near 1X6. But even disregarding the peaky features, the floor of ~30nV/rtHz is ~6x than what one would expect from LISO modeling (~5nV/rtHz). I confirmed by looking that the series resistance for all 3 MC optics is 430ohms. I also did the measurement with the nominal bias voltages applied to the four channels (these come in via the slow ADCs). But these paths are low-passed by an 8th order low pass with corner @ 1Hz, so at 100 Hz, even 1uV/rtHz should be totally insignificant. I suppose I could measure (with EPICS sine waves) this low-pass filtering, but it's hard to imagine this being the problem. At the very least, I think we should get rid of the x3 gain on the MC2 coil driver de-whitening board (and also on MC1 and MC3 if they also have the x3 factor).

Attachment 1: IMC_NB_20180419.pdf
Attachment 2: IMC_coilDriverNoises_20180419.pdf
  13870   Sun May 20 23:43:50 2018 gautamUpdateIOOCoil driver noise re-measurement


In the IMC actuation chain, it looks like the MC1/MC3 de-whitening boards, and also all three MC optics' coil driver boards, are showing higher noise than expected from LISO modeling. One possible candidate is thick film resistors on the coil driver boards. The plan is to debug these further by pulling the board out of the Eurocrate and investigating on the electronics bench.

Why bother? Mainly because I want to see how good the IR ALS noise is, and currently, the PSL frequency noise is causing the measurement to be worse than references taken from previous known good times.


Sometime ago, rana suggested to me that I should do this measurement more systematically.

  • Attachments #1, #2 and #3 show noise measurements in various conditions for MC1, MC2 and MC3 respectively.
  • In the above three attachments, I stitched together multiple spans from the SR785, and so the bin-width is different. The data is downloaded from the analyzer normalized by the bin-width (PSD units).
  • The roll-off at ~800Hz in the orange trace for MC1 and MC3 is consistent with an 800 Hz LPF that was used for anti-image filtering from the old 2 kHz era.
  • While it may look like the analog de-whitening isn't being switched on in some of these plots, I confirmed by transfer function measurement that it is indeed switching.
  • Data used to make these plots are in Attachment #4. Unfortunately, the code requires some of my personal plotting librariesno and so I'm not uploading it.
  • Sketch of measurement setup is shown in Attachment #5. It is not indicated in the schematic, but the SR560 was operated in battery mode for this measurement.
  • For MC1, I did the additional measurement of terminating the LEMO input to the coil driver and measuring (what should have been) just the coil driver electronics noise. But this measurement doesn't look very clean, and hence, the decision to pull the board out to continue debugging.
  • While at 1X6, Rana tightened the LEMO connectors going to MC1. We should opportunistically do MC2 and MC3 as well.
  • Some changes to be made:
    • Thick film ---> thin film.
    • Reroute HPF-ed back-plane Vmon output to the front panel LEMO.

I've now restored all the wiring at 1X6 to their state before this work.

Attachment 1: MC1_coilDriver.pdf
Attachment 2: MC2_coilDriver.pdf
Attachment 3: MC3_coilDriver.pdf
Attachment 4: MC_coilDriverNoises.tgz
Attachment 5: ActuationChainNoiseMeas.pdf
ELOG V3.1.3-