As I suspected, when the SR560 is operated in 1 Hz, first order LPF mode, the (electronic) transfer function has a zero at ~5kHz (!!!).
This is what allowed the PLL to be locked with this setting with UGF of ~30kHz. On the evidence of Attachment #3, there is also some flattening of the electrical TF at low frequencies when the SR560 is driving the NPRO PZT. I'm pretty sure the flattening is not a data download error but since this issue needs further investigation anyway, I'm not reading too much into it. I fit the model with LISO but since we don't have low frequency (~1Hz) data, the fit isn't great, so I'm excluding it from the plots.
We also did some PLL loop characterization. We decided that the higher output range (10Vp bs 10Vpp for the SR560) of the LB1005 controller means it is a better option for the PLL. The lock state can also be triggered remotely. It was locked with UGF ~ 60kHz, PM ~45deg.
We also measured the actuation coefficient of the NPRO laser PZT to be 4.89 +/- 0.02 MHz/V. Quoted error is (1-sigma) from the fit of the linear part of the measured transfer function to a single pole at DC with unknown gain. I used the "clean" part of the measurement that extends to lower frequencies for the fit, as can be seen from the residuals plot. Good to know that even though the LDs are dying, the PZT is still going strong :D.
Remaining loop characterization (i.e. verification of correct scaling of in loop suppression with loop gain etc.) is left to Jon.
Some other remarks:
Since there have been various software/hardware activity going on (stack weighing, AUX laser PLL, computing timing errors etc etc), I decided to do a check on the state of the IFO.
Since we think we already know the stack mass to ~25% (i.e. 5000 +/- 1000 lbs), we decided to restore the ETMX stack. Procedure followed was:
I will upload the photos to the PICASA page and post the link here later.
In this case, we only need a mass estimate of the end chamber contents with an accuracy of ~25%. If we think we have that already, we don't need to keep doing the jacks-strain gauge adventure.
[jon, steve, gautam]
Some points which Jon will elaborate upon (and put photos of) in his detailed elog about this setup:
We are now in a state where the PLL can be locked remotely from the control room by tweaking the AUX laser temperature . Tomorrow, Keerthana will work on getting Craig's/Johannes' Digital Frequency Counter script working here, I think we can easily implement a PLL autolocker if we have some diagostic that tells us if the PLL us locked or not.
Steve informed me that there is an acoustic hum inside the PSL enclosure which wasn't there before. Indeed, it is at ~295Hz, and is from the Bench power supply used to power the ZFL500HLN amplifier. This will have to go...
I tried calibrating the other channels today, but they still fluctuate. Sometimes they do stabilize at +/- 10V, but then suddenly drop to 5 or 6 V before climbing back up to 10. Turning the legacy off made it go only up to 6.67V. This happens for all the channels, even after doing a factory reset and recalibrating. Not sure what's happening here.
Pooja and Keirthana received 40m specific basic safety training.
The marconi RF output was turned on and thus the RF generator condition was restored to the nominal state on Friday 11th.
Note that for Signal Recycling, which is what Kevin tells us we need to do, there is a DARM pole at ~150 Hz.
To be quantitative, since we are looking at smaller squeezing levels and considering the possibility of using 5 W input power, it is possible to see a small amount of squeezing below vacuum with no SRM.
Attachment 1 shows the amount of squeezing below vacuum obtainable as a function of homodyne angle with no SRM and 5 W incident on the back of PRM. The optimum homodyne angle at 210 Hz is 89.2 deg which gives -0.38 dBvac of squeezing. Figure 2 is the displacement noise at this optimal homodyne angle and attachment 3 is the same noise budget shown as the ratio of the various noise sources to the unsqueezed vacuum.
The other parameters used for these calculations are:
So maybe it's worth considering going for less squeezing with no SRM if that makes it technically more feasible.
follow up email from Dennis 5-13-2018. The last line agrees with the numbers in elog13821.
Hi Steve & Gautam,
I've made some measurements of the spare (damaged) 40m bellows. Unfortunately neither of our coordinate measurement arms are currently set up (and I couldn't find an appropriate micrometer or caliper), so I could not (yet) directly measure the thickness. However from the other dimensional measurements, and a measurement of the axial stiffness (100 lb/in), and calculations (from the Standards of the Expansion Joint Manufacturers Association (EJMA), 6th ed., 1993) I infer a thickness of 0.010 inch in . This is close to a value of 0.012 in used by MDC Vacuum for bellows of about this size.
I calculate that the maximum allowable torsional rotation is 1.3 mrad. This corresponds to a differential height, across the 32 in span between support points, of 0.041 in.
In addition using the EJMA formulas I find that one can laterally displace the bellows by 0.50 inch (assuming a simultaneous axial displacement of 0.25 inch, but no torsion), but no more than ~200 times. I might be good to stay well below this limit, say no more than ~0.25 inch (6 mm).
If interested I've uploaded my calculations as a file associated with the bellows drawing at D990577-A/v1.
BTW in some notes that I was given (by either Larry Jones or Alan Weinstein) related to the 40m Stacis units, I see a sketch from Steve dated 3/2000 faxed to TMC which indicates 1200 lbs on each of two Stacis units and 2400 on the third Stacis.
I think the root of the problem is that the /opt/rtapps/ and /cvs/cds/rtapps/ mounting locations point to the same directory on the nfs server. Gautam and I were cleaning up the /cvs/cds/caltech/target/ directory, placing the previous contents of /cvs/cds/caltech/target/c1auxex/, including database files and startup instructions in /cvs/cds/caltech/target/c1auxex_oldVME/, and then moved /cvs/cds/caltech/target/c1auxex2/, which has the channel database and initialization files for the Acromac DAQ, to /cvs/cds/caltech/target/c1auxex/.
This also required updating the systemd entries on c1auxex to point to the changed directory. While confirming that everything worked as before we noticed that upon startup the EPICS IOC complains about not being able to find the caRepeater binary. This was not new and has not limited DAQ functionality in the past, but we wanted to fix this, as it seemed to be some simple PATH issue. While the paths are all correctly defined in the user login shell, systemd runs on a lower level and doesn't know about them. One thing we tried was to let systemd execute /cvs/cds/rtapps/epics-188.8.131.52_long/etc/epics-user-env.sh initializing EPICS. It was strange that the content of that file was pointing to /opt/rtapps/epics-184.108.40.206_long/base, which is not mounted on the slow machines, so we changed the /opt/ it to /cvs/cds/, not realizing that the frontends read from the same directory (as Gautam said, /cvs/cds does not exist as a mount point on the frontend). It ended up not working this way, and apparently I forgot to change it back during clean up. But worse, never elogged it!
In the end, we managed to to give systemd the correct path definitions by explicitly calling them out in /cvs/cds/caltech/target/c1auxex/ETMXenv, to which a reference was added in the systemd service file. The caRepeater warning no longer appears.
As suspected, this was indeed a path problem. Johannes will elog about it later, but in short, it is related to some path variables being changed in order to try and streamline the EPICS processes on the new c1auxex machine (Acromag Era). It is confusing that futzing around with the slow computing system messes with the realtime system as well - aren't these supposed to be decoupled? Once the paths were restored by Johannes, everything compiled and restarted fine. We even have a beam on the AS camera, which was what triggered this whole thing.
Anyways, Attachment #1 shows the current status. I am puzzled by the red TIMING indicators on the c1x04 and c1x02 processes, it is absent from any other processes. How can this be debugged further?
I suspect this is some kind of path problem - the EPICS_BASE bash variable is set to /cvs/cds/rtapps/epics-220.127.116.11_long/base on the FEs, while /cvs isn't even mounted on the FEs (nor do I think it should be). I think the correct path should be /opt/rtapps/epics-18.104.22.168_long/base. Why should this have changed?
I found the c1lsc machine to be completely unresponsive today. Looking at the trend of the state word, it happened sometime yesterday (Saturday). The usual reboot procedure did not work - I am not able to bring back any of the models on any of the machines, during the restart procedure, they all fail. The logfile reads (for the c1ioo front end, but they all behave the same):
Not sure what is going on here, or what "Corrutped EPICS data" is supposed to mean. Thinking that something was messed up the last time the model was compiled, I tried recompiling the IOP model. But I'm not able to even compile the model, it fails giving the error message
I've shutdown all watchdogs until this is resolved.
Good question! I've never calculated what the resonance frequency would be if had an inductive resistor with our cable capacitance (~50 pF/m I guess).
I was a bit hasty in posting the earlier plots. In the earlier plot, the "OLG" trace was OLG * anti dewhitening as Rana pointed out.
Here are the updated ones, and a cartoon (Attachment #5) of the loop topology I assumed. I've excluded things like violin filters, AA/AI etc. The overall gain scaling I mentioned in the previous elog amounts to changing the optical sensing response in this cartoon. I now also show the DARM suppression (Attachment #4) for this OLG and the DARM linewidths for RSE. I don't think the conclusions change.
Note that for Signal Recycling, which is what Kevin tells us we need to do, there is a DARM pole at ~150 Hz. I assume we will cancel this in the digital controller and so can achieve a similar OLG shape. This would modify the control signal spectrum a little around 150Hz. But for a UGF on the loop of ~150 Hz, we should still be able to roll-off the control signal at high frequencies and so the RMS shouldn't be dramatically affected.
Steve is looking into acquiring 4.5kohm Vishay Wirewound resistors with 1% tolerance. Plan is to install two in parallel (so that we get 2kohm effective resistance) and then snip off one once we are convinced we won't have any actuation range issues. Do these look okay? They're ~$1.50ea on mouser assuming we get 100. Do we need the non-inductive winding?
I think "OLG" trace is not labeled right; it would be good to see the actual OLG in addition to whatever that trace actually is.
As discussed at the meeting earlier this week, we will use some old *MOPA* channels for interfacing with the PLL system Jon is setting up. He is going to put a sketch+photos up here shortly, but in the meantime, Koji helped me identify a channel that can be used to tune the temperature of the Lightwave NPRO crystal via front panel BNC input. It is C1:PSL-126MOPA_126CURADJ, and is configured to output between +/-10V, which is exactly what the controller can accept. The conversion factor from EPICS value to volts is currently set to 1 (i.e. EPICS value of +1 corresponds to +1V output from the DAC). With the help of the wiring diagram, we identified pins 3 and 4 on cross-connect #J7 as the differential outputs corresponding to this channel. Not sure if we need to also setup a TTL channel for servo ENABLE/DISABLE, but if so, the wiring diagram should help us identify this as well.
The cable from the DAC to the cross-connect was wrongly labelled. I fixed this now.
Based on the first plot, however, my conclusion is that:
The replacement Acromag we scooped from the West Bridge E-Shop does actually seem to work, although we thought it was broken - at first it was just outputting zeros, but after I did the calibration procedure, applying +10 V and -10 V, respectively, it was reporting voltage correctly, over the full range. I don't know why the factory settings would be messed up, but it had been out of the box before. I did this only with channel 7, so you need to calibrate channels 0-6 and confirm that they indeed also work properly.
See Attachment #1 for the projected control signal ASDs. The main assumption in the above is that all other control loops can be low-passed sufficiently such that even with anti-dewhitening, we won't run into saturation issues.
DARM control loop:
De-whitening and Anti-De-whitening:
It remains to add the control signals for Oplev, local damping, and ASC to make sure we have sufficient headroom, but given that current projections are predicting using up only ~1000cts of the ~23000cts (RMS) available from the DAC, I think it is likely we won't run into saturations. Need to also figure out what the implication of the reduced actuation range will be on handling the locking transient.
Looking at Steve's plot, I was reminded of the ITMY UL OSEM issue. The numbers don't make sense to me though - 300um of DC shift in UL with negligible shifts in the other coils should have made a much bigger DC shift in the Oplev spot position.
20180508 4:49am Cabazon earth quake 4.5M at 79 miles away. ETMX is in load cell measurment condition.
There was an earthquake, all watchdogs were tripped, ITMX was stuck, and c1psl was dead so MCautolocker was stuck.
Watchdogs were reset (except ETMX which remains shutdown until we finish with the stack weight measurement), ITMX was unstuck using the usual jiggling technique, and the c1psl crate was keyed.
As suspected - the problem was with the TTs. I tested the TT signal chain by driving a low frequency sine wave using AWG and looking at the signal on an o'scope. But I saw nothing, neither at the AI board monitor point, nor at the actual coil driver mon point. I decided to look at the IOP testpoints for the DAC channels, to see if the signals were going through okay on the digital side. But the IOP channels were flatlined, as viewed on dataviewer (see Attachment #1). This despite the fact that the DAC output monitor screen in the model itself was showing some sensible numbers, again see Attachment #1.
Looking at the CDS overview screen, there were no red flags. But there was a red indicator sneakily hidden away in the IOP model's CDS status screen, the "DAC" field in the state word is red. As Attachment #2 shows, a change in the state word is correlated with the time ASDC went to 0.
Note that there are also no errors on the c1lsc frontend itself, judging by dmesg. I want to do a model restart, but (i) this will likely require reboots of all vertex FEs and (ii) I want to know if any CDS experts want to sniff for clues to what's going on before a model restart wipes out some secret logfiles. I'm a little confused that the rtcds isn't throwing up any errors and causing models to crash if the values are not being written to the registers of the DAC. It may also be that the DAC card itself is dead . To re-iterate, all the EPICS readbacks were suggesting that I am injecting a signal right up to the IOP.
Quoting from the runtime diagnostics note:
There is no beam going into the IFO at the moment. There was definitely a spot on the AS camera after I restored the suspensions yesterday, as you can see from the ASDC level in Attachment #1. But at around 2pm Pacific yesterday, the ASDC level has gone to 0. I suspect the TTs. There is no beam on the REFL camera either when PRM is aligned, and PRM's DC alignment is good as judged by Oplev.
Normally, I am able to recover the beam by scanning the TTs around with some low frequency sine waves, but not today. We don't have any readback (Oplev/OSEM) of the TT alignment, and the DC bias values havent jumped abnormally around the time this happened, judging by the OUT16 monitor points (see Attachment #2). The IMC was also locked at the time when this abrupt drop in ASDC level happened. Unfortunately, we don't have a camera on the Faraday so I don't know where the misalignment is happening, but the beam is certainly not making it to the BS. All the SOS optics (e.g. BS, ITMX and ITMY) are well aligned as judged by Oplev.
Being debugged now...
Here are a few things I will be working on:
I did some more BeatMouth characterization. My primary objective was to do a power budget. Specifically, to measure the insertion loss of the mating sleeves and of the fiber beam splitters. All power numbers quoted in this elog are measured with the fiber power meter. Main takeaways:
Remarks / Questions:
example of plots illustrating DAC range / saturation
Using the Wiener Filter estimate of the DARM disturbance we will have to cancel, I computed how the control signal would look like for a few scenarios. Our DACs are 16-bit, +/-10V (i.e. +/-32,768cts-pk, or ~23,000cts RMS). We need to consider the shape of the de-whitening filter to conclude whether it is feasible to increase the series resistance by x10 or not.
Note that in this first computation, I have not considered
While doing this calculation, I have accounted for the fact that right now, the analog de-whitening filters in the ETM drive chain have a x3 gain which we will remove. Actually this is an assumption, I have not yet measured a transfer function, maybe I'll do one channel at EY to confirm. Also, the actuator gains themselves need to be confirmed.
As I was looking at the coil driver schematic more closely, I realized that there are actually two separate series resistances, one for the fast controls path, and another for the DC bias voltage from the slow ADCs. So I think we have been underestimating the Johnson noise of the coil drivers by sqrt(2). I've also attached screenshots of the IFOalign and MCalign screens. The two ITMs and ETMX have pitch DC bias values that are compatible with a x10 increase of the series resistance. But even so, we will have ~3pA/rtHz per coil from the two resistances.
gautam 8pm May8: Seems like I had confirmed the x3 gain in the EX de-whitening board when Johannes and I were investigating the AI board offset.
We tried to estimate what the load cell measurement should yield. Here is the weight breakdown (fudge factor for Al table is to try and account for tapped holes):
As part of investigation into this issue, Jonathan Hanks pointed out that the "minute trends" being recorded by our system were actually only being recorded every 120 seconds (a.k.a. 2 minutes). He had fixed the appropriate line in the parameter file, but had not restarted the FW processes. I had restarted it on Friday. (but failed to elog it !)
To check if this made any difference, I pulled 1 hour of "minute trend" data for the PSL table temperature channel from ~1 hour ago, and compared the number of datapoints against a 1 hour minute trend time series from 2 May. I've put the display with # of datapoints (for an identical length of time) from before [left] and after [right] the restart next to the plots in Attachment #1. Seems like we are getting minute trends written every 60 seconds now, as it should be .
The unavailability of trends from nodus is a separate issue for which JH has suggested another fix, to be elogged separately.
for whatever reason, I am unable to get minute or second trends from nodus for any channels (IMC, PEM, etc) since the reboot. has there been some more recent FB failure or is this still a bug since last years FB catastrophe?
The 3IFO EOM was formerly tuned as the H2 EOM, so the resonant frequencies are different from the nominal aLIGO ones.
PORT1: 8.628MHz / 101 +/- 6 mrad_pk/V_pk
PORT2: 24.082MHz / 41.2 +/- 0.7 mrad_pk/V_pk
PORT3: 43.332MHz / 62.2 +/- 4 mrad_pk/V_pk
9MHz modulation is about x2.4 better than the one installed at LHO.
24MHz modulation is about x14 better. (This is OK as the new 24MHz is not configured to be resonant.)
45MHz modulation is about x1.4 better.
Caution: Because of this work and my negligence, the RF output of the main Marconi for the IFO modulation is probably off. The amplifier (freq gen. box) was turned on. Therefore, we need to turn the Marconi on for the IFO locking.
I worked on my EOM m easurement using the beat setup. As there was the aux injection electronics, I performed my measurement having tried not to disturb the aux setup. The aux Marconi, the splitted PD output, and an open channel of the oscilloscope were used for my purpose. I have brought the RF spectrum analyzer from the control room. I think I have restored all the electronics back as before. I have re-aligned the beat setup after the EOM removed. Note that the aux NPRO, which had been on, was turned off to save the remaining life of the laser diode.
I have been puzzled about the beat note level we get out of the BeatMouth for some time.
I have pulled the box out in order to re-characterize the DC power levels incident on the PD, and also to change the gain setting on the PD to the lower gain which is more compatible with the level of optical power we have going into the BeatMouth. The modern catalog for the FPD310 (see wiki) suggests that the maximum output voltage swing of the PD is 1Vpp driving a 50ohm load. With 50% overlapping efficiency between the PSL and AUX beams, and 400 uW of optical power from each beam, I expect an output of 0.5Vpp. Even with perfect overlap, I expect 0.8Vpp. So these numbers seem reasonable.
I also plan to check the scaling of electrical beat amplitude to optical power for a couple of levels to see that these scale as expected...
this doesn't make much sense to me; the phase to frequency conversion (mixer-demod to PZT ) should give us a 1/f loop as Johannes mentioned in the meeting. That doesn't agree with your loop shape.
How about give us some more details of the setup including photos and signal/power levels? And maybe measure the LB1005 TF by itself to find out what's wrong with the loop.
The stack weight measurement is going on at EX. ETMX watchdog is shutdown. Area is off limits over the weekend until the test is finished.
Not related to this work, but the dog clamps used on the EX table have to be re-positioned such that the clamping force is better distributed. The 2" beam splitter mount used to pick off a portion of the EX NPRO beam to the fiber has to be rotated. Also, there was a M6.9 EQ in Hawaii while we were doing this work it seems..
Attached are final details of the phase-locked loop (PLL) implementation we'll use for slaving the AUX 700 mW NPRO laser to the PSL.
The first image is a schematic of the electronics used to create the analog loop. They are curently housed on an analyzer cart beside the PSL table. If this setup is made permanent, we will move them to a location inside the PSL table enclosure.
The second image is the measured transfer function of the closed loop. It achieves approximately 20 dB of noise suppression at low frequencies, with a UGF of 50 kHz. In this configuration, locks were observed to hold for 10s of minutes.
Some notes about the setup and work at the PSL table today, Jon can add to / correct me.
Reboot for c1susaux and c1iscaux today. ITMX precautions were followed. Reboots went smoothly.
IMC is shuttered while Jon does PLL characterization...
I think we need AS55 for locking the configuration Jon suggested - AS55 I and Q were used to lock the SRMI previously, and so I'd like to start from those settings but perhaps there is a way to do this with AS110 I and Q as well.
What signals are needed for the Guoy phase measurement? Is AS 110 sufficient, or do we need AS55?
Instead of trying to couple the fiber output into the interferometer, I'm doing the reverse and maximize the amount of interferometer light going into the fiber. I set up the mode-matching solution shown in attachment #1 and started tweaking the lens positions. Attachment #2 shows the setup on the AS table. After the initial placement I kept moving the lenses in the green arrow directions and got more and more light into the fiber.
When I stopped this work yesterday I measured 86% of the AS port light coming out the other fiber end, and I have not yet reached a turning point with moving the lenses, so it's possible I can tickle out a little more than that.
It occured to me though that I may have been a little hasty with the placement of the mirror that in attachment #2 redirects the beam which would ordinarily go to AS55. For my arm ringdown measurements this doesn't matter, I could actually place it even before the 50/50 beamsplitter that sends light onto AS110 and double the amount of light going into the IFO. What signals are needed for the Guoy phase measurement? Is AS 110 sufficient, or do we need AS55?
[ Dennis Coyne' precision answer ]
Differential Height between Isolators
According to a note on the bellows drawing (D990577-x0/A), the design life of the bellows at ± 20 minutes rotational stroke is 10,000 cycles. A 20 minute angular (torsional) rotation of the bellows corresponds to 0.186" differential height change across the 32" span between the chamber support beams (see isolator bracket, D000187-x0/B).
Another consideration regarding the bellows is the lateral shear stress introduced by the vertical translation. The notes on the bellows drawing do not give lateral shear limits. According to MDC's web page for formed bellows in this size range the lateral deflection limit is approximately 10% of the "live length" (aka "active length", or length of the convoluted section). According to the bellows drawing the active length is 3.5", so the maximum allowable lateral deflection should be ~0.35".
Of course when imposing a differential height change both torsional and lateral shear is introduced at the same time. Considering both limits together, the maximum differential height change should be < 0.12".
One final consideration is the initial stress to which the bellows are currently subjected due to a non-centered support beam from tolerances in the assembly and initial installation. Although we do not know this de-centering, we can guess that it may be of the order of ~ 0.04". So the final allowable differential height adjustment from the perspective of bellows stress is < 0.08". Steve: accumulated initial stress is unknown. We used to adjust the original jack screws for IFO aligment in the early days of ~1999. This kind of adjustment was stopped when we realized how dangereous it can be. The fact is that there must be unknown amount of accumulated initial stress. This is my main worry but I'm confident that 0.020" change is safe.
So, with regard to bellows stress alone, your procedure to limit the differential height change to <0.020" is safe and prudent.
However, a more stringent consideration is the coplanarity requirement (TMC Stacis 2000 User's Manual, Doc. No. SERV 04-98-1, May 6, 1991, Rev. 1), section 2, "Installation",which stipulates < 0.010"/ft, or < 0.027" differential height across the 32" span between the chamber support beams. Again, your procedure to limit the differential height change to < 0.02" is safe.
Centered Load on the STACIS Isolators
According to the TMC Stacis 2000 User's Manual (Document No. SERV 04-98-1, May 6, 1991, Rev. 1), section 2, "Installation", typical installations (Figure 2-3) are with one payload interface plate which spans the entire set of 3 or 4 STACIS actuators. Our payload interface is unique.
Section 2.3.1, "Installation Steps": "5. Verify that the top of each isolator is fully under the payload/interface plate; this is essential to ensure proper support and leveling. The payload or interface plate should cover the entire top surface of the Isolator or the entire contact area of the optional jack."
section 2.3.2, "Payload/STACIS Interface": "... or if the supporting points do not completely cover the top surface of each Isolator, an interface plate will be needed."
The sketch in Figure 2-2 indicates an optional leveling jack which appears to have a larger contact surface area than the jacks currently installed in the 40m Lab. Of course this is just a non-dimensioned sketch. Are the jacks used by the 40m Lab provided by TMC, or did we (LIGO) choose them? I beleive Larry Jones purchased them.
A load centering requirement is not explicitly stated, but I think the stipulation to cover the entire top surface of each actuator is not so much to reduce the contact stress but to entire a centered load so that the PZT stack does not have a reaction moment.
From one of the photos in the 40m elog entry (specifically jack_screw.jpg), it appears that at least some isolators have the load off center. You should use this measurement of the load as an opportunity to re-center the loads on the Isolators.
In section 2.3.3, "Earthquake Restraints" restraints are suggested to prevent damage from earth tremors. Does the 40m Lab have EQ restraints? Yes, it has
Screw Jack Location
I could not tell where all of the screw jacks will be placed from the sketch included in the 40m elog entry which outlines the proposed procedure.
Load Cell Locations
The sketch indicates that the load cells will be placed on the center of the tops of the Isolators. This is good. However while discussing the procedure with Gautam he said that he was under the impression that the load cell woudl be placed next to the leveling jack, off-center. This condition may damage the PZT stack. I suggest that the leveling jack be removed and replaced (temporarily) with the load cell, plus any spacer required to make up the height difference. Yes
If you have any further question, just let me know.
Chief Engineer, LIGO Laboratory
California Institute of Technology
MC 100-36, 1200 E. California Blvd.
In light of the discussion at today's meeting, Guantanamo and I looked at how the series resistance for the test mass coil drivers limits the amount of squeezing we could detect.
The parameters used for the following calculations are:
Since we need to operate very close to signal recycling, instead of the current signal extraction setup, we will need to change the macroscopic length of the SRC. This will change the mode matching requirements such that the current SRM does not have the correct radius of curvature. One solution is to use the spare PRM which has the correct radius of curvature but a transmissivity of 0.05 instead of 0.1. So using this spare PRM for the SRM and changing the length of the SRC to be the same as the PRC we can get
This lower transmissivity for the SRM also reduces the achievable squeezing from the current transmissivity of 0.1. For an SRM with a transmissivity of 0.15 (which is roughly the optimal) we can get
The minimum achievable squeezing moves up from around 205 Hz at 1 W to 255 Hz at 5 W because the extra power increases the radiation pressure at lower frequencies.
The new K6XS mounts I ordered have arrived. I want to install one of them at the Y-end. I can't find a picture of the current layout but it exists as there is a hardcopy affixed to the ETMY chamber door, Steve, can we dig this up and put it in the wiki? In any case, the current beam going into the fiber is the pickoff from the post-SHG harmonic separator. I'd like to change the layout a bit, and use a pickoff before the doubling oven, but looking at the optical table, this seems like a pretty involved task and would probably require large scale optical hardware rearrangement. In any case, the MM of the green beam into the Y-arm is <50%, so I would like to redo that as well. Does anyone know of a measurement of the mode from the Lightwave NPRO that is installed at EY? I think Annalisa is the one who installed this stuff, but I can't find an actual NPRO mode measurement in her elog thread.
Found it: elog4874, elog8436. I updated the laser inventory page to link the lasers in use to the most recent mode measurements I could find on the elog. I guess ideally we should also link the AM/PM response measurements.
SV ETMY optical table layout
as of 3-31-2016
The oplev path was optimized with AR coated lenses and new He/Ne laser Jan 24, 2017
Gautam and Steve,
We have calibrated the load cells. The support beams height monitoring is almost ready.
The danger of this measurment that the beams height changes can put shear and torsional forces on this formed (thin walled) bellow
They are designed for mainly axial motion.
The plan is to limit height change to 0.020" max
0, center oplev at X arm locked
1, check that jack screws are carrying full loads and set height indicator dials to zero ( meaning: Stacis is bypassed )
2, raise beam height with aux leveling wedge by 0.010" on all 3 support point and than raise it an other 0.005"
3, replace levelling wedge with load cell that is centered and shimmed. Dennis Coyne pointed out that the Stacis foot has to be loaded at the center of the foot and formed bellow can shear at their limits.
4, lower the support beam by 0.005" ......now full load on the cells
Note: jack screw heights will not be adjusted or touched.......so the present condition will be recovered
We could use similar load cells to make the actual weight measurement on the Stacis legs. This seems practical in our case.
I have had bad experience with pneumatic Barry isolators.
Our approximate max compression loads are 1500 lbs on 2 feet and 2500 lbs on the 3rd one.
Here is an updated plot - the main difference is that I have added a trace that is the frequency domain wiener filter subtraction of the coherent power between the L_X and L_Y time series. I tried reproducing the calculation with the time domain wiener filter subtraction as well, using half of the time series (i.e. 5 mins) to train the wiener filter (with L_X as target and L_Y as witness), but I don't get any subtraction above 5 Hz on the half of the data that is a test data set. Probably I am not doing the pre-filtering correctly - I downsampled the signal to 1 kHz, weighted it by low passing the signal above 40 Hz and trained the Wiener filter on the resulting time series. But this frequency domain Wiener filter subtraction should be at least a lower bound on DARM - indeed, it is slightly lower everywhere than simply taking the time domain subtraction of the two data streams.
Putting a slightly cleaned up version of this plot in now - I'm only including the coherence-inferred DARM estimate now instead of the straight up time domain subtraction. So this is likely to be an underestimate. At low (<10 Hz) frequencies, the time domain computation lines up fairly well, but I suspect that I am getting huge amounts of spectral leakage (see Attachment #2) in the way I compute the spectrum using scipy's filtering routine (once the Wiener filter has been computed). Note that Attachment #2, I didn't break up the data into a training/testing set as in this case, we just care about the one-off offline performance in order to get an estimate of DARM.
The python version of the wiener filter generating code only supports [b,a] output of the digital filter, an sos filter might give better results. Need to figure out the least painful way of implementing the low-noise digital filtering in python...
I connected up the channels for the ADC Acromag a while back and we were planning to install it today so that we could set up a new channel for the out of loop sensor. Unfortunately, the Acromag seems to be broken. We connected up a precision 10V voltage to one of the channels, but the Acromag read out ~7V and it kept fluctuating. Even after calibration, we still got the same result. When enabling the legacy support, we got ~11V. But when we measured the voltage at the screw terminals with a multimeter and it showed 10V, so the issue is not with the wiring. All of the channels have this same issue. We will be ordering more Acromags soon, so hopefully we'll be able to set up the channel soon. I've attached a picture of the Acromag along with the front panel with the channels labeled
I added an out of loop sensor to the can by placing the lab temperature sensor inside the can. I'm not sure which channel is logging this temperature though. I also noticed that the StripTool still had the old misspelled name for the temperature readout so I fixed that as well.
I've attached a picture of the setup.
Increased the Integral gain (from -1 to -4) on the EX temperature controller. This didn't work a few weeks ago, but now with the added P gain, it seems stable. Daily temperature swings are now ~3x smaller.
Notes for Kira on what we need to do tomorrow (Friday):
For those who are flabbergasted by the way I calibrated the TEMP_MON channel from volts to deg C, here's how:
use the 'scale' and 'translate' fields to change the slope and offset for calibration in the obvious ways
[Jon, Gautam, Johannes]
Summary: In support of making a proof-of-concept RF measurement of the SRC Gouy phase, we've implemented a PLL of the aux. 700mW NPRO laser frequency to the PSL. The lock was demonstrated to hold for minutes time scales, at which point the slow (currently uncontrolled) thermal drift of the aux. laser appears to exceed the PZT dynamic range. New (temporary) hardware is set up on an analyzer cart beside the PSL launch table.
- Characterize PLL stability and noise performance (transfer functions).
- Align and mode-match aux. beam from the AS table into the interferometer.
- With the IFO locked in a signal-recycled Michelson configuration, inject broadband (swept) AM sidebands via the aux. laser AOM. Coherently measure the reflection of the driven AM from the SRC.
- Experiment with methods of creating higher-order modes (partially occluding the beam vs. misaligning into, e.g., the output Faraday isolator). The goal is identify a viable techinque that is also possible at the sites, where the squeezer laser serves as the aux. laser.
The full measurement idea is sketched in the attached PDF.
I was trying to plot trends (min, 10 min, and hour) in DataViewer and got the following error message
mjd = 58235
Open of leapsecs.dat failed
leapsecs_read() returning 0
frameMemRead - gpstimest = 1208844718
thoough the plots showed up fine after. Do we need to fix something with the leapsecs.dat file?
I've attached a sketch of how the panel will be mounted. We should make a small rectangular box that would raise the panel from the block by 1 cm or so to allow the cables to fit into the hole in the block without getting bent. It also has to be airtight so maybe having a thin layer of rubber between the mount and block would be good.
We'd like to know how much actuation is required on the ETMs to lock the DARM degree of freedom. The "disturbance" we are trying to cancel is the seismic driven length fluctuation of the arm cavity. In order to try and estimate what the actuation required will be, we can use data from POX/POY locks. I'd collected some data on Friday which I looked at today. Here are the results.
If this approach looks legit, I will compute the control signal that is required to stabilize this level of disturbance using the DARM control loop, and see what is the maximum permissible series resistance we can use in order to realize this stabilization. We can then compare various scenarios like different whitening schemes, with/without Barry puck etc, and look at coil driver noise levels for each of them.