40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 26 of 330  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Category Subject
  15357   Tue May 26 19:19:30 2020 HangUpdateBHDBHD MM-- effects of astigmatism

Please see the attached doc. 

I think the conclusion is that if the AS1 RoC error is not significantly more than 1%, then with some adjustment of the AS1-AS3 distance (~ 1 cm), we could find a solution that simultaneously makes the AS path mode-matching better than 99% for the t- and s-planes. 

The requirement of the LO path is less strict and the current plan using LO1-LO2 actuation should work. 

Attachment 1: MM.pdf
MM.pdf MM.pdf MM.pdf MM.pdf MM.pdf MM.pdf MM.pdf MM.pdf
  15356   Tue May 26 16:00:06 2020 gautamUpdateLSCPower buildup diagnostics

Summary:

I looked at some DC signals for the buildup of the carrier and sideband fields in various places. The results are shown in Attachments #1 and #2.

Details:

  • A previous study may be found here.
  • For the carrier field, REFL, POP and TRX/TRY all show the expected behavior. In particular, the REFL/TRX variation is consistent with the study linked in the previous bullet.
  • There seems to be some offset between TRX and TRY - I don't yet know if this is real or just some PD gain imbalance issue.
  • The 1-sigma variation in TRX/TRY seen here is consistent with the RMS RIN of 0.1 evaluated here.
  • For the sideband powers, I guess the phasing of the POP22 and AS110 photodiodes should be adjusted? These are proxies for the buildup of the 11 MHz and 55 MHz sidebands in the vertex region, and so shouldn't depend on the arm offset, and so adjusting the digital demod phases shouldn't affect the LSC triggering for the PRMI locking, I think.
  • Based on this data, the recycling gain for the carrier is ~12 +/- 2, so still undercoupled. In fact, at some points, I saw the transmitted power exceed 300, which would be a recycling gain of ~17, which is then nearly the point of critical coupling. REFLDC doesn't hit 0 because of the mode mismatch I guess.
Attachment 1: PRFPMIcorner_DC_1274419354_1274419654.pdf
PRFPMIcorner_DC_1274419354_1274419654.pdf
Attachment 2: PRFPMIcorner_SB_1274419354_1274419654.pdf
PRFPMIcorner_SB_1274419354_1274419654.pdf
  15355   Tue May 26 14:32:44 2020 gautamUpdateLSCArm transmission RIN

Summary:

The measured RIN of the arm cavity transmission when the PRFPMI is locked is ~10x in RMS relative to the single arm POX/POY lock. It is not yet clear to me where the excess is coming from.

Details:

Attachment #1 shows the comparison.

  • For the PRFPMI lock, the ITM Oplev Servos are DC coupled, and the ETM QPD ASC servos are also enabled.
  • Admittedly, the PD used in the POX/POY lock case is the Thorlabs PD while when the PRFPMI is locked, it is the QPD.
  • I found that there isn't really a big difference in the RIN if we normalize by the IMC transmission or not (this is what the "un-normalized" in the plot legend is referring to).  A scatter plot of TRX vs TRY and TRX/MCtrans vs TRY/MCtrans have nearly identical principal components. 
  • To convert to RIN, I divided the ocmputed spectra by the mean value of the data stream. For the POX/POY lock, the arm transmission is normalized to 1, so no further manipulation is required.
  • The spectra are truncated to 512 Hz because the IMC sum channel is DQ-ed at 1 kHz, but because of the above bullet point, in principle, I could calculate this out to higher frequencies.
Attachment 1: armRIN.pdf
armRIN.pdf
  15354   Tue May 26 10:04:54 2020 JordanUpdateGeneralN2 Replacement

Replaced empty N2 tank, left tank at ~2000 psi, right tank ~2600 psi.

  15353   Tue May 26 03:26:58 2020 gautamUpdateLSCPreliminary noise budget

Summary:

This isn't meant to be a serious budget, mainly it was to force myself to write the code for generating this more easily in the future.

Details:

  • DARM OLTF model from here was used to undo the loop to convert the in-loop measurement to a free-running estimate.
  • The AS55 PD channels were whitened to reduce the effect of ADC noise.
  • To measured channel was 'C1:LSC-DARM_IN1_DQ'.
    • Some care needs to be taken when applying the conversion from counts to meters using the sensing element measured here.
    • This is because the sensing matrix measurement was made using the response in the channel 'C1:LSC-AS55_Q_ERR_DQ'.
    • Between 'C1:LSC-DARM_IN1_DQ' and 'C1:LSC-AS55_Q_ERR_DQ' there is a scalar gain of 1e-4, and a z:p = 20:0 filter.
    • These have to be corrected for when undoing the loop, since the measurement point is 'C1:LSC-DARM_IN1_DQ'. 
  • The "Dark noise" trace was measured with the PSL shutter closed, but all CDS filters up to 'C1:LSC-DARM_IN1_DQ' enabled as they were when the DARM measurement was taken.
  • It would be interesting to see what the budget looks like once the DARM loop gain has been turned down a bit, some low-pass filtering is enabled, and the vertex DoFs are transitioned to 1f control which is hopefully lower noise.
Attachment 1: PRFPMI_NB.pdf
PRFPMI_NB.pdf
  15352   Tue May 26 03:06:59 2020 gautamUpdateLSCPRFPMI sensing matrix

Summary:

The response of the PRFPMI length degrees of freedom as measured in the LSC PDs was characterized. Two visualizations are in Attachment #1 and Attachment #2.

Details:

  • The sensing matrix infrastructure in the c1cal model was used.
  • The oscillator frequencies are set between 300 - 315 Hz.
  • Notch filters at these frequencies were enabled in the CDS filter banks, to prevent actuation at these frequencies (except for CARM, in which case the loop gain is still non-negligible at ~300 Hz, this correction has not yet been applied).
  • Mainly, I wanted to know what the DARM sensing response in AS55_Q is. 
    • The measurement yields 2.3e13 cts/m. This is a number that will be used in the noise budget to convert the measured DARM spectrum to units of m/rtHz.
    • We have to multiply this by 10/2^15 V/ct, undo the 6dB whitening gain on the AS55_Q channel, and undo the ~5x gain from V_RF to V_IF (see Attachment #4 of this), to get ~0.69 GV/m from the RFPD.
    • The RF transimpedance of AS55_Q is ~550 ohms, and accounting for the InGaAs responsivity, I get an optical gain of 1.8 MW/m. Need to check how this lines up with expectations from the light levels, but seems reasonable.
    • Note that T_SRM is 10%, we dump 70% of the output field into the unused OMC, and there is a 50/50 BS splitting the light between AS55 and AS110 PDs. Assuming 90% throughput from the rest of the chain, we are only sensing ~1.3 % of the output DARM field.
  • Apart from this, I can also infer what the matrix elements / gains need to be for transitioning the PRMI control from 3f to 1f signals. To be done...
  • I found these histograms in Attachment #2 to be a cute way of (i) visualizing the variance in the magnitude of the sensing element and (ii) visualizing the separation between the quadratures, which tells us if the (digital) demod phase needs to be modified.
    • The sensing lines were on for 5 minutes (=300 seconds) and the FFT segment length is 5 seconds, so these histograms are binning the 60 different values obtained for the value of the sensing element.
    • The black dashed lines are "kernel density estimates" of the underlying PDFs
    • I haven't done any rigorous statistical analysis on the appropriateness of using this technique for error estimation, so for now, they are just lines...
Attachment 1: PRFPMI_20200524sensMat.pdf
PRFPMI_20200524sensMat.pdf
Attachment 2: PRFPMI_20200524sensMatHistograms.pdf
PRFPMI_20200524sensMatHistograms.pdf
  15351   Tue May 26 03:01:35 2020 gautamUpdateLSCCARM loop

Summary:

I am able to realize ~8 kHz UGF with ~60 degrees of phase margin on the CARM loop OLTF (combination of analog and digital signal paths).

Details:

  • Attachment #1 shows the measured OLTF.
  • The measurement is made by using the "EXC A" bank on the CM board, with an SR785. With this technique, the measurement will be poor where the loop gain is high, as the excitation will be squished. Nevertheless, we can estimate the behavior in those regimes by using a model, and fitting it to the regions where the measurement is valid (in this case, above ~1 kHz).
  • This measurement was made with IN1 Gain = +4 dB, AO gain = 0 dB, and IMC IN2 gain = 0 dB.
  • The regular boost has been enabled, but no super-boosts yet, mainly because I think they consume too much phase close to the UGF. 
  • The modeling/fitting of this, including a more thorough characterization of the crossover, will follow...
Attachment 1: CARM_OLTF.pdf
CARM_OLTF.pdf
  15350   Tue May 26 02:37:19 2020 gautamUpdateLSCDARM loop measurement and fitting

Summary:

In order to estimate the free-running DARM displacement noise, I measured the DARM OLTF using the usual IN1/IN2 prescription. The measured data was then used to fit some model paramters for a loop model that can be used over a larger frequency range.

Details:

  • Attachment #1 shows an overlay of the measured and modelled TFs.
  • Attachment #2 shows the various components that went into building up this model. 
    • The digital AA and AI filter coefficients were taken from the RTCDS code.
    • The analog AA and AI filter zpks were taken from here and here respectively.
    • CDS filters taken from the banks enabled. The 20Hz : 0Hz z:p filter in the CARM_B path is also accounted for, as have the violin-mode notches.
    • Pendulum TF is just 1/f^2, the overall scaling is unimportant because it will be fitted (in combination with the overall scaling uncertainty on the DC optical gain), but I used a value of 10 nm/f^2 which should be in the right ballbark.
    • The optical gain includes the DARM pole at ~4.5 kHz for this config.
  • With all these components, to make the measurement and fit line up, I added two free parameters - an overall gain, and a delay. 
    • NLSQ minimizer was used to find the best-fit values for these parameters.
    • I'm not sure what to make of the relatively large disagreement between measurement and model below 100 Hz - I'm pretty sure I got all the CDS filters included...
    • Moreover, I don't have a good explanation for why the best-fit delay is 400 us. One RTCDS clock cycle is onyl 60 us, and even with an extra clock cycle for the RFM transfer, I still can't get up to such a high delay...

In summary, the UGF is ~150 Hz and phase margin is ~30 deg. This loop would probably benefit from some low-pass filter being turned on.

Attachment 1: DARM_TF.pdf
DARM_TF.pdf
Attachment 2: DARM_TF_breakdown.pdf
DARM_TF_breakdown.pdf
  15349   Tue May 26 02:31:00 2020 gautamUpdateLSCLock acquisition sequence

Here, I provide some details of the sequence. Obviously, I am presenting one of the quickest transitions to the fully locked state, I don't claim that every attempt is so smooth. But it is pretty cool that the whole thing can be done in ~3 minutes.

See Attachment #1 for the labels.

  • A --- Arms are locked on POX/POY, and EX/EY lasers are also locked to their respective arms. The phase tracker outputs are averaged in preparation for transitioning control from POX/POY to ALS. 
  • B --- Aforementioned transition has been realized. CARM offset of -4 is applied. Based on this calibration, this is ~ 4 nm.
  • C --- PRM is aligned in preparation for 3f vertex locking. Between C and D, the long pause is because I also use this time to DC couple the ITM Oplev servos, which requires some averaging. 
  • D --- PRMI is locked. CARM offset reduction begins. Between D and E, I scan CARM through a resonance, and look at the necessary offset requried in the CARM_B (=RF) path. It is a mystery to me why this is required.
  • E --- Ramp CARM offset completely to 0. Twiddle CARM_A and DARM_A offsets (=ALS path) to maximize the arm transmitted powers. Between E and F, you can see that the arm powers stabilize somewhat before any RF control is engaged (more on this later), which means we are approximately in the linear regime of the CARM PDH signal, and the switchover can be effected. As I write this, I wonder if there is any benefit to normalizing the REFL_11 error signal (=CM_SLOW) by the arm transmission for a broader capture range?
  • F --- CARM_B and DARM_B (=RF) paths engaged. I ramp off the ALS servos between F and G using a 10 second ramptime.
  • G --- IFO is now under RF control, ALS control has been turned off completely.
  • H --- Rudimentary ASC is enabled. The ITMs are already running with DC coupled Oplev servos, and for the ETMs, I use the Transmon QPDs. The loop shapes/gains for this part haven't been finalized yet, but some improvement in the stability is seen.

This particular lock held for ~20 minutes so I could run some loop characterization measurements etc.

I am struggling to explain:

  1. Why POP22 goes to 0 when we zero the CARM offset? The arm length is such that the 2f fields don't experience any abrupt changes in reflectivity from the arm cavity for a wide range of offsets. This signal is the trigger signal for the PRMI LSC control - right now, I get around this problem by mixing in some amount of POP DC once the PRMI is locked. But if the lock is lost, this requires some EPICS button gynmastics to try and salvage the lock... I guess the 1f field components experience a different phase on reflection at various offsets, so maybe I should be looking at sqrt(POP22_I^2 + POP22_Q^2) instead of just POP22_I.
  2. Why is an error point offset required in the CARM RF path?
Attachment 1: PRFPMIlock_1274418200_1274418550.pdf
PRFPMIlock_1274418200_1274418550.pdf
  15348   Tue May 26 02:15:36 2020 gautamUpdateLSCLock acquisition portal entry

Summary:

Provided the IMC is cooperative, the input pointing isn't drifting, and the RF offsets aren't jumping around too much, the locking sequence is now pretty robust.

Details:

Most of the analysis uses data between the GPS times 1274418176 and 1274419654 that are recorded to frames.

  15347   Tue May 26 01:58:57 2020 gautamUpdateElectronicsSome electronics thoughts

A big factor in how much IFO locking activities can take place is how cooperative the IMC is.

Since the c1psl upgrade, the IMC duty cycle has definitely deteriorated. I took a measurement of the dark noise at the IMC error point with 1 Hz FFT binwidth, with all electrical connections to the IMC servo board except the Acromag and Eurocrate power disconnected. I was horrified at the prominence of 60 Hz harmonics - see Attachment #1. In the past, this kind of feature has been indicative of some error in the measurement technique - but I confirmed that the lines remain even if I unplug the GPIB box, and all combinations of floating/grounded inputs that I tried. We know for sure that there is some excess noise imprinted on the laser light post upgrade. While these lines almost certainly are not responsible for the PCdrive RMS going bonkers, surely this kind of electrical situation isn't good?

Attachment #2 shows the same information translated to frequency noise units, taking into account the complementary sensitivity function, L/(1+L) - the sum contribution of the 60 Hz peaks to the RMS is ~11.5% of the total over the entire band (c.f. 1.7 % that is expected if the noise at multiples of 60 Hz was approximately equal to the surrounding noise levels). Moreover, the measured RMS is 55 times higher than a LISO model. 

How can this be fixed?

Attachment 1: IMCsensingNoise.pdf
IMCsensingNoise.pdf
Attachment 2: IMCsensingNoise.pdf
IMCsensingNoise.pdf
  15346   Mon May 25 10:54:41 2020 ranaUpdateComputer Scripts / ProgramsNDS2 service restarted

so far it has run through the weekend with no problems (except that there are huge log files as usual).

I have started to set up monit to run on megatron to watch this process. In principle this would send us alerts when things break and also give a web interface to watch monit. I'm not sure how to do web port forwarding between megatron and nodus, so for now its just on the terminal. e.g.:

monit>sudo monit status
Monit 5.25.1 uptime: 4m

System 'megatron'
  status                       OK
  monitoring status            Monitored
  monitoring mode              active
  on reboot                    start
  load average                 [0.15] [0.22] [0.25]
  cpu                          0.6%us 1.0%sy 0.2%wa
  memory usage                 1001.4 MB [25.0%]
  swap usage                   107.2 MB [1.9%]
  uptime                       40d 17h 55m
  boot time                    Tue, 14 Apr 2020 17:47:49
  data collected               Mon, 25 May 2020 11:43:03

Process 'nds2'
  status                       OK
  monitoring status            Monitored
  monitoring mode              active
  on reboot                    start
  pid                          25007
  parent pid                   1
  uid                          4666
  effective uid                4666
  gid                          4666
  uptime                       3d 1h 22m
  threads                      53
  children                     0
  cpu                          0.0%
  cpu total                    0.0%
  memory                       19.4% [776.1 MB]
  memory total                 19.4% [776.1 MB]
  security attribute           unconfined
  disk read                    0 B/s [2.3 GB total]
  disk write                   0 B/s [17.9 MB total]
  data collected               Mon, 25 May 2020 11:43:03

 

  15345   Fri May 22 10:37:41 2020 ranaUpdateComputer Scripts / ProgramsNDS2 service restarted

was dead again this morning - JZ notified

current restart instructions (after ssh to megatron):

cd /home/nds2mgr/nds2-megatron

sudo su nds2mgr

make -f test_restart

  15344   Fri May 22 10:14:47 2020 JordanUpdateGeneralNitrogen Replacement

I was in the lab for Clean and Bake activities and I replaced an empty N2 tank. Left tank is at 2600 psi right tank at ~1300 psi.

  15343   Fri May 22 01:43:18 2020 gautamUpdateElectronicsRF electronics trouble

To test a hypothesis, I have left the PSL shutter closed. I notice significant glitches in the dark electronics offsets on all the 11 MHz photodiode I/Q demodulated input channels, which appear coherent. These are non-negligible in magnitude - for now they are uncalibrated in cts, but for an estimate, the POX11 channel shows a shift of ~20 cts (~200uV at the input to the whitening board), while the PDH fringe is ~200 cts pk2pk. A first look is in Attachment #1. The fact that it's in all the 11 MHz channels makes me suspect something in the RF chain, maybe some amplifier? I'll open the shutter tomorrow.

Attachment 1: RFPDglitches.png
RFPDglitches.png
  15342   Thu May 21 15:31:26 2020 gautamUpdateComputer Scripts / ProgramsNDS2 service restarted

The service had failed at 16:09 yesterday. I just restarted it and am now able to fetch data again. 

Unrelated to this work: I restarted the httpd service on nodus a couple of times this afternoon while experimenting with the summary pages.

Quote:

Please try it out and tell me about any problems in getting fresh data.

  15341   Wed May 20 20:10:34 2020 rana, John ZUpdateComputer Scripts / ProgramsNDS2 server / conf updated - seems OK now

We noticed about a week ago that the NDS2 channel lists were not getting updated on megatron. JZ and I investigated; he was able to fix it all up this afternoon by logging in and snooping around Megatron.

Please try it out and tell me about any problems in getting fresh data.


  1. The NDS2 server is what we connect to through our python NDS2 client software to download some data.
  2. It has been working for years, but it looks like there was a file corruption of the channel lists that it makes back in 2017.
  3. Since the NDS2 server code tries to make incremental changes, it was failing to make a new channel list. Was failing to parse the corrupted file.
  4. there was a controls crontab entry to restart the server every morning, but the file name in that tab had a typo, so that wasn't working. I commented it out, since it shouldn't be necessary (lets see how it goes...)
  5. the nds2mgr account also has a crontab, but that was failing since it didn't have sudo permission. JZ added nds2mgr to the sudoers list so that should work now.
  6. I was able to get new channels as of 4 PM today, so it seems to be working.

* we should remember to rebuild the NDS2 server code for Ubuntu. The thing running on there is for CentOS / SL7, but we moved to Ubuntu recently since the SL7 support is going away.

** the nds2 code & conf files are not backed up anywhere since its not on /cvs/cds. It has 52 GB(!!) of txt channel lists & archives which we don't need to backup

  15340   Wed May 20 19:34:58 2020 KojiUpdateGeneralITM spares and New PR3 mirrors transported to Downs for phasemap measurement

Two ITM spares (ITMU01/ITMU02) and five new PR3 mirrors (E1800089 Rev 7-1~Rev7-5) were transported to Downs for phasemap measurement

Attachment 1: container.jpg
container.jpg
  15339   Wed May 20 18:45:22 2020 HangUpdateBHDBHD mode-matching study--corner plot & adjustment requirement

As Rana suggested, we present the scattering plot of the AS path mode matching for various variables. The plot is for the AS path, Plan 2 (whose params we summarize at the end of this entry).

In the corner plot, we color-coded each realization according to the mode matching. We use (purple, olive, grey) for (MM>0.99, 0.98<MM<=0.99, MM<=0.98), respectively. From the plot, we can see that it is most sensitive to the RoC of AS1. The plot also shows that we can compensate for some of the MM errors if we adjust the distance between AS1-AS3 (note that AS2 is a flat mirror). The telescope is quite robust to other errors.

The compensation requirement is further shown in the second plot. To correct for the 1% RoC error of AS1, we typically need to adjust AS1-AS3 distance by ~ 1 cm (if we want to go back to MM=1; the window for >0.99 MM spans also about 1 cm). This should be doable because the nominal distance between AS1-AS3 is 115 cm. 

The story for plan1 is similar and thus not shown here. 

==============================================================

AS path plan2 nominal params:

label     z (m)     type             parameters  
-----     -----     ----             ----------  
SRMAR          0    flat mirror      none:     
AS1       0.7192    curved mirror    ROC: 2.5000 
AS2       1.2597    flat mirror      none:     
AS3       1.8658    curved mirror    ROC: -0.5000
AS4       2.5822    curved mirror    ROC: 0.6000  
OMCBS1    3.3271    flat mirror      none:   
Attachment 1: AS_MM_scat2.pdf
AS_MM_scat2.pdf
Attachment 2: AS_MM_adj2.pdf
AS_MM_adj2.pdf
  15338   Tue May 19 15:39:04 2020 YehonathanUpdateLoss Measurement40m Phase maps loss estimation

I have a serious concern about this low angle scattering analysis:

Phase maps perturb the spatial mode of the steady-state of the cavity, but how is this different than mode-mismatch? The loss that I calculated is an overall loss, not roundtrip loss.

The only way I can think this can become serious loss is when the HOMs themselves have very high roundtrip loss. Attached is the modal power fraction that I calculated.

 

Attachment 1: Mode_power_fraction1.pdf
Mode_power_fraction1.pdf
  15337   Tue May 19 15:24:06 2020 ranaUpdateBHDBHD mode-matching study

It would be good to have a corner plot with all the distances/ RoCs. Also perhaps a Jacobian like done in this breathtaking and seminal work.

  15336   Mon May 18 18:00:16 2020 HangUpdateBHDBHD mode-matching study

[Jon, Tega, Hang]

We proposed a few BHD mode-matching telescope designs and then preformed a few monte-carlo experiments to see how the imperfections would change the story. We assumed a 2 mm (1-sigma) error on the location of the components and 1% (1-sigma) fractional error on the RoC of the curved mirrors. The angle of incidence has not yet been taken into account (no astigmatism at the moment but will be included in the follow-up study.)

For the LO path things are mostly fine. We can use LO1 and LO2 as the actuators (Sec. 2.2 of the note), and when errors are taken into account more than 90% of times we can still achieve 98% mode matching. The gouy phase separation between LO1 and LO2 > 34 deg for 90% of the time, which corresponds to a condition number of the sensing matrix of ~ 3. 

The situation is more tricky for the AS path. While the telescopes are usually robust against 2 or 3 mm of positional error, the 1% RoC does affect the performance quite significantly. In the note we choose two best-performing ones but still only 50% of the time they can maintain a power-overlap of > 99%. In fact, the 1% RoC error assumed should be quite optimistic... Not sure if we could achieve this in reality. 

One potential way out is to ignore the MM for the first round of BHD. Here anyway we only need to test the ISC schemes. Then in the second round when we have the whole BHD board suspended, we can then use AS1 and the BHD board as the actuators. This might be able to make things more forgiving if we don't need to shrink the AS beam very fast so that it could be separated from AS4 in gouy phase.

Attachment 1: MM.pdf
MM.pdf MM.pdf MM.pdf MM.pdf MM.pdf MM.pdf MM.pdf MM.pdf
  15335   Fri May 15 19:10:42 2020 gautamUpdateSUSAll watchdogs tripped, now restored

This EQ in Nevada seems to have tripped all watchdogs. ITMX was stuck. It was released, and all the watchdogs were restored. Now the IMC is locked.

  15334   Fri May 15 09:18:04 2020 JonUpdateBHDBHD telescope designs accounting for ASC

Hang and I have reanalyzed the BHD telescope designs, with the goal of identifying sufficiently non-degenerate locations for ASC actuation. Given the limited room to reposition optics and the requirement to remain insensitive to small positioning errors, we conclude it is not possible put sufficient Gouy phase separation between the AS1/AS2 and LO1/LO2 locations. However, we can make the current layout work if we instead actuate AS1/AS4 and LO1/LO4. This would require actuating one optic on the breadboard for each relay path. If possible, we believe this offers the simplest solution (i.e., least modification to the current layout).

LO Telescope Design (Attachment 1)

Radius of curvatures:

  • LO1: +10 m
  • LO2: flat
  • LO3: +15 m
  • LO4: flat

AS Telescope Design (Attachment 2)

Radius of curvatures:

  • AS1: +3 m
  • AS2: flat
  • AS3: -1 m
  • AS4: flat
Attachment 1: LOpath.pdf
LOpath.pdf
Attachment 2: ASpath.pdf
ASpath.pdf
  15333   Thu May 14 19:00:43 2020 YehonathanUpdateLoss Measurement40m Phase maps loss estimation

Perturbation theory:

The cavity modes \left|q\rangle_{mn} , where q is the complex beam parameter and m,n is the mode index, are the eigenmodes of the cavity propagator. That is:

\hat{R}_{ITM}\hat{K}_L\hat{R}_{ETM}\hat{K}_L\left|q\rangle_{mn}=e^{i\phi_g}\left|q\rangle_{mn},

where \hat{R} is the mirror reflection matrix. At the 40m, ITM is flat, so \hat{R}_{ITM}=\mathbb{I}. ETM is curved, so \hat{R}_{ETM}=e^{-i\frac{kr^2}{2R}}, where R is the ETM's radius of curvature.

\phi_g is the Gouy phase.

\hat{K}_L=\frac{ik}{2\pi L}e^{\frac{ik}{2L}\left|\vec{r}-\vec{r}'\right|^2}is the free-space field propagator. When acting on a state it propagates the field a distance L.

 

The phase maps perturb the reflection matrices slightly so:

\hat{R}_{ITM}\rightarrow e^{ikh_1\left(x,y \right )}\approx 1+ikh_1\left(x,y \right )

\hat{R}_{ETM}\rightarrow e^{ikh_2\left(x,y \right )}e^{-i\frac{kr^2}{2R}}\approx\left[1+ikh_2\left(x,y \right )\right]e^{-i\frac{kr^2}{2R}},

Where h_12 are the height profiles of the ITM and ETM respectively. The new propagator is

H = H_0+V, where H_0 is the unperturbed propagator and

V=ikh_1\left(x,y \right )H_0+ik\hat{K}_Lh_2\left(x,y \right )e^{-i\frac{kr^2}{2R}}\hat{K}_L

To find the perturbed ground state mode we use first-order perturbation theory. The new ground state is then

|\psi\rangle=\textsl{N}\left[ |q\rangle_{00}+\sum_{m\geq 1,n\geq1}^{}\frac{{}_{mn}\langle q|V|q\rangle_{00}}{1-e^{i\left(m+n \right )\phi_g}}|q\rangle_{mn}\right]

Where N is the normalization factor. The (0,1) and (1,0) modes are omitted because they can be zeroed by tilting the mirrors. Gouy phase of TEM00 mode is taken to be 0.

Some simplification can be made here:

{}_{mn}\langle q|V|q\rangle_{00}={}_{mn}\langle q|ikh_1\left(x,y \right )|q\rangle_{00}+{}_{mn}\langle q|\hat{K}_Likh_2\left(x,y \right )e^{-i\frac{kr^2}{2R}}\hat{K}_L|q\rangle_{00}

{}_{mn}\langle q|\hat{K}_Likh_2\left(x,y \right )e^{-i\frac{kr^2}{2R}}\hat{K}_L|q\rangle_{00}={}_{mn}\langle q-L|ikh_2\left(x,y \right )e^{-i\frac{kr^2}{2R}}|q+L\rangle_{00}={}_{mn}\langle q+L|ikh_2\left(x,y \right )|q+L\rangle_{00}

The last step is possible since the beam parameter q matches the cavity.

 

The loss of the TEM00 mode is then:

L=1-\left|{}_{00}\langle q|\psi\rangle\right|^2

 

 

 

 

  15332   Thu May 14 12:21:56 2020 YehonathanUpdateLoss Measurement40m Phase maps loss estimation

I finished calculating the X Arm loss using first-order perturbation theory. I will post the details of the calculation later.

I calculated loss maps of ITM and ETM (attachments 1,2 respectively). It's a little different than previous calculation because now both mirrors are considered and total cavity loss is calculated. The map is calculated by fixing one mirror and shifting the other one around.

 

The losin total is pretty much the same as calculated before using a different method. At the center of the mirror, the loss is 21.8ppm which is very close to the value that was calculated. 

 

Next thing is to try SIS.

Attachment 1: ITMX_Loss_Map_Perturbation_Theory.pdf
ITMX_Loss_Map_Perturbation_Theory.pdf
Attachment 2: ETMX_Loss_Map_Perturbation_Theory(1).pdf
ETMX_Loss_Map_Perturbation_Theory(1).pdf
  15331   Thu May 14 00:47:55 2020 gautamSummaryComputer Scripts / Programspcdev1 added to authorized keys on nodus

This is to facilitate the summary page config fines to be pulled from nodus in a scripted way, without being asked for authentication. If someone knows of a better/more secure way for this to be done, please let me know. The site summary pages seem to pull the config files from a git repo, maybe that's better?

  15330   Thu May 14 00:21:03 2020 gautamUpdateLSCCM board boosts

Summary:

I think the boosts that are currently stuffed on the CM board are too aggressive to be usable for locking the interferometer. I propose some changes.

Details:

[CM board schematic]

[CM board transfer function measurement]

[Measurement of the AO path TF]. Empirically, I have observed that the CARM OLTF has ~90 degrees phase margin available at the UGF when no boosts are engaged, which is consistent with Koji's measurement. Assuming we want at least 30 degrees phase margin in the final configuration, and assuming a UGF to be ~10 kHz, the current boosts eat up way too much phase at 10 kHz. Attachment #1 shows the current TFs (dashed lines), as the boosts are serially engaged. I have subtracted the 180 degrees coming from the inverting input stage. The horizontal dash-dot line on the lower plot is meant to indicate the frequency at which the boost stages eat up 60 degrees of phase, which tells us if we can meet the 30 degree PM requirement.

In solid lines on Attachment #1, I have plotted the analogous TFs, with the following changes:

  • R52, R54: 1.21k --> 3.16k (changes 4 kHz zero to 1.5 kHz).
  • R61, R62: 82.5 --> 165 (changes 20 kHz zero to 10 kHz).
  • R63: 165 --> 300 (changes 10 kHz zero to 5 kHz).

These changes will allow possibly two super boosts to be engaged if we can bump up the CARM UGF to ~15 kHz. We sacrifice some DC gain - I have not yet done the noise analysis of the full CARM loop, but it may be that we don't need 120 dB gain at DC to be sensing noise limited. I suppose the pole frequencies can also be halved if we want to keep the same low frequency gain. In any case, in the current form, we can't access all that gain anyways because we can't enable the boosts without the loop going unstable.

The input referred noise gets worse by a factor of 2 as a result of these changes, but the IN1 gain stage noise is maybe already higher? If this sounds like a reasonable plan, I'll implement it the next time I'm in the lab.

Attachment 1: boosts.pdf
boosts.pdf
Attachment 2: boosts_noise.pdf
boosts_noise.pdf
  15329   Wed May 13 15:13:11 2020 YehonathanUpdateLoss Measurement40m Phase maps loss estimation

Koji pointed out during the group meeting that I should compensate for local tilt when I move the beam around the mirror for calculating the loss map.

So I did.

Also, I made a mistake earlier by calculating the loss map for a much bigger (X7) area than what I thought.

Both these mistakes made it seem like the loss is very inhomogeneous across the mirror.

Attachment 1 and 2 show the corrected loss maps for ITMX and ETMX respectively.

The loss now seems much more reasonable and homogeneous and the average total arm loss sums up to ~ 22ppm which is consistent with the after-cleaning arm loss measurements.

Attachment 1: ITMX_Loss_Map.pdf
ITMX_Loss_Map.pdf
Attachment 2: ETMX_Loss_Map.pdf
ETMX_Loss_Map.pdf
  15328   Tue May 12 22:47:49 2020 gautamUpdateLSCRelative importance of losses in the arm and PRC

Yes, \eta_A is the (average) round-trip loss for an arm cavity. I'd estimate this is ~100ppm currently. I edited the original elog to fill in this omission.

The RC mirror specs require some guesswork - the available specs for the Laseroptik mirrors (PR3) are for a 48 degree angle of incidence, and could be as high as 0.5 %. According to the poster, the spec is 2.6% loss inside the recycling cavity but I don't know where I got the number for the AR surface of the G&H PR2, and presumably that includes some guess I made for the MM between the PRC and the arm. Previously, assuming ~1-2% loss inside the RC gave good agreement between model and measurement. Certainly, if we assume similar numbers, a recycling gain of ~11 (200 * T_P=5.637%) is reasonable. But I think we need more data to make a stronger statement.

Quote:

Is \eta_A the roundtrip loss for an arm?

Thinking about the PRG=10 you saw:
- What's the current PR2/3 AR? 100ppm? 300ppm? The beam double-passes them. So (AR loss)x4 is added.
- Average arm loss is ~150ppm?

Does this explain PRG=10?

  15327   Tue May 12 20:16:31 2020 KojiUpdateLSCRelative importance of losses in the arm and PRC

Is \eta_A the roundtrip loss for an arm?

Thinking about the PRG=10 you saw:
- What's the current PR2/3 AR? 100ppm? 300ppm? The beam double-passes them. So (AR loss)x4 is added.
- Average arm loss is ~150ppm?

Does this explain PRG=10?

 

  15326   Tue May 12 18:16:17 2020 gautamUpdateLSCRelative importance of losses in the arm and PRC

Attachment #1 is meant to show that having a T=500ppm PR2 optic will not be the dominant contributor to the achievable recycling gain. Nevertheless, I think we should change this optic to start with. Here, I assume:

  • \eta_A denotes the (average) round trip loss per arm cavity (i.e. ITM + ETM). Currently, I guess this is ~100ppm.
  • Fixed 0.5% loss from mode mismatch between the CARM mode and the PRC mode (the x-axis does NOT include this number).
  • No substrates/AR coatings inside the cavity.
  • For the nominal case, let's say the intracavity loss sums to 100 ppm.
  • For the T=500ppm PR2, I assumed a total of 550 ppm loss in the PRC.

In relaity, I don't know how good the MM is between the PRC and the arms. All the scans of the arm cavity under ALS control and looking at the IR resonances suggest that the mode-matching into the arm is ~92%, which I think is pretty lousy. Kiwamu and co. claim 99.3% matching into the interferometer, but in all the locks, the REFL mode looks completely crazy, so idk

Attachment 1: armLossVSPRCloss.pdf
armLossVSPRCloss.pdf
  15325   Tue May 12 17:51:25 2020 ranaSummaryComputer Scripts / Programsupdated LESS syntax highlight on nodus

apt install source-highlight

then modified bashrc to point to /usr/share instead of /usr/bin

  15324   Mon May 11 00:12:34 2020 gautamUpdateLSCRF only PRFPMI

Finally - Attachment #1. This plot uses 16 Hz EPICS data. All y-axes are uncalibrated for now, but TRX/TRY are normalized such that the POX/POY lock yields a transmission of 1. CARM UGF is only ~3 kHz, no boosts were turned on yet. 

Attachment #2 and Attachment #3 are phone photos of the camera images of the various ports. After some alignment work, the transmitted arm powers were ~200, i.e. PRG ~10. fwiw, this is the darkest i've ever seen the 40m dark port. c.f. 2016. Of course, the exposure time / ND filter / light levels could all have changed.

This work was possible during the daytime (~6pm PDT), but probably only because it was Sunday. The other rate limiting factor here is the franky terrible IMC duty cycle. TBH, I didn't honestly expect to get so far and ran out of time, but I think the next steps are:

  1. Turn on some sensing lines and calibrate CARM/DARM.
  2. Transition vertex control to 1f signals.
  3. Whiten DARM.
  4. Turn on some ASC for better power stabilization.
  5. Scan the CARM offset and check that we are truly on resonance
  6. Noise budget.

As usual, I would like to request that we don't change the IFO as far as possible until the BHD vent, i found it pretty difficult to get here.


Attachment #4 now shows the measured DARM OLTF when DARM is entirely on AS55_Q control. UGF is ~120 Hz and the phase margin is ~30 deg, seems okay for a first attempt. I'll now need to infer the OLTF over a wider range of frequencies by lining this measurement up with some model, so that I can undo the loop in plotting the DARM ASD.

Attachment 1: PRFPMIlock.pdf
PRFPMIlock.pdf
Attachment 2: IMG_8549.JPG
IMG_8549.JPG
Attachment 3: IMG_8548.JPG
IMG_8548.JPG
Attachment 4: DARM_OLTF.pdf
DARM_OLTF.pdf
  15323   Sat May 9 17:01:08 2020 YehonathanUpdateLoss Measurement40m Phase maps loss estimation
I took the phase maps of the 40m X arm mirrors and calculated what is the loss of a gaussian beam due to a single bounce. I did it by simply calculating 1 - (overlap integral)^2 where the overlap is between an input Gaussian mode (calculated from the parameters of the cavity. Waist ~ 3.1mm) and the reflected beam (Gaussian imprinted with the phase map). The phase maps were prepared using PyKat surfacemap class to remove a flat surface, spherical surface, centering, etc. (Attachments 3, 4)
 
I calculated the loss map (Attachments 1,2: ~ 4X4 mm for ITM, 3X3mm for ETM) by shifting the beam around the phase map. It can be seen that there is a great variation in the loss: some areas are < 10 ppm some are > 80 ppm.
 
For the ITM (where the beam waist is) the average loss is ~ 23ppm and for the ETM its ~ 61ppm due to the enlarged beam. The ETM case is less physical because it takes a pure gaussian as an input where in reality the beam first interacts with the ITM.
 
I plan to do some first-order perturbation theory to include the cavity effects. I expect that the losses will be slightly lower due to HOMs not being completely lost, but who knows.
 
Attachment 1: ITMX_Loss_Map.pdf
ITMX_Loss_Map.pdf
Attachment 2: ETMX_Loss_Map.pdf
ETMX_Loss_Map.pdf
Attachment 3: ITMX_Phase_Map_(nm).pdf
ITMX_Phase_Map_(nm).pdf
Attachment 4: ETMX_Phase_Map_(nm).pdf
ETMX_Phase_Map_(nm).pdf
  15322   Fri May 8 14:27:25 2020 HangUpdateBHDNew SRC gouy phase

[Jon, Hang]

After updating the 40 m finesse file to incorporate the new SRC length (and the removal of SR2), we find that the current SRM radius curvature is fine. Thus a replacement of SRM is NOT required

Basically, the new one-way SRC gouy phase is 11.1 deg according to Finesse, which is very close to the previous value of 10.8 deg. Thus the transmode spacing should be essentially the same. 

In the first attached plot is the mode content calculated with Finesse. Here we have first offset DARM by 1m deg and misaligned the SRM by 10 urad. From the top to bottom we show the amplitude of the carrier fields, f1, and f2 sidebands, respectively. The red vertical line is the nominal operating point (thanks Koji for pointing out that we do signal recycling instead of extraction now). No direct co-resonance for the low-order TEM modes. (Note that the HOMs appeared to also have peaks at \phi_srm = 0. This is just because the 00 mode is resonant and thus the seed for the HOMs is greater. )

We can also consider a clean case without mode interactions in the second plot. Indeed we don't see co-resonances of high order modes. 

Attachment 1: mode_spec_finesse.pdf
mode_spec_finesse.pdf
Attachment 2: mode_spec_ideal.pdf
mode_spec_ideal.pdf
  15321   Thu May 7 10:58:06 2020 gautamUpdateASCIMC WFS

OK so the QPD segments are in the "+" orientation when the 40m IMC WFS heads are mounted at 45 deg. I thought "+" was the natural PIT/YAW basis but I guess in the the LIGO parlance, the "X" orientation was considered more natural.

Quote:

This is the doc from Keita Kawabe on why the WFS heads should be rotated.

  15320   Thu May 7 09:43:21 2020 ranaUpdateASCIMC WFS

This is the doc from Keita Kawabe on why the WFS heads should be rotated.

  15319   Wed May 6 00:31:09 2020 gautamUpdateALSOptomechanics during CARM offset reduction

Summary:

The apparent increase in the ALS noise (witnessed in-loop, e.g. Attachment #2 here) during the CARM offset reduction may have an optomechanical origin. 

Details:

  • A simplified CARM plant was setup in Finesse - 3 mirror coupled cavity with PRM, ITM and ETM, 40m params for R/T/L used. 
  • For a sanity check, DC power buildup and coincident resonance of the PRC and arm cavity were checked. PRG and CARM linewidth also checks out, and scales as expected with arm losses.
  • To investigate possible optomechanical issues - I cut the input power to 300 mW (I estimate 600 mW incident on the PRM), set a PRG of ~20, to mimic what we have right now.
  • I drive the ITM at various CARM offsets, and measure the m/m transfer function to itself and the ETM.
  • Attachement #1 shows the results. 

Interpretation:

  • ericq had similar plots in his thesis, but I don't think the full implications of this effect were investigated, the context there was different.
  • The optomechanical resonance builds up at ~10 Hz and sweeps up to ~100 Hz as the CARM offset approaches zero, with amplification close to x100 at the resonance.
  • What this means is that the arm cavity is moving by up to 100x the ambient seismically driven dispalcements. 
  • The EX/EY uPDH servos have considerable gain at these frequencies, and so the AUX laser frequency can keep up with this increased motion (to be quantified exactly what the increase in residual is).
  • However, the ALS loop that maintains the frequency offset b/w the PSL and the AUX lasers is digitial, and only has ~20 dB gain at 30 Hz. - so the error signal for CARM control becomes noisier as we see.
  • I speculate that the multiple peaky features in the in-loop error signal are a result of some dynamical effects which Finesse presumably does not simulate.
  • The other puzzler is: this simulation would suggest that approaching the zero CARM offset from the other side (anti-spring) wouldn't have such instabilities building up. However, I am reasonably sure I've seen this effect approaching zero from both sides, though I haven't checked in the last month.
  • Anyways, if this hypothesis is correct, we can't really take advantage of the ~8pm RMS residual noise performance of the IR ALS system sadly, because of our 250g mirrors and 800mW input power
  • Possible workarounds:
    • High BW ALS - this would give us more gain at ~30 Hz and this wouldn't be a problem anymore really. But in my trials, I think I found that the IN2 gain on the CM board has to be inverted for this to work (the IN1 path and the IN2 path share a common AO path polarity, and we need the two paths to have the opposite polarity).
    • Cut the input power - this would reduce the optomechanical action, but presumably the vertex locking becomes noisier. In any case, this isn't really practical without some kind of motorized/remote-controlled waveplate for power adjustment. 

Update 415pm 5/6: Per the discussion at the meeting, I have now uploaded as Attachment #2 the force-->displacement (i.e. m/N) transfer functions. I now think these are appropriate units. For the ALS case, we could convert the m/N to Hz/N of extra frequency noise imprinted on the AUX laser due to the increased cavity motion. Is W/N really better here, since the mechanism is extra frequency noise on a beatnote, and there isn't really a PDH or DC error signal?

Attachment 1: CARMplant.pdf
CARMplant.pdf
Attachment 2: CARMplant_force2disp.pdf
CARMplant_force2disp.pdf
  15318   Tue May 5 23:44:14 2020 gautamUpdateASCIMC WFS

Summary:

I've been thinking about the IMC WFS. I want to repeat the sort of analysis done at LLO where a Finesse model was built and some inferences could be made about, for example, the Gouy phase separation b/w the sensors by comparing the Finesse sensing matrix to a measured sensing matrix. Taking the currently implemented output matrix as a "measurement" (since the IMC WFS stabilize the IMC transmission), I don't get any agreement between it and my Finesse model. Could be that the model needs tweaking, but there are several known issues with the WFS themselves (e.g. imbalanced segment gains).

Building the finesse model:

  • I pulled the WFS telescopes from Andres elogs/SURF report, which I think was the last time the WFS telescopes were modified.
  • The in-vacuum propagation distances were estimated from CAD diagrams.
  • According to my model, the Gouy phase separation between the two WFS heads is ~70 degrees, whereas Andres' a la mode simulations suggest more like 90 degrees. Presumably, some lengths/lenses are different between what I assume and what he used, but I continue the analysis anyway...
  • The appropriate power attenuations were placed in each path - one thing I noticed is that the BS that splits light between WFS1 and WFS2 is a 30/70 BS and not a 50/50, I don't see any reason why this should be (presumably it was to do with component availability). see below for Rana's comments.

Simulations:

  • The way the WFS servos are set up currently, the input matrix is diagonal while the output matrix encodes the sensing information.
  • In finesse, I measured the input matrix (i.e. response sensed in each sensor when an optic is dithered in angle). The length is kept resonant for the carrier (but not using a locking signal), which should be valid for small angular disturbances, which is the regime in which the error signals will be linear anyways.
  • Then I inverted the simulated sensing matrix so as to be able to compare with the CDS output matrix. Note that there is a relative gain scaling of 100 between the WFS paths and the MC2T QPD paths which I added to the simulation. I also normalized the columns of the matrix by the largest element in the column, in an attempt to account for the various other gains that are between the optical sensing and the digitizaiton (e.g. WFS demod boards, QPD transimpedance etc etc).
  • Attachment #1 shows the comparison between simulation and measurement. The two aren't even qualitatively similar, needs more thought...

Some notes about the WFS heads:

  • The transimpedance resistor is 1.5 kohms. With the gain stages, the transimpedance gain is nominally 37.5 kohms, and 3.75 kohms when the attenuation setting is engaged (as it is for 2/4 quadrants on each head).
  • Assuming a modulation depth of 0.1, the Johnson noise of the transimpedance resistor dominates (with the MAX4106 current noise a close second), and these heads cannot be shot noise limited when operating at 1 W input power (though of course the situation will change if we have 25 W input).
  • The heads are mounted at a ~45 deg angle, mixing PIT/YAW, but I assume we can just use the input matrix to rotate back to the natural PIT/YAW basis.

Update 215 pm 5/6: adding in some comments from Rana raised during the meeting:

  1. The transimpedance is actually done by the RLC network (L6 and C38 for CH 3), and not 1.5 kohms. It just coincidentally happens that the reactance is ~1.5 kohms at 29.5 MHz. Note that my LTspice simulation using ideal inductors and capacitors still predicts ~4pA/rtHz noise at 29.5 MHz, so the conclusion about shot noise remains valid I think... One option is to change the attenuation in this path and send more light onto the WFS heads.
    The transimpedance gain and noise are now in Attachment #2. I just tweaked the L values to get a peak at 29.5 MHz and a notch at twice that frequency. For this I assumed a photodiode capacitance of 225pF and the shown transimpedance gain has the voltage gain of the MAX4106 stages divided out. The current noise is input referred.
  2. The imbalanced power on WFS heads may have some motivation - it may be that the W/rad TF for one of the two modes we are trying to sense (beam plane tilt vs beam plane translation) is not equal, so we want more light on the head with weaker response.
  3. The 45 degree mounting of the heads is actually meant to decouple PIT and YAW.
Attachment 1: WFSmatrixComparison.pdf
WFSmatrixComparison.pdf
Attachment 2: WFSheadNoise.pdf
WFSheadNoise.pdf
  15317   Sat May 2 02:35:18 2020 KojiUpdateALSASY M2 PZT damaged

Yes, we are supposed to have a few spare PI PZTs.

  15316   Fri May 1 22:44:17 2020 gautamUpdateALSASY M2 PZT damaged

I went to EY and saw that the HV power supply was only putting out 50 V and had hit the current limit of 10 mA (nominally, it should be 100 V, drawing ~7mA). This is definitely a problem that has come up after the power shutdown event, as when I re-energized the HV power supply at EY, I had confirmed that it was putting out the nominal values (the supply was not labelled with these nominal numbers so I had to label it). Or maybe I broke it while running the dither alignment tests yesterday, even though I never drove the PZTs above 50 Hz with more than 1000cts (= 300 mV * gain 5 in the HV amplifier = 1.5 V ) amplitude.

The problem was confirmed to be with the M2 PZT (YAW channel) and not the electronics by driving the M2 PZT with the M1 channels. Separately, the M1 PZT could be driven by the M2 channels. I also measured the capacitance of the YAW channels and found it to be nearly twice (~7 uF) of the expected 3 uF - this particular PZT is different from the three others in use by the ASX and ASY system, it is an older vintage, so maybe it just failed? 😔 

I don't want to leave 100 V on in this state, so the HV supply at EY was turned off. Good GTRY was recovered by manual alignment of the mirror mounts. If someone has a spare PZT, we can replace it, but for now, we just have to live with manually aligning the green beam often.

Quote:

Could be that the power outage busted something in the drive electronics. 

  15315   Fri May 1 01:49:55 2020 gautamUpdateALSASY commissioning

Summary:

It appears that the EY green steering PZTs have somehow lost their bipolar actuation range. I will check on them the next time I go to the lab for an N2 switch.

Details:

  • Yuki installed the EY green PZTs and did some initial setup of the RTCDS model. 
  • But we don't have a functional dither alignment servo yet, which is mildly annoying. So I thought I'll finally finish my SURF project.
  • There were several problems with the signal flow, MEDM screens etc.
  • I rectified these, and set up some operational scripts, burt snapshots etc in $SCRIPTS/ASY. The c1asy and c1als models were also modified, recompiled and restarted, everything appears to have come back online smoothly.
  • The LO frequencies/amplitudes, demod filter gains and demod phases were chosen to have a signal mostly in the _I quadrature of the demodulated signal when the alignment is slightly disturbed from optimal (monitored after the post-demod LPF).
  • While trying to close the integrator loops, I found that I appear to only have monopolar actuation ability (positive DAC output changes the alignment, negative DAC output does nothing).

Could be that the power outage busted something in the drive electronics. 

  15314   Thu Apr 30 07:29:01 2020 ChubUpdateVACN2 delivered.

Hi All,

The new nitrogen cylinders were delivered to the rack at the west entrance.  We only get one Airgas delivery per week during the stay-at-home order, but so far they've not let us down.

  15313   Fri Apr 24 00:26:59 2020 ranaSummaryPEML.A. EQ from Tuesday night
Attachment 1: April22-EQ.pdf
April22-EQ.pdf
  15312   Thu Apr 23 10:42:02 2020 ranaUpdatePSLFSS debugging attempts

I had set up the 4395 to do this automatically a few years ago, but it looked at the FSS/IMC instead. When the PCDRIVE goes high there is this excess around ~500 kHz in a broad hump.

But the IMC loop gain changes sometimes with alignment, so I don't know if its a loop instability or if its laser noise. However, I think we have observed PCDRIVE to go up without IMC power dropping so my guess is that it was true laser noise.

This works since the IMC is much more sensitive than PMC. Perhaps one way to diagnose would be to lock IMC at a low UGF without any boosts. Then the UGF would be far away from that noise making frequency. However, the PCDRIVE also wouldn't have much activity.

  15311   Thu Apr 23 09:52:02 2020 JonUpdateCamerasGigE w better NIR sensitivvity

Nice, and we should also permanently install the camera server (c1cam) which is still sitting on the electronics bench. It is running an adapted version of the Python 2/Debian 8 site code. Maybe if COVID continues long enough I'll get around to making the Python 3 version we've long discussed.

Quote:

There's this elog from Stephen about better 1064 sensitivity from Basler. We should consider getting one if he finds that its actual SNR is as good as we would expect from the QE improvement.

  15310   Wed Apr 22 17:29:14 2020 gautamUpdatePSLFSS debugging attempts

Summary:

On Monday, I hooked up an AG4395 to the PMC error point (using the active probe). The idea was to take a spectrum of the PMC error point every time the FSS PC drive RMS channel indicated an excursion from the nominal value. An initial look at the results don't suggest that this technique is particularly informative. I'll have to think more about a workaround, but please share your ideas/thoughts if you have some.

Also, the feature in the spectrum at ~110 kHz makes me suspect some kind of loop instability. I'll measure the IMC loop OLG at the next opportunity.

Details:

  • The PMC servo bandwidth is ~2 kHz, so above this, the PMC error point should be a faithful monitor of the PSL frequency noise, provided the sensing noise is low enough.
  • The PMC error point sensing noise is ~100nV/rtHz (I'm monitoring this straight after the Minicircuits mixer+bandpass filter that we are using as a demodulator). This corresponds to ~2 Hz/rtHz, using the ~10 MHz/V PDH discriminant calibration from January. Seems consistent with this elog.
  • I was hoping to see if there was a particular frequency band in which the noise gets elevated, and if the crossover frequency is a few kHz and the IMC servo BW is ~110 kHz, I would have expected this to be in the 10-100 kHz region. Possibly my frequency resolution isn't good enough? But with the Agilent, doing a finer grid would mean a longer measurement time, in which case the IMC might lose lock before the measurement is done.
  • But, as shown in Attachment #1, there isn't any clear evidence, from the ~20 excursions that were recorded last night. The color of the line is meant to be indicative of the average value of the PC drive RMS channel in the measurement time.
  • A significant bottleneck in this whole process is that it takes ~1 minute to initiate the GPIB measurement, and download the data. The pseudo-code I used is:
    • While the IMC is locked, watch PCdrive RMS EPICS channel's "ALARM" state, which becomes non-zero when the PCdrive RMS exceeds 1 V (this is how it is defined in the EPICS db record right now).
    • Make sure this isn't a transient feature - I do this by waiting 5 seconds and checking that the ALARM flag is still flagged.
    • Initiate a AG4395 measurement over GPIB - I use the measurement span of 1 kHz - 1 MHz with a BW/span ratio of 0.1%, 5 averages.
    • Check that the IMC is still locked (if it got unlocked while the measurement was made, presumably the measurement is garbage).
  • Is there a better monitor of the laser frequency noise? I can imagine using POX/POY which I think have a lower electronics noise floor but I'm not sure if that's true at 100 kHz and having the arms locked in addition to the IMC seems more complicated...
  • Since we are planning a laser upgrade, is this worth spending more time on? I may leave the measurement running on pianosa in a tmux session while I'm not in the lab...
Attachment 1: FSSspec.pdf
FSSspec.pdf
  15309   Wed Apr 22 13:52:05 2020 gautamUpdateDetCharSummary page revival

Covid 19 motivated me to revive the summary pages. With Alex Urban's help, the infrastructure was modernized, the wiki is now up to date. I ran a test job for 2020 March 17th, just for the IOO tab, and it works, see here. The LDAS rsync of our frames is still catching up, so once that is up, we can start the old condor jobs and have these updated on a more regular basis.

  15308   Mon Apr 20 17:49:58 2020 gautamUpdateGeneralSome housekeeping
  • Empty N2 replaced. 
  • Logged back into zita and started the StripTool traces (even though we keep the TV off nowadays).
  • c1susaux acro-crate power cycled to re-enable PRM suspension control (all other vertex optics also now respond to slow bias voltage sliders being moved).
  • c1iscaux needed a hard reboot as it wasn’t seen on martian. I power cycled the crate for good measure.
  • Marconi turned back on with correct frequency/amplitude.
  • c0rga is now seen again on martian network. I re-enabled the RGA scanning so that it takes a scan every morning at 4am. 
  • The forepumps for TP2/TP3 are noisier than I remember. The former has ~10,000 hrs on the clock. How often does the tip seal replacement need to happen?
  • HV supplies for ASX/ASY PZTs re-energized.
  • IFO re-aligned for locking.
  • c1oaf and c1daf models restarted. c1oaf required the usual start/stop/start sequence to make the DAQ errors go away, and luckily the FE didn’t crash when the model was unloaded.
  • POX/POY/PRMI 1f carrier/green locking all was smooth.
  • For some reason, the PRC angular FF filters i trained no longer do anything good (but MCL is still good). collected 20mins of PRMI 1f locked data for investigations.
Update 21 Apr 2020 1200: Looking at Attachments #1 and #2, the spectra for motion sensed by the POP QPD does indeed look very different on Apr 6 vs Apr 20. Could be some interference from Oplev loop or maybe some EPICS values didn't get reset correctly, needs more investigation. It doesn't seem reasonable to me that the plant changes by so much (spectra were taken at similar times of the day, ~5pm).
Update 22 Apr 2020 1500: As suspected, the PRM oplev was disabled for whatever reason. Re-enabling it, I recovered the good performance from two weeks ago. ✅ 
Attachment 1: fDomainWF_Apr06.pdf
fDomainWF_Apr06.pdf
Attachment 2: fDomainWF_Apr20.pdf
fDomainWF_Apr20.pdf
ELOG V3.1.3-