40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab CAML OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 188 of 349  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Authorup Type Category Subject
  1498   Mon Apr 20 05:18:42 2009 YoichiConfigurationLockingFM6 and FM10 of LSC-MC were restored
During tonight's locking work, I realized that FM6 and FM10 (both resonant gains around 20Hz) were actually activated by cm_step.
So I restored those filters from the svn history.
Instead, I removed a bunch of unused filters from LSC-DEMOD and LSC-DEMOD_A (moving zero filters) to off load c1lsc.

As for the locking itself, the DARM loop becomes unstable at around arm power = 30. I may have to add a filter to give a broader phase bubble.
  1509   Thu Apr 23 16:27:24 2009 YoichiUpdateLockingLocking with the cryo-pump
The last night, the IFO was unstabler than usual and the locking script often failed before reaching the power up stage.
The failure happened at random points.
I'm not sure if this is related to the operation of the cryo-pump.
The mode cleaner reflection image seemed to move around more than usual. Maybe it was just a high seismic night.
  1510   Thu Apr 23 16:35:23 2009 YoichiSummaryComputer Scripts / ProgramsrestoreWatchdog script
When the IFO loses lock during the lock acquisition steps, it often kicks the MC2 (through the CM servo) and trips the watchdog.
I wrote a script to restore the tripped watchdog (/cvs/cds/caltech/scripts/SUS/restoreWatchdog).
The script takes the name of a mirror (such as MC2) as an argument.
It will enable the coils and temporarily increase the watchdog threshold to a value higher than the current OSEM RMS signals.
Then it will bring the watchdog back to the normal state and wait for the mirror to be damped. After the mirror is damped enough, the
watchdog threshold will be restored to the original value.
The script will do nothing if the watchdog is not tripped.
I put this script in the drdown_bang so that the MC2 watchdog will be automatically restored when a lock loss kicks out the MC2.
  1512   Thu Apr 23 18:09:11 2009 YoichiUpdateEnvironmentEffect of cryopump
The attached is the trend plot of the MC1 accelerometer for 3 days.
It is evident that the seismic level increased by a factor of two on Wednesday morning (when Steve started the cryopump).
Attachment 1: SeisTrend.pdf
SeisTrend.pdf
  1513   Thu Apr 23 21:13:37 2009 YoichiSummaryEnvironmentMag. 4 earthquake in LA tripped the watchdogs of the most optics
So far, no damage is noticeable.
restoreWatchdog script was useful Smile
-------------------------------------------------------
Magnitude    4.0
Date-Time    * Friday, April 24, 2009 at 03:27:50 UTC
             * Thursday, April 23, 2009 at 08:27:50 PM at epicenter 
Location     33.910N, 117.767W
Depth	     0 km (~0 mile) (poorly constrained)
Region	     GREATER LOS ANGELES AREA, CALIFORNIA
-------------------------------------------------------
  1514   Fri Apr 24 03:57:30 2009 YoichiUpdateLockingDARM demod phase
Tonight, I was able to go up to arm power = 40 by tweaking the DARM demodulation phase.
I think the DARM loop became unstable because the demodulation phase was not right and the error signal contained some junk from I-phase.
I did not do any sophisticated demodulation phase optimization. Rather I just tweaked the phase so that the dark port image becomes stable.
I will do more careful demodulation phase tuning next time.
  1515   Fri Apr 24 04:38:49 2009 YoichiUpdateLockingDARM demod phase

Quote:
Tonight, I was able to go up to arm power = 40 by tweaking the DARM demodulation phase.
I think the DARM loop became unstable because the demodulation phase was not right and the error signal contained some junk from I-phase.
I did not do any sophisticated demodulation phase optimization. Rather I just tweaked the phase so that the dark port image becomes stable.
I will do more careful demodulation phase tuning next time.


In the next try, I was actually able to go up to arm power = 70 stably.
At this power level we are ready for the RF CARM hand off.
  1519   Fri Apr 24 17:26:57 2009 YoichiUpdateLockingDARM demod phase

Quote:

There's actually code in place in the LSC to dynamically adjust the demod phase for AS1. I've never made much use of it, because it's possible to get around the problem with some gain tweaking if you start at the right phase, or because I did the DC readout handoff earlier.

Attached is a cartoon showing how the demod phase at the dark port changes as the CARM offset is decreased.


The cartoon is very nice.
I actually changed the demod phase continuously as the CARM offset was reduced to get up to arm power = 70.
As the CARM offset is changed, not only the DARM signal gain but also the phase margin around 100Hz changes if you use a fixed demodulation phase.
So it was necessary to change the demodulation phase to keep the DARM loop stable.
  1520   Sat Apr 25 00:45:31 2009 YoichiConfigurationVACReflector for the cryopump temperature monitor changed
The temperature of the cryopump head is monitored by a photo switch looking at an aluminum foil reflector attached to the needle of the temperature gauge.
If the needle moves out of the 14K position, the photo switch will be triggered to close the cryopump gate valve.
However, this photo switch system has been touchy.
Tonight, the switch falsely tripped several times and closed the gate valve, which caused lock losses as the motion of the valve generates a lot of vibrations.
Seems to me, it was caused by the poor/irregular reflection from the wrinkled aluminum foil on the needle.
So I replaced the aluminum foil with a brand-new shiny one.
  1521   Sat Apr 25 02:54:25 2009 YoichiConfigurationVACReflector for the cryopump temperature monitor changed

Quote:
The temperature of the cryopump head is monitored by a photo switch looking at an aluminum foil reflector attached to the needle of the temperature gauge.
If the needle moves out of the 14K position, the photo switch will be triggered to close the cryopump gate valve.
However, this photo switch system has been touchy.
Tonight, the switch falsely tripped several times and closed the gate valve, which caused lock losses as the motion of the valve generates a lot of vibrations.
Seems to me, it was caused by the poor/irregular reflection from the wrinkled aluminum foil on the needle.
So I replaced the aluminum foil with a brand-new shiny one.


The photo switch still trips randomly. We need a better interlock.
  1522   Sat Apr 25 03:27:34 2009 YoichiUpdateLockingLocking status
Yoichi, Peter,

We are working on the final step of the lock acquisition, RF CARM hand off.
I was able to hand off the CARM error signal to RF once, but lost lock when decreasing the CARM offset to zero (it was too rapid).
I will try to make the process more robust tomorrow.
  1523   Sun Apr 26 02:13:18 2009 YoichiUpdateLockingTwo more successes of RF CARM handoff
Tonight, the RF CARM hand off (mostly) succeeded twice.
But still, the IFO lost lock when I reduced the REFL_DC gain in the AO path to zero.

At the beginning of tonight's work, MICH DD hand off failed several times. This was because the the PD9 gains were set to zero.
I found that the offset script, which I called before starting the locking, fails to restore the gain values sometimes.
This happens when ezcaread fails to read the current gain. We have to be careful when running the LSCoffsets script.
  1526   Tue Apr 28 04:30:16 2009 YoichiUpdateLockingRF full lock
Yoichi, Peter

I believe we have succeeded in the full lock of the interferometer with the RF signals.
The lock process is reasonably robust and repeatable.

I did a scan of the RF CARM offset and plotted the arm power as a function of the CARM offset (see the attachment).
The arm power goes maximum at non-zero CARM offset. I guess the RF CARM error signal has some offset.
Maybe the demodulation phase is wrong ? I will tweak this tomorrow.
The script to do this scan can be found at /cvs/cds/caltech/scripts/CM/CARMSweep.

I haven't tried DC readout yet.
Attachment 1: Sweep1.png
Sweep1.png
  1531   Wed Apr 29 04:03:51 2009 YoichiUpdateLockingCARM RF changed to REFL_2I
Yoichi, Peter

As Rob suggested, the optimal demodulation phase is easier to find for REFL_2I than POX_1I.
Moreover, for 166MHz LO, we have a phase shifter (delay line) already installed. So we can easily change the demodulation phase of REFL_2I.
Tonight, we switched the RF CARM signal to REFL_2I.
To do so, I changed the signal going to the REFL1 input of the common mode board from POX_1I to REFL_2I.
I moved a BNC-T installed at the output of POX_1I to the REFL_2I output to split the REFL_2I signal and send it to the CM board.
Since the gain of the REFL_2I was about 20dB lower than that of POX_1I, I increased the gain of the SR560, which is installed between the REFL_2 demodulation board and the CM board, from 1 to 10.

With some gain tweaks, we were able to hand off the CARM from REFL_DC to REFL_2I. We also succeeded in switching the REFL_2I ADC channel from PD11 to PD2_DC (the output of the length path from the CM board). This switching is necessary in order to engage the boost on the CM board.

There remains some offset in the CARM when the arm power is maximized. This is expected because the REFL_2I demodulation phase is probably not exactly right.
I will optimize the demodulation phase tomorrow.
  1534   Thu Apr 30 05:49:06 2009 YoichiUpdateLocking166MHz LO phase changed
In order to optimize the REFL_2I demod phase, I changed the delay line setting for the 166MHz LO.
Right now, the delay is not yet optimal.
Since the AS166 shares the same LO, the digital demodulation phase of the AS166 had to be changed too.
The DD demod phases and the DD hand off script were also tweaked to improve the resonant condition of the central part.
Now we have more 166MHz coming out of the AS port and the SPOB is larger (more 33MHz resonant in PRC).

Since REFL166 and AS166 demodulation phases are not yet optimized, the cm_step script won't work at this moment.
  1536   Fri May 1 01:32:43 2009 YoichiUpdateLocking166MHz LO phase adjustment
I continued to adjust the REFL_2I demodulation phase.
I first optimized the demod phase for SRCL in the DRMI configuration (the error signals were DDs).
Then I restored the full IFO and offset locked it.
Before handing the DARM to RF, I adjusted the 166MHz delay line to maximize the SRCL signal at REFL_2I.
I did this before the DARM RF hand off because changing the delay line setting also changes the AS166 demodulation phase.
After this, I adjusted the digital phase shifter for AS166 to maximize the DARM signal for this port.

I also adjusted the digital demodulation phase of PD11 (REFL_2I) because the optimal demodulation phase for the initial lock acquisition is somewhat (15deg)
different from the optimal demodulation phase for the SRCL when the central part is locked with the DD signals.
This happens because the resonant condition of the central part (lock points of the recycling cavities) changes when the error signals are switched to the DD signals,
due to the offset in the DD signals. This is not good and should be fixed by the optimization of the DD demodulation phases.

Finally, I reduced the CARM offset to zero and tweaked the delay line a bit to maximize the arm power.

Right now, the locking script runs fine until the end.
At the end of the script, I was able to engage the boost on the CM board.
  1541   Sun May 3 22:48:12 2009 YoichiUpdateLockingSome measurements at the lock point
I attached some measurement results at when the IFO is at the full lock point.

The first plot shows the trend of the arm powers after the interferometer was locked.
The arm powers slowly increased after the lock. This increase is observed every time the IFO is locked.
Probably this is some sort of a thermal effect (mirror lensing, PD efficiency etc).

The second plot is a CARM offset sweep. Even after the demodulation phase optimization, the lock point is not exactly at the resonance.

The third plot is the open loop TF of the AO path. The CM loop UGF is about 20kHz.
The boost and the superboost1 were turned on when this TF was measured. The IFO loses lock if the superboost2 is turned on.

TO DO LIST
Measured the DARM loop shape.
I could not turn on the dewhitening filter for ETMY. ETMX had no trouble. I will check the dewhitening circuit.
Attachment 1: ArmPowerTrend.png
ArmPowerTrend.png
Attachment 2: CARMSweep.png
CARMSweep.png
Attachment 3: CM-AO-Loop-SB1.png
CM-AO-Loop-SB1.png
  1544   Tue May 5 05:16:12 2009 YoichiUpdateLockingDC Readout and DARM response
Tonight, I was able to switch the DARM to DC readout a couple of times.
But the lock was not as stable as the RF DARM. It lost lock when I tried to measure the DARM loop gain.

I also measured DARM response when DARM is on RF.
The attached plot shows the DARM optical gain (from the mirror displacement to the PD output).
The magnitude is in an arbitrary unit.

I measured a transfer function from DARM excitation to the DARM error signal. Then I corrected it for the DARM open loop gain and the pendulum response to get the plot below.

There is an RSE peak at 4kHz as expected. The origin of the small bump and dip around 2.5kHz and 1.5kHz are unknown.
I will consult with the Optickle model.
I don't know why the optical gain decreases below 50Hz (I don't think it actually decreases).
Seems like the DARM loop gain measured at those frequencies are too low.
I will retry the measurement.
Attachment 1: DARM-TF.png
DARM-TF.png
  1550   Wed May 6 02:39:20 2009 YoichiHowToLockingHow to go to DC readout
I wrote a script called DC_readout, which you can find in /cvs/cds/caltech/scripts/DRFPMI/bang/nospring/.

Currently, the locking script succeeds 1/3 of the time. The freaky parts are the MC_F hand off and REFL_DC hand off.
MC_F hand off succeeds 70% of the time. REFL_DC goes well about a half of the time. Combined, the success rate is about 1/3.
We need some work on those hand offs.
Once you pass those freaky parts, the cm_step script usually goes smoothly and you will reach the full RF lock with the boost and the super boost1 engaged on the CM board.

To go to DC readout from there, run the DC_readout script.
First, this script will put some offset to the DARM loop so that some carrier light will leak to the AS port.
You are prompted to lock the OMC. Move the OMC length offset slider to find the carrier resonance and lock the OMC.
You have to make sure that it is carrier, not the 166MHz sideband. Usually the carrier light pulsates around 10Hz or so whereas the 166MHz SB is stable.
Once you locked the OMC to the carrier, hit enter on the terminal running the DC_readout script.
The script will do the rest of the hand off.
Once the script has finished, you may want to check darm_offset_dc in the C1LSC_LA_SET screen. This value sets the DC offset (a.k.a. the homodyne phase).
You may want to change it to what you want.
  1568   Sat May 9 00:15:21 2009 YoichiUpdatePSLLaser head temperature oscillation
After the laser cooling pipe was unclogged, the laser head temperature has been oscillating in 24h period.
The laser power shows the same oscillation.
Moreover, there is a trend that the temperature is slowly creeping up.
We have to do something to stop this.
Or Rob has to finish his measurements before the laser dies.
Attachment 1: laser.png
laser.png
  1575   Tue May 12 01:11:55 2009 YoichiUpdateLSCDARM response (DC Readout)
I measured the DARM response with DC readout.

This time, I first measured the open loop transfer function of the X single arm lock.
The open loop gain (Gx) can be represented as a product of the optical gain (Cx), the filter (Fx), and the suspension response (S), i.e. Gx = Cx*Fx*S.
We know Fx because this is the transfer function of the digital filters. Cx can be modeled as a simple cavity pole, but we need to know the finesse to calculate it.
In order to estimate the current finesse of the XARM cavity, I ran the armLoss script, which measures the ratio of the reflected light power between the locked and the unlocked state. Using this ratio and the designed transmissivity of the ITMX (0.005), I estimated the round trip loss in the XARM, which was 170 ppm. From this number, the cavity pole was estimated to be 1608Hz.
Using the measured Gx, the knowledge of Fx and the estimated Cx, I estimated the ETMX suspension response S, which is shown in the first attachment.
Note that this is not a pure suspension response. It includes the effects of the digital system time delay, the anti-imaging and anti-aliasing filters and so on.

Now the DARM open loop gain (Gd) can also be represented as a product of the optical gain (Cd), the filter (Fd) and the suspension response (S).
Since the actuations are applied again to the ETMs and we think ETMX and ETMY are quite similar, we should be able to use the same suspension response as XARM for DARM. Therefore, using the knowledge of the digital filter shape and the measured open loop gain, we can compute the DARM optical gain Cd.
The second attachment shows the estimated DARM response along with an Optickle prediction.
The DARM loop gain was measured with darm_offset_dc = 350. Since we haven't calibrated the DARM signal, I don't know how many meters of offset does this number correspond to. The Optickle prediction was calculated using a 20pm DARM offset. I chose this to make the prediction look similar to the measured one, though they look quite different around the RSE peak. The input power was set to 1.7W in the Optickle model (again this is just my guess).

It looks as if the measured DARM response is skewed by an extra low pass filter at high frequencies. I don't know why is it so.
Attachment 1: SUS_Resp.png
SUS_Resp.png
Attachment 2: DARM_Resp.png
DARM_Resp.png
  1576   Tue May 12 01:22:51 2009 YoichiUpdateLSCArm loss
Using the armLoss script (/cvs/cds/caltech/scripts/LSC/armLoss), I measured the round trip loss (RTL) of the arms.

The results are:
XARM: RTL= 171 (+/-2) ppm
YARM: RTL = 181 (+/-2) ppm

To get the results above, I assumed that the transmissivity of the ITMs are the same as the designed value (0.005).
This may not be true though.
  1577   Tue May 12 15:22:09 2009 YoichiUpdateLSCArm Finesse

Quote:

It looks as if the measured DARM response is skewed by an extra low pass filter at high frequencies. I don't know why is it so.


One large uncertainty in the above estimate is the cavity pole of X-arm because I simply assumed that the ITMX reflectivity to be the designed value.
I think we can directly measure the X-arm finesse from Alberto's absolute length measurements (i.e. from the width of the resonant peaks in his scans).
By looking at Alberto and Koji's posts (elog:1244 elog:838), it looks like the FWHM of the peaks are around 3kHz. With the FSR ~ 3.8MHz, it gives a finesse of about 1300, which is reasonable.
Alberto, can you check your data and measure the FWHM more precisely ?
Note that we want to measure the FWHM of the peak in the *power* of the beat signal. The beat amplitude is proportional to the electric field *amplitude* of the transmitted auxiliary laser. What we need to get a finesse is the FWHM of the transmitted laser *power*. Thus we need to take the power of the beat signal.
  1593   Sun May 17 14:35:52 2009 YoichiUpdateVACVC1 opened
I found the VC1 was closed and the pressure was 4.5e-3 torr.
I tweaked the optical sensor (cryopump temperature), and opened VC1.
  1660   Sun Jun 7 04:57:39 2009 YoichiUpdateLocking?

Quote:

Lock acquisition is proceeding smoothly for the most part, but there is a very consistent failure point near the end of the cm_step script.

Near the end of the procedure, while in RF common mode, the sensing for the MCL path of the common mode servo is transitioned from a REFL 166I signal which comes into the LSC whitening board from the demodulator, to another copy of the signal which has passed through the common mode board, and is coming out of the Length output of the common mode board.  We do this because the signal which comes through the CM board sees the switchable low-frequency boost filter, and so both paths of the CM servo (AO and MCL) can get that filter switched on at the same time.

The problem is occurring after this transition, which works reliably.  However, when the script tries to remove the final CARM offset, and bring the offset to zero, lock is abruptly lost.  DARM, CM, and the crossover all look stable, and no excess noise appears while looking at the DARM, CARM, MCF spectra.  But lock is always lost right about the same offset. 

Saturation somewhere?

 I've seen this before. At that time, the problem was gone spontaneously the next day.

You could stop just before the offset reaches zero and then try to slowly reduce the offset manually to see where is the threshold.

 

  1899   Thu Aug 13 22:53:48 2009 YoichiConfigurationPSLFSS nominal common gain changed, MC WFS centered

Koji, Yoichi

We found that the FSS PC feedback easily goes crazy (saturated).
It was because the common gain was too low. Probably the recent decrease of the
laser power is responsible for this.
We increased the nominal value of the common gain from 12 to 16.5.
The value was chosen just to make the PC path quiet. We should check
the FSS UGF later.
 
The MC WFS QPDs seemed off centered. So we unlocked the MC and lowered
the input power by the usual MZ half fringe technique.
Actually, the direct reflection beam was not much off the center. In anyway, we adjusted
the beam to the exact center of the QPDs.
The MC now locks fine.

 

  1906   Fri Aug 14 15:32:50 2009 YoichiHowToComputersnodus boot procedure
The restart procedures for the various processes running on nodus are explained here:

http://lhocds.ligo-wa.caltech.edu:8000/40m/Computer_Restart_Procedures#nodus

Please go through those steps when you reboot nodus, or notice it rebooted then elog it.
I did these this time.
  1909   Sat Aug 15 05:08:55 2009 YoichiUpdateLockingFriday night locking
Summary: DD hand off fails for DRFPMI.

Tonight, I did a lot of house keeping work.

(1) I noticed that the reference cavity (RC) was locked to TEM10.
This was probably the reason why we had to increase the FSS common gain.
I re-locked the RC to TEM00. Now the common gain value is back to the original.

(2) The MC WFS did not engage. I found that c1dcuepics had the /cvs/cds mounting problem.
I rebooted it. Then MC WFS started working.

(3) After checking that the MC WFS QPDs are centered for direct reflection (the MZ half fringe method),
I locked the MC and tweaked the mirror alignment (mainly MC3) to offload the WFS feedback signals.
Now the MC locks to TEM00 robustly.

(4) Since the MC mirror alignment is touchy recently, I did not like the idea of mis-aligning MC2
when you do the LSC PD offset adjustment. So I modified the LSCoffset script so that it will close
the PSL shutter instead of mis-aligning MC2.

(5) I changed the PD11_Q criteria for success in the alignment scripts because PD11_Q is now lower
than before due to the lower laser power.

(6) Since today's bootfest, some epics values were not properly restored. Some of the PD gains were
unmatched between I and Q. I corrected these with the help of conlog.

(7) By checking the open loop TFs, I found that the short DOFs have significantly lower UGFs than before,
probably due to the lower laser power. I increased the gains of MICH, PRCL and SRCL by a factor of 2 for
the full configuration.
For the DRM configuration the changes I made were:

PRC -0.15 -> -0.3
SRC 0.2 -> 0.6
MICH 0.5 -> 0.5

(8) I locked the DRFPMI with arm offsets, then adjusted the demodulation phases of PD6,PD7,PD8 and PD9 (DD PDs)
to minimize the offsets in the error signal, while locked with the single demodulation signals.

Change log:
PD6_PHASE 201 -> 270
PD7_PHASE 120 -> 105
PD8_PHASE 131 -> 145
PD9_PHASE -45 -> -65


(9) I ran senseDRM to get the sensing Matrix for the short DOFs using DD signals in DRM configuration.

(10) Still the DD hand off fails for DRFPMI. It succeeds for DRM.
  1916   Mon Aug 17 02:12:53 2009 YoichiSummaryComputersFE bootfest
Rana, Yoichi

All the FE computers went red this evening.
We power cycled all of them.
They are all green now.

Not related to this, the CRT display of op540m is not working since Friday night.
We are not sure if it is the failure of the display or the graphics card.
Rana started alarm handler on the LCD display as a temporary measure.
  1917   Mon Aug 17 04:16:13 2009 YoichiUpdatePSLReference cavity reflection looks bad

Quote:
Rana, Yoichi
- We also moved the Refcav reflection camera to look at the leakage through a reflection steering mirror so that there's less chance of distortion. There was previously a W1 window in there as a pickofff. Also changed the camera to autogain so that we can see something.

- Re-aligned onto the refl pd.

- Tweaked alignment into RC. Mainly in yaw. Transmission went from 5V to 7V. In your face, Aso!


After our removal of the pick off window and Rana's re-alignment of the beam into the RC, the RC optical gain increased.
FSS was complaining about it by driving the PC feedback crazy.
I reduced the nominal common gain from 12.5dB to 11dB.
  1923   Tue Aug 18 14:24:43 2009 YoichiSummaryPSLReference Cavity Inspection
Rana, Koji, Yoichi

To see why the reflected beam from the RC is distorted, we took out
the periscope and the iris in front of the RC. The periscope mirrors
had some gunk and dusts on them. We blew nitrogen air onto them to
remove the dust. Since the gunk did not come off with the air, we
wrapped a Q-tip with lens cleaning paper soaked in Methanol, and wiped
the surface of the mirrors. We did this because it was hard to remove
the mirrors from the periscope (they were in a spring loaded mirror
holders. The springs were too strong to safely remove them without
damaging the mirrors).

Looking into the RC from the front mirror revealed nothing obstructing
in the path.

After the cleaning, we put the periscope back and observed the direct
reflection from the cavity (not locked). It was still distorted
exactly like before.

So we did some tests.
First we injected He-Ne to the RC. It turned out that multiple
reflections from the optical window (not AR coated for He-Ne) made it
almost impossible to investigate anything with He-Ne. But this
observation made us to suspect maybe one side of the window is not AR
coated.

We placed the periscope about 50cm away from the RC and injected the
beam from an angle, so that we can observe the direct reflection.

First, we checked the shape of the beam leaving the periscope. It was good.
We then observed the reflected beam from the RC. It was also good, no distortion.
We made sure that it was really the reflection from the mirror, not from the window
as follows.
We measured the separation between the in coming beam to the cavity and the reflected beam
at two locations. From this, we can guess where the two beams intersect (the reflection point).
The estimated reflection point was far inside the RC enclosure, indicating that it was really
reflection from the front mirror of the RC.
Since we did not see any other reflection beam, we concluded that the AR coating of the window
is good.

We checked the direct reflection beam shape with several different incident angles, but the
beam shape was always good.

We put back the periscope to the original position. This time, we put a high reflectivity mirror
after the output mirror of the periscope. The beam coming out of the circulator (PBS) had a good
circular shape. But still if we let the beam reflected by the cavity, the beam shape is distorted.
Something must be happening in the RC. Unfortunately, we could not figure out what it is.

We put everything back to the original configuration, except for the iris, and the RC alignment
was already good (surprise). After Koji's final tweak, the FSS is now doing fine, but still
the reflected beam is ugly.
  1934   Fri Aug 21 17:49:47 2009 YoichiSummaryComputersUpgrade FE conceptual plan
I started to draw a conceptual diagram of the upgraded FE system.
http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:30888/FE/FE-Layout.html
(It takes some time to load the page for the first time)

Some places, tips will pop up when you stop the cursor over an object.
You can also click on the LSC block to see inside.

This is just a start point, so we should add more details.
The source of the diagrams are in the svn:
https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:30889/svn/trunk/docs/upgrade08/FE/

I used yEd (http://www.yworks.com/en/products_yed_about.html) to make
the drawings. It is Java, so works on many platforms.
Attachment 1: Picture_2.png
Picture_2.png
  1941   Tue Aug 25 03:30:23 2009 YoichiSummaryWIKI-40M UpdateGreen lock and phase noise
While Koji and I were discussing about the green laser lock, we wondered if the common motion of the cavity mirrors,
which won't be suppressed by the green laser servo, will cause any problem to the locking.

Since the common motion of the cavity mirrors is equivalent to the change of the path length from the laser to the
input mirror, it will show up as a phase noise in the error signal.
Unfortunately, since we inject the green laser from the end mirror, this phase noise has opposite sign for the
PSL and the green laser.

I calculated the magnitude of the phase noise using an extremely rough estimate of the common motion of the mirrors.
It is explained in the 40m wiki.
http://lhocds.ligo-wa.caltech.edu:8000/40m/Upgrade_09/GreenLock

The result plot is attached.
(Probably the seismic noise I used is an over estimate.)
Attachment 1: PhaseNoise.png
PhaseNoise.png
  1955   Thu Aug 27 12:34:48 2009 YoichiUpdateLockingup to arm power 70
Last night, I tried to run locking scripts.
The power went up to 70 a couple of times .
Then it failed to switch to RF CARM.
I was too tired at that time to figure out what is the problem with the switching.
But it seemed to me that the problem could be solved by some gain tweaking.
Looks like the IFO is back to a good state.
  1959   Fri Aug 28 12:56:17 2009 YoichiUpdateLockingRF CARM hand off problem
Last night, the lock script proceeded to the RF CARM hand-off about half of the time.
However, the hand off was still unsuccessful.

It failed instantly when you turn on the REFL1 input of the CM board, even
when the REFL1 input gain was very low, like -28dB.

I went to the LSC rack and checked the cabling.
The output from the PD11_I (REFL_2) demodulation board is split
into two paths. One goes directly to the ADC and the other one goes
to an SR560. This SR560 is used just as an inverter. Then
the signal goes to the REFL1 input of the CM board.

I found that the SR560 was set to the A-B mode, but B input was open.
This made the signal very noisy. So I changed it to A only mode.
There was also a 1/4 attenuator between the PD11_I output and the SR560.
I took it out and reduced the gain of SR560 from 10 to 2.
These changes allowed me to increase the REFL1 gain to -22dB or so.
But it is still not enough.

I wanted to check the CM open loop TF before the hand-off, but I could
not do that because the lock was lost instantly as soon as I enabled the
test input B of the CM board.
Something is wrong with the board ?

Using the PD11_I signal going into the ADC, I measured the transfer functions
from the CM excitation (digital one) to the REFL_DC (DC CARM signal) and PD11_I.
The TF shapes matched. So the PD11_I signal itself should be fine.

We should try:
* See if flipping the sign of PD11_I signal going to REFL1 input solve the problem.
* Try to measure the CM analog TF again.
* If the noise from the servo analyzer is a problem, try to increase the input gains
of the CM board and reduce the output gain accordingly, so that the signal flowing
inside the CM board is larger.
  3427   Mon Aug 16 23:39:29 2010 YoichiUpdateSUSMore TT characterization

Quote:

Things we noticed:  Koji and I had been concerned the last time we were looking at TT#2 because the frequency got lower and the Q seemed to get higher when we added the damping to the vertical blades.  Yoichi and I did not find that to be true today.  We did notice, however, that the EQ stop screws with the viton had been placed in the holes closer to the clamping point, whereas with TT #4 the screws had been placed in the holes farther from the clamping point.  We moved the screws on TT #2 to the outer holes, and noticed that the frequency increased slightly, and the Q significantly decreased.  We then followed this outer-hole philosophy when installing screws in TT #3.

The inner and outer screw holes of the EQ stop Jenne is talking about are shown in the photo below.

EQStopScrewHoles.jpg

  3428   Tue Aug 17 02:07:11 2010 YoichiUpdateCDSDACs have correct number of channels

Quote:

- DACs 

  None of them are working although the computer can recognize that all three DAC cards are mounted.

  I think something in the IOP file and the model file may be wrong because this symptom looks similar to that of C1ISCEX we tested two weeks before ( see this entry ) 

  I have to fix it anyhow because the DACs are very necessary part for this damping test.

 Since we had a similar trouble with the DAC at CLIO, I checked if this problem comes from the same origin.

The origin of the problem we had was that although the board was sold as 16 channel DAC, the firmware was set to use only 8ch.

To see if this problem exist in the DAC boards of c1sus, I added the following code to the /cvs/cds/caltech/cds/advLigoRTS/src/fe/map.c

printk("DAC ASSC = 0x%x\n",dacPtr[devNum]->ASSC);

in the definition of mapDac() function.

This code prints the information of the ASSC (Assembly Configuration) register of the PMC66-16AO16 board as a kernel message at the start up time of the realtime code. You can check the message with dmesg command.

After the modification, I recompiled the c1sus and installed it.

make c1sus; make install-c1sus

After starting c1sus, I checked the dmesg. Then found that the ASSC register was set to 0x130006. To decipher this magic number, you have to consult with the manual of the DAC, which is available online.

http://www.generalstandards.com/view-products.php?product=pmc66-16ao16

The manual says the 17th and 18th bits of this number set the number of channels. Those bits are 11 for 0x130006. According to the manual, 11 means 16 channels are present. So it seems that the ASSC register is correctly set. In the case of CLIO, the ASSC register was 0x110003, meaning only 8 channels are present.

Unfortunately, the ASSC register was not the cause of the problem, but at least this possibility was checked.

  3536   Tue Sep 7 20:44:54 2010 YoichiHowToCOMSOL TipsCOMSOL example for calculating mechanical transfer functions

I added COMSOL example files to the 40m svn to demonstrate how to make transfer function measurements in COMSOL.

https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:30889/svn/trunk/comsol/MechanicalTF/

The directory also contains an (incomplete) explanation of the method in a PDF file.

  5210   Fri Aug 12 16:42:51 2011 YoichiConfigurationLSCLSC Feed Forward Compensator
I've been working on adding feed forward (FF) paths to our LSC code.
So far, I've made a basic feed forward functionality connected
to the feedback path of the LSC model.

As is shown in the MEDM screen, this feed forward compensator (FFC)
takes feedback signals from several DOFs (MICH, PRCL, SRCL, CARM, XARM and YARM)
and put those signals through some filters. Then the filtered signals are
summed into the feedback signals.

There are input and output matrices to select which signal goes to which signal.

Usually, we just want to feed forward MICH to DARM. We may also want to do PRCL
to DARM and SRCL to DARM if necessary.
It is more unlikely that we use CARM for FF. But I put it there just in case.
XARM and YARM will not going to be used as is. These are place holders for future
experiments, like low frequency FF from seismic channels or something like that.
Feed forward is almost always done to DARM. But just in case we want to do some
fancier FF, like FF from PRCL to MICH, the output matrix is there to chose where
the signals will go.

I haven't really tested it because we don't have the interferometer working.
But I checked the signal flow, and it seems the model is working correctly.

=== Implementation ===
FFC is running in a separate realtime code, called c1ffc.
This is to offload c1lsc from the possible intense calculations, like adaptive stuff,
performed in the FFC in the future.
The LSC signal is passed to c1ffc via shared memory. The calculated FF signals
are passed back to c1lsc via shared memory too.
Even though FFC is in a separate realtime model, it is still conceptually a part of LSC.
So, I used top_names tag to change the names of the channels to C1:LSC-FFC_* instead of
C1:FFC-*.

In MEDM, there is an "ENABLE" button in the FF screen. Even though it is shown in the FFC
overview screen, the button itself is in the c1lsc code, so that we can disable the FFC
even when c1ffc is dead or going crazy.

=== Background ideas ===
For those of you wondering what is this feed forward thing for, I will put a brief explanation here.
Taking MICH as an example, we get the error signal for MICH from probably REFL_55Q (or AS_55Q ?).
At low frequencies, this signal properly reflects the motion of the mirrors (mostly seismic).
However, it has much worse shot noise than DARM. At higher frequencies, like above a few tens of Hz,
the error signal is dominated by the shot noise. Feeding back this signal to, say BS, means
we are shaking the BS by the shot noise, which was otherwise quiet at high frequencies.

Now, if the BS is shaken, it has some intrinsic coupling to the DARM signal.
The mechanism is that the BS motion creates some audio frequency sidebands
and this SBs reach the AS port and beat against the local oscillator to create
fake GW signals. This is called "Loop Noise Coupling".

A well known way to mitigate this problem is feed forward.
Since we know how much we are shaking the BS (because we are doing it), and
we can measure the amount of BS to DARM coupling, we can subtract out the
loop noise by feeding forward the MICH feedback signal to the DARM actuators.
In other words, the noise SBs created at the BS is canceled on the PD by the
extra SBs created at the ETMs by the feed forward.

This is what FFC is trying to do.
Attachment 1: FFCinLSC.png
FFCinLSC.png
Attachment 2: FFC.png
FFC.png
  5211   Fri Aug 12 16:50:37 2011 YoichiConfigurationCDSFE Status screen rearranged
I rearranged the FE_STATUS.adl so that I have a space to add c1ffc in the screen.
So, please be aware that the FE monitors are no longer in their original positions
in the screen.
  5214   Fri Aug 12 17:27:49 2011 YoichiSummaryCDSToggle button for RCG
Bottom line: I made an RCG block to realize a toggle button easily.

Read on if you need such a button, or if you want to know how to
write a new RCG block with C.

-----------------
When I was making MEDM screens for FFC, I wanted to have a toggle
button to enable/disable the FFC path.
I wanted to have something like the ON/OFF buttons of the filter bank
screens, the one changes its state every time I click on it.
However, I could not find an easy way to realize that.

From MEDM, I can send a value to an EPICS channel using a "Message Button".
This value is always the same, say 1.
In the RCG model, I used a cdsEpicsMomentary block so that whenever the channel
gets 1, it stays to be 1 for a while and turns back to 0 in a second or so.
This generates a pulse of 1 when I click on a message button on a MEDM screen.
Then I needed a block to keep its internal state (0 or 1), and flips its state
whenever it receives a pulse of 1.
Since I couldn't find such a block in the current RCG library, I implemented one
using the cdsFunctionCall block. It allows you to implement a block with C code.

There is a good explanation of how to use this block in the CDS_PARTS library.
Here is basically what I did.

(1) Drag and drop thee cdsFunctionCall block to my model.

(2) In the "Block Properties", I put the following line in the Description field.
inline cdsToggle /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/userapps/release/cds/common/src/cdsToggle.c
This means to call a function cdsToggle(), whose code is in the file indicated above.

(3) The contents of the source code is very simple.
void cdsToggle(double *in, int inSize, double *out, int outSize){
  static double x = 0;
  static double y = 0;

  if (*in != y){
    y = *in;
    if (y == 1){
      x = (x == 1) ? 0 : 1;
      *out = x;
    }
  }
}
The function prototype is always the same. *in and *out are the pointers to the arrays of doubles
for input and output signals of the block. In simuLink, the signals have to be
multiplexed so that the RCG can know how many signals are handed to or returned from the function.
In order to keep the internal state of my custom block, I used "static" keyword in the
declaration of the variables. The rest of the code should be obvious.

(4) Just compile the model as usual. The RCG will automatically include the source code and put
a call to the function in the proper place.

I made the block a library so that people can use it.
/opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/userapps/trunk/cds/common/models/cdsToggle.mdl
is the one.
For the usage of it, please have a look at
/opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/userapps/trunk/isc/c1/models/c1lsc
  5218   Sat Aug 13 01:52:07 2011 YoichiUpdateLSCFeed forward delay
Yoichi, Koji

While I was testing the feed forward cancellation, I noticed that the
cancellation was not perfect.
The test I did was the following.
I injected the same signal to both DARM and MICH feedback filters.
This was done by injecting a signal into the excitation point of
the ASDC PD, then changing the input matrix elements so that the signal
goes to both DARM and MICH.
Then in the FFC, MICH signal was fed forward to DARM by the gain of -1.
Ideally, this should completely eliminate the DARM FB signal.
In reality, it did not.

The first PDF compares the spectrum of the injected noise (white noise,
red curve) with the spectrum of the signal after the FFC (blue curve).
At higher frequencies, the cancellation becomes poor.
It suggests that this is caused by some delay in the FFC.
I also took a transfer function from the injection point to the signal
after the FFC (second attachment).
I fitted the measured TF with a theoretical formula of
1-exp(-i*dt*f),
where dt is the time delay and f is the frequency.
The fitting is very good, and I got dt = 0.8msec ~ 13 samples for 16kHz.
13 samples is something very large.

The cause of the delay was suspected to be the shared memory communication
between different processes.
I moved all the FFC blocks to c1lsc.mdl.
Then the cancellation becomes perfect. The signal after the FFC is
completely zero, so I couldn't even make a TF measurement.

This results suggest that a large delay of 13 samples is induced
when you use shared memory to send signals round trip.
We should make simpler models, just passing signals back and forth
via shared memory, dolphin network or GE FANAC RFM to check the
delays more precisely.

For the moment, the FCC is included in the c1lsc model.
The MEDM screens were modified to account for this change.
c1ffc is stopped and removed from rtsystab.
Attachment 1: Spe1.pdf
Spe1.pdf
Attachment 2: TFFitting.png
TFFitting.png
  7170   Tue Aug 14 04:37:06 2012 YoichiSummaryLSCXARM Open Loop Gain

Yoichi, Rana

Here is the open loop gain of the XARM loop.

The reference is from the pre-upgrade era. We get the extra phase delay because we have two anti-aliasing filters. One is the hardware filter at about 7kHz for 16kHz sampling. This filter should have been replaced to the one for 64kHz sampling but it has not yet happened. The second one is the software anti-aliasing filter applied when down sampling from 64kHz to 16kHz. So we have double AA filters, which are the culprits for the extra phase delay.

We should either replace the hardware AA filter to the 64kHz one (preferred way), or change the software AA filter to a less aggressive one (easier temporary fix).

Attachment 1: xarm-opltf.png
xarm-opltf.png
  7171   Tue Aug 14 04:53:45 2012 YoichiSummaryLSCX-Arm noise spectrum

Yoichi, Rana

Here is the noise spectrum of the X-arm error signal along with the TRX DC power fluctuations.

The spectra were taken while the whitening filters for POX11 were OFF.

EDIT (Integrity Fairy): Shall we assume these units are "Intergalactic translational qubits/sqrt(Hz)"?

Attachment 1: xarm-spectrum.png
xarm-spectrum.png
  7198   Wed Aug 15 18:56:46 2012 YoichiUpdateIOOMC Servo Transfer Function Measurements

 I started working on the characterization of the MC servo.

The current MC servo topology is shown in the figure attached along with a simplified schematic diagram of the MC board. 

A usual way to measure the open loop gain of this servo is to inject a signal from, say, EXCA of the MC board and measure the transfer function from TP2A to TP1A. It works OK at frequencies around the UGF. The second attachment is the OPLTF measured in this way with the Agilent 4395A. The UGF is about 100kHz with the phase margin of 40 to 50 deg. 

Now we have two issues here. First, I expected the UGF to be more than 100kHz, like 300kHz or so. The phase babble is peaked around 100kHz. According to our old measurement (http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/1431) the phase babble peak was at a much higher frequency when the FSS was using the reference cavity. One reason could be that the MC is located much farther from the laser than the reference cavity, so that there is some phase lag caused by the time delay. I will make a model of the MC servo system later to check this theory.

The second issue is that, as you can see in the plot, the OPLTF measurement becomes noisy at lower frequencies. With 4395A, which has the minimum IFBW of 2Hz, OPLTF measurement below 10kHz was impossible with the traditional method. We could use SR785 with a long averaging time to improve the SNR, but it requires a patience which I don't have.

The measurement becomes difficult at low frequencies because the loop gain is too high. When the open loop gain (G) is high, the injected signal (x) from EXCA is immediately suppressed by a factor of 1/(1+G) at TP2A. This makes the injected signal hidden in other noises at TP2A.

How do we solve this problem ? Let's consider a simple servo model shown in the third attachment. A traditional OPLTF measurement is done by injecting a signal from EXC port and measuring the TF from TP2 to TP1. The problem was that at TP2, the signal is attenuated by 1/(1+G1*G2), which is too much when G (=G1*G2) is large. However, at TP3, the attenuated signal is amplified by G1. So the injected signal x becomes x*G1/(1+G) at TP3. If G1's contribution to the overall gain G is large enough,  the signal at TP3 is not so small. Then we can easily measure G2 using TP3 and TP1. In a typical situation, G1 is the transfer function of the electric circuits, which we can know either from standalone measurements or from model calculations, and G2 is an interferometer response, which we want to measure. So, by combining the knowledge of G1 and the measurement of G2, we can obtain the overall loop gain G even at lower frequencies.

 The final attachment shows an example of the measurement of G2. In our case, this is the transfer function from MC_Out_Mon to Q-Mon (see the first attachment) . G1 is the transfer function of the MC board. Since G1 is large at low frequencies, we can measure G2 down to 100Hz with a reasonable integration time (10000 cycles per point).

Last night, I took a bunch of TFs with this method. Now I'm analyzing the data to recover the overall gain G. I will post the results later.

Attachment 1: MC-Diagram.png
MC-Diagram.png
Attachment 2: OPLG-10kHz-1MHz.png
OPLG-10kHz-1MHz.png
Attachment 3: SimpleServoDiagram.png
SimpleServoDiagram.png
Attachment 4: OPTG-100Hz-1kHz.png
OPTG-100Hz-1kHz.png
  7201   Thu Aug 16 01:52:52 2012 YoichiUpdateIOOMC Servo Transfer Function Measurements

Quote:

Last night, I took a bunch of TFs with this method. Now I'm analyzing the data to recover the overall gain G. I will post the results later.

 I calculated the MC open loop transfer function with the combination method. For that, I made a circuit model of the MC board (from the input to the output). The transfer function of this circuit is calculated by SPICE (attachment1). Then it is multiplied by the measured transfer function from the output of the MC board to the input of the MC board (attachment 2) to get the overall transfer function.

The result is shown in the attachment 3. The blue curve is the OPLTF measured with the traditional method. The red curve is the combination method described above. There are some discrepancies between the two curves. The ratio of the two curves (Traditional)/(Combination) is plotted in attachment 4. It seems there is a pole(s) missing from my model of the MC board at around 1MHz. This may come from the omitted op-amps in the MC board model (there are so many op-amps which have flat responses below 1MHz and I omitted most of those). Also the MC board includes many generic filter stages to customize the frequency response. I will open the MC board box to examine what is actually implemented on the board. 

At low frequencies, the two curves are similar but the slope is still different.

I also had to add 83dB of gain to the combined TF to match with the traditional one. I will check where does it come from.

The MC board model (Altium project) is attached as attachment 6. The schematic is attachment 5.

Attachment 1: MC_Board_TF.png
MC_Board_TF.png
Attachment 2: OPTG.png
OPTG.png
Attachment 3: OPLG.png
OPLG.png
Attachment 4: Difference.png
Difference.png
Attachment 5: MC_Board.pdf
MC_Board.pdf
Attachment 6: MC_Board.zip
  7202   Thu Aug 16 05:08:38 2012 YoichiUpdateIOOMC Servo Transfer Function Measurements

Quote:

 Also the MC board includes many generic filter stages to customize the frequency response. I will open the MC board box to examine what is actually implemented on the board. 

 I took out the MC board. Unfortunately, most of the components are surface mounted. So the values of the capacitors are not legible.

I will try my best to guess what is implemented on the board.

Attachment 1: MCBoard1.JPG
MCBoard1.JPG
Attachment 2: MCBoard2.JPG
MCBoard2.JPG
  7214   Fri Aug 17 05:29:04 2012 YoichiConfigurationComputer Scripts / ProgramsC1configure scripts

 I noticed that the IFO restore scripts have some problems. They use burt request files to store and restore the settings. However, the request files contain old channel names.

Especially channels with _TRIG_THRES_ON/OFF are now _TRIG_THRESH_ON/OFF, note the extra "H".

These scripts reside in /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/burt/c1ifoconfigure/.

I fixed the PRMI_SBres and MI scripts. Someone should fix all other files.

  7224   Sat Aug 18 03:55:12 2012 YoichiSummaryLSCX-arm locking again

Tonight, I worked on the X-arm locking again. I did not have any significant progress, but observed several issues and will give some suggestions for future work here.

What I did tonight was basically re-alignment of the X-arm (because Rana touched the PZT mirrors for the Y-arm alignment, the X-arm alignment was screwed up). Then I measured the open loop gain. Of course it was almost identical to the one posted in this entry. It reminded myself of how small the phase bubble is. This means we have to finely adjust the gain to set the UGF at the right frequency, i.e. 100Hz. So I decided to do the signal normalization using the TRX power. Using the MC path method described here,  the appropriate normalization coefficient was determined to be 1.6, when the XARM gain is set to 0.05. Using burtgooey, I updated the burt snapshot used by the X-arm restore script.

Now I observed the following things:

When the normalization is used, the lock itself is stable, but the lock acquisition takes loner (i.e. fails more often).

I don't know the exact reason, but here is my guess: Usually, the error signal is divided by the square root of the transmitted power to widen the linear range of the PDH error signal. However, what I'm doing here is dividing the error signal with the power itself, not the sqrt. This might distort the error signal in a not-friendly-for-lock way ? I don't know.

I checked the c1lsc FE code. There seems to be the sqrt(TRX) and sqrt(TRY) signals computed in the code. However, these are not used for the normalization. 

Now, there are two requirements. When dragging the mirrors into the resonance, we want to normalize the error signal with sqrt(TRX). When the mirrors reach the resonance, the gain of the loop must be normalized by TRX. How do we smoothly connect those two states ? Someone should spend some time on this. Maybe I will work on this in Japan.  

We really need a time delay in the filter trigger

The automatic filter trigger is awesome. However, the [0^2:5^2] filter, which is an integrator, takes time to switch on and off. Every time the cavity passes by a resonance, this filter gets turned on and off slowly, giving some large transients. This transient combined with the bad coil balance of ETMX sometimes made the optical lever of ETMX crazy. This can be avoided by turning on this filter a few seconds after the power reaches the threshold. As Rana suggested, we should be able to put an arbitrary time delay to the filter trigger.

Someone should balance the coils

The coil balance of ETMX is bad and causing the above mentioned problem. I tweaked the coil balance by injecting a sinusoidal signal (10Hz) into ETMX pos and trying to minimizing the spectral peak in the optical lever signals. Of course, this is a cheesy work. Someone should put more serious effort on this.

A civilized interferometer should have an auto-alignment capability

After my alignment work, the X-arm power got to about 0.7. (This is probably because the MC transmission power has been low for the past 5 hours or so (attachment 1)).

In anyway, after the cavity locked to the TEM00 mode, the alignment has to be automatically improved by dithering. It is anachronism to sit down and click on the MEDM screen until the power gets big enough.

 

 

Attachment 1: MC_Trans.png
MC_Trans.png
  1196   Fri Dec 19 14:35:58 2008 Yoichi AlbertoUpdateIOOMC WFS and IOO-POS QPD re-centering
For the past two days, the MC alignment has kept drifting.
This morning, the MC alignment was so bad that it wouldn't lock to the TEM00 mode.
We aligned the MC mirrors manually until the reflection looks like a nice bull's-eye (the WFSs were off at this moment).
Then we un-locked the MC and centered the beams on the WFS QPDs.
Since the QPDs were saturated with the full laser power falling on them, I reduced the PSL power by turning the HWP after the MOPA.
After this, we turned on the WFSs and everything looks normal now.
We will see the trend of the MC related channels to monitor the drift.

Although unlikely, it might be caused by the drift of the input beam to the MC.
We found that the IOO-POS QPD was mis-centered and saturating.
We replaced the BS picking up the beam for the QPD from 33% reflection to 10% one. The QPD was still saturated.
So we put the 33% BS in the beam path to the QPD to further reduce the power. The beam kicked by the 33% BS
is dumped to a black aluminum plate. We should use a better beam dump later.
Now the IOO-POS QPD should tell us some information about the beam pointing of the PSL, though it has no sensitivity
to the relative motion of the PSL table to the vacuum chambers.
ELOG V3.1.3-