No real progress tonight - I made it a bunch of times to the point where CARM was RF only, but I never got to run a measurement to determine what the DARM_B loop gain should be to make the control fully RF.
Some short notes, more details tomorrow.
Attachment #1 shows time series of some signals, from the time I ramp of ALS CARM control to a lockloss. With this limited set of signals, I don't see any clear indication of the cause of lockloss, but I was never able to keep the lock going for > a couple of mins.
Attachment #2 shows the CARM OLTF. Compared to last week, I was able to get the UGF a little higher. This particular measurement doesn't show it, but I was also able to engage the regular boost. I did a zeroth order test looking at the CM_SLOW input to make sure that I wasn't increasing the gain so much that the ADC was getting saturated. However, I did notice that the pk-to-pk error signal in this locked, 5kHz UGF state was still ~1000 cts, which seems large?
Attachment #3 shows the DTT measurement of the relative gains of DARM A and B paths. This measurement was taken when the DARM_A gain was 1, and DARM_B gain was 0.015. On the basis of this measurement, DARM_B (=AS55) sees the excitation injected 16dB above the ALS signal, and so the gain of the DARM_B path should be ~0.16 for the same UGF. But I was never able to get the DARM_B gain above 0.02 without breaking the lock (admittedly the lockloss may have been due to something else).
Attachment #4 shows a zoomed in version of Attachment #1 around the time when the lock was lost. Maybe POP_YAW experienced too large an excursion?
Some other misc points:
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:
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 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:
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
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?
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.
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?
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.
[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:
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.
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.
Most of the analysis uses data between the GPS times 1274418176 and 1274419654 that are recorded to frames.
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.
This particular lock held for ~20 minutes so I could run some loop characterization measurements etc.
I am struggling to explain:
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Attachment #1 shows the comparison.
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.
This is very interesting. Do you have the ASDC vs PRG (~ TRXor TRY) plot? That gives you insight on what is the cause of the low recycling gain.
My speculation for the worse RIN is:
- Unoptimized alignment -> Larger linear coupling of the RIN with the misalignment
- PRC TT misalignment (~3Hz)
Don't can you check the correlation between the POP QPD and the arm RIN?
I see. At the 40m, we have the direct transition from ALS to RF. But it's hard to compare them as the storage time is very different.
I agree, I think the PRC excess angular motion, PIT in particular, is a dominant contributor to the RIN. Attachments #1-#3 support this hypothesis. In these plots, "XARM" should really read "COMM" and "YARM" should really read "DIFF", because the error signals from the two end QPDs are mixed to generate the PIT and YAW error signals for these ASC servos - this is some channel renaming that will have to be done on the ASC model. The fact that the scatter plot between these DoFs has some ellipticity probably means the basis transformation isn't exactly right, because if they were truly orthogonal, we would expect them to be uncorrelated?
I guess what this means is that the stability of the lock could be improved by turning on some POP QPD based feedback control, I'll give it a shot.
- PRC TT misalignment (~3Hz)
Don't can you check the correlation between the POP QPD and the arm RIN
how bout corner plot with power signals and oplevs? I think that would show not just linear couplings (like your coherence), but also quadratic couplings (chesire cat grin)
The CARM loop now has a UGF of ~12 kHz with a phase margin of ~60 degrees. These values of conventional stability indicators are good. The CARM optical gain that best fits the measurements is 9 MW/m.
I've been working on understanding the loop better, here are the notes.
Attachment #1 shows a block diagram of the loop topology.
Attachment #2 shows the OLGs of the two actuation paths.
Attachment #3 and #4 show the model, overlaid with measurements of the loop OLG and crossover TF respectively.
Attachment #5 shows the evolution of the CARM OLG at a few points in the lock acquisition sequence.
Now the I have a model I believe, I need to think about whether there is any benefit to changing some of these loop shapes. I've already raised the possibility of changing the shape of the boosts on the CM board, with which we could get a bit more suppression in the 100 Hz - 1kHz region (noise budget of laser frequency noise --> DARM required to see if this is necessary).
Attachments #1 and Attachments #2 are in the style of elog15356, but with data from a more recent lock. It'd be nice to calibrate the ASDC channel (and in general all channels) into power units, so we have an estimate of how much sideband power we expect, and the rest can be attributed to carrier leakage to ASDC.
On the basis of Attachments #1, the PRG is ~19, and at times, the arm transmission goes even higher. I'd say we are now in the regime where the uncertainty of the losses in the recycling cavity - maybe beamsplitter clipping? is important in using this info to try and constrain the arm cavity losses. I'm also not sure what to make of the asymmetry between TRX and TRY. Allegedly, the Y arm is supposed to be lossier.
Which 1f signals are you going to use? PRCL has sign flipping at the carrier critical coupling. So if the IFO is close to that condition, 1f PRCL suffers from the sign flipping or large gain variation.
For these initial attempts, I was just trying to transition MICH to REFL55Q. I agree, the PRCL situation may be more complicated.
I am inclined to believe that the arm cavity losses are such that the IFO is overcoupled. Some calculations, validated with Finesse modeling also suggest that there isn't a sign change for the CARM error signal when the IFO goes from being undercoupled to overcoupled, but I may have made a mistake here?
Thoughts from others?
I want some input about what the short-term (next two weeks) commissioning goals should be.
Before the vacuum fracas, the locking was pretty robust. With some human servoing of the input beam, I could maintain locks for ~1 hour. My primary goals were:
I didn't succeed in either so far.
I guess apart from this, we want to run the ALS scan to try and infer something about the absorption-induced thermal lens. I guess at this point, the costs outweigh the benefits in trying to bring in the SRC as well, since we will be changing the SRC config?
Per the discussion at the meeting today, the plan of action is:
If I missed something, please add here.
I injected some sensing lines and measured their responses in the various photodiodes, with the interferometer in a few different configurations. The results are summarized in Attachments #1 - #3. Even with the PRMI (no arm cavities) locked on 1f error signals, the MICH and PRCL signals show up in nearly the same quadrature in the REFL port photodiodes, except REFL165. I am now thinking if the output (actuation) matrix has something to do with this - part of the MICH control signal is fed back to the PRM in order to minimize the appearance of the MICH dither in the PRCL error signal, but maybe this matrix element is somehow horribly mistuned?
Some other mysteries that I will investigate further:
I blew the long lock last night because I forgot to not clear the ASS offsets when trying to find the right settings for running the ASS system at high power. Will try again tonight...
Lock the PRMI on carrier and measure the sensing matrix, see if the MICH and PRCL signals look sensible in 1f and 3f photodiodes.
Last Tuesday evening, while attempting the PRFPMI locking, I noticed a strange feature in the LSC signals, which is shown in Attachment #1 (the PDF exported by dataviewer is 14MB so I upload the jpeg instead). As best as I can tell, the REFL33 and POP22 channels show an abrupt jump in the signal levels, while the other channels do not. POP110 shows a slight jump at around the same time, and the large excursion in AS110_Q actually occurs a few seconds later, and is probably some angular excursion of the PRC/BS. I'm struggling to interpret how this can be explained by some interferometric mechanism, but haven't come up with anything yet. The LO for the 3f error signals is the 2f field, but then why doesn't the POP110 channel show a similar jump if there is some abrupt change in the resonant condition? Is such a change even feasible from a cavity length change point of view? Or did the sideband frequency somehow abruptly jump? But if so, why is the jump much more clearly visible in one sideband than the other?
Does anyone have any ideas as to what could be going on here? This may give some clue as to what's up with the weird sensing matrices, but may also be something boring like broken electronics...
More tomorrow, but I tried the following tonight:
I was looking at some signals from last night, see Attachment #1.
Attachment #2 shows some ASC metrics. My conclusion here is that running the PRCL and MICH dither alignment servos (former demodulating REFLDC and latter demodulating ASDC to get an error signal) that running the dither alignment servo and hand tuning the arm ASC loop offsets improves the mode matching to the IFO, because:
The REFLDC behavior needs a bit more interpretation I think, because if the IFO is overcoupled (as I claim it is), then better alignment would at some point actually result in REFLDC increasing.
All the DC signals recorded by the fast system come from the backplane P2 connector of the PD interface boards. According to the schematic, these signals have a voltage gain of 2. The LSC photodiodes themselves have a nominal DC gain of 50 ohms. So, the conversion from power to digital counts is: 0.8 A/W * 50 V/A * 2 * 3276.8 cts/V * whtGain. Inverting, I get 3.8 uW/ct for a whitening gain of 1. This is power measured at the photodiode - optical losses upstream of the photodiode will have to be accounted for separately.
Assuming a modulation depth of 0.2, the 55 MHz sideband power should be ~20 mW. The Schnupp asymmetry is supposed to give us O(1) transmission of this field to the AS port. Then, the SRM will attenuate the field by a factor of 10, so we expect ~2 mW at the AS port. Let's assume 80 % throughput of this field to the AP table, and then there is a 50/50 beamsplitter dividing the light between the AS55 and AS110 photodiodes. So, we expect there to be ~700 uW of power in the TEM00 mode 55 MHz sideband field. This corresponds to 1600 cts according to the above calibration (the ASDC whitening gain is set to 18 dB). The fact that much smaller numbers were seen for ASDC indicates that (i) the schnupp asymmetry is not so perfectly tuned and the actual transmission of the sideband field to the dark port is smaller, or (ii) one or more optical splitting fractions assumed above is wrong. If the former is true, we can still probably infer the contrast defect if we can somehow get an accurate measurement of the sideband transmission to the dark port.
> Can't we offload this DC signal to the laser crystal temperature servo?
No. PSL already follows the MC length. So this offset is coming from the difference between the MC length and the CARM length.
What you can do is to offload the MC length to the CARM DC if this helps.
Main goals tonight were:
I tried using the POX_I error signal for the DC CARM_B path today a couple of times. Got to a point where the AO path could be engaged and the arm powers stabilized somewhat, but I couldn't turn the CARM_A path off without blowing the lock. Now the IMC has entered a temperemental state, so I'm abandoning efforts for tonight, but things to try tomorrow are:
I have some data from a couple of days ago when the PRFPMI was locked as usual (CARM_B on REFL for both DC and AO paths), and the sensing lines were on, so I can measure the relative strength of the sensing lines in POX/REFL and get an estimate of what the correct digital gain should be.
The motivation here is to see if the sensing matrix looks any different with a modified locking scheme.
The usual technique is that keeping the IFO locked with the old set of the signals and the relative gain/TF between the conventional and new signals are measured in-lock so that you can calibrate the new gain/demod-phase setting.
From Attachment #1, looks like the phasing and gain for CARM on POX11 is nearly the same as CARM of REFL11, which is probably why I was able to execute a partial transition last night. The response in POY11 is ~10 times greater than POX11, as expected - though the two photodiodes have similar RF transimpedance, there is a ZFL-500-HLN at the POY11 output. The actual numerical values are 2.5e10 cts/m for CARM-->REFL11_I, 2.6e10 cts/m for CARM-->POX11_I, and 3.2e11 cts/m for CARM-->POY11_I.
So I think I'll just have to fiddle around with the transition settings a little more tonight.
One possible concern is that the POX and POY signals are digitized without preamplificatio, maybe this explains the larger uncertainty ellipse for the POX and POY photodiodes relative to the REFL11 photodiode? Maybe the high frequency noise is worse and is injecting junk in the AO path? I think it's valid to directly compare the POX and REFL spectra in Attachment #2, without correcting for any loops, because this signal is digitized from the LSC demodulator board output (not the preamplified one, which is what goes to the CM board, and hence, is suppressed by the CARM loop). Hard to be sure though, because while the heads are supposed to have similar transimpedance, and the POX photodiode has +12dB more whitening gain than REFL11, and I don't know what the relative light levels on these photodiodes are in lock.
I have some data from a couple of days ago when the PRFPMI was locked as usual (CARM_B on REFL for both DC and AO paths), and the sensing lines were on, so I can measure the relative strength of the sensing lines in POX/REFL and get an estimate of what the correct digital gain should be
In favor of keeping the same servo gains, I tuned the digital demod phases for the POX and POY photodiode signals to put as much of the PDH error signal in the _I quadrature as possible. The changes are summarized below:
The old locking settings seem to work fine again. This setting isn't set by the ifoconfigure scripts when they do the burt restore - do we want it to be?
Attachments #1 and #2 show some spectra and TFs for the POX/POY loops. In Attachment #2, the reference traces are from the past, while the live traces are from today. In fact, to have the same UGF as the reference traces (from ~1 year ago), I had to also raise the digital servo loop gain by ~20%. Not sure if this can be put down to a lower modulation depth - at least, at the output on the freq ref box, I measured the same output power (at the 0dB variable attenuator gain setting we nominally run in) before and after the changes. But I haven't done an optical measurement of the modulation depth yet. There is also a hint of lesser phase available at ~100 Hz now compared to a year ago.
I measured the modulation depth at 11 MHz andf 55 MHz using an optical beat + PLL setup. Both numbers are ~0.2 rad, which is consistent with previous numbers. More careful analysis forthcoming, but I think this supports my claim that the optical gain for the PDH locking loops should not have decreased.
Continuting the IFO recovery - I am unable to recover similar levels of TRX RIN as I had before. Attachment #1 shows that the TRX RIN is ~4x higher in RMS than TRY RIN (the latter is commensurate with what we had previously). The excess is dominated by some low frequency (~1 Hz) fluctuations. The coherence structure is confusing - why is TRY RIN coherent with IMC transmission at ~2 Hz but not TRX? But anyways, doesn't look like its intensity fluctuations on the incident light (unsurprisingly, since the TRY RIN was okay). I thought it may be because of insufficient low-frequency loop gain - but the loop shape is the same for TRX and TRY. I confirmed that the loop UGF is similar now (red trace in Attachment #2) as it was ~1 month ago (black trace in Attachment #2). Seismometers don't suggest excess motion at 1 Hz. I don't think the modulation depth at 11 MHz is to blame either. As I showed earlier, the spectrum of the error point is comparable now as it was previously.
What am I missing?
I've noticed that there is some phase loss in the POX/POY locking loops - see Attachment #1, live traces are from a recent measurement while the references are from Nov 4 2018. Hard to imagine a true delay being responsible to cause so much phase loss at 100 Hz. Attachment #2 shows my best effort loop modeling, I think I've got all the pieces, but maybe I missed something (I assume the analog whitening / digital anti-whitening are perfectly balanced, anyway this wasn't messed with anytime recently)? The fitter wants to add 560 us (!) of delay, which is almost 10 clock cycles on the RTS, and even so, the fit is poor (I constrain the fitter to a maximum of 600 us delay so maybe this isn't the best diagnostic). Anyway, how can this change be explained? The recent works I can think of that could have affected the LSC sensing were (i) RF source box re-working, and (ii) vent. But I can't imagine how either of these would introduce phase loss in the LSC sensing. Note that the digital demod phase has been tuned to put all the PDH signal in the "I" quadrature, which is the condition in which the measurement was taken.
Probably this isn't gonna affect locking efforts (unless it's symptomatic of some other larger problem).
I want to lock the PRFPMI again (to commission AS WFS). Have had some success - but in doing characterization, I find that the REFL port sensing is completely messed up compared to what I had before. Specifically, MICH and PRCL DoFs have no separation in either the 1f or 3f photodiodes.
I did make considerable changes to the RF source box, and so now the relative phase between the 11 MHz and 55 MHz signals is changed compared to what it was before. But do we really expect any effect even in the 1f signal? I am not able to reproduce this effect in simulation (Finesse), though I'm using a simplified model. I attach two sensing matrices to illustrate what i mean:
I decided to analyze the data I took in December more carefully to see if there are any clues about the weird LSC sensing.
Attachment #1 shows the measurement setup.
Attachment #2 shows the measured spectrum with the PSL and EX laser frequency offset locked via PLL.
Fitting the measured sideband powers (up to n=7, taking the average of the measured upper and lower sideband powers to compute a least squares fit if both are measured, else just that of the one sideband measured) agains those expected from a model, I get the following best fit parameters:
To be explicit, the residual at each datapoint was calculated as
The numbers compare favourably with what Koji reported I think - the modulation depths are slightly increased, consistent with the RF power out of the RF box being slightly increased after I removed various attenuators etc. Note the large uncertainty on the relative phase between the two modulations - I think this is because there are relatively few sidebands (one example is n=3) which has a functional dependence that informs on phi - most of the others do not directly give us any information about this parameter (since we are just measuring powers, not the actual phase of the electric field).
Attachment #3 shows a plot of the measured modulation profile, along with the expected heights plugging the best fit parameters into the model. The size of the datapoint markers is illustrative only - the dependence on the model parameters is complicated and the full covariance would need to be taken into account to put error bars on those markers, which I didn't do.
Attachment #4 shows a time domain measurement of the relative phasing between the 11 MHz and 55 MHz signals at the EOM drive outputs on the RF source box. I fit a model there and get a value for the relative phase that is totally inconsistent from what I get with this fit.
I forgot that I had already done some investigation into recovering the PRFPMI lock after my work on the RF source. I don't really have any ideas on how to explain (or more importantly, resolve) the poor seperation of MICH and PRCL sensed in our 3f (but also 1f) photodiodes, see full thread here. Anyone have any ideas? I don't think my analysis (=code) of the sensing matrix can be blamed - in DTT, just looking the spectra of the _ERR_DQ channels for the various photodiodes while a ssingle frequency line is driving the PRM/BS suspension, there is no digital demod phase that decouples the MICH/PRCL peak in any of the REFL port photodiode spectra.
On Friday evening we checked out a few more things, somewhat overlapping with previous tests. All tests done with PRMI on carrier lock (REFL11_I -> PRC, AS55_Q-> MICH):
unrelated note: Donatella the Workstation was ~3 minutes ahead of the FE machines (you can look at the C0:TIM-PACIFIC_STRING on many of the MEDM screens for a rough simulacrum). When the workstation time is so far off, DTT doesn't work right (has errors like test timed out, or other blah blah). I installed NTP on donatella and started the service per SL7 rules. Since we want to migrate all the workstations to Debian (following the party line), lets not futz with this too much.
gautam, 1 Mar 1600: In case I'm being dumb, I attach the screen grab comparing dark offset to the single bounce off PRM, to estimate the RAM contribution. The other signals are there just to show that the ITMs are sufficiently misaligned. The PRCL PDH fringe is usually ~12000 cts in REFL11, ~5000cts in REFL55, and so the RAM offset is <0.1% of the horn-to-horn PDH fringe.
P.S. I know generally PNGs in the elog are frowned upon. But with so many points, the vector PDF export by NDS (i) is several megabytes in size and (ii) excruciatingly slow. I'm proposing a decimation filter for the export function of ndscope - but until then, I claim plotting with "rasterized=True" and saving to PDF and exporting to PNG are equivalent, since both yield a rasterized graphic.
I looked into this a bit more and crossed off some of the points Rana listed. In order to use REFL 55 as a sensor, I had to fix the frequent saturations seen in the MICH signals, at the nominal (flat) whitening gain of +18 dB. The light level on the REFL55 photodiode (13 mW), its transimpedance (400 ohm), and this +18dB (~ x8) gain, cannot explain signal saturation (0.7A/W * 400 V/A * 8 ~ 2.2kV/W, and the PRCL PDH fringe should be ~1 MW/m, so the PDH fringe across the 4nm linewidth of the PRC should only be a couple of volts). Could be some weird effect of the quad LT1125. Anyway, the fix that has worked in the past, and also this time, is detailed here. Note that the anomalously high noise of the REFL55_Q channel in particular remains a problem. After taking care of that, I did the following:
Rana also suggested checking if the digital demod phase that senses MICH in REFL55_Q changes from free-swinging Michelson (PRM misaligned), to PRMI aligned - we can quantify any macroscopic length mismatch in the PRC length using this measurement. I couldn't see any MICH signal in REFL55_Q with the PRM misaligned and the Michelson fringing. Could be that +18dB is insufficient whitening gain, but I ran out of time this afternoon, so I'll check later. But not sure if the double attenuation by the PRM makes this impossible.
The PRM violin filter seems very suboptimal - the gain peaking shows up in the MICH OLTF, presumably due to the MICH-->PRM LSC output matrix. I plot the one used for the BS in comparison in Attachment #1, seems much more reasonable. Why does the PRM need so many notches? Is this meant to cover some violin modes of PR2/PR3 as well? Do we really need that? Are the PR2/PR3 violin modes really so close in frequency to that for the 3" SOS? I suppose it could be since the suspension wire is thinner and the mass is lighter, and the two effects nearly cancel, but we don't actuate on PR2/PR3? According to the earlier elog in this thread, this particular filter wasn't deemed offensive and was left on.
Indeed, as shown in Attachment #2, I can realize a much healthier UGF for the MICH loop with just a single frequency notch (black reference trace) rather than using the existing "PRvio1,2" filter (FM2), (live red trace). The PR violins are eating so much phase at ~600 Hz.
We turned off many excessive violin mode bandstop filters in the LSC.
agreed, seems excessive. I always prefer bandstop over notch in case the eigenfrequency wanders, but the bandstop could be made to be just a few Hz wide.