40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 145 of 339  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Category Subjectup
  3329   Fri Jul 30 02:54:04 2010 KojiUpdate40m UpgradingMore optics installed on the BS table

July 29 Thu [Steve, Alberto, Kiwamu, Koji]

We placed some optics in the BS chamber.
The chambers are ready to be pumped down on Friday once the heavy door is placed.

- Clean room work

  • Engraved two Y2 mirrors and PBS@532nm
  • Engraved three DLC mounts
  • Each of the mounts needs a 3.5 inch post. We found there is no stock of the post in the lab! Also the clamps!
  • Took the posts from the temporarily removed optics although we need to return those optics into the table during the next vent.
  • We should count the # of the mounts and count the needed posts. Posts and clamps can be either a DLC thick post or New Focus pedestal.

- In the chamber

  • The terminal holder was moved as Alberto described
  • The green steering optics were placed as Alberto described
  • Note: the PBS is flipped in the mount (reflection side is back side)
  • The table leveling
  • Releasing EQ stops / Check OSEMs / Adjust OSEMs (BS OSEMs are untouched)

- After closing the chamber

  • The BS OSEM mumbo-jumbo


[Koji, Steve, Kiwamu, Alberto]

- This afternoon we installed a few new optics on the BS table: GR_PBS, GRY_SM2, GRY_SM1.

- We pulled up the cables so that we had more freedom to move one of the cable towers farther South.

- Then we re-leveled the table. PRM OSEMs were adjusted to be nominal insertions.

- Koji released the earthquake stops on BS but the readout of the OSEMs was apparently frozen on the MEDM screens.
Initially we thought it was a software problem. a nuclear reboot didn't solve it. We spent the following three hours investigating the cause.
Eventually it turned out that the earthquake stops on BS weren't actually fully released.

We opened the tank and accessed to BS. Releasing the earthquake stops in full solved the issue. The OSEMs readout went back to normal.


  630   Thu Jul 3 13:12:32 2008 Rob, Yoichi, JohnUpdateLockingMore oscillations
Bounce/ roll filters were added to the short degrees of freedom to reduce the effect of the 24Hz line seen on Tuesday night.

However last night saw the arrival of a new oscillation at ~34Hz. This may be the second harmonic of the MOS roll mode. Reducing the arm offset would cause this oscillation to ring up and break the lock (first plot). This effect was repeatable.

No signal was seen in the oplevs or osems which leads us to rule out alignment problems, at least for now.

Although one can clearly see DARM_ERR increasing as arm power increases adding a resonant gain in the DARM loop had no effect.

We also noticed that x arm transmission was significantly more noisy than the Y (second plot). And showed greater coherence with the increase in DARM noise. Investigations showed that the PD was not the source of the difference.

Turning up the MC gain seems to help a little.

We're now looking at POX as a candidate for RF_CARM (third plot).
Attachment 1: LOL.png
Attachment 2: NoisyX080702.png
Attachment 3: POXforCARM080702.png
  7393   Sat Sep 15 18:29:25 2012 JenneUpdateGeneralMore photos taken

{EricQ, Jenne]

More photos were taken.  Will post Monday, because too hungry now.

  7397   Mon Sep 17 13:39:32 2012 JenneUpdateGeneralMore photos taken


{EricQ, Jenne]

More photos were taken.  Will post Monday, because too hungry now.

 Have eaten.  Here's a PDF with all the pictures to-date, along with a few notes.

Also, the first thing we did on Saturday was to fix the yaw pointing of MMT1, so that the beam hit the center of MMT2.  Then we had to touch PZT2 to compensate.  We put the iris target on the BS, and adjusted PZT2 until the beam went nicely through there.  The resulting beam looks good on the SRM, and teh beam is still hitting the AS camera.

Attachment 1: AllPhotos_Sept2012.pdf
AllPhotos_Sept2012.pdf AllPhotos_Sept2012.pdf AllPhotos_Sept2012.pdf AllPhotos_Sept2012.pdf AllPhotos_Sept2012.pdf AllPhotos_Sept2012.pdf AllPhotos_Sept2012.pdf AllPhotos_Sept2012.pdf
  2057   Tue Oct 6 10:09:55 2009 ZachUpdatePSLMore pictures

I'm back to terrorize the PSL table again. The pictures I took yesterday were rubbish--today I'm using a clamp that Steve was nice enough to loan me. I'm starting now, at 10:09 am.

  13831   Thu May 10 14:13:22 2018 gautamUpdateGeneralMore refinement of DARM control signal projection


  1. It seems that after a x10 increase in the coil driver resistance, we will have enough actuation range to control (anti de-whitened) DARM without saturating the DAC.
  2. The Barry puck doesn't seem to help us much in reducing the required RMS for DARM control. If this calculation is to be believed, it actually makes the RMS actuation a little bit higher.

See Attachment #1 for the projected control signal ASDs. The main assumption in the above is that all other control loops can be low-passed sufficiently such that even with anti-dewhitening, we won't run into saturation issues.

DARM control loop:

  • I'm now calculating the DARM control signal in counts after factoring into account a digital DARM control loop.
  • The loop shape is what we used when the DRFPMI was locked in Oct 2015.
  • I scaled the overall OLTF gain to have a UGF around 200Hz.
  • The breakdown of how the DARM loop is constructed is shown in Attachment #2.

De-whitening and Anti-De-whitening:

  • The existing DW shape in the ITM and ETM signal chains has ~80dB attenuation around 100 Hz.
  • Assuming ~5uV/rtHz noise from the DAC, 60dB of low-passing gets us to 5nV/rtHz. With 4.3kohm series resistance, this amounts to ~1pA/rtHz current noise (compared to ~3pA/rtHz from the Johnson noise of the series resistance). Actually, I measured the DAC noise to be more like ~700nV/rtHz at 100 Hz, so the current noise contribution is only 0.16pA/rtHz.
  • This amounts to getting rid of the passive filter at the end of the chain in the de-whitening board.
  • Attachment #3 shows the existing and proposed filter shapes.

It remains to add the control signals for Oplev, local damping, and ASC to make sure we have sufficient headroom, but given that current projections are predicting using up only ~1000cts of the ~23000cts (RMS) available from the DAC, I think it is likely we won't run into saturations. Need to also figure out what the implication of the reduced actuation range will be on handling the locking transient.

Attachment 1: darmProj.pdf
Attachment 2: darmOLTF.pdf
Attachment 3: DWcomparison.pdf
  13833   Fri May 11 13:58:42 2018 ranaUpdateGeneralMore refinement of DARM control signal projection

I think "OLG" trace is not labeled right; it would be good to see the actual OLG in addition to whatever that trace actually is.

Based on the first plot, however, my conclusion is that:

  1. we don't need the passive isolator to reduce the control signal; the control signal is dominated by f < 10 Hz.
  2. we should still look into isolators for the reduction of the f > 50 Hz stuff, just to make the overall DARM sensitivity better. But this does not have to be pneumatic since we no longer need 10 Hz isolation. It can instead be a solid piece of rubber to give us a ~20-30 Hz resonance. That would still give us a factor of 5-10 improvement above 100 Hz.
  3. In this case, we only need a mass estimate of the end chamber contents with an accuracy of ~25%. If we think we have that already, we don't need to keep doing the jacks-strain gauge adventure.
  13835   Fri May 11 19:02:52 2018 gautamUpdateGeneralMore refinement of DARM control signal projection

I was a bit hasty in posting the earlier plots. In the earlier plot, the "OLG" trace was OLG * anti dewhitening as Rana pointed out.

Here are the updated ones, and a cartoon (Attachment #5) of the loop topology I assumed. I've excluded things like violin filters, AA/AI etc. The overall gain scaling I mentioned in the previous elog amounts to changing the optical sensing response in this cartoon. I now also show the DARM suppression (Attachment #4) for this OLG and the DARM linewidths for RSE. I don't think the conclusions change.

Note that for Signal Recycling, which is what Kevin tells us we need to do, there is a DARM pole at ~150 Hz. I assume we will cancel this in the digital controller and so can achieve a similar OLG shape. This would modify the control signal spectrum a little around 150Hz. But for a UGF on the loop of ~150 Hz, we should still be able to roll-off the control signal at high frequencies and so the RMS shouldn't be dramatically affected.

Steve is looking into acquiring 4.5kohm Vishay Wirewound resistors with 1% tolerance. Plan is to install two in parallel (so that we get 2kohm effective resistance) and then snip off one once we are convinced we won't have any actuation range issues. Do these look okay? They're ~$1.50ea on mouser assuming we get 100. Do we need the non-inductive winding?


I think "OLG" trace is not labeled right; it would be good to see the actual OLG in addition to whatever that trace actually is.

Attachment 1: darmProj.pdf
Attachment 2: darmOLTF.pdf
Attachment 3: DWcomparison.pdf
Attachment 4: DARMsuppression.pdf
Attachment 5: ControlLoop.pdf
  13836   Sat May 12 10:02:03 2018 ranaUpdateGeneralMore refinement of DARM control signal projection

Good question! I've never calculated what the resonance frequency would be if had an inductive resistor with our cable capacitance (~50 pF/m I guess).

  324   Tue Feb 19 18:28:41 2008 JohnUpdatePEMMore seismic in Baja California
Steve spotted more activity from the same quake.

Reset watchdog on ETMY.
  12567   Tue Oct 18 17:11:42 2016 YinziUpdateGreen LockingMore serial port troubleshooting

I connected to the serial port using screen (through Terminal) and using Arduino's serial monitor and basically received the same strings that were received through python, so it's not a python issue. Checked the other TC 200 module and was also receiving nonsense, but it was all question marks instead of mostly K's and ['s.

This rules out a few possible reasons for the weird data. Next steps are to set up and configure the Raspberry Pi (which has been interfaced before) and see if the problem continues.

  15730   Thu Dec 10 22:45:42 2020 gautamUpdateSUSMore spare OSEMs

I acquired several spare OSEMs (in unknown condition) from Paco. They are stored alongside the shipment from UF.

  11143   Sat Mar 14 01:14:09 2015 JenneUpdateLSCMore stable DARM transitions

[Jenne, Koji, Rana]

Thanks to turning off the AS55 analog whitening as well as the 1k:6k lead filter that Koji put into Darm's FM7, the DARM transition was more stable early in the evening.

The AS55 gain and offset did not change noticeably when we switched the AA on or off (switching happened while *not* using AS for any feedback).  Earlier in the evening, we did also check what happened with PRMI and REFL33 AA on vs. off, and REFL33 did have a many tens of counts offset on both the I and Q input channels.  I have turned the AA filters back on, but run LSCoffsets before trying to lock.

I'm not sure what was up, but somehow I couldn't lock the PRMI for about half an hour or so.  Very frustrating.  Eventually after futzing around, I was able to get it to lock with REFL33 in PRMI-only, and after that it worked again in PRFPMI with REFL165. 

With FSS slow around 0.5, MC has been a bit fussy the last hour.  Also frustrating.

Later on in the evening, I started taking out a bunch of the "sleep" commands from the up script, and many of the "press enter to continue" spots, but I think it might be moving too fast.  That, or I'm just not catching where I have too much gain.  Anyhow, near the middle/end of the CARM transition I am getting severe gain peaking at several hundred Hz.  I think I need to use a lower final gain.

So, progress on DARM, but maybe a little more fine-tuning of CARM needed.

Here's a DARM loop measurement, taken after both CARM and DARM were RF-only:



Attachment 1: DARM_RF-only_13Mar2015.pdf
DARM_RF-only_13Mar2015.pdf DARM_RF-only_13Mar2015.pdf
  11144   Sun Mar 15 18:49:57 2015 JenneUpdateLSCMore stable DARM transitions

I have modified the DARM model from elog 11133, to include the fact that these are digital filters.

I have also extracted the data from elog 11143, and it together with the model.

The modeled loop has an arbitrary gain factor, to make it have the same 234Hz UGF as the measured data.

The modeled loop includes:

  • Actuators
    • Pendulum (1Hz, Q of 4)
    • Violin filters
      • ETMs 1st, 2nd, 3rd order
      • MC2 1st, 2nd order
    • 3 16kHz delays for computation on the rfm model, transfer to the end sus models, and computation on end sus models.
    • Digital anti-imaging to get up to the IOP model
    • Delay of 64kHz for computation on IOP model
    • Analog anti-imaging
  • Plant
    • Single 4.5kHz pole
  • Sensor
    • Analog anti-aliasing
    • 64kHz delay for computation on IOP model
    • Digital anti-aliasing to get to LSC model rate
  • Loop Shape (digital filters extracted from Foton file using FotonFilter.m)
    • DARM B's integrator (FM7)
    • DARM's low freq boost (FM3)
    • DARM's locking filter (FM5)
    • DARM's bounceRoll filter (FM6)
    • DARM's new lead filter (FM7)
    • Delay of 16kHz for computation on LSC model (includes Dolphin hop to c1sus rfm model)

There is a 1.5 degree phase discrepancy at 100Hz, and an 11 degree phase discrepancy at 900Hz, but other than that, the modeled and measured loops match pretty well.

For the measured frequencies, here are the residuals:

Attachment 1: DARM_modelVsmeas_15March2015.png
Attachment 2: DARMresiduals.png
  8517   Wed May 1 00:05:03 2013 KojiUpdateLSCMore stable lock of PRMI (REF33I and AS55Q)

[Jenne Koji]

- Today the spots were moving more than the usual. The OPLEV screens showed that the spots are too much off from the center.

- Each vertex OPLEVs were checked and OPLEV wonderland was discovered: Other than the usual misalignment of the spots,
it was found that PRM/ITMX/ITMY beams were clipped somewhere in the paths, BS/PRM oplevs had many loose components
including the input lenses (they are still clamped by a single dog clamp THIS SHOULD BE FIXED ASAP).

- On the ITMY table there were so many stray optics. They were removed and put on the wagon next to the ITMY table.

- During this OPLEV session, LSCoffset nulling was run.

- After the OPLEV session, the locking became really instantaneous. We wonder which of the OPLEV cleaning, LSC offset nulling,
and the usual seismic activity decay in the evening was effective to make it better.

- Initially the lock was attempted with REFL33I/Q and some ~10sec lock streches were obtained. During this lock,
  the optical gain of AS55Q was measured in relative to REFL33Q. In deed they were calibrated to be the same
  gain at the input matrix.

- After the MICH signal source was switched to AS55Q, the lock streches became more regular and the minutes long.
We precisely tuned the phase of AS55 and REFL55 in terms of the differential excitation of ITMX/Y using lockin (FREQ 250, AMP 1000).

- We noticed that the AS port spot with AS55Q MICH was darker than the REFL33Q MICH. This suggests the existence of residual offset
in REFL33Q. In deed we observed +30cnt offset in REFL33Q when the PRMI is locked with AS55Q MICH.

- Phases and relative gains of the signals were as follows:

PRCL: REFL33I 1.00 =REFL55I +0.4
MICH: AS55Q 29deg x1.00 = REFL33Q -14deg x1.00 = REFL55Q 118deg 0.03?

- We tried to lock PRMI with AS55Q. The acquisition was not as easy as that with REFL33I. This might be from the saturation of the
REFL55I signal. This configuration should tested with different whitening gain. Handing off using the input matrix went well once the
lock was obtained by REFL33I.

- Handing off from AS55Q to REFL55Q was not successful.

- At the end of the session, Jenne told me that the POP PD still has a large diameter beam. (and a steering mirror with a peculiar reflection angle.)
because the normalization factor can be too much susceptible to the misalignment of the spot.

- The configuration of the filters:

PRCL FM3/4/5/6 G=+0.05 / NORM 0.04 POP110I
MICH FM4/5 G=-5.00 / NORM 0.01 POP110I (or none)


  6596   Thu May 3 13:19:17 2012 JenneUpdateLockingMore success last night

I locked each arm, and the Michelson last night, no problems after I increased the Yarm gain from 0.1 to 0.2 .  I checked the green beam alignment just before going home, and both of the green beams are locking on ~03 or 04 modes, so aligning them is on the list for today.

  15675   Thu Nov 12 14:55:35 2020 gautamUpdateElectronicsMore systematic noise characterization


I now think the excess noise in this circuit could be coming from the KEPCO switching power supply (in fact, the supplies are linear, and specd for a voltage ripple at the level of <0.002% of the output - this is pretty good I think, hard to find much better).


All component references are w.r.t. the schematic. For this test, I decided to stuff a fresh channel on the board, with new components, just to rule out some funky behavior of the channel I had already stuffed. I decoupled the HV amplifier stage and the Acromag DAC noise filtering stages by leaving R3 open. Then, I shorted the non-inverting input of the PA95 (i.e. TP3) to GND, with a jumper cable. Then I measured the noise at TP5, using the AC coupling pomona box (although in principle, there is no need for this as the DC voltage should be zero, but I opted to use it just in case). The characteristic bump in the spectra at ~100Hz-1kHz was still evident, see the bottom row of Attachment #1. The expected voltage noise in this configuration, according to my SPICE model, is ~10 nV/rtHz, see the analysis note.

As a second test, I decided to measure the voltage noise of the power supply - there isn't a convenient monitor point on the circuit to directly probe the +/- HV supply rails (I didn't want any exposed HV conductors on the PCB) - so I measured the voltage noise at the 3-pin connector supplying power to the 2U chassis (i.e. the circuit itself was disconnected for this measurement, I'm measuring the noise of the supply itself). The output is supposedly differential - so I used the SR785 input "Float" mode, and used the Pomona AC coupling box once again to block the large DC voltage and avoid damage to the SR785. The results are summarized in the top row of Attachment #1.

The shape of the spectra suggests to me that the power supply noise is polluting the output noise - Koji suggested measuring the coherence between the channels, I'll try and do this in a safe way but I'm hesitant to use hacky clips for the High Voltage. The PA95 datasheet says nothing about its PSRR, and seems like the Spice model doesn't include it either. It would seem that a PSRR of <60dB at 100 Hz would explain the excess noise seen in the output. Typically, for other Op-Amps, the PSRR falls off as 1/f. The CMRR (which is distinct from the PSRR) is spec'd at 98 dB at DC, and for other OpAmps, I've seen that the CMRR is typically higher than the PSRR. I'm trying to make a case here that it's not unreasonable if the PA95 has a PSRR <= 60dB @100 Hz.

So what are the possible coupling mechanisms and how can we mitigate it?

  1. Use better power supply - I'm not sure how this spec of 10-50 uV/rtHz from the power supply lines up in the general scheme of things, is this already very good? Or can a linear power supply deliver better performance? Assuming the PSRR at 100 Hz is 60 dB and falls off as 1/f, we'd need a supply that is ~10x quieter at all frequencies if this is indeed the mechanism.
  2. Better grounding? To deliver the bipolar voltage rails, I used two unipolar supplies. The outputs are supposedly floating, so I connected the "-" input of the +300 V supply to the "+" input of the -300 V supply. I think this is the right thing to do, but maybe this is somehow polluting the measurement?
  3. Additional bypass capacitors? I use 0.1 uF, 700V DC ceramic capacitors as bypass capacitors close to the leads of the PA95, as is recommended in the datasheet. Can adding a 10uF capacitor in parallel provide better filtering? I'm not sure if one with compatible footprint and voltage rating is readily available, I'll look around.

What do the analog electronics experts think? I may be completely off the rails and imagining things here.

Update 2130: I measured the coherence between the positive supply rail and the output, under the same conditions (i.e. HV stage isolated, input shorted to ground). See Attachment #2 - the coherence does mirror the "bump" seen in the output voltage noise - but the coherence is. only 0.1,  even with 100 averages, suggesting the coupling is not directly linear - anyways, I think it's worth it to try adding some extra decoupling, I'm sourcing the HV 10uF capacitors now.

Attachment 1: powerSupplyNoise.pdf
Attachment 2: coherence.pdf
  15676   Thu Nov 12 15:40:42 2020 KojiUpdateElectronicsMore systematic noise characterization

Yes. The datasheet has a recommendation circuit with 10uF caps. Companies are careful to show reproducible, reliably functional circuit examples on datasheets. So, if the caps are there you should try to replicate the design.


Additional bypass capacitors? I use 0.1 uF, 700V DC ceramic capacitors as bypass capacitors close to the leads of the PA95, as is recommended in the datasheet. Can adding a 10uF capacitor in parallel provide better filtering? I'm not sure if one with compatible footprint and voltage rating is readily available, I'll look around.

  15677   Mon Nov 16 00:02:34 2020 ranaUpdateElectronicsMore systematic noise characterization

true. also try to choose a cap with a goow high frequency response. In the Electronics Noise book by Ott there's some graph about this. I bet you good do a Bing search and also find something more modern. Basically we want to make sure that the self resonance is not happening at low frequencies. Might be tought to find one with a good HF response, a high voltage rating, and > 1uF.


Yes. The datasheet has a recommendation circuit with 10uF caps. Companies are careful to show reproducible, reliably functional circuit examples on datasheets. So, if the caps are there you should try to replicate the design.


Additional bypass capacitors? I use 0.1 uF, 700V DC ceramic capacitors as bypass capacitors close to the leads of the PA95, as is recommended in the datasheet. Can adding a 10uF capacitor in parallel provide better filtering? I'm not sure if one with compatible footprint and voltage rating is readily available, I'll look around.

  6908   Tue Jul 3 18:58:14 2012 YaakovUpdateSTACISMore transfer functions and netGPIB status

I'm still having issues with the STACIS oscillating uncontrollably with the slightest extra vibration, but with some more added weight both x and z direction are stable if you don't disturb the setup.

I took more transfer functions of the STACIS. In the last data I took Jenne pointed out that the geophone signals were not correlated well with the driving signal, so I increased the amplitude of the driving signal and am looking in x and y too instead of just z. 

Details of the driving signal: 25 mV, swept sine from 0.1 to 100 Hz from the SR785. 

NOTE: The data below was all transferred from the SR785 using netGPIB, which works fine, if anyone was interested in using it.

Open loop in the y direction, taken with the y geophone (magnitude on top, phase on bottom):


Open loop in the x direction, taken with the x geophone (with some extra weight to try to make the closed loop more stable):


Open loop in the x direction, taken with accelerometer instead of geophone:


  14490   Thu Mar 21 12:46:22 2019 JonUpdateVACMore vac controls upgrades

The vac controls system is going down for migration from Python 2.7 to 3.4. Will advise when it is back up.

  14491   Thu Mar 21 17:22:52 2019 JonUpdateVACMore vac controls upgrades

I've converted all the vac control system code to run on Python 3.4, the latest version available through the Debian package manager. Note that these codes now REQUIRE Python 3.x. We decided there was no need to preserve Python 2.x compatibility. I'm leaving the vac system returned to its nominal state ("vacuum normal + RGA").


The vac controls system is going down for migration from Python 2.7 to 3.4. Will advise when it is back up.


  15686   Mon Nov 23 16:33:10 2020 gautamUpdateVACMore vacuum deliveries

Five Agilent pressure gauges were delivered to the 40m. It is stored with the controller and cables in the office area. This completes the inventory for the gauge replacement - we have all the ordered parts in hand (though. not necessarily all the adaptor flanges etc). I'll see if I can find some cabinet space in the VEA to store these, the clutter is getting out of hand again...

in addition, the spare gate valve from LHO was also delivered today to the 40m. It is stored at EX with the other spare valves. 


It is stored along with the cables that arrived a few weeks ago, awaiting the gauges which are now expected next week sometime.

  7097   Mon Aug 6 20:27:59 2012 JamieUpdateSimulationsMore work on getting simplant models running: c1lsp and c1sup

I'm trying to get more of the simplant models running so that we (me and Sasha Surf) can get a full real-time cavity simplant running.  As I reported last week, c1spx is running again on c1iscex.

The two new simplant models are c1sup, which holds the simplant for ITMX, and c1lsp, which holds the IFO simplant, specifically the one we're working on for XARM.

Here's the relevant info:

model  host     dcuid  cpu
c1spx  c1iscex  61     4
c1sup  c1sus    62     6
c1lsp  c1lsc    60     6

c1spx and c1sup will be running the sus_single_plant parts for ETMX and ITMX simplant.  All the simplant suspension channels will be names "SUP" (as opposed to "SUS" for control).

c1lsp is now running, but c1sup won't run for unknown reasons.  The c1sup model is not very complicated, and in fact is more-or-less identical to c1spx.  It compiles and installs and even loads, but it completely unresponsive after loading.  Unfortunately I've had enough CDS bullshit for today, so I'll try to figure out what's going on tomorrow.

  2159   Thu Oct 29 18:04:02 2009 JenneUpdateAdaptive FilteringMore work on saving coeffs on the OAF screen


Sanjit has been working today on trying to get the OAF coefficients to save properly.  Alex got us most of the way, but right now it's looking like the filter that is being saved is totally constant (all the values are the same).  We're poking around trying to figure out why this is. 

Also, we're starting again (as we should have been for the last week or so since Alex came in to help us) to check in the TOP_XFCODE whenever we make changes to it, and when we recompile the front end code. 

  2160   Thu Oct 29 18:25:33 2009 SanjitUpdateAdaptive FilteringMore work on saving coeffs on the OAF screen



Sanjit has been working today on trying to get the OAF coefficients to save properly.  Alex got us most of the way, but right now it's looking like the filter that is being saved is totally constant (all the values are the same).  We're poking around trying to figure out why this is. 

Also, we're starting again (as we should have been for the last week or so since Alex came in to help us) to check in the TOP_XFCODE whenever we make changes to it, and when we recompile the front end code. 


We are manually restarting assepics, but the terminal logs us out after sometime and ass may crash. I set autologout=0 in the terminal for the time being. Once the testing process is over, assepics will start automatically when the computer is turned on, so we wont have to worry about this.

(if ass crashes tonight, it is not unexpected!)


  2171   Mon Nov 2 21:09:15 2009 SanjitUpdateAdaptive FilteringMore work on saving coeffs on the OAF screen


I made some changes in the code (all commented in the installed and SVN version) to print the filter coefficients. I got crazy output. Sometimes memory bugs lead to such crazy behavior. So far I could not find any bugs, but will have to spend more time on it.


  2199   Fri Nov 6 19:25:31 2009 Sanjit, Jenne, JoeUpdateAdaptive FilteringMore work on saving coeffs on the OAF screen


 I made some changes in the code (all commented in the installed and SVN version) to print the filter coefficients. I got crazy output. Sometimes memory bugs lead to such crazy behavior. So far I could not find any bugs, but will have to spend more time on it 


Something strange was going on in the OAF code, printf would print a double precision number in %f format but not in %lf or %e format!

Since we know this problem now, we can move forward, but it will be important to know why printf was restricted and if there are other such constraints which we should remember while making changes in the codes.


  4608   Tue May 3 10:41:35 2011 josephbUpdateCDSMorning maintenance

1) Filled in the C1SUS_BS_OLMATRIX properly so as to make the BS oplev work for Steve.

2) Turned on the ITMX damping.  Apparently it had tripped this morning, possibly due to work in the lab area.

3) The ETMX FE controller (c1scx) had ADC timed out and died sometime around 8:30 am.  The c1x01 (the IOP on the ETMX computer) was also indicating a FB status error (mismatch in DAQ channels).

The reported error in dmesg on c1iscex was:

[1628690.250002] c1spx: ADC TIMEOUT 0 3541 21 3605
[1628690.250002] c1scx: ADC TIMEOUT 0 3541 21 3605

Just to be safe, I rebuilt the c1x01 and c1scx models, ran ./activateDAQ.py, and used the scripts killc1spx, killc1scx, and killc1x01.

I finally restarted the process with startc1x01, startc1scx, and startc1spx.  Everything is currently alive and indicating all green.

  8176   Wed Feb 27 00:56:01 2013 JenneUpdateASSMotivation for reactivating the ASS

I am putting a little bit of brain power into reviving the ASS, and I want to write down what the motivation is, and what the short and long-term plans are.


The IFO IR is not optimally aligned right now.  While we were at atmosphere, we should have taken the time to align the green beams to the arms until the greens were both resonating TEM00.  We were lazy, and excited to pump down, so we decided that locking on higher order modes was good enough to ensure the beams came out of vacuum.  Once we were pumped down, ITMY and ETMY were aligned to the green beam axis.  Then, the IR was aligned to this new Yarm cavity axis.  This would have been okay, and pretty close, if we had aligned the green beam all the way (used only the outside steering mirrors to resonate TEM00, after the cavity mirrors were aligned for flashing IR).  After the IR was aligned to the Ygreen axis, the rest of the IFO was aligned to this slightly-incorrect input pointing.  We want to measure the IR spot positions on ITMY and ETMY so that we can tweak the input pointing until we hit the center of both ITMY and ETMY.  Then we will align Ygreen's input pointing to this proper IR cavity axis.  The rest of the IFO alignment will also have to be redone.  This calls for a functioning A2L system, so the measurement part of the ASS.

The immediate motivation for measuring the spot positions is that the current Xarm IR axis is not at all very close to the Xgreen axis.  The other day while we were fixing up the Xend table (note in elog 8162), we found that the TRX beam to the TRX PD and the trans camera was clipped on the 2" harmonic separator (which is the first optic that the transmitted IR beam sees on the end tables).  It was clipping on the left side of the optic, if you are looking at the face of the optic.  This is the more east-erly side of the optic.  We moved that optic to the side so that we were not clipping.  Then, today when Manasa was trying to align the Xgreen beam, she found that it was clipping on the right side of the harmonic separator, the more west-erly side.  I remember seeing that the green beam was roughly centered on the harmonic separator when we were at atmosphere, so this clipping is certainly due to Yuta, Evan and my moving of the harmonic separator.  Since the end green steering optics are not very orthogonal in angle/translation, it is very difficult to translate the beam by a significant amount.  If we keep the current IR alignment, which surely isn't good anyway (you can see on the ETMXF camera that the beam isn't centered), we would probably have to move the Xgreen steering optics, which would be a total pain.  It seems that the better plan is to leave them where they are, and get the IR pointing in the correct direction, and move the harmonic separator back to where it was originally.

Short term (< few days):

Write the arm section of the existing MeasureSpotPositions.py script (in ....../scripts/ASS).  Write a wrapper script that, like ...../scripts/ASS/MC/mcassMCdecenter, calls sets up the lockins, runs MeasureSpotPositions.py, and calculates the calibrated spot positionsUse this information to hand tweak the input pointing, then realign the cavities to the new IR, and the greens to the new cavity axes.

All of the infrastructure for this is already in place in the c1ass model.   The only drawback to the current situation is the LSC output matrix only has one row for ASS, and so only one cavity can be measured at a time.  To make things faster, we could consider increasing the size of the LSC output matrix so that the 2 arms could be measured simultaneously.  This change is low priority for now.

Long term:

Make the full ASS system work. 

A major change from the current situation is that the current ASS cannot actuate on the input pointing (TT1 and TT2 for Yarm, BS for Xarm).  We want a low bandwidth servo to force the input beam to follow the cavity axis.  Implementing this will require some changes to the ASS model. 

Remeasure sensing matrix, test system.

  8178   Wed Feb 27 02:21:55 2013 JenneUpdateASSMotivation for reactivating the ASS

I have modified the MeasureSpotPositions.py script to accept the arms as valid cavities (it used to give an error "Sorry, this only works for MC right now").

There is still no wrapper script to turn on lockins and turn them off after the measurement, so I have not tested the arm A2L yet.  But I should be able to tomorrow, or whenever the IFO is next available.


* Write the wrapper script (analog of mcassMCdecenter).

* Fix arm assOff, assDown, assOn, assUp scripts to match the current channel names (which were changed long ago to be human-readable, versus mysterious numbers).

* Test.

  2995   Wed May 26 18:54:55 2010 AidanSummaryGreen LockingMounted Crystal 724 in the Doubling Oven

Andri and I mounted the Raicol Crystal #724 in one of the new Covesion Ovens. The procedure was the same as before - see elog entry here.

There was one issue - the glass plate that goes on top of the crystal is coated on one side with ITO (Indium-Tin Oxide) and it's not 100% certain that this was mounted in the correct orientation. It is virtually impossible to tell which side of the glass is coated.

The base plate of the oven was tapped for an M3 hole. We retapped it for an 8-32 and bolted it to a post and that one of the New Focus 4-axis translation stage. The assembly is currently bolted to the PSL table, awaiting use.

  6178   Fri Jan 6 19:17:07 2012 Max De JongUpdateGeneralMounted projector

I mounted the new projector to the pipe where the old projector was attached. The mounting hardware wasn't designed for attaching to a pipe, but with Steve's help I mounted the projector. The projector is angled away from the area of the wall designated as the screen, and I am going to meet with Steve Monday to fix this.

  1378   Mon Mar 9 19:27:16 2009 ranaConfigurationComputersMove of the CLIO Digital Controls test setup

Because of the network interference we've had from the CLIO system for the past 3-4 days, I asked the guys to remove

the test stand from the 40m lab area. It is now in the 40m control room. Since it needed an ethernet connection to get out

for some reason we've let them hook into GC. Also, instead of using a real timing signal slaved to the GPS, Jay suggested

just skipping it and having the Timing Slave talk to itself by looping back the fiber with the timing signal. Osamu will enter

more details, but this is just to give a status update.

  7049   Mon Jul 30 12:38:45 2012 JamieUpdateCDSMove to RCG 2.5 tag release

I moved the RCG to the advLigoRTS-2.5 tag:

controls@c1iscey ~ 0$ ls -al /opt/rtcds/rtscore/release
lrwxrwxrwx 1 controls 1001 19 Jul 30 12:02 /opt/rtcds/rtscore/release -> tags/advLigoRTS-2.5
controls@c1iscey ~ 0$ 

There are only very minor differences between what we were running on the the 2.5 branch.  I have NOT rebuilt all the models yet.

I was hoping that there was something in the tagged release that might fix this hard-crash-on-filter-load issue that we're seeing in the c1tst model.  It didn't.  Still have no idea what's going on there.

  7086   Sun Aug 5 13:48:40 2012 DenUpdateCDSMove to RCG 2.5 tag release


I moved the RCG to the advLigoRTS-2.5 tag

 After that RFM -> OAF communication through PCIE became bad again. Inside CommData2.c cache flushing is not allowed

// If PCIE comms show errors, may want to add this cache flushing
            #if 0
            if(ipcInfo[ii].netType == IPCIE)
                clflush_cache_range (ipcInfo[ii].pIpcData->dBlock[sendBlock][ipcIndex].data, 16);

As a result, a significant part of MC_F and other signals is lost during RFM -> OAF transmission (270 - 330 out of 2048 per second)

erros.png   overview.png    oaf.png


Last time when I replaced 0 for 1, it suspended SUS machine because of the code bug. Alex modified a couple of files in the old version and it started to work. Do you know if this bug is fixed in the new version?

  16476   Thu Nov 18 15:16:10 2021 AnchalUpdateGeneralMoved Chiara to 1X7 above nodus powered with same UPS

[Anchal, Paco]

We moved chiara to 1X7 above nodus and powered with same UPS from a battery backed port. The UPS is at 40% load capacity. The nameserver and nfs came back online automatically on boot up.


  11588   Thu Sep 10 01:09:20 2015 ranaUpdateLSCMoved LSC sensing matrix notch frequencies

We looked at the DRMI noise spectrum and chose new excitation frequencies such that the lines are lower in frequency than before (~300 Hz instead of 800 Hz) and also not in some noisy region.

New filters is saved and loaded for all LSC DOFs.

Attachment 1: NewLSCnotches.png
  11589   Thu Sep 10 04:23:00 2015 ericqUpdateLSCMoved LSC sensing matrix notch frequencies

Frequencies are:

  • CARM: 309.21 Hz
  • DARM: 307.88 Hz
  • MICH: 311.1 Hz
  • PRCL: 313.31 Hz
  • SRCL: 315.17 Hz

POP110 and POP22 demod angles were adjusted for DRMI lock. 

Last week, I never achieved a fully 1F lock, REFL165 was used for SRCL. Tonight, we created input matrix settings for pure 1F locking, and did some signal mixing to reduce the PRCL to SRCL coupling. The PRCL to MICH coupling was already low, since AS55 is fairly insensitive to PRCL. 

Similarly, for the 3F signals, some signal mixing of REFL33I and REFL165Q was used to reduce the PRCL to MICH coupling. The PRCL to SRCL coupling in REFL165 isn't too bad, so no compensation was done. Interestingly, in this setting, the 3F MICH and SRCL signals agree with the 1F signals on their zero crossing, so no offsets are needed. REFL33 I does need an offset, however, to match the REFL11I PRCL zero crossing. 

The DRMI acquires faster with SRCL set to 165I. Once acquired, the 1F/3F can be made smoothly, and both settings are very stable. The sensing matrix in each setting is consistent with each other. (The PRCL and SRCL lines in AS55 change, but really I shouldn't even plot them, since they're not very coherent). 

For some reason, these show a sign flip relative to last week's measurements. The relative angles are consistent, though. 

Next up is finding the right coefficient for the SRM in the MICH output matrix, when actuating on the BS. 

Attachment 1: DRMI_1F.pdf
Attachment 2: DRMI_3F.pdf
  10392   Thu Aug 14 19:33:00 2014 JenneConfigurationIOOMoved MC2 spot

Last night, and again just now, I used the ./MC2_spot_[direction] scripts to center the MC2 spot on the trans QPD.  The MCWFS handled overall alignment to correct for the fact that the ratios in the script aren't perfect.  When I was finished, I ran the MC WFS relief script from the WFS screen.  Last night, and again today, things had drifted until the yaw spot was more than 0.5 counts off.

  4368   Wed Mar 2 17:19:58 2011 AidanConfigurationGreen LockingMoved PDH PD on end table

As previously noted, there are multiple beams coming back from the ETM surface onto the PDH PD on the end table. They are spread out in a vertical pattern. All the spots swing together (as the ETM moves?).

I moved the PDH Green PD on the end table so that it was further away from the Faraday and I added an iris in between the Faraday and the PD. Now only the principle reflection from the ETM is incident on the PD. See attached photos. In order to sneak past the neighbouring optics, I had to steer the beam down a bit, so the PD is now lower than it previously was.

Just FYI: the angle between the returning beams is about 5 or 6 mrad at the PD. Before the beams get to the PD they go through a telescope that de-magnifies the beam by about 5 or 6 times. This implies that the angle between adjacent returning beams from the ETM is around 1 mrad at the ETM.

This does make the position of the spot on the PD more susceptible to the alignment of the ETM - we should use a short focal length lens and image the ETM plane onto the PD.


First image - overview of table

Second image - the three returning beams immediately before the IRIS

Third image - a close up of the IRIS and PDH PD. 




Attachment 1: P1000223-a.jpg
Attachment 2: P1000218.jpg
Attachment 3: P1000224.jpg
  3799   Wed Oct 27 17:06:48 2010 josephbUpdateCDSMoved c1iscey chassis and host interface board to c1ioo


Need a working IO chassis connected to c1ioo in order to bring the MC_L into the digital realm, and then via RFM transmit to the c1sus machine.

Attempted Solution:

Move the c1iscey IO chassis to c1ioo while the c1ioo chassis is at downs.

The c1iscey chassis however doesn't seem to be talking to the c1ioo computer.  I tried changing the host interface card on the c1ioo chassis.  I took out One Stop Systems HIB2-x4-H interface card with serial number 26638 from the c1ioo computer and put in the One Stop Systems HIB2-x4-H with serial number 35242 in from c1iscey into c1ioo.  Still didn't work.

All the lights are red on the interface card on the actual chassis and its cooling fan isn't spinning. 

Using dmesg on c1ioo shows that it does not see any of the ADC/DAC/BO cards.


I'm going to  wait until tomorrow morning when Rolf gets a chance to look at the c1ioo chassis over at Downs to determine the next step.  If we fix the c1ioo chassis, I'm move the c1iscey chassis and its host interface board back to the end.

  16324   Mon Sep 13 18:19:25 2021 TegaUpdateComputer Scripts / ProgramsMoved modbus service from chiara to c1susaux

[Tega, Anchal, Paco]

After talking to Anchal, it was made clear that chiara is not the place to host the modbus service for the temperature sensors. The obvious machine is c1pem, but the startup cmd script loads c object files and it is not clear how easy it would integrate the modbus functionality since we can only login via telnet, so we decided to instead host the service on c1susaux. We also modified the /etc/motd file on c1susaucx which displays the welcome message during login to inform the user that this machine hosts the modbus service for the temperature sensor. Anchal plans to also document this information on the temperature sensor wiki at some point in the future when the page is updated to include what has been learnt so far.

We might also consider updating the database file to a more modern way of reading the temperature sensor data using FLOAT32_LE which is available on EPICs version 3.14 and above, instead of the current method which works but leaves the reader bemused by the bitwise operations that convert the two 16 bits words (A and B) to IEEE-754 32-bit float, via 

field(CALC, "(A&D?(A&C?-1:1):0)*((G|A&E)*J+B)*2^((A&D)/G-F)")


   field(INPA, "$HiWord")
   field(INPB, "$LoWord")
   field(INPC, "0x8000")   # Hi word, sign bit
   field(INPD, "0x7F80")   # Hi word, exponent mask
   field(INPE, "0x00FF")   # Hi word, mantissa mask (incl hidden bit)
   field(INPF, "150")      # Exponent offset plus 23-bit mantissa shift
   field(INPG, "0x0080")   # Mantissa hidden bit
   field(INPJ, "65536")    # Hi/Lo mantissa ratio
   field(CALC, "(A&D?(A&C?-1:1):0)*((G|A&E)*J+B)*2^((A&D)/G-F)")
   field(PREC, "4")

as opposed to the more modern form

field(INP,"@asyn($(PORT) $(OFFSET))FLOAT32_LE")
  14881   Mon Sep 16 12:00:16 2019 aaronHowToGeneralMoved some immovable optics

When I put away the lenses we had used for measuring the RF transfer functions of the QPD heads, I saw that I'd removed them from the cabinet containing green endtable optics, but hadn't noticed the sign forbidding their removal. I'll talk with Koji/Gautam about what happened and what should be done.

  5700   Wed Oct 19 15:48:20 2011 MirkoUpdatePEMMoved the STS1 from x-arm end to vortex

[Jenne, Mirko]

We moved our one STS1 from the x-arm end to the vortex. We record the data as STS1 in c1pem @ 256Hz. x is still north-south.

JD:  This is actually an STS-2.  We just call it C1:PEM-SEIS_STS1.... to differentiate the 3 STSs that we have from one another (assuming we plug in the other two).


  16488   Tue Nov 30 17:11:06 2021 PacoUpdateGeneralMoved white rack to 1X3.5

[Paco, Ian, Tega]

We moved the white rack (formerly unused along the YARM) to a position between 1X3, and 1X4. For this task we temporarily removed the hepas near the enclosures, but have since restored them.

Attachment 1: IMG_8749.JPG
Attachment 2: IMG_8750.JPG
  10531   Wed Sep 24 11:02:38 2014 manasaUpdateLSCMoving SRM

I looked at the CAD layout and it seems like we will clearly be clipping POY if we move SRM by 7.5cm. Since POY is not visible at low power, we cannot be sure about the clipping.

We should have a plan B before we move everything. I suggest we move a combination of SRM and SR2 to get the desired SRC length.
Moving SR2 will require extra effort to walk the beam unclipped through all the 6 output steering mirrors that follow; but there will be little room for error if we use irides to propagate the beam through the first 4 mirrors that are in the BS and ITMY chamber.

  5171   Wed Aug 10 13:52:23 2011 Manuel , IshwitaUpdatePEMMoving Seismometers

We turned off the power of the seismometers and moved the Guralp1 close to the STS. Both are now situated below the center of the mode cleaner vacuum tube.

We oriented the X axis of the STS & Guralp1 along the X axis of the interferometer. Then we turned on the power again, but the STS channels don't give any signal. We think this is, because we didn't push the auto zero button.

  5186   Thu Aug 11 10:56:08 2011 Ishwita, ManuelUpdatePEMMoving Seismometers


We turned off the power of the seismometers and moved the Guralp1 close to the STS. Both are now situated below the center of the mode cleaner vacuum tube.

We oriented the X axis of the STS & Guralp1 along the X axis of the interferometer. Then we turned on the power again, but the STS channels don't give any signal. We think this is, because we didn't push the auto zero button.

 After pressing the auto-zero button (a lot of times) of the STS breakout box & aligning the bubble in the STS, we could finally get data from STS (Bacardi). So, now STS2 (Bacardi - Serial NR. 100151) is working!

  16392   Mon Oct 11 18:29:35 2021 AnchalSummaryCDSMoving forward?

The teststand has some non-trivial issue with Myrinet card (either software or hardware) which even teh experts are saying they don't remember how to fix it. CDS with mx was iin use more than a decade ago, so it is hard to find support for issues with it now and will be the same in future. We need to wrap up this test procedure one way or another now, so I have following two options moving forward:

Direct integration with main CDS and testing

  • We can just connect the c1sus2 and c1bhd FE computers to martian network directly.
  • We'll have to connect c1sus2 and c1bhd to the optical fiber subnetwork as well.
  • On booting, they would get booted through the exisitng fb1 boot server which seems to work fine for the other 5 FE machines.
  • We can update teh DHCP in chiara and reload it so that we can ssh into these FEs with host names.
  • Hopefully, presence of these computers won't tank the existing CDS even if they  themselves have any issues, as they have no shared memory with other models.
  • If this works, we can do the loop back testing of I/O chassis using the main DAQ network and move on with our upgrade.
  • If this does not work and causes any harm to exisitng CDS network, we can disconnect these computers and go back to existing CDS. Recently, our confidence on rebooting the CDS has increased with the robust performance as some legacy issues were fixed.
  • We'll however, continue to use a CDS which is no more supported by the current LIGO CDS group.

Testing CDS upgrade on teststand

  • From what I could gather, most of the hardware in I/O chassis that I could find, is still used in CDS of LLO and LHO, with their recent tests and documents using the same cards and PCBs.
  • There might be some difference in the DAQ network setup that I need to confirm.
  • I've summarised the current c1teststand hardware on this wiki page.
  • If the latest CDS is backwards compatible with our hardware, we can test the new CDS in teh c1teststand setup without disrupting our main CDS. We'll have ample help and support for this upgrade from the current LIGO CDS group.
  • We can do the loop back testing of the I/O chassis as well.
  • If the upgrade is succesfull in the teststand without many hardware changes, we can upgrade the main CDS of 40m as well, as it has the same hardware as our teststand.
  • Biggest plus point would be that out CDS will be up-to-date and we will be able to take help from CDS group if any trouble occurs.

So these are the two options we have. We should discuss which one to take in the mattermost chat or in upcoming meeting.

ELOG V3.1.3-