40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 68 of 339  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Typeup Category Subject
  15797   Wed Feb 10 11:45:59 2021 AnchalSummaryBHDSatellite Amplifier Very Low frequency noise After modifications

As suggested, I wrapped the satellite amplifier box D10028128 S2100029 in blanket and foam and took very low frequency spectrum starting from 32 mHz to 3 Hz. The results are attached along with stiched high frequency measurements from 40m/15793.

Very Low Frequency Spectrum Measurement

  • D1002818 S2100029 box was powered and covered in a foam blanket.
  • Additionally, it was covered from all sides with foam to reduce wind and temperature effects on it.
  • The rear panel DB25 connector was connected to a breakout board where pins od PDA input and GND were shorted, shorting the transimpedance circuit input.
  • The output was read from PDMon DB9 output at front panel which was converted to 4 BNC channels using breakout board.
  • Two channel noise was measured at once using D1002818_SP.yml parameter file.
  • Instrument noise at all the used input ranges were measured separately by shorting the input of the BNC cables.

Edit Wed Feb 10 15:14:13 2021 :

THIS MEASUREMENT WAS WRONG. SEE 40m/15799.

Attachment 1: FrontsideLook.jpg
FrontsideLook.jpg
Attachment 2: BacksideLook.jpg
BacksideLook.jpg
Attachment 3: InnerFoamBlanket.jpg
InnerFoamBlanket.jpg
Attachment 4: D1002818_S2100029_OutputNoiseLFSpecAfterChanges.pdf
D1002818_S2100029_OutputNoiseLFSpecAfterChanges.pdf D1002818_S2100029_OutputNoiseLFSpecAfterChanges.pdf D1002818_S2100029_OutputNoiseLFSpecAfterChanges.pdf D1002818_S2100029_OutputNoiseLFSpecAfterChanges.pdf D1002818_S2100029_OutputNoiseLFSpecAfterChanges.pdf D1002818_S2100029_OutputNoiseLFSpecAfterChanges.pdf D1002818_S2100029_OutputNoiseLFSpecAfterChanges.pdf D1002818_S2100029_OutputNoiseLFSpecAfterChanges.pdf
Attachment 5: D1002818_S2100029_InputRefCurrentNoiseLFSpecAfterChanges.pdf
D1002818_S2100029_InputRefCurrentNoiseLFSpecAfterChanges.pdf D1002818_S2100029_InputRefCurrentNoiseLFSpecAfterChanges.pdf D1002818_S2100029_InputRefCurrentNoiseLFSpecAfterChanges.pdf D1002818_S2100029_InputRefCurrentNoiseLFSpecAfterChanges.pdf D1002818_S2100029_InputRefCurrentNoiseLFSpecAfterChanges.pdf D1002818_S2100029_InputRefCurrentNoiseLFSpecAfterChanges.pdf D1002818_S2100029_InputRefCurrentNoiseLFSpecAfterChanges.pdf D1002818_S2100029_InputRefCurrentNoiseLFSpecAfterChanges.pdf
Attachment 6: AfterChangesLFSpectrum.zip
  15799   Wed Feb 10 15:07:50 2021 AnchalSummaryBHDSatellite Amplifier Output Offset measurements

I measured the output DC voltage of the satellite amplifier box at PDMon port when the PDA input was shorted and got following offsets:
 

CH Output Offset (mV) CH Output Offset (mV)
1 6 5 750
2 140 6 120
3 350 7 537
4 40 8 670

However, I think I'm making a mistake while measuring this offset as well as all the noise measurements of this satellite amplifier box so far. Since it is a current input, transimpedance circuit, the noise of the circuit should be measured with open input, not closed. Infact, by shorting the PDA input, I'm giving DC path to input bias current of AD833 transimpedance amplifier to create this huge DC offset. This won't be the case when a photodiode is connected at the input which is a capacitor and hence no DC path is allowed. So my issue of offset was bogus and past two noise measurements in 40m/15797 and 40m/15793 are wrong.

  15800   Wed Feb 10 15:25:45 2021 gautamSummaryBHDSatellite Amplifier Output Offset measurements

Why not just do this test with the dummy suspension box and CDS system? I think Rich's claim was that the intrinsic LED RIN was dominant over any drive current noise but we can at least measure the quadrature sum of the two (which is after all the relevant quantity in terms of what performance we can realize) and compare to a model.

  15801   Wed Feb 10 17:18:03 2021 KojiSummaryBHDSatellite Amplifier Output Offset measurements

Testing the satellite amp i.e.  PD driver
- To test the noise of the PD transimpedance amps:
Leave the PD input open (do not short the terminal goes to the PD)
- To test the current noise of the LED drivers: Short the output with an appropriate Rs to have the nominal current.
- To test the overall noise level together with the LED/PD pair: Connect the dummy OSEM module.

Testing the coil drivers
-
Short the output with an appropriate Rs.

  15803   Thu Feb 11 11:10:05 2021 AnchalSummaryBHDSatellite Amplifier Very Low frequency noise After modifications

Here is a proper measurement for PD transimpedance amplifier circuit in the Satellite amplifier box D1002818 S2100029. The input from rear DB25 connector was left open and measurement was taken with AC coupling with correction by the AC coupling transfer function (Zero at 0, pole at 160 mHz). I have calculated the input referred displacement noise by calculating the conversion factor of OSEM in A/m. From 40m/12470, old conversion factor of OSEM to output of sat amplifier was 1.6 V/mm. then, the transimpedance was 39.2 kOhm, so that must mean a conversion factor of 1.6e3/39.2 A/m. This I scaled with increased drive current by factor of 35/25 as mentioned in this document. The final conversion factor turned out to be around 57 mA / m. If someone finds error in this, please let me know.

There is excess noise in the low-frequency region below 5-6 Hz. If people think I should make a measurement of amplified noise to go further away from the instrument noise floor, let me know.

Attachment 1: AfterChangesSpectrum_AC.zip
Attachment 2: D1002818_S2100029_OutputNoiseSpecAfterChanges.pdf
D1002818_S2100029_OutputNoiseSpecAfterChanges.pdf D1002818_S2100029_OutputNoiseSpecAfterChanges.pdf D1002818_S2100029_OutputNoiseSpecAfterChanges.pdf D1002818_S2100029_OutputNoiseSpecAfterChanges.pdf D1002818_S2100029_OutputNoiseSpecAfterChanges.pdf D1002818_S2100029_OutputNoiseSpecAfterChanges.pdf D1002818_S2100029_OutputNoiseSpecAfterChanges.pdf D1002818_S2100029_OutputNoiseSpecAfterChanges.pdf
Attachment 3: D1002818_S2100029_InputRefCurrentNoiseSpecAfterChanges.pdf
D1002818_S2100029_InputRefCurrentNoiseSpecAfterChanges.pdf D1002818_S2100029_InputRefCurrentNoiseSpecAfterChanges.pdf D1002818_S2100029_InputRefCurrentNoiseSpecAfterChanges.pdf D1002818_S2100029_InputRefCurrentNoiseSpecAfterChanges.pdf D1002818_S2100029_InputRefCurrentNoiseSpecAfterChanges.pdf D1002818_S2100029_InputRefCurrentNoiseSpecAfterChanges.pdf D1002818_S2100029_InputRefCurrentNoiseSpecAfterChanges.pdf D1002818_S2100029_InputRefCurrentNoiseSpecAfterChanges.pdf
Attachment 4: D1002818_S2100029_InputRefDispNoiseSpecAfterChanges.pdf
D1002818_S2100029_InputRefDispNoiseSpecAfterChanges.pdf D1002818_S2100029_InputRefDispNoiseSpecAfterChanges.pdf D1002818_S2100029_InputRefDispNoiseSpecAfterChanges.pdf D1002818_S2100029_InputRefDispNoiseSpecAfterChanges.pdf D1002818_S2100029_InputRefDispNoiseSpecAfterChanges.pdf D1002818_S2100029_InputRefDispNoiseSpecAfterChanges.pdf D1002818_S2100029_InputRefDispNoiseSpecAfterChanges.pdf D1002818_S2100029_InputRefDispNoiseSpecAfterChanges.pdf
  15804   Thu Feb 11 16:58:52 2021 ranaSummaryBHDSatellite Amplifier Very Low frequency noise After modifications

I expect that a single OSEM channel can't be better than 1e-10 m/rHz above 5 Hz, so probably something wrong in the calibration. 1.6 V/mm seems right to me, so could be some place else.

  15815   Thu Feb 18 03:20:09 2021 KojiSummaryElectronicsCurrent Rack Map

For your planning:

Attachment 1: rack_plan.pdf
rack_plan.pdf
  15820   Thu Feb 18 20:24:48 2021 KojiSummaryElectronicsA bunch of electronics received

Todd provided us a bunch of electronics. I went to Downs to pick them up this afternoon and checked the contents in the box. Basically, the boxes are pretty comprehensive to produce the following chassis

  • 8 HAM-A coil driver chassis
  • 7 16bit Anti-Aliasing chassis
  • 4 18bit Anti-Imaging chassis
  • 5 16bit Anti-Imaging chassis

Some panels are missing (we cannibalized them for the WFS electronics). Otherwise, it seems that we will be able to assemble these chassis listed.
They have placed inside the lab as seen in the attached photo.


HAM-A COIL DRIVER (Req Qty 28+8)

- 8 Chassis
- 8 Front Panels
- 8 Rear Panels
- 8 HAM-A Driver PCBs
- 8 D1000217 DC Power board
- 8 D1000217 DC Power board

16bit AA (Req Qty 7)
- 7 CHASSIS
- 6 7 Front Panels (1 missing -> [Ed 2/22/2021] Asked Chub to order -> Received on 3/5/2021)
- 7 Rear Panels
- 28 AA/AI board S2001472-486, 499-511
- 7 D070100 ADC AA I/F
- 7 D1000217 DC Power board

18bit AI (Req Qty 4)
- 4 CHASSIS
- 4 Front Panels
- 4 Rear Panels
- 8 AA/AI board S2001463-67, 90-92
- 4 D1000551 18bit DAC AI I/F
- 4 D1000217 DC Power board
- bunch of excess components

16bit AI (Req Qty 5)
- 5 CHASSIS
- 4 5 Front Panels (D1101522) (1 missing -> [Ed 2/22/2021] Asked Chub to order -> Received on 3/5/2021)
- 3 5 Rear Panels (D0902784) (2 missing -> [Ed 2/22/2021] Asked Chub to order -> Received on 3/5/2021)
- 10 AA/AI board S2001468-71, 93-98
- 5 D1000217 DC Power board
- 5 D070101 DAC AI I/F

Internal Wiring Kit

[Ed 2/22/2021]
Asked Chub to order:
- Qty 12 1U Hamilton Chassis
- Qty 5 x Front/Rear Panels/Internal PCBs for D1002593 BIO I/F (The parts and connectors to be ordered separately)

  -> Front/Rear Panels received (3/5/2021)
  -> PCBs (unpopulated) received (3/5/2021)
  -> Components ordered by KA (3/7/2021)

Attachment 1: IMG_0416.jpeg
IMG_0416.jpeg
  15828   Sat Feb 20 10:01:48 2021 gautamSummaryElectronicsA bunch of electronics received

Will we also be receiving the additional 34 Satellite Amplifier PCBs?

  15830   Sat Feb 20 16:46:17 2021 KojiSummaryElectronicsA bunch of electronics received

We received currently available sets. We are supposed to receive more coil drivers and sat amps, etc. But they are not ready yet.

 

  15836   Tue Feb 23 23:12:37 2021 KojiSummarySUSSUS invacuum wiring

This is my current understanding of the in-vacuum wiring:
1. Facts

  • We have the in-air cable pinout. And Gautam recently made a prototype of D2100014 custom cable, and it worked as expected.
  • The vacuum feedthrough is a wall with the male pins on the both sides. This mirrors pinout.
  • On the in-vacuum cable stand (bracket), the cable has a female connector.

2. From the above facts, the in-vacuum cable is

  • DSUB25 female-female cable
  • There is no pinout mirroring

Accuglass has the DSUB25 F-F cable off-the-shelf. However, this cable mirrors the pinout (see the datasheet on the pdf in the following link)
https://www.accuglassproducts.com/connector-connector-extension-cable-25-way-female

3. The options are
- ask Accuglass to make a twisted version so that the pinout is not mirrored.

or
- combine Accuglass female-male cable (https://www.accuglassproducts.com/connector-connector-extension-cable-25-way-femalemale) and a gender changer (https://www.accuglassproducts.com/gender-adapter-25d)

4. The length will be routed from the feedthrough to the table via the stacks like a snake to be soft. So, it will require some extra length.

5. Also, the Accuglass cables don't have a flap and holes to fix the connector to a cable post (tower). If we use a conventional 40m-style DSUB25 post (D010194), it will be compatible with their cables. But this will not let us use a DSUB25 male connector to mate. In the future, the suspension will be upgraded and we will need an updated cable post that somehow holds the connectors without fastening the screws...

Attachment 1: SOS_OSEM_cabling.pdf
SOS_OSEM_cabling.pdf SOS_OSEM_cabling.pdf SOS_OSEM_cabling.pdf
  15851   Mon Mar 1 11:40:15 2021 Anchal, PacoSummaryIMCgetting familiar with IMC controls

[Paco, Anchal]

tl;dr: Done no harm, no lasting change.

Learn burtgooey

- Use /cvs/cds/caltech/target/c1psl/autoBurt.req as input to test snapshot "/users/anchal/BURTsnaps/controls_1210301_101310_0.snap" on rossa after not succeeding in donatella

- Browse /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/burt/autoburt/snapshots/TODAY just to know where the snapshots are living. Will store our morning work specific snapshots in local user directories (e.g. /users/anchal/BURTsnaps)

Identifying video monitors

- Switched channels around on video controls; changed C1:VID-MON7 to 16, back to 30, then C1:VID-QUAD2_4 to 16, to 18, then 20, back to 16, to 14 (which identified as PMCT), to 1 (IMC). Anyways, looks like IMC is locked.

[Yehonathan, Paco, Anchal]

Unlocking MC

- From IOO/LockMC, MC_Servo, FSS --> closed PSL shutter, reopen it and see the lock recovers almost instantly. Try MCRFL shutter, no effect. Toggled PSL shutter one more time, lock recovered.

- From IOO/LockMC, MC_Servo, toggle OPTION (after IP2A), lose and recover lock in similar fashion. MCRFL gets most of the light.

- Looked at IFO_OVERVIEW just to get familiar with the various signals.

 

  15852   Mon Mar 1 12:36:38 2021 gautamSummaryIMCgetting familiar with IMC controls

Pretty minor thing - but PMCT and PMCR were switched on Quad 2 for whatever reason. I switched them back because I prefer the way it was. I have saved snapshots of the preferred monitor config for locking but I guess I didn't freeze the arrangement of the individual quadrants within a quad. This would be more of a problem if the ITMs and ETMs are shuffled around or something like that.

Quote:
 

- Switched channels around on video controls; changed C1:VID-MON7 to 16, back to 30, then C1:VID-QUAD2_4 to 16, to 18, then 20, back to 16, to 14 (which identified as PMCT), to 1 (IMC). Anyways, looks like IMC is locked.

  15861   Thu Mar 4 10:54:12 2021 Paco, AnchalSummaryLSCPOY11 measurement, tried to lock Green Yend laser

[Paco, Anchal]

- First ran burtgooey as last time.

- Installed pyepics on base environment of donatella

ASS XARM:
- Clicked on ON in the drop down of "! More Scripts" below "! Scripts XARM" in C1ASS.adl
- Clicked on "Freeze Outputs" in the same menu after some time.
- Noticed that the sensing and output matrix of ASS on XARM and YARM look very different. The reason probably is because the YARM outputs have 4 TT1/2 P/Y dof instead of BS P/Y on the XARM. What are these TT1/2?

(Probably, unrelated but MC Unlocked and kept on trying to lock for about 10 minutes attaining the lock eventually.)

Locking XARM:
- From scripts/XARM we ran lockXarm.py from outside any conda environment using python command.
- Weirdly, we see that YARM is locked??? But XARM is not. Maybe this script is old.
- C1:LSC-TRY-OUTPUT went to around 0.75 (units unknown) while C1:LSC-TRX-OUTPUT is fluctuating around 0 only.

POY11 Spectrum measurement when YARM is locked:
- Created our own template as we couldn't find an existing one in users/Templates.
- Template file and data in Attachment 2.
- It is interesting to see most of the noise is in I quadrature with most noise in 10 to 100 Hz.
- Given the ARM is supposed to be much calmer than MC, this noise should be mostly due to the mode cleaner noise.
- We are not sure what units C1:LSC-POY11_I_ERR_DQ have, so Y scale is shown with out units.


Trying to lock Green YEND laser to YARM:
- We opened the Green Y shutter.
- We ensured that when temperature slider og green Y is moved up, the beatnote goes up.
- ARM was POY locked from previous step.
- Ran script scripts/YARM/Lock_ALS_YARM.py from outside any conda environment using python command.
- This locked green laser but unlocked the YARM POY.

Things moving around:
- Last step must have made all the suspension controls unstable.
- We see PRM and SRM QPDs moving a lot.
- Then we did burt restore to /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/burt/autoburt/today/08:19/*.snap to go back to the state before we started changing things today.

[Paco left for vaccine appointment]

- However the unstable state didn't change from restore. I see a lot of movement in ITMX/Y. PRM and BS also now. Movement in WFS1 and MC2T as well.
 - I closed PSL shutter as well to hopefully disengage any loops that are still running unstably.
 - But at this point, it seems that the optics are just oscillating and need time to come back to rest. Hopefully we din't cause too much harm today :(.
 


My guess on what happened:

  • Us using the Lock_ALS_YARM.py probably created an unstable configuration in LSC matrix and was the start of the issue.
  • On seeing PRM fluctuate so much, we thought we should just burst restore everything. But that was a hammer to the problem.
  • This hammer probably changed the suspension position values suddenly causing an impulse to all the optics. So everything started oscillating.
  • Now MC WFS is waiting for MC to lock before it stablizes the mode cleaner. But MC autolocker is unable to lock because the optics are oscillating. Chicken-egg issue.
  • I'm not aware of how manually one can restore the state now. My only known guess is that if we wait for few hours, everything should calm back enough that MC can be locked and WFS servo can be switched on.
Attachment 1: 20210304_POY11_Spectrum_YARMLocked.pdf
20210304_POY11_Spectrum_YARMLocked.pdf
Attachment 2: 20210304_POY11_Spectrum_YARMLocked.tar.gz
  15862   Thu Mar 4 11:59:25 2021 Paco, AnchalSummaryLSCWatchdog tripped, Optics damped back

Gautam came in and noted that the optics damping watchdogs had been tripped by a >5 magnitude earthquake somewhere off the coast of Australia. So, under guided assistance, we manually damped the optics using following:

  • Using the scripts/SUS/reEnableWatchdogs.py script we re-enabled all the watchdogs.
  • Everything except SRM was restored to stable state.
  • Then we clicked on SRM in SUS-> Watchdogs, disabled the Oplevs, shutdown the watchdog.
  • We changed the threshold for watchdog temporarily to 1000 to allow damping.
  • We enabled all the coil outputs  manually. Then enabled watchdog by clicking on Normal.
  • Once the SRM was damped, we shutdown the watchdog, brought back the threshold to 215 and restarted it.

Gautum also noticed that MC autolocker got turned OFF by me (Anchal), we turned it back on and MC engaged the lock again. All good, no harm done.

  15863   Thu Mar 4 15:48:26 2021 KojiSummaryPEMWatchdog tripped, Optics damped back

EQs seen on Summary pages
https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:30889/detcharsummary/day/20210304/pem/seismic_blrms/

  15865   Thu Mar 4 23:57:35 2021 KojiSummaryElectronicsInspection of the new custom dsub cables

I made the inspection of the new custom DSub cables (came from Texas).

The shelled version gives us some chance to inspect/modify the internal connections. (good)
The wires are well insulated. The conductors are wrapped with the foils and then everything is in the braid tube shield. The braid is soldered on one of the connectors. (Attachment  3/4 shows the soldering of the conductor by intentionally removing one of the insulations).

It wasn't clear that if the conductors are twisted or not (probably not).

Attachment 1: 20210304235251_IMG_0527.jpg
20210304235251_IMG_0527.jpg
Attachment 2: 20210304235302_IMG_0528.jpg
20210304235302_IMG_0528.jpg
Attachment 3: 20210304235339_IMG_0529.jpg
20210304235339_IMG_0529.jpg
Attachment 4: 20210305000050_IMG_0530.jpg
20210305000050_IMG_0530.jpg
Attachment 5: 20210305000610_IMG_0531.jpg
20210305000610_IMG_0531.jpg
Attachment 6: 20210305000615_IMG_0532.jpg
20210305000615_IMG_0532.jpg
  15866   Fri Mar 5 00:53:09 2021 KojiSummaryElectronicsA bunch of electronics received

Received additional front/rear panels. Updated the original entry and Wiki [Link]

 

  15868   Fri Mar 5 15:03:28 2021 gautamSummaryElectronicsA bunch of electronics received

The PCBs for the D1002593 BIO I/F (5pcs ea of D1001050 and D1001266) were received (from JLCPCB) today. idk what the status of the parts (digikey?) is.

Quote:

Received additional front/rear panels. Updated the original entry and Wiki [Link]

  15870   Fri Mar 5 15:32:53 2021 KojiSummaryElectronicsA bunch of electronics received

The parts will be ordered by Koji The components for the additional BIO I/F have been ordered.

  15877   Mon Mar 8 12:01:02 2021 Paco, AnchalSummarytrainingInvestigate how-to XARM locking

[Paco, Anchal]

- Started zoom stream; thanks to whoever installed it!
- Spent some time trying to understand how anything we did last thursday lead to the sensing matrix change, but still cannot figure it out. 
- Tracking back on our actions, at ~10:30 we ran burt Restore with the 08:19/.*snap and in lack of a better suspect, we blame it on that action for now.

# ARM locking??
- Reading (not running) the scripts/XARM/lockXarm.py script and try to understand the workflow. It is pretty confusing that the result was to lock Yarm last time.
- It looks like this script was a copy of lockYarm.py, and was never updated (there's a chance we ran it for the first time last thursday)
- *Is there a script to lock the Arms?* Or should we write one? To write one, we first attempt a manual procedure;
    1. No need to change RFPD InMTRX
    2. All filters inputs / outputs are enabled 
    3. Outputs from XARM and YARM in the Output matrix are already going to ETMX and ETMY
      - Maybe we can have the ARM lock engage by changing the MC directly?
    4. Change C1:SUS-MC2_POS_OFFSET from -38 to -0, and enable C1:SUS-MC2_POS_OFFSET_ON
    5. Manually scan MC2_POS_OFFSET to 250 (nothing happens), then -250, then back to -38 (WFS1 PIT and YAW changed a little, but then returned to their nominal values)
      - Or maybe we need to provide the right gain...
    6. Disabled C1:SUS-MC2_POS_OFFSET_ON (back to nominal state)
    7. Look into manually changing C1:LSC-XARM_GAIN;
      From the command line using python:
      >> import epics
      >> ch_name = 'C1:LSC-XARM_GAIN'
      >> epics.caput(ch_name, 0.155) # nominal = 0.150
      - Could be unrelated, but we noted a slow spike on C1:PSL-FSS_PCDRIVE (definitely from before we changed anything)
      - Still nothing is happening
    8. Changed the gain to 0.175, then back to 0.150, no effect... then 0.2, 0.3 ...
      - Stop and check SUS_Watchdogs (should not have changed?) and everything remains nominal
      - Revert all changes symmetrically.
      - Could we have missed enabling FM1?
      - Briefly lost MC lock, but it came back on its own (probably unrelated)

- Wrap it up for the day. In summary; no harm done to our knowledge.

  15878   Mon Mar 8 12:40:35 2021 gautamSummarytrainingInvestigate how-to XARM locking

For the arm locking, the "Restore Xarm (XARM POX)" script from the "IFO_CONFIGURE" MEDM screen should get you there (I just checked it and it works fine). It is worth getting a hang of the PDH signal chain (read what the script is doing and map it to the signal chain) so you get a feel for where there may be offsets, saturations, what the trigger logic is etc. The LSC overview screen is supposed to be pretty intuitive (if you think it can be improved, I'd love to hear it but please don't change it without documenting) and there are also the webviews of the simulink models (these are RO so feel free to click around, for the LSC the c1lsc model is the relevant one).

  15881   Mon Mar 8 19:22:56 2021 ranaSummarySUSIMC suspension characterization

Herewith, I describe an adventure

  1. Balance the OSEM input matrix using the free swinging data (see prev elogs).
  2. Balance the coil actuation by changing the digital coil gains. This should be done above 10 Hz using optical levers, or some IMC readout (like the WFS). At the end of this process, you should put a pringle vector into the column of the SUS output matrix that corresponds to one of the SUS OSC/LOCKIN screens. Verily, the pringle excitation should produce no signal in MC_F or da WFS.
  3. use the Malik doc on the single suspension to design feed-forward filters for the SUS COIL filter banks. You can get the physical parameters using the design documents on DCC / 40m wiki and then modify them a bit based on the eigenfrequencies in the free swinging data.
  4. Model the 2x2 system which includes longitudinal and pitch motion. Consider how accurate the filters must be to maintain a cross-coupling of < 3% in the 0.5-2 Hz band.
  5. Is this decoupling forsooth still maintained when you close the SUS damping loops in the model? If not, why so?
  6. Make step response measurements of the damping loops and record/plot data. Use physical units of um/urad for the y-axes. How much is the step response cross-coupling?
  7. Consider the IMC noise budget: are the low pass filters in the damping loops low-passing enough? How much damping is demasiado (considering the CMRR of the concrete slab for seismic waves)?
  8. Can we use Radhika's AAA representation to auto-tune the FF and damping filters? It would be very slick to be able to do this with one button click.

gautam: For those like me who don't know what the AAA representation is: the original algorithm is here, and Lee claims his implementation of it in IIRrational is better, see his slides.

  15884   Tue Mar 9 10:57:06 2021 Paco, AnchalSummaryIMCXARM lock and POX spectra

[Paco, Anchal]

- Upon arrival, MC is locked, and we can see light in MON5 (PRM) (usually dark).

# XARM locking
- Read through "XARM POX" script (path='/cvs/cds/rtcds/caltech/c1/burt/c1configure/c1configureXarm')
- Before running the script, we noticed the PRM watchdog is down, so we manually repeat the procedure from last time, but see more swinging even though the watchdog is active.
- Run a reEnablePRMWatchdogs.py script (a copy of reEnableWatchdogs.py with optics=['PRM']), which had the same effect. 
- We manually disable the watchdog to recover the state we first encountered, and wait for the beam in MON5 to come to rest.
    - The question is; is it fine to lock Xarm with PRM watchdog down?
    - To investigate this, we look at the effect of the offset on the unwatchdog-PRM.
    - Manually change 'PRM_POS_OFFSET' to 200, and -800 (which is the value used in the script) with no effect on the PRM swinging.
- Moving on, run IFO > CONFIGURE > ! (X Arm) > RESTORE XARM (XARM POX), and ... success.

# MC-POX noise spectra
- With XARM locked, open diaggui and take spectra for C1:LSC-POX11_I_ERR_DQ, C1:LSC-POX11_Q_ERR_DQ, C1:IOO-MC_F_DQ
- Lost XARM lock while we were figuring out unit conversions...
    - Assuming 2.631e-13 m/counts (6941) and using 37.79 m (arm length), 1064.1 nm wavelength, we get a calibration factor of 2.631e-13 * c / (2*L*lambda) ~ 0.9809 Hz/count 
    - (FAQ?, how to find/compute/measure the correct calibration factors?)
- Relock XARM, retake spectra. Attachment 1 has plots for POX11_I/Q_ERR_DQ spectrum (cts/rtHz, we couldn't find relevant calibration) and MC_F_DQ in (Hz/rtHz from referring to 15576, we couldn't get the units to show on y scale.)

# MC-POY noise spectra (attempt)
- Now, run IFO > CONFIGURE > ! (Y Arm) > RESTORE YARM (YARM POY), and XARM locks (why?)
    - Could PRM watchdog being down be the cause? 
- Try C1ASS > (YARM) ! More Scripts > ON, and looked at YARM PIT/YAW striptool. 
- C1ASS > (YARM) ! Freeze Outputs, then OFF
- Go back to IFO > CONFIGURE > ! (Y Arm) > Align YARM  (ASS ON: Unfreeze), try running this then Freeze, then OFF Zero Outputs.
- Try RESTORE YARM (POY) again, still not working.
- Try RESTORE YARM ALS, then try again after opening the shutter, but also fail to lock AUX.
    - Is the PRM WD behind some evil misalignment? Will move forward with XARM bc it is happy.

# ARM locking
- Attempted the IFO > CONFIGURE > ! (X Arm) > RESTORE Xarm (XARM ALS) but green failed to lock and we lost XARM lock.
- Try to recover XARM lock... success. It's nice to have a (repeatable) checkpoint.
- Attempt YARM lock. Not successful. It just seems like the lock Triggers are not raised (misalignment?)
    - From C1SUS_ETMY, try changing the bias "C1:SUS-ETMY_YAW_OFFSET" manually to reduce the OPLEV_YERROR. Changed from -47 to -57.
    - Retry YARM lock script... no luck
    - From C1SUS_PRM, try changing the bias "C1:SUS-PRM_PIT_OFFSET" manually to reduce OPLEV errors. Changed from 34 to 22 with no effect, then realized the coil outputs are disabled because the WD is down...
    - So we do the following BIAS changes "C1:SUS-PRM_PIT_OFFSET" = 34 > 770 and "C1:SUS-PRM_YAW_OFFSET" = 134 > -6
    - Enable all Coil Outputs, turn WD to Normal, turn OPLEVs ON, (this time the beam does not swing like crazy).
    - Fine tune BIASes "C1:SUS-PRM_PIT_OFFSET" = 770 > 805  and "C1:SUS-PRM_YAW_OFFSET" = -6 > 65
        - Saw YARM locking briefly, then unlocking, but we stopped once the OPLEV_ERRs no longer overloaded (from magnitudes > 50 to ~ 40).
- Retry YARM lock... no luck
    - From C1SUS_ETMY, try changing the bias "C1:SUS-ETMY_PIT_OFFSET" from -1 to 6. 

Stop for the day. Leave XARM locked, MC locked. 

Attachment 1: 20210309_POX11_Spec_XARMLocked.pdf
20210309_POX11_Spec_XARMLocked.pdf
Attachment 2: 20210309_XARM_Locked.tar.gz
  15885   Tue Mar 9 12:41:29 2021 KojiSummaryElectronicsInvestigation on the invacuum Dsub cables

I believe the aLIGO style invac dsub cables and the conventional 40m ones are incompatible.
While the aLIGO spec is that Pin1 (in-vac) is connected to the shield, Pin13 (in-vac) is the one for the conventional cable. I still have to check if Pin13 is really connected to the shield, but we had trouble before for the IO TTs https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8081/40m/7864.
(At least one of the existing end cables did not show this Pin13-chamber connection. However, the cables OMC/IMC chambers indicated this feature. So the cables are already inhomogenious.)

- Which way do we want to go? Our electronics are updated with aLIGO spec (New Sat amp, OMC electronics, etc), so I think we should start making the shift to the aLIGO spec.

- Attachment Top: The new coil drivers can be used together with the old cables using a custom DB25 cable (in-air).

- Attachment Mid: The combination of the conventional OSEM wiring and the aLIGO in-vac cable cause the conflict. The pin1 which is connected to the shield is used for the PD bias.

- Attachment Bottom: This can be solved by shifting the OSEMs by one pin.

Notes:
o The aLIGO cables have 12 twisted pair wires, but paired signals do not share a twisted pair.
   --- No. This can't be solved by rotating the connectors.
o This modification should be done only for the new suspension.
   --- In principle, we can apply this change to any SOSs. However, this action involves the vent. We probably want to install the new electronics for the existing suspensions before the vent.
o ^- This means that we have to have two types of custom DB25 in-air cables.
   --- Each cable should handle "Shield wire" from the sat amp correctly.

Related Links:

Active TT Pin Issue
https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8081/40m/7863
and the thread

Hacky solution
https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8081/40m/7869

Photo
https://photos.google.com/u/1/album/AF1QipOEDi7iBdS4EHcpM7GBbv9l6FiJx-Tkt1I2eSFA
Active TT Pin Swapping (December 21, 2012)

TT Wiring Diagram (Wiki)
https://wiki-40m.ligo.caltech.edu/Suspensions/Tip_Tilts_IO

Attachment 1: SOS_OSEM_cabling.pdf
SOS_OSEM_cabling.pdf
  15887   Tue Mar 9 14:37:26 2021 gautamSummarySUSPRM suspension

The PRM got tripped ~5AM this morning. The cause is unclear - the seismometer reports elevated activity ~10 minutes before the ringdown starts (as judged using the OSEMs). But the other optics didn't seem to receive as much of an impulse (I only show the BS sensors here as it sits on the same stack as the PRM). Anyway it certainly wasn't me trying to make life difficult for the morning team.

I was able to restore the damping with reEnableWatchdogs.py. I am now running some suspension tests on the PRM by letting it swing freely so please let that finish. I plan to attempt some locking this evening.

Quote:

[Paco, Anchal]

- Upon arrival, MC is locked, and we can see light in MON5 (PRM) (usually dark).

Attachment 1: PRMtrip.png
PRMtrip.png
  15889   Tue Mar 9 15:22:56 2021 KojiSummarySUSPRM suspension

I just saw the PRM watchdog tripped at ~15:20 local (23:20UTC). I restored the PRM but I saw only the side watchdog tripped.
Again at 15:27

17:55 I found the PRM was oscillating while the watchdogs were not tripped. I turned off the OPLEV servos and this made the PRM calmed down. But I didn't turn on the OPLEVs for the past two trips. How were the OPLEVs turned on???

Ah, I'm sorry, I missed the line that Gautam was running the free-swinging test on the PRM.
The two kicks starting from 23:08:50 and from 23:26:31 were spoiled. Did it make the measurement completely waisted?

 

  15893   Wed Mar 10 11:46:22 2021 Paco, AnchalSummaryIMCIMC free swinging prep

[Paco, Anchal]

# Initial State
- MC is locked. The PRM monitor shows some oscillations.
- POP monitor shows light flashing once in a while.
- AS monitor shows one beam along with some other flashing beam around it.
- PRM Watchdog is tripped and shutdown. Everything else is normal except for overload on SRM OpLevs.
- Donatella got a mouse promotion

# Reenabling PRM watchdog:
- The custom reEnablePRMWatchdog.py has been deleted.
- Tried enabling the coil outputs manually and switching watchdog to Normal.
- Again saw large fluctuations like yesterday.
- Probably still the same issue of how current calculated actuations to the coils is in range -600 to -900 and gives and impulse to the optics when suddenly turned on.
- Waiting for PRM to damp down a little.
- Today we plan to change the position bias on PRM C1:SUS-PRM_POS_OFFSET instead of changing biases in pitch and yaw.
- Changing C1:SUS-PRM_POS_OFFSET from 0 to +/- 100 without enabling the coils, it seems upper and lower coils are anticorrelated with just changing the position. So going back to changing pitch.
- Changing C1:SUS-PRM_PIT_OFFSET from 0 -> 780. Switched on watchdog to normal.
- PRM damped down. OpLev errors are also within range.
- Enabled both OpLevs.

# Try locking Y-Arm
- IFO>CONFIGURE>YARM>Restore YARM (POY) using Donatella. See a bunch of python error messages in the call complaining about unable to find some python 2 files. Closed it with Ctrl-C after a stuck state.
- Tried running it on Pianosa, the script ran without error but Y-Arm didn't lock.

# Try locking X-Arm
- IFO>CONFIGURE>XARM>Restore XARM (POX) on Donatella. Again a bunch of OSError messages. Donatella is not configured properly to run scripts.
- Tried running it on Piasnosa, the script ran without error but X-Arm didn't lock.
- This might mean that both arms are misaligned or the BS/PRM is misaligned.
- Moving around C1:SUS-PRM_PIT_OFFSET and C1:SUS-PRM_YAW_OFFSET in order to see if the transmitted light is misalgined. Both arms are set to acquire lock if possible. No luck.

# Hypothesis: The Arm cavity is not aligned within itself (ITM-ETM)
- Will try to lock X-Arm with green light while tuning the ETMX. Hopefully the BS and ITM are aligned so that once we align ETMX to get a green lock, the IR will also lock from the other side.
- Running IFO>CONFIGURE>XARM>Restore XARM (ALS) on Pianosa. No lock, moving forward with tunning ETMX pitch and yaw offsets. Nothing changed. Brought back to same values.

[Rana joined, Anchal moved to Rossa from Pianosa]

# Moving on to IMC suspensions characterization:
- Closed the PSL shutter, to our suprise, the MC was still locked. We thought this would take away any light from IMC but it doesn't. Maybe the IFO Overview needs to show the schematic in a way where this doesn't happen: "No light from any laser entering the MC but it still is locked with a resonating field inside."
- Shutting IMCR shutter (hoping that would unlock the IMC), still nothing happend.
- Tried shutting PSL shutter from Rossa, nothing happened to MC lock still.
- Closed shutter IOO>Lock MC> Close PSL and this unlocked the IMC. Found out that this shutter channel is C1:PSL-PSL_ShutterRqst while the one from the sitemap>Shutter>PSL changes C1:AUX-PSL_ShutterRqst. Some clarification on these medm screens would be nice.
- Disabled the MC autolocked from IOO>Lock MC screen (C1:IOO-MC_LOCK_ENABLE).
- Checked the scripts/SUS/freeswing.py to understand how kick is delivered and optic is left to swing freely.
- Next, we are looking at the C1SUS_MC1 screen to understand what channels to read during data acquisition.
- In sensor matrix, we see INMON for each sensor which is probably raw counts data from the OSEMs. Rana mentioned that OSEM data comes out in units of microns. These are C1:SUS-MC1_ULSEN_OUTPUT (and so on for UR, LL, LR, SD).

- In prep for finishing, recovered Autolocker by first opening the PSL mechanical shutter, then re-enabling the Autolocker. The IMC lock didn't immediately recover, and we saw some fuzz on the PSL-FSS_FAST trace, so we closed the shutter again, waited a minute, then re-opened it and MC caught its lock.
 

  15895   Wed Mar 10 15:00:16 2021 gautamSummaryIMCIMC free swinging prep

Did you fix this issue? It is helpful to post a screenshot of the offending MEDM screen in addition to witticisms. The elog says "sitemap>Shutter>PSL" but I can't find PSL under the dropdown for shutters from Sitemap.

# Moving on to IMC suspensions characterization:
- Closed the PSL shutter, to our suprise, the MC was still locked. We thought this would take away any light from IMC but it doesn't. Maybe the IFO Overview needs to show the schematic in a way where this doesn't happen: "No light from any laser entering the MC but it still is locked with a resonating field inside."

  15896   Wed Mar 10 15:29:58 2021 AnchalSummaryIMCIMC free swinging prep

No we didn't fix the issue. We'll post some screenshots tomorrow. From "sitemap>Shutter>PSL" we meant in Shutter medm window, we clicked on the PSL close button. As pointed later, it switches C1:AUX-PSL_ShutterRqst while the PSL shutter switch on Lock MC medm screen switches C1:PSL-PSL_ShutterRqst. We were not sure if this was intentional, so we didn't change anything.

  15897   Wed Mar 10 15:35:25 2021 Paco, AnchalSummaryIMCIMC free swinging experiment set to trigger at 5:00 am

A tmux session named "MCFreeSwingTest" will run on Rossa. This session is running script scripts/SUS/freeSwingMC.py (also attached) which will trigger at 5:00 am to impart 30000 counts kick to MC1, MC2, and MC3 after shutting PSL shutter and disabling the MC autolocker. It will let them freely swing for 1050 sec and will repeat 15 times to allow some averaging. In the end, it will undo all the changes it does and switches on autolocker on IMC. The script is set to restore any changes in case it fails at any point or a Ctrl-C is detected.

Attachment 1: freeSwingMC.py.zip
  15901   Thu Mar 11 02:10:06 2021 KojiSummaryBHDBHD Platform vertical dimentions

Stephen and I discussed the nominal heights of the BHD platform components.

  • The beam height from the stack is 5.5"
  • The platform height is 1.5" and the thickness of 0.4", according to the VOPO suspension, which we want to be compatible with.
  • Thus the beam height on the BHD platform is 4".
  • The VOPO platform has a minimum 0.1" gap from the installation surface when it is suspended.
  • When the BHD platform is fixed on the table, we'll use positioners that are fixed on the stack table. Then the BHD platform is fixed on the positioner rather than fixing the entire platform on the stack. This leaves us the option to suspend the platform in the future. The number of the positioners is TBD.
  • Looking at the head size for 1/4-20 socket head screws, It'd be nice to have the thickness of 0.5" for the positioners. This makes the thin part of the stiffener to be 0.6" in thickness.
     
  • The numbers are nominal for the initial design and subject to the change along with FEA simulations to determine the resonant frequency of the body modes.
Attachment 1: BHD_Platform_Vertical_Dimentions.pdf
BHD_Platform_Vertical_Dimentions.pdf
  15907   Fri Mar 12 03:08:23 2021 KojiSummarySUSCoil Rs & Ls for PRM/BS/SRM

Summary

Per Gautam's request, I've checked the coil resistances and inductances.

  • PRM/BS/SRM coils were tested.
  • All the PRM coils look well-matched in terms of the inductance. Also, I didn't find a significant difference from BS coils.
  • Pin 1 of the feedthru connectors is shorted to the vacuum chamber.
  • A discovery was that: The SRM DSUB pinouts are mirrored compared to the other suspensions.

Method

A DSUB25 breakout was directly connected to the flange (Attachment 1).
The impedance meter was nulled every time the measurement range and type (R or L) were changed.

Result

Feedthru connector: PRM1
Pin1 - flange: R = 0.8Ω
Pin11-23 / R = 1.79Ω / L=3.21mH
Pin 7-19 / R = 1.82Ω / L=3.22mH
Pin 3-15 / R = 1.71Ω / L=3.20mH

Feedthru connector: BS1
Pin1 - flange: R = 0.5Ω
Pin11-23 / R = 1.78Ω / L=3.26mH
Pin 7-19 / R = 1.63Ω / L=3.30mH
Pin 3-15 / R = 1.61Ω / L=3.29mH

Feedthru connector: SRM1
Pin1 - flange: R = 0.5Ω

Pin11-24 / R = 18.1Ω / L=3.22mH
Pin 7-20 / R = 18.8Ω / L=3.25mH
Pin 3-16 / R = 20.3Ω / L=3.25mH

Feedthru connector: PRM2
Pin1 - flange: R = 0.6Ω
Pin11-23 / R = 1.82Ω / L=3.20mH
Pin 7-19 / R = 1.53Ω / L=3.20mH
Pin 3-15 / R = N/A

Feedthru connector: BS2
Pin1 - flange: R = 0.6Ω
Pin11-23 / R = 1.46Ω / L=3.27mH
Pin 7-19 / R = 1.54Ω / L=3.24mH
Pin 3-15 / R = N/A

Feedthru connector: SRM2
Pin1 - flange: R = 0.7Ω
Pin11-24 / R = N/A

Pin 7-20 / R = 18.5Ω / L=3.21mH
Pin 3-16 / R = 19.1Ω / L=3.25mH

Observation

The SRM pinouts seem mirrored compared to the others. In fact, these two connectors are equipped with mirror cables (although they are unshielded ribbons) (Attachment 2).

The SRM sus is located on the ITMY table. There is a long in vacuum DSUB25 cable between the ITMY and BS tables. I suspect that the cable mirrors the pinout and this needs to be corrected by the in-air mirror cables.

I went around the lab and did not find any other suspensions which have the mirror cable.

WIth the BHD configuration, we will move the feedthru for the SRM to the one on the ITMY chamber. So I believe the situation is going to be improved.

 

Attachment 1: P_20210311_224651.jpg
P_20210311_224651.jpg
Attachment 2: P_20210311_225359.jpg
P_20210311_225359.jpg
  15913   Fri Mar 12 12:32:54 2021 gautamSummarySUSCoil Rs & Ls for PRM/BS/SRM

For consistency, today, I measured both the BS and PRM actuator balancing using the same technique and don't find as serious an imbalance for the BS as in the PRM case. The Oplev laser source is common for both BS and PRM, but the QPDs are of course distinct.

BTW, I thought the expected resistance of the coil windings of the OSEM is ~13 ohms, while the BS/PRM OSEMs report ~1-2 ohms. Is this okay?

Quote:
 
  • All the PRM coils look well-matched in terms of the inductance. Also, I didn't find a significant difference from BS coils.
Attachment 1: BS_actuator.pdf
BS_actuator.pdf
Attachment 2: PRMact.pdf
PRMact.pdf
  15914   Fri Mar 12 13:01:43 2021 ranaSummarySUSCoil Rs & Ls for PRM/BS/SRM

ugh. sounds bad - maybe a short. I suggest measuring the inductance; thats usually a clearer measurement of coil health

  15915   Fri Mar 12 13:48:53 2021 gautamSummarySUSCoil Rs & Ls for PRM/BS/SRM

I didn't repeat Koji's measurement, but he reports the expected ~3.2mH per coil on all the BS and PRM coils.

Quote:

ugh. sounds bad - maybe a short. I suggest measuring the inductance; thats usually a clearer measurement of coil health

  15916   Fri Mar 12 18:10:01 2021 AnchalSummaryComputer Scripts / ProgramsInstalled cds-workstation on allegra

allegra had fresh Debian 10 installed on it already. I installed cds-workstation packages (with the help of Erik von Reis). I checked that command line caget, caput etc were working. I'll see if medm and other things are working next time we visit the lab.

  15919   Mon Mar 15 08:55:45 2021 Paco, AnchalSummarytraining 

[Paco, Anchal]

  • Found IMC locked upon arrival.
  • Since "allegra" was set up as an additional workstation, we tried using it but discovered the monitor ist kaput. For the sake of debugging, we tested VGA and DVI inputs and even the monitor lying around (also labeled "allegra") with no luck. So <ssh> it is for now.

IMC Input sensing matrix

  • Rana joined us and asked us to use Rossa for now so that we can sit socially distantly.
  • Attaching some intermediate results on our analysis as pdf and zip file containing all the codes we used.
  • We used channels C1:SUS-MC1_USSEN_OUTPUT  (16 Hz channels) and so on which might not be the correct way to do it as Rana pointed out today, we should have used channels like C1:SUS-MC1_SENSOR_UL etc.
  • During the input matrix calculation, we used the method of TF estimate (as mentioned in 4886) to calculate the sensor matrix and inverted it and normalized all rows with the maximum absolute value element (we tried few other ways of normalization with no better results either).
  • We found the peak frequencies by fitting lorentzian to the sensor data rotated by the current input matrix in the system. We also tried doing this directly on the sensor data (UL for POS, UR for PIT, LR for YAW and SD for SIDE as this seemed to be the case in the old matlab codes) but with no different results.
  • The fitted peak frequencies, Q and amplitude values are in fittedPeakFreqs.yml in the attached zip.
Attachment 1: IMC_InputMatrixDiagonalization.pdf
IMC_InputMatrixDiagonalization.pdf IMC_InputMatrixDiagonalization.pdf IMC_InputMatrixDiagonalization.pdf
Attachment 2: inputMatrixCalculationMC.tar
Attachment 3: freeSwingMC.py.tar
Attachment 4: SUSfreeswing_1299514263.txt.tar
  15950   Sun Mar 21 19:31:29 2021 ranaSummaryElectronicsRTL-SDR for monitoring RF noise / interference

When we're debugging our RF system, either due to weird demod phases, or low SNR, or non-stationary noise in the PDH signals, its good to have some baseline measurements of the RF levels in the lab.

I got this cheap USB dongle (RTL-SDR.COM) that seems to be capable of this and also has a bunch of open source code on GitHub to support it. It also comes mith an SMA coax and rabbit ear antenna with a flexi-tripod.

I used CubicSDR, which has free .dmg downloads for MacOS.It would be cool to have a student write some python code (perhaps starting with RTL_Power) for this to let us hop between the diffierent RF frequencies we care about and monitor the power in a small band around them.

  15966   Thu Mar 25 16:02:15 2021 gautamSummarySUSRepeated measurement of coil Rs & Ls for PRM/BS

Method

Since I am mainly concerned with the actuator part of the OSEM, I chose to do this measurement at the output cables for the coil drivers in 1X4. See schematic for pin-mapping. There are several parts in between my measurement point and the actual coils but I figured it's a good check to figure out if measurements made from this point yield sensible results. The slow bias voltages were ramped off under damping (to avoid un-necessarily kicking the optics when disconnecting cables) and then the suspension watchdogs were shutdown for the duration of the measurement.

I used an LCR meter to measure R and L - as prescribed by Koji, the probe leads were shorted and the readback nulled to return 0. Then for R, I corroborated the values measured with the LCR meter against a Fluke DMM (they turned out to be within +/- 0.5 ohms of the value reported by the BK Precision LCR meter which I think is reasonable).

Result

                   PRM
Pin1-9 (UL)   / R = 30.6Ω / L=3.23mH  
Pin2-10 (LL)  / R = 30.3Ω / L=3.24mH
Pin3-11 (UR) / R = 30.6Ω / L=3.25mH
Pin4-12 (LR) / R = 31.8Ω / L=3.22mH
Pin5-13 (SD) / R = 30.0Ω / L=3.25mH

                       BS
Pin1-9 (UL)   / R = 31.7Ω / L=3.29mH
Pin2-10 (LL)  / R = 29.7Ω / L=3.26mH
Pin3-11 (UR) / R = 29.8Ω / L=3.30mH
Pin4-12 (LR) / R = 29.7Ω / L=3.27mH
Pin5-13 (SD) / R = 29.0Ω / L=3.24mH

Conclusions

On the basis of this measurement, I see no problems with the OSEM actuators - the wire resistances to the flange seem comparable to the nominal OSEM resistance of ~13 ohms, but this isn't outrageous I guess. But I don't know how to reconcile this with Koji's measurement at the flange - I guess I can't definitively rule out the wire resistance being 30 ohms and the OSEMs being ~1 ohm as Koji measured. How to reconcile this with the funky PRM actuator measurement? Possibilities, the way I see it, are:

  1. Magnets on PRM are weird in some way. Note that the free-swinging measurement for the PRM showed some unexpected features.
  2. The imbalance is coming from one of the drive chain - could be a busted current buffer for example.
  3. The measurement technique was wrong.
  15971   Sun Mar 28 14:16:25 2021 AnchalSummarySUSMC3 new Input Matrix not providing stable loop

Rana asked us to write out here the new MC3 input matrix we have calculated along with the old one. The new matrix is not working out for us as it can't keep the suspension loops stable.


Matrices:

Old (Current) MC3 Input Matrix (C1:SUS-MC3_INMATRIX_ii_jj)
  UL UR LR LL SD
POS 0.288 0.284 0.212 0.216 -0.406
PIT 2.658 0.041 -3.291 -0.674 -0.721
YAW 0.605 -2.714 0.014 3.332 0.666
SIDE 0.166 0.197 0.105 0.074 1

 

New MC3 Input Matrix (C1:SUS-MC3_INMATRIX_ii_jj)
  UL UR LR LL SIDE
POS 0.144 0.182 0.124 0.086 0.586
PIT 2.328 0.059 -3.399 -1.13 -0.786
YAW 0.552 -2.591 0.263 3.406 0.768
SIDE -0.287 -0.304 -0.282 -0.265 0.871

Note that the new matrix has been made so that the norm of each row is the same as the norm of the corresponding row in the old (current) input matrix.


Peak finding results:

  Guess Values Fittted Values
PIT Resonant Freq. (Hz) 0.771 0.771
YAW Resonant Freq. (Hz) 0.841 0.846
POS Resonant Freq. (Hz) 0.969 0.969
SIDE Resonant Freq. (Hz) 0.978 0.978
PIT Resonance Q 600 345
YAW Resonance Q 230 120
POS Resonance Q 200 436
SIDE Resonance Q 460 282
PIT Resonance Amplitude 500 750
YAW Resonance Amplitude 1500 3872
POS Resonance Amplitude 3800 363
SIDE Resonance Amplitude 170 282

Note: The highest peak on SIDE OSEM sensor free swinging data as well as the DOF basis data created using existing input matrix, comes at 0.978 Hz. Ideally, this should be 1 Hz and in MC1 and MC2, we see the resonance on SIDE DOF to show near 0.99 Hz. If you look closely, there is a small peak present near 1 Hz actually, but it is too small to be the SIDE DOF eigenfrequency. And if it is indeed that, then which of the other 4 peaks is not the DOF we are interested in?

On possiblity is that the POS eigenfrequency which is supposed to be around 0.97 Hz is split off in two peaks due to some sideways vibration and hence these peaks get strongly coupled to SIDE OSEM as well.

P.S. I think something is wrong and out limited experience is not enough to pinpoint it. I can show up more data or plots if required to understand this issue. Let us know what you all think.

Attachment 1: MC3_Input_Matrix_Diagonalization.pdf
MC3_Input_Matrix_Diagonalization.pdf
  15973   Mon Mar 29 17:07:17 2021 gautamSummarySUSMC3 new Input Matrix not providing stable loop

I suppose you've tried doing the submatrix approach, where SIDE is excluded for the face DoFs? Does that give a better matrix? To me, it's unreasonable that the side OSEM senses POS motion more than any single face OSEM, as your matrix suggests (indeed the old one does too). If/when we vent, we can try positioning the OSEMs better.

  15981   Wed Mar 31 03:56:37 2021 KojiSummaryElectronicsA bunch of electronics received

We have received 9x 18bit DAC adapter boards (D1000654)

Attachment 1: P_20210331_013257.jpg
P_20210331_013257.jpg
Attachment 2: P_20210331_014020.jpg
P_20210331_014020.jpg
  15989   Thu Apr 1 23:55:33 2021 KojiSummaryGeneralHEPA AC cord replacement

I think the PSL HEPA (both 2 units) are not running. The switches were on. And the variac was changed from 60% to 0%~100% a few times but no success.
I have no troubleshooting power anymore today. The main HEPA switch was turned off.

  15992   Fri Apr 2 15:17:23 2021 gautamSummaryGeneralHEPA AC cord replacement

From the last failure, I had ordered 2 extra capacitors (they are placed on top of the PSL enclosure above where the capacitors would normally be installed). If the new capacitors lasted < 6months, may be symptomatic of some deeper problem though, e.g. the HEPA fans themselves need replacing. We don't really have a good diagnostic of when the failure happened I guess as we don't have any channel recording the state of the fans.

Quote:

I think the PSL HEPA (both 2 units) are not running. The switches were on. And the variac was changed from 60% to 0%~100% a few times but no success.
I have no troubleshooting power anymore today. The main HEPA switch was turned off.

  16002   Tue Apr 6 21:17:04 2021 KojiSummaryGeneralPSL HEPA investigation

- Last week we found both of the PSL HEPA units were not running.

- I replaced the capacitor of the north unit, but it did not solve the issue. (Note: I reverted the cap back later)
- It was found that the fans ran if the variac was removed from the chain.
- But I'm not certain that we can run the fans in this configuration with no attendance considering fire hazard.

@3AM: UPON LEAVING the lab, I turned off the HEPA. The AC cable was not warm, so it's probably OK, but we should wait for the continuous operation until we replace the scorched AC cable.


The capacitor replacement was not successful. So, the voltages on the fan were checked more carefully. The fan has the three switch states (HIGH/OFF/LOW). If there is no load (SW: OFF), the variac out was as expected. When the load was LOW or HIGH, it looked as if the motor is shorted (i.e. no voltage difference between two wires).

I thought the motors may have been shorted. But if the load resistance was measured with the fluke meter, it showed some resistance

- North Unit: SW LOW 4.6Ohm / HIGH 6.0Ohm
- South Unit: SW LOW 6.0Ohm / HIGH 4.6Ohm (I believe the internal connection is incorrect here)

I believed the motors are alive! Then the fans were switched on with the variac removed... they ran. So I set the switch LOW for the north unit and HIGH for the south unit.

Then I inspected the variac:

  • The AC output has some liquid leaking (oil?) (Attachment 1)
  • The AC plug on the variac out has a scorch mark (Attachments 2/3)

So, this scorched AC plug/cable connected directly to the AC right now. I'm not 100% confident about the safety of this configuration.
Also I am not sure what was wrong with the system.

  • Has the variac failed first? Because of the heat? I believe that the HEPA was running @30% most of the time. Maybe the damage was already there at the failure in Nov 2020?
  • Or has the motor stopped at some point and this made the variac failed?
  • Was the cable bad and the heat made the variac failed (then the problem is still there).

So, while I'm in the lab today, I'll keep the HEPA running, but upon my taking off, I'll turn it off. We'll discuss what to do in the meeting tomorrow.

 

Attachment 1: 20210406211741_IMG_0554.jpeg
20210406211741_IMG_0554.jpeg
Attachment 2: 20210406211840_IMG_0555.jpeg
20210406211840_IMG_0555.jpeg
Attachment 3: 20210406211850_IMG_0556.jpeg
20210406211850_IMG_0556.jpeg
  16016   Mon Apr 12 08:32:54 2021 Anchal, PacoSummaryPSLPMC unlocked at 2pm on Sunday; ~ Restored

PMC lost lock between 21:00 and 22:00 UTC on April 11th as seen in the summary pages:

https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:30889/detcharsummary/day/20210411/psl/#gallery-4

That's between 2pm and 3pm on Sunday for us. We're not sure what caused it. We will attempt to lock it back.


Mon Apr 12 08:45:53 2021: we used milind's python script in scripts/PSL/PMC/pmc_autolocker.py. It locked the PMC in about a minute and then IMC catched lock succefully.

However, the PMC transmission PD shows voltage level of about 0.7V. On medm, it is set to turn red below 0.7 and yellow above. In Summary pages in the past, it seems like this value has typically been around 0.74V. Simil;arly, the reflection RFPD DC voltage is around 0.063 V right now while it is supposed to be around 0.04 nominally So the lock is not so healthy.

We tried running this script and the bashscript version too (scripts/PSL/PMC/PMCAutolocker) a couple of times but it was unable to acquire lock.

Then we manually tried to acquire lock by varying the C1:PSL-PMC_RAMP (with gain set to -10 dB) and resetting PZT position by toggling Blank. After a few attempts, we were able to find the lock with transmission PD value around 0.73V and reflection RFPD value around 0.043. PZT control voltage was 30V and shown in red in medm to begin with. So we adjusted the output ramp again to let it come to above 50V (or maybe it just drifted to that value by itself as we could se some slow drift too). At Mon Apr 12 09:50:12 2021 , the PZT voltage was around 58V and shown in green.

We assume this is a good enough point for PMC lock and move on.

  16019   Mon Apr 12 18:34:26 2021 YehonathanSummaryPSLPMC unlocked at 2pm on Sunday; ~ Restored

PMC lost lock again at around 16:00 April 12. I was able to lock it again but the transmission is only 0.6 now and REFL is 0.14.

Rana came in and realigned the PMC stirring mirrors. Now the transmission is 0.757V, and the REFL is 0.03V.

I noticed that the PZT was around 250V. Given that the PMC got unlocked at 16:00, which is around the peak temperature time in the lab (lagging behind the outside weather), due to the PZT voltage going down to 0V, I figured that the PZT voltage would go up during the night when the lab gets cold and therefore will likely go out of range again.

I found a different working point at 150V and relocked the PMC.

 

  16060   Wed Apr 21 10:59:07 2021 ranaSummaryCamerasnote on new GigE cam @ 1064

Note from Stephen on more sensitive Baslers.

  16070   Thu Apr 22 01:42:38 2021 KojiSummaryElectronicsHV Supply Comparison

New HV power supply from Company 'M' has been delivered. So I decided to compare the noise levels of some HV supplies in the lab. There are three models from companies 'H', 'K', and 'M'.

The noise level was measured with SR785 via Gautam's HP filter with protection diodes.

'H' is a fully analog HV supply and the indicator is analog meters.
'K' is a model with a LCD digital display and numerical keypad.
'M' is a model with a knob and digital displays.

All the models showed that the noise levels increased with increased output voltage.

Among these three, H showed the lowest noise. (<~1uV/rtHz@10Hz and <50nV/rtHz@100Hz) (Attachment 1)

K is quite noisy all over the measured freq range and the level was <50uV/rtHz. Also the PSD has lots of 5Hz harmonics. (Attachment 2)

M has a modest noise level (<~30uV/rtHz@10Hz and <1uV/rtHz@100Hz)except for the noticeable line noise (ripple). (Attachment 3)

The comparison of the three models at 300V is Attachment 4. The other day Gautam and I checked the power spectrum of the HV coil driver with KEPCO and the output noise level of the coil driver was acceptable. So I expect that we will be able to use the HV supply from Company M. Next step is to check the HV driver noise with the model by M used as the supply.

Attachment 1: HV_Supply_PSD_H.pdf
HV_Supply_PSD_H.pdf
Attachment 2: HV_Supply_PSD_K.pdf
HV_Supply_PSD_K.pdf
Attachment 3: HV_Supply_PSD_M.pdf
HV_Supply_PSD_M.pdf
Attachment 4: HV_Supply_PSD.pdf
HV_Supply_PSD.pdf
ELOG V3.1.3-