The procedure is that the optic is kicked to excite it, and allowed to ring down for ~1ksec, with damping turned off. The procedure is repeated 15 times for some averaging.
Attachment #1 - sensor spectra from yesterday.
Attachment #2 - peaks using the naive diagonalization matrix from yesterday.
Attachment #3 - Data from ~1 year ago.
The y-axis in all plots is labelled as "cts/rtHz" but these are the DQed channels, which come after a "cts2um" CDS filter - so if that filter is accurate, them the y-axes may be read as um/rtHz.
I wonder if the September 2020 earthquake somehow damaged the PRM suspension, as this experiment would suggest that the problem is not only with the actuation. The data was gathered with the neutral position of the PRM (between kicks) being well aligned for PRMI, and the DC values of all the shadow sensors in this position is close to half-light (~1V, except for side which was more like 4V). Hard to say what exactly is happening since only the PIT DoF has the weird asymmetric peak shape instead of the expected Lorentzian - I would have thought that a damaged wire or broken magnet would affect all 4 DoFs but the F.C. spring experience on ETMY showed that anything is possible.
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."
As I am sitting in the control room, the PRM suspension watchdog tripped again. This time, there is clearly no seismic activity. Yet, the BS suspension also shows a slight disturbance at the same time as the PRM. ITMY shows no perturbation though. My best hypothesis here is that the problem is electrical. In Attachment #1, you can see that all of the Sensors go to -6000 cts (whut?) for ~30 seconds. Zooming in to that segment in Attachment #2, it would appear that the light detected by the LED changed dramatically (went dark?) on all 5 coils. The 4 face coils have the same time constant but the side has a different one, but in any case, this level of light change in half a second is clearly not physical. Then the watchdog trips because this huge apparent motion elicits a kick from the damping loops.
The plots I attach are for the DQed sensor channels, so there is some digital filtering involved. But I confirmed that the signal doesn't go negative if I disable the input to the filter module. So it would seem that the voltage input to the ADC really chanegd polarity, seems unphysical. Could be Satellite Box or whitening electronics I suppose - I think we can exclude bad cabling, as that would just lead to the signals going to 0, whereas it would appear here that they did really change sign (confirmed by looking at the ULPDmon channel, which is digitized by Acromag, which reports -10 V at the time of glitch). But why should the BS care about the PRM electronics going wonky?
In addition to an exorcist, we need functioning electronics!
This optic has been hampering my locking attempts all evening. I switched the PRM and SRM satellite boxes, but then I remembered PRM has the Al foil "hats" to attenuate scattered light. of course the Al foil is conducting and can short the OSEM leads. I put some kapton pieces in between OSEM and foil to try and mitigate this issue but I suppose over time it could have slipped, and is making some intermittent contact, shorting PD anode and cathode (that would explain the PD reporting -10 V instead of some physical value).
If this is the problem we would need a vent to address it. In the daytime I'll measure L and R of the coils to see if the actuator imbalance I reported is also due to the same problem...
In preparation for later today evening. The TT alignment wasn't visibly disturbed.
Pity really, I was hoping to make it much further tonight. I think I'll have to go back to the high BW POX/POY lock, and also check out the conversion efficiency / noise of the daughter board on the REFL11 demod board. Compared to before my work on the RF source, the demod phase for the PRMI lock using REFL11 as an error signal has basically necessitated a change of the digital demod phase by 180 degrees - so I made the appropriate polarity changes in the CM_SLOW and AO paths (the assumption is that CARM in REFL11 would require the same change in digital demod phase, and I think this is a reasonable assumption - indeed, with the arm powers somewhat stable ~100, if I look at the PDH signal in REFL11 I and Q, it does seem to show up largely in the I quadrature (pre digital phase rotation). Anyway, with so many weird effects (wonky PRM suspension, strange PRMI sensing etc etc, who knows what's going on. This will take a systematic effort.
I defer the electronics characterization for the daytime (if I feel like I need it tomorrow I'll do it, else. Koji has said he can do it on Friday).
I was unable to fully hand off control from ALS-->RF, I suspect I may be using the wrong sign on the AO path (or some such other sub-optimal CM board settings). I'll hook up the SR785 and take some TFs tomorrow, that should give more insight into what's what.
There is some evidence of weird saturation but the gain balancing (0.8dB) and orthogonality (~89 deg) for the daughter board on the REFL11 demod board that generates the AO path error signal seem reasonable. This board would probably benefit from the AD797-->Op27 and thick-film-->thin film swap but i don't think this is to blame for being unable to execute the RF transition.
I have recently been running into hitting the 4MB/s data rate limit on testpoints - basically, I can't run DTT TF and spectrum measurements that I was able to while locking the interferometer, which I certainly was able to this time last year. AFAIK, the major modification made was the addition of 4 DQ channels for the in-air BHD experiment - assuming the data is transmitted as double precision numbers, i estimate the additional load due to this change was ~500KB/s. Probably there is some compression so it is a bit more efficient (as this naive calc would suggest we can only record 32 channels and I counted 41 full rate channels in the model), but still, can't think of anything else that has changed. Anyway, I removed the unused parts and recompiled/re-installed the models (c1lsc and c1omc). Holding off on a restart until I decide I have the energy to recover the CDS system from the inevitable crash. For documentation I'm also attaching screenshot of the schematic of the changes made.
Anyway, the main point of this elog is that at the compilation stage, I got a warning I've never seen before:
Building front-end Linux kernel module c1lsc...
make: Warning: File 'GNUmakefile' has modification time 13 s in the future
make: warning: Clock skew detected. Your build may be incomplete.
This prompted me to check the system time on c1lsc and FB - you can see there is a 1 minute offset (it is not a delay in me issuing the command to the two machines)! I am suspecting this NTP action is the reason. So maybe a model reboot is in order. Sigh
Since Koji was in the lab I decided to bite the bullet and do the reboot. I've modified the reboot script - now, it prompts the user to confirm that the time recognized by the FEs are the same (use the IOP model's status screen, the GPSTIME is updated live on the upper right hand corner). So you would do sudo date --set="Thu 11 Mar 2021 06:48:30 PM UTC" for example, and then restart the IOP model. Why is this necessary? Who knows. It seems to be a deterministic way of getting things back up and running for now so we have to live with it. I will note that this was not a problem between 2017 and 2020 Oct, in which time I've run the reboot script >10 times without needing to take this step. But things change (for an as of yet unknown reason) and we must adapt. Once the IOPs all report a green "DC" status light on the CDS overview screen, you can let the script take you the rest of the way again.
The main point of this work was to relax the data rate on the c1lsc model, and this worked. It now registers ~3.2 MB/s, down from the ~3.8 MB/s earlier today. I can now measure 2 loop TFs simultaneously. This means that we should avoid adding any more DQ channels to the c1lsc model (without some adjustment/downsampling of others).
Holding off on a restart until I decide I have the energy to recover the CDS system from the inevitable crash.
I repeated the high bandwidth POY locking experiment.
One thing I am not sure is - when looking at the in-loop error point spectra, the Y-arm error point did not get suppressed to the CM board's sensing noise floor - I would have thought that with the huge amount of gain at ~16 Hz, the usual structure we see in the spectra between 10-30Hz would be completely squished. Need to think about if this is signalling something wrong, because the loop TF measurements seemed as expected to me.
1020pm: plots uploaded. As I made the plot of the spectrum, I realized that I don't have the calibration for the Y-arm error point into displacement noise units, so it's in unphysical units for now. But I think the comment about the hump around 16 Hz not being crushed to some sort of flat electronics noise floor. For the TF plots, when the loop gain is high, this IN1/IN2 technique isn't the best (due to saturation issues) but I don't think there's anything controversial about getting the UGF this way, and the fact that the phase evolves as expected when the various gains are cranked up / boosts enabled makes me think that the CM board is itself just fine.
10am 12 March: i realized that the "Y-arm error point" plotted below is not the true error point - that would be the input to the CM board (before boosts etc), which we don't monitor digitally. The spectra are plotted for the CM_SLOW input which already has some transfer function applied to it. In the past, I routed the LEMO "MON" connector on the demod board to the CM board input, and hence, had the usual SMA outputs from the demod board going to the digital system. I hypothesize that plotting the spectra for that signal would have showed this expected suppression to the electronics noise floor.
In summary, on the basis of this test, I don't see any red flags with the CM board.
I looked into this a bit today morning. I forgot exactly what time we restarted the machines, but looking at the timesyncd logs, it appears that the NTP synchronization is in fact working (log below is for c1sus, similar on other FEs):
-- Logs begin at Fri 2021-03-12 02:01:34 UTC, end at Fri 2021-03-12 19:01:55 UTC. --
Mar 12 02:01:36 c1sus systemd: Starting Network Time Synchronization...
Mar 12 02:01:37 c1sus systemd-timesyncd: Using NTP server 192.168.113.201:123 (ntpserver).
Mar 12 02:01:37 c1sus systemd: Started Network Time Synchronization.
Mar 12 02:02:09 c1sus systemd-timesyncd: Using NTP server 192.168.113.201:123 (ntpserver).
So, the service is doing what it is supposed to (using the FB, 192.168.113.201, as the ntpserver). You can see that the timesync was done a couple of seconds after the machine booted up (validated against "uptime"). Then, the service is periodically correcting drifts. idk what it means that the time wasn't in sync when we check the time using timedatectl or similar. Anyway, like I said, I have successfully rebooted all the FEs without having to do this weird time adjustment >10 times.
I guess what I am saying is, I don't know what action is necessary for "implementing NTP synchronization properly", since the diagnostic logfile seems to indicate that it is doing what it is supposed to.
More worryingly, the time has already drifted in < 24 hours.
I want to emphasize the followings:
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?
I didn't repeat Koji's measurement, but he reports the expected ~3.2mH per coil on all the BS and PRM coils.
ugh. sounds bad - maybe a short. I suggest measuring the inductance; thats usually a clearer measurement of coil health
I may want to use the delay line phase shifter in 1Y2 to allow remote actuation of the REFL11 demod phase (for the AO path, not the low bandwidth one). I had this working last Feb, but today, I am unable to remotely change the delay. @Koji, it would be great if you could fix this the next time you are in the lab - I bet it's a busted latch IC or some such thing. I did the non-invasive tests - cable is connected, control bits are changing (at least according to the CDS BIO indicators) and the switch controlling remote/local switching is set correctly. The local switching works just fine.
In the meantime, I will keep trying - I am unconvinced we really need the delay line.
Attachment #1 - proof that the lock is RF only (A paths are ALS, B paths are RF).
Attachment #2 - CARM OLTF.
Some tuning can be done, the circulating power can be made ~twice as high with some ASC. The vertex is still on 3f control. I didn't get any major characterization done tonight but it's nice to be back here, a year on i guess.
On Friday, I felt that the ASC performance when the PRFPMI was locked was not as good as it used to be, so I looked into the situation a bit more. As part of my ASC model revamp in December, I made a bunch of changes to the signal routing, and my suspicion was that the control signals weren't even reaching the ETMs. My log says that I recompiled and reinstalled the c1rfm model (used to pipe the ASC control signals to the ETMs), and indeed, the file was modified on Dec 21. But for whatever reason, the C1RFM.ini (=Dolphin receiver since the ASC control signals are sent to this model over the Dolphin network from the c1ioo machine which hosts the C1:ASC- namespace, and RFM sender to the ETMs, but this path already existed) file never picked up the new channels. Today, I recompiled, re-installed, and restarted the models, and confirmed that the control signals actually make it to the ETMs. So now we can have the QPD-based ASC loops engaged once again for the PRFPMI lock. The CDS system did not crash 🎉 . See Attachments #1-3.
I checked the loop performance in the POX/POY locked config by first deliberately misaligning the ETMs, and then engagin the loops - seems to work (Attachment #4). The loop shapes have to be tweaked a bit and I didn't engage the integrators, hence the DC pointing wasn't recovered. Also, added a line to the script that turns the ASC loops on to set limits for all the loops - in the testing process, one of the loops ran away and I tripped the ETMY watchdog. It has since been recovered. I SDFed a limit of 100cts just to be on the conservative side for model reboot situations - the value in the script can be raised/lowered as deemed necessary (sorry, I don't know the cts-->urad number off the top of my head).
But the hope is this improves the power buildup, and provides stability so that I can begin to commission the AS WFS system a bit.
Now that I think about it, I may only have backed up the root file system of chiara, and not/home/cds/ (symlinked to /opt/ over NFS). I think we never revived the rsync backup to LDAS after the FB fiasco of 2017, else that'd have been the most convenient way to get files. So you may have to resort to some other technique (e.g. configure the second network interface of the chiara clone to be on the martian network and copy over files to the local disk, and then disconnect the chiara clone from the martian network (if we really want to keep this test stand completely isolated from the existing CDS network) - the /home/cds/ directory is rather large IIRC, but with 2TB on the FB clone, you may be able to get everything needed to get the rtcds system working). It may then be necessary to hook up a separate disk to write frames to if you want to test that part of the system out.
Good to hear the backup disk was able to boot though!
And to be able to compile and run models later in the testing, we will need the contents of the /opt/rtcds directory also hosted on chiara.
For these reasons, I think it will be easiest to create another clone of chiara to run on the subnet. There is a backup disk of chiara and I attempted to boot it on one of the LLO front-ends, but without success.
While Koji is working on the REFL 11 demod board, I took the opportunity to investigate the non-remote-controllability of the delay line in 1Y2, since the TTs have already been disturbed. Here is what I found today.
So it would seem something is not quite right with this BIO card. The c1lsc expansion chassis, in which this card sits, is notoriously finicky, and this delay line isn't very high priority, so I am deferring more invasive investigation to the next time the system crashes.
* I forgot we have the nice PCB Contec tester board with LEDs - the only downside is that this board has D37 connectors on both ends whereas the delay line wants a D25, necessitating some custom ribbon cable action. But maybe there is a way to use this.
As part of this work, I was in various sensitive areas (1Y3, chiara rack, FE test stand etc) but as far as I can tell, all systems are nominal.
I came into the lab a few mins ago and found the back door open. I closed it. Nothing obvious seems amiss.
Caltech security periodically checks if this door is locked but it's better if we do it too if we use this door for entry/exit.
I had asked Chub to order 100ft ea of 9, 15 and 25 conductor ribbon cable. These arrived today and are stored in the VEA alongside the rest of the electronics/chassis awaiting assembly.
I need to think a little bit about the ASC commissioning strategy. On the positive side
Things to think about:
What is the advantage of Omnigraffle c.f. draw.io? The latter also has a desktop app, and for creating drawings, seems to have all the functionality that Omnigraffle has, see for example here. draw.io doesn't require a license and I feel this is a much better tool for collaborative artwork. I really hate that I can't even open my old omnigraffle diagrams now that I no longer have a license.
Just curious if there's some major drawback(s), not like I'm making any money off draw.io.
After Anchal left for his test, I took the time to set up the iMAC station so that Stephen (and others) can remote desktop into it to use Omnigraffle.
I uploaded the annotated schematics (to be more convenient than the noise analysis notes linked from the DCC page) for the HAM-A coil driver and Satellite Amplifier.
From Finesse simulation (and also analytic calcs), the expected PRCL optical gain is ~1 MW/m (there is a large uncertainty, let's say a factor of 5, because of unknown losses e.g. PRC, Faraday, steering mirrors, splitting fractions on the AP table between the REFL photodiodes). From the same simulation, the MICH optical gain in the Q-phase signal is expected to be a factor of ~10 smaller. I measured the REFL55 RF transimpedance to be ~400 ohms in June last year, which was already a little lower than the previous number I found on the wiki (Koji's?) of 615 ohms. So we expect, across the ~3nm PRCL linewidth, a PDH horn-to-horn voltage of ~1 V (equivalently, the optical gain in units of V/m for PRCL is ~0.3 GV/m).
In the measurement, the MICH gain is indeed ~x10 smaller than the PRCL gain. However, the measured optical gain (~0.1GV/m, but this is after the x10 gain of the daughter board) is ~10 times smaller than what is expected (after accounting for the various splitting fractions on the AS table between REFL photodiodes). We've established that the modulation depth isn't to blame I think. I will check (i) REFL55 transimpedance, (ii) cable loss between AP table and 1Y2 and (iii) is the beam well centered on the REFL55 photodiode.
Basically, with the 400ohm transimpedance gain, we should be running with a whitening gain of 0dB before digitization as we expect a signal of O(1V). We are currently running at +18dB.
Then I put the RF signal directly into the scope and saw that the 55 MHz signal is ~30 mVpp into 50 Ohms. I waited a few minutes with triggering to make sure I was getting the largest flashes. Why is the optical/RF signal so puny? This is ~100x smaller than I think we want...its OK to saturate the RF stuff a little during lock acquisition as long as the loop can suppress it so that the RMS is < 3 dBm in the steady state.
I did all these checks today.
I will check (i) REFL55 transimpedance, (ii) cable loss between AP table and 1Y2 and (iii) is the beam well centered on the REFL55 photodiode.
So it would seem that there is nothing wrong with the sensing electronics. I also think we can rule out any funkiness with the modulation depths since they have been confirmed with multiple different measurements.
One thing I checked was the splitting ratios on the AP table. Jenne's diagram is still accurate (assuming the components are labelled correctly). Let's assume 0.8 W makes it through the IMC to the PRM - then, I would expect, according to the linked diagram, 0.8 W * 0.8 * (1-5.637e-2) * 0.8 * 0.1 * 0.5 * 0.9 ~ 22 mW to make it onto the REFL55 PD. With the PRM aligned and the beam centered on the PD (using DC monitor but I also looked through an IR viewer, looked pretty well centered), I measured 500 mV DC level. Assuming 50 ohm DC transimpedance, that's 500 / 50 / 0.8 ~ 12.5 mW of power on this photodiode, which while is consistent with what's annotated on Jenne's diagram, is ~50% off from expectation. Is the uncertainty in the Faraday transmission and IMC transmission enough to account for this large deviation?
If we want more optical gain, we'd have to put more light on this PD. I suppose we could have ~10x the power since that's what is on IMC REFL when the MC is unlocked? If we want x100 increase in optical gain, we'd also have to increase the transimpedance by 10. I'll double check the simulation but I"m inclined to believe that the sensing electronics are not to blame.
Unconnected to this work but I feel like I'm flying blind without the wall StripTool traces so I restored them on zita (ran /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/general/startStrip.sh).
The idea is to use the FPMI config, which is more easily accessed than the PRFPMI, to set up some tests, measure some TFs etc, before trying to commission the more complicated optomechanical system.
I used the Valera technique to measure the Schnupp asymmetry to be , see Attachment #1. The data points are points, and the zero crossing is estimated using a linear fit. I repeated the measurement 3 times for each arm to see if I get consistent results - seems like I do. Subtle effects like possible differential detuning of each arm cavity (since the measurement is done one arm at a time) are not included in the error analysis, but I think it's not controversial to say that our Schnupp asymmetry has not changed by a huge amount from past measurements. Jamie set a pretty high bar with his plot which I've tried to live up to.
For my note-taking:
If I missed any of the tests we discussed, please add them here.
I thought I'd get started on some of the tests tonight. But I found that this problem had resurfaced. I don't know what's so special about the REFL55 photodiode - as far as I can tell, other photodiodes at the REFL port are running with comparable light incident on it, similar flat whitening gain, etc etc. The whitening electronics are known to be horrible because they use the quad LT1125 - but why is only this channel problematic? To describe the problem in detail:
I request Koji to look into this, time permitting, tomorrow. In slightly longer term, we cannot run the IFO like this - the frequency of occurrence is much too high and the "fix" seems random to me, why should sweeping the whitening gain fix the problem? There was some suggestion of cutting the PCB trace and putting a resistor to limit the current draw on the preceeding stage, but this PCB is ancient and I believe some traces are buried in internal layers. At the same time, I am guessing it's too much work to completely replace the whitening electronics with the aLIGO style units. Anyone have any bright ideas?
Anyway, I managed to lock the PRMI (ETMs misaligned) using REFL165I/Q. Then, instead of using the BS as the MICH actuator, I used the two ITMs (equal magnitude, opposite sign in the LSC output matrix).
I didn't get around to running any of the other tests tonight, will continue tomorrow.
Update Mar 26: Attachments #2 and #3 show that there is clearly something wrong with the whitening electronics associated with REFL55 channels - with the PSL shutter closed (so the only "signal" being digitized should be the electronics noise at the input of the whitening stage), the I and Q channels don't show similar profiles, and moreover, are not consistent (the two screenshots are from two separate sweeps). I don't know what to make of the parts of the sweep that don't show the expected "steps". Until ndscope gets a log-scaled y-axis option, we have to live with the poor visualization of the gain steps which are dB (rather than linearly) spaced. For this particular case, StripTool isn't an option either because the Q channel as a negative offset, and I opted agains futzing with the cabling at 1Y2 to give a small fixed positive voltage instead. I will emphasize that on Friday, this problem was not present, because the gain balance of the I and Q channels was good to within 1dB.
It might be a good idea to configure this box for the new suspension config - modern Satellite Amp, HV coil driver etc. It's a good opportunity to test the wiring scheme, "cross-connect" type adapters etc.
Next, the feedthroughs need to be wired and the channels need to be bench tested.
The servos are almost certainly not optimal - but we have the IFO sort of working, so before we make any changes, let's make a strong case for it. Once the loop TFs and noises (e.g. the sensing noise reinjection you maybe saw) are fully characterized and a new loop is shown to perform better, then we can make the changes, but until then, let's continue using the "nominal" configuration and keep all the WFS loops on . I turned everything back on.
BTW, MC2_ASCPIT_IN1 isn't the correct channel to measure the sensing noise re-injection, you need some other sensor, e.g. is the MC transmission (de)stabilized. 0-20 Hz is where I expect the WFS is actually measuring above the sensing noise.
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).
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
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
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:
I want to measure the spot positions on the IMC mirrors. We know that they can't be too far off centerBasically I did the bare minimum to get these scripts in /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/ASS/MC/ running on rossa (python3 mainly). I confirmed that I get some kind of spot measurement from this, but not sure of the data quality / calibration to convert the demodulated response into mm of decentering on the MC mirrors. Perhaps it's something the MC suspension team can look into - seems implausible to me that we are off by 5mm in PIT and YAW on MC2? The spot positions I get are (in mm from the center):
MC1 P MC2P MC3P MC1Y MC2Y MC3Y
0.640515 -5.149050 0.476649 -0.279035 5.715120 -2.901459
A future iteration of the script should also truncate the number of significant figures per a reasonable statistical error estimation.
I think the only part missing for assembly now are 4 2U chassis. The PA95s need to be soldered on as well (they didn't arrive in time to send to SC). The stuffed boards are stored under my desk. I inspected one board, looks fine, but of course we will need to run some actual bench tests to be sure.
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.
For this technique to work, (i) the WFS loops must be well tuned and (ii) the beam must be well centered on MC2. I am reasonably certain neither is true. For MC2 coil balancing, you can use a HeNe, there is already one on the table (not powered), and I guess you can use the MC2 trans QPD as a sensor, MC won't need to be locked so you can temporarily hijack that QPD (please don't move anything on the table unless you're confident of recovering everything, it should be possible to do all of this with an additional steering mirror you can install and then remove once your test is done). Then you can do any variant of the techniques available once you have an optical lever, e.g. single coil drive, pringle mode drive etc to do the balancing.
I think Hang had some technique he tried recently as well, maybe that is an improvement.
I repeated the usual whitening board characterization test of:
Attachment #1 suggests that the steps are equal (3dB) in size, but note that the "Q" channel shows only ~half the response of the I channel. The drive is derived from a channel of an unused AI+dewhite board in 1Y2, split with a BNC Tee, and fed to the two inputs on the whitening filter. The impedance is expected to be the same on each channel, and so each channel should see the same signal, but I see a large asymmetry. All of this checked out a couple of weeks ago (since we saw ellipses and not circles) so not sure what changed in the meantime, or if this is symptomatic of some deeper problem.
Usually, doing this and then restoring the cabling returns the signal levels of REFL55 to nominal levels. Today it did not - at the nominal whitening gain setting of +18dB flat gain, when the PRMI is fringing, the REFL55 inputs are frequently reporting ADC overflows. Needless to say, all my attempts today evening to transition the length control of the vertex from REFL165 to REFL55 failed.
I suppose we could try shifting the channels to (physical) Ch5 and Ch6 which were formerly used to digitize the ALS DFD outputs and are currently unused (from Ch3, Ch4) on this whitening filter and see if that improves the situation, but this will require a recompile of the RTCDS model and consequent CDS bootfest, which I'm not willing to undertake today. If anyone decides to do this test, let's also take the opportunity to debug the BIO switching for the delay line.
I spent some time investigating the PRM this evening, trying out some of the stuff we discussed in the meeting.
Basically, my finding tonight was that I could not improve (make the pringle mode actuation witnessed by the Oplev QPD smaller) by +/- perturbing the butterfly actuation with of 0.05%, 0.5% and 1% of PIT (I didn't try YAW, or other values of PIT, as none of these seemed to do any good). It seems highly unlikely that the existing coil gains (these come after the output matrix) and the actual coil/magnet pairs are so perfectly tuned, so there must be something wrong with my method. I'll try more combos tomorrow. Separately, I verified that the naive PIT (YAW) moves the optic mainly, i.e. to the eye), in PIT(YAW) as judged by the REFL spot on the camera and the readback of the Oplev QPD.
For this work, I made a few changes to filter banks:
I noticed that the filters/switch states/gains for LOCKIN1 and LOCKIN2 are not consistent within either PRM or BS suspension, or across suspensions. Several filter INs/OUTs were also disabled - something for the SUSdiag team to note, whenever this is scripted, the script should check that the signal is indeed making it end-to-end.
In these results, can you also include the new matrix and what the relative imbalances were?
We could not find problems with any individual piece of the REFL55 electronics chain, from photodiode to ADC. Nevertheless, the PRMI fringes witnessed by REFL55 is ~x10 higher than ~two weeks ago, when the PRMI could be repeatably and reliably locked using REFL55 signals (ETMs misaligned).
Discussion and next steps:
Q: Koji asked me what is the problem with this apparent increased optical gain - can't we just compensate by decreasing the whitening gain?
A: I am unable to transition control of the PRMI (no ETMs) from 3f to 1f, even after reducing the whitening gain on the REFL55 channels to prevent the saturation. So I think we need to get to the bottom of whatever the problem is here.
Q: Why do we need to transfer the control of the vertex to the 1f signals at all?
A: I haven't got a plot in the elog, but from when I had the PRFPMI locked last year, the DARM noise between 100-1kHz had high coherence with the MICH control signal. I tried some feedforward to try and cancel it but never got anywhere. It isn't a quantitative statement but the 1f signals are expected to be cleaner?
Koji pointed out that the MICH signal is visible in the REFL55 channels even when the PRM is misaligned, so I'm gonna look back at the trend data to see if I can identify when this apparent increase in the signal levels occurred and if I can identify some event in the lab that caused it. We also discussed using the ratio of MICH signals in REFL and AS to better estimate the losses in the REFL path - the Faraday losses in particular are a total unknown, but in the AS path, there is less uncertainty since we know the SRM transmission quite precisely, and I guess the 6 output steering mirrors can be assumed to be R=99%.
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.
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.
How should I try to understand why PIT and YAW are so different?
I wanted to put my optomechanical instability hypothesis to the test. So I decided to cut the input power to the IMC by ~half and try locking the PRFPMI. However, this did not improve the stability of the buildup in the arm cavities, while the control was solely on the ALS error signal.
Basically, with some tweaks to loop gains, it worked, see Attachment #1. Note that the lower right axis shows the IMC transmission and is ~7500 cts, vs the nominal ~15,000 cts.
Cutting the input power did not have the effect I hoped it would. Basically, I was hoping to zero the optical CARM offset while the IFO was entirely under ALS control, and have the arm transmission be stable (or at least, stay in the linear regime of REFL11). However, the observation was that the IFO did the usual "buzzing" in and out of the linear regime. Right now, this is not at all a problem - once the IR error signal is blended in, and DC control authority is transferred to that signal, the lock acquisition can proceed just fine. And I guess it is cool that we can lock the IFO at ~half the input power, something to keep in mind when we have the remote controlled waveplate, maybe we always want to lock at the lowest power possible such that optomechanical transients are not a problem.
I also don't think this test directly disputes my claim that the residual CARM noise when the arm cavities are under purely ALS control is smaller than the CARM linewidth.
What does this mean for my hypothesis? I still think it is valid, maybe the power has to be cut even further for the optomechanics to not be a problem. In Finesse (see Attachment #2), with 0.3 W input power to the back of the PRM, and with best guesses for the 40m optical losses in the PRC and arms, I still see that considerable phase can be eaten up due to the optomechanical resonance around ~100 Hz, which is where the digital CARM loop UGF is. So I guess it isn't entirely unreasonable that the instability didn't go away?
After this work, I undid all the changes I made for the low power lock test. I confirmed that IMC locking, POX/POY locking, and the dither alignment systems all function as expected after I reverted the system.
Since it seems like the entire electronics chain has no obvious failure, I decided to compensate for the apparent increased optical gain by turning the flat whitening gain down from +18dB to 0dB. Then, after some fiddling around with alignment, settings etc, I was able to lock the PRMI once again, with the ETMs misaligned, using REFL55_I to sense PRCL, and REFL55_Q to sense MICH. Some sensing matrices attached. Some notes:
So there is clearly something funky with the nominal MICH actuation scheme (MICH suspension, PRM suspension or both), which we should get to the bottom of before trying any low noise locking. I think using the ITMs as the MICH actuator in the full lock will not be a good low nosie strategy, as we would then be "polluting" all our suspended optics with our control loops, which seems highly suboptimal for technical noise sources like coil driver noise etc.
I spent an hour today evening checking out the remote waveplate operation. Basic remote operation was established 👍 . To run a test on the main beam (or any beam for that matter), we need to lay out some long cabling, and install the controller in a rack. I will work with Jordan in the coming days to do these things. Apart from the hardware, some EPICS channel will need to be added to the c1ioo.db file and a python script will need to be set up as a service to allow remote operation.
Satisfied that the unit works basically as expected, I decided to stop for today. My thinking was that we can have the ESP300 installed in 1X1 or 1X2 (depending on where space is more readily available). I will upload have uploaded a cartoon here so people can comment if they like/dislike my plan.
Once everything is installed, we can run some tests to see if the rotary motion disturbs the PSL in any meaningful way. I will upload some photos to the picasa later. Photos here.
I spent some time today setting up a workable user interface to control the waveplate.
So this system is ready to be installed once Jordan and I find some time to lay out cabling + install the ESP300 controller in a rack.
At the moment, there is no high power and there is minimal risk of damaging anything, but someone should double check my logic to make sure that we aren't gonna burn the precious IFO optics. We should also probably hook up a hardware interlock to this controller.
I went through some aLIGO documentation and believe that they are using a custom made potentiometer based angle sensor rather than the integrated Newport (or similar) sensor+motor. My reading of the situation was that there were several problems to do with hysterisis, the "find home" routine etc. I guess for our purposes, none of these are real problems, as long as we are careful not to randomly rotate the waveplate through a full 180 degrees and go through the full fringe in the process. Need to think of a clever way to guard against careless / accidental MEDM button presses / slider drags.
Unrelated to this work: I haven't been in the lab for ~a week so I took the opportunity today to go through the various configs (POX/POY/PRMI resonant carrier etc). I didn't make a noise budget for each config but at least they can be locked 👍 . I also re-aligned the badly misaligned PMC and offloaded the somewhat large DC WFS offsets (~100 cts, which I estimate to be ~150 nNm of torque, corresponding to ~50 urad of misalignment) to the IMC suspensions' slow bias voltages.
We (rana, yehonathan and i) briefly talked about having high power going into the IFO. I worked on some calcs a couple of years ago, that are summarized here. There is some discussion in the linked page about how much power we even need. In summary, if we can have
then we can have an overall gain of ~2400 from laser to each arm cavity (since the BS divides the power equally between the two arms). The easiest place to get some improvement is to improve T_IMC * T_inputFaraday. If we can get that up to ~90%, then we can have an overall gain of ~4000, which is I think the limit of what is possible with what we have.
We also talked about the EOM. At the same time, I had also looked into the damage threshold as well as clipping losses associated with the finite aperture of our EOM, which is a NewFocus 4064 (KTP is the Pockel medium). The results are summarized in Attachments #1 and #2 respectively. Rana thinks the EOM can handle factor of ~3 greater power than the rated damage threshold of 20W/mm^2.
Once again, I found the door to the outside in the control room open when I came in ~1215pm. I closed it.
The C1:IFO-STATE variable is actually a bunch (16 to be precise) of bits, and the byte they form (2 bytes) converted to decimal is what is written to the EPICS channel. It was reported on the call today that the nominal value of the variable when the IMC is locked was "8", while it has become "10" today. In fact, this has nothing to do with the IMC. You can see that the "PMC locked" bit is set in Attachment #1. This is done in the AutoLock.sh PMC autolocker script, which was run a few days ago. Nominally, I just lock the PMC by moving some sliders, and I neglect to set/unset this bit.
Basically, there is no anomalous behavior. This is not to say that the situation cannot be improved. Indeed, we should get rid of the obsolete states (e.g. FSS Locked, MZ locked), and add some other states like "PRMI locked". While there is nothing wrong with setting these bits at the end of execution of some script, a better way would be to configure the EPICS record to automatically set / unset itself based on some diagnostic channels. For example, the "PMC locked" bit should be set if (i) the PMC REFL is < 0.1 AND (ii) PMC TRANS is >0.65 (the exact thresholds are up for debate). Then we are truly recording the state of the IFO and not relying on some script to write to the bit (I haven't thoguht through if there are some edge cases where we need an unreasonable number of diagnostic channels to determine if we are in a certain state or not).
A couple of years ago, I got some info about the amplifier setup at the sites from Terra - sharing here in case there is some useful info in there (our setup will be rather different, but it looked to me like our Amp is a 2017 vintage and it may be that the performance is not the same as reported in the 2019 paper).
collection of docs (table layout in 'Proposed....setup') : https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T1700046
LVC 70W presentation: https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-G1800538
I guess we should double check that the beam size everywhere (in vacuum and on the PSL table) is such that we don't exceed any damage thresholds for the mirrors used.
I've occcupied the southernmost electronics bench for assembling the 4 production version HV coil driver chassis. I estimate it will take me 3 days, and have left a sign indicating as much. Once the chassis assembly is done, I will need to occupy the northernmost bench where bench supplies are to run some functionality tests / noise measurements, and so unless there are objections, I will move the Acromag box which has been sitting there.