40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 225 of 346  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Category Subjectup
  16134   Wed May 12 13:06:15 2021 Ian MacMillanUpdateCDSSUS simPlant model

Working with Chris, we decided that it is probably better to use a simple filter module as a controller before we make the model more complicated. I will use the plant model that I have already made (see attachment 1 of this). then attach a single control filter module to that: as seen in attachment 1. because I only want to work with one degree of freedom (position) I will average the four outputs which should give me the position. Then by feeding the same signal to all four inputs I should isolate one degree of freedom while still using the premade plant model.

The model I made that is shown in attachment 2 is the model I made from the plan. And it complies! yay! I think there is a better way to do the average than the way I showed. And since the model is feeding back on itself I think I need to add a delay which Rana noted a while ago. I think it was a UnitDelay (see page 41 of RTS Developer’s Guide). So I will add that if we run into problems but I think there is enough going on that it might already be delayed.

Since our model (x1sup_isolated.mdl) has compiled we can open the medm screens for it. I provide a procedure below which is based on Jon's post

[First start the cymac and have the model running]
$  cd docker-cymac
$  eval $(./env_cymac)

$  medm -x /opt/rtcds/tst/x1/medm/x1sup_isolated/X1SUP_ISOLATED_GDS_TP.adl

To see a list of all medm screens use:

$  cd docker-cymac
$  ./login_cymac
 #  cd /opt/rtcds/tst/x1/medm/x1sup_isolated
 #  ls

Some of the other useful ones are:

adl screen Description
X1SUP_ISOLATED_Control_Module.adl This is the control filter module shown in attachment 2 at the top in the center. This module will represent the control system.
X1SUP_ISOLATED_C1_SUS_SINGLE_PLANT_Plant_POS_Mod.adl

See attachment 4. This screen shows the POS plant filter module that will be filled by the filter representing the transfer function of a damped harmonic oscillator:        \frac{x}{F}=\frac{\omega_0^2}{\omega_0^2+i\frac{\omega_0 \omega}{Q}-\omega^2}

THIS TF HAS BEEN UPDATED SEE NEXT POST

The first one of these screens that are of interest to us (shown in attachment 3) is the X1SUP_ISOLATED_GDS_TP.adl screen, which is the CDS runtime diagnostics screen. This screen tells us "the success/fail state of the model and all its dependencies." I am still figuring out these screens and the best guide is T1100625.

The next step is taking some data and seeing if I can see the position damp over time. To do this I need to:

  1. Edit the plant filter for the model and add the correct filter.
  2. Figure out a filter for the control system and add it to that. (I can leave it as is to see what the plant is doing) 
  3. Take some position data to show that the plant is a harmonic oscillator and is damping away.
Attachment 1: SimplePlant_SingleContr.pdf
SimplePlant_SingleContr.pdf
Attachment 2: x1sup_isolated.pdf
x1sup_isolated.pdf
Attachment 3: X1SUP_ISOLATED_GDS_TP.png
X1SUP_ISOLATED_GDS_TP.png
Attachment 4: X1SUP_ISOLATED_C1_SUS_SINGLE_PLANT_Plant_POS_Mod.png
X1SUP_ISOLATED_C1_SUS_SINGLE_PLANT_Plant_POS_Mod.png
  16151   Fri May 21 09:44:52 2021 Ian MacMillanUpdateCDSSUS simPlant model

The transfer function given in the previous post was slightly incorrect the units did not make sense the new function is:

\frac{x}{F}=\frac{1}{m\omega_0^2-m\omega^2+im\frac{\omega_0 \omega }{Q}}

I have attached a quick derivation below in attachment 1

Attachment 1: Transfer_Function_of_Damped_Harmonic_Oscillator.pdf
Transfer_Function_of_Damped_Harmonic_Oscillator.pdf
  16153   Fri May 21 14:36:20 2021 Ian MacMillanUpdateCDSSUS simPlant model

The plant transfer function of the pendulum in the s domain is:

H(s)=\frac{x(s)}{F(s)}=\frac{1}{ms^2+m\frac{\omega_0}{Q}s+m\omega_0^2}

Using Foton to make a plot of the TF needed and using m=40kg, w0=3Hz, and Q=50 (See attachment 1). It is easiest to enter the above filter using RPoly and saved it as Plant_V1

Attachment 1: Plant_Mod_TF.pdf
Plant_Mod_TF.pdf
  16177   Thu Jun 3 13:06:47 2021 Ian MacMillanUpdateCDSSUS simPlant model

I was able to measure the transfer function of the plant filter module from the channel X1:SUP-C1_SUS_SINGLE_PLANT_Plant_POS_Mod_EXC to X1:SUP-C1_SUS_SINGLE_PLANT_Plant_POS_Mod_OUT. The resulting transfer function is shown below. I have also attached the raw data for making the graph.

Next, I will make a script that will make the photon filters for all the degrees of freedom and start working on the matrix version of the filter module so that there can be multiple degrees of freedom.

Attachment 1: SingleSusPlantTF.pdf
SingleSusPlantTF.pdf
Attachment 2: SUS_PLANT_TF.zip
  16191   Mon Jun 7 17:49:19 2021 Ian MacMillanUpdateCDSSUS simPlant model

Added difference to the graph. I included the code so that others could see what it looks like and use it for easy use.

Attachment 1: SingleSusPlantTF.pdf
SingleSusPlantTF.pdf
Attachment 2: TF_Graph_Code.zip
  16195   Wed Jun 9 13:50:48 2021 Ian MacMillanUpdateCDSSUS simPlant model

I have attached an updated transfer function graph with the residual easier to see. I thought here I would include a better explanation of what this transfer function was measuring.

This transfer function was mainly about learning how to use DTT and Foton to make and measure transfer functions. Therefore it is just measuring across a single CDS filter block. X1SUP_ISOLATED_C1_SUS_SINGLE_PLANT_Plant_POS_Mod block to be specific. This measurement shows that the block is doing what I programmed it to do with Foton. The residual is probably just because the measured TF had fewer points than the calculated one.

The next step is to take a closed-loop TF of the system and the control module.

After that, I want to add more degrees of freedom to the model. both in the plant and in the controls.

Attachment 1: SingleSusPlantTF.pdf
SingleSusPlantTF.pdf
  16201   Tue Jun 15 11:46:40 2021 Ian MacMillanUpdateCDSSUS simPlant model

I have added more degrees of freedom. The model includes x, y, z, pitch, yaw, roll and is controlled by a matrix of transfer functions (See Attachment 2). I have added 5 control filters to individually control UL, UR, LL, LR, and side. Eventually, this should become a matrix too but for the moment this is fine.

Note the Unit delay blocks in the control in Attachment 1. The model will not compile without these blocks.

Attachment 1: x1sup_isolated-6-15-v1.pdf
x1sup_isolated-6-15-v1.pdf
Attachment 2: C1_SUS_SINGLE_PLANT-6-15-v1.pdf
C1_SUS_SINGLE_PLANT-6-15-v1.pdf
  16230   Wed Jun 30 14:09:26 2021 Ian MacMillanUpdateCDSSUS simPlant model

I have looked at my code from the previous plot of the transfer function and realized that there is a slight error that must be fixed before we can analyze the difference between the theoretical transfer function and the measured transfer function.

The theoretical transfer function, which was generated from Photon has approximately 1000 data points while the measured one has about 120. There are no points between the two datasets that have the same frequency values, so they are not directly comparable. In order to compare them I must infer the data between the points. In the previous post [16195] I expanded the measured dataset. In other words: I filled in the space between points linearly so that I could compare the two data sets. Using this code:

#make values for the comparison
tck_mag = splrep(tst_f, tst_mag) # get bspline representation given (x,y) values
gen_mag = splev(sim_f, tck_mag) # generate intermediate values
dif_mag=[]
for x in range(len(gen_mag)):
    dif_mag.append(gen_mag[x]-sim_mag[x]) # measured minus predicted

tck_ph = splrep(tst_f, tst_ph) # get bspline representation given (x,y) values
gen_ph = splev(sim_f, tck_ph) # generate intermediate values
dif_ph=[]
for x in range(len(gen_ph)):
    dif_ph.append(gen_ph[x]-sim_ph[x])

At points like a sharp peak where the measured data set was sparse compared to the peak, the difference would see the difference between the intermediate “measured” values and the theoretical ones, which would make the difference much higher than it really was.

To fix this I changed the code to generate the intermediate values for the theoretical data set. Using the code here:

tck_mag = splrep(sim_f, sim_mag) # get bspline representation given (x,y) values
gen_mag = splev(tst_f, tck_mag) # generate intermediate values
dif_mag=[]
for x in range(len(tst_mag)):
    dif_mag.append(tst_mag[x]-gen_mag[x])#measured minus predicted

tck_ph = splrep(sim_f, sim_ph) # get bspline representation given (x,y) values
gen_ph = splev(tst_f, tck_ph) # generate intermediate values
dif_ph=[]
for x in range(len(tst_ph)):
    dif_ph.append(tst_ph[x]-gen_ph[x])

Because this dataset has far more values (about 10 times more) the previous problem is not such an issue. In addition, there is never an inferred measured value used. That makes it more representative of the true accuracy of the real transfer function.

This is an update to a previous plot, so I am still using the same data just changing the way it is coded. This plot/data does not have a Q of 1000. That plot will be in a later post along with the error estimation that we talked about in this week’s meeting.

The new plot is shown below in attachment 1. Data and code are contained in attachment 2

Attachment 1: SingleSusPlantTF.pdf
SingleSusPlantTF.pdf
Attachment 2: Plant_TF_Test.zip
  16289   Mon Aug 23 15:25:59 2021 Ian MacMillanUpdateCDSSUS simPlant model

I am adding a State-space block to the SimPlant cds model using the example Chris gave. I made a new folder in controls called SimPlantStateSpace. wI used the code below to make a state-space LTI model with a 1D pendulum then I converted it to a discrete system using c2d matlab function. Then I used these in the rtss.m file to create the state space code I need in the SimPlantStateSpace_1D_model.h file.

%sys_model.m

Q = 1000;
phi = 1/Q;
g = 9.806;
m = 0.24; % mass of pendulum
l = 0.248; %length of pendulum
w_0 = sqrt(g/l);

f=16000 %this is the frequency of the channel that will be used

A = [0 1; -w_0^2*(1+1/Q*1i) -w_0/Q]
B = [0; 1/m];
C = [1 0];
D = [0];
sys_dc = ss(A,B,C,D)

sys=c2d(sys_dc, 1/f)

This code outputs the discrete state space that is added to the header file attached.

Attachment 1: SimPlantStateSpace.zip
  5356   Wed Sep 7 09:21:57 2011 jamieUpdateSUSSUS spectra before close up

Here are all suspension diagonalization spectra before close up. Notes:

  • TMX looks the worst, but I think we can live with it. The large glitch in the UL sensor at around 999423150 (#5355) is worrying. However, it seemed to recover. The spectra below were taken from data before the glitch.
  • ITMY has a lot of imaginary components. We previously found that this was due to a problem with one of it's whitening filters (#5288). I assume we're seeing the same issue here.
  • SRM needs a little more data to be able to distinguish the POS and SIDE peaks, but otherwise it looks ok.
ITMX ITMX.png        pit     yaw     pos     side    butt
UL    0.355   0.539   0.976  -0.500   0.182 
UR    0.833  -1.406  -0.307  -0.118   0.537 
LR   -1.167   0.055   0.717  -0.445   0.286 
LL   -1.645   2.000   2.000  -0.828  -2.995 
SD   -0.747   0.828   2.483   1.000  -1.637 
8.01148
ITMY  ITMY.png        pit     yaw     pos     side    butt
UL    1.003   0.577   1.142  -0.038   0.954  
UR    0.582  -1.423   0.931  -0.013  -1.031  
LR   -1.418  -0.545   0.858   0.008   1.081  
LL   -0.997   1.455   1.069  -0.017  -0.934  
SD   -0.638   0.797   1.246   1.000   0.264
 4.46659
BS  BS.png        pit     yaw     pos     side    butt
UL    1.612   0.656   0.406   0.277   1.031  
UR    0.176  -1.344   1.683  -0.058  -0.931  
LR   -1.824  -0.187   1.594  -0.086   0.951  
LL   -0.388   1.813   0.317   0.249  -1.087  
SD    0.740   0.301  -3.354   1.000   0.035 
 5.49597
PRM  PRM.png        pit     yaw     pos     side    butt
UL    0.546   1.436   1.862  -0.345   0.866  
UR    1.350  -0.564   0.551  -0.055  -0.878  
LR   -0.650  -0.977   0.138   0.023   0.858  
LL   -1.454   1.023   1.449  -0.268  -1.398  
SD    0.634  -0.620  -0.729   1.000   0.611
 5.78216
SRM      
ETMX ETMX.png        pit     yaw     pos     side    butt
UL    0.863   1.559   1.572   0.004   1.029  
UR    0.127  -0.441   1.869   0.480  -1.162  
LR   -1.873  -0.440   0.428   0.493   0.939  
LL   -1.137   1.560   0.131   0.017  -0.871  
SD    1.838   3.447  -0.864   1.000  -0.135 
 5.5259
ETMY  ETMY.png        pit     yaw     pos     side    butt
UL   -0.337   1.275   1.464  -0.024   0.929  
UR    1.014  -0.725   1.414  -0.055  -1.102  
LR   -0.649  -1.363   0.536  -0.039   0.750  
LL   -2.000   0.637   0.586  -0.007  -1.220  
SD    0.057  -0.016   1.202   1.000   0.142 
 4.22572
MC1  MC1.png        pit     yaw     pos     side    butt
UL    0.858   0.974   0.128   0.053  -0.000  
UR    0.184  -0.763   0.911   0.018   0.001  
LR   -1.816  -2.000   1.872   0.002   3.999  
LL   -1.142  -0.263   1.089   0.037   0.001  
SD    0.040   0.036  -0.216   1.000  -0.002 
 5.36332
MC2  MC2.png        pit     yaw     pos     side    butt
UL    1.047   0.764   1.028   0.124   0.948  
UR    0.644  -1.236   1.092  -0.088  -0.949  
LR   -1.356  -0.680   0.972  -0.096   1.007  
LL   -0.953   1.320   0.908   0.117  -1.095  
SD   -0.092  -0.145  -0.787   1.000  -0.065 
 4.029
MC3  MC3.png        pit     yaw     pos     side    butt
UL    1.599   0.343   1.148   0.168   1.101  
UR    0.031  -1.647   1.139   0.202  -1.010  
LR   -1.969   0.010   0.852   0.111   0.893  
LL   -0.401   2.000   0.861   0.077  -0.995  
SD   -0.414   0.392  -1.677   1.000   0.018 
3.61734

 

  5247   Tue Aug 16 10:59:06 2011 jamieUpdateSUSSUS update

Data taken from: 997530498+120

Things are actually looking ok at the moment.  "Badness" (cond(B)) is below 6 for all optics.

  • We don't have results from PRM since its spectra looked bad, as if it's being clamped by the earthquake stops.
  • The SRM matrix definitely looks the nicest, followed by ITMX.  All the other matrices have some abnormally high or low elements.
  • cond(B) for ETMY is better than that for SRM, even though the ETMY matrix doesn't look as nice.  Does this mean that cond(B) is not necessarily the best figure of merit, or is there something else that our naive expectation for the matrix doesn't catch?

We still need to go through and adjust all the OSEM ranges once the IFO is aligned and we know what our DC biases are.  We'll repeat this one last time after that.

TM   M cond(B)
BS  BS.png       pit     yaw     pos     side    butt
UL    1.456   0.770   0.296   0.303   1.035 
UR    0.285  -1.230   1.773  -0.077  -0.945 
LR   -1.715  -0.340   1.704  -0.115   0.951 
LL   -0.544   1.660   0.227   0.265  -1.070 
SD    0.612   0.275  -3.459   1.000   0.046
5.61948
SRM  SRM.png       pit     yaw     pos     side    butt
UL    0.891   1.125   0.950  -0.077   0.984 
UR    0.934  -0.875   0.987  -0.011  -0.933 
LR   -1.066  -1.020   1.050   0.010   1.084 
LL   -1.109   0.980   1.013  -0.056  -0.999 
SD    0.257  -0.021   0.304   1.000   0.006 
4.0291
ITMX  ITMX.png       pit     yaw     pos     side    butt
UL    0.436   1.035   1.042  -0.068   0.728 
UR    0.855  -0.965   1.137  -0.211  -0.969 
LR   -1.145  -1.228   0.958  -0.263   1.224 
LL   -1.564   0.772   0.863  -0.120  -1.079 
SD   -0.522  -0.763   2.495   1.000  -0.156
4.55925
ITMY  ITMY.png       pit     yaw     pos     side    butt
UL    1.375   0.095   1.245  -0.058   0.989 
UR   -0.411   1.778   0.975  -0.022  -1.065 
LR   -2.000  -0.222   0.755   0.006   1.001 
LL   -0.214  -1.905   1.025  -0.030  -0.945 
SD    0.011  -0.686   0.804   1.000   0.240 
4.14139
ETMX  ETMX.png       pit     yaw     pos     side    butt
UL    0.714   0.191   1.640   0.404   1.052 
UR    0.197  -1.809   1.758  -0.120  -1.133 
LR   -1.803  -1.889   0.360  -0.109   0.913 
LL   -1.286   0.111   0.242   0.415  -0.902 
SD    1.823  -3.738  -0.714   1.000  -0.130 
5.19482
ETMY  ETMY.png       pit     yaw     pos     side    butt
UL    1.104   0.384   1.417   0.351   1.013 
UR   -0.287  -1.501   1.310  -0.074  -1.032 
LR   -2.000   0.115   0.583  -0.045   0.777 
LL   -0.609   2.000   0.690   0.380  -1.179 
SD    0.043  -0.742  -0.941   1.000   0.338 
3.57032

 

  5286   Tue Aug 23 10:38:27 2011 jamieUpdateSUSSUS update

SUS update before closing up:

  • MC1, MC2, ITMX look good
  • MC3, PRM look ok
  • SRM pos and side peaks are too close together to distinguish, so the matrix is not diagnalizable.  I think with more data it should be ok, though.
  • all ITMY elements have imaginary components
  • ITMY, ETMX, ETMY appear to have modest that swapped position:
    • ITMY: pit/yaw
    • ETMX: yaw/side
    • ETMY: pos/side
  • MC3, ETMX, ETMY have some very large/small elements

Not particularly good.  We're going to work on ETMY at least, since that one is clearly bad.

OPTIC   M cond(B)
MC1 MC1.png       pit     yaw     pos     side    butt
UL    0.733   1.198   1.168   0.050   1.057 
UR    1.165  -0.802   0.896   0.015  -0.925 
LR   -0.835  -1.278   0.832  -0.002   0.954 
LL   -1.267   0.722   1.104   0.032  -1.064 
SD    0.115   0.153  -0.436   1.000  -0.044
4.02107
MC2 MC2.png        pit     yaw     pos     side    butt
UL    1.051   0.765   1.027   0.128   0.952  
UR    0.641  -1.235   1.089  -0.089  -0.942  
LR   -1.359  -0.677   0.973  -0.097   1.011  
LL   -0.949   1.323   0.911   0.121  -1.096  
SD   -0.091  -0.147  -0.792   1.000  -0.066 
4.02254
MC3  MC3.png        pit     yaw     pos     side    butt
UL    1.589   0.353   1.148   0.170   1.099  
UR    0.039  -1.647   1.145   0.207  -1.010  
LR   -1.961  -0.000   0.852   0.113   0.896  
LL   -0.411   2.000   0.855   0.076  -0.994  
SD   -0.418   0.396  -1.624   1.000   0.019
3.60876
PRM  PRM.png        pit     yaw     pos     side    butt
UL    0.532   1.424   1.808  -0.334   0.839  
UR    1.355  -0.576   0.546  -0.052  -0.890  
LR   -0.645  -0.979   0.192   0.015   0.881  
LL   -1.468   1.021   1.454  -0.267  -1.391  
SD    0.679  -0.546  -0.674   1.000   0.590 
 5.54281
BS  BS.png        pit     yaw     pos     side    butt
UL    1.596   0.666   0.416   0.277   1.037  
UR    0.201  -1.334   1.679  -0.047  -0.934  
LR   -1.799  -0.203   1.584  -0.077   0.952  
LL   -0.404   1.797   0.321   0.247  -1.077  
SD    0.711   0.301  -3.397   1.000   0.034 
 5.46234
SRM  NA  NA  NA
ITMX  ITMX.png        pit     yaw     pos     side    butt
UL    0.458   1.025   1.060  -0.065   0.753  
UR    0.849  -0.975   1.152  -0.199  -0.978  
LR   -1.151  -1.245   0.940  -0.243   1.217  
LL   -1.542   0.755   0.848  -0.109  -1.052  
SD   -0.501  -0.719   2.278   1.000  -0.153
 4.4212
ITMY  ITMY.png        pit     yaw     pos     side    butt
UL    0.164   1.320   1.218  -0.086   0.963  
UR    1.748  -0.497   0.889  -0.034  -1.043  
LR   -0.252  -2.000   0.782  -0.005   1.066  
LL   -1.836  -0.183   1.111  -0.058  -0.929  
SD   -0.961  -0.194   1.385   1.000   0.239 
 4.33051
ETMX ETMX.png        pit     yaw     pos     side    butt
UL    0.623   1.552   1.596  -0.033   1.027  
UR    0.194  -0.448   1.841   0.491  -1.170  
LR   -1.806  -0.478   0.404   0.520   0.943  
LL   -1.377   1.522   0.159  -0.005  -0.860  
SD    1.425   3.638  -0.762   1.000  -0.132 
 4.89418
ETMY ETMY.png        pit     yaw     pos     side    butt
UL    0.856   0.007   1.799   0.241   1.005  
UR   -0.082  -1.914  -0.201  -0.352  -1.128  
LR   -2.000   0.079  -0.104  -0.162   0.748  
LL   -1.063   2.000   1.896   0.432  -1.119  
SD   -0.491  -1.546   2.926   1.000   0.169 
 9.11516

 

  7548   Mon Oct 15 14:51:16 2012 JenneUpdateSUSSUS were kicked hard as a result

Quote:

Apparently all of the ION pump valves (VIPEE, VIPEV, VIPSV, VIPSE) opened, which vented the main volume up to 62 mTorr.  All of the annulus valves (VAVSE, VAVSV, VAVBS, VAVEV, VAVEE) also appeared to be open.  One of the roughing pumps was also turned on.  Other stuff we didn't notice?  Bad. 

 Several of the suspensions were kicked pretty hard (600+ mV on some sensors) as a result of this quick vent wind.  All of the suspensions are damped now, so it doesn't look like we suffered any damage to suspensions.

  636   Sun Jul 6 16:17:40 2008 tobinHowToComputersSVN
I was able to check out the 40m SVN here in Livingston using this command:

svn co svn+ssh://controls@nodus.ligo.caltech.edu/cvs/cds/caltech/svn/trunk/medm

As you might guess, this uses ssh in place of the web server (which we don't have yet).
  1320   Wed Feb 18 19:13:20 2009 ranaConfigurationComputersSVN & MEDM & old medm files
Allegra had a 2 year old version of SVN installed and CentOS (yum) couldn't upgrade it, so I did an 'svn remove subversion'
and then a 'svn install subversion' to get us up to the Dec '08 version (1.5.5) which is the latest stable.

I also removed all of the old ASS medm directories without backing them up. There's a new RCG script version which is
fixed so that it no longer dumps these old medm directories in there; there's no need since there's already an
medm archive area.

I also removed the medm/old/ directory, did an svn remove, and then copied it back. This is the only way I know of
removing something from the repository without removing it from the working directory.
  10292   Tue Jul 29 21:34:41 2014 ericqUpdateComputer Scripts / ProgramsSVN bulletin

A heads up to anyone using SVN with computers on the Martian network:

When we moved the svn repository on nodus to /export, we set it up such that the internet-facing svn URL was unchanged. However, it turns out that the martian network machines (i.e. Stuff mounted on the NFS share) were still pointing to the old svn files in /cvs/cds/caltech/svn, and thus not seeing new revisions made in /export/home/svn. If your martian network svn'd files got weird, this is why. 

I'm relocating the root svn URLs on the martian machines' checkouts to point to the nodus https address as I find them, to make them robust against future local movement of the svn files. 

Peoples' user files should be fine, this looks like it'll only really affect things such as scripts and medm screens, etc. 

  10313   Thu Jul 31 23:19:22 2014 KojiUpdateComputer Scripts / ProgramsSVN bulletin

Did this break "netgpibdata"?

I couldn't download data from SR785. Downloading from AG4395A was OK.

The cause seemed the module for SR785

-rw-rw-r-- 1 controls controls   24225 2014-07-30 18:36 SR785.py

I had a local copy of this file and replaced it with mine. Now netgpibdata start working.
The old one is named SR785.py_bak

-rwxr-xr-x   1 controls staff      12944 Jul 31 23:08 SR785.py

The file size is significantly different from the one we had.

  641   Mon Jul 7 14:02:05 2008 YoichiUpdateComputersSVN conversion progress
So far /cvs/cds/caltech/medm, /cvs/cds/caltech/chans and /cvs/cds/caltech/scripts have been converted to svn working copies.
Now /cvs/cds/caltech/target is being converted.
  10013   Mon Jun 9 19:02:34 2014 Evan, EricUpdateComputer Scripts / ProgramsSVN is back

The SVN Apache server was not happy trying to read from /cvs/cds/caltech/svn/; it complains "Value too large for defined data type" when trying to modify certain files.

To remedy this, Eric ran an rsync job to copy over the svn directory to /export/home/svn/, which is directly on nodus rather than on the NFS mount.

Accordingly, I edited the httpd-ssl.conf file in /cvs/cds/caltech/apache/etc/ so that SVNPath points to /export/home/svn. The original config file is preserved as httpd-ssl.conf.old_20140609.

Then I started the Apache server using the instructions on the 40 m wiki (search "Apache"). The SVN now appears to be working fine; you can svn up and svn ci as necessary.

However, this means that we now need to start backing up /export/home/svn/, rather than the NFS-mounted directory.

  1091   Sun Oct 26 21:02:18 2008 ranaUpdateComputer Scripts / ProgramsSVN medm problem
As we've seen in the past a few times, there's something wrong with the files in the trunk/medm area.
I get the following error message when doing a fresh checkout:
A    c1/lsc/help/C1LSC_LA_SET.txt
svn: In directory 'c1/lsc/help'
svn: Can't copy 'c1/lsc/help/.svn/tmp/text-base/C1LSC_RFadjust.txt.svn-base' to 'c1/lsc/help/.svn/tmp/C1LSC_RFadjust.txt.tmp.tmp': No such file or directory
It looks like that there are some .svn files which have been checked in as if they're some kind of source code instead of just maintenance files.
We probably have to go through and clean this out and then remove these excess files somehow.
  1092   Mon Oct 27 10:02:16 2008 YoichiUpdateComputer Scripts / ProgramsSVN medm problem
I tried to check out medm directory both from my laptop and nodus.
I did not get the error.
Have you already fixed it ? Or maybe it is to do with the version of the svn used to checkout ?


Quote:
As we've seen in the past a few times, there's something wrong with the files in the trunk/medm area.
I get the following error message when doing a fresh checkout:
A    c1/lsc/help/C1LSC_LA_SET.txt
svn: In directory 'c1/lsc/help'
svn: Can't copy 'c1/lsc/help/.svn/tmp/text-base/C1LSC_RFadjust.txt.svn-base' to 'c1/lsc/help/.svn/tmp/C1LSC_RFadjust.txt.tmp.tmp': No such file or directory
It looks like that there are some .svn files which have been checked in as if they're some kind of source code instead of just maintenance files.
We probably have to go through and clean this out and then remove these excess files somehow.
  2634   Tue Feb 23 16:42:02 2010 ranaConfigurationComputer Scripts / ProgramsSVN restarted on NODUS

I ran the start Apache script as described by Yoichi in the WIki. SVN back up.

  12991   Mon May 15 08:26:43 2017 ranaUpdateCDSSVN up in userapps/cds

I did an 'svn update' in userapps/cds/ which pulled in some changes from the sites as well as various CDS utilities in common/ and utilities/

This was to get Keith Thorne's get_data.m and get_data2.m scripts which I tested and they seem to be able to get data. No success with getting minute trend yet, but that may be a user error.

Update Monday 15-May: Our version of NDS client is 0.10 and we need to have 0.14 for this new method to work. Ubuntu12 lscsoft repo doesn't have newer nds client so we'll have to upgrade some OS.

  3118   Fri Jun 25 01:28:33 2010 DmassHowToSVNSVN woes

I am trying to get an actual complete install of the 40m svn on my machine. It keeps stopping at the same point:

I do a

svn checkout --username svn40m https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:30889/svn /Users/dmass/svn

A blah blah blah many files

...

A    /Users/dmass/svn/trunk/medm/c1/lsc/C1LSC_ComMode.adl.28oct06
svn: In directory '/Users/dmass/svn/trunk/medm/c1/lsc'
svn: Can't copy '/Users/dmass/svn/trunk/medm/c1/lsc/.svn/tmp/text-base/C1LSC_MENU.adl.svn-base' to '/Users/dmass/svn/trunk/medm/c1/lsc/.svn/tmp/C1LSC_MENU.adl.tmp.tmp': No such file or directory

I believe I have always had this error come up when trying to do a full svn install. Any illumination is welcome.

 

 

  3123   Sat Jun 26 05:02:04 2010 ranaHowToSVNSVN woes

Quote:

I am trying to get an actual complete install of the 40m svn on my machine. It keeps stopping at the same point:

 I have always seen this when checking out the 40m medm SVN on a non-Linux box. I don't know what it is, but Yoichi and I investigated it at some point and couldn't reproduce it on CentOS. I think its some weirdness in the permissions of tmp files. It can probably be fixed by doing some clever checkin from the control room.

Even worse is that it looks like the whole 'SVN' mantra has been violated in the medm directory by the 'newCDS' team. It could be that Joe has decided to make the 40m a part of the official CDS SVN, which is OK, but will take some retraining on our part.

  1504   Mon Apr 20 20:45:25 2009 ranaConfigurationGeneralSVN: project area added
I added the /cvs/cds/project/ directory to the SVN. I've noticed that we've been using target/ for code which is not
being targeted for any IOCs. This is out of line with the intention of separating real time FE code from just regular
code that we use for diagnostics or otherwise.

So please move all of your non-FE code over to project from target. And if you didn't have it in SVN at all, you
should experience level 3 shame and then import it.
  443   Thu Apr 24 15:57:53 2008 steveConfigurationSAFETYSafety at AP-ISCT
I measured the output power of the psl after the mechanical shutter.

It was 1.1 W with Ophir power meter, than unlocked the MC and measured
the power at the MC-REFL Beam Dump at the AP-ISCT 0.9 W
Power on MC-REFL photodiode 92 mW

High power metal beam shields were installed around the beam path of
MC-REFL between AP-Viewport and MC-REFL Beam Dump.
Placed HIGH POWER LASER BEAM PATH warning signs on table frame and top
covers.

Last week I placed a small monitor on the top of the OOC that
monitors the resonant spot of MC2. Please keep an eye on this monitor
when working on the AP-ISCT

AP table should NOT be left uncovered. One experienced laser operator
has to be present if the top is removed and IR-viewer scan required.
We need your full cooperation to keep this lab safe.
Attachment 1: P1020197.JPG
P1020197.JPG
Attachment 2: mcrefl3.JPG
mcrefl3.JPG
  6469   Fri Mar 30 08:58:37 2012 steveUpdateSAFETYSafety glasses checked

Bob cleaned all safety glasses in 10 % Liquinox soap in water solution first.  The  transmittance of glasses were checked at 100 mW 1064 nm S polarization, beam diameter  0.5 mm at 0-20 deg incident.

Coherent FieldMate power meter measured T= < 1 mW of all glasses.

Attachment 1: safety_glasses_checked.jpg
safety_glasses_checked.jpg
  13950   Tue Jun 12 15:32:15 2018 SteveBureaucracyGeneralSalvaged junk from Xend

Koji's collection of Yend components put away. I cleaned up the  Xend bench today.

Loadcells, leveling wedge mounts  and related items placed under flowbench cabinet next to Guralp staff.

 

  13923   Wed Jun 6 17:22:23 2018 KojiBureaucracyGeneralSalvaged junk from yend

While Keerthana and johannes were working at the end, I made a little cleaning at the yend. I salvaged large amount of hardware inclding optics, optomechanics. We all together should work on returning them to appropriate locations.

Attachment 1: DSC_0661.JPG
DSC_0661.JPG
  16427   Tue Oct 26 13:27:07 2021 TegaSummaryElectronicsSat Amp modification Summary

Modifications and testing of SatAmp units COMPLETE. Attachments 1 & 2 show all 19 units, one installed unit and the remaining 18 units are stacked and ready for install. Detailed notes of the modification for each unit are presented in the summary document in the dcc.

 

 

Attachment 1: SapAmpModStack.jpg
SapAmpModStack.jpg
Attachment 2: SatAmpInstalled.jpg
SatAmpInstalled.jpg
  16349   Mon Sep 20 20:43:38 2021 TegaUpdateElectronicsSat Amp modifications

Running update of Sat Amp modification work, which involves the following procedure (x8) per unit:

  1. Replace R20 & R24 with 4.99K ohms, R23 with 499 ohms, and remove C16.
  2. (Testing) Connect LEDDrive output to GND and check that
    • TP4 is ~ 5V
    •  TP5-8 ~ 0V. 
  3. Install 40m Satellite to Flange Adapter (D2100148-v1)

 

Unit Serial Number Issues Status
S1200740 NONE DONE
S1200742 NONE DONE
S1200743 NONE DONE
S1200744

TP4 @ LED1,2 on PCB S2100568 is 13V instead of 5V

TP4 @ LED4 on PCB S2100559 is 13V instead of 5V

DONE
S1200752 NONE DONE

 

 

 

Attachment 1: IMG_20210920_203456226.jpg
IMG_20210920_203456226.jpg
  16356   Wed Sep 22 17:22:59 2021 TegaUpdateElectronicsSat Amp modifications

[Koji, Tega]

 

Decided to do a quick check of the remaining Sat Amp units before component replacement to identify any unit with defective LED circuits. Managed to examine 5 out of 10 units, so still have 5 units remaining. Also installed the photodiode bias voltage jumper (JP1) on all the units processed so far.

Unit Serial Number Issues Debugging Status
S1200738

TP4 @ LED3 on chan 1-4 PCB was ~0.7 V instead of 5V

Koji checked the solder connections of the various components, then swapped out the IC OPAMP. Removed DB9 connections to the front panel to get access to the bottom of the board. Upon close inspection, it looked like an issue of a short connection between the Emitter & Base legs of the Q1 transistor.

Solution - Remove the short connection between the Emitter & Base legs of the Q1 transistor legs.

DONE
S1200748 TP4 @ LED2 on chan 1-4 PCB was ~0.7 V instead of 5V

This issue was caused by a short connection between the Emitter & Base legs of the Q1 transistor.

Solution - Remove the short connection between the Emitter & Base legs of the Q1 transistor legs.

DONE
S1200749 NONE N/A DONE
S1200750 NONE N/A DONE
S1200751 NONE N/A DONE

 

Defective unit with updated resistors and capacitors in the previous elog

Unit Serial Number Issues Debugging Status
S1200744

TP4 @ LED1,2 on PCB S2100568 is 13V instead of 5V

TP4 @ LED4 on PCB S2100559 is 13V instead of 5V

This issue was caused by a short between the Collector & Base legs of the Q1 transistor.

Solution - Remove the short connection between the Collector & Base legs of the Q1 transistor legs

 

Complications - During the process of flipping the board to get access to the bottom of the board, a connector holding the two middle black wires, on P1, came loose. I resecured the wires to the connector and checked all TP4s on the board afterwards to make sure things are as expected.

DONE

 

 

 

Quote:

Running update of Sat Amp modification work, which involves the following procedure (x8) per unit:

  1. Replace R20 & R24 with 4.99K ohms, R23 with 499 ohms, and remove C16.
  2. (Testing) Connect LEDDrive output to GND and check that
    • TP4 is ~ 5V
    •  TP5-8 ~ 0V. 
  3. Install 40m Satellite to Flange Adapter (D2100148-v1)

 

Unit Serial Number Issues Status
S1200740 NONE DONE
S1200742 NONE DONE
S1200743 NONE DONE
S1200744

TP4 @ LED1,2 on PCB S2100568 is 13V instead of 5V

TP4 @ LED4 on PCB S2100559 is 13V instead of 5V

DONE
S1200752 NONE DONE

 

 

 

 

  16379   Mon Oct 4 21:58:17 2021 TegaUpdateElectronicsSat Amp modifications

Trying to finish 2 more Sat Amp units so that we have the 7 units needed for the X-arm install. 

S2100736 - All good

S2100737 - This unit presented with an issue on the PD1 circuit of channel 1-4 PCB where the voltage reading on TP6, TP7 and TP8 are -15.1V,  -14.2V, and +14.7V respectively, instead of ~0V.  The unit also has an issue on the PD2 circuit of channel 1-4 PCB because the voltage reading on TP7 and TP8 are  -14.2V, and +14.25V respectively, instead of ~0V.

 

  16380   Tue Oct 5 17:01:20 2021 KojiUpdateElectronicsSat Amp modifications

Make sure the inputs for the PD amps are open. This is the current amplifier and we want to leave the input pins open for the test of this circuit.

TP6 is the first stage of the amps (TIA). So this stage has the issue. Usual check if the power is properly supplied / if the pins are properly connected/isolated / If the opamp is alive or not.

For TP8, if TP8 get railed. TP5 and TP7 are going to be railed too. Is that the case, if so, check this whitening stage in the same way as above.
If the problem is only in the TP5 and/or TP7 it is the differential driver issue. Check the final stage as above. Replacing the opamp could help.

 

  16386   Wed Oct 6 16:31:02 2021 TegaUpdateElectronicsSat Amp modifications

[Tega, Koji]

(S2100737) - Debugging showed that the opamp, AD822ARZ, for PD2 circuit was not working as expected so we replaced with a spare and this fixed the problem. Somehow, the PD1 circuit no longer presents any issues, so everything is now fine with the unit.

(S2100741) - All good.

Quote:

Trying to finish 2 more Sat Amp units so that we have the 7 units needed for the X-arm install. 

S2100736 - All good

S2100737 - This unit presented with an issue on the PD1 circuit of channel 1-4 PCB where the voltage reading on TP6, TP7 and TP8 are -15.1V,  -14.2V, and +14.7V respectively, instead of ~0V.  The unit also has an issue on the PD2 circuit of channel 1-4 PCB because the voltage reading on TP7 and TP8 are  -14.2V, and +14.25V respectively, instead of ~0V.

 

 

  16411   Mon Oct 18 16:48:32 2021 TegaUpdateElectronicsSat Amp modifications

[S2100738, S2100745, S2100751] Completed three more Sat Amp units modification with seven remaining.

 

Attachment 1: IMG_20211018_162918574.jpg
IMG_20211018_162918574.jpg
  16357   Thu Sep 23 14:17:44 2021 TegaUpdateElectronicsSat Amp modifications debugging update

Debugging complete.

All units now have the correct TP4 voltage reading needed to drive a nominal current of 35 mA through to OSEM LED. The next step is to go ahead and replace the components and test afterward that everything is OK.

 

Unit Serial Number Issues Debugging Status
S1200736 TP4 @ LED4 on chan 1-4 PCB reads 13V instead of 5V

This issue was caused by a short between the Collector & Base legs of the Q1 transistor.

Solution - Remove the short connection between the Collector & Base legs of the Q1 transistor legs

DONE
S1200737 NONE N/A DONE
S1200739 NONE N/A DONE
S1200746 TP4 @ LED3 on chan 5-8 PCB reads 0.765 V instead of 5V

This issue was caused by a short between the Emitter & Base legs of the Q1 transistor.

Solution - Remove the short connection between the Emitter & Base legs of the Q1 transistor legs

 

Complications - I was extra careful this time because of the problem of loose cable from the last flip-over of the right PCB containing chan 5-8. Anyways, after I was done I noticed one of the pink wires (it carries the +14V to the left PCB) had come off on P1. At least this time I could also see that the corresponding front panel green LED turn off as a result. So I resecured the wire to the connector (using solder as my last attempt yesterday to reattach the via crimping didn't work after a long time trying. I hope this is not a problem.) and checked the front panel LED turns on when the unit is powered before closing the unit. These connectors are quite flimsy.

DONE
S1200747 TP4 @ LED2 on chan 1-4 PCB reads 13V instead of 5V

This issue was caused by a short between the Collector & Base legs of the Q1 transistor.

Solution - Remove the short connection between the Collector & Base legs of the Q1 transistor legs

DONE

 

 

 

  12468   Fri Sep 2 21:16:45 2016 ranaUpdateElectronicsSatellite Amplifier

In November of 2010, Valera Frolov (LLO), investigated our satellite amplifiers and made some recommendations about how to increase the SNR.

In light of the recent issues, we ought to fix up one of the spares into this state and swap it in for the ITMY's funky box.

The sat amp schematic is (D961289). It has several versions. Our spare is labeled as version D (not a choice on the DCC page).

  1. U13-17 seem superfluous. Why would we need a high current buffer to drive the slow EPICS ADCs ?
  2. The Radd resistors indicated on the B2 schematic have not been added to this board. What would be the purpose of adding them anyway?
  3. The transimpedance resistors are, in fact, 29.4k as indicated on the B1 schematic.
  4. The LT1125: V_n = 3 nV w/ f_corner = 5 Hz. I_n = 0.4 pA w/ f_corner = 100 Hz. So at 1 Hz the current noise is limiting at ~120 nV/rHz or 650 nV/rHz using the 161k that Valera recommends.
  5. Even in that case the ADC noise is higher than the opamp noise.
  6. We should be using metal film resistors instead of the thick film junk that's installed now.

Edit (Sep 6): The purpose of the Radd resistors is to lower the resistance and thus up the current through the LED. The equivalent load becomes 287 Ohms. Presumably, this in series with the LED is what gives the 25 mA stated on the schematic. This implies the LED has an effective resistance of 100 Ohms at this operating point. Why 3 resistors? To distribute the heat load. The 1206 SMD resistors are usually rated for 1/4 W. Better to replace with 287 Ohm metal film resistors rated for 1 W, if Steve can find them online.

  12470   Mon Sep 5 21:05:06 2016 ranaUpdateElectronicsSatellite Amplifier

The attached PDF shows the output noise of the satellite amp. This was calculated using 'osempd.fil' in the 40m/LISO GitLab repo.

The mean voltage output is ~1 Vdc, which corresponds to a current with a shot noise level of 100 nV/rHz on this plot. So the opamp current noise dominates below 1 Hz as long as the OSEM LED output is indeed quantum limited down to 0.1 Hz. Sounds highly implausible.

To convert into meters, we divide by the OSEM conversion factor of ~1.6 V/mm, so the shot noise equivalent would be ~1e-10 m/rHz above 1 Hz.

After adding the sat amp to the 40m DCC tree (D1600348), I notice that not only is the PD readout not built for low noise, neither is the LED drive.  The noise should be dominated by the voltage noise of the LT1031 voltage reference. This has a noise of ~500 nV/rHz at 1 Hz. That corresponds to an equivalent current noise through the LED of 25 mA * (500e-9 / 10) ~ 1 nA/rHz. Or ~45 nV/rHz at the sat amp output. This would be OK as long as everything behaves ideally. BUT, we have thick film (i.e. black surface mount) resistors on the LED drive so we'll have to measure it to make sure.

Also, why is the OSEM LED included in the feedback loop of the driver? It means disconnecting the cable from the sat amp makes the driver go unstable probably. I think one concept is that including the device in the feedback loop makes it so that any EMI picked up in the cabling, etc. gets cancelled out by the opamp. But this then requires that we test each driver to make sure it doesn't oscillate when driving the long cable. frown 

If we have some data with one of the optics clamped and the open light hitting the PD, or with the OSEMs removed and sitting on the table, that would be useful for evaluating the end-to-end noise of the OSEM circuit. It seems like we probably have that due to the vent work, so please post the times here if you have them.

Attachment 1: osempd.pdf
osempd.pdf
  12471   Tue Sep 6 00:14:14 2016 gautamUpdateElectronicsSatellite Amplifier

 

If we have some data with one of the optics clamped and the open light hitting the PD, or with the OSEMs removed and sitting on the table, that would be useful for evaluating the end-to-end noise of the OSEM circuit. It seems like we probably have that due to the vent work, so please post the times here if you have them.

The ETMX OSEMs have been attached to its Satellite box and plugged in for the last 10 days or so, with the PD exposed to the unobstructed LED. I pulled the spectrum of one of the sensors (mean detrended, I assume this takes care of removing the DC value?). The DQed channels claim to record um (the raw ADC counts are multiplied by a conversion factor of 0.36). For comparison, re-converted the y-axis for the measured curve to counts, and multiplied the total noise curve from the LISO simulation by a factor of 3267.8cts/V (2^16cts/20V) so the Y axis is noise in units of counts/rtHz. At 1Hz, there is more than an order of magnitude difference between the simulation and the measurement which makes me suspect my y-axis conversion, but I think I've done this correctly. Can such a large discrepancy be solely due to thick film resistors?

Attachment 1: osempdComparison.pdf
osempdComparison.pdf
  12505   Mon Sep 19 13:25:03 2016 TengUpdateElectronicsSatellite Amplifier

 

In order to figure out the difference betweent simulated result and measurement, I tried to measuren the electronic noise by following ways as show in attachment 1

1.measure from the satellite box by SR785 at ETMY ,calibrate to counts by divide by 3267.8. while at that conditin, the set up is in suspension.

2. measure after ADC by diagnostics test tools, with set up on table in history and on uspension currently.

3. use the caculated butterfly channel.

the results are shown in attachmemt 2. The overall nosie level are still much higher than simulation.

 

 

Quote:

 

If we have some data with one of the optics clamped and the open light hitting the PD, or with the OSEMs removed and sitting on the table, that would be useful for evaluating the end-to-end noise of the OSEM circuit. It seems like we probably have that due to the vent work, so please post the times here if you have them.

The ETMX OSEMs have been attached to its Satellite box and plugged in for the last 10 days or so, with the PD exposed to the unobstructed LED. I pulled the spectrum of one of the sensors (mean detrended, I assume this takes care of removing the DC value?). The DQed channels claim to record um (the raw ADC counts are multiplied by a conversion factor of 0.36). For comparison, re-converted the y-axis for the measured curve to counts, and multiplied the total noise curve from the LISO simulation by a factor of 3267.8cts/V (2^16cts/20V) so the Y axis is noise in units of counts/rtHz. At 1Hz, there is more than an order of magnitude difference between the simulation and the measurement which makes me suspect my y-axis conversion, but I think I've done this correctly. Can such a large discrepancy be solely due to thick film resistors?

 

  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.

  15776   Mon Jan 25 18:18:04 2021 AnchalSummaryBHDSatellite Amplifier Transfer Functions and noise

 

I took transfer function and noise measurement of satellite amplifier box's photodiode transimpedance circuit. For the measurement, I created a makeshift connector to convert backside DB25 into DB9 with the 4 channels for PDA input. The output was taken in differential form at the front PD Output port. To feed current to the circuit, I put in 12 kOhm resistors in series at the inputs, so the V/V transfer function measured was multiplied by 12 kOhm to get the transimpedance of the circuit.


Transfer Function Measurement details

  • SR785 source out was fed into PDA input pins using a makeshift BNC-DB9-DB25 converter.
  • The output from PDOut DB9 port was fed to test switch in D1900068 to separate differential signal.
  • This differential signal was fed back to SR785 at input 2 in A-B configuration.
  • Measurements are taken with file D1002818_TF.yml and D1002818_TF_LF.yml.
  • A measurement of just cables without the DUT is taken as well.
  • Commands.txt list all the commands used.
  • All data is compiled and plotted in Plotting.ipynb
  • D1100117_S2100029_TFandNoiseSpectrum.pdf shows all the transfer functions measured.

Spectrum Measurements

  • Two pair of BNC cables were twisted together and clips were added at ends.
  • One of the GND was connected to board GND. Rest were left unconnected to avoid ground loops.
  • Each pair of signal was connected to PDOutP/N.
  • The PDA inputs were shorted together to make zero input current to the board.
  • Instrument noise with cables was measured by shorting the clips of the center cores and one of the shields of the two BNC cables together.
  • Measurements were taken with file D1002818_SP.yml and D1002818_SP_LF.yml.
  • Input referred current noise spectrum was calculated by dividing the output voltage noise spectrum by the measured transfer function.
  • D1100117_S2100029_TFandNoiseSpectrum.pdf shows all the output votlage noise spectrum and input referred current noise spectrum measured.

Edit Wed Feb 10 15:14:13 2021 :

THE NOISE MEASUREMENT WAS WRONG HERE. SEE 40m/15799.

Attachment 1: D1002818_S2100029_TFandNoiseSpectrum.pdf
D1002818_S2100029_TFandNoiseSpectrum.pdf D1002818_S2100029_TFandNoiseSpectrum.pdf D1002818_S2100029_TFandNoiseSpectrum.pdf
Attachment 2: D1002818_Testing.zip
  15793   Wed Feb 3 16:27:19 2021 AnchalSummaryBHDSatellite Amplifier Transfer Functions and noise After modifications

I have made modifications recommended in this doc. The changes made are:

  • R24: 19.6k to 4.99k Ohms
  • R20: 19.6k to 4.99k Ohms
  • R23: 787 to 499 Ohms
  • Removed C16.

I took transfer function measurements, fitted them with zeros and poles and plotted it against the zero model of the circuit. The zeros and poles we intended to shift are matching well with 3Hz zero and 30 Hz pole. The later pole at 1500 Hz is at a higher value from what is predicted by zero.

I also took noise measurements and they are in good agreement with the noise predicted by zero.


Edit Wed Feb 10 15:14:13 2021 :

THE NOISE MEASUREMENT WAS WRONG HERE. SEE 40m/15799.

Attachment 1: D1002818_S2100029_TFAfterChanges.pdf
D1002818_S2100029_TFAfterChanges.pdf D1002818_S2100029_TFAfterChanges.pdf D1002818_S2100029_TFAfterChanges.pdf D1002818_S2100029_TFAfterChanges.pdf D1002818_S2100029_TFAfterChanges.pdf D1002818_S2100029_TFAfterChanges.pdf D1002818_S2100029_TFAfterChanges.pdf D1002818_S2100029_TFAfterChanges.pdf
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_InputRefferedNoiseSpecAfterChanges.pdf
D1002818_S2100029_InputRefferedNoiseSpecAfterChanges.pdf D1002818_S2100029_InputRefferedNoiseSpecAfterChanges.pdf D1002818_S2100029_InputRefferedNoiseSpecAfterChanges.pdf D1002818_S2100029_InputRefferedNoiseSpecAfterChanges.pdf D1002818_S2100029_InputRefferedNoiseSpecAfterChanges.pdf D1002818_S2100029_InputRefferedNoiseSpecAfterChanges.pdf D1002818_S2100029_InputRefferedNoiseSpecAfterChanges.pdf D1002818_S2100029_InputRefferedNoiseSpecAfterChanges.pdf
Attachment 4: D1002812_S2100029_After_Modifications_Feb3.jpg
D1002812_S2100029_After_Modifications_Feb3.jpg
Attachment 5: AfterChanges.zip
  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
  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.

ELOG V3.1.3-