40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 15 of 329  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Authorup Type Category Subject
  16565   Mon Jan 10 17:04:47 2022 AnchalUpdateBHDAS1 Sat Amp CH2 had offset

We found that there was a small offset (~300 mV) at TP6 and TP8, in PD2 circuit (CH2 of the board). I replaced U3 AD822ARZ but did not see any affect. I disconnected the adaptor board in the back and saw that the offset went away. This might mean that the cable had some flaky short to a power supply pin. However, when I just reinserted the adaptor board back again, there was no offset. We could not find any issue with the board after that to fix, so we left it as it is. If this board gives offset issues in the future, most probably the ribbon cable would be the suspect.

Now all ADC channels are showing no offset or overflows in C1SU2 chassis.

  16566   Mon Jan 10 18:20:45 2022 AnchalUpdateBHDTested 2" PR2 candidates transmission

I tested 2 more optics found by Paco and Yehonathan in QIL.

  Polarization Incident Power [mW] Transmitted Power [mW] Transmission [ppm]
V6-704 V6-706 p-pol 850 17.1 20118
Yellow cylindrical box p-pol 850 <1 ( could not even see it to measure it with a more sensitive power meter) <1000

I would like someone to redo the second test. I'm not sure what was happening but I could not find the transmitted beam at all on my card even with all lights out. This is either too good a coating and not useful for us or I did something wrong while measuring it.

V6-704, V6-706 mirror seemed like a good candidate as the paper with it said it would be a 200 ppm mirror. But I measured a lot more transmission than that. Now that I see that paper more carefully, it is a 45 degree s-pol mirror, probably that's why it had so much transmission for p-pol at near-normal incidence.

 

  16567   Mon Jan 10 18:36:41 2022 AnchalSummaryBHDLO1 free swinging test set to trigger

LO1 is set to go through a free swinging test at 1 am tonight. We have used this script (scripts/SUS/InMatCalc/freeSwing.py) reliably in the past so we expect no issues, it has a error catching block to restore all changes at the end of the test or if something goes wrong.

To access the test, on rossa, type:

tmux a -t freeSwingLO1

Then you can kill the script if required by Ctrl-C, it will restore all changes while exiting.

  16572   Tue Jan 11 12:19:12 2022 AnchalSummaryBHDLO1 Input Matrix Diagonalization performed.

The frree swinging test was successful. I ran the input matrix diagonalization code (scripts/SUS/InMAtCalc/sus_diagonalization.py) on the LO1 free swinging data collected last night. The logfile and results are stroed in scripts/SUS/InMatCalc/LO1 directory. Attachment 1 shows the power spectral density of the DOF bassis data (POS, PIT, YAW, SIDE) before and after the diagonalization. Attachment 2 shows the fitted peaks.


Free Swinging Resonances Peak Fits
  Resonant Frequency [Hz] Q A
POS 0.941 506 84
PIT 1.015 304 778
YAW 0.694 300 626
SIDE 0.999 371 49

LO1 New Input Matrix
  UL UR LR LL SIDE
POS
0.12
0.137
0.338
0.321
0.004
PIT
1.282
1.087
-0.57
-0.375
-0.843
YAW
1.07
-0.921
-1.081
0.91
0.098
SIDE
-0.042
0.383
0.326
-0.099
0.857

The new matrix was loaded on LO1 input matrix and this resulted in no control loop oscillations at least. I'll compare the performance of the loops in future soon.

Attachment 1: LO1_SUS_InpMat_Diagnolization.pdf
LO1_SUS_InpMat_Diagnolization.pdf
Attachment 2: LO1_FreeSwingData_PeakFitting.pdf
LO1_FreeSwingData_PeakFitting.pdf
  16575   Tue Jan 11 15:21:16 2022 AnchalUpdateBHDPR2 transmission calculation

I did this simple calculation where I assumed 1W power from laser and 10% transmission past IMC. We would go ahead with V6-704/V6-705 ATFilms 3/8" optic. It would bring down the PRC gain to ~30 but will provide plenty of light for LO beam and alignment.

Attachment 1: LO_power_vs_PR2_transmission.pdf
LO_power_vs_PR2_transmission.pdf
Attachment 2: PRC_Gain_vs_PR2_transmission.pdf
PRC_Gain_vs_PR2_transmission.pdf
Attachment 3: PRS_Trans_Calc.ipynb.zip
  16577   Tue Jan 11 18:18:29 2022 AnchalSummaryBHDAttempted OSEM installation on AS1

[Anchal, Paco, Yehonathan]

Connected in-cir cable to new flange on ITMY Chamber

Connected OSEM one-by-one. Starting from top right  to left (PIn1)

1st connector: LL -> UR -> UL

2nd connector: LR -> SD

Loosening all OSEMs and taking them out and noting full bright readings:

  • SD: 29564 -> 14787
  • LR: 30902 -> 15451
  • UR: 29280 -> 14640
  • LL: 27690 -> 13845
  • UL: 27668 -> 13834

:( We had to stop here as we were unable to actuate on the side coils. We checked the signal chain and found that the monitor output of AS1 LL/SD coil driver is responding to offset changes in the coil output filter module of AS1 side. However, when we connected the output of the coil driver through a breakout board to the AS1 Sat Amp, we saw no signal. We tried switching the coil driver bo with another one one the rack but we found the exact same issue. This led us to believe that something must be wrong with the AS1 Sat Amp. We checked the output of the AS1 LL/SD coil driver without connecting it to the sat amp and found that the output was responding to our CDS changes. Then we checked the second "Coil Input" port of the AS1 Sat Amp, and found that pins 2-7 and pins 3-8 are shorted. This means channel 5 and 8 on this box would be shorted. This is the reason why we were unable to actuate on the coils. I'll work on debugging this box, my first guess is that the ribbon cable is bad.

  16578   Tue Jan 11 18:40:25 2022 AnchalSummaryBHDAS1 Sat Amp has a PCB issue

AS1 Sat Amp (S2100741) has a critical PCB issue on it's Ch5-8 board S2100548. This board is supposed to just feed through the coil driver signal from the front DB9 connector to the back DB25 connector but it has a short between pins 2 and 7 at the "Coil Input" end (connector J1). The short persists even after I disconnect the sat amp to the flange connector on the back of this board, which definitely means the short is present in the passive channeling through the PCB or at the soldering points of the two DB connectors. I just flipped the board and found that the soldering connections are clean and separate. I think we'll have to use one of the spare sat amp boxes for AS1 for now, while we either declare this one manufacture defected or fix the issue.

I actually found the short on the PCB trace by just looking carefully at it. Attachment 1 shows the photo of it. Maybe we can fix this by simply cutting the tumor between the two traces (why are these traces so close together in such a large board anyways!!!), but I'm not sure if that is a reliable way of fixing this issue. I'll wait for Koji's comments on what to do with this. We'll recommence OSEM tuning for AS1 tomorrow with fixed electronics.

Attachment 1: signal-2022-01-11-184917.jpeg
signal-2022-01-11-184917.jpeg
  16579   Thu Jan 13 09:48:41 2022 AnchalSummaryBHDAS1 Sat Amp fixed

I fixed the issue in AS1 Sat Amp (S2100741) by using a razor blade. I cut the short between the two places, cleaned up the area and covered it with electrical tape. However, later feedback from Rana was to not use electrical tape as it dries up and becomes brittle and lfaky in long run. So after the AS1 OSEM tuning is over, I'll open this box again and use something else to insulate the exposed area. See attached pictures for current status.

 

Attachment 1: signal-2022-01-13-094823_001.jpeg
signal-2022-01-13-094823_001.jpeg
Attachment 2: signal-2022-01-13-094823_002.jpeg
signal-2022-01-13-094823_002.jpeg
  16580   Thu Jan 13 12:24:08 2022 AnchalSummaryBHDAS1 SD and LR magnets broke

[Anchal (vacuum work), Paco (outside)]

After the AS1 Sat Amp fix (40m/16579), we today were able to tune all OSEMs to the mid-bright level. But when we were about to call it, we were told that the new PEEK earthquake stop screw and bolts need to go on the thin suspended optics. Against better judgment, we decided to install the new back earthquake stop in-situ since we had tuned all OSEMs already. I installed the new stop but after that found that in the process I have broken off the side magnet and LR magnet from the optic adaptor and they are inside the OSEM coils now. This means we'll have to redo the AS1 suspension almost from scratch again sad. We have transported AS1 to the cleanroom where the work on re-suspension has begun.

  16581   Thu Jan 13 12:29:27 2022 AnchalSummaryBHDAS4 LR magnet broke

After the debacle with AS1 (40m/16580), we decided the put the PEEK earthquake stop by first removing the lower OSEM plate and then doing it. So I unfastened AS4 from its position with the earthquake stops in place and moved the suspension to the center of the table. Then I carefully removed the bottom OSEM plate. But I found out that the LR magnet is broken and lying on the floor of the suspension sad. Given my past on the same day, it could be me breaking it again during the moving of the suspension of taking off the OSEM plate or there is a small chance that this break happened before. Regardless of fault, this meant we have to resuspend AS4 again as well. So we transported AS4 back to the clean room and the work on it's re-suspension has begun.

  16583   Thu Jan 13 17:10:55 2022 AnchalUpdateBHDPR2 transmission calculation

I corrected the calculation by adding losses by the arm cavity ends times the arm cavity finesse and also taking into account the folding of the cavity mirror. I used exact formula for finesse calculation and divided it by pi to get the PRC gain from there. Attachment 3 is the notebook for referring to the calculations I made.

Note that using V6-704 would provide 35 mW of LO power when PRFPMI is locked and 113 uW for alignment, but will bring down the PRC Gain to 17.5.

pre-2010 ITM (if it is still an option) would provide 12 mW of LO power when PRFPMI is locked and 28 uW for alignment, but will keep the PRC Gain to 24.6.

I still have to do a curvature check on the V6-704 optic.

Attachment 1: LO_power_vs_PR2_transmission.pdf
LO_power_vs_PR2_transmission.pdf
Attachment 2: PRC_Gain_vs_PR2_transmission.pdf
PRC_Gain_vs_PR2_transmission.pdf
Attachment 3: PR2_Trans_Calc.ipynb.zip
  16585   Fri Jan 14 11:00:29 2022 AnchalUpdateBHDPR2 transmission calculation

Yeah, I counted the loss from arm cavities as the transmission from ETMs on each bounce. I assumed Michelson to be perfectly aligned to get no light at the dark port.  Should I use some other number for the round-trip loss in the arm cavity?

  16586   Fri Jan 14 12:01:21 2022 AnchalUpdateElectronicsBS & ITMY feedthroughs labeled and connected to Sat Amps

I labeled all the newly installed flanges and connected the in-air cables (40m/16530) to appropriate ports. These cables are connected to the CDS system on 1Y1/1Y0 racks through the satellite amplifiers. So all new optics now can be damped as soon as they are placed. We need to make more DB9 plugs for setting "Acquire" mode on the HAM-A coil drivers since our Binary input system is not ready yet. Right now, we only have 2 such plugs which means only one optic and be damped at a time.

 

  16587   Fri Jan 14 13:46:25 2022 AnchalUpdateBHDPR2 transmission calculation updated

I updated the arm cavity roundtrip losses due to scattering. Yehonathan told me that arm cavity looses 50ppm every roundtrip other than the transmission losses. With the updated arm cavity loss:

  PRFPMI LO Power (mW) Unlocked PRC LO Power (uW) PRC Gain
pre-2010 ITM 8 28 15.2
V6:704 24 113 12

 

Attachment 1: LO_power_vs_PR2_transmission.pdf
LO_power_vs_PR2_transmission.pdf
Attachment 2: PRC_Gain_vs_PR2_transmission.pdf
PRC_Gain_vs_PR2_transmission.pdf
Attachment 3: PR2_Trans_Calc.ipynb.zip
  16590   Fri Jan 14 18:12:47 2022 AnchalSummaryBHDAS4 placed in ITMY Chamber, OSEMs connected

AS4 was succesfully suspended and trasported to ITMY chamber (40m/16589). We placed it near the door to make it easy to tune the OSEMs. We connected the OSEMs and found that the LL OSEM is not responding. Even though the the OSEMs are completely out right now, there was no signal on this OSEM. This could be an issue in either at the LED driver circuit or the PD circuit in AS4 Sat Amp box, or it could be the OSEM that is bad. We'll investigate further next day. For now, we recorded the full brightness reading for the OSEMs:

  • UL: 32767  -> 16383
  • UR: 29420 -> 14710
  • LR: 30100 -> 15050
  • SD: 29222 -> 14611

Another thing to note is that UL value above is not changing at all. I checked the CDS screen and the the ADC input is overflowing in complete bright position of the OSEM.

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

[Paco, Anchal]

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

Learn burtgooey

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

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

Identifying video monitors

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

[Yehonathan, Paco, Anchal]

Unlocking MC

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

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

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

 

  15982   Wed Mar 31 22:58:32 2021 Anchal, PacoUpdateSUSMC2 Coil Balancing Test

A cross-coupling test has been set to trigger at 05:00 am on April 1st, 2021. The script is waiting on tmux session 'cB' on pianosa. /scripts/SUS/OutMatCalc/MC2crossCoupleTest.py is being used here. The script will switch on oscillator in LOCKIN1 of MC2 at 13 Hz and 200 counts and would send it along the POS, PIT and YAW vectors on output matrix one by one, each for 2 minutes. It will take data from C1:IOO-MC_F_DQ, C1:IOO-MC_TRANS_PIT_ERR and C1:IOO-MC_TRANS_YAW_ERR and use it to measure 'sensing matrix' S. Sensing matrix S is defined as the cross-coupling between excited and sensed DOF and we ideally want it to be an identity matrix. The code will use the measured S to create a guess matrix A which on being multiplied by ideal coil output matrix would give us a rotated coil output matrix O. This guess O will be applied and the measurement will be repeated. On each iteration, next, A matrix is defined by:

A_{k+1} = (1 + \beta) A_k - \beta S_k A_k

This recursive algorithm converges A to the inverse of initial S. The above relation is derived by noticing that in steady state A S = \mathrm{I} \Rightarrow A = A S A \Rightarrow A = A - \beta(A S A - A). I've taken this idea from a mathematics paper I found on some more complex stuff (c.f. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/yrvck).

At each iteration, all three matrices A, O and S will be stored in a text file for analysis later.

The code has the error-catching capability and would restore the optic to the status quo if an error occurs or watchdogs trip due to earthquakes.

  15984   Thu Apr 1 13:56:49 2021 Anchal, PacoUpdateSUSMC2 Coil Balancing Test Results

The coil balancing attempt failed. The off-diagonal values in the measured sensing matrices either remained the same or increased.


The attempt in the morning was too slow. By the time we reached, it had reached to iteration 7 only and still nowhere near optimum sensing matrix had reached. We still needed to see if the optimum would eventually reach if more iterations happened.

<Radhika came for shadowing us and learning about 40m>

So we worked a bit on speeding up the data loading process and then ran the code again which now was running much faster. Still within 1 hr or so, we saw it had reached to iteration 7 with no sign of sensing matrix getting any better.

<Paco left for vaccination>

To determine if the method would work in principle, I decided to stop the current run and start with a 0.5 Hz bandwidth run (so about 7 averages with 8s duration data and welch method). This completed 20 iterations before Gautum came. But it was clear now that the method is not converging to a better solution. Need to find a bug in the implementation of the algorithm mentioned in last post or find a better algoritm.


Attachment 1 is the plot of how the sensing matrix's distance from the identity matrix increased over iterations in the last run.

Attachment 2 is the plot for different off-diagonal terms in the sensing matrix. It is clear that POS->PIT,YAW coupling is not being measured properly as it remains constant.

Attachment 3 Gautum told us that there is some naming error in nds and MC_TRANS_PIT/YAW can be read through C1:IOO-MC_TRANS_PIT_ERR and C1:IOO-MC_TRANS_YAW_ERR channels instead. To test if they indeed point to same values, we did a test of exciting YAW degree through LOCKIN1 and seeing if the peaks are visible in the channels. This was also done to give Radhika an opportunity to do something I could confidently mentor about. and to experience using diaggui.

Attachment 1: SDistanceFromIdentity.pdf
SDistanceFromIdentity.pdf
Attachment 2: SmatIterations.pdf
SmatIterations.pdf
Attachment 3: TestingExcitationAlongYAW.pdf
TestingExcitationAlongYAW.pdf
  15985   Thu Apr 1 18:01:06 2021 Anchal, PacoUpdateSUSMC2 Coil Balancing Test Results Success??

After fixing a few things we felt were wrong in our implementation of the algorithm, we ran the coil balancing for 12 iterations with just 11s per excitation and still taking CSD with 0.1 Hz bandwidth. This time we saw the distance of sensing matrix from identity going down.


Performance Analysis

  • Attachment 1 shows the trend of distance of Sensing matrix from identity matrix over iterations.
  • Attachment 2 shows the trend of off-diagonal terms in sensing matrix over iterations.
  • Attachment 3 shows the ASD for the different sensed DOF when excited in different DOFs with the new output matrix. This is the better truth of what happened by the end. The true sensing matrix is proportional to the peak heights in this plot. Rows are different sensed DOFs (POS, PIT, YAW) and columns are excited DOFs (POS, PIT, YAW). The black dotted curves are ASD when no excitation was present.

Next step

  • We want to run it for longer, more iterations and more duration to get better averaging. Hopefully, this will do a better job. We'll try running this new code tomorrow at 5:00am.
  • We'll work on using uncertainties of measured data.
  • Use awg to excite all DOF together at different frequencies and make the code faster.
Attachment 1: SDistanceFromIdentity.pdf
SDistanceFromIdentity.pdf
Attachment 2: SmatIterations.pdf
SmatIterations.pdf
Attachment 3: MC2CoilCrossCoupling_opt.png
MC2CoilCrossCoupling_opt.png
  15995   Mon Apr 5 08:25:59 2021 Anchal, PacoUpdateGeneralRestore MC from early quakes

[Paco, Anchal]

Came in a little bit after 8 and found the MC unlocked and struggling to lock for the past 3 hours. Looking at the SUS overview, both MC1 and ITMX Watchdogs had tripped so we damped the suspensions and brought them back to a good state. The autolocker was still not able to catch lock, so we cleared the WFS filter history to remove large angular offsets in MC1 and after this the MC caught its lock again.

Looks like two EQs came in at around 4:45 AM (Pacific) suggested by a couple of spikes in the seismic rainbow, and this.

  16001   Tue Apr 6 18:46:36 2021 Anchal, PacoUpdateSUSUpdates on recent efforts

As mentioned in last post, we earlier made an error in making sure that all time series arrays go in with same sampling rate in CSD calculation. When we fixed that, our recursive method just blew out in all the efforts since then.


We suspect a major issue is how our measured sensing matrix (the cross-coupling matrix between different degrees of freedom on excitation) has significant imaginary parts in it. We discard the imaginary vaues and only use real parts for iterative method, but we think this is not the solution.

Here we present cross-spectral density of different channels representing the three sensed DOFs (normalized by ASD of no excitation data for each involved component) and the sensing matrix (TF estimate) calculated by normalizing the first cross spectral density plots column wise by the diagonal values. These are measured with existing ideal output matrix but with the new input matrix. This is to get an idea of how these elements look when we use them.

Note, that we used only 10 seconds of data in this run and used binwidth of 0.25Hz. When we used binwidth of 0.1 Hz, we found that the peaks were broad and highest at 13.1 Hz instead of 13 Hz which is the excitation frequency used in these measurements.


How should we proceed?

  • We feel that we should figure out a way to use the imaginary value of the sensing matrix, either directly or as weights representing noise in that particular data point.
  • Should we increase the excitation amplitude? We are currently using 500 counts of excitation on coil output.
  • Are there any other iterative methods for finding the inverse of the matrix that we should be aware of? Our current method is rudimentary and converges linearly.
  • Should we use the absolute value of the sensing matrix instead? In our experience, that is equivalent to simply taking ratios of the PSD of each channel and does not work as well as the TF estimate method.
Attachment 1: FirstMeasurementPlots.pdf
FirstMeasurementPlots.pdf FirstMeasurementPlots.pdf
  16007   Thu Apr 8 17:04:43 2021 Anchal, PacoUpdateSUSFirst Successful Coil Balancing

Today, we finally crossed the last hurdle and got a successful converging coil balancing run. laugh


What was the issue with POS?

  • Position of the MC2 mirror is being sensed using C1:IOO-MC_F_DQ channel which is proportional to the resonant frequency of the locked IMC.
  • However, this sensor is always 180 degrees out of phase of our actuator, the coils.
  • When the coils push the mirror forward, the length of the cavity actually decreases.
  • We added an extra option of providing a sign to the sensors such that -1 will be multiplied to sensed values for sensors which measure in opposite direction to the actuation.
  • This is important, because the feedback is applied to the coil output matrix assuming a particular direction of acctuation.
  • When we gave negative sign for the position sensor, it all started making sense and the algorithm started converging.

First run parameters:

  • We used binwidth of 0.25 Hz and duration of excitation as 41s. This would give welch and csd averaging of 19. We used median averaging to ignore outliers.
  • This iteration was run after PIT and YAW were separetly uncoupled before. We'll post a clean start to end run results in near future.
  • The iteration works in following manner:
    • Define a constant coil matrix C = [[1, 1, 1], [1, 1, -1], [1, -1, 1], [1, -1, -1]] which is ideal coil output matrix.
    • In each iteration, the output matrix Ok is defined as (note @ is the matmul operator):
      Ok = C @ Ak
      where Ak is a 3x3 matrix. A-1 is identity matrix.
    • At the end of each iteration, a sensing matrix is calculated in dimensions sensedDOF x excitedDOF, Sk
    • For next iteration, Ak+1 is calcualted by:
      Ak+1 = Ak - b * (Sk - I)
      where I is the identity matrix.
    • At convergence, the sensing matrix would become same as identity and matrix A will stop updating.
  • For this run, we kept the parameter b to be 0.05. This is similar to the KP parameter in PID loops. It should be between 0 and 1.
  • Since b value was small enough to allow for convergence from the inital point, but later it slowed down the process a lot.
  • Ideally, we should figure out a way to increase this paramter when the coil has been balanced somewhat, to increase the speed of the algorithm.
  • Secondly, we have a code which excites all DOFs at different frequencies directly using excitation channels in coil output matrix using awg.py. But for some reason, the excitation channel for 4th row in the output matrix column only connects intermittantly. Because of this, we can't use this method reliably yet. We can investigate more into it if suggested.

Balancing characteristics:

  • Attachment 1 shows how the distance of sensing matrix falls as iterations increase. We only ran for 50 iterations.
  • Attachment 2 shows how different off-diagonal terms of sensing matrix decreased.
    • Note that POS -> PIT, POS -> YAW and PIT-YAW have settled down to the noise floor.
    • The noise floor can be improved by increasing the excitation amplitude and/or increasing the duration of measurement.
  • Attachment 3 shows the evolution of sensing matrix as iterations move.

Final balanced output matrix:

Final balanced output coil matrix for MC2
POS PIT YAW COILS
1.02956 1.13053 1.19116 UL
1.01210 1.09188 -0.74832 UR
0.98737 -0.85502 0.70485 LR
0.96991 -0.89366 -1.23463 LR
Final Sensing Matrix
  Exc POS Exc PIT Exc YAW
Sens POS 1 -2.96e-2 8.00e-3
Sens PIT 8.58e-4 1 -4.84e-3
Sens YAW 5.97e-4 -1.15e-3 1

Code features and next:

  • Majority of the code is in two files: scripts/SUS/OutMatCalc/MC2crossCoupleTest.py and scripts/SUS/OutMatCalc/crossCoupleTest.py .
  • The code runs from start to end without human involevement and restores the state of channels in any case (error, kyboard interrupt, end of code) using finally statement.
  • Currently, each excitation is done one at a time through LockIn1. As mentioned above, this can be sped up 3 times if we get the awg.py to work reliably.
  • The complete code is in python3 and currently is run through native python3 on allegra (a new debian10 workstation with latest cds-workstation installed).
  • The code can be easily generalized for balancing any optic. Please let us know if we should work on making the generalized optic.
  • We're also working on thinking about increasing b as iterations move forward and the error signal becomes smaller.
  • We can also include the uncertainty in the Sensing matrix measurement to provide a weighted feedback. That way, we can probably increase b more.
Attachment 1: SDistanceFromIdentity.pdf
SDistanceFromIdentity.pdf
Attachment 2: SmatIterations.pdf
SmatIterations.pdf
Attachment 3: SmatrixPlots.pdf
SmatrixPlots.pdf SmatrixPlots.pdf SmatrixPlots.pdf SmatrixPlots.pdf SmatrixPlots.pdf SmatrixPlots.pdf SmatrixPlots.pdf SmatrixPlots.pdf
  16009   Fri Apr 9 13:13:00 2021 Anchal, PacoUpdateSUSFaster coil balancing

We ran again this method but with the 'b' parameter as a matrix instead. This provides more gain on some off-diagonal terms than others. This gave us a better convergence with the code reaching to the tolerance level provided (0.01 distance of S matrix from identity) within 16 iterations (~17 mins).


Attachment 1 again shows how the off-diagonal terms go down and how the overall distance of sensing matrix from identity goes down. This is 'Cross coupling budget' of the coils as iterations move forward.


Jumping to near zero-crossing:

  • Rana mentioned a ezlockin code which first makes 5 step changes in output matrix without using feedback and calculates the changes required to reach zero-crossing in the behavior of the off-diagonal terms during these steps.
  • This is similar to what we did above by hand where we increased the value of b for slowly converging off-diagonal elements.
  • We plan to implement this 'jump' to near zero-crossing method next. Aim is to get a coil balancing code that does the job in ~5 min.
  • We have been throwing away imaginary part of sensing matrix so far. We wanted to get to some owrking solution before we try more complex stuff. We have to figure out global phases in each transfer function estimate to rotate the measured transfer function appropriately.
Attachment 1: SmatIterations.pdf
SmatIterations.pdf
Attachment 2: MC2AllOutmat.txt
1.027604652272846142e+00 1.193175249772460367e+00 1.091939557371080394e+00
1.010054273887021292e+00 1.156057452309880551e+00 -8.392112351146234772e-01
9.895057930131009316e-01 -7.685799469766890768e-01 6.200896409311776880e-01
9.719554146272761930e-01 -8.056977444392685594e-01 -1.311061151554526294e+00
  16016   Mon Apr 12 08:32:54 2021 Anchal, PacoSummaryPSLPMC unlocked at 2pm on Sunday; ~ Restored

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

  16042   Fri Apr 16 11:36:36 2021 Anchal, PacoUpdateSUSTested proposed filters for POS colum in MC2 output matrix

We tried two sets of filters on the output matrix POS column in MC2. Both versions failed. Following are some details.


How test was done:

  • PSL shutter was closed and autolocker was switch off.
  • Turned off damping on POS, PIT, and YAW using C1:SUS-MC2_SUSPOS_SW2, C1:SUS-MC2_SUSPIT_SW2, and C1:SUS-MC2_SUSYAW_SW2.
  • Reference data was taken with no excitation to get relative increase at excitation.
  • Channels C1:SUS-MC2_SUSPIT_IN1, C1:SUS-MC2_SUSPOS_IN1, and C1:SUS-MC2_SUSYAW_IN1.
  • Frist we sent an excitation through LOCKIN1 at 0.11 Hz and 500 counts amplitude.
  • LOCKIN column in MC2 output matrix was kept identical to POS column, so all ones.
  • This formed our reference data set when no filters were used. Attachment 1.
  • Note that the peak at 0.03 Hz is due to LOCKIN2 that was left switched on due to autolocker.
  • Then the calculated filters were loaded using foton. Procedure:
    • Right click on filter bank med. Got to Execute-> Foton.
    • Go to File and uncheck 'Read Only'.
    • Find the filter module name in Module drop down.
    • Select an empty module section in Sections.
    • Write a name for the filter. We used DCcoupF2A and DCcouF2A2 for the two version respectively.
    • Paste the zpk foton format in Command.
    • Check with Bode plot if these are correct filters. Then click on Save. It will take about 30s to become responsive again.
    • GO back to filter bank medm screen and click on 'Load Coefficients'. This should start displaying your new filter module.
    • To switch on the module, click on the button below its name.
  • Once fitlers were loaded, we realized we can not use the LOCKIn to excite anymore as it comes as separate excitation.
  • So we used awggui to excite C1:SUS-MC2_LSCEXC at 0.11 Hz and 500 counts.
  • Then we retook the data and checked if the peaks are visible on PIT and YAW channels and how high they are.

Filer version 1

  • This was calculated by starting from ideal output matrix elements as they are currently loaded. All 1's for POS and so on.
  • The calculations were done in scripts/SUS/OutMatCalc/coilBalanceDC.py.
  • This file uses a state space model of the suspension and calculated the cross-coupling. Then the cross coupling is inverted and applied to the current output matrix elements to get correction DC gains.
  • These corrected DC gains are then used to create the filters as described in last post.
  • Attachment 2 shows the filter transfer functions and Attachment 3 shows the test results. Failed :(.
  • There was practivally no change in cross coupling that we can see.

Filter version 2:

  • In this version we used the output matrix optimized at high frequencies earlier (16009).
  • While testing this version, we also uploaded this optimised output amtrix at high frequency.
  • In this test, we realized the LOCKIN2 was on and switched it off manually. All excitations were done through awggui.
  • Attachment 4 shows the filter transfer functions and Attachment 5 shows the test results. Failed :(.
  • There was again practivally no change in cross coupling that we can see.

Forgot to upload new MC2 input matrix:

  • In hindsight, we should have uploaded our diagonalized suspension input matrix in MC2.
  • Without it, there was cross-coupling the in the sensor data to begin with.
  • But this can only be part of the reason why all our filters failed miserably.
  • Because the output matrix was not diagonalized earlier but it was not so bad. Onyl a fresh test can tell if it was the culprit.
Attachment 1: 20210416_MC2DCcoilBalancingNoFilters.pdf
20210416_MC2DCcoilBalancingNoFilters.pdf
Attachment 2: uncFilters.pdf
uncFilters.pdf uncFilters.pdf uncFilters.pdf
Attachment 3: 20210416_MC2DCcoilBalancingWithFilters.pdf
20210416_MC2DCcoilBalancingWithFilters.pdf
Attachment 4: uncFilters_v2.pdf
uncFilters_v2.pdf uncFilters_v2.pdf uncFilters_v2.pdf
Attachment 5: 20210416_MC2DCcoilBalancingWithFilters_v2.pdf
20210416_MC2DCcoilBalancingWithFilters_v2.pdf
  16049   Mon Apr 19 12:18:19 2021 Anchal, PacoUpdateSUSTested proposed filters for POS colum in MC2 output matrix

The filters were somewhat successful, how much we can see in attachment 1. The tip about difference between eigenmode basis and cartesian basis was the main thing that helped us take data properly. We still used OSEM data but rotated the output from POS, PIT, YAW to x, theta, phi (cartesian basis where x is also measured as angle projected by suspension length).


Eigenmode basis and Cartesian basis:

  • It is important to understand the difference between these two and what channels/sensors read what.
  • Eigenmode basis as the name suggests is the natural basis for the suspended pendulum.
    • It signifies the motion along three independent and orthogonal modes of motion: POS (longitudinal pendulum oscillation), PIT, and YAW.
    • The position of optic can be written in eigenmode basis as three numbers:
      • POS: Angle made by the center of mass of optic with verticle line from suspension point.
      • PIT: Angle made by the optic face with the suspension wires (this is important to note).
      • YAW: Angle made by optic surface with the nominal plane of suspension wires. (the yaw angle basically).
  • Cartesian basis is the lab reference frame.
    • Here we define three variables that can also represent an optic positioned and orientation:
      • x: Angle made by the center of mass of optic with verticle line from suspension point. (Same as POS)
      • \large \theta: Angle made by the optic surface with absolute verticle (z-axis) in lab frame.
      • \large \phi: Twist of the optic around the z-axis. Same as YAW angle above.
  • We want to apply the feedback gains and filters in eigenmode basis because they are a set of known independent modes. (RXA: NOOO!!!!!! read me elog entry on this topic)
  • Hence, the output from input matrix of suspensions comes out at POS, PIT and YAW in the eigenmode basis.
  • However, the sensors of optic positional, and orientation such at MC_F, wave front sensors and optical levers measure it in lab frame and thus in cartesian basis.
  • Essentially, the \large \theta measured by these sensors is different from the PIT calculated using the OSEM sensor data and is related by:
    • \large \theta = PIT - POS, where PIT and POS both are in radians as defined above.
  • When we optimized the cross-coupling in output matrix at high frequencies using the MC_F and WFS data, we actually optimized it In cartesian basis.
  • The three feedback filters from POS, PIT and YAW which carry data in the eigenmode basis need to be rotated into the cartesian basis in the output matrix before application to the coils.
  • The so-called F2A and A2L filters are essentially doing this rotation.
  • Above the resonant frequencies, the PIT and \large \theta become identical. Hence we want our filters to go to unity

The two filter sets:

  • The filters are named Eg2Ctv1 and Eg2Ctv2 on the POS column of MC2 output matrix.
  • This is to signify that these filters convert the POS, PIT, and YAW basis data (eigenmode basis data) into the cartesian basis (x, theta, phi) in which the output matrix is already optimized at higher frequencies.
  • v1 filter used an ideal output matrix during the calculation of filter as described in 16042 (script at scripts/SUS/OutMatCalc/coilBalanceDC.py).
  • Attachment 2 shows these filter transfer functions.
  • v2 filter use the output matrix optimized to reduce cross-coupling amount cartesian basis modes (MC_F, WFS_PIT and WFS_YAW) in 16009.
  • Attachment 3 shows these filter transfer funcitons.
  • Because of this, the v2 filter is different among right and left coils as well. We do see in Attachment 1 that this version of filter helps in reducing POS->YAW coupling too.

Test procedure:

  • We uploaded both the diagonalized input matrix and the diagonalized output matrix as calculated earlier.
  • We measured channels C1:SUS-MC2_SUSPOS_IN1_DQ, C1:SUS-MC2_SUSPIT_IN1_DQ, and C1:SUS-MC2_SUSYAW_IN1_DQ throughout this test.
  • These channels give output in an eigenmode basis (POS, PIT, and YAW) and the rows of the input matrix have some arbitrary normalization.
  • We normalize these channels to have same input matrix normalization as would be for ideal matrix (2 in each row).
  • Then, assuming the UL_SENS, UR_SENS, LR_SENS, and LL_SENS channels that come at input of the input matrix are calibrated in units of um, we calculate the cartesian angles x, theta, phi. for this calculation, we used the distance between coils as 49.4 mm (got it from Koji) and length of suspension as 0.2489 m and offset of suspension points from COM, b = 0.9 mm.
  • Now that we have true measures of angles in cartesian basis, we can use them to understand the effect on cross coupling from the filters we used.
  • PSL shutter is closed and autolocker is disabled. During all data measurements, we switched of suspension damping loops. This would ensure that our low frequency excitation survives for measurement at the measurement channels.
  • We first took reference data with no excitation and no filters for getting a baseline on each channel (dotted curves in Attachment 1).
  • We then send excitation of 0.03 Hz with 500 counts amplitude at C1:SUS-MC2_LSC_EXC and switched on LSC output.
  • One set of data is taken with no filters active (dashed curve in attachment 1).
  • Then two sets of data are taken with the two filters. Each data set was of 500s in length.
  • Welch function is used to take the PSD of data with bin widht of  0.01Hz and 9 averages.

Results:

  • Filter v1 was the most successful in reducing \large x \rightarrow \theta coupling by factor of 17.5.
    • The reduction in \large x \rightarrow \phi coupling was less. By a factor of 1.4.
  • Filter v2 was worse but still did a reduction of \large x \rightarrow \theta coupling by factor of 7.8.
    • The reduction in \large x \rightarrow \phi coupling was better. By a factor of 3.3.

Next, filters in PIT columns too

  • We do have filters calculated for PIT as well.
  • Now that we know how to test these properly, we can test them tomorrow fairly quickly.
  • For the YAW column though, the filters would probably just undo the output matrix optimization as they are derived from ideal transfer function models and ideally there is no coupling between YAW and other DOFs. So maybe, we should skip putting these on.
Attachment 1: CrossCoupleTestForEgToCtFilters.pdf
CrossCoupleTestForEgToCtFilters.pdf
Attachment 2: uncFilters.pdf
uncFilters.pdf uncFilters.pdf uncFilters.pdf
Attachment 3: uncFilters_v2.pdf
uncFilters_v2.pdf uncFilters_v2.pdf uncFilters_v2.pdf
  16054   Tue Apr 20 10:52:49 2021 Anchal, PacoUpdateSUSAC gain coil output balancing for IMC

[Paco, Anchal]

  • We adopted the following procedure to balance the coil output gains using a high-frequency (> 10 Hz) excitation on "C1:SUS-MCX_ASCPIT_EXC", "C1:SUS-MCX_ASCYAW_EXC", and "C1:SUS-MCX_LSC_EXC", where X is one of {1, 2, 3} for the three IMC optics, and the cavity sensors (MC_F, and MC_TRANS);
    1. We load the new input matrix found on March-23rd.
    2. Using awggui, we launch a single 23.17 Hz sine with 500 - 1000 counts amplitude on the aforementioned channels.
      • We are still unable to launch multiple excitations simultaneously through either API (python-awg or dtt-awggui) devilno
    3. Using our built-in hominid neural networks, we look at the "C1:IOO-MC_F", "C1:IOO-MC_TRANS_PIT_IN", and "C1:IOO-MC_TRANS_YAW_IN" exponentially averaging power spectra, on and about the excitation frequency, and identify the amount of cross-coupling going into angular or longitudinal motion depending on the excited degree of freedom.
    4. We step the "C1:SUS-MCX_URCOIL_GAIN", "C1:SUS-MCX_ULCOIL_GAIN", "C1:SUS-MCX_LRCOIL_GAIN", "C1:SUS-MCX_LLCOIL_GAIN" coil output gains by hand in the presence of an excitation (e.g. "LSC") along a given degree of freedom (e.g. along "PIT") to try and minimize the coupling.
    5. We iterate step (4) until we find an optimum gain set, and move on to another optic.

Results

  • For MC2 the optimal gains changed from: [1.0, -1.0, 1.0, -1.0] → [1.05, -1.05, 0.995, -1.03] **
    • Here we were able to first decouple PIT and YAW from a POS excitation almost entirely (see Attachment #1), but weren't as successful in decoupling YAW and POS from PIT, or PIT and POS from YAW excitations (Attachment #2).
  • For MC1 the optimal gains changed from: [1.0, 1.0, 1.0, 1.0] → [0.282, 0.035, 0.302, 2.46] **
    • Here we mostly succeeded in decoupling POS from YAW and PIT excitations (see Attachments #3 - 4).
  • For MC3 the optimal gains changed from: [1.0, -1.0, 1.0, -1.0] → [0.126, -0.123, 0.298, -0.306] **
    • Here the LSC_EXC didn't show up on MC_F (??), and the PIT/YAW excitations decouple by virtue of seemingly low gains, so maybe the optimum is an artifact of the lower coil gains...
    • Plots are to follow up for this one.

** The notation here is [UL, UR, LR, LL]


Attachment 1: POS2PYuncoupled.pdf
POS2PYuncoupled.pdf POS2PYuncoupled.pdf
Attachment 2: PIT2PYuncoupled.pdf
PIT2PYuncoupled.pdf PIT2PYuncoupled.pdf
Attachment 3: MC1YAWexc.pdf
MC1YAWexc.pdf
Attachment 4: MC1PITexc.pdf
MC1PITexc.pdf
  16063   Wed Apr 21 11:38:27 2021 Anchal, PacoUpdateSUSMC2 Damping Gains Optimized

We did a step response test with MC2 Suspensoin Damping Gains and optimized them to get <5 oscillations in ringdown.


Procedure:

  • We uploaded the diagonalized input matrix.
  • We uploaded the coil balancing gains at high frequencies found in 16054.
  • We applied Eg2CtQ1 filter module for DC gain balancing foun inf 16055.
  • We set TRAMP to 0 in C1:SUS-MC2_SUSPOS_TRAMP, C1:SUS-MC2_SUSPIT_TRAMP, and C1:SUS-MC2_SUSYAW_TRAMP.
  • We played with offsets to get a good step height. Finally we used:
    • C1:SUS-MC2_SUSPOS_OFFSET: 3000
    • C1:SUS-MC2_SUSPIT_OFFSET: 100
    • C1:SUS-MC2_SUSYAW_OFFSET: 100
  • We looked at channels C1:SUS-MC2_SUSPOS_INMON, C1:SUS-MC2_SUSPIT_INMON, and C1:SUS-MC2_SUSYAW_INMON on a striptool screen to see the step response of the switching on/off of the offsets.
  • We tried to decrease/increase gain to get <5 oscillations during ringdown due to the step inputs.
  • Restored everything back to old values at the end.

Results:

  • Gain in POS was found to be already good. In PIT and YAW we changed the gains from 10 -> 30.
  • Attachment 1 shows the striptool screen when offset was switched ON/Off in POS, PIT and YAW respectively after appling the optimized gains.
  • Attachment 2 shows the same test with old gains for comparison.

In the afternoon, we'll complete doing the above steps for MC1 and MC3. Their coil balancing has not been done on DC so, it is bit non-ideal right now. We'll look into scripting this process as well.

Attachment 1: MC2_DampGainStepTestWithNewGains.png
MC2_DampGainStepTestWithNewGains.png
Attachment 2: MC2_DampGainStepTestWithOldGains.png
MC2_DampGainStepTestWithOldGains.png
  16066   Wed Apr 21 15:50:01 2021 Anchal, PacoUpdateSUSMC2 Suspension Optimization summary
MC2 Coil Balancing DC and AC Gains
  POS PIT YAW COIL_GAIN (AC balancing)

UL

1.038 1 1 1.05
UR 1.009 1 -1 -1.05
LL 0.913 -1 1 -1.030
LR 0.915 -1 -1 0.995

MC2 Diagonalized input matrix
  UL UR LR LL SIDE
POS 0.2464 0.2591 0.2676 0.2548 -0.1312
PIT 1.7342 0.7594 -2.494 -1.5192 -0.0905
YAW 1.2672 -2.0309 -0.9625 2.3356 -0.2926
SIDE 0.1243 -0.1512 -0.1691 0.1064 0.9962

MC2 Suspension Gains
  Old gain New Gain
SUSPOS 150 150
SUSPIT 10 30
SUSYAW 10 30

 

  16072   Thu Apr 22 12:17:23 2021 Anchal, PacoUpdateSUSMC1 and MC3 Suspension Optimization Summary
MC1 Coil Balancing DC and AC Gains
  POS (DC coil Gain) PIT (DC coil Gain) YAW (DC coil Gain) Coil Output Gains (AC)
UL 0.6613 1 1 0.5885
UR 0.7557 1 -1 0.1636
LL 1.3354 -1 1 1.8348
LR 1.0992 -1 -1 0.5101

Note: The AC gains were measured by keeping output matrix to ideal values of 1s. When optimizing DC gains, the AC gains were uploaded in coil ouput gains.


MC1 Diagonalized input matrix
  UL UR LR LL SIDE
POS 0.1700 0.1125 0.0725 0.1300 0.4416
PIT 0.1229 0.1671 -0.1021 -0.1463 0.1567
YAW 0.2438 -0.1671 -0.2543 0.1566 -0.0216
SIDE 0.0023 0.0010 0.0002 0.0015 0.0360

MC1 Suspension Damping Gains
  Old gains New Gains
SUSPOS 120 270
SUSPIT 60 180
SUSYAW 60 180


MC3 Coil Balancing DC and AC Gains
  POS (DC coil Gain) PIT (DC coil Gain) YAW (DC coil Gain) Coil Output Gains (AC)
UL 1.1034 1 1 0.8554
UR 1.1034 1 -1 -0.9994
LL 0.8845 -1 1 -0.9809
LR 0.8845 -1 -1 1.1434

Note: The AC gains were measured by keeping output matrix to ideal values of 1s. When optimizing DC gains, the AC gains were uploaded in coil ouput gains.


MC3 Input matrix (Unchanged from previous values)
  UL UR LR LL SIDE
POS 0.28799 0.28374 0.21201 0.21626 -0.40599
PIT 2.65780 0.04096 -3.2910 -0.67420 -0.72122
YAW 0.60461 -2.7138 0.01363 3.33200 0.66647
SIDE 0.16601 0.19725 0.10520 0.07397 1.00000

MC3 Suspension Damping Gains
  Old gains New Gains
SUSPOS 200 500
SUSPIT 12 35
SUSYAW 8 12
  16085   Mon Apr 26 18:52:52 2021 Anchal, PacoHowToComputer Scripts / Programsawg free slot

Today we had some trouble launching an excitation on C1:IOO-MC_LSC_EXC from awggui. The error read:

awgSetChannel: failed getIndexAWG C1:SUS-MC2_LSC_EXC ret=-3

What solved this was the following :

  1. launch the dtt command line interface
  2. Anchal remembers a slot number 37008
  3. We issue >> awg free 37008
  4. Slot freed, launch a new instance of awggui
  16086   Mon Apr 26 18:55:39 2021 Anchal, PacoUpdateSUSMC2 F2A Filters Tested

Today we tested the F2A filters created from the DC gain values listed in 16066.


Filters:

  • For a DC gain G_{DC} required for balancing the coil at DC and f_0 being the resonance frequency of the mode (POS in this case), we calculate the filter using:
    \frac{1 + i \frac{f_z}{f Q} - \frac{f_z^2}{f^2}}{1 + \frac{f_0}{f} - \frac{f_0^2}{f^2}}where f_z = f_0 \sqrt{G_{DC}}.
  • Attachment 1 shows the motivation for choosing the resonant frequency in the formula above. It makes gain at DC as G_{DC} while keeping AC gain as 1.
  • Attachment 2 shows the transfer functions of the filters uploaded.
  • Filters are named Eg2CtQ3, Eg2CtQ7 and Eg2CtQ10 for Q=3,7,10 filters respectively. (Named for Eigenmode Basis to Cartesian Basis conversion filters, aka F2A filters).

Testing procedure:

  • We uploaded the new input matrix listed in 16066.
  • We then uploaded the coil output gains (AC gains) that are also listed in 16066.
  • Then we reduced the C1:IOO-WFS_GAIN to 0.05 (by a factor of 20).
    • Rana asked us to test the WFS sensors' impulse response to observe a minimum 10s decay to ensure that the UGF of WFS control loops is at or below 0.1 Hz.
    • We were unable to have any effect on this decay actually. We tried setting offsets without tramps in multiple places but whenever we were able to excite this loop, it will always damp down in about 5-6s regardless of the value of C1:IOO-WFS_GAIN.
    • So we moved on.
  • Then, with MC locked we took reference data with no excitation or filters uploaded. (dotted curves)
  • We took cross spectral density from C1:IOO-MC_F to C1:IOO-MC_TRANS_PIT_IN1, C1:IOO-MC_TRANS_YAW_IN1, C1:IOO-WFS1_PIT_IN1, C1:IOO-WFS1_PIT_IN1, C1:IOO-WFS2_PIT_IN1, and C1:IOO-WFS2_PIT_IN1.
  • We were also looking at the power spectral density of these channels.
  • Then using awggui (after the fix we did as in 16085), we added noise in C1:SUS-MC2_LSC_EXC as uniform noise between 0.05 Hz to 3.5 Hz with amplitude of 100 and gain of 100.
  • We took a set of data without switching on the filters to have a comparison later. (Dash-dort curves)
  • We then took data after switching on the filters. (Solid curves)

Next:

  • Tomorrow we'll repeat this for MC1 and MC3 if we get a favourable grade in our work here.
  • Even if not, we'll jsut conclude the suspension optimization work tomorrow morning and get into main interferometer.
Attachment 1: f2a.pdf
f2a.pdf
Attachment 2: IMC_F2A_Params_MC2.pdf
IMC_F2A_Params_MC2.pdf IMC_F2A_Params_MC2.pdf IMC_F2A_Params_MC2.pdf
Attachment 3: MC2_F2A_FilterChar_POS2Ang.pdf
MC2_F2A_FilterChar_POS2Ang.pdf MC2_F2A_FilterChar_POS2Ang.pdf MC2_F2A_FilterChar_POS2Ang.pdf MC2_F2A_FilterChar_POS2Ang.pdf MC2_F2A_FilterChar_POS2Ang.pdf MC2_F2A_FilterChar_POS2Ang.pdf
  16087   Tue Apr 27 10:05:28 2021 Anchal, PacoUpdateSUSMC1 and MC3 F2A Filters Tested

We extended the f2a filter implementation and diagnostics as summarized in 16086 to MC1 and MC3.


MC1

Attachment 1 shows the filters with Q=3, 7, 10. We diagnosed using Q=3.

Attachment 2 shows the test summary, exciting with broadband noise on the LSC_EXC and measuring the CSD to estimate the transfer functions.


MC3

Attachment 3 shows the filters with Q=3, 7, 10. We diagnosed using Q=3.

Attachment 4 shows the test summary, exciting with broadband noise on the LSC_EXC and measuring the CSD to estimate the transfer functions.


Our main observation (and difference) with respect to MC2 is the filters have relative success for the PIT cross-coupling and not so much for YAW. We already observed this when we tuned the DC output gains to compute the filters.

Attachment 1: IMC_F2A_Params_MC1.pdf
IMC_F2A_Params_MC1.pdf IMC_F2A_Params_MC1.pdf IMC_F2A_Params_MC1.pdf
Attachment 2: MC1_POStoAng_CrossCoupling.pdf
MC1_POStoAng_CrossCoupling.pdf MC1_POStoAng_CrossCoupling.pdf MC1_POStoAng_CrossCoupling.pdf MC1_POStoAng_CrossCoupling.pdf MC1_POStoAng_CrossCoupling.pdf MC1_POStoAng_CrossCoupling.pdf
Attachment 3: IMC_F2A_Params_MC3.pdf
IMC_F2A_Params_MC3.pdf IMC_F2A_Params_MC3.pdf IMC_F2A_Params_MC3.pdf
Attachment 4: MC3_POStoAng_CrossCoupling.pdf
MC3_POStoAng_CrossCoupling.pdf MC3_POStoAng_CrossCoupling.pdf MC3_POStoAng_CrossCoupling.pdf MC3_POStoAng_CrossCoupling.pdf MC3_POStoAng_CrossCoupling.pdf MC3_POStoAng_CrossCoupling.pdf
  16089   Wed Apr 28 10:56:10 2021 Anchal, PacoUpdateSUSIMC Filters diagnosed

Good morning!

We ran the f2a filter test for MC1, MC2, and MC3.


Filters

The new filters differ from previous versions by a adding non-unity Q factor for the pole pairs as well.

\frac{f^2 - i \frac{f_z}{Q}f + f_z^2}{f^2 - i \frac{f_0}{Q}f + f_0^2}
This in terms of zpk is: [ [zr + i zi, zr - i zi], [pr + i pi, pr - i pi], 1] where
z_r = -\frac{f_z}{2Q}, \quad z_i = f_z \sqrt{1 - \frac{1}{4Q^2}}, \quad p_r = -\frac{f_0}{2Q}, \quad p_i = f_0 \sqrt{1 - \frac{1}{4Q^2}}, \quad f_z = f_0 \sqrt{G_{DC}}

  • Attachment #1 shows the filters for MC1 evaluated for Q=3, 7,and 10.
  • Attachment #2 shows the filters for MC2 evaluated for Q=3, 7, and 10.
  • Attachment #3 shows the filters for MC3 evaluated for Q=3, 7, and 10.
  • Attachment #4 shows the bode plots generated by foton after uploading for Q=3 case.

We uploaded all these filters using foton, into the three last FM slots on the POS output gain coil.


Tests

We ran tests on all suspended optics using the following (nominal) procedure:

  1. Upload new input matrix
  2. Lower the C1:IOO-WFS_GAIN to 0.05.
  3. Upload AC coil balancing gains.
  4. Take ASD for the following channels:
    • C1:IOO-MC_TRANS_PIT_IN1
    • C1:IOO-MC_TRANS_YAW_IN1
    • C1:IOO-MC_WFS1_PIT_IN1
    • C1:IOO-MC_WFS1_YAW_IN1
    • C1:IOO-MC_WFS2_PIT_IN1
    • C1:IOO-MC_WFS2_YAW_IN1
  5. For the following combinations:
    • No excitation** + no filter
    • No excitation + filter
    • Excitation + no filter
    • Excitation + filter

** Excitation = 0.05 - 3.5 Hz uniform noise, 100 amplitude, 100 gain


Plots

  • Attachment 5-7 give the test results for MC1, MC2 and MC3.
  • In each pdf, the three pages show ASD of TRANS QPD, WFS1 and WFS2 channels' PIT and YAW, respectively.
  • Red/blue correspond to data taken while F2A filters were on. Pink/Cyan correspond to data taken with filters off.
  • Solid curves were taken with excitation ON and dashed curves were taken with excitation off.
  • We see good suppression of POS-> PIT coupling in MC2 and MC3. POS->YAw is minimally affected in all cases.
  • MC1 is clearly not doing good with the filters and probably needs readjustement. Something to do later in the future.
Attachment 1: IMC_F2A_Params_MC1.pdf
IMC_F2A_Params_MC1.pdf IMC_F2A_Params_MC1.pdf IMC_F2A_Params_MC1.pdf
Attachment 2: IMC_F2A_Params_MC2.pdf
IMC_F2A_Params_MC2.pdf IMC_F2A_Params_MC2.pdf IMC_F2A_Params_MC2.pdf
Attachment 3: IMC_F2A_Params_MC3.pdf
IMC_F2A_Params_MC3.pdf IMC_F2A_Params_MC3.pdf IMC_F2A_Params_MC3.pdf
Attachment 4: IMC_F2A_Foton.pdf
IMC_F2A_Foton.pdf IMC_F2A_Foton.pdf IMC_F2A_Foton.pdf
Attachment 5: MC1_POS2ANG_Filter_Test.pdf
MC1_POS2ANG_Filter_Test.pdf MC1_POS2ANG_Filter_Test.pdf MC1_POS2ANG_Filter_Test.pdf
Attachment 6: MC2_POS2ANG_Filter_Test.pdf
MC2_POS2ANG_Filter_Test.pdf MC2_POS2ANG_Filter_Test.pdf MC2_POS2ANG_Filter_Test.pdf
Attachment 7: MC3_POS2ANG_Filter_Test.pdf
MC3_POS2ANG_Filter_Test.pdf MC3_POS2ANG_Filter_Test.pdf MC3_POS2ANG_Filter_Test.pdf
  16108   Mon May 3 09:14:01 2021 Anchal, PacoUpdateLSCIMC WFS noise contribution in arm cavity length noise

Lock ARMs

  • Try IFO Configure ! Restore Y Arm (POY) and saw XARM lock, not YARM. Looks like YARM biases on ITMY and ETMY are not optimal, so we slide C1:SUS-ETMY_OFF from 3.0 --> -14.0 and watch Y catch its lock.
  • Run ASS scripts for both arms and get TRY/TRX ~ 0.95
    • We ran X, then Y and noted that TRX dropped to ~0.8 so we ran it again and it was well after that. From now on, we will do Y, then X.

WFS1 noise injection

  • Turn WFS limits off by running switchOffWFSlims.sh
  • Inject broadband noise (80-90 Hz band) of varying amplitudes from 100 - 100000 counts on C1:IOO-WFS1_PIT_EXC
  • After this we try to track its propagation through various channels, starting with
    • C1:LSC-XARM_IN1_DQ / C1:LSC-YARM_IN1_DQ
    • C1:SUS-ETMX_LSC_OUT_DQ / C1:SUS-ETMY_LSC_OUT_DQ
    • C1:IOO-MC_F_DQ
    • C1:SUS-MC1_**COIL_OUT / C1:SUS-MC2_**COIL_OUT / C1:SUS-MC3_**COIL_OUT
    • C1:IOO-WFS1_PIT_ERR / C1:IOO-WFS1_YAW_ERR
    • C1:IOO-WFS1_PIT_IN2

** denotes [UL, UR, LL, LR]; the output coils.

  • Attachment 1 shows the power spectra with IMC unlocked
  • Attachment 2 shows the power spectra with the ARMs (and IMC) locked
Attachment 1: WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_IMC_unlocked.pdf
WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_IMC_unlocked.pdf WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_IMC_unlocked.pdf WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_IMC_unlocked.pdf WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_IMC_unlocked.pdf WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_IMC_unlocked.pdf WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_IMC_unlocked.pdf WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_IMC_unlocked.pdf WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_IMC_unlocked.pdf WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_IMC_unlocked.pdf
Attachment 2: WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_ARM_locked.pdf
WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_ARM_locked.pdf WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_ARM_locked.pdf WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_ARM_locked.pdf WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_ARM_locked.pdf WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_ARM_locked.pdf WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_ARM_locked.pdf WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_ARM_locked.pdf WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_ARM_locked.pdf WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_ARM_locked.pdf
  16117   Tue May 4 11:43:09 2021 Anchal, PacoUpdateLSCIMC WFS noise contribution in arm cavity length noise

We redid the WFS noise injection test and have compiled some results on noise contribution in arm cavity noise and IMC frequency noise due to angular noise of IMC.


Attachment 1: Shows the calibrated noise contribution from MC1 ASCPIT OUT to ARM cavity length noise and IMC frequency noise.

  • For calibrating the cavity length noise signals, we sent 100 cts 100Hz sine excitation to ITMX/Y_LSC_EXC, used actuator calibration for them as 2.44 nm/cts from 13984, and measured the peak at 100 hz in time series data. We got calibration factors: ETMX-LSC_OUT: 60.93 pm/cts , and ETMY-LSC_OUT: 205.0 pm/cts.
  • For converting IMC frequency noise to length noise, we used conversion factor given by \lambda L / c where L is 37.79m and lambda is wavelength of light.
  • For converting MC1 ASCPIT OUT cts data to frequency noise contributed to IMC, we sent 100,000 amplitude bandlimited noise (see attachment 3 for awggui config) from 25 Hz to 30 Hz at C1:IOO-MC1_PIT_EXC. This noise was seen at both MC_F and ETMX/Y_LSC_OUT channels. We used the noise level at 29 Hz to get a calibration for MC1_ASCPIT_OUT to IMC Frequency in Hz/cts. See Attachment 2 for the diaggui plots.
  • Once we got the calibration above, we measured MC1_ASCPIT_OUT power spectrum without any excitaiton and multiplied it with the calibration factor.
  • However, something must be wrong because the MC_F noise in length units is coming to be higher than cavity length noise in most of the frequency band.
    • It can be due to the fact that control signal power spectrum is not exactly cavity length noise at all frequencies.  That should be only above the UGF of the control loop (we plan to measure that in afternoon).
    • Our calibration for ETMX/Y_LSC_OUT might be wrong.
Attachment 1: ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf
ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf
Attachment 2: IOO-MC1_PIT_NoiseInjTest2.pdf
IOO-MC1_PIT_NoiseInjTest2.pdf IOO-MC1_PIT_NoiseInjTest2.pdf
Attachment 3: IOO-MC1_PIT_NoiseInjTest_AWGGUI_Config.png
IOO-MC1_PIT_NoiseInjTest_AWGGUI_Config.png
  16127   Fri May 7 11:54:02 2021 Anchal, PacoUpdateLSCIMC WFS noise contribution in arm cavity length noise

We today measured the calibration factors for XARM_OUT and YARM_OUT in nm/cts and replotted our results from 16117 with the correct frequency dependence.


Calibration of XARM_OUT and YARM_OUT

  • We took transfer function measurement between ITMX/Y_LSC_OUT and X/YARM_OUT. See attachment 1 and 2
  • For ITMX/Y_LSC_OUT we took calibration factor of 3*2.44/f2 nm/cts from 13984. Note that we used the factor of 3 here as Gautum has explicitly written that the calibration cts are DAC cts at COIL outputs and there is a digital gain of 3 applied at all coil output gains in ITMX and ITMY that we confirmed.
  • This gave us callibration factors of XARM_OUT: 1.724/f2 nm/cts , and YARM_OUT: 4.901/f2 nm/cts. Note the frrequency dependence here.
  • We used the region from 70-80 Hz for calculating the calibration factor as it showed the most coherence in measurement.

Inferring noise contributions to arm cavities:

  • For converting IMC frequency noise to length noise, we used conversion factor given by \lambda L / c where L is 37.79m and lambda is wavelength of light.
  • For converting MC1 ASCPIT OUT cts data to frequency noise contributed to IMC, we sent 100,000 amplitude bandlimited noise  from 25 Hz to 30 Hz at C1:IOO-MC1_PIT_EXC. This noise was seen at both MC_F and ETMX/Y_LSC_OUT channels. We used the noise level at 29 Hz to get a calibration for MC1_ASCPIT_OUT to IMC Frequency in Hz/cts. This measurement was done in 16117.
  • Once we got the calibration above, we measured MC1_ASCPIT_OUT power spectrum without any excitaiton and multiplied it with the calibration factor.
  • Attachment 3 is our main result.
    • Page 1 shows the calculation of Angle to Length coupling by reading off noise injects in MC1_ASCPIT_OUT in MC_F. This came out to 10.906/f2 kHz/cts.
    • Page 2-3 show the injected noise in X arm cavity length units. Page 3 is the zoomed version to show the matching of the 2 different routes of calibration.
    • BUT, we needed to remove that factor of 3 we incorporated earlier to make them match.
    • Page 4 shows the noise contribution of IMC angular noise in XARM cavity.
    • Page 5-6 is similar to 2-3 but for YARM. The red note above applied here too! So the factor of 3 needed to be removed in both places.
    • Page 7 shows the noise contribution of IMC angular noise in XARM cavity.

Conclusions:

  • IMC Angular noise contribution to arm cavities is atleast 3 orders of magnitude lower then total armc cavity noise measured.

Edit Mon May 10 18:31:52 2021

See corrections in 16129.

Attachment 1: ITMX-XARM_TF.pdf
ITMX-XARM_TF.pdf ITMX-XARM_TF.pdf
Attachment 2: ITMY-YARM_TF.pdf
ITMY-YARM_TF.pdf ITMY-YARM_TF.pdf
Attachment 3: ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf
ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf
  16128   Mon May 10 10:57:54 2021 Anchal, PacoSummaryCalibrationUsing ALS beatnote for calibration, test

Test details:

  • We locked both arms and opened the shutter for Yend green laser.
  • After toggling the shutter on.off, we got a TEM00 mode of green laser locked to YARM.
  • We then cleared the phase Y history by clicking "CLEAR PHASE Y HISTROY" on C1LSC_ALS.adl (opened from sitemap > ALS > ALS).
  • We sent excitation signal at ITMY_LSC_EXC using awggui at 43Hz, 77Hz and 57Hz.
  • We measured the power spectrum and coherence of C1:ALS-BEATY_FINE_PHASE_OUT_HZ_DQ and C1:SUS-ITMY_LSC_OUT_DQ.
  • The BEATY_FINE_PHASE_OUT_HZ is already calibrated in Hz. This we assume is done by multip[lying the VCO slope in Hz/cts to the error signal of the digital PLL loop that tracks the phase of beatnote.
  • We calibrated C1:SUS-ITMY_LSC_OUT_DQ by multiplying with
    \large 3 \times \frac{2.44 \, nm/cts}{f^2} \times \frac{c}{1064\,nm \times 37.79\, m} = \frac{54.77}{f^2} kHz/cts where f is in Hz.
    The 2.44/f2 nm/cts is taken from 13984.
  • We added the calibration as Poles/zeros option in diaggui using gain=54.577e3 and poles as "0, 0".
  • We found that ITMY_LSC_OUT_DQ calibration matches well at 57Hz but overshoots (80 vs 40) at 43 Hz and undershoots (50 vs 80) at 77Hz.

Conclusions:

  • If we had DRFPMI locked, we could have used the beatnote spectrum as independent measurement of arm lengths to calibrate the interferometer output.
  • We can also use the beatnote to confirm or correct the ITM actuator calibrations. Maybe shape is not exactly 1/f2 unless we did something wrong here or the PLL bandwidth is too short.
Attachment 1: BeatY_ITMY_CalibrationAt57Hz.pdf
BeatY_ITMY_CalibrationAt57Hz.pdf BeatY_ITMY_CalibrationAt57Hz.pdf
Attachment 2: BeatY_ITMY_CalibrationAt43Hz.pdf
BeatY_ITMY_CalibrationAt43Hz.pdf BeatY_ITMY_CalibrationAt43Hz.pdf
Attachment 3: BeatY_ITMY_CalibrationAt77Hz.pdf
BeatY_ITMY_CalibrationAt77Hz.pdf BeatY_ITMY_CalibrationAt77Hz.pdf
  16129   Mon May 10 18:19:12 2021 Anchal, PacoUpdateLSCIMC WFS noise contribution in arm cavity length noise, Corrections

A few corrections to last analysis:

  • The first plot was not IMC frequency noise but actually MC_F noise budget.
    • MC_F is frequency noise in the IMC FSS loop just before the error point where IMC length and laser frequency is compared.
    • So, MC_F (in high loop gain frequency region upto 10kHz) is simply the quadrature noise sum of free running laser noise and IMC length noise.
    • Between 1Hz to 100 Hz, normally MC_F is dominated by free running laser noise but when we injected enough angular noise in WFS loops, due to Angle to length coupling, it made IMC length noise large enough in 25-30 Hz band that we started seeing a bump in MC_F.
    • So this bump in MC_F is mostly the noise due to Angle to length coupling and hence can be used to calculate how much Angular noise normally goes into length noise.
  • In the remaining plots, MC_F was plotted with conversion into arm length units but this was wrong. MC_F gets suppressed by IMC FSS open loop gain before reaching to arm cavities and hence is hardly present there.
  • The IMC length noise however is not suppresed until after the error point in the loop. So the length noise (in units of Hz calculated in the first step above) travels through the arm cavity loop.
  • We already measured the transfer function from ITMX length actuation to XARM OUT, so we know how this length noise shows up at XARM OUT.
  • So in the remaining plots, we plot contribution of IMC angular noise in the arm cavities. Note that the factor of 3 business still needed to be done to match the appearance of noise in XARM_OUT and YARM_OUT signal from the IMC angular noise injection.
  • I'll post a clean loop diagram soon to make this loopology clearer.
Attachment 1: ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf
ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf
  16132   Wed May 12 10:53:20 2021 Anchal, PacoUpdateLSCPSL-IMC PDH Loop and XARM PDH Loop diagram

Attached is the control loop diagram when main laser is locked to IMC and a single arm (XARM) is locked to the transmitted light from IMC.

Quote:
 
  • I'll post a clean loop diagram soon to make this loopology clearer.

 

Attachment 1: IMC_SingleArm.pdf
IMC_SingleArm.pdf
  16133   Wed May 12 11:45:13 2021 Anchal, PacoSummarySUSNew IMC Settings are miserable

We picked a few parameters from 40m summary page and plotted them to see the effect of new settings. On April 4th, old settings were present. On April 28th (16091), new input matrices and F2A filters were uploaded but suspension gains remained the same. On May 5th (16120), we uploaded new (higher) suspension gains. We chose Sundays on UTC so that it lies on weekends for us. Most probably nobody entered 40m and it was calmer in the institute as well.

  • On MC_F spectrum, we see that that noise decreased in 0.3-0.7 Hz but there is more noise from 1-1.5 Hz.
  • On MC_TRANS_QPD, we see that both TRANS PIT and YAW signals were almost twice as noisy.
  • On MC_REFL_DC too, we see that the noise during the locked state seems to be higher in the new configuration.

We can download data and plot comparisons ourselves and maybe calculate the spectrums of MC_TRANS_PIT/YAW and MC_REFL_DC when IMC was locked. But we want to know if anyone has better ways of characterizing the settings that we should know of before we get into this large data handling which might be time-consuming. From this preliminary 40m summary page plots, maybe it is already clear that we should go back to old settings. Awaiting orders.

 

Attachment 1: MC_F_Comparison.pdf
MC_F_Comparison.pdf
Attachment 2: MC_TRANS_QPD_Comparison.pdf
MC_TRANS_QPD_Comparison.pdf
Attachment 3: IMC_REFL_DC_Comparison.pdf
IMC_REFL_DC_Comparison.pdf
  16138   Thu May 13 11:55:04 2021 Anchal, PacoUpdateSUSMC1 suspension misbehaving

We came in the morning with the following scene on the zita monitor:

The MC1 watchdog was tripped and seemed like IMC struggled all night with misconfigured WFS offsets. After restoring the MC1 WD, clearing the WFS offsets, and seeing the suspension damp, the MC caught lock. It wasn't long before the MC unlocked, and the MC1 WD tripped again.

We tried few things, not sure what order we tried them in:

  • Letting suspension loops damp without the WFS switched on.
  • Letting suspension loops damp with PSL shutter closed.
  • Restoring old settings of MC suspension.
  • Doing burt restore with command:
    burtwb -f /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/burt/autoburt/snapshots/2021/May/12/08:19/c1mcsepics.snap -l /tmp/controls_1210513_083437_0.write.log -o /tmp/controls_1210513_083437_0.nowrite.snap -v <

Nothing worked. We kept seeing that ULPD var on MC1 keeps showing kicks every few minutes which jolts the suspension loops. So we decided to record some data with PSL shutter closed and just suspension loops on. Then we switched off the loops and recorded some data with freely swinging optic. Even when optic was freely swinging, we could see impulses in the MC1 OSEM UL PD var which were completely uncorrelated with any seismic activity. Infact, last night was one fo teh calmer nights seismically speaking. See attachment 2 for the time series of OSEM PD variance. Red region is when the coil outputs were disabled.

Inference:

  • We think something is wrong with the UL OSEM of MC1.
  • It seems to show false spikes of motion when there is no such spike present in any other OSEM PD or the seismic data itself.
  • Currently, this is still the case. We sometimes get 10-20 min of "Good behavior" when everything works.
  • But then the impulses start occuring again and overwhelmes the suspension loops and WFS loops.
  • Note, that other optic in IMC behaved perfectly normally throughout this time.
  • In the past, it seems like satellite box has been the culprit for such glitches.
  • We should look into debugging this as ifo is at standstill because of this issue.
  • Earlier, Gautum would post Vmon signals of coil outputs only to show the glitches. We wanted to see if switching off the loops help, so we recorded OSEM PD this time.
  • In hindsight, we should probably look at the OSEM sensor outputs directly too rather than looking at the variance data only. I can do this if people are interested in looking at that too.
  • We've disabled the coil ouputs in MC1 and PSL shutter is off.

Edit Thu May 13 14:47:25 2021 :

Added OSEM Sensor timeseries data on the plots as well. The UL OSEM sensor data is the only channel which is jumping hapazardly (even during free swinging time) and varying by +/- 30. Other sensors only show some noise around a stable position as should be the case for a freely suspended optic.

Attachment 2: MC1_Glitches_Invest2.pdf
MC1_Glitches_Invest2.pdf
  16157   Mon May 24 19:14:15 2021 Anchal, PacoSummarySUSMC1 Free Swing Test set to trigger

We've set a free swing test to trigger at 3:30 am tomorrow for MC1. The script for tests is running on tmux session named 'freeSwingMC1' on rossa. The script will run for about 4.5 hrs and we'll correct the input matrix tomorrow from the results. If anyone wants to work during this time (3:30 am to 8:00 am), you can just kill the script by killing tmux session on rossa. ssh into rossa and type tmux kill-session -t freeSwingMC1.

Quote:
 

We should redo the MC1 input matrix optimization and the coil balancing afterward as we did everything based on the noisy UL OSEM values.

 

  16159   Tue May 25 10:22:16 2021 Anchal, PacoSummarySUSMC1 new input matrix calculated and uploaded

The test was succesful and brought back the IMC to lock point at the end.

We calculated new input matrix using same code in scripts/SUS/InMatCalc/sus_diagonalization.py . Attachment 1 shows the results.

The calculations are present in scripts/SUS/InMatCalc/MC1.


We uploaded the new MC1 input matrix at:

Unix Time = 1621963200

UTC May 25, 2021 17:20:00 UTC
Central May 25, 2021 12:20:00 CDT
Pacific May 25, 2021 10:20:00 PDT

GPS Time = 1305998418

This was done by running python scripts/SUS/general/20210525_NewMC1Settings/uploadNewConfigIMC.py on allegra. Old IMC settings (before Paco and I started workin on 40m) can be restored by running python scripts/SUS/general/20210525_NewMC1Settings/restoreOldConfigIMC.py on allegra.

Everything looks as stable as before. We'll look into long term trends in a week to see if this helped at all.

Attachment 1: SUS_Input_Matrix_Diagonalization.pdf
SUS_Input_Matrix_Diagonalization.pdf
  16161   Tue May 25 17:42:11 2021 Anchal, PacoSummaryALSALS Single Arm Noise Budget

Here is our first attempt at a single-arm noise budget for ALS.

Attachment 1 shows the loop diagram we used to calculate the contribution of different noises.

Attachment 2 shows the measured noise at C1:ALS-BEATX_PHASE_FINE_OUT_HZ when XARM was locked to the main laser and Xend Green laser was locked to XARM.

  • The brown curve shows the measured noise.
  • The black curve shows total estimated noise from various noise sources (some of these sources have not been plotted as their contribution falls off the plotting y-lims.)
  • The residual frequency noise of Xend green laser (AUX) is measured by measuring the PDH error monitor spectrum from C1:ALS-X_ERR_MON_OUT_DQ. This measurement was converted into units of V by multiplying it by 6.285e-4 V/cts. This factor was measured by sending a 43 Hz 100 mV sine wave at the readout point and measuring the output in the channel.
  • This error signal is referred to AUX_Freq input in the loop diagram (see attachment 1) and then injected from there.
  • All measurements were taken to Res_Disp port in the 'Out-of-Loop Beat Note' block (see attachment 1).
  • In this measurement, we did not DAC noise that gets added when ALS loop is closed.
  • We added ADC noise from Kiwamu's ALS paper after referring it to DFD input. DFD noise is also taken from Kiwamu's ALS paper data.

Inference:

  • Something is wrong above 200 Hz for the inclusion of AUX residual displacement noise. It is coming off as higher than the direct measured residual noise, so something is wrong with our loop diagram. But I'm not sure what.
  • There is a lot of unaccounted noise everywhere from 1 Hz to 200 Hz.
  • Rana said noise budget below 1 Hz is level 9 stuff while we are at level 2, so I'll just assume the excess noise below 1 Hz is level 9 stuff.
  • We did include seismic noise taken from 40m noise budget in 40m/pygwinc. But it seems to affect below the plotted ylims. I'm not sure if that is correct either.

Unrelated questions:

  • There is a slow servo feeding back to Green Laser's crystal temperature by integrating PZT out signal. This is OFF right now. Should we keep it on?
  • The green laser lock is very unreliable and it unlocks soon after any signal is being fed back to the ETMX position.
  • This means, keeping both IR and green light locked in XARM is hard and simultaneous oscillation does not last longer than 10s of seconds. Why is it like this?
  • We notice that multiple higher-order modes from the green laser reach the arm cavity. The HOMs are powerful enough that PDH locks to them as well and we toggle the shutter to come to TEM00 mode. These HOMs must be degrading the PDH error signal. Should we consider installing PMCs at end tables too?
Attachment 1: ALS_IR_b.svg
ALS_IR_b.svg
Attachment 2: ALS_Single_Arm_IR.pdf
ALS_Single_Arm_IR.pdf
  16163   Wed May 26 11:45:57 2021 Anchal, PacoConfigurationIMCMC2 analog camera

[Anchal, Paco]

We went near the MC2 area and opened the lid to inspect the GigE and analog video monitors for MC2. Looked like whatever image is coming through the viewport is split into the GigE (for beam tracking) and the analog monitor. We hooked the monitor found on the floor nearby and tweaked the analog video camera around to get a feel for how the "ghost" image of the transmission moves around. It looks like in order to try and remove this "extra spots" we would need to tweak the beam tracking BS. We will consult the beam tracking authorities and return to this.

  16164   Thu May 27 11:03:15 2021 Anchal, PacoSummaryALSALS Single Arm Noise Budget

Here's an updated X ARM ALS noise budget.

Things to remember:

  • Major mistake we were making earlier was that we were missing the step of clicking  'Set Phase UGF' before taking the measurement.
  • Click the clear phase history just before taking measure.
  • Make sure the IR beatnotes are less than 50 MHz (or the left half of HP8591E on water crate). The DFD is designed for this much beatnote frequency (from Gautum).
  • We took this measurement with old IMC settings.
  • We have saved a template file in users/Templates/ALS/ALS_outOfLoop_Ref_DQ.xml . This si same as ALS_outOfLoop_Ref.xml except we changed all channels to _DQ.

Conclusions:

  • Attachment 1 shows the updated noisebudget. The estimated and measured RMS noise are very close to eachother.
  • However, there is significant excess noise between 4 Hz and 200 Hz. We're still thinking on what could be the source of these.
  • From 200 Hz to about 3 kHz, the beatnote noise is dominated by AUX residual frequency noise. This can be verified with page 2 of Attachment 2 where coherence between AUX PDH Error signal and BEATX signal is high.
  • One mystery is how the measured beatnote noise is below the residual green laser noise above 3 kHz. Could this be just because the phase tracker can't measure noise above 3kHz?
  • We have used estimated open loop transfer function for AUX from poles/zeros for uPDH box used (this was done months ago by me when I was working on ALS noise budget from home). We should verify it with a fresh OLTF measurement of AUX PDH loop. That's next on our list.
Attachment 1: ALS_Single_X_Arm_IR.pdf
ALS_Single_X_Arm_IR.pdf
Attachment 2: ALS_OOL_with_Ref.pdf
ALS_OOL_with_Ref.pdf ALS_OOL_with_Ref.pdf ALS_OOL_with_Ref.pdf ALS_OOL_with_Ref.pdf
  16171   Tue Jun 1 16:55:32 2021 Anchal, PacoSummaryALSSingle Arm Actuation Calibration with IR ALS Beat

Rana suggested in today's meeting to put in a notch filter in the XARM IR PDH loop to avoid suppressing the excitation line. We tried this today first with just one notch at 1069 Hz and then with an additional notch at 619 Hz and sent two simultaneous excitations.


Measurement and Analysis:

  • We added notch filters with Q=10, depth=50dB, freq=619 Hz and 1069 Hz using foton in SUS-ETMX_LSC filter bank at FM10.
  • We sent excitation signals with amplitudes 600cts and 1000 cts for 619 Hz and 1069 Hz signals respectively.
  • We measured time series data of C1:SUS-ITMX_LSC_OUT_DQ and C1:ALS-BEATX_FINE_PHASE_OUT_HZ_DQ for 60s.
  • Then, spectrum of both signals is measured with Hanning window using scipy.welch function with scaling set to  'spectrum', binwidth=1Hz.
  • The beatnote signal was converted into length units by multiplying it by 1064nm * 37.79m / c.
  • The ratio of the two spectrums at teh excitation frequency multiplies by excitation frequency squared gives us teh calibration constant in units of nm Hz^2/cts.
  • At 619 Hz, we got \frac{5.01}{f^2}nm/cts
  • At 1069 Hz, we got \frac{5.64}{f^2}nm/cts.
  • The calibration factor in use is from \frac{7.32}{f^2} nm/cts from 13984.
  • So, the calibration factor from this methos is about 23% smaller than measured using freeswinging MICH in 13984.
  • One possiblity is that our notch filter is not as effective in avoiding suppresion of excitation.
    • We tried increasing the notch filter depths to 100 dB but got the same result within 2%.
    • We tried changing the position of notch filters. We put them in POX filter banks. Again the result did not change more than 2%.
  • The open loop gain of green PDH at 619 Hz and 1069 Hz must be large enough for our assumption of green laser perfectly following length motion to be true. The UGF of green laser is near 11 kHz.
  • The discrepancy could be due to outdated freeswinging MICH measurement that was done 3 years ago. Maybe we should learn how to do the ITMX calibration using this method and compare our own two measurements.
Attachment 1: SingleArmActCalwithIRALSBeat-1306624785.pdf
SingleArmActCalwithIRALSBeat-1306624785.pdf
  16174   Wed Jun 2 09:43:30 2021 Anchal, PacoSummarySUSIMC Settings characterization

Plot description:

  • We picked up three 10 min times belonging to the three different configurations:
    • 'Old Settings': IMC Suspension settings before Paco and I changed anything. Data taken from Apr 26, 2021, 00:30:42 PDT (GPS 1303457460).
    • 'New Settings': New input matrices uploaded on April 28th, along with F2A filters and AC coil balancing gains (see 16091). Data taken from May 01, 2021, 00:30:42 PDT (GPS 1303889460).
    • 'New settings with new gains' Above and new suspension damping gains uploaded on May5th, 2021 (see 16120). Data taken from May 07, 2021, 03:10:42 PDT (GPS 1304417460).
  • Attachment 1  shows the RMS seismic noise along X direction between 1 Hz and 3 Hz picked from C1:PEM-RMS_BS_X_1_3 during the three time durations chosen. This plot is to establish that RMS noise levels were similar and mostly constant. Page 2 shows the mean ampltidue spectral density of seismic noise in x-direction over the 3 durations.
  • Attachment 2 shows the transfer function estimate of seismic noise to MC_F during the three durations. Page 1 shows ratio of ASDs taken with median averaging while page 2 shows the same for mean averaging.
  • Attachment 3 shows the transfer function estimate of seismic noise to MC_TRANS_PIT during the three durations. Page 1 shows ratio of ASDs taken with median averaging while page 2 shows the same for mean averaging.
  • Attachment 4 shows the transfer function estimate of seismic noise to MC_TRANS_YAW during the three durations. Page 1 shows ratio of ASDs taken with median averaging while page 2 shows the same for mean averaging.

Inferences:

  • From Attachment 2 Page 1:
    • We see that 'old settings' caused the least coupling of seismic noise to MC_F signal in most of the low frequency band except between 1.5 to 3 Hz where the 'new settings' were slightly better.
    • 'new settings' also show less coupling in 4 Hz to 6 Hz band, but at these frequencies, seismix noise is filtered out by suspension, so this could be just coincidental and is not really a sign of better configuration.
    • There is excess noise coupling seen with 'new settings' between 0.4 Hz and 1.5 Hz. We're not sure why this coupling increased.
    • 'new settings with new gains' show the most coupling in most of the frequency band. Clearly, the increased suspension damping gains did not behaved well with rest of the system.
  • From Attachment 3 Page 1:
    • Coupling to MC_TRANS_PIT error signal is reduced for 'new settings' in almost all of the frequency band in comparison to the 'old settings'.
    • 'new settings with new gains' did even better below 1 Hz but had excess noise in 1 Hz to 6 Hz band. Again increased suspension damping gains did not help much.
    • But low coupling to PIT error for 'new settings' suggest that our decoupling efforts in matrix diagonalization, F2A filters and ac coil balancing worked to some extent.
  • From Attachment 4 Page 1:
    • 'new settings' and 'old settings' have the same coupling of seismic noise to MC_TRANS_YAW in all of the frequency band. This is in-line witht eh fact that we found very little POS to YAW couping in our analysis before and there was little to no change for these settings.
    • 'new settings with new gains' did better below 1 Hz but here too there was excess coupling between 1 Hz to 9 Hz.
  • Page 1 vs Page 2:
    • Mean and median should be same if the data sample was large enough and noise was stationary. A difference between the two suggests existence of outliers in the data set and median provides a better central estimate in such case.
    • MC_F: Mean and median are same below 4 hz. There are high frequency outliers above 4 Hz in 'new settings with new gains' and 'old settings' data sets, maybe due to transient higher free running laser frequency noise. But since, suspension settigns affect below 1 Hz mostly, the data sets chosen are stationary enough for us.
    • MC_TRANS_PIT: Mean ratio is lower for 'new settings' and 'old settings' in 0.3 hz to 0.8 Hz band. Same case above 4 Hz as listed above.
    • MC_TRANS_YAW:  Same as above.
  • Conclusion 1:  The 'new settings with new gains' cause more coupling to seismic noise, probably due to low phase margin in control loops. We should revert back the suspension damping gains.
  • Conclusion 2: The 'new settings' work as expected and can be kept when WFS loops are optimized further.
  • Conjecture: From our experience over last 2 weeks, locking the arms to the main laser with 'new settings with new gains' introduces noise in the arm length large enough that the Xend green laser does not remain locked to the arm for longer than tens of seconds. So this is definitely not a configuration in which we can carry out other measurements and experiments in the interferometer.
Attachment 1: seismicX.pdf
seismicX.pdf seismicX.pdf
Attachment 2: seismicXtoMC_F_TFest.pdf
seismicXtoMC_F_TFest.pdf seismicXtoMC_F_TFest.pdf
Attachment 3: seismicXtoMC_TRANS_PIT_TFest.pdf
seismicXtoMC_TRANS_PIT_TFest.pdf seismicXtoMC_TRANS_PIT_TFest.pdf
Attachment 4: seismicXtoMC_TRANS_YAW_TFest.pdf
seismicXtoMC_TRANS_YAW_TFest.pdf seismicXtoMC_TRANS_YAW_TFest.pdf
  16175   Wed Jun 2 16:20:59 2021 Anchal, PacoSummarySUSIMC Suspension gains reverted to old values

Following the conclusion, we are reverting the suspension gains to old values, i.e.

IMC Suspension Gains
  MC1 MC2 MC3
SUSPOS 120 150 200
SUSPIT 60 10 12
SUSYAW 60 10 8

While the F2A filters, AC coil gains and input matrices are changed to as mentioned in 16066 and 16072.

The changes can be reverted all the way back to old settings (before Paco and I changed anything in the IMC suspensions) by running python scripts/SUS/general/20210602_NewIMCOldGains/restoreOldConfigIMC.py on allegra. The new settings can be uploaded back by running python scripts/SUS/general/20210602_NewIMCOldGains/uploadNewConfigIMC.py on allegra.


Change time:

Unix Time = 1622676038

UTC Jun 02, 2021 23:20:38 UTC
Central Jun 02, 2021 18:20:38 CDT
Pacific Jun 02, 2021 16:20:38 PDT

GPS Time = 1306711256

Quote:
 
  • Conclusion 1:  The 'new settings with new gains' cause more coupling to seismic noise, probably due to low phase margin in control loops. We should revert back the suspension damping gains.
  • Conclusion 2: The 'new settings' work as expected and can be kept when WFS loops are optimized further.
  • Conjecture: From our experience over last 2 weeks, locking the arms to the main laser with 'new settings with new gains' introduces noise in the arm length large enough that the Xend green laser does not remain locked to the arm for longer than tens of seconds. So this is definitely not a configuration in which we can carry out other measurements and experiments in the interferometer.

 

ELOG V3.1.3-