40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
 40m Log, Page 141 of 335 Not logged in
ID Date Author Type Category Subject
13819   Sat May 5 22:32:07 2018 KojiUpdatePSLModulation depth measurement for the 3IFO aLIGO EOM

The 3IFO EOM was formerly tuned as the H2 EOM, so the resonant frequencies are different from the nominal aLIGO ones.

PORT1: 8.628MHz / 101 +/- 6 mrad_pk/V_pk
PORT2: 24.082MHz / 41.2 +/- 0.7 mrad_pk/V_pk
PORT3: 43.332MHz / 62.2 +/- 4 mrad_pk/V_pk

9MHz modulation is about x2.4 better than the one installed at LHO.
24MHz modulation is about x14 better. (This is OK as the new 24MHz is not configured to be resonant.)
45MHz modulation is about x1.4 better.

13818   Sat May 5 20:30:21 2018 KojiUpdatePSLModulation depth measurement for the 3IFO aLIGO EOM and aftermath

Caution: Because of this work and my negligence, the RF output of the main Marconi for the IFO modulation is probably off. The amplifier (freq gen. box) was turned on. Therefore, we need to turn the Marconi on for the IFO locking.

I worked on my EOM m easurement using the beat setup. As there was the aux injection electronics, I performed my measurement having tried not to disturb the aux setup. The aux Marconi, the splitted PD output, and an open channel of the oscilloscope were used for my purpose. I have brought the RF spectrum analyzer from the control room. I think I have restored all the electronics back as before. I have re-aligned the beat setup after the EOM removed. Note that the aux NPRO, which had been on, was turned off to save the remaining life of the laser diode.

13842   Tue May 15 10:42:14 2018 KojiUpdatePSLModulation depth measurement for the 3IFO aLIGO EOM and aftermath

The marconi RF output was turned on and thus the RF generator condition was restored to the nominal state on Friday 11th.

13593   Wed Jan 31 16:29:42 2018 gautamUpdateALSModulation depths

I used the Beat Mouth to make a quick measurement of the PMC and EX modulation depths. They are, respectively, 60mrad and 90mrad. See Attachments #1 and #2 for spectra from the beat photodiode outputs, monitored using the Agilent analyzer, 16 averages, IF bandwidth set to resolve peaks offset from the main beat frequency peak by 33.5MHz for the PMC and by ~230kHz for the EX green PDH.

For this work, I had to re-align the IFO so as to lock the arms to IR. c1susaux was unresponsive and had to be power-cycled. As mentioned in the earlier elog, to avoid saturating the Fiber Coupled beat PDs, I placed a ND=0.5 filter in the fiber collimator path, such that the coupled power was ~1mW, which is well inside the safe regime.

For the EX modulation depth, I could have gotten multiple estimates of the modulation depth using the higher order products that are visible in the spectrum, but I didn't.

Attachment 1: PMCmodDepth.pdf
Attachment 2: XPDH.pdf
10314   Thu Jul 31 23:43:00 2014 KojiUpdateIOOModulation frequency adjustment

The main IFO modulation frequency was adjusted to match with the FSR of the IMC.

The new frequency is 11.066128 MHz. This corresponds to the IMC round-trip length of 27.0910 m

This has been done by looking at the peak at 25.845MHz (5* fmod - 29.5MHz) in the MC REFL PD mon.

16190   Mon Jun 7 15:37:01 2021 Anchal, Paco, YehonathanSummaryCamerasMon 7 in Control Room Died

We found Mon7 in control room dead today afternoon. It's front power on green light is not lighting up. All other monitors are working as normal.

This monitor was used for looking at IMC camera analog feed. It is one of the most important monitors for us, so we should replace it with a different monitor.

Yehonathan and Paco disconnected the monitor and brought it down. We put it under the back table if anyone wants to fix it. Paco has ordered a BNC to VGA/HDMI converter to put in any normal monitor up there. It will happen this Wednesday. Meanwhile, I have changed the MON4 assignment from POP to Quad2 to be used for IMC.

16204   Wed Jun 16 13:20:19 2021 Anchal, PacoSummaryCamerasMon 7 in Control Room Replaced

We replaced the Mon 7 with an LCD monitor from back bench. It is fed the analog signal from BNC converted into VGS with a converter box that Paco bought. We can replace this monitor with another monitor if it is required on the back bench. For now, we definitely need a monitor to show IMC camera's up there.

Attachment 1: IMG_20210616_083810.jpg
2456   Mon Dec 28 10:29:31 2009 JenneUpdateComputersMonday Morning Bootfest

Nothing like a good ol' Bootfest to get back into the swing of things after vacation....

It was a regular bootfest, keying crates and running everyone's startup.cmd .  There wasn't any RFM funny business which we had been dealing with a lot earlier in December (maybe Kiwamu took care of that part of things last night).

After finishing the bootfest, I tried to re-enable the watchdogs.  I noticed that the optics weren't damping at all (not that any of them were swinging crazily, they just weren't damped like regular).  This was traced to the OSEM sensor inputs and outputs being disabled on all of the suspensions' screens.  I suspect that no burt-restoring happened after c1dcuepics was powercycled yesterday.

All of the optics are now happy as clams.

5239   Mon Aug 15 14:10:56 2011 JenneUpdateSUSMonday SUS update

The moral of the story here is that none of the suspensions are overwhelmingly awesome, but most of them will be fine if we leave them as-is.

 SUS DoF Plot Input Matrix "BADness" (1==good) ITMX       pit     yaw     pos     side    butt UL    0.438   1.019   1.050  -0.059   0.717  UR    0.828  -0.981   1.128  -0.215  -0.956  LR   -1.172  -1.201   0.950  -0.275   1.241  LL   -1.562   0.799   0.872  -0.120  -1.087  SD   -0.579  -0.847   2.539   1.000  -0.170   4.68597 ITMY       pit     yaw     pos     side    butt UL    1.157   0.185   1.188  -0.109   0.922  UR    0.020  -1.815   0.745  -0.051  -0.970  LR   -1.980  -0.090   0.812  -0.024   1.158  LL   -0.843   1.910   1.255  -0.082  -0.949  SD   -0.958   1.080   1.859   1.000   0.325   4.82756 ETMX       pit     yaw     pos     side    butt UL    0.338   0.476   1.609   0.316   1.046   UR    0.274  -1.524   1.796  -0.069  -1.180   LR   -1.726  -1.565   0.391  -0.100   0.938   LL   -1.662   0.435   0.204   0.286  -0.836   SD    0.996  -2.629  -0.999   1.000  -0.111  4.32072 ETMY       pit     yaw     pos     side    butt UL    1.123   0.456   1.812   0.231   0.936  UR   -0.198  -1.489   0.492  -0.096  -1.098  LR   -2.000   0.055   0.188  -0.052   0.764  LL   -0.679   2.000   1.508   0.275  -1.201  SD    0.180  -0.591   3.355   1.000   0.200   10.643 BS        pit     yaw     pos     side    butt UL    1.575   0.697   0.230   0.294   1.045  UR    0.163  -1.303   1.829  -0.133  -0.958  LR   -1.837  -0.308   1.770  -0.171   0.944  LL   -0.425   1.692   0.171   0.257  -1.053  SD    0.769   0.345  -3.380   1.000   0.058  6.111 PRM        pit     yaw     pos     side    butt UL    0.597   1.553   2.000  -0.469   1.229   UR    1.304  -0.447   0.383  -0.043  -0.734   LR   -0.696  -1.048  -0.277   0.109   0.687   LL   -1.403   0.952   1.340  -0.317  -1.350   SD    0.518  -1.125  -1.161   1.000   0.394   8.43363 SRM       pit     yaw     pos     side    butt UL    0.831   1.039   1.153  -0.140   1.065  UR    1.071  -0.961   1.104  -0.057  -1.061  LR   -0.929  -0.946   0.847  -0.035   0.837  LL   -1.169   1.054   0.896  -0.118  -1.037  SD    0.193  -0.033   1.797   1.000   0.045  4.17396

230   Wed Jan 9 20:36:42 2008 GoUpdateTreasureMoney in lab
Go's Desk.
Attachment 1: DSC_0370.JPG
3263   Thu Jul 22 01:02:08 2010 ranaUpdateTreasureMonsters, LNVR, and Phase noise

On Picasa

3265   Thu Jul 22 07:19:56 2010 AlbertoUpdateTreasureMonsters, LNVR, and Phase noise

 Quote: On Picasa

"They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination." (Leviticus 11:11)

15507   Thu Aug 6 00:34:38 2020 YehonathanUpdateBHDMonte Carlo Simulations

I've pushed an MCMC simulation to the A+ BHD repo (filename MCMC_TFs.ipynb). The idea is to show how random offsets around ideal IFO change the noise couplings of different DOFs to readout.

At each step of the simulation:

1. Random offsets for the different DOFs are generated from a normal distribution. The RMSs are taken from experimental data and some guesses and can be changed later. The laser frequency is tuned to match the CARM offset.

These are the current RMS detunings I use:

 DOF RMS Taken from DARM 10fm PHYSICAL REVIEW D 93, 112004 (2016), Table 2 CARM 1fm PHYSICAL REVIEW D 93, 112004 (2016), Table 2 MICH 3pm PHYSICAL REVIEW D 93, 112004 (2016), Table 2 PRCL 1pm PHYSICAL REVIEW D 93, 112004 (2016), Table 2 SRCL 10pm PHYSICAL REVIEW D 93, 112004 (2016), Table 2 OMCL 0.1pm Guess OMC Breadboard angle 1\mu rad Guess Differential arm loss 15ppm Guess BHD BS imbalance 10% Guess OMC finesse imbalance 5ppm Guess

2. A transfer function is computed for the noisy DOFs.

3. Projected noise is calculated.

These are the noise level for the DOFs:

 DOF Noise Taken from MICH 2e-16 m PHYSICAL REVIEW D 93, 112004 (2016), Fig 9 PRCL 0.5e-17 m PHYSICAL REVIEW D 93, 112004 (2016), Fig 9 SRCL 5e-16 PHYSICAL REVIEW D 93, 112004 (2016), Fig 9 OMCL 2.5e-17*(100/f)^(1/2) LIGO-G1800149 OMC Breadboard angle 1nrad Guess RIN 2e-9 Optics Letters Vol. 34, Issue 19, pp. 2912-2914 (2009)

The attachments show the projected noise levels for the noisy DOFs. Each curve is a different instance of random offsets. The ideal case - "zero offsets" is also shown.

OMC Comm and OMC diff refer to the common and differential length change of the OMCs.

Attachment 1: MICH_Aplus_MCMC.pdf
Attachment 2: PRCL_Aplus_MCMC.pdf
Attachment 3: SRCL_Aplus_MCMC.pdf
Attachment 4: OMC_Comm_Aplus_MCMC.pdf
Attachment 5: OMC_Diff_Aplus_MCMC.pdf
Attachment 6: OMC_Angle_Yaw_Aplus_MCMC.pdf
Attachment 7: OMC_Angle_Pitch_Aplus_MCMC.pdf
Attachment 8: L0_RIN_Aplus_MCMC.pdf
15509   Fri Aug 7 11:23:47 2020 ranaUpdateBHDMonte Carlo Simulations

that's great. I think we would like to figure out how to present this so that its clear what the distribution of TFs is. Maybe we can plot the most likely curve as well as a shaded region indicating the 5% and 95% values?

 Quote: I've pushed an MCMC simulation to the A+ BHD repo (filename MCMC_TFs.ipynb). The idea is to show how random offsets around ideal IFO change the noise couplings of different DOFs to readout.

and then we add the loops

15512   Mon Aug 10 07:13:00 2020 YehonathanUpdateBHDMonte Carlo Simulations

I fixed some stuff in the MCMC simulation:

1. Results are now plotted as shades from minimum to maximum. I tried making the shade the STD around a mean but it doesn't look good on a log scale when the STD is bigger than the mean.

2. Added comparison with aLigo. The OMCL diff and comm motions in A+ are both compared to the single OMCL DOF of aLigo.

3. I fixed a serious error in the code that produced incorrect results.

4. Imbalances in the IFO such as differential arm loss are generated randomly at the beginning and stay fixed for the rest of the simulation instead of being treated as an offset.

5. The simulation now runs with maxtem=2. That is, TEM modes up to 2nd order are considered.

The results are attached.

Attachment 1: MICH_AplusMCMC.pdf
Attachment 2: PRCL_AplusMCMC.pdf
Attachment 3: SRCL_AplusMCMC.pdf
Attachment 4: OMC_Comm_AplusMCMC.pdf
Attachment 5: OMC_Diff_AplusMCMC.pdf
Attachment 6: OMC_Angle_Yaw_AplusMCMC.pdf
Attachment 7: OMC_Angle_Pitch_AplusMCMC.pdf
Attachment 8: L0_RIN_AplusMCMC.pdf
15539   Tue Aug 25 05:51:29 2020 YehonathanUpdateBHDMonte Carlo Simulations

I re-plotted the MCMC results as semi-transparent lines so that probable lines stick out.

This also reveals what is behind the extreme sparsity in the aLIGO simulation results (In the previous post).

There seem to be some bi-stability/phase transition/whatever in the aLIGO simulation. The aLIGO transfer functions are very sensitive to one or more of the DOFs. Not sure which yet.

Attachment 1: MICH_AplusMCMC.pdf
Attachment 2: PRCL_AplusMCMC.pdf
Attachment 3: SRCL_AplusMCMC(1).pdf
Attachment 4: OMC_Diff_AplusMCMC.pdf
Attachment 5: OMC_Comm_AplusMCMC.pdf
Attachment 6: OMC_Angle_Yaw_AplusMCMC.pdf
Attachment 7: OMC_Angle_Pitch_AplusMCMC.pdf
Attachment 8: Main_Laser_RIN_AplusMCMC.pdf
15569   Mon Sep 14 07:50:01 2020 YehonathanUpdateBHDMonte Carlo Simulations

Turns out what was causing the instability in the aLIGO plots were the lock commands which I forgot to remove before running the simulation. Removing these also made the simulation much faster.

Other than that I improved other stuff in the simulations:

• The LO phase in the aPlus simulation is now optimized for the lowest noise at 100Hz.
• Added RF PDs diagnostics (see attachments 8 for aPlus and 9 for aLIGO). The thresholds (red dashed lines in attachments 8,9) for cutting marginal simulations are set such that roughly 30% of the simulations are discarded.
• Removed DHARD because it jacks up the RF PD readings in aPlus for some reason.
• Fixed the sign of laser frequency shift in response to CARM offset.

Still need to do:

• Incorporate Jon’s noise curves.
• Add phase noise for LO beam.
• Include feedback loops using Pytickle.

Feel free to add to the todo list.

Attachment 1: MICH_AplusMCMC.pdf
Attachment 2: PRCL_AplusMCMC.pdf
Attachment 3: SRCL_AplusMCMC(1).pdf
Attachment 4: OMC_Comm_AplusMCMC.pdf
Attachment 5: OMC_Diff_AplusMCMC.pdf
Attachment 6: OMC_Angle_Yaw_AplusMCMC.pdf
Attachment 7: OMC_Angle_Pitch_AplusMCMC.pdf
Attachment 8: Main_Laser_RIN_AplusMCMC.pdf
Attachment 9: aPlus_RF_Diagnostics.pdf
Attachment 10: aLIGO_RF_Diagnostics.pdf
15631   Fri Oct 16 09:16:37 2020 YehonathanUpdateBHDMonte Carlo Simulations

Pushed another update to MCMC simulation. This includes:

• Added new imbalances: ITM transmission, ITM & ETM RoCs.
• Added new static offsets: DHARD, DSOFT, CHARD, CSOFT. All pitch. The RMS is calculated from the data Jon fetched with /input_noises/input_noises.ipynb.
• SRCL noise ASD and RMS are now taken from data in /input_noises.
• RF PD diagnostics were redone: Instead of post-discarding marginal simulations, simulations are now discarded when one or more of the RF PDs demodulated signal does not cross zero when the associated DOFs are scanned by 1um in the offset state.

The DOFs<->RFPD associations I use are:

 DARM AS_f2_I CARM REFL_f1_I MICH POP_f2_Q PRCL POP_f1_I SRCL REFL_f2_I

However, one thing that bothers me is that for some reason ~ 15 out of 160 aLigo simulations are discarded while none for A+. It can also be seen that the A+ simulations are more spread-out which might be related.

The new simulation results are attached.

Attachment 1: MICH_AplusMCMC.pdf
Attachment 2: PRCL_AplusMCMC.pdf
Attachment 3: SRCL_AplusMCMC.pdf
Attachment 4: OMC_Comm_AplusMCMC.pdf
Attachment 5: OMC_Diff_AplusMCMC.pdf
Attachment 6: OMC_Angle_Yaw_AplusMCMC.pdf
Attachment 7: OMC_Angle_Pitch_AplusMCMC.pdf
Attachment 8: Main_Laser_RIN_AplusMCMC.pdf
15637   Thu Oct 22 11:48:08 2020 YehonathanUpdateBHDMonte Carlo Simulations

I found this H1 alog  entry by Izumi confirming that the calibrated channels CAL-CS_* need the same dewhitening filter.

This encouraged me to download the PRCL and MICH data and using Jon's example notebook. I incorporated these noise spectra into the MCMC simulation. The most recent results are attached.

I am still missing:

• Laser frequency noise
• Laser RIN
• Estimation of the LO phase noise
• Estimation of the BHD breadboard angular noise

Also, now the MCMC repeats a simulation if it doesn't pass the RF PDs test so the number of valid simulations stays the same. I'm still not sure about why the A+ simulations are much more robust to these tests than aLigo simulations.

Attachment 1: MICH_AplusMCMC.pdf
Attachment 2: PRCL_AplusMCMC.pdf
Attachment 3: SRCL_AplusMCMC.pdf
Attachment 4: OMC_Comm_AplusMCMC.pdf
Attachment 5: OMC_Diff_AplusMCMC.pdf
Attachment 6: OMC_Angle_Yaw_AplusMCMC.pdf
Attachment 7: OMC_Angle_Pitch_AplusMCMC.pdf
Attachment 8: Main_Laser_RIN_AplusMCMC.pdf
15727   Thu Dec 10 14:48:00 2020 YehonathanUpdateBHDMonte Carlo Simulations

I have rebuilt the MCMC simulation in an OOP fashion and incorporated Lance/Pytickle functionality into it. The usage of the MCMC now is much less messy, hopefully.

I made an example that calculates the closed-loop noise-coupling from SRCL sensing and displacement to DARM in A+. I used the control filters that Kevin defined in his controls example.

The resulting noise budget is in attachment 1. The code is in the 40m/bhd git.

I also investigated why aLIGO simulations behave so different than the A+ simulation (See few previous elogs in this thread). That is why aLIGO results are much less variable, and the simulations in aLIGO barely pass the validity checks, while A+ simulations almost always pass.

The way I check for the validity of a kat model is by scanning all the DOFs and checking that the corresponding sensing RFPDs demodulated signals cross zero. Attachment 2 shows these scanning for 3 such RFPDS for 3 cases:

A+ model with maxtem = 2

ALigo model with maxtem = 2

ALigo model with maxtem = 'off'

It seems like the scanning curves for A+ and ALigo with no HOMs are well behaved and look like normal PDH signals, while the ALigo with maxtem = 2 curves look funky. I believe that the aLIGO+HOMS curves indicate that the IFO is not really in a good locking point. All the IFO lockings were done by using the locking methods straight out of the PyKat package.

Attachment 1: MCMCLance_NoiseBudget_Example.pdf
Attachment 2: IFO_Check.pdf
15732   Fri Dec 11 09:28:52 2020 ranaUpdateBHDMonte Carlo loop coupling Simulations

Cool. Can you give us Bode plots of the open loop gain for each of the 5 length control loops?

 Quote: I have rebuilt the MCMC simulation in an OOP fashion and incorporated Lance/Pytickle functionality into it. The usage of the MCMC now is much less messy, hopefully.

15734   Mon Dec 14 11:09:28 2020 YehonathanUpdateBHDMonte Carlo loop coupling Simulations

I spent a few hours monkeying around with the control filters. They are totally made up and also it's my first time trying to design control filters.

The OLTFs of the different length controls are shown in attachment 1.

The open-loop couplings of the DOFS to DARM are shown in attachment 2.

Note that in Lance/Pytickle the convention is that CLTFs are 1/(1 - G). Where G is the OLTF.

 Quote: Cool. Can you give us Bode plots of the open loop gain for each of the 5 length control loops?

Attachment 1: MCMC_LANCE_OLTFs.pdf
Attachment 2: MCMC_LANCE_OLCoupling2DARM.pdf
15758   Mon Jan 11 16:11:51 2021 YehonathanUpdateBHDMonte Carlo loop coupling Simulations

I dived into the alog to make the OLTFs in the MC_controls example more realistic. I was mainly inspired by these entries:

https://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=18742

https://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=20466

and Evan's and Dennis's Theses.

Attachment 1 shows the new OLTFs. I tried to make them go like 1/f around the UGF and fall as quickly as possible at higher frequencies. I didn't do more advanced stability checks.

I also noticed that imbalances and detunings in the MC simulation can change the plants significantly. Especially DARM, CARM, and sometimes PRCL. I added the option to fix some OLTFs throughout the simulation. At every iteration, the simulation computes the required control filter to fix the selected OLTFs such that it will match the OLTFs in the undetuned and balanced IFO.

Attachment 1: MC_LANCE_OLTFs.pdf
15759   Mon Jan 11 19:10:10 2021 ranaUpdateBHDMonte Carlo loop coupling Simulations
• looking better, but the CARM plot still looks weird.
• you should plot from 0.01 - 10,000 Hz
• All of the loops should have true integrators below 1 Hz.
• I don't think these loops are stable; the Bode plot is not a good way to check stability for LTI systems since you can be fooled by phase wrapping.
14213   Sun Sep 23 20:15:35 2018 KojiSummaryOMCMontecarlo simulation of the phase difference between P and S pols for a modeled HR mirror

The number of soldered resistors seems to be less than that on the schematics. They are related to duotone, so check if it's OK upon use.

Attachment 1: P_20210415_183139_1.jpg
14849   Sat Aug 17 16:49:23 2019 gautamUpdateCDSMore 1Y3 work

Work done today:

1. All ribbon cable connections to the backplane of the 1Y2 Eurocrates were removed. The cables themselves were cleared for more space to work with.
2. 20x 15ft DB37 Cables were run between 1Y2 and 1Y3 via overhead cable tray.
3. Backplane interface boards were installed for 1Y2 Eurocrate boards.
4. Connections were made between the Acromag chassis and the eurocrate electronics modules.

Testing of functionality:

1. Fast BIO switching was verified to work for the following photodiodes:
• AS55, AS110, REFL11, REFL33, REFL55, REFL165, POX11, POY11, POP22, POP110.
• No light was incident on the PDs.
• Test was done by increasing the whitening gain to +45 dB, and then looking at the ASD of the electronics noise between 50 Hz and 500 Hz with the whitening enabled/disabled. We expect x10 difference between the two states. This was seen.
2. "DetMon" channels were verified to work - see Attachment #1
• Y-axis units is volts
• Test was done by toggling the output of the 11 MHz Marconi, and looking for a change.
• As seen in the attachment, all 5 monitor channels show a change.
• This needs to be calibrated into some sensible units - I don't know why the different modulation frequencies have such different readbacks from supposedly identical Demod Board monitor points.
• Not sure if the ~10 V reported by the REFL165 monitor point is real or saturated.
• These channels are installed to signal/help debug the infamous ERA-5 decay problem, but maybe already some are decayed?
3. QPD interface channels were verified to work - see Attachment #2
• Test was done by shining a green laser pointer on QPD quadrants.

Much testing remains to be done, but I defer further testing till Monday - the main functionality to be verified in the short run is the whitening gain stepping. The strain-relief of cables and general cleanup will be undertaken by Chub. Current state of affairs is in Attachment #3, leaves much to be desired in terms of cleanliness.

I will also setup the autoburt for the new machine on Monday. We will also need to add some channels to C0EDCU.ini if we want to trend them over some years (e.g. RF signal powers for monitoring ERA-5 health).

* c1lsc FE was rebooted using the usual script, and everything seems to be healthy in CDS-land again, see Attachment #4.

 Quote: Next steps:  We did not get around to running the DB37 cables between the Acromag chassis and the 1Y2 Eurocrates today - this operation itself took the whole day as we also needed to lay out some support struts etc on the rack to support the Sorensens and the Acromag chassis. Once the Acromags are connected to the Eurocrates, we have to run in-situ tests to make sure the appropriate functionality has been restored. We must have bumped something in the c1lsc expansion chassis - the CDS FE overview screen is reporting some errors (see Attachment #3). I will fix this. General tidiness, strain-relief etc.
Attachment 1: Screen_Shot_2019-08-17_at_3.00.57_PM.png
Attachment 2: Screen_Shot_2019-08-17_at_3.12.23_PM.png
Attachment 3: IMG_7804.JPG
Attachment 4: Screenshot_from_2019-08-17_17-04-47.png
10729   Fri Nov 21 02:22:25 2014 ericqUpdateLSCMore ALS PRFPMI exploration

Similar to what Jenne did the other night, I kept the PRFPMI arm DoFs locked on ALS, in hopes to check out the RF error signals.

I was able to stably sit at nominally zero offset in both CARM and DARM, tens of minutes at a time, and the PRMI could reacquire without a fuss. Arm powers would rest between 10 and 20, intermittently exhibiting the "buzzing" behavior that Jenne mentioned when passing through resonance. 100pm CARM offset means arm powers of around 10, so since our ALS RMS is on this order, this seems ok. I saw TRX get as high as 212 counts, which is just about the same that I've simulated as the maximum power in our IFO.

To get this stable, I turned off all boosts on MICH and PRCL except PRCL FM6, and added matrix elements of 0.25 for TRX and TRY in the trigger line for the PRMI DoFs. The logic for this is that if the arm powers are higher than 1, power recycling is happening, so we want to keep things above the trigger down value of 0.5, even if POP22 momentarily drops.

I also played around a bit with DARM offsets. We know from experience that the ALS IR resonance finding is not super precise, and thus zero in the CARM FM is not zero CARM offset when on ALS. The same obviously holds for DARM, so I moved the DARM offset around, and could see the relative strengths of flashes change between the arms as expected.

I've written down some GPS times that I'm going to go back and look at, to try to back out some information about our error signals.

Lastly, there may be something undesirable happening with the TRX QPD; during some buzzing, the signal would fluctuate into negative values and did not resemble the TRY signal as it nominally would. Perhaps the whitening filters are acting up...

13335   Wed Sep 27 00:20:19 2017 gautamUpdateALSMore AM sweeps

Attachment #1: Result of AM sweeps with EX laser crystal at nominal operating temperature ~ 31.75 C.

Attachment #2: Tarball of data for Attachment #1.

Attachment #3: Result of AM sweeps with EX laser crystal at higher operating temperature ~ 40.95 C.

Attachment #4: Tarball of data for Attachment #2.

Remarks:

• Confirmed that PDA 55 is in the "0dB" setting - the actual dial is unmarked, and has 5 states. I guessed that the left-most one is 0dB, and checked that if I twiddled the dial by one state to the right, the DC level on the scope increased by 10dB as advertized. Didn't check all the states.
• DC level is ~2.3V on a high-impedance scope. So it will be ~1.15V to a 50ohm load, which is what the DC block is. The inverse of this value is used to calibrate the vertical axis of the TF measurement to RIN/V.
• Input R (split RF source signal) attenuation: 20dB. Input A (PDA55 output) attenuation: 0dB.
• Main problem is still network hangups when trying to do many sweeps.
• Seems to persist even when I connect the GPIB box to one of the network switches - so don't think we can blame the WiFi.
• Need to explore possibility of speedup - takes >2hours to run ~50scans!

To-do:

• Overlay median and uncertainty plots for the two temp. settings. There is a visible diference in both the locations and depths/heights of various notches/peaks in the AM profile.
• Repeat test with a fast focusing lens to focus the beam more tightly on the PD active area to confirm that the measured AM is indeed due to the PZT drive and not from beam-jitter (presently, spot diameter is ~0.5x active area diameter, to eye).
• Get the PM data.
• Depending on what the PM data looks like, do a more fine-grained scan around some promising AM notches / PM peaks.
Attachment 1: TFAG4395A_26-09-2017_202344_FourSquare.pdf
Attachment 2: lowTemp.tgz
Attachment 3: TFAG4395A_26-09-2017_231630_FourSquare.pdf
Attachment 4: highTemp.tgz
16548   Thu Jan 6 14:08:14 2022 KojiUpdateCDSMore BHD SUS screens added to sitemap

More BHD SUS screens added to sitemap (Attachment 1)

Attachment 1: Screenshot_2022-01-06_14-06-15.png
14136   Mon Aug 6 00:26:21 2018 gautamUpdateCDSMore CDS woes

I spent most of today fighting various CDS errors.

• I rebooted c1lsc around 3pm, my goal was to try and do some vertex locking and figure out what the implications were of having only ~30% power we used to have at the AS port.
• Shortly afterwards (~4pm), c1lsc crashed.
• Using the reboot script, I was able to bring everything back up. But the DC lights on c1sus models were all red, and a 0x4000 error was being reported.
• This error is indicative of some timing issue, but all the usual tricks (reboot vertex FEs in various order, restart the mx_streams etc) didn't clear this error.
• I checked the Tempus GPS unit, that didn't report any obvious problems (i.e. front display was showing the correct UTC time).
• Finally, I decided to shut down all watchdogs, soft reboot all the FEs, soft reboot FB, power cycle all expansion chassis.
• This seems to have done the trick - I'm leaving c1oaf disabled for now.
• The remaining red indicators are due to c1dnn and c1oaf being disabled.

Let's see how stable this configuration is. Onto some locking now...

Attachment 1: CDSoverview.png
14139   Mon Aug 6 14:38:38 2018 gautamUpdateCDSMore CDS woes

Stability was short-lived it seems. When I came in this morning, all models on c1lsc were dead already, and now c1sus is also dead (Attachment #1). Moreover, MC1 shadow sensors failed for a brief period again this afternoon (Attachment #2). I'm going to wait for some CDS experts to take a look at this since any fix I effect seems to be short-lived. For the MC1 shadow sensors, I wonder if the Trillium box (and associated Sorensen) failure somehow damaged the MC1 shadow sensor/coil driver electronics.

 Quote: Let's see how stable this configuration is. Onto some locking now...
Attachment 1: CDScrash.png
Attachment 2: MC1failures.png
14140   Mon Aug 6 19:49:09 2018 gautamUpdateCDSMore CDS woes

I've left the c1lsc frontend shutdown for now, to see if c1sus and c1ioo can survive without any problems overnight. In parallel, we are going to try and debug the MC1 OSEM Sensor problem - the idea will be to disable the bias voltage to the OSEM LEDs, and see if the readback channels still go below zero, this would be a clear indication that the problem is in the readback transimpedance stage and not the LED. Per the schematic, this can be done by simply disconnecting the two D-sub connectors going to the vacuum flange (this is the configuration in which we usually use the sat box tester kit for example). Attachment #1 shows the current setup at the PD readout board end. The dark DC count (i.e. with the OSEM LEDs off) is ~150 cts, while the nominal level is ~1000 cts, so perhaps this is already indicative of something being broken but let's observe overnight.

Attachment 1: IMG_7106.JPG
14142   Tue Aug 7 11:30:46 2018 gautamUpdateCDSMore CDS woes

Overnight, all models on c1sus and c1ioo seem to have had no stability issues, supporting the hypothesis that timing issues stem from c1lsc. Moreover, the MC1 shadow sensor readouts showed no negative values over a ~12hour period. I think we should just observe this for another day, in any case I don't think there is any urgent IFO related activity scheduled.

14143   Tue Aug 7 22:28:23 2018 gautamUpdateCDSMore CDS woes

I am starting the c1x04 model (IOP) on c1lsc to see how it behaves overnight.

Well, there was apparently an immediate reaction - all the models on c1sus and c1ioo reported an ADC timeout and crashed. I'm going to reboot them and still have c1x04 IOP running, to see what happens.

[97544.431561] c1pem: ADC TIMEOUT 3 8703 63 8767 [97544.431574] c1mcs: ADC TIMEOUT 1 8703 63 8767 [97544.431576] c1sus: ADC TIMEOUT 1 8703 63 8767 [97544.454746] c1rfm: ADC TIMEOUT 0 9033 9 8841
 Quote: Overnight, all models on c1sus and c1ioo seem to have had no stability issues, supporting the hypothesis that timing issues stem from c1lsc. Moreover, the MC1 shadow sensor readouts showed no negative values over a ~12hour period. I think we should just observe this for another day, in any case I don't think there is any urgent IFO related activity scheduled.
9778   Wed Apr 2 20:13:04 2014 JenneUpdatePEMMore Chile EQs

2 more earthquakes in Chile:  a M6.4 and a M7.8.

We got them about 15 minutes ago (according to the BLRMS on the wall), but when I go tin, the MC was already locked, and engaging the LSC immediately got me PRMI lock (since that's the alignment state that the IFO was left in).

14298   Fri Nov 16 00:47:43 2018 gautamUpdateLSCMore DRMI characterization

Summary:

• More DRMI characterization was done.
• I was working on trying to improve the stability of the DRMI locks as this is necessary for any serious characterization.
• Today I revived the PRC angular feedforward - this was a gamechanger, the DRMI locks were much more stable. It's probably worth spending some time improving the POP LSC/ASC sensing optics/electronics looking towards the full IFO locking.
• Quantitatively, the angular fluctuations as witnessed by the POP QPD is lowered by ~2x with the FF on compared to off [Attachment #1, references are with FF off, live traces are with FF on].
• The first DRMI lock I got is already running 15 mins, looking stable.
• Update: Out of the ~1 hour i've tried DRMI locking tonight, >50 mins locked!
• I think the filters can be retrained and this performance improved, something to work on while we are vented.
• Ran sensing lines, measured loop TFs, analysis tomorrow, but I think the phasing of the 1f PDs is now okay.
• MICH in AS55 Q, demod phase = -92deg, +6dB wht gain.
• PRCL in REFL11 I, demod phase = +18 deg, +18dB wht gain.
• SRCL in REFL55 I, demod phase = -175 deg, +18dB wht gain.
• Also repeated the line in SRCL-->witness in MICH test.
• At least 10 minutes of data available, but I'm still collecting since the lock is holding.
• This time I drove the line at ~124 Hz with awggui, since this is more a regime where we are sensing noise dominated.

Prep for this work:

• Reboots of c1psl, c1iool0, c1susaux.
• Removed AS port PD loss measurement PD.
• Initial alignment procedure as usual: single arms --> PRMI locked on carrier --> DRMI

I was trying to get some pics of the optics as a zeroth-level reference for the pre-vent loss with the single arms locked, but since our SL7 upgrade, the sensoray won't work anymore . I'll try fixing this during the daytime.

Attachment 1: PRCff.pdf
Attachment 2: DRMI_withPRCff.png
13359   Thu Oct 5 02:14:51 2017 gautamUpdateLSCMore DRMI coupling measurements - setup

In the end I decided to access the available spare DAC channels via the C1ASS model - for this purpose, I added a namespace block "TEST" in the C1ASS simulink model, which is a SISO block. Inside is just a single CDS filter module. My idea is to use the EXC of this filter module to inject excitations for measuring various couplings. Rather than have a simple testpoint, we also have the option of adding in some filter shapes in the filter module which could possibly allow a more direct read-off of some coupling TF. Recompiling the model went smooth - there was a crash earlier in the day which required me to hard-reboot c1lsc (and also restart all models on c1sus and c1ioo but no reboots necessary for those machines).

Note that to get the newly added channels to show up in the channel lists in DTT/AWGGUI etc, you need to ssh into fb1 and restart the daqd processes via sudo systemctl restart daqd_*. If I remember right, it used to be enough to do telnet fb 8088 followed by shutdown. This is no longer sufficient.

It took me a while to get the DRMI locking going again. The model restarts earlier in the evening had changed a bunch of EPICS channel settings (and out config scripts don't catch all of these settings). In particular, I forgot to re-enable the x3 digital gain for the ITMs, BS and SRM (necessitated by removing an analog x3 gain on the de-whitening boards). I was hesitant to spend time re-adjusting all damping / oplev loop gains because if we change the series resistor on the coil driver board, we will have to do this again. I also didn't want this arbitrary FM to be enabled in the SDF safe.snap. But maybe it's worth doing it anyways - if nothing it'll be good practise.

Once I hunted down all the setting diffs and tweaked alignment, the DRMI locks were pretty robust.

I had hoped to make some of these TF measurements tonight. But I realized I needed to look up a bunch of stuff in manuals/datasheets, and think about these measurements a little. I wasn't sure if the DW/AI board could drive a signal over 40m of BNC cabling so I added an SR560 (DC coupled, gain=1, low noise mode, 50ohm output used) to buffer the output. The Marconi's external modulation input is high impedance (100k) but for the AOM driver we want 50ohm. For the Marconi, the external input accepts 1Vrms max, while for the AOM driver, we want to drive a signal between 0V and 1V at most.

The general measurement setup is schematically shown in Fig 1. Questions to address:

• What happens if we apply a negative voltage to the input of the AOM driver? What is the damage threshold? Do we have to worry about SR560 offset level?
• Is there a way to dynamically adjust the offset in DTT such that we can have different amplitude signals at different frequencies (usually done by specifying an envelope in DTT) but still satisfy the requirement that the entire signal lie between 0-1V?
• For the Laser Intensity noise -> MICH coupling TF measurement, I guess we can use the AOM to inject an excitation, and measure the ratio of the response in MC_TRANS and in MICH_IN1. Then we multiply the in-loop MC_TRANS spectrum by the magnitude of this TF to get the Laser Intensity Noise contribution to MICH.
• The Laser Frequency Noise coupling should be negligible in MICH - but the measurement principle should be the same. Drive the AO input of the Mode Cleaner Servo board from the DAC, look at ratio of response in MICH_IN1 and MC_F. Multiply the DRMI in-lock MC_F spectrum by this TF.
• The oscillator noise seems more tricky to me (also Finesse modeling suggests this may be the most significant of the 3 couplings described in this elog, though I may just be computing the coupling in Finesse wrongly)
• I don't understand all the External Modulation options specified in the manual.
• DC? AC? FM? PM? AM? Need to figure out what is the right settings to use.
• I'm not sure how independent the various modulations will be - i.e. if I select PM, how much AM is induced as a result of me driving the EXT MOD input?
• What is the right level of excitation drive? I tried this a bunch of times tonight - set the PM range to 0.1rad (for the full scale 1Vrms sine wave input), but with an excitation of just a few counts, already saw non-lineaer coupling in MICH_IN1 which probably means I'm driving this too hard.
• This measurement needs a bit more algebra. We have an estimate of the Marconi phase noise from Rana (is this the right one to use?). But the "Transfer Function" we'd measure is cts in MICH_IN1 in response to counts to Marconi via the signal chain in Attachment #1. So we'd need to know (and divide out) the AI/DW board TF, and the Marconi's TF, which the datasheet suggests has a lower 3dB frequency of 100Hz (assuming SR560 and cable can be treated as flat).
• A simpler test may be to just hook up the Marconi to the Rb standard, and the Rb to 1pps from GPS, and look for a change in the MICH noise.

Am I missing something?

Attachment 1: CB4709D0-3FA7-43E3-BC25-3CF4164E6C6A.jpeg
14838   Fri Aug 9 16:37:39 2019 gautamUpdateALSMore EY table work

Summary:

1. 220 uW / 600 uW (~36 % mode-matching) of IR light coupled into fiber at EY.
2. Re-connected the RF chain from the beat mouth output on the PSL table to the DFD setup at 1Y2.
3. A beat note was found between the PSL and EY beams using the BeatMouth.

Motivation:

We want to know that we can lock the interferometer with the ALS beat note being generated by beating IR pickoffs (rather than the vertex green transmission). The hope is also to make the ALS system good enough that we can transition the CARM offset directly to 0 after the DRMI is locked with arms held off resonance.

Details:

Attachment #1: Shows the layout. The realized MM is ~36 %. c.f. the 85% predicted by a la mode. It is difficult to optimize much more given the tight layout, and the fact that these fast lenses require the beam to be well centered on them. They are reasonably well aligned, but I don't want to futz around with the pointing into the doubling crystal. Consequently, I don't have much control over the pointing.

Attachment #2: Shows pictures of the fiber tips at both ends before/after cleaning. The tips are now much cleaner.

The BeatMouth NF1611 DC monitor reports ~580 mV with only the EY light incident on it. This corresponds to ~60 uW of light making it to the photodiode, which is only 25% of what we send in. This is commensurate with the BS loss + mating sleeve losses.

To find the beat between PSL and EY beams, I had to change the temperature control MEDM slider for the EY laser to -8355 cts (it was 225 cts). Need to check where this lies in the mode-hop scan by actually looking at the X-tal temperature on the front panel of the EY NPRO controller - we want to be at ~39.3 C on the EY X-tal, given the PSL X-tal temp of ~30.61 C. Just checked it, front panel reports 39.2C, so I think we're good.

Next steps:

• Fix the IMC suspension
• Measure the ALS noise for the Y arm
• Determine if improvements need to be made to the IR beat setup (e.g. more power? better MM? etc etc).

EY enclosure was closed up and ETMY Oplev was re-enabled after my work. Some cleanup/stray beam dumping remains to be done, I will enlist Chub's help on Monday.

Attachment 1: IMG_7791.JPG
Attachment 2: fiberCleaning.pdf
863   Wed Aug 20 17:02:01 2008 SharonUpdate More FIR to IIR
I tested another method for converting from FIR to IIR other than the 2 mentioned in post 841.
I got this one from Yoichi, called poles fitting, you can read about it more if you want at: http://www.rssd.esa.int/SP/LISAPATHFINDER/docs/Data_Analysis/DA_Six/Heinzel.pdf.

Seems it's not doing much good for us though.

I am attaching a PDF file with the plots, which have N=50,100,600,1000, respectivaly.
Attachment 1: polefit1.pdf
13765   Thu Apr 19 00:03:51 2018 gautamUpdateIOOMore IMC NBing

Summary:

As shown in the Attachments, it seems like IMC DAC and coil driver noise is the dominant noise source above 30Hz. If we assume the region around the bounce peak is real motion of the stack (to be confirmed with accelerometer data soon), this NB is starting to add up. Much checking to be done, and I'd also like to get a cleaner measurement of coil driver and DAC noise for all 3 optics, as there seems to be a factor of ~5 disagreement between the MC3 coil driver noise measurement and my previous foray into this subject. The measurement needs to be refined a little, but I think the conclusion holds.

Details:

1. I had a measurement of the MC3 coil driver noise from ~2weeks ago when I was last working on this that I had not yet added to the NB.
2. Today I added it. To convert from measured voltage noise to frequency noise, I assumed the usual 0.016N/A per coil number, which is probably a large source of systematic error.
3. I define the "nominal" IMC operating condition as MC1 and MC3 having the analog de-whitening filters switched on, but MC2 switched off.
4. So length noise should be dominated by coil driver noise on MC1 and MC3, and DAC noise on MC2.
5. The measurement I had was made with the input to the coil driver board terminated in 50ohms. Measurement was made in-situ. The measurement has a whole bunch of 60Hz harmonics (despite the Prologix box being powered by a linear power adapter, but perhaps there are other ground loops which are coupling into the measurement). So I'd like to get a cleaner measurement tmrw.
6. To confirm, Koji suggested some On/Off test by driving some broadband noise in the coils. I figured toggling the analog de-whitening, such that the DAC noise or coil driver electronics dominate is an equally good test.
7. Attachment #2 shows the effect in arm error and control signal spectra. Note that I engaged analog de-whitening on all 3 optics for the red curves in this plot. But even leaving MC2 de-whitening off, I could see the read curve was below the black reference trace, which was taken with de-whitening off on all 3 optics.

Remarks:

Since I sunk some time into it already, the motivation behind this work is just to try and make the IMC noise budget add up. It is not directly related to lowering the IR ALS noise, but if it is true that we are dominated by coil driver noise, we may want to consider modifying the MC coil driver electronics along with the ITM and ETMs.

Attachment 1: IMC_NB_20180409.pdf
Attachment 2: IMC_coils_20180418.pdf
13770   Thu Apr 19 17:15:35 2018 gautamUpdateIOOMore IMC NBing

Summary:

Today, I repeated the coil driver noise measurement. Now, the coil driver noise curve in the noise budget plot (Attachment #1) is the actual measurement of all 12 coils (made with G=100 SR560). I am also attaching the raw voltage noise measurement (input terminated in 50ohms, Attachment #2). Note that POX11 spectrum has now been re-measured with analog de-whitening engaged on all 3 optics such that the DAC noise contribution should be negligible compared to coil driver noise in this configuration. The rows in Attachment #2 correspond to 800 Hz span (top) and full span (bottom) on the FFT analyzer.

Details:

The main difference between this measurement, and the one I did middle of last year (which agreed with the expectation from LISO modeling quite well) is that this measurement was done in-situ inside the eurocrate box while last year, I did everything on the electronics benches. So I claim that the whole mess of harmonics seen in the raw measurements are because of some electronics pickup near 1X6. But even disregarding the peaky features, the floor of ~30nV/rtHz is ~6x than what one would expect from LISO modeling (~5nV/rtHz). I confirmed by looking that the series resistance for all 3 MC optics is 430ohms. I also did the measurement with the nominal bias voltages applied to the four channels (these come in via the slow ADCs). But these paths are low-passed by an 8th order low pass with corner @ 1Hz, so at 100 Hz, even 1uV/rtHz should be totally insignificant. I suppose I could measure (with EPICS sine waves) this low-pass filtering, but it's hard to imagine this being the problem. At the very least, I think we should get rid of the x3 gain on the MC2 coil driver de-whitening board (and also on MC1 and MC3 if they also have the x3 factor).

Attachment 1: IMC_NB_20180419.pdf
Attachment 2: IMC_coilDriverNoises_20180419.pdf
11553   Tue Sep 1 10:26:24 2015 IgnacioUpdateIOOMore MCL Subtractions (Post FF)

Using the training data that was collected during the MISO MCL FF. I decided to look at more MCL subtractions but this time using the accelerometers as Rana suggested.

I first plotted the coherence between MCL and all six accelerometers and the T240-Z seismometer.

For 1 - 5 Hz, based on coherence, I decided to do SISO Wiener filtering with ACC2X and MISO Wiener filtering with ACC2X and ACC1Y. The offline subtractions were as follows (RMS plotted from 0.1 to 10 Hz):

The subtractions above look very much like what you would get offline when using the T240(X,Y) seismometeres during MISO Wiener filtering. But this data was taken with the MISO filters on. This sort of shows the performance deterioration when one does the online subtractions. This is not surprising since the online subtraction performance for the MISO filters, was not too great at 3 Hz. I showed this in some other ELOG but I show it again here for reference:

Anyways, foor 10 - 20 Hz, again based on coherence, I decided to do SISO Wiener filtering with ACC2Z and MISO Wiener filtering with ACC2Z and ACC1Z (RMS plotted from 10 to 20 Hz):

I will try out these subtractions online by today. I'm still debating wether the MISO subtractions shown here are worth the Vectfit shananigans. The SISO subtractions look good enough.

Attachment 4: mclxycoh.png
16388   Fri Oct 8 17:33:13 2021 HangUpdateSUSMore PRM L2P measurements

[Raj, Hang]

We did some more measurements on the PRM L2P TF.

We tried to compare the parameter estimation uncertainties of white vs. optimal excitation. We drove C1:SUS-PRM_LSC_EXC with "Normal" excitation and digital gain of 700.

For the white noise exciation, we simply put a butter("LowPass",4,10) filter to select out the <10 Hz band.

For the optimal exciation, we use butter("BandPass",6,0.3,1.6) gain(3) notch(1,20,8) to approximate the spectral shape reported in elog:16384. We tried to use awg.ArbitraryLoop yet this function seems to have some bugs and didn't run correctly; an issue has been submitted to the gitlab repo with more details. We also noticed that in elog:16384, the pitch motion should be read out from C1:SUS-PRM_OL_PIT_IN1 instead of the OUT channel, as there are some extra filters between IN1 and OUT. Consequently, the exact optimal exciation should be revisited, yet we think the main result should not be altered significantly.

While a more detail analysis will be done later offline, we post in the attached plot a comparison between the white (blue) vs optimal (red) excitation. Note in this case, we kept the total force applied to the PRM the same (as the RMS level matches).

Under this simple case, the optimal excitation appears reasonable in two folds.

First, the optimization tries to concentrate the power around the resonance. We would naturally expect that near the resonance, we would get more Fisher information, as the phase changes the fastest there (i.e., large derivatives in the TF).

Second, while we move the power in the >2 Hz band to the 0.3-2 Hz band, from the coherence plot we see that we don't lose any information in the > 2 Hz region. Indeed, even with the original white excitation, the coherence is low and the > 2 Hz region would not be informative. Therefore, it seems reasonable to give up this band so that we can gain more information from locations where we have meaningful coherence.

Attachment 1: Screenshot_2021-10-08_17-30-52.png
16389   Mon Oct 11 11:13:04 2021 ranaUpdateSUSMore PRM L2P measurements

For the oplev, there are DQ channels you can use so that its possible to look back in the past for long measurements. They have names like PERROR

16390   Mon Oct 11 13:59:47 2021 HangUpdateSUSMore PRM L2P measurements

We report here the analysis results for the measurements done in elog:16388

Figs. 1 & 2 are respectively measurements of the white noise excitation and the optimized excitation. The shaded region corresponds to the 1-sigma uncertainty at each frequency bin. By eyes, one can already see that the constraints on the phase in the 0.6-1 Hz band are much tighter in the optimized case than in the white noise case.

We found the transfer function was best described by two real poles + one pair of complex poles (i.e., resonance) + one pair of complex zeros in the right-half plane (non-minimum phase delay). The measurement in fact suggested a right-hand pole somewhere between 0.05-0.1 Hz which cannot be right. For now, I just manually flipped the sign of this lowest frequency pole to the left-hand side. However, this introduced some systematic deviation in the phase in the 0.3-0.5 Hz band where our coherence was still good. Therefore, a caveat is that our model with 7 free parameters (4 poles + 2 zeros + 1 gain as one would expect for an ideal signal-stage L2P TF) might not sufficiently capture the entire physics.

In Fig. 3 we showed the comparison of the two sets of measurements together with the predictions based on the Fisher matrix. Here the color gray is for the white-noise excitation and olive is for the optimized excitation. The solid and dotted contours are respectively the 1-sigma and 3-sigma regions from the Fisher calculation, and crosses are maximum likelihood estimations of each measurement (though the scipy optimizer might not find the true maximum).

Note that the mean values don't match in the two sets of measurements, suggesting potential bias or other systematics exists in the current measurement. Moreover, there could be multiple local maxima in the likelihood in this high-D parameter space (not surprising). For example, one could reduce the resonant Q but enhance the overall gain to keep the shoulder of a resonance having the same amplitude. However, this correlation is not explicit in the Fisher matrix (first-order derivatives of the TF, i.e., local gradients) as it does not show up in the error ellipse.

In Fig. 4 we show the further optimized excitation for the next round of measurements. Here the cyan and olive traces are obtained assuming different values of the "true" physical parameter, yet the overall shapes of the two are quite similar, and are close to the optimized excitation spectrum we already used in elog:16388

Attachment 1: prm_l2p_tf_meas_white.pdf
Attachment 2: prm_l2p_tf_meas_opt.pdf
Attachment 3: prm_l2p_fisher_vs_data_white_vs_opt.pdf
Attachment 4: prm_l2p_Pxx_evol_v2.pdf
15883   Mon Mar 8 22:01:26 2021 gautamUpdateLSCMore PRMI

There are still many mysteries remaining - e.g. the MICH-->PRCL contribution still can't be nulled. But for now, I have the settings that keep the PRMI locked fairly robustly with REFL55I/Q or REFL165I/Q (I quadrature for PRCL, Q for MICH in both cases), see Attachment #1 and Attachment #2 respectively. For the 1f locking, the REFL55 digital demod phase was fine-tuned to minimize the frequency noise (generated by driving MC2) coupling to the Michelson readout (as the Michelson is supposed to be immune) - the coupling was measured to be ~60dB larger at the PRCL error point than MICH. There was still nearly unity coherence between my MC2 drive and the MICH error point demodulated at the drive frequency, but I was not able to null it any better than this. With the PRMI (ETMs misaligned) locked on the 1f signals, I measured Attachment #1 and used it to determine the demod phase that would best enable REFL165_I to be a PRCL sensor. Rana thinks that if there is some subtle effect in the marginally stable PRC, we would not see it unless we do a mode scan (time consuming to set up and execute). So I'm just going to push on with the PRFPMI locking - let's see if the clean arm mode forces a clean TEM00 mode to be resonant in the PRC, and if that can sort out the lack of orthogonality between MICH/PRCL in the 1f sensors (after all, we only care about the 3f signals in as much as they allow us to lock the interferometer). I'll try the PRMI with arms on ALS tomorrow eve.

I have no idea what to make of how the single frequency lines I am driving in MICH and PRCL show up in REFL11 and REFL33 - the signals are apparently completely degenerate (in optical quadrature). How this is possible even though the PRMI remains stably locked, POP22/POP110/AS110 report stable sideband buildup is not clear to me.

Attachment 1: PRMI1f_noArmssensMat.pdf
Attachment 2: PRMI3f_noArmssensMat.pdf
7556   Tue Oct 16 11:38:17 2012 JenneUpdateLSCMore PRMI notes from last night

 Quote: How can you lock the PRMI without the REFL beams? c.f. this entry by Kiwamu Which signals are you using for the locking? I think the first priority is to find the fringes of the arms and lock them with POX/POY. As for the POP, make sure the beam is not clipped because the in-vac steering mirrors have been supposed to be too narrow to accommodate these two beams.

I was using AS55I for PRCL, and AS55Q for MICH.  I snuck that into the last line of an unrelated elog, since I did both things at the same time: see elog 7551.  Kiwamu's measurements (elog 6283) of the PRMI sensing matrix show that the PRCL and MICH signals are almost orthogonal in AS55 (although the optickle simulation doesn't agree with that...)  He was able to lock PRMI with AS55 I&Q (elog 6293), so I thought we should be able to as well.  Locking the PRMI was supposed to help tune the alignment of the PRM, not be the end goal of the night.  Also, we only tried locking PRCL in the "middle right" configuration, not the "lower left" configuration, but we were seeing what looked like recycling flashes only in the "lower left" configuration.

I agree in principle that we should be working on the arms. However, since we can't use the old steer-the-beam-onto-the-cage trick to find the beam, I was hoping that we could steer the beam around and see some light leaking out of the ETM, onto the end table.  However, with the 1% transmission of the ITMs and ~10ppm transmission of the ETMs, there's not a lot of light back there.  I was hoping to align the PRMI so that I get flashes with a gain of 10 if I'm lucky, rather than just the 5% transmission of the PRM.  With the PRMI aligned, I was expecting:

(1W  through Faraday) * (10 PR gain) * (0.5 BS transmission) * (0.01 ITM transmission) * (10ppm ETM transmission) = 0.5uW on the ETM tables during PRCL flashes

I was hoping that things would be well enough aligned that I could just go to the end table, and see the light with a viewer, although as I type this, I realize that if the beam was not on the end table (or even if it was...) any time I move the PZTs, I'd have to completely realign the PRMI in order to see the flashes.  This seems untenable, unless there are no other options.

We then got sidetracked by trying to see the POP beam, and once we saw the POP beam we wanted to put something down so we could find it again.  POP is also small, but not as small as expected at the end:

(1W  through Faraday) * (10 PR gain) * (20ppm PR2 transmission) = 0.2mW on POP during PRCL flashes.

POP was very difficult to see, and we were only able to see it by putting the foil in the beam path, and using a viewer.  I think that we once were able to see it by looking at a card with the viewer, but it's much easier with the foil.  I'd like to find an iris that is shiny (the regular black iris wasn't helpful), to facilitate this alignment.  Since we were just looking at the reflection off of the foil, I have no comment yet about clipping vs. not clipping.  I do think however that the forward-going beam may have been easier to find....when the PRMI alignment drifted, we lost the beam, but I could still see the forward-going beam.  Probably I should switch to that one, since that's the one that was lined up with the in-vac optics.

Summary:

Ideas are welcome, for how to align the beam to the Yarm (and later to the Xarm), since our old techniques won't work.  Aligning the PRMI was a distraction, although in hopes of getting flashes so we could see some light at the end tables.  I'm going to go see if I can look through a viewport and see the edges of the black glass aperture, which will potentially be a replacement for the steering-on-the-cage technique, but if that doesn't work, I'm running out of ideas.

1843   Thu Aug 6 10:32:45 2009 alberto, robUpdateLockingMore PSL trends: NPRO, MOPA, FSS, PMC and MZ

Here we trended also the PMC and the MZ. The drop in the PMC happens at the same rate as the MOPA's.

That let us think that the FSS transmitteed power has gone down because of the reference cavity progressive misalignment to the laser beam.

We need to adjust that alignment sometime.

The drop in the NPRO output power (upper row, 3rd plot: Ch10 C1:PSL_126MOPA_126MON) accompained an increase of "fuzziness" in PMCTRANSPD and both coincided in time with the day we tempoarirly removed the flap from the laser chiller's chiller (July 14 2009).

Attachment 1: 2009-08-06_PSLtrends.png
1606   Tue May 19 15:54:29 2009 JenneUpdatePEMMore Plots for the S5 H1:DARM Wiener Filtering....

Even more plots for the Wiener filtering!

We have a set of spectrograms, which show (in color) the amplitude spectrum, at various times during a one month stretch of time, during S5. Each vertical data-'stripe' is 10min long.

We also have a set of band-limited plots, which take the spectra at each time, and integrate under it, for different frequency bands.

Each set of plots has the following 3 plots:  The raw DARM spectrum, a ratio of residual/raw, and the residuals, normalized to the first one (on which the wiener filter was trained).

The residuals are the DARM spectrum, after subtracting the Wiener-filtered seismometer witness data.

From the ratio plots, it looks like the wiener filter is pretty much equally effective at the time on which the filter was trained, as one month later.  Static filters may be okey-dokey for a long period of time with for the seismic stuff.

Attachment 1: H1darmCompSpecgramRAW.png
Attachment 2: H1darmCompSpecgramRATIO.png
Attachment 3: H1darmCompSpecgramRESIDUALS.png
Attachment 4: H1darmCompWienerRAW.png
Attachment 5: H1darmCompWienerRATIO.png
Attachment 6: H1darmCompWienerRESIDUALS.png
ELOG V3.1.3-