40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 113 of 339  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Category Subjectup
  2815   Tue Apr 20 10:55:10 2010 steveBureaucracySAFETYKevin Kuns received safety training

The 40m's new undergrad Kevin Kuns was introduced to 40m safety hazards. He is new and needs guidance as specially with 2W laser work.

Peter King will train him on Friday to LIGO-laser standard.

 

  1802   Wed Jul 29 11:15:06 2009 steveBureaucracySAFETYKevin receives safety training

Kevin Vigue, our high school summer student went through the 40m specific safety traning yesterday.

  14710   Sun Jun 30 22:02:26 2019 MilindUpdateCamerasKeyed c1aux crate

I wanted to try out the unstick.py script on c1aux but kept running into timeout errors. I was also confronted by a blank GigE screen. Further, couldn't telnet into c1aux using telnet c1aux as described here. Therefore, I went in and keyed the c1aux crate (1Y1).

  16403   Thu Oct 14 16:38:26 2021 Ian MacMillanUpdateGeneralKicking optics in freeSwing measurment

[Ian, Anchal]

We are going to kick the optics tonight at 2am.

The optics we will kick are the PRM BS ITMX ITMY ETMX ETMY

We will kick each one once and record for 2000 seconds and the log files will be placed in users/ian/20211015_FreeSwingTest/logs.

  16406   Fri Oct 15 12:14:27 2021 Ian MacMillanUpdateGeneralKicking optics in freeSwing measurment

[Ian, Anchal]

we ran the free swinging test last night and the results match up with in 1/10th of a Hz. We calculated the peak using the getPeakFreqs2 script to find the peaks and they are close to previous values from 2016.

In attachment 1 you will see the results of the test for each optic.

The peak values are as follows:

Optic POS (Hz) PIT (Hz) YAW (Hz) SIDE (Hz)
PRM 0.94 0.96 0.99 0.99
MC2 0.97 0.75 0.82 0.99
ETMY 0.98 0.98 0.95 0.95
MC1 0.97 0.68 0.80 1.00
ITMX 0.95 0.68 0.68 0.98
ETMX 0.96 0.73 0.85 1.00
BS 0.99 0.74 0.80 0.96
ITMY 0.98 0.72 0.72 0.98
MC3 0.98 0.77 0.84 0.97

The results from 2016 can be found at: /cvs/cds/rtcdt/caltech/c1/scripts/SUS/PeakFit/parameters2.m

Attachment 1: 20211015_Kicktest_plot.pdf
20211015_Kicktest_plot.pdf 20211015_Kicktest_plot.pdf 20211015_Kicktest_plot.pdf 20211015_Kicktest_plot.pdf 20211015_Kicktest_plot.pdf 20211015_Kicktest_plot.pdf 20211015_Kicktest_plot.pdf 20211015_Kicktest_plot.pdf
  4813   Tue Jun 14 03:15:29 2011 KojiHowToComputer Scripts / ProgramsKissel Button Generator

I have made a python script to generate the button designed by Jeff Kissel for his ISI screen.

It is currently located at the following location:
/cvs/cds/rtcds/caltech/c1/medm/c1lsc_tst/master/KisselButtonGenerator/generate_KisselButton.py
but should be relocated to somewhere appropriate.
It also uses fragmented medm files named "MATRIX*.adl_parts".

# Jamie, could you suggest the right place?

The parameters are assigned at the beggining of the script.
This script print the result to stdout. So you need to redirect the output into a file.
e.g.

> ./generate_KisselButton.py >tmp.adl

The script should be modified such that it accepts the command line options.
It needs more python learning for me.


# Number of the column
mat_h = 20;

# Number of the row
mat_v = 10;

# horizontal pixel size of the rectangular display for each matrix element
button_width = 8;

# vertical pixel size of the rectangular display for each matrix element
button_height = 8;

replace_dict = {
# Title
    '${DISPLAY_LABEL}':'ITMX_INMATRIX', 
# Path of the MEDM file to be open by clicking the button
    '${DISPLAY_NAME}':'/cvs/cds/rtcds/caltech/c1/medm/c1sus/master/C1SUS_ITMX_INMATRI
X_MASTER.adl',
# The channel name of the matrix element
# ($V and $H are replaced to the numbers i.e. "_3_4")
    '${MATRIX_CHAN}':'C1:SUS-ITMX_INMATRIX_$V_$H'
    };


 

Attachment 1: kissel_button.png
kissel_button.png
  4820   Wed Jun 15 00:50:11 2011 KojiHowToComputer Scripts / ProgramsKissel Button Generator

Now the Kissel-button generator takes the command line arguments and options.
The script is fully documented by the usage message of the script itself.
It still needs the external supporting files "MATRIX*.adl_parts".

Now the LSC screen has these buttons for the input and output matrices.
The command lines to generate those buttons are listed at the end of this entry as the examples.


>pwd
/opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/medm/c1lsc_tst/master/KisselButtonGenerator

>./generate_KisselButton.py -h
usage:
generate_KisselButton.py [options]  end_row end_column matrix_ch_name

This generates an MEDM screen of a button with the style designed by
Jeff Kissel for his ISI screens. This button has a display of a matrix
elements. If the matrix element is non-zero it glows in green. Otherwise
its color is dark. Usually the button created by this script
is to be copy-pasted to other screens.

Three arguments have to be given:
  end_row         the number of the row at the end
  end_column      the number of the column at the end
  matrix_ch_name  the channel name of the matrix to be monitored
                  e.g. give C1:LSC-OUTPUT_MTRX for C1:LSC-OUTPUT_MTRX_1_1, ...

There are options prepared in order to control the parameters of the button.

example:
generate_KisselButton.py 6 6 C1:LSC-OUTPUT_MTRX
      6x6 matrix for C1:LSC-OUTPUT_MTRX


options:
  -h, --help          show this help message and exit
  --sr=START_ROW      specify the starting row number for the button array.
                      [default: 1]
  --sc=START_COLUMN   specify the starting column number for the button array.
                      [default: 1]
  --bw=BUTTON_WIDTH   specify the pixel width of the small button. [default:
                      8]
  --bh=BUTTON_HEIGHT  specify the pixel height of the small button. [default:
                      8]
  --dl=DISPLAY_LABEL  specify the button label. [default: channel name]
  --sn=SCREEN_NAME    specify the file name of the screen opened when one
                      click the button. The relative or absolute path can be
                      included. [default: a name guessed from the channel
                      name. e.g. C1LSC_OUTPUT_MTRX.adl for C1:LSC-OUTPUT_MTRX]

>./generate_KisselButton.py --bw=3 --bh=4 --dl="RFPD InMTRX" 16 8 C1:LSC-PD_DOF_MTRX > rfpd_mtrx.adl

>./generate_KisselButton.py --sc=21 --bw=6 --bh=4 --dl="DCPD InMTRX" 27 8 C1:LSC-PD_DOF_MTRX > dcpd_mtrx.adl

>./generate_KisselButton.py --bw=4 --bh=4 --dl="Trig MTRX" 11 8 C1:LSC-TRIG_MTRX > trig_mtrx.adl

>./generate_KisselButton.py --bw=4 --bh=4 --dl="Out MTRX" 9 10 C1:LSC-OUTPUT_MTRX > output_mtrx.adl

  5603   Mon Oct 3 17:06:27 2011 JenneHowToComputer Scripts / ProgramsKissel Button Generator

Quote:

>pwd
/opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/medm/c1lsc_tst/master/KisselButtonGenerator

 I copied the Kissel button generator scripts folder into scripts:

/opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/KisselButtonGenerator/

Maybe this isn't the most intuitive place ever, since it's a script that only has to do with medm screens, but at least it's better than hidden in the depths of Koji's LSC medm path.....

  1332   Mon Feb 23 11:07:01 2009 steveBureaucracySAFETYKiwamu receives safety training

Osamu and Kiwamu received 40m safety training on Thursday, Feb 19, 2009

Kiwamu needs Osamu's close supervision at PSL enclosure and AP table
I hope they already read, understood and signed the laser SOP
  8589   Thu May 16 04:46:37 2013 JenneUpdateLSCKiwamu's sensing matrix measurement script revived

Kiwamu had an old set of scripts for measuring the sensing matrices, but they were hidden away in ..../scripts/general/kiwamuscripts/pyplant . I have moved them to a more useful place, and updated them.

The useful scripts (the main one is SensResp.py, and the PRMI-specific one, runPRMI_SENS.py, which calls SensResp.py) have been moved to .../scripts/LSC .  I have also created a folder within the LSC scripts folder called SensMatData for the data.

The 2 big changes to Kiwamu's scripts:  The ezca library that he was calling wasn't working.  I switched it over to using the one that Yuta wrote, in ..../scripts/pylibs.  Also, Kiwamu's script was written back during a time where we must have only had one total lockin for the whole LSC model.  Now we have one per PD in the input matrix.  This meant that several of his channel names were wrong.  I have fixed this, and also made it measure all the sensors at once using tdsread of the _OUT16 channels (the OUT16's have some AA action, other EPICS channels don't).

So, now (after you're locked), it shakes one "mirror" (the ITMs are shaken differentially at the same time, as one "mirror"), and reads out all of the RF PD lockin values.  Then it moves to the next mirror.  (For the PRMI case, there are only 2 "mirrors":  The ITM set and the PRM.)  All of the information is stored in a dictionary, which is written to a text file. 

The format of the dictionary is:

{ OPTIC_1: [Photodiode_1, Lockin_I, Lockin_Q], [Photodiode_2, Lockin_I, Lockin_Q], OPTIC_2: [Photodiode_1, Lockin_I, Lockin_Q], [Photodiode_2, Lockin_I, Lockin_Q] }

At this point, I am too tired to actually do a measurement, although next time the PRMI is locked, we should just have to run the runPRMI_SENS.py, and look at the data.  I'm also not quite sure how to extract the information from a dictionary after it has been written to a text file.  This may not be a good way to store data, and I'll ask Jamie about it tomorrow.

OTHER NOTES:

* I need to set up another iteration of the sensing matrix measurement with no drive, measuring several times, to get an estimate of the error in a single measurement.

 

* I had the PRMI locked on AS55Q/REFL33I for more than half an hour.  Then the MC started unlocking semi-regularly.  Seismic was good except for one EQ ~2 hours ago.  After the earthquake (unlocked MC, but no tripped optics), the MC has remained locked.

* The LSC Lockin Overview screen does not click-through to the _SIG individual screens.  We need to fix the path to these screens.

* All of the _SIG filters are band passes around 285 Hz, but the names of the filters all say 238Hz.  I need to fix all 27 of these.

* We can perhaps change the LSCoffsets script someday to use tdsread a few times, and average the results (since the PDs don't have lowpass filters, and we're measuring the offset of the IN1 location, not the OUT).  This way we can hopefully measure all the PDs at once and speed up the script, without having failed tdsavg runs.

  8593   Thu May 16 23:48:39 2013 JenneUpdateLSCKiwamu's sensing matrix measurement script revived

Koji locked the PRMI for me, and I took some data.  I haven't finished figuring out what to do with it / writing a processing script.

Here is the data, in a python dictionary (not for you to read, but so that it's here and you can use it later if you want).

{'AS55_Q': [['ErrorBarData0', '-1.60826e-05', '0.000154774'], ['ErrorBarData1', '-1.61949e-05', '-9.69142e-05'], ['ITMs', '-0.134432', '0.00240338'], ['PRM', '0.0525864', '0.145516']], 'REFL55_Q': [['ErrorBarData0', '-0.00088166', '-0.00294315'], ['ErrorBarData1', '0.00298076', '-0.000466507'], ['ITMs', '-0.573825', '-0.0865747'], ['PRM', '1.94537', '0.534968']], 'REFL33_Q': [['ErrorBarData0', '0.000868208', '0.000785702'], ['ErrorBarData1', '-0.00136268', '-0.000288528'], ['ITMs', '-0.0653009', '-0.0112035'], ['PRM', '0.875275', '0.419765']], 'REFL11_I': [['ErrorBarData0', '-0.147347', '0.136075'], ['ErrorBarData1', '0.351823', '0.160556'], ['ITMs', '-12.0739', '-80.1513'], ['PRM', '6991.11', '7073.74']], 'REFL33_I': [['ErrorBarData0', '-0.00100624', '0.00134366'], ['ErrorBarData1', '0.00373581', '0.000783243'], ['ITMs', '-0.399404', '-0.774793'], ['PRM', '67.4138', '68.8886']], 'REFL11_Q': [['ErrorBarData0', '-0.0173368', '0.0141987'], ['ErrorBarData1', '0.100048', '0.0882165'], ['ITMs', '6.46585', '-26.2841'], ['PRM', '1653.42', '1663.96']], 'AS55_I': [['ErrorBarData0', '-1.87626e-05', '2.24596e-05'], ['ErrorBarData1', '-5.46466e-05', '-2.96552e-07'], ['ITMs', '-0.00531763', '0.00130579'], ['PRM', '-0.100501', '-0.0706334']], 'REFL55_I': [['ErrorBarData0', '-0.000774208', '-5.32631e-05'], ['ErrorBarData1', '0.00347621', '0.0025103'], ['ITMs', '-0.115633', '-0.83847'], ['PRM', '72.8058', '74.2347']]}

The structure is that each sensor has some "error bar" measurements, when there was no drive to any optics (I, then Q of the lockin), and then response to different optics' drives (waiting 20sec after turning on the oscillator before making a measurement, since the lockin has 0.1Hz lowpasses.  ).

The amplitude that Kiwamu had of 4000 cts in the LSC lockin was fine for MICH, but made PRCL unlock, so this data was taken with an amplitude of 1000 counts, at a frequency 283.1030 Hz. 

Since this is only barely above the UGF for both MICH and PRCL loops, I also have OLTF information at 283Hz from DTT:  PRCL mag = -1.05264 dB, phase = 24.6933 deg, MICH mag = -8.50951 dB, phase = 31.3948 deg.

I have started writing a script SensMatAnalysis.py in the scripts/LSC directory to do the analysis, but after having talked to Koji, I need to do more thinking to make sure I know what I'm doing.  Stay tuned for actual analysis later.

  8602   Mon May 20 18:50:22 2013 JenneUpdateLSCKiwamu's sensing matrix measurement script revived

So that I don't have to do loop compensation every time I measure a sensing matrix, I have put (back) in notches into FM10 of all the LSC filter banks, except MC2.  

MICH already had this notch, PRCL and CARM both had it, although it was mislabeled in the filter title as "Notch410" rather than the truth, which is "Notch628". 

The XARM and YARM filter banks were full, since we have not (in those filter banks) combined all of the resonant gains - 3.2Hz, 16Hz, 24Hz - into one module.  I took out a CLP3000 (  cheby1('LowPass",2,3,3000)gain(1.41254)  ) in each of those filter banks, and put in the notch.

I also have changed the band pass filters in the LSC-Lockin#_SIG filter banks to match this new drive frequency.

  8619   Wed May 22 18:07:36 2013 JenneUpdateLSCKiwamu's sensing matrix measurement script revived

 

 To avoid exciting at the PRM violin mode frequency, I have changed all of the filters relevant to the sensing matrix measurement from 628Hz to 580.1Hz.  This includes notches in the LSC control loops, as well as the band pass filters in the lockins.  I have not yet loaded the new filters, since arm locking is in progress.

 

  10318   Fri Aug 1 03:49:26 2014 KojiSummaryGeneralKoji - to do

- Put the circuit diagram of the sum amp on/in the circuit enclosure and associate it with an elog [done].
- Update the circuit diagram of the pomona box [done]

ALL DONE

  15313   Fri Apr 24 00:26:59 2020 ranaSummaryPEML.A. EQ from Tuesday night
Attachment 1: April22-EQ.pdf
April22-EQ.pdf
  2425   Thu Dec 17 02:57:08 2009 JenneUpdateWienerFilteringL1 DARM Static Wiener Filtered data

This is perhaps best put in the LLO elog, but I'm not yet a 'person' there, so I can't write to their elog (yet another thing for the eternal to-do list).  So for now, we're putting things here...

This isn't totally finalized, but I do want to get what I have posted before I hop on a plane in the morning.  Mostly it just needs more time to run, to make the plot longer.  Hopefully I'll be able to edit this in the morning and have a longer-duration plot. 

What's plotted:

This spectrogram shows the amplitude spectra of L1:LSC-DARM_CTRL, after being subtracted via a Static Wiener Filter.  Each spectra is normalized by the very first one, which was created from the same data that was used to determine the Wiener Filter.  The X-axis is time.  The Y-axis is frequency, and the Color/Z-axis is amplitude in dB.  I'm only looking at Science Mode time, so other times when the IFO isn't in science mode, I plot a black stripe to fill in the plot.  The start time of the plot is 83675598, which is Jul 08 2006 06:33:04 UTC. 

Why?

The idea is to see that the filter does equally well a long time after it was created, as when it was initially made.  This will help tell us how often it is useful to recompute the Wiener filters.  Less often is nice, because redoing the Wiener filters may also include remeasuring the high precision transfer functions...if the filter isn't working as well anymore it may be because the transfer function has changed ever so slightly. 

How the plot is created / the background story:

I use one hour of DARM_CTRL data and the following seismometer channels to create an optimal Wiener Filter (pem indicates L0:PEM- , sei indicates L1:SEI- , and lsc indicates L1:LSC- ) :

chans = {[pem 'EX_SEISX'],...
         [pem 'EX_SEISY'],...
         [pem 'EX_SEISZ'],...
         [pem 'EY_SEISX'],...
         [pem 'EY_SEISY'],...
         [pem 'EY_SEISZ'],...
         [pem 'LVEA_SEISX'],...
         [pem 'LVEA_SEISY'],...
         [pem 'LVEA_SEISZ'],...
         [sei 'LVEA_STS2_X'],...
         [sei 'LVEA_STS2_Y'],...
         [sei 'LVEA_STS2_Z'],...
         [sei 'ETMX_STS2_X'],...
         [sei 'ETMX_STS2_Y'],...
         [sei 'ETMX_STS2_Z'],...
         [sei 'ETMY_STS2_X'],...
         [sei 'ETMY_STS2_Y'],...
         [sei 'ETMY_STS2_Z'],...
         [lsc 'DARM_CTRL']};

I then apply this one filter to ten minute chunks of science mode data, for some long period of time.  The game plan is to have a month long plot, but it takes a while to fetch all of the data in separate 10min intervals (~45sec per iteration, times ~3000 iterations), so this plot isn't a full month.  Even if I don't get a chance to plot a full month by Thursday morning, it'll go up here within the next few days. The particular times chosen have the most science mode data within a 30 day period.  I can easily run the code for some other time, if there is a known time (or season) which might be more interesting.  For the spectrogram plot, I then normalize each amplitude spectra by the first one, which comes from the first ten minutes in the hour which was used to make the filter.  This makes it easier to see how the filter's efficacy changes over time.

The analogous analysis for Hanford is in the 40m elog: 1606.  The Hanford stuff in the elog has some cool BLRMS plots also, but I'm not sure that they're so helpful when I only have a few days of L1 data so far.  I'll do those and add them later.

Conclusions:

I can't really say anything yet about the long-term efficacy of a Wiener Filter for LLO yet, since my code hasn't finished filtering my one month of S5 L1 data.  It definitely looks like (so far) that there was a big seismic event around the (arbitrarily defined) 'Day 4'. 

Attachment 1: L1darmCompPlot_17Dec2009_4daysLong.png
L1darmCompPlot_17Dec2009_4daysLong.png
  2426   Thu Dec 17 07:47:29 2009 JenneUpdateWienerFilteringL1 DARM Static Wiener Filtered data

This surface plot is the same as the previous one, with a little more data than I had previously. 

This time around, I also include the "BLRMS" plots for this data.  The first one takes each residual and normalizes it by the DARM_CTRL signal at that time, separates the spectra into bands, and integrates underneath the spectra within that band.  The second one is the raw DARM_CTRL signal's spectra at each time, and integrates under the spectra for each band, and the third BLRMS plot does the same thing for the residuals.  Unfortunately, these plots don't have the same handy black stripe during time which I don't analyze that the spectrogram utilizes.

From the second BLRMS plot we can see that the large red splotch in the spectrogram is due to higher noise in the DARM spectrum, and that (by looking at the Ratio BLRMS plot) the Wiener filter still does a pretty good job during this time.  I expect that for later times when the seismic (or something) event is gone, the Wiener filter will continue performing almost as well as it had been initially.

Again, once the script finishes applying the filter to the many ten minute chunks (the huge time drain is the data fetching, so this shouldn't be a limiting factor for using Wiener filters online), I'll post a final plot.

Attachment 1: L1darmComp_17Dec2009_6day_residualsNormSurfacePlot.png
L1darmComp_17Dec2009_6day_residualsNormSurfacePlot.png
Attachment 2: L1darmComp_17Dec2009_6day_ratioBLRMS.png
L1darmComp_17Dec2009_6day_ratioBLRMS.png
Attachment 3: L1darmComp_17Dec2009_6day_rawBLRMS.png
L1darmComp_17Dec2009_6day_rawBLRMS.png
Attachment 4: L1darmComp_17Dec2009_6day_residualsBLRMS.png
L1darmComp_17Dec2009_6day_residualsBLRMS.png
  10123   Wed Jul 2 16:16:45 2014 NichinUpdateGeneralLAN wire added

 [Nichin, Eric Q]

We added a new LAN wire from Rack 1Y4 to 1Y1 to connect the RF switch at 1Y1 to the martian network. The wire is labelled "To RF Switch (1Y1)"

The wire was run along the Y arm in the tray right next to the vaccum chamber, not the one on top.

 

  15678   Mon Nov 16 16:00:19 2020 gautamUpdateEquipment loanLB1005-->Cryo lab

Shruti picked it up @4pm.

  188   Wed Dec 12 16:22:22 2007 albertoOmnistructureElectronicsLC filter for the RF-AM monitor circuit
In the LC configuration (see attached schematic) the resonant frequency is tuned to one of the peak of our RF-AM monitor and it is amplified by a factor equal to the Q of the filter. As I wrote in one of the last elog entries, we would like amplifications of about 10-30 dB in order to have negligible couplings. Such values are obtained only with small capacitances (few or less pF). The drawback is relatively large inductance (uH or more) which has inevitably low Self Resonant Frequencies (SRF - the resonant frequencies of the RLC circuit usually associated with an actual inductor - ~ MHz). Even before, one limit is also the input impedance of the RF amplifier. Quality factors > 1 require megaohms, far from the 50 ohms in the MiniCircuit amplifiers Iím using now. So, if we plan to use these even for the final design of the circuit, we have to abandon the LC configuration.
For this same reason the only way I could get the expected responses from my several test boards was with a 10 megaohm input probe (see attachment for the measurement with and without probe). Assuming that impedance, I found these as the best trade-offs between the attenuation requirements and the values of the inductors for respectively the peaks at 33, 66,133, 166,199 MHz:
26uH, 6.6u, 20u, 73u, 16u
If we could find inductor with these values and high SRF the configuration should work. The problem is I couldnít find any. Above a few uH they all seem to have SRF ~ MHz.
That is why I switched to the Butterworth. This should work despite the input impedance of the amplifier and with much smaller inductances. I made a totally new test circuit, with surface mount components. I think I still have to fix some things in the measurements but (this time I got rid of the simulator I was using earlier and designed a new configuration with new values from the Horowitzís tables) it seems I have the expected peaks. More soon.
Attachment 1: TF_LC_filter_10pF_1.8uH_scope_probe.png
TF_LC_filter_10pF_1.8uH_scope_probe.png
Attachment 2: TF_LC_filter_10pF_1.8mH_no_probe.png
TF_LC_filter_10pF_1.8mH_no_probe.png
Attachment 3: LC_filter_schematic.png
LC_filter_schematic.png
  6247   Fri Feb 3 16:13:49 2012 steveUpdatePEMLED lights for chamber illumination

Cold LED lights replaced hot halogen ones. Flat LED MYAL 6S,  model #112560002  24VAC

This is a LATE ENTRY.  They were purchased  in Jan 2010 and installed 6 of them around May 2010

Attachment 1: P1080526.JPG
P1080526.JPG
  12943   Thu Apr 13 21:01:20 2017 ranaConfigurationComputersLG UltraWide on Rossa

we installed a new curved 34" doublewide monitor on Rossa, but it seems like it has a defective dead pixel region in it. Unless it heals itself by morning, we should return it to Amazon. Please don't throw out he packing materials.

Steve 8am next morning: it is still bad The monitor is cracked. It got kicked while traveling. It's box is damaged the same place.

Shipped back 4-17-2017

Attachment 1: LG34c.jpg
LG34c.jpg
Attachment 2: crack.jpg
crack.jpg
  11899   Wed Dec 23 03:27:04 2015 ranaUpdateComputer Scripts / ProgramsLHO EPICS slow down

https://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=24321

This LHO log indicates that EPICS slow down could be due to NFS activity. Could we make some trend of NFS activity on Chiara and then see if it correlates with EPICS flatlines?

I wonder if our EPICS issues frequency is correlated to the Chiara install.

  4263   Tue Feb 8 16:44:43 2011 JenneUpdateComputersLIGO Grid Cluster client upgraded on Rossa

I did a yum-install of the latest ldg-client (to get onto the LIGO Clusters) on Rossa. 

I followed the instructions on the wiki page, and everything seemed to work nicely.

I think the new ldg client installs somewhere on the local computer, so if anyone wants cluster access on any other computer, they should follow the same directions.

  2130   Wed Oct 21 16:18:12 2009 SteveSummarySAFETYLIGO Safety Officers visited the 40m

David Nolting, chief LIGO Safety Officer and his lieutenants from LLO and LHO paid homage to the 40m lab this morning.

They give us a few recommendation: update safety documents, move optical table from the front of ETMX-rack and label-identify absorbent plastics on enclosure windows-doors.

We'll correct these short comings ASAP

 

  8776   Thu Jun 27 22:52:38 2013 Rana, Gabriele, FrancescoSummaryComputer Scripts / ProgramsLIGO-DV installed

I installed ligoDV in the /ligo/apps/ligoDV/

Now, by pointing the tool at the local NDS2 server (megatron:31200) you can access the recent local data (raw, trends, etc.)

by running /ligo/apps/ligoDV/ligodv from the command line.

Attachment 1: ldv.png
ldv.png
  9488   Wed Dec 18 13:34:03 2013 SteveUpdateGeneralLIGOX people

40m crew and visitor Holger Muller from Berkeley.

Attachment 1: 40m2013Dec.jpg
40m2013Dec.jpg
Attachment 2: 40mCup.jpg
40mCup.jpg
  1065   Tue Oct 21 18:19:42 2008 YoichiConfigurationComputersLISO and Eagle installed
I installed LISO, a circuit simulation software, into the control room linux machines.
I also installed a PCB CAD called Eagle to serve as a graphical editor for LISO.
I put a brief explanation in the wiki.
http://lhocds.ligo-wa.caltech.edu:8000/40m/LISO

As a demonstration, I made a model of the FSS PC path and did a stability analysis of the op-amps.

The first attachment is the schematic of the model.
You can find the model in /cvs/cds/caltech/apps/linux/eagle/projects/liso-examples/FSS

The second attachment shows the stability analysis plot of the first two op-amps when AD829s are used.
The op-amp model is for the uncompensated AD829. The graph includes the bode plots of the open-loop transfer function of each op-amp.
If the phase delay is more than 360deg (in the plot it is 0 deg because the phase is wrapped within +/-180 deg) at the unity gain frequency,
the op-amp is unstable.
It is clear from the plot that this circuit is unstable. This is consistent with what I experienced when I replaced the chips to AD829 without
compensation.
Unfortunately, I don't have an op-amp model for phase compensated AD829. So I can't make a plot with compensation caps.

The third attachment is the stability analysis of the same circuit with AD797. It also shows that the circuit is unstable at 200MHz, though I
observed oscillation at 50MHz.

Finally, I did an estimate of frequency noise contribution from the noise of AD829.
First I estimated the voltage noise at the output of the board caused by the first AD829 using LISO's noise command.
Then I converted it into the input equivalent noise at the stage right after the mixer by calculating the transfer function
of the circuit using LISO.
Within the control bandwidth of the FSS, this input equivalent noise appears at the mixer output with the opposite sign.
Since we know the calibration factor from the mixer output voltage to the frequency noise, we can convert this into the frequency noise.
The final attachment is the estimated contribution of the AD829 to the frequency noise. As expected, it is negligible.
Attachment 1: FSS_PC_Path.pdf
FSS_PC_Path.pdf
Attachment 2: AD829Stability.png
AD829Stability.png
Attachment 3: AD797Stability.png
AD797Stability.png
Attachment 4: FreqNoiseByAD829.png
FreqNoiseByAD829.png
  14020   Tue Jun 26 17:20:33 2018 JonConfigurationCamerasLLO Python Camera Software is Working

Thanks to a discussion yesterday with Joe Betzweiser, I was able to identify and fix the remaining problem with the LLO GigE camera software. It is working now, currently only on rossa, but can be set up on all the machines. I've started a wiki page with documentation and usage instructions here:

https://wiki-40m.ligo.caltech.edu/Electronics/GigE_Cameras

This page is also linked from the main 40m wiki page under "Electronics."

This software has the ability to both stream live camera feeds and to record feeds as .avi files. It is described more on the wiki page.

  13646   Wed Feb 21 12:17:04 2018 gautamUpdateCDSLO Power mon channels added to c1lsc

To make this setup more permanent, I modified the c1lsc model to pipe the LO power monitor signals from the Demod chassis to unused channels ADC_0_25 (X channel LO) and ADC_0_26 (Y channel LO) in the c1lsc model. I also added a couple of CDS filter blocks inside the "ALS" namespace block in c1lsc so as to allow for calibration from counts to dBm. I didn't add any DQ channels for now as I think the slow EPICS records will be sufficient for diagnostics. It is kind of overkill to use the fast channels for DC voltage monitoring, but until we have acromag channels readily accessible at 1Y2, this will do.

Modified model compiled and installed successfully, though I have yet to restart it given that I'll likely have to do a major reboot of all vertex FEs frown

  17040   Wed Jul 27 18:30:50 2022 yutaUpdateBHDLO beam power at BHD DCPDs is significantly lower than expected

[Paco, Yehonathan, Yuta]

We measured power and counts at BHD DCPDs with LO beam only and ITM single bounce.
We found that LO beam power is ~7 times less than the expected.
We also confirmed that AS beam is clipped somewhere inside vacuum and have 20-50% less power compared with the expected.
LO/AS beams going to DCPD A and B also have power imbalance by 30-40%.

What we did:
 - Run LSCoffsets.py to zero the offsets. I modified the old script so that it can handle new BHD PDs. Also, a bug was fixed (it didn't take into account the gains in filer modules, so INMON is now used instead of OUT16 for calculating offsets).
https://git.ligo.org/40m/scripts/-/blob/main/RFPD/LSCoffsets.py
 - Measured powers and counts in BHD DCPDs at ITMY table with LO beam only and ITMX/ITMY single bounce.
 - During the measurement, we found that power into DCPD A and DCPD B are quite different. One of the reason was a lens and an iris right after the viewport for A path. We removed both of them. Also, only A path have a pickoff which picks off ~20% of light to BHD camera (called SRMF; 40m/16880).
 - We also found that LO beam shape is ugly. ITM single bounce beam from X and Y have similar clipping (see Attached photos). We tried to reduce clipping with various suspensions (LO1, LO2, AS1, AS4, SR2, SRM, BS, ITMX, PR2), but was not possible by moving only single suspension.

Result:
 - Result of counts and power measurements are as follows. Power was measured right in front of DCPD, and also right after the viewport to estimate the loss in the in-air paths. Note that LSC channels have gain of 1, but HPC channels have gain of -1.9 for DCPD_A and -1 for DCPD_B.

                       Blocked  LO       ITMX      ITMY    
C1:LSC-DCPD_A_OUT16    -0.01    -17.89    -91.62    -86.21    
C1:LSC-DCPD_B_OUT16    +0.06    -17.72   -131.83   -131.98    
C1:HPC-DCPD_A_OUT16    +0.07    +34.12   +174.63   +164.24    
C1:HPC-DCPD_B_OUT16    +0.13    +17.60   +131.31   +131.49    
Power at DCPD_A        19 uW    63 uW    278 uW    290 uW    
Power at DCPD_B        19 uW    65 uW    393 uW    404 uW    
Power at viewport A    -- uW    82 uW    350 uW    337 uW    
Power at viewport B    -- uW    64 uW    436 uW    431 uW

DCPD calibration:
 - From the measurements above, counts/W in IN1 can be calculated as follows. Offset of 19 uW is substracted from the measured power to take into account for background light.

C1:LSC-DCPD_A_IN1     -3.59e+05 counts/W
C1:LSC-DCPD_B_IN1     -3.61e+05 counts/W
C1:HPC-DCPD_A_IN1     -3.60e+05 counts/W
C1:HPC-DCPD_B_IN1     -3.57e+05 counts/W

Discussion:
 - DCPD calibration shows that DCPD to ADC itself is quite balanced within 1%. A factor of 1.8-1.9 seen was from unbalanced light between A path and B path (40m/17037).
 - Power expected for ITM single bounce to one of DCPDs is ~520 uW, but was 350-430 uW as measured right after the viewport. Power at A is significantly less than that for B. Note that power at AS55 was as expected (40m/16952). Also, clipping cannot be reduced by moving suspensions. These could mean that clipping is happening after AS2.

950 mW * 0.9 (IMC transmission?) * 5.637%(PRM) * 97.8%(PR2) * 50%(BS) * 98.6%(ITM) * 50%(BS) * 10%(SRM) * 90%(AS2) * 50%(BHDBS) = 520 uW

 - Power expected for LO beam to one of DCPDs is ~530 uW, but was 60-80 uW as measured right after the viewport. Power at A is significantly more than that for B, which is opposite for ITM single bounce. This could mean that something is happening at BHDBS? We are not sure why the power is so low. Are we seeing some ghost beam? For PR2 transmission, 22000 ppm was used for calculation, from 40m/16541.

950 mW * 0.9 (IMC transmission?) * 5.637%(PRM) * 2.2%(PR2) * 50%(BHDBS) = 530 uW

 - As far as we remember, beam shapes were not as bad when we closed out the chambers...

Next:
 - Check if measured power explains the visitivity of LO-ITM single bounce (40m/17020)
 - If not, what is the mode mismatch? Is it possible to explain the mode mismatch with deviations from designed mode-matching telescope?
 - Measure POP power to see if PR2 actually have T=2.2%
 - Play with LO1 and LO2 to invesitate LO beam shape and power
 - Check coherence between LO/AS power fluctuations with suspension motions
 - What is the expected counts/W for these DCPDs?
 - Balance the optical paths in ITMX table for A and B (same lenses, same mirrors)
 - Install better lens in front of camera

Attachment 1: LOBeamAtBHD.JPG
LOBeamAtBHD.JPG
Attachment 2: ITMXSingleBounceAtBHD.jpg
ITMXSingleBounceAtBHD.jpg
  17042   Thu Jul 28 14:34:40 2022 YehonathanUpdateBHDLO beam power at BHD DCPDs is significantly lower than expected

{Yuta, Yehonathan}

We went to the BS table to check the POP beam power. We first notice that the POP beam has a nice gaussan profile on the viewing card. We traced it the beam to the viewing port and measured the power there. Before measuring the power we misalign ITMY/ITMX to get rid of interferences. We measure the beam to be 205uW in both cases.

The expected power is

950 mW * 0.9 (IMC transmission?) * 5.637%(PRM) * 97.8%(PR2) * 50%(BS) * 98.6%(ITM) * 50%(BS)  * 2.2%(PR2) = 260uW

which is reasonably close to what we measure which confirms that PR2 transmission is around what we think it is.

This strengthen our suspicion that LO beam gets clipped somewhere.

 

We also improved the clipping on the POP camera by one of the beamsplitters along the beam path and the alignment to the POPDC PD (~100 cts before, ~ 1000 cts after).

 

  17046   Fri Jul 29 18:24:53 2022 TegaUpdateBHDLO beam power improved by factor of 6 after LO and AS beam alignment

[Yuta, Tega]

From our previous work (elog 17044) of shaking PR2 and seeing a signal in DCPD_A and the fact that LO beam power is far smaller than the expected nominal value, we decided to use TT1 and TT2 to realign the LO beam. This resulted in LO beam power going up by a factor of 6 and an improvement in the LO beam shape. We are still unable to find LO and AS alignment which realize BHD fringe with no clipping everywhere.

Deformed LO beam issue: Following the TT1 and TT2 alignments, used PR2 and PR3 to recover the transmission of the X and Y arms to 1. We also used LO1 and LO2 offsets to further reduce the beam deformation by eliminating the HOM concentric fringes that surounded the LO beam and to maximize the DCPD outputs. BHD optics in ITMY table was tweaked a lot to keep the LO beam centered on the BHD DCPDs and camera. The improved LO beam is still astigmatic in the yaw direction but at least now looks like a TEM00 mode. We also repositioned the DCPD_A path camera lens to remove the circular diffused fringes due to lens clipping. After the alignment, power was measured to be the following. It also reduced the coherence between DCPD outputs and suspension motions (see attached).

                       LO         ITMX
C1:HPC-DCPD_A_OUT16    +127.50    +96.24 (ITMX single bounce consistent to 40m/17040)
C1:HPC-DCPD_B_OUT16    +120.51    +141.52
Power at viewport A    504 uW (almost as expected 40m/17040)
Power at viewport B    385 uW

AP table AS beam clipping: We also noticed clipping in the AS beam in AP table which we removed by moving SR2 and AS1 in YAW and then used AS4 to keep the BHD AS beam centered in the BHD DCPDs.

BHD fringe: After overlaping the LO and AS beams, we saw diagonal fringes indicating beam tilt of LO wrt AS, so we tried to remove the AS beam tilt using AS1 and AS4 but failed to do so because the AS4 mirror seemed to completely distort the beam, so intead we decided to use SR2 and AS1 to remove the tilt between LO and AS beams, which realized BHD fringe. But the motion of SR2 and AS1 then moved the AS beam that it is no longer seen in AP table. The alignment to realize LO and AP AS beam without clipping, and that to realize BHD fringe are attached.

Attachment 1: LO_and_oldAS_settings.png
LO_and_oldAS_settings.png
Attachment 2: BHD_fringe_settings.png
BHD_fringe_settings.png
Attachment 3: Screenshot_2022-07-29_19-37-39.png
Screenshot_2022-07-29_19-37-39.png
Attachment 4: FromTheLeft-AS-POP-LO.JPG
FromTheLeft-AS-POP-LO.JPG
  15559   Sat Sep 5 14:28:03 2020 KojiUpdateGeneralLO beam: Fiber coupling work

2PM: Arrived at the 40m. Started the work for the coupling of the RF modulated LO beam into a fiber. -> I left the lab at 10:30 PM.

The fiber coupling setup for the phase-modulated beam was made right next to the PSL injection path. (See attachment 1)

  • For the alignment of the beam, the main PSL path, including the alignment of the 2" PO mirror, has not been touched.
  • There are two PO beams with the optical power of 0.8mW (left) and 1.6mW (right). Both had been blocked but the right one was designed to be used for PSL POS and ANG. For the fiber coupling, the right beam was used.
  • The alignment/mode-matching work has been done with a short (2m?) fiber patch cable from Thorlabs. The fiber is the same as the one used for LO delivery.
  • I tried to have a mode-matching telescope in the LO path. I ended up having no lens for the best result. The resulting transmitted power is 1.21mW out of 1.64mW incident (~74%). These powers were measured with the Ophir power meter. (Note that Thorlabs' fiber power meter indicated 1.0mW transmission.)

Some notes

  • After the PSL activity, the IMC locking was checked to see if I messed up the PSL alignment. It locks fine and looks fine.
    • The input shutter (left closed after Jon's vacuum work?) was opened.
    • The alignment was not optimal and had some pitch misalignment (e.g. TEM03).
    • After some MC SUS alignment, the automatic locking of TEM00 was recovered. Mainly MC3 pitch was moved (+0.17).
    • I've consulted with Gautam and he thinks this is with the level of regular drift. The AS beam was visible.
  • The IMC and MI were moving so much, but this seemed just the usual Saturday night Millikan shake.
  • During the activity, the PSL HEPA was turned up to 100 and it was reverted to 33 after the work.
  • I have been wearing a mask and gloves throughout the work there.
Attachment 1: 20200905212254_IMG_9938.JPG
20200905212254_IMG_9938.JPG
  6119   Wed Dec 14 14:30:43 2011 JenneUpdateRF SystemLO for new demod box

The Rich demod box wants 10dBm for the local oscillator inputs, so I measured the values that we have coming out of the distribution box.  I'm using the "Spare 55MHz" and the "POP11" outputs, both of which had terminators so were not in use. 

The 55MHz had ~600mV peak, so between 5 and 6 dBm. 

The 11MHz had ~800mV peak, so about 8 dBm.

This is not enough dBm for either.  Going in search of RF amplifiers now...

  6121   Wed Dec 14 16:19:46 2011 ZachUpdateRF SystemLO for new demod box

I'm not sure I agree with your conversions, BUT:

The IQ boards use a PE4140, fancy MOSFET array as the mixer, and according to Peregrine (manufacturer), they can be operated with 0-20 dBm LO drive. I'm not recommending we drive them at 0 dBm, but perhaps the numbers you mentioned are OK.

Quote:

The Rich demod box wants 10dBm for the local oscillator inputs, so I measured the values that we have coming out of the distribution box.  I'm using the "Spare 55MHz" and the "POP11" outputs, both of which had terminators so were not in use. 

The 55MHz had ~600mV peak, so between 5 and 6 dBm. 

The 11MHz had ~800mV peak, so about 8 dBm.

This is not enough dBm for either.  Going in search of RF amplifiers now...

 

  6122   Wed Dec 14 18:06:39 2011 ZachUpdateRF SystemLO for new demod box

Actually, the LO inputs to the IQ boards have AP1053 (Cougar) amps on them. These are 10 dB amps and so putting 10 dBm in puts us on the very maximum of the LO range at 20 dBm.

I think the distribution box levels are fine. 

Quote:

I'm not sure I agree with your conversions, BUT:

The IQ boards use a PE4140, fancy MOSFET array as the mixer, and according to Peregrine (manufacturer), they can be operated with 0-20 dBm LO drive. I'm not recommending we drive them at 0 dBm, but perhaps the numbers you mentioned are OK.

Quote:

The Rich demod box wants 10dBm for the local oscillator inputs, so I measured the values that we have coming out of the distribution box.  I'm using the "Spare 55MHz" and the "POP11" outputs, both of which had terminators so were not in use. 

The 55MHz had ~600mV peak, so between 5 and 6 dBm. 

The 11MHz had ~800mV peak, so about 8 dBm.

This is not enough dBm for either.  Going in search of RF amplifiers now...

 

 

  6123   Wed Dec 14 19:59:12 2011 JenneUpdateRF SystemLO for new demod box

Quote:

Actually, the LO inputs to the IQ boards have AP1053 (Cougar) amps on them. These are 10 dB amps and so putting 10 dBm in puts us on the very maximum of the LO range at 20 dBm.

I think the distribution box levels are fine. 

Quote:

I'm not sure I agree with your conversions, BUT:

The IQ boards use a PE4140, fancy MOSFET array as the mixer, and according to Peregrine (manufacturer), they can be operated with 0-20 dBm LO drive. I'm not recommending we drive them at 0 dBm, but perhaps the numbers you mentioned are OK.

Quote:

The Rich demod box wants 10dBm for the local oscillator inputs, so I measured the values that we have coming out of the distribution box.  I'm using the "Spare 55MHz" and the "POP11" outputs, both of which had terminators so were not in use. 

The 55MHz had ~600mV peak, so between 5 and 6 dBm. 

The 11MHz had ~800mV peak, so about 8 dBm.

This is not enough dBm for either.  Going in search of RF amplifiers now...

 

 

 Yeah, I looked and saw that it's a semiconductor mixer, so it doesn't have to be as perfect. 

Everything is plugged in now to the new demod board.  More details soonly...

The I & Q outs are plugged into whitening filter #3, channels 5-8.  11MHz I = chan 5, 11MHz Q = chan 6, 55MHz I = chan 7, 55MHz Q = chan 8.  These channels are probably already recorded, but I haven't checked yet.  Hopefully I'll have time tonight after I pack for my trip.  But Zach, can you look into it tomorrow just to check??  Backup plan is to just go back to using the AS11 and POP55 boards and channels if the new board isn't doing what it's supposed to.

I disconnected the 3rd and 4th channels of the demod box since they were drawing unnecessary current, and making the box hot.  Now the box is just warmish.

  11802   Mon Nov 23 22:12:10 2015 KojiUpdateIOOLO level check for the IMC demod board

In order to check the proper LO level, the IMC demod board was checked. As a short summary, -8dBm is the proper input for the IMC demod board. This was realized when the variable attenuator of the RF AM Stabilizer was set up be -7dB.


Initially, I tried to do the measurement using the extender board. But every board had the issue of +15V not working. After several extender boards were tried, I noticed that the current draw of the demod board burned the 15V line of the extender board.

Then I moved to the work bench. The signals were checked with the 10:1 probe. It's not properly the 50Ohm system, exactly to say.

I found that the LO signals at the mixers have huge distortion as it reaches the nominal 17dBm, and I wondered if ERA-5s were gone. Just in case I replaced the ERA-5s but didn't see any significant change. Then I thought it is due to the mixer itself. The mixer was removed and replaced with a 50Ohm SMD resister. Then the output of the last ERA-5 became sinusoidal, and the level was adjusted to be ~17dBm (4.52 Vpp) when the input power was measured to be -7.7dBm with the RF power meter. Once the mixer was reinstalled, it was confirmed that the waveform becase rectangular like, with the similar amplitude (4.42Vpp).

Now the module was returned to the rack. The RF level at the LO input was adjusted to be -8dBm by setting the attenuator level to be 7dBm.

Once the IMC is locked with this setting, the open loop transfer function was measured. The optical gain seemed almost unchanged compared with the recent nominal. The UGF and PM were measured to be 144kHz and 30deg.

Attachment 1: IMG_2137.JPG
IMG_2137.JPG
Attachment 2: IMG_2138.JPG
IMG_2138.JPG
  11807   Wed Nov 25 04:24:21 2015 ranaUpdateIOOLO level check for the IMC demod board

Hmmm. Very non-standard demod. From the photo, looks like someone did some surgery with the attenuators (AT1, AT2, AT3) in the LO path. (might be me from a long time ago).

-8 dBm input to a circuit is a not a low noise situation. It would be best to remove the amplifiers in the I&Q paths and just have a single amplifier in the main path. Ideally we want the LO to never go below -3 dBm and certainly not below 0 dBm while outside of the board.

I doubt that all of the LSC demods were modified in this way - this one ought to get some sharpie or stickers to show its difference.

  11808   Wed Nov 25 10:07:10 2015 KojiUpdateIOOLO level check for the IMC demod board

I didn't finish making the DCC entry for this module yet.

But the attenuators are
- AT1: 10dB. There is a sign that it was 3dB before ---  a 3dB chip was also attached on the boardnext to 10dB.
- AT2/3: Removed. They were replaced with 0Ohm resistors.

Currently the input is -8dBm. The input and output of the first ERA-5 are -17dBm and +7dBm, respectively.
Then the input and output of the second ERA-5 are -2dBm and 17dB, respectively.

In order to remove the second amplification stage, the first stage has to produce 26dBm. This is too much for either ERA-5 or any chips that fits on the foot print. If we use low gain but high output amp like GVA-81 (G=10dB, DF782 package), it is doable

Input 0dBm - [ATTN 3] - -3dBm - [ERA-5 G=20dB] - +16~+17dBm - [Circuits -9dB] - +7dBm - [Attn 0dB] - +7dBm - [GVA-81 G=10dB] - +17dBm

I think we should check the conditions of all the LSC demods.

  11811   Wed Nov 25 16:46:10 2015 KojiUpdateIOOLO level check for the IMC demod board

Awwww. I found that the demod board has the power splitter (PSCJ-2-1) with one output unterminated.
This power splitter should be removed.

https://dcc.ligo.org/D1500443

Attachment 1: D990511-40m_151123.pdf
D990511-40m_151123.pdf
  11812   Wed Nov 25 20:07:35 2015 ranaUpdateIOOLO level check for the IMC demod board

Perhaps we can replace T1 with a mini-circuits hybrid 0-90 deg splitter and then remove the trim caps. (JSPQ-80, JYPQ-30, SCPQ-50)

  11825   Mon Nov 30 14:12:14 2015 ericqUpdateLSCLO level check for the LSC RF distribution box

I checked the RF levels at the LSC LO distribution box, with the agilent scope and a handful of couplers. This was all done with the Marconi at +13dBm. 

I only checked the channels that are currently in use, since the analyzer only measures 3 channels at a time, and rewiring involves walking back and forth to the IOO rack to make sure unpowered amps aren't driven, and I was getting hungry. 

For the most part, the LO levels coming into the LSC demod boards are all around +1.5dBm (i.e. I measured around -18.0dBm out of the ZFDC-20-5 coupler, which has a nominal 19.5dB coupling factor)

The inputs piped over from the IOO rack, labeled as "+6dBm" were found to be 4.7dBm and 2.9dBm for 11Mhz and 55MHz, respectively. 

The 2F signals were generally about 40dB lower, with two exceptions:

  • REFL165's ~332MHz signal was around -18dBc
  • POP22 had many more visible harmonics than any other LO signal
    • 11MHz: -32 dBc
    • 33MHz: -32 dBc
    • 44Mhz: -15dBc 

Here are the raw numbers I measured out of the couplers, all in dBm:

  • 11MHz in: -14.8
  • 55MHz in: -16.6
  • POX11:    -18.7
  • POY11:    -18.0
  • REFL11:   -18.0
  • REFL33:   -18.3
  • POP110:   -17.9
  • AS110:    -18.1
  • POP22:    -19.9
  • REFL165:  -18.5
  • AS55:     -18.6
  • POP55:    -18.8 (this port is used as the REFL55 LO)
  11826   Mon Nov 30 15:17:57 2015 KojiUpdateLSCLO level check for the LSC RF distribution box

T1000461 tells us that the nominal LO input is 2dBm although we don't know what's the LO level is at the mixers in the demod boards.

  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
  16919   Wed Jun 15 15:45:37 2022 yutaUpdateSUSLO1 LLCOIL now working, it was loose connection

We tracked the issue of LO1 LLCOIL not actuating LO1, and found that the DB9 cable from the coil driver to the sat amp was loose.
I tightened the screws and now it is working.
Never ever connect cables without screwing the connectors tightly! angryno

What I did:
 - Measured the resistance and the inductance of each coil with BK PRECISION LCR meter, as I did for ITMY (Attachment #1, 40m/16896). The result is the following and it shows that LLCOIL is there.

Feedthru connector: LO1 1
Pin 3-15 / R = 16.0Ω / L = 3.27 mH (UL)
Pin 7-19 / R = 15.8Ω / L = 3.27 mH (UR)
Pin11-23 / R = 15.7Ω / L = 3.27 mH (LL)

Feedthru connector: LO1 2
Pin 3-15 / N/A
Pin 7-19 / R = 15.6Ω / L = 3.22 mH (SD)
Pin11-23 / R = 15.9Ω / L = 3.30 mH (LR)

 - Swapped the DB25 cable which goes to the feedthru LO1 1 and feedthru LO1 2. LLCOIL could be drived from LR coil driver and LRCOIL could not be drived from LL coil driver. SD and UR worked fine with the swap. This means that there is something wrong with the LL driving.
 - Went to see the rack which have coil drivers and sat amp for LO1, and immediately found that the DB9 cable was loose (Attachment #2). Tightened them and the issue was fixed.
 - C1:SUS-LO1_TO_COIL matrix gains were reverted to default values (Attachment #3).

Attachment 1: Measurement.JPG
Measurement.JPG
Attachment 2: BAD.JPG
BAD.JPG
Attachment 3: Screenshot_2022-06-15_15-59-05.png
Screenshot_2022-06-15_15-59-05.png
  16562   Mon Jan 10 14:52:51 2022 AnchalSummaryBHDLO1 OSEMs roughly calibrated and noise measured

I used the open light level output of 908 for ITMX side OSEM from 40m/16549 to roughly calibrate cts2um filter module in LO1 OSEM input filters. All values were close to 0.033. As the calibration reduces the signal value by about 30 times, I increased all damping gains by a factor of 30. None of loops went into any unstable oscillations and I witnessed damping of kicks to the optic.


In-loop power spectrum

I also compared in-loop power spectrum of ETMX and LO1 while damping. ETMX was chosen because it is one of the unaffected optics by the upgrade work. ITMX is held by earthquake stops to avoid unnecessary hits to it while doing chamber work.

Attachment 1 and 2 show the power spectrum of in-loop OSEM values (calibrated in um). At high frequencies, we see about 6 times less noise in LO1 OSEM channel noise floor in comparison to ETMX. Some peaks at 660 Hz and 880 Hz are also missing. At low frequencies, the performance of LO1 is mostly similar to EMTX except for a peak (might be loop instability oscillation) at 1.9 Hz and another one at 5.6 Hz. I'll not get into noise hunting or loop optimization at this stage for the suspension. For now, I believe the new electronics are damping the suspensions as good as the old electronics.

Attachment 1: LO1_vs_ETMX_OSEM_Spectrum_LF_x30_Gain.pdf
LO1_vs_ETMX_OSEM_Spectrum_LF_x30_Gain.pdf
Attachment 2: LO1_vs_ETMX_OSEM_Spectrum_HF_x30_Gain.pdf
LO1_vs_ETMX_OSEM_Spectrum_HF_x30_Gain.pdf
  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.

  16851   Fri May 13 14:26:00 2022 JCUpdateAlignmentLO2 Beam

[Yehonathan, JC]

Yehonathan and I attempted to align the LO2 beam today through the BS chamber and ITMX Chamber. We found the LO2 beam was blocked by the POKM1 Mirror. During this attempt, I tapped TT2 with the Laser Card. This caused the mirror to shake and dampen into a new postion. Afterwards, when putting the door back on ITMX, one of the older cables were pulled and the insulation was torn. This caused some major issues and we have been able to regain either of the arms to their original standings.

ELOG V3.1.3-