Assembled chassis from De Leone placed in the 40 Meter Lab, along the west wall and under the display pedestal table. The leftover parts are in smaller Really Useful boxes, also on the parts pile along the west wall.
- High priority units: 2x 18AI / 1x 16AI / 3x 16AA
All six are reworked and on the electronics workbench. The rest should be ready by the end of the week.
All remaining chasses have been reworked and placed on the floor along the west wall in Room 104.
This will be difficult to modify with the magnets and dumbells in place. Even if someone CAN clamp this piece into an endmill machine with the magnets/dumbells in place, the vibration of the cutting operation may be enough to break them off.
The ITMX 10" flange with four DSUB-25 feedthroughs has been install with the cables connected at the in-vac side. See photo; as requested, LO1-1 and LO1-2 are connected to the top row of feedthroughs from left to right respectively and the opposite ends of the cables placed left to right on the laser table. PR2-1 and PR2-2 are connected to the lower row of feedthroughs from left to right respectively, with the opposite ends placed on the surface below the laser from left to right. This seemed the easiest way to keep the cable orientation clear.
Received the new 1100VA APC UPS today and placed it at the bottom of the valve rack. I'd connected the battery and plugged the unit into the AC outlet, but did not turn it on due to the power outage this weekend.
Bought dish soap and scrub sponges today and placed them under the sink with the other dish supplies.
We went to the end Xarm station and looked at the green laser setup and electronics. We fiddled with the SR-785 and experimented with low-pass filters, and will be exploring the Python script tomorrow.
We used a python script to collect data from the SR785 remotely. The SR785 is now connected to the wifi network via Ethernet port 7.
We learned about the auxillary laser control loop, and then went into the lab to identify the components and cables represented by our transfer functions. We connected to the SR785 inside the lab so that we can use it to insert noise next time, and measure the output in various parts of the control loop.
We first took data of a simple low pass filter, and attempted to perform a fit to both the magnitude and phase in order to find the Z of the components. Once we felt confident in our ability to measure tranfer functions, we took data and plotted the transfer function of the existing control loop of the AUX laser. What we found generally followed the trend of, but was lower than, 10^4/f, which is what we hoped to match, and also had a strange unexplained notch ~1.3 kHz. The magnitude and phase data both got worse after around 40-50 kHz, which we believe is because the laser came out of lock near the end of the run.
[Attachment 2 and 3] are the frequency response of the low pass filter, curves fitted using least squares in python.
[Attachment 1 and 4] is the same measurement of OLTF of the actual AUX circuit, and the control diagram pointing out the location of excitation and test point.
We attempted to use vectfit to fit our earlier transfer function data, and were generally unsuccessful (see vectfit_firstattempt.png), but are much closer to understanding vectfit than before. Couple of problems to address - finding the right set of initial poles to start with has been very hard, and also however vectfit is plotting the phase data is unwrapping it, which makes it generally unreadable. Still working on how to mess with the vectfit automatically-generated plots. In general, our data is very messy (this is old data of the transfer function from last week), so we took more data today to see if our coherence was the problem (see TFSR785_28-06-2022_161937.pdf). As is visible from the graph, our coherence is terrible, and above 1kHz is almost entirely below 0.5 (or 0.2) on both channels. Figuring out why this is and fixing it is our first priority.
In the process of taking new data, we also found out that the optical table enclosure at the end of the X-arm does a decent job of sound isolation (see enclosure_open.mp4 and enclosure_closed.mp4). The clicking from the shutter is visible on a spectrogram at high frequencies when the enclosure is open, but not when it is closed. We also discovered that the script to toggle the shutter can run indefinitely, which can break the shutter, so we need to fix that problem!
Have successfully plotted data from the Red Pitaya on Jupyter Notebook! Have lost years of my life fighting with PyQt. Thanks to Deeksha for heavy contribution. Next task is to get actually good data (seeing mostly noise right now and haven't figured out how to change my input settings) and then to go to set up the RPi in the lab.
TL;DR: I am now able to inject a swept sine and measure a transfer function with python on my Red Pitaya! Attached is a Bode plot for a swept sine from 1 - 30 MHz, going through a band pass filter of 9.5 - 11.5 MHz.
TL;DR: Have successfully measured the UGF of the AUX laser on my Red Pitaya! Attached is one of my data runs (pdf + txt file).
# frequency start: 500.0
# frequency stop: 50000.0
# samples: 50
# amplitude: 0.01
# cycles: 500
# max fs: 125000000.0
# N: 16384UGF: 9264.899326705621
# Frequency[Hz] Magnitude[V/V] Phase[rad] Coherence
4.999999999999999432e+02 5.216612299292965105e+01 -7.738468629291910261e-01 7.660920305860696722e-02
5.492705709937790743e+02 3.622076363933444298e+01 -5.897393740774580229e-01 3.183076012979469405e-01
Am still working on using vectfit to find my zeros/poles of a transfer function - now have a more specific project in mind, which is to have a Red Pitaya use the zero/pole data of the transfer function to find the UGF, so we can check what the UGF is at any given time and plot it as a function of time to see if it drifts (hopefully it doesn't). Wrestled with vectfit more on matlab, found out I was converting from dB's incorrectly (should be 10^(dB/20)....) Intend to read a bit of a book by Bendat and Piersol to learn a bit more about how I should be weighting my vectfit. May also check out an algorithm called AAA for fitting instead.
I have temporarily abandoned vectfit and aaa since I've been pretty unsuccessful with them and I don't need poles/zeroes to find the unity gain frequency. Instead I'm just fitting the transfer function linearly (on a log-log scale). I've found the UGF at about 5.5 kHz right now, using old data - next step is to get the Red Pitaya working so I can take data with that. Also need to move this code from matlab to python. Uncertainty's propagated using the 95% confidence bounds given by the fit, using curvefit - so just from the standard error, and all points are weighted equally. Ideally would like to propagate uncertainty accounting for the coherence data too, but haven't figured out how to do that correctly yet.
[UPDATE 7/22/2022: added raw data files]
# SR785 Measurement - Timestamp: Jun 29 2022 - 11:40:42
# Parameter File: TFSR785template.yml
#---------- Measurement Setup ------------
# Start frequency (Hz) = 100000.000000
# Stop frequency (Hz) = 100.000000
# Number of frequency points = 30
# Excitation amplitude (mV) = 10.000000
# Settling cycles = 5
# Integration cycles = 100
#---------- Measurement Parameters ----------
# SR785 Measurement - Timestamp: Jun 29 2022 - 11:56:50
# Parameter File: TFSR785template.yml
#---------- Measurement Setup ------------
# Start frequency (Hz) = 100000.000000
# Stop frequency (Hz) = 2000.000000
# Number of frequency points = 300
# Excitation amplitude (mV) = 5.000000
# Settling cycles = 5
# Integration cycles = 200
#---------- Measurement Parameters ----------
Both accelerometers have been moved in an attempt to optimize their positions. The MC1 accelerometer was moved from one green bar to the other (I don't know what to call them) at the base of the MC1 and MC3 chambers. That area is pretty tight, as there is an optical table right there, and I did my best to be careful, but if you suspect something has been knocked loose, you might check in that area. The MC2 accelerometer was moved from the horizontal bar down to the metal table on which the MC2 chamber rests.
When I said "MC1/MC2 accelerometers," I meant the entire three-axis accelerometer set at each point.
I spent the week reading up on filter algorithm theory, particularly Wiener filtering. I have also learned how to get data from specific channels at specific times, and I've been getting myself acquainted with Matlab (which I have not previously used). Finally, I started messing around with the positioning of the accelerometers and seismometers in order to try to find the setup that yields the best filtration.
I moved the MC1 set of accelerators. Might have bumped things. If things aren't working, look around the MC1 chamber.
Also, I constructed two new XLR cables, but have not tested them yet.
We now have two 80-foot, female-to-female XLR cables for our pretty new microphones, one yellow and one purple. They have been tested and appropriately labeled.
Also, here is a very helpful pdf for how to properly attach the XLR connectors to a raw quad cable, as well as one for how to put the actual connectors together (ignore the cable instructions on the connector page... the cable depicted is not a quad cable).
I have been working on finding the best spots to put the accelerometer sets in order to best subtract out noise (seismometers next!). Here is a plot of what I've done so far:
All of these were 80-minute samples. The dashed line is unfiltered, solid line filtered. So, Setup #1 looks the best so far, but I didn't leave it there very long, so perhaps it was just a really awesome 80 minutes. I've put the accelerometers back in the Setup #1 position to make sure that it is really better.
And, in case you can't intuitively figure out what configuration the accelerometers are in by such descriptive names, here are some helpful pictures. I didn't know about the digital cameras at first, so these are actually sketches from my notebook, which I helpfully labeled with the setup numbers, color-coded to match the graph above! Also, there are some real-life photographs of the current arrangement (Setup #1' if you forgot).
Doesn't this one look kind of Quentin Blake-esque? (He illustrated for Roald Dahl.)
This is the MC1 set.
Guess which one this is!
So, I'm double-posting, but I figured the last post was long enough as it was, and this is about something different. After double and triple checking the XLR cables, I hooked up the microphone setup (mic---preamp---output) to the oscilloscope to figure out what kind of voltage would register with loud noises. So, I clapped and shouted and forgot to warn the other people in the lab what I was doing (sorry guys) and discovered that, even on the lowest gain setting, my loud noises were generation 2-3 times as much voltage as the ADC can handle (2V). And, since our XLR cables are so freaking long, we probably want to go for a higher gain, which puts us at something like 20 times too much voltage. I doubt this is really necessary, but it's late (early) and I got camera-happy, so I'm going to share anyway:
So, to deal with this issue, I made some nifty voltage dividers. Hopefully they are small enough to fit side-by-side in the ports without needing extra cableage. Anyway, they should prevent the voltage from getting larger than 2V at the output even if the mic setup is producing 50V. Seeing as my screaming as loud as I could about 2mm away from the mic at full gain could only produce 45V, I think this should be pretty safe. I put the ADC in parallel with a 25.5 kOhm resistor, which should have a noise like 10^-8 V/rHz. This is a lot smaller than 1 uV/rHz (the noise in the ADC, if I understood Rana's explanation correctly), so the voltage dividers should pose a noise issue. Now for pictures.
I opened one so you can see its innards.
In case the diagram on the box was too small to decipher...
And finally, I came up with a name scheme for the mics and pre-amps. We now have two Bluebird (bacteriophage) mics named Bonnie and Butch Cassidy. Their preamps are, naturally, Clyde and The Sundance Kid. Sadly, no photos. I know it's disappointing. Also, before anyone gives me crap for putting the labels on the mics upside-down, they are meant to be hung or mounted from high things, and the location (and stiffness) of the cable prevents us from simply standing them up. So they will more than likely be in some kind of upsidedownish position.
I tested the voltage dividers and was getting up to about 3V. I retested the mic w/o the voltage divider in place, and, lo and behold, I was able to generate about 70-75V (previously, I maxed out at 45V). I'm not 100% sure why this was, but it occurs to me that, before, the sounds I was generating were short in duration (loud claps, short yelps). This time, I tried yelling continuously into the microphone. So, probably, I simply wasn't seeing the real peak before on the scope because it was too short to pick up. I have corrected the voltage dividers (by replacing the 25.5 kOhm resistors, which were in parallel with the ADC, with 10 kOhm resistors, taking the voltage ratio to ~60:1) and tested them. I haven't been able to generate more than 1500 mV, so I think they are safe. (It's possible we would have been fine with the old setup, since I think it would be hard to get any noises as loud as I was making, but better safe than sorry, right?)
I'm attaching a diagram of the new-and-improved voltage dividers.
I clamped Bonnie (microphone) to the top of a chamber near the vertex of the arms and placed Clyde (pre-amp) on the table right below (see picture). The cable was laid and Bonnie and Clyde are plugged into port #13 on the ADC. The second cable was plugged into port #14, but it is not connected to anything. I placed the looped up cable on top of the cabinet holding the ADC.
Note: the angle in the photograph is such that we are looking along the y-arm.
I hooked up Bonnie and Clyde last night and tested it today. First I tried some loud noises to make sure I could identify them on the readout. Then, Steve suggested I try to look for some periodic stuff. I set up Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid on the cabinets by the MC2 optic. Now for graphs!
I tapped on the microphone a few times. I also yelled a bit, but this is sampling by seconds, so perhaps they got overwhelmed by the tapping.
This time I tried some more isolated yells. I started with a tap so I'd be sure to be able to recognize what happened. Apparently, not so necessary.
Here, it looks like a pretty strong periodic pattern on the second mic (Butch Cassidy). I replaced the lines with dashed ones where the pattern was a little less clear. Possibility interference from something. Mic1 (Bonnie) seems to show a pretty regular beat pattern, which seems reasonable, as it isn't particularly close to any one instrument fan.
So, anyway. I thought those were neat. And that I wanted to share.
I am attempting to use the DTT program to look at the coherence of the individual accelerometer signals with the MC_L signal. Rana suggested that I might break up the XYZ configuration, so i wanted to see how the coherence changed when I moved things around over the past couple of weeks, but I keep getting a synchronization error every time I try to set the start time to more than about 3 days ago. I tried restarting the program and checking the "reconnect" option in the "Input" tab, neither of which made any kind of difference. I can access this data with no problem from the Data Viewer and the Matlab scripts, so I'm not really sure what is happening. Help?
EDIT: Problem solved - Full data was not stored for the time I needed to access it for DTT.
After setting up the microphones last week, I modified the Wiener filtering programs so as to include the microphone signals. They didn't seem to do much of anything to reduce the MC_L signal, so I looked at coherences. The microphones don't seem to have much coherence with the MC_L signal at all. I tried moving Bonnie to near the optical table next to the PSL (which isn't in a vacuum, and thus would, presumably, be more affected by acoustic noise), but that didn't seem to make much of a difference. Eventually, I'd like to put a mic in the PSL itself, but I need to work out how to mount it first.
Bonnie's new location.
You can see in bonnie_butch.pdf that none of the mic signals are giving very good coherence, although they all seem to have a peak at 24 Hz. (In fact, everything seems to have a peak there. Must be a resonant frequency of something in the mode cleaner.)
I've also attached plots of the coherences for all six accelerometers and the three Guralp seismometer axes. I plotted the most coherent traces together in the last pdf: the y-axes of the MC2 accelerometer and the two seismometers (the Ranger measures ONLY y) and, interestingly, the z-axis of the MC2 accelerometer. Unsurprisingly, the seismometers are most coherent at the low frequencies, and the MC2-Y accelerometer seems to be coherent at very similar frequencies. The MC2-Z accelerometer, on the other hand, seems to be coherent at the higher frequencies, and is highly complementary to the others. I am not really sure why this would be...
Finally, I was curious about how the noise varies throughout the day, because I didn't want to mistakenly decide that some particular configuration of accelerometers/seismometers/whatever was better than another b/c I picked the wrong time of day to collect the data. So, here is a plot of Wiener filters (using only accelerometer data) taken over 2-hour intervals throughout the entirety of July 6, 2009 (midnight-midnight local).
It's a little bit confusing, and I should probably try to select some representative curves and eliminate the rest to simplify things, but I don't have time to do that before the meeting, so this will have to suffice for now.
In her position overlooking whichever table it is that is next to the PSL, Bonnie drummed up some decent coherence with the PSL-PMC_ERR channel, but not so much with the MC_L. I moved her into the PSL itself, and now there is rather good coherence with the PMC_ERR channel, but still not so great for MC_L.
Bonnie's new home in the PSL.
Bonnie has been strung up on bungees in the PSL so that her position/orientation can be adjusted however we like. She is now hanging pretty low over the table, rather than being attached to the hanging equipment shelf thing. Butch Cassidy has been hung over the AS table.
Moving Bonnie increased the coherence for the PMC_ERR_F signal, but not the MC_L. Butch Cassidy doesn't have much coherence with either.
I noticed that the coherence would drop off very sharply just after 10 kHz - there would be no further spikes or anything of the sort. I used my computer to play a swept sine wave (sweeping from 20Hz to 10kHz) next to Butch Cassidy to see if the same drop-off occurred in the microphone signal itself. Sure enough, the power spectrum showed a sharp drop around 10kHz. Thinking that the issue was that the voltage dividers had too high impedance, I remade one of them with two 280 Ohm and one 10 Ohm resistor, but that didn't make any difference. So, I'm not sure what's happening exactly. I didn't redo the other voltage divider, so Bonnie is currently not operating.
So, I actually took these measurements last week, but I didn't get around to making nice plots and things until now. I figured the time while I wait for the spectrum analyzer to do its thing was a good time.
Having been unable to locate the SR785 and also unsure how to connect it to a computer speaker (and also unable to find a free one), I downloaded a demo of a function generator onto my computer and just used that. (Same thing I used to do the swept sine that created the frequency power response plots I posted last week.) I set the program to a number of different frequencies and had the other end of the cable hooked into the oscilloscope to see a) if I could pick out the frequency and b) see how the magnitude of the microphone output varied with the frequency.
The first set of measurements I took, I didn't realize that I could increase the output power of the function generator. Because the generated sound at the default setting was relatively quiet, the oscilloscope traces were pretty chaotic, so I usually froze the trace so that I could look at it better. I ended up with a lot of weird jumps in the magnitude, but I later realized that there was a lot of beating going on at some frequencies, and the amplitude changes were probably much more drastic for the -20 dB sounds than the 6 dB sounds, since it was closer in amplitude to the surrounding noises. So, I've included that data set in my plots for the sake of completeness, but I'm pretty sure that it is useless.
Once I realized I could increase the power output for the signal generator, I took a set of data with and without the voltage divider at 6 dB. There was a cluster of frequencies that showed significant beating around 1700-3000 Hz in the data WITH the voltage divider, but I did not see any clear beating in the data WITHOUT. In the plots, I simply plotted up the highest and lowest amplitudes I measured for the frequencies with significant beating, since it was obviously hard to tell what the amplitude would have been without any background noise. In the w/o volt. div. set, although I didn't see any obvious beat patterns, the measured amplitudes did jump slightly at the frequencies that showed beats with the voltage divider. So, perhaps I was just not seeing them, but they influenced my amplitude measurements? I'm not sure if it would be possible for the voltage divider itself to cause beat frequencies.
(Note: the amplitudes measured were from zero to peak, as the oscilloscope I was using wouldn't show a big enough vertical range to easily measure the peak-to-peak voltage difference.)
I've attached two plots of my measurements. One has a regular x-scale and includes all the measurements. The second has a logarithmic x-scale and omits the 20 Hz points. I had some troubles being able to pick out the 20 Hz signal on the oscilloscope... I don't know if my computer speakers just don't work well at that frequency or what, but either way, those points seemed highly suspect, and omitting them from the log plot allowed me to spread things out more.
One thing I'm not sure about is the 3000 Hz point. It was one of the ones with a beat frequency (~130 Hz), and the amplitudes were pretty low. The corresponding point from the non-voltage-divider data set is also low. So, I'm not sure what's happening there.
The one thing that I do think is quite clear is that the 1000 Hz drop-off in power when the microphone is connected to the ADC has nothing to do with the voltage divider. Beat issues aside, the shapes are very similar (pay no attention to the absolute scale... obviously, the voltage responses with and without the voltage divider were very different, and I just scaled them to fit in the same plot).
Update: Jenne pointed out that I was not absolutely clear about the voltage scale in my plots. The GREEN and BLUE points are on a mV scale, and the RED points are on a 10mV scale. I should probably redo the plots in Matlab in eventuality, since Excel is hard to use if you want to do anything that is not extremely basic with your plots, but this was my solution for the time being. So, the fact that the RED points, which are the data taken WITHOUT the voltage divider, are lower than the GREEN ones does not in any way indicate that I measured lower voltages when the voltage divider was not used.
Also, a to do list:
- Many of the beat frequencies I picked out were veeeeery slow, indicating that something is going at a frequency that is very close to the arbitrary frequencies I chose to sample, which is a little strange. That, combined with the fact that I saw clear beats with the voltage divider but not without leads me to believe that it may be worth investigating the frequency response of the voltage divider itself.
- Redo the measurements near the anomalous 3000 Hz point with a higher density of sampled frequencies to try to see what the heck is going on there.
I made and tested a female-to-female TRS(audio)-RNC cable. It only has a single channel, so it won't work for stereo speakers or anything, but I should only need one speaker for testing the microphones. The tip of the plug is the signal, the sleeve is ground, and the ring is null.
I've been trying for most of the week to get noise measurements on the output of the Guralp box as well as scross the AD640 chip. The measurements haven't really been making sense, and, being at a loss as to what else I should try, I decided to redo the resistors on the N/S 2 and E/W 2 channels. (I had been comparing the VERT1 and VERT2 channels, as VERT1 has been restuffed and VERT2 has not.) I don't need all three of the second set of channels to do more measurements, so it seemed like a good use of time.
The first thing I noticed was that the VERT2 channel was missing two resistors (R24 and R25). I probably should have noticed this sooner, as they are right by the output points I had been measuring across, but it didn't occur to me that anyone did anything to the VERT2 channel at all. So, probably the measurements on VERT2 are no good.
Note the existence of 100 kOhm resistors on the top channel, and none on the bottom channel (VERT2).
Then, while I was soldering in some 100 Ohm resistors, I happened to notice that the resistors I was using had a different number (1001) on them than the corresponding ones on the already redone channels (1003). I checked the resistance, and the ones on the already redone channels turned out to be 100 kOhm resistors, rather than 100 Ohms. So, I double checked the circuit diagram to make sure that I had read it correctly, and there were a number of resistors that had been relabeled as 100 Ohms and several relabeled as 100 kOhms. On the board, however, they were ALL 100 kOhms. Clearly, one of them is wrong, and I suspect that it is the circuitboard, but I don't know for sure.
The diagram clearly shows that R6 should be a 100k resistor, while R5 and R8 should be 100 Ohm resistors, but they are all the same (100k) on the board. I suspect this may have something to do with larger-than-expected noise measurements. But, it's possible the diagram is wrong, not the board. In any case, I didn't really know what to do, since I wasn't sure which was right, so I just replaced all the resistors I was sure about and removed the 100k and 100 Ohm resistors without replacing them with anything. Incidentally, the box of 100kOhm resistors seems to be missing, so I wouldn't have been able to finish those anyway.
There managed to be just enough 100 kOhm resistors to stuff all the "2" channels (VERT2, N/S2, E/W2) with the fancy low-noise resistors. The first six channels (VERT 1/2, NS 1/2, EW 1/2) are now completely done with the thin-film resistors, taking into account the changes that were made on the circuit diagram. I also replaced the C8 capacitor with the fancy Garrett ones and added capacitors on top of R4 and R13 (after painstakingly making sure that the capacitances are exactly the same for each pair) for the "2" channels. It looks like the capacitors on the "1" channels are the cheaper ones. I will compare the noise measurements later to see if there is any difference - if so, I can replace those as well (although, we're out of the 1 uF capacitors needed for C8).
Speaking of, we are now out of or very low on several types of the Garrett resistors/capacitors: 1 uF, 1kOhm, 100 Ohm, 14.0 Ohm, and 100 kOhm. I left the specifics on Steve's desk so that more can be ordered for the eventual time when the third set of channels needs to be restuffed.
I mapped out the corresponding pins on both ends of the Guralp seismometer cable. Here is the diagram:
The circular 26-pin end of the cable (that plugs into the seismometer) is labeled as above. The other end (the 39-pin end) is not physically numbered, so I just came up with a numbering system. They are both pictured on the non-cable end of the connector. The colored circles indicate the pin pairs.
FROM JENNE, 30JULY2009: the Dsub end is 37 pin, not 39.
I was in the lab last night accelerometerizing and noticed some dents on the tubes that stick out horizontally from the MC2 optical chamber (sorry, I don't know what they're called or what they do). One of them is pretty big... I don't know if this is a problem, but it probably isn't a good thing. Photos below:
This last one is a little hard to see... I was having trouble getting a good angle on it, but it's there. Not quite as significant as the first one though. (The first two pictures are of the same dent.)
After many issues, I finally have some Guralp box noise. I did not measure every single channel with high resolution at the low frequencies because that would have taken about 3 years, but I could perhaps take some faster measurements for all of them if necessary.
While writing my progress report, I redrew the Guralp breakout box circuit diagram with all the changes marked. Since only one hard copy exists, I thought it might be useful to post my drawing up in case it is needed for any reason. The two drawings are the same - the second has just been broken into two parts to make it easier to fit on a normal 8.5 x 11 or A4 sheet of paper. The gains for each opamp have not been marked, but they could very easily be added in if necessary. The black resistances and capacitances are the originals. All changes have been indicated in blue.
I put all three seismometers and all six accelerometers together in the foam box with peanuts. Three of the accelerometers are facing in the x-direction and three are in the y-direction. Both Guralps are aligned on the NS axis and the Ranger is pointing vertically.
**EDIT: The accelerometers are in the x and z directions, not x and y. Sorry, I was sleepy when I wrote this.**
One of the accelerometers was refusing to show anything, and after a few hours of checking connections and swapping cables, I discovered that someone had unplugged the cable from the ADC. A quick glance in the dataviewer shows that the channel has been unplugged since about 3 in the afternoon on August 8th (Saturday). So... obviously all the accelerometer measurements made with that channel since then did not actually get recorded. Yay.
Anyway, as of 2:45, everything is working and taking data. Clearly we're not getting a full night's worth... hopefully that's okay.
Rather than make a new elog post every time I move something, I'm going to just keep updating this Google spreadsheet, which ought to republish every time I change it. It's already got everything I've done for the past week-ish. The spreadsheet can be accessed here, as a website, or here, as a pdf. I will still post something nightly so that you don't have to search for this post, but I wanted to be able to provide more-or-less real-time information on where things are without carpet-bombing the elog.
I was told that, as of last weekend, we now have the capability to save full data for a month, whereas before it was something like 3 days. However, my attempts to get the data from the accidentally-shorted EW2 channel in the Guralp box have all been epic failures. My other data is okay, despite my not saving it for several days after it was recorded. So, my question is, how long can the data actually be saved, and when did the saving capability change?
It was fine when I came in earlier today, but I just got back from dinner, and it's not good. I looked in dataviewer, and it seems to have been sliding out for the past couple of hours... Here is a picture:
I swear I am not responsible this time... all I've been doing is working in the control room.
Mode cleaner bounced back on its own about 2 hours ago.
I shorted the inputs on three channels and the outputs on three channels of the Guralp box, and I did similar things with the accelerometers. I was going to move the instruments themselves back, but I didn't have time, so they are still in the box in the corner. If the setup could stay as-is for at least a few hours, that would be awesome.
Both Guralps and the Ranger have been placed in our nice new insulated foam box, complete with packing peanuts, in the corner between the x and y arms. The Guralp breakout box has been reinstalled and everything is plugged in in prepartion for the huddle test. However, we're having some issues with ADC channels, which will be worked out tomorrow (hopefully) so that data can be collected over the weekend.
Currently, one Guralp is plugged into the three SEIS-MC1 channels. We made new channels for the second Guralp (GUR-EW, GUR-NS, and GUR-VERT), but had issues with those. So, EW and NS have been plugged into PEM_AUDIO-MIC1 and MIC2 for the time being.
Steve, Craig, Gautam
Today Steve replaced the ETMY He/Ne sr P919645 OpLev laser with sr P947049 and Craig realigned it using a new AR coated lenses.
Attached are the RIN of the OpLev QPD Sum channels. The ETMY OpLev RIN is much lower than when Gautam took the same measurement yesterday.
Also attached are the pitch and yaw OLG TFs to ensure we still have acceptable phase margins at the UGF.
The last three plots show the optical layout of the ETMY OpLev, a QPD reflection blocker we added to the table, and green light to ETMY not being blocked by any changes to the OpLev.
ETMY He/Ne body temp is ~45 C The laser was seated loosely in the V-mount with black rubber padding.
The enclosure has a stinky plastic smell from this black plastic. This laser was installed on Oct 5, 2016 See 1 year plot.
Oplev servo turned off. Thermocouple attached to the He/Ne
It will be replaced tomorrow morning.
On the control room monitors, I noticed that the IR TEM00 spot was moving around rather a lot in the Y arm. The last time this happened had something to do with the ETMY Oplev, so I took a look at the 30 day trend of the QPD sum, and saw that it was decaying steeply (Steve will update with a long term trend plot shortly). I noticed the RIN also seemed rather high, judging by how much the EPICS channel reading for the QPD sum was jumping around. Attached are the RIN spectra, taken with the OL spot well centered on the QPD and the arms locked to IR. Steve will swap the laser out if it is indeed the cluprit.
We get SNR in two ways: the amplitude of applied force and the integration time. So we are limited in two ways: stability of the lock to applied forces and time of locklosses / calibration fluctuations.
At the sites, you probably know that we blow our spectrum out of the water with the calibration lines, with SNRs of about 100 on the scale of about 10 seconds. For us this might be impossible, since we aren't as quiet.
If we want 1% calibration on our sweeps, we'll need 0.01 = Uncertainty = sqrt( (1 - COH^2)/(2 * Navg * COH^2) ), where COH is the coherence of the transfer function measurement and Navg is the number of measurements at a specific frequency. This equation comes from Bendat and Piersol, and is subject to a bunch of assumptions which may not be true for us (particularly, that the plant is stationary in time).
If we let Navg = 10, then COH ~ 0.999.
Coherence = Gxy^2/(Gxx * Gyy), where x(t) and y(t) are the input signal and output signal of the transfer function measurement, Gxx and Gyy are the spectral densities of x and y, and Gxy is the cross-spectral density.
Usually SNR = P_signal / P_noise, but for us SNR = A_signal / A_noise.
Eric Q and Evan H helped me find the relationship between Coherence and SNR:
P = Pn + Pc, Pn = P * (1 - Coh), Pc = P * Coh
==> SNR = sqrt( Pc / Pn ) = sqrt( Coh / 1 - Coh )
From Coh ~ 0.999, SNR ~ 30.
Question for Craig: What does the SNR of our lines have to be? IF we're only trying to calibrate the actuator in the audio band over long time scales, it seems we could get by with more frequency noise. Assuming we want a 1% calibration at 50-500 Hz, what is the requirement on the frequency noise PSD curve?
I see 4+ possible paths for us to take, in terms of a possible vent in the next few weeks:
No Vent - Just do FPPRMI, using AS55
Mini Vent - Fix REFL path, nothing else. ~1 day at atmosphere
Medium Vent - Fix REFL path, swap G&H mirrors for LaserOptik mirrors (so also resuspend passive TTs, maybe add pitch adjustment option). ~1 week or so at atmosphere - do this rather than Mini if Jan's Finesse calc says the G&H mirrors are too rough
Mega Vent - Fix all the things, do all the things. Long time at atmosphere
The "+" is to take into account all the possible variations on "medium vent". The No, Mini and Medium options assume we'll do the Mega option later, just not immediately.
[ericq, Jenne, Zach]
We spent some time tonight trying to push our CARM locking further, to little avail. DARM/CARM loop oscillations kept sneaking up on us. We measured some MC2 motion -> REFL11 Transfer Functions to see if we could see CARM plant features; plots will come in the near future...
Probably things would have worked better if you would have gotten your hair done at the same place as me.