40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 117 of 341  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Categoryup Subject
  1750   Wed Jul 15 12:44:28 2009 Chris ZimmermanUpdateGeneralWeek 4/5 Update

I've spent most of the last week working on finishing up the UCSD calculations, comparing it to the EUCLID design, and thinking about getting started with a prototype and modelling in MATLAB.  Attached is something on EUCLID/UCSD sensors.

Attachment 1: Comparison.pdf
Comparison.pdf Comparison.pdf
  1754   Wed Jul 15 18:35:11 2009 StephanieUpdateGeneralMultiply Resonant EOM Update

Using FET probes, I was able to measure a transfer function that looks a little more like what I expected. There are only two peaks, but I think this can be explained by a short between the two capacitors (and two tunable capacitors) in the LC pairs, as shown (in red) in the circuit diagram attached. The measured transfer function (black), along with the simulated transfer functions with (red) and without (blue) the short are shown in the attached plot. The measured transfer function doesn't look exactly like the simulated transfer function with the short, but I think the difference can be explained by stray impedances.

Attachment 1: BuiltCkt1_Final.png
BuiltCkt1_Final.png
Attachment 2: BuiltCkt1_TransferFunctions.png
BuiltCkt1_TransferFunctions.png
  1762   Sun Jul 19 22:38:24 2009 robOmnistructureGeneralWeb screenshots aren't being updated

Quote:

Before heading back to the 40m to check on the computer situation, I thought I'd check the web screenshots page that Kakeru worked on, and it looks like none of the screens have been updated since June 1st.  I don't know what the story is on that one, or how to fix it, but it'd be handy if it were fixed.

 Apparently I broke this when I added op540m to the webstatus page.  It's fixed now.

  1775   Wed Jul 22 11:08:36 2009 StephanieUpdateGeneralMultiply Resonant EOM Update

I have built a version of the circuit with flying components; the completed circuit is shown in the attached picture. I built the circuit in segments and measured the transfer function after each segment to see whether it matched the LTSpice simulation after each step. The segments are shown in the circuit diagram.

After building the first segment, the measured transfer function looked pretty much the same as the simulated transfer function; it appears shifted in the attached plot, but this is because I didn't do a careful job of tuning at this point, and I'm relatively sure that I could have tuned it to match the simulation. After adding the second segment of the circuit, the measured and simulated transfer functions were similar in shape, but I was unable to increase the frequency of the peaks (through tuning) any more than what is shown in the plot (I could move the peaks so that their frequency was lower, but they are shown as high as they will go). When I added the final segment to complete the circuit, the measured and simulated transfer functions no longer had the same shape; two of the peaks were very close together and I was barely able to differentiate one from the other.

In order to understand what was happening, I tried making modifications to the LTSpice model to recreate the transfer function that was measured. I was able to create a transfer function that closely resembles the measured transfer function in both the circuit as of the 2nd segment and the completed circuit by adding extra inductance and capacitance as shown in red in the circuit diagram. The transfer functions simulated with these parasitic components are shown in red in both plots. While I was able to recreate the response of the circuit, the inductance and capacitance needed to do this were much larger than I would expect to occur naturally within the circuit (2.2uH, 12 pF). I'm not sure what's going on with this.

Attachment 1: BuiltCkt_Picture.png
BuiltCkt_Picture.png
Attachment 2: BuiltCkt2_Final.png
BuiltCkt2_Final.png
Attachment 3: 1stSegment.png
1stSegment.png
Attachment 4: 2ndSegment_ExtraL.png
2ndSegment_ExtraL.png
Attachment 5: Complete_ExtraL.png
Complete_ExtraL.png
  1779   Wed Jul 22 16:15:52 2009 Chris ZimmermanUpdateGeneralWeek 5/6 Update

The last week I've started setting up the HeNe laser on the PSL table and doing some basic measurements (Beam waist, etc) with the beam scan, shown on the graph.  Today I moved a few steering mirrors that steve showed me from at table on the NW corner to the PSL table.  The goal setup is shown below, based on the UCSD setup.  Also, I found something that confused me in the EUCLID setup, a  pair of quarter wave plates in the arm of their interferometer, so I've been working out how they organized that to get the results that they did.  I also finished calculating the shot noise levels in the basic and UCSD models, and those are also shown below (at 633nm, 4mw) where the two phase-shifted elements (green/red) are the UCSD outputs, in quadrature (the legend is difficult to read).

 

 

Attachment 1: Beam_Scan.jpg
Beam_Scan.jpg
Attachment 2: Long_Range_Michelson_Setup_1_-_Actual.png
Long_Range_Michelson_Setup_1_-_Actual.png
Attachment 3: NSD_Displacement.png
NSD_Displacement.png
  1787   Fri Jul 24 17:47:52 2009 StephanieUpdateGeneralMultiply Resonant EOM Update

After speaking with Rana and realizing that it would be better to use smaller inductances in the flying-component circuit (and after a lot of tinkering with the original), I rebuilt the circuit, removing all of the resistors (to simplify it) and making the necessary inductance and capacitance changes. A picture of the circuit is attached, as is a circuit diagram.

A plot of the measured and simulated transfer functions is also attached; the general shape matches between the two, and the resonant frequencies are roughly correct (they should be 11, 29.5, and 55 MHz). The gain at the 55 MHz peak is lower than the other two peaks (I'd like them all to be roughly the same). I currently have no idea what the impedance is doing, but I'm certain it is not 50 Ohms at the resonant peaks, because there are no resistors in the circuit to correct the impedance. Next, I'll have to add the resistors and see what happens.

Attachment 1: BuiltCkt2_Picture_Simplified.png
BuiltCkt2_Picture_Simplified.png
Attachment 2: BuiltCkt2_Simplified.png
BuiltCkt2_Simplified.png
Attachment 3: Simplified.png
Simplified.png
  1789   Sat Jul 25 13:34:58 2009 KojiUpdateGeneralWeek 5/6 Update

Quote:

The last week I've started setting up the HeNe laser on the PSL table and doing some basic measurements (Beam waist, etc) with the beam scan, shown on the graph.  Today I moved a few steering mirrors that steve showed me from at table on the NW corner to the PSL table.  The goal setup is shown below, based on the UCSD setup.  Also, I found something that confused me in the EUCLID setup, a  pair of quarter wave plates in the arm of their interferometer, so I've been working out how they organized that to get the results that they did.  I also finished calculating the shot noise levels in the basic and UCSD models, and those are also shown below (at 633nm, 4mw) where the two phase-shifted elements (green/red) are the UCSD outputs, in quadrature (the legend is difficult to read).

 

 

Chris,

Some comments:

0. Probably, you are working on the SP table, not on the PSL table.

1. The profile measurement looks very nice.

2. You can simplify the optical layout if you consider the following issues
  A. The matching lenses just after the laser:
      You can make a collimated beam only with a single lens, instead of two.
      Just put a lens of f0 with distance of f0 from the waist. (Just like Geometrical Optics to make a parallel-going beam.)

      Or even you don't need any lens. In this case, whole optical setup should be smaller so that your beam
      can be accomodated by the aperture of your optics. But that's adequately possible.

  B. The steering mirrors after the laser:
      If you have a well elevated beam from the table (3~4 inches), you can omit two steering mirrors.
      If you have a laser beam whose tilte can not be corrected by the laser mount, you can add a mirror to fix it.

  C. The steering mirrors in the arms:
      You don't need the steering mirrors in the arms as all d.o.f. of the Michelson alignment can be adjusted
      by the beamsplitter and the mirror at the reflected arm. Also The arm can be much shorter (5~6 inches?)

  D. The lenses and the mirrors after the PBS:
      You can put one of the lenses before the PBS, instead of two after the lens.
      You can omit the mirror at the reflection side of the PBS as the PBS mount should have alignment adjustment.

The simpler, the faster and the easier to work with!
Cheers.

  1790   Sat Jul 25 13:49:28 2009 KojiUpdateGeneralMultiply Resonant EOM Update

Quote:

After speaking with Rana and realizing that it would be better to use smaller inductances in the flying-component circuit (and after a lot of tinkering with the original), I rebuilt the circuit, removing all of the resistors (to simplify it) and making the necessary inductance and capacitance changes. A picture of the circuit is attached, as is a circuit diagram.

A plot of the measured and simulated transfer functions is also attached; the general shape matches between the two, and the resonant frequencies are roughly correct (they should be 11, 29.5, and 55 MHz). The gain at the 55 MHz peak is lower than the other two peaks (I'd like them all to be roughly the same). I currently have no idea what the impedance is doing, but I'm certain it is not 50 Ohms at the resonant peaks, because there are no resistors in the circuit to correct the impedance. Next, I'll have to add the resistors and see what happens.

Stephanie, 

This is a quite nice measurement. Much better than the previous one.

1) For further steps, I think now you need to connect the real EOM at the end in order to incorporate
the capacitance and the loss (=resistance) of the EOM. Then you have to measure the input impedance
of the circuit. You can measure the impedance of the device at Wilson house.
(I can come with you in order to consult with Rich, if you like)

Before that you may be able to do a preparatory measurement which can be less precise than the Wilson one,
but still useful. You can measure the transfer function of the voltage across the input of this circuit,
and can convert it to the impedance. The calibration will be needed by connecting a 50Ohm resister
on the network analyzer.

2) I wonder why the model transfer function (TF) has slow phase changes at the resonance.
Is there any implicit resistances took into account in the model?

If the circuit model is formed only by reactive devices (Cs and Ls), the whole circuit has no place to dissipate (= no loss).
This means that the impedance goes infinity and zero, at the resonance and the anti-resonance, respectively.
This leads a sharp flip of the phase at these resonances and anti-resonances.

The real circuit has small losses everywhere. So, the slow phase change is reasonable.

  1804   Wed Jul 29 12:00:49 2009 StephanieUpdateGeneralMultiply Resonant EOM Update

For the past couple of days I have been trying to understand and perform Koji's method for impedance measurement using the Agilent 4395A Network Analyzer (without the impedance testing kit). I have made some headway, but I don't completely understand what's going on; here's what I've done so far.

I have made several transfer function measurements using the attached physical setup (ImpedanceTestingPhysicalSetup.png), after calibrating the setup by placing a 50 Ohm resistor in the place of the Z in the diagram. The responses of the various impedances I've measured are shown in the attached plot (ImpResponses.png). However, I'm having trouble figuring out how to convert these responses to impedances, so I tried to derive the relationship between the measured transfer function and the impedance by simplifying the diagram Koji drew on the board for me (attached, ImpedanceTestingSetup.png) to the attached circuit diagram (ImpedanceTestingCktDiagram.png), and finding the expected value of VA/VR. For the circuit diagram shown, the equation should be VA/VR = 2Z/(50+Z). 50 Ohms is good to use for calibration because the expected value of the transfer function for this impedance is 1 (0 dB).

So I used this relationship to find the expected response for the various impedances, and I also calculated the impedance from the actual measured responses. I've attached a plot of the measured (red) and expected (black) response (top) and impedance (bottom) for a 1 nF capacitor (1nF.png). The expected and measured plots don't really match up very well; if I add extra inductance (7.6 nH, plots shown in blue), the two plots match up a little better, but still don't match very well. I suspect that the difference may come from the fact that for my analysis, I treated the power splitter as if it were a simple node, and I think that's probably not very accurate.

Anyway, the point of all this is to eventually measure the impedance of the circuit I created on Friday, but I don't think I can really do that until I understand what is going on a little better.

Attachment 1: ImpedanceTestingPhysicalSetup.png
ImpedanceTestingPhysicalSetup.png
Attachment 2: ImpResponses.png
ImpResponses.png
Attachment 3: ImpedanceTestingSetup.png
ImpedanceTestingSetup.png
Attachment 4: ImpedanceTestingCktDiagram.png
ImpedanceTestingCktDiagram.png
Attachment 5: 1nF.png
1nF.png
  1810   Wed Jul 29 19:41:58 2009 ChrisConfigurationGeneralEUCLID-setup configuration change

David and I were thinking about changing the non-polarizing beam splitter in the EUCLID setup from 50/50 to 33/66 (ref picture).  It serves as a) a pickoff to sample the input power and b) a splitter to send the returning beam to a photodetector 2 (it then hits a polarizer and half of this is lost.  By changing the reflectivity to 66% then less (1/3 instead of 1/2) of the power coming into it would be "lost" at the ref photodetector 1, and on the return trip less would be lost at the polarizer (1/6 instead of 1/4).

 

 

Attachment 1: EUCLID.png
EUCLID.png
  1813   Thu Jul 30 19:55:23 2009 KojiUpdateGeneralMultiply Resonant EOM Update

Quote:

For the past couple of days I have been trying to understand and perform Koji's method for impedance measurement using the Agilent 4395A Network Analyzer (without the impedance testing kit). I have made some headway, but I don't completely understand what's going on; here's what I've done so far.

I have made several transfer function measurements using the attached physical setup (ImpedanceTestingPhysicalSetup.png), after calibrating the setup by placing a 50 Ohm resistor in the place of the Z in the diagram. The responses of the various impedances I've measured are shown in the attached plot (ImpResponses.png). However, I'm having trouble figuring out how to convert these responses to impedances, so I tried to derive the relationship between the measured transfer function and the impedance by simplifying the diagram Koji drew on the board for me (attached, ImpedanceTestingSetup.png) to the attached circuit diagram (ImpedanceTestingCktDiagram.png), and finding the expected value of VA/VR. For the circuit diagram shown, the equation should be VA/VR = 2Z/(50+Z). 50 Ohms is good to use for calibration because the expected value of the transfer function for this impedance is 1 (0 dB).

So I used this relationship to find the expected response for the various impedances, and I also calculated the impedance from the actual measured responses. I've attached a plot of the measured (red) and expected (black) response (top) and impedance (bottom) for a 1 nF capacitor (1nF.png). The expected and measured plots don't really match up very well; if I add extra inductance (7.6 nH, plots shown in blue), the two plots match up a little better, but still don't match very well. I suspect that the difference may come from the fact that for my analysis, I treated the power splitter as if it were a simple node, and I think that's probably not very accurate.

Anyway, the point of all this is to eventually measure the impedance of the circuit I created on Friday, but I don't think I can really do that until I understand what is going on a little better.

 I checked the setup and found RF reflection at the load was the cause of the unreasonable response in the impedance measurement.
So, I have put a total 22dB attenuation (10+6+6 dB) between the power splitter and the load to be measured. See the picture.
This kind of attenuators, called as PADs, is generally used in order to improve the impedance matching, sacrificing the signal amplitude at the load.

Then, It looks the measurements got reasonable up to 100MHz (at least) and |Z|<1kOhm.
For the measurements, I just followed the procedure that Stephanie described.
Stephanie has measured the impedance of her resonant circuit.


As a test of the method, I measured impedances of various discrete devices. i.e. 50Ohm, 10-1000pF Cap, Inductances, circuit opened.

a) 50Ohm (marine-blue) was calibrated to be recognized as 50Ohm.

b) The mica capacitances (orange 10pF, yellow 100pF, green 1000pF) appeared as the impedances f^-1 in the low freq region. It's nice.
At high frequency, the impedances deviate from f^-1, which could be caused by the lead inductance. (Self Resonance)
So 1000pF mica is not capacitance at 50MHz already.

c) Open BNC connector (Red) looks have something like 5pF. (i.e. 300Ohm at 100MHz)

d) I could not get good measurements with the inductors as I had 200nH (and some C of ~5pF) for a Pomona clip (blue).
This is just because of my laziness such that I avoid soldering the Ls to an RF connector!

Attachment 1: imepedance.png
imepedance.png
Attachment 2: impedance_meas.jpg
impedance_meas.jpg
  1815   Fri Jul 31 09:52:38 2009 StephanieUpdateGeneralMultiply Resonant EOM Update

I was able to make an impedance measurement of the flying-component circuit using Koji's method for impedance measurement. I first measured the impedance of the circuit with a 10 pF capacitor in the place of the EOM (as shown in the circuit diagram). This impedance plot is attached. I then added resistance to adjust the impedance slightly, attached the circuit to a New Focus KTP 4064 EOM, and took another impedance measurement (circuit diagram and impedance plot attached). The peaks are relatively close to 50 Ohms; they are at least the same order of magnitude.

Attachment 1: BuiltCkt2_Simplified_EOM.png
BuiltCkt2_Simplified_EOM.png
Attachment 2: ImpedanceAG4395A_with10pF.png
ImpedanceAG4395A_with10pF.png
Attachment 3: BuiltCkt2_Simplified_EOM_R.png
BuiltCkt2_Simplified_EOM_R.png
Attachment 4: ImpedanceAG4395A_withEOM.png
ImpedanceAG4395A_withEOM.png
  1816   Fri Jul 31 11:04:42 2009 StephanieUpdateGeneralMultiply Resonant EOM Update

I put the flying-component circuit in a box; a photo is attached. I also measured the impedance; it looks exactly the same as it looked before I put the circuit in the box.

Attachment 1: BoxPic.png
BoxPic.png
Attachment 2: BoxPic2.png
BoxPic2.png
  1834   Wed Aug 5 11:49:49 2009 StephanieUpdateGeneralMultiply Resonant EOM Update

I have spent the past couple of days gathering optics and mounts so that I can observe the modulation of the EOM attached to the circuit I built using the optical spectrum analyzer (OSA). A rough diagram of the planned layout is attached.

I also built a short SMA cable so that the EOM did not have to be connected directly to the circuit box. The cable is shown attached to the EOM and circuit box in the attached photo. After checking to make sure that all of the connections in the cable were sound, I remeasured the input impedance of the circuit; the impedance measurement (black) is shown in the attached plot with the impedance before the SMA cable was added with and without the box (green and blue, respectively--these two are almost identical). The new impedance has a strange shape compared to the original measurements; I'd like to understand this a little better, since adding extra inductance in LTSpice doesn't seem to have that effect. Since I had already taken apart the setup used for the previous impedance measurements, I had to rebuild and recalibrate the setup; I guess the difference could be something about the new calibration, but I don't really think that that's the case.

Attachment 1: OSASetup.png
OSASetup.png
Attachment 2: SMAPic.png
SMAPic.png
Attachment 3: WithSMA.png
WithSMA.png
  1835   Wed Aug 5 15:18:12 2009 StephanieUpdateGeneralMultiply Resonant EOM Update

Quote:

I have spent the past couple of days gathering optics and mounts so that I can observe the modulation of the EOM attached to the circuit I built using the optical spectrum analyzer (OSA). A rough diagram of the planned layout is attached.

I also built a short SMA cable so that the EOM did not have to be connected directly to the circuit box. The cable is shown attached to the EOM and circuit box in the attached photo. After checking to make sure that all of the connections in the cable were sound, I remeasured the input impedance of the circuit; the impedance measurement (black) is shown in the attached plot with the impedance before the SMA cable was added with and without the box (green and blue, respectively--these two are almost identical). The new impedance has a strange shape compared to the original measurements; I'd like to understand this a little better, since adding extra inductance in LTSpice doesn't seem to have that effect. Since I had already taken apart the setup used for the previous impedance measurements, I had to rebuild and recalibrate the setup; I guess the difference could be something about the new calibration, but I don't really think that that's the case.

 

After investigating this a bit further, I discovered that some of the components in the circuit were pressed firmly up against the inside of the box, and when they were moved, the impedance plot changed shape dramatically. I think that originally, the components were not pressed against the box, but the box's SMA joint was rather loose; when I connected this to the SMA cable, I tightened it, and this seems to have twisted the circuit around inside the box, pushing the components up against the side. I have fixed the twisting, and since the SMA joint is now tight, the circuit should no longer have any twisting problems.

A new plot is attached, showing the impedance of the circuit with nothing attached (blue), with the SMA cable and EOM attached (green), and with the EOM attached directly to it taken last friday with the old calibration of the setup (red). All three curves look roughly the same; the center peak is shifted slightly between the three curves, but the circuit with SMA and EOM is the version we'll be using, and it's central peak is close to the correct value.

Attachment 1: SMA.png
SMA.png
  1836   Wed Aug 5 15:33:05 2009 rob, albertoDAQGeneralcan't get trends

We can't read minute trends from either Dataviewer or loadLIGOData from before 11am this morning. 

 

fb:/frames>du -skh minute-trend-frames/
 106G   minute-trend-frames

So the frames are still on the disk.  We just can't get them with our usual tools (NDS).

 

 Trying to read 60 days of minute trends from C1:PSL-PMC_TRANSPD yields:

Connecting to NDS Server fb40m (TCP port 8088)
Connecting.... done
258.0 minutes of trend displayed
read(); errno=9
read(); errno=9
T0=09-06-06-22-34-02; Length=5184000 (s)
No data output.

 

Trying to read 3 seconds of full data works.

Second trends are readable after about 4am UTC this morning, which is about 9 pm last night.

 


  1841   Thu Aug 6 09:22:17 2009 AlbertoDAQGeneralcan't get trends

Quote:

We can't read minute trends from either Dataviewer or loadLIGOData from before 11am this morning. 

 

fb:/frames>du -skh minute-trend-frames/
 106G   minute-trend-frames

So the frames are still on the disk.  We just can't get them with our usual tools (NDS).

 

 Trying to read 60 days of minute trends from C1:PSL-PMC_TRANSPD yields:

Connecting to NDS Server fb40m (TCP port 8088)
Connecting.... done
258.0 minutes of trend displayed
read(); errno=9
read(); errno=9
T0=09-06-06-22-34-02; Length=5184000 (s)
No data output.

 

Trying to read 3 seconds of full data works.

Second trends are readable after about 4am UTC this morning, which is about 9 pm last night.

 


 Yesterday Alex started transferring the data records to the new storage unit. That prevented us from accessing the trends for a fe hours.

The process had been completed and now we can read the trends again.

  1845   Thu Aug 6 17:51:21 2009 ChrisUpdateGeneralDisplacement Sensor Update

For the past week Dmass and I have been ordering parts and getting ready to construct our own modified version of EUCLID (figure).  Changes to the EUCLID design could include the removal of the first lens, the replacement of the cat's eye retroreflector with a lens focusing the beam waist on a mirror in that arm of the Michelson, and the removal of the linear polarizers.  A beam dump was added above the first polarizing beam splitter and the beam at Photodetector 2 was attenuated with an additional polarizing beam splitter and beam dump.  Another proposed alteration is to change the non-polarizing beam splitter from 50/50 to 33/66.  By changing the reflectivity to 66\%, less power coming into the non-polarizing beam splitter would be ``lost" at the reference detector (1/3 instead of 1/2), and on the return trip less power would be lost at the polarizing beam splitter (1/6 instead of 1/4).  Also, here's a noise plot comparing a few displacement sensors that are used to the shot noise levels for the three designs I've been looking at.

Attachment 1: Actual_Sensor.png
Actual_Sensor.png
Attachment 2: Sensitivity.png
Sensitivity.png
  1846   Thu Aug 6 18:21:03 2009 ChrisUpdateGeneralDisplacement Sensor Update

Quote:

For the past week Dmass and I have been ordering parts and getting ready to construct our own modified version of EUCLID (figure).  Changes to the EUCLID design could include the removal of the first lens, the replacement of the cat's eye retroreflector with a lens focusing the beam waist on a mirror in that arm of the Michelson, and the removal of the linear polarizers.  A beam dump was added above the first polarizing beam splitter and the beam at Photodetector 2 was attenuated with an additional polarizing beam splitter and beam dump.  Another proposed alteration is to change the non-polarizing beam splitter from 50/50 to 33/66.  By changing the reflectivity to 66\%, less power coming into the non-polarizing beam splitter would be ``lost" at the reference detector (1/3 instead of 1/2), and on the return trip less power would be lost at the polarizing beam splitter (1/6 instead of 1/4).  Also, here's a noise plot comparing a few displacement sensors that are used to the shot noise levels for the three designs I've been looking at.

 I thought slightly harder and I think that the beamsplitter stays. We will lose too much power on the first PD if we do that:

33/66:  Pwr @ PD2 = 2/3*1/3*1/2 =  1/9 Pin

            Pwr @ PD3 = 2/3*2/3*1/2 = 2/9 Pin

 

50:50 Pwr @ PD2 = PWR @ PD3 = 1/8 Pin

balancing them is probably better.

  1849   Thu Aug 6 20:03:10 2009 KojiUpdateGeneralWe left two carts near PSL table.

Stephanie and Koji

We left two carts near the PSL table.
We are using them for characterization of the tripple resonant EOM.

  1886   Tue Aug 11 14:15:28 2009 StephanieUpdateGeneralMultiply Resonant EOM Update

I was able to observe the three sets of modulation sidebands created by the EOM + triply resonant circuit yesterday. Quantitative results will be posted later.

  1891   Wed Aug 12 12:08:16 2009 StephanieUpdateGeneralMultiply Resonant EOM Update

I measured the magnitude of modulation as a function of frequency using the optical spectrum analyzer and an oscilloscope while generating signals using a Marconi signal generator; the results are shown in the attached plot and are compared to the expected modulation given the measured transfer function of the circuit and the nominal modulation index of the EOM used (13 mrad/V). Using the oscilloscope, I found the resonant peaks to be at 11.11 MHz, 29.57 MHz, and 54.70 MHz. There are several different colors on the plot; this is because I had to take the data in several different segments and had to switch to measuring a different sideband partway through the measurment. I also separately found the modulation at each resonant peak for each sideband. The magnitude of modulation was measured  by finding the ratio between the magnitude of the carrier and sideband powers using an oscilloscope, and calculating the magnitude of modulation from this. This method was also used to quantify the dependence of modulation magnitude on input power at each resonant peak; these results are also attached. These same results can also be plotted as modulation magnitude as a function of voltage into the resonant circuit; this is also attached (I'm not sure which is more useful).

In order to produce these results (get the measurements in mrad/V) it was necessary to measure the gain of the amplifier. I used the signal generator to input signals of varying power and measured the output signal voltage using the oscilloscope; I then repeated this process at each resonant frequency. From this I was able to calculate the gain of the amplifier to be 28.1 dB at 11.11 MHz, 27.4 dB at 29.57 MHz, and 25.7 dB at 54.70 MHz. These values are in the same ballpark as the values in the Mini Circuits data sheet (all values are ~25-28 MHz).

Attachment 1: Modulation.png
Modulation.png
Attachment 2: Linearity.png
Linearity.png
Attachment 3: Linearity_V.png
Linearity_V.png
  1894   Wed Aug 12 23:45:03 2009 ChrisUpdateGeneralLong range michelson

Today I set up the EUCLID long range michelson design on the SP table; It's the same as the setup posted earlier, but without the pickoff (at PD1), which can be added later, and a few other minor changes (moved lenses, mirrors, PDs - nothing major).  I hooked up the two PD's to the oscilliscope and got a readout that pointed to more power hitting PD2 than PD3.

Attachment 1: Actual_Sensor.png
Actual_Sensor.png
  1908   Fri Aug 14 23:45:14 2009 ChrisUpdateGeneralLong Range Readout

The EUCLID-style Michelson readout is on the SP table now and is aligned.  See image below.  I took several power spectra with the plotter attached to the HP3563 (not sure if there's another way to get the data out) and I'm still waiting to calibrate (since dP/dL isn't constant as it isn't locked, this is taking a bit longer).  When put into XY mode on the oscilliscope (plotting Voltage at PD2 on the x and Voltage at PD3 on the y), a Lissajous figure as in the first plot below.  It's offset and elliptical due to imperfections (noise, dc offset, etc) but can ideally be used to calculate the L_ target mirror movement.  By rotating the first quarter wave plate by ~80.5deg counter-clockwise (fast axis was originally at Pi/8, now at 103deg), I was able to turn the Lissajous figure from an ellipse into a more circular shape, which would ideally allow for us to use a circular approximation (much simpler) in our displacement calculations.

Attachment 1: Table_Setup.png
Table_Setup.png
Attachment 2: Ellipse.jpg
Ellipse.jpg
Attachment 3: Circle.jpg
Circle.jpg
  1919   Mon Aug 17 09:52:04 2009 robSummaryGeneralconlogger restarted

I restarted the conlogger on op340m.  This needs to be done when op340m is rebooted--it wasn't done for some reason and so we've lost several days of controls records.

  1920   Mon Aug 17 17:43:11 2009 ranaSummaryGeneralconlogger restarted

Added the conlog directory to the SVN, minus the enormous data directory. We are now free to make changes to the conlog code.

  1921   Mon Aug 17 17:48:49 2009 robSummaryGeneralconlogger restarted

Quote:

I restarted the conlogger on op340m.  This needs to be done when op340m is rebooted--it wasn't done for some reason and so we've lost several days of controls records.

 I added a cronjob on op340m to check every half-hour if the conlog is running, and if not, restart it. 

  1932   Fri Aug 21 17:05:04 2009 JenneUpdateGeneralrestarted the elog

[Kevin, Jenne]

Kevin's awesome final report/elog entry was so awesome that it crashed the elog.  It has been restarted.  We're going to put his pictures and documentation in the wiki, with a link from the elog to prevent re-crashing.

  1935   Fri Aug 21 18:37:16 2009 JenneUpdateGeneralTransfer function of Mode Cleaner Stacks

Using free-swinging Mode Cleaner OSEM data and Guralp seismometers, I have taken transfer functions of the Mode Cleaner stacks.

During this experiment, the MC was unlocked overnight, and one Guralp seismometer was underneath each chamber (MC1/MC3, and MC2).  Clara will let me know what the orientation of the seismometers were (including which seismometer was underneath which chamber and what direction the seismometer axes were pointing), but for now I have included TFs for every combination of suspension motion and seismometer channels.

I combined the 4 OSEM channels for each optic in POS and PIT, and then calibrated each of my sus channels using the method described in Kakeru's elog entry 1413. Units are meters for POS, and radians for PIT.  I also calibrated the guralp channels into meters.

The traces on each plot are: MC_{POS or PIT} / Guralp_{1 or 2}_{direction}.  So each plot shows the coupling between every seismometer direction and a single mirror direction.  The colors are the same for all the plots, ie the gold trace is always Gur1Z.

Attachment 1: TF_osems_guralps.png
TF_osems_guralps.png
  1938   Tue Aug 25 00:35:04 2009 ranaUpdateGeneralTransfer function of Mode Cleaner Stacks

Looks like all of the accelerometers and seismometers have been disconnected since early AM last Monday when Clara disconnected them for her sensor noise measurement.

Attachment 1: Untitled.png
Untitled.png
  1961   Fri Aug 28 15:30:15 2009 steveConfigurationGeneralPOX rfpd removed

I removed POX rfpd to see how it is mounted on its base. It is here on the work bench just in case someone wants to use it the IFO over the week end.

  1962   Tue Sep 1 11:23:36 2009 steveUpdateGeneralelectrical ground

I was told yesterday, that on Friday the construction people accidentally ripped out one of the 40m soil ground.....AND HOW MANY MORE ARE THERE? nobody knows.

It was ~8 ft long and 0.5" diameter buried in the ground. There is no drawing found to identify this exact building ground. They promised to replace this on Wednesday with a 10 ft long and 0.75" diameter.

The  the wall will be resealed where the conduit enters  the  north west corner of the IFO room 104

 

There should be no concern about safety because the 40m building main ground is connected to the CES Mezzanine step-down transformer.

Attachment 1: ground.JPG
ground.JPG
  1963   Tue Sep 1 13:52:06 2009 steveConfigurationGeneralPOX rfpd is back & needs alignment

Quote:

I removed POX rfpd to see how it is mounted on its base. It is here on the work bench just in case someone wants to use it the IFO over the week end.

 I put POX back to it's place with markers. The pd was removed from it's base so it is for sure misaligned.

  1965   Thu Sep 3 11:20:26 2009 steveUpdateGeneralelectrical ground in place

Quote:

I was told yesterday, that on Friday the construction people accidentally ripped out one of the 40m soil ground.....AND HOW MANY MORE ARE THERE? nobody knows.

It was ~8 ft long and 0.5" diameter buried in the ground. There is no drawing found to identify this exact building ground. They promised to replace this on Wednesday with a 10 ft long and 0.75" diameter.

The  the wall will be resealed where the conduit enters  the  north west corner of the IFO room 104

 

There should be no concern about safety because the 40m building main ground is connected to the CES Mezzanine step-down transformer.

 Atm1 is showing ground bus under N-breaker panel in 40m IFO room north-west corner.

The second ground bus is visible farther down south under M-breaker panel.

Atm2 is the new ground that will be connected to ground bus-N

Attachment 1: Gs-n.JPG
Gs-n.JPG
Attachment 2: newground.JPG
newground.JPG
  1980   Wed Sep 9 10:13:31 2009 steveBureaucracyGeneralthe use of FAX machine, scanner & toaster

 

 You said that the use of FAXST was forbidden for phds and graduate students. I had to swear on the promise of not ever buying an other FAXST

  2044   Fri Oct 2 17:00:06 2009 AlbertoUpdateGeneral40m Update - Requirements on the 5x Frequency Multiplier

Here's the gist of the requirements on the 5x frequency multiplier for the upgrade (see attachemnt - despite the preview down here in the elog, they're 3 pages).

An extended version is available on the wiki.

A more complete document is under work and will soon be available on the wiki as well.

Attachment 1: DesignOfTheMultiplier1-14-15.pdf
DesignOfTheMultiplier1-14-15.pdf DesignOfTheMultiplier1-14-15.pdf
  2070   Thu Oct 8 20:18:56 2009 KojiSummaryGeneralArm cavity loss

Last night (Oct 07), I ran armLoss script in order to obtain the latest numbers for the arm cavity loss.
Here is the summary

<<X arm>>
Measured arm reflectivity R_cav:
0.875 +/- 0.005
Estimated round trip loss L_RT: 157ppm +/- 8ppm
Estimated finesse F: 1213+/-2
Data Points: 34

<<Y arm>>
Measured arm reflectivity R_cav:
0.869 +/- 0.006
Estimated round trip loss L_RT: 166ppm +/- 8ppm
Estimated finesse F: 1211+/-2
Data Points: 26

 

 

 

 

 

 


Parameters:

TE=10ppm, LE=L_RT/2, RE=1-TE-LE
tE=Sqrt(TE), rE=Sqrt(RE)

TF=0.005, LF=L_RT/2, RF=1-TF-LF
tF=Sqrt(TF), rF=Sqrt(RF)

rcav = -rF +(tF^2 rE)/(1-rF rE)
R_cav = rcav^2

F = pi Sqrt(rF rE)/(1-rF rE)

 

  2071   Thu Oct 8 21:32:59 2009 KojiSummaryGeneralRecycling cavity loss

I looked at the data of the day before yesterday (Oct 06) to know how much is the recycling gain.

X arm: (TRX_PRecycled) / (TRX_PRMmisaligned) * T_PRM = 83.1/0.943*0.07 = 6.17
Y arm: (TRX_PRecycled) / (TRX_PRMmisaligned) * T_PRM = 99.2/1.017*0.07 = 6.83

==> G_PR = 6.5 +/- 0.5     (oh...this estimation is so bad...)

From the recycling gain and the arm cavity reflectance, one can get the loss in the recycling cavity.

G_PR = T_PRM  / (1-Sqrt(R_PRM * (1-L_PRC)*R_cav))^2

==> loss in the recycling cavity L_PRC: 0.009+/-0.009
       (About 1% loss is likely in the recycling cavity)

Quote:

<<X arm>>
Measured arm reflectivity R_cav: 0.875 +/- 0.005
Estimated round trip loss L_RT: 157ppm +/- 8ppm
Estimated finesse F: 1213+/-2

<<Y arm>>
Measured arm reflectivity R_cav:
0.869 +/- 0.006
Estimated round trip loss L_RT: 166ppm +/- 8ppm
Estimated finesse F: 1211+/-2

 

  2091   Wed Oct 14 15:48:26 2009 MottHowToGeneralPhase Noise measurement

I have gotten the hang of the procedure for measuring phase noise on the AOMs. 

Koji suggested I right up a short guide (wiki page?) on how to do this. 

I will finish up here, then go measure the AOMs at the other lab (may have to be tomorrow, after laser safety), and then write up the instructions.

  2103   Fri Oct 16 12:40:59 2009 KojiConfigurationGeneralSome questions

Some questions came arise to me:

A. How the green injection system should be? How the handing off between 532 and 1064 should be?

This is not new, though. It would be worth reminding.

B. Do we still need PMC if we use 2W innolight?

Innolight has low intensity noise at the detection freq. Also the spacial mode is clean.

C. Do we still need frequency prestabilization by RC?

Is the stabilization of the laser freq by the MC not enough?
What is the relationship with the green?

  2108   Sun Oct 18 15:46:08 2009 AlbertoConfigurationGeneralAntique, unused QPD removed from the AS table

Inspecting the AS table to make an inventory of the photodiodes in use around the interferometer, I found a mysterious photodetector hiding behind PD1 (AS166).

It turned out the detector was an old type of QPD from the Squeezing Experiment a few years ago.

We removed the box and the cable to which it was connected from the table. We stored it in the optics cabinet along the X arm.

  2117   Mon Oct 19 13:00:53 2009 MottUpdateGeneralPhase Noise Measurement

Here is the result for the measurement of the phase noise.  We used the marconi function generator and compared it with an Isomet AOM driver (model 232A-1), so this is really a measure of the relative phase between them.  We used a 5x gain and a frequency response of 13 Hz/V for the modulation.  In all the attached plots, the blue is the data and the red is the measurement limit (as determined by the noise in the SRS785).  Also note that the units on the yaxis of the Phase noise plot are incorrect, they should be dB/Sqrt(Hz), I will fix this and edit as soon as possible.

Attachment 1: PhaseNoiseWithError.jpg
PhaseNoiseWithError.jpg
Attachment 2: G.jpg
G.jpg
Attachment 3: PSD.jpg
PSD.jpg
  2140   Sun Oct 25 14:29:45 2009 haixing, kiwamuConfigurationGeneralSR785 spectrum analyzer

In this morning, we have disconnected SR785 which was in front of 1X2 rack, to measure a Hall sensor noise.

After a while, we put back SR785 and re-connected as it has been.

But the display setup might have been changed a little bit.

 

  2149   Tue Oct 27 15:55:04 2009 KojiUpdateGeneralISS injection work / HEPA is on

I was working on the ISS excitation to take TFs.

I used ISS IL excitation, stealing from a small box on the floor for the OMC.

All the configuration was restored except that the HEPA is on.

  2166   Sun Nov 1 17:58:44 2009 JenneUpdateGeneralUpdate on Video Switch

The current update on the Chameleon video switch is: no progress.

I connected the old laptop that Rob/Steve acquired via RS-232 serial to the back of the video switch.  I'm using P2, the same serial port that the C1AUX computer was connected to just in case there's something good about P2 vs. P1. 

I used HyperTerminal to (try to) talk to the switch.  Settings were:  COM1, bits per second = 9600, data bits = 8, parity = none, stop bits = 1, flow control = none.  I can successfully send/get back responses to the basic commands, I (inquiry as to the type of equipment), and H (help - spits out the list of acceptable commands).  But when I try to do an actual command to do some video switching, everything hangs.  The front panel's rolling display (which just echos the company name) stops, then starts up again after ~20sec.  The hyperterminal display doesn't change.  I get neither the "DONE" answerback, which would indicate that the command executed successfully, nor do I get the "ERROR" answerback, which would indicate that something is wrong.  It just hangs.  If I disconnect, and restart the connection, and instead of trying a real command, but instead just send 'blahblahblah', then it will answerback 'ERROR' the first time, and then if I try to send another garbage message, everything hangs again.  So, I can sort of talk to the video switch, but I can't make it do anything yet.

I'm leaving the laptop connected instead of C1AUX, since the video EPICS screen doesn't work anyway for now.  If you want to start up the connection, either input the settings quoted above, or open "40m Video", which should have these connection settings saved in HyperTerminal.

  2180   Thu Nov 5 16:24:40 2009 JenneUpdateGeneralDrill Press is down for the count

The on/off switch for the drill press is broken.  Replacement parts should be here tomorrow. 

  2202   Fri Nov 6 23:02:44 2009 HaixingUpdateGeneralSR785 Spectrum Analyzer

I am using SR785 Spectrum Analyzer now and also tomorrow. 
I will put it back on Sunday. If anyone needs it during the weekend,
please just take it and I can reset it by myself later. Thanks.

  2203   Sat Nov 7 23:50:45 2009 HaixingUpdateGeneralOpen-loop transfer function of the magnetic levitation system

I measured the open-loop transfer function of the magnetic levitation system.

The schematic block diagram for this measurement is the following:

transfer_function_meas_bd.PNG

I injected a signal at a level of 20mV between two preamplifiers, and the corresponding open-loop

transfer function is given by B/A.  I took a picture of the resulting measurement, because

I encountered some difficulties to save the data to the computer via the wireless network.

The bode plots for the transfer function shown on the screen is the following:

Transfer_function_meas.jpg

 

I am puzzled with the zero near 10 Hz. I think it should come from the mechanical response function, because there is no zero in the transfer functions

of the preamplifer and the coil itself. I am not sure at the moment.

The corresponding configuration of the levitated magnet is

magnetic_levitation.jpg

  2218   Mon Nov 9 15:21:37 2009 JenneUpdateGeneralDrill Press is down for the count

Quote:

The on/off switch for the drill press is broken.  Replacement parts should be here tomorrow. 

 Drill press is all better now.  A spare switch is in the top drawer with the drill bits.

  2245   Wed Nov 11 21:30:20 2009 HaixingUpdateGeneralmagnetic levitation modelling files uploaded to svn

I have created a directory under the svn. The link is https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:30889/svn/trunk/docs/haixing

In the directory, there are three folders are related to the magnetic levitation.

 

The experimental data is in the "experiment_data".

 

The comsol numerical modelling files are in "mag_levi_comsol_modelling" which contains "1x1 magnets",

"4x4 magnets" and "16x16 magnets" sub-folders where detailed modelling results are included.The mathematica

notebooks in those folders are used to produce the plots I posted on the wiki page.

 

The "mag_levi_feedback" contains the Simulink modelling of the feedback loop. To generate the plot for the

open-loop transfer function. One needs to ruc the "mag_lev.m" file.

 

 

 

ELOG V3.1.3-