40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 228 of 341  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Category Subjectup
  1404   Sun Mar 15 21:50:29 2009 Kakeru, Kiwamu, OsamuUpdateComputersSome computers are rebooted

We found c1lsc, c1iscex, c1iscey, c1susvme, c1asc and c1sosvme are dead.
We  turned off all watchdogs and turned off all lock of suspensions.
Then, I tried to reboot these machines from terminal, but I couldn't login to all of these machines.

So, we turned off and on key switches of these machines physically, and login to them to run startup scripts.

Then we turned on all watchdogs and restored all IFO.

Now they look like they are working fine.
 

  6105   Mon Dec 12 11:34:40 2011 Leo SingerSummaryGeneralSome design parameters for a Stewart platform

At the suggestion of Rana and Koji, I have worked out some design parameters for a Stewart platform to be used as a vibration isolation device or as a platform for characterization of suspensions.  I have made some initial guesses about the following design requirements:

  • linear travel: 40 microns peak to peak (based on SOS design requirements in LIGO-T950011)
  • angular travel: 3 mrad peak to peak (based on SOS design requirements in LIGO-T950011)
  • payload mass: 5 kg (wild guess of mass of loaded SOS)
  • payload moment of inertia: 0.01 kg m^2 (wild guess)
  • bandwidth: 500 Hz (suggestion of Rana and Koji: ~kHz)

From these assumptions, I have worked out:

  • peak actuator force: 0.88 kN
  • minimum radius of top platform: 15 cm
  • minimum radius of bottom platform: 30 cm
  • minimum height: 26 cm

The combination of high force, high speed, and ~micron travel limits seems to point to piezoelectric actuators.  PI's model P-225.80 would meet the peak push-pull force requirement, but I have not yet determined if it would meet the bandwidth requirement.  Apparently, typical piezoelectric actuators can exert a greater push force than pull force; wonder if one could use an actuator with a smaller force range than the P-225.80 if the actuator is biased by compression.  (Is this what is meant by a "preloaded" actuator?) 

I have attached a PDF explaining how I worked out the actuator force and platform dimensions.  (I'll try to dice up this PDF and put the contents in the Wiki.)  I also have a plant model in MATLAB with which I have been playing around with control schemes, but I don't think that this is ready to show yet.

Here are some tasks that still remain to be done for this preliminary case study:

  • select sensing technologies: integrated linear encoders and/or strain meters, inertial sensing, optical levers, etc.
  • study joints: Koji and Rana suggest flexures; I need to propose the joint geometry and material
  • study internal modes of the platforms and actuators themselves
  • build noise budget

I'd like to ask for input principally on:

  • appropriateness of my design assumptions
  • piezo actuators currently in use in the lab

 Edit: I also added a Mathematica notebook with the inverse kinematics (mapping from platform state to leg lengths) of the platform. 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 1: stewart.pdf
stewart.pdf stewart.pdf stewart.pdf stewart.pdf stewart.pdf stewart.pdf stewart.pdf
Attachment 2: stewart.nb
(* Content-type: application/vnd.wolfram.mathematica *)

(*** Wolfram Notebook File ***)
(* http://www.wolfram.com/nb *)

(* CreatedBy='Mathematica 8.0' *)

(*CacheID: 234*)
(* Internal cache information:
NotebookFileLineBreakTest
... 377 more lines ...
  9742   Fri Mar 21 01:54:32 2014 ericqUpdateLSCSome early CARM modeling

 I've been getting a simulation going with the eventual goal of simulating CESAR-type signals for CARM. So for I've only been using MIST, though I'm still thinking about what to do for a fully time domain approach. (For example, maybe a mixture of simulink and analytical equations? We'll see how painful that gets...)

Anyways, with the parameters I have for the 40m, I've set up a simulation, where I can do things like a "static" CARM scan.

(i.e. PRMI perfectly locked. Ask what different PDs see if the arms were just statically sitting at some CARM offset)

staticCarmSweep.pdf

PDH signals are there in the REFL diodes. The coupled line width here looks smaller than the ~40pm number I've heard before, so I should check my parameters. (Likely culprit, I'm using nominal R and T for the arm cavities)

I've also done the slightly more sophisticated thing of looking at the transfer function from CARM motion to different PDs, at different CARM offsets. For TRX and REFLDC, these seem to match up qualitatively to some plots that Kiwamu has done for aLIGO, with frequencies shifted by the relative arm length factor of 100. (Q's left, K's right, Y-axis on mine are W/m with 1W input the IFO)

carm2TRX.pdfCARM_TFs_TRXDC.pdf

 

carm2reflDC.pdf CARM_TFs_REFLDC.pdf

 

We can also look at the PDH diodes (revised from my initial post. Had an error in my code): 

 carm2refl11.pdfcarm2refl55.pdf

 

That's where I've gotten so far!

 

  15347   Tue May 26 01:58:57 2020 gautamUpdateElectronicsSome electronics thoughts

A big factor in how much IFO locking activities can take place is how cooperative the IMC is.

Since the c1psl upgrade, the IMC duty cycle has definitely deteriorated. I took a measurement of the dark noise at the IMC error point with 1 Hz FFT binwidth, with all electrical connections to the IMC servo board except the Acromag and Eurocrate power disconnected. I was horrified at the prominence of 60 Hz harmonics - see Attachment #1. In the past, this kind of feature has been indicative of some error in the measurement technique - but I confirmed that the lines remain even if I unplug the GPIB box, and all combinations of floating/grounded inputs that I tried. We know for sure that there is some excess noise imprinted on the laser light post upgrade. While these lines almost certainly are not responsible for the PCdrive RMS going bonkers, surely this kind of electrical situation isn't good?

Attachment #2 shows the same information translated to frequency noise units, taking into account the complementary sensitivity function, L/(1+L) - the sum contribution of the 60 Hz peaks to the RMS is ~11.5% of the total over the entire band (c.f. 1.7 % that is expected if the noise at multiples of 60 Hz was approximately equal to the surrounding noise levels). Moreover, the measured RMS is 55 times higher than a LISO model. 

How can this be fixed?

Attachment 1: IMCsensingNoise.pdf
IMCsensingNoise.pdf
Attachment 2: IMCsensingNoise.pdf
IMCsensingNoise.pdf
  15514   Tue Aug 11 23:20:29 2020 gautamUpdateBHDSome first tests with air BHD setup

Some tests done today:

All of these tests were done with the PRMI locked with carrier resonant in the recycling cavity (i.e. sidebands rejected to REFL port). I then actuated the BS length DOF with a sine wave at 311.1 Hz, 40 cts amplitude (corresponding to ~8 pm of peak-to-peak displacement).

  1. Attempt to balance the DCPDs
    • I tried to tune the digital gains of the two DCPDs so as to minimize the appearance of this line in the SUM channel
    • but no matter how I tuned the gains, I couldn't make the line in the SUM channel disappear entirely - in fact, the best I could do was to make the line height in SUM and NULL channels (yes I recognize the poor channel name choice, I'll change "NULL" to "DIFF" at the next model recompile) the same. See Attachment #1.
    • The lobes around the main peak are indicative of some scattering?
    • Attachment #2 shows a wider frequency range. The homodyne phase isn't controlled, so the "NULL" channel is not necessarily measuring the correct quadrature to be sensing MICH motion.
    • I think I can back out something about the contrast defect from this fact, but I need to go back to some modeling.
  2. A simple test of the homodyne phase actuator
    • I wanted to check that this PI S320 piezo actually allows me to actuate the optical path length of the local oscillator.
    • I'm using the OMC HV driver to drive said PZT - so there are two DAC channels available, one to dither the optic and one to apply a control signal. I think mainly this is to avoid using up DAC range for the dither signal, the overall dynamic range is still limited by the HV supply.
    • I can't find the maximum voltage that can be applied on the datasheet - so conservatively, I limited the HV output to saturate at 100 V DC, as this is the maximum for the S330 piezos used for green steering, for which there is a manual.
    • The S320 manual does say the full stroke of each PZT element is 10 um - so the actuation coefficient is ~100 nm/V. I then drove this actuator with a sine wave of 500 cts amplitude, at 314.1 Hz (corresponding to 15 nm of motion). With only the LO beam incident on the PDs, I saw no signal in either DCPD - as expected, so this was good.
    • Then, with the PRMI locked, I repeated the test. If there is no DC light field (as expected for the PRMI in this configuration), I wouldn't expect this drive signal to show up in the DCPDs. But in fact, I do. Again, this supports the presence of some (for now unquantified) contrast defect.

While it would seem from these graphs that the RIN of the LO beam at these frequencies is rather high, it is because of the ADC noise. More whitening (to be installed in the coming days) will allow us to get a better estimate, should be ~1e-6 I think.

I was just playing today, still need to setup some more screens, DTT templates etc to do more tests in a convenient way.

Now, I can think about how to commission this setup interferometrically.

Attachment 1: PRMI_RFlock.pdf
PRMI_RFlock.pdf
Attachment 2: PRMI_RFlock_fullscale.pdf
PRMI_RFlock_fullscale.pdf
  11998   Thu Feb 18 02:52:27 2016 ericqUpdateIOOSome housekeeping

I manually aligned the IMC. Spot positions are all < 1.5mm. PMC trans of ~0.74, MC2 Trans of ~15400, MC Refl ~0.4, which is better than its been for some time now.

Somehow the WFS DC offsets were off, which made it look like it was impossible to center the beam on WFS2. The script for setting these wasn't working so I fixed it, ran it. WFS and MC2 trans offsets were set, WFS are back on and have been holding MC REFL nice and low for ~3 hours.

Arms were dither aligned, wrote the offsets to SDF files. Oplevs need centering. No further daqd crashes.

  15308   Mon Apr 20 17:49:58 2020 gautamUpdateGeneralSome housekeeping
  • Empty N2 replaced. 
  • Logged back into zita and started the StripTool traces (even though we keep the TV off nowadays).
  • c1susaux acro-crate power cycled to re-enable PRM suspension control (all other vertex optics also now respond to slow bias voltage sliders being moved).
  • c1iscaux needed a hard reboot as it wasn’t seen on martian. I power cycled the crate for good measure.
  • Marconi turned back on with correct frequency/amplitude.
  • c0rga is now seen again on martian network. I re-enabled the RGA scanning so that it takes a scan every morning at 4am. 
  • The forepumps for TP2/TP3 are noisier than I remember. The former has ~10,000 hrs on the clock. How often does the tip seal replacement need to happen?
  • HV supplies for ASX/ASY PZTs re-energized.
  • IFO re-aligned for locking.
  • c1oaf and c1daf models restarted. c1oaf required the usual start/stop/start sequence to make the DAQ errors go away, and luckily the FE didn’t crash when the model was unloaded.
  • POX/POY/PRMI 1f carrier/green locking all was smooth.
  • For some reason, the PRC angular FF filters i trained no longer do anything good (but MCL is still good). collected 20mins of PRMI 1f locked data for investigations.
Update 21 Apr 2020 1200: Looking at Attachments #1 and #2, the spectra for motion sensed by the POP QPD does indeed look very different on Apr 6 vs Apr 20. Could be some interference from Oplev loop or maybe some EPICS values didn't get reset correctly, needs more investigation. It doesn't seem reasonable to me that the plant changes by so much (spectra were taken at similar times of the day, ~5pm).
Update 22 Apr 2020 1500: As suspected, the PRM oplev was disabled for whatever reason. Re-enabling it, I recovered the good performance from two weeks ago. ✅ 
Attachment 1: fDomainWF_Apr06.pdf
fDomainWF_Apr06.pdf
Attachment 2: fDomainWF_Apr20.pdf
fDomainWF_Apr20.pdf
  15606   Thu Oct 1 17:44:48 2020 gautamUpdateGeneralSome inventory notes

The optomechanics stock in the lab was in a sad state. We have obtained the following from Thorlabs in the last two months:

  1. 6 pcs each of DT12 and DT12B compact translation stages (for lens mode matching).
  2. 3pcs each KM100PM + PM3 cube beamsplitter mounts (for polarization control).
  3. 1 Post / spacer kit for height adjustment.
  4. 3 pcs ea of K6XS + AD11F + F220APC for fiber applications.

I have used some of these for the ari BHD setup. The unused items are stored in the shelves that house the optomechanics ~halfway down the east arm. I'm wondering what's a good setup to document the stock of this stuff so we can always have a healthy stock of optomechanics (at least the non speciality ones like posts, spacers etc). It sucks to realize at 0000hrs that you're missing a 3mm shim or 250mm converging lens or something.

  5980   Tue Nov 22 18:42:10 2011 kiwamuSummaryGreen LockingSome issues on the Y end green PDH locking

[Rana / Kiwamu]

 As a part of the ALS noise budgeting we took a look at the Y end PDH setup to see if we are limited by an effect from the Amplitude Modulation (AM).

Then we found two issues :
 (1) a big variation in AM transfer function from the laser PZT to the intensity of the frequency-doubled laser. We haven't figured out the reason yet,
 (2) some of the optics and their mounts need to be refined.

 


(AM transfer function)

 One of the suspicious noise source of the Y arm ALS was an AM effect in the Y end green PDH locking.
A possible scenario is that: there is some amount of the offset in the PDH signal due to the AM at the modulation frequency,
and it allows the intensity noise to couple to the laser frequency, which we want to suppress.
 So we wanted to check if the measured AM (#2799) at 1064 nm  is still true at 532 nm.
The problem right now is that : every time we measured the AM transfer function by exciting the laser PZT with swept sine,
the transfer function varied by 20 dB, with average response of 50 dB. And there was no repeatability.
We were using the PD which is for the green PDH signal and the single-bounced light from ETMY.
The measurement was done in a frequency band of 100 - 400 kHz where we expect a couple of sharp notches.
Perhaps we should try the same measurement with IR first to make sure we are doing a right thing, and then do it with the frequency-doubled laser.

 

(Y table setup needs more improvements)

  We found some optics and their mounts which need to be refined.
Here is a list which we briefly made at the time.
  • Use washers
  • Beam clipping in Green Faraday and the very last mirror
  • Use two screws and wide base plate
  • Tune PPKTP PID parameters
  • Remove flipper mirror
  • Move the mechanical shutter to where the beam size is smaller
  • Put a beam damp for the reflected light from the PD
  • Cable rack
  • Improve the incident angle on the last two launching mirrors
  5983   Wed Nov 23 00:00:53 2011 ZachSummaryGreen LockingSome issues on the Y end green PDH locking

Quote:

(AM transfer function)

 One of the suspicious noise source of the Y arm ALS was an AM effect in the Y end green PDH locking.
A possible scenario is that: there is some amount of the offset in the PDH signal due to the AM at the modulation frequency,
and it allows the intensity noise to couple to the laser frequency, which we want to suppress.
 So we wanted to check if the measured AM (#2799) at 1064 nm  is still true at 532 nm.
The problem right now is that : every time we measured the AM transfer function by exciting the laser PZT with swept sine,
the transfer function varied by 20 dB, with average response of 50 dB. And there was no repeatability.
We were using the PD which is for the green PDH signal and the single-bounced light from ETMY.
The measurement was done in a frequency band of 100 - 400 kHz where we expect a couple of sharp notches.
Perhaps we should try the same measurement with IR first to make sure we are doing a right thing, and then do it with the frequency-doubled laser.

What is meant by the "average response of 50 dB"? Is this dB[ RIN / Hz ] or something? Also, do you mean the average over a broad band or the average response at the chosen modulation frequency over several trials? I don't really understand what measurement was done.

  1264   Mon Feb 2 17:25:44 2009 AlbertoConfigurationGeneralSome little problem with the new elog
For some reason the new elog does not look exactly like it should. 1) Some of the editing features are not available. 2) The Reply option opens the HTML of the message by default. I think this is happening because Nodus is a Sun of platform and things are a little bit different from linux. I'm working to fix these things. If I make any change and need to restart the elog, I'll try to be very quick. I apologize for the inconveniences.
  1265   Mon Feb 2 18:32:54 2009 AlbertoConfigurationGeneralSome little problem with the new elog

Quote:
For some reason the new elog does not look exactly like it should. 1) Some of the editing features are not available. 2) The Reply option opens the HTML of the message by default. I think this is happening because Nodus is a Sun of platform and things are a little bit different from linux. I'm working to fix these things. If I make any change and need to restart the elog, I'll try to be very quick. I apologize for the inconveniences.

 I think I solved the problem (as you can probably see).

The cause was that this WYSIWYG interface for HTML is provided by an independent text editor called FCKeditor which is included in the elog. Although the elog installer has a bug and does not unzip properly the relative package. One has to do it by hand. (going to /elog/scripts/ and unzipping fckeditor.zip by hand in the same directory).

  1969   Mon Sep 7 23:18:01 2009 AlbertoUpdateLockingSome locking attempts

Tried to lock the interferometer but arm power didn't get over 65.

Tonight, after the weekend, I resumed the work on locking.

When I started the Mode Cleaner was unlocked because the MZ was also unlocked.

I aligned the MZ and the transmitted power reached about 2.5

Initially the interferometer lost lock at arm power of about 3-4. It looked like the alignment wasn't good enough. So I ran the alignment scripts a few times, first the scripts for the single parts and in the end the one for the full IFO.

Then I also locked again the MZ and this time the transmitted power got to about 4.

In the following locking attempts the the arm power reached 65 but then the lock got lost during the handing of CARM to C1:LSC-PD11_I

I'll keep working on that tomorrow night.

  15245   Tue Mar 3 19:11:48 2020 gautamUpdateLSCSome locking prep
  • Re-aligned and locked the arm cavities for IR and green.
  • Re-set trans normalization because after the c1iscex and c1iscey reboots, these didn't come back to the old values.
  10992   Tue Feb 10 02:40:54 2015 JenneUpdateLSCSome locking thoughts on PRMI

[EricQ, Jenne]

We wanted to make the PRMI lock more stable tonight, which would hopefully allow us to hold lock much longer.  Some success, but nothing out-of-this-world.

We realized late last week that we haven't been using the whitening for the ASDC and POPDC signals, which are combined to make the MICH error signal.  ASDC whitening is on, and seems great.  POPDC whitening (even if turned on after lock is acquired) seems to make the PRMI lock more fussy.  I need to look at this tomorrow, to see if we're saturating anything when the whitening is engaged for POPDC.

One of the annoying things about losing the PRMI lock (when CARM and DARM have kept ALS lock) is that the UGF servos wander off, so you can't just reacquire the lock.  I have added triggering to the UGF servo input, so that if the cavity is unlocked (really, untriggered), the UGF servo input gets a zero, and so isn't integrating up to infinity.  It might need a brief "wait" in there, since any flashes allow signal through, and those can add up over time if it takes a while for the PRMI to relock.  UGF screens reflect this new change.

  10994   Tue Feb 10 03:09:02 2015 ericqUpdateLSCSome locking thoughts on PRMI

Unfortunately, we only had one good CARM offset reduction to powers of about 25, but then my QPD loop blew it. We spent the vast majority of the night dealing with headaches and annoyances. 

Things that were a pain:

  • If TRX is showing large excursions after finding resonance, there is no hope. These translate into large impulses while reducing the CARM offset, which the PRMI has no chance of handling. The first time aligning the green beat did not help this. For some reason, the second time did, though the beatnote amplitude wasn't increased noticibly. 
    • NOTICE: We should re-align the X green beatnote every night, after a solid ASS run, before any serious locking work. 
    • Afterwards, phase tracker UGFs (which depend on beatnote amplitude, and thereby frequency) should be frequently checked. 
  • We suffered some amount from ETMX wandering. Not only for realigning between lock attempts, but on one occasion, with CARM held off, GTRX wandered to half its nominal value, leading to a huge effective DARM offset, which made it impossible to lock MICH with any reasonble power in the arms. Other times, simply turning off POX/POY locking, after setting up the beatnotes, was enough to significantly change the alignment. 
  • IMC was mildly tempermental, at its worst refusing to lock for ~20min. One suspicion I have is that when the PMC PZT is nearing its rail, things go bad. The PZT voltage was above 200 when this was happening, after relocking the PMC to ~150, it seems ok. I thing I've also had this problem at PZT voltages of ~50. Something to look out for. 

Other stuff:

  • We are excited for the prospect of the FOL system, as chasing the FSS temperature around is no fun. 
  • UGF servo triggering greatly helps the PRMI reacquire if it briefly flashes out, since the multipliers don't run away. This exacerbated the ALS excursion problem. 
  • Using POPDC whitening made it very tough to hold the PRMI. Maybe because we didn't reset the dark offset...?
  10659   Fri Oct 31 19:59:26 2014 KojiUpdateGeneralSome locking work / PRMI analysis

Preparations

- According to Diego's report, the MC WFS gains were too high. We'll fix this later by tweaking the servo shapes.
But for now, all of the WFS gains were reduced by 40%.
i.e. WFS(1|2)(PIT|YAW) gains from 5 to 3, MC2TRANS(PIT|YAW) gains from 50 to 30.

- Aligned IMC carefully and ran the offset nulling script. MC REFL became 0.435~0.445 and MC TRANS was ~16600.

- Locked the arms and ran ASS.


PRMI

- Started locking PRMI. I just used REFL33I&Q as suggested by the configure script. The PRMI locking was not so robust.
Particularly, the third violin mode of PRM and BS seemed to get excited and dominated the signals.
I modified Vio3 filter in the violin filter for BS and PRM to include zero at 1921Hz where the growing peak was seen.

- We probably want to start from the 1f signals for DRMI lock acquisition. So I wanted to check how REFL11s are.
Measured the demod phase and relative gain between 33I and 11I. (By the way, REFL11I whitening gain was lowered to 0dB).
REFL11I had about x10 gain and the same phase compared to REFL33I. The demod phase for REFL11 was +21deg.
Also checked REFL55 phase and gain. 55Q has almost the same gain as 33Q. And the adjusted phase was 25deg.
These were just rough adjustment of the demod phases.

- Then the servo configuration was transtioned to Configuration 1 (below), and then Configuration 2.

- This configuration was very stable and the PRMI stayed locked about ~1 hour. During this long lock, I could measure 
PSDs, sensing matrix, and etc. Also I could play with the PRM ASC. I wasn't sure if the POP is actually stabilized or not.
(I have no data)

- I noticed that something was ringinging up at 1883Hz. Another 3rd order viloin mode???

- The lock was lost due to too strong injection. But also it reacquired without touching.

- Precise demod phase adjustment has been done by elliminating PRCL from the Q signals.

REFL11 16.75
REFL33 133.0
REFL55 31.0
REFL165 -142 
AS55 -53

- Configiration1 (REFL11I&REFL55Q)

REFL11: WTN 0dB PHASE 21deg, REFL11I x0.1 -> PRCL
REFL33: WTN 30dB PHASE 145deg
REFL55: WTN 21dB PHASE 25deg, REFL55Q x1 -> MICH

PRCL: GAIN -0.04 FM4/5 ON, Triggered FM 2/3/6/9, Servo trigger: POP22I 50up 10down, No Normaization.
MICH: GAIN 10 FM4/5 ON, Triggered FM 2/3/6/9, Servo trigger: POP22I 50up 10down, No Normaization.

PRCL -> PRM +1
MICH -> PRM -0.2625, BS +0.50 BS

- Configuration 2 (REFL11I&Q)

Same as above except:
REFL11Q x-0.1 -> MICH


Calibration

Let's use these entries 

PRM: http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/8255
PRM:  (19.6 +/- 0.3) x 10^{-9} (Hz/f)^2 m/counts

BS/ITMs http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/8242
BS     = (20.7 +/- 0.1)    x 10 -9 / f2
ITMX = (4.70 +/- 0.02)  x 10 -9/ f2
ITMY = (4.66 +/- 0.02) x 10 -9/ f2

- PRCL Calibration

Lockin oscillator module 675.13Hz 100 -> +1 PRM

Measurement bandwidth 0.1Hz -> Signal power BW 0.471232 (FLATTOP window)

C1:SUS-PRM_LSC_IN1: 118.99 cnt/rtHz => 5.12pm/rtHz
REFL11I: 17.84  cnt/rtHz => 3.49e12 cnt/m
REFL33I:  2.28  cnt/rtHz => 4.46e11 cnt/m
REFL55I:  0.158 cnt/rtHz => 3.09e10 cnt/m
REFL165I: 1.63  cnt/rtHz => 3.19e11 cnt/m


- MICH Calibration

Lockin oscillator module 675.13Hz 100 -> -1 ITMX +1 ITMY

Measurement bandwidth 0.1Hz -> Signal power BW 0.471232 (FLATTOP window)

C1:SUS-ITMX_LSC_IN1: 121.79 cnt/rtHz => 1.26pm/rtHz
C1:SUS-ITMY_LSC_IN1: 121.79 cnt/rtHz => 1.25pm/rtHz
REFL11Q:  0.0329   cnt/rtHz => 1.32e10 cnt/m (PRCL/MICH ratio 265)
REFL33Q:  0.00773  cnt/rtHz => 3.09e9  cnt/m (144)
REFL55Q:  0.001645 cnt/rtHz => 6.58e8  cnt/m (47)
REFL165Q: 0.00374  cnt/rtHz => 1.50e9  cnt/m (213) !?
AS55Q:    0.0696   cnt/rtHz => 2.78e10 cnt/m

Openloop TF measurements
Servo filter TF measuremnts

The UGFs were ~250Hz for PRCL and ~120Hz for MICH, respectively.
The OLTF was modelled by the servo and violin filters TF from foton, estimated TF of the AA/AI filters, and the constant time delay.

Displacement spectra measurement

SELF NOTE: DON'T FORGET TO TURN ON the whitening of the unused signals! (USE MC DOF or manual switch)

- PRCL

The PRCL displacement was measured with REFL I signals. In the attachment 3, the in-loop and free-run equivalent displacements are shown (red and blue).
Other out-of-loop sensors (33/55/165) were also plotted together.

FIrst of all, the uncompensated displacement noise level of PRCL is around 1e-7 m/rtHz. This is a good indication that the calibration was not crazy.

The sensing noise of REFL11 seems to be 1e-15~1e-16 m/rtHz at high frequency which is enough for now.
As expected, REFL11I has the best noise level among the REFLs. At low frequency, it seemed that the noise level is limited by something at 1e-12 m/rtHz.
Of course, we can't say this is just the sensing noise of the other REFLs or the noise of the REFL11I. But this noise level is enough small for the locking of
the low finesse (F<100) PRCL cavity.

Remembering we had no trouble locking PRCL with REFL33/55/165, this plot indicates that the PRCL was suppressed too much below 2Hz.
And we want more supression between 5Hz to 30Hz. We have resonant gains in ther PRCL servo but not sure how effective they were.
If we consider the contamination of PRCL in MICH, we should try to optimize the PRCL servo.

- MICH

The MICH displacement was similary calibrated to PRCL. The signal sources were the REFL Qs and AS55Q.
In the attachment 4, the in-loop and free-run equivalent displacements are shown (red and blue).
Other out-of-loop sensors were also plotted together.

The problem here is that the out-of-loop levels (REFL33/55/165 and AS55) show almost the same levels
and thus it is likely that the actual (out-of-loop) stability of MICH is this kind of level. If we believe it, we only have
~1/100 supression between 1-10Hz and ~1/10Hz below 0.5Hz.
The strong servo control does nothing to stablize
MICH. From the out-of-loop noise level of MICH, this comes for the contamination from leakage PRCL.
We really need to improve the signal quality of MICH.

The MICH servo filter has quite complicated shape, but is not necessary according to the estimated free-runing MICH.

The MICH free-running motion is quieter than the PRCL one between 1Hz to 30Hz. The reasonable explanation is
that it comes from poor vibration isolation of the tip-tilts. It means that SRCL also has the similar noise level to PRCL.

Attachment 1: PRMIsb_PRCL_OLTF.pdf
PRMIsb_PRCL_OLTF.pdf
Attachment 2: PRMIsb_MICH_OLTF.pdf
PRMIsb_MICH_OLTF.pdf
Attachment 3: PRMIsb_PRCL_SPE.pdf
PRMIsb_PRCL_SPE.pdf
Attachment 4: PRMIsb_MICH_SPE.pdf
PRMIsb_MICH_SPE.pdf
  10917   Sat Jan 17 01:10:36 2015 JenneUpdateLSCSome locking, may need to modify UGF part again

I have been playing with the IFO tonight.  Mostly, I wanted to make sure that all of the scripts for the carm_cm_up sequence were working, and they seem to all be fine. 

I also turned on all 4 UGF servos.  My big ah-ha moment for the night is that the excitation is multiplied by the gain multiplier.  This means that if the UGF servo is multiplying by a small number (less than 1), the excitation will get smaller, and could get small enough that it is lost in the noise.  Now the error signal for the UGF servo is very noisy, and can dip to zero.  Since we can't take the log of zero, there are limiters in the model, but they end up giving -80dB to the error point of the UGF servo.  This makes it all freak out, and often lose lock, although sometimes you just get a weird step in the UGF servo output. 

Anyhow, we need to be mindful of this, and offload the UGF servos regularly.  I think the better thing to do though will be to divide the excitation amplitude by the gain multiplier.  This will undo the fact that it is multiplied by that number, so that the number of counts that we put into the excitation amplitude box is what we expect. 

  10926   Tue Jan 20 21:58:04 2015 diegoUpdateLSCSome locking, may need to modify UGF part again

 

Quote:

I have been playing with the IFO tonight.  Mostly, I wanted to make sure that all of the scripts for the carm_cm_up sequence were working, and they seem to all be fine. 

I also turned on all 4 UGF servos.  My big ah-ha moment for the night is that the excitation is multiplied by the gain multiplier.  This means that if the UGF servo is multiplying by a small number (less than 1), the excitation will get smaller, and could get small enough that it is lost in the noise.  Now the error signal for the UGF servo is very noisy, and can dip to zero.  Since we can't take the log of zero, there are limiters in the model, but they end up giving -80dB to the error point of the UGF servo.  This makes it all freak out, and often lose lock, although sometimes you just get a weird step in the UGF servo output. 

Anyhow, we need to be mindful of this, and offload the UGF servos regularly.  I think the better thing to do though will be to divide the excitation amplitude by the gain multiplier.  This will undo the fact that it is multiplied by that number, so that the number of counts that we put into the excitation amplitude box is what we expect. 

 

After some brainstorming with Jenne and Q, both the model and the medm screen have been modified: the entire block "Test1 - injection of the excitation - Test2" has been moved after the servo output. In this way we avoid completely the multiplication problem without having to perform divisions that could lead to division-by-zero problems. Because of how the logic is done now, one UnitDelay block had to be inserted before each one of Test1 and Test2.

 

Since the UGF Servo has been heavily modified lately, I'll post the current status of the model (as an attachment, as inpage images lose too much quality).

 

Attachment 1: UGF_SERVO_MDL.png
UGF_SERVO_MDL.png
  10725   Tue Nov 18 15:20:58 2014 JenneUpdateLSCSome lockloss plots from PRFPMI

Elog from ~5am last night:

Tonight was just several trials of PRFPMI locking, while trying to pay more attention to the lockloss plots each time.

General notes: 

I tried once to acquire DRMI on 1f while the arms were held off resonance.  I wasn't catching lock, so I went back to PRMI+arms.  I aligned the PMC, which I noted in a separate elog.  

I was able to hold the PRMI on REFL33I&Q, and have ALS CARM and DARM at zero CARM offset.  The arm would "buzz" through the resonance regularly.  I use the word buzz because that's kind of what it sounded like.  This is the noise of the ALS system.

I think we want to add the transmission QPD angular signals to the frames.  Right now, we just keep the sums.  It would have been handy to glance at them, and see if they were wiggling in the same way that some other signal was waggling. 

All the data files are in /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/LSC/LocklossData.  Each folder is one lockloss.  It includes text files for each trace, as well as any plots that I've made, and any notes taken.  The text files are several MB each, so I'm not going to bog the elog down with them.  There are a few folders that end in "_notInteresting".  These ones are, as one might guess, not interesting.  2 were MC locklosses (I'm not actuating on MC2, so I declared these independent from my work) and one was when I knew that my ALS was bad - the beatnotes weren't in good places, and so the ALS noise was high.


 Folder:  1100342268_POP22goesLow

Working notes:  Lost lock because POP22 went too low.  PRCL and MICH triggered off.  After this, changed PRCL and MICH "down" thresholds to 0.5, from 10.
 

Plots:

ErrorSignals_NothingObviouslyOscillating.pngErrorSignals_Zoom_MICHprclWeird.pngPowers_POP22goesLow.png

Conclusion:  Easy fix.  Changed the down thresholds for MICH and PRCL to be lower, although still low enough that they will trigger off for a true lockloss.  Why though do we lose so much sideband power when the arm transmission goes high?  POP22 dipped below 10 when TRX went above 29.  Does this happen on both sides of the CARM offset?  Quick simulation needed.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Folder:  1100330534_maybePRCLangular

Working notes:  PRFPMI, reducing CARM offset to arm powers of 7.  CARM on sqrtInv, DARM on DCtrans. PRMI on REFL33 I&Q. Don't know why I lost lock.  Maybe angular stuff in PRC? I think POP spot was moving in yaw as it started to go bad.
Note, later:  regathered data to also get POP angular stuff. Don't think it's POP angular.  Not sure what it is.

Plots:

ErrSigs_NothingJumpingAtMe.pngNotPOPangular.png

Conclusion:  I'm not sure what this lockloss was caused by, although it is not something that I can see in the POP QPD (which was my initial suspicion).  It is, like many of the rest of the cases, one where I see significant bounce and roll mode oscillations (error and control signals oscillating at 16 and 24 Hz).  I don't think those are causing the locklosses though.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Folder:  1100334680_unknown_highArmPowers

Working notes:  PRFPMI, carm_up script finished, sitting at arm powers of 8.  CARM, DARM on DC trans.  PRMI on REFL33.   Don't know why lost lock.

Plots:

[Don't have any? - I'll make some]

Conclusion:  Again, I see 16 and 24 Hz oscillations, but I don't think those are causing the lockloss.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Folder: 1100331950_unknown

Working notes: PRFPMI, arms about 8.  CARM, DARM on DC trans.  PRMI on REFL33.  Don't know why I lost lock.

Plots:

More16and24Hz.png

Conclusion: Don't have an answer.

--------------------------------------------------------

Folder: 1100345981_unknown

Working notes: Lockloss while going to arm powers of 7ish from 6ish.  Not POP angular, POP22 didn't go low.

Plots:

ErrSigs_16and24Hz.pngNotPOPsFault.png

Conclusions:  This one wasn't from POP22 going too low, but again, I don't see anything other than 16 and 24Hz stuff.

 

  10726   Tue Nov 18 17:11:30 2014 JenneUpdateLSCSome lockloss plots from PRFPMI

I am still staring at / trying to figure out the latter 4 locklosses posted earlier.  But, I have just included the transmission QPD angular output signals to the frames, so we should be able to look at that with locklosses tonight. 

To get the lockloss plots:  in ..../scripts/LSC/LocklossData/ , first run ./FindLockloss.sh <gps time> .  This just pulls the TRX and TRY data, and doesn't save it, so it is pretty quick.  Adjust the gps time until you capture the lockloss in your plot window.  Then run ./LockLossAutoPlot.sh <gps time> to download and save the data.  Since it has become so many channels, it first makes a plot with all of the error and control signals, and then it makes a plot with the power levels and angular signals.  The data folder is just called <gps time>.  I have started also including a text file called notes inside of the folder, with things that I notice in the moment, when I lose lock.  Don't use .txt for the suffix of the notes file, since the ./PlotLockloss.py <folder name> script that will plot data after the fact tries to plot all .txt files.  I have also been appending the folder name with keywords, particularly _notInteresting or _unknown for either obvious lockloss causes or mysterious lockloss cases.

 

  11182   Tue Mar 31 02:51:39 2015 ericqUpdateLSCSome locks

I had a handful of ~10 minute locks tonight. I intended to work on the 1f PRMI transition, but ended just familiarizing myself with the current scheme. 

Before touching anything, I committed the locking scripts to the svn. Unfortunately, the up script as I found it never worked for me tonight. I had to reintroduce the digitial crossover helper in CM_SLOW to get past the ramping up of the overall REFL11 gain. (With this is in place, there is some bad ringing around 200Hz for a time, but it goes away... or unlocks)

I did phase the PD formally known as REFL55 with an 800Hz PRM excitation while in full lock.42 to 102 degrees, ~30dB ratio between the I and Q peaks. However, come to think of it, how much does the CARM loop interfere with this?

The locklosses I had seemed to be due to a large fluctuation in all cavities' power. Maybe this will be helped by better PRC angular control, but we could maybe be helped by normalizing the digital part of the CARM loop by the arm transmissions once lock is acquired. 

  11183   Tue Mar 31 03:02:44 2015 KojiUpdateLSCSome locks

Assuming the carrier mode in PRC is stable and the SB is the one moving, can we just use the POP DC QPD to control PRM?

Can we plot the arm power trend for multiple locks to see if it is associated with any thermal phenomenan in the IFO?
They should be able to fit with an exp + DC.

  11185   Tue Mar 31 18:27:58 2015 ericqUpdateLSCSome locks
Quote:

Can we plot the arm power trend for multiple locks to see if it is associated with any thermal phenomenan in the IFO?

I'm currently more inclined to believe that the arm power trends have more to do with the arm alignments. Here's a 10 minute lock from last night, where the QPD servos were switched on about halfway through. I couldn't get Den's new servos to turn on without blowing the lock, so I reverted to my previous design, but still only actuated on the ETMs, with their oplevs still on. 

The most obvious feature is the reduction in power that seems to correspond to a ~10urad pitch deflection of ITMX when the lock begins. Is this optical spring action?

Also, it looks like the Y arm Yaw loop was badly tuned, and injecting noise. Ooops.


As of Den's QPD tuning, the QPD servos just actuate on the ETM. This next lock effectively had the QPD servos on the entire time, and we can see a similar drift in ITMX, and how ETMX then follows it to keep the QPD spot stationary. (Here, I'm plotting the QPD servo control signals, unlike above, so we can see X pitch servo output drift with the ITMX deflection)

Again, ITMX is moving in pitch by ~10urad when the interferometer starts resonating. If this is an optical spring, why does this just happen to ITMX? If it is digital shenanigans, how does it correlate with the lock, since there is nothing actuating on ITMX but oplevs and OSEM damping? Is light scattering into the ITMX OSEMs?

 

Attachment 1: qpdSwitch.png
qpdSwitch.png
Attachment 2: qpdAlways.png
qpdAlways.png
  3115   Thu Jun 24 13:02:59 2010 JenneUpdateComputersSome lunchtime reboots

[Jenne, Megan, Frank]

We rebooted c1iovme, c1susvme1, and c1susvme2 during lunch.  Frank is going to write a thrilling elog about why c1iovme needed some attention.

C1susvme 1&2 have had their overflow numbers on the DAQ_RFMnetwork screen red at 16384 for the past few days.  While we were booting computers anyway, we booted the suses.  Unfortunately, they're still red.  I'm too hungry right now to deal with it....more to follow.

  11171   Wed Mar 25 18:27:34 2015 KojiSummaryGeneralSome maintainance

- I found that the cable for the AS55 LO signal had the shielding 90% broken. It was fixed.

- The Mon5 monitor in the control room was not functional for months. I found a small CRT down the east arm.
It is now set as MON5 showing the picture from cameras. Steve, do we need any safety measure for this CRT?

  11286   Tue May 12 12:04:41 2015 manasaUpdateGeneralSome maintenance

* Relocked IMC. I guess it was stuck somewhere in the autlocker loop. I disabled autolocker and locked it manually. Autolocker has been reenabled and seems to be running just fine.

* The X arm has been having trouble staying locked. There seemed to be some amount of gain peaking. I reduced the gain from 0.007 to 0.006.

*  I disabled the triggered BounceRG filter : FM8 in the Xarm filter module.  We already have a triggered Bounce filter: FM6 that takes care of the noise at bounce/roll frequencies. FM8 was just adding too much gain at 16.5Hz. Once this filter was disabled the X arm lock has been much more stable. 
Also, the Y arm doesn't use FM8 for locking either.

 

  1541   Sun May 3 22:48:12 2009 YoichiUpdateLockingSome measurements at the lock point
I attached some measurement results at when the IFO is at the full lock point.

The first plot shows the trend of the arm powers after the interferometer was locked.
The arm powers slowly increased after the lock. This increase is observed every time the IFO is locked.
Probably this is some sort of a thermal effect (mirror lensing, PD efficiency etc).

The second plot is a CARM offset sweep. Even after the demodulation phase optimization, the lock point is not exactly at the resonance.

The third plot is the open loop TF of the AO path. The CM loop UGF is about 20kHz.
The boost and the superboost1 were turned on when this TF was measured. The IFO loses lock if the superboost2 is turned on.

TO DO LIST
Measured the DARM loop shape.
I could not turn on the dewhitening filter for ETMY. ETMX had no trouble. I will check the dewhitening circuit.
Attachment 1: ArmPowerTrend.png
ArmPowerTrend.png
Attachment 2: CARMSweep.png
CARMSweep.png
Attachment 3: CM-AO-Loop-SB1.png
CM-AO-Loop-SB1.png
  11063   Wed Feb 25 04:21:58 2015 ericqUpdateCDSSome model updates

I changed the suspension library block to acquire the SUS_[optic]_LSC_OUT channels at 16k for sensing matrix investigations. We could save the FB some load by disabling these and oplev channels in the mode cleaner optic suspensions. 

I removed nonexistant PDs from c1cal, to try and speed it up from its constantly overflowing state. It's still pretty bad, but under 60us most of the time. 

I also cleaned out the unused IPCs for simulated plant stuff from c1scx and c1sus, to get rid of red blinkeys. 

  10499   Fri Sep 12 03:49:57 2014 ericqUpdateLSCSome more PRFPMI efforts

 Since DRMI didn't get fully commissioned, I tried my hand at PRFPMI locking with the newly improved ALS performance. 

ALS seemed reliable, I think my main limiting factor was the PRMI locking. We should set up a restore script for PRFPMI that is a superset of the ALS CARM DARM, because the current restore script doesn't put all the vertex settings back, so I was trying to lock for a while without the FM boosts on PRCL and MICH, which really hurt my stability. 

Transitioning to SqrtInv works fine; a couple of times I've gotten to arm power of ~10, and have been able to sit there for a while as I set up excitation line comparisons with the CM board's REFLDC, but the PRC would always lose it before I did anything interesting. 

The PRMI locks with a reasonable MICH offset, I found that adding a offset of 20 to 40 makes the AS spot visibly dimmer, and ASDC falls to ~0.05 from .1-.2. 

I looked into adding a boost to the CARM loop after transitioning to sqrtInv, but we only have 30 degrees of margin, and the error signal is already fairly white, so there isn't much to do, really. 

The ALS locking script is sporadically hanging a fair while, as well, which is strange. Otherwise, not much to report...

  15545   Fri Aug 28 23:33:38 2020 gautamUpdateBHDSome more hardware changes

Just a quick set of notes detailing changes so that there are no surprises, more details to follow.

  1. Trek driver has been temporarily placed on top of the KEPCO supply east of the OMC electronics rack. Cabling to it has been laid out as well. I turned both off so neither should be energized now.
  2. A new AI chassis (and associated cabling including the DAC SCSI cable and +/-24 V DC cable) has been installed in 1X2.
  3. To map the DAC range to what the Trek driver wants, I've configured the inverting summing amplifier with gain of 1/8. The offset voltage is set to 5V DC instead of 10V as intended, because the DAC can only drive +/-5 V when connected to a single ended receiving/sending unit.
  4. The LO delivery fiber was re-laid, and the interference between the IFO AS beam and LO beams were restored.

I briefly tried some LO PZT mirror dithering tonight, but didn't see the signal. Needs more troubleshooting.

  16395   Tue Oct 12 17:10:56 2021 AnchalSummaryCDSSome more information

Chris pointed out some information displaying scripts, that show if the DAQ network is working or not. I thought it would be nice to log this information here as well.

controls@fb1:/opt/mx/bin 0$ ./mx_info
MX Version: 1.2.16
MX Build: controls@fb1:/opt/src/mx-1.2.16 Mon Aug 14 11:06:09 PDT 2017
1 Myrinet board installed.
The MX driver is configured to support a maximum of:
    8 endpoints per NIC, 1024 NICs on the network, 32 NICs per host
===================================================================
Instance #0:  364.4 MHz LANai, PCI-E x8, 2 MB SRAM, on NUMA node 0
    Status:        Running, P0: Link Up
    Network:    Ethernet 10G

    MAC Address:    00:60:dd:45:37:86
    Product code:    10G-PCIE-8B-S
    Part number:    09-04228
    Serial number:    423340
    Mapper:        00:60:dd:45:37:86, version = 0x00000000, configured
    Mapped hosts:    3

                                                        ROUTE COUNT
INDEX    MAC ADDRESS     HOST NAME                        P0
-----    -----------     ---------                        ---
   0) 00:60:dd:45:37:86 fb1:0                             1,0
   1) 00:25:90:05:ab:47 c1bhd:0                           1,0
   2) 00:25:90:06:69:c3 c1sus2:0                          1,0

 

controls@c1bhd:~ 1$ /opt/open-mx/bin/omx_info
Open-MX version 1.5.4
 build: root@fb1:/opt/src/open-mx-1.5.4 Tue Aug 15 23:48:03 UTC 2017

Found 1 boards (32 max) supporting 32 endpoints each:
 c1bhd:0 (board #0 name eth1 addr 00:25:90:05:ab:47)
   managed by driver 'igb'

Peer table is ready, mapper is 00:60:dd:45:37:86
================================================
  0) 00:25:90:05:ab:47 c1bhd:0
  1) 00:60:dd:45:37:86 fb1:0
  2) 00:25:90:06:69:c3 c1sus2:0

 

controls@c1sus2:~ 0$ /opt/open-mx/bin/omx_info
Open-MX version 1.5.4
 build: root@fb1:/opt/src/open-mx-1.5.4 Tue Aug 15 23:48:03 UTC 2017

Found 1 boards (32 max) supporting 32 endpoints each:
 c1sus2:0 (board #0 name eth1 addr 00:25:90:06:69:c3)
   managed by driver 'igb'

Peer table is ready, mapper is 00:60:dd:45:37:86
================================================
  0) 00:25:90:06:69:c3 c1sus2:0
  1) 00:60:dd:45:37:86 fb1:0
  2) 00:25:90:05:ab:47 c1bhd:0

These outputs prove that the framebuilder and the FEs are able to see each other in teh DAQ network.


Further, the error that we see when IOP model is started which crashes the mx_stream service on the FE machines (see 40m/16391) :

isendxxx failed with status Remote Endpoint Unreachable

This has been seen earlier when Jamie was troubleshooting the current fb1 in martian network in 40m/11655 in Oct, 2015. Unfortunately, I could not find what Jamie did over a year to fix this issue.

  4314   Thu Feb 17 13:20:06 2011 SureshUpdateVIDEOSome more labels

[Larisa, Kiwamu, Steve and Suresh]

 

  We continued the labeling of video cables. All exiting cables which are going to be used used in the new scheme have been labeled.

We also labeled the cables running from the video mux to the TV monitors in the computer room. Some of these will be removed or reallocated.

We will continue next Wednesday (after the meeting) and will lay cables that are most urgently required. 

 i

  5961   Sat Nov 19 15:58:04 2011 MirkoUpdateIOOSome more looks into OSEM noise

[Den, Mirko]

We looked some more into the the OSEM signals and their coherence to the seismometer signals.

We were able to verify that the coherence OSEM sensor <-> seismometer signal goes down with increasing the OSEM gain. This seems to indicate that the OSEM FB add noise to the distance mirror <-> frame. We injected some noise into the OSEMs to see how the coherence behaves.

MC2 SUSPOS, 0.1Hz - 0.8Hz, 3mins each

Inj. amplitude   Time(UTC) Note

-                     21:35          Free swinging
-                     21:42          Big LF OSEM gain
-                     21:48          Small LF OSEM gain
150                     21:56          -"-
300                     22:00          -"-
900                     22:05          -"-

Free swinging:

FreeSwinging.png

High OSEM gain:


LocalDampingOn.pdf

Low OSEM gain:

LowOsemGain.pdf

LowOsemGainInj150.pdf

Low_LF_OSEM_Gain_Inj300.fig

LowOsemGainInj900.pdf

 

We left the filters that lower the OSEM gain below 0.3Hz on.

Attachment 2: High_Osem_Gain.pdf
High_Osem_Gain.pdf
Attachment 4: Low_LF_OSEM_Gain.fig
  15458   Tue Jul 7 14:06:10 2020 gautamUpdateASCSome more thoughts about ASC

Summary:

I want to be able to run the dither alignment servo with the PRFPMI locked - I've been thinking about what the scheme should be, and I list here some questions I had while thinking about this.

Details:

  1. ITM Oplev DC coupling
    • In the current scheme, I DC couple the ITM Oplev servos after the arms have been aligned to maximize POX/POY transmission.
    • However, looking back at data from when the CARM offset is reduced (e.g. Attachment #1), it looks like the ITMs are being torqued quite a bit during this process (ITMX PIT changes by ~20urad, ITMY YAW by ~10urad in this particular lock attempt). 
    • So the spots are not actually being centered on the test-masses? I guess the spot position on ITMX isn't actually controlled because we have only one actuator (BS) for the XARM beam axis. Is it unexpected that ITMY gets torqued so much? 
    • It is unclear what would happen if the ITM Oplev servos are not DC coupled. I wonder if I'd still be able to reach the high circulating powers and then rely solely on the TR QPDs for the arm cavity angular control.
    • Another possibility is to offload the DC part of the control signal to the optic's slow bias voltage slider, and then turn off the DC coupling. After that, the dither alignment can optimize the cavity alignment.
  2. Dither alignment at high circulating power
    • think that the system should work with the same settings as for the POX/POY locking, with the following changes:
      • Scale the overall loop gain by the arm transmission.
      • Change LSC2ASS matrix element from XARM/YARM ---> DARM.
        Does this sound right?
    • In light of the above, I was thinking that we should introduce a gain scaling field in the c1ass RTCDS model (like we have for the LSC power normalization matrix). Is it worth to go through the somewhat invasive process of model recompilation etc?
    • With the PRFPMI locked, I am wondering if I can simultaneously run the dither alignment loops for all the DoFs. Probably not, especially for MICH, since the actuator is the BS, which is also the actuator for the XARM loop?
Attachment 1: ITM_OL_DCcoupling.png
ITM_OL_DCcoupling.png
  14012   Sun Jun 24 20:02:07 2018 gautamUpdateSUSSome notes about coil driver noise

Summary:

For a series resistance of 4.5 kohm, we are suffering from the noise-gain amplified voltage noise of the Op27 (2*3.2nV/rtHz), and the Johnson noise of the two 1 kohm input and feedback resistances. As a result, the current noise is ~2.7 pA/rtHz, instead of the 1.9 pA/rtHz we expect from just the Johnson noise of the series resistance. For the present EX coil driver configuration of 2.25 kohm, the Op27 voltage noise is actually the dominant noise source. Since we are modeling small amounts (<1dB) of measurable squeezing, such factors are important I think. 

Details:

[Attachment #1] --- Sketch of the fast signal path in the coil driver board, with resistors labelled as in the following LISO model plots. Note that as long as the resistance of the coil itself << the series resistance of the coil driver fast and slow paths, we can just add their individual current noise contributions, hence why I have chosen to model only this section of the overall network.

[Attachment #2] --- Noise breakdown per LISO model with top 5 noises for choice of Rseries = 2.25 kohm. The Johnson noise contributions of Rin and Rf exactly overlap, making the color of the resulting line a bit confusing, due to the unfortunate order of the matplotlib default color cycler. I don't want to make a custom plot, so I am leaving it like this.

[Attachment #3] --- Noise breakdown per LISO model with top 5 noises for choice of Rseries = 4.5 kohm. Same comments about color of trace representing Johnson noise of Rin and Rf. 

Possible mitigation strategies:

  1. Use an OpAmp with lower voltage noise. I will look up some candidates. LT1028/LT1128? LISO library warns of a 400 kHz noise peak though...
  2. Use lower Rin and Rf. The values of these are set by the current driving capability of the immediately preceeding stage, which is the output OpAmp of the De-Whitening board, which I believe is a TLE2027. These can source/sink 50 mA according to the datasheet . So for +/-10V, we could go to 400 ohm Ri and Rf, source/sink a maximum of 25mA, and reduce the Johnson noise contribution by 40%.

Other comments/remarks:

I've chosen to ignore the noise contribution of the high current buffer IC that is inside the feedback loop. Actually, it may be interesting to compare the noise measurements (on the electronics bench) of the circuit as drawn in Attachment #1, without and with the high current buffer, to see if there is any difference.

This study also informs about what level of electronics noise is tolerable from the De-Whitening stage (aim for ~factor of 5 below the Rseries Johnson noise).

Finally, in doing this model, I understand that the observation the voltage noise of the coil driver apparently decreased after increasing the series resistance, as reported in my previous elog. This is due to the network formed by the fast and slow paths (during the measurement, the series resistance in the slow path makes a voltage divider to ground), and is consistent with LISO modeling. If we really want to measure the noise of the fast path alone, we will have to isolate it by removing the series resistance of the slow bias path.


Comment about LISO breakdown plots: for the OpAmp noises, the index "0" corresponds to the Voltage noise, "1" and "2" correspond to the current noise from the "+" and "-" inputs of the OpAmp respectively. In future plots, I'll re-parse these...


Quote:

I will upload more details + photos + data + schematic + LISO model breakdown tomorrow to a DCC page

 

Attachment 1: CoilDriverSchematic.pdf
CoilDriverSchematic.pdf
Attachment 2: D010001_2k_fastOnly_2.25k.pdf
D010001_2k_fastOnly_2.25k.pdf
Attachment 3: D010001_4k_fastOnly_4.5k.pdf
D010001_4k_fastOnly_4.5k.pdf
  15553   Wed Sep 2 00:49:47 2020 gautamUpdateBHDSome notes about homodyne phase

Summary:

Using a heterodyne measurement setup to track both quadratures, I estimated the relative phase fluctuation between the LO field and the interferometer output field. It may be that a single PZT to control the homodyne phase provides insufficient actuation range. I'll also need to think about a good sensing scheme for controlling the homodyne phase, given that it goes through ~3 fringes/sec - I didn't have any success with the double demodulation scheme in my (admittedly limited) trials.

For everything in this elog, the system under study was a simple Michelson (PRM, SRM and ETMs misaligned) locked on the dark fringe.

Details:

​This work was mainly motivated by my observation of rapid fringing on the BHD photodiodes with MICH locked on the dark fringe. The seismic-y appearance of these fringes reminded me that there are two tip-tilt suspensions (SR2, SR3), one SOS (SRM) + various steering optics on seismic stacks (6+ steering mirrors) between the dark port of the beamsplitter and the AS table, where the BHD readout resides. These suspensions modulate the phase of the output field of course. So even though the Michelson phase is tightly controlled by our LSC feedback loop, the field seen by the homodyne readout has additional phase noise due to these optics (this will be a problem for in vacuum BHD too, the question is whether we have sufficient actuator range to compensate).

To get a feel for how much relative phase noise there is between the LO field and the interferometer output field (this is the metric of interest), I decided to set up a heterodyne readout so that I can simultaneously monitor two orthogonal quadratures.

  • The idea is that with the Michelson locked, there is no DC carrier field from the interferometer.
  • The field incident on the DCPD from the interferometer should be dominated by the 55 MHz sideband transmitted to the dark port given the Schnupp asymmetry. 
  • The LO field is picked off before any RF sidebands are added to it (the PMC modulation sideband should be suppressed by the cavity transmission).
  • Therefore, the LO field should be dominantly at the carrier frequency.
  • By placing a broadband RFPD (PDA10CF) in place of one of the DCPDs, I can demodulate the optical beat between this 55 MHz sideband, which shares the same output path to the location of the DCPD as the audio-frequency sidebands on the carrier from the dark Michelson, to estimate the relative phase noise between the LO and IFO output fields.
  • The point is that with the heterodyne readout, I can track the fringe wrapping, which is not an option for the BHD readout with two DCPDs, and uncontrolled LO phase.

Attachment #1 shows the detailed measurement setup. I hijacked the ADC channels normally used by the DCPDs (along with the front-end whitening) to record these time-series.

Attachments #2, #3 shows the results in the time domain. The demodulated signal isn't very strong despite my pre-amplification of the PDA10CF output by a ZFL-500-HLN, but I think for the purposes of this measurement, there is sufficient SNR.

This would suggest that there are pretty huge (~200um) relative phase excursions between the LO and IFO fields. I suppose, over minutes, it is reasonable that the fiber length changes by 100um or so? If true, we'd need some actuator that has much more range to control the homodyne phasethan the single PZT we have available right now. Maybe some kind of thermal actuator on the fiber length? If there is some pre-packaged product available, that'd be best, making one from scratch may be a whole project in itself. Attachment #3 is just a zoomed-in version of the time series, showing the fringing more clearly.

Attachment #4 has the same information as Attachment #2, except it is in the frequency domain. The FFT length was 30 seconds. The features between ~1-3 Hz support my hypothesis that the SR2/SR3 suspensions are a dominant source of relative phase noise between LO and IFO fields at those frequencies. I guess we could infer something about the acoustic pickup in the fibers from the other peaks.

Attachment 1: heterodyneMICH.pdf
heterodyneMICH.pdf
Attachment 2: unwrappedPhase.pdf
unwrappedPhase.pdf
Attachment 3: unwrappedPhase_zoom.pdf
unwrappedPhase_zoom.pdf
Attachment 4: phaseNoisePSD.pdf
phaseNoisePSD.pdf
  10727   Tue Nov 18 22:34:28 2014 JenneUpdateLSCSome other plots from PRFPMI

Quote:

I was able to hold the PRMI on REFL33I&Q, and have ALS CARM and DARM at zero CARM offset.  The arm would "buzz" through the resonance regularly.  I use the word buzz because that's kind of what it sounded like.  This is the noise of the ALS system.

Here is a plot of when the arm powers went pretty high from last night.  CARM and DARM were on ALS comm and diff, PRMI was on REFL33 I&Q.  I set the CARM offset so that I was getting some full arm resonances, and it goes back and forth over the resonance.

The Y axes aren't perfect when I zoom, but the maximum TRX value was 98 in this plot, while the max TRY value was 107. 

MICH_OUT was hitting its digital rails sometimes, and also it looks like PRCL and MICH occasionally lost lock for very brief periods of time. 

Glitch-like events in PRCL_OUT are at the edges of these mini-locklosses. I don't know why POPDC has glitch-y things, but we should see if that's real.

TRXmax98_TRYmax107_CARMdarmOnALS_0carmOffset.png

Okay, I've zoomed in a bit, and have found that, interestingly, I see that both POP22 and POP110 decrease, then increase, then decrease again as we pass through full resonance.  This happens in enough places that I'm pretty sure we're not just going back and forth on one side of the resonance, but that we're actually passing through it.  Q pointed out that maybe our demod phase angle is rotating, so I've made some zoom-in plots to see that that's not a significant effect.  I plot the I and Q phases individually, as well as the total=sqrt(I**2 + Q**2), along with TRY (since the increases and decreases are common to both arms, as seen in the plot above).

For POP 22:

Zoom_with_POP22.png

For POP 110:

Zoom_with_POP110.png

I also plot the MICH and PRCL error signals along with TRY and POP22 total.  You can see that both MICH and PRCL were triggered off about 0.1msec after POP22 total this it's first super low point.  Then, as soon as POP22 becomes large enough, they're triggered back on, which happens about 1.5msec later. (The triggering was actually on POP22I, not POP22tot, but the shapes are the same, and I didn't want to overcrowd my plots).

Zoom_with_ErrSigs.png

I am not sure if we consistently lose sideband signal in the PRC more on one side of the CARM resonance than the other, but at least POP22 and POP110 are both lower on the farther side of this particular peak.  I want to think about this more in relation to the simulations that we've done.  One of the more recent things that I see from Q is from September:  elog 10502, although this is looking specifically at the REFL signals at 3f, not the 2f circulating PRCL power as a function of CARM offset.

  14917   Mon Sep 30 17:04:30 2019 gautamUpdateCDSSome path changes

I made some model changes to c1lsc. To propagate the changes, I tried the usual rtcds make sequence. But I got an error about the model file not being in the path. This is down to my re-organization of the paths to cleanly get everything under git version control. So I had to run the following path modification. Where is this variable set and how can I add the new paths to it? The model compilation, installation and restart all went smooth after I made this change. 

For smooth reboot of the models, I used the reboot script. I had to restart the daqd processes on FB, but now all the CDS indicator lights are green.

export RCG_LIB_PATH=/opt/rtcds/userapps/release/isc/c1/models/isc/:/opt/rtcds/userapps/release/isc/c1/models/cds/:/opt/rtcds/userapps/release/isc/c1/models/sus/:$RCG_LIB_PATH
Quote:

I commenced the procedure of the migration, starting with making a tagged commit of the current running simulink models. A local backup was also made, plus we have the usual chiara-based backup so I think we're in good hands.

  15564   Tue Sep 8 11:49:04 2020 gautamUpdateCDSSome path changes

I edited /diskless/root.jessie/home/controls/.bashrc so that I don't have to keep doing this every time I do a model recompile.

Quote:

Where is this variable set and how can I add the new paths to it? 

export RCG_LIB_PATH=/opt/rtcds/userapps/release/isc/c1/models/isc/:/opt/rtcds/userapps/release/isc/c1/models/cds/:/opt/rtcds/userapps/release/isc/c1/models/sus/:$RCG_LIB_PAT
  2534   Wed Jan 20 20:11:56 2010 AlbertoUpdateABSLSome preliminary results from measuring PRC's transmissivity for an amplitude modulated beam
Here I'm posting a plot showing a set of measurements that I made in the past few days to determine the absolute length of the PRC cavity.
As in my other AbsL measurements, I inject an auxiliary laser beam into the cavity and look at the transmission. In the PRC case, the beam is injected through the dark port and I look at a pick-off of the REFL beam. The aux laser is phase locked to the PSL beam and I control the differential frequency between the two. The PSL and the aux beam interfere and beat at their differential frequency.
 
The attached plot shows the transmitted power as a function of the beat frequency.
 
Fitting the data with the model would let me determine the cavity length. 
By now I can estimate the length of the PRC at about 2.257m, but it's still a rather approximate value.
I can't provide accurate error bars yet. I need to optimize the measurements to get a more precise value.
 
I will go more through the details of the measurement technique and of the fitting function as soon as I have more definitive results.
 
The data points shown here were taken at different times and not always in optimal alignment condition of the PRC. 
To get a good fit of the data I should have fewer frequency segments, taken in a shorter period of time, and in which the power circulating inside of the cavity (ie SPOB) fluctuates as little as possible.
 
For what regards the time needed for a measurements, I already significantly sped up the measurements (i.e. optimizing the scanning and acquisition GPIB scripts, and fixing a couple of problems with the PDH box used in the PLL), and finally now I can scan several tens of MHz in few minutes.
About the frequency segments, so far they have been determined by two factors
1) Tthe frequency generator in the PLL: the Marconi works as a continuous wave generator only in limited ranges. Switching from one to another brakes the wave in a way that causes the PLL to lose lock.
2) Getting below 18 MHz a series of other beats appear on the PLL photodiode and make the PLL lose lock.
 
For the first problem, I'm thinking of using two Marconis and to mix their signals. I would keep one at 300MHz and I would scan the other from 300MHz to 500MHz. In fat, in that frequency range the Marconi has not discontinuity.
 
To try to avoid the other beats at low frequency, I'm not entirely sure about what to do yet. 
 
To be continued...
Attachment 1: 2010-01-19_PRCtransmissivityVsModel.png
2010-01-19_PRCtransmissivityVsModel.png
  2536   Thu Jan 21 10:31:13 2010 KojiUpdateABSLSome preliminary results from measuring PRC's transmissivity for an amplitude modulated beam

Nice and interesting plot.

I suppose slight decrease of the Schnupp asymmetry (in your model) adjusts the discrepancy in the high freq region.
At the same time, it will make the resonance narrower. So you need to put some loss at the recombination (=on the BS)?

...of course these depends on the flatness of the calibration.

  15953   Mon Mar 22 16:29:17 2021 gautamUpdateASCSome prep for AS WFS commissioning
  1. Added rough cts2mW calibration filters to the quadrants, see Attachment #1. The number I used is:
              0.85 A/W         *       500 V/A            *          10 V/V                              *         1638.4 cts/V
    (InGaAs responsivity)     (RF transimpedance)  (IQ demod conversion gain)      (ADC calibration)
  2. Recovered FPMI locking. Once the arms are locked on POX / POY, I lock MICH using AS55_Q as a sensor and BS as an actuator with ~80 Hz UGF.
  3. Phased the digital demod phases such that while driving a sine wave in ETMX PIT, I saw it show up only in the "I" quadrant signals, see Attachment #2.

The idea is to use the FPMI config, which is more easily accessed than the PRFPMI, to set up some tests, measure some TFs etc, before trying to commission the more complicated optomechanical system.

Attachment 1: AS_WFS_head.png
AS_WFS_head.png
Attachment 2: WFSquads.pdf
WFSquads.pdf
  15273   Fri Mar 13 00:32:38 2020 gautamUpdateLSCSome progress

Finally, some RF only CARM, see Attachment #1. During this time, DARM was also on a blend of IR and ALS control, but I couldn't turn the ALS path off in ~4-5 attempts tonight (mostly me pressing a wrong button). Attachment #2 shows the CARM OLTF, with ~2kHz UGF - for now, I didn't bother turning any boosts on. PRCL and MICH are still on 3f signals.

The recycling gain is ~7-8 (so losses >200ppm), but there may be some offset in some loop. I'll look at REFL DC tomorrow.

Can we please make an effort to keep the IFO in this state for the next week or two
- it really helped tonight I didn't have to spend 2 hours fixing some random stuff and could focus on the task at hand.

Attachment 1: RFonly_CARM.png
RFonly_CARM.png
Attachment 2: CARMTF.pdf
CARMTF.pdf
  2001   Fri Sep 25 16:10:17 2009 JenneUpdateAdaptive FilteringSome progress on OAF, but more still to be done

[Jenne, Sanjit]

It seems now that we are able to get the OAF system to do a pretty good job of approximating the MC_L signal, but we can't get it to actually do any subtracting.  I think that we're not correctly setting the phase delay between the witness and the MC_L channels or something (I'm not sure though why we get a good filter match if the delay is set incorrectly, but we do get a good filter match for very different delay settings: 1, 5, 100, 1000 all seem to do equally well at adjusting the filter to match MC_L). 

The Matt Evans document in elog 395 suggests measuring the phase at the Nyquist frequency, and calculating the appropriate delay from that.  The sticking point with this is that we can't get test points for any channel which starts with C1:ASS.  I've emailed Alex to see what he can do about this.  Elog 1982 has a few words about how we're perhaps using a different awgtpman on the ass machine than we used to, which may be part of the problem. 

The golden plan, which in my head will work perfectly, is as follows: Alex will fix the testpoint problem, then Sanjit and I will be able to measure the phase between our OAF signal and the incoming MC_L signal, we will be able to match them as prescribed in the Matt Evans document, and then suddenly the Adaptive Filtering system will do some actual subtracting!

The plot below shows the Reference MC_L without any OAF system (black), the output of the OAF (green), and the 'reduced' MC_L (red).  As you can see, the green trace is doing a pretty good job of matching the black one, but the red trace isn't getting reduced at all.

Attachment 1: OAF_Running_25Sept2009.jpg
OAF_Running_25Sept2009.jpg
  3985   Wed Nov 24 18:11:26 2010 JenneUpdatePEMSome progress on getting PEM channels

I have made a little bit of progress on the PEM channels.  I have begun writing up detailed instructions in the DAQ Wiki page on how to add a channel to the new DAQ system.  I have followed those instructions thus far, and can see my channels in the .ini file (and in the daqconfig gui thing), but I don't have any channels in Dataviewer or DTT. 

There are some tricky "gotchas" involved in creating new models and channels.  Some examples include:  No use of the characters "DUMMY" in any channel name.  The makefile is specifically hardcoded to fail if that string of characters is used.  Also, you must have at least 2 filter banks in every model.  Why? No one knows.  You just do.  The model won't compile unless you have 2 or more filter banks. 

My efforts today included ~3 reboots of the frame builder, and ~2 reboots of c1sus.  When Kiwamu and I rebooted c1sus, we burt restored to some time in the last 24 hrs.  Some of the SUS filters on some of the optics were not set correctly (things like the bounce roll filter), so we turned all of them on, and reset all of the input and output matricies to be the correct combination of +1 and -1's to make Pit, Pos and Yaw.  The tuning seems to happen now-a-days in the gains for each DOF, and the gains were set correctly by the burt restore for every optic except PRM.  We made some educated guesses for what the gains should be based on the other optics, and PRM is damping pretty well (these guesses included reducing the SIDE gain by ~10 from the BS SIDE value, since the analog gain of the PRM SIDE sensor is much higher than others).  We'll have to fine tune these gains using some Yuta-developed method soon.  Or find a burt snapshot that had some non-unity values in there.

  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?

  9827   Thu Apr 17 17:27:32 2014 ericqUpdateLSCSome reference Plots

Jenne made some suggestions for some plots that would be useful on our CARM offset reduction adventures, so I made some with my MIST model. 

First, here's a plot showing the transfer function of CARM to TRX, with logarithmically spaced offsets out to 3nm. While not a control signal, it shows us where the optical plant resonance stuff is happening. The peaks in this TF correspond to peaks in REFL11, REFL55, AS11, etc., as in the close-to-resonance TFs in ELOG 9785

carm2TRX.pdf

[more to come, had a MATLAB issue]

 

Attachment 2: carmSignalLevels.pdf
carmSignalLevels.pdf
  5409   Wed Sep 14 20:30:36 2011 ranaUpdateSUSSome screens are still bad

I've found that a few of the screens still have Whited-Out fields due to naming changes (OL SUM and ALS-> TM OFFSET). I attach a screen shot of it.

The OL screens have the wrong SUM names and the IFO ALIGN screen is pointing to the wrong SUS screens.

Untitled.png

  5439   Fri Sep 16 17:46:13 2011 kiwamuUpdateSUSSome screens fixed

The bad medm screens have been fixed. There are no blank fields and all the links are correct.

Quote from #5409

I've found that a few of the screens still have Whited-Out fields due to naming changes (OL SUM and ALS-> TM OFFSET). I attach a screen shot of it.

The OL screens have the wrong SUM names and the IFO ALIGN screen is pointing to the wrong SUS screens.

 

ELOG V3.1.3-