40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 277 of 335  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Category Subject
  2930   Fri May 14 08:18:46 2010 steveUpdateGreen LockingReflection from ETM and ITM !

I stopped AWG  1 Hz drive to ITMYs. ITMXe was also driven or oscillating. ITMXe damping was off, so I turned it on. It did not effect it's oscillation

Attachment 1: itmx1hzos.jpg
itmx1hzos.jpg
  2929   Fri May 14 03:30:45 2010 KojiSummaryIOOMC table leveled

Thanks Zach.This was a great job.

It was not mentioned but: was the Faraday clamped down on the table?

 

  2928   Thu May 13 23:59:46 2010 ZachSummaryIOOMC table leveled

 After the recent removal of the old IMMT and the relocation of the Faraday isolator, the MC table was tilted a bit (southward and slightly westward---as of when I opened the chamber this afternoon). I re-leveled it by putting an extra two rectangular ballast blocks on the stack that was already hanging off the NNE edge of the table (there are a total of 4 in the stack now). I also screwed down the circular block that Koji and I put between the Faraday and SM1 on Tuesday, and re-mounted the two wire harness towers onto the table.

Needless to say, this threw the MC way out of alignment. I spent the rest of the afternoon reacquiring alignment and getting it to lock robustly. Here is a summary:

  • I adjusted MC3 until I got the 2nd, 3rd+ pass beams to overlap with the input beam between MC1&3, then I adjusted MC2&1 semi-methodically until I got something flashing at the transmitted end. This took some time.
  • I went back into the control room, engaged the loops and acquired lock on the TEM00 mode, whereupon I found that the beam spot was WAY off center on MC2 (due to my meddling with all the mirrors to get resonance flashes). I began using the MC2_spot_up (etc) scripts we wrote the other day to re-center it.
  • After a few iterations, the lock became weak, and eventually gave out. This is because the REFL beam was falling off the RFPD (and being clipped by the iris on the AP table), so I moved the iris and re-centered the beam on the diode.
  • With that, I was able to get the MC2 spot more or less centered, but then I noticed that---though the lock was clearly strong as evidenced both by the REFL power dip and visually via the camera on MC2---it looked like crap on the CCD. It seemed like there was some higher order mode structure sloshing around on top of the 00 spot, which didn't make any sense, until I realized that it was just a diffraction pattern from the TRANS beam getting clipped somewhere on the way out of the vacuum system.
  • I went back to the AP table, where I noticed that the TRANS beam was hitting near the edges of several of the mirrors on the way back to the PSL table, including the first one out of the viewport, so I turned IM4 to center the beam on this mirror, then proceeded to center the beam on each mirror downstream and then onto the CCD.
  • After getting a clear picture of the transmission on the CCD, centering the spot even better on MC2, then fine-tuning MC2&3 to strengthen the lock, I went back to the MC table to check that the transmitted beam was still passing through the center of the Faraday, which, by none other than an act of God, it was.
  • Having done the necessary work in the tank, I ran the A2L_MC2 script to fine-tune the centering of the spot on MC2. It needed a couple steps up and to the side, but after that the actuator gains for pitch and yaw were both balanced again to within ~2%, which is only slightly above the measurement error. We will probably need to adjust this continually, especially during the upgrade, so I didn't bother with getting it better than that.

After that, I shut off the loops, blocked the beam, and put the light doors back on the tanks. Then I went to the parking lot, then I got in my car, etc, etc, etc.

  2927   Thu May 13 15:19:44 2010 josephbUpdateCDSTrying to get lsc.mdl and lsp.mdl working

I had a chat with Alex this morning and discovered that the dcu_ids 13,14,15,16 are reserved currently, and should not be used.  I was told 9-12 and 17-26 were fine to use.  I pointed out that we will eventually have more modules than that.  His response was he is currently working on the framebuilder code and "modernizing" it, and that those restrictions will hopefully be lifted in the future although he isn't certain at this time what the real maximum gds_id number is (he was only willing to vouch for up to 26 - although the OMC seems to be currently working and set to 30).

Alex also suggested running an iop module to provide timing (since we are using adcSlave=1 option in the models).  Apparently these are x00.mdl, x01.mdl, x11.mdl files in the /home/control/cds/advLigoRTS/src/epics/simLink/ directory.  I saved x00.mdl as io1.mdl (I didn't want to use io0 as its a pain to differentiate between a zero and 'O'.  This new IOP is using gds_node=1, dcu_id=9.  I modified the approriate files to include it.

I modified /etc/rc.d/rc.local and added io1 to shmem line.  I modified /cvs/cds/caltech/target/fb/daqdrc to use dcu_id 9 as the controller (this is the new iop model dcu_id number).  In that same directory I modifed the file master by adding /cvs/cds/caltech/chans/daq/C1IO1.ini as well as uncommenting tpchn_C1 line.  I modified testpoint.par in /cvs/cds/caltech/target/gds/param to include C-node0, and modified the prognum for lsc and lsp to 0x31001003 and 0x31001005.

So I started the 3 processes with startio1, startlsc, startlsp, then went to the fb directory and started the framebuilder.  However, the model lsc.mdl is still having issues, although lsp and io1 seem to be working.  At this point I just need to track down what fundamentally is different between lsc and lsp and correct it in the lsc model.  I'm hoping its not related to the fact that we actually had a previous lsc front end and there's some legacy stuff getting in the way.  One thing I can test is changing the name and see if that runs.

 

  2926   Thu May 13 05:06:43 2010 ranaUpdate40m Upgrading216 MHz resonance in the POY11 PD killed

 

 This idea was tried before by Dale in the ~1998 generation of PDs. Its OK for damping a resonance, but it has the unfortunate consequence of hurting the dynamic range of the opamp. The 100 Ohm resistor reduces the signal that can be put out to the output without saturating the 4107.

I still recommend that you move the notch away from the input of the 4107. Look at how the double notch solution has been implemented in the WFS heads.

  2925   Wed May 12 23:31:17 2010 AlbertoUpdate40m Upgrading216 MHz resonance in the POY11 PD killed
It turned out that the resonance at 216 MHz in the 11MHz PD that I showed in the elog entry 2902 was casued by an instability of the of the MAX4107 opamap' feedback loop.
As the datasheet of the opamp shows, the close-loop gain has a peak at about 200-250MHz, in presence of even small capacitive loads.
In my case, perhaps either the capacitance of the BNC cables plugged to the RF output of the PD box, or the shunt capacitance of the circuit parts after the opamap (traces and resistors) might have introduced capacitance at the output of the amplifier.
 
LISO had failed in predicting the resonance because it has only ideal transfer functions of the opamps. In particular the open-loop gain of the opamaps in the library is just a function with a simple pole.
 
At RF frequencies the output impedances of the opamp starts having a non-negligible inductance that interacts with the load capacitance, generating a typical LC-circuit resonance.
 
In cases like this, such effect can be mitigated by introducing an "isolating" resistor at the output of the opamp.
 
So I did that and modified the circuit as in this simplified schematic here:
 
POX11.png
 

The choice of 100 Ohm for the isolating resistor was mainly empirical. I started with 10, then 20 and 50 until I got a sufficient suppression of the resonance. Even just 10Ohm suppressed the resonance by several tens of dB.

2010-05-12_POY11_CalibratedOpticalResponse0-500MHz.png

 

In that way the gain of the loop didn't change. Before that, I was also able to kill the resonance by just increasing the loop gain from 10 to 17.  But, I didn't want to increase the closed-loop gain.

One thing that I tried, on Koji's suggestion, was to try to connect the RF output of the PD box to an RF amplifier to see whether shielding the output from the cable capacitance would make the resonance disappear: It did not work.

  2924   Wed May 12 17:10:16 2010 AlbertoUpdate40m UpgradingRF frequency generation box - step 0

I started putting together the components that are coint to go inside the frequency generation box. Here's how it looked like:

DSC_1499_small.JPG

The single component are going to be mounted on a board that is going to sit on the bottom of the box.

I'm thinking whether to mount the components on an isolating board (like they did in GEO), or on an aluminum board.

I emailed Hartmut to know more details about his motivations on making that choice.

  2923   Wed May 12 12:58:26 2010 josephbConfigurationCDSSetup fb to handle lsc, lsp models on megatron

I modified /cvs/cds/caltech/target/fb and changed the line "set controller_dcu=10" to "set controller_dcu=13" (where 13 is the lsc dcu_id number).

I also changed the set gds_server line from having 10 and 11 to 13 and 14 (lsc and lsp).

The file /cvs/cds/caltech/fb/master was modified to use C1LSC.ini and C1LSP.ini, as well as tpchn_C2.par (LSC) and tpchn_C3.par (LSP)

testpoint.par in /cvs/cds/caltech/target/gds/param was modified to use C-node1 and C-node2 (1 less then the gds_node_id for lsc and lsp respectively).

Note all the values of gds_node_id, dcu_id, and so forth are recorded at http://lhocds.ligo-wa.caltech.edu:8000/40m/Electronics/Existing_RCG_DCUID_and_gds_ids

  2922   Wed May 12 12:32:04 2010 josephbConfigurationCDSModified /etc/rc.d/rc.local on megatron

I modified the /etc/rc.d/rc.local file on megatron removing a bunch of the old test module names and added the new lsc and lsp modules, as well as a couple planned suspension models and plants, to shared memory so that they'll work.  Basically I'm trying to move forward into the era of working on the actual model we're going to use in the long term as opposed to continually tweaking "test" models.

The last line in the file is now: /usr/bin/setup_shmem.rtl lsc lsp spy scy spx scx sus sup&

I removed mdp mdc mon mem grc grp aaa tst tmt.

  2921   Wed May 12 12:25:11 2010 KojiUpdateGreen LockingRe: Reflection from ETM and ITM !

??? I still don't understand. What principle are you rely on?

I could not understand why you rotated the HWP to the "minimum" transmission
and then minimized the transmission by rotating the output PBS. What is optimized by this action?

Probably there is some hidden assumption  which I still don't understand.
Something like:
Better transmission gives best isolation, PBS has some leakage transmission
of the S-pol light, and so on.

Tell me what is the principle otherwise I don't accept that this adjustment is "to get a good isolation with the Faraday".

P.S. you could flip the faraday without removing it from the V-shaped mount. This does not roll the Faraday.

Quote:

The procedure you wrote down as a standard is right.   I explain reasons why we didn't do such way. 

For our situation, we can rotate the polarization angle of the incident beam by using a HWP in front of the Faraday.  

This means we don't have to pay attention about the PBS_in because the rotation of either PBS_in or the HWP causes the same effect (i.e. variable transmission ). This is why we didn't carefully check the PBS_in, but did carefully with the HWP.

Normally we should take a maximum transmission according to a instruction paper from OFR, but we figured out it was difficult to find a maximum point. In fact looking at the change of the power with such big incident (~1W) was too hard to track, it only can change 4th significant digit ( corresponds to 1mW accuracy for high power incident ) in the monitor of the Ophir power meter. So we decided to go to a minimum point instead a maximum point, and around a minmum point we could resolve the power with accuracy of less than 1mW.

After obtaining the minimum by rotating the HWP, we adjusted the angle of PBS_out to have a minimum transmission.

And then we was going to flip the Faraday 180 deg for fine tuning, but we didn't. We found that once we remove the Faraday from the mount, the role angle of the Faraday is going to be screwed up because the mount can not control the role angle of the Faraday. This is why we didn't flip it.

Quote:

I could not understand this operation. Can you explain this a bit more?

It sounds different from the standard procedure to adjust the Faraday:

1) Get Max transmittion by rotating PBS_in and PBS_out.

2) Flip the Faraday 180 deg i.e. put the beam from the output port.

3) Rotate PBS_in to have the best isolation.

 

 

 

  2920   Wed May 12 10:33:32 2010 kiwamuUpdateGreen LockingRe: Reflection from ETM and ITM !

The procedure you wrote down as a standard is right.   I explain reasons why we didn't do such way. 

For our situation, we can rotate the polarization angle of the incident beam by using a HWP in front of the Faraday.  

This means we don't have to pay attention about the PBS_in because the rotation of either PBS_in or the HWP causes the same effect (i.e. variable transmission ). This is why we didn't carefully check the PBS_in, but did carefully with the HWP.

Normally we should take a maximum transmission according to a instruction paper from OFR, but we figured out it was difficult to find a maximum point. In fact looking at the change of the power with such big incident (~1W) was too hard to track, it only can change 4th significant digit ( corresponds to 1mW accuracy for high power incident ) in the monitor of the Ophir power meter. So we decided to go to a minimum point instead a maximum point, and around a minmum point we could resolve the power with accuracy of less than 1mW.

After obtaining the minimum by rotating the HWP, we adjusted the angle of PBS_out to have a minimum transmission.

And then we was going to flip the Faraday 180 deg for fine tuning, but we didn't. We found that once we remove the Faraday from the mount, the role angle of the Faraday is going to be screwed up because the mount can not control the role angle of the Faraday. This is why we didn't flip it.

Quote:

I could not understand this operation. Can you explain this a bit more?

It sounds different from the standard procedure to adjust the Faraday:

1) Get Max transmittion by rotating PBS_in and PBS_out.

2) Flip the Faraday 180 deg i.e. put the beam from the output port.

3) Rotate PBS_in to have the best isolation.

 

 

  2919   Wed May 12 09:16:29 2010 steveUpdateGreen LockingReflection from ETM and ITM !

 

 Now I know why Rana was wearing his bright green pants yesterday. It is nice to see the green beam in the 40m IFO again. It calls for celebration!

I stopped AWG 1Hz drive of ITMYs (south-arm) I still see unblocked beams at the ETMYs table. We have plenty of cleaned razor beam traps to be used. Please block Faraday rejects etc

  2918   Wed May 12 03:56:54 2010 KojiUpdateIOOFaraday aligned

Zach and Koji

The old small MMT was removed and wrapped by Al foils.

The steering mirror IM2-IM4 were displaced and aligned.

The Faraday isolator block is moved and aligned.

The MC is realigned and resonatng TEM-00.

Now the MC has slightly miscentered beam on the mirrors owing to change of the stack leveling.
OSEMs are also in a strange state. We should check this later.

  2917   Wed May 12 03:52:54 2010 KojiUpdateGreen LockingReflection from ETM and ITM !

I could not understand this operation. Can you explain this a bit more?

It sounds different from the standard procedure to adjust the Faraday:

1) Get Max transmittion by rotating PBS_in and PBS_out.

2) Flip the Faraday 180 deg i.e. put the beam from the output port.

3) Rotate PBS_in to have the best isolation.

Quote:

* To get a good isolation with the Faraday we at first rotated the polarization of the incident beam so to have a minimum transmission. And then we rotated the output polarizer until the transmission reaches a minimum. Eventually we got the transmission of less than 1mW, so now the Faraday should be working regardless of the polarization angle of the incident beam. As we predicted, the output polaerizer seems to be rotated 45 deg from that of the input.

  2916   Wed May 12 03:42:38 2010 KojiUpdateGreen LockingGreen Laser Beam Profile

Strange. I thought the new result became twice of the first result. i.e. w0=32um or so.

Can you explain why the waist raidus is estimated to be three times of the last one?
Can you explain why the measured radius @~70mm is not 0.8mm, which you told us last time,
but is 0.6mm?

The measurements have been done at the outside of the Rayleigh range.
This means that the waist size is derived from the divergence angle

theta = lambda / (pi w0)

At the beginning you used diameter instead of radius. This means you used twice larger theta to determine w0.
So if that mistake is corrected, the result for w0 should be just twice of the previous wrong fit.

Quote:

 

I recalculated the fits using the radius of the beam instead of the diameter of the beam at 13.5% full-width with the following results:

For the vertical beam profile:

reduced chi^2 = 3.25

x0 = (-86 ± 1)mm

w0 = (46.01 ± 0.38)µm

For the horizontal beam profile:

reduced chi^2 = 2.05

x0 = (-81 ± 1)mm

w0 = (45.50 ± 0.28)µm

 

  2915   Wed May 12 02:35:13 2010 Koji, Rana, KiwamuUpdateGreen LockingReflection from ETM and ITM !

We succeeded in getting the reflected green beam from both ITMY and ETMY.

After we did several things on the end table, we eventually could observe these reflections.

Now the spot size of the reflection from ITMY is still big ( more than 1 cm ), so tomorrow modematching to the 40m cavity is going to be improved by putting mode matching telescopes on right positions.

An important thing we found is that, the beam height of optics which directly guides the beam to the cavity should be 4.5 inch on the end table.

 


(what we did)

* Aidan, Kevin and Kiwamu set the beam to be linearly polarized by rotating a QWP in front of the Innolight. This was done by monitoring the power of the transmitted light from the polarizer attached on the input of the Faraday of 1064 nm. Note that the angle for QWP is 326.4 deg.

* We put some beam damps against the rejected beam from the Faraday

* To get a good isolation with the Faraday we at first rotated the polarization of the incident beam so to have a minimum transmission. And then we rotated the output polarizer until the transmission reaches a minimum. Eventually we got the transmission of less than 1mW, so now the Faraday should be working regardless of the polarization angle of the incident beam. As we predicted, the output polaerizer seems to be rotated 45 deg from that of the input.

* Rana, Koji and Kiwamu aligned the PPKTP crystal to maximize the power of 532 nm.  Now the incident power of 1064 nm is adjusted to 250mW and the output power for 532 nm is 0.77mW. Actually we can increase the laser power by rotating a HWP in front of the Faraday.

* We injected the green beam to the chamber and aligned the beam axis to the ETMY without the modematching lenses, while exciting the horizontal motion of the ETM with f=1Hz from awg. This excitation was very helpful because we could figure out which spot was the reflection from the ETM.

* Once we made the reflected beam going close to the path of the incident beam, we then put the modematching lenses and aligned the steering mirrors and lenses. At this time we could see the reflected beam was successfully kicked away by the Faraday of 532 nm.

* Koji went to ITMY chamber with a walkie-talkie and looked at the spot position. Then he told Rana and Kiwamu to go a right direction with the steering mirrors. At last we could see a green beam from ITM illuminating the ETM cage.

* We excited the ITMY with f=2Hz vertically and aligned the ITM from medm. Also we recovered a video monitor which was abandoned around ETMY chamber so that we could see the spot on the ETM via the monitor. Seeing that monitor we aligned the ITM and we obtained the reclection from the ITM at the end table.

* We also tried to match the mode by moving a lens with f=400mm, but we couldn't obtain a good spot size.

 

  2914   Wed May 12 02:21:56 2010 ranaHowToElectronicsMarconi phase noise measurement setup

Finally got the 3-cornered-hat measurement of the IFRs done. The result is attached.

s12, s23, & s31, are the beat signals between the 3 signal generators.

s1, s2, & s3 are the phase noise of the individual generators made by the following matlab calculation:

%% Do the hat
s1 = sqrt((s12.^2  + s31.^2 - s23.^2) / 2);
s2 = sqrt((s12.^2  + s23.^2 - s31.^2) / 2);
s3 = sqrt((s31.^2  + s23.^2 - s12.^2) / 2);

As you can see, there is now an estimate of the individual noises. We can do better by doing some fitting of the residuals.

The real test will be to replace the noise one here with the good Wenzel oscillator and see how well we can estimate its noise. If the 11 MHz crystals don't show up, I can just try this with the 21.5 MHz one for the PSL.

Attachment 1: pn.png
pn.png
  2913   Tue May 11 18:58:49 2010 ranaHowToElectronicsMarconi phase noise measurement setup

Just a little while ago, at 2330 UTC on 5/11, I swapped the phase noise setup to use another Marconi - this time its the 3rd one from the top beating with the 4th one from the top (2nd from the bottom).

After a little while, I swapped over to beat the 33 w/ the 199. I now have all the measurements. For the measurement of the last pair, I inserted BALUN 1:1 transformers on the outputs of both signal generators'.

This last pair appears to be the quietest of the 3 and also has less lines. The lines are mainly at high frequency and are harmonics of 120 Hz. Probably from the Sorensen switching supplies in the adjacent rack.

I double checked that the 10 MHz sync cable was NOT plugged in to any of these during this and that the front panel menu was set to use the internal frequency standard. In the closed loop case, the beat frequency between the 33/199 pair changes by less than ~0.01 Hz over minutes (as measured by calibrating the control signal).

 

Attachment 1: Untitled.png
Untitled.png
  2912   Tue May 11 17:02:43 2010 KevinUpdateGreen LockingGreen Laser Beam Profile

 

Quote:

Hey, what a quick work!

But, wait...

1) The radius of the beam was measured by the razor blade.

2) The diameter of the beam (13.5% full-width) at each point was measured by Beam Scan. The one at z=~7cm was consistent with 1)

3) The data 2) was fitted by a function w = sqrt(w0^2+lambda^2*(x-x0)^2/(pi*w0)^2). This is defined for the radius, isn't it?

So the fitting must be recalculated with correct radius.
Make sure that you always use radius and write with a explicit word "radius" in the record.

I recalculated the fits using the radius of the beam instead of the diameter of the beam at 13.5% full-width with the following results:

For the vertical beam profile:

reduced chi^2 = 3.25

x0 = (-86 ± 1)mm

w0 = (46.01 ± 0.38)µm

For the horizontal beam profile:

reduced chi^2 = 2.05

x0 = (-81 ± 1)mm

w0 = (45.50 ± 0.28)µm

Attachment 1: vbp.jpg
vbp.jpg
Attachment 2: vbp_residuals.jpg
vbp_residuals.jpg
Attachment 3: hbp.jpg
hbp.jpg
Attachment 4: hbp_residuals.jpg
hbp_residuals.jpg
  2911   Tue May 11 16:38:16 2010 josephb,rana,rolfUpdateCDSCDS questions and thoughts

1) What is c1asc doing?  What is ascaux used for?  What are the cables labeled "C1:ASC_QPD" in the 1X2 rack really going to?

2) Put the 4600 machine (megatron) in the 1Y3 (away from the analog electronics)  This can be used as an OAF/IO machine.  We need a dolphin fiber link from this machine to the IO chassis which will presumably be in 1Y1, 1Y2 (we do not currently have this fiber at the 40m, although I think Rolf said something about having one).

3) Merge the PSL and IOOVME crates in 1Y1/1Y2 to make room for the IO chassis.

4) Put the LSC and SUS machines into 1Y4 and/or 1Y5 along with the SUS IO chassis.  The dolphin switch would also go here.

5) Figure out space in 1X3 for the LSC chassis.  Most likely option is pulling asc or ascaux stuff, assuming its not really being used.

6) Are we going to move the OMC computer out from under the beam tube and into an actual rack?  If so, where?

 

Rolf will likely be back Friday, when we aim to start working on the "New" Y end and possibly the 1X3 rack for the LSC chassis.

 

  2910   Tue May 11 14:39:17 2010 AidanUpdateGreen LockingGreen Laser Beam Profile

 

 Here's a photo of the set-up used. The beam profile is measured relative to the f=-100mm lens.

Attachment 1: P5110057_beams.jpg
P5110057_beams.jpg
  2909   Mon May 10 22:25:03 2010 KojiUpdateGreen LockingGreen Laser Beam Profile

Hey, what a quick work!

But, wait...

1) The radius of the beam was measured by the razor blade.

2) The diameter of the beam (13.5% full-width) at each point was measured by Beam Scan. The one at z=~7cm was consistent with 1)

3) The data 2) was fitted by a function w = sqrt(w0^2+lambda^2*(x-x0)^2/(pi*w0)^2). This is defined for the radius, isn't it?

So the fitting must be recalculated with correct radius.
Make sure that you always use radius and write with a explicit word "radius" in the record.

Quote:

Kiwamu and Kevin measured the beam profile of the green laser by the south arm ETM.

The following measurements were made with 1.984A injection current and 39.65°C laser crystal temperature.

 

Two vertical scans (one up and one down) were taken with a razor blocking light entering a photodiode with the razor 7.2cm from the center of the lens. This data was fit to

b + a*erf(sqrt(2)*(x-x0)/w) with the following results:

scan down: w = (0.908 ± 0.030)mm  chi^2 = 3.8

scan up:      w = (0.853 ± 0.025)mm   chi^2 = 2.9

giving a weighted value of w = (0.876 ± 0.019)mm at this distance.

 

The beam widths for the profile fits were measured with the beam scanner. The widths are measured as the full width at 13.5% of the maximum. Each measurement was averaged over 100 samples. The distance is measured from the back of the lens mount to the front face of the beam scanner.

distance (cm) vertical w (µm) horizontal w (µm)
3.2 ± 0.1 1231 ± 8 1186 ± 7
4.7 ± 0.1 1400 ± 4 1363 ± 6
7.4 ± 0.1 1656 ± 5 1625 ± 9
9.6 ± 0.1 1910 ± 10 1863 ± 9
12.5 ± 0.1 2197 ± 8 2176 ± 8
14.6 ± 0.1 2450 ± 12 2416 ± 10
17.5 ± 0.1 2717 ± 12 2694 ± 14
20.0 ± 0.1 2973 ± 16 2959 ± 8
22.4 ± 0.1 3234 ± 12 3193 ± 14

This data was fit to w = sqrt(w0^2+lambda^2*(x-x0)^2/(pi*w0)^2) with lambda = 532nm with the following results:

For the vertical beam profile:

reduced chi^2 = 3.29

x0 = (-87 ± 1)mm

w0 = (16.30 ± 0.14)µm

For the horizontal beam profile:

reduced chi^2 = 2.01

x0 = (-82 ± 1)mm

w0 = (16.12 ± 0.10)µm

 

  2908   Mon May 10 20:33:29 2010 KojiSummaryCDSFinished

This IPC stuff looks really a nice improvement of CDS.

Please just maintain the wiki updated so that we can keep the latest procedures and scripts to build the models.

Quote:

So I finished writing a script which takes an .ipc file (the one which defines channel names and numbers for use with the RCG code generator),  parses it, checks for duplicate channel names and ipcNums, and then parses and .mdl file looking for channel names, and outputs a new .ipc file with all the new channels added (without modifying existing channels). 

The script is written in python, and for the moment can be found in /home/controls/advLigoRTS/src/epics/simLink/parse_mdl.py

I still need to add all the nice command line interface stuff, but the basic core works.   And already found an error in my previous .ipc file, where I used the channel number 21 twice, apparently.

Right now its hard coded to read in C1.ipc and spy.mdl, and outputs to H1.ipc, but I should have that fixed tonight.

 

  2907   Mon May 10 20:03:22 2010 KevinUpdateGreen LockingGreen Laser Beam Profile

Kiwamu and Kevin measured the beam profile of the green laser by the south arm ETM.

The following measurements were made with 1.984A injection current and 39.65°C laser crystal temperature.

 

Two vertical scans (one up and one down) were taken with a razor blocking light entering a photodiode with the razor 7.2cm from the center of the lens. This data was fit to

b + a*erf(sqrt(2)*(x-x0)/w) with the following results:

scan down: w = (0.908 ± 0.030)mm  chi^2 = 3.8

scan up:      w = (0.853 ± 0.025)mm   chi^2 = 2.9

giving a weighted value of w = (0.876 ± 0.019)mm at this distance.

 

The beam widths for the profile fits were measured with the beam scanner. The widths are measured as the full width at 13.5% of the maximum. Each measurement was averaged over 100 samples. The distance is measured from the back of the lens mount to the front face of the beam scanner.

distance (cm) vertical w (µm) horizontal w (µm)
3.2 ± 0.1 1231 ± 8 1186 ± 7
4.7 ± 0.1 1400 ± 4 1363 ± 6
7.4 ± 0.1 1656 ± 5 1625 ± 9
9.6 ± 0.1 1910 ± 10 1863 ± 9
12.5 ± 0.1 2197 ± 8 2176 ± 8
14.6 ± 0.1 2450 ± 12 2416 ± 10
17.5 ± 0.1 2717 ± 12 2694 ± 14
20.0 ± 0.1 2973 ± 16 2959 ± 8
22.4 ± 0.1 3234 ± 12 3193 ± 14

This data was fit to w = sqrt(w0^2+lambda^2*(x-x0)^2/(pi*w0)^2) with lambda = 532nm with the following results:

For the vertical beam profile:

reduced chi^2 = 3.29

x0 = (-87   ± 1)    mm

w0 = (16.30 ± 0.14) µm

For the horizontal beam profile:

reduced chi^2 = 2.01

x0 = (-82   ± 1)    mm

w0 = (16.12 ± 0.10) µm

Note: These fits were done with the beam diameter instead of the beam radius. The correct fits to the beam radius are here: http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/2912

Attachment 1: vbp.jpg
vbp.jpg
Attachment 2: vbp_residuals.jpg
vbp_residuals.jpg
Attachment 3: hbp.jpg
hbp.jpg
Attachment 4: hbp_residuals.jpg
hbp_residuals.jpg
  2906   Mon May 10 19:29:33 2010 AlbertoHowToElectronicsNew Focus 1811 PD calibrated against New Focus 1611 PD
I measured the output impedance of the New Focus 1611 PD (the 1GHz one) and it is 50 Ohm for both the DC and the AC output. It turns out that the transimpedance values listed on the datasheet are the following:
T1611_dc = 1e4 V/A (1MOhm referred)
T1611_ac = 700 V/A (50 Ohm)
The listed transimpedances for the 1811 PD (the 125 MHz PD) are the following:
T_dc = 1e3 V/A (??)
T1811_ac = 4e4 V/A (50 Ohm)
I measured the output impedances of the 1811 and they are: 50 Ohm for the AC output, ~10 Ohm for the DC output.
It's not clear which input impedance the DC transimpedance should be intended referred to.
So I measured the transimpedance of the 1811 using the 1611 as a (trusted) reference. It turns out that for the AC transimpedance to match the listed value, the DC transimpedance has to be the following:
T1811_dc = 1.7e3 V/A (1MOhm)
  2905   Mon May 10 19:09:45 2010 ranaUpdateElectronicsUnexpected oscilaltionin the POY11 PD

Quote:

Where did you get the 55nH based notch from? I don't remember anything like that from the other LSC PD schematics. This is certainly a bad idea. You should remove it and put the notch back over by the other notch.

 Why is it a bad idea?

You mean putting both the 2-omega and the 55MHz notches next to each other right after the photodiode?

  2904   Mon May 10 18:56:53 2010 ranaUpdateElectronicsUnexpected oscilaltionin the POY11 PD

Where did you get the 55nH based notch from? I don't remember anything like that from the other LSC PD schematics. This is certainly a bad idea. You should remove it and put the notch back over by the other notch.

  2903   Mon May 10 17:47:16 2010 josephbSummaryCDSFinished

So I finished writing a script which takes an .ipc file (the one which defines channel names and numbers for use with the RCG code generator),  parses it, checks for duplicate channel names and ipcNums, and then parses and .mdl file looking for channel names, and outputs a new .ipc file with all the new channels added (without modifying existing channels). 

The script is written in python, and for the moment can be found in /home/controls/advLigoRTS/src/epics/simLink/parse_mdl.py

I still need to add all the nice command line interface stuff, but the basic core works.   And already found an error in my previous .ipc file, where I used the channel number 21 twice, apparently.

Right now its hard coded to read in C1.ipc and spy.mdl, and outputs to H1.ipc, but I should have that fixed tonight.

  2902   Mon May 10 16:59:35 2010 AlbertoUpdate40m UpgradingUnexpected oscilaltionin the POY11 PD

The measured transimpedance of the latest POY11 PD matches my model very well up to 100 MHz. But at about ~216MHz I have a resonance that I can't really explain.

2010-05-10_POY11_CalibratedOpticalResponse0-500MHz.png

 

 The following is a simplified illustration of the resonant circuit:

POX11.png

 

Perhaps my model misses that resonance because it doesn't include stray capacitances.

While I was tinkering with it, i noticed a couple of things:

- the frequency of that  oscillation changes by grasping with finger the last inductor of the circuit (the 55n above); that is adding inductance

- the RF probe of the scope clearly shows me the oscillation only after the 0.1u series capacitor

- adding a small capacitor in parallel to the feedback resistor of the output amplifier increases the frequency of the oscilaltion

  2901   Sun May 9 20:02:23 2010 ranaConfigurationSUSSUS filters deleted again to reduce CPU load on c1susvme2 again

On Friday, I deleted a bunch of filters from the c1susvme2 optics' screens (MC1,2,3 + SRM) so as to reduce the CPU load and keep it from going bonkers.

This first plot shows the CPU trend over the last 40 days and 40 nights. As you can see the CPU_LOAD has dropped by 1 us since I did the deleting.

40.png400.png

In the second plot (on the right) you can see the same trend but over 400 days and nights. Of course, we hope that we throw this away soon, but until then it will be nice to have the suspensions be working more often.

  2900   Sat May 8 03:09:15 2010 KojiUpdateIOOSteering around MC

After the MZ-removal work:

- I found that the input steering (IM1) was right handed. This was different from the CAD layout. This was the main reason why the MC trans was kicked by the mount.
- Removed the mount from the post and converted it to a keft handed.
- Align IM1 so that we can get TEM00 lock. Align IM1 further.

- After the IM1 was optimized for the TEM00, move the periscope mirrors to have best alignment.

- Checked the beam spot positions. They looks quite good (MC2 is not the matter now).

C1:SUS-MC1_ULPIT_GAIN = 0.998053
C1:SUS-MC1_ULYAW_GAIN = 0.992942
C1:SUS-MC2_ULPIT_GAIN = 1.00856
C1:SUS-MC2_ULYAW_GAIN = 1.04443
C1:SUS-MC3_ULPIT_GAIN = 0.99868
C1:SUS-MC3_ULYAW_GAIN = 1.00041

  2899   Sat May 8 02:38:08 2010 KojiSummaryIOOMC incident power

As per Steve's request I checked the MC incident power as a function of time.

The output is negative: the lower voltage, the higher power.

Before I put the attenuator the incident power was 1.1W. It appear as -5V.

Now the output is -0.1V. This corresponds to 22mW.

 

Attachment 1: MC_input.png
MC_input.png
  2898   Fri May 7 21:55:59 2010 kiwamuUpdatePSLremove Mach-Zehnder

[Koji, Kiwamu]

The Mach-Zehnder on the PSL table was removed.

A path for 166 MHz modulation in the Mach-Zehnder (MZ) was completely removed, the setup for another path remains the same as before.

Also the photo detector and the CCD for the PMC transmittion were moved to behind the PZT mirror of PMC. 

 


Before removing them, we put an aperture in front of the PD for MC REFL so that we can recover the alignment toward MC by using the aperture.

After the removal we tried to re-align the EOM which imposes the sideband of 29MHz for MC.

We eventually got good alignment of 97% transmissivity at the EOM ( the power of the incident beam is 1.193W and trans was 1.160W )

And then we aligned the beam going to MC by guiding the reflected beam to the aperture we put. This was done by using the steering mirrors on the periscope on the corner of the PSL table.

Now MC got locked and is successfully resonating with TEM00.

Attachment 1: NO_MachZehnder_s.jpg
NO_MachZehnder_s.jpg
  2897   Fri May 7 19:02:27 2010 ranaUpdate40m UpgradingNew improved design for the 11MHz photodiode

To measure the width of a resonance, the standard method is to state the center frequency and the Q. Use the definition of Q from the Wikipedia.

As far as how much phase is OK, you should use the method that we discussed - think about the full closed loop system and try to write down how many things are effected by there being a phase slope around the modulation frequency. You should be able to calculate how this effects the error signal, noise, the loop shape, etc. Then consider what this RFPD will be used for and come up with some requirements.

  2896   Fri May 7 18:18:02 2010 AlbertoUpdate40m UpgradingNew improved design for the 11MHz photodiode

Quote:

How much is the width?

Quote:

 This should be better. It should also have larger resonance width.

 

 The transfer function phase drops by 180 degrees in about 2MHz. Is that a good way to measure the width?

  2895   Fri May 7 14:51:04 2010 josephbUpdateCDSWorking on meta .mdl file scripts

I'm currently working on a set of scripts which will be able to parse a "template" mdl file, replacing certain key words, with other key words, and save it to a new .mdl file.

For example  you pass it the "template" file of scx.mdl file (suspension controller ETMX), and the keyword ETMX, followed by an output list of scy.mdl ETMY,  bs.mdl BS, itmx.mdl  ITMX, itmy.mdl ITMY, prm.mdl PRM, srm.mdl SRM.  It produces these new files, with the keyword replaced, and a few other minor tweaks to get the new file to work (gds_node, specific_cpu, etc).  You can then do a couple of copy paste actions to produce a combined sus.mdl file with all the BS, ITM, PRM, SRM controls (there might be a way to handle this better so it automatically merges into a single file, but I'd have to do something fancy with the positioning of the modules - something to look into).

I also have plans for a script which gets passed a mdl file, and updates the C1.ipc file, by adding any new channels and incrementing the ipcNum appropriately.  So when you make a change you want to propagate to all the suspensions, you run the two scripts, and have an already up to date copy of memory locations - no additional typing required.

Similar scripts could be written for the DAQ screens as well, so as to have all the suspension screens look the same after changing one set.

  2894   Fri May 7 11:21:49 2010 kojiUpdate40m UpgradingNew improved design for the 11MHz photodiode

How much is the width?

Quote:

 This should be better. It should also have larger resonance width.

 

  2893   Thu May 6 19:57:26 2010 AlbertoUpdate40m UpgradingNew improved design for the 11MHz photodiode

Quote:

After munching analytical models, simulations, measurements of photodiodes I think I got a better grasp of what we want from them, and how to get it. For instance I now know that we need a transimpedance of about 5000 V/A if we want them to be shot noise limited for ~mW of light power.

Adding 2-omega and f1/f2 notch filters complicates the issue, forcing to make trade-offs in the choice of the components (i.e., the Q of the notches)

Here's a better improved design of the 11Mhz PD.

 This should be better. It should also have larger resonance width.

Attachment 1: pox11.pdf
pox11.pdf
  2892   Thu May 6 19:51:22 2010 JenneUpdatePEMNew 'Seismic Spectrum of the 40m'

For reasons unknown, the seismic spectra posted above Rosalba has been wrong since ~January when it was first posted.  The noise that we were claiming was waaaay lower than is really possible.

Rana and I checked the calibrations, and the numbers in DTT for the Ranger and the Guralp are correct (it's unknown what was being used at the time of the bad plot) - Cal for the Guralp is 3.8e-9 m/s, and for the Ranger is 1.77e-9 m/s.

Something is funny with the accelerometer calibration.  Hopefully Kevin's investigation will sort it out.  Their calibration used to be 1.2e-7 m/s^2 , but it was changed to be 7e-7 m/s^2 to match the noise level of the accelerometers with the seismometers at ~10Hz. We need to go through the calibration carefully and figure out why this is!

Posted above Rosalba for easy reference, and attached below, is the new seismic spectra.  The black trace is when the Ranger's mass is locked down, and the teal circle markers indicate the Guralp Spec-Sheet Noise Floor.

** Rana says> the y-axis in Jenne's plot is (m/s)/sqrt(Hz). The Guralp has a velocity readout bandwidth of 0.03-40 Hz, so we would have to modify the calibration to make it right in those frequencies. I believe the Ranger cal has the correct poles in it. The huge rise at low frequencies is because of the 1/f noise of the SR560.

Attachment 1: SeisRef_6May2010_AccelCalFudged.png
SeisRef_6May2010_AccelCalFudged.png
  2891   Thu May 6 19:23:54 2010 FrankSummaryComputerssvn problems

i tried to commit something this afternoon and got the following error message:

Command: Commit 
Adding: C:\Caltech\Documents\40m-svn\nodus\frank 
Error: Commit failed (details follow): 
Error: Server sent unexpected return value (405 Method Not Allowed) in response to  
Error: MKCOL request for '/svn/!svn/wrk/d2523f8e-eda2-d847-b8e5-59c020170cec/trunk/frank' 
Finished!:  

anyone had this before? what's wrong?

  2890   Thu May 6 18:43:58 2010 ranaUpdatePEMNoise floor of the Ranger Seismometer

I added a noise model of the SR560 to the LISO opamp.lib. This assumes you're using it in G=100, low-noise mode. The voltage noise is correct, but I had to guess on the current noise because I didn't measure it before. Lame.

This can be compared with the noise that we measure when locking it down...

Attachment 1: ranger.pdf
ranger.pdf
  2889   Thu May 6 18:25:20 2010 JenneUpdatePEMAcc power supply turned on

The accelerometer power supply / preamp board has been OFF because of exciting new accelerometer measurements.  It's now on, so watch out and make sure to turn it back off before plugging / unplugging accelerometers.

  2888   Thu May 6 17:54:44 2010 Zach Korth -- Committee Oversight (Fun Division)OmnistructureTMIMinutes from the Lab Organization Commitee meeting

Where are we going to put the tiki bar? The ice cream machine? I am disappointed in the details that appear to have been glossed over..

Quote:

Today we met and we finally come up with a lot of cool, clever, brilliant, outstanding ideas to organize the lab.

You can find them on the Wiki page created for the occasion.

http://lhocds.ligo-wa.caltech.edu:8000/40m/40m_Internals/Lab_Organization

Enjoy!

 

  2887   Thu May 6 17:47:01 2010 Alberto, kiwamu, Jc The 3rd (aka The Drigg)OmnistructureTMIMinutes from the Lab Organization Commitee meeting

Today we met and we finally come up with a lot of cool, clever, brilliant, outstanding ideas to organize the lab.

You can find them on the Wiki page created for the occasion.

http://lhocds.ligo-wa.caltech.edu:8000/40m/40m_Internals/Lab_Organization

Enjoy!

  2886   Thu May 6 16:18:37 2010 AlbertoUpdate40m UpgradingNew improved design for the 11MHz photodiode

After munching analytical models, simulations, measurements of photodiodes I think I got a better grasp of what we want from them, and how to get it. For instance I now know that we need a transimpedance of about 5000 V/A if we want them to be shot noise limited for ~mW of light power.

Adding 2-omega and f1/f2 notch filters complicates the issue, forcing to make trade-offs in the choice of the components (i.e., the Q of the notches)

Here's a better improved design of the 11Mhz PD.

Attachment 1: pox11.pdf
pox11.pdf
  2885   Thu May 6 11:34:35 2010 robUpdateCDSlsc.mdl and ifo.mdl to build (with caveats)

Quote:

I got around to actually try building the LSC and IFO models on megatron.  Turns out "ifo" can't be used as a model name and breaks when trying to build it.  Has something to do with the find and replace routines I have a feeling (ifo is used for the C1, H1, etc type replacements throughout the code).  If you change the model name to something like ifa, it builds fine though.  This does mean we need a new name for the ifo model.

Also learned the model likes to have the cdsIPCx memory locations terminated on the inputs if its being used in a input role (I.e. its bringing the channel into the model).  However when the same part is being used in an output role (i.e. its transmitting from the model to some other model), if you terminate the output side, it gives errors when you try to make.

Its using the C1.ipc file (in /cvs/cds/caltech/chans/ipc/) just fine.  If you have missing memory locations in the C1.ipc file (i.e. you forgot to define something) it gives a readable error message at compile time, which is good.  The file seems to be being parsed properly, so the era of writing "0x20fc" for block names is officially over.

 I suggest "ITF" for the model name.

  2884   Thu May 6 01:06:16 2010 KojiUpdateIOOMC spot centering cont'd (Triumph)

Zach and Koji,

We finally aligned the incident beam enough close to the center of the all MC mirrors! Uraaaaah!

MC1H = -0.12mm
MC1V =
-0.13mm
MC2H = -0.15mm

MC2V = +0.14mm
MC3H = -0.14mm
MC3V = -0.11mm

The aperture right before the vacuum window has been adjusted to the beam position. This will  ensure that any misalignment on the PSL table can have the correct angle to the mode cleaner as far as it does resonate to the cavity. (This is effectively true as the small angle change produces the large displacement on the PSL table.)

If we put an aperture at the reflection, it will be perfect.

Now we can remove the MZ setup and realign the beam to the mode cleaner!


 

Method:

- The beam axis rotation has been adjusted by the method that was used yesterday.

Differential: SM2Y and IM1Y

Common: SM2Y only

- We developped scripts to shift the MC2 spot without degrading the alignment.

/cvs/cds/caltech/users/zach/MCalign/MC2_spot/MC2_spot_up
/cvs/cds/caltech/users/zach/MCalign/MC2_spot/MC2_spot_down
/cvs/cds/caltech/users/zach/MCalign/MC2_spot/MC2_spot_left
/cvs/cds/caltech/users/zach/MCalign/MC2_spot/MC2_spot_right

These scripts must be upgraded to the slow servo by the SURF students.

- These are the record of the alignment and the actuator balances

C1:SUS-MC1_PIT_COMM   =  2.4005
C1:SUS-MC1_YAW_COMM   = -4.6246
C1:SUS-MC2_PIT_COMM   =  3.4603
C1:SUS-MC2_YAW_COMM   = -1.302
C1:SUS-MC3_PIT_COMM   = -0.8094
C1:SUS-MC3_YAW_COMM   = -6.7545
C1:SUS-MC1_ULPIT_GAIN =  0.989187
C1:SUS-MC1_ULYAW_GAIN =  0.987766
C1:SUS-MC2_ULPIT_GAIN =  0.985762
C1:SUS-MC2_ULYAW_GAIN =  1.01311
C1:SUS-MC3_ULPIT_GAIN =  0.986771
C1:SUS-MC3_ULYAW_GAIN =  0.990253

  2883   Wed May 5 16:58:21 2010 KojiUpdatePSL2W hooked up to the interlock service

Ben, Steve, and Koji

Ben came to the 40m and hooked up a cable to the main interlock service.
We have tested the interlock and confirmed it's working.

[Now the laser is approved to be used by persons who signed in the SOP.]

The RC, PMC, and MZ were unlocked during the interlock maneuver.
Now they are relocked.

  2882   Wed May 5 16:32:39 2010 AlbertoUpdate40m UpgradingNew REFL55 PD, 11MHz rejection

Here's the (calibrated) transimpedance of the new REFL55 PD.

T(55.3) / T_(11.06) = 93 dB

2010-05-05_REFL55_CalibratedOpticalResponse0-60MHz.png

  2881   Wed May 5 02:37:55 2010 ranaConfigurationPSLRC Temperature Servo Turned OFF temporarily

Quote:

 more detailed instructions needed....

I showed Kiwamu and Alberto how to turn the lights on and off in the PSL. This is why Caltech is such a fine institution: most schools would have TAs delivering this kind of optics instruction.

We've turned off the RC temperature stabilization and the lights will supply the quasi-random heat input to the table and the cavity. Alberto and Kiwamu will be turning the lights on and off at random times.

The attached plot is the spectrum of temperature fluctuations of the room and the vacuum can with no stabilization from this weekend. I think the rolloff above 10 mHz is kind of fake - I had the .SMOO parameter set to 0.99 for both of these channels. I've just now set the .SMOO to 0 for both channels, so we should now see the true ADC or sensor noise level. It should be ~1 mK/rHz.

Attachment 1: Picture_7.png
Picture_7.png
ELOG V3.1.3-