40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
 40m Log, Page 173 of 339 Not logged in
ID Date Author Type Category Subject
4569   Tue Apr 26 22:03:49 2011 ranaUpdateElectronicsPOX_11 debugging

I used the Jenne AM laser to tune up the PD (used to be POX_11 but now is called REFL_11). In addition to the notch at 22 MHz, I have also put in a LC notch at 5*f = 55.3 MHz. The transfer function below shows the RF OUT of the PD v. the drive to the laser. I didn't divide out by the 1811 because its not on the EE bench.

4210   Thu Jan 27 03:24:56 2011 KevinUpdateElectronicsPOY Optical Transfer Function

[Rana and Kevin]

I measured the optical transfer function of POY and fit the data using LISO. The fit can be found at http://lhocds.ligo-wa.caltech.edu:8000/40m/Electronics/POY. POY was missing the RF cage and back cover so I took those parts from AS55 in order to make these measurements.

POY does not have the unwanted oscillations at 225 MHz that POX has. Attachment 1 shows the transfer functions of POX and POY.

To measure the transfer functions, I used a 50/50 beam splitter to send half the light from an AM laser to POY and half the light to a New Focus 1611 reference photodiode. The transfer function for POY was measured as the transfer function of the signal from POY divided by the signal from the 1611. When I was measuring the transfer function for POX, I failed to ensure that the photodiodes were operating linearly. Before making the measurements for POY, I varied the RF power modulating the AM laser and recorded the magnitude of the transfer function at the 11 MHz peak. Attachment 2 shows these values. The measurements for POY were made in the linear region at an RF power of -10 dBm. The measurements for POX were made at 0 dBm and were most likely not in the linear region for POX.

Attachment 1: tf_pox_poy.png
Attachment 2: linearity.png
937   Mon Sep 8 15:38:57 2008 YoichiConfigurationPSLPOY RF amp is back to its original task
I temporarily fixed the busted ZHL-32A RF amplifier's power connector by simply soldering a cable to the internal circuit and pulling the cable out of the box through a hole for the power connector.
So I released the POY RF amplifier from the temporary duty of serving the FSS RF distribution and put it back to the original task,
so that Rob can finally re-start working on the lock acquisition.
Now the temporarily fixed ZHL-32A is sitting next to the IOO rack along with the power supply and a Stanford signal generator.
Please be careful not to topple over the setup when you work around there. They will be there until Peter's Wentzel RF box arrives.
10490   Wed Sep 10 20:24:00 2014 JenneUpdateElectronicsPOY RF cable loose

Sitting down to work on the IFO, I couldn't lock the Yarm.  I looked at the error signal as well as the transmission on Dataviewer, as usual, and saw that the POY error signal was almost non-existant.

Since there was work on the POY table today (Steve removed the oplev test setup, elog 10489 and Q centered the SRM oplev after doing SRMI alignment, no elog yet), I went out to have a look at the table.

There was nothing occluding the POY beam, which I traced back to the edge of the table.  The beam looked nice and round, so I decided that wasn't it.  I jiggled the PD cables, and lo and behold, the POY RF out cable almost came off in my hand it was so loose.  My suspicion is that whomever was the last to put the POY RF out back didn't tighten the cable and then the work today jiggled the cable loose.  I tightened the cable, and by the time I was back to the control room the arm was locked and Koji was already running the alignment scripts.

4370   Wed Mar 2 22:04:22 2011 KevinUpdateElectronicsPOY Shot Noise Measurement

The previous measurement for the shot noise of POY had the dark noise at ~100 nV/rtHz. I redid the measurement and got 26 nV/rtHz for the dark noise. I think that when I made the previous measurement, the spectrum analyzer had automatically added some attenuation to the input that I failed to remove. This added attenuation raised the noise floor of the measurement making the dark noise of POY appear larger than it is.

The updated measurement can be found on the wiki at http://lhocds.ligo-wa.caltech.edu:8000/40m/Electronics/POY.

4242   Thu Feb 3 01:46:54 2011 KevinUpdateElectronicsPOY Shot Noise and Dark Spectrum

[Koji and Kevin]

I measured the shot noise of POY and fit the data to determine the RF transimpedance at 11 MHz and the dark current. The transimpedance is (3.860 +- 0.006) kΩ. I realize that there are not many data points past the dark current but I did not want to take any further data because the light bulb was getting pretty bright. If this is a problem, I can try to redo the measurement using a lens to try to focus more of the light from the bulb onto the photodiode.

I also measured the spectrum and recorded a time series of the RF signal with the light to the photodiode blocked. These measurements do not show any large oscillations like the ones found for POX.

The plots of the measurements are on the wiki at http://lhocds.ligo-wa.caltech.edu:8000/40m/Electronics/POY.

4244   Thu Feb 3 11:13:52 2011 KojiUpdateElectronicsPOY Shot Noise and Dark Spectrum

I wonder why POY11 has the dark noise level of 90nV/rtHz that is 5 times larger than that of POX (18nV/rtHz)
even though the Q are the same (~15) and the transimpedance is better (3.9k instead of 2k).

What cause this high noise level?
What is the expected dark noise level?

 Quote: [Koji and Kevin] I measured the shot noise of POY and fit the data to determine the RF transimpedance at 11 MHz and the dark current. The transimpedance is (3.860 +- 0.006) kΩ. I realize that there are not many data points past the dark current but I did not want to take any further data because the light bulb was getting pretty bright. If this is a problem, I can try to redo the measurement using a lens to try to focus more of the light from the bulb onto the photodiode. I also measured the spectrum and recorded a time series of the RF signal with the light to the photodiode blocked. These measurements do not show any large oscillations like the ones found for POX. The plots of the measurements are on the wiki at http://lhocds.ligo-wa.caltech.edu:8000/40m/Electronics/POY.

10538   Thu Sep 25 11:33:41 2014 JenneUpdateLSCPOY alignment laser

 Quote: I looked at the CAD layout and it seems like we will clearly be clipping POY if we move SRM by 7.5cm. Since POY is not visible at low power, we cannot be sure about the clipping.

I was bad and forgot to elog this yesterday (bad grad student!), but I setup a laser pointer to show us where the POY beam is.

To do this, I removed the tiny mirror that sends the beam to the POY RF PD (so we do not have POY to lock the Yarm right now.  I think Q has successfully been using AS).  The laser pointer goes through 2 temporary steering mirrors, then passes through the place that the tiny mirror usually sits, and then travels along the POY path into the vacuum system.  The idea here is that we should be able to adjust the laser pointer and the temp steering mirrors, and not touch any of the actual POY mirrors, but still get the green beam to go all the way to ITMY.  Yesterday I confirmed that the laser pointer was hitting the in-vac POY pickoff mirror, and today Q and Manasa are doing final adjustment to get the beam all the way to the ITM.

5445   Sat Sep 17 01:53:41 2011 KeikoUpdateLSCPOY and POP beams clipped

Keiko, Paul, Kiwamu

We found that POP beam is clipped by the steering mirrors inside the tank. POY beam is also likely to be clipped inside. Also the hight of POY beam is too high (about 5 cm higher than the normal paths) at the first lens. These imply the input pointing is bad.

4786   Mon Jun 6 02:09:39 2011 ranaUpdateElectronicsPOY11 Rework Nearly Complete

I've finished tuning POY11 and it is now sitting on top of the analyzer waiting for Koji to test its noise.

Notes:

1. R2 has been switched from a 50 -> 110 Ohm R and a (29 Ohm | 47 pF) in parallel to it. This makes the gain of the MAX4107 be ~20 above 100 MHz and ~5 around 11 MHz. The high gain at high frequency makes it stable (squashes the 200 MHz oscillation) and the low gain at low frequency is to prevent saturation (the raw 11 MHz transimpedance is too high).
2. There are two notches: 22.12 MHz and 55.3 MHz.
3. The TEST IN input has been disabled since it wasn't useful.
4. 107 Ohms inserted into between the U11 output and the TSENSE feedthrough. This is to prevent oscillations when driving the long Dsub cable. This needs to be done on all Gold Box RFPDs.
5. R4 -> 50 Ohms.
6. Had trouble tuning this to get the resonance at 11.06 MHz. This turned out to be the parallel inductance coming from L3 (previously 1.45 uH) whereas we needed a total inductance of ~1.6 uH. So I changed L3 to 33 uH to get it to be negligible compared to 1.7 uH at 11 MHz. This needs to be considered for all the 11 MHz diodes.

Attachment 1: 777.png
5441   Fri Sep 16 21:36:25 2011 KeikoUpdateLSCPOY11 and POY55 were added

New channels, POP55 and POY11 are connected to the rack and now available on the data system.

POX11 I is not working. I didn't investigate what was wrong. Please make sure when you come to need POX11.

The orthogonalities of POY11 and POP55 were measured and already adjusted. The results are below:

POY11

ABS = 0.973633

PHASE = 92.086483 [deg]

ezcawrite C1:LSC-POY11_Q_GAIN 1.027081 && ezcawrite C1:LSC-POY11_PHASE_D 92.086483

POP55

ABS =  1.02680579

PHASE =  88.5246 [deg]

ezcawrite C1:LSC-POP55_Q_GAIN 0.973894 && ezcawrite C1:LSC-POP55_PHASE_D 88.524609

5628   Fri Oct 7 11:45:24 2011 KojiSummaryLSCPOY11 installed, 55MHz PD at POY removed

POY11 PD was installed last night. The lock of the Y arm was confirmed with the POY11I signal.

- The DC transimpedance was modified to be 1010V/A as the incident power is tiny.

- The demodulation phase of the roughly adjusted (148deg) to have PDH signal at the I-phase.
The comparison with AS55I signal exhibits that POY11I have ~150 times weaker signal with 45dB whitening.
(In total 25000 times weaker.)

On the way to make POY11 functioning, there were many fixes at the LSC rack...

Details:

- The PD interface cards (power supply for the RFPDs) were checked:
So far the two card at the right hand side were checked.
Desipite the previous entry reported the issues on those boards, they did not show any problem yesterday.
One hypothetical possibility is the enabling switches that is controlled from the old slow epics targets.

- POY55 was removed
This 55MHz PD is supposed to be installed at POP.
The PD, an RF cable, an RF amp, the power supply of the RF amp were removed.

- POY11 was installed
The PD was placed where the 55MHz was placed.
The beam was aligned on the diode using the IR viewer and the digital multimeter.
The power supply cable and the RF cable for POY on the ITMY table were used.
There were an ND filter on the POY beam path. It was removed.

- On the LSC rack
The PD RF was connected to the patch panel at the top of the rack.
There were loose connectors on the patch panel. Some connectors were tightened on the panel.

I found that POY11 and POX11 had I&Q signal reversely connected to the whitening board.
==> These were fixed but
require the orthogonality test again for those channels.

The I phase output of the AS11 demod board had a broken connector.
The onboard SMA has got disintegrated because of too much twist on the connector.
The board was once removed from the rack and the connector was fixed using a heat gun and soldering.

The DC signals were checked. POYDC was not correctly connected. POYDC were correctly connected to the POYDC channel.

- CDS
c1lsc was found with the RFM frozen.
The c1lsc machine was soft-rebooted after stopping all of the RT processes.
Once the RT processes came back, they were all burtrestored.

- PDH locking
Restored Y-arm. Locked it with AS55Q.
Ran ASS alignment for Y-arm. 100cnt 150Hz sinusoidal signal is applied to ETMY
Measured the PSD of AS55Q, POY11I, and POY11Q.
Adjusted the demod phase so that the excitation could be minimized in POY11Q.

15861   Thu Mar 4 10:54:12 2021 Paco, AnchalSummaryLSCPOY11 measurement, tried to lock Green Yend laser

[Paco, Anchal]

- First ran burtgooey as last time.

- Installed pyepics on base environment of donatella

ASS XARM:
- Clicked on ON in the drop down of "! More Scripts" below "! Scripts XARM" in C1ASS.adl
- Clicked on "Freeze Outputs" in the same menu after some time.
- Noticed that the sensing and output matrix of ASS on XARM and YARM look very different. The reason probably is because the YARM outputs have 4 TT1/2 P/Y dof instead of BS P/Y on the XARM. What are these TT1/2?

(Probably, unrelated but MC Unlocked and kept on trying to lock for about 10 minutes attaining the lock eventually.)

Locking XARM:
- From scripts/XARM we ran lockXarm.py from outside any conda environment using python command.
- Weirdly, we see that YARM is locked??? But XARM is not. Maybe this script is old.
- C1:LSC-TRY-OUTPUT went to around 0.75 (units unknown) while C1:LSC-TRX-OUTPUT is fluctuating around 0 only.

POY11 Spectrum measurement when YARM is locked:
- Created our own template as we couldn't find an existing one in users/Templates.
- Template file and data in Attachment 2.
- It is interesting to see most of the noise is in I quadrature with most noise in 10 to 100 Hz.
- Given the ARM is supposed to be much calmer than MC, this noise should be mostly due to the mode cleaner noise.
- We are not sure what units C1:LSC-POY11_I_ERR_DQ have, so Y scale is shown with out units.

Trying to lock Green YEND laser to YARM:
- We opened the Green Y shutter.
- We ensured that when temperature slider og green Y is moved up, the beatnote goes up.
- ARM was POY locked from previous step.
- Ran script scripts/YARM/Lock_ALS_YARM.py from outside any conda environment using python command.
- This locked green laser but unlocked the YARM POY.

Things moving around:
- Last step must have made all the suspension controls unstable.
- We see PRM and SRM QPDs moving a lot.
- Then we did burt restore to /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/burt/autoburt/today/08:19/*.snap to go back to the state before we started changing things today.

[Paco left for vaccine appointment]

- However the unstable state didn't change from restore. I see a lot of movement in ITMX/Y. PRM and BS also now. Movement in WFS1 and MC2T as well.
- I closed PSL shutter as well to hopefully disengage any loops that are still running unstably.
- But at this point, it seems that the optics are just oscillating and need time to come back to rest. Hopefully we din't cause too much harm today :(.

My guess on what happened:

• Us using the Lock_ALS_YARM.py probably created an unstable configuration in LSC matrix and was the start of the issue.
• On seeing PRM fluctuate so much, we thought we should just burst restore everything. But that was a hammer to the problem.
• This hammer probably changed the suspension position values suddenly causing an impulse to all the optics. So everything started oscillating.
• Now MC WFS is waiting for MC to lock before it stablizes the mode cleaner. But MC autolocker is unable to lock because the optics are oscillating. Chicken-egg issue.
• I'm not aware of how manually one can restore the state now. My only known guess is that if we wait for few hours, everything should calm back enough that MC can be locked and WFS servo can be switched on.
Attachment 1: 20210304_POY11_Spectrum_YARMLocked.pdf
Attachment 2: 20210304_POY11_Spectrum_YARMLocked.tar.gz
4787   Mon Jun 6 16:44:34 2011 KojiUpdateElectronicsPOY11 tested

The full characterization of POY11 is found in the PDF.

Resonance at 11.03MHz
Q of 7.6, transimpedance 1.98kOhm
shotnoise intercept current = 0.17mA (i.e. current noise of 7pA/rtHz)

Notch at 21.99MHz
Q of 56.2, transimpedance 35.51 Ohm

Notch at 55.20MHz
Q of 48.5, transimpedance 37.5 Ohm

Attachment 1: POY11_test.pdf
4761   Mon May 23 14:28:23 2011 kiwamuConfigurationLSCPOY55 installed

Last Saturday the POY55 RFPD (see this entry) was installed on the ITMY optical bench for the trial of the DRMI locking.

Since the amount of the light coming into the diode is tiny, the DC monitor showed ~ 3 mV even when the PRC was locked to the carrier.

In order to amplify the tiny RF signal from the photo diode a ZHL amplifier was installed next to the RFPD. The RF amp is sitting on delrin posts for insulation from the table.

4763   Mon May 23 18:16:42 2011 KojiConfigurationLSCPOY55 installed

The DC Transimpedance of POP55 was increased from 50 Ohm to 10010 Ohm. There is the offset of 46mV. This should be cancelled in the CDS.

 Quote: Last Saturday the POY55 RFPD (see this entry) was installed on the ITMY optical bench for the trial of the DRMI locking. Since the amount of the light coming into the diode is tiny, the DC monitor showed ~ 3 mV even when the PRC was locked to the carrier. In order to amplify the tiny RF signal from the photo diode a ZHL amplifier was installed next to the RFPD. The RF amp is sitting on delrin posts for insulation from the table.

4708   Thu May 12 23:50:10 2011 SureshUpdateRF SystemPOY55_Demod board Hardware change completed

The Demod board with S. No. 022 (being used earlier as REFL11) has been modified.  It now has SCLF-65 as its input LP filter on the PD input line and a PQW-2-90 power splitter.  The unit functioning okay (I and Q signals are 90 deg apart.

The loss of Q output was traced to a possible loose solder joint and we now have both the I and Q signals after resoldering all components in the vicinity of U7 (Ref Schematic of D990511)

There is a strong oscillation around 350Hz present on I and Q signals of both REFL55_Demod and POY55_Demod.  Don't know the source.

We have run out of power splitters to continue with the Demod board modification. We do not currently have an AS11_Demod board.  All the others are in place and ready for the I<->Q phase angle measurement.

In summary we now have the following Demod boards in place:

[ REFL11, POY11, REFL55, AS55, POY55, POY22, POY110]_Demod

4737   Wed May 18 07:18:15 2011 SureshUpdateRF SystemPOY55_Demod board Hardware change completed

The ~350 Hz noted in the elog below was traced to an RF modulation of the 11 MHz sideband.  This modulation was set up in the Marconi which is currently supplying the 11 MHz local oscillator signal to the RF source.  lt was used during the MC length study completed last week by Valera and Ryan.  The frequency measured was 322 Hz.

As we do not require this any longer, I have switched off this modulation.

 Quote: The Demod board with S. No. 022 (being used earlier as REFL11) has been modified.  It now has SCLF-65 as its input LP filter on the PD input line and a PQW-2-90 power splitter.  The unit functioning okay (I and Q signals are 90 deg apart. The loss of Q output was traced to a possible loose solder joint and we now have both the I and Q signals after resoldering all components in the vicinity of U7 (Ref Schematic of D990511) There is a strong oscillation around 350Hz present on I and Q signals of both REFL55_Demod and POY55_Demod.  Don't know the source.  We have run out of power splitters to continue with the Demod board modification. We do not currently have an AS11_Demod board.  All the others are in place and ready for the I<->Q phase angle measurement. In summary we now have the following Demod boards in place: [ REFL11, POY11, REFL55, AS55, POY55, POY22, POY110]_Demod

12588   Fri Oct 28 19:13:57 2016 ranaUpdateGeneralPR gain

I don't think the loss of 25 ppm is outrageous. Its just surprisingly good. The SIS model predicted numbers more like 1 ppm / mirror taking into account just the phase map and not the coating defects.

However, we should take into account the lossed in the DRMI to be more accurate: AR coating reflectivities, scatter loss on those surfaces, as well as possible clipping around BS or some other optics.

https://chat.ligo.org/ligo/channels/40m

8197   Thu Feb 28 03:25:27 2013 yutaUpdateLSCPR gain ~ 25 from PRMI carrier lock

[Manasa, Yuta]

We locked PRMI in carrier. Measured power recycling gain was ~25.

Plot:

Here's some plot of PRC intra-cavity powers and MICH,PRCL error signals. As you can see from POPDC, cavity buildup was about 400, which means power recycling gain was ~25. Power recyling gain is fluctuating up to ~45 during lock. We need some gain normalization or something.

Movie:

Here's 30 sec movie of AS, POP, REFL when acquiring PRMI carrier lock. Although there's oscillation when acquiring lock, beam spot motion is less and stable compared with the past(before flipping PR2).

Locking details:
== PRMI carrier ==
MICH: AS55_Q_ERR, AS55_PHASE_R = -12 deg,  MICH_GAIN = -0.1, feedback to ITMX(-1),ITMY(+1)
PRCL: REFL55_I_ERR, REFL55_PHASE_R = 70 deg, PRCL_GAIN = 5, feedback to PRM

Next:
- Better filters and gains for stable lock
- Kakeru method to measure g-factor (see elog around #1434)
- OSA to measure g-factor

8198   Thu Feb 28 03:41:31 2013 KojiUpdateLSCPR gain ~ 25 from PRMI carrier lock

# VERY GOOD! This is how the carrier lock PRMI should look like.

- There is more room to improve the differential ITM alignment to make the dark port more dark, then you will gain more PRG

- The AS spot is definitely clipped.

7931   Wed Jan 23 19:05:16 2013 JenneUpdateLockingPR-flat cavity status - locks!

Status update

I (with help from Q) have redone the POP path on the ITMX table.  1" iris is a little too small, so I took it out.  2" lens moved to be centered on POP beam.  2" Y1 didn't need moving.  Straight refl from the 2" Y1 was aligned on to a PDA10CS (set to 70dB). This PD is blocking the usual POP55 diode.  BS which sends beam to camera was moved to allow room for the new temp DC PD.  Refl from this BS goes to the POP camera, which was moved so that the POP beam takes up most of the camera.  BS that would normally take half of the camera's beam and send it to POP22 (Thorlabs PD) is removed, so no beam to POP22.

Also, I have taken the output of the PDA10CS and hijacked the "POP110" heliax cable.  This was connected to this Thorlabs PD which is used as POP22.  (Kiwamu and I had long-term borrowed the 110 demod board for an AS 110 diode, so the "POP110" heliax was really only serving POP22.) There are yellow labels on the new temp and old regular cables, so we can undo my hack.  Similarly, on the other end of the heliax at the LSC rack, I have taken the heliax's output and sent it to the POPDC input on the whitening board.  Thus, the regular POPDC SMA cable is unplugged, but labeled again with big yellow labels.

In other news - the PR-flat cavity locks!!!

Koji and I coarsely rotated the REFL11 phase such that the signal is predominantly in the I phase.  We set the LSC input matrix to use REFL11I for PRCL, and the output matrix is set to actuate on PRM.  Then we set the gain to -0.005, and it locked!!!!

EDIT:  I turned back on the PRM oplev (after Manasa aligned it and redid the out-of-vac oplev layout a bit), and the motion of the cavity is slightly reduced, although there's still a lot going on.  The cavity is vaguely well aligned, although it's time to go make sure that the beams are still on the REFL and TRANS PDs.  However, it's dinner time.

7934   Wed Jan 23 20:46:46 2013 Zen MasterUpdateLockingPR-flat cavity status - locks!

 Quote: I (with help from Q)

7928   Tue Jan 22 19:53:01 2013 JenneUpdateLockingPR-flat cavity status - not locked

The PR-flat cavity is flashing, although not locked.  I am too hungry to continue right now.

I put the FI_Back camera on a tripod, looking at the back of the Faraday.  The beam that Jamie and I were working with on Friday was clipped going back through the Faraday.  I twiddled the TT2 and PRM pointing such that the beam is retroreflecting, and getting back through the Faraday, and the cavity is still flashing.  I then redid the REFL path on the AS table a little bit.  The beam is currently going to the REFL camera, as well as REFL11 and REFL55.

Some notes about the AS table:  The Y1 separating the main REFL beam from the REFL camera beam was mounted 90 degrees (rotated about the beam's axis) from what it should be.  I fixed it, so that the straight-through beam that goes to the camera is not clipped by the edge of the mount.  The reason (I think) this mirror was mounted backwards is that when mounted correctly, the back of the mount and the knobs interfere with the AS beam path.  I solved this by rotating the first out-of-vac REFL mirror a small amount so that the REFL and AS beams are slightly more separated.

I am not seeing any nice PDH signal on dataviewer, so I went to check the signal path for the PDs.  The 11MHz marconi is on and providing RF, the EOM is plugged in to 11, 55 and 29.5 signals (no aux cavity scan cables are plugged in).  Both of the RF Alberto boxes are on.  I measured the RF output of both REFL11 and REFL55, although after the fact I realized that I was BAD, and had not found a 'scope that lets me change the input impedance to 50 ohms.  BAD grad student.  However, since I have numbers, I will post them, despite their being not quite correct:

284mVpp at 11MHz out of REFL11.  This is -6.9dBm

2mVpp at 55MHz out of REFL55, measured by 'scope

So, I can clearly see the 11MHz on the 'scope, and can see a very noisy, small 55MHz signal on the 'scope.  I need to think over dinner about what level of signal we should be sending to the demod boards, and whether or not I need more power coming out of the RFPDs.  There is a wave plate and PBS before beam goes to any of the REFL PDs, presumably to ensure that none of them get fried when we're at high power.  If I need more signal, I suspect I can rotate the wave plate and let more light go to the diodes.

16555   Fri Jan 7 17:54:13 2022 AnchalUpdateBHDPR2 Sat Amp has a bad channel

[Anchal, Paco]

Yesterday we noticed that one of the ADC channels was overflowing. I checked the signal chain and found that CH3 on PR2 Sat Amp was railing. After a lot of debugging, our conclusion is that possible the PD current input trace is shorted to the positive supply through a finite resistance on the PCB. This would mean this PCB has a manufacturing defect. The reason we come to this conclusion is that even after removing the opamp U3 (AD822ARZ), we still measure 12.5 V at the pins of R25 (100 Ohm input resistance)

Please see the schematic for reference. We also checked the resistance between input of R25 (marked PDA above) and positive voltage rail and it came out as 3 kOhms. While I all other channels, this value was 150 kOhms.

I would like it if someone else also takes a look at this. We probably would need to change the PCB in this chassis or use a spare chassis.

16558   Fri Jan 7 18:28:13 2022 KojiUpdateBHDPR2 Sat Amp has a bad channel

Leave the unit to me. I can look it at on Mon. For a while, you can take a replacement unit from the electronics stack.

Also: Was this unit tested before? If so, what was the testing result at the time?

16560   Mon Jan 10 13:35:52 2022 AnchalUpdateBHDPR2 Sat Amp has a bad channel

The unit was tested before by Tege. The test included testing the testpoint voltages only. He summarized his work in this doc. The board number is S2100737. Here are the two comments about it:
"This unit presented with an issue on the PD1 circuit of channel 1-4 PCB where the voltage reading on TP6, TP7 and TP8 are -15.1V,  -14.2V, and +14.7V respectively, instead of ~0V.  The unit also has an issue on the PD2 circuit of channel 1-4 PCB because the voltage reading on TP7 and TP8 are  -14.2V, and +14.25V respectively, instead of ~0V."

"Debugging showed that the opamp, AD822ARZ, for PD2 circuit was not working as expected so we replaced with a spare and this fixed the problem. Somehow, the PD1 circuit no longer presents any issues, so everything is now fine with the unit."

Note:  No issues were reported on PD3 circuit is is malfunctioning now.

 Quote: Also: Was this unit tested before? If so, what was the testing result at the time?

16564   Mon Jan 10 15:59:46 2022 KojiUpdateBHDPR2 Sat Amp has a bad channel

The issue was present in the cable between the small adapter board and the rear panel. The cable and the Dsub 25 connectors were replaced. The removed parts were resoldered. Did the basic test of the channel.

Attachment 1: I cleaned up the area of the PD3 circuit of S2100556 and checked the voltage when the circuit was energized. The PD photocurrent line from the rear panel had S2100556 even with R25 removed. So the problem was between the rear panel to the outer side of R25. I've started to remove the cables to localize the issue and found that the issue disappeared when the ribbon cable was removed.

Attachment 2: I didn't investigate how the ribbon cable was bad. It was just trashed. The cable and the 25pin Dsub connectors were replaced and the line in question looked normal.

Attachment 3: All the components removed were stuffed again. The I/V-output of the circuit showed a 0.7mV offset but it seemed within the normal range. By touching R25 with a finger made it up to ~10mV as the other channels do. BTW: For 1000pF cap (C10) I used a stock 1000pF cap (KEMET, C330C102JDG5TA, 5%, 1kV, C0G) instead of nominal one (KEMET, C317C102G1G5TA,  2%, 100V, C0G).

Attachment 4: Noticed that the jumpers for shield grounding were missing. So they were installed (Attachment 5). This jumper is connected to Pin13. This line becomes Pin1 of the Dsub25 sat-amp cable because of the adapter board D2100148. The sat amp cable is D2100675. Hmm. In fact, this line does not touch the shield anywhere (unlike the aLIGO case). So only the chassis provides the cable shielding, no matter how the jumpers are connected or not connected.

Attachment 6: Final state of the circuit

Attachment 1: trouble_shoot1.jpg
Attachment 2: trouble_shoot2.jpg
Attachment 3: S2100556_PD3.jpg
Attachment 4: shield_grounding_before.jpg
Attachment 5: shield_grounding_after.jpg
Attachment 6: S2100737.jpg
16617   Mon Jan 24 17:58:21 2022 YehonathanUpdateBHDPR2 Suspension

I picked up the PR2 mirrors (labeled M1, M2) from Anchel's table and took them to the cleanroom. By inspection, I spotted some dust particles on M1. I wasn't able to remove them with clean air so I decided to use M2 which looked much cleaner. I wasn't able to discern any wedge angle on the optic. I inserted the optic into a thin optic adapter. The optic is thicker than I expected so I use long screws for the mirror clamping. I expect that the pitch balance will shift towards the front of the mirror so I assembled only 1 counterweight for now. The side blocks with wires in them were installed.

I engraved the SOS and installed the winches on it. Paco came in and helped me to hang the optic. Looking at the wire hanging angle I realize that 1 counterweight at the front is not enough. I install a second counterweight at the back and observe that I can cross the balancing point.

I locked the EQ stops. Suspension work continues tomorrow...

16624   Tue Jan 25 18:37:12 2022 TYehonathanUpdateBHDPR2 Suspension

PR2's side magnet height was adjusted and its roll was balanced (attachment 1,2). I verified that the OpLev beam is still aligned. The pitch was balanced: First, using an iris for rough adjustment. Then, with the QPD. I locked the counterweight setscrew.

I turned off the HEPAs, damped PR2, and measured the QPD spectra (attachment 3). Major peaks are at 690mHz, 953mHz, and 1.05Hz. I screwed back the lower OSEM plate. The wires were clamped to the suspension block and were cut. Winch adapter plate removed. I wanted to push OSEMs into the OSEM plates but the wiki is down so I can't tell what was the plan. This will have to wait for tomorrow. Also here like with AS1 we need to apply glue to the counterweights.

Attachment 1: PR2_magnet_height.png
Attachment 2: PR2_roll_balance.png
Attachment 3: FreeSwingingSpectra_div_50mV.pdf
7632   Fri Oct 26 16:57:30 2012 JenneUpdateAlignmentPR2 aligned, PR3 mostly aligned

[Raji, Jenne]

After lunch we began where Raji and Jamie had left things.  PR2 was unfortunately pitched down so far that it was almost hitting the table just in front of PR3.  I loosened the 4 clamp screws that hold the wire clamp assembly to the mirror holder, and tapped it back and forth until I was within hysteresis range, re-tightened, then tapped the top and bottom until we were at the correct beam height just in front of PR3.  I also had to unclamp it from the table and twist the base a tiny bit, since the beam was closer to hitting the beam tube than the optic.  Finally, however, PR2 is adjusted such that the beam hits the center of PR3.

Moving on to PR3, the pitch looked good while we were looking at the aperture placed near the face of ITMY, so we left that alone.  The beam is off in yaw though.  Several times I unclamped the tip tilt from the table, and twisted it one way or another, but every time when I tighten the dog clamps, I'm too far off in yaw.  The beam points a little too far south of the center of ITMY, so we were putting the beam a little north of the center before I clamped it, but even tightening the screws in the same order, by the same amount each time, causes a different amount of slipping/twisting/something of the TT mount, so we never end up directly in the center of the ITM.  It seems a little like a stochastic process, and we just need to do it a few more times until we get it right.

We left it clamped to the table, but not in it's final place, and left for JClub.  On Monday morning we need to go back to it.  As long as we're pretty close to centered, we should probably also have someone at ETMY checking the centering, because we need to be centered in both ITMY and ETMY.

We have not touched the SR tip tilts, so those will obviously need some attention when we get to that point.

16636   Tue Feb 1 20:16:09 2022 TegaUpdateBHDPR2 candidate mirror analysis

The analysis code takes in a set of raw images, 10 in our case,  for each mirror and calculates the zernike aberration coefficients for each image, then takes their average. This average value is used to reconstruct the mirror height map.  Finally, the residual error between the reconstructed image and the raw data is calculated.

We repeat the analysis for different field of views (FoV) namely 10mm, 20mm, 30mm, 40mm and 46.5mm and save the results in the output folder of the repo.

The analysis output for a 10mm FoV aperture at the mirror center is shown in the attachement. These three images show the input data, the reconstructed mirror surface map and the residual error.

Attachment 1: PR2_M2_data.png
Attachment 2: PR2_M2_recon_FoV_10mm.png
Attachment 3: PR2_M2_residual_FoV_10mm.png
8024   Thu Feb 7 15:46:42 2013 JenneUpdateLockingPR2 flipped

More correctly, a different G&H mirror (which we have a phase map for) was put into the PR2 TT, backwards.

Order of operations:

* Retrieve flat test G&H from BS chamber.  Put 4th dog clamp back on BS optic's base.

* Remove flat G&H from the DLC mount, put the original BS that was in that mount back.  Notes:  That BS had been stored in the G&H's clean optic box.  The DLC mount is engraved with the info for that BS, so it makes sense to put it back.  The DLC mount with BS is now back in a clean storage box.

* Remove PR2 TT from ITMX chamber.

* Remove suspension mounting block from TT frame, lay out flat, magnets up, on lint-free cloth on top of foil.

* Remove former PR2 G&H optic.

* Put what was the flat G&H test optic into the PR2 optic holder, with AR surface at the front.

* Put PR2 suspension block back onto TT frame.

* Put PR2 assembly back in the chamber, solidly against the placement reference blocks that Evan put in last Thursday.

* Close up, clean up, put labels on all the boxes so we know what optic is where.

Why the switcho-changeo?  We have a phase map for the G&H that is the new PR2, and a measured RoC of -706m, surface rms of 8.7nm.  Now, we can measure the former PR2 and see how it compares to our estimate of the RoC from the cavity measurements we've taken recently.

8095   Sat Feb 16 19:23:17 2013 yutaUpdateLSCPR2 flipped PRMI locked

It is my pleasure to announce that the first lock of PR2 flipped PRMI was succeeded.

POP looks very nice. TEM00 and not wobbling.
We need more I/Q phase and gain/filter adjustment and characterization soon.

Some more details:
MICH error signal: AS55_Q_ERR (using POP55 PD; phase rotation angle 70 deg)
PRCL error signal: REFL11_I_ERR (phase rotation angle 80 deg)
MICH feedback: BS (MICH_GAIN = -60)
PRCL feedback: PRM (PRCL_GAIN = -0.5)

8066   Tue Feb 12 00:50:08 2013 yutaUpdateLockingPR2 oplev spectra

I wanted to see if PR2 motion makes PRC beam motion or not, using temporary oplev to PR2.
I could not measure the coherence between beam motion and PR2 motion, because I couldn't lock half-PRC today.
But I took spectra of PR2 oplev anyway.

Result:

Below are the spectra of PR2 oplev outputs (taken using C1:SUS-ITMX_OL(PIT|YAW)_IN1). Bottom plot is POP DC during half-PRC locked yesterday.

Discussion:
We see bump in PR2 oplev output at ~ 2-3 Hz. But we cannot say this is a evidence for PR2 motion making PRC beam motion because no coherence measurement was done. Also, oplev might be just seeing the ITMX stack motion.

Resonant frequency of TTs measured were at ~ 1.8-1.9 Hz (elog #8054), but we cannot clearly see these peaks in oplev outputs. Did resonant frequency shifted because of different damping condition?

16575   Tue Jan 11 15:21:16 2022 AnchalUpdateBHDPR2 transmission calculation

I did this simple calculation where I assumed 1W power from laser and 10% transmission past IMC. We would go ahead with V6-704/V6-705 ATFilms 3/8" optic. It would bring down the PRC gain to ~30 but will provide plenty of light for LO beam and alignment.

Attachment 1: LO_power_vs_PR2_transmission.pdf
Attachment 2: PRC_Gain_vs_PR2_transmission.pdf
Attachment 3: PRS_Trans_Calc.ipynb.zip
16583   Thu Jan 13 17:10:55 2022 AnchalUpdateBHDPR2 transmission calculation

I corrected the calculation by adding losses by the arm cavity ends times the arm cavity finesse and also taking into account the folding of the cavity mirror. I used exact formula for finesse calculation and divided it by pi to get the PRC gain from there. Attachment 3 is the notebook for referring to the calculations I made.

Note that using V6-704 would provide 35 mW of LO power when PRFPMI is locked and 113 uW for alignment, but will bring down the PRC Gain to 17.5.

pre-2010 ITM (if it is still an option) would provide 12 mW of LO power when PRFPMI is locked and 28 uW for alignment, but will keep the PRC Gain to 24.6.

I still have to do a curvature check on the V6-704 optic.

Attachment 1: LO_power_vs_PR2_transmission.pdf
Attachment 2: PRC_Gain_vs_PR2_transmission.pdf
Attachment 3: PR2_Trans_Calc.ipynb.zip
16584   Fri Jan 14 03:07:04 2022 KojiUpdateBHDPR2 transmission calculation

I opened the notebook but I was not sure where you have the loss per bounce for the arm cavity.

    PRC_RT_Loss = 2 * PR3_T + 2 * PR2_T + 2 * Arm_Cavity_Finesse * ETM_T + PRM_T

Do you count the arm reflection loss to be only 2 * 13ppm * 450 = 1.17%?

16585   Fri Jan 14 11:00:29 2022 AnchalUpdateBHDPR2 transmission calculation

Yeah, I counted the loss from arm cavities as the transmission from ETMs on each bounce. I assumed Michelson to be perfectly aligned to get no light at the dark port.  Should I use some other number for the round-trip loss in the arm cavity?

16587   Fri Jan 14 13:46:25 2022 AnchalUpdateBHDPR2 transmission calculation updated

I updated the arm cavity roundtrip losses due to scattering. Yehonathan told me that arm cavity looses 50ppm every roundtrip other than the transmission losses. With the updated arm cavity loss:

PRFPMI LO Power (mW) Unlocked PRC LO Power (uW) PRC Gain
pre-2010 ITM 8 28 15.2
V6:704 24 113 12

Attachment 1: LO_power_vs_PR2_transmission.pdf
Attachment 2: PRC_Gain_vs_PR2_transmission.pdf
Attachment 3: PR2_Trans_Calc.ipynb.zip
16598   Wed Jan 19 16:22:48 2022 AnchalUpdateBHDPR2 transmission calculation updated

I have further updated my calculation. Please find the results in the attached pdf.

Following is the description of calculations done:

### Arm cavity reflection:

Reflection fro arm cavity is calculated as simple FP cavity reflection formula while absorbing all round trip cavity scattering losses (between 50 ppm to 200 ppm) into the ETM transmission loss.

So effective reflection of ETM is calculated as

$r_{\rm ETMeff} = \sqrt{1 - T_{\rm ETM} - L_{\rm RT}}$

$r_{\rm arm} = \frac{-r_{\rm ITM} + r_{\rm ETMeff}e^{2i \omega L/c}}{1 - r_{\rm ITM} r_{\rm ETMeff}e^{2 i \omega L/c}}$

The magnitude and phase of this reflection is plotted in page 1 with respect to different round trip loss and deviation of cavity length from resonance. Note that the arm round trip loss does not affect the sign of the reflection from cavity, at least in the range of values taken here.

### PRC Gain

The Michelson in PRFPMI is assumed to be perfectly aligned so that one end of PRC cavity is taken as the arm cavity reflection calculated above at resonance. The other end of the cavity is calculated as a single mirror of effective transmission that of PRM, 2 times PR2 and 2 times PR3. Then effective reflectivity of PRM is calculated as:

$r_{\rm PRMeff} = \sqrt{1 - T_{\rm PRM} - 2T_{\rm PR2} - 2T_{\rm PR3}}$

$t_{\rm PRM} = \sqrt{T_{\rm PRM}}$

Note, that field transmission of PRM is calculated with original PRM power transmission value, so that the PR2, PR3 transmission losses do not increase field transmission of PRM in our calculations. Then the field gain is calculated inside the PRC using the following:

$g = \frac{t_{\rm PRM}}{1 - r_{\rm PRMeff} r_{\rm arm}e^{2 i \omega L/c}}$

From this, the power recycling cavity gain is calculated as:
$G_{\rm PRC} = |g|^2$

The variation of PRC Gain is showed on page 2 wrt arm cavity round trip losses and PR2 transmission. Note that gain value of 40 is calculated for any PR2 transmission below 1000 ppm. The black verticle lines show the optics whose transmission was measured. If V6-704 is used, PRC Gain would vary between 15 and 10 depending on the arm cavity losses. With pre-2010 ITM, PRC Gain would vary between 30 and 15.

### LO Power

LO power when PRFPMI is locked is calculated by assuming 1 W of input power to IMC. IMC is assumed to let pass 10% of the power ($L_{\rm IMC}=0.1$). This power is then multiplied by PRC Gain and transmitted through the PR2 to calculate the LO power.

$P_{\rm LO, PRFPMI} = P_{\rm in} L_{\rm IMC}G_{\rm PRC}T_{\rm PR2}$

Page 3 shows the result of this calculation. Note for V6-704, LO power would be between 35mW and 15 mW, for pre-2010 ITM, it would be between 15 mW and 5 mW depending on the arm cavity losses.

The power available during alignment is simply given by:
P_{\rm LO, align, PRM} = P_{\rm in} L_{\rm IMC} T_{\rm PRM} T_{\rm PR2}

P_{\rm LO, align, no PRM} = P_{\rm in} L_{\rm IMC} T_{\rm PR2}

If we remove PRM from the input path, we would have sufficient light to work with for both relevant optics.

I have attached the notebook used to do these calculations. Please let me know if you find any mistake in this calculation.

Attachment 1: PR2transmissionSelectionAnalysis.pdf
Attachment 2: PR2_Trans_Calc.ipynb.zip
16602   Thu Jan 20 01:48:02 2022 KojiUpdateBHDPR2 transmission calculation updated

IMC is not such lossy. IMC output is supposed to be ~1W.

The critical coupling condition is G_PRC = 1/T_PRM = 17.7. If we really have L_arm = 50ppm, we will be very close to the critical coupling. Maybe we are OK if we have such condition as our testing time would be much longer in PRMI than PRFPMI at the first phase. If the arm loss turned out to be higher, we'll be saved by falling to undercoupling.
When the PRC is close to the critical coupling (like 50ppm case), we roughly have Tprc x 2 and Tarm to be almost equal. So each beam will have 1/3 of the input power i.e. ~300mW. That's probably too much even for the two OMCs (i.e. 4 DCPDs). That's OK. We can reduce the input power by 3~5.

Quote:

### LO Power

LO power when PRFPMI is locked is calculated by assuming 1 W of input power to IMC. IMC is assumed to let pass 10% of the power ($L_{\rm IMC}=0.1$).

8049   Fri Feb 8 23:59:42 2013 yutaUpdateLockingPR2-flipped half-PRC mode scan

I did mode scan of PR2-flipped half-PRC to see if it behaves as we expect.
Measured finesse was 107 +/- 5 and g-factor is 0.98997 +/- 0.00006.
g-factor is 0.9800 +/- 0.0001.  (Edited by YM; see elog #8056)

Finesse tells you that we didn't get large loss from flipped PR2.
Since we have convex TM in front of BS, PRC will be more stable than this half-PRC.

Method:
1. Aligned half-PRC using input TT1 and TT2 by maximizing POP DC during lock. It was not so easy because POP DC fluctuates much at ~ 3 Hz with amplitude of ~ 30 % of the maximum value because of the beam motion (movie on  elog #8039).

2. Unlocked half-PRC and took POP DC and PRC error signal data;

> /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/general/getdata -d 1 -o /users/yuta/scripts/PRCmodescan C1:LSC-POPDC_OUT C1:LSC-REFL11_I_ERR

Ran again and again until I get sufficiently linear swing through upper/lower sidebands.

3. Ran modescan analyzing scripts (elog #8012).

Result:
Below is the plot of POP DC and PRCL error signal (REFL11_I).

By averaging 5 sets of peaks around TEM00;

Time between TEM00 and sideband  0.0347989  pm  0.00292257322372  sec
Calibration factor is  317.995971137  pm  26.7067783894  MHz/sec
FSR is  34.5383016129  MHz
FWHM is  0.323979022488  pm  0.0145486106353  MHz
TMS is  1.55827297374  pm  0.00439737672808  MHz
Finesse is  106.606598624  pm  4.78727876459
Cavity g-factor is  0.989971692098  pm  5.65040851566e-05
Cavity g-factor is  0.980043951156  pm  0.000111874889586

Discussion:
Measured finesse is similar to measured PRM-PR2 cavity finesse(108 +/- 3, see elog #8012). This means loss from flipped PR2 and beam path from PR2 to TM is small.

I'm a little suspicious about measured g-factor because it is hard to tell which peak is which from the mode scan data. Since half-PRC was not aligned well, high HOMs may contribute to POP DC. Astigmatism also splits HOM peaks.

PRC 3 Hz beam motion was there for long time (see, for example, elog #6954). BS is unlikely to be the cause because we see this motion in half-PRC, too.
Also, beam spot motion was not obvious in the PRM-PR2 cavity. My hypothesis is; stack resonance at 3 Hz makes PR2/PR3 angular motion and folding by PR2/PR3 makes the beam spot motion.

Next things to do:
* PRC g-factor
- Calculate expected half-PRC g-factor with real measured curvatures, with error bar obtained from RoC error and length error (JAMIE)
- Calculate expected PRC g-factor using measured half-PRC g-factor (JAMIE)
* PRC 3 Hz beam motion
- Do we have space to put oplevs for PR2/PR3?
- Can we fix PR2/PR3 temporarily?
* PRMI
- Align incident beam, BS, REFL, AS, and MI using arms as reference
- lock PRMI
- PRC mode scan

8050   Sat Feb 9 11:25:35 2013 KojiUpdateLockingPR2-flipped half-PRC mode scan

Don't  Shouldn't you apply a small misalignment to the input beam? Isn't that why the peak for the 1st-order is such small?

 Quote: Method  1. Aligned half-PRC using input TT1 and TT2 by maximizing POP DC during lock. It was not so easy because POP DC fluctuates much at ~ 3 Hz with amplitude of ~ 30 % of the maximum value because of the beam motion (movie on  elog #8039).  2. Unlocked half-PRC and took POP DC and PRC error signal data; > /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/general/getdata -d 1 -o /users/yuta/scripts/PRCmodescan C1:LSC-POPDC_OUT C1:LSC-REFL11_I_ERR   Ran again and again until I get sufficiently linear swing through upper/lower sidebands.

8052   Sun Feb 10 17:30:39 2013 yutaUpdateLockingPR2-flipped half-PRC mode scan

I redid half-PRC mode scan by applying mislignment to PRM.
Half-PRC's sagittal g-factor is 0.9837 +/- 0.0006 and tangential g-factor is 0.9929 +/- 0.0005.
sagittal g-factor is 0.968 +/- 0.001 and tangential g-factor is 0.986 +/- 0.001. (Edited by YM; see elog #8056)

Method:
1. Same as elog #8049, but with small misalignment to PRM.

2. Algined half-PRC, and misaligned PRM in pitch to get sagittal g-factor.

3. Restored pitch alignment and misaligned PRM in yaw to get tangential g-factor.

Result:
Below left is the plot of POP DC and PRCL error signal (REFL11_I) when PRM is misaligned in pitch. Below left is the same plot when misaliged in yaw.
left:    right:

By averaging 5 sets of peaks around TEM00, I get sagittal/tangential g-factors written above.

Discussion:
The fact that tangential g-factor is larger than sagittal g-factor comes from astigmatism mainly from PR3. Effective PR3 curvature is

sagittal Re = R/cos(theta) = -930 m
tangential Re = R*cos(theta) = -530 m   (where R = -700 m , theta = 41 deg)

so, PR3 is more convex in tangential plane and this makes half-PRC close to unstable. This is opposite of Jamie's calculation(elog #8022). I'm confused.

I first thought I don't need to misalign PRM because alignment was not so good - it was hard to align when beam motion is large. Also, this motion makes angular misalignment, so I thought free swinging is enough to make higher order modes. However, misaligning PRM intentionally made it easier to resolve higher order modes. I could even distinguish (10,01) and (20,11,02), as you can see from the plot.

Next:
We have to compare with expected g-factor before moving on to PRMI.

8056   Mon Feb 11 13:15:16 2013 yutaUpdateLockingPR2-flipped half-PRC mode scan

I found a mistake in my code (thanks Jamie!).
I forgot to square the g-factor.
I corrected the following elogs;

PRM-PR2 cavity
elog #7994 : g-factor will be 0.9889 +/- 0.0004
elog #8012 : g-factor is 0.988812630228 pm 0.000453751681357

half-PRC g-factor
elog #8040 : g-factor is 0.9800 +/- 0.0001
elog #8052 : sagittal g-factor is 0.968 +/- 0.001 and tangential g-factor is 0.986 +/- 0.001

I checked that I was correct in July 2012 (elog #6922)

Cavity g-factor formula:
gm = ( cos(pi*nu_TMS/nu_FSR) )**2

8064   Mon Feb 11 21:03:15 2013 yutaUpdateLockingPR2-flipped half-PRC mode scan

To estimate the systematic effects to the g-factor measurement, I changed how to analyze the data in multiple ways.
From the estimation, I get the following g-factors for half-PRC;
tangential: 0.986 +/- 0.001(stat.) +/- 0.008(sys.)
sagittal: 0.968 +/- 0.001(stat.) +/- 0.003(sys.)

The a la mode/arbcav calculation is not so far from the measurement(elog #8059). So, mirror curvatures and lengths are not far from what we expect.

Method:
Method I used to analyze the mode scan data is as follows;

1. Use the spacing between upper sideband and lower sideband to calibrate the data.
2. Measure the position of 00, 1st, 2nd and 3rd mode.
3. Used the following formula to get TMS

nu_TMS = sum((n_i-n)*(nu_i-nu)) / sum((n_i-n)^2)

where n_i is the order of transverse mode, n is average of n_i's, nu_i is the frequency if i-th order mode and nu is average of nu_i's. This is just a linear fitting.

But since it is hard to resolve where the higher order mode is, it is maybe better to use only 00, 1st, and 2nd mode. Also, since cavity sweep is not linear enough, it is maybe better to use spacing between 00 and lower sideband (sideband closer to HOMs) to calibrate the data. Changing the analysis will give us information about the effect of peak choosing and linearity.

How the result differ:
Below are the plots of order of tranverse mode vs measured relative frequency difference from 00 mode. 5 plots on left are when PRM is misaligned in pitch and right are same in yaw. From the plot, you can see using 3rd order mode tend to give larger TMS. Did I picked the wrong one??
left:    right:

Results:
Below table is the result when I changed the analyzing method;

PRM misaligned in pitch
calibration    how many HOMs    measured g-factor
upper-lower    up to 3rd    0.968
upper-lower    up to 2nd    0.974
upper-lower    up to 1st    0.975
00-lower       up to 3rd    0.952
00-lower       up to 2nd    0.962
00-lower       up to 1st    0.963

PRM misaligned in yaw
calibration    how many HOMs    measured g-factor
upper-lower    up to 3rd    0.986
upper-lower    up to 2nd    0.989
upper-lower    up to 1st    0.991
00-lower       up to 3rd    0.964
00-lower       up to 2nd    0.988
00-lower       up to 1st    0.991

Using 00-lower calibration tend to give us smaller g-factor. Using less higer order-mode tend to give us higher g-factor.
By taking standard deviation of these, I roughly estimated the systematic error as above.

Discussion:
I think it is OK to move on to PRMI now.
But I wonder how much astigmatism is needed to get this measurement data. If astigmatism is not so crazy, it's OK. But if it's not, I think it is better to do more measurement like PRM-PR2-TM cavity.

8053   Sun Feb 10 18:00:13 2013 yutaSummaryLSCPR2-flipped half-PRC spectra/OLTF

To compare with future PRMI locking, I measured spectra of POPDC and feedback signal. I also measured openloop transfer function of half-PRC locking.
Beam spot motion was at ~ 2.4 Hz, not 3.3 Hz.

Results:
Below is uncalibrated spectra of POPDC and LSC feedback signal (C1:LSC-PRM_OUT).

Below is openloop transfer function of the half-PRC locking loop. UGF is ~ 120 Hz and phase margin is ~ 45 deg. This agrees with the expected curve.

Data was taken when half-PRC was locked using REFL11_I as error signal and actuating on PRM.

Discussion:

For comparison, POPDC when PRMI was locked in July 2012: elog #6954 and PRCL openloop transfer function: elog #6950.

Peak in the spectra of POPDC and feedback signal was at ~ 3.3 Hz in July 2012 PRMI, but it is now at ~ 2.4 Hz in half-PRC. The peak also got broader.
Is it because of the change in the resonant frequency of the BS-PRM stack? How much the load on BS-PRM changed?
Or is it because of the change in the resonant frequency of PR2/PR3?

Phase margin is less now because of gain boost ~ 5 Hz and resonant gain at 24 Hz.

8006   Tue Feb 5 19:32:47 2013 yutaSummaryGeneralPR2/PR3 flipping and PRC stability

We are considering of flipping PR2 and/or PR3 to make PRMI stable because PR2/PR3 seems to be convex.
I calculated dependency of the PRC stability on the PR2/PR3 curvature when PR2/PR3 flipped and not flipped.
Flipping looks OK, from the stability point of view.

Assumption:
 PRM-PR2 distance = 1.91 m  PR2-PR3 distance = 2.33 m  PR3-ITM distance = 2.54 m  PRM RoC = +122.1 m  ITM RoC = Inf
 theta_inc PRM = 0 deg  theta_inc PR2 = 1.5 deg  theta_inc PR3 = 41 deg           (all numbers from elog #7989)

Here, RoC means RoC measured from HR side. RoC measured from AR side will be -n_sub*RoC, assuming flat AR surface.
I also assumed mirror thickness to be negligible.

Method:
1. I used Zach's arbcav and modified it so that it only tells you your cavity is stable or not.
(It lives in /users/yuta/scripts/mode_density_PRC/stableornot.m)

2. Swept PR2/PR3 RoC (1/RoC from -0.005 to 0.005 1/m) to see the stability condition.

Results:
1. Stability condition of the PRMI when PR2 and PR3 is not flipped is depicted in the graph below. Black region is the unstable region. We all know that current PRMI is unstable, so we are in the black region.

2. Stability conditions of PRMI with one of the PR2/PR3 flipped are depicted in the graphs below. If we flip one of them, PRMI will likely to be stable, but if the flipped one is close to flat and the RoC of the other one is  >~ -250 m (more convex than -250 m), PRMI will remain unstable.

3. Stability condition of PRMI with both PR2 and PR3 flipped is depicted in the graph below. If we flip both, PRMI will be stable.

Discussion:
1. Flipping one of PR2/PR3 seems OK, but I cannot guarantee. TMS measurement insists RoC of PR2 to be ~ -190 m, if we believe PRM RoC = +122.1 m (elog #7997). We need more precise measurement if we need to be sure before flipping. I prefer PR2 flipping because PR3 flipping gives us longer path in the substrate and larger astigmatism. Also, PR3 RoC is phase-map-measured to be ~ -600 m and PR2 RoC seems to be more convex than -600 m from the TMS measurement.

2. Flipping both is good from stability point of view. We need calculation of the loss in the PRC (and mode-mismatch to the arms). Are there any requirements?

3. If we are going to flip PR3, are there any possibilities of clipping the beam at PR3? We need to check.

4. I need to calculate whether mirror thickness and AR surface curvature are negligible or not.

Conclusion:
I want to flip only PR2 and lock PRMI.

By the way:
I don't like matlab plots.

7816   Wed Dec 12 16:52:12 2012 JenneUpdateAlignmentPR2_face, PR3_back cameras in place

I have setup cameras looking at the back of PR3 (through the north viewport on the MC chamber) and the face of PR2 (through the north viewport on the ITMX chamber). We would like a view of the face of PR3, but that isn't possible without placing another in-vac mirror.  The best we can do is the current PRM_BS camera setup, which sees a small portion of the PR3 face.  Most of the face is obscured by the PRM itself.

I have taken images with the PRM misaligned.  The spot near the top of PR2 is the first reflection from the pitch-misaligned PRM, so it should be ignored for the purposes of trying to see the straight-shot, no PRM beam.

Images are taken with my videocapture50 script, in ..../scripts/general/videoscripts.  This takes 10 sets of 50 images and saves them.  Then ImageBkgndSubtractor.m located in the same folder takes the images (you must edit the beginning of the script to tell it where the images are), averages the noBeam images (PSL shutter closed), and averages the withBeam images, and subtracts them.  Results below:

ELOG V3.1.3-