I looked into this a little more today.

1. The steering optic used to route PMC REFL to the RFPD is in fact a window (labelled W1-PW-1025-UV-1064-45P), not a High-T beamsplitter.
2. With the PMC unlocked, I measured ~10.70 mW in the stronger of the two beams, 5.39 mW in the weaker one. 
   • The window spec is Tp > 97%. Since we have ~1.3 W incident on the PMC, the primary reflection corresponds to T=99.2%, which is consistent with the spec.
   • There is no spec given for the coating on the back side of this window. But from the measured values, it seems to be R = 100* 5.39e-3 / (1.3*T^2) ~ 0.4%. Seems reasonable.

Currently, the iris is set up such that the stronger beam makes it to the PMC RFPD, while the weaker one is blocked by the iris. As usual, this isn't a new issue - was noted last in 2014, but who knows whether the new window was intalled...

Summary:

The RF transimpedance of the PMC PDH RFPD was measured, and found to be 1.03 kV/A. 

Details:

With the new fiber coupled PDFR system, it was very easy to measure the response of this PD in-situ 🎉 . The usual transfer function measurement scheme was used, with the AG4395 RF out modulating the pump current of the diode laser, and the measured transfer function being the ratio of the response of the test PD to the reference PD.

I assume that the amount of light incident on the reference NF1611 photodiode and the test photodiode were equal - I don't know what the DC transimpedance of the PMC REFL photodiode is (can't find a schematic), but the DC voltage at the DC monitor point was 16.4 mV (c.f. -2.04 V for the NF1611). The assumption shouldn't be too crazy because assuming the reference PD has an RF transimpedance of 700 V/A (flat in the frequency range scanned), we get a reasonable shape for the PMC REFL photodiode's transimpedance.

The fitted parameters are overlaid in Attachment #1. The 2f notch is slightly mistuned it would appear, the ratio of transimpedance at f1/2*f1 is only ~10. The source files have been uploaded to the wiki.

Knowing this, the measured PDH discriminant of 0.064 GV/m is quite reasonable:

• expected optical gain from modulation depth assuming a critically coupled cavity is 0.089 GW/m.
• Assume 0.7 A/W responsivity for InGaAs.
• Account for the fact that only 0.8 % of the reflected light reaches the PMC photodiode because of the pickoff window.
• Account for a conversion loss of 4.5 dB in the mixer.
• Account for the voltage division by a factor of 2 at the output of the BLP-1.9 filter due to the parallel 50 ohm termination.
• Then, the expected PDH discriminant is 0.089e9 W/m * 0.7 A/W * 0.8e-2 * 1.03kV/A * 10^(-4.5/20) * 0.5 ~ 0.15 GV/m. This is now within a factor of ~2 of the measured value, and I assume the total errors in all the above assumed parameters (plus the cable transmission loss from the photodiode to the 1X1 rack) can easily add up to this. 

So why is this value so different from what Koji measured in 2015? Because the monitor point is different. I am monitoring the discriminant immediately after the mixer, whereas Koji was using the front panel monitor. The latter already amplifies the signal by a factor of x101 (see U2 in schematic). 

Conclusion:

I still haven't found anything that is obviously wrong in this system (apart from the slight nonlinearity in the VGA stage gain steps), which would explain why the PMC servo gain has to be lower now than 2018 in order to realize the same loop UGF.

 I adjusted the PMC alignment this morning, brought the transmission up to 0.83V.

After the lunch meeting, we found the the MC transmission was higher than recently seen. Turned out the HWP had drifted, causing 30mW to be input to the MC. I adjusted it back down to 20mW. 

Valera and Haixing and I installed a PMC REFL camera today. We stole the camera control box from the MC2 trans area (because I don't know why we need a camera there).

We installed it such that it is looking at the leak through of the last turning mirror before the PMC REFL RFPD. This beam was previously going into a Thorlabs razor blade dump.

There is no steering mirror to align into this camera; we just positioned the camera such that the REFL beam fills up the monitor. WE cable tied the cable to the table and the

output of the camera control box is piped into the control room correctly as PMCR. The "IMCR" quadrant is actually the PMCT beam. JoonHo is going to fix this promptly.

Also, I noticed how beautiful  the MC2 Simulink diagram is so I post it here for your viewing pleasure. We should take this as a reference and not produce any new diagrams which are less useful or beautiful or easy to understand.

• Find out why there is still 35 MHz signal at the error point. Order some low pass filters to cut off above 35 MHz.
  
• Explore brick + no-brick loop shapes and error spectra.
  
• Measure and set the OLG.
  

Summary

The PMC servo was analysed. OLTF was measured and modeled by ZPK (Attachment 1). The error and actuator signals were calibrated in m/rtHz (Attachment 2)

Measurement methods

OLTF:

- The PMC servo board does not have dedicated summing/monitor points for the OLTF measurement. Moreover the PZT HV output voltage is monitored with 1/49.6 attenuation.
  Therefore we need a bit of consideration.

- The noise injection can be done at EXT DC.
- Quantity (A): Transfer function between HV OUT MON and MIX OUT MON with the injection.
  We can measure the transfer function between the HV OUT (virtual) and the MIX OUT. (HV OUT->MIX OUT). In reality, HV OUT is attenuated by factor of 49.6.
  i.e. A = (HV_OUT->MIX_OUT)*49.6
- Quantity (B): Transfer function between HV OUT MON and MIX OUT MON without the injection.
  This is related to the transfer function between the MIX OUT and HV OUT. In reality, HV OUT is attenuated. 
  i.e. B = 1/((MIX_OUT->HV_OUT)/49.6)

- What we want to know is HV_OUT->MIX_OUT->HV_OUT. i.e. A/B = (HV_OUT->MIX_OUT*49.6)*((MIX_OUT->HV_OUT)/49.6) = HV_OUT->MIX_OUT->HV_OUT

PSD:

- The MIX OUT and HV OUT spectra have been measured. The MIX OUT was calibrated with the calibration factor in the previous entry. This is the inloop stability estimation.
  From the calibrated MIX OUT and HV OUT, the free running stability of the cavity was estimated, by mutiplying with |1-OLTF| and |1-1/(1-OLTF)|, respectively, in order to recover
  the free running motion.

OLTF Modeling

Here is the model function for the open loop TF. The first line comes from the circuit diagram. The overall factor was determined by eye-fit.
The second and third lines are to reproduce the peak/notch feature at 12kHz. The fourth line is to reproduce 28kHz feature.
The LPF right after the mixer was analyzed by a circuit simulation (Circuit Lab). It can be approximated as 150kHz LPF as the second pole
seems to come at 1.5MHz.

The sixth line comes from the LPF formed by the output resistance and the PZT capacitance.

The seventh line is to reproduce the limit by the GBW product of OP27. As the gain is 101 in one of the stages,
it yields the pole freq of ~80kHz. But it is not enough to explain the phase delay at low frequency. Therefore this
discrepancy was compensated by empirical LPF at 30kHz.

function cmpOLTFc = PMC_OLTF_model(freqOLTFc)

cmpOLTFc = -7e5*pole1(freqOLTFc,0.162).*zero1(freqOLTFc,491)... % from the circuit diagram
    .*zero2(freqOLTFc,12.5e3,100)... % eye-fit
    .*pole2(freqOLTFc,12.2e3,6)... % eye-fit
    .*pole2(freqOLTFc,27.8e3, 12)... % eye-fit
    .*pole1(freqOLTFc,150e3)... % Mixer LPF estimated from Circuit Lab Simulation
    .*pole1(freqOLTFc,11.3)... % Output Impedance + PZT LPF
    .*pole1(freqOLTFc,8e6/101)... % GBW OP27
    .*pole1(freqOLTFc,3e4); % Unknown

end

Result

Attachment 1:

The nominal OLTF (Nov 17 data) shows the nominal UGF is ~1.7kHz and the phase margin of ~60deg.

The measured OLTF was compared with the modelled OLTF. In the end they show very sufficient agreement for further calibration.
The servo is about to be instable at 28kHz due to unknown series resonance. Later in the same day, the gain of the PMC loop had to be
reduced from 7dB to 3dB to mitigate servo oscillation. It is likely that this peak caused the oscillation. The notch frequency was measured
next day and it showed no sign of frequncy drift. That's good.

We still have some phase to reduce the high freq peaks by an LPF in order to increase the over all gain.

Attachment 2:

The red curve shows the residual floor displacement of 2~10x10^-15 m/rtHz. Below 4Hz there is a big peak. I suspect that I forgot to close
the PSL shutter and the IMC was locked during the measurement. Then does this mean the measured noise corresponds to the residual laser
freq noise or the PMC cavity displacement? This is interesting to see.

The estimated free running motion from the error and actuation signals agrees very well. This ensures the precision of the caibration in the precious entries.
 

• Implement the 4th order Grote low pass after the mixer.
  
• Replace the AD797 with an OP27.
  
• Change servo filter to have a boost (need DC gain)
  
• Make a 14.5 kHz notch for the bode mode.
  
• Put a 20 lb. gold-foil wrapped lead brick on the PMC.
  

Its been well noted in the past that sweeping the PMC at high power leads to a distortion of the transmitted power curve. The explanation for this was coating absorption and thermo-elastic deformation of the front face of the mirrors.

Today, I did several sweeps of the PMC. I turned off its servo and tuned its PZT so that it was nearly resonating. Then I drove the NPRO via the HV driver (gain=15) with 0-150 V (its 1.1 MHz/V) to measure the PMC transmitted light. I adjusted the NPRO pump diode current from 2A on down to see if the curves have a power dependent width.

In the picasa web slideshow:

There are 3 significant differences between this measurement and the one by John linked above: its a new PMC (Rick says its the cleanest one around), the sweep is faster - since I'm using a scope instead of the ADC I feel free to drive the thing by ~70 MHz in one cycle. In principle, we could go faster, but I don't want to get into the region where we excite the PZT resonance. Doing ~100 MHz in ~30 ms should be OK. I think it may be that going this fast avoids some of the thermal distortion problems that John and others have seen in the past. On the next iteration, we should increase the modulation index for the 35.5 MHz sidebands so as to get a higher precision calibration of the sweep's range.

By eye I find that the FWHM from image #4 is 11 ms long. That corresponds to 300 mV on the input to the HV box and 15 V on the PZT and ~16.5 MHz of frequency shift. I think we expect a number more like 4-5 MHz; measurement suspicious.

PMC TRANS/REFL on MEDM showed red values for long time.
TRANS (a.k.a C1:PSL-PSL_TRANSPD) was the issue of the EPICS db.

REFL (a.k.a. C1:PSL-PMC_RFPDDC) was not physically connected.
There was an unknown BNC connected to the PMC DC output instead of dedicated SMA cable.
So they were swapped.

Now I run the following commands to change the EPICS thresholds:

ezcawrite C1:PSL-PMC_PMCTRANSPD.LOLO 0.8
ezcawrite C1:PSL-PMC_PMCTRANSPD.LOW 0.85
ezcawrite C1:PSL-PMC_PMCTRANSPD.HIGH 0.95
ezcawrite C1:PSL-PMC_PMCTRANSPD.HIHI 1

ezcawrite C1:PSL-PMC_RFPDDC.HIHI 0.05
ezcawrite C1:PSL-PMC_RFPDDC.HIGH 0.03
ezcawrite C1:PSL-PMC_RFPDDC.LOW 0.0
ezcawrite C1:PSL-PMC_RFPDDC.LOLO 0.0

As these commands only give us the tempolary fix, /cvs/cds/caltech/target/c1psl/psl.db was accordingly modified for the permanent one.

grecord(ai,"C1:PSL-PMC_RFPDDC")
{
        field(DESC,"RFPDDC- RFPD DC output")
        field(DISV,"1")
        field(SCAN,".1 second")
        field(DTYP,"VMIVME-3113")
        field(INP,"#C0 S32 @")
        field(EGUF,"10")
        field(EGUL,"-10")
        field(EGU,"Volts")
        field(PREC,"3")
        field(LOPR,"-10")
        field(HOPR,"10")
        field(AOFF,"0")
        field(LINR,"LINEAR")
        field(LOW,"0.0")
        field(LSV,"MINOR")
        field(LOLO,"0.0")
        field(LLSV,"MAJOR")
        field(HIGH,"0.03")
        field(HSV,"MINOR")
        field(HIHI,"0.05")
        field(HSV,"MAJOR")
}

grecord(ai,"C1:PSL-PMC_PMCTRANSPD")
{
        field(DESC,"PMCTRANSPD- pre-modecleaner transmitted light")
        field(DISV,"1")
        field(SCAN,".1 second")
        field(DTYP,"VMIVME-3123")
        field(INP,"#C0 S10 @")
        field(EGUF,"10")
        field(EGUL,"-10")
        field(EGU,"volts")
        field(PREC,"3")
        field(LINR,"LINEAR")
        field(HOPR,"10")
        field(LOPR,"-10")
        field(AOFF,"0")
        field(LOW,"0.8")
        field(LSV,"MINOR")
        field(LOLO,"0.85")
        field(LLSV,"MAJOR")
        field(HIGH,"0.95")
        field(HSV,"MINOR")
        field(HIHI,"1.00")
        field(HSV,"MAJOR")
}

1. Calibrated the Phase Adjust slider for the PMC RF Modulation; did this by putting the LO and RF Mod out on the TDS 3034 oscope and triggering on the LO. This scope has a differential phase measurement feature for periodic signals.
2. Calibrated the RF Amp Adj slider for the PMC RF Modulation (on the phase shifter screen)
3. The PMC 35.5 MHz Frequency reference card is now in our 40m DCC Tree.
4.  The LO and RF signals both look fairly sinusoidal !
5. Took photos of our Osc board - they are on the DCC page. Our board is D980353-B-C, but there are no such modern version in any DCC.
6. The PMC board's Mixer Out shows a few mV of RF at multiples of the 35.5 MHz mod freq. This comes in via the LO, and can't be gotten rid of by using a BALUN or BP filters.
7. In installed the LARK 35.5 MHz BP filter that Valera sent us awhile ago (Steve has the datasheet to scan and upload to this entry). It is narrow and has a 2 dB insertion loss.

For tuning the phase and amplitude of the mod. drive:

- since we don't have access to both RF phases, I just maximized the gain using the RF phase slider. First, I flipped the sign using the 'phase flip' button so that we would be near the linear range of the slider. Then I put the servo close to oscillation and adjusted the phase to maximize the height of the ~13 kHz body mode. For the amplitude, I just cranked the modulation depth until it started to show up as a reduction in the transmission by ~0.2%, then reduced it by a factor of ~3. That makes it ~5x larger than before.

[jordan, gautam]

Summary:

The AD602 chip which implements the overall servo gain for the PMC seems to be damaged. We should switch this out at the next opportunity.

Details:

1. According to the PSL cross connect wiring diagram, the VME DAC that provides the control voltage to the VGA stage goes to pins 7/8 of cross connect J16.
   • Jordan and I verified that the voltage at this point [Vout], is related to the PMC_GAIN EPICS slider [dB] value according to the following relationship: .
2. On the PMC servo board, this voltage is scaled by a factor of -1/10. 
   • This was confirmed by peeking at this voltage using a DMM (I clipped onto R31) while the gain slider was varied.
   • This corresponds to +/- 1000 mV reaching the AD602.
   • However, the AD602 is rated to work with a control voltage varying between +/- 625 mV.
   • What this means is that the EPICS slider value is not the gain of the AD602 stage. The latter is given by the relation .
   • @team PSL upgrade: this should be fixed in the database file for the new c1psl machine.
3. Using TP1 and TP2 connected to the SR785, I measured the transfer function of the AD602 for various values of the EPICS slider.
   • Result is shown in Attachment #1.
   • I did this measurement with the PMC locked, so I'm using the in-loop error signal to infer the gain of the VGA stage.
   • As expected, the absolute value of the gain does not match that of the EPICS slider (note that the AD602 has an input impedance of 100 ohms. So the 499 ohm series resistor between TP1 and the input of AD602 makes a 1/5 voltage divider, so the gain seen between TP1 and TP2 has this factor folded in).
   • Moreover, the relative scaling of the gain for various slider values also doesn't appear to be liner.
   • For the highest gain setting of +15 dB, the servo began oscillating, so I think the apparent non-flatness of the gain as a function of frequency is an artefact of the measurement.
   • Nevertheless, my conclusion is that the IC should be changed.

I will pull the board and effect the change later today.

I pulled the board out at 345pm after dialling down all the HV supplies in 1X1. I will reinstall it after running some tests.

doesn't seem so anomolous to me; we're getting ~25 dB of gain range and the ideal range would be 40 dB. My guess is that even thought this is not perfect, the real problem is elsewhere.

Alberto, Rana

With the high power meter I measured the reflected power when the PMC was unlocked and used that to obtain the calibration of the PMC-REFL PD: 1.12V/W.

P_in = 1.98W ; P_trans = 1.28W ; P_refl = 0.45W

From that I estimated that the losses account to 13% of the input power.

I checked both the new and the old elogs to see if such a measurement had ever been done but it doesn't seems so. I don't know if such a value for the visibility is "normal". It seems a little low. For instance, as a comparison, the MC visibility, is equal to a few percents.

Also Rana measured the transmitted power after locking the PMC on the TEM20-02: the photodiode on the MEDM screen read 0.325V. That means that a lot of power is going to that mode.

That makes us think that we're dealing with a mode matching problem with the PMC.

[Diego, Jenne]

Tweaked up the input alignment to the PMC.  Now we're at 0.785.

The PMC exhibited the reduction of the transmission, so it was aligned.

The misalignment was not the angle of the beam but the translation of the beam in the vertical direction
as I had no improvement by moving the pitch of one mirror and had to move those two differentially.

This will give us the information what is moving by the temperature fluctuation or whatever.

[Koji Suresh]

The steering mirrors for PMC were aligned. The transmission went up from 0.779 to 0.852.

[Koji, Den]

We have aligned PMC,  the WFS are not working yet.

as usual.

PMC aligned. Trans 0.78 -> 0.83

PMC aligned.

PMC Trans increased from 0.740 to 0.782

IMC Trans increased from 16200 to 17100

PMC aligned. C1:PSL-PMC-PMCTRANSPD improved from 0.72ish to 0.835ish.

The beam to PMC aligned. The beam to MC WFS cameras aligned.
PMC Trans increased from 2.73 to 2.75 (+1%).
MC Trans increased from 7.80 to 7.87 (+1%).

PMC aligned (Attachment #1).
Over the past month, PMC transmission is actually slowly growing from 0.68 to 0.70 (Attachment #2), since it suddenly dropped from 0.72 on Dec 27 (40m/17390).

PMC hit a drop around mid-day on Saturday and has been going down since. As of now,

C1:PSL-PMC_PMCTRANSPD - 0.664

I will go in and adjust now.

Re-aligned the beam going into the PMC today around 5 PM. I noticed that its all in pitch and since I moved both of the mirrors by the same amount it is essentially a vertical translation.

I wonder if the PMC is just moving up and down due to thermal expansion in the mount? How else would we get a pure vertical translation? Need to remember next time if the beam goes up or down, and by how many knob turns, and see how it correlates to the lab temperature.

The PMC reflection made it seem that the beam going into it was misaligned. I went to the table and aligned the input beam to maximize the PMC transmission. I got ~10% improvement.

Just to check if something was loose, I started tapping things upstream of the Faraday. When I tapped the actual PMC body it seemed to get unseated and the reflected (unlocked) power jumped up by more than a factor of two.

I don't understand how this could be. The attached trend of the PMC channels shows that ever since the PSL upgrade, the PMC refl has been at the low level of ~0.3 V, except for a brief phase soon after the upgrade late in 2010 and then also for a few hours early in May of 2012.

If the PMC body actually moved, it seems that the pointing into the MC would also change and I don't see that. So what else can it be? Is there some clipping or dust or a burn spot on the PMC REFL path?

The PMC refl image was lost after the body re-settled itself. Jenne and I re-aligned it and added a 0.5 ND filter to the existing ND in order to account for the higher power. We should hide all of the reflective ND filters and just use absorbtive ND for the cameras to prevent reflections.

This image of the past hour shows the event at just before midnight (0650 UTC) where the PMC reflection goes up from 0.28 to 0.85.