40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 51 of 339  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Category Subjectup
  7148   Fri Aug 10 18:11:55 2012 YaakovUpdateSTACISCorrected noise budget, plan for external actuation

I hope you're not all tired of the STACIs noise budgets, because I have another one! Here, the main difference is my modeling of the geophone sensitivity according to a predicted physical model for the system (just a damped oscillator) instead of trying to fit it to the accelerometer motion signal with more arbitrary functions.

The result of this calibration is shown below (accel and geo signals taken for 5 minutes at the same time, in granite and foam):

sensor_comp.pngsensor_comp.fig

The m/s/V sensitivity function I am using is g*[(w^2-2idww(0)-w(0)^2)/w^2], where g (the high freq. m/s/V sensitivity) was 2.5*10^-5 and d (damping) was set to 2.

Now, the recalculated noise plot looks like this:

noise_budget_8-10.pngnoise_budget_8-10.fig

The accel. specs I took from the Wilcoxon spec sheet, and the geo specs I found in https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0028/T950046/000/T950046-00.pdf, a LIGO document about the STACIS. The geo noise was measured for the STACIS geo and their pre-amp, while I was using the SR560 as the pre-amp. If anything, my noise should be lower, since the SR560 noise spec is lower than what I estimated for the STACIS geophone pre-amp, so I'm not sure about that order of magnitude difference between the experimental and expected geo noise. A sign that my noise values are at least reasonable is that the geophone noise flattens out above the geophone's resonant frequency (4.5 Hz), as Jan pointed out it should.

The sensor noise (either accel. or geo.) is the dominating signal below 1 Hz in the STACIS platform measurement, which then limits the closed loop performance at those frequencies. Since the noises I am finding are looking reasonable, I think it's fair to definitively state that accelerometers will not significantly help at low frequencies (there may be at most a factor of 2 lower noise below 1 Hz for the accel., but I need more data to say for sure).

The plan right now is to concentrate on using the STACIS as actuators, perhaps with seismometers on the ground and a feedforward signal sent into the high voltage amplifier.

I took the transfer function of the high voltage board itself (no pre-amp included) by driving the PZTs with a swept sine and measuring the accelerometer response (which I am now fairly confident is calibrated correctly). The input point was the signal IN on the extender board, but with the geophones disconnected from the pre-amp.

hv_bode.pnghv_bode.fig

I took the coherence at just a few single frequencies (you can't do coherence measurements in swept sine mode on the SR785) to make sure I was really driving the PZTs, and it was near 1 (998, 999.9, etc) at the frequencies at which I drove. Without the extra notches at 1 Hz (which may be real, it's coherent there too), it looks like a 2-pole high pass filter (goes from -180 to 180 deg, approx. an f^2 dependence). This transfer function should be taken into account by the feedforward algorithm.

The current plan is to make a box with a switch that allows geophone feedback and/or external signals into the high voltage amplifier. It would act sort of like the extender card, except more compact so it could fit into the STACIS. It also would have the advantage of not having to reroute the power, since those lines from the pre-amp could all still be connected (see eLog 7118: http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/7118).

  7328   Fri Aug 31 13:22:29 2012 ElliUpdateIOOCorrecting improper termination of the 55MHz input to the EOM

Koji, Riju, Elli

This morning Koji discovered that the 55MHz input into the RF combiner that I disconnected yesterday wasn't terminated properly, so it was reflecting power back into the amplifier in the signal generation unit.    We turned off the signal generation unit and checked that the amplifier was still working properly- it was.  A 50 ohm terminator was attached to the end of the 55MHz cable so that it is now terminated properly.

When we tried to turn the signal generator box back on we discovered the switch is broken (the box will only stay on while you hold down the on switch) and will need to be replaced.  In order to create the 29.5MHz sidebands to lock the mode cleaner, we bypassed the signal generation unit which won't stay on (unplugging '29.5 MHZ out' cable from the frequency generation unit), and instead sent a 0.39V 29.5MHz signal from a function generatior into 'RF input' on the 'RF AM Stabiliser' board.

We also increased the power coming exiting the PSL table and going into the cavity from 11 microwatts to 20 microwatts by adjusting the polariser at the end of the table slightly.  The power has been set to 20 microwatts using the polariser a few days ago but had drifted down since then.

  7332   Fri Aug 31 18:32:47 2012 KojiUpdateIOOCorrecting improper termination of the 55MHz input to the EOM

 

The power switch of the frequency source was mechanically broken. I replace it with the spare in Kiwamu's treasure box.
I think this replaced new one also had the same problem before, we basically have to find an alternative switch.
The problem is too much friction between the metal housing and the plastic button. I have lubricated the button with
bicycle oil.

I have checked that the 55MHz output still have the output of 25dBm after a 5m BNC cable. (nominal: 27dBm)

I could not test it with the MC as the chambers have already been closed with the light doors.

  1037   Wed Oct 8 23:18:23 2008 YoichiUpdatePSLCorrelation between the Sorensen switching noise and the FSS error signal
I took some spectra and coherence function of the FSS error signal and the +24V Sorensen power line.
The first plot shows spectra of the two signals. Looks like Sorensen is not responsible for most of the lines
in the FSS error signal.
The coherence function between the two signals supports it (second plot).
Slight coherence can be seen at 23kHz and 98.4kHz but not significant.

I will check the coherence of the power line with the ISS signal next.
Attachment 1: PowerLineSpe.png
PowerLineSpe.png
Attachment 2: Coherence.png
Coherence.png
  597   Sun Jun 29 20:29:48 2008 ranaUpdatePSLCorrelation of PSL SLOW control v. Room temperature
Attachment 1: slowtemp.png
slowtemp.png
  2025   Tue Sep 29 23:43:49 2009 ranaAoGall down cond.Cosmic

Actel1.jpg

cosmic rays in cars

  3858   Wed Nov 3 23:58:45 2010 ranaUpdateElectronicsCougars

I looked at this web page: http://www.teledyne-cougar.com/Index.asp for the RF company that Rich has recently started using.

There are ~15 amplifiers that they sell which have a NF < 2 dB and work in the 10-100 MHz band. We should call them to find out if they will package some amps for us or at least sell us a few with eval. boards so that we can make our own.

  10264   Wed Jul 23 17:54:51 2014 HarryUpdateGeneralCoupling Improvements plus PER Measurement Setup

 Purpose

We wanted to improve the coupling into the fibers, because it's very rarely good enough to take measurements with, as the beam is obscured by random noise.

Additionally, we want to add some things to the current setup in order to better measure Polarization Extinction Ratio.

What Was Done

After flailing for several hours, Koji helped me couple the NPRO light into the fiber, using the fiber illuminator for alignment. The coupled optical power immediately jumped from 0-1uW to 5.6mW (around 11% coupling).

Q and I discussed the setup for measuring PER. In addition to the current setup, we added a half wave plate to control the angle of the polarization, in addition to the existing quarter wave plate, which corrects the beam for ellipticity.

PERSetup.png

Once everything was coupled, I started minimizing S-Polarization coming out of the first polarizing beam splitter, and maximizing the P-Polarization entering the fibers.

I did this by first varying the Quarter Wave plate to eliminate as much S Polarization as possible, and then, maintaining a constant differential in angle between QWP and HWP, I rotated them both to maximize power coupled into the fibers.

I measured 0.2 mW of S-Polarization, and 54.3 mW of P-Polarization.

At this point, a locking effort started, and I had to leave the 40m.

Moving Forward

 

Tomorrow, I would like to finish the setup of the PER measurement design. That is to say, add a collimator to the other end of the fiber, and align it with the second PBS.

And, of course, take a measurement of the Polarization Extinction Ratio of the fiber.

To eventually be implemented in Frequency Offset Locking.

  10271   Thu Jul 24 17:37:19 2014 HarryUpdateGeneralCoupling Improvements plus PER Measurement Setup

Quote:

 Purpose

We wanted to improve the coupling into the fibers, because it's very rarely good enough to take measurements with, as the beam is obscured by random noise.

Additionally, we want to add some things to the current setup in order to better measure Polarization Extinction Ratio.

What Was Done

After flailing for several hours, Koji helped me couple the NPRO light into the fiber, using the fiber illuminator for alignment. The coupled optical power immediately jumped from 0-1uW to 5.6mW (around 11% coupling).

Q and I discussed the setup for measuring PER. In addition to the current setup, we added a half wave plate to control the angle of the polarization, in addition to the existing quarter wave plate, which corrects the beam for ellipticity.

PERSetup.png

Once everything was coupled, I started minimizing S-Polarization coming out of the first polarizing beam splitter, and maximizing the P-Polarization entering the fibers.

I did this by first varying the Quarter Wave plate to eliminate as much S Polarization as possible, and then, maintaining a constant differential in angle between QWP and HWP, I rotated them both to maximize power coupled into the fibers.

I measured 0.2 mW of S-Polarization, and 54.3 mW of P-Polarization.

At this point, a locking effort started, and I had to leave the 40m.

Moving Forward

 

Tomorrow, I would like to finish the setup of the PER measurement design. That is to say, add a collimator to the other end of the fiber, and align it with the second PBS.

And, of course, take a measurement of the Polarization Extinction Ratio of the fiber.

To eventually be implemented in Frequency Offset Locking. 

 

Today, I encountered a problem with the stage that holds the coupler, in that its ability to rotate unchecked causes coupling to degrade over time due to torsion in the fibers. Our solution was to stress-relieve the fiber with a clamp.

Unfortunately, this also meant losing coupling completely. It was re-coupled at up 72% efficiency. (Subsequent changes in the setup have decreased that to ~24%)

When I took preliminary measurements of the PER, it was significant, which was unexpected. Upon further discussion with Q, we concluded that since the fiber's fast axis hadn't been aligned with the light's polarization, I was getting multiple polarizations out the end of the fiber.

Subsequent measurements of the power contained in the two polarizations of the output light gave about 0.8% S-Polarization introduced by the fiber.

Tomorrow

I would like to find another collimator holder, to hold the output side of the fiber.

Also, I will spend more time aligning the fiber axes, and the second PBS in order to get a better (read: more reasonable) measurement of PER.

  10175   Thu Jul 10 15:27:09 2014 HarryUpdateGeneralCoupling telescope design

 I designed this telescope to couple the 1064 NPRO into the PM980 fiber, using lenses from the Thorlabs LSB04-C kit.

The collimator is a CFC-2X-C, which has a variable focus length (2.0, 4.6, 7.5, and 11.0 mm) which gives corresponding angles of divergence of 0.298, 0.130, 0.79, and 0.054 degrees by the formula theta = (180*MFD) / (pi*f).

Then, using these values I calculated the spot size of a beam collimated by the CFC-2X-C, using f = w / tan(theta) where w is the spot size. This gave a value of 10.4 um.

I used this value (10.4 um) as a target waist for the telescope system, with the NPRO waist as a seed, at the origin.

telescopeBeamProfile.png

It consists of two lenses, one located at Z = 77cm f = 50cm, and the second located at Z = 85.88 cm f = 2.54cm, which yields a waist of 13um at Z = 88.32cm, (which is where the collimator would go) for an overlap of .974.

Note that the telescope is so far "downrange" from the NPRO waist because it's a virtual waist, and the NPRO itself is located at about Z = 73cm.

Find attached the alm code used.

Attachment 2: telescope.zip
  10179   Thu Jul 10 18:25:18 2014 KojiUpdateGeneralCoupling telescope design

CFC-2X-C has a FIXED focal length of 2mm, but the collimator lens position is adjustable.
I'm not yet sure this affects your calculation or not as what you need is an approximate mode calculation;
once you couple the any amount of the beam into the fiber, you can actually measure it at the output of the fiber with a collimator attached.

  10182   Fri Jul 11 09:41:43 2014 not KojiUpdateGeneralCoupling telescope design

Quote:

CFC-2X-C has a FIXED focal length of 2mm, but the collimator lens position is adjustable.
I'm not yet sure this affects your calculation or not as what you need is an approximate mode calculation;
once you couple the any amount of the beam into the fiber, you can actually measure it at the output of the fiber with a collimator attached.

 I don't believe it had any effect, as all the calculations gave me the same target waist.

  3403   Wed Aug 11 16:56:00 2010 KojiSummaryEnvironmentCovering of the IFO

Katharine, Sharmila, Gopal, Kiwamu, Jenne, Aidan, Steve, and Koji

A guy from the carpenter shop has done the drilling work in the morning.

In the afternoon we wrapped the central part of the interferometer with plastic sheets in order to avoid the dusts from the tile ripping that will happen tomorrow.

Attachment 1: IMG_2732.jpg
IMG_2732.jpg
  5129   Fri Aug 5 22:54:29 2011 kiwamuMetaphysicsTreasureCrane crew here Monday morning

Also, according to Steve, there will be some crane guys for fixing the Y end crane issue (#5124) Monday morning.

Quote from #5128

 a film crew will be here Monday morning. They are slated to be here from 8am to 12:30pm or so. 

  3312   Wed Jul 28 16:42:21 2010 steveUpdateGeneralCrane gear box cheched

Quote:

Quote:

The guy from KroneCrane (sp?) came today and started the crane inspection on the X End Crane. There were issues with our crane so he's going to resume on Monday. We turned off the MOPA fur the duration of the inspection.

  1. None of our cranes have oil in the gearbox and it seems that they never did since they have never been maintained. Sloppy installation job. The crane oiling guy is going to come in on Monday.
  2. They tried to test the X-End crane with 2500 lbs. (its a 1 ton crane). This tripped the thermal overload on the crane as intended with this test. Unfortunately, the thermal overload switch disabled the 'goes down' circuit instead of the 'goes up' circuit as it should. We double checked the wiring diagram to confirm our hypothesis. Seems the X-End crane was wired up incorrectly in the first place 16 years ago. We'll have to get this fixed.

The plan is that they will bring enough weight to test it at slightly over the rating (1 Ton + 10 %) and we'll retry the certification after the oiling on Monday.

 The south end crane has one more flaw. The wall cantilever is imbalanced: meaning it wants to rotate south ward, because its axis is off.

This effects the rope winding on the drum as it is shown on Atm2

Atm1 is showing Jay Swar of KoneCrane and the two 1250 lbs load that was used for the test. Overloading the crane at 125% is general practice at load testing.

It was good to see that the load brakes were working well at 2500 lbs. Finally we found a good service company! and thanks for Rana and Alberto

for coming in on Saturday.

 Jeff Stinson, technician of KoneCrane inspected the south end crane hoist gear box. This was the one that was really low on oil. The full condition require

~ 950cc of EPX-7 (50-70W) high viscosity gear oil. The remaining 120 cc oil was drained and the gear box cover was removed. See Atm 1

He found the gear box, load brake and gearing in good condition. The slow periodic sound of the drive was explained by the split bearings at Atm 3

The Vertex and the east end crane gear boxes needed only 60 cc oil to be added to each Atm 4 and their drives were tested.

Conclusion: all 3 gear boxes and drives are in good working condition.

Tomorrow's plan: load test at 1 ton and correct-check  3 phase wiring.

Attachment 1: P1060503.JPG
P1060503.JPG
Attachment 2: P1060511.JPG
P1060511.JPG
Attachment 3: P1060515.JPG
P1060515.JPG
Attachment 4: P1060517.JPG
P1060517.JPG
  15544   Fri Aug 28 11:41:23 2020 gautamBureaucracysafetyCrane inspection 2020

Mr Fred Goodbar of Konacrane was in the lab 830am-1130am today. All three cranes in the VEA were inspected, loaded with 450lb test weights, and declared in good working condition and safe to use.

  1. Apparently, the clackity noise heard when running the crane at the south end is a known problem - the crane was opened up and inspected sometime in the past, and no obvious cause was found. This is not expected to affect the usability of the crane.
  2. The travel speed of the cranes is slow - but this is apparently intentional, on the request of Steve V.

The interferometer subsystems appear normal after the inspection. 

  2015   Mon Sep 28 23:44:18 2009 KojiOmnistructureSAFETYCrappy power outlet

Jenne, Koji

Tonight we found that the wireless for Martian network was down.
We inspected the router and found the power was down. The power of the weather station was also down.

By touching the power outlet which they are connected, the power changes on and off.
This problematic power outlet has a label "L#17" just below the photograph of the mk I (1989).
The plug was connected to the left one.

As it was scary, we moved the power plug to the next one (L#19).
The wireless router and the weather station were powered now,
though the weather station is showing a wrong time in its clock.

  4978   Fri Jul 15 19:00:18 2011 dmassMetaphysicselogCrashes

Elog crashed a couple times, restarted it a couple times.

  2990   Wed May 26 12:59:26 2010 josephbUpdateCDSCreated sus, sup, scx, spx models

I created the sus model, which is the suspension controller for ITMX, ITMY, BS, PRM, SRM.  I also created sup, which is the suspension plant model for those same optics.

Updated /cvs/cds/caltech/target/fb  master and daqdrc files to add SUS, SUP models.  Megatron's /etc/rc.d/rc.local file has been updated to include all the necessary models as well.

The suspension controller needs the Binary IO outputs need to be checked and corrected if wrong by changing the constant connected to the exclusive or gates. Right now its using the end suspension binary output values which may not be correct.

  1601   Mon May 18 19:44:52 2009 rana, steveConfigurationVACCryo Pump turned off and valved off: 1 beer can only
I was seeing some excess noise in the ETMY oplev yaw and so we turned off the cryo and restarted c1vac2 to get the turbo pump channels back.

The RGA was also turned off to protect its innocence and we are now running on the single beer can Turbo (TP3). The pressure has risen
from 1e-7 to 2e-5 torr. We'll probably level off at 5e-5 overnight and that's fine for now.

Unfortunately, the VM1 valve, which is between the RGA and the main volume, keeps getting turned off by our interlock software
to protect the RGA. Probably because our Vac screen shows the RGA 'Normal' even though the power is off and the record is invalid (white;
although the MEDM screen doesn't show it white).

I also moved Steve's secret Vacuum control screen from the target/ directory to the correct medm directory (with all the other Vacuum
screens) and added it to the SVN.
  1507   Wed Apr 22 11:16:26 2009 steveConfigurationVACCryo pump is ON and the Maglev is dead

The CRYO pump cooled down and VC1 was opened. This valve configuration is Cryo-only


PSL output shutter opened at 4pm 

PZT HV power supplies turned on for OMC and IOO steering mirrors.

There positions were not corrected to strain gauge values.

 

Ben helped us to conclude that the FAILURE led indicator is working correctly and

has nothing to do with the one lose, dangling wire#258 in the side connects of the vac rack.

 

I reset the CSB switch inside the Maglev controller and tried to start accelerating.

It fails after 2-3 sec and failure led light comes on.

Now we can say the MAGLEV 360 is DEAD and the new OSAKA TG420M can be swapped in.

However it requires new interface with our epics based MEDM or better...?

 

 

Attachment 1: cryoOn.jpg
cryoOn.jpg
  1701   Thu Jun 25 10:28:58 2009 steveHowToVACCryopump is regenerated
The Cryopump's VC1 valve to IFO was closed yesterday.
The compressor  Helium pressure was 235 PSI. The cold head temp on H2 vapor pressure gauge was reading ~14 Kelvin,
The compressor and piston driver were turned off to let cold head warm up to room temp.
The flow path from Cryo to TP3 were checked to insure that only VC2 and V5 would be open for pumping.
VC2 valve was opened to TP3 through V5
Now as the Cryo was warming up while TP3 drag turbo pump was pumping away the accumulated ice, that was melting and vaporizing.
This is shown on one day the plot below.
To check outgassing rate of the Cryo pump after one day of pumping V5 was closed for 20 minutes.
The accumulation was 1.3 mTorr in 20 min
This means the Cryo is clean, it is ready to be started up in the future.
VC2 was closed to seal this condition.
The flow path between VC2, VM3, V7, V6 , VA6 and manual needle valve  would be pumped for one day through V5 to TP3 to clean up 
Attachment 1: Creg.jpg
Creg.jpg
  10321   Fri Aug 1 11:11:12 2014 KojiUpdateIOOCurrent IMC servo configuration

The comparison between the new and old MC servo (FSS part) was attached.

- The new servo has the same DC range as before.
  Even though there is 1/2 gain in the chain now, the previous range of the FSS box was 0 to 10V.
  Now it is +/-10V. So we did not lose the range.

- The new servo has x3.2 larger range above 100Hz.

- x1.6 enhancement of the FSS Box output noise above 10Hz.

- The noise of the HV amp (and the summing amp) is x300 and x2600 more filtered at 10kHz and 100kHz respectively.

Attachment 1: diagram.pdf
diagram.pdf
  434   Tue Apr 22 08:34:22 2008 josephbConfigurationCamerasCurrent Network Diagram
The attached network diagram has also been added to the 40m Wiki at http://lhocds.ligo-wa.caltech.edu:8000/40m/Image_Processing_with_GigE_Cameras
Attachment 1: Network.pdf
Network.pdf
  16865   Thu May 19 18:56:08 2022 yutaUpdateBHDCurrent OSEM sensor values with all the suspensions aligned

Current OSEM sensor values with all the suspensions aligned are attached.
For 'BS','ITMX','ETMX','ITMY','ETMY','PRM','SRM','LO1','LO2', the ones out of the range [200,800] are marked, and for 'PR2','PR3','SR2','AS1','AS4', the ones out of the range [6000,24000] are marked.

Attachment 1: OSEMS.txt
 =====BS=====
C1:SUS-BS_ULSEN_OUT16 =   602 
C1:SUS-BS_LLSEN_OUT16 =   578 
C1:SUS-BS_URSEN_OUT16 =   606 
C1:SUS-BS_LRSEN_OUT16 =   639 
C1:SUS-BS_SDSEN_OUT16 =   672 
 =====ITMX=====
C1:SUS-ITMX_ULSEN_OUT16 =   403 
C1:SUS-ITMX_LLSEN_OUT16 =   606 
C1:SUS-ITMX_URSEN_OUT16 =   679 
... 75 more lines ...
  6932   Fri Jul 6 20:54:54 2012 MashaUpdatePEMCurrent PEM status

Hi everybody,

Last night I (with the help of Jenne and Jenne's advice - not to implicate her in this or anything) changed the filters for GUR1, GUR2, and STS in C1:PEM-RMS, adding a butterworth bandpass filter at each corresponding frequency band as well as a gain to convert from counts to micros/sec, and then adding a low pass filter in case of aliasing upon squaring.

Currently the seismic signals are going crazy, and producing "Nan" output on the strip graph (which leads to the instantaneously sharp spikes - which leads to the entire signal being filled on the visualizer on the wall). I checked the DataViewer output and the tdsdata output using both grep and wc, and it seems that both every single signal point is present and is a real number (also not a small real number, thereby debunking floating-point error). I'm currently not sure why seismic-strip reads out 'Nan' - perhaps because it's taking the log of 0, taking a negative log, taking the root of a negative number, or dividing by zero.

Does anyone know if the seismic-strip Nan issue is a program bug? If it's not (and therefore a filter bug), please let me know as well.

I'll be in lab for the rest of the night changing the butterworth filters to odd-order elliptic filters (at Rana's suggestion), as well as changing the cut-off frequency for the low-pass filters.

I'll E-log about it when I'm done.

Just to be sure that my numbers are correct - The STS, GUR1, and GUR2 channels all have gain 10, right? (I parsed through the e-log, and these seem to be the most recent numbers

Thanks for your help,

Masha

  6933   Fri Jul 6 22:30:14 2012 MashaUpdatePEMCurrent PEM status

Quote:

Hi everybody,

Last night I (with the help of Jenne and Jenne's advice - not to implicate her in this or anything) changed the filters for GUR1, GUR2, and STS in C1:PEM-RMS, adding a butterworth bandpass filter at each corresponding frequency band as well as a gain to convert from counts to micros/sec, and then adding a low pass filter in case of aliasing upon squaring.

Currently the seismic signals are going crazy, and producing "Nan" output on the strip graph (which leads to the instantaneously sharp spikes - which leads to the entire signal being filled on the visualizer on the wall). I checked the DataViewer output and the tdsdata output using both grep and wc, and it seems that both every single signal point is present and is a real number (also not a small real number, thereby debunking floating-point error). I'm currently not sure why seismic-strip reads out 'Nan' - perhaps because it's taking the log of 0, taking a negative log, taking the root of a negative number, or dividing by zero.

Does anyone know if the seismic-strip Nan issue is a program bug? If it's not (and therefore a filter bug), please let me know as well.

I'll be in lab for the rest of the night changing the butterworth filters to odd-order elliptic filters (at Rana's suggestion), as well as changing the cut-off frequency for the low-pass filters.

I'll E-log about it when I'm done.

Just to be sure that my numbers are correct - The STS, GUR1, and GUR2 channels all have gain 10, right? (I parsed through the e-log, and these seem to be the most recent numbers

Thanks for your help,

Masha

 

UPDATE: I changed all of the GUR1Z channels to order-5 elliptic filters. I approximated the attenuation for each one by setting the integral from _CutoffFrequency to 10^3 Hz of 10^(-Percent(f)/20) df to 0.01, where Percent(f) is a linear approximation of the relationship between the log of the frequency and the dB level (with the attenuation defining one of the points). Right now the Nan problem continues to persist, even after I loaded the coefficients. In Dataviewer, the channels look relatively normal for the past 10 minutes, as does the data when viewed with tdsdata.

 

Attachment 1: MashaDV.png
MashaDV.png
  6934   Sat Jul 7 15:48:00 2012 MashaUpdatePEMCurrent PEM status

Quote:

Quote:

Hi everybody,

Last night I (with the help of Jenne and Jenne's advice - not to implicate her in this or anything) changed the filters for GUR1, GUR2, and STS in C1:PEM-RMS, adding a butterworth bandpass filter at each corresponding frequency band as well as a gain to convert from counts to micros/sec, and then adding a low pass filter in case of aliasing upon squaring.

Currently the seismic signals are going crazy, and producing "Nan" output on the strip graph (which leads to the instantaneously sharp spikes - which leads to the entire signal being filled on the visualizer on the wall). I checked the DataViewer output and the tdsdata output using both grep and wc, and it seems that both every single signal point is present and is a real number (also not a small real number, thereby debunking floating-point error). I'm currently not sure why seismic-strip reads out 'Nan' - perhaps because it's taking the log of 0, taking a negative log, taking the root of a negative number, or dividing by zero.

Does anyone know if the seismic-strip Nan issue is a program bug? If it's not (and therefore a filter bug), please let me know as well.

I'll be in lab for the rest of the night changing the butterworth filters to odd-order elliptic filters (at Rana's suggestion), as well as changing the cut-off frequency for the low-pass filters.

I'll E-log about it when I'm done.

Just to be sure that my numbers are correct - The STS, GUR1, and GUR2 channels all have gain 10, right? (I parsed through the e-log, and these seem to be the most recent numbers

Thanks for your help,

Masha

 

UPDATE: I changed all of the GUR1Z channels to order-5 elliptic filters. I approximated the attenuation for each one by setting the integral from _CutoffFrequency to 10^3 Hz of 10^(-Percent(f)/20) df to 0.01, where Percent(f) is a linear approximation of the relationship between the log of the frequency and the dB level (with the attenuation defining one of the points). Right now the Nan problem continues to persist, even after I loaded the coefficients. In Dataviewer, the channels look relatively normal for the past 10 minutes, as does the data when viewed with tdsdata.

 

 FIGURED IT OUT - THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH THE LOW PASS FILTERS (TOO HIGH ORDER). FIXING IT NOW, SHOULD BE GOOD IN AN HOUR. 

  15815   Thu Feb 18 03:20:09 2021 KojiSummaryElectronicsCurrent Rack Map

For your planning:

Attachment 1: rack_plan.pdf
rack_plan.pdf
  6963   Wed Jul 11 14:27:29 2012 YaakovSummarySTACISCurrent STACIS Status

The X and Y directions in the STACIS still both oscillate uncontrollably in closed loop, so I'll be doing my testing in Z for now. If I need to use the other axes I'll lower their gain with the pots and add weight to the STACIS platform to try to make it more stable.

Measurements I've taken for Z:

--Open loop gain, taken by driving the PZTs with a swept sine signal and measuring with both internal geophones and external accelerometers. These measurements look a lot like the plots supplied by the STACIS manufacturer, with a resonance at 15-16 Hz (X and Y also look good). Figure below was taken with geophones:

geo_open_z2.png

--Open loop gain, where the input is ambient seismic noise measured by one set of accelerometers on the floor and one set on top of the STACIS:

 ambient_open_z.png

--Closed loop gain, where the input is ambient seismic noise, and feedback is supplied by the geophones (like normal STACIS operation). There's a definite drop in the transfer function, as expected:

ambient_closed_z_geoFeed.png

--Open and closed loop transfer functions superimposed (the higher one is open):

openVclosed.GIF

I am currently working on using the less-noisy accelerometers to provide feedback instead of the geophones. I have found the right point before the extension board to input the accelerometer signal which is NOT the same as the Signal IN/OUT cables- those are at the end of the board, after amplifying and filtering. I want the accelerometer signal to go through the same circuitry as the geophone signal so that the noise of the sensors themselves can be compared.

Problem: Coherence isn't great between the accelerometer sets at low frequencies, which leads to a not very smooth transfer function. I might try using the shaker, because the larger motion may lead to better coherence between the accelerometers on top of the STACIS and at its base.

 

 

Attachment 1: geo_open_z.png
geo_open_z.png
  3096   Tue Jun 22 09:45:21 2010 Aidan, Joe, RazibUpdatePhase CameraCurrent phase camera setup. Seeing Acoustic beat

 We've set up a preliminary test bed for the phase camera. It simply uses a HeNe that is split into two beams. One is frequency shifted by an AOM by -40 MHz - df, where df is some acoustic frequency. The second beam is transmitted through a 40MHz EOM to get sidebands. The two beams are recombined and are, currently, incident on a photodetector, but this can be replaced by the phasecamera.

We turned everything on with df = 1kHz and confirmed that a 1kHz signal is visible on the output from the photodetector (PD). The signal looks to be about 1:300 of the DC level from the PD.

Attachment 1: 2010-06-22_Phase_camera_layout_version_1.pdf
2010-06-22_Phase_camera_layout_version_1.pdf
  3097   Tue Jun 22 13:38:13 2010 KojiUpdatePhase CameraCurrent phase camera setup. Seeing Acoustic beat

1. In terms of the AOM:

How much beam power is incident on the AOM? How much is the deflection efficiency?
i.e. How much is the power lost by the crystal, deflected in the 1st order, and remaining in the oth order?

I am curious because I assume the AOM (which vender?) is designed for 1064nm and the setup uses 632nm.

2. In terms of the EOM:

How much sidebands do you expect to have?

I assume the EOM is designed for 1064nm, the only difference is the coating at the end. Is this right? 

3. Beating

How much beating strength do you expect?

Is your beating level as expected?

How much is the contrast between the PM sideband and the frequency shifted carrier?
This must include the consideration on the presence of the carrier and the other sidebands.

Quote:

 We've set up a preliminary test bed for the phase camera. It simply uses a HeNe that is split into two beams. One is frequency shifted by an AOM by -40 MHz - df, where df is some acoustic frequency. The second beam is transmitted through a 40MHz EOM to get sidebands. The two beams are recombined and are, currently, incident on a photodetector, but this can be replaced by the phasecamera.

We turned everything on with df = 1kHz and confirmed that a 1kHz signal is visible on the output from the photodetector (PD). The signal looks to be about 1:300 of the DC level from the PD.

 

  1277   Fri Feb 6 09:52:35 2009 KakeruUpdatePSLCurrent shunt transfar function

I attach the transfar function of the current shunt.
There is a little gap at 10 Hz for phase, but it is a ploblem of measurement and not real one.
 

Attachment 1: TF_CS_gain.png
TF_CS_gain.png
Attachment 2: TF_CS_phase.png
TF_CS_phase.png
  11817   Thu Nov 26 19:39:27 2015 KojiUpdateLSCCurrent state of the frequency source, and possible improvement

Uploaded on T1000461 too.

Attachment 1: RF_Frequency_Source.pdf
RF_Frequency_Source.pdf RF_Frequency_Source.pdf
  11821   Sun Nov 29 05:23:57 2015 ranaUpdateLSCCurrent state of the frequency source, and possible improvement

I need some more hints to understand the improvement, although its generally good to re-build it considering the sad state of the assembly/installation that you found.

I see that the current design brings the 11 MHz signal to -2 dBm before intering the first ZHL-2+, but since that has a NF of 9 dB, that seems to only degrade the phase noise to -2 - (-174 +9) = -163 dBc. That seems OK since we only need -160 dBc from this system. Probably the AM noise is worse than this already (we should remember to hook up a simple AM stabilizer in 2016, as well as the ISS).

What else are the main features of this improvement? I can reward a good summary with some Wagonga.

  11822   Sun Nov 29 12:32:26 2015 KojiUpdateLSCCurrent state of the frequency source, and possible improvement

I'm not claiming we need to modify the frequency source immediately as we are not limited by the oscillator amplitude or phase noise.
I just wanted to note something in mind before it goes away quickly.

Alberto's T1000461 tells us that the oscillator and phase noise are degraded by factor of ~3 and ~5 due to the RF chanin.
My diagram is possible removal of up-down situation of the chain.

Maybe more direct improvement would be:

- Removal of two amplifiers out of four. The heat condition of the box is touch thought it is not critical.

- The modification will allow us to have a spare 11MHz channel at 1X2 rack that would be useful for 3f modulation.

  8060   Mon Feb 11 17:54:02 2013 KojiSummaryOpticsCurvature radii of the G&H/LaserOptik mirrors

I, by chance, found  that my windows partition has Vision32 installed.
So I run my usual curvature characterization for the TT phasemaps.

They are found under this link
https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:30889/40m_phasemap/40m_TT/(requires: LVC credentials)
or
/cvs/cds/caltech/users/public_html/40m_phasemap/40m_TT

asc/ (ascii files) --> .asc files are saved in Wyko ascii format.
bmp/ (screen shots of Vision32)
mat/ (Matlab scripts and results)
opd/ (Raw binary files)

Estimated radius of curvature

Mirror / RoC from Vision32 / RoC from KA's matlab code
G&H "A" 0864 / -527.5 m / -505.2 m
G&H "B" 0884 / -710.2 m / -683.6 m
LaserOptik SN1 / -688.0 m / -652.7 m
LaserOptik SN2 / -605.2 m / -572.6 m
LaserOptik SN3 / -656.7 m / -635.0 m
LaserOptik SN4 / -607.5 m / -574.6 m
LaserOptik SN5 / -624.8 m / -594.3 m
LaserOptik SN6 / -658.5 m / -630.2 m

The aperture for the RoC in Vision32 seems a bit larger than the one I have used in the code (10mm in dia.)
This could be the cause of the systematic difference of the RoCs between these, as most of our mirrors
has weaker convex curvature for larger aperture, as seen in the figure. (i.e. outer area is more concave
after the subtration of the curvature)

I did not see any structure like Newton's ring which was observed from the data converted with SXMimage. Why???

Attachment 1: TT_Mirrors_RoC.pdf
TT_Mirrors_RoC.pdf TT_Mirrors_RoC.pdf TT_Mirrors_RoC.pdf TT_Mirrors_RoC.pdf TT_Mirrors_RoC.pdf TT_Mirrors_RoC.pdf TT_Mirrors_RoC.pdf TT_Mirrors_RoC.pdf
  8069   Tue Feb 12 18:28:46 2013 JamieSummaryOpticsCurvature radii of the G&H/LaserOptik mirrors

Quote:

I, by chance, found  that my windows partition has Vision32 installed.
So I run my usual curvature characterization for the TT phasemaps.

Is it possible to calculate astigmatism with your tools?  Can we get curvature in X/Y direction, preferably aligned with some axis that we might align to in the vacuum?

  15798   Wed Feb 10 14:14:58 2021 gautamUpdateElectronicsCustom cables received

We received the custom cables to test the new suspension electronics. They are under my desk. So we are ready.

This batch was a small one - the company says that they can make molded cables if we have a minimum order, something to consider I gues.s.


Update 1900 11 Feb: I verified that the pin outs of the cables are as we intended (for one set of each type of cable). Because this was a small order, the connectors have metal shells, and so for cable #2 (sat box to flange), the two shells are shorted to each other. I can't verify if the shield is isolated from the shell on J5 without cutting open the cable. One thing that occurred to me is that we should give pins 5,8,11 on J4 and 16,20,24 on J5 (respectively) unique identifiers. They should only be shorted to GND on the circuit board itself. To be fixed for the next iteration. I uploaded some photos here.

I was unable to measure the capacitance of the cable using the LCR meter, and didn't opt to try any other method.

Attachment 1: satWiring.pdf
satWiring.pdf
  13636   Fri Feb 16 01:34:40 2018 gautamUpdateALSD0902745 in-situ testing

Having implemented the changes to the audio amplifier stage, I re-installed this unit at the LSC rack, and did some testing. The motivation was to determine the shape of the ALS error signal spectrum, so that I can design a whitening preamp accordingly. Attachment #1 is the measurement I've been after. The measurement was taken with EX NPRO PDH locked to the arm via green, and Xarm locked to MC via POX. Slow temperature relief servo for EX NPRO was ON. Here are the details:

  1. Mode-matching into the BeatMouth PSL light fiber had deteriorated dramatically - it was ~1mW out of 4.4mW. I spent 5 mins getting it back to 3.2mW (72% efficiency) and then moved on... I am a little surprised the drift was so large, but perhaps, it's not surprising given that there has been a lot of work on and around the PSL table in the last couple of weeks. There is a 300mm focusing lens after the last steering mirror so the effect of any alignment drifts should be attenuated, I don't really understand why this happened. Anyways, perhaps a more intelligent telescope design would avoid this sort of problem.
  2. I removed the ND filter in the PSL pickoff to BeatMouth path (this was not responsible for the reduced power mentioned in #1). I verified that the total power reaching the photodiode was well below its rated damage threshold of 2mW (right now, there is ~620uW). I will update the BeatMouth schematic accordingly, but I think there will be more changes as we improve mode matching into the fibers at the end.
  3. Hooked up the output of the fiber PD to the Teledyne amp, routed the latters output to the LSC rack. Measured RF electrical power at various places. In summary, ~6dBm of beat reaches the splitter at the LSC rack. This is plenty.
  4. The main finding tonight was discovered by accident.
    • For the longest time, I was scratching my head over why the beat note amplitude, as monitored on the control room SA (I restored it to the control room from under the ITMX optical table where Koji had temporarily stored it for his tests on the PSL table) was drifting by ~10-15dB!
    • So each time, having convinced myself that the power levels made sense, I would come back to the control room to make a measurement, but then would see the beat signal level fluctuate slowly but with considerable amplitudeindecision.
    • The cause - See Attachment #2. There is a length of fiber on the PSL table that is unshielded to the BeatMouth. While plugging in RF cables to the BeatMouth, I found that accidentally brushing the fiber lightly with my arm dramatically changed the beat amplitude as monitored on a scope.
    • For now, I've "strain relieved" this fiber as best as I could, we should really fix this in a better way. This observation leads me to suspect that many of the peaky features seen in Attachment #1 are actually coupling in at this same fiber...
    • The beat note amplitude has been stable since, in the ~90 mins while I've been making plots/elogs.
    • Surely this is a consequence of differential polarization drift between the PSL and EX beams?
  5. There are prominent powerline harmonics in these signals - how can we eliminate these? The transmission line from PSL table to LSC rack already has a BALUN at its output to connect the signal to the unbalanced input of the demod board.
  6. Not sure what to make of the numerous peaks in the LO driven, RF terminated trace.
  7. The location of the lowest point in the bucket also doesn't quite match previous measured out-of-loop ALS noise - we seem to have the lowest frequency noise at 150-200Hz, but in these plots its more like 400Hz.

Conclusion: In the current configuration, with x10 gain on the demodulated signals, we barely have SNR of 10 at ~500Hz. I think the generic whitening scheme of 2 zeros @15Hz, 2poles@150Hz will work just fine. The point is to integrate this whitening with the preamp stage, so we can just go straight into an AA board and then the ADC (sending this signal into D990694 and doing the whitening there won't help with the SNR). Next task is to construct a test daughter board that can do this...

 

Attachment 1: BeatMouthX_20180216.pdf
BeatMouthX_20180216.pdf
Attachment 2: IMG_5134.JPG
IMG_5134.JPG
  13644   Tue Feb 20 23:08:27 2018 gautamUpdateALSD0902745 in-situ testing

Attachment #1 shows the ALS noise measurement today. Main differences from the spectrum posted last week is that

  1. I have tried to align the input polarization axis (p-pol) to the fast axis of the fiber, and believe I have done it to ~75dB.
  2. Steve and I installed some protective tubing for the vertical lengths of fiber going into the beat mouth.
  3. Today, I decided to measure the noise at the differential rear panel outputs rather than the single-ended front panel outputs. For the test, I used a DB25 breakout board and some pomona mini-grabber to BNC clips to connect to the SR785.

For comparison, I have plotted alongside today's measurement (left column) the measurement from last week (right column).

Conclusions:

  • The clear daylight between red and green traces in the left column give me confidence that I am measuring real laser frequency noise in the red trace. It even has the right shape considering the bandwidth of the EX PDH servo.
  • The installation of protective tubing doesn't seem to have reduced the heights of any of the peaks in the red traces. I hypothesize that some of these are acoustic coupling to the fiber. But if so, either the way we installed the protective tubing doesn't help a whole lot, or the location of the coupling is elsewhere.
  • Judging by the control room analyzer, there doesn't seem to be as large drifts in the RF beat amplitude tonight (yes) as I saw the last couple of times I was testing the BeatMouth®. For a more quantitative study, I'm gonna make a voltage divider so that the ~10V output I get at the rear panel power monitor output (for a LO level of ~0dBm, which is what I have) can be routed to some ADC channel. I'm thinking I'll use the Y ALS channels which are currently open while ALS is under work.
  • Still have to make preamp prototype daughter board with the right whitening shape... This test suggests to me that I should also make the output differential sending...
Attachment 1: BeatMouthX_20180220_diffOut.pdf
BeatMouthX_20180220_diffOut.pdf
  13648   Thu Feb 22 00:09:11 2018 gautamUpdateALSD0902745 in-situ testing

I thought a little bit about the design of the preamp we want for the demodulated ALS signals today. The requirements are:

  1. DC gain that doesn't cause ADC saturation.
  2. Audio frequency gain that allows the measured beat signal spectrum to be at least 20dB the ADC noise level.
  3. Electronics noise such that the measured beat signal spectrum is at least 20dB above the input-referred noise of this amplifier.
  4. Low pass filtering at the input to the differential receiving stages, such that the 2f product from the demodulation doesn't drive the AD829 crazy. For now, I've preserved the second-order inductor based LPF from the original board, but if this proves challenging to get working, we can always just go for a first-order RC LPF. One challenge may be to find a 2.2uH inductor that is compatible with prototype PCB boards...
  5. Differential sending, since this seems to be definitively the lower noise option compared to the single-ended output (see yesterday's measurement). The plan is to use an aLIGO AA board that has differential receiving and sending, and then connect directly to the differential receiving ADC.

Attachment #3 shows a design I think will work (for now it's a whiteboard sketch, I''ll make this a computer graphic tomorrow). I have basically retained the differential sending and receiving capabilities of the existing Audio I/F amplifier, but have incorporated some whitening gain with a pole at ~150Hz and zero at ~15Hz. I've preserved the DC gain of 10, which seems to have worked well in my tests in the last week or so. Attachments #1 and #2 show the liso modelled characteristics. Liso does not support input-referred noise measurements for differential voltage inputs, so I had to calculate that curve manually - I suspect there is some subtlety I am missing, as if I plot the input referred noise out to higher frequencies, it blows up quite dramatically.

Next step is to actually make a prototype of this. I am wondering if we need a second stage of whitening, as in the current config, we only get 20dB gain at 150Hz relative to DC. Yesterday's beat spectrum measurement shows that we can expect the frequency noise of the ALS signal at ~100Hz to be at the level of ~1uV/rtHz, but this is is around the ADC noise level? If so, 20dB of whitening gain may be sufficient?

Quote:

Still have to make preamp prototype daughter board with the right whitening shape... This test suggests to me that I should also make the output differential sending...


*Side note: I was wondering why we need the differential receiving stage, followed by a difference amplifier, and then a differential sending stage. After discussing with Koji, we think this is to suppress any common-mode noise from the mixer outputs.

Attachment 1: daughterBoard_TF.pdf
daughterBoard_TF.pdf
Attachment 2: daughterBoard_noise.pdf
daughterBoard_noise.pdf
Attachment 3: IMG_6906.JPG
IMG_6906.JPG
  13616   Wed Feb 7 15:51:15 2018 gautamUpdateALSD0902745 revamp complete

Summary of my tests of the demod boards, post gain modification:

  • DC tests (supply voltage, DC offsets at I and Q outputs, power LEDs etc)
  • RF tests
    • Back panel RF and LO power level monitor calibration
    • Coupling factor from RFinput to RFmon channel
    • Conversion loss as a function of demodulated beat frequency
    • Orthogonality and gain balance test
    • Linearity of unit as a function of RF input level
    • Electronics oise in the 1-10kHz band at the IF outputs.

Everything looks within the typical performance specs outlined in E1100114, except that the measured noise levels don't quite line up with the LISO model predictions. The measurement was made with the scheme shown in Attachment #1. I didn't do a point-by-point debugging of this on the board. I have uploaded the data + notebook summarizing my characterization to the DCC page for this part. I recommend looking at the HTML version for the plots.

*I'd put up the wrong attachment, corrected it now...

Quote:

I will put together a python notebook with all my measurements and upload it to the DCC page for this part. I need to double check expected noise levels from LISO to match up to the measurement.


gautam 9 Feb 2018 9pm: Adding a useful quote here from the LISO manual (pg28). I think if I add the Johnson noise from the output impedance of the mixer (assumed as 50ohms, I get better agreement between the measured and observed noises (although the variance between the 4 channels is still puzzling). The other possible explanation is small variations in the voltage noise at the various mixer output ports. Could we also be seeing the cyclostationary shot noise difference between the I and Q channels? 

For the computation of noise, the distinction between uinput and iinput is ignored, since no input signal is assumed. The source-impedance given in the uinput or iinput instruction is assumed to be connected from the input node to ground. It will affect the gain of noise contributions from their source to the output. The impedance itself is considerednoise-free, i.e. no Johnson noise is computedfor it. If you want to compute the source impedance’s Johnson noise, you must explicitly enter it as a resistor.

In any case, I am happy with this level of agreement, so I am going to stick this 1U chassis back in its rack with the primary aim of measuring a spectrum of the beatnote, so that I have some idea of what kind of whitening filter shape is useful for the ALS signals. May need to pull it out again for actually implementing the daughter board idea though... I have updated DCC page with LISO source, and also the updated python notebooks.

Attachment 1: 6613CD37-5014-44AE-B1FE-6F6A8137DF62.jpeg
6613CD37-5014-44AE-B1FE-6F6A8137DF62.jpeg
  13596   Thu Feb 1 01:24:56 2018 gautamUpdateALSD0902745 revamp underway

I effected the change to the Audio IF preamp stage on channels 3 and 4 (Xarm and Yarm respectively) using the resistors Steve ordered (the ones Rana ordered don't have any labeling on them, and I couldn't tell the 50ohm and 500ohm ones apart except by looking at the label on the ziplock bag they came infrown, so I decided against using them). I've started a DCC page to collect photos, characterization data, and marked up schematic etc for this part. Characterization is ongoing, more to follow soon. Note that for the photo-taking, I disconnected all the on-board SMA connectors so that the cabling wouldn't block components. I have since restored them for testing purposes, and was careful to use the torque-limited SMA tightening tool when restoring the connections.

In order to test various things like conversion loss etc, I figured it would be useful to have two RF signal sources, so I scavenged the Fluke RF generator that Johannes was using from under the PSL table. In the process, I accidentally bumped the PSL interlock on the southeast corner of the PSL table. I immediately turned the NPRO back on, and relocked PMC/IMC. Everything looks normal now. Acromag may even have caught my transgression.

Quote:
 

I am going to characterize the demod board using E1100114. I am unsure as to the conversion loss of the mixer - the datasheet suggested a number of 8dB, but T1000044 suggests that the conversion loss is actually only 4dB. I figure it's best to just measure it. Would also be good to verify that the overall transfer function and noise of the IF amplifier stage match my expectation from the LISO model.

 

Attachment 1: PSLinterlock.png
PSLinterlock.png
  13599   Fri Feb 2 00:26:34 2018 gautamUpdateALSD0902745 revamp underway

I saw some interesting behaviour of the Audio IF amplifier stage on the demod board today, by accident. I was testing the board for I/Q orthogonality and gain balance, when I noticed a large gain imbalance between the I and Q channels for both Board #3 and #4, which are the ones we use for the IR ALS demodulation. This puzzled me for some time, but then I realized that I had only reduced the gain of this stage from x100 to x10 for the I channel, and not for the Q channel! The surprising thing though was that the output waveform still looked like a clean sinusoid on the o'scope, and there was no evidence of the voltage clipping that is characteristic of an op-amp being driven beyond its voltage rails. The conversion factor with a preamp gain on x10 was measured today to be 2V IF / 1V RF. But this means that for a preamp stage gain of x100, we expect 20V IF / 1V RF, which is well in the saturation regime of the AD829, since the Vcc is only +/-15V. I'm guessing the diodes D2 and D3 are for overvoltage protection, but given that the pre-amp gain is x100, the input signal at the inverting input of the AD829 is only 0.2V at DC, which isn't above the forward bias voltage for the switching diode BAV99. Perhaps there is some interaction between the pre-amp and the FET demodulator that I dont understand, or I am missing something about the differential to single-ended topology that would explain this behaviour. 

I found it puzzling why the large preamp stage gain didn't hurt us with the green beat - even though the green optical beat signal was smaller than the current IR beat, a back-of-the-envelope calculation suggested that it would still have saturated the ADC with a x100 gain on the preamp. Perhaps this observation is part of the story, and there is also the unpredictable behaviour of the D990694 board for an input signal with large DC levels...


I did the following tests on this board today:

  • Check +/-15V supplies, power reg board.
  • Check DC offset on I and Q front panel output with LO driven at +10dBm, RF input terminated. Found it to be 0.
  • Checked calibration of back-panel DSUB connector monitors for LO and RF powers. Data to be uploaded, looked quite linear.
  • Checked conversion gain from RF input to IF output for two sets of LO/RF powers.
  • Measured conversion gain as a function of the IF frequency (i.e. frequency offset between LO and RF inputs, out to ~700kHz, 8 datapoints)
  • Checked orthogonality and gain balance of the I and Q outputs.
  • Measured the noise of the I and Q outputs in the audio frequency range using the SR785.

I didn't really measure the transfer function of the preamp stage after the modification because there wasn't a convenient test point and I couldn't find the high impedance FET probe for the Agilent - I wonder if somebody in WB has it? Anyways, all the tests suggested the board is operating as expected, and I now have calibrations for the back panel DSUB for LO/RF power levels, and also the conversion gain from RF to IF. I will put together a python notebook with all my measurements and upload it to the DCC page for this part. I need to double check expected noise levels from LISO to match up to the measurement.

I will now proceed to the next piece (#3?) of this puzzle, which is to understand how the D990694 which receives the signals from this unit reacts to the expected DC voltage level of ~4Vpp.


After discussion with Koji, I have also decided to look into putting together a daughter board for an alternative Audio IF preamp stage. The motivation is that for the ALS application, we expect a high DC signal level all the time (because the loop does not suppress the beat note amplitude). So we would like for the preamp stage to have the usual shape of some zero around 4Hz, a pole around 40Hz, and then the LowPass profile of the existing preamp stage (to cut out the 2f frequency product, but also to minimize the possibility of the fast AD829 going into some unpredictable regime where it oscillates). So, the desired features are:

  • Whitening (z,p) at (4Hz,40Hz) or (15Hz,150Hz) so that we have frequency dependent gain that can handle the large DC signal level expected. Need to measure noise of the actual IR beat signal to determine what the appropriate whitening shape is.
  • Low-pass above a few 100kHz to cut out 2f modulation product
  • Low-passing at input of AD829 (or just use OP27?)
  14870   Tue Sep 10 17:26:49 2019 KojiUpdateCDSD1900068 SR785 accessory box

I picked up a unit of D1900068 SR785 accessory box from Dean's office at Downs. 

Attachment 1: P_20190910_171859_1.jpg
P_20190910_171859_1.jpg
  48   Thu Nov 1 16:51:33 2007 d40AoGGeneralD40
If you vant see D40 againn, you leave one plate goulash by N2 tank in morning.

Vit the good paprikash this time!!!
Attachment 1: PB010001.JPG
PB010001.JPG
  13621   Thu Feb 8 00:33:20 2018 gautamUpdateALSD990694 characterization / THD measurement plan

I decided to try doing the THD measurement with a function generator. Did some quick trials tonight to verify that the measurement plan works. Note that for the test, I turned off the z=15,p=150 whitening filter - I'm driving a signal at ~100Hz and should have plenty of oomph to be seen above ADC noise.

  1. Checked for ground loops - seem to be fine, see black trace on Attachment #1 which was taken with the FnGen hooked up to the input, but not putting out any signal
  2. Spectrum with 1Vpp sine wave @ ~103Hz. The various harmonic peaks are visible, and though I've not paid attention to bin width etc, the largest harmonics are ~1000x smaller than the main peak, and so the THD is ~1ppm, which is in the ballpark of what the datasheet tells us to expect around 100Hz for a gain of ~10 (=20dB). The actual gain was set at 0dB (so all opAmps in the quad bypassed)

I'm going to work on putting together some code that gives me a quick readback on the measured THD, and then do the test for real with different amplitude input signal and whitening gain settings.

**Matlab has a thd function, but to the best of my googling, can't find a scipy.signal analog.


To remind myself of the problem, summarize some of the discussion Koji and I had on the actual problem via email, and in case I've totally misunderstood the problem:

  1. The "Variable Gain" feature on the D990694 boards is achieved by 4 single gain stages cascaded together in series, with the ability to engage/bypass each stage individually.
  2. The 4 gain stages are constructed using the 4 OpAmps in a quad LT1125 IC, each in standard non-inverting configuration.
  3. The switches unfortunately are on the output side of each op-amp. This means that even if a stage is bypassed, the signal reaches the input pin of the OpAmp.
  4. For proper operation, in closed-loop, the differential voltage between the input pins of the OpAmp are 0.
  5. But this may require the OpAmp to source more current than it can (just using Ohms law and the values of the resistors in the feedback path).
  6. As a result, a large differential voltage develops between the input pins of the OpAmp.
  7. The LT1125 is not rated to operate in such conditions (this is what Hartmut was saying in the ilog linked earlier in this thread).
  8. Part of the internal protection mechanism to prevent damage to the IC in such operating conditions is a pair of diodes between the input pins of the OpAmp.
  9. When a large differential voltage develops between the input pins of the OpAmp, the diodes act to short the two to bring them to the same potential (minus whatever small drop there is across the diodes). Actually, according to the datasheet, when the differential voltage between the input pins exceeds 1.4V, the input current must be limited to 25mA, to avoid damaging the protection diodes? If so, we may already have damaged a bunch of these amplifiers.
  10. While the LT1125 IC is protected in this condition, the infinite input impedance of the OpAmp is reduced to the resistance between the inverting input and ground. The output voltage may still be saturated, but the output current draw is within what the IC can supply.
  11. As a result, Ohms law means that the preceeding stage is overdrawn for current. This is clearly not ideal.
  12. Another possible problem is that there is some sort of interaction between the 4 opamps in the quad IC, which means that even if one stage is overdrawn for current, all of them may be affected.
  13. The Advanced LIGO version of this board addresses #11 and #12 by (i) placing a series resistor between the input signal and the non-inverting input of the opamp, and (ii) using single opamp ICs instead of a quad, respectively.

So my question is - should we just cut the PCB trace and add this series resistance for the 4 ALS signal channels, and THEN measure the THD? Since the DC voltage level of the ALS signal is expected to be of the order of a few volts, we know we are going to be in the problematic regime where #11 and #12 become issues.

Attachment 1: D990694THD_trial.pdf
D990694THD_trial.pdf
  13622   Thu Feb 8 01:27:16 2018 KojiUpdateALSD990694 characterization / THD measurement plan

> So my question is - should we just cut the PCB trace and add this series resistance for the 4 ALS signal channels, and THEN measure the THD?

 

GO A HEAD

  13623   Thu Feb 8 12:00:09 2018 gautamUpdateALSD990694 is NOT differential receiving

Correcting a mistake in my earlier elog: the D990694 is NOT differential receiving, it is single ended receiving via the front panel SMA connectors. The aLIGO version of the whitening board, D1001530 has an additional differential-to-single-ended input stage, though it uses the LT1125 to implement this stage. So the possibility of ground loops on all channels using this board will exist even after the planned change to install series resistance to avoid current overloading the preceeding stage.

Quote:
 

So either something is busted on this board (power regulating capacitor perhaps?), or we have some kind of ground loop between electronics in the same chassis (despite the D990694 being differential input receiving). Seems like further investigation is needed. Note that the D000316 just two boards over in the same Eurocrate chassis is responsible for driving our input steering mirror Tip-Tilt suspensions. I wonder if that board too is suffering from a similarly noisy ground?

 

ELOG V3.1.3-