40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 175 of 344  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Categoryup Subject
  5373   Fri Sep 9 20:52:59 2011 kiwamuUpdateIOOspot positions on MC mirrors (in-vac)

The spot positions on the MC mirrors were readjusted.

All the amount of the off-center became smaller than 2 mm, which meet requirements of the beam clearance on the Faraday.

 

    Feb 26 2011      May 08 2011 Aug 2 2011  Aug 10 2011 (in air) Aug 14 2011 (in air)

Aug 23 2011 (in air)

 Sep 9 2011 [NEW] Sep 9 2011
MC1 pit [mm]   1.6   1.9  1.93 -0.858 -0.2 0.1354  -1.55  0.22
MC2 pit [mm]   6.4   9.0 9.03 -0.844 -0.8 -0.2522  -2.28  -0.34
MC3 pit [mm]   1.4   2.0 2.01 -1.03 -0.1 -0.1383  -1.8 -0.21
MC1 yaw [mm]   -1.5   -1.7 -1.72 -0.847 -1.1 -1.0893  -0.02 -1.15
MC2 yaw [mm]   1.0   0.2 0.178 0.582 0.6 0.7122  3.52 0.07
MC3 yaw [mm]   -1.3   -1.9 -1.87 -1.06 -1.1 -1.5587  -2.145 -1.07

 

 In order to improve the MC1-YAW and MC3-YAW spot positions, the angle of the incident beam has to be shifted by approximately 1/100 rad.

However it turned out to be very difficult to introduce such amount of angle only with the steering mirrors on the PSL table since we have to keep the same translation while changing the angle.

 

Quote from #5371

The obtained spot positions are quite bad and roughly at 2-3 mm level. We have to realign the beam axis and the MC mirrors.

 

  5383   Sat Sep 10 20:30:01 2011 ranaUpdateIOOMC trans re-aligned / MC2 shifted mysteriously / MC2 re-aligned

MCdecenter.png

I re-aligned the beam onto the MC TRANS QPD since Kiwamu had centered the spots on the mirrors. However, I then inspected the MC2F camera. After coming back into the control room I noticed that the MC transmission had gone down by 50% and that the MC2 OSEMs showed a large step. My guess is that somehow the opening and closing of the can shifted the suspension. So I adjusted the MC2 alignment biases to recover the transmitted power (its now ~50000 instead of the ~33000 from Friday).

  5391   Mon Sep 12 23:54:10 2011 kiwamuUpdateIOOEOM resonant box installed

[Mirko / Kiwamu]

 The resonant box has been installed together with a 3 dB attenuator.

The demodulation phase of the MC lock was readjusted and the MC is now happily locked.

 

(Background)

We needed more modulation depth on each modulation frequency and so for the reason we installed the resonant box to amplify the signal levels.

Since the resonant box isn't impedance matched well, the box creates some amount of the RF reflections (#5339).

In order to reduce somewhat of the RF reflection we decided to put a 3 dB attenuator in between the generation box and the resonant box.

 

(what we did)

 + attached the resonant box directly to the EOM input with a short SMA connector.

 + put stacked black plates underneath the resonant box to support the wight of the box and to relief the strain on the cable between the EOM and the box.

 + put a 3 dB attenuator just after the RF power combiner to reduce RF reflections.

 + readjusted the demodulation phase of the MC lock.

 

(Adjustment of MC demodulation phase)

 The demodulation phase was readjusted by adding more cable length in the local oscillator line.

After some iterations an additional cable length of about 30 cm was inserted to maximize the Q-phase signal.

So for the MC lock we are using the Q signal, which is the same as it had been before.

 

 Before the installation of the resonant box, the amplitude of the MC PDH signal was measured in the demodulation board's monitor pins.

The amplitude was about 500 mV in peak-peak (see the attached pictures of the I-Q projection in an oscilloscope). Then after the installation the amplitude decreased to 400 mV in peak-peak.

Therefore the amplitude of the PDH signal decreased by 20 %, which is not as bad as I expected since the previous measurement indicated 40 % reduction (#2586).

 

Attachment 1: EOM.png
EOM.png
Attachment 2: before.png
before.png
Attachment 3: after.png
after.png
  5393   Tue Sep 13 09:16:00 2011 SureshUpdateIOOMC spots recentered and input beam aligned

The shift of MC2 which Rana noted caused the beam spots on the MC mirrors to decenter. I used the mcassUp and mcassOn scripts and checked the output of the C1IOO lockins to get the spot positions.  I first tried to realign just the MC2 to recenter the spots.  But this was not sufficient.  I then worked on the pitch of all three optics since it is easier to align.   By the time this was done the offset in yaw also reduced, probably due to cross coupling between pitch and yaw in the coils.  At the end of the process I obtained all decentering around 1.5mm or less, then I went over to adjust the MC2TransQPD beam path so that we center the spot on the QPD.  This action shifted the stack,  I had to iterate this two more times before the successive corrections grew sufficiently small.  I think it may shift again if we touch the chamber (the image of MC2Face is still inverted).

The new spot positions in mm (MC1,2,3 pit MC1,2,3 yaw):
    1.3212   -0.8415    0.6795   -1.4292   -0.3574   -1.5208

 

 mcdecenter20110912_1.png    mcdecenter20110912_2.png      

 

- Further improvement of beam centering can be done but first I would like to be sure that the MC is stable.  The MC2Trans light is centered on the QPD as a reference.

 

  5431   Fri Sep 16 11:15:12 2011 KojiUpdateIOOPZT1 situation

[Koji Kiwamu]

- We have checked the situation of the broken Piezo Jenna PZT (called PZT1)

- Tested PZT1 by applying a dc voltage on the cables. Found that pitch and yaw reasonably moving and the motions are well separated each other.
  The pitch requires +20V to set the IPPOS spot on the QPD center.

- Made a high-voltage (actually middle voltage) amp to convert +/-10V EPICS control signal into -5 to +30V PZTout. It is working on the prototype board and will be put into the actual setup soon.


Details:

- The Piezo Jenna driver box has 4 modules. From the left-hand side, the HV module, Yaw controller, Pitch controller, and Ben abbot's connector converter.

- We checked the voltage on Ben's converter board. (Photo1)
  It turned out that the red cable is the one have the driving voltage while the others stays zero.

- We hooked a 30V DC power supply between the red cable and the shield which is actually connected to the board ground.

- Applying +/-10V, we confirmed the strain gauge is reacting. If we actuated the pitch cable, we only saw the pitch strain gauge reacted. Same situation for yaw too.

- Kiwamu went to IPPOS QPD to see the spot position, while I change the voltage. We found that applying +20V to the pitch cable aligns the spot on the QPD center.

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

- I started to make a small amplifier boards which converts +/-10V EPICS signals into -5V to +30V PZT outs.

- The OPAMP is OPA452 which can deal with the supply voltages upto +/-40V. We will supply +/-30V. The noninerting amp has the gain of +2.

- It uses a 15V zener diode to produce -15V reference voltage from -30V. This results the output voltage swing from -5V to +35V.
The actual maximum output is +30V because of the supply voltage.

- On the circut test bench, I have applied +/-5V sinusoidal to the input and successfully obtained +5V to +25V swing.

- The board will be put on Ben's board today.

Attachment 1: P9151574.JPG
P9151574.JPG
Attachment 2: P9161576.JPG
P9161576.JPG
Attachment 3: P9161577.JPG
P9161577.JPG
  5447   Sat Sep 17 14:04:45 2011 KojiUpdateIOOPZT1 driver in place

The PZT driver is now in place. The actual PZTs are not connected yet!

It is accommodated on Ben's connector adapter board.

The panel has additional connectors now: two inputs and a power supply connector.

The supply voltage is +/-30V (actual maximum +/-40V), and the input range is +/-10V
which yields the output range of -5V to 30V. The gain of the amplifier is +2.

It is confirmed that the HV outputs react to the epics sliders although the PZT connector is not connected yet
so as not to disturb the locking activity.

When we engage the PZT connector, we should check the HV outputs with an oscilloscope to confirm they
have no oscillation with the capacitances of the PZTs together with the long cable.

Attachment 1: P9171579.JPG
P9171579.JPG
Attachment 2: P9171580.JPG
P9171580.JPG
  5450   Sun Sep 18 15:57:00 2011 KojiUpdateIOOThe PZT driver engaged to PZT1

[Koji Kiwamu]

The pzt driver for PZT1 has been installed.
As there was unknown resistive connection in the vacuum chamber as described below,
the PZT out cable at the PJ driver module should always be disconnected.
The sensor cables have no problem to be connected to the controller.
In fact, they are a good monitor for the state of the PZTs.

In this configuration, Pitch and Yaw direction of PZT1 is under the control of the EPICS value as we expected.


Details:

- At the beginning, we tested the PZT driver output with low voltage level (~10V). We did not see any oscillation of the opamps.
  The pitch output was observed to be OK, while the YAW output exhibited a half of the expected output voltage.
  The opamp was holding correct voltage, however the voltage after the 1K output resister was about a half.
  This indicated there was a voltage division happening.

- The cause of the voltage division was tracked. We found that the yaw red (=hot) line is connected to pitch black
  in the vacuum chamber with a resistance of 1.4kOhm. The black cables are shorted to the ground level in the PJ driver.

- We decided to unplug the PJ's cable so that we can isolate the black cables while hoping the PZTs were drived only
  by the red and white cables. And they did.

- This means that we should not connect the PZT driving cable to the PJ's driver. The sensors have no problem to be connected.

- Pinouts:

DSUB25
|. .|
|. .|
|. o|  5
|o  | 17
|  o|  4 
|o  | 16   Yaw Black
|  o|  3   Pitch Black
|o  | 15   Yaw White
|  o|  2   Yaw Red
|o  | 14   Pitch White
 \ o|  1   Pitch Red
  \-+

* Pitch White and Yaw White are connected to the ground at the amplifier side.
* Yaw Red and Pitch Black is connected with 1.4kOhm and isolated from the others.


  5459   Mon Sep 19 14:57:36 2011 kiwamuSummaryIOOIP POS is back

IPPOS is back. A cable had been disconnected at the 1Y2 rack. So I put it back to place.

The cartoon below shows the current wiring diagram. I think this configuration is exactly the same as it it used to be.

wiring.png

Quote from #5455

  + Fixing IPPOS (volunteers) 

  5472   Mon Sep 19 23:19:40 2011 KeikoUpdateIOOAM modulation mistery

 Keiko, Anamaria

We started to investigate the AM modulation mistery again. Checking just after the EOM, there are AM modulation about -45dBm. Even if we adjust the HWP just before the EOM, AM components grow up in 5 mins. This is the same situation as before. Only the difference from before is that we don't have PBS and HWP between the EOM and the monitor PD. So we have a simpler setup this time.

We will try to align the pockells cell alignment tomorrow daytime, as it may be a problem when the crystal and the beam are not well parallel. This adjustment has been done before and it didn't improve AM level at that time.

  5478   Tue Sep 20 13:57:44 2011 kiwamuUpdateIOOincident beam to MC aligned

Since the MC wasn't able to capture the 00 mode in this morning I aligned the incident beam going to MC.

As a result C1:IOO-RFPD_DCMON went down to 0.6. However the beam on IPPOS is almost falling off from the QPD.

  5483   Tue Sep 20 16:31:24 2011 KeikoUpdateIOOSmall modulation depth

 Modulation resonator box is removed and the modulation depth is small right now.

I have broke the BNC connector on the modulation resonator box. The connector was attached by the screw inside very loosely and when we connect and disconnect the BNC cables from outside, extra force was applied to the cable inside and it was broke. It is being fix by Kiwamu and will be back in a bit.

 

 

 

 

  5484   Tue Sep 20 16:38:25 2011 KeikoUpdateIOOSmall modulation depth

Resonator box and the modulations are back now. But the modulation depth seems to be a bit smaller than yesterday, looking at the optical spectrum analyser.

 

Quote:

 Modulation resonator box is removed and the modulation depth is small right now.

I have broke the BNC connector on the modulation resonator box. The connector was attached by the screw inside very loosely and when we connect and disconnect the BNC cables from outside, extra force was applied to the cable inside and it was broke. It is being fix by Kiwamu and will be back in a bit

 

  5490   Tue Sep 20 21:13:39 2011 SureshUpdateIOOMC aligned and PSL beam into MC readjusted

This morning after Kiwamu maximised the PSL beam coupling into the MC we noticed that the MC2 face camera showed the spot position had moved away from the center by about a diameter.  So I checked the beam spot positions with MCASS and indeed found that the spot on MC2 had moved to about 6mm away from the center in yaw and about 3mm in pitch.  I adjusted the MC2 (and only MC2) to recenter the spots on all the three mirrors.  The new spot positions are given below

spot positions in mm (MC1,2,3 pit MC1,2,3 yaw):
    1.3337   -0.2660    0.6641   -1.0973    0.0468   -1.7130

The PSL beam into MC has been readjusted for maximal coupling into MC.

 

  5491   Tue Sep 20 23:01:37 2011 KeikoUpdateIOOAM modulation mistery

Keiko, Suresh

AM modulations are still there ... the mechanical design for the stages, RF cables, and connections are not good and affecting the alignment.

I write the activity in the time series this time - Because we suspect the slight EOM misalignment to the beam produces the unwanted AM sidebands, we tried to align the EOM as much as possible. First I aligned the EOM tilt aligner so that the maximum power goes through. I found that about 5% power was dumped by EOM. After adjusting the alignment, the AM modulation seemed be much better and stable, however, it came up after about 20 mins. They grew up up to about -40dBm, while the noise floor is -60 dBm (when AM is minimised, with DC power of 8V by PDA225 photodetector).

We changed the EOM stage (below the tilt aligner) from a small plate to a large plate, so that the EOM base can be more stable. The EOM stands on the pile of several black plate. There was a gap below the tilt aligner because of a small plate.  So we swapped the small plate to large plate to eliminate the springly gap. However it didn't make any difference - it is the current status and there is still AM modulations right now.

During above activities, we leaned that the main cause of the EOM misalignment may be the RF cables and the resonator box connected to the EOM. They are connected to the EOM by an SMA adaptor, not any soft cables. It is very likely applying some  torc force to the EOM box. The resonator box is almost hunging from the EOM case and just your slight touch changes EOM alinment quite a bit and AM mod becomes large. 

I will replace the SMA connector between the resonator box and EOM to be a soft cable, so that the box doesn't hung from EOM tomorrow. Also, I will measure the AM mod depth so that we compare with the PM mod depth.

 

Quote:

 Keiko, Anamaria

We started to investigate the AM modulation mistery again. Checking just after the EOM, there are AM modulation about -45dBm. Even if we adjust the HWP just before the EOM, AM components grow up in 5 mins. This is the same situation as before. Only the difference from before is that we don't have PBS and HWP between the EOM and the monitor PD. So we have a simpler setup this time.

We will try to align the pockells cell alignment tomorrow daytime, as it may be a problem when the crystal and the beam are not well parallel. This adjustment has been done before and it didn't improve AM level at that time.

 

  5502   Wed Sep 21 16:44:18 2011 KeikoUpdateIOOAM modulation mistery

AM modulation depths are found to be 50 times smaller than PM modulation depths.

m(AM,f1) ~ m(AM, f2) = 0.003 while m(PM, f1)=0.17 and m(PM, f2)=0.19.

Measured values;

* DC power = 5.2V which is assumed to be 0.74mW according to the PDA255 manual.

*AM_f1 and AM_f2 power = -55.9 dBm = 2.5 * 10^(-9) W.

P92101381.jpg

AM f2 power is assumed to be the similar value of f1. I can't measure f2 (55MHz) level properly because the PD (PDA255) is 50MHz bandwidth. From the (P_SB/P_CR) = (m/2) ^2 relation where P_SB and P_CR are the sideband and carrier power, respectively, I estimated the rough the AM modulation depths. Although DC power include the AM SB powers, I assumed that SB powers are enough small and the DC power can be considered as the carrier power, P_CR. The resulting modulation depth is about 0.003.

On the other hand, from the OSA, today's PM mod depths are 0.17 and 0.19 for f1 and f2, respectively. Please note that these numbers contains (small) AM sidebands components too. Comparing with the PM and AM sideband depths, AM sidebands seems to be enough small.

Quote:

Keiko, Suresh

AM modulations are still there ... the mechanical design for the stages, RF cables, and connections are not good and affecting the alignment. 

 

Attachment 1: P9210138.JPG
P9210138.JPG
  5503   Wed Sep 21 17:42:35 2011 ranaUpdateIOOAM modulation misery

I'd like to see some details about how to determine that the ratio of 1:50 is small enough for AM:PM.

* What have people achieved in past according to the elogs©  of the measurements?

* What do we expect the effect of 1:50 to be? How much offset does this make in the MICH/PRC/SRC loops? How much offset is too much?

Recall that we are using frontal modulation with a rather small Schnupp Asymmetry...

  5504   Wed Sep 21 18:53:03 2011 KeikoUpdateIOOAM modulation misery

The signal offset due to the AM modulation is estimated by a simulation for PRCL for now. Please see the result below.

Too see how bad or good the AM modulation with 1/50 modulation depths of PM, I ran a simulation. For example I looked at PRCL sweep signal for each channel. I tried the three AM modulation depths, (1) m_AM=0 & m_PM = 0.17 (2) m_AM = 0.003 & m_PM = 0.17 which is the current modulation situation (3) m_AM = 0.17 & m_PM = 0.17 in which AM is the same modulation depth as PM.  For the current status of (2), there are offsets on signals up to 0.002 while the maximum signal amplitude is 0.15. I can't tell how bad it is.... Any suggestions?

 

(1) m_AM=0 & m_PM = 0.17. There is no offset in the signals.

AM0.png

(2) m_AM = 0.003 & m_PM = 0.17. There are offsets on signals up to 0.002 while the maximum signal amplitude is 0.15.

AMratio50.png

(3) m_AM = 0.17 & m_PM = 0.17. There are offsets on signals up to 0.1 while the maximum signal amplitude is 0.2.

AMratio1.png

I will look at MICH and SRCL in the same way. 

Quote:

I'd like to see some details about how to determine that the ratio of 1:50 is small enough for AM:PM.

* What have people achieved in past according to the elogs©  of the measurements?

* What do we expect the effect of 1:50 to be? How much offset does this make in the MICH/PRC/SRC loops? How much offset is too much?

Recall that we are using frontal modulation with a rather small Schnupp Asymmetry...

 

  5505   Wed Sep 21 19:20:41 2011 SureshUpdateIOOPSL beam into MC was off in Pitch. Readjusted.

I found the PSL beam into the MC off in pitch by large amount.  I readusted the PSL beam for optimal coupling.

The beam had shifted on the WFS as well.  So I recentered the DC signal on the WFS with the MC unlocked.  However both the DC and RF signals on the WFS shift when we lock the MC.  This ought to indicate sub-optimal coupling of PSL into MC.  But instead, if we were to reduce these offsets on the WFS by adjusting the MC axis it leads to higher reflected power from the MC.

The current plan is to retain these RF offsets and lock the WFS with a DC offset in the servo filters.

  5506   Wed Sep 21 21:13:35 2011 ranaUpdateIOOAM modulation misery

How about changing the x-axis of all these plots into meters or picometers and tell us how wide the PRC resonance is? (something similar to the arm cavity linewidth expression)

Also, there's the question of the relative AM/PM phase. I think you have to try out both I & Q in the sim. I think we expect Q to be the most effected by AM.

  5520   Thu Sep 22 17:29:42 2011 KeikoUpdateIOOAM modulation mistery

AM modulation will add offset on SRCL signal as well as PRCL signal. About 2% of the signal amplitude with the current AM level. MICH will not be affected very much.

From #5504, as for the AM modulation I checked the MICH and SRCL signals in addition to the last post for PRCL, to see the AM modulation effect on those signals. On the last post, PRCL (REFL11I) was found to have 0.002 while the maximum signal amplitude is 0.15 we use . Here, I did the same simulation for MICH and SRCL.

As a result, MICH signals are not affected very much. The AM modulation slightly changes signal slopes, but doesn't add offsets apparently. SRCL is affected more, for REFL signals. All the REFL channels get about 0.0015 offsets while the signal ampliture varies up to 0.002. AS55I (currently used for SRCL) has 1e-7 offset for 6e-6 amplitude signal (in the last figure) - which is the same offset ratio comparing with the amplitude in the PRCL case -

 

(1) MICH signals at AS port with AM m=0

AMmod0MICH.png

(2) MICH signals at AS port with AM m=0.003

AMmod1e-1MICH.png

(3) SRCL signals at AS/REFL port with AM m=0

AMmod0SRCL.png 

(3) SRCL signals at AS/REFL port with AM m=0.003

AMmod3e-3SRCL.png

AMmod3e-3SRCL-AS55I.png

 

Quote:

How about changing the x-axis of all these plots into meters or picometers and tell us how wide the PRC resonance is? (something similar to the arm cavity linewidth expression)

Also, there's the question of the relative AM/PM phase. I think you have to try out both I & Q in the sim. I think we expect Q to be the most effected by AM.

 

  5526   Thu Sep 22 23:02:15 2011 SureshUpdateIOOno light on WFS2. Realigned input onto both WFS

Rana noticed that the sum on WFS2 was about 10 times smaller than that on WFS1. Though the beam appeared centered on the DC QPD screens it was not really true.  When I went and checked the actual beam position it was landing on the metal enclosure of the WFS2 sensor and scattering back on to the diode. 

I also checked the power levels of light landing on the sensors  It was about 0.25mW in both cases.  This needs further investigation since the power split at the beam spitter is like 0.25mW onto WFS1 and 0.45 towards WFS2. The lost 0,20 mW has to be traced and we have to be sure that it is not scattered around on the table.

 

  5527   Thu Sep 22 23:10:07 2011 SureshUpdateIOOproposed modifications to the C1IOO model

Rana advised that we put in a lockin-output matrix which will allow us to excite any combination of MC mirrors so that we can excite pure translations or rotations of the MC beam axis.  This would require us to direct a lockin output into all the three mirrors simultaneously with a +1 or -1 as needed in the matrix..

  5533   Fri Sep 23 18:00:54 2011 SureshUpdateIOOPSL beam realigned to MC

I noticed that the beam centering on the WFS had changed over night and the MC_TRANS_SUM was about 40k counts.  When well aligned this SUM is around 50-55k counts. So PSL coupling into MC was suboptimal. It was not clear whether the MC shifted or the PSL beam shifted. So I looked at the PSL ANG and POS QPDs. 

 trend.png

The plots above show the gradual drift of the PSL beam in vertical direction during the last 8hrs or so. But the last bit shows the adjustments I had to make to reobtain optimal alignment.  And these adjustments are not undoing the drift!  This would indicate that the MC axis has also shifted during the same time period. 

  5538   Sat Sep 24 09:55:42 2011 KeikoUpdateIOOAM modulation mistery

From the night day before yesterday (Sep 22nd, Thursday night. Sorry for my late update), there are more AM modulations than I measured in the previous post. It is changing a lot, indeed! Looking at the REFL11 I and Q signals on the dataviewer, the signal offset were huge, even after "LSCoffset" script. Probably the modulation index of AM was same order of PM at that time. The level of AM mod index is changing a lot depending on the EOM alingment which is not very stable, and also on the environment such as temperature .

To reduce AM modulations, here I note some suggestions you may want to try :

* Change the SAM connectors between RF resonator and EOM to be a soft but short connector, so that the resonator box doesn't hung from the EOM.

* Change the RF resonator base to be stable posts. Now several black plates are piled to make one base.

* Install a temperature shield

* Also probably you want to change the BNC connector on the RF resonator to be SMA.

* Be careful of the EOM yaw alignment. Pitch seemed to be less sensitive in producing AM than yaw alignment.

 

Quote:

AM modulation will add offset on SRCL signal as well as PRCL signal. About 2% of the signal amplitude with the current AM level. MICH will not be affected very much.

From #5504, as for the AM modulation I checked the MICH and SRCL signals in addition to the last post for PRCL, to see the AM modulation effect on those signals. On the last post, PRCL (REFL11I) was found to have 0.002 while the maximum signal amplitude is 0.15 we use . Here, I did the same simulation for MICH and SRCL.

As a result, MICH signals are not affected very much. The AM modulation slightly changes signal slopes, but doesn't add offsets apparently. SRCL is affected more, for REFL signals. All the REFL channels get about 0.0015 offsets while the signal ampliture varies up to 0.002. AS55I (currently used for SRCL) has 1e-7 offset for 6e-6 amplitude signal (in the last figure) - which is the same offset ratio comparing with the amplitude in the PRCL case -

 

  5588   Fri Sep 30 17:40:03 2011 kiwamuUpdateIOOAM / PM ratio

[Mirko / Kiwamu]

 We have reviewed the AM issue and confirmed the ratio of AM vs. PM had been about 6 x103.

The ratio sounds reasonably big, but in reality we still have some amount of offsets in the LSC demod signals.

Next week, Mirko will estimate the effect from a mismatch in the MC absolute length and the modulation frequency.

 


(Details)

 Please correct us if something is wrong in the calculations.

 According to the measurement done by Keiko (#5502):

        DC = 5.2 V

        AM @ 11 and 55 MHz = - 56 dBm = 0.35 mV (in 50 Ohm system)

Therefore the intensity modulation is 0.35 mV / 5.2 V = 6.7 x 10-5

Since the AM index is half of the intensity modulation index, our AM index is now about 3.4 x 10-5

According to Mirko's OSA measurement, the PM index have been about 0.2.

As a result,  PM/AM = 6 x 103

Quote from #5502

Measured values;

* DC power = 5.2V which is assumed to be 0.74mW according to the PDA255 manual.

*AM_f1 and AM_f2 power = -55.9 dBm = 2.5 * 10^(-9) W.

 

  5589   Fri Sep 30 18:06:24 2011 kiwamuSummaryIOOPZTs straing guage

beforeOutage110930.png

  5612   Tue Oct 4 14:41:47 2011 JenneUpdateIOOMC Trans channels are digital 0

I relocked the PMC (why is it unlocking so much lately??), and then noticed that even though the MC is locked, MC Trans Sum, P, Y, are all seeing digital zero.  I'm putting Suresh, as IOO guy, in charge of figuring it out.

  5613   Tue Oct 4 15:43:10 2011 KojiUpdateIOOclosed the shutter before the MC

The shutter before the MC was closed at 3:30 as I started working on the RFAM.

MC REFL (INLOCK): 0.6~0.7
MC REFL (UNLOCK): 6.9
MC TRANS: 50000~52000

  5614   Tue Oct 4 15:57:30 2011 SureshUpdateIOOMC Trans channels are digital 0

I thought this problem might be arising because the MC2_TRANS QPD signals are not being passed from the c1mcs to c1ioo models over the rfm.   But there was no way to check if there is any data being picked up in c1mcs model.  So I copied the MCTRANS block from the c1ioo model into the c1mcs.  This block takes the four segments of the MC2_TRANS QPD and computes the pitch, yaw and sum signals from that.   It also exports these into epics channels.  I then recompiled and started the c1ioo c1mcs and c1rfm models. 

Restared fb at

Tue Oct  4 15:19:10 PDT 2011

Koji then noted that the MC2_TRANS filter banks in c1rfm and in c1ioo were showing nonzero values.   So the signals were infact reaching the c1ioo model.  They were being blocked by the INMATRIX (which the autoburt had not restored) of the MC_TRANS block, because all its elements were zero.  We burtrestored the c1iooepics to about 30hrs ago and then MC_TRANS signals were back in the LOCK_MC screen.

 

  5617   Tue Oct 4 19:06:46 2011 KojiUpdateIOOclosed the shutter before the MC

Finished the work at 6:30

MC REFL (INLOCK): 0.50-0.52
MC REFL (UNLOCK): 6.9
MC TRANS: 54400~547000


RFAM level

Before the work: -48.5dBm for 1.07VDC (both 50Ohm terminated)

Right after the work: -80dBm for 0.896VDC (both 50Ohm terminated)
10min after:   -70dBm
1hour after:   -65dBm
3hours after: -62dBm
1day after (Oct 5, 20:00):    -62.5dBm
2days after (Oct 6, 23:20): -72.5dBm
3 days after (Oct 7, 21:00): -57.8dBm

Quote:

The shutter before the MC was closed at 3:30 as I started working on the RFAM.

MC REFL (INLOCK): 0.6~0.7
MC REFL (UNLOCK): 6.9
MC TRANS: 50000~52000

 

  5632   Fri Oct 7 19:06:46 2011 SureshUpdateIOOMC spot positions: checked and corrected.

Koji and Kiwamu had adjusted the MC beam axis slightly such that we can couple the MC output into the Y-arm without exceeding the current range of adjustability on PZT1.  This changed the centering of beam spots on MC mirrors.  I checked the mc-decentering make sure we have not made too big a compromise.  And since we can move MC2 spot position while maintaining the current positions on MC1 and MC3 decentering, we can atleast eliminate the A2L coupling on that mirror.  I used the scripts in $scripts$/MC/moveMC2/ to adjust the MC2 spot position.

Spot positions in mm (MC1,2,3 pit MC1,2,3 yaw) before adjustment:
    1.4674   -0.3548    1.0199   -1.5519    1.9834   -1.5971

After correcting MC2:

    1.4528    0.1431    0.9958   -1.2147    0.3823   -2.0163

After correcting MC1:

    1.3745    0.0669    0.8899   -1.5269    0.0296   -1.7314

 

The spot positions on MC1 and MC3 are very nearly (+/- 0.06 mm) same as before, while the MC2  decentering has been reduced close to zero.

A slight adjustment of the PZTs may be required to reset the beam pointing.

  5635   Fri Oct 7 22:48:26 2011 SureshUpdateIOOMC2 Trans QPD spot size and incident power decreased

After centering the spot on the MC2, I started to adjust the spot position on MC_TRANS_QPD to center the beam on it.  I noticed that the spot size was about 3 to 4mm dia. because the 200mm lens was too close to the QPD.  I moved it back and decreased the spot size to about 1mm and the sensitivity to spot position increased.  However, Koji noted that the QPD sectors were near saturation, so I put in a ND=0.3 filter to reduce the incident power on the QPD.

At optimal alignment the current QPD_SUM is around 25k to 26k counts (factor of 2 down). Eventually the gain of the QPD ckts have to be reduced to prevent saturation, for the moment this is temporary fix.

The MC_TRANS_SUM trigger for MC autolocker is working fine no further change was required.

  5647   Tue Oct 11 00:59:55 2011 SureshUpdateIOOPreliminary locking of WFS loops

[Kiwamu, Koji, Suresh]

After correcting several errors in the WFS loops, we turned them on today and saw them working!

A while back (last week actually) I noticed that the WFS1 and WFS2  QPD segments were numbered in a different order but that their input matrices did not reflect this change.  As result the WFS pitch and yaw definitions were pretty much mixed up.  However even after clearing this up the signals still showed significant amount of cross couplings. 

This problem was finally traced to the relative phase between I and Q channels of the WFS segments.  Koji suggested that I check the relative phase between all the segments to be sure.  I then repeated the procedure that Valera and I followed in our earlier elog # 5321 , and found that the phases indeed required to be adjusted.  The excitation of MCL was at 6Hz, 100mVpp, as before.   The WFS response after this was much improved i.e.  the pitch yaw cross couplings were not visible when we misalign the MC with sliders in MC_ALIGN.  And the magnitude of the response also increased since the signal was transferred from the Q to I channels.  The the phases were tweaked by hand till Q< 1% of I.  However when I repeated this measurement an hour later (I wanted to save the plots) I found that the phases had changed by a few percent! 

Koji noticed that the MC_REFL camera image showed significant intensity fluctuations and advised that we try a higher frequency and lower amplitude to avoid nonlinear effects in the WFS and in the MCL to PSL lock.  So we repeated the process at 20Hz and 20mVpp, introduced at the IN2 of the MC_Servo.  The fig below shows the level to which we reduced the signal in Q.

WFS1_IQphase20111010.pdf    WFS2_IQphase20111010.pdf

We then checked the relative phase between various quadrants by looking at the time series in dataviewer.  WFS2 Seg4 phase had to be flipped to bring it into phase with all the rest. 

WFS_IQ_RelativePhase.png

 

After this I tried to see the WFS response to moving the MC1 and MC3 with the sliders and determined the following relations:

Pitch WFS1 WFS2
MC1 + -
MC2 - -
MC3 + +

 

Yaw WFS1 WFS2
MC1 + +
MC2 - -
MC3 + -

 

Disregarding the MC2 for now and assuming arbitrary gains of 1 for all elements we inverted these matrices inserted them into the WFS_servo_outmatrix.  We then found that the with a sign flip on all elements the loops were stable.  In the servo filters we had turned on only the filter modules 3 and 4.  There was no low frequency boost.   We gradually increased gain till we saw a significant suppression of the error signal at low frequencies as shown below.  There was also an associated suppression of Intensity noise at REFL_DC after a single bounce from PRM.

 WFS_error_signal_Oct10.pdf        WFS_reduction_intensity_noise_Oct10.png

 

To see if the locks can actually realign the MC if it were manually misaligned, we turned the loops off and misaligned MC by moving MC3 pitch by 0.05 (slider position), and then turned on the loops.  The locks were reengaged successfully and the MC regained alignment as seen on the StripTool below:

WFS_recentering_Oct10.png

 

We can now proceed with the fine tuning the servo filters and understand the system better:

Q1:    Does the WFS (I to Q) phase drift rapidly?  How can we prevent it?

Q2:   How is that we do not see any bounce or roll resonances on the WFS error signals?

Q3:  How do we include the MC2 QPD into the WFS Servo?

I will proceed with determination of the actual transfer coefs between the MC DoF and the WFS sensors. 

 

 

  5668   Sat Oct 15 04:53:41 2011 SureshUpdateIOOMC WFS Output Matrix determination

After we had a rough idea of what the output matrix looks like (see this elog),
I tried to measure the transfer function coefs (TFCs) between mirror degrees of freedom and the WFS sensors (WFS1, WFS2 and MC_Trans QPD)
I found that the TFCs that I obtained at 10.15 Hz did not have any resemblance to the previously identified output matrix.

The problem, I realised, arises because the various lockins used
in the C1IOO model do not have the same relative phase; So if we try to excite a mirror with one of them
and demodulate a sensor signal on any of the other lockins the resulting output would not have the correct phase
(relative to the 1st lockin output). As a result unless we can reset the phase of all the lockins
simultaneously, we cannot demodulate multiple signals at the same time. (Joe/Jamie, Is it possible to
reset/reinitialise the phase of the CLK signals of the lockings? )


To get around this problem Koji suggested that I use just one lockin and determine all the 36 elements of the transfer matrix with it one at a
time rather than six at a time. When I did that, I got results consistent with the previoulsly determined outmatrix. It, of course, takes six times longer.

The matrix I first got is this one

 

(Mag, Phase) WFS1P WFS2P MC_T_P WFS1Y WFS2Y MC_T_Y
MC1P 0.332 0.518 0.316 0.019 0.066 0.000
  5.832 1.892 8.180 38.285 8.807 0.000
             
MC2P 0.355 1.798 0.342 0.023 0.144 0.000
  72.977 76.683 76.804 -16.364 77.451 71.579
             
MC3P 0.352 0.394 0.254 0.036 0.023 0.000
  2.005 3.249 6.249 5.712 26.349 NAN
             
MC1Y 0.051 0.055 0.058 0.788 1.024 0.001
  15.979 -4.487 -9.707 2.642 1.276 0.000
             
MC2Y 0.142 0.044 0.130 1.966 0.579 0.017
  70.044 83.818 76.397 74.283 76.134 77.269
             
MC3Y 0.044 0.052 0.022 0.080 0.948 0.194
  22.932 14.227 -45.924 9.677 1.125 1.124
             
Which can be  recast as below          
             
             
Magnitude WFS1P WFS2P MC_T_P WFS1Y WFS2Y MC_T_Y
MC1P 0.332 0.518 0.316 0.02 0.07 0
MC2P 0.355 1.798 0.342 0.02 0.14 0
MC3P 0.352 0.394 0.254 0.04 0.02 0
MC1Y 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.788 1.024 0.001
MC2Y 0.14 0.04 0.13 1.966 0.579 0.017
MC3Y 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.080 0.948 0.194

Phase WFS1P WFS2P MC_T_P WFS1Y WFS2Y MC_T_Y
MC1P 5.8 1.9 8.2 38.3 8.8 0.0
MC2P 73.0 76.7 76.8 -16.4 77.5 71.6
MC3P 2.0 3.2 6.2 5.7 26.3 NA
MC1Y 16.0 -4.5 -9.7 2.6 1.3 0.0
MC2Y 70.0 83.8 76.4 74.3 76.1 77.3
MC3Y 22.9 14.2 -45.9 9.7 1.1 1.1

 

Note that when MC2 is excited all the sensors showed a response about 75 deg out of phase with the reference (MC1 --> WFS1_PIT ) This was traced to the fact that while there is a 28Hz Elliptic LP filter on

both MC1 and MC3, while it is absent on MC2.  The Transfer functions  below show the difference in the phase of their response

WFS1P_RespTo_MC1andMC2.pdf

 

Since the MC2 POS is used in servos involving MCL we cannot afford to install a 28 Hz LP filter into the MC2 coil drivers.  However a module with the 28 Hz ELP was switched on, in each of the

 MC2 PIT and YAW filter banks.   I then checked to see if this has affected the relative phase of variour sensors.  The Phase angle between I and Q on each sensor channel was checked and corrected. 

Below are the spectra with the "before" and "after" correction of phases.

Before:

 WFS1_IQphase20111015_1.pdf        WFS2_IQphase20111015_1.pdf

 

Obviously this needed adjustment to reduce Q phase.   

  After twealkng the angle "R":

WFS1_IQphase20111015_2.pdf      WFS2_IQphase20111015_2.pdf

 

And again determined the transfer matrix (below). 

( I , Q ) WFS1P WFS2P MC_T_P WFS1Y WFS2Y MC_T_Y
MC1P 0.236 -0.300 0.229 0.049 -0.008 0.000
  0.015 -0.004 -0.027 0.011 -0.019 0.000
             
MC2P -0.125 -0.962 -0.135 0.114 0.028 0.000
  0.007 -0.052 -0.028 -0.004 -0.002 0.000
             
MC3P -0.225 -0.254 -0.255 -0.026 -0.010 0.000
  0.004 -0.012 -0.010 0.009 0.002 0.000
             
MC1Y -0.059 -0.023 -0.040 0.460 0.705 0.001
  0.004 0.003 0.009 0.009 0.017 0.000
             
MC2Y 0.030 0.190 0.040 -1.144 -0.296 0.015
  0.007 0.006 -0.009 -0.038 -0.009 0.001
             
MC3Y 0.018 -0.108 -0.018 0.134 -0.832 -0.001
  0.017 0.005 0.001 0.006 -0.016 0.000
 

Magnitude WFS1P WFS2P MC_T_P WFS1Y WFS2Y MC_T_Y
MC1P 0.236 0.300 0.231 0.05 0.02 0
MC2P 0.125 0.964 0.138 0.11 0.03 0
MC3P 0.225 0.254 0.255 0.03 0.01 0
MC1Y 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.460 0.705 0.001
MC2Y 0.03 0.01 0.19 1.145 0.296 0.015
MC3Y 0.02 0.11 0.02 0.134 0.832 0.001

Phase WFS1P WFS2P MC_T_P WFS1Y WFS2Y MC_T_Y
MC1P 3.694 0.784 -6.778 13.1 66.67 #DIV/0!
MC2P -3.214 3.100 11.557 -2.05 -4.48 0
MC3P -1.020 2.665 2.158 -19.1 -10.76 NA
MC1Y -3.96 -6.45 -12.14 1.085 1.357 0.000
MC2Y 13.22 41.08 -2.6 1.887 1.706 4.987
MC3Y 42.69 -2.56 -3.73 2.652 1.068 0.000

 

This time the signals are all nearly in the same phase and in agreement with the  outmatrix estimate made earlier.

 

I plugged these TFCs into the matrix inversion code: wfsmatrix2.m.   And get the following inverse:

 

  WFS1P_Act WFS2P_Act MC_Trans_P_Act WFS1Y_Act WFS2Y_Act MC_TRANS_Y_Act
MC1P 1 -0.64        
MC2P -0.27 -1        
MC3P 0.98 -0.65        
MC1Y       -0.26 -1  
MC2Y       1 0.12  
MC3Y       0.16 0.07  

 

I have ignored the MC2_Trans_P and Y sensors for now.

  5669   Sat Oct 15 10:58:32 2011 ranaUpdateIOOMC WFS Output Matrix determination

In order to save time and sanity, you should not measure the pitch ->yaw and yaw-> pitch. It makes things too complicated and so far is just not significant. In the past we do not use these for the matrix work.

i.e. there should just be a 3x3 pitch matrix and a 3x3 yaw matrix. Once the loops are working we could investigate these things, but its really a very fine tweak at the end. There are quite a few other, more significant effects to handle before then.

To make things faster, I think we can just make a LOCKIN which has 3 inputs: it would have one oscillator, but 6 mixers. Should be simple to make.

  5670   Sat Oct 15 16:01:26 2011 kiwamuUpdateIOOabout LOCKIN module

Quote from #5669

To make things faster, I think we can just make a LOCKIN which has 3 inputs: it would have one oscillator, but 6 mixers. Should be simple to make.

 I think the idea of having multiple inputs in a LOCKIN module is also good for the LSC sensing matrix measurement.

Because right now I am measuring the responses of multiple sensors one by one while exciting a particular DOF by one oscillator.

Moreover in the LSC case the number of sensors, which we have to measure, is enormous (e.g. REFL11I/Q, REFL33I/Q, REFL55I/Q, ... POY11I/Q,...) and indeed it has been a long-time measurement.

  5683   Mon Oct 17 23:56:34 2011 SureshUpdateIOOMC WFS Integrators switched on and WFS_MASTER screen updated

[Rana, Suresh]

     To see if the loops will stay locked when the Integrators in the servo are switched on, we stayed with the same simple output matrix (just 1 or -1 elements) and switched on the FM1 on all WFS servo filter banks.  We monitored the time domain error signals to see if engaging the locks made the error signals go to zero.  Most of the error signals did go to zero even when an intentional offset was introduced into the MC pitch of the suspension.

      We need to include TestPoints just before the Input Servo Matrix so that we can monitor the error signals without being affected by the gain changes in the WFS_GAIN slider.   These are currently not present in the C1IOO model and the position of the WFS_GAIN also has to be shifted to the other side of the Input matrix.

      The C1IOO_WFS_MASTER screen has been changed to the new one.  This incorporates filter banks for the MC_TRANS_P and _Y channels.  The screen is not yet fully functional but I am working on it and I it will continue to improve it.

WFS_MASTER_screenshot_20111017.png

  5686   Tue Oct 18 15:20:03 2011 kiwamuSummaryIOORFAM plan

[Suresh / Koji / Rana / Kiwamu]

Last night we had a discussion about what we do for the RFAM issue. Here is the plan.

 

(PLAN)

  1. Build and install an RFAM monitor (a.k.a StochMon ) with a combination of a power splitter, band-pass-filters and Wenzel RMS detectors.

       => Some ordering has started (#5682). The Wenzel RMS detectors are already in hands.

  2. Install a temperature sensor on the EOM. And if possible install it with a new EOM resonant box.

      => make a wheatstone bridge circuit, whose voltage is modulated with a local oscillator at 100 Hz or so.

  3. Install a broadband RFPD to monitor the RFAMs and connect it to the StochMon network.

      => Koji's broadband PD or a commercial RFPD (e.g. Newfocus 1811 or similar)

  4. Measure the response of the amount of the RFAM versus the temperature of the EO crystal.

      => to see whether if stabilizing the temperature stabilizes the RFAM or not.

  5.  Measure the long-term behavior of the RFAM.

      => to estimate the worst amount of the RFAM and the time scale of its variation

  6. Decide which physical quantity we will stabilize, the temperature or the amount of the RFAM.

  7. Implement a digital servo to stabilize the RFAMs by feeding signals back to a heater

     => we need to install a heater on the EOM.

  8. In parallel to those actions, figure out how much offsets each LSC error signal will have due to the current amount of the RFAMs.

    => Optickle simulations.

  9. Set some criteria on the allowed amount of the RFAMs

    => With some given offsets in the LSC error signal, we investigate what kind of (bad) effects we will have.

  5687   Tue Oct 18 20:50:19 2011 SureshUpdateIOOC1IOO and WFS associated screens

In keeping with the current protocol,  I have started to move all the user-built medm screens associated with C1IOO into the $screens$/c1ioo/master/ directory. 

I then edited the menu button in the sitemap.adl to point to the screens in the ..c1ioo/master/ directory.  All the screens in $screens$/c1ioo/ directory have been backed up into bak/.  I plan to edit the c1ioo model soon and at that time I will delete all the screens in the $screens$/c1ioo directory and let only the automatically regenerated screens  stay there.   If there are broken links to user-built screens associated with c1ioo, please copy the relevant screen to the master/ directory and edit the path in the menus.

 

  5688   Tue Oct 18 21:19:18 2011 ranaConfigurationIOOWFS disabled in SUS

I found that the MC WFS had large offset control signals going to the MC SUS. Even though the input switch was off, the integrators were holding the offset.

I have disabled the ASCPIT outputs in the MC SUS. Suresh is going to fix the MC autolocker script to gracefully handle the OFF and ON and then test the script before resuming the WFS testing.

MCL data for OAF may be suspect from this morning.

  5689   Tue Oct 18 22:47:09 2011 SureshConfigurationIOOMC autolocker script edited to shutdown and restart WFS loops

Quote:

I found that the MC WFS had large offset control signals going to the MC SUS. Even though the input switch was off, the integrators were holding the offset.

I have disabled the ASCPIT outputs in the MC SUS. Suresh is going to fix the MC autolocker script to gracefully handle the OFF and ON and then test the script before resuming the WFS testing.

MCL data for OAF may be suspect from this morning.

 I have edited (uncommented existing commands)  the following scripts to enable WFS locking to come on when the MC is locked.

1) $scripts$/MC/autolockMCmain40m*

2) $scripts$/MC/mcup

3) $scripts$/MC/mcdown

4) $scripts$/MC/WFS/mcwfson

5) $scripts$/MC/WFS/mcwfsoff.

I have checked that the autolocker script switches off the mcwfs when mc loses lock and then switches it on after re-obtaining lock.

 

  5724   Fri Oct 21 15:49:35 2011 SureshUpdateIOOPMC input alignment improved

The image on the PMCR camera was quite assymetric and PMC output was at 80% .... upon improving the alignment I managed to push it up to 87%

 

  5732   Tue Oct 25 01:14:15 2011 SureshUpdateIOOC1IOO model modified to include new WFS lockin structure

A while back we faced the problem that when we use several lockins to excite the MC degrees of freedom, their relative phase was not known.  The solution suggested was to use one oscillator and several demodulators.

I have now modified the C1IOO.mdl so that this can be implemented.  Previously we were using the MC_ASS lockins for WFS work.  I have now separated the WFS and MC_ASS structures. 

Other jobs to be done in this context are:

1) The medm screens associated with WFS lockins need to be updated with new channel names.

2) The scripts associated with both MC_ASS decentering and WFS ouput matrix determination have to be updated with the new channel names.

3) I also deleted all medm screens in the $screens$/c1ioo/ directory after copying them to $screens$/c1ioo/bak/.  After installing the new c1ioo model $screens$/c1ioo directory now contains just the automatically created screens.  All other user made screens should go into $screens$/c1ioo/master/ directory

This is a pic of the new c1ioo model:

 

 c1ioo20111025.png

 

  5735   Tue Oct 25 16:24:58 2011 SureshUpdateIOOC1IOO model modified to include new WFS lockin structure

I forgot to mention another change I made to the C1IOO model.

The location of the WFS global switch and the WFS_GAIN have been shifted. The switch now cuts off signals just before the WFS servo filters.

I have also added some test points just before the switch and the so that we can monitor the WFS error signals which would be unaffected even if the WFS_GAIN is changed..

 

 

Quote:

A while back we faced the problem that when we use several lockins to excite the MC degrees of freedom, their relative phase was not known.  The solution suggested was to use one oscillator and several demodulators.

I have now modified the C1IOO.mdl so that this can be implemented.  Previously we were using the MC_ASS lockins for WFS work.  I have not separated the WFS and MC_ASS structures. 

Other jobs to be done in this context are:

1) The medm screens associated with WFS lockins need to be updated with new channel names.

2) The scripts associated with both MC_ASS decentering and WFS ouput matrix determination have to be updated with the new channel names.

3) I also deleted all mdem screens in the $screens$/c1ioo/ directory after copying them to $screens$/c1ioo/bak/.  After installing the new c1ioo model $screens$/c1ioo model now contains just the automatically created screens.  All other user made screens should to into $screens$/c1ioo/master/ directory

This is a pic of the new c1ioo model:

 

 c1ioo20111025.png

 

 

  5737   Tue Oct 25 18:50:22 2011 SureshUpdateIOOC1IOO model modified to include new WFS lockin structure

Some small fixes to the c1ioo model.

1) I edited the WFS lockin modules to make use of new library part called demod.

2) c1ioo model has been compiled and restarted.

3) fb was restarted at Tue Oct 25 18:43:55 PDT 2011

 

Quote:

I forgot to mention another change I made to the C1IOO model.

The location of the WFS global switch has been shifted. It now cuts off signals just before the WFS servo filters.

I have also added some test points just before the switch so that we can monitor the WFS sensor signals even if the switch is off.

 

 

Quote:

A while back we faced the problem that when we use several lockins to excite the MC degrees of freedom, their relative phase was not known.  The solution suggested was to use one oscillator and several demodulators.

I have now modified the C1IOO.mdl so that this can be implemented.  Previously we were using the MC_ASS lockins for WFS work.  I have not separated the WFS and MC_ASS structures. 

Other jobs to be done in this context are:

1) The medm screens associated with WFS lockins need to be updated with new channel names.

2) The scripts associated with both MC_ASS decentering and WFS ouput matrix determination have to be updated with the new channel names.

3) I also deleted all mdem screens in the $screens$/c1ioo/ directory after copying them to $screens$/c1ioo/bak/.  After installing the new c1ioo model $screens$/c1ioo model now contains just the automatically created screens.  All other user made screens should to into $screens$/c1ioo/master/ directory

This is a pic of the new c1ioo model:

 

 c1ioo20111025.png

 

 

 

  5745   Thu Oct 27 03:32:45 2011 KojiSummaryIOORFAM monitor progress

[Suresh, Mirko, Koji]

A cable from the stochmon box to the cross connect for the EPICS ADCs is installed.

The power supply and the signal outputs are concentrated in a single DSub 9pin connector
that is newly attached on the box.

The connection from the stochmon side of the cable and the EPICS value was confirmed.
The calibration of them looks fine.

To do:
- Once the stochmon box is completed we can immediately test it.
- The EPICS channel names are still as they were. We need to update the database file of c1iool0, the chans file for the slow channel.


The pinout is as following

-------------
| 1 2 3 4 5 |   Female / Inside View
\  6 7 8 9  /
 \---------/

1 - 11MHz Signal
2 - 30MHz Signal
3 - 55MHz Signal
4 - NC
5 - +5V supply
6 - 11MHz Return
7 - 30MHz Return
8 - 55MHz Return
9 - Supply ground

  5751   Fri Oct 28 03:12:37 2011 SureshUpdateIOOMC2 realigned to align MC to PSL

Around 6PM on the 27th, I found that the C1:IOO-MC_RFPD_DCMON had risen to about 2.5V.   I checked the trend of MC2 sensors and found that  between 2PM and 6PM, MC2 had drifted in a strange way.  And also that the alignment had grown worse over several days.   I also noticed that the spot on the MC2F camera had shifted to the left.

I attempted to correct the alignment (decrease the C1:IOO-MC_RFPD_DCMON to ~0.5V ) by just moving the MC2 and succeeded!! So it is quite likely that most of the slow MC drift is arising due to MC2 table drift.

MC2_Drift_20111027.png

 

I decided to try and close the MC2_TRANS QPD to MC2 loops separately to see if MC alignment becomes stable  But several screens needed to be fixed before we could try anything.   So I fixed C1IOO_WFS_MASTER,  C1IOO_WFS_INMATRIX and ...OUTMATRIX screens.  Deleted the older ones to avoid confusion.

In this process I noticed that the directory of $screens$/c1mcs/master contains copies of older C1SUS_MC1 , 2. and 3 screens which look very similar to the new autogenerated screens.  Some of the links in the WFS screens were pointing to the old screens.  I have redirected the links and I will delete these in a couple of days, if no one objects.

 

 

 

  5761   Sat Oct 29 02:35:39 2011 SureshUpdateIOOWFS_MASTER screen and lockin screens fixed

I have fixed the WFS_MASTER screen and several of the subscreens such as the MCASS and MC_WFS_LKIN.

Since MC_WFS_LKIN uses six demodulators and single oscillator I could not use the automatically built Lockin screens. 

I built one using the compact filter banks mentioned earlier

The phases in the WFSlockins have yet tp be set.

  5768   Mon Oct 31 09:42:12 2011 steveUpdateIOOPMC locked

The PMC HV drops off more offen lately.

Attachment 1: pmcHV.png
pmcHV.png
  5799   Thu Nov 3 17:19:54 2011 SureshUpdateIOOMC realigned to center the spots on actuation nodes

Several activities in the past week (elog1, Mirko's rough realignment of MC and adjustment of the PSL zig-zag on Monday and elog2 ), had led to an MC state where the spots were not centered on the actuation nodes.

The change in the C1IOO model part dealing with MC_ASS led to the disappearance of all MC_ASS filter definitions in the lockins.  I have fixed all that, remade the screens and scripts for making the MC Decenter measurements.

I have just completed the re-centering of the spots on the MC and this of course will lead to some change in the input pointing. 

The MC_REFL beam also was recented on the WFS and the MC2_TRANS QPD.

Will add the mc-decenter measurement in a few mins

ELOG V3.1.3-