Summary of the week ending July 31st.  Number of elog entries = 53

- SUS
 + ETMY-LR sensor looked strange. Something wrong.
 + Responses from the DC alignment bias to the shadow sensors and the oplevs were checked.
   --> ETMY shows the response with the opposite sign. Wired.
 + ETMY shadow sensors were examined in terms of the spectra.
   --> WF, AA and ADC noise looks reasonably low and not high enough to explain the low frequency noise.
 + Adjusted all the OSEM gains

- LSC
 + MICH noise budget is ongoing. WF filter needs to be greater than 21 dB to have dark noise of the PD greater than ADC noise
 + The arms became lockable

- CDS
 + modified and re-ran activateDQ.py.
 + c1iscex crashed for unknown reasons and we physically rebooted it.

- ALS (Fiber experiments)
 + PMC trans is sampled for the fiber beat-note measurement on the PSL table.
 + The beat-note signal between PSL and X end laser were obtained.
 + Some optics in the ETMY table were rearragend to have the Y green light aligned.

- ACS / ASS
 + incident beam axis has changed a lot.
 + X arm and Y arm ASS were reactivated.
  ---> The sign of some of the control gains had been wrong.
 + The incident beam axis and X/Y arm were re-aligned

- IOO/MCWFS
 + Some medm screens fixed.
 + Adjustment of the demodulation phase on each quadrant on WFS1 and WFS2 are done.
 + The sensing matrix (from optics to WFS sensors) were measured.

- OAF
 + c1pem was modified
 + plugged a seismometers to ADC through an AA board.
   --> channels are coming to the digital land
 
- Preparation for the invac work
 + 7 pieces of beam traps are available
 + Tolerance of the arm length is estimated to be +/- 2 cm.


- PSL/RefCav
 + ABSL is injected into the reference cavity. some flashing happened but no locking.
 + eddited the psl.db file to set EGUF and EGUL
 + turned RefCav heater and servo back on

I have updated the 40m public calender.

Main change :

  + The vent starts from 3rd of August

  + Keiko and Anamaria (LSU) come from 13th of August

This week I have determined the linear region for my photosensor. I have determined the linear region to be -14.32 V/cm in the region 0.4cm 0.75 cm.

In order to obtain this voltage plot, I used a 287K resistor to set the max voltage output for the photodiodes. This calibration was obtained using a small rectangular standing mirror (not the TT testing mirror that Steve has ordered for me).

I have also been working on the second half of the photosensor circuit (to power the LED and read out voltages for the second photosensor head). I have assembled the constant-current section of the circuit and need to do the voltage-output section of the circuit. I also need to finish assembling the second photosensor head and cables.

I submitted my Second Progress Report on Tuesday.

I have attached the mirror to the TT suspension. We are using 0.006 diameter tungsten wire to suspend the mirror. I am currently working on balancing the mirror.

This morning, I realized that the current set-up of the horizontal shaker does not allow for the TT to be securely mounted. I was going to change the drill holes in the horizontal slider base (1 inch pitch). Jamie has suggested that it is better to make a pair of holes in the base larger. The circled holes are the ones that will be expanded to a 0.26" diameter so that I can mount the mirror securely to the horizontal slider base. There is a concern that a bit of the TT suspension base will hang over the edge of the horizontal sliding plate. We are not sure if this will cause problems with shaking the mirror evenly. Suggestions/advice are appreciated.

I vote for making an adapter plate between the sliding plate and the bottom base.

Tomorrow's main goal is : let the both X and Y green light come out from the chambers.

Plan of the in-vac work for tomorrow :

    - Removal of the access connector and the BS north door, starting from 9:00 AM. (requires 6 people)

   - If necessary, align ITMs and ETMs to get the green light nicely flashing / locked.

   - Take pictures of the BS and IOO table before installing / repositioning some optics.

   - Repositioning of the green periscope in the BS chamber to let the Y green light go through it.

   - Steer some green mirrors on the IOO table to let the Y green light come out from the chamber.

   - Steer some green mirrors on the BS table to let the X green light come out from the chamber.

   - Put some beam traps on the BS table

   - Leveling of the BS table. (Do we need to level the IOO table ? it will change the spot positions on the MC mirrors somewhat)

   - Take pictures again.

   - Extra jobs : if we still have some more times, lock MC and check the beam clearance at the Faraday. Also check some possible beam clippings for the IR beam.

   - Close the chamber with the light doors.

   - Softball game at 6:30 PM.

[Jamie, Jenne, Suresh, Steve, Koji, Kiwamu]

We got two green beams coming out from the chambers !

Summary of today's invac work :

    - removed the access connector and the BS north door

    - realigned the X and Y arm to the green beams.

    - installed a HWP on the ETMY table to rotate the polarization of the green beam to P.

    - repositioned the first periscope on the BS table.

    - repositioned the second periscope on the IOO table.

    - steered some green mirrors on the IOO and OMC chamber to let the Y green beam come out to the PSL table.

    - installed a PBS in front of the first periscope to spatially overwrap two green beams.

    - adjusted the incident angle of the PBS to maximize the power of the Y green beam, which is transmitted through it.

   - steer two mirrors on the BS table to align the X green beam

   - installed two beam dumps, one is near the PBS to eliminate a ghost in the X green beam, and the other is on the back side of IPPOS/ANG pick off window.

   - closed the doors.

Some Notes:

 When steering the final green mirror on the OMC table, accidentally we changed the alignment of the MC incident mirror.

So the alignment of the incident beam going into MC has changed, and we haven't re-aligned it yet.

 During we were installing the PBS on the BS table, we found that the allowable incident angle for the Y beam is about ~ 55 deg, which maximizes the amount of the transmitted Y green.

Since the PBS had been considered to be 45 deg incident in our optical layout, this required several modifications in the green mirrors.

To have a clear X green beam path going into the PBS, we had to slide the PBS and periscope to the West.

The periscope is now sitting on the very edge of the BS table, and in fact ~ 20% of the bottom plate of the periscope is already sticking out.

Also since 30% of the area of the PBS's post is on a hole, which is somehow for the stack, we had to use three dog clamps instead of a folk clamps to make the contact tight.

Today's main mission is : adjustment of the arm length

   + Open the ETMX(Y) door, starting from 9:00 AM

   + Secure the ETMX(Y) test mass by tightening the earthquake stops.

   + Move the ETMX(Y) suspension closer to the door side

   + Inspect the OSEMs and take pictures before and after touching the OSEMs.

   + Level the table

   + Adjust the OSEM positions

   + Move the ETMX(Y) suspension to have designed X(Y)arm length

   + Level the table again

   + Align the ETMX(Y) such that the green beam resonate

[Jamie, Suresh, Jenne, Koji, Kiwamu]

After this morning's hiccup with the east end crane, we decided to go ahead with work on ETMX.

Took pictures of the OSEM assemblies, we laid down rails to mark expected new position of the suspension base.

Removed two steering mirrors and a windmill that were on the table but where not being used at all.

Clamped the test mass and moved the suspension to the edge of the table so that we could more easily work on repositioning the OSEMs.  Then leveled the table and released the TM.

Rotated each OSEM so that the parallel LED/PD holder plates were oriented in the vertical direction.  We did this in the hopes that this orientation would minimize SD -> POS coupling.

For each OSEM, we moved it through it's full range, as read out by the C1:SUS-ETMX_{UL,UR,LL,LR,SD}PDMon channels, and attempted to adjust the positions so that the read out was in the center of the range (the measured ranges, mid values, and ultimate positions will be noted in a follow-up post).  Once we were satisfied that all the OSEMs were in good positions, we photographed them all (pictures also to follow).

Re-clamped the TM and moved it into it's final position, using the rails as reference and a ruler to measure as precisely as possible :

ETMX position change: -0.2056 m = -20.56 cm = -8.09 in (away from vertex)

Rebalanced the table.

Repositioned the mirror for the ETMX face camera.

Released TM clamps.

Rechecked OSEM centering.

Unblocked the green beam, only to find that it was displaced horizontally on the test mass about half an inch to the west (-y).  Koji determined that this was because the green beam is incident on the TM at an angle due to the TM wedge.  This presents a problem, since the green beam can no longer be used as a reference for the arm cavity.  After some discussion we decided to go with the TM position as is, and to realign the green beam to the new position and relock the green beam to the new cavity.  We should be able to use the spot position of the green beam exiting the vacuum at the PSL table as the new reference.  If the green X beam exiting at the PSL table is severely displaced, we may decide to go back in and move ETMX to tweak the cavity alignment.

At this point we decided that we were done for the day.  Before closing up, we put a piece of foil with a hole in it in front of the the TM face, to use as an alignment aperture when Kiwamu does the green alignment.

Kiwamu will work on the green alignment over the weekend.  Assuming everything works out, we'll try the same procedure on ETMY on Monday.

The table below gives the OSEM positions as seen on the slow chanels C1:SUS-ETMX_{UL,UR,LL,LR,SD}PDMon

Note that the side OSEM has the fast channel (OUTPUT) available and we used that to locate it.

When we began work the OSEMs were photographed so that we have a record of their locations till now.  It was difficult to get accurate estimate of the magnet offset inside the OSEM we could not see the screen on the camera while clicking.  We then took some pictures after finishing the work. These are given below

The picture of the left is from before OSEMs were moved. It can be seen that OSEMs are rotated to make sure that the magnets avoid touching the teflon sheets which hold the shadow sensors.  The picture on the right shows the positions of the OSEMs after we adjusted their positions.  This time we kept the teflon sheets vertical as shown to minimise the coupling between the Side and Axial directions.

We needed to reposition them once again after we moved the tower to the center of the table.

Pictures with more detail will be posted to the wiki later.

This OSEM placement is just the OPPOSITE of what the proper placement is.

Usually, we want to put them in so that the LED beam is vertical. This makes the OSEM immune to the optic's vertical mode.

The orientation with the horizontal LED beam makes the immunity to the side mode better, but may spoil the vertical.

In reality, neither of these assumptions is quite right. The LED beam doesn't come out straight. That's why Osamu and I found that we have to put in some custom orientations.

Also, the magnet gluings relative to the OSEM bracket centers are not perfectly aligned. So...I am saying that the OSEMs have to be oriented empirically to reduce the couplings which we want to reduce.

 Kiwamu suggested that since the side resonance is at a lower frequency than the bounce (~17Hz)  we ought to worry about the side more than the bounce.  If this is okay we can reposition the OSEMs to minimise this coupling. 

More over, in the current position, the OSEM s will not sense the side motion!!  So we definitely need to reposition them.  Sorry! I was being a spatz. 

Today I balanced the mirror, finished putting together the second photosensor, and finished my photosensor circuit box! 

Upon Jamie's suggestion, I have used a translation stage to obtain calibration data points (voltage outputs relative to displacement) for the new photosensor and for the first photosensor.

I will plot these tomorrow morning (too hungry now > < )

Here is a photo of the inside of my circuit box! It is finally done! It is now enclosed in a nice aluminum casing ^ ^

[Rana / Jenne / Kiwamu]

The ETMY suspension tower is currently sitting on the north side of the table for some inspections.

The adjustment of the OSEMs is ongoing.

(What we did)

  + Taken out two oplev mirrors, Jamie's windmill and a lemo patch panel.

  + Put some pieces of metal as makers for the original place

  + Put some makers on the distance of  dLY = -25.49 cm = -10.04 inch from the original place (see the 40m wiki).

     The minus sign means it will move away from the vertex.

  + Brought the ETMY suspension tower to the north side to do some inspections

  + Did some inspections by taking the noise spectra (#5141)

  + Adjusted the OSEM range and brought the magnets on the center of the OSEM holders by rotating and translating the OSEMs

  + During the work we found the proper PIT and YAW gains were about -5, which are the opposite sign from what they used to be.

  + Trying to minimize the cross couplings

JD: There is still some funny business going on, like perhaps the LR magnet isn't quite in the OSEM beam.  We leave the optic free swinging, and will continue to investigate in the morning.

Summary of the week ending Aug 8th.  Number of elog entries = 56

- VAC
 + The vent started Wednesday morning
 + Repositioning of the green periscopes and associated mirrors are done.
 + Got both of the green beams coming out from  the chambers
 + Moved the ETMX suspension tower by -8.09 inch (away from vertex)
 + Fixed the alignment of the ETMX CCD mirrors
 + Recovered the X green beam axis for the latest ETMX position

- SUS
 + oplev centered prior to the vent

- LSC
 + ETMY_TRANS_QPD didn't respond at all, needs to be fixed
 + Old MZ PD (InGaAs 2mm, @29.5MHz) has been modified for REFL33.
  The 11MHz notch circuit is at the amp side instead of the diode side. This is ready for the installation
 + REFL165 PD has been made from the old 166MHz PD.

- IOO
 + IPPOS has been sick since 19th of July, 2011
 + IPANG is clipped on a pick-up mirror on the ETMY table. QPD itself is healthy.
 + The spot positions on the MC mirrors were measured prior to the vent.
   The results are almost the same as before within a few percent difference expect for the MC2 yaw.
 + An attenuator, consisting of two HWPs and a PBS, has been installed on the PSL table for the MC low power state.
 + a 10% BS in front of the MCREFL_RFPD was replaced by a perfect reflector for the low power mode.
 + The incident power for MC was decreased to 20 mW
 + The beam axis going to MC was misalgned due to the attenutor.
    Then the beam was aligned by touching two steering mirrors on the PSL table
 + MC is able to be locked in air. The reflection DC goes from 1.4 to 0.13 V when the MC is locked.

- ABSL
 + With the mass-kicking technique, the arm lengths were measured.
   Xarm =  37.5918 m, Yarm = 37.5425 m.

- Green locking
 + Y green beam is aligned to the Y arm
 + Locking of the Y green is not robust, it needs to be revisited

- OAF
 + Wiener Filtering was applied on the data collected from the X-arm for a duration of 1500 seconds.

- Misc.
 + The hazardous waste people are moving chemicals around outside our door, and have roped off our regular front door.
 + The horizontal trolley drive of the east end crane stopped working. It will be fixed.

Here are the new calibration plots for my photosensors. These calibrations were done using a translation stage.

The linear region for the first photosensor appears to be between 15.2mm and 30 mm

The linear region for the second photosensor appears to be between 12.7mm and 22.9mm

The slope for both is -0.32 V/mm  (more precisely, -0.3201 V/mm for PS 1 and -0.3195 V/mm for PS 2)

This week, I have finished assembling everything I need to begin shaking. I built an intermediary mounting stage to mount the TT suspension base to the horizontal sliding platform, finished assembling the second photodiode, finished assembling the photosensor circuit box, and calibrated the two photosensors. Today I built a platform/stage to mount the photodiodes so that they are located close enough to the mirror/suspension that they can operate in the linear range.  Below is an image of the set-up.

The amplifer that Koji fixed is acting a bit strange again...It is sometimes shutting off (Apparently, it can only manage to do short runs ~ 1minute? That should be enough time?).

The set-up is ready to begin taking measurements.

Last night, I attached a metal plate to the Vout faceplate of my photosensor circuit box because the BNC connection terminals were loose. This was Jamie's suggestion to establish a more secure connection (I had originally drilled holes for the BNCs that were much too large).

I have also fixed the mechancial set-up of my shaking experiment so that the horizontal sliding platform does not interfere with the photodiode mounting stage. Koji pointed out last night that in the full range of motion, the photodiode mounting stage interferes with the movement of the sliding platform when the platform is at its full range.

I have began shaking. I am getting a problem, as my voltage outputs are just appearing a high-frequency noise.

We got the results of the wiener filtering simulations (Elog Entry)

We got the power spectra and coherence of the seismic noise measurements from GURALPs and STS seismometers (Elog Entry)

We tried to whiten the target and the input signal for the computation of the wiener filter for the real data, but the results are unsatisfactory. We should not care about high frequencies in wiener filter computation so we will just filter them off in the filter output with a low pass filter.

We just found the right gain for the system seismometer-AAboard-ADC (Elog Entry)

Thanks to Koji's help, the second photosensor, which was not working, has been fixed. I have re-calibrated the photosensor after fixing a problem with the circuit.  I have determined the new linear region to lie between 7.6 mm and 19.8mm. The slope defining the linear region is -0.26 V/mm (no longer the same as the first photosensor, which is -0.32 V/mm).

Here is the calibration plot.

For some reason the workstation at the vac rack was off and unplugged. Nicole and I plugged its power back in to the EX rack.

I turned it on and it booted up fine; its not dead. To get it on to the network I just made the conversion from 131.215 to 192.168 that Joe had done on all the other computers several months ago.

Now it is showing the Vacuum overview screen correctly again and so Steve no longer has to monopolize one of the Martian laptops over there.

Koji and I have finished shaking the table for the first round of measurements (horizontal shaking). We have cleaned up the lab space used.

The FFT Analyzer has been put back to its position at the back side of the rack (near the seismometers).

I will calibrate the photosensor for the suspension frame and piece together/analyze/produce graphs of the data today. If everything is fine (the measurements are fine) and if there is a chance, we hope to shake the TT suspension vertically.

I have re-calibrated the photosensor I used to measure the displacements of the TT frame (what I call "Photosensor 2").

As before, the linear region is about 15.2mm to 25.4mm. It is characterized by the slope -0.0996 V/mm (-0.1 V/mm). Recall that photosensor 1 (used to measure mirror displacements) has a calibration slope of -3.2V/mm. The ratio of the two slopes (3.2/0.1 = 32). We should thus expect the DC coupling level to be 32? This is not what we have for the DC coupling levels in our data (2.5 for flexibly-supported, fully-assembled TT (with EDC, with bar), 4.2 for EDC without bar, 3.2 for rigid EDC without bar, 3.2 for no EDC, with bar, 3.2 for no EDC without bar) . I think I may need to do my calibration plot for the photosensor at the frame?

I have redone the voltage versus displacement measurements for calibrating "Photosensor 2" (the photosensor measuring the motions of the TT frame). This time, I calibrated the photosensor in the exact position it was in during the experimental excitation ( with respect to the frame ). I have determined the linear region to be 15.2mm to 22.9mm (in my earlier post today, when I calibrated the photosensor for another location on the frame, I determined the linear region to be 15.2mm to 25.4mm). This time, the slope was -0.92 V/mm (instead of -0.1 V/mm).

This means that the calibration ratio for photosensor 1 (measuring mirror displacements) and photoensor 2 (measuring frame displacements) is 34.86.

Since this "unity" value should be 34.86 for my transfer function magnitude plots (instead of the ~3 value I have), do I need to scale my data? It is strange that it differs by an order of magnitude...

The entry was quite confusing owing to many misleading wordings.

- The PS2 should be calibrated "as is". (i.e. should be calibrated with the frame)

- The previous calibrations with the highly reflective surface were 0.32V/mm and 0.26V/mm, respectively.
  This time you have 0.10V/mm (with an undescribed surface). The ratio is not 32 but 3.2.

- The DC output of PS2 on the shaking setup was 2.5V. The DC output seen in the plot is 3.5V-ish.
This suggests the possibiliteies:
1) The surface has slightly higher reflectivity than the frame
2) The estimation of the distance between the frame and the PS2 during the TF measurement was not accurate.

- The word "DC coupling level" is misleading. I guess you mean the DC value of the vbration isolation transfer function
  of the suspension.

All of my plots have already taken into account the calibration of the photosensor (V/mm ratio)

Here is a bode plot generated for the transfer function measurements we obtained last night/this morning. This is a bode plot for the fully-assembled T.T. (with flexibly-supported dampers and bottom bar). I will continue to upload bode plots (editing this post) as I finish them but for now I will go to sleep and come back later on today.

Here is a bode plot comparing the no eddy-current damper case with and without the bar that we suspected to induce some non-uniform damping. We have limited data on the NO EDC, no bar measurements (sine swept data from 7 Hz to 50 Hz) and FFT data from 0 Hz to 12.5 Hz because we did not want to induce too much movement in the mirror (didn't want to break the mirror).  This plot shows that there is not much difference in the transfer functions of the TT (no EDC) with and without the bar.

From FFT measurements of  the no eddy-current damper case without the bar (800 data points, integrated 10 times) we can define the resonance peak of the TT mirror (although there are still damping effects from the cantilever blades).

The largest resonance peak occurs at about 1.94 Hz. The response (magnitude) is 230.

The second-largest resonance peak occurs at about 1.67 Hz. The response (magnitude) is 153. This second resonance peak may be due to pitch motion coupling (this is caused by the fact that the clamping attaching the mirror to the wires occurs above the mirror's center of mass, leading to inevitable linear and pitch coupling).

Here is a bode plot of the EDC without the bar. It seems very similar to the bode plot with the bar

 Here is a bode plot of the rigidly-supported EDC, without bar. I need to do a comparison plot of the rigid and flexibly-supported EDCs (without bar)

DMass and I locked the NPRO laser (Model M126-1064-700, S/N 238) on the AP table to the reference cavity on the PSL table using the PDH locking setup shown in the block diagram below (the part with the blue background):

A Marconi IFR 2023A signal generator outputs a sine wave at 230 kHz and 13 dBm, which is split. One output of the splitter drives the laser PZT while the other is sent to a 7dBm mixer. Also sent to the mixer is the output of a photodiode that is detecting the reflected power from off the cavity. (A DC block is used so that only RF signal from the PD is sent to the mixer). The output of the mixer goes through an SR560 low-noise preamp, which is set to act as a low pass filter with a gain of 5 and a pole at 30 kHz. That error signal is then sent to the –B port of the LB1005 PDH servo, which has the following settings: PI corner at 10kHz, LF gain limit of 50 dB, and gain of 2.7 (1.74 corresponds to a decade, so the signal is multiplied by 35). The output signal from the LB1005 is added to the 230 kHz dither using another SR560 preamp, and the sum of the signals drive the PZT.

I am monitoring the transmission through the cavity on a digital oscilloscope (not shown in the diagram) and with a camera connected to a TV monitor. I sweep the NPRO laser temperature set point manually until the 0,0 mode of the carrier frequency resonates in the cavity and is visible on the monitor. Then I close the loop and turn on the integrator on the LB1005.

The laser locks to the cavity both when the error signal is sent into the A port and when it is sent into the –B port of the PDH servo. I determined that –B is the right sign by comparing the transmission through the cavity on the oscilloscope for both ways.

When using the A port, the transmission when it was locked swept from ~50 to ~200 mV (over ~10 second intervals) but had large high frequency fluctuations of around +/- 50 mV. Looking at the error signal on the oscilloscope as well, the RMS fluctuations of the error signal were at best ~40 mV peak to peak, which was at a gain of 2.9 on the LB1005.

Using the –B port yielded a transmission that swept from 50 to 250 mV but had smaller high frequency fluctuations of around +/- 20 mV. The error signal RMS was at best 10mV peak to peak, which was at a gain of 2.7. (Although over the course of 10 minutes the gain for which the error signal RMS was smallest would drift up or down by ~0.1).

The open loop error signal peak-to-peak voltage was 180 mV, which is more than an order of magnitude larger than the RMS error signal fluctuations when the loop is closed, indicating that it is staying in the range in which the response is linear.

In the above plot the transmission signal is offset by 0.1 V for clarity.

Below is the closed loop error signal. The inset plot shows the signal viewed over a 1.6 ms time period. You can see ~60 microsecond fluctuations in the signal (~17 kHz)

The system remained locked for ~45 minutes, and may have stayed locked for much longer, but I stopped it by opening the loop and turning off the function generator. Below is a picture of the transmitted light showing up on a monitor, the electronics I'm using, and a semi-ridiculous mess of wires.

I determined that it’s not dangerous to leave the system locked and leave for a while. The maximum voltage that the SR560 will output to the PZT is 10Vpp. This means that it will not drive the PZT at more than +/-5 V DC. At low modulation rates, the PZT can take a voltage on the order of 30 Vpp, according to the Lightwave Series 125-126 user’s manual, so the control signal will not push the PZT too hard such that it’s harmful to the laser.

This morning (about 10am to 11am), I have collected additional transfer function measurements for the T.T. suspension. I have finished taking my measurements. The SR785 has been returned to its place next the the seismometer racks.

 The data has been backed up onto the cit40m computer

Here is my bode plot comparing the flexibly-supported and rigidly-supported EDCs (both with no bar)

It seems as if the rigidly-supported EDC has better isolation below 10 Hz (the mathematically-determined Matlab model predicted this...that for the same magnet strength, the rigid system would have a lower Q than the flexible system). Above 10 Hz (the resonance for the flexibly-supported EDCs seem to be at 9.8 Hz) , we can see that the flexibly-supported EDC has slightly better isolation? I may need to take additional measurements of the transfer function of the flexibly-supported EDC (20 Hz to 100 Hz?)  to hopefully get a less-noisy transfer function at higher frequencies. The isolation does not appear to be that much better in the noisy region (above 20Hz). This may be because of the noise (possibly from the electromagnetic field from the shaker interfering with the magnets in the TT?). There is a 3rd resonance peak at about 22 Hz. I'm not sure what causes this peak...I want to confirm it with an FFT measurement of the flexibly-supported EDC (20 Hz to 40 Hz?)

 Since the last post, I have found from the Characterization of TT data (from Jenne) that the resonant frequency of the cantilever springs for TT #4 (the model I am using) have a resonant frequency at 22 Hz. They are in fact inducing the 3rd resonance peak.

Here is a bode plot (CORRECTLY SCALED) comparing the rigidly-supported EDCs (model and experimental transfer functions)

Here is a bode plot comparing the flexibly-supported EDCs (model and experimental transfer functions). I have been working on this graph for FOREVER and with the set parameters, this is is close as I can get it (I've been mixing and matching parameters for well over an hour > <). I think that experimentally, the TTs have better isolation than the model because they have additional damping properties (i.e. cantilever blades that cause resonance peak at 22 Hz). Also, there may be a slight deviation because my model assumes that all four EDCs are a single EDC.

inline cdsToggle /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/userapps/release/cds/common/src/cdsToggle.c

void cdsToggle(double *in, int inSize, double *out, int outSize){
  static double x = 0;
  static double y = 0;

  if (*in != y){
    y = *in;
    if (y == 1){
      x = (x == 1) ? 0 : 1;
      *out = x;
    }
  }
}

To aid Jenny's valiant attempt to finish her SURF project, I did some things with the front end system over the last couple days, largely tricking Jamie into doing things for me lest I ruin the 40m RCG system. Several tribulations have been omitted.

We stole a channel in the frontend, in the proccess:

1. Modified the C1GFD simulink model (now analog) to be "ADC -> TMP -> DAC" where TMP is a filter bank
   • C1GFD_TMP.adl (in /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/medm/c1gfd) is the relevant part which connects the ADC to the DAC in the frontend
2. Confirmed that the ADC was working by putting a signal in and seeing it in the frontend
3. Could not get a signal out of the anti aliasing board
4. Looked sad until Kiwamu found a breakout board for the SCSI cable coming from the DAC
5. Used SR560 to buffer DAC output
   • drove a triangle wave with AWG into the TMP EXC channel (100 counts 1 Hz) and looked at it after the ~25 ft of BNC cable running between the DAC and the NRPO driver
   • wave looked funny (not like a triangle wave), maybe the DAC is not meant to push a signal so far, so added buffer
6. Took the control signal going to the fast input of the NPRO driver (using the 500 Ohm SR560 output - see Jenny's diagram) and put it into the anti aliasing board of the ADC
7. Added switchable integrator to filter bank with Foton
   • I couldn't get the names to display in the filter bank, so I looked sad again
   • Jamie and Koji both poked at the "no name displayed" problem but had no conclusions, so I decided to ignore it
   • I confirm that when the two filters were toggled "on" that the transfer function was as expected: simple integrator with a unity gain at ~10mHz - agrees with what Foton's Bode Plot tool says it should be (see attached DTT plot)
8. I got Jamie to manually add the two epics channels from the TMP model to the appropriate .ini file so they would be recorded
   • C1:GFD-TMP_OUTPUT  (16 Hz)
   • C1:GFD-TMP_INMON    (16 Hz)
9. RefCav heater servo seems to still be set up, so we can use existing channels:
   • C1:PSL-FSS_RCPID_SETPOINT (temp setpoint - will do +/-1C steps about 35 C)
   • C1:PSL-FSS_MINCOMEAS (In loop temp sensor - in C)
   • C1:PSL-FSS_RCTEMP (out of loop temp sensor - in C)
   • C1:PSL-FSS_TIDALSET (Voltage to heater - rails @ +/- 2V)
10.  Closed loop on the control signal for the NPRO driver with an integrator, saw error signal go to zero
    • Turned up gain a little bit, saw some oscillations, then turned gain down to stop them, final gain = 2
11. Left system on for Jenny to come in and do step responses

As reported in my  previous entry of TT supsension bode plots, I found that my experimental data had what appears to be very noise peaks above 20 Hz (as mentioned earlier, the peak at 22 Hz is likely due to vertical coupling, as 22 Hz is the resonant frequency of the cantilever blades). This is very unusual and needs to be explored further. I would like to vertically-shake the TTs to obtain more data on possible coupling. However, I am leaving on Monday and will not return until Thursday (day of SURF talks). I am leaving campus Friday afternoon or so. I would may need some help coming up with an assembly plan/assembling set-up for vertical shaking (if it is possible to do so in such a limited time frame).

Today I wanted to see if the "noisy peaks" above 30 Hz were due to EM noise coupling. I tested this hypothesis today, seeing if EM fields generated by the coil at higher frequencies were injecting noise into my transfer function measurements. I found that the "noisy peaks" above 30 Hz are NOT DUE TO EM NOISE COUPLING. I am very curious as to what is causing the high peaks (possibly coupling from other degrees of freedom)?

Using my Matlab model of the flexibly-supported eddy current damping system, I have changed parameters to see if/how the TTs can be optimized in isolation. As I found earlier, posted in my bode plot entry, there is only a limited region where the flexibly-supported system provides better isolation than the rigidly-supported system.

Here is what I have found, where \gamma is the scale factor of the magnetic strength (proportional to magnetic strength), \beta is the scale factor of the current damper mass (estimated by attempting to fit my model to the experimental data), and \alpha is the scale factor of the current resonant frequency of the dampers.

Here are my commentaries on these plots. If you have any commentaries, it would be very helpful, as I would like to incorporate this information in my powerpoint presentation.

It seems as if the TT suspensions are already optimized?

It may be difficult to lower the resonant frequency of the dampers because that would mean changing the lengths of the EDC suspensions). Also, it appears that a rather drastic reduction (at most 0.6*current EDC resonant frequency --> reduction from about 10 Hz to 6 Hz or less) is required . Using the calculation that the resonant frequency is sqrt(g/length), for my single-suspended EDC model, this means increasing the wire length to nearly 3 x its current value. I'm not sure how this would translate to four EDCs...

The amplification at resonance caused by increasing the magnet strength almost offsets the isolation benefits of increasing magnet strength. From my modeling, it appears that the magnet strength may be very close (if not already at) isolation optimization.

Lowering the mass to 0.2 the current mass may be impractical. It seems as if the benefits of lowering the mass only occur when the mass is reduced by a factor of 0.2 (maybe 0.4)

What are the parameters you are using? As you have the drawings of the components, you can calculate the masses of the objects.

Reducing the ECD resonance from 10Hz->6Hz looks nice.

The resonant freq of the ECDs are not (fully) determined by the gravitational energy but have the contribution of the elastic energy of the wire.

Q1: How much is the res freq of the ECDs if the freq is completely determined by the grav energy? (i.e. the case of using much thinner wires)

Q2: How thin should the wires be?

 The drawings do not have the masses of the objects.

For the resonant frequency:

Instead of sqrt (g/l) would the numerator in the square root be[ g + (energy stored in wire)/(mass of damper)] ?

1) Drawing has the dimensions => You can calculate the volume => You can calculate the mass
Complicated structure can be ignored. We need a rough estimation.

2) Your restoring force can have two terms:
- one comes from the spring constant k
- the other from the gravity

 Thank you.

The wire used to suspend the EDCs is tungsten?

To verify, for my model, the EDC will be the mass of all four dampers or a single damper? The length of the wire used to suspend the EDC will be the combined length of 4 wires or length of  a single wire?

Taking into account the densities for each material (specific material of each component was listed, so I looked up the densities), and trying my best to approximate the volumes of each component, I have determined

the mass of the mirror + mirror holder to be ~100 g and the mass of a single EDC to be ~19 g

 I am thinking that perhaps my mass estimations were off? The model that I have used fits the data better than the model that I have made (changing the masses to fit my estimations of the values)

 I have been redoing the noise test multiple times today. Here is the best plot that I got

GOAL : To lock the central part of ifo

Here is the plan:

Mon - assemble all the cables from PDs and mixers, and check the CDS channels. Prepare the beamsplitters.

Tue - The current paths to REFL11 and REFL55 will be modified to the four paths to REFL11, 33, 55, 165. And the PDs will be placed.
Wed, Thu - during waiting for the ifo available with vacuum, help aligning the POP, POX, POY. In parallel, a simulation to find the PRC length SRC 
length tolerance will be proceeded.

Fri - When the ifo becomes available with vacuum, the sensing signals by 3-f scheme will be obtained with proper demodulation phases.

Sat - Try to lock the central part of the ifo with the new 3-f signals.

 REFL33 and REFL165 cables were connected from the AP table to the rack.  Cables on the rack for REFL33I, 33Q, 165I, 165Q ports were connected, too. Connections were confirmed by the data viewer. Two SMA cables which will be used for the two PDs on the AP tabl were built. We will be able to place the two PDs tomorrow. The beamsplitters to split the laser to REFL33 and REFL165 ports were mounted and ready to be placed.

I just tried to adjust the ETMY camera and its not very user friendly = NEEDS FIXING.

* Camera view is upside down.

* Camera lens is contacting the lexan viewport cover; this means the focus cannot be adjusted without misaligning the camera.

* There's no strain relief of the camera cables at the can. Needs a rubber cable grommet too.

* There's a BNC "T" in the cable line.

Probably similar issues with some of the other setups; they've had aluminum foil covers for too long. We'll have a camera committee meeting tomorrow to see how to proceed.

 ITMY has been upgraded  here I have the new lenses on hand to do the others when it fit into the schedule.

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.

I've now taken data for the pitch and yaw calibrations for the OSEMs of SRM and ITMY. Until such time as I know what the calibrated oplev noise spectra are like, I'm leaving the servo gains at zero.

I estimate the length of the lever arm from SRM to measurement position to be 3.06m, and the length of the lever arm from the ITMY to the measurement position to be 3.13m.

From the fits shown on the attached plots, this gives the following calibration factors for the SRM and ITMY OSEMs pitch and yaw counts (i.e. counts from channels such as SUS-ITMY_ULSEN_SW2 multiplied by a matrix of 1s and -1s) to pitch and yaw angle:

SRM PITCH: 1 OSEMs pitch count = 11.74 microradians

SRM YAW: 1 OSEMs yaw count = 12.73 microradians

ITMY PITCH: 1 OSEMs pitch count = 13.18 microradians

ITMY YAW: 1 OSEMs yaw count = 13.52 microradians

Next step is to do some DC offsets with the oplev paths back in place to get the final calibration between OSEMs counts and oplev counts, thus finally getting a conversion factor from oplev counts to radians.

I noticed while taking these measurements that the DC offsets I put on ITMY caused around 5 times larger change in angle than those on the SRM. The different path length is not enough to account for this, so I propose that the actuation is working differently for the two. I guess this should be taken into account when designing the output matrices (unless the control is passed through a different output matrix than the DC offsets?). I'll quantify the difference shortly, and write a conversion factor between output alignment count (e.g. SUS-ITMY_PIT_COMM) and angle.

DRMI team needs to use at least three lockins on LSC

• Increase the number of the lockin matrix  done
• Duplicate lockin modules in the LSC code  done
• modify the main LSC screen done
• modify the lockin screen done
• modify the lockin matrix screen done

I created 3 kinds of LSC matrices, PRMI condition with carrier resonant in PRC, PRMI condition with SB resonant in PRC, and DRMI with SB resonant in PRC. The matrices are with AS55 and REFL11 which are used for locking right now. The signal numbers are written in log10, and the dem phases are shown in degrees.

From CR reso PRMI to SB reso PRMI, demodulation phases change  ----

PRMI - Carrier resonant in PRC

            PRCL      MICH  SRCL

PRMI - SB resonant in PRC

DRMI - SB resonant in PRC

The LSC code has been modified

- The code was modified, compiled, and installed.

- The code is now running. FB was restarted to deal with the change of the channel names.

- Now we have LOCKIN1, 2, and 3. This required the change of the names from C1:LSC-LOCKIN_.... to C1:LSC-LOCKIN1_...

- The LSC screen has also modified. It has three lockins on the screen.

- The corresponding matrix screens have been modified/created and linked from the main screen.

- I need to make the screens more cool but the locking team can start to use those lockins.

As per the request of Anamaria, I have added the slider of the demodulation phase for each RF PD screens.

C1LSC_RFPD.adl screen was modified to have more information.