40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
 40m Log, Page 247 of 335 Not logged in
ID Date Author Type Category Subject
2212   Mon Nov 9 13:22:08 2009 josephb,alexUpdateComputersMegatron update

Alex and I took a look at megatron this morning, and it was in the same state I left it on Friday, with file system errors.  We were able to copy the advLIGO directory Peter had been working in to Linux1, so it should be simple to restore the code.  We then tried just running fsck, and overwritting bad sectors, but after about 5 minutes it was clear it could potentially take a long time (5-10 seconds per unreadable block, with an unknown number of blocks, possibly tens or millions).  The decision was made to simply replace the hard drive.

Alex is of the opinion that the hard drive failure was a coincidence.  Or rather, he can't see how the RFM card could have caused this kind of failure.

Alex went to Bridge to grab a usb to sata adapter for a new hard drive, and was going to copy a duplicate install of the OS onto it, and we'll try replacing the current hard drive with it.

2967   Fri May 21 14:31:46 2010 josephb,alexUpdateCDSNew computer and IO chassis working in 1X4

Alex brought over a ADC, DAC, and PCIe card which goes into the computer and talk to the IO chassis.  We tried installing the new "small" IO chassis in 1X4, but initially it couldn't find the ADC/DAC boards, just the Contec Binary out board.

We tried several different configurations (different computer, different IO chassis, the megatron chassis, the megatron IO chassis with new cards, a new IO chassis with megatron cards.

The two things were concluded once we got a new IO chassis talking with the new computer.

1) Its possible one of the slots is in the IO chassis as we didn't see the ADC until we moved it to a different slot in the new chassis

2) The card that Alex had brought over to put in the computer doesn't behave well with these IO chassis.  He went back to downs to try and figure out what it is, and test it with the chassis over there.

Currently, Megatron's IO chassis is sitting on a table behind racks 1Y5 and 1Y6, along with the new "large" IO chassis.  Megatron's PCIe card for talking to the IO chassis was moved to the computer in 1X4.  The computer in 1X4 is currently being called c1iscex with IP 192.168.113.80.

3034   Wed Jun 2 11:25:16 2010 josephb,alexUpdateCDSCDS saga (aka the bad code saga)

Alex updated the awg.par file to handle all the testpoints.  Basically its very similar to the testpoint.par, but the prognum lines have to be 1 higher than the corresponding prognum in testpoint.par.  A entry looks like:

[C1-awg0]
hostname=192.168.1.2
prognum=0x31001002

After running "diag -i" and seeing some RPC number conflicts, we went into /cvs/cds/caltech/cds/target/gds/param/diag_C.conf and changed the line from

&chn * *  192.168.1.2 822087685 1

to

&chn * *  192.168.1.2 822087700 1

The number represents an RPC number.  This was conflicting with the RPC number associated with the awgtpman processes.  We then had to update the /etc/rpc file as well.  At the end we changed chnconf 822087685 to chnconf 822087700.  We then run /usr/sbin/xinetd reload

Lastly we edited the /etc/xinetd.d/chnconf file line

server_args             = /cvs/cds/caltech/target/gds/param/tpchn_C4.par /cvs/cds/caltech/target/gds/param/tpchn_C5.par

to

server_args             = /cvs/cds/caltech/target/gds/param/tpchn_C1.par /cvs/cds/caltech/target/gds/param/tpchn_C2.par /cvs/cds/caltech/target/gds/param/tpchn_C3.par /cvs/cds/caltech/target/gds/param/tpchn_C4.par /cvs/cds/caltech/target/gds/param/tpchn_C5.par /cvs/cds/caltech/target/gds/param/tpchn_C6.par /cvs/cds/caltech/target/gds/param/tpchn_C7.par /cvs/cds/caltech/target/gds/param/tpchn_C8.par /cvs/cds/caltech/target/gds/param/tpchn_C9.par

Alex also recompiled the frame builder code to be able to handle more than 7 front ends.  This involved tracking down a newer version of libtestpoint.so on c1iscex and moving it over to megatron, then going in and by hand adding the ability to have up to 10 front ends connected.

Alex has said he doesn't like this code and would like it to dynamically allocate properly for any number of servers rather than having a dumb hard coded limit.

Other changes he needs to make:

1) Get rid of set dcu_rate ## = 16384 type lines in the daqrc file.  That information is available from the /caltech/chans/C1LSC.ini type files which are automatically generated when you compile a model.  This means not having to go in by hand to update these in daqrc.

2) Get some awg.par and testpoint.par rules, so that these are automatically updates when you build a model.  Make it so it automatically assigns a prognum when read in rather than having to hard code them in by hand.

3)Slave the awgtpmans to a single clock running from the IO processor x00. This ensures they are all in sync.

3632   Fri Oct 1 10:56:30 2010 josephb,alexUpdateCDSfb work continued

Alex fixed the time issue with the IRIG-B signal being far off, apparently their IRIG-B signal in downs seems to be different.  He simply corrected for the difference in the two signals in the code.

For debugging purposes we uncommented the following line in the feCodeGen.pl script (in /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/advLigoRTS/src/epics/util/):

print EPICS "test_points ONE_PPS $dac_testpoint_names$::extraTestPoints\n"

This is to make every ADC testpoint available from the IOP (such as c1x02).

2540   Thu Jan 21 17:23:30 2010 josephb,alex,kojiHowToComputersRCG code fixes

In order to see the Contec DO-32L-PE Digital output PCIe card with the new controls, we had to add the CDO32 part to the CDS_PARTS.mdl file in control /cds/advLigo/src/epics/simLink/ directory on megatron, as well as create the actual model mdl file (based on cdsDio.mdl) in the control/cds/advLigo/src/epics/simLink/lib directory.

The CDO32.pm file (in /home/controls/cds/advLigo/src/epics/util/lib) has existed for some time, it was just missing the associated pieces in simlink.  However, Alex also checked out a newer version Dio.pm in the process.  As we are not using this part at this time, it should be fine.

The code now compiles and sees the digital output card.

You need a special care on this block as it turned out that the code does not compiled if the "constant" block is connected to the input. You must use appropriate block such as bitwise operator, as shown below.

Attachment 1: CDO32.png
2695   Mon Mar 22 16:57:45 2010 josephb,daisuke, alexConfigurationComputersMegatron test points working again

We changed the pointer on /cvs/cds/caltech/target/gds/bin/awgtpman from

/opt/gds/awgtpman    to

/cvs/cds/caltech/target/gds/bin/awgtpman.091215.

Then killed the megatron framebuilder and testpoint manager (daqd, awgtpman), restarted, hit the daq reload button from the GDS_TP screen.

This did not fix everything. However, it did seem to fix the problem where it needed a rtl_epics under the root directory which did not exist.  Alex continued to poke around.  When next he spoke, he claimed to have found a problem in the daqdrc file.  Specifically, the cvs/cds/caltech/target/fb/ daqdrc file.

set gds_server = "megatron" "megatron" 10 "megatron" 11;

He said this need to be:

set gds_server = "megatron" "megatron"  11 "megatron" 12;

However, during this, I had looked file, and found dataviewer working, while still with the 10 and 11.  Doing a diff on a backup of daqdrc, shows that Alex also changed

set controller_dcu=10  to set controller_dcu=12, and commented the previous line.

He also changed set debug=2 to set debug=0.

In a quick test, we changed the 11 and 12 back to 10 and 11, and everything seemed to work fine.  So I'm not sure what that line actually does.  However, the set controller_dcu line seems to be important, and probably needs  to be set to the dcu id of an actually running module (it probably doesn't matter which one, but at least one that is up).  Anyways, I set the gds_server line back to 11 and 12, just in case there's numerology going on.

I'll add this information to the wiki.

3237   Fri Jul 16 15:57:19 2010 josephb,kiwamuUpdateComputersNew X end FE and IO chassis work

We finished setting up the new X end front end machine (still temporarily called c1scx), and attached it to its IO chassis.  We're preparing for a test tomorrow, where we redirect the Limo breakout box to the new front end and IO chassis, so Kiwamu can test getting some green locking channels into his controls model.

We strung a pair of blue fibers from the timing master to the new X end (and labeled them), so we have a timing signal for the IO chassis.  I also labeled the orange fiber Alex had repurposed from the RFM to timing for the new Y end when I noticed he had not actually labelled it at the timing master.

3434   Wed Aug 18 12:24:58 2010 josephb,kiwamuUpdateCDSshmem issue

Apparently its possible to have working models get into a bad state in regards to shared memory, which prevents the model from working after killing it and restarting it.  We found that by shutting all the models down, and then killing and restarting the setup_shmem process, it allowed models to function properly again.

The symptom was getting stuck at the burt restore step, according the log files (/opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/target/c1SYS/logs/log.txt).

3432   Wed Aug 18 11:40:59 2010 josephb,kiwamu,yoichiUpdateCDSEnd station working with latest RCG code

We were able to get the latest SVN checkout (revision 2009), working with the c1x00 (IOP) and c1vgl models at the new X end on the c1iscex machine.

We were unable to get it working yesterday, and as far as we can tell, the only significant change was a reboot of the c1sus machine.  Before the reboot, it did not look like there were any conflicting models running on the c1sus machine, but apparently something was preventing the models on c1iscex from running properly.

Other simulated plant models still need to have their shared memory location blocks updated to the new type.

Now that we have proved we still can get the end model running, we are moving onto the c1sus machine.

2517   Fri Jan 15 18:53:05 2010 josephb,peter,kojiUpdateComputersAttempted locking with Megatron replacing ETMY front end

This afternoon we attempted to lock the interferometer using Megatron insteady of the usual ETMY front end.

We attempted it once, found the alignment seemed particularly bad, then realized we had forgotten to add the QPDs.  In the process of adding the QPDs to the tst.mdl file, we realized I (Joe) should have been looking at the iscNetDsc.h file, not the iscNetDs40m.h file for the RFM memory structure.  The only major difference was the memory location of where the qpd information gets passed.

We added QPDs to the tst.mdl file, writing to the RFM network with the QPD pitch, yaw and sum values.

We also added normalization to the oplev, by dividing the OL pitch and yaw values by the OL sum value in the tst.mdl file.

The lscPos, ascPit, ascYaw were working properly, although we did have to poke at the ascPit and ascYaw values once before they started reading properly at Megatron (they started at -1e20).  We think the RFM card may have started in an odd state, and without something causing the ascPit and ascYaw values to change, it never updated.

At the end of the day, the interferometer was locked for a few seconds.  There is are still some issues to be worked on, but its progress.

Koji returned everything back to normal operations after the test.

2911   Tue May 11 16:38:16 2010 josephb,rana,rolfUpdateCDSCDS questions and thoughts

1) What is c1asc doing?  What is ascaux used for?  What are the cables labeled "C1:ASC_QPD" in the 1X2 rack really going to?

2) Put the 4600 machine (megatron) in the 1Y3 (away from the analog electronics)  This can be used as an OAF/IO machine.  We need a dolphin fiber link from this machine to the IO chassis which will presumably be in 1Y1, 1Y2 (we do not currently have this fiber at the 40m, although I think Rolf said something about having one).

3) Merge the PSL and IOOVME crates in 1Y1/1Y2 to make room for the IO chassis.

4) Put the LSC and SUS machines into 1Y4 and/or 1Y5 along with the SUS IO chassis.  The dolphin switch would also go here.

5) Figure out space in 1X3 for the LSC chassis.  Most likely option is pulling asc or ascaux stuff, assuming its not really being used.

6) Are we going to move the OMC computer out from under the beam tube and into an actual rack?  If so, where?

Rolf will likely be back Friday, when we aim to start working on the "New" Y end and possibly the 1X3 rack for the LSC chassis.

303   Fri Feb 8 17:55:53 2008 joshConfigurationPEMPEM-AS_MIC now in PSL enclosure
I have moved the microphone to the PSL enclosure, hanging near the south (Y) side from a support rod for the overhanging storage area so that it's reasonably close to the PMC. I've fastened it in many places using cable ties to make sure that it won't fall.

Alberto helped me solder together a female BNC-female 3.5 mm stereo adapter so that I can use the DAQ to output through BNC to PC speakers. My plan is do sweep sine output through PC speakers to find the transfer function of sound from outside the enclosure to inside the enclosure and by moving the microphone more centrally over the PSL table, check if there are any strong resonances. Hopefully I can use this technique at other places around the interferometer or measure the effect of installing acoustic foam.
780   Fri Aug 1 11:51:15 2008 justingOmnistructureComputersadded /cvs/cds/site directory
I added a /cvs/cds/site directory. This is the same as is dicsussed here. Right now it just has the text file 'cit' in it, but eventually the other scripts should be added. I'll probably use it in the next version of mDV.
298   Tue Feb 5 17:39:05 2008 jweinerConfigurationPEMPEM-AS_MIC taken down from AS table, will put in PSL enclosure soon
I took down the microphone that Andrey hung above the AS table his first week in lab. I want to hang the microphone above the PMC to check the effect of acoustic noise on the PMC. The cables were a little more tangled than I thought so I've only taken the microphone down and haven't hung it back up yet, but on Thursday I'll have enough time to carefully put it up inside the PSL and see what I can find out about acoustic noise inside the PSL. I think the microphone should be sensitive enough for the frequencies we're interested in, and I'll hopefully find out if it's sufficient once I put it up in the PSL. The microphone cable and microphone are on top of the PSL for now.
4772   Tue May 31 14:29:00 2011 jzweizigUpdateCDSframes

There seems to be something strange going on with the 40m frame builder.
Specifically, there is a gap in the frames in /frames/full near the start of
each 100k second subdirectory. For example, frames for the following times are missing:

990200042-990200669 990300045-990300492 990400044-990400800 990500032-990500635 990600044-990600725 990700037-990700704 990800032-990800677 990900037-990900719

To summarize, after writing the first two frames in a data directory, the next ~10 minutes of frames are usually missing. To make matters worse (for
the nds2 frame finder, at least) the first frame after the gap (and all successive frames) start at an arbitrary time, usually not aligned to a 16-second boundary. Is there something about the change of directories that is causing the frame builder to crash? Or is the platform/cache disk too slow to complete the directory switch-over without loss of data?

4407   Sun Mar 13 00:00:58 2011 jzweizig, ranaConfigurationDAQNDS2 code change and restart

John has changed the NDS2 code and restarted it on Mafalda. The issue is that it goes off the rails everytime the DAQD is restarted on FB because of filename convention war between GDS and CDS.

Until this is resolved, please make sure to restart the NDS2 process on Mafalda everytime you restart DAQD by doing this:

pkill -KILL nds2

/users/jzweizig/nds2-mafalda/start_nds2

10711   Thu Nov 13 22:52:48 2014 kateUpdatePEMSeismometers set up for huddle test

Jenne, Diego, Kate

We want to conduct a huddle test with the three 40m seismometers (2 Guralps and 1 Trillium), so we began to get that set up in order. All three are currently sitting on the large granite slab approximately halfway down the length of the MC tube. We had to move all three seismometers: the Trillium had been next to the BS and the Guralps at the end stations. All three are balanced and aligned and we have put the foam box over them.

The Trillium has not yet been used here, so we had to first wire its power supply. We're now providing its readout box with +/- 20 V. Getting that hooked up required powering down several electronics racks, which involved auxiliary prep work like turning off the suspension watchdogs. We also installed 3 new BNC cables to carry the Trillium x,y,z signals from its box to the CDS AA board. We're using the inputs which had previously been used for recording the STS2 signals.

We could find only one of the two 'short' Guralp cables, so at the moment just one of the two Guralps is powered and connected to CDS. Jenne made (some time ago) new cables so that we could leave the long cables that run from the corner to each end station in place to preserve the nominal setup.

Attachment/edit by Jenne: Seismic spectra.  Note that the T240 is connected to the channels that are called STS_1.  I compared the Guralp spectra to our seismic_ref, and they match up pretty well.  The new spectra is maybe a factor of 2 or so above the reference, at a few Hz. Anyhow, the Guralp seems fine.  I am sure that somewhere we have a second short (as in, not 50m long) Guralp cable, I just can't remember right now where it might be.  Also, the T-240 has some seriously crazy noise up around 30Hz.  What's up with that??  I want to ask Zach if he saw this when he had the Trillium, or if it is new.

Attachment 2: seism_closed.jpg
Attachment 3: seism_open.jpg
13866   Fri May 18 19:10:48 2018 keerthanaUpdateGeneralCode for adjusting the oscillator frequency remotly

Target: Phase locking can be acheived by giving a scan to the oscilator frequency. This frequency is now controlled using the knobe on the AM/FM signal generator 2023B. But we need to control it remotely by giving the inputs of start frequency, end frequency and the steps.

The frequency oscilator and the computer is connected with the help of GPIB Ethernet converter. The IP address of the converter I used is '192.168.113.109' and its GPIB address is 10.

I could change the oscilator frequency by changing the input frequency with the help of the code I made (Inorder to check this code, I have changed the oscilator frequency multiple times. I hope it didn't create trouble to anyone). Now I am trying to make this code better by adding certain features like numpy, argument parse etc, which I will be able complete by next week. I am also considering to develop the code to have a sliding system to control the oscillatory frequency.

For record: The maximum limit of frequency which i changed upto is 100MHz.

Attachment 1: frequency_set.jpg
13875   Mon May 21 18:02:55 2018 keerthanaUpdateGeneralTesting of the new mini-circuits frequency counter

Today, I tested the new mini-circuit frequency counter by connecting it with the beat signal output. The frequency counter works fine. Now I am trying to get a display of the frequency in the computer screen using python programming. I have made the code for remotely changing oscilator frequency and it is saved in the folder 'ksnair'. A picture of the new mini circuits frequency counter is attached below. Part no: UFC-6000, S/N: 11501040012, Run: M075270.

Attachment 1: frequency_counter.jpg
13879   Tue May 22 17:29:27 2018 keerthanaUpdateelogMEDM Diagram for the auxilary laser system control and display.

(keerthana, gautam, jon)

In the morning, Jon gave me an overview of the Auxiliary laser system which we are planning to setup. Based on the diagram he uploaded in the elog, I have made the MEDM diagram for controlling and displaying the parameters. Here the parameters which we will be controlling are temperature (in terms of voltage), oscilator frequency ( with the help of IFR 2023B), the frequency offset and the PID controls. The display includes the beat frequency, error signal voltage, control voltage and a switch to give feed back to the AUX laser. As the frequency counter is not connected at the moment, I haven't included its channel number in it. The screenshot of the diagram is attached with this. I am also considering to give a PID feedback to the slow control from the AUX feedback signal. The screen can be accessed from the PSL dropdown menu in sitemap.

Attachment 1: MEDM_aux.png
13915   Mon Jun 4 19:41:01 2018 keerthanaUpdate Finesse code for cavity scan

The cavity scan data obtained from the Finesse simulation is attached here. Fig1 indicates the cavity scan data in the absence of induced misalignment. In that case only the fundemental mode is resonating. But when a misalignment is induced, higher order modes are also present as seen in Fig2. This is in the absence of surface figure error in the mirrors. Now I am trying to provide perturbations to the mirror surface in the form of zernike polynomials and get the scan data fom the simulation. These cavity scan data can be used to develop fitting models. Once we have a model, we can use it to analyse the data from the experimental cavity scan.

Attachment 1: Fig1.png
Attachment 2: Fig2.png
13924   Thu Jun 7 10:26:36 2018 keerthanaUpdatePSLobserving the resonance signal corresponding to the injected frequency.

(Johannes, Koji, Keerthana)

The PLL loop ensures that the frequency difference between the PSL laser and the AUX laser is equal to the frequency we provide to the Local Oscillator (LO) with the help of a Marconi. Only a small pick off part of both the AUX and PSL lasers are going to the PLL loop. The other part of both the lasers are going to the interferometer. Before entering into the optical fibre, the AUX laser passes through an AOM which changes its frequency by an amount of 80MHz. When the PLL is locked, the frequency coming out of the PLL will be equal to the frequency set up in the Marconi (fm). When it passes through AOM, the frequency becomes fdiff = fm ±80 MHz. If this frequency beam and the PSL laser beam is aligned properly, and if this frequency is equal to the product of an integer and the free spectral range of the cavity, this will resonate in the cavity.  Then we expect to get a peak in the ETM transmission spectrum corresponding to the frequency we injected through the optical Fibre.

Through out the experiment we need to make sure that the PSL is locked. Thus, the signal detected by the photo detector when only PSL is resonating inside the cavity, act as a DC signal. Then we give a narrow scan to the Marconi. When fdiff = N*FSRy this condition is satisfied, we will observe a peak in the output. Here FSRy  is the free spectral range of the cavity which is approximately equal to 3.893 MHz.

Yesterday afternoon, Johannes, Koji and myself tried to observe this peak. We aligned the cavity by observing the output signal from the AS100 photo detector. We made the alignment in such a way that the intensity output getting from this photo detector is maximum. We used a Spectrum analyser to see the output. After that we connected a photo detector to collect the YEND transmission signal from the ETM mirror. We used a lens to focus this directly to the photodetector. Then we connected this photodetector to the spectrum analyser, which was located near the AS table. We took a large cable to meet this purpose. But still the cable was not lengthy enough, so we joined it with another cable and finally connected it with the spectrum analyser. Then we gave a scan to the Marconi from 51 MHZ to 55 MHz. We repeated this experiment with a scan of 55 MHz to 59 MHz also. We repeated this a few times, but we were not able to see the peak.

We assume that this can be because of some issue with the alignment or it can be because of some issue with the photo detector we used. We would like to repeat this experiment and get the signal properly.

I am attaching a flow chart of the setup and also a picture of the mirrors and photo detector we inserted in the Y-End table.

Attachment 1: photodetector_alignment.jpg
Attachment 2: design1.PNG
13926   Thu Jun 7 14:35:26 2018 keerthanaUpdateelogTable- useful for doing the scanning.

I think this table will help us to fix the scanning range of the Marconi frequency. This will also help in predicting the position of the resonance peak corresponding to the injected frequency.

fdiff = fm ±80 MHz ;                     fdiff = N*FSRy ;              FSRy = 3.893 MHz.

 N = Integer number fdiff =injected fm = Marconi frequency 1 3.893 76.107 2 7.786 72.214 3 11.679 68.321 4 15.572 64.428 5 19.465 60.535 6 23.34 56.66 7 27.251 52.749 8 31.144 48.856 9 35.037 44.963 10 38.93 41.07 11 42.79 37.21 12 46.716 33.284 13 50.609 29.391
13939   Mon Jun 11 13:55:33 2018 keerthanaUpdateGeneralProject Updates

As of now, I have made the codes needed to sweep the marconi frequency for taking the cavity scan data, the photo diode at the y-end is conected to the spectrum analyser already and I also have the finesse simulation of the Ideal Fabry-perot cavity. By seeing my last elog entry, Gautam suggested me that I need to take a different approach for estimating the FSR and TMS value from the Finesse graph. That is, by using least square fit models. Now I am trying to do that and get a better estimate of the error values. Based on my understanding I am dividing this project into various tasks.

1. Getting a better estimate of the error value by using least square fits. Also plotting a graph of frequency Vs mode number and finding the value of Free Spectral Range from its slop.

2. Inserting zernike polynomials to the Finesse simulation and with the help of least square fit, plotting the graph of frequency Vs mode number. Understanding the shifts from the Ideal graph we obtained from step 1. Using this data, plotting the phase map corresponding to this.

3. Repeating step 2 by taking different zernike polynomials and creating a data base which will be useful for the analysis of the real data. This will also prepare me to do the fitting models easily.

4. Collecting data from the IFO and applying these fitting models to it. Finding the set of zernike polynomials which are similar to the actual fugure error of the mirror. Plotting the Phase map corresponding to those zernike polynomials.

If you feel that there is some mistake in the steps, please correct me. It will be really helpful!

13943   Mon Jun 11 19:16:49 2018 keerthanaUpdateelogComparison of the analytical and finesse values of TMS and FSR.

The percentage error which I found out =[(analytical value - finesse value)/analytical value]*100

But inorder to find the finesse value, I just used curser to get the central frequency of each peak and by substracting one from the other I found TMS and FSR.

The resolution was 6500 Hz. Thus, it seems that this method is not actually reliable. I am trying to find the central frequency of each mode with the help of lorentzian fits. I am attaching a fit which I did today. I have plotted its residual graph also.

I am uploading 4 python scripts to the github.

1. Analytical Solution

2. Finesse model- cavity scan

3. Finesse model- fitting

4. Finesse model- residual

 Quote: Hmm? What is the definition of the percentage error? I don't obtain these numbers from the given values. And how was the finesse value obtained from the simulation result? Then what is the frequency resolution used in Finesse simulation?

fitting_1.pdf

Attachment 1: fitting_1.pdf
13945   Mon Jun 11 22:18:18 2018 keerthanaUpdateelogComparison of the analytical and finesse values of TMS and FSR.

Oopss !! I made a mistake while taking the values from my notes. Sorry.

 Quote: > The percentage error which I found out =[(analytical value - finesse value)/analytical value]*100 Yes, I this does not give us 0.70% (3.893408 - 3.8863685)/3.893408 *100 = 0.18% But any way, go for the fitting.

13954   Wed Jun 13 11:59:03 2018 keerthanaUpdateelogcommand line enabled code for frequency scanning

I have modified the code for frequency scanning and have made it completely command line enabled. The code is written in python. It is saved in the name "frequency_scanning_argparse.py". I have uploaded it to the Mode-Spectroscopy Github repository.

Inorder to use this code there are two ways.

1. We can mention the ' frequency' on which marconi need to work. Then it will change the marconi frequency to that perticular value.

eg: Type in the terminal as follows for changing the marconi frequency to 59 Mhz.

python frequency_scanning_argparse.py 59e6

2. Inorder to give a scan to the marconi frequency, provide the 'start frequency', 'end frequency' and the 'number of points' in between. This will be more conveniant when we want to run the scan in different ranges.

eg: Type in the terminal as follows for a start frequency of 59 Mhz, end frequency of 62MHz and number of points in between equal to 1000.

python frequency_scanning_argparse.py 59e6 62e6 1000

In both cases the code will show you the frequency of the marconi before we run this code and it will change the marconi frequency to the desired frequency.

13956   Wed Jun 13 18:08:36 2018 keerthanaUpdate Finesse code for cavity scan

The unit mentioned in the x-axis was wrong. So I have remade the graphs. The point where frequency equals to zero is actually the frequency corresponding to the laser, which is in the range of 1014 Hz and it caliberated as zero.

 Quote: The cavity scan data obtained from the Finesse simulation is attached here. Fig1 indicates the cavity scan data in the absence of induced misalignment. In that case only the fundemental mode is resonating. But when a misalignment is induced, higher order modes are also present as seen in Fig2. This is in the absence of surface figure error in the mirrors. Now I am trying to provide perturbations to the mirror surface in the form of zernike polynomials and get the scan data fom the simulation. These cavity scan data can be used to develop fitting models. Once we have a model, we can use it to analyse the data from the experimental cavity scan.
Attachment 1: finesse1.pdf
Attachment 2: finesse2.pdf
13995   Thu Jun 21 13:24:00 2018 keerthanaUpdateelogThe cavity scan data of June 20

(Jon, Keerthana, Sandrine)

We tried to align the AUX and PSL laser yesterday. We collected the data from the spectrum analyser for the Y-ARM reflection and also for the Y-ARM transmission from the ETM mirror. I am attaching the plots here.

Attachment 1: AS110_Beat.pdf
Attachment 2: YEND_Beat.pdf
14017   Tue Jun 26 10:06:39 2018 keerthanaUpdateAUXFirst Coherent AUX Scan of PRC Using AM Sidebands

(Jon, Keerthana, Sandrine)

I am attaching the plots of the Reflected and transmitted AUX beam. In the transmission graph, we are getting peak corresponding to the resonance frequencies, as at that frequency maximum power goes to the cavity. But in the Reflection graph, we are obtaining dips corresponding to the resonance frequency because maximum power goes to the cavity and the reflected beam intensity becomes very less at those points.

Attachment 1: TRANS.pdf
Attachment 2: REFL.pdf
14045   Sun Jul 8 22:27:25 2018 keerthanaUpdate AUX diagram

(Analisa, Keerthana, Sandrine)

So far we tried four different techniques to scan the AUX laser. They are,

1. Scanning the marconi frequency to sweep the central frequency of the AUX laser.

2. Sweeping the side band frequency of the AUX laser by providing RF frequency from the spectrum analyser.

3. Double demodulation technique.

4. Single demodulation technique.

Now we are taking all the scan data with the help of Single demodulation technique.

Attachment 1: PLL-single_demodulation.pdf
Attachment 2: PLL-double_demodulation.pdf
Draft   Wed Jul 11 18:13:19 2018 keerthanaSummaryAUXGouy Phase Measurements from AUX-Laser Scans

From the Measurement Jon made, FSR is 3.967 MHz and the Gouy phase is 52 degrees. From this, the length of the Y-arm cavity seems to be 37.78 m and the radius of curvature of the mirror seems to be 60.85 m.

$Guoy Phase = \cos^{-1} \sqrt{g1.g2}$

$\\ g = 1- \frac{L}{R}$

$L = \frac {c} {2*FSR}$

FSR = Free spectral Range

L = Lenth of the arm

R = Radius of curvature of the mirror (R1 =$\infty$  , R2= unknown)

Quote:

This note reports analysis of cavity scans made by directly sweeping the AUX laser carrier frequency (no sidebands). The measurement is made by sweeping the RF offset of the AUX-PSL phase-locked loop and demodulating the cavity reflection/transmission signal at the offset frequency.

# Y-Arm Scan

Due to the simplicity of its expected response, the Y-arm cavity was scanned first as a test of the AUX hardware and the sensitivity of the technique. Attachment 1 shows the measured cavity transmission with respect to RF drive signal.

The AUX laser launch setup is capable of injecting up to 9.3 mW into the AS port. This high-power measurement is shown by the black trace. The same measurement is repeated for a realistic SQZ injection power, 70 uW, indicated by the red curve. At low power, the technique still clearly resolves the FSR and six HOM resonances. From the identified mode resonance frequencies the following cavity parameters are directly extracted.

YARM Gautam V. Finesse Model Actual
FSR 3.966 MHz 3.967 MHz
Gouy phase 54.2 deg 52.0 deg

14057   Thu Jul 12 14:06:39 2018 keerthanaUpdateelogFinesse and Analytical solution - Comparison

I tried to compare the cavity scan data we get from the Finesse simulation and that we expect from the Analytical solution. The diagram of the cavity I defined in Finesse is given below along with the values of different quantities I used. For the analytical solution I have used two different equations and they are listed below.

Analytical 1 - Blue Graph

$\phi = \frac {2.L.\Omega_1}{c}$

$t_{cav} = \frac{t_e. t_f \exp^{-i\frac{\phi}{2}}}{1- r_f. r_e \exp^{-i\phi} }$

$T_{cav} = \left|{t_{cav}} \right|^2$

Analytical 2 - Red Graph

$F = \frac {4. r_f.r_e}{(1-r_f.r_e )^2}$

$\phi = \frac {2.L.\Omega_1}{c}$

$T_{cav} = \left|{t_{cav}} \right|^2 = \frac {(t_e.t_f)^2}{(1 - r_f . r_e)^2} \frac{1}{1+F(\sin\frac {\phi}{2})^2}$

The graph obtained from both these solutions completely matches with each other.

Finesse Solution

The cavity which I defined in Finesse is shown below. The solution from Finesse and the Analytical solution also matches with each other. Another plot is made by taking the difference between Finesse solution and Analytical solution. The difference seems to be of the order of $\approx 10^{-19}$.

The Difference plot is also attached below.

Attachment 1: finesse_cavity.png
Attachment 2: Analytical1.pdf
Attachment 3: Finesse_Analytical.pdf
Attachment 4: Difference.pdf
13938   Mon Jun 11 11:45:13 2018 keerthana UpdateelogComparison of the analytical and finesse values of TMS and FSR.
 Quantity Analytical Value Finesse Value Percentage Error Free Spectral range (FSR) 3.893408 MHz 3.8863685 MHz 0.180 % Transverse Mode Spacing (TMS) 1.195503 MHz 1.1762885 MHz 1.607 %

The values obtained from both analytical and finesse solution is given in the above table along with the corresponding percentage errors.finesse1.pdf

The parameters used for this calculation are listed below.

 Parameter Value length of the cavity (L) 38.5 m Wavelength of the laser beam ($\lambda$) 1064 nm Radius of curvature of ITM (R1) $\infty$ Radius of curvature of ETM (R2) 58 m

The cavity scan data obtained from Finesse is also attached here.

Attachment 1: finesse1.pdf
14039   Thu Jul 5 17:33:36 2018 keerthana, sandrineUpdateelogLights not working
• N/S ARM FL.
• N/S ARM INC.

These two lights inside the 40m-lab are not working.

14040   Thu Jul 5 17:58:04 2018 keerthana, sandrineUpdateelog

(Analisa, Sandrine, Keerthana)

Today Annalisa helped us to understand the new set up used to make the frequency scans of the AUX laser. While tracking the cables it seemed that there were quite a lot of cables near the mixer. So we have reconnected one of the splitter which was splitting the RF out put signal from the Agilent and have placed it just near the Agilent itself. A picture of the changed setup is provided below. The splitter divides the signal into two components. One goes to the LO port of the mixer and the other goes to the R port of the Agilent. We have tried locking the PLL after the change and it works fine. We are trying to make a diagram of the setup now, which we will upload shortly.

Attachment 1: setup1.jpg
Attachment 2: setup2.jpg
6360   Mon Mar 5 23:47:15 2012 keikoConfigurationLSCND2 at REFL OSA

ND filter ND3 (which is at the REFL port to the REFL OSA) is removed. Don't forget to put it back when you restore PRM!!!

6361   Tue Mar 6 00:13:20 2012 keikoUpdateLSCASI signal offset

AS55Q and AS55I signals. AS55Q is around zero while AS55I has a large offset which is about the signal amplitude. It is likely because of the RAM?

keiko, kiwamu

6368   Tue Mar 6 23:37:31 2012 keikoUpdateSUSMICH noise budget - SUS check

Here are the OSEM spectrum of MICH suspensions (BS, IX, IY). Bounce and Roll modes are shown on 16 and 23 Hz. The filters for them has been checked.

keiko, kiwamu, Rana

Attachment 1: Mar6sus1
Attachment 2: Mar6sus2
Attachment 3: Mar6sus3
6375   Wed Mar 7 16:32:09 2012 keikoUpdateLSCOSA

I swap an OSA at PSL and OSA at REFL. It was because the PSL-OSA had a better resolution, so we place this better one at REFL. The ND filter (ND3) which was on the way to REFL OSA was replaced by two BSs, because it was producing dirty multiple spots after transmitting.

6376   Wed Mar 7 17:39:40 2012 keikoUpdateLSCMICH noise budget on 5 Mar

This is the calibrated MICH noise budget on Mar 5. There was a sharp peak at 1Hz and a blob on 3 Hz. The demod phase was adjusted for AS55Q.

Attachment 1: Mar5-MICHbudget.png
6380   Wed Mar 7 20:53:13 2012 keikoUpdateLSCMICH noise budget on 5 Mar

This is the MICH noise budget on 6th March. 1Hz peak got a bit better as the BS sus control gain was increased.

6384   Wed Mar 7 23:29:28 2012 keikoUpdateLSCREFL OSA observation

kiwamu, keiko

We measure the REFL OSA spectrum when (1) direct reflection from the PRM (2) CR lock at PRC (3) SB lock at PRC. When CR lock, both SBs are reflected from the PRC and when SB lock (ref line), some SB is sucked by PRM and looked lower than the other two lines.

6385   Thu Mar 8 00:57:48 2012 keikoUpdateLSCMICH noise budget on Mar 5, Mar 6, and old

Here is the recent two noise budgets of MICH, with the old measurement by Jenne. The most latest Mar 6 data is quite close to the old data, even better around 20-30 Hz. Probably some scattering source was improved?

6393   Fri Mar 9 13:34:13 2012 keikoUpdateLSCupdate on the locking activity

We tried to measure the sensing matrix for MICH and PRCL last night. They look too much mixed as we expect... the matrix may be posted later. We suspect the IX and IY of the MICH excitation is not balanced very well, although Kiwamu adjusted that about two weeks ago, and it is mixing the dof. We'll try to balance it again, ans see the matrix.

Keiko, Kiwamu

 Quote: [Keiko / Kiwamu]  Some updates on the locking activity: Started summarizing the data of the Michelson lock in a wiki page: https://wiki-40m.ligo.caltech.edu/Interferometer_Characterization/Michelson_Noise_Budget Some careful analysis of the OSA signals are missing Besides the analysis we need to work on the mode matching to get a better resolution as Mirko achieved. Gradually moving on to the PRMI lock The lock stays for reasonably a long time (~20 min or more) POP22/110 demod signals seemed just ADC noise. A first noise budget is in process The glitches make the noise level worse above 40 Hz or so in both the MICH and PRCL budgets. Sensing matrix will be measured tomorrow The data will be also summarized in a wiki page

6398   Sat Mar 10 02:00:03 2012 keikoUpdateLSCupdate on the locking activity

ITMX and ITMY balance for the MICH excitation (lockin) is adjusted again. Now it's ITMx = -0.992, ITMy = 1 for MICH (lockin output matrix values).

RA: what were the old values? Does this change make any difference for the signal mixing noticed before?

6400   Mon Mar 12 01:04:18 2012 keikoUpdateLSCRAM simulation update, RAM LSC matrix

I calculated the DRMI RAM LSC matrix with RAM and the operation point offsets.

• configuration: C1 DRMI
• RAM is added by an Mach-Zehnder ifo placed before the PRM
• demodulation phases are optimised for each DoF
• the operation points offset from the PDH signals are calculated and added to the optical configuration as mirror position offsets
• Then the matrix is calculated with the offsets and the RAM
• The set of the scrips are found as RAMmatrix.m, normMAT.m, newGetMAT.m,  on CVS/ifomodeling/40m/fullIFO_Optickle. They are a bit messy scripts at this moment.

Results:

(1) No RAM LSC matrix

 PRCL MICH SRCL REFL11I 1 -0.001806 -0.000147 AS 55Q 0.000818 1 0.000474 AS 55 I 1.064561 902.292816 1

(2) With 1% RAM mod index of PM (normalised by (1) )

 PRCL MICH SRCL REFL11I 1.000618 -0.001837 -0.000163 AS 55Q 0.000919 1.000521 0.000495 AS 55 I 1.169741 924.675187 1.018479

(3) With 5% RAM mod index of PM (normalised by (1) )

 PRCL MICH SRCL REFL11I 0.999986 -0.001812 -0.000150 AS 55Q 0.000838 1.000028 0.000479 AS 55 I 1.084598 906.83668 1.003759

6401   Mon Mar 12 18:57:58 2012 keikoUpdateLSCRAM simulation update, RAM LSC matrix

Quote:

I calculated the DRMI RAM LSC matrix with RAM and the operation point offsets.

• configuration: C1 DRMI
• RAM is added by an Mach-Zehnder ifo placed before the PRM
• demodulation phases are optimised for each DoF
• the operation points offset from the PDH signals are calculated and added to the optical configuration as mirror position offsets
• Then the matrix is calculated with the offsets and the RAM
• The set of the scrips are found as RAMmatrix.m, normMAT.m, newGetMAT.m,  on CVS/ifomodeling/40m/fullIFO_Optickle. They are a bit messy scripts at this moment.

Results:

(1) No RAM LSC matrix

 PRCL MICH SRCL REFL11I 1 -0.001806 -0.000147 AS 55Q 0.000818 1 0.000474 AS 55 I 1.064561 902.292816 1

(2) With 1% RAM mod index of PM (normalised by (1) )

 PRCL MICH SRCL REFL11I 1.000618 -0.001837 -0.000163 AS 55Q 0.000919 1.000521 0.000495 AS 55 I 1.169741 924.675187 1.018479

(3) With 5% RAM mod index of PM (normalised by (1) )

 PRCL MICH SRCL REFL11I 0.999986 -0.001812 -0.000150 AS 55Q 0.000838 1.000028 0.000479 AS 55 I 1.084598 906.83668 1.003759

Adding some more results with more realistic RAM level assumption.

(4) With 0.1% RAM mod index of PM (normalized by (1) )

 PRCL MICH SRCL REFL11I 0.99999 -0.001807 -0.000148 AS 55Q 0.000822 1.000002 0.000475 AS 55 I 1.068342 906.968167 1.00559

(5) With 0.5% RAM mod index of  PM (normalized by (1) )

 PRCL MICH SRCL REFL11I 0.999978 -0.001810 -0.000149 AS 55Q 0.000830 1.000010 0.000476 AS 55 I 1.075926 904.321433 1.001677

6417   Wed Mar 14 16:33:20 2012 keikoUpdateLSCRAM simulation / RAM pollution plot

In the last post, I showed that SRCL element in the MICH sensor (AS55I-mich) is chaned 1% due to RAM.

Here I calculated how is this 1% residual in MICH sensor (AS55 I-mich) shown in MICH sensitivity. The senario is:

(1) we assume we are canceling SRCL in MICH by feed forward first (original matrix (2,3) element).

(2) SRCL in MICH (matrix(2,3) is changed 1% due to RAM, but you keep the same feed forward with the same feedforward gain

(3) You get 1% SRCL residual motion in MICH sensor. This motion depends on how SRCL is quiet/loud. The assumed level is

Pollution level = SRCL shot noise level in SRCL sensor  x  SRCL closed loop TF  x  1% residual .... the following plot.

AS sensor = AS55I-mich  --- SN level 2.4e-11 W/rtHz ------- MICH SN level 6e-17 m/rtHz

SRCL sensor = AS55 I-SRCL --- SN level 2e-11 W/rtHz ---  SRCL SN level 5e-14 m/rtHz

Quote:

Adding some more results with more realistic RAM level assumption.

(4) With 0.1% RAM mod index of PM (normalized by (1) )

 PRCL MICH SRCL REFL11I 0.99999 -0.001807 -0.000148 AS 55 Im 0.000822 1.000002 0.000475 AS 55 Is 1.068342 906.968167 1.00559

Attachment 1: Mar14pollution.png
6419   Wed Mar 14 21:01:36 2012 keikoUpdateLSCevolution of the sensing matrix in PRMI as a function of time

This is the simulated signals to compare with the original post #6403

PRMI configuration, PRCL signal

 [W/m] Simulation Measured REFL11 575440 ~10000 REFL33 4571 ~50 REFL55 288400 ~5000 REFL165 891 NA AS55 71 70

PRMI configuration, MICH signal

 [W/m] Simulation Measured REFL11 2290 ~600 REFL33 36 ~4 REFL55 5623 ~200 REFL165 17 NA AS55 6456 ~200

Simulated DC REFL power is 9mW (before the attenuator). AS DC is 0.3mW.

They don't agree. I suspect the PR gain for the SBs are somehow different. It is about 40 (or a bit less) in the simulation for 11MHz.

ELOG V3.1.3-