40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 23 of 339  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Categoryup Subject
  8252   Thu Mar 7 18:12:03 2013 yutaUpdateAlignmentInput beam drift ~ 0.1 mrad/h in pitch

[Jenne, Manasa, Yuta]

We temporarily centered the beam on IPANG to see input pointing drift. From eyeball, drift was ~ 0.1 mrad/h in pitch.

What we did:

  1. Aligned TT1/TT2 and aligned input pointing to Yarm.

  2. Tweaked TT2 in pitch to center the beam on the first steering mirror of IPANG path. We still saw Yarm flash in higher order modes at this point. Before tweaking, the beam was hitting at the top edge.

  3. Centered the beam on IPANG QPD.

  4. Moved IPPOS first steering mirror because IPPOS beam was not on the mirror (off in yaw, on mirror edge). Also, IPPOS beam was coming out clipped in yaw.

  5. Centered the beam on IPPOS QPD. We put lens in the path to focus the beam on the QPD.

  6. Left input pointing untouched for 4 hours.

  7. Restored TT2 again. We tried to align Y arm with IPANG available, but it was not possible without touching TRY path and AS was also clipped.

  Below is the trend of IPANG sum, X, and Y. IPANG Y (IBQPD_Y) drifted by ~0.8 counts in 4 hours. IPANG is not calibrated yet, but Jenne used her eyeball to measure beam position shift on IPANG steering mirror. It shifted by ~2 mm. This means, input pointing drifts ~0.1 mrad/h in pitch.

  Compared with yaw, pitch drift is quite large considering beam size at ETMY(~5 mm). We can monitor input pointing drift in weekends get longer trend.

  - IPANG and IPPOS are both changed from the state before pumping.

  8260   Fri Mar 8 16:02:52 2013 JenneUpdateAlignmentGetting closer to beam centering on Yarm

I'm working on getting the input beam centered on the Yarm optics.  To do this, I measured the spot positions, move the tip tilts, realign the cavity, then measure the new spot positions.  While doing this, I am also moving the BS and Xarm optics to keep the Xarm aligned, so that I don't have to do hard beam-finding later.

Here is the plot of spot measurements today.  The last measurement was taken with no moving, or realigning, just several hours later after speaking with our Indian visitors.  I'm closer than I was, but there is more work to do.


  8262   Fri Mar 8 20:51:00 2013 ManasaUpdateAlignmentInput beam drift - investigation **IMPORTANT**

Checking the drift in input pointing (TT2 is the main suspect)

I have centered IPPOS and the 2/3 part of IPANG that comes out of vacuum to the QPDs to see the drift in input pointing over the weekend or atleast overnight.

If anybody would be working with the IFO alignment over the weekend, do so only after recording the drift in IPANG and IPPOS or if you will be working later tonight, center them ion the QPDs before leaving.

  8267   Mon Mar 11 12:29:25 2013 ManasaUpdateAlignmentInput beam drift - weekend trend

I centered ipang and ippos on the QPDs (using only the steering mirrors) and wanted to see the drift over the weekend.

1. IPANG has drifted (QPD sum changed from -6 to -2.5); but it is still on the QPD.
2. IPPOS does not show any drift.
3. In the plot: The jump in IPANG on the left occured when I centered the beam to the QPD and that on the right is from the 4.7 earthquake and its aftershocks this morning.

Follow-up questions
1. Do we need to worry about this drift?
2. Which of the two TTs is resposible for the drift?
3. Do the TTs tend to drift in the same direction everytime?

P.S. The TTs were not touched to center on IPANG and IPPOS. The last time they were touched was nearly 6 hours before the centering. So the question of any immediate hysteresis is ruled out.


  8276   Tue Mar 12 00:58:05 2013 ManasaUpdateAlignmentYarm - Spot positions centered

[Jenne, Manasa]

Spot centering on Y arm - DONE!

Alignment procedure
1. I went back to the IFO alignment slider positions from Friday. The Y arm was flashing in HOM because the earthquake this morning tripped all suspensions and the slider values were not real. X arm did not have any flashes.

2. Y arm aligned using TT1 and TT2. Spot centering measured using Jenne's A2L_Yarm script.

Spot positions:
           ITMY    ETMY
Pitch    6.48    4.39
Yaw     -7.42    -3.135

3. I started centering in pitch. I used the same in-vac alignment method (down on TT1 and up on TT2 in pitch) and measured spot positions.

4. When the spot positions were centered in pitch, I started with yaw alignment.

5. I had to use TT1 to center on ITMY and move TT2 and ITMY to center on ETMY.

6. Spot positions after centering:

                          ITMY    ETMY
Pitch    -1.22    -1.277
Yaw       0.42    -0.731

7. I wanted to go back and tweak the pitch cenetering; but framebuilder failed and dataviewer kept loosing connection to fb

AS seems clipped. Although it could be because of the misaligned BS.

IPANG was centered on the QPD, but it is so clipped, that I'm not sure we can trust it.  Max sum right now is -4, rather than the usual -8 or -9.


Once fb is fixed, we should align the X-arm which will be followed by green alignment.

Over the last few weeks, it has been observed that there is some strong seismic activity that starts at around 9PM everyday and goes on for a couple of hours. It seems unlikely that it is our geologist neighbour (Jenne met with the grad student who works on the noisy experiment).

  8279   Tue Mar 12 14:02:22 2013 JenneUpdateAlignmentBeam drift - mystery partially solved?

Steve just told those of us in the control room that the custodian who goes into the IFO room regularly steps on the blue support beams to reach the top of the chambers to clean them.  Since we have seen in the past that stepping on the blue tubes can give the tables a bit of a kick, this could help explain some of the drift, particularly if it was mostly coming from TT2.  The custodian has promised Steve that he won't step on the blue beams anymore.

This doesn't explain any of the ~1 hour timescale drift that we see in the afternoons/evenings, so that's still mysterious.

  16846   Thu May 12 13:46:59 2022 JcUpdateAlignmentPOP Beam

[Tega, JC]

Tega and I went in to adjust the POP being in the ITMX Table. The beam entered the table high, so we adjusted the this by adding mirrors (The highlighted in Turqoise are mirrors which adjust the pitch of the beam). All the mirrors are set and we are now in the process of adjusting the PD.

Attachment 1: IMG_0777.jpeg
  16847   Thu May 12 17:20:08 2022 PacoUpdateAlignmentPOP Beam on CCD


Got POP beam centered on camera and nominally on the two PDs. Attachment #1 shows "carrier" camera.

Attachment 1: PXL_20220513_002047233.jpg
  16851   Fri May 13 14:26:00 2022 JCUpdateAlignmentLO2 Beam

[Yehonathan, JC]

Yehonathan and I attempted to align the LO2 beam today through the BS chamber and ITMX Chamber. We found the LO2 beam was blocked by the POKM1 Mirror. During this attempt, I tapped TT2 with the Laser Card. This caused the mirror to shake and dampen into a new postion. Afterwards, when putting the door back on ITMX, one of the older cables were pulled and the insulation was torn. This caused some major issues and we have been able to regain either of the arms to their original standings.

  16852   Fri May 13 18:42:13 2022 PacoUpdateAlignmentITMX and ITMY sat amp failures

[Yuta, Anchal, Paco]

As described briefly by JC, there were multiple failure modes going during this work segment. blush


Indeed, the 64 pin crimp cable from the gold sat amp box broke when work around ITMX chamber was ongoing. We found the right 64 pin head replacement around and moved on to fix the connector in-situ. After a first attempt, we suddenly lost all damping on vertex SUS (driven by these old sat amp electronics) because our c1susaux acromag chassis stopped working. After looking around the 1x5 rack electronics we noted that one of the +- 20 VDC Sorensens were at 11.6 VDC, drawing 6.7 A of current (nominally this supply draws over 5 Amps!) so we realized we had not connected the ITMX sat amp correctly, and the DC rail voltage drop busted the acromag power as well, tripping all the other watchdogs devil ...

We fixed this by first, unplugging the shorted cable from the rack (at which point the supply went back to 20 VDC, 4.7 A) and then carefully redoing the crimp connector. The second attempt was successful and we restored the c1susaux modbusIOC service (i.e. slow controls).


As we restored the slow controls, and damped most vertex suspensions, we noticed ITMY UL and SD osems were reading 0 counts both on the slow and fast ADCs. crying We suspected we had pulled some wires around when busy with the ITMX sat amp saga. We found that Side OSEM cLEMO cable was very loose on the whitening board. In fact, we have had no side osem signal on ITMY for some time. We fixed this. Nevertheless the UL channel remained silent... We then did the following tests:

  • Test PD mon outputs on the whitening card. We realized the whitening cards were mislabeled, with ITMX and ITMY flipped angry. We have labeled them appropriately.
  • Tested input DB15 cable with breakout board.
  • Went to the ITMY sat amp box and used the satellite box TESTER 2 on J1. It seemed correct.
  • We opened the chamber, tested the in-vacuum segments, they all were ok.
  • We flipped UR-UL OSEMs and found that the UL OSEM is healthy and works fine on UR channel.
  • We tested the in-air cable between satellite box and vacuum flange and it was ok too.
  • We suspected that the satellite box tester  is lying, so we replaced the satellite box with the spare old MC1 satellite box, and indeed that solved the issue.


Current state:

  • IMC locking normally.
  • All suspensions are damping properly.
  • Oplevs are not centered.
  • No flashing on either of the arms. We had no luck in ~20 min of attempt with just input injection changed.
  • On kicking PR3, we do see some flashing on XARM, which means XARM cavity atleast is somewhat aligned.
  • All remaining tasks before pumpdown are still remaining. We just lost the whole day.
  559   Tue Jun 24 22:31:10 2008 MashaUpdateAuxiliary lockingmy first step in fiber stabilization
There is a new 1W INNOLIGHT NPRO laser at the Symmetric Port.

Set up an interferometer to measure difference in phase noise introduced by a fiber. Works as expected without the fiber! (balanced intensity, out of phase noise in the two outputs).
  564   Wed Jun 25 11:01:45 2008 MashaUpdateAuxiliary lockingfiber stabilization
For the first week, I have been learning about fiber noise cancellation, auxiliary locking techniques, and other relevant helpful topics in more detail. I am now working on a setup (more detail in previous entry) to measure phase noise introduced by 25m(?) fiber, and then will proceed to try to cancel the noise.
  620   Wed Jul 2 00:59:13 2008 MashaUpdateAuxiliary lockingbalanced detection, noise plots, progress
Progress report submitted today(!). It is on the 40m wiki page. Below is a figure of some estimated noise sources.

Made voltage divider that acts as an attenuator for one of the paths in the Mach Zehnder, which should help to balance the detection and reduce noise.

First tested using a 636 Hz Matlab generated audio signal (thanks to John inspiration on portable headphones). Figure is attached, with plots of noise spectra of original and optimized signal with and without added acoustic noise (visible as peaks as 636 and 1272 Hz, linewidth approx 4 Hz). My first try at optimization reduces the noise by nearly an order of magnitude for most frequencies.

Will work on finding different noise source to better see what happens at low frequency, and try to get finer control of tunable gain.
Attachment 1: noise_sources.pdf
Attachment 2: balancing_detectors.png
  647   Tue Jul 8 10:26:30 2008 MashaUpdateAuxiliary lockingsetup updates
Yesterday I changed one of the beam splitters in the Mach Zehnder to one with a more stable mount as to reduce the system's coupling to environmental noise.

With help from John, I worked out how to get the signals from the two channels of the interferometer into the digital system. I put up BNC cables along part of the Y arm to connect the output of the detectors into the digital channels.
  679   Wed Jul 16 11:00:15 2008 MashaUpdateAuxiliary lockingimproving ADC input for the mach zehnder setup and completely unrelated happenings
For most of last week, the SURFs + Jenne were helping Mike and Ken with "stray light control for
Enhanced LIGO", i.e. cleaning and baking many many baffles which will catch scattered light in the

Otherwise, the two channels of the Mach Zehnder which will be used to measure fibre noise were
balanced, which should reduce the effect of laser amplitude noise in phase noise detection. I have
set up two digital channels to collect time series data from the two photodiodes and took some
preliminary noise measurements. I will be using Matlab to combine the signals as to directly measure
the phase noise, and I wrote some Matlab code to speed up this process: loading the files,
manipulating time series data, and converting into frequency domain. Currently I am building a
filter that will attenuate the signal at frequencies below 1Hz and amplify at higher frequencies in
order to whiten the spectra and reduce ADC noise.
  685   Wed Jul 16 17:51:58 2008 MashaUpdateAuxiliary lockinglong measurement
I'm taking a measurement on the SR785 spectrum analyzer at low frequencies, so I'm going to leave it by the symmetric port table for a while. Please don't move it!
  686   Wed Jul 16 22:29:05 2008 MashaUpdateAuxiliary lockinglong measurement

I'm taking a measurement on the SR785 spectrum analyzer at low frequencies, so I'm going to leave it by the symmetric port table for a while. Please don't move it!

all done thanks.
  698   Fri Jul 18 19:30:20 2008 MashaUpdateAuxiliary lockingmoving from 40m
I will be working in the basement of Bridge probably starting next week; I moved the NPRO laser and some of the optics from my mach zehnder setup on the SP table to Bridge. Thanks for your help!
  734   Thu Jul 24 11:49:07 2008 MashaSummaryAuxiliary lockingbelated weekly summary
I designed a high pass filter to whiten the spectrum from the Mach Zehnder to optimize the
input into the ADC. The swept sine response measurement and the effect of the filter on the
spectrum are attached. If I start using the digital system (it is currently down in Bridge),
I will decide if the filter needs to be improved/better matched to the ADC there.

I moved from the 40m to Rana's lab in bridge. I am making a new and improved Mach Zehnder
setup with a 50m fiber in one arm; currently the transmission through the fiber is 44%. I
am working out how to mode match the laser to the fiber to improve this number.
Attachment 1: filter_tr_function.pdf
Attachment 2: filtered_spectr0724.pdf
  764   Wed Jul 30 12:03:44 2008 MashaSummaryAuxiliary lockingweekly summary
I've been learning about mode matching/beam propagation, so I can work on getting more
light into the fiber and increase the phase noise signal. I am also looking into phase
lock loops and noise in the fiber stabilization system to understand the noise sources
and figure out what our goals are in fiber stabilization.

In the lab, I've reproduced the Mach Zehnder interferometer that I had at the 40m, now
with a 50m fiber in one arm. I have done some preliminary fiber noise measurements
and revised estimations of noise sources (see attached plots). Once the digital
acquisition system is back up, I will be able to better manipulate the signals to cancel
laser amplitude noise and amplitude noise from variation in the amount of coupling into
the fiber. Some improvements in progress are more stable mounts for the fiber couplings,
faraday isolator, and better mode matching with the fiber.

Also working on my progress report.
Attachment 1: mz_fiber_noise0730.png
Attachment 2: setup0730.JPG
Attachment 3: MZnoise_sources0727.png
  804   Wed Aug 6 13:57:44 2008 MashaSummaryAuxiliary lockingweekly summary
Finished second progress report.

Working on improving the sensitivity of the Mach Zehnder to more accurately measure the fiber noise. Making more stable mounts that have fewer degrees of freedom/springs and are more solid should get rid of their vibrational modes and help with the noise. I found a good mount for the Faraday Isolator, and John and Aidan helped me to make the solid aluminum blocks to mount the fiber couplers. I'll also replace the laser feet with a similar solid mount. I will also get a plastic box to block out acoustic noise/air currents/etc. Am starting to couple into the fiber again; now I am using polarization maintaining fiber.

I am starting to plan the fiber noise cancellation setup, and thinking about the noise sources and their effects.
  1205   Mon Dec 29 18:01:07 2008 AidanUpdateAuxiliary lockingUpdated 40m Upgrade Document T080074-00-R

Added a paragraph to the 40m Upgrade document describing the fiber stabilization and frequency doubling proposed for auxiliary locking.

Also added a complete diagram of the fiber stabilization and a draft sketch of the frequency doubling.

Uploaded to https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:30889/svn/trunk/docs/upgrade08/ via svn.
  1490   Thu Apr 16 16:37:42 2009 AlbertoUpdateAuxiliary lockingthe zipper

It takes 18 months to double the computational power of microprocessors but it took man thousands of years to invent the zipper. I never really understood that till these days.

Here is a sample of my latest results from Optickle simulations of the locking signal for the Power Recycling Cavity.

Thanks also to Rob's revolutionary bidimensional rotating matrix idea (I can see entire books of linear algebra going to be rewritten now because of that) I could find the way to determine the optimal demodulation phases for the demod signals.

There were also an other couple of missing details. But that came easily along.

The parfor function for the parallel computation in Matlab sped up some loops by a factor of 100.


In these particular plots there's still no CARM offset scan. That's what I'm going to post next on the elog, together with the signals for the other degrees of freedom.

Attachment 1: 19_3f_Current_40m_plots_SUCCESS.pdf
19_3f_Current_40m_plots_SUCCESS.pdf 19_3f_Current_40m_plots_SUCCESS.pdf 19_3f_Current_40m_plots_SUCCESS.pdf
  1491   Thu Apr 16 17:19:44 2009 AlbertoUpdateAuxiliary lockingthe zipper


It takes 18 months to double the computational power of microprocessors but it took man thousands of years to invent the zipper. I never really understood that till these days.

Here is a sample of my latest results from Optickle simulations of the locking signal for the Power Recycling Cavity.

Thanks also to Rob's revolutionary bidimensional rotating matrix idea (I can see entire books of linear algebra going to be rewritten now because of that) I could find the way to determine the optimal demodulation phases for the demod signals.

There were also an other couple of missing details. But that came easily along.

The parfor function for the parallel computation in Matlab sped up some loops by a factor of 100.


In these particular plots there's still no CARM offset scan. That's what I'm going to post next on the elog, together with the signals for the other degrees of freedom.

 Just to show that I'm confident I'm getting reasonable results, I'll post two PRC scans for different CARM. One set of plots is for the current 40m with -19.78 deg of SRM detuning phase, the other is for the Old Upgrade (9 Mhz vs the 11 currently planned) with no detuning phase.

I'm going to put together the results and get some conclusion about the 3f locking scheme for the current 40m and the upgrade.

Attachment 1: 04_3f_Current_40m_plots.pdf
04_3f_Current_40m_plots.pdf 04_3f_Current_40m_plots.pdf 04_3f_Current_40m_plots.pdf
Attachment 2: 11_3f_40mUpgrade_plots.pdf
11_3f_40mUpgrade_plots.pdf 11_3f_40mUpgrade_plots.pdf 11_3f_40mUpgrade_plots.pdf
  3847   Tue Nov 2 16:24:07 2010 KojiUpdateAuxiliary lockingAlignment for the green in the X trans table

[Kiwamu Koji]

Today we found the green beam from the end was totally missing at the vertex.

- What we found was very weak green beam at the end. Unhappy.

- We removed the PBS. We should obtain the beam for the fiber from the rejection of the (sort of) dichroic separator although the given space is not large.

- The temperature controller was off. We turned it on again.

- We found everything was still misaligned. Aligned the crystal, aligned the Faraday for the green.

- Aligned the last two steering mirrors such that we hit the approximate center of the ETMX and the center of the ITMX.

- Made the fine alignment to have the green beam at the PSL table.

The green beam emerged from the chamber looks not so round as there is a clipping at an in-vac steering.
We will make the thorough realignment before closing the tank.

  6279   Tue Feb 14 15:52:11 2012 JenneUpdateAuxiliary lockingYarm fiber returned to ATF

[Frank, Jenne]

We extracted the fiber that Suresh and Sonali laid over the summer, for the IR beat for the Ygreen laser, and Frank took it back to Bridge to be used in the new fiber distributed reference laser setup.

  8302   Fri Mar 15 16:46:52 2013 JenneBureaucracyAuxiliary lockingYend table upgrade - fast track?

In light of the Yend auxiliary laser's ill health, I think we should reconsider the possibility of changing out the Yend laser table next week.

My thinking here is that if whatever the new mode matching solution is for a replacement laser (Tara has borrowed our spare NPRO that used to sit on top of the fridge, or we could take Annalisa's) requires a rework of the table layout, we might as well put the new layout onto the new table.  So, we need to figure out what laser we will put in as the new Ygreen, and what it's waist looks like.  If it just requires a small movement of existing lenses or new lenses in similar positions to the current ones, we can keep living with our current table.  But, if the mode matching solution requires enough changes to distances / lens placement / whatever, we should think seriously about putting in the new table next week.

Here's what I would like to see happen on / before Monday:

Annalisa - Mode matching solution for new laser.  If we get the laser back from Tara, this will involve first measuring the waist, otherwise we already know the waist of the ABSL laser that Annalisa is currently using.

Annalisa and Steve - Find optics for new mode matching in the lab, or order them by Monday afternoon.

Manasa - List of every screw, washer, optic, mount, etc. that will go on the new Y end table, with a notation as to whether or not we have it in-hand, and if not, what needs to happen before we do.  Also, for things that we don't have, I'd like to see a summary of temporary solutions (e.g. keep using current mount for doubling crystal while new one is being machined).

Manasa / Annalisa / Koji - will the new mode matching solution fit within the existing layout, or do we need to redo the table layout?

  8304   Mon Mar 18 12:23:25 2013 JenneBureaucracyAuxiliary lockingYend table upgrade - go fetch NPRO from ATF

Zach has just replied, and said that we should feel free to take the laser from his iodine setup in the West Bridge subbasement, in the ATF lab. 

Annalisa, please ask Koji or Tara to show you where it is, and help you bring it to the 40m.  You should install it (temporarily) on the PSL table, measure the waist, and find the beat in IR.  Elog 3755 and elog 3759 have some of the details on how it has been done in the past.

  8305   Mon Mar 18 12:35:29 2013 AnnalisaBureaucracyAuxiliary lockingYend table upgrade - go fetch NPRO from ATF


Zach has just replied, and said that we should feel free to take the laser from his iodine setup in the West Bridge subbasement, in the ATF lab. 

Annalisa, please ask Koji or Tara to show you where it is, and help you bring it to the 40m.  You should install it (temporarily) on the PSL table, measure the waist, and find the beat in IR.  Elog 3755 and elog 3759 have some of the details on how it has been done in the past.

 Ok, I'm going to contact Koji.

  8306   Mon Mar 18 13:10:19 2013 KojiBureaucracyAuxiliary lockingYend table upgrade - go fetch NPRO from ATF

1) Annalisa is going to start  working on mode profiling and beat note search for the old MOPA NPRO.

2) In the meantime, Manasa is working on the end table items. This will be reviewed by KA in the afternoon.

The laser at ATF is moved to the 40m when the status of 1) and 2) is determined by KA to be reasonable.

We also make the beat note measurement for the ATF laser too.

  8308   Mon Mar 18 20:13:18 2013 AnnalisaBureaucracyAuxiliary lockingYend table upgrade - go fetch NPRO from ATF


1) Annalisa is going to start  working on mode profiling and beat note search for the old MOPA NPRO.

2) In the meantime, Manasa is working on the end table items. This will be reviewed by KA in the afternoon.

The laser at ATF is moved to the 40m when the status of 1) and 2) is determined by KA to be reasonable.

We also make the beat note measurement for the ATF laser too.

Today I installed mirrors to steer the pick-off from the main laser beam in a more free part of the PSL table and make the beat note measurement between it and the NPRO.

At the beginning I took the beam from the harmonic separator after the doubling crystal, and I was going to bring it in a less full part of the table . At the end I realized that there was already a beam steered up to a more free part of the table, and the beam is taken from the transmission of the PMC.

Tomorrow I'm going to use that beam to find the beat note with the NPRO.

I also removed almost all the steering  optics that I used on the ITMY table to send the auxiliary beam for ABSL through the window parallel to the POY beam. The most important thing is that I removed the BS, which was on the same path of the POY beam (see elog 8257).


  8313   Tue Mar 19 20:24:56 2013 AnnalisaUpdateAuxiliary lockingAuxiliary laser on PSL table

 I moved the auxiliary laser from the ITMY table to the PSL table and installed all the optics (mirrors and lenses) to steer the beam up to a PDA55 photodiode, where also the pick-off of the PSL is sent.

Tomorrow I'm going to measure the beat note between the two.

  8319   Wed Mar 20 16:45:59 2013 ManasaBureaucracyAuxiliary lockingFetched NPRO from ATF

[Koji, Annalisa, Manasa]

NPRO with controller from ATF joins the 40m. We have put it on the POY table where we plan to use it for ABSL.

Attachment 1: P3203298.JPG
Attachment 2: P3203299.JPG
  8345   Mon Mar 25 23:20:57 2013 AnnalisaSummaryAuxiliary lockingBeat note found!

[Annalisa, Manasa]

The beat note between the main PSL and the auxiliarly NPRO has been found!

The setup didn't change with respect to the one described on the previous note on the elog. A multimeter has been connected to the laser controller diagnostic pin to read out the voltage that indicated the laser crystal temperature.

The connector has been taken from the Yend table laser controller.

The voltage on the multimeter gave the same temperature shown by "Laser temperature" on the display of the controller, while "set temperature" was wrong.

The temperature has been varied using the laser controller with reference to the voltage read on the multimeter display.

Starting from 35.2 °C, the temperature has been first lowered until 20 °C and no beat note has been found, then temperature has been increased up to 35.2 °C and the first beat note has been found at 38.0 °C.

It has been detected at a frequency of about 80 MHz with an RF power of -27 dBm and a frequency fluctuation of about  +/- 4 MHz.

To do:

I made more measurements slowly varying the laser temperature, to see how the beat note frequency changes with it. I'll make the plot and post it as soon.

  8368   Thu Mar 28 19:32:22 2013 AnnalisaSummaryAuxiliary lockingBeat note found!


 I plot the variation of the beat note frequency as a function of "Alberto" NPRO laser's temperature.

After some discussion, now I'm going to vary the PSL temperature and find the auxiliary NPRO temperature matching to have the beat note between the two.

Attachment 1: BeatFreq.jpg
  8370   Thu Mar 28 23:06:48 2013 AnnalisaUpdateAuxiliary locking"Alberto" NPRO laser again on PSL table

 "Alberto"NPRO laser has been moved again on PSL table in order to make a measurement of the beat note varying also the PSL temperature.

It is useful because if the PSL temperature would drift  we have to know which is the NPRO temperature that returns the beat.

I'm going to measure it tomorrow.



  8386   Mon Apr 1 23:22:17 2013 AnnalisaUpdateAuxiliary lockingBeat note between "Alberto" NPRO laser and PSL laser

I measured the beat note between the "Alberto" NPRO laser and the PSL varying the PSL temperature and find the matching NPRO temperature that gave the beat.

I first switched off the FSS loop for the PSL, then I varied its temperature and switched on the loop back.

PSL temperature has been varied starting from 31.88 °C (its starting temperature) down to 23.88 by 1°C step, and then from 31.88 °C up to 36.92 °C, always with a 1°C step.

For each PSL temperature, the NPRO temperature was varied as well, in way to find the temperature to have a beat note between the two.

The trend of the NPRO laser temperature reminds the frequency change of the laser as a function of the crystal temperature continuous tuning.

I made measurements only for the first temperature of the NPRO laser which gave me the beat note. Tomorrow I'm going to find the beat note also for higher frequencies of the NPRO laser.


Attachment 1: Beat_Note.jpg
  8396   Tue Apr 2 22:39:17 2013 AnnalisaUpdateAuxiliary lockingBeat note between "Alberto" NPRO laser and PSL laser


 The beat note between the PSL laser and the "Alberto" NPRO laser has been measured. In particular, for each PSL temperature, more than one Aux laser frequency has been found.

The second of the three curves seems to be more stable than the other two, even if a "step" trend can be found in all of them (maybe due to the frequency change of the NPRO laser as a function of the crystal temperature continuous tuning, as mentioned in the previous elog). This is the reason why the points are not perfectly aligned, and the errors on the fit parameters are so big.



Attachment 1: Beat_note_3col.jpg
  14652   Tue Jun 4 00:17:15 2019 gautamUpdateBHDPreliminary BHD calculations


Attachment #1 shows the RIN and phase noise requirements for the 40m BHD for measuring Ponderomotive squeezing.

Some details:

  1. The interferometer topology is not systematically optimized - I just picked values which are likely close to what we will eventually choose. Namely, P_{\mathrm{PRM}} = 8\,\mathrm{W}\phi_{\mathrm{SRC}} = 0.275 ^{\circ}\zeta_{\mathrm{homodyne}} = 88 ^{\circ}\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{rt}}^{\mathrm{arm}} = 30\, \mathrm{ppm}G_{\mathrm{PRC}}\approx 40. Nevertheless, I think these requirements will not change by more than 30% for changes to the interferometer config.
  2. The requirements are evaluated using the following criterion: assuming that the dominant noises are (i) coil driver at mid-frequencies and (ii) quantum noise at high frequencies, what do the RIN and phase noise on the LO have to be such that the equivalent displacement noise is a factor of 10 below? I opted for a safety factor of 10, this can be relaxed. 
  3. An unknown is how much contrast defect light we will end up having due to the mismatch between arms. I assumed a few representative values.
  4. The calculations were done analytically. This paper provides a good summary of the relations - although my RIN requirement is more stringent because of the safety factor of 10, and phase noise requirement is less stringent (despite the same safety factor) because we plan to read out at nearly the amplitude quadrature.
  5. Since we are discussing the possibility of delivering the LO field using a fiber-coupled pickoff of the laser prior to RF sidebands being added, these requirements do not benefit from passive filtering from the cavity transfer functions. Consequently, the requirements are pretty challenging I think.


  1. The RIN requirement looks very challenging - we will need a shot noise limited ISS with 100 mW DC sensing light, and will likely have to relax the safety factor depending on how much contrast defect light we end up having. This actually sets some requirement on the amount of filtering we need from the OMC (next step).
  2. The phase noise requirement also looks very challenging - I need to look up what is possible with the double-pass through fiber technique.

Next steps:

  1. Evaluate the pointing stability requirement on the LO field (IFO output is filtered by the OMC).
  2. We still need to think of a control scheme for the LO phase - likely, I think we will need a suspended optic between the fiber collimator delivering the light to the BHD setup with some kind of length actuation capability. 
  3. Numerical validation of this analytic study. I believe Finesse is still missing some capabilities that allow us to calculate these couplings, but I'll ask the experts to be sure.
  4. Build up the requirements on the OMC cavity:
    • Backscatter requirement (related = OFI isolation requirement, relative length noise between SRM and OMC, OFI and SRM). Does the OFI also have to be suspended?
    • Filtering requirement
    • Pointing stability requirement
    • Length noise requirement 
Attachment 1: LOreqs.pdf
  14658   Thu Jun 6 18:49:22 2019 gautamUpdateBHDPreliminary BHD calculations


I did some more calculations based on our discussions at the meeting yesterday. Posting preliminary results here for comments.


Attachment #1 - Schematic illustration for the scattering scenarios. For all three scenarios, we would like for the scattered field to be lower than unsqueezed vacuum (safety factor to be debated).

Attachment #2 - Requirements on a fraction \epsilon_{\mathrm{bs}} = 10 \, \mathrm{ppm} of the counter-propagating resonant mode of the OMC scattering back into the antisymmetric port, as a function of RIN and phase noise on this field (y-axis) and amount of field (depends on the amount of contrast defect light which can become resonant in the counter propagating mode). I don't encode any frequency dependence here.

Attachment #3 - Requirements on the direct scatter from the arm cavity resonant field (assumed to dominate any contribution from the PRC) onto the OMC DCPDs, for some assumed phase noise (y-axis) and fraction of the field that makes it onto the OMC DCPDs. This is a pretty stringent requirement. But the probability is low (it is the product of three presumably small numbers, (i) probablity of the beam scattering out of the TEM00 mode, (ii) BRDF of the scattering surface, (iii) probability of scattering back towards the DCPDs), so maybe feasible? I didn't model any RIN on this field, which would be an additional noise term to contend with. The range of the y-axis was chosen because I think these are reasonable amplitudes for chamber wall  / other scattering surface motion at acoustic frequencies.

Attachment 1: darkPortScatter.pdf
Attachment 2: OMCbackscatter.pdf
Attachment 3: directScatter.pdf
  14664   Tue Jun 11 19:25:58 2019 aaronConfigurationBHDReviving the single OMC BHD design?

I drew out some idea of how we might use a single OMC to clean both paths of the BHD after mixing, without being susceptible to polarization-dependent effects within the OMC. Basically, can we send the two legs of the BHD into the OMC counterpropagating. I've attached a diagram.

I think one issue would be scattered light, since any backscatter directly couples into the counterpropagating mode, and thus directly to the PD. However, unless the polarization of the scattered light rotates it would not scatter back to the IFO. And, since the LO and signal mix before the OMC, this scattered light would not directly add phase noise.

Maybe more problematic would be that if the rejection at the PBS (or the polarization rotation) isn't perfect, light from the LO directly couples into the dark port. Can we get away with a Faraday isolator before the OMC? 

Diagram attached.

Attachment 1: singleOMC.pdf
  14685   Fri Jun 21 19:22:40 2019 KojiConfigurationBHDReviving the single OMC BHD design?

I think a Faraday rotator rotates the polarizations in a same way for both forward and backward beam, and it's not like in this figure.
And the transmission through multiple faradays will also be a big issue.

  14722   Wed Jul 3 11:47:36 2019 gautamUpdateBHDPRC filtering

A question was raised as to how much passive filtering we benefit from if we pick off the local oscillator beam for BHD from the PRC. I did some simplified modeling of this. For the expected range of arm cavity round trip losses (20-50 ppm), I think that the 40m CARM pole will be between 75-85 Hz. The corresponding recycling gain will be 40-50, with the current PRM. I assumed 1000 ppm loss inside the PRC. The net result is that, assuming the single pole coupled cavity response, we will get ~8-9 dB of filtering at ~200 Hz of the intensity noise of the input laser field to the interferometer if we pick the LO beam off from the PRC (e.g. PR2 transmission), instead of picking it off before.

The next questions are: (i) can we do a sufficiently good job of achieving the required RIN stability on the LO field for BHD without relying on the passive filtering action of the PRC? and (ii) is the benefit of the PRC filtering ruined in the process of routing the LO field from wherever the pickoff happens to the BHD setup?

Attachment 1: PRCfiltering.pdf
  14819   Wed Jul 31 09:41:12 2019 gautamUpdateBHDOMC cavity geometry


We need to determine the geometry (= round-trip length and RoC of curved mirrors) of the OMC cavities for the 40m BHD experiment. Sticking to the aLIGO design of a 4 mirror bowite cavity with 2 flat mirrors and 2 curved mirrors, with a ~4deg angle of incidence, we need to modify the parameters for the 40m slightly on account of our different modulation frequencies. I've setup some infrastructure to do this analytically - even if we end up doing this with Finesse, it is useful to have an analytic calculation to validate against (also not sure if Finesse can calculate HOMs up to order 20 in a reasonable time, I've only seen maxtem 8). 

Attachment #1: Heatmap of the OMC transmission for the following fields:

  • Carrier TEM00 is excluded, but HOMs up to m+n=20 included for both the horizontal and vertical modes of the cavity.
  • f1 and f2 upper and lower sidebands, up to m+n=20 HOMs for both the horizontal and vertical modes of the cavity, including TEM00.
  • Power law decay assumed for the HoM content incident on the OMC - this will need to be refined
  • The white region is where the cavity isn't geometrically stable.
  • Green dashed line indicates a possible operating point, white dashed line indicates the aLIGO OMC operating point. On the basis of this modeling, we would benefit from choosing a better operating point than the aLIGO OMC geometric parameters.


  1. Compute the round-trip Gouy phase, \phi_{\mathrm{gouy}}, for the cavity.
  2. With the carrier TEM00 mode resonant, compute the round-trip propagation phase, \phi_{\mathrm{prop}} = \frac{2 \pi f_{\mathrm{offset}} L_{\mathrm{rt}}}{c}, and the round-trip Gouy phase, \phi_{\mathrm{G}} = (m+n)\phi_{\mathrm{gouy}} for the \mathrm{TEM}_{mn} mode of the field, with f_{\mathrm{offset}} specifying the offset from the carrier frequency (positive for the upper sideband, negative for the lower sideband). For the aLIGO cavity geometry, the 40m modulation sidebands acquire ~20% more propagation phase than the aLIGO modulation sidebands.
  3. Compute the OMC transmission for this round-trip phase (propagation + Gouy).
  4. Multiply the incident mode power (depending on the power law model assumed) by the cavity transmission.
  5. Sum all the fields.

Next steps:

  1. Refine the incident mode content (and power) assumption. Right now, I have not accounted for the fact that the f2 sideband is resonant inside the SRC while the f1 sideband is not. Can we somehow measure this for the 40m? I don't see an easy way as it's probably power dependent?
  2. Make plots for the projection along the slices indicated by the dashed lines - which HOMs are close to resonating? Might give us some insight.
  3. What is the requriement on transmitted power w.r.t. shot noise? i.e. the colorbar needs to be translated to dBVac.
  4. If we were being really fancy, we could simultaneously also optimize for the cavity finesse and angle of incidence as well.
  5. Question for Koji: how is the aLIGO OMC angle of incidence of ~4 degrees chosen? Presumably we want it to be as small as possible to minimize astigmatism, and also, we want the geometric layout on the OMC breadboard to be easy to work with, but was there a quantitative metric? Koji points out that the backscatter is also expected to get worse with smaller angles of incidence.

The code used for the ABCD matrix calcs have been uploaded to the BHD modeling GIT (but not the one for making this plot, yet, I need to clean it up a bit). Some design considerations have also been added to our laundry list on the 40m wiki.

Attachment 1: paramSpaceHeatMap.pdf
  14821   Wed Jul 31 17:57:35 2019 KojiUpdateBHDOMC cavity geometry

4 deg is not an optimized number optimized for criteria, but to keep the cavity short width to 0.1m. But the justification of 4deg is found in Section 3 and 4 of T1000276 on Page 4.


Question for Koji: how is the aLIGO OMC angle of incidence of ~4 degrees chosen? Presumably we want it to be as small as possible to minimize astigmatism, and also, we want the geometric layout on the OMC breadboard to be easy to work with, but was there a quantitative metric? Koji points out that the backscatter is also expected to get worse with smaller angles of incidence.

  14833   Tue Aug 6 15:52:06 2019 gautamUpdateBHDPreliminary BHD calculations


The requirement on the phase noise on the direct backscatter from the OMC back into the SRM is that it be less than 10^{-5} \, \mathrm{rad/\sqrt{Hz}} \approx 10^{-12} \, \mathrm{m/\sqrt{Hz}} @ 100 Hz, for a safety factor (arbitrarily chosen) of 10 (= 20dB below unsqueezed vacuum). Assuming 5 optics between the OMC and SRM which contribute incoherently for a factor of sqrt(5), and assuming a total of 1 ppm of the LO power to be backscattered, we need the suspensions to be moving < 5 \times 10^{-13} \, \mathrm{m/\sqrt{Hz}} @ 100 Hz. This seems possible to realize with single stage suspensions - I assume we get f^4 filtering from the pendulum at 100 Hz, and that there is an additional 80 dB attenuation (from the stack) of the assumed 1 micron/rtHz motion at 100 Hz, for an overall 160 dB attenutaiton, yielding 10^-14 m/rtHz at 100 Hz.


This is the same calculation as I had posted a couple of months ago (see elog that this is a reply to), except that Koji pointed out that the LO power is expected to dominate the (carrier) power incident on the OMC cavity(ies). So the more meaningful comparison to make is to have the x-axes of the plots denote the backscatter fraction, \epsilon_{\mathrm{BS}} rather than the LO power. One subtlety is that because the phase of the scattered field is random, the displacement-noise induced phase noise could show up in the amplitude quadrature. I think that in these quadrature field amplitude units, the RIN and phase noise are directly comparable but I might have missed a factor of 2*pi. But in the worst case, if all the phase noise shows up in the amplitude quadrature, we end up being only ~10dB below unsqueezed vacuum (for 1 ppm backscatter). 

For the requirement on the noise in the intensity quadrature - I think this is automatically satisfied because the RIN requirement on the incident LO field is in the mid 10^-9 1/rtHz regime.

Attachment 1: OMCbackscatter.pdf
  14854   Fri Aug 23 10:01:14 2019 gautamUpdateBHDOMC cavity geometry - some more modeling


I did some more investigation of what the appropriate cavity geometry would be for the OMC. Unsurprisingly, depending on the incident mode content, the preferred operating point changes. So how do we choose what the "correct" model is? Is it accurate to model the output beam HOM content from NPROs (is this purely determined by the geometry of the lasing cavity?), which we can then propagate through the PMC, IMC, and CARM cavities? This modeling will be written up in the design document shortly.

*Colorbar label errata - instead of 1 W on BS, it should read 1 W on PRM. The heatmaps take a while to generate, so I'll fix that in a bit.

Update 230pm PDT: I realize there are some problems with these plots. The critically coupled f2 sideband getting transmitted through the T=10% SRM should have significantly more power than the transmission through a T=100ppm optic. For similar modulation depth (which we have), I think it is indeed true that there will be x1000 more f2 power than f1 power for both the IFO AS beam and the LO pickoff through the PRC. But if the LO is picked off elsewhere, we have to do the numbers again.


Attachment #1: Two candidate models. The first follows the power law assumption of G1201111, while in the second, I preserved the same scaling, but for the f1 sideband, I set the DC level by assuming a PRG of 45, modulation depth of 0.18, and 100 ppm pickoff from the PRC such that we get 50 mW of carrier light (to act as a local oscillator) for 10 W incident on the back of PRM. Is this a reasonable assumption?

Attachment #2: Heatmaps of the OMC transmission, assuming (i) 0 contrast defect light in the carrier TEM00 mode, (ii) PRG=45 and (iii) 1 W incident on the back of PRM. The color bar limits are preserved for both plots, so the "dark" areas of the plot, which indicate candidate operating points, are darker in the left-hand plot. Obviously, when there is more f1 power incident on the OMC, more of it is transmitted. But my point is that the "best operating point(s)" in both plots are different.

Why is this model refinement necessary? In the aLIGO OMC design, an assumption was made that the light level of the f1 sideband is 1/1000th that of the f2 sideband in the interferometer AS beam. This is justified as the RC lengths are chosen such that the f2 sideband is critically coupled to the AS port, but the f1 is not (it is not quite anti-resonant either). For the BHD application, this assumption is no longer true, as long as the LO beam is picked off after the RF sidebands are applied. There will be significant f1 content as well, and so the mode content of the f1 field is critical in determining the OMC filtering performance.

Attachment 1: modeContentComparison.pdf
Attachment 2: OMCtransComparison.pdf
  15151   Fri Jan 24 13:56:21 2020 JonUpdateBHDBHD optics specifications

I've started a spreadsheet for the BHD optics specifications and populated it with my best initial guesses. There are a few open questions we still need to resolve, mostly related to mode-matching:

  • PR2 replacement: What transmission do we need for a ~100 mW pickoff? Also, do we want to keep the current curvature of -700 m?
  • LO mode-matching telescope: What are the curvatures of the two mirrors?
  • Lenses: We have six of them in the current layout. What FLs do we need?

The spreadsheet is editable by anyone. If you can contribute any information, please do!

  15176   Thu Jan 30 12:52:10 2020 JonUpdateBHDMetal OMCs procured

Last night Yehonathan and I located the two steel PMCs in the QIL, with help from Anchal. They are currently sitting on my desk in Bridge, inside a box that also contains optics and other OMC parts. I will bring them over to the 40m the next time I come.

  15226   Wed Feb 26 21:43:48 2020 JonSummaryBHDProjected IFO noise budget, post-BHD upgrade

To supplement the material presented during the BHD review, I've put together a projected noise budget for the 40m. Note these are the expected interferometer noises (originating in the IFO itself), not BHD readout noises. The key parameters for each case are listed in the figure title. Also attached is a tarball (attachment 4) containing the ipython notebook, data files, and rolled-back version of pygwinc which were used to generate these figures.

Attachment 1: Phase quadrature readout.

Attachment 2: Comparison to aLIGO design sensitivity (phase quadrature).

Attachment 3: Amplitude quadrature readout.

Attachment 1: 40m_phase_quad.pdf
Attachment 2: 40m_aligo_comp.pdf
Attachment 3: 40m_ampl_quad.pdf
Attachment 4: noise_budget.tar
ELOG V3.1.3-