ID |
Date |
Author |
Type |
Category |
Subject |
5574
|
Thu Sep 29 03:43:20 2011 |
kiwamu | Update | ASC | wrong channel assignment on IPPOS | The channels for IPPOS had been assigned in a wrong way.
Because of this, C1:ASC-IP_POS_X_Calc corresponds to the actual vertical motion and C1:ASC-IP_POS_Y_Calc is for the horizontal motion.
We should fix the database file to get the correct vertical/horizontal corrdinate. |
5578
|
Fri Sep 30 01:18:39 2011 |
kiwamu | Update | ASC | C1ASS : status update | Now the C1ASS servos are working fine.
However at the end of the scripts sometimes it changes the DC force (e.g. C1:SUS-ITMX_PIT_COMM and so on) by a wrong amount.
So for this bug, it misaligns the suspensions a lot. I will take a look at the script tomorrow.
Quote from #5543 |
However then I found the ASS_Xarm servo was not healthy. 
|
|
5605
|
Mon Oct 3 17:57:12 2011 |
kiwamu | Update | ASC | IPPOS fixed | The input matrix of IPPOS were fixed so that the horizaontal motion correctly shows up in X and the vertial is Y.
(what I did)
+ The data base file, QPD.db, were edited.
QPD.db is a part of the c1isxaux slow machine and it determines the input matrix for deriving the X/Y signals from each quadrant element.
+ The previous input matrix was :
X = (SEG1 + SEG4) - (SEG2 + SEG3)
Y = (SEG1 + SEG2) - (SEG3 + SEG4)
+ The new matrix which I set is :
X = (SEG1 + SEG2) - (SEG3 + SEG4)
Y = (SEG1 + SEG4) - (SEG2 + SEG3)
The new matrix is a just swap of the previous X and Y.
+ Then c1isxaux was rebooted by :
telnet c1iscaux
reboot
+ The I did the burt restore it to this morning.
Quote from #5574 |
The channels for IPPOS had been assigned in a wrong way.
|
|
5817
|
Sat Nov 5 00:04:23 2011 |
kiwamu | Update | ASC | ASS scripts gone | Did somebody delete all the scripts in /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/ASS ? |
5818
|
Sat Nov 5 00:24:13 2011 |
Suresh | Update | ASC | ASS scripts gone |
Quote: |
Did somebody delete all the scripts in /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/ASS ?
|
I have moved all the MC_ASS scripts to a directory called MC under ASS
|
5821
|
Sat Nov 5 14:54:59 2011 |
Koji | Update | ASC | ASS scripts gone | In any case, the daily backup of the scripts are found in /cvs/cds/caltech/scripts_archive .
Quote: |
Quote: |
Did somebody delete all the scripts in /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/ASS ?
|
I have moved all the MC_ASS scripts to a directory called MC under ASS
|
|
6288
|
Thu Feb 16 09:59:16 2012 |
steve | Update | ASC | IP- ANG | Initial pointing or IP-ANG is a pointing monitor of the MC. This beam is launched after the second pzt steering mirror.
IP-ANG is missing the pick up mirror by a few inches at ETMYchamber
1000 days plot show last appearance in Feb 2010 |
Attachment 1: lastIPang.png
|
|
6979
|
Tue Jul 17 02:17:50 2012 |
Jenne | Update | ASC | ASS gains wrong? | I was checking on the ASS system, and I think that the gains on some of the loops may not be correct. An old symptom was that the commands in the script were not being executed when we changed over to Ubuntu. Now it seems that each command is working fine, but the loops are pushing the optics more out of alignment than anything. I flipped the sign on some of the loops and it helped, others it didn't. I need to measure some transfer functions and meditate on what they should look like. It will be really nice to have the alignment system working again. |
7389
|
Fri Sep 14 18:15:43 2012 |
rana | Update | ASC | First In Vac Picture |
Looks good. Any way that you can tell in an unambiguous way, where the beam is, is very good. Ideally we want to have1-2 mm accuracy. |
7790
|
Wed Dec 5 03:25:32 2012 |
Den | Update | ASC | dithering | I wanted to center beams on the XARM cavity mirrors using c1ass model. I've run XARM setup script and then turned dithering on. Cavity went out of lock because calculated offsets were incorrect.
I was using TRX only and calculated rotation phases for ITM and ETM pitch and yaw. For this I've added a low pass filter into Q-quadrature bank and made DC value at the output to be zero by adjusting the phase. I've put gains (+1 or -1) in the I quadrature such that output was positive.
Then I've set the sensing matrix to identity as I decided to deal with separate loops. Of coarse, they are mixed by the cavity, but at least in the control system they are distinguished. Old matrix summed error signals in one degree of freedom from both mirrors. This makes more sense but still not precise because coils are not ideally diagonalized.
Then I've adjusted gains for control loop for every degree of freedom. I've ended up with (0.1; 0.1; 0.1; -0.1). I did not use large gains as I wanted slow convergence because of the demodulation low-pass filter time response constant of 20 sec. Coupling (I quadrature) was reduced from (0.9, 0.3, 2.4, 1.2) to zeros (0-0.1) in ~5 minutes, TRX increased from 0.73 to 0.90.
There is one thing that I do not understand yet. I think controllers should minimize angle -> length coupling that is proportional to I-quadrature if phase is correct. But phase depends on alignment and when the feedback loops are on, phase drifts. I could see it during my measurement. But I did not find any script that smoothly tunes phase such that coupling is all in I-quadrature. I guess this is not hard to set a gradient descent algorithm that minimizes DC value of Q-quadrature. Or how this is usually done? |
7979
|
Thu Jan 31 22:14:11 2013 |
rana | Summary | ASC | Optics lit | Gouy not Guoy:
http://www.rp-photonics.com/gouy_phase_shift.html
pronounced Goo-eee, with the emphasis on the second syllable. |
7982
|
Fri Feb 1 12:22:27 2013 |
Zach | Summary | ASC | Optics lit | It's OK; even Siegman got it wrong---48 times.
RA: NO, stil not OK.
Quote: |
Gouy not Guoy:
http://www.rp-photonics.com/gouy_phase_shift.html
pronounced Goo-eee, with the emphasis on the second syllable.
|
|
8459
|
Thu Apr 18 02:24:58 2013 |
Den | Update | ASC | dither alignment of yarm | I modified our existing c1ass model to include alignment of input steering TT1 and TT2 for YARM and BS for XARM. Corresponding medm screens are also created.
Dithering:
ETM_PIT: frequency = 6 Hz, amplitude = 100 cnts
ETM_YAW: 8 Hz, 400 cnts
ITM_PIT: 11 Hz, 800 cnts
ITM_YAW: 14 Hz, 1200 cnts
These values were chosen by looking at cavity transmission and length signals - excitation peaks should be high enough but do not shake the optics too much.
Demodulation:
LO for each degree of freedom is mixed with cavity length and transmission signals that are first bandpassed at LO frequency. After mixing low-pass filter is applied. Phase rotation is chosen to minimize Q component
ETM_PIT_LENGTH |
0 |
ETM_YAW_LENGTH |
20 |
ITM_PIT_LENGTH |
0 |
ITM_YAW_LENGTH |
-25 |
ETM_PIT_TRANS |
-5 |
ETM_YAW_TRANS |
10 |
ITM_PIT_TRANS |
10 |
ITM_YAW_TRANS |
-30 |
Sensing matrix:
8 * 8 matrix was measured by providing excitation at 0.03 Hz to optics and measuring the response in the demodulated signals. Excitation amplitude was different for each optics to create cavity transmission fluctuations of 25%
-0.0373333 |
-0.010202 |
-0.018368 |
0.0042552 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0.0432509 |
-0.209207 |
0.0139471 |
0.0780632 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0.0483903 |
-0.0077304 |
0.00917147 |
0.000860323 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-0.0751211 |
0.699778 |
-0.0115889 |
-0.09944 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0.356164 |
0.121226 |
0.0690162 |
-0.0183074 |
-59.52 |
-21.9863 |
-30.9437 |
13.5582 |
-0.141744 |
1.15369 |
-0.0100607 |
-0.12914 |
-18.8434 |
-105.828 |
-48.213 |
14.8612 |
-0.0446516 |
0.00682156 |
-0.0204571 |
-0.00207764 |
21.3057 |
-1.66971 |
22.1538 |
3.93419 |
0.0278091 |
-0.205367 |
0.0114271 |
0.0648548 |
-4.66919 |
97.9043 |
-6.26847 |
-95.9963 |
Though coherence was > 0.95 during the measurement for each element (except for TT -> Length signals), after inverting and putting it to control servo, loops started to fight each other. So I decided to try a simple diagonal matrix:
TT1_PIT -> ETM_PIT_TRANS, TT1_YAW -> ETM_YAW_TRANS, TT2_PIT -> ITM_PIT_TRANS, TT2_YAW -> ITM_YAW_TRANS,
ITM_PIT -> ETM_PIT_LENGTH, ITM_YAW -> ETM_YAW_LENGTH, ETM_PIT -> ITM_PIT_LENGTH, ETM_YAW -> ITM_YAW_LENGTH
And this matrix worked much better.
Control loops:
8 loops are running at the same time. UGF for input steering loops is 20 mHz, for cavity axis loops - 80 mHz. Slower loop is stronger at low frequencies so that cavity axis servo follows input steering alignment.

Results:
When I started experiment the cavity was misaligned, transmission was ~0.4. Servo was able to align the cavity in ~30 seconds. This time depends on mirrors misalignment as well as input optics and cavity axis misalignment relative to each other.
When servo converged I disturbed ETMY, ITMY, TT1 and TT2. Servo was able to compensate for this.

Excitation lines seen by transmission and length of the cavity are suppressed as shown on the attached as pdf figures.
Note:
Though the servo is able to align the cavity during my tests, this does not mean it will work perfectly any time. So please, if you lock, try to use the servo for alignment. If something goes wrong we'll fix it. This is better then to align IFO by hands every time. |
Attachment 3: YARM_CTRL_DITHER.pdf
|
|
Attachment 4: TRY_DITHER.pdf
|
|
8465
|
Fri Apr 19 13:28:39 2013 |
Den | Update | ASC | dither alignment of yarm | I've put 4 scripts into ASS directory for YARM alignment. They should be called from !Scripts YARM button on c1ass main medm screen.
Scripts configure the servo to align the cavity and then save computed offsets. If everything goes right, no tuning of the servo is needed.
Call TRANS MON script to monitor YARM transmission, then "ON" script for aligning the cavity, then "SAVE OFFSETS" and "OFF" for turning the servo off.
ON script:
- sets demodulation gains that I used during OL measuments
- sets LO oscillator frequency and amplitude for each optic
- sets demodulation phase rotation
- sets sensing matrix
- sets servo gains for each degree of freedom
- sets up limits for servo outputs
- gently increases the common gain from 0 to 1
SAVE OFFSETS script:
- holds servo outputs
- sets servo common gain to 0 and clears outputs
- reads old optics DC offsets
- computes new DC offsets
- writes new offsets to C1:SUS-OPTIC_ANGLE_OFFSET channel
- holds off servo outputs
OFF script:
- sets LO amplitudes to 0
- blocks servo outputs
Notes:
SAVE OFFSET script writes DC offsets to C1:OPTIC_ANGLE_OFFSET channel, not to _COMM channel!
LIMITS are set to 500 for cavity axis degrees of freedom and to 0.5 for input steering. Usually servo outputs is ~30% if these numbers. But if something goes wrong, check this for saturation.
DC offsets of all 8 degrees of freedom are written one by one but the whole offset of put at the same time. This works fine so far, but we might change it to ezcastep in future. |
8467
|
Fri Apr 19 16:58:59 2013 |
Jenne | Update | ASC | Arm A2L measurement scripts 90% working again | After Den's work with the ASS model this week, all of the channel names were changed (this wasn't pointed out in his elog....grrr), so none of the A2L scripts worked.
They are now back, however there is still some problem with the plotting that I'm not sure I understand yet. So, the measurement works, but I don't think we're saving the results and we certainly aren't plotting them yet.
I wanted to check where the spots are on the mirrors, to make sure Den's stuff is doing what we think it's doing. All of the numbers were within ~1.5mm of center, although Rossa keeps crashing (twice this afternoon?!?), so I can't copy and paste the numbers into the elog.
A near-term goal is to copy over Den's work on the Yarm to the Xarm, so that both arms will auto-align. Also, I need to put the set of alignment scripts in a wrapper, and have that wrapper call-able from the IFO Configure screen.
Also, while thinking about the IFO Configure screen, the "save" scripts weren't working (on Rossa) today, even though I just made them work a week or so ago. Rossa, at least, was unhappy running csh, so I changed the "save" script over to bash. |
8562
|
Sat May 11 01:11:52 2013 |
Koji | Update | ASC | PRC mode stabilization with a shadow sensor at POP | Ah, AWESOME. Indefinite PRMI lock was finally achieved.
POP setup
- Looked at the POP setup. Checked the spot on POP110 PD. Found some misalignment of the beam.
The beam spot was aligned to the PD with PRMI locked. The value of POP110I almost doubled by the alignment
and recovered previous value of 400. Therefore previous normalization values of MICH 0.01 / PRCL 100 were restored.
- Placed PDA36A (Si 3.6mmx3.6mm) on the POP path that Jenne prepared. The gain knob was set to 40dB.
Since the original spot had been too small, a lens with f=50mm was inserted in order to expand the beam.
Connected the PD output to the SMA feedthrough on the ITMX table enclosure.
I found the BNC cable labeled "PO DC" hanging. Connected this cable to the enclosure SMA.
- Went to the LSC rack. Found the corresponding PO DC cable. Stole the POPDC channel from POP110I Bias T to this PO DC cable.
- Razor blade setup: Machined a junk Al bracket in order to fix a razor blade on it. Attached the Al bracket to a sliding stage.
Locking
- Locked the PRMI with REFL33I&AS55Q. Cut the beam into half by the razor blade.
- Made a temporary PRM_ASC_YAW filter.
Zero: 0Hz Pole: 2kHz
Resonant Gain 3.2Hz Q:2 Height 30dB
Butterworth 2nd-order 60Hz
=> Expected UGF 0.1Hz&10Hz
- CDS: By the work described in this entry, the POPDC signal was connected to the "MC" bank of the LSC.
BTW, the 11th row of the LSC output matrix is connected to the PRM_ASC_YAW.
- The "MC" servo input (i.e. the POPDC signal) was normalized by POP110I (without SQRTing).
- Engaged the PRM ASC path. Gradually increased the gain of PRM_ASC_YAW. G=+100 seemed to be the best so far.
It was visible that the spot on the POP CCD was stablized in yaw.
- The lock lasted for ~40min. Took several measurements, alignment adjustment, etc.
- Tweaking the PRM ASC unlocked the PRMI.
- Locked again. Switched from REFL33I/AS55Q (x1/x1) combination to REFL55I/REFL55Q (x1/x0.3) combination.
This also kept the lock more than 20min. |
Attachment 1: Screenshot.png
|
|
Attachment 2: 130510_PRMI.pdf
|
|
8618
|
Wed May 22 17:29:34 2013 |
Jenne | Update | ASC | QPD for POP ASC tested | I fiddled around with the QPD that I'll use to replace Koji's temporary razor blade yaw sensor for detecting POP beam angular motion, and checked that it is working.
Using the Jenne Laser, I put beam onto the 4 different quadrants of the QPD, and saw that the Sum channel remained constant.
* I had the room lights off, since the PD elements are silicon.
* Beam size on the QPD as seen on an IR card was ~1mm diameter.
* With the beam on the QPD, I chose gain setting "G2" on the amplifier, since that was the only setting where neither the "current too high" nor the "current too low" LEDs were illuminated. I didn't measure the power going to the PD, but the Jenne Laser puts out 1.2mW, and there's a 50/50 BS, so I was getting about 600uW.
* I turned off the "zero/cal" switch on the back of the box, since I don't know how to set the zero. Since the X and Y channels are normalized by the Sum, you can't just block all light going to the PD and set the zero. There isn't a big change in the output levels with the zero/cal switch off, so I think it should be fine. (Previously, I set all 4 knobs - "zero" and "cal" for each X and Y - to approximately the center of their ranges. Once you hit the end of the range, you can keep turning the knob, but something inside makes a clicking sound ~once per revolution, and the signal level stops changing (for the zero knobs). Much like centering a beam on a PD, I found each edge of the range for each knob, and set the knobs in the centers by counting the number of turns. Anyhow, since I set the knobs to ~halfway, I think that explains why there isn't really a change whether the "zero/cal" switch is on or off.
* Using the steering mirror sending the beam to the QPD, I moved the beam around, and watched where I was going with an IR viewer. I see that as I move from quad-to-quad, the X and Y channels respond as I expect. If I only move the beam in X, I only see X response on a 'scope, and vice versa.
I can't do a real calibration until I get the QPD installed in place, so I can use the actual beam, but for now it looks like the QPD is responding nicely. Since Annalisa and Manasa are using the Arms for the evening, I'll work on putting the QPD on the POX table tomorrow. |
8649
|
Tue May 28 17:00:50 2013 |
Jenne | Update | ASC | Proposed POP path, to be installed this evening | I have mounted 2 2" G&H high reflective mirrors, to be used in the new POP path. Manasa and Annalisa are doing green things on their respective arms, so I will hopefully be able to install the new POP path after dinner tonight.
Here are photos of the current POP path, and my proposed POP layout. In the proposed layout, the optical components whose labels are shaded are the ones which will change.


|
8658
|
Thu May 30 17:18:58 2013 |
Jenne | Update | ASC | New POP path | I have placed the G&H mirrors and the Y1 as pictured in my proposed layout in elog 8649. The distance between the 2" lens and the PDs has increased, so the focus point is all wrong. I have measured the distances between optics on the table, and will pick new lenses and finish the POP layout later today or tomorrow.
For now, here are the powers measured using the Ophir power meter:
----------------------
PRM-ITMY lock, POPDC was ~190 counts
5.29 uW after Y1 weird angle. Can't see beam before then to measure
5.27 uW before BS50
3.5 uW before razor PD
3.00 uW before 110PD
------------------------
After installing G&H mirrors, replacing BS-98 with Y1:
4.94 uW before y1 (after G&H's)
4.92 uW after y1
2.66 uW before razor PD
1.61 uW before 110PD |
8663
|
Sat Jun 1 14:14:56 2013 |
Jenne | Update | ASC | New POP path | I have a lens solution for the new POP QPD, plotted below. To get the beam size, I started with the waist at the ITM, so the out of vacuum table starts around 6 meters on this plot. Also, "PD" is the QPD, but the position marked on the plot is the maximum distance from the 2nd lens. In reality, I will place it a few cm after the lens. Once I've got that laid out, I'll move the 110PD (and its lens) and the camera around so that they are in good spots relative to the beam size.

Here is a photo of the way I left the table last Thursday. The notations in orange indicate what I need to do to make the actual table match my lens solution.

|
8707
|
Fri Jun 14 03:10:40 2013 |
Jenne | Update | ASC | New POP path - PDs in place, need cabling | I have placed the lenses and the PDs in their new positions on the POP path. As Koji had pointed out to me in reply to elog 8663, what really matters to get the beam size I want on the QPD is the distance between the lenses, and not so much the absolute position of the lenses (since the Rayleigh range of the POP beam coming out of the vacuum is so long), so I left the 2" lens in place, and made the distance between the Y1 and the QPD's lens 35 cm.
I didn't move the camera very much, mostly just enough to get the beam centered on the TV. I need to check where this is in terms of the beam shape, to see where I should move it to, so that I'm getting useful beam motion information by looking at the camera.
The steering mirror for the POP110 PD is still between the camera and the steering mirror for the QPD, there's just much less space between those 3 elements than there was previously. I put the POP110 PD's lens and the PD itself in such a way that the PD is at the focus.
The PD which used to be the ASC razor blade PD has been put back in the cabinet. The cable that was plugged into it was being used for POPDC. I will need to switch things back so that POPDC is once again coming from the POP110 PD. Also, I need to bring over the power supply for the QPD, and lay some cables between the supply/readout box and the IOO chassis (where Jamie has freed up some channels for me).
Also, while I was on the POX table, I was reminded that we need to deal with the ITMX oplev situation, which Gautam detailed in elog 8684. I will ask Steve to take care of it when he's back from vacation. |
8710
|
Fri Jun 14 17:54:11 2013 |
Jenne | Update | ASC | New POP path - cabling work |
Quote: |
... I need to ... lay some cables between the supply/readout box and the IOO chassis (where Jamie has freed up some channels for me).
|
I have made 3 dongles that go from 2-pin lemo to BNC so that I can connect the 3 QPD signals (X, Y, Sum) to the IOO ADC (Pentek Generic board in 1Y2, which also has the MC channels).
The interface board with the 2-pin lemo connectors doesn't have anything in the DCC for the document number (D020432), so I asked BAbbott, and he said: "After a bit of searching, I found that on psage 2 of D020006-A-pdf ( https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-D020006-x0 ), Pin 1 of each LEMO connector is the + leg, and pin 2 is the - leg. This means that you should connect the center conductor of the BNC (if you don't have any 2-wire twisted-pair cables around) should be connected to pin 1 of the LEMO, and the outer conductor should be connected to Pin 2. According to http://il.rsdelivers.com/product/lemo/epg0b302hln/2-way-size-0b-pcb-mount-socket-10a/1305621.aspx Pin one is the top one on the right-angled LEMO." According to page 50 of the lemo data sheet, pin1 is the one with the mark next to it, when you are looking at the solderable end.
|
8720
|
Wed Jun 19 01:12:42 2013 |
Jenne | Update | ASC | model name ASS -> ASC ??? | I am proposing a model name change. Currently, we have an "ASS" model, but we do not have an "ASC" model.
The ASS is currently using ~17 of 60 available microseconds per cycle. So, we have some cpu overhead available to put more stuff on that cpu. Like, say, ASC stuff.
So, my proposal is that we change the ASS model name to "ASC", and put all of the ASS-y things in a top_names block, so we retain the current channel names. The IOO top_names block that is in the current ASS model (which is there to send signals to the LSC DAC for the input tip tilts, even though the names need to be IOO) should obviously stay on the top level, so that things in there retain their names.
Then, I can make a new top_names sub-block for ASC-like things, such as the new POP QPD.
Inside the ASC block (in the ASC model), I'm currently thinking something simple will do..... QPD inputs, going to a matrix, which outputs to the filter banks in the "length" degree of freedom basis (PRCL, SRCL, etc), then another matrix, going to the ASC suspension paths.
So, for example, the POP QPD pitch would go to the PRCL_PIT filter bank, and then on to the PRM_ASCPIT path in the SUS screen.
Or, in another example case, IPPOS yaw would go to an input pointing filter bank, then on to TT1's yaw slider.
EDIT: After a few minutes of thinking, I think I also want triggering, and perhaps filter bank triggering, in the ASC model. One of the reasons Koji has been pushing for the new automation system is that when the PRC fell out of lock, the ASC path would kick the PRM until Koji ran a down script. Triggering will fix this issue, and it's the kind of thing that needs to happen quickly, so may not really be appropriate for the Guardian anyway. |
8723
|
Wed Jun 19 04:56:07 2013 |
Koji | Update | ASC | model name ASS -> ASC ??? | Sounds good.
Or we just stuff any angle control things in to Angular Stabilization System without changing the model name.
The process name itself is not a big deal. |
8728
|
Wed Jun 19 22:02:03 2013 |
Jenne | Update | ASC | New POP path - ready to try | I put the POPDC cable back to the DC output of the bias tee that is the first thing at the LSC rack that the POP110 PD sees. So, now we should be back to the old nominal PRCL locking, with the addition of the new QPD.
I'm going to give it a whirl..... |
8805
|
Mon Jul 8 15:31:48 2013 |
Jenne | Update | ASC | POP QPD calibration prep | I am prepping to do the POP QPD calibration, and so have turned off the POP QPD, and put it onto a micrometer stage. My plan is to (after fixing the ASC servo filters to make the servo AC coupled, rather than DC coupled) lock the PRM-ITMY half cavity, and use that beam to calibrate the QPD. While this isn't as great as the full PRMI, the PRMI beam moves too much to be useful, unless the ASC servo is engaged.
While on the table, I noticed 2 things:
* In order to place the micrometer, I had to temporarily move the POP55 RFPD (which has not been used in quite a long time). I think it's just that the panel-mount SMA connector isn't tight to the panel inside, but the RF out SMA cable connector is very loose. I have moved the POP55 RFPD to the very very south end of the SP table, until someone has time to have a quick look. (I don't want to get too distracted from my current mission, since we haven't put beam onto that PD for at least a year).
* The ITMX oplev beam setup isn't so great. The last steering mirror before the beam is launched into the vacuum is close to clipping (in yaw... pitch is totally fine), and the steering mirror outside of vacuum to put the beam on the QPD is totally clipping. The beam is falling off the bottom of this last steering mirror. Assuming the beam height is okay on all of the input optics and the in-vac table, we need to lower the last steering mirror before the oplev QPD. My current hypothesis is that by switching which in-vac steering mirror we are using (see Gautam's elog 8758) the new setup has the beam pointing downward a bit. If the problem is one of the in-vac mirrors, we can't do anything about it until the vent, so for now we can just lower the out of vac mirror. We should put it back to normal height and fix the oplev setup when we're at atmosphere. |
8808
|
Tue Jul 9 01:18:48 2013 |
Nic, Koji | Update | ASC | PRMI locking / PRM ASC adjustment | [Koji, Nic]
- Locked PRMI with REFL165 I/Q
- Aligned the POP beam on the QPD. We found that the vertical motion of the beam appeared in the yaw signal, and horizontal motion in the pitch signal.
This was fixed by swapping the cables to the ADC. Later it turned out that this was caused by the calibration setup for the QPD.
We requested Jenne to fix the QPD on the table with the current orientation.
- Re-implemented the AC-coupled ASC servo. The filters were just copied from the previous PRM ASC servo (in the SUS ASC filter).
The same filter was installed to the pitch and yaw filter modules for now. The gains were adjusted to have some stable lock stretches.
C1:ASC-PRCL_YAW_GAIN: -0.01
C1:ASC-PRCL_PIT_GAIN: -0.01
The power spectra of C1:ASC-PRCL_YAW_IN1 and C1:ASC-PRCL_PIT_IN1 were attached.
The reference curves are the ones with the servo on. The other two are the free-running stability of the QPD output.
- Modified the up and down scripts for the PRM ASC for the new setup.
It first turns on the inputs of the filters and then turn on FM2/3.
It assumes that the outputs are engaged all time.
|
Attachment 1: PRMI_ASC.pdf
|
|
8810
|
Tue Jul 9 11:41:22 2013 |
Jenne | Update | ASC | POP QPD calibration attempt | I was bad, and forgot to elog the most important part of my work yesterday - that I had rotated the POP QPD by 90 degrees, so that I could fit the micrometer onto the table. There is a sticker on the front of the QPD to indicate which direction is "X" and "Y" for the output of the readout box. Right now (and the way that I will mount the QPD to the table, after I redo the calibration today), X is PITCH, and Y is YAW. Koji and Nic swapped the cables to the ADC to make this all consistent.
Yesterday, I locked the PRM-ITMY half cavity, and tried to take calibration data. However, with no ASC servo engaged, the beam was still moving. Also, with only the half-cavity, I had very little light on the QPD, and since it has internal normalization, the outputs can get a little funny if there isn't enough light. I had checked, and even with the gain cranked up to maximum, the "light level too low" LED was illuminated. So, my calibration data from yesterday isn't really useful.
Today, hopefully after lunch, I will lock the PRMI with the new AC-coupled ASC servo, so that I can have the servo on, and the PRMI locked on the sideband, so that I have more light on the QPD.
After that, it seems that the final thing we need to do before we vent is hold an arm near, but off resonance, lock the PRMI, and then swing the arm in and out of resonance a bit. |
8812
|
Tue Jul 9 16:08:32 2013 |
Jenne | Update | ASC | POP QPD calibration attempt | [Jenne, Alex]
Calibration data for the POP QPD has been taken, with the PRMI locked on sideband (with AS55Q and REFL33I, since it stayed locked longer with those 2). ASC was on, AC coupled.
We didn't get too far on either side of center of the QPD, since the ASC servo would go unstable, so we only explored the roughly linear region. Data / plots / analysis to follow. |
8840
|
Fri Jul 12 21:23:42 2013 |
Jenne | Update | ASC | POP QPD calibration attempt | These are the data, one plot for when the vertical QPD position was changed, and one for when the horizontal (yaw) QPD position was changed.
The micrometer is in inches, so 1 unit is 0.1 inches, I believe.
Clearly, I need to redo the measurement and take more data in the linear region. |
Attachment 1: ChangeVertMicrometer_July2013.png
|
|
Attachment 2: ChangeSideMicrometer_July2013.png
|
|
8851
|
Mon Jul 15 17:16:59 2013 |
Jenne | Update | ASC | POP QPD calibration attempt | I tried to retake POP QPD calibration data again today. The MC was mostly fine, but whenever the PRMI unlocked, both ITM watchdogs would trip. I'm not sure what was causing this, but the ITM alignment wasn't perfect after this kind of event, so I felt like I was continuously locking and realigning the arms to get the alignment back. Then, after turning on the ASC and tweaking up the PRM alignment for maximum POP110I signal, I had to recenter the QPD, so none of my previously taken data was useful. Frustrating. Also, I had recentered the PRMI-relevant oplevs, but I had these weird locklosses even with nicely centered oplevs.
I have given up for the daytime, and will come back to it if there's a spot in the evening when arm measurements aren't going on.
Here is the data from last week, and the data from today. The micrometer readings have been calibrated into mm, and I have fit a line to the linear-looking region. Obviously, for the Pitch calibration, I definitely need to take more data.



|
8854
|
Tue Jul 16 01:17:21 2013 |
Jenne | Update | ASC | POP QPD calibration attempt | [Rana, Jenne]
I took POP QPD calibration data with a new method, on Rana's suggestion. I locked the PRMI, and engaged the ASC servo, and then used awggui (x8) to put dither lines on all of the PRMI-relevant optic's ASCPIT and ASCYAW excitation points. I then took the transfer function of the suspensions' oplev signals (which are already calibrated into microradians) to the POP_QPD signals (which are in counts). This way, we know what shaking of any optic does to the axis translation as seen by the POP QPD. We can also infer (from BS or PRM motion for PR3, and ITMX motion for PR2) what the folding mirrors do to the axis translation. Note that we'll have to do a bit of matrix math to go from, say, PRM tilt effect to PR3 tilt effect on the axis motion.
The data is saved in /users/jenne/PRCL/July152013_POP_TFs.xml . There is also a .txt file with the same name, in the same folder, listing the frequencies used by the awg.
I'll analyze and meditate tomorrow, when my brain is not so sleepy. |
8897
|
Tue Jul 23 01:30:27 2013 |
Jenne | Update | ASC | POP QPD analysis | I have some data for how much motion of any PRMI-relevant optic affects the beam seen by the POP QPD.
For this, I am using the QPD calibration from the micrometer (elog 8851) to get me from counts to mm of motion. Note that the pitch calibration hasn't been redone (I tried locking the PRMI this afternoon, but ITMX kept drifting away from me**, so I didn't get any more data.) The pitch calibration is obviously very rough, since I only have 2 points defining my fit line.
Anyhow, if we assume that's close enough to get us started, I now have a calibrated QPD spectrum:

As detailed in elog 8854, I took single frequency transfer functions, to determine the effect at the QPD from shaking any single PRMI optic. These transfer functions gave me a conversion factor between the optics' oplev readings (in microradians) to the counts seen at the QPD. I used this number, as well as the QPD calibration from the micrometer data, to convert each optics' oplev spectra to motion that one would expect to see at the QPD.
I have not yet completely figured out how to make an estimate of the PR folding optics' affect on the POP QPD spot position, if I know their motion. The current plan is to do as Den did in elog 8451, and infer the PR2/3 motion from the ITMX/BS motion measured by the oplevs. My plan was to take the spectra of the oplev signals while the BS/ITMX are undamped, divide by the SOS pendulum transfer functions, then multiply by the TT transfer functions (which I finally wrote down in elog 8564). I'm planning on using the undamped data, since the oplev signals are still within the linear range of the oplev QPDs, and I won't have to take the SUS damping into account. Anyhow, after I do that, I'll have an idea of how much the tip tilts are moving, but not what that does to the cavity axis.
However, after looking at the plots below, it seems like the PRM is the main culprit causing the PRC axis motion, although the BS (and to a smaller extent the ITMs) are not innocent. Since the plots get very busy very quickly, I have many plots, each plot comparing one of the above QPD spectra (either pitch or yaw) with a single optics' oplev inferred motion.
EDIT: After talking with Koji, I realize that, since the ASC was engaged during the PRM oplev spectrum measurement, I cannot yet say whether the motion is due to PRM, or if it is from PR2 or PR3, and imprinted on the PRM via the ASC servo. The lump where the PRM-caused motion is greater than the QPD spectra is entirely in the region where the ASC is active. So, the QPD motion I expect without the ASC would be something like the green trace in the PRM comparison plots. The blue trace is then the closed loop measurement. Since the ITMs and BS are below the closed loop values, they aren't the ones causing the big lump. I should retake all of these spectra at a time when the PRMI is locked, but the ASC is not engaged. I'm not sure if I'll have a chance to do that tonight or not. If I can find some GPS times when the PRMI was locked, before we had ASC, I can get the oplev data.
PRM:
 
BS:
 
ITMX:
 
ITMY:
 
I think part of the reason PRM is dominating is that it's damped motion is ~10x greater than any other optics', most noticeably the BS'. I'll write a quick separate elog about this. Also, note that the ~3Hz resonant gain had been turned off in the PRM oplev loop, but not in any other loops. This is why there isn't the sharp dip in the PRM's oplev motion. Also, since the PRM ASC was engaged for this measurement, and the ASC pushes on the PRM to minimize the QPD motion, it isn't totally crazy that the PRM's motion is greater than what we actually see at the QPD, if it is compensating for the motion of other optics.
** Re: PRMI locking this afternoon, it was almost as if ITMX were bi-stable. I aligned both arms, to set the ITM positions. Then, I would lock and tweak up the michelson to get the AS port nice and dark (usually touching ITMX today, since it seemed like the drifter....ITMX at this point was usually between -7 and -15 microradians in pitch from the center of the oplev QPD). When I then brought the PRM back into alignment, ITMX was starting to drift away. As soon as I hit the LSC Enable switch, and looked back over to the OpLev screen, ITMX was misaligned, usually around -65 urad in pitch. I did this circus probably 3 or so times before giving up. Koji said that he had seen this bi-stability before, but he didn't remember what fixed it. The drifting that Koji mentioned in elog 8801 seems to have been fixed by centering all the PRMI oplevs every day, but I had already done that, and was still seeing ITMX drift. |
8926
|
Fri Jul 26 13:39:30 2013 |
Koji | Update | ASC | POP QPD analysis | It was not actually easy to see from the entry what signal was taken in what condition but from the shape of the spectra
I had the impression that the ASC & OPLEV signals were measured under the presence of the ASC control.
That is (moderately to say) tricky as the ASC control imprints the angular noise
from unkown mirror on the PRM, and then the oplev observes it. The original stability of the oplev is
obscured by the injection from the servo and the fair comparison of the stability is almost impossible.
So the true comparison between the ASC and oplev signals should be done without the control loop.
http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/8532
http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/8535
We can recover the free running spectrum of the ASC signals by compensating the loop transfer functions
because the ASC signals are the in-loop error signals. The oplev signals should be measured without
the ASC loop engaged. |
8977
|
Wed Aug 7 15:32:37 2013 |
Koji | Update | ASC | ASS setting up accelerated (slightly) | I moved bunch of ezcawrite from the ASS Dither On script to a snapshot file.
This accelerated a half of the "up" time but still switching part is not in the snapshot.
If you find anything wrong with ASS, please notify me. |
8980
|
Wed Aug 7 19:16:20 2013 |
Jenne | Update | ASC | ASS setting up accelerated more | I have furthered Koji's work, and moved the filter on/off state for all the filter banks also to the burt snapshot.
Turning on the ASS is now much faster than it was originally, with the ezcawrites in series. |
8982
|
Wed Aug 7 22:18:43 2013 |
Koji | Update | ASC | ASS update | While Gautam is working on the Xarm green ASS...
The EPICS monitor points for the ASS actuators were added to the ASS model.
This will be used for the offloading the ASS actuations to the alignment biases.
As this modification allowed us to monitor the actuation apart from the dithering,
now we can migrate the ASS actuation to the fast alignment offset on the suspension.
This modification to the offset moving scripts were also done.
|
8997
|
Mon Aug 12 14:05:34 2013 |
Jenne | Update | ASC | PRCL ASS software in place |
Quote: |
- We are ready to implement ASS for PRM
|
I have added an IPC sender from the LSC model, to send POPDC to ASS. I have copied over the structure of the arms' ASS, to do the same for PRCL. I have set it up to dither the PRM, and feed back to the PRM. I did not include an LSC set, since I'm assuming that we'll set the input pointing with the arms, and just want to move the PRM to maximize POPDC.
Models have been compiled, installed, and restarted, and the daqd was restarted. |
8998
|
Mon Aug 12 15:39:40 2013 |
Jenne | Update | ASC | PRCL ASS screens in place | I have added the PRCL ASS to the main ASS screen, and created the servo and lockin screens. The filters loaded are the same as those used for the arms (bandpasses and lowpasses for the lockins, and an integrator for the servo).
I'm going to try to lock, and get the ASS to work. |
8999
|
Mon Aug 12 17:30:03 2013 |
Koji | Update | ASC | PRCL ASS software in place | Why POPDC??? |
9001
|
Mon Aug 12 23:13:14 2013 |
Jenne | Update | ASC | PRCL ASS software in place |
I guess I was thinking that POPDC was a proxy for any type of PRCL lock. Even if we're sideband locked, there is still some signal in POPDC (although it is very small relative to a carrier lock - ~40cts vs. 1,000cts). However, as soon as this question was asked of me, I realized that one of the 2f demodulated signals made more sense.
Since I want the ability to choose between POP110 and POP22, I have put a little 1x3 input matrix before the PRCL lockins in the ASS model. Since POPDC was already there, I included it as an option in the matrix (in case we ever want to do some PRCL ASS after we have some carrier resonating as well). |
9126
|
Thu Sep 12 01:06:09 2013 |
Jenne | Update | ASC | SRCL ASS implemented | I have modified the ASS model to also have an ASS for SRCL. The input options are POPDC, POP110, AS110. I suppose I could/should have included ASDC.
Screens are modified / made. I haven't finished setting the servo gains and oscillator amplitudes, and all that jazz yet.
Using the parameters that Koji had in elog 9116, I was able to get nice long DRMI locks (several on a ~10 minute time scale).
I tried some pseudo-ANDing for the triggers, to no avail. I was trying to have the trigger matrix row for the SRCL loop have 1*POP22 and 0.02*AS110, where the 0.02 is to scale AS110 so that it has a similar amplitude to POP22. I then set threshold levels to ~250 for up, and 100 for down (I tried several different values for the up threshold). I was watching the TRIG_MON_FAST channels for both PRCL and SRCL, and I wasn't able to get SRCL to be triggered only at the same times as PRCL using this technique. Since we can get the DRMI to lock, perhaps my AND logic for the triggers is a low priority, but I think we'll need something like that if we want real logic.
|
9207
|
Sun Oct 6 20:55:08 2013 |
rana | Summary | ASC | MC WFS Limits set based on 40 days of trends | MC3 watchdog gets tripped sometimes when lock is lost. I noticed that there were no limits set in the MC WFS drive. The attached plot shows that over 40 days, the OUT16 channels from the WFS don't exceed 1000 counts. So I've set the limit to be 2000 in all 6 of the MC ASCPIT/YAW filter banks. Please don't turn them off.
OUT16 is really not the right way to measure this, but for some reason, we don't have any DQ channels from the MC WFS screen ??? So we're not able to measure the trend of the high frequency drive signal.
So I added the WFS(1,2)_I_(PIT,YAW)_OUT_DQ and WFS(1,2)_(PIT,YAW)_OUT_DQ channels to the c1ioo.mdl at 2048 Hz. I used Jamie's excellent 'rtcds' utility to build and install:
1) after making the edits to c1ioo.mdl I saved the file/
2) sshing to c1ioo
3) rtcds stop c1ioo
4) rtcds make c1ioo
5) rtcds install c1ioo
6) rtcds start c1ioo
7) telnet fb 8087
8) daqd> shutdown
That seemed to do it OK.
Unfortunately, all of the instructions that we have in the Wiki for adding channels and model building are misleading and don't mention any of this. There are a few different methods listed which all instruct us to do the whole make and make install business in a bunch of non existent directories.  |
Attachment 1: mcwrfs_trend.png
|
|
9249
|
Thu Oct 17 13:26:13 2013 |
Jenne | Update | ASC | POP QPD realigned | I locked the PRMI, and tried to turn on the ASS, but this caused PRMI to lose lock.
Since this is similar to what happened the other night (see elog 9243, 2nd big paragraph), I looked into it a little further. I noticed that the POP QPD pitch was very close to the edge of the QPD, so I went out and (while PRMI was locked) recentered the POP QPD. After doing so, I was able to run the PRM ASS, and it worked very nicely, just as it has before. So, it looks like something drifted, such that the optimal PRM alignment caused the POP beam to not be fully on the QPD. Since the ASC loop is triggered by PRMI lock, and is constantly on, falling off the QPD causes lockloss.
While I was out there, I tweaked up the PMC pitch alignment yet again. The FSS numbers all looked reasonable, however PMC transmission was ~0.75 . I did a tiny bit of work in pitch, and now we're back to 0.83 transmission. |
9460
|
Thu Dec 12 21:30:52 2013 |
Jenne | Update | ASC | PRMI-relevant oplevs centered | The ITM oplevs were pretty close to the edge of their ranges, and none of the oplevs have been centered in a while, so I centered ITMX, ITMY, BS, PRM after having done alignment (arms, then PRMI). |
9469
|
Fri Dec 13 19:33:56 2013 |
Den | Update | ASC | ETM X,Y QPDs | I have modified/compiled/installed/restarted c1scx and c1scy models to include arm transmission QPDs in angular controls.
For initial test I have wired normalized QPD pitch and yaw outputs to ASC input of ETMs. This was done to keep the signals inside the model.
QPD signals are summed with ASS dither lines and control. So do not forget to turn off QPD output before turning on dither alignment.
Medm screens were made and put to medm/c1sc{x,y}/master directory. Access from sitemap is QPDs -> ETM{ X,Y} QPD |
9558
|
Wed Jan 15 18:42:57 2014 |
Jenne | Update | ASC | POP ASC QPD offline for a few hours this afternoon | I was in the lab, near the south end of the ITMX oplev table, looking for something, and I bumped the POP ASC QPD's power supply. I thought that it was fine, but did not adequately check it. When EricQ asked me just now about why the PRC is so wobbly today, I checked, and the power for the QPD wasn't properly connected (it's kind of a crappy connector, that if you nudge, contacts or loses contact). Anyhow, I restored power to the QPD, and the PRC looks a little more stable now. My fault for not checking more carefully, and my apologies to Q and Gabriele for their frustrations this afternoon. |
9619
|
Mon Feb 10 18:59:25 2014 |
Jenne | Update | ASC | PRM ASC better, but not great yet | I have turned off the 3.2Hz res gains in the PRC ASC loops, since those seem to make the loops unstable.
Right now the pitch gain is -0.001, with FM1,3,9 on. Yaw gain is -0.004, with FM1,3,9 on.
Pitch gain can't increase by factor of 2 without oscillating.
I tried to take transfer functions, but I think the ASC situation is really confusing, since I have OSEM damping, oplev damping, and this POP QPD damping on the PRM. It's hard to get coherence without knocking the PRC out of lock, and it keeps looking like my gain is 0dB, with a phase of 0 degrees, from ~1 Hz to ~10 Hz. Outside that range I haven't gotten any coherence. Moral of the story is, I'm kind of puzzled.
Anyhow, as it is right now, the ASC helps a bit, but not a whole lot. I increased the trigger ON value, so that it shouldn't kick the PRM so much. I wish that I had implemented a delay in the trigger, but I'm not in the mood to mess with the simulink diagrams right now. |
9620
|
Mon Feb 10 19:56:10 2014 |
rana | Update | ASC | PRM ASC better, but not great yet | Ignoring the OSEM damping loops, the oplev servo loops make it so that the POP ASC loops do not see a simple pendulum plant, but instead see the closed loop response. Since the filter in the OL bank is proportional to f, this means that the open loop gain (OLG):

Which means that the CLG that the ASC sees is going to dip below unity in the band where the OL is on. For example, if the OL loop has a UGF of 5 Hz, it also has a lower UGF of ~0.15 Hz, which means that the ASC needs to know about this modified plant in this band.
For i/eLIGO, we dealt with this in this way: anti-OL in iLIGO |
9769
|
Mon Mar 31 23:57:22 2014 |
Koji | Summary | ASC | PRM ASC characterization / design | A series of measurements / calculations for the PRM ASC characterization and servo design
1) Actuator characterization
The actuator responses of the PRM in pitch and yaw were measured (attachment figure 1). I believed the calibration of the oplev QPD to be
1 count/urad. The oplev servo loops were turned off at the FM inputs, and the filter banks were turned off so that the response has the open
loop transfer function except for the servo filter.
The measured transfer functions were fitted with LISO. The LISO results (c.f. the source codes) were shown in the figure. The responses also
include the 60Hz comb filter present in the input filters. The responses are well approximated by the single pendulum with f0 of 0.6-0.8 and q of 3.5 and 6.3.
From this measurement, the actuator responses of the PRM at DC are estimated to be 2.2 urad/cnt and 1.8 urad/cnt in pitch and yaw, respectively.
2) Sensor response of the POP QPD
As we already know how the actuators respond, the QPD optical gain can be characterized by measuring the actuator response of the QPD
(attachment figure 2). The QPD signals are such noisy that the response above 1Hz can't be measured with sufficient coherence. Below 1Hz,
the response is well represented by the actuator response measured with the oplev. From this measurement, the optical gains of the QPD
with respect to the PRM motion are 650 cnt/urad and 350 cnt/urad.
3) Open loop transfer function of the current ASC servo
By combining the above information with the servo setting of the servo filters, the open loop transfer functions of the PRM QPD ASC loops
were estimated (attachment figure 3). Actually the expected suppression of the fluctuation is poor. The yaw loop seems to have
too low gain, but in fact increasing gain is not so beneficial as there is no reasonable phase margin at higher frequency.
With the estimated openloop transfer functions and the measured free-running angular fluctuation, the suppressed angular spectra can be
estimated (attachment figure 4). This tells us that the suppression of the angular noise at around 3Hz is not sufficient in both pitch and yaw.
As there is no mechanical resonance in the actuator response at the frequency, intentional placement of poles and zeros in the servo filter is necessary.
4) Newly designed ASC filter
Here is the new design of the QPD ASC servo (attachment figure 5). The target upper UGF is 10Hz with the phase margin of 50 to 60deg.
The servo is AC coupled so that we still can tweak the alignment of the mirror.
As this servo is conditionally stable, at first we should close the loops with stable filter and then some boosts should be turned on.
Estimated suppressed fluctuation is shown in the attachment figure 6. We can see that the fluctuation was made well white between 0.5Hz to 10Hz.
The filter design is shown as follows:
Pitch
FM1: zero at 0Hz, pole at 2000Hz, gain at 2000Hz = 2000
FM3: (boost)
zero: f: 0.5Hz q: 1 / 4.5Hz, q: 1 / f: 1Hz, q: 3
pole: f: 2Hz q: 3 / f: 2.7Hz, q: 2 / f: 1Hz, q: 15
FM9: (HF Roll-off)
pole: f: 40Hz q: 1.7
Servo gain: -0.028
Yaw
FM1: zero at 0Hz, pole at 2000Hz, gain at 2000Hz = 2000
FM3: (boost)
zero: f: 0.7Hz q: 2 / 3Hz, q: 7 / f: 2Hz, q: 6
pole: f: 1.02Hz q: 10 / f: 4.5Hz, q: 0.8 / f: 1.5Hz, q: 10
FM9: (HF Roll-off)
pole: f: 40Hz q: 1.7
Servo gain: -0.0132
|
Attachment 1: PRM_OPLEV.pdf
|
|
Attachment 2: PRM_QPD.pdf
|
|
Attachment 3: OLTF_design.pdf
|
|
Attachment 4: QPD_spe.pdf
|
|
Attachment 5: OLTF_design2.pdf
|
|
Attachment 6: QPD_spe2.pdf
|
|
Attachment 7: 140328.zip
|
|