40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 200 of 339  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Categoryup Subject
  8378   Sun Mar 31 17:26:32 2013 ranaUpdateLSCLock of PRMI on sidebands

 

 Our first move has to be fixing the whitening switching for REFL55. That's the configuration we need to start and then move onto REFL165 to get to FPPRMI.

  8379   Mon Apr 1 09:05:09 2013 Jenne, GabrieleConfigurationLSCPOP22 configuration

On Friday we modified the POP22 set up: now the PD output goes to a bias tee. The DC output goes to the ADC board, while the RF output goes to an amplifier (Mini-circuits ZFL-1000LN+), to a band pass filter at 21.4 MHz and then to the ADC

  8380   Mon Apr 1 09:25:35 2013 JenneMetaphysicsLSCLock of PRMI on sidebands

[Gabriele, Jenne]

I put a notch in FM10 for both MICH and PRCL at 628Hz, to try to prevent us from exciting the mode that Gabriele saw on Friday.  Since those filter banks were all full, I have removed an ELP50 (ellip("LowPass",4,1,40,50)).  I write it down here, so we can put it back if so desired.

  8383   Mon Apr 1 16:24:09 2013 JamieFrogsLSCPD whitening switching fixed (loose connection at break-out box)

Quote:

We discovered that the analog whitening filter of the REFL55_I board is not switching when we operate the button on the user interface. We checked with the Stanford analyzer that the transfer function always correspond to the whitening on.

This turned out to just be a loose connection of the ribbon cable from Contec board in the LSC IO chassis at the BIO break-out box.  The DSUB connector at the break-out box was not strain relieved!  I reseated the connector and strain relieved it and now everything is switching fine.

20130401_161917.jpg

20130401_161858.jpg

I wonder if we'll ever learn to strain relieve...

  8387   Tue Apr 2 10:22:37 2013 Rana, Gabriele, JenneUpdateLSCPRMI lock

We locked the PRMI, this time really on the sidebands, using the two REFL55 signals.

Here are the parameters: triggering on POP22_I in at 140, out at 20. No normalization. MICH gain -0.15, PRCL gain 0.1

It seems that the lock is not very stable. It seems likely to come from some large angular motion of one of the mirrors. We'll need to calibrate the optical lever signals to understand which one is moving too much.

 

Attachment 1: lock_prmi_sb.pdf
lock_prmi_sb.pdf
  8388   Tue Apr 2 11:08:16 2013 KojiUpdateLSCPRMI lock

> The two REFL55 signals

Wow! It's a good news.
I think this is our first ever lock of PRMI with the REFL I/Q signals.

We kept having difficulty to obtain MICH from the REFL beam.

Next time could you make calibration of REFL55 MICH and AS55 MICH and compare the ratio with any simulation?

  8397   Tue Apr 2 23:14:02 2013 ranaUpdateLSC22/110MHz path for POP

Quote:

We could not find a power supply slot for the amplifiers on the LSC rack. We had to put a temporary power supply in contradiction to our 'no temporary power supply' policy.

 After 1 month, its hard to imagine that this could not have been fixed by putting in a proper fuse and fuse block. I will remove this tomorrow if I still find it this way in the bottom of the rack.

There are also 2 Sorensen switching supplies in the bottom of the LSC rack (with all of our sensitive demod boards). These should also be moved over to the old 'digital' LSC rack tomorrow for the post meeting lab cleanup.

Use fuse blocks with fuses with appropriate ampacity.

  8401   Wed Apr 3 14:46:17 2013 GabrieleSummaryLSCError signal simulation in PRMI

Here is a summary of a simulation of the error signal behavior in the PRMI configuration. The main parameters are:
L_PRC = 6.7538 m
Schnup = 0.0342 m
fmod1 = 11.065399e6 Hz
fmod2 = 5 * fmod1

prmi_prclsweep_pop22.pngprmi_prclsweep_pop110.png

These two plots shows the response of the POP22 and POP110 signals (in almost arbitrary units) to a PRCL sweep around the resonance. The splitting of the 55 sideband peaks is well visible in the second plot. It is due to the fact that the 55MHz sidebands are not perfectly matched to the PRC length

prmi_michsweep_pop22.pngprmi_michsweep_pop110.png

The same thing when sweeping MICH. The peaks are wider and it is not possible to see the splitting.

prmi_prclsweep_errsig_not_tunedphase.pngprmi_michsweep_errsig_not_tunedphase.png

These are the error signals (REFL11_I/Q and REFL_55_I/Q) as a function of the PRCL (left) and MICH (right) sweep. Here the demodulation phases are not properly tuned. This is just to show that when the phase is wrong, you can get multiple zero crossings (in this case only in the Q signals, but in general also in I) close to resonance.

prmi_prclsweep_errsig_tunedphase.pngprmi_michsweep_errsig_tunedphase.png

If the phases are tuned in order to maximize the slope of the I signals with respect to PRCL, one gets these "optimized phase" responses. It is that the phase does not correspond to the one that makes the PRCL peak to peak signal small in Q. The Q signals are indeed flat around resonance for a PRCL motion, but they deviate quite a lot from zero when moving more far from resonance. Moreover, both the REFL_55 error signals (I for PRCL and Q for MICH) are crossing again zero at two additional positions, but those are quite far from the resonance point.

prmi_prclsweep_triggering.pngprmi_michsweep_triggering.png

These plots just show the PRCL and MICH error signals together with the POP22 and POP110 signals, to give an idea of the level of triggering that might be needed to be inside the linear range. It seems that if we trigger on POP22 when using the REFL55 signal we loose a bit of linear range, but not that much.

prmi_prclsweep_linearized_signals.pngprmi_michsweep_linearized_signals.png

If you reached this point it means you're really interested in this topic, or maybe you have nothing better to do... However, this plot shows the effect of linearization of the error signal, obtained dividing them by the proper POP22/110 signal. The linear range is increased, but unfortunately for the 55 signals, the additional zero crossing I was mentioning before creates two sharp features. Those are however quite outside the triggering region, so they should not be harmful.

Attachment 1: prmi_michsweep_pop22.png
prmi_michsweep_pop22.png
Attachment 2: prmi_michsweep_pop110.png
prmi_michsweep_pop110.png
  8411   Thu Apr 4 10:12:55 2013 GabrieleSummaryLSCPOP22 and POP110

I had a look at the POP110 signal, with the PRMI flashing.

1) The LSCoffset script does not zero any more POP22_I_ERR offset. I did it by hand

2) The gain of POP22 is changed a lot, as well as the sign: now sidebands are resonant when POP22_I is negative

3) POP110 seems to deliver good signals. The plot attached shows that when we cross the sideband resonance, there is a clear splitting of the peak. If we rely on the simulations I posted in entry 8401, the full width at half height of the POP_22 peak is of the order of 5 nm. Using this as a calibration, we find a splitting of the order of 7 nm, which is not far from the simulated one (5 nm)

Attachment 1: pop110_2.pdf
pop110_2.pdf
  8412   Thu Apr 4 10:32:42 2013 GabrieleSummaryLSCREFL55 error signals

The attached plot shows that also the behaviour of the REFL11 and 55 signals is qualitatively equal to the simulation outcome.

Attachment 1: prmi_refl_signals.pdf
prmi_refl_signals.pdf
  8413   Thu Apr 4 10:46:54 2013 KojiSummaryLSCREFL55 error signals

Beautiful double peaks. I don't see the triple zero-crossings. Is this because you adjusted the phase correctly (as predicted)?

Don't you want to have a positive number for POP22? Should we set the demod phase in the configuration script for the positive POP22, shouldn't we?

  8462   Thu Apr 18 19:54:11 2013 JenneUpdateLSCLSC whitening triggering working

I have implemented automatic triggered switching of the analog whitening (and digital dewhitening). 

The trigger is the same as the degree of freedom trigger.  On the LSC RFPD screen there is a space to enter the amount of time (in seconds) you would like to wait between receiving a trigger and actually having the whitening filter switch. 

The trigger logic is as follows: 

* For each column of the LSC input matrix (e.g. AS11 I), check if there is a non-zero element.  If there is a non-zero element (indicating that we are using that PD as the error signal for a degree of freedom), check if the corresponding DoF has been triggered.  Repeat for all columns of the matrix. 

* If either the I or the Q signal from a single PD is being used, send a trigger in the direction of the PD signal conditioning / phase rotation blocks.  (Since the whitening happens before the phase rotation, we want to have the whitening state be the same for both the I and Q signals coming from the demod boards.

* Before actually changing the whitening state, wait for the amount of time indicated on the RFPD overview screen.

* Switch the digital dewhitening.  If the digital dewhitening is on, send a bit over to the binary I/O to switch the analog whitening on.

LSC_triggers.png

LSC_SigCond.png

 

This required changing the LSC RF_PD library part so that you can send the trigger to the filter bank from outside that part..  This part is in use by all LSC models, so I'll make sure the LLO people are aware of this change before I commit it to the svn.

RF_PD_block.png

 

While I was working on the LSC model, I also put in a wait between the time that the filter module trigger is received, and when it actually switches the filter modules.  So far, this time is defined for a whole filter bank (so all filters for a given DoF still switch at the same time).  If I need to go back and make the timing individual for each filter module, I can do that.  This new EPICS variable (the WAIT) defaults to zero seconds, so the functionality will not change for anyone who uses this part.

LSC_FM_Trig.png

These changes also require 2 pieces of c-code:  {userapps}/cds/common/src/wait.c and {userapps}/isc/c1/src/inmtrxparse.c

  8491   Thu Apr 25 10:19:10 2013 KojiSummaryLSCLocking activity on Apr 24th

Last night I worked on the several locking configurations:

General preparations / AS table inspection

- The AS beam looked clipped. I went to the AP table and confirmed this is a clipping in the chamber.
  This may be fixed by the invacuum PZTs.

Modulation frequency tuning

RFPD Mon of the MC demodulator was check with the RF analyzer. Minimized the 25.8MHz (=55.3-29.5MHz) peak by changing the marconi freq.
This changed the modulation freq from 11.066147MHz to 11.066134MHz. This corresponds to the change of the MC round-trip length from
27.090952m to 27.090984m (32um longer).

Michelson tests

- I wonder why I could not see good Michelson signal at REFL ports.

- I roughly aligned the Michelson. On the AP table, the RF analyzer was connected to the REFL11 RF output.
  By using "MAX HOLD" function of the analyzer, I determined that the maximum output of the 11.07MHz peak
  was -61.5dBm.

- I went to the demodboard rack. I injected -61dBm from DS345 into the RFEL11 demodboard. This produced
  clean sinusoidal wave with the amplitude of 4 count. The whitening gain was 0dB.

- The output from the PD cable was -64.0dBm. So there is ~2.5dB loss in the cable. Despite this noise, the demodulation
  system should be sufficiently low noise. i.e. the issue is optical

- The Michelson was locked with AS55Q. And the REFL11 error signals were checked.Fringe like feature was there.
  This suggested the scattering from the misaligned PRM. The PRM was further misaligned. Then some reasonable
  (yet still noisy) Michelson signal appeared. (Usual misaligned PRM is not at the right place)

  Q. How much scattering noise (spurious cavity between PRM and the input optics) do we have when the PRM is aligned?
  Q. Where should we put the glass beam dumps in the input optics?
  Q. Can we prepare "safe" misaligned place for the PRM with the beam dump?

- The Michelson was locked with REFL11Q. From the transfer function measurement, the gain difference between AS55Q (whitening gain 24dB)
  and REFL11Q was 32dB. The whitening gain was 0dB. In fact I could not lock the Michelson with the whitening gain 33dB (saturation???)
  The element in the Input matrix was 1, The gain of the servo was +100. BS was actuated.

Coupled cavity tests

- At least REFL11 is producing reasonable signals. So what about the other REFL ports? The Michelson signals in the other frequencies
  were invisible. So I decided to use three-mirror coupled cavity with the loss PRC.

- Aligned X arm, Misaligned ETMX, ITMY. Aligned PRM.

- Locked the PRM-ITMX cavity with REFL11 and REFL33.

- Aligned ETMX. If I use REFL11I for the PRC locking, I could not lock the coupled cavity. But I could with REFL33I.
  This is somewhat familiar to me as this is the usual feature of the 3f signal.

- The coupled cavity could be locked "forever". To realize this I needed to tweak the normalization factor from 1.0 to 1.6.
  Q. How does the coupled cavity change the response of the cavity? Can we compensate it by something?
  Q. Measure open loop transfer functions to check if there is any issue in the servo shapes.

- Transmission during the lock is 3.2 while the nominal TRX with PRM misaligned was 0.93.
  This corresponds to power recycling gain of 0.17.

 - X arm:

    - Source: POX11I, phase 79.5 deg, whitening gain 36dB
    - Input matrix: POX11I->1.0->XARM, Normalization TRX*1.60
    - XARM servo gain +0.8, actuation ETMX
    - XARM trigger 0.25 up, 0.05 down. XARM Filter trigger untouched.

- PRC: (sideband locking)
    - Source: REFL33I, phase -34.05 deg, whitening gain 30dB
    - Input matrix: REFL33I->1.0->PRCL, Normalization None
    - PRCL servo gain +4.0, actuation PRM
    - PRCL trigger None

- Same test for the Y arm. At the moment ETMY did not have the OPLEV.
  Same level of transmission (~3.3)

 - Y arm:

    - Source: POY11I, phase -61.00 deg, whitening gain 36dB
    - Input matrix: POY11I->1.0->YARM, Normalization TRX*2.1
    - YARM servo gain +0.25, actuation ETMX
    - YARM trigger 0.25 up, 0.05 down. YARM Filter trigger untouched.

- PRC: (sideband locking)
    - same as above

Sideband PRMI attempt

    - Now I got some kind of confidence on the REFL33 signal.
    - So I tried to get any stable setup for sb PRMI, then to find any reasonable MICH signals anywhere else than AS55Q.
    - With REFL33I(PRCL) & AS55Q(MICH), I got maximum ~10sec lock. It regularly locked. It was enough long to check
      the spectrum on DTT. But it was not enough long to find anything about the MICH signals at the REFL ports.

    - I tried REFL33Q for MICH. The lock was even shorter but could lock for 1~2 sec.

    Q. What is the cause of the lock loss? I did not see too much angluar fluctuation. The actuation was also quiet (below 10000).

- PRCL: (sideband locking)
    - Same as above except for
      - the PRCL servo gain +0.05, No limitter at the servo output.
      - Trigger POP22I (low pass filtered by LP10) 20 up, 3 down

- MICH:
    - AS55Q -24.125 24dB -> x1.0 -> MICH -0.7, No limitter -> ITMX/Y differential
    or
    - REFL33Q -34.05dB -> x2.0 -> MICH same as above
    - For both case, trigger POP22I (low pass filtered by LP10) 20 up, 3 down

 

At this point Jenne came back from dinner. Explained what I did and handed over the IFO.

  8498   Fri Apr 26 20:43:51 2013 JenneUpdateLSCRemeasuring the Schnupp asymmetry

[Jenne, Annalisa, with guidance from Koji]

We took data to remeasure the Schnupp asymmetry, using the Valera method that Jamie described in elog 4821

1  First, we locked the arms each with their PO(X,Y) signals, to get the alignment of each arm. 

2.  Then, we locked the Xarm with AS55I (Yarm optics, and PRM very misaligned, more than the misalign script).  Since AS55 was saturating, I changed the analog gain from 24dB to 21dB. (After work was completed, the analog gain was put back to the nominal 24dB for both I&Q.)

3.  We set up the Lockin similar to Jamie's description, with a few differences.  We used the same f = 103.1313, but used ampl=10cts.  Sin and cos gain were each 100.  We changed the lowpass filter from 0.1Hz to 0.05Hz (so each measurement had a settling time of at least 20sec).  We were using LSC-Lockin4, so the Lockin matrix was set so Lockin4 was reading from AS55Q, and the LSC output matrix was such that we were actuating on the ETM (X, then Y when we switched arms later).

4.  By hand, we roughly found the zero crossing of the lockin-q output (which corresponded also to zero of the lockin-I, since this is the place where all of the PDH signal was in AS55I, and the lockin was reading AS55Q). 

5.  We took points separated by 0.2 degrees, plus and minus 1 degree from the zero-crossing phase we had found (i.e., for the Xarm, we roughly found the zero crossing at -14.39 deg, so took data from -15.39 to -13.39degrees).  For each phase, we took 5 measurements (using ezcaread), at least 20 seconds apart.  After moving the phase, we waited at least ~40 seconds (watching the lockin outputs on striptool, they had completely settled after 30 or 40 seconds).

6.  We then repeated steps 2, 4 and 5 for the Y arm.  The lockin setup didn't change, except that now we actuate on ETMY.

We did a quick estimate calculation, from our rough zero-crossings to get a rough measurement of the Schnupp asymmetry.  DeltaPhi = (-14.39 -   -19.79) = 5.40 . This gives us (using F_sideband = 5*11066134, the current 11MHz marconi freq) a rough Schnupp asymmetry of 4 cm. 

Analysis to follow.

EDIT, JCD:  The Xarm gain at this time was -0.160, and the Yarm gain was -0.170

  8500   Sat Apr 27 00:21:06 2013 KojiUpdateLSCLocking activity on Apr 26th

When I talked with Den via phone, he recommended to use the trigger and normalization with POP110I.
So I decided to try this approach. Also I investigated how the REFL33 signals are useful.

I could find the state where the PRMI(sb) locks regularly, although the lock is ~1min at most.

PRCL: REFL33I
whitening gain 30dB, -14.0deg (finely tuned in lock)
-> x1.0 -> Triggered by POP110I (20up, 1down)
-> Normalized by POP110I x0.04
-> Gain 0.2~0.12 FM3, 4, 5, 6 always on, no triggered FMs
-> PRM

MICH: REFL33Q
whitening gain 30dB, -14.0deg (finely tuned in lock)
-> x1.0 -> Triggered by POP110I (20up, 1down)
-> Normalized by POP110I x0.04
-> Gain -20 FM4, 5 always on, no triggered FM
-> ITMX (-1.0) and ITMY (+1.0)

I needed to tune the phase very precisely to reach this state. Also the alignment of the michelson and PRM
was very crtiical to acquire the lock.

Later in the same night I was plagued by PRM alignment drift. It seems that the PRM alignment is bistable or
slightly drifting in pitch. I had to align PRM continuously. When the PRMI is locked, the alignment fluctuation
was mainly in yaw. This was as people commented before.

Attachment 1: Screenshot.png
Screenshot.png
  8501   Sat Apr 27 00:29:40 2013 KojiUpdateLSCLSCoffset script fixed

Prior to the locking trials...

scripts/LSC/LSCoffset script had behaved peculiarly:

This script spawns LSC/offset3 in order to remove the dark offset from the channels.
How ever the offsets had been nulled every other PDs
(i.e. The offsets REFL11 I&Q were nulled.
The offsets REFL33 I&Q had been left untouched
The offset REFL55 I&Q had been nulled
and so on.)

I found that the script run many instances of "offset3" scripts in background.
It seemed that tdsavg did not like too many averaging channels at once.

So the "&"s in the LSCoffsets were removed and now the script runs much more slowly,
but works for all of the PDs listed.

I think I have never seen the offsets in REFL33 and REFL165 nulled down to this level before.

  8508   Mon Apr 29 22:13:41 2013 KojiUpdateLSCLocking with ASDC

Today the locking was not as easy as that was last Friday.
So I tried something new. Today Rana talked about the ASDC locking with POPDC normalization.
This technique was tried. (This is somewhat similar to DC readout.)

PRCL
Signal source: REFL33I / Normalization POP110I x 0.04 / Trigger POP110I 20up 3down, otherwise  untouched from Friday locking
Servo: input matrix 1.00 -> PRCL Servo FM3/4/5/6 Always ON G=+0.06
Actuator: output matrix 1.00 -> PRM

MICH
Signal source: ASDC Offset -109.5 (nominal of the day -49.5) / Normalization POPDC x 1.00 / Trigger POP110I 20up 3down
Servo: input matrix 1.00 -> MICH Servo FM5 Always On G=+10000
ActuaroL output matrix -1.00 -> ITMX / +1.00 -> ITMY

Observation

- POP110I was ~120 during the lock (cf 170 on Friday). So there is some small leakage from the dark port.

- Lock was easier when FM4 of the MICH loop was turned off.

- During the lock horizontal motion of the intracavity mode was visible as usual.

Screenshot.png

  8509   Mon Apr 29 23:02:48 2013 KojiConfigurationLSCQuestons

Q. How much Schnupp asymmetry we want in order to improve the signal ratio between PRCL/MICH in REFL ports?

Q. How much can we increase Schnupp asymmetry in the practical constraints?

Q. How PRCL/MICH ratio is different the REFL ports?
=> My modeling (many years ago) shows the ratio of {115, 51, 26, 23} for REFL{11, 33, 55, 165}.
These numbers should be confirmed by modern simulation of the 40m with updated parameters.
I should definitely use 55MHz but also prepare better 165MHz too.

Q. How the TT/PRM motions are affecting the lock stability? How can we quantify this effect? How can we mitigate this issue?

Q. Can we somehow change the sensing matrix by shifting the modulation frequency?

Q. Is normalization by POP22 or POP110 actually working well?
=> Time series measurement of error signals & servo inputs

  8516   Tue Apr 30 23:17:25 2013 JenneUpdateLSCPRCL LSC filters copied to CARM bank temporarily

Koji is working on PRMI locking with different photodiodes, and rather than typing different numbers into the input matrix, it is more convenient to just be able to click on/off buttons for different filter banks.  So, the CARM filter bank in the LSC model is currently being borrowed as a secondary PRCL filter bank.  I have copied all of the current PRCL filters over to the CARM filter bank. 

Just for reference, although we have not yet used CARM for CARM, the previous filters were the "default" set, +6dB, 0:1, 1:5, 1:50, 1000:10, RG3.2, RG16.5, RG24, empty, empty.  These are currently the same in the DARM and MC filter banks, so we can copy them back over in the future.

  8517   Wed May 1 00:05:03 2013 KojiUpdateLSCMore stable lock of PRMI (REF33I and AS55Q)

[Jenne Koji]

- Today the spots were moving more than the usual. The OPLEV screens showed that the spots are too much off from the center.

- Each vertex OPLEVs were checked and OPLEV wonderland was discovered: Other than the usual misalignment of the spots,
it was found that PRM/ITMX/ITMY beams were clipped somewhere in the paths, BS/PRM oplevs had many loose components
including the input lenses (they are still clamped by a single dog clamp THIS SHOULD BE FIXED ASAP).

- On the ITMY table there were so many stray optics. They were removed and put on the wagon next to the ITMY table.
THIS SHOULD BE CLEARED ON THE WEDNESDAY CLEANING SESSION.

- During this OPLEV session, LSCoffset nulling was run.

- After the OPLEV session, the locking became really instantaneous. We wonder which of the OPLEV cleaning, LSC offset nulling,
and the usual seismic activity decay in the evening was effective to make it better.

- Initially the lock was attempted with REFL33I/Q and some ~10sec lock streches were obtained. During this lock,
  the optical gain of AS55Q was measured in relative to REFL33Q. In deed they were calibrated to be the same
  gain at the input matrix.

- After the MICH signal source was switched to AS55Q, the lock streches became more regular and the minutes long.
We precisely tuned the phase of AS55 and REFL55 in terms of the differential excitation of ITMX/Y using lockin (FREQ 250, AMP 1000).

- We noticed that the AS port spot with AS55Q MICH was darker than the REFL33Q MICH. This suggests the existence of residual offset
in REFL33Q. In deed we observed +30cnt offset in REFL33Q when the PRMI is locked with AS55Q MICH.

- Phases and relative gains of the signals were as follows:

PRCL: REFL33I 1.00 =REFL55I +0.4
MICH: AS55Q 29deg x1.00 = REFL33Q -14deg x1.00 = REFL55Q 118deg 0.03?

- We tried to lock PRMI with AS55Q. The acquisition was not as easy as that with REFL33I. This might be from the saturation of the
REFL55I signal. This configuration should tested with different whitening gain. Handing off using the input matrix went well once the
lock was obtained by REFL33I.

- Handing off from AS55Q to REFL55Q was not successful.

- At the end of the session, Jenne told me that the POP PD still has a large diameter beam. (and a steering mirror with a peculiar reflection angle.)
==> THIS SHOULD BE FIXED ASAP
because the normalization factor can be too much susceptible to the misalignment of the spot.

- The configuration of the filters:

PRCL FM3/4/5/6 G=+0.05 / NORM 0.04 POP110I
MICH FM4/5 G=-5.00 / NORM 0.01 POP110I (or none)

Screenshot.png

  8518   Wed May 1 10:42:35 2013 SteveUpdateLSCcleanup

 

 Optics from the car were placed into glass door cabinet E0

  8519   Wed May 1 14:42:45 2013 JenneUpdateLSCPOP now has lens in front of PD

Quote:

- At the end of the session, Jenne told me that the POP PD still has a large diameter beam. (and a steering mirror with a peculiar reflection angle.)
==> THIS SHOULD BE FIXED ASAP
because the normalization factor can be too much susceptible to the misalignment of the spot.

 Koji set the IFO in a PRM-ITMY configuration for me, while I went to put a lens on the POP path.  Before putting the lens, the maximum average output that I saw from the diode (on a 'scope) was 4.40mV.  After putting in the lens and realigning the beam onto the diode, the new max DCvalue that I saw was 21.6mV.  This is a factor of 4.9. 

EDIT:  The dark value was -3.20mV, so actually the ratio is ~3.25 .

I have not yet done anything to fix the situation of the large angle of incidence on the first out-of-vac steering mirror.

  8521   Thu May 2 00:34:57 2013 KojiUpdateLSClocking

- Routine alignment

Locked the arm cavties. Ran ASS. As this was not enough precise alignment for PRMI locking, Yarm alignment was re-adjusted by sliders.
Xarm was also aligned in the same way.

- OPLEV alignment

Once the arms were aligned, OPLEV spots were adjusted. For this adjustment, PRM had to be aligned and OPLEV servos needed to be turned off.

- LSC offset nulling

While Jenne was measuring the dark output of the POP PD, LSC offset nulling script was executed.

- Compensation of the POP spot size fix

As Jenne reported the POP path now has a lens and the denominator for the normalization got bigger.
To compensate this change, PRMI(sb) was locked by the same configuration as yesterday (i.e. AS55Q for MICH, REFL33I for PRCL). 
After some try and error, configuration for stable locking was found. 

PRCL
Signal source: REFL33I / Normalization POP110I x 1.00 / Trigger POP110I 80up 10down
Servo: input matrix 1.00 -> PRCL Servo FM3/4/5/6 Always ON G=+8.00
Actuator: output matrix 1.00 -> PRM

MICH
Signal source: AS55Q / Normalization POP110I x 0.01 / Trigger POP110I 80up 10down
Servo: input matrix 1.00 -> MICH Servo FM4/5 Always On G=-30
Actuator output matrix -1.00 -> ITMX / +1.00 -> ITMY

This suggests that POP110I signal is 5~6 times more than before the lens was installed. 

- SQRTing option for POP110I was implemented

The PRMI optical gain is derived from (Carrier)x(1st order Sideband) or (2nd order SB)x(1st order SB).
Here the carrier and the 2nd order sidebands are nonresonant.
Therefore the optical gain is proportional to the amplitude power recycling gain of the 1st order sidebands.
On the other hand, POP 2f signals are derived from the product of the 1st and -1st order sidebands.
This means that we should take a sqrt of the POP signals to compensate the recycling gain fluctuation.

Screenshot.png

- Locking with SQRT(POP110I)

PRCL
Signal source: REFL33I / Normalization SQRT(POP110I) x 10 / Trigger POP110I 10up 3down
Servo: input matrix 1.00 -> PRCL Servo FM3/4/5/6 Always ON G=+8.00
Actuator: output matrix 1.00 -> PRM

MICH
Signal source: AS55Q / Normalization SQRT(POP110I) x 0.1 / Trigger POP110I 10up 3down
Servo: input matrix 1.00 -> MICH Servo FM4/5 Always On G=-30
Actuator output matrix -1.00 -> ITMX / +1.00 -> ITMY

The lock seems not so different from the ones without SQRTing.

The spot was still moving in yaw direction. If I chose a correct alignment, I could minimize the modulation of the internal power
by misalignment. As you can see in the following plot.

Screenshot2.png

When the alignment was deviated from the optimum, the misalignment induced RIN was much worse although this was the longest lock I ever had with the PRMIsb. (more than 8 min)

Screenshot3.png

- Locking with other signal sources

REF55I/Q trial:

Demodulation phase was adjusted to make the difference of the peak heights for MICH maximized.
After the lock is acquired, I tried to swap the signal source at the input matrix. PRCL swapping was successful but
MICH swapping was not successfull.

It is much more hard to lock the interferometer with REFL55I compared with REFL33I.

REFL165I/Q trial:

As REFL165 PD never produced any useful signal, I tried to swap it with the BBPD used in the green setup.

- Borrowed the PD, power supply from the green setup.

- Put REFL165PD aside. Placed the BBPD in the path. The DC output was 0.8V. This corresponds to the input power of ~5mW.

- Checked the signal but it was very litte (several counts even at the maximum whitening gain).

- Decided to use the power reduction pick off to introduce much more light on the PD.
  This PO mirror is 90% reflector. Therefore I had to be careful no to fry the diode.
  Currently there are OD1.3 (x1/20) power attenuator to reduce the input power down to 6.5V (40mW).

- The resulting signal is very wiered suggesting the saturation of the PD at the RF stages.

- Probably I need to make a new PD circuit which has the high pass filter to reject other low frequency components.

  8528   Fri May 3 17:32:59 2013 JenneUpdateLSCRemeasuring the Schnupp asymmetry

I have looked at / analyzed the Schnupp data that Annalisa and I took last week, as well as some more Yarm data that I took this week.

I only have one set of Xarm data, but 3 sets of Yarm data.  I had intended to do careful error analysis of the data, but from the 3 sets of Yarm data, the variance in the answer I get using any one of the Yarm sets is much larger than the error in a single measurement.

 Xarm_SchnuppData_April2013.png

Yarm_SchnuppData_April2013.png

Using the central Yarm zero crossing, I get a Schnupp asymmetry of 3.9cm.  The other 2 Yarm data points give Schnupp asymmetries of 3.7cm and 4.1cm, so I'm claiming a value of 3.9 +\- 0.2cm . This is within error of Jamie's measurement of 3.64 ± 0.32 cm (elog 4821).

  8537   Tue May 7 16:21:01 2013 JenneSummaryLSCError signal simulation in PRMI

I asked Gabriele why it looked like for the PRCL sweep REFL 55 I&Q were zero at zero, but for the MICH sweep only REFL55 I was zero.  He took a look at his code, and found that he was not at the correct locking point.  Here is his email back to me:

I found the reason for the not zero value. Indeed, if you could zoom into the PRCL sweep, you would see that the error signals does not cross zero exactly at PRCL=0, but instead some 50 pm away from zero. This is enough to change a lot the PRCL signal when sweeping MICH. If I put PRCL to the correct zero point, and I sweep MICH, I now get everything at zero. I'm sending again the plots.

The fact that such a small detuning is enough to change PRCL signal when sweeping MICH is due, I believe, to the fact that MICH optical gain is much smaller than PRCL one.

Here are the redone plots:

Phase not tuned:

michsweep_errsigs_phasenottuned.pngprclsweep_errsigs_phasenottuned.png

 

Phase tuned:

michsweep_errsigs_tunedphase.pngprclsweep_errsigs_tunedphase.png

POP22 resonance for MICH and PRCL:

michsweep_pop22.pngprclsweep_pop22.png

POP110 resonance for MICH and PRCL:

michsweep_pop110.pngprclsweep_pop110.png

  8553   Wed May 8 19:31:17 2013 JamieConfigurationLSCLSC: added new SQRT_SWITCH to power normalization DOF outputs

This removes the old sqrt'ing from the inputs to the POW_NORM matrix (was only on the POP110 I/Q) and moves it to the DOF outputs.  Koji wanted this so that he could use the DC signals for normalization both sqrt'd and not sqrt'd.

The POW_NORM medm screen was updated accordingly.

  8555   Thu May 9 00:05:12 2013 rana, Koji, JenneSummaryLSCAA and AI change

We would like to increase the UGF of the PRC loop so as to allow more suppression of the PRC signal and less pollution of the MICH signal (remember that the PRC/MICH optical gain ratio is huge).

We were already losing phase because of delay in the LSC - SUS digital link. In addition to that, a major source of delay is the analog anti-aliasing (on the LSC error signals before they enter the ADC) and the analog anti-imaging (between the SUS DAC and the coil driver).

 IN addition to these, the other major sources of phase lag in the system are the FM5 filter in the LSC-PRC filter bank, the digital upsampling and downsampling filters, and the DAC sample and hold.

In the near term, we want to modify these analog filters to be more appropriate for our 64 kHz ADC/DAC sample rate. Otherwise, we are getting the double phase lag whammy.

 

Staring at the schematics for the AA (D000076-01) and the AI (D000186-A), we determined a plan of action.

For the AA, we want to remove the multi-pin AA chip filter from Frequency Devices, Inc. and replace it with a passive LC low pass. Hopefully, these chips are socketed. Rana will design an appropriate LC combo and elog; we should make the change on a Wednesday afternoon so that we have enough soldering help.

For the AI, the filter is a dual bi-quad using discrete components and LT1125 opamps. Not so clear what to do with these. The resistors are all the noisy thick film kind and maybe should be replaced. Koji will find some online design tool for these or do it in LISO. Changing the TF is easy; we can just scale the capacitors. But we also want to make sure that the noise of the AI does not destroy the noise reduction action of the dewhitening board which precedes it.

Jenne should figure out how low the noise needs to be at the input to the coil driver.

 

P.S. the matlab code which defines these filters

>> [z,p,k] = ellip(4,4,60,2*pi*7570,'s');
>> misc.ai = zpk(z,p,k*10^(4/20)) * zpk([],-2*pi*13e3,2*pi*13e3);
>>
>> % Fudged Anti-Imaging Filter
>> [z,p,k] = ellip(8,0.001,80,2*pi*7570,'s');
>> misc.aa = zpk(z,p,k*10^(0.001/20)) * zpk([],-2*pi*32768,2*pi*32768);

Attachment 1: AAAI.pdf
AAAI.pdf
  8566   Mon May 13 23:05:26 2013 KojiConfigurationLSCPRMI locking

- Disabled MCL path in mcdown/mcupscript.

Nominal gain in mcdown/mcup was -50 and -100 respectively.

- Confirmed the stable lock was just because of the quiet seismic of the Friday night.

- Improvement of the PRM ASC servo
RG3.2 (3.2Hz Q=2 Height 30dB)
=>
RG3.2 (3.2Hz Q=10 Height 30dB) +  zero[f, 1, .5] pole[f, 2, 3] zero[f, 4.5, .5] pole[f, 3.5, 3]

Filter shape comparison is found in the second plot attached.

The resulting spectra (freerun vs controlled) is found in the first plot.

Nominal PRM ASC gain is +70

- Openloop TF measurement

OLTF PRCL 250Hz 30deg / MICH 200Hz 45deg

- REFL55/REFL33 phase adjustment (in lock)

REFL55 phase fine tune (95.25deg) (x1,x0.3)
REFL33 phase (-13.0deg) (x1, x2)

Attachment 1: 130513_PRC_ASC.pdf
130513_PRC_ASC.pdf
Attachment 2: 130513_PRC_ASC_servo.pdf
130513_PRC_ASC_servo.pdf
  8574   Tue May 14 20:27:19 2013 KojiConfigurationLSCOpenloop gain for PRMI lock May 13

The OLTFs for PRCL and MICH for the last night's lock were modelled using Yuta's python script.

Attachment 1: LSCPRCLOLTF.png
LSCPRCLOLTF.png
Attachment 2: LSCMICHOLTF.png
LSCMICHOLTF.png
Attachment 3: 130513.zip
  8577   Wed May 15 00:45:28 2013 ranaConfigurationLSCOpenloop gain for PRMI lock May 13

 

 Pfft. Why 500 usec delay? We should be using the known parameters for the hardware and software AA/AI.

  8589   Thu May 16 04:46:37 2013 JenneUpdateLSCKiwamu's sensing matrix measurement script revived

Kiwamu had an old set of scripts for measuring the sensing matrices, but they were hidden away in ..../scripts/general/kiwamuscripts/pyplant . I have moved them to a more useful place, and updated them.

The useful scripts (the main one is SensResp.py, and the PRMI-specific one, runPRMI_SENS.py, which calls SensResp.py) have been moved to .../scripts/LSC .  I have also created a folder within the LSC scripts folder called SensMatData for the data.

The 2 big changes to Kiwamu's scripts:  The ezca library that he was calling wasn't working.  I switched it over to using the one that Yuta wrote, in ..../scripts/pylibs.  Also, Kiwamu's script was written back during a time where we must have only had one total lockin for the whole LSC model.  Now we have one per PD in the input matrix.  This meant that several of his channel names were wrong.  I have fixed this, and also made it measure all the sensors at once using tdsread of the _OUT16 channels (the OUT16's have some AA action, other EPICS channels don't).

So, now (after you're locked), it shakes one "mirror" (the ITMs are shaken differentially at the same time, as one "mirror"), and reads out all of the RF PD lockin values.  Then it moves to the next mirror.  (For the PRMI case, there are only 2 "mirrors":  The ITM set and the PRM.)  All of the information is stored in a dictionary, which is written to a text file. 

The format of the dictionary is:

{ OPTIC_1: [Photodiode_1, Lockin_I, Lockin_Q], [Photodiode_2, Lockin_I, Lockin_Q], OPTIC_2: [Photodiode_1, Lockin_I, Lockin_Q], [Photodiode_2, Lockin_I, Lockin_Q] }

At this point, I am too tired to actually do a measurement, although next time the PRMI is locked, we should just have to run the runPRMI_SENS.py, and look at the data.  I'm also not quite sure how to extract the information from a dictionary after it has been written to a text file.  This may not be a good way to store data, and I'll ask Jamie about it tomorrow.

OTHER NOTES:

* I need to set up another iteration of the sensing matrix measurement with no drive, measuring several times, to get an estimate of the error in a single measurement.

 

* I had the PRMI locked on AS55Q/REFL33I for more than half an hour.  Then the MC started unlocking semi-regularly.  Seismic was good except for one EQ ~2 hours ago.  After the earthquake (unlocked MC, but no tripped optics), the MC has remained locked.

* The LSC Lockin Overview screen does not click-through to the _SIG individual screens.  We need to fix the path to these screens.

* All of the _SIG filters are band passes around 285 Hz, but the names of the filters all say 238Hz.  I need to fix all 27 of these.

* We can perhaps change the LSCoffsets script someday to use tdsread a few times, and average the results (since the PDs don't have lowpass filters, and we're measuring the offset of the IN1 location, not the OUT).  This way we can hopefully measure all the PDs at once and speed up the script, without having failed tdsavg runs.

  8592   Thu May 16 22:03:16 2013 KojiConfigurationLSCY Green BBPD returned to the PSL table

I borrowed the GTRY BBPD  for the REFL165 trial before.

Now the PD is back on the PSL table.

The PD is intentionally misaligned so that anyone can find it is not aligned.

  8593   Thu May 16 23:48:39 2013 JenneUpdateLSCKiwamu's sensing matrix measurement script revived

Koji locked the PRMI for me, and I took some data.  I haven't finished figuring out what to do with it / writing a processing script.

Here is the data, in a python dictionary (not for you to read, but so that it's here and you can use it later if you want).

{'AS55_Q': [['ErrorBarData0', '-1.60826e-05', '0.000154774'], ['ErrorBarData1', '-1.61949e-05', '-9.69142e-05'], ['ITMs', '-0.134432', '0.00240338'], ['PRM', '0.0525864', '0.145516']], 'REFL55_Q': [['ErrorBarData0', '-0.00088166', '-0.00294315'], ['ErrorBarData1', '0.00298076', '-0.000466507'], ['ITMs', '-0.573825', '-0.0865747'], ['PRM', '1.94537', '0.534968']], 'REFL33_Q': [['ErrorBarData0', '0.000868208', '0.000785702'], ['ErrorBarData1', '-0.00136268', '-0.000288528'], ['ITMs', '-0.0653009', '-0.0112035'], ['PRM', '0.875275', '0.419765']], 'REFL11_I': [['ErrorBarData0', '-0.147347', '0.136075'], ['ErrorBarData1', '0.351823', '0.160556'], ['ITMs', '-12.0739', '-80.1513'], ['PRM', '6991.11', '7073.74']], 'REFL33_I': [['ErrorBarData0', '-0.00100624', '0.00134366'], ['ErrorBarData1', '0.00373581', '0.000783243'], ['ITMs', '-0.399404', '-0.774793'], ['PRM', '67.4138', '68.8886']], 'REFL11_Q': [['ErrorBarData0', '-0.0173368', '0.0141987'], ['ErrorBarData1', '0.100048', '0.0882165'], ['ITMs', '6.46585', '-26.2841'], ['PRM', '1653.42', '1663.96']], 'AS55_I': [['ErrorBarData0', '-1.87626e-05', '2.24596e-05'], ['ErrorBarData1', '-5.46466e-05', '-2.96552e-07'], ['ITMs', '-0.00531763', '0.00130579'], ['PRM', '-0.100501', '-0.0706334']], 'REFL55_I': [['ErrorBarData0', '-0.000774208', '-5.32631e-05'], ['ErrorBarData1', '0.00347621', '0.0025103'], ['ITMs', '-0.115633', '-0.83847'], ['PRM', '72.8058', '74.2347']]}

The structure is that each sensor has some "error bar" measurements, when there was no drive to any optics (I, then Q of the lockin), and then response to different optics' drives (waiting 20sec after turning on the oscillator before making a measurement, since the lockin has 0.1Hz lowpasses.  ).

The amplitude that Kiwamu had of 4000 cts in the LSC lockin was fine for MICH, but made PRCL unlock, so this data was taken with an amplitude of 1000 counts, at a frequency 283.1030 Hz. 

Since this is only barely above the UGF for both MICH and PRCL loops, I also have OLTF information at 283Hz from DTT:  PRCL mag = -1.05264 dB, phase = 24.6933 deg, MICH mag = -8.50951 dB, phase = 31.3948 deg.

I have started writing a script SensMatAnalysis.py in the scripts/LSC directory to do the analysis, but after having talked to Koji, I need to do more thinking to make sure I know what I'm doing.  Stay tuned for actual analysis later.

  8600   Mon May 20 17:49:36 2013 JenneUpdateLSCPRMI sensing matrix - not high quality data

Just so we have some numbers, I did a by-hand analysis of the PRMI sensing matrix numbers I posted here in the elog the other day.  This analysis is ignoring the error bar data.

For each sensor (PD_I or PD_Q), I do loop compensation, since these measurements were taken fairly close to the UGFs of the loops, and notches were not in use at the drive frequency.  To do the loop compensation, I multiply the complex value (lockin_I + i*lockin_Q) by (1-G), where G is the (complex) open loop gain of the degree of freedom I'm shaking.

 When I'm shaking a single degree of freedom (ex. shaking the PRM to get PRCL information), for each PD_I or PD_Q, we get 2 numbers, the lockin_I and lockin_Q values.    I check the phase between the lockin_I and lockin_Q values, since that phase (after loop compensation) should be either 0 or 180, and if it is not, something is wrong. 

Of the 16 sensors I measure (where PD_I and PD_Q count as 2 sensors), 11 sensors had phases more than 20 degrees away from either 0 or 180.  This is not good, and indicates that something is wrong with my measurement.  I suspect that I may not be driving hard enough -  I was using an amplitude 4x smaller than the previous value.  Next time the PRMI is locked, I will turn on the drive oscillation, and ensure that I can see the line in all of the PD signals.

The results of my quickie analysis script:

Bad REFL11_I_MICH phase!  Phase is -82.0185 degrees!
Bad REFL11_Q_MICH phase!  Phase is -35.9697 degrees!
Bad REFL33_I_MICH phase!  Phase is -134.952 degrees!
Bad REFL55_I_MICH phase!  Phase is -79.7997 degrees!
Bad AS55_I_PRCL phase!  Phase is -142.6016 degrees!
Bad AS55_Q_PRCL phase!  Phase is 90.6194 degrees!
Bad REFL11_I_PRCL phase!  Phase is 52.471 degrees!
Bad REFL11_Q_PRCL phase!  Phase is 52.2324 degrees!
Bad REFL33_I_PRCL phase!  Phase is 52.909 degrees!
Bad REFL33_Q_PRCL phase!  Phase is 25.14 degrees!
Bad REFL55_I_PRCL phase!  Phase is 52.8113 degrees!

Sensing Matrix, calculated even though most of the measurement data isn't any good:
AS55: MICH = 0.13502, -1.6122deg.  PRCL = 0.14993, -2.245deg
REFL11: MICH = 29.6373, -2.6365deg.  PRCL = 7376.3206, -2.9098deg
REFL33: MICH = 0.35649, -2.9633deg.  PRCL = 69.5133, -3.1302deg
REFL55: MICH = 0.62084, -2.0261deg.  PRCL = 75.0214, 3.1176deg

Attachment 1: PRMIsensMatQuickAnalysis.m.gz
  8601   Mon May 20 18:47:47 2013 KojiUpdateLSCPRMI sensing matrix - not high quality data

For now forget about the demodulation phase and assume all of the ports are independent.
I want to know the numbers in the following format.

          PRCL     MICH   (unit: cnt/m)
REFL11I:  x.xxxEx x.xxxEx
REFL11Q:  x.xxxEx x.xxxEx
REFL33I:  x.xxxEx x.xxxEx
REFL33Q:  x.xxxEx x.xxxEx
REFL55I:  x.xxxEx x.xxxEx
REFL55Q:  x.xxxEx x.xxxEx
REFL165I: N/A     N/A
REFL165Q: N/A     N/A
AS55I:    x.xxxEx x.xxxEx
AS55Q:    x.xxxEx x.xxxEx

If you really want to resolve the TF phase difference between the I and Q  demod-signals,
you need to look at the transfer functions between the excitation and these ports.
We can't understand what is happening only from the single point measurement.

  8602   Mon May 20 18:50:22 2013 JenneUpdateLSCKiwamu's sensing matrix measurement script revived

So that I don't have to do loop compensation every time I measure a sensing matrix, I have put (back) in notches into FM10 of all the LSC filter banks, except MC2.  

MICH already had this notch, PRCL and CARM both had it, although it was mislabeled in the filter title as "Notch410" rather than the truth, which is "Notch628". 

The XARM and YARM filter banks were full, since we have not (in those filter banks) combined all of the resonant gains - 3.2Hz, 16Hz, 24Hz - into one module.  I took out a CLP3000 (  cheby1('LowPass",2,3,3000)gain(1.41254)  ) in each of those filter banks, and put in the notch.

I also have changed the band pass filters in the LSC-Lockin#_SIG filter banks to match this new drive frequency.

  8603   Tue May 21 14:48:08 2013 JenneUpdateLSCPRMI sensing matrix - not high quality data

The PRMI sensing matrix, as measured last Thursday, in a more readable format:

EDIT: DON'T Look at this yet!  I forgot to calibrate it!  Please hold.....

            PRCL          MICH        
AS55_I      1.228E-01     5.476E-03    
AS55_Q      1.547E-01     1.345E-01    
REFL11_I    9.946E+03     8.106E+01    
REFL11_Q    2.346E+03     2.707E+01    
REFL33_I    9.639E+01     8.717E-01    
REFL33_Q    9.707E-01     6.626E-02    
REFL55_I    1.040E+02     8.464E-01    
REFL55_Q    2.018E+00     5.803E-01

 

Okay, Calibrated, but forgot to include loop compensation (since notches didn't exist yet):

Sensing Matrix, units = cts/meter
 
            MICH          PRCL        
AS55_I      5.024E+08     9.418E+07    
AS55_Q      6.328E+08     2.313E+09    
REFL11_I    4.068E+13     1.394E+12    
REFL11_Q    9.594E+12     4.656E+11    
REFL33_I    3.942E+11     1.499E+10    
REFL33_Q    3.970E+09     1.140E+09    
REFL55_I    4.253E+11     1.456E+10    
REFL55_Q    8.252E+09     9.981E+09

 

  8609   Tue May 21 18:22:18 2013 JenneUpdateLSCSensing matrix scripts modified to include actuator calibration

The PRMI sensing matrix scripts have been modified to output a sensing matrix which is calibrated into units of counts/meter.

To run, you should just need to run .../scripts/LSC/runPRMI_SENS.py . 

If it looks like the drive amplitude is not large enough (no nice peak in the photodiode signals), you can increase the drive amplitude, which is line 21 in runPRMI_SENS.py  

  8611   Wed May 22 00:08:19 2013 KojiUpdateLSCSensing matrix scripts modified to include actuator calibration

It was too embarassing to see that the actuation frequency was set at the violin mode frequency in order to avoid designing a new filter!?

I ran Jenne's sensing matrix code and the immitated the same result by manual measurement with DTT.
I noticed that the PRM excitation was not transmitted to the mirror. I tracked down the cause and found that
Jenne is using 628Hz which is the notch frequency of the viloing filter.

There is no way we can measure the precise calibration of the error signal exactly at the violin mode frequency.

Nevertheless I waited for the ringdown of the violin mode to the floor level and ran the code again WITH the violin mode filter OFF
at PRM SUS.

The result was stored in the data file

sensematPRM_2013-05-22.12615.dat

The code spit the message at the end

Sensing Matrix, magnitude only, units = cts/meter
 
            MICH          PRCL         
AS55        5.304E+08     1.716E+09     
REFL11      1.732E+13     2.151E+11     
REFL33      1.616E+11     5.384E+09     
REFL55      1.681E+11     6.950E+09

Now I replicated the same measurement with DTT.

MICH or PRCL were excited with the lockin. In order to aviod the violin mode, I shifted the excitation freq by 1Hz. (i.e. 629.125Hz)

The peaks in REFL33I/Q and RFL55I/Q were observed with PSD and TF. The spectrum was measured with the FLATTOP window with the line resolution of 0.1Hz
DTT suggested that this corresponds to the BW of 0.471271Hz if I correctly understood what DTT plot said. We need this information to convert cnt/rtHz to cnt_pk
if we need. For the TF measurements, I needed to find the excitatin monitor but I could not. Therefore, I set the offset of LSC-LOCKIN1_SIG to be 1000,
so that C1:LSC-LOCKIN1_I_IN1 produce the same signal as the excitation.

Note that during the measurement, 628Hz nothces in the LSC servos were on. I confirmed that this provides the reduction of the feedback by a factor of 76.
As the original openloop gain at 629Hz is lower than the unity more than a factor of 2, this was sufficient attenuation to measure the optical gain with the systematic error of less than a %.

MICH excitation (ITMX -1, ITMY +1)
        PSD (cnt/rtHz)   TF Mag    Phase

REFL33I 0.098590         9.5691e-5 74.4344
REFL33Q 0.019294         1.8665e-5 71.1204
REFL55I 0.016123         1.3890e-5 77.3132
REFL55Q 0.157522         1.5285e-4 91.5594

PRCL excitation (PRM +1)
        PSD (cnt/rtHz)   TF Mag    Phase

REFL33I 15.7565          1.5298e-2 -109.727
REFL33Q  0.171648        1.6310e-4 -141.73
REFL55I 16.2834          1.5809e-2 -109.672
REFL55Q  0.634096        6.1012e-4 -143.169

These measurements are saved in the XML files (for DTT) in
/cvs/cds/caltech/users/koji/130521/
as
130521_MICH_EXC.xml and 130521_PRCL_EXC.xml

As the actuator of the PRM/ITMX/ITMY are {19.6, 4.70, 4.66}/f^2 nm/cnt, the optical gains were calculated from the TF measurements.

MICH excitation (ITMX -1, ITMY +1)
        OPTICAL GAIN
(cnt/m)
REFL33I 4.0e9
REFL33Q 7.9e8
REFL55I 5.9e8
REFL55Q 6.5e9

PRCL excitation (PRM +1)
        OPTICAL GAIN

REFL33I 3.1e11
REFL33Q 3.3e9
REFL55I 3.2e11
REFL55Q 1.2e10

These should be compared with the measurement by the script and we get more information from the script (like AS55, REFL11)

  8619   Wed May 22 18:07:36 2013 JenneUpdateLSCKiwamu's sensing matrix measurement script revived

 

 To avoid exciting at the PRM violin mode frequency, I have changed all of the filters relevant to the sensing matrix measurement from 628Hz to 580.1Hz.  This includes notches in the LSC control loops, as well as the band pass filters in the lockins.  I have not yet loaded the new filters, since arm locking is in progress.

 

  8621   Wed May 22 20:50:26 2013 JenneUpdateLSCSensing matrix scripts don't calculate correctly

I am trying to re-analyze the data that Koji took last night.  

I think that my script is just pulling out the I and Q data for each port, and each degree of freedom, calculating the magnitude from sqrt( I**2 + Q**2 ) and the phase from atan2( I / Q ).  No calibration.

If I print out the results, I get:

Sensing Matrix, units = cts/ct, phase in degrees
 
            MICH Mag   MICH Phase    PRCL Mag   PRCL Phase  
AS55_I      1.627E-02   62.063        4.189E-03   68.344       
AS55_Q      2.073E-02  -105.353        1.983E-02   66.361       
REFL11_I    8.165E+02  -112.624        2.441E+00   77.911       
REFL11_Q    2.712E+02  -112.650        7.065E-01  -127.093       
REFL33_I    8.028E+00  -112.154        6.282E-02   70.990
       

REFL33_Q    5.490E-02  -165.912        9.908E-03   61.269       

REFL55_I    8.347E+00  -112.085        2.146E-02   78.928       
REFL55_Q    3.003E-01  -151.652        7.924E-02   87.153
 

If, however, I take the raw values that are stored in the data file, for one row (say, REFL33_Q) and calculate by hand (same formulas), I get different results:

            MICH Mag   MICH Phase    PRCL Mag   PRCL Phase  
REFL33_Q    9.9E-03    28.89         5.46E-02   -103.8

Contrast that with Koji's uncalibrated transfer function result from elog 8611:

            MICH Mag    MICH Phase    PRCL Mag     PRCL Phase  
REFL33Q     1.8665e-5   71.1204      
1.6310e-4    -141.73

 

I am currently confused, and need to re-look at my script, as well as make sure I am actually measuring the things I think I am.

EDIT:  This has been fixed, in that my 2 calculations agree with one another.  I have crossed out the incorrect numbers, and put correct numbers below.  I still don't agree with Koji, but at least I agree with myself. 

The phase issue:  I needed to calculate the phase with "ATAN2(I,Q)", which I did when I calculated by hand, but the script had "atan2(Q,I)".  This has been fixed. 

The magnitude issue:  They match, but my "pretty print" script labels MICH as PRCL, and vice versa.  Doh.

Corrected values:

Sensing Matrix, units = cts/ct, phase in degrees
 
            PRCL Mag   PRCL Phase    MICH Mag   MICH Phase  
AS55_I      1.627E-02    27.937      4.189E-03    21.656     
AS55_Q      2.073E-02  -164.647      1.983E-02    23.639     
REFL11_I    8.165E+02  -157.376      2.441E+00    12.089     
REFL11_Q    2.712E+02  -157.350      7.065E-01  -142.907     
REFL33_I    8.028E+00  -157.846      6.282E-02    19.010     
REFL33_Q    5.490E-02  -104.088      9.908E-03    28.731     
REFL55_I    8.347E+00  -157.915      2.146E-02    11.072     
REFL55_Q    3.003E-01  -118.348      7.924E-02     2.847 

  8623   Thu May 23 00:49:13 2013 JenneUpdateLSCLSC filters loaded

Quote:

 To avoid exciting at the PRM violin mode frequency, I have changed all of the filters relevant to the sensing matrix measurement from 628Hz to 580.1Hz.  This includes notches in the LSC control loops, as well as the band pass filters in the lockins.  I have not yet loaded the new filters, since arm locking is in progress.

 I have loaded these new filters in.  Manasa is still using the IFO for green stuff, so I can try out the PRMI measurement in a day or so.  (Right now I have to make sure I understand my data, anyway.)

  8624   Thu May 23 01:27:11 2013 ManasaSummaryLSCXarm beat note search continues

Towards finding the x-arm beat note:

The green would not lock to a maximum GTRX this morning. In the course of aligning the green stably to the X arm, somewhere down the line, the input pointing got messed up (reasons unknown). To set this right, Koji tried to lock the Yarm with POY DC but it wouldn't work. The transmon for Y had to be set up temporarily and the Y arm was locked with TRY. This restored the input pointing and the arms locked with transmission TRX/TRY > 0.9 counts. The transmon path along the Y arm was then re-configured as mentioned in Annalisa's elog.

I still had trouble getting the X-green locked in TEM00 (similar situation mentioned by Jenne in elog). The arm cavity mirrors were tweaked to get the green to resonate in TEM00 but it wouldn't stay locked when the temperature of the x-end NPRO was changed. Koji helped recover missing links to filters for the ALS_X_SLOW servo from the archives. Enabling the filters helped keep the green locking stable for laser temperature changes (which corresponds to 'offset' change in ALS_X_SLOW servo screen).

PSL green alignment was checked once again and the X-end laser temperature was scanned trying to find the beatnote. RFMON from the beatbox was connected to the spectrum analyzer. I have scanned through the whole range of offset but have not been able to find the beat note yet.


The search will continue tomorrow

  8629   Thu May 23 13:14:34 2013 KojiSummaryLSCXarm beat note search continues

We should consider to hook up the temperature monitors of the NPROs to the ADCs.

  8630   Thu May 23 14:45:08 2013 JenneUpdateLSCSensing matrix scripts calculations make more sense now

I think I have most of the magnitude issues figured out now. 

First of all, the lockin outputs are different from the actual responses in the PDs by a factor of 2. 

If the optic is driven with amplitude D, it will have a response of Asin(wt) + Bcos(wt) + other frequency junk.  The lockin bandpasses the response to get rid of the 'other frequency junk'.  Then creates 2 new signals, one multiplied by cos(wt), the other multiplied by sin(wt).  So, now we have Asin^2(wt) + Bcos(wt)sin(wt) and Asin(wt)cos(wt) + Bcos^2(wt).   If I rewrite these, I have A/2*(1-cos(2wt))+B/2*(sin(2wt) and A/2*sin(2wt)+B/2*(1+cos(2wt)).  We lowpass to get rid of the 2w components, and are left with A/2 for the Q-phase, and B/2 for the I-phase of the lockin outputs.  Since the real amplitudes of the response were A for the Q-phase and B for the I-phase, we need to multiply the lockin outputs by 2.

The other problem was that in the 'uncalibrated' version of numbers that I was printing to compare with Koji's, I had not normalized by the drive amplitude yet.  That happens in the "calibration" part of my script.  So, if I go back to comparing the calibrated versions of our numbers, I get quite close to Koji's answers.

For the PRCL magnitudes, 3 of the 4 numbers match to ~5%.  However, the MICH magnitudes all seem to be off by a factor of 2.  I'm still stuck on this factor of 2, but I'm thinking about it. Also, the phases that Koji and I get are pretty different.

Koji's sensing matrix:

Sensing Matrix, units = cts/meter, phase in degrees
            PRCL Mag   PRCL Phase    MICH Mag   MICH Phase  
REFL33_I    3.100E+11  -109.727      4.900E+09    74.434     
REFL33_Q    3.300E+09  -141.730      7.900E+08    71.120     
REFL55_I    3.200E+11  -109.672      5.900E+08    77.313     
REFL55_Q    1.200E+10  -143.169      6.500E+09    91.559  

My sensing matrix:

Sensing Matrix, units = cts/meter, phase in degrees
            PRCL Mag   PRCL Phase    MICH Mag   MICH Phase  
REFL33_I    3.242E+11  -157.846      1.067E+10    19.010     
REFL33_Q    2.217E+09  -104.088      1.683E+09    28.731     
REFL55_I    3.371E+11  -157.915      3.645E+09    11.072     
REFL55_Q    1.213E+10  -118.348      1.346E+10     2.847

Here are the plotted versions of these matricies:

SensMat_KojiMeas_23May2013.png

SensMat_JenneMeas_23May2013.png

SOME EDITS:  Koji's measurement was 1Hz away from the violin mode, while mine (him running my script) was at the violin mode, so the sensor TFs were actually taken at slightly different frequencies. This helps explain the discrepancies.

Also, the phase in these plots isn't correct, so I need to figure that out. Corrected version of the 'koji' measurement put in place of the incorrect one.  I convert from radians to degrees for my script, but Koji had already reported his phases in degrees, so when I multiplied by 180/pi, it didn't make any sense. I now convert his numbers to radians before running them through my analysis script.

 

  8631   Thu May 23 17:51:39 2013 KojiSummaryLSCMy usual locking procedure

For purpose of the automation and my record, I summarized my locking procedure as a chart.

Attachment 1: PRMI_locking_procedure.pdf
PRMI_locking_procedure.pdf PRMI_locking_procedure.pdf
  8632   Thu May 23 19:09:15 2013 JenneUpdateLSCSensing matrix scripts modified to include actuator calibration

After fixing up my calculations in my scripts, I have calculated the final PRMI sensing matrix (as measured very close to the violin frequency, so things may not be perfect). The data is from the file that Koji mentioned in his elog when he did the measurement:  elog 8611, sensematPRM_2013-05-22.12615.dat

Sensing Matrix, units = cts/meter, phase in degrees
 
            PRCL Mag   PRCL Phase    MICH Mag   MICH Phase  
AS55        1.064E+09   141.880      3.442E+09    11.929     
REFL11      3.474E+13  -108.372      4.316E+11   106.143     
REFL33      3.242E+11   -90.392      1.080E+10    81.037     
REFL55      3.373E+11   -92.060      1.394E+10    15.153 

SensMat_21May2013.png

In the plot, the little blobs on the ends of the 'sticks' are the error blobs.  Many of them are smaller than is really visible - this is good.  These errors come from measuring the lockin outputs several times while there is no drive to any optics, then the errors are propagated to each degree of freedom.  These errors do not incorporate any information about the precision of the actuator calibration, and they assume that the shape of all the sensor transfer functions are the same. 

If you look at the REFL11 and REFL33, it kind of seems like a miracle that we've ever been able to lock the full PRMI with the I&Q signals from either PD!

  8633   Thu May 23 20:39:50 2013 JenneUpdateLSCPRMI sensing matrix measured at 580.1Hz

I locked the PRMI and remeasured the sensing matrix, this time at 580Hz.  The excellent news here is that the matrix looks quite similar to the one measured the other day, recorded in elog 8632.  Yay!  I'm not sure why the REFL11 MICH error is so much larger this time around.

Raw data:  .../scripts/LSC/SensMatData/sensematPRM_2013-05-23.202312.dat

Sensing Matrix, units = cts/meter, phase in degrees
 
            PRCL Mag   PRCL Phase    MICH Mag   MICH Phase  
AS55        5.485E+08   162.424      2.679E+09    25.608     
REFL11      1.126E+13  -122.832      1.618E+11    85.296     
REFL33      2.658E+11   -87.973      8.910E+09    79.226     
REFL55      3.012E+11   -99.534      1.210E+10    12.486 

     SensMat_23May2013.png

  8635   Thu May 23 21:45:51 2013 JenneUpdateLSCSensing matrix scripts now check for lockloss

A few more small mods to the sensing matrix script.  Now the script saves the data after each measurement, so that in case you lose lock and can't measure any more, you still have the data you already measured.  Also, the error bar measurements are last, so that the consequence of losing lock partway through the measurement is just that you get fewer error bar numbers.  Not a big deal, since the actual sensing matrix data is already saved.

Also, the old script had a lockloss checker that I had overridden since it wasn't where I wanted it.  I have now re-implemented it, so that the script will stop the oscillation and quit measuring if either the LSC enable switch is off, or the degrees of freedom you're trying to measure are not triggered.  All data saved before the lockloss is saved though (as mentioned above).

  8636   Thu May 23 22:13:12 2013 KojiUpdateLSCPRMI sensing matrix measured at 580.1Hz

Can you clarify the definition of the phase "0deg" of your plot?

Is "I" the definition of "0deg"? Or does the demod phase of "0deg" define "0deg"?

I want to know if the demod phase of REFL55 is correctly adjusted or not.

With the decent level of the separation, we should be able to keep the decent lock of PRMI with REFL55.

ELOG V3.1.3-