40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 167 of 341  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Category Subjectup
  1471   Fri Apr 10 19:09:48 2009 JenneUpdatePSLPMC LO Calibration
I measured the RF LO output level from the PMC's LO board which goes directly into the LO input on the PMC Servo board. This goes hand-in-hand with Rana's thoughts
that we might be giving the PMC mixer a too-low LO value, and we might need to switch out the mixer. Steve ordered some new mixers today to try out.

The RF Output Adjust slider (on the C1:PSL_PMC_PS screen) goes from 0-10V; The nominal value (or at least the value I found it at today) is 2.014V.

To measure the RF level: I unlocked the Mode Cleaner and turned off the ISS servo per Yoichi's suggestion. I then unplugged the input to the PMC servo board's LO input,
and put that cable into a 300MHz 'scope, with 12dB attenuation. The 'scope was AC coupled, with the input set to 50Ohms.

I then changed the RF Output Adjust slider in increments of 0.5, and measured the peak-to-peak values on the scope. In the table and on the plots, I've taken into account
the 12dB attenuation. i.e I actually measured 964mV, so 964mV*10^.6 = 3838mV.

RF Output AdjustOutput measured on scopeOscillator Output Monitor
[no units given on MEDM screen]
All \pm 0.0159 all of this column is NEGATIVE

I think it's kind of funky that it's so flat for ~half the slider. Also, the third column includes the Oscillator Output Monitor value from the MEDM screen at various RF Adjust slider values. All of these should be negative (i.e. -0.007), but the TABLE function doesn't like "-" signs. I don't know if this information is degenerate with the 'scope measurements, or if it's an indicator of what (might be) wrong.

After finishing, I plugged the cable back into the PMC servo board as it was, turned back on the ISS and relocked the PMC and the MC.
Attachment 1: RFSliderAdjustCalib.png
Attachment 2: RFSliderAdjustCalibWithOsc.png
  1473   Sat Apr 11 00:45:41 2009 YoichiUpdatePSLPMC LO Calibration


I then changed the RF Output Adjust slider in increments of 0.5, and measured the peak-to-peak values on the scope. In the table and on the plots, I've taken into account the 12dB attenuation. i.e I actually measured 964mV, so 964mV*10^.6 = 3838mV.

3.8Vpp is about 16dBm.
The mixer for the PMC demodulator is level 23. So 16dBm is insufficient.
What is the level of the new mixer Steve ordered ? 13 ?
  1475   Sun Apr 12 19:27:20 2009 ranaUpdatePSLPMC LO Calibration


3.8Vpp is about 16dBm.
The mixer for the PMC demodulator is level 23. So 16dBm is insufficient.
What is the level of the new mixer Steve ordered ? 13 ?

Since Steve and Jenne were on it, I'm sure they ordered the optimum values...

From the table, it looks like the drive level adjuster is busted. Its not supposed to just give a
1-2 dB change over the full range. We'll have to think about what exactly to do, but we should
probably install the level 13 mixer and put in the right attenuation to make the LO be ~13.5 dBm
including the filter. Also need to calibrate the LO readback on the board like what Peter did for
the FSS.
  1478   Mon Apr 13 17:55:37 2009 JenneUpdatePSLPMC LO Mon Calibration

I have calibrated the PMC LO Mon (C1:PSL-PMC_LODET) on the PMC's EPICS screen, by inputting different RF LO levels into the LO input of the PMC servo board.


Since the RF output adjust slider on the PMC's Phase Shifter screen doesn't do a whole lot (see elog 1471), I used a combination of attenuators and the slider to achieve different LO levels. I measured the level of the attenuated RF out of the LO board using the 4395A in spectrum analyzer mode, with the units in dBm, with 50dB attenuation to make it stop complaining about being overloaded.  For each row in the table I measured the RF level using the 4395, then plugged the cable back into the PMC servo board to get the EPICS screen's reading.

The last 2 columns of the table below are the 'settings' I used to get the given RF LO level. 

RF LO Input to PMC Servo Board [dBm] LO Mon on EPICS Screen [no units] RF Output Adjust Slider [V] Attenuators used [dB]
16.004 +- 0.008 0.1200 +- 0.0003 0 0
15.001 +- 0.004 0.0708 +- 0.0008 0 1
14.079 +- 0.008 0.0318 +- 0.0001 8 1
13.002 +- 0.006 0.0126 +- 0.0004 0 3
11.992 +- 0.010 0.0024 +- 0.0008 0 4
10.994 +- 0.010 -0.0024 +- 0.0003 0 4+1=5
9.993 +- 0.008 -0.0047 +- 0.0007 0 3+3=6


When the new mixers that Steve ordered come in (tomorrow hopefully), I'll put in a Level 13 mixer in place of the current Level 23 mixer that we have.  Also, Rana suggested increasing the gain on the op-amp which is read out as the LO Mon so that 13dBm looks like 1V.  To do this, it looks like I'll need to increase the gain by ~80.  

Attachment 1: LOmonCalibration.png
  11763   Fri Nov 13 22:32:54 2015 KojiSummaryPSLPMC LO degraded, usual ERA-5 replacement, LO recovered

[Yutaro, Koji]

We found that the PMC LO level was fluctuating in a strage way (it was not stable but had many clitches like an exponential decay), we suspected the infamous PMC LO level decay. In fact, in June 2014 when Rana recalibrated the LO level,  the number on the medm screen (C1:PSL-PMC_LO_CALC) was about 11dBm. However, today it was about 6dBm. So we decided to jump in to the 1X1 rack.

The LO and PC outputs of the PMC Crystal module (D980353) were measured to be 6.2dBm and 13.3dBm. Rana reported in ELOG 10160 that it was measured to be 11.5dBm. So apparently the LO level decayed. Unfortunately, there was no record of the PC output level. In any case, we decided to pull the module for the replacement of ERA-5 chips.

Once we opened the box we found that the board was covered by some greasy material. The ERA-5 chip on the LO chain seemed unreasonably brittle. It was destryed during desoldering. We also replaced the ERA-5 chip in the PC chain, just in case. The board was cleaned by the defluxing liquids.

Taking an advatage of this chance, the SMA  cables around the PMC were checked. By removing some of the heat shrinks, suspicious broken shields of the connectors were found. We provided additional solder to repair them.

After the repair, the LO and PC output levels became icreased to 17.0dBm(!) and 13.8dBm, respectively. (Victory)
This LO level is way too much compared to Rana's value. The MEDM LO power adj has little effect and the adj range was 16dBm~17dBm. Therefore we moved the slider to 10, which yields 16dBm out, and added a 5dB attenuator. The measured LO level after the attenuator was measured to be 11.2dBm.

Locking of the PMC was tried and immediately acquired the lock. However, we noticed that the nomoinal gain of 10dB cause the oscillation of the servo. As we already adjusted the LO level to recover the nominal value, we suspeced that the modulation depth could be larger than before. We left the gain at 0dB that doesn't cause the oscillation. It should be noted that the demodulation phase and the openloop gain were optimized. This should be done in the day time as soon as possible.

When the PMC LO repair was completed, the transmission of the PMC got decreased to 0.700V. The input alignment has been adjusted and the transmission level of 0.739V has been recovered.

The IMC lock stretch is not stable as before yet. Therefore, there would still be the issue somewhere else.

Attachment 1: PMC_LO.png
Attachment 2: IMG_2093.JPG
Attachment 3: IMG_2091.JPG
Attachment 4: IMG_2095.JPG
Attachment 5: IMG_2096.JPG
  11765   Sun Nov 15 22:43:48 2015 KojiSummaryPSLPMC LO degraded, usual ERA-5 replacement, LO recovered

I think the IMC locking was somewhat improved. Still it is not solid as long time before.

Before the PMC fix (attachment 1)
After the PMC fix (attachment 2)

To do
- PMC loop inspection / phase check / spectral measurements
- PMC / IMC interaction
- IMC loop check

Attachment 1: C1-MULTI_E6875C_TIMESERIES-1131408017-86400.png
Attachment 2: C1-MULTI_E6875C_TIMESERIES-1131580817-86400.png
  11560   Wed Sep 2 23:50:00 2015 ranaUpdatePSLPMC LO dying

Let's order a pair of 35.5 MHz Wenzel for this guy and package like Rich has done for the WB low noise oscillators.

WE're only sending 6 dBm into it now and its using a 13 dBm mixer. Bad for PMC stability.

Also, if anyone has pix of the servo card, please add them to the DCC page for the PMC.

Attachment 1: PMCLO.png
  9381   Thu Nov 14 00:33:37 2013 ranaConfigurationPSLPMC LO is dying...

Back in 2009, Jenne replaced the PMC board mixer with a Level 13 one. Today I noticed that the LO level on the PMC screen was showing a LO level of ~5-10 dBm and fluctuating a lot. I think that it is related to the well known failure of the Mini-Circuits ERA-5SM amplifier which is on the D000419-A schematic (PMC Frequency Reference Card). The Hanford one was dying for 12 years and we found it in late 2008. If we don't have any in the blue bin, we should ask Steve to order 10 of them.

The attached trend shows 2000 days of hour trend of the PMC LODET channel. The big break in 2009 is when Jenne changed the mixer and then attenuated the input by 3 dB. The slow decay since then is the dying amplifier I guess.

Since the LOCALC channel was not in the trend, I added it to the C0EDCU file tonight and restarted the FB DAQD process. Its now in the dataviewer list.

I went out and took out the 3 dB attenuator between the LO card and the PMC Mixer. The LO monitor now reads 14.9 dBm (??!!). The SRA-3MH mixer data sheet claims that the mixer works fine with an LO between 10 and 16 dBm, so I'll leave it as is. After we get the ERA-5, lets fix the LODET monitor by upping its gain and recalibrating the channel.

Attachment 1: Untitled.png
  10167   Wed Jul 9 19:53:34 2014 ranaUpdatePSLPMC LO monitor trend (5 years)


The first step is

The second uptick (In Nov 14, 2013) is when I removed a 3 dB attenuator from the LO line. Don't know why the decay accelerates after that.

  15106   Fri Dec 27 16:26:11 2019 YehonathanUpdatePSLPMC Linewidth measurement

I try to measure the linewidth of the PMC by ramping the PMC PZT. 

I do it by connecting a triangular shape signal to FP Test 1 on the PMC servo front panel (I know, it is probably better to connect it to DC EXT. next time.) and turn the servo gain to a minimum.

Attachment 1 shows the PMC transmission PD as the PZT is swept with the EOM connected and when it is disconnected. It shows the PMC over more than 1 free spectral range.

For some reason, I cannot seem to be able to find the 35MHz sidebands which I want to use to calibrate the PZT scan. I made sure that the EOM is driven by a 35MHz signal using the scope. I also made sure that the PMC cannot to lock without the EOM connected.

I am probably doing something silly.

Attachment 1: PMCTransmissionSpectra.pdf
  15109   Wed Jan 1 14:14:00 2020 YehonathanUpdatePSLPMC Linewidth measurement

Turns out the 35MHz sidebands are way too weak to resolve from the resonance when doing a PZT scan.

I connect the IFR2023B function generator on the PSL table to the EOM instead of the FSS box and set it to generate 150MHz at 13dbm.

To observe the resulting weak sideband I place a PDA55 at the peak-off path from the transmission of the PMC where there is much more light than the transmission of the PMC head mirror. Whoever is using this path there is a PD blocking it right now.

I do a PZT scan by connecting a triangular signal to the EXT DC on the PMC servo with and without the EOM (Attachment 1). A weak sideband can clearly be spotted now.

Using the above 150MHz sideband calibration I can find the roundtrip time to be 1.55ns.

I take a high-resolution scan of a resonance peak and fit it to a Lorentzian (Attachment 2) and find a roundtrip loss of 1.3%.

Using the above results the cavity decay time is 119ns.

We should investigate what's going on with the ringdown measurements.

Attachment 1: 150MHzSideBandCreation.pdf
Attachment 2: LinewidthMeasurment.pdf
  15126   Wed Jan 15 15:04:31 2020 gautamUpdatePSLPMC Linewidth measurement

For the ringdowns, I suggest you replicate the setup I had - infrastructurally, this was quite robust, and the main problem I had was that I couldn't extinguish the beam completely. Now that we have the 1st order beam, it should be easy.

  13488   Mon Dec 18 20:37:18 2017 gautamUpdatePSLPMC MEDM cleanup

There are fewer lies on this screen now. For reference, the details of the electronics modifications made are in this elog.

  1. Error and control signals are now in units of nm, the appropriate filter switches have been SDF'ed.
  2. I think it's useful to see the control voltage to the PZT in volts as well, so I've made two readbacks available at the control point, one in V and one in nm.
  3. Indicated that the on-board LO mon readback, which reads "nan", is no longer meaningful, as the mixer is off the demod board.
  4. Indicated that the PMC Trans readback of "0" is because of a dead ADC.

I think many of the readbacks on the PMC MEDM screen are now bogus and misleading since the PMC RF upgrade that Gautam did awhile ago. We ought to fix the screen and clearly label which readbacks and actuators are no longer valid.


Attachment 1: PMC_revamped.png
  1837   Wed Aug 5 15:57:05 2009 AlbertoConfigurationComputersPMC MEDM screen changed

I added a clock to the PMC medm screen.

I made a backup of the original file in the same directory and named it *.bk20090805

  497   Sun May 25 20:30:25 2008 ranaSummaryPSLPMC Mode Matching
I checked the PMC mode matching by ramping the gain down to -10 dB (from +20 dB) and
moving the DC offset around until it caught lock on the different HOMs. Then I recorded
the output power (PMCTRANSPD). The DC offset on this EPICS channel was -0.013 V, so I
used its AOFF field to zero this out. Here is a list of the power in the largest modes:
Mode    Power (V)
----    ---------
00        2.7
10        0.2
04        0.04
02        0.02
BE        0.36      **Bull's Eye mode is TEM02 + TEM20. This can be fixed by lens adjustment.

N.B. To make a PNG file with DTT, just make an EPS file -- then use the eps2png perl script.
Attachment 1: pmc.png
  1883   Mon Aug 10 20:49:13 2009 Alberto, RanaUpdatePSLPMC Mode Matching Lenses Tuning

Rana, Alberto

This afternoon we tried to improve the mode matching of the beam to the PMC. To do that we tuned the positions of the two lenses on the PSL table that come before the PMC.

We moved the first lens back an forth the without noticing any improvement on the PMC transmitted and reflected power. Then we moved the first backwards by about one cm (the order is set according to how the beam propagates). That made the things worse so we moved also the second lens in the same direction so that the distance in between the two didn't change significantly. After that, and some more adjustments on the steering mirrors all we could gain was about 0.2V on the PMC transmission.

We suspect that after the problems with the laser chiller of two months ago, the beam size changed and so the mode matching optics is not adequate anymore.

We have to replace the mode matching lenses with other ones.


  12944   Tue Apr 18 01:01:03 2017 gautamUpdatePSLPMC OLTF measured, DAQ channels calibrated

Quick entry, details to follow in the AM tomorrow.

  • I calibrated the PMC DAQ channels into physical units - there now exists in the filter modules  cts2m and cts2Hz filter modules, though of course only one must be used at a time
  • Finally measured the PMC OLTF, after moving the PMC PDH error signal demodulation off the servo board - I used the same procedure as Koji when he made the modifications to the PMC servo board, I will put up the algebra here tomorrow. Turns out the previously nominal servo gain of +10dB on the MEDM sliders was a little low, the new nominal gain is +20dB, and has been updated on the MEDM screen.


  • Put up the modified schematic on the 40m DCC tree Done April 18 10pm
  • Check calibration by comparing inferred PMC cavity displacement from error point and control point spectra, using the measured OLTF
  • Finish up looking at multicoherence with MCL and various witness channel combinations


Attachment 1: PMCspectra_calibrated.pdf
  12945   Tue Apr 18 16:10:00 2017 gautamUpdatePSLPMC OLTF measured, DAQ channels calibrated

Here are the details:

  1. PMC OLTF:
    • the procedure used was identical to what Koji describes in this entry.
    • I used the SR785 to take the measurement.
    • MEDM gain slider was at +20dB 
    • I used the two single pin LEMO front panel monitor points to make the measurement. 
    • Mix_out_mon was CH2A, HV_out_mon was CH1A on the SR785
    • A = CH2A/CH1A with the SR785 excitation applied to the EXT_DC single pin LEMO input on the front panel. I used an excitation amplitude of 15mV
    • B = CH2A/CH1A without any excitation
    • Couple of lines of loop algebra tells us that the OLTF is given by the ratio A/B. The plot below lines up fairly well with what Koji measured here, UGF is ~3.3kHz with a phase margin of ~60degrees, and comparable gain margin at ~28kHz. As noted by Koji, the feature at ~8kHz prevents further increase of the servo gain. I've updated the nominal gain on the PMC MEDM screen accordingly... I couldn't figure out how to easily extract Koji's modelled OLTF so I didn't overlay that here... Overlaid is the model OLTF. No great care was taken in analyzing the goodness of the agreement with the model and measurement by looking at residuals etc, except that the feature that was previously at 28.8kHz now seems to have migrated to about 33.5 kHz. I'm not sure what to make of that. 
  2. PMC DAQ calibration:
    • The calibration was done using the swept cavity, the procedure is basically the same as described by Koji in this elog.
    • The procedure was slightly complicated by the fact that I added gain to the AD620 buffers that provide the DAQ signals. So simply sweeping the cavity saturates the AD620 very quickly.
    • To workaround this, I first hooked up the un-amplified single pin LEMO front panel monitor points to the DAQ channels using some of the available BNC-LEMO patch cables.
    • I then did the swept cavity measurement, and recorded the error and control signals fron the single pin LEMO front panel monitor points. Sweep signal was applied to EXT_DC input on front panel.
    • In the nominal DAQ setup however, we have the amplification on the AD620. I measured this amplification factor by hooking up the single pin LEMO monitor point, along with its corresponding AD620 amplified counterpart, to an SR785 and measuring the transfer function. For the PMC_ERR channel, the AD620 gain is ~53.7dB (i.e. approx 484x). For the PMC_CTRL channel, the AD620 gain is ~33.6dB (i.e. approx 48x). These numbers match up well with what I would expect given the resistors I installed on the PMC board between pins 1 and 8 of the AD620. These gains are digitally undone in the corresponding filter modules, FM1.
    • To calibrate the time axis into frequency, I located the zero crossings of the sidebands and equated the interval to 2 x fmod. For the PMC servo, fmod = 35.5MHz. I used ~1Hz triangle wave, 2Vpp to do the sweep. The resulting slope was 1.7026 GHz/s.
    • The linear part of the PDH error signal for the carrier resonance was fitted with a line. It had a slope of 1.5*10^6 cts/s.
    • The round trip length of the PMC cavity was assumed to be 0.4095m as per Koji's previous entry. This allows us to calibrate the swept cavity motion from Hz to m. The number is 1.4534 * 10^-15 m/Hz. I guess we could confirm this by sweeping the cavity with the DC bias slider through the full range of 0-250V, but we only have a slow readback of the PMC reflection (and no readback of the PMC transmission).
    • Putting the last three numbers together, I get the PMC_ERR signal calibration as 1.6496 pm/ct. This is the number in the "cts2m" filter module (FM10).
    • An analogous procedure was done to calibrate the control signal slope: from the sweep, I got 4617 cts/s, which corresponds to 2.7117*10^-6 cts/Hz. Using the FSR to convert into cts/m, I get for PMC_CTRL, 535.96 pm/ct. This is the number in the "cts2m" filter module (FM10).
    • For convenience, I also added "cts2Hz" calibration filters in FM9 in the corresponding filter modules. 

The updated schematic with changes made, along with some pictures, have been uploaded to the DCC page...


Quick entry, details to follow in the AM tomorrow.​


Attachment 1: PMC_OLTF_170418.pdf
  12946   Tue Apr 18 23:37:15 2017 ranaUpdatePSLPMC OLTF measured, DAQ channels calibrated

What's the reasoning behind setting the the gain to this new value? i.e. why do these 'margins' determine what the gain should be?

  1049   Wed Oct 15 17:40:50 2008 ranaUpdatePSLPMC Offset adjusted
I set the PMC servo input offset: closed the MOPA shutter, zeroed the mixer output with the offset slider,
relocked everything, and set the nominal to the new value of -6 V.
  924   Thu Sep 4 14:43:58 2008 JenneUpdatePSLPMC Open Loop Gain
I have measured the PMC's open loop gain. UGF is 629.7Hz, with a phase margin of 53 degrees.

I injected into FP2 on the front panel, and measured MixOut/Source from 100Hz to 100kHz using the SR785. I did this both when the loop was open, and when the loop was closed (open the loop by enabling FP1, which breaks the loop).

We have 2 transfer functions involved: The actual open loop gain of the PMC servo loop (G1), and the gain between FP2 and the MixerOut monitor point (G2). This gives us:

TF(closed loop) = G2*(1+G1)
TF(broken loop) = G2

G1 = TF(closed)/TF(broken) - 1

This G1 is the final open loop gain, and it is plotted below.
Attachment 1: OpenLoopTF04Sept2008.png
  11781   Wed Nov 18 16:53:17 2015 KojiSummaryPSLPMC PZT capacitance

The PMC PZT capacitance was measured.
- Turn off the HV supplies. Disconnect HV OUT cable.
- Make sure the cable is discharged.
- Measure the capacity at the cable end with an impedance meter.
=> The PMC PZT capacitance at the cable end was measured to be 222nF
Combined with the output impedance of 63.3kOhm, the LPF pole is at 11.3Hz

  699   Fri Jul 18 19:41:09 2008 YoichiUpdatePSLPMC PZT investigation
I measured the HV coming to the PMC PZT by plugging it off from the PZT and hooking it up to a DVM.
The reading of DVM is pretty much consistent with the reading on EPICS. I got 287V on the DVM when the EPICS says 290V.

Then I used a T to monitor the same voltage while it is connected to the PZT. I attached a plot of the actual voltage measured by the DVM vs the EPICS reading.
It shows a hysteresis.
Also the actual voltage drops by more than a half when the PZT is connected. The output impedance of the HV amp is 64k (according to the schematic). If I believe this number, the impedance of the PZT should also be 64k. The current flowing the PZT is 1.6mA at 200V EPICS reading.
The impedance of the PZT directly measured by the DVM is 1.5M ohm, which is significantly different from the value expected above. I will check the actual output impedance of the HV amp later.
The capacitance of the PZT measured by the DVM is 300nF. I don't know if I can believe the DVM's ability to measure C.

I noticed that when a high voltage is applied, the actual voltage across the PZT shows a decay.
The second plot shows the step response of the actual voltage.
The voltage coming to the PZT was T-ed and reduced by a factor of 30 using a high impedance voltage divider to be recorded by an ADC.
The PMCTRANSPD channel is temporarily used to monitor this signal.
After the voltage applied to the PZT was increased abruptly (to ~230V), the actual voltage starts to exponentially decrease.
When the HV was reduced to ~30V, the actual voltage goes up. This behavior explains the weird exponential motion of the PZT feedback signal when the PMC is locked.
The cause of the actual voltage drop is not understood yet.
From the above measurements, we can almost certainly conclude that the problem of the PMC is in the PZT, not in the HV amp nor the read back.
Attachment 1: Hysteresis.png
Attachment 2: StepResponse.png
  701   Fri Jul 18 23:24:24 2008 robUpdatePSLPMC PZT investigation

I measured the HV coming to the PMC PZT by plugging it off from the PZT and hooking it up to a DVM.
The reading of DVM is pretty much consistent with the reading on EPICS. I got 287V on the DVM when the EPICS says 290V.

Then I used a T to monitor the same voltage while it is connected to the PZT. I attached a plot of the actual voltage measured by the DVM vs the EPICS reading.
It shows a hysteresis.
Also the actual voltage drops by more than a half when the PZT is connected. The output impedance of the HV amp is 64k (according to the schematic). If I believe this number, the impedance of the PZT should also be 64k. The current flowing the PZT is 1.6mA at 200V EPICS reading.
The impedance of the PZT directly measured by the DVM is 1.5M ohm, which is significantly different from the value expected above. I will check the actual output impedance of the HV amp later.
The capacitance of the PZT measured by the DVM is 300nF. I don't know if I can believe the DVM's ability to measure C.

I noticed that when a high voltage is applied, the actual voltage across the PZT shows a decay.
The second plot shows the step response of the actual voltage.
The voltage coming to the PZT was T-ed and reduced by a factor of 30 using a high impedance voltage divider to be recorded by an ADC.
The PMCTRANSPD channel is temporarily used to monitor this signal.
After the voltage applied to the PZT was increased abruptly (to ~230V), the actual voltage starts to exponentially decrease.
When the HV was reduced to ~30V, the actual voltage goes up. This behavior explains the weird exponential motion of the PZT feedback signal when the PMC is locked.
The cause of the actual voltage drop is not understood yet.
From the above measurements, we can almost certainly conclude that the problem of the PMC is in the PZT, not in the HV amp nor the read back.

I'd believe the Fluke's measurement of capacitance. Here's some info from PK about the PZT:


But the PMC ones were something like
0.750 in. thick x 0.287 in. thick. 2 microns per 200 V displacement,
resonant frequency greater than 65 kHz. Typical capacitance is around 0.66

If the PZT capacitance has dropped by a factor of two, that seems like a bad sign. I don't know what to expect for a resistance value of the PZT, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's non-Ohmic. The 64k is the series resistor after the PA85, not the modeled resistance of the PZT itself.
  702   Sat Jul 19 19:39:44 2008 robUpdatePSLPMC PZT investigation


The 64k is the series resistor after the PA85, not the modeled resistance of the PZT itself.

Yes. What I meant was that because the measured voltage across the PZT was a half of the open voltage of the HV amp, the DC impedance of the PZT is expected to be similar to the output impedance of the HV amp. Of course, I don't think the DC impedance of a normal PZT should be such low.
I'm puzzled by the discrepancy between this expected DC impedance and the directly measured impedance by the Fluke DVM (1.5M Ohm).
One possibility is that the PZT leaks current only when a high voltage is applied.
  749   Mon Jul 28 17:44:07 2008 ranaUpdatePSLPMC PZT v. temperature
This plot shows that the PMC PZT has ~20 Vpp fluctuations on a 24 hour timescale
which is correlated to the 24 hour temperature fluctuations. By contrast, the MZ
has ~75 Vpp
Attachment 1: Untitled.pdf
  15138   Wed Jan 22 11:00:21 2020 gautamUpdatePSLPMC REFL ghost beam

I looked into this a little more today.

  1. The steering optic used to route PMC REFL to the RFPD is in fact a window (labelled W1-PW-1025-UV-1064-45P), not a High-T beamsplitter.
  2. With the PMC unlocked, I measured ~10.70 mW in the stronger of the two beams, 5.39 mW in the weaker one. 
    • The window spec is Tp > 97%. Since we have ~1.3 W incident on the PMC, the primary reflection corresponds to T=99.2%, which is consistent with the spec.
    • There is no spec given for the coating on the back side of this window. But from the measured values, it seems to be R = 100* 5.39e-3 / (1.3*T^2) ~ 0.4%. Seems reasonable.

Currently, the iris is set up such that the stronger beam makes it to the PMC RFPD, while the weaker one is blocked by the iris. As usual, this isn't a new issue - was noted last in 2014, but who knows whether the new window was intalled...


Today I noticed that the beam reflected from the PMC into the RFPD has a ghost (attachment) due to reflection from the back of the high transmission beam splitter that stirs the beam into the RFPD.

  15147   Thu Jan 23 18:52:31 2020 gautamUpdatePSLPMC RFPD characterization


The RF transimpedance of the PMC PDH RFPD was measured, and found to be 1.03 kV/A


With the new fiber coupled PDFR system, it was very easy to measure the response of this PD in-situ 🎉 . The usual transfer function measurement scheme was used, with the AG4395 RF out modulating the pump current of the diode laser, and the measured transfer function being the ratio of the response of the test PD to the reference PD.

I assume that the amount of light incident on the reference NF1611 photodiode and the test photodiode were equal - I don't know what the DC transimpedance of the PMC REFL photodiode is (can't find a schematic), but the DC voltage at the DC monitor point was 16.4 mV (c.f. -2.04 V for the NF1611). The assumption shouldn't be too crazy because assuming the reference PD has an RF transimpedance of 700 V/A (flat in the frequency range scanned), we get a reasonable shape for the PMC REFL photodiode's transimpedance.

The fitted parameters are overlaid in Attachment #1. The 2f notch is slightly mistuned it would appear, the ratio of transimpedance at f1/2*f1 is only ~10. The source files have been uploaded to the wiki.

Knowing this, the measured PDH discriminant of 0.064 GV/m is quite reasonable:

  • expected optical gain from modulation depth assuming a critically coupled cavity is 0.089 GW/m.
  • Assume 0.7 A/W responsivity for InGaAs.
  • Account for the fact that only 0.8 % of the reflected light reaches the PMC photodiode because of the pickoff window.
  • Account for a conversion loss of 4.5 dB in the mixer.
  • Account for the voltage division by a factor of 2 at the output of the BLP-1.9 filter due to the parallel 50 ohm termination.
  • Then, the expected PDH discriminant is 0.089e9 W/m * 0.7 A/W * 0.8e-2 * 1.03kV/A * 10^(-4.5/20) * 0.5 ~ 0.15 GV/m. This is now within a factor of ~2 of the measured value, and I assume the total errors in all the above assumed parameters (plus the cable transmission loss from the photodiode to the 1X1 rack) can easily add up to this. 

So why is this value so different from what Koji measured in 2015? Because the monitor point is different. I am monitoring the discriminant immediately after the mixer, whereas Koji was using the front panel monitor. The latter already amplifies the signal by a factor of x101 (see U2 in schematic). 


I still haven't found anything that is obviously wrong in this system (apart from the slight nonlinearity in the VGA stage gain steps), which would explain why the PMC servo gain has to be lower now than 2018 in order to realize the same loop UGF.

So the next step is to characterize the RF transimpedance of the PMC RFPD.

Attachment 1: PDresp.pdf
  7337   Tue Sep 4 13:50:26 2012 ericqUpdatePSLPMC Realigned, power adjusted

 I adjusted the PMC alignment this morning, brought the transmission up to 0.83V.

After the lunch meeting, we found the the MC transmission was higher than recently seen. Turned out the HWP had drifted, causing 30mW to be input to the MC. I adjusted it back down to 20mW. 

  3951   Thu Nov 18 23:45:18 2010 ranaConfigurationPSLPMC Refl Cam

Valera and Haixing and I installed a PMC REFL camera today. We stole the camera control box from the MC2 trans area (because I don't know why we need a camera there).

We installed it such that it is looking at the leak through of the last turning mirror before the PMC REFL RFPD. This beam was previously going into a Thorlabs razor blade dump.

There is no steering mirror to align into this camera; we just positioned the camera such that the REFL beam fills up the monitor. WE cable tied the cable to the table and the

output of the camera control box is piped into the control room correctly as PMCR. The "IMCR" quadrant is actually the PMCT beam. JoonHo is going to fix this promptly.

Also, I noticed how beautiful  the MC2 Simulink diagram is so I post it here for your viewing pleasure. We should take this as a reference and not produce any new diagrams which are less useful or beautiful or easy to understand.

Attachment 1: mc2_simulink.png
  772   Wed Jul 30 16:35:56 2008 EricUpdatePSLPMC Scan Graphs
Graphs of the PMC scan data that I got earlier today.

PMCLongScanWide.tiff shows the transmission intensity and PZT voltage plotted against time for a longer scan of the PMC (~120 seconds for one sweep).

PMCLongScanPeak.tiff is the same scan zoomed in on the primary peak. This scan was done with the laser power at around 1/3 its original value. However, scans done at around 1/6 the original value have peaks that are just as messy.

PMCShortScanWide.tiff shows the intensity and voltage for a more rapid scan (~30 second for one sweep). The black lines show how the peak positions are at very different PZT voltages (a difference of ~10 volts in both cases).

PMCShortScanPeak.tiff is zoomed in on the primary peak. The peak is much cleaner than for the long scan (less time for the laser's heat to expand the mirror?), though it is likely still too messy to reliably fit to a lorentzian.
Attachment 1: PMCLongScanPeak.tiff
Attachment 2: PMCLongScanWide.tiff
Attachment 3: PMCShortScanPeak.tiff
Attachment 4: PMCShortScanWide.tiff
  775   Thu Jul 31 10:27:17 2008 ranaUpdatePSLPMC Scan Graphs

Graphs of the PMC scan data that I got earlier today.

On the UNIX computers, one can use 'convert' to change these to PNG. A DC offset should be added to the transmitted
light so that the scan can be plotted with a log y-scale. And, of course, Acrobat can be used to make it into a
single PDF file.

The PMC scan always has this distortion and so the input power has to be decreased to a few mW to reduce the
thermal expansion effect; the expansion coefficient for SiO2 is ~5 x 10^-7 / K and we're worried about nm level
  892   Wed Aug 27 13:55:43 2008 rana,jenneUpdatePSLPMC Servo Board
Board is back in. PMC is locked.

Nominal gain is now 15 dB with brick. We need to do more studies:

  • Find out why there is still 35 MHz signal at the error point. Order some low pass filters to cut off above 35 MHz.
  • Explore brick + no-brick loop shapes and error spectra.
  • Measure and set the OLG.

We've left the copper-wrapped lead brick installed to let it slowly conform to the glass better.
  895   Fri Aug 29 02:40:43 2008 rana,jenneUpdatePSLPMC Servo Board

Board is back in. PMC is locked.

This entry has details about the low pass filter after the PMC mixer. This filter has a few purposes:

1] Remove the beat signal (at 2*f_mod) between the PD RF signal at f_mod and the LO signal at f_mod.
2] Remove the beat signal (at f_mod) between the PD RF signal at 2*f_mod (which comes from the
beating of the upper and lower RF sidebands) and the LO signal at f_mod.
3] Remove other RF signals from non-ideal behavior of the LO drive signal and distortion in the RF PD pre-amp.

So its important to have a very good rejection at 35 MHz and higher. I used the Hartmut LC network design which is
installed on H1, H2, & L1. Since there is a high gain in the audio amps right after the mixer we have to get rid of
the RF or else we'll get slew rate limited or otherwise rectified downconversion of the RF signal into our audio band.

Of course, what everyone immediately realizes from the above 3 points, is that this filter can't protect the PMC
noise performance from homodyne mixing (e.g. 2*f_mod in the LO and 2*f_mod in the RF PD). To get around that, we're
ordering some filters from Mini-Circuits to remove the 2f from those signals by ~30 dB. As long as we install
the same filters on the RF and LO legs, there should be no significant phase shift in the demodulated signal.

The attached 2 page PDF shows the calculated before and after TFs of this filter. The 2 attached .m files
calculate the TF's and have ascii art which shows how the filter works.

Here's a comparison of the attenuation (in dB) of 2 candidate Mini-circuits filters:

31 0.5 0.4
35 1.3 0.4
38 6.1 0.4
40 10.8 0.42
61 46.3 14.8
71 60 29
91 76.9 48
10780 60

We don't have tabulated data at the same frequencies for both filters so I just made up some of the points by eye-balling the
plots from the catalog - but you get the idea: we can get away with using the SLP-30 at 35 MHz since it only attenuates the
signals by ~1.5 dB. So if someone can find 4 of these then Steve doesn't have to order any from Mini-Circuits.
Attachment 1: pmclp-07.pdf
pmclp-07.pdf pmclp-07.pdf
Attachment 2: pmclp_40m_080824.m
% PMCLP is a TF of the IF filter after the PMC mixer

% Mixer_Voltage -- Rs -- L1 --- L2 ---------Vout
%                            |      |   |
%                           C1     C2   Rl                   
%                            |      |   |
%                           GND    GND  GND

... 58 more lines ...
Attachment 3: pmclp.m
% PMCLP is a TF of the IF filter after the PMC mixer

% Mixer_Voltage -- Rs -- L1 --- L2 ---------Vout
%                            |      |   |
%                           C1     C2   Rl                   
%                            |      |   |
%                           GND    GND  GND

... 57 more lines ...
  884   Tue Aug 26 09:04:59 2008 ranaConfigurationPSLPMC Servo Board: Out for Repairs
I've started modifying our PMC board to bring it up to the 21st century - leave the screen alone or else you might zap something.
  11782   Wed Nov 18 17:09:22 2015 KojiSummaryPSLPMC Servo analysis


The PMC servo was analysed. OLTF was measured and modeled by ZPK (Attachment 1). The error and actuator signals were calibrated in m/rtHz (Attachment 2)

Measurement methods


- The PMC servo board does not have dedicated summing/monitor points for the OLTF measurement. Moreover the PZT HV output voltage is monitored with 1/49.6 attenuation.
  Therefore we need a bit of consideration.

- The noise injection can be done at EXT DC.
- Quantity (A): Transfer function between HV OUT MON and MIX OUT MON with the injection.
  We can measure the transfer function between the HV OUT (virtual) and the MIX OUT. (HV OUT->MIX OUT). In reality, HV OUT is attenuated by factor of 49.6.
  i.e. A = (HV_OUT->MIX_OUT)*49.6
- Quantity (B): Transfer function between HV OUT MON and MIX OUT MON without the injection.
This is related to the transfer function between the MIX OUT and HV OUT. In reality, HV OUT is attenuated. 
  i.e. B = 1/((MIX_OUT->HV_OUT)/49.6)

- What we want to know is HV_OUT->MIX_OUT->HV_OUT. i.e. A/B = (HV_OUT->MIX_OUT*49.6)*((MIX_OUT->HV_OUT)/49.6) = HV_OUT->MIX_OUT->HV_OUT


- The MIX OUT and HV OUT spectra have been measured. The MIX OUT was calibrated with the calibration factor in the previous entry. This is the inloop stability estimation.
  From the calibrated MIX OUT and HV OUT, the free running stability of the cavity was estimated, by mutiplying with |1-OLTF| and |1-1/(1-OLTF)|, respectively, in order to recover
  the free running motion.

OLTF Modeling

Here is the model function for the open loop TF. The first line comes from the circuit diagram. The overall factor was determined by eye-fit.
The second and third lines are to reproduce the peak/notch feature at 12kHz. The fourth line is to reproduce 28kHz feature.
The LPF right after the mixer was analyzed by a circuit simulation (Circuit Lab). It can be approximated as 150kHz LPF as the second pole
seems to come at 1.5MHz.

The sixth line comes from the LPF formed by the output resistance and the PZT capacitance.

The seventh line is to reproduce the limit by the GBW product of OP27. As the gain is 101 in one of the stages,
it yields the pole freq of ~80kHz. But it is not enough to explain the phase delay at low frequency. Therefore this
discrepancy was compensated by empirical LPF at 30kHz.

function cmpOLTFc = PMC_OLTF_model(freqOLTFc)

cmpOLTFc = -7e5*pole1(freqOLTFc,0.162).*zero1(freqOLTFc,491)... % from the circuit diagram
    .*zero2(freqOLTFc,12.5e3,100)... % eye-fit
    .*pole2(freqOLTFc,12.2e3,6)... % eye-fit
    .*pole2(freqOLTFc,27.8e3, 12)... % eye-fit
    .*pole1(freqOLTFc,150e3)... % Mixer LPF estimated from Circuit Lab Simulation
    .*pole1(freqOLTFc,11.3)... % Output Impedance + PZT LPF
    .*pole1(freqOLTFc,8e6/101)... % GBW OP27
    .*pole1(freqOLTFc,3e4); % Unknown



Attachment 1:

The nominal OLTF (Nov 17 data) shows the nominal UGF is ~1.7kHz and the phase margin of ~60deg.

The measured OLTF was compared with the modelled OLTF. In the end they show very sufficient agreement for further calibration.
The servo is about to be instable at 28kHz due to unknown series resonance. Later in the same day, the gain of the PMC loop had to be
reduced from 7dB to 3dB to mitigate servo oscillation. It is likely that this peak caused the oscillation. The notch frequency was measured
next day and it showed no sign of frequncy drift. That's good.

We still have some phase to reduce the high freq peaks by an LPF in order to increase the over all gain.

Attachment 2:

The red curve shows the residual floor displacement of 2~10x10-15 m/rtHz. Below 4Hz there is a big peak. I suspect that I forgot to close
the PSL shutter and the IMC was locked during the measurement. Then does this mean the measured noise corresponds to the residual laser
freq noise or the PMC cavity displacement? This is interesting to see.

The estimated free running motion from the error and actuation signals agrees very well. This ensures the precision of the caibration in the precious entries.


Attachment 1: PMC_OLTF.pdf
Attachment 2: PMC_DSP.pdf
  873   Sat Aug 23 09:39:51 2008 rana, jenneUpdatePSLPMC Survey
Jenne, Rana

We scoped out the PMC situation yesterday.

Summary: Not broke. UGF ~ 500 Hz. Needs some electronics work (notches, boosts, LPFs)

Ever since we swapped out the PMC because of the broken PZT of the previous one, the UGF has been
limited to a low value. This is because the notches no longer match the mechanical resonant
frequencies of the body. The old one had a resonance at 31.3 kHz which we were notching using
the LC notch on the board as well as a dangling Pomona box in the HV line to the PZT. The one
has a resonance at ~14.5 kHz which we don't yet have a notch for. Jenne has all the real numbers and
will update this entry with them.

  • Implement the 4th order Grote low pass after the mixer.
  • Replace the AD797 with an OP27.
  • Change servo filter to have a boost (need DC gain)
  • Make a 14.5 kHz notch for the bode mode.
  • Put a 20 lb. gold-foil wrapped lead brick on the PMC.

Here's the link about the modified PMC board which we installed at LHO:
LHO PMC elog 2006
  4375   Thu Mar 3 20:30:03 2011 ranaSummaryPSLPMC Sweeps @ different input power levels to measure the Finesse

Its been well noted in the past that sweeping the PMC at high power leads to a distortion of the transmitted power curve. The explanation for this was coating absorption and thermo-elastic deformation of the front face of the mirrors.

Today, I did several sweeps of the PMC. I turned off its servo and tuned its PZT so that it was nearly resonating. Then I drove the NPRO via the HV driver (gain=15) with 0-150 V (its 1.1 MHz/V) to measure the PMC transmitted light. I adjusted the NPRO pump diode current from 2A on down to see if the curves have a power dependent width.

In the picasa web slideshow:

There are 3 significant differences between this measurement and the one by John linked above: its a new PMC (Rick says its the cleanest one around), the sweep is faster - since I'm using a scope instead of the ADC I feel free to drive the thing by ~70 MHz in one cycle. In principle, we could go faster, but I don't want to get into the region where we excite the PZT resonance. Doing ~100 MHz in ~30 ms should be OK. I think it may be that going this fast avoids some of the thermal distortion problems that John and others have seen in the past. On the next iteration, we should increase the modulation index for the 35.5 MHz sidebands so as to get a higher precision calibration of the sweep's range.

By eye I find that the FWHM from image #4 is 11 ms long. That corresponds to 300 mV on the input to the HV box and 15 V on the PZT and ~16.5 MHz of frequency shift. I think we expect a number more like 4-5 MHz; measurement suspicious.

  4417   Mon Mar 21 13:26:25 2011 KojiUpdatePSLPMC Trans/RFPDDC

PMC TRANS/REFL on MEDM showed red values for long time.
TRANS (a.k.a C1:PSL-PSL_TRANSPD) was the issue of the EPICS db.

REFL (a.k.a. C1:PSL-PMC_RFPDDC) was not physically connected.
There was an unknown BNC connected to the PMC DC output instead of dedicated SMA cable.
So they were swapped.

Now I run the following commands to change the EPICS thresholds:

ezcawrite C1:PSL-PMC_PMCTRANSPD.LOW 0.85

ezcawrite C1:PSL-PMC_RFPDDC.HIHI 0.05
ezcawrite C1:PSL-PMC_RFPDDC.HIGH 0.03
ezcawrite C1:PSL-PMC_RFPDDC.LOW 0.0
ezcawrite C1:PSL-PMC_RFPDDC.LOLO 0.0

As these commands only give us the tempolary fix, /cvs/cds/caltech/target/c1psl/psl.db was accordingly modified for the permanent one.

        field(DESC,"RFPDDC- RFPD DC output")
        field(SCAN,".1 second")
        field(INP,"#C0 S32 @")

        field(DESC,"PMCTRANSPD- pre-modecleaner transmitted light")
        field(SCAN,".1 second")
        field(INP,"#C0 S10 @")

  10849   Tue Dec 30 20:35:59 2014 ranaSummaryPSLPMC Tune Up
  1. Calibrated the Phase Adjust slider for the PMC RF Modulation; did this by putting the LO and RF Mod out on the TDS 3034 oscope and triggering on the LO. This scope has a differential phase measurement feature for periodic signals.
  2. Calibrated the RF Amp Adj slider for the PMC RF Modulation (on the phase shifter screen)
  3. The PMC 35.5 MHz Frequency reference card is now in our 40m DCC Tree.
  4.  The LO and RF signals both look fairly sinusoidal !
  5. Took photos of our Osc board - they are on the DCC page. Our board is D980353-B-C, but there are no such modern version in any DCC.
  6. The PMC board's Mixer Out shows a few mV of RF at multiples of the 35.5 MHz mod freq. This comes in via the LO, and can't be gotten rid of by using a BALUN or BP filters.
  7. In installed the LARK 35.5 MHz BP filter that Valera sent us awhile ago (Steve has the datasheet to scan and upload to this entry). It is narrow and has a 2 dB insertion loss.

For tuning the phase and amplitude of the mod. drive:

- since we don't have access to both RF phases, I just maximized the gain using the RF phase slider. First, I flipped the sign using the 'phase flip' button so that we would be near the linear range of the slider. Then I put the servo close to oscillation and adjusted the phase to maximize the height of the ~13 kHz body mode. For the amplitude, I just cranked the modulation depth until it started to show up as a reduction in the transmission by ~0.2%, then reduced it by a factor of ~3. That makes it ~5x larger than before.

Attachment 1: 17.png
Attachment 2: PMCcal.ipynb.xz
Attachment 3: PMC_Osc_Cal.pdf
  15144   Thu Jan 23 14:37:05 2020 gautamUpdatePSLPMC VGA chip damaged?

[jordan, gautam]


The AD602 chip which implements the overall servo gain for the PMC seems to be damaged. We should switch this out at the next opportunity.


  1. According to the PSL cross connect wiring diagram, the VME DAC that provides the control voltage to the VGA stage goes to pins 7/8 of cross connect J16.
    • Jordan and I verified that the voltage at this point [Vout], is related to the PMC_GAIN EPICS slider [dB] value according to the following relationship: V_{\mathrm{out}} = (10-\mathrm{dB})/2.
  2. On the PMC servo board, this voltage is scaled by a factor of -1/10. 
    • This was confirmed by peeking at this voltage using a DMM (I clipped onto R31) while the gain slider was varied.
    • This corresponds to +/- 1000 mV reaching the AD602.
    • However, the AD602 is rated to work with a control voltage varying between +/- 625 mV.
    • What this means is that the EPICS slider value is not the gain of the AD602 stage. The latter is given by the relation G [\mathrm{dB}] = 32 \times V_{\mathrm{G}} + 10.
    • @team PSL upgrade: this should be fixed in the database file for the new c1psl machine.
  3. Using TP1 and TP2 connected to the SR785, I measured the transfer function of the AD602 for various values of the EPICS slider.
    • Result is shown in Attachment #1.
    • I did this measurement with the PMC locked, so I'm using the in-loop error signal to infer the gain of the VGA stage.
    • As expected, the absolute value of the gain does not match that of the EPICS slider (note that the AD602 has an input impedance of 100 ohms. So the 499 ohm series resistor between TP1 and the input of AD602 makes a 1/5 voltage divider, so the gain seen between TP1 and TP2 has this factor folded in).
    • Moreover, the relative scaling of the gain for various slider values also doesn't appear to be liner.
    • For the highest gain setting of +15 dB, the servo began oscillating, so I think the apparent non-flatness of the gain as a function of frequency is an artefact of the measurement.
    • Nevertheless, my conclusion is that the IC should be changed.

I will pull the board and effect the change later today.

I pulled the board out at 345pm after dialling down all the HV supplies in 1X1. I will reinstall it after running some tests.

Attachment 1: VGAchar.pdf
  15146   Thu Jan 23 16:37:14 2020 ranaUpdatePSLPMC VGA chip damaged?

doesn't seem so anomolous to me; we're getting ~25 dB of gain range and the ideal range would be 40 dB. My guess is that even thought this is not perfect, the real problem is elsewhere.

  1877   Mon Aug 10 16:41:31 2009 AlbertoConfigurationPSLPMC Visibility

Alberto, Rana

lately we've been trying to better understand what's preventing the arm power to get high again. Last week I tuned the MZ and the PMC but we didn't gain much, if nothing at all.
Yesterday I measured the transmissivity, the reflectivity and the visibility of the PMC.
From the voltages at the PMC-REFL PD when the PMC was locked and when it was out of lock I estimated the cavity visibility:
V_locked = 0.42V
V_unlocked = 1.64V -> V = (V_unlocked - V_locked) / V_unlocked = 75%

With the high power meter I measured the reflected power when the PMC was unlocked and used that to obtain the calibration of the PMC-REFL PD: 1.12V/W.

Since the locked-cavity reflected power can't be directly measured with a power meter (since that would use the cavity control signal), I estimated the reflected power by the calibration of the PMC-REFL PD. Then I measured the input and the transmitted power with a high-power meter.

P_in = 1.98W ; P_trans = 1.28W ; P_refl = 0.45W

From that I estimated that the losses account to 13% of the input power.

I checked both the new and the old elogs to see if such a measurement had ever been done but it doesn't seems so. I don't know if such a value for the visibility is "normal". It seems a little low. For instance, as a comparison, the MC visibility, is equal to a few percents.

Also Rana measured the transmitted power after locking the PMC on the TEM20-02: the photodiode on the MEDM screen read 0.325V. That means that a lot of power is going to that mode.

That makes us think that we're dealing with a mode matching problem with the PMC.

  10742   Mon Dec 1 17:19:22 2014 JenneUpdateGeneralPMC align

[Diego, Jenne]

Tweaked up the input alignment to the PMC.  Now we're at 0.785.

  4648   Thu May 5 20:47:41 2011 KojiUpdatePSLPMC aligned

The PMC exhibited the reduction of the transmission, so it was aligned.

The misalignment was not the angle of the beam but the translation of the beam in the vertical direction
as I had no improvement by moving the pitch of one mirror and had to move those two differentially.

This will give us the information what is moving by the temperature fluctuation or whatever.

  5644   Mon Oct 10 15:41:56 2011 KojiUpdatePSLPMC aligned

[Koji Suresh]

The steering mirrors for PMC were aligned. The transmission went up from 0.779 to 0.852.

  6569   Wed Apr 25 19:36:19 2012 DenUpdatePSLPMC aligned

[Koji, Den]

We have aligned PMC,  the WFS are not working yet.

  7273   Fri Aug 24 20:48:10 2012 KojiUpdatePSLPMC aligned

as usual.

  9256   Mon Oct 21 13:15:52 2013 KojiUpdateIOOPMC aligned

PMC aligned. Trans 0.78 -> 0.83

  10950   Wed Jan 28 17:32:26 2015 KojiUpdatePSLPMC aligned

PMC aligned.

PMC Trans increased from 0.740 to 0.782

IMC Trans increased from 16200 to 17100

ELOG V3.1.3-