40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
 40m Log, Page 175 of 339 Not logged in
ID Date Author Type Category Subject
11518   Thu Aug 20 02:31:09 2015 ericqUpdateLSCPRFPMI is back

# PRFPMI locking has been revived.

I've had 6 5min+ locks so far; arm powers usually hit ~125 for a recycling gain of about 7; visibility is about 75%

The locking script takes a little under 4 minutes to take you from POX/POY lock to PRFPMI if you don't have to stop and adjust anything.

At Koji's suggestion, I used digital REFL11 instead of CM_SLOW, which got me to a semistable lock with some RF, at which time I could check the CM_SLOW situtation. It seemed like the whitening Binary IO switch got out of sync with the digital FM status somehow...

I've been making the neccesary changes to the carm_cm_up script. I also added a small script which uses the magnitude of the I and Q signals to set the phase tracker gain automatically based on some algebra Koji posted in an ELOG some years ago.

The RF transition seems much smoother now, most likely due to the improved PRC and ALS stability. In fact, it is possible to hold at arm powers of >100 solely on the digital servos; I don't think we were able to do this before until the AO had kicked in.

Right now I'm losing lock when trying to engage the CARM super boost. I also haven't switched the PRMI over to 1F signals yet. Would be good to hook the SR785 back up for a loop TF, but I'll stop here for tonight since our SURFs are presenting bright and early tomorrow morning.

Attachment 1: lock.pdf
11528   Tue Aug 25 04:15:51 2015 ericqUpdateLSCPRFPMI is back

More PRFPMI locks tonight. Right now, it's been locked for 22+ minutes, though with the PRMI still on 3F signals. I think the MC2/AO crossover needs some reshaping; there's a whole bunch of noise injected into CARM around 600 Hz, which is where the two paths differ by 180deg. (Addendum: broke lock at ~27 minutes, 4:16AM)

For most of this lock, sensing matrix excitations have been running for daytime analysis.

The nominal IMC loop gain / EOM crossover were making the AO path very marginal. I've adjusted the nominal settings and autolocker scripts.

There was some weird behavior of X green PDH earlier... Broadband RIN seen in ALS-TRX, coherent with the DC output of the beat PD, so really on the light. I fiddled with the end setup, and it mostly went away, though I didn't intentionally change anything. Disconcerting.

11534   Thu Aug 27 04:23:04 2015 ericqUpdateLSCPRFPMI is back

Got to a 40 minute lock tonight. All other locks broke because of me poking something.

I redid some sensing excitations, right after carefully measuring the CARM OLG at its excitation frequency, so I can get at the open loop PD response.

I also used a MCL feedforward filter of Ignacio's which did not inject any observable noise into the CARM error signal during PRFPMI lock. He will make some elog about this.

11599   Tue Sep 15 15:10:48 2015 gautam, ericq, ranaSummaryLSCPRFPMI lock & various to-do's
I was observing Eric while he was attempting to lock the PRFPMI last night. The handoff from ALS to LSC was not very smooth, and Rana suggested looking at some control signals while parked close to the PRFPMI resonance to get an idea of what frequency bands the noise dominated in. The attached power spectrum was taken while CARM and DARM were under ALS control, and the PRMI was locked using REFL_165. The arm power was fluctuating between 15 and 50. Most of the power seems to be in the 1-5Hz band and the 10-30Hz band.

Rana made a number of suggestions, which I'm listing here. Some of these may directly help the above situation, while the others are with regards to the general state of affairs.

• Reroute both (MC and arm) FF signals to the SUS model
• For MC, bypass LSC
• Rethink the MC FF -
• Leave the arm FF on all the time?
• The positioning of the accelerometer used for MC FF has to be bettered - it should be directly below the tank
• The IOO model is over-clocking - needs to be re-examined
• Fix up the DC F2P - Rana mentioned an old (~10 yr) script called F2P ratio, we should look to integrate the Python scripts used for lock-in/demod at the sites with this
• Look to calibrate MC_F
• Implement a high BW CARM servo using ALS
• Gray code implementation for EPICS gain-stepping

Attachment 1: powerSpec0915.pdf
12579   Tue Oct 25 15:56:11 2016 gautamUpdateGeneralPRFPMI locked, arms loss improved

[ericq,gautam]

Given that most of the post vent recovery tasks were done, and that the ALS noise performance looked good enough to try locking, we decided to try PRFPMI locking again last night. Here are the details:

PRM alignment, PRMI locking

• We started by trying to find the REFL beam on the camera, the alignment biases for the 'correct' PRM alignment has changed after the vent
• After aligning, the Oplev was way off center so that was fixed. We also had to re-center the ITMX oplev after a few failed locking attempts
• The REFL beam was centered on all the RFPDs on the ASDC table

Post the most recent vent, where we bypass the OMC altogether, we have a lot more light now at the AS port. It has not yet been quantified how much more, but from the changes that had to be made to the loop gain for a stable loop, we estimate we have 2-3 times more power at the AS port now.

PRFPMI locking

• We spent a while unsuccessfully trying to get the PRMI locked and reduce the carm offset on ALS control to bring the arms into the 'buzzing' state - the reason was that we forgot that it was established a couple of weeks ago that REFL165 had better MICH SNR. Once this change was made, we were readily able to reduce the carm offset to 0
• Then we spent a few attempts trying to do blend in RF control - as mentioned in the above referenced elog, the point of failure always was trying to turn on the integrator in the CARM B path. We felt that the appearance of the CARM B IN1 signal on dataviewer was not what we are used to seeing but were unable to figure out why (as it turns out, we were locking CARM on POY11 and not REFL11 , more on this later)
• Eric found that switching the sign of the CARM B gain was the solution - we spent some time puzzling over why this should have changed, and hypothesized that perhaps we are now overcoupled, but it is more likely that this was because of the error signal mix up mentioned above...
• We also found the DC coupling of the ITM Oplev loops to be not so reliable - perhaps this has to do with the wonky ITMY UL OSEM, more on this later. We usually turn the DC coupling on after dither aligning the arms, and in the past, it has been helpful. But we had more success last night with the DC coupling turned off rather than on.
• Once the sign flip was figured out, we were repeatedly able to achieve locks with CARM partially on RF - we got through about 3 or 4, each was stable for just tens of seconds though. Also, we only progressed to RF on CARM on 1 attempt, the lock lasted for just a few seconds
• Unfortunately, the mode cleaner decided to act up just about after we figured all this out, and it was pushing 4am so we decided to give up for the night.
• The arm transmissions hit 300! We had run the transmission normalization scripts just before starting the lock so this number should be reliable (compare to ~130 in October last year). The corresponding PRG is about 16.2, which according to my Finesse models suggest we are still undercoupled, but are close to critical coupling (this needs a bit more investigation, supporting plots to follow). => Average arm loss is ~150ppm! So looks like we did some good with the vent, although of course an independent arm loss measurement has to be done...
• Lockloss plot for one of the locks is Attachment #1

Other remarks:

• Attachment #2 shows that the ITMY UL coil is glitchy (while the others are not). At some point last night, we turned off this sensor input to the damping servos, but for the actual locks, we turned it back on. I will do a Satellite box swap to see if this is a Sat. Box problem (which I suspect it is, the bad Sat. Boxes are piling up...)
• Just now, eric was showing me the CM board setup in the LSC rack, because for the next lock attempts, we want to measure the CARM loop - but we found that the input to the CM board was POY and not REFL! This probably explains the sign flip mentioned above. The mix-up has been rectified
• The MICH dither align doesn't seem to be working too well - possibly due to the fact that we have a lot more ASDC light now, this has to be investigated. But last night, we manually tweaked the BS alignment to make the dark port dark, and it seemed to work okay, although each time we aligned the PRMI on carrier, then went back to put the arms on ALS, and came back to PRMI, we would see some yaw misalignment in the AS beam...
• I believe the SRM sat. box is still being looked at by Ben so it has not been reinstalled...
• Eric has put together a configure script for the PRFPMI configuration which I have added to the IFO configure MEDM screen for convenience
• For some reason, the appropriate whitening gain for POX11 and the XARM loop gain to get the XARM to lock has changed - the appropriate settings now are +30dB and 0.03 respectively. These have not been updated in some scripts, so for example, when the watch script resets the IFO configuration, it doesn't revert to these values. Just something to keep in mind for now...
Attachment 1: PRFPMIlock_25Oct2016.pdf
Attachment 2: ITMYwoes.png
12580   Tue Oct 25 18:07:28 2016 KojiUpdateGeneralPRFPMI locked, arms loss improved

Great to hear that we have the PRG of ~16 now!

Is this 150ppm an avg loss per mirror, or per arm?

12583   Thu Oct 27 12:06:39 2016 gautamUpdateGeneralPRFPMI locked, arms loss improved
 Quote: Great to hear that we have the PRG of ~16 now! Is this 150ppm an avg loss per mirror, or per arm?

I realized that I did not have a Finesse model to reflect the current situation of flipped folding mirrors (I've been looking at 'ideal' RC cavity lengths with folding mirrors oriented with HR side inside the cavity so we didn't have to worry about the substrate/AR surface losses), and it took me a while to put together a model for the current configuration. Of course this calculation does not need a Finesse model but I thought it would be useful nevertheless.

In summary - the model with which the attached plot was generated assumes the following:

• Arm lengths of 37.79m, given our recent modification of the Y arm length
• RC lengths are all taken from here, I have modelled the RC folding mirrors as flipped with the substrate and AR surface losses taken from the spec sheet
• The X axis is the average arm loss - i.e. (LITMX+LITMY+LETMX+LETMY)/2. In the model, I have distributed the loss equally between the ITMs and ETMs.

This calculation agrees well with the analytic results Yutaro computed here - the slight difference is possibly due to assuming different losses in the RC folding mirrors.

The conclusion from this study seems to be that the arm loss is now in the 100-150ppm range (so each mirror has 50-75ppm loss). But these numbers are only so reliable, we need an independent loss measurement to verify. In fact, during last night's locking efforts, the arm transmission sometimes touched 400 (=> PRG ~22), which according to these plots suggest total arm losses of ~50ppm, which would mean each mirror has only 25ppm loss, which seems a bit hard to believe.

Attachment 1: PRG.pdf
12584   Thu Oct 27 13:48:20 2016 KojiUpdateGeneralPRFPMI locked, arms loss improved

It is also difficult to have a high arm transmission without having high PRG.

What about to plot the arm trans and the REFL DC power in a timeseries?
Or even in a correlation plot (X: Arm Trans or PRG vs Y: REFL Reflectivity)

This tells you an approximate location of the critical coupling, and allows you to calibrate the PRG, hopefully.

12585   Thu Oct 27 23:29:47 2016 ericqUpdateGeneralPRFPMI locked, arms loss improved

As Gautam mentioned, we had some success locking the PRFPMI last night. (SRM satellite box is still in surgery...)

Unsurprisingly, changing the loss/PRG/CARM finesse means we had to fiddle with the common mode servo parameters a little bit to get things to work. However, before too long, we achieved a first lock on the order of a few minutes. Not long afterwards, we had a nice half hour lock stretch where we could tune up the AO crossover and loop UGFs. The working locking script was committed to SVN. Really, no fundamentally new tactics were used, which is encouraging. (One thing I wondered about was whether a narrower CARM linewidth would still let our direct ALS->REFL11 handoff with no offset reduction work. Turns out it does)

However, the step where we increase the analog CARM gain isn't as bulletproof as it once had been. The light levels "sputter" in and out sometimes if the gain increases are too agressive, and can cause a lockloss. Maybe this is an effect of the narrower linewidth and injecting more ALS noise at high frequencies with the higher CARM bandwidth.

The spatial profiles of the light on the cameras is totally bananas. Here's AS and REFL.

As Koji suggested, here is a 2D histogram of TRY vs REFLDC. It appears that the visibility would max out at 75% or so at arm powers around 400. Indeed, we briefly saw powers that high, but as can be seen on the plot, we were usually a little under 300. Exploring the transmon QPD offset space didn't seem to have much effect here.

One thing that I hadn't looked at in previous locks is coherence with our ground seismometers. It would be cool to have more seismic feedforward, and looking at the frequency domain multiple coherence, it looks like we can win a lot between 1 and 20 Hz. I expected more of a win at 1Hz, though.

Attachment 4: seis_sub.pdf
16251   Mon Jul 19 22:16:08 2021 pacoUpdateLSCPRFPMI locking

[gautam, paco]

Gautam managed to lock PRFPMI a little before ~ 22:00 local time. The ALS to RF handoff logic was found to be repeatable, which enabled us to lock a total of 4 times this evening. Under this nominal state, we can work on PRFPMI to narrow down less known issues and carry out systematic optimization. The second time we achieved lock, we ran sensing lines before entering the ASC stage (which we knew would destroy the lock), and offline analysis of the sensing matrix is pending (gpstime = 1310792709 + 5 min).

Things to note:

(a) there is an unexpected offset suggesting that the ALS and RF disagreed on what the lock setpoint should be, and it is still unclear where the offset is coming from.

(b) the first time the lock was reached, the ASC up stage destroyed it, suggesting these loops need some care (we were able to engage the ASC loops at low gains (0.2 instead of 1) but as soon as we enabled some integrators this consistently destroyed the lock

(c) gautam had (burt) restored to the settings from back in March when the PRFPMI was last locked, suggesting there was a small but somehow significant difference in the IFO that helped today relative to last week

Take home message--> The mere fact that we were able to lock PRFPMI rules out the considerably more serious problems with the signal chain electronics or processing. This should also be a good starting point for further debugging and optimization.

gautam: the circulating power, when the ASC was tweaked, hit 400 (normalized to single arm locked with a misaligned PRM) suggesting a recycling gain of 22.5, and an average arm loss of ~30ppm round trip (assuming 2% loss in the PRC).

16241   Thu Jul 8 11:20:38 2021 Anchal, Paco, GautamSummaryLSCPRFPMI locking attempts

Last night Gautam walked us through the algorithm used to lock PRFPMI. We tried it several times with the PSL HEPA filter off between 10:00 pm July 7th to 1:00 am July 8th. None of our attempts were successful. In between, we tried to do the locking with old IMC settings as well, but it did not change the result for us. In most attempts, the arms would start to resonate with PRMI with about 200 times the power than without power recycling while the arms are still controlled by ALS beatnote. The handover of lock controls "CARM+DARM locked to ALS beatnote" to "Main laser + IMC locked to the CARM+DARM" would always fail. More specifically, we were seeing that as soon as we hand over the DC control of CARM from ALS beatnote to IR by feeding back to MC2, the lock would inevitably fail before the rest of the high-frequency control can be transferred over.

Nonetheless, Paco and I got a good demo of how to do PRFPMI locking if the need appears. With more practice and attempts, we should be able to achieve the lock at some point in the future. The issues in handover could be due to any of the following:

• Although it seems like ALS beatnote fed control of arms keep them within the CARM IR linewidth as we see the IR resonating, there still could be some excess noise that needs to be dealt with.
• Gautam conjectures, that the presence of high power in the arms connects the ITMs and the ETMs with an optical spring changing the transfer function of the pendula. This in turn changes the phase margin and possibly makes the CARM loop in IR PRFPMI unstable.
• We should also investigate the loop transfer functions near the handover point for the ALS beatnote loop and the IR CARM loop and calculate the crossover frequency and gain/phase margins there.

More insights or suggestions are welcome.

Note; An earthquake came around lunch time and tripped all watchdogs. Most suspensions were recovered without issues, but ITMX appeared to be stuck. We tried the shaking procedure, but after this we couldn't restore the XARM lock. From alignment, we tried optimizing the TRX but we only got up to ~0.5 and ASS wouldn't work as usual. In the end the issue was that we had forgotten to enable the LL coil output so after we did this, we managed to recover the XARM.

15994   Sat Apr 3 00:42:40 2021 gautamUpdateLSCPRFPMI locking with half input power

Summary:

I wanted to put my optomechanical instability hypothesis to the test. So I decided to cut the input power to the IMC by ~half and try locking the PRFPMI. However, this did not improve the stability of the buildup in the arm cavities, while the control was solely on the ALS error signal

Details:

1. The waveplate I installed for this purpose was rotated until the MC RFPD DCMON channel reported ~half it's nominal value.
2. I adjusted the IMC servo gains appropriately to compensate. IMC lock was readily realized.
3. I increased the whitening gains on the POX, POY and REFL165 photodiodes by 6dB, to compensate for the reduced light levels.
• One day soon, we will have remote power control, and it'd be nice to have this process be automated.
• Really, we should have de-whitening filters that undo these flat gains in addition to undoing the frequency dependent whitening.
• I'm not sure the quality of the electronics is good enough though, for the changing electronics offsets to not be a problem.
• One possibility is that we can normalize some signals by the DC light level at that port, but I still think compensating the changing optical gain as far upstream as possible is best, and the whitening gain is the convenient stage to do this.
4. Recovered single arm POX/POY locking.
5. Then I decided to try and lock the PRFPMI with the reduced input power.

Basically, with some tweaks to loop gains, it worked, see Attachment #1. Note that the lower right axis shows the IMC transmission and is ~7500 cts, vs the nominal ~15,000 cts.

Discussion:

Cutting the input power did not have the effect I hoped it would. Basically, I was hoping to zero the optical CARM offset while the IFO was entirely under ALS control, and have the arm transmission be stable (or at least, stay in the linear regime of REFL11). However, the observation was that the IFO did the usual "buzzing" in and out of the linear regime. Right now, this is not at all a problem - once the IR error signal is blended in, and DC control authority is transferred to that signal, the lock acquisition can proceed just fine. And I guess it is cool that we can lock the IFO at ~half the input power, something to keep in mind when we have the remote controlled waveplate, maybe we always want to lock at the lowest power possible such that optomechanical transients are not a problem.

I also don't think this test directly disputes my claim that the residual CARM noise when the arm cavities are under purely ALS control is smaller than the CARM linewidth.

What does this mean for my hypothesis? I still think it is valid, maybe the power has to be cut even further for the optomechanics to not be a problem. In Finesse (see Attachment #2), with 0.3 W input power to the back of the PRM, and with best guesses for the 40m optical losses in the PRC and arms, I still see that considerable phase can be eaten up due to the optomechanical resonance around ~100 Hz, which is where the digital CARM loop UGF is. So I guess it isn't entirely unreasonable that the instability didn't go away?

After this work, I undid all the changes I made for the low power lock test. I confirmed that IMC locking, POX/POY locking, and the dither alignment systems all function as expected after I reverted the system.

Attachment 1: PRFPMIlock_1301464998_1301465238.pdf
Attachment 2: CARMplant.pdf
12586   Fri Oct 28 01:44:48 2016 gautamUpdateGeneralPRFPMI model vs data studies

Following Koji's suggestion, I decided to investigate the relation between my Finesse model and the measured data.

For easy reference, here is the loss plot again:

Sticking with the model, I used the freedom Finesse offers me to stick in photodiodes wherever I desire, to monitor the circulating power in the PRC directly, and also REFLDC. Note that REFLDC goes to 0 because I am using Finesse's amplitude detector at the carrier frequency for the 00 mode only.

Both the above plots essentially show the same information, except the X axis is different. So my model tells me that I should expect the point of critical coupling to be when the average arm loss is ~100ppm, corresponding to a PRG of ~17 as suggested by my model.

Eric has already put up a scatter plot, but I reproduce another from a fresh lock tonight. The data shown here corresponds to the IFO initially being in the 'buzzing' state where the arms are still under ALS control and we are turning up the REFL gain - then engaging the QPD ASC really takes us to high powers. The three regimes are visible in the data. I show here data sampled at 16 Hz, but the qualitative shape of the scatter does not change even with the full data. As an aside, today I saw the transmission hit ~425!

I have plotted the scatter between TRX and REFL DC, but if I were to plot the scatter between POP DC and REFL DC, the shape looks similar - specifically, there is an 'upturn' in the REFL DC values in an area similar to that seen in the above scatter plot. POP DC is a proxy for the PRG, and I confirmed that for the above dataset, there is a monotonic, linear relationship between TRX and POPDC, so I think it is legitimate to compare the plot on the RHS in the row directly above, to the plot from the Finesse model one row further up. In the data, REFL DC seems to hit a minimum around TRX=320. Assuming a PRM transmission of 5.5%, TRX of 320 corresponds to a PRG of 17.5, which is in the ballpark of the region the model tells us to expect it to be. Based on this, I conclude the following:

• It seems like the Finesse model I have is quite close to the current state of the IFO
• Given that we can trust the model, the PRC is now OVERCOUPLED - the scatter plot of data supports this hypothesis
• Given that in today's lock, I saw arm transmission go up to ~425, this suggests that at optimal alignment, PRG can reach 23. Then, Attachment #1 suggests the average arm loss is <50ppm, which means the average loss per optic is <25ppm. I am not sure how physical this is, given that I remember seeing the specs for the ITMs and ETMs being for scatter less than 40 25ppm, perhaps the optic exceeded the specs, or I remember the wrong numbers, or the model is wrong

In other news, I wanted to try and do the sensing matrix measurements which we neglected to do yesterday. I turned on the notches in CARM, DARM, PRCL and MICH, and then tuned the LO amplitudes until I saw a peak in the error signal for that particular DOF with peak height a factor of >10 above the noise floor. The LO amplitudes I used are

MICH: 40

PRCL: 0.7

CARM: 0.08

DARM: 0.08

There should be about 15 minutes of good data. More impressively, the lock tonight lasted 1 hour (see Attachment #6, unfortunately FB crashed in between). Last night we lost lock while trying to transition control to 1f signals and tonight, I believe a P.C. drive excursion of the kind we are used to seeing was responsible for the lockloss, so the PRFPMI seems pretty stable.

With regards to the step in the lock acquisition sequence where the REFL gain is turned up, I found in my (4) attempts tonight that I had most success when I adjusted the CARM A slider while turning up the REFL gain to offload the load on the CARM B servo. Of course, this may mean nothing...

Attachment 1: loss.pdf
Attachment 2: REFLDC.pdf
Attachment 3: CriticalCoupling.pdf
Attachment 4: PRFPMI_Oct282016.pdf
Attachment 5: PRFPMI_scatter.pdf
Attachment 6: 1hourPRFPMILock.png
15827   Fri Feb 19 18:22:42 2021 ranaUpdateLSCPRFPMI sensiing matrix woes

I would:

1. look at the free swingin michelson. Should be able tu null that siggnal in all ports to define the Q phase.
2. If things are weird, put an RF signal nto the demod board mhich is offset from the LO by ~100 Hz and verify the demod/whitening chain is kosher.
3. Lock PRMI and drive lines > 200 Hz. If PRC/MICH are not orthogonal, then there may be a mis tuning of RF SB wavelength and cavity lengths.
4. IF PRMI is sort of healthy, we could be having a weird SB resonance in the arms.
15352   Tue May 26 03:06:59 2020 gautamUpdateLSCPRFPMI sensing matrix

Summary:

The response of the PRFPMI length degrees of freedom as measured in the LSC PDs was characterized. Two visualizations are in Attachment #1 and Attachment #2.

Details:

• The sensing matrix infrastructure in the c1cal model was used.
• The oscillator frequencies are set between 300 - 315 Hz.
• Notch filters at these frequencies were enabled in the CDS filter banks, to prevent actuation at these frequencies (except for CARM, in which case the loop gain is still non-negligible at ~300 Hz, this correction has not yet been applied).
• Mainly, I wanted to know what the DARM sensing response in AS55_Q is.
• The measurement yields 2.3e13 cts/m. This is a number that will be used in the noise budget to convert the measured DARM spectrum to units of m/rtHz.
• We have to multiply this by 10/2^15 V/ct, undo the 6dB whitening gain on the AS55_Q channel, and undo the ~5x gain from V_RF to V_IF (see Attachment #4 of this), to get ~0.69 GV/m from the RFPD.
• The RF transimpedance of AS55_Q is ~550 ohms, and accounting for the InGaAs responsivity, I get an optical gain of 1.8 MW/m. Need to check how this lines up with expectations from the light levels, but seems reasonable.
• Note that T_SRM is 10%, we dump 70% of the output field into the unused OMC, and there is a 50/50 BS splitting the light between AS55 and AS110 PDs. Assuming 90% throughput from the rest of the chain, we are only sensing ~1.3 % of the output DARM field.
• Apart from this, I can also infer what the matrix elements / gains need to be for transitioning the PRMI control from 3f to 1f signals. To be done...
• I found these histograms in Attachment #2 to be a cute way of (i) visualizing the variance in the magnitude of the sensing element and (ii) visualizing the separation between the quadratures, which tells us if the (digital) demod phase needs to be modified.
• The sensing lines were on for 5 minutes (=300 seconds) and the FFT segment length is 5 seconds, so these histograms are binning the 60 different values obtained for the value of the sensing element.
• The black dashed lines are "kernel density estimates" of the underlying PDFs
• I haven't done any rigorous statistical analysis on the appropriateness of using this technique for error estimation, so for now, they are just lines...
Attachment 1: PRFPMI_20200524sensMat.pdf
Attachment 2: PRFPMI_20200524sensMatHistograms.pdf
10856   Tue Jan 6 03:09:17 2015 diegoUpdateLSCPRFPMI status & IFO status

[Jenne, Rana, EricQ, Diego]

Tonight we worked on getting the IFO back in a working status after the break, and then tried some locking.

• the MC is behaving better, it could stay in a stable condition for hours, even if a couple of times it lost lock, and one of them persisted for a little time;
• we managed to get to arm power of 20ish, before losing lock (this happened a couple of times);
• the main thing seems to be that we have only ~ 20 degrees of phase margin at UGF for DARM, which is evidently too little;
• one hypothesis is that DARM may change sign due to some weird length/angular interaction, and that this messes up the actuation causing the lockloss;
• one other possibility is that maybe, when arm power rises, there are some weird flashes that go back to the MC and then cause the locklosses, but this has to be verified;
• attached there is a plot of the last lockloss (and a zoom of it), which seems to point at DARM as the culprit;

We left the IFO uncontrolled and in a "flashy" state so that tomorrow we can look into the "back-flashing to the MC" hypothesis.

10857   Tue Jan 6 03:13:09 2015 ericqUpdateLSCPRFPMI status & IFO status

Two plots from tonight:

Lock loss. Based on the fact that it looked like the DARM servo was running away, Rana posited an effective sign flip in the DARM loop, perhaps due to a parasitic angular feedback mechanism.

While Jenne was probing the IFO at lower powers, we noticed a sudden jump in ASDC. Found the GPS time and fed it to the lockloss plotter. Seems fairly evident that some sudden ETMX motion was to blame. (~2urad kick in yaw)

10863   Wed Jan 7 03:09:15 2015 JenneUpdateLSCPRFPMI status & IFO status

As a warm-up after the holidays, before the real locking began, I installed 1064nm bandpass filters in front of the transmission QPDs to eliminate the stray green light that is there.

The Yend had threads epoxied to it, so that end should be good.  Steve is going to repeat that for the Xend QPD at some point.  Right now, the filter is just on a lens mount about 2cm away from the PD box aperture, since that's as close as I could get it.

Also, while I was at the Xend, I noticed that the transmission camera is gone.  I assume that it was in the way of Manasa's fiber work, and that it'll get put back somehow, sometime.  She elogged that she had removed it, but I mistakenly thought that it was already replaced.  We don't use that camera much, so I'm not worried.

10734   Tue Nov 25 02:04:19 2014 JenneUpdateLSCPRFPMI tonight - need some PRCL and MICH tuning at high arm powers

Take-away for the night:  We need to do some more fine-tuning of the PRCL and MICH loops when we have arm resonance.

Koji sat with me for the first part of the night, and we looked back at the data from last week (elog 10727), as well as some fresh data from tonight.  Looking at the spectra, we noticed that last week, and early in the evening today, I had a fairly broad peak centered around ~51Hz.  We are not at all sure where this is coming from.  The PRMI was locked on REFL 33 I&Q, and CARM and DARM were both on ALS comm and diff.  This peak would repeat-ably come and go when I changed the CARM offset.  At high arm powers (above a few tens? I don't know where exactly), the peak would show up.  Move off resonance, and the peak goes away.  However, later in the night, after an IFO realignment, I wasn't able to reproduce this effect.  So.  We aren't sure where it comes from, but it is visible only in the CARM spectra, so there's some definite feedback funny business going on.

Anyhow, after that, since I couldn't reproduce it, I went on to trying to hold the PRMI at high arm powers, but wasn't so successful.  I would reduce the CARM offset, and instead of a 50Hz peak, I would get broadband noise in the PRMI error signals, that would eventually also couple in to the CARM (but not DARM) error signal, and I would lose PRMI lock. I measured the PRCL and MICH transfer functions while the arms were at some few units of power, and found that while MICH was fine, PRCL was losing too much phase at 100Hz, so I took away the FM3 boost.  This helped, but not enough. I had 1's in the triggering matrix for TRX and TRY to both PRCL and MICH, so that even if POP22 went low, if the arms were still locked then the PRMI wouldn't lose lock unnecessarily, but I was still having trouble.  In an effort to get around this, I transitioned PRMI over to REFL 165 I&Q.

While the arms were held around powers of 2ish, I readjusted the REFL 165 demod phase.  I found it set to 150 deg, but 75 deg is better for PRMI locking with the arms.  For either acquiring or transitioning from REFL33, I would use REFL165I * -1.5 for PRCL, and REFL 165Q * 0.75 for MICH.  (Actually, I was using -2 for REFL165I->PRCL, and +0.9 for REFL165Q->MICH, but I had to lower the servo gains, so doing some a posteriori math gives me -1.5 and +0.75 for what my matrix elements should have been, if I wanted to leave my servo gains at 2.4 for MICH and -0.02 for PRCL.) I don't always acquire on REFL165, and if it's taking a while I'll go back to putting 1's in the REFL33 I&Q matrix elements and then make the transition.

With PRMI on REFL 165 I&Q, I no longer had any trouble keeping the PRMI locked at arbitrarily high arm powers.  I was still using 1*POP22I + 1*TRX + 1*TRY for triggering PRCL and MICH.  My thresholds were 50 up, 0.1 down.  The idea is that even if POP goes low (which we've seen about halfway up the CARM resonance), if we're getting some power recycling and the arms are above 1ish, then that means that the PRMI is still locked and we shouldn't un-trigger anything.  I didn't try switching over to POP110 for triggering, because POP22 was working fine.

Earlier in the night, Koji and I had seen brief linear regions in POX and POY, as well as some of the REFL signals when we passed quickly through the CARM resonance.  I don't have plots of these, but they should be easy to reproduce tomorrow night.  Koji tried a few times to blend in some POY to the CARM error signal, but we were not ever successful with that.  But, since we can see the PDH-y looking regions, there may be some hope, especially if Q tells us about his super secret new CESAR plan.

Okay, I'm clearly too tired to be writing, but here are some plots.  The message from these is that the PRMI loops are causing us to fluctuate wildly in arm transmission power.  We should fix this, since it won't go away by getting off of ALS.  The plots are from a time when I had the PRMI locked on REFL165, and CARM and DARM were still on ALS comm and diff.  All 3 of these colored plots have the same x-axis.   They should really be one giant stacked plot.

Also, bonus plot of a time when the arm powers went almost to 200:

10736   Wed Nov 26 05:15:48 2014 JenneUpdateLSCPRFPMI tonight PRMI 100Hz osc?

[Jenne, EricQ]

Just to get our day started right, we tweaked up the alignment of the Ygreen to the Yarm (after IR alignment), and also touched up the X beatnote alignment on the PSL table.  Ran the LSC offsets script, and then started locking.

All of the locking tonight has been based on CARM and DARM held on ALS comm/diff, and PRMI held on REFL165.  Today, CARM was actuated using MC2.  No special reason for the switch from ETMs. The AS port is noticeably darker when using REFL165 instead of REFL33.

Around 12:33am(ish), we were able to hold the arms at powers of about 100, for almost a minute.  The fluctuations were at least 50% of that value, but the average was pretty high.  Exciting.

Q and I tried a few times to engage the AO path while the arms were held at these high powers.  Q hopefully remembers what the gain and sign values were where we lost lock.  We didn't pursue this very far, since I was seeing the 50Hz oscillation that Koji and I saw the other day.  I increased the CARM gain from 6 to 10, and that seemed to help significantly.  Also, messing with the PRMI loops a bit helped.  Q increased the pole frequency in FM 5 for both MICH and PRCL from 2k to 3k.  While he had Foton open, he made sure that all of the LSC DoF filters use the z:p notation.

I then did a few trials of trying to transition CARM over to normalized REFL11I.  Now that I'm typing, it occurs to me that I should have checked REFL11's demod phase.  Ooops.  Anyhow, using the phase that was in there, I turned on a cal line pushing on ETMs CARM, and found that using -0.002*REFL11I / (TRX + TRY) was the right set of elements.  I also put an offset of 0.05 into the CARM CESAR RF place, and started moving.  I tried several times, but never got past about 30% normalized REFL11 and 70% ALS comm.

During these trials, Q and I worked also on tweaking up the PRMI lock.  As mentioned last night, PRCL FM3 eats too much phase (~30deg at 100Hz!), so I don't turn that on ever.  But, I do turn on FM1 (which is new tonight), FM2, 6, 8 and 9.  FM8 is a flat gain of 0.6 that I use so I can have higher gain to make acquisition faster, but immediately turn the gain down to keep the loop in the center of the phase bubble.  MICH needed a lowpass, so in addition to FM2, I am now also triggering FM 8, which is a 400Hz lowpass that was already in there.

Now, my MICH gain is 2.4, with +0.75*REFL165Q, and PRCL gain is -0.02 with -3*REFL165I.  Triggering for both MICH and PRCL is 1*POP22I + 5*TRX with 50 up, 0.1 down.

In my latest set of locks, I have been losing lock semi-regularly due to a 100Hz oscillation in either the PRCL or MICH loops.  If I watch the spectra, most times I take a step in CARM offset reduction, I get a broad peak in both the MICH and PRCL error signals.  Most of the time, I stay locked, and the oscillation dies away.  Sometimes though it is large enough to put me out of lock.  I'm not sure yet where this is coming from, but I think it's the next thing that needs fixing.

Here is a shot of the spectra just as one of these 100Hz oscillations shows up.  The dashed traces are the nominal error signals when I'm sitting at some CARM offset, and the solid traces are just after a step has been made. The glitch is only happening in the PRMI, not CARM and DARM.

10582   Wed Oct 8 03:37:44 2014 ericqUpdateLSCPRFPMI, other sign of CARM offset

[ericq, Jenne]

We attempted some of the same old CARM offset reduction tonight, but from the other direction. (We have no direct knowledge of which is the spring and which is the anti-spring side)

We we able to get to, and sit at, arm powers on the order of 5. Really, we kind of wanted just to push things to try and inform our current ideas of what our limiting factor is, so as to appropriately expend our efforts.

Candidates include:

• ALS noise causing excess DARM motion
• Means we need to DRMI to widen DARM linewidth, avoid sign flip in AS55, IR lock DARM sooner
• Intolerable sensor noise makes CARM wander too much, changing our plant more than our loops can handle
• We should work on having live calibrated CARM spectra during lock attempts, to compare with Jenne's noise estimates, and see where/how/why we exceed it.
• detuned CARM pole causes loop instability
• Maybe some sort of notching can get us by
• AO path could extend bandwidth, getting the pole into the control band
• SqrtInv signals losing low frequency sensitivity due to radiation pressure, or DC sensitivity due to transmission curve flattening out
• Bring in AO path for supplementary bandwidth, which lets us turn up loop gain / engage big boosts
• Or, switch to REFLDC in digital land, which is nontrivial, due to different optical plant shapes.

We took many digital CARM OLTFs at different offsets; it never really looked like a burgeoning pole was about to make things unstable. The low frequency OLTF data had bad SNR, so it wasn't clear if we were losing gain there. We weren't at arm powers where we would expect the DC transmission curve to flatten out yet, from simulations (which is above a few tens).

My impression from at least our last lock loss was a DARM excursion. However, using the DRMI won't get rid of the second two points.

10583   Wed Oct 8 03:49:42 2014 JenneUpdateLSCPRFPMI, other sign of CARM offset

Other thoughts from talking with Rana earlier:

• Is it possible to suppress CARM motion enough that we can use just a digital loop?  Can we do without the AO path?  What would said digital loop have to look like?
• Q points out that there is a zero in the relative transfer function between CARM to transmission, and CARM to REFLDC.  Is that zero invertible?
• We should look at some limits, like saturation limits.  How much will we need to actuate?
• Rana is looking at making a more detailed CARM loop model in simulink to see if we can stay stable throughout our CARM offset reduction journey.

Also, Q and I squished on the suspension connectors earlier tonight.  MC2 was going wonky, which we feared might be because we were in that area working on Chiara earlier.  Then, after squishing the MC connectors, the PRM started misbehaving, so we went and gave all the corner suspension connectors another squish.  No suspension glitching problems since then.

9920   Wed May 7 04:01:44 2014 rana, jenneUpdateLSCPRFPMI: Common Mode servo using REFL_DC ON, CARM offset still non-zero
1. With REFL_DC coupled into the CM board through an SR560 (with an offset subtractor), we were able to transition to use it as the CARM error signal.
2. We reduced the CARM offset until the arm powers went up to ~13.
3. We had the AO path turned on and the MCL/AO crossover was ~150 Hz.
4. We saw the double cavity pole come in from HF down to ~1-2 kHz. The lock stayed stable like this.
5. We've set the IMC overall gain higher by +4dB in the mcup script. That's -4 dB from Eric's max gain earlier today.
6. We have some scripts now for this scripts/PRFPMI/ :   camr_cm_down.sh and carm_cm_up.sh
7. The sequence was ALS -> SqrtInv while digital with CARM -> MC2. Then we digital transition to REFL_DC using the CM board switch to put REFL_DC into the REFL11_I socket.
8. REFL_DC is noisy, so we upped the SR560 gain by 10 and compensated.

Also, we found the PRM OL off and turned it back on. The ETMY was swinging a lot after lock loss, so we set its SUSPOS damping gain to match the ETMX and it stopped swinging so much.

Next up: more of the same, make this sequence more stable, turn on CARM OSC and watch the LOCKI outputs while we slowly ramp between signals.

Also, what should be the sign of the CARM offset ???

9362   Fri Nov 8 18:12:21 2013 JenneUpdateLSCPRFPMI: Not crossing any resonances

 Quote: There are several things at this point that we know we need to look into: * Simulate an arm sweep, up to many orders of the sidebands, to see how close to the carrier resonance any sideband resonances might be.  If something like the 4th order sideband resonates, and then beats with a 1st order sideband, is that signal big enough to disturb our 3f locking of the PRMI / DRMI?  We want to be holding the arms off resonance with ALS closer to the carrier than any "important" sideband resonances (where the definition of "important" is still undetermined).  (Simulation)

I have done a sweep of CARM, while looking at the fields inside of one arm (I've chosen the Xarm), to see where any resonances might be, that could be causing us trouble in keeping the PRMI locked as we bring the arms into resonance.

Since Gabriele pointed out to me that we're using the 3x55MHz signal for locking, we should be most concerned about resonances of the higher orders of 55, and not of 11.  So, on this plot, I have up to the 6th order 55 MHz sidebands, which are 332 MHz.  Although the Matlab default color chart has wrapped around, it's clear that the carrier is the carrier, and the +4f2, which is the same blue, is not the giant central peak.  So, it's kind of clear which trace is which, even though the legend colors are degenerate.  Also, the main point that I want to show here is that there is nothing going on near the carrier, with any relevant amplitude.  The nearest things are the plus and minus 55 MHz sidebands themselves, and they're more than 50 nm away from the carrier.

Recalling from elog 9122, the PRFPMI and DRFPMI linewidths are about 40pm.  50pm away from the resonant point is ~1/10 the power, and 100pm away from the resonant point is ~1/100 the power.  So, 50 nm is a looooong ways away.

Just for kicks, here is a plot of all the resonances of the 1f and 2f modulation frequencies, up to 30*f1, which is the same 6*f2:

The resonances which are "close" to the carrier are the 9th order 11 MHz sidebands, and they're 280pm from the carrier, so twice as far as we need to be, to get our arm powers to ~1/100 of the maximum, and, they're a factor of ~1e4 smaller than the carrier.

15892   Wed Mar 10 00:32:03 2021 gautamUpdateLSCPRFPMi

The interferometer can nearly be locked again. I was unable to fully hand off control from ALS-->RF, I suspect I may be using the wrong sign on the AO path (or some such other sub-optimal CM board settings). I'll hook up the SR785 and take some TFs tomorrow, that should give more insight into what's what. With the arms held off resonance, the PRMI acquires lock nearly instantly (REFL165 I for PRCL, REFL165 Q for MICH), and can stay locked nearly indefinitely, which is what I need so I can get the RF lock going. However the sensing matrix (for vertex DoFs, arms held off resonance) still makes no sense to me. The MICH loop has ~50 Hz UGF and the PRCL loop ~150 Hz. I think the MICH loop shape can be optimized a little for better low frequency suppression, but this isn't the show-stopper at the moment. For record-keeping, the ALS performance was excellent and other subsystems were nominal tonight.

Attachment 1: PRMI3f_ALSsensMat.pdf
15900   Thu Mar 11 01:45:42 2021 gautamUpdateLSCPRFPMi
1. PRM satellite box indeed seems to have been the culprit - shortly after I swapped it to the SRM, its shadow sensors went dark. I leave the watchdog tripped.
2. I still was unable to realize the RF only IFO
• Clearly my old settings don't work, so I tried to go about it systematically. First, try and transition CARM to RF, leave DARM on ALS.
• As usual, I can realize the state were the arm powers are ~100, and the two paths are blended.
• But I'm not able to completely turn off the CARM_A path without blowing the lock.

Pity really, I was hoping to make it much further tonight. I think I'll have to go back to the high BW POX/POY lock, and also check out the conversion efficiency / noise of the daughter board on the REFL11 demod board. Compared to before my work on the RF source, the demod phase for the PRMI lock using REFL11 as an error signal has basically necessitated a change of the digital demod phase by 180 degrees - so I made the appropriate polarity changes in the CM_SLOW and AO paths (the assumption is that CARM in REFL11 would require the same change in digital demod phase, and I think this is a reasonable assumption - indeed, with the arm powers somewhat stable ~100, if I look at the PDH signal in REFL11 I and Q, it does seem to show up largely in the I quadrature (pre digital phase rotation). Anyway, with so many weird effects (wonky PRM suspension, strange PRMI sensing etc etc, who knows what's going on. This will take a systematic effort.

I defer the electronics characterization for the daytime (if I feel like I need it tomorrow I'll do it, else. Koji has said he can do it on Friday).

 Quote: I was unable to fully hand off control from ALS-->RF, I suspect I may be using the wrong sign on the AO path (or some such other sub-optimal CM board settings). I'll hook up the SR785 and take some TFs tomorrow, that should give more insight into what's what.
15935   Thu Mar 18 01:12:31 2021 gautamUpdateLSCPRFPMi
1. Integrated >1 hour at RF only control, high circulating powers tonight.
• All of the locklosses were due to me typing a wrong number / turning on the wrong filter.
• So the lock seems pretty stable, at least on the 20 minute timescale.
• No idea why given the various known broken parts.
2. Did a bunch of characterization.
• DARM OLTF - Attachment #1. The reference is when DARM is under ALS control.
• CARM OLTF - Attachment #2. Seems okay.
• Sensing matrix - Attachment #3. The CARM and DARM phases seem okay. Maybe the CARM phase can be tuned a bit with the delay line, but I think we are within 10 degrees.
3. TRX/TRY between 300-400, with large fluctuations mostly angular. So PRG ~17-22, to answer Koji's question in the meeting today.
• This is similar to what I had before the vent of Sep 2020.
• Not surprising to me, since I claim that we are in the regime where the recycling gain is limited by the flipped folding mirrors.
4. Tried to tweak the ASC (QPD only) by looking at the step responses, but I could never get the loop gains such that I could close an integrator on all the loops.

I need to think a little bit about the ASC commissioning strategy. On the positive side

1. REFL11 board seems to perform at least as well as before.
2. ALS performance made me (as Pep would say), so so happy.
3. Whole lock acquisiton sequence takes ~5mins if the PRMI catches lock quickly (5/7 times tonight).
4. Process seems repeatable.

1. How to get the AS WFS in the picture?
2. What does the (still) crazy sensing matrix mean? I think it's not possible to transfer vertex control to 1f signals with this kind of sensing.
3. What does it mean that the PRM actuation seems to work, even though the coils are imabalnced by a factor of 3-5, and the coil resistances read out <2 ohms???
4. What's going on at the ALS-->CARM transition? The ALS noise is clearly low enough that I can sit inside the CARM linewidth. Yet, there seems to be some offset between what ALS thinks is the resonant point, and what the REFL11 signal thinks is the resonant point. I am kind of able to "power through" this conflict, but the IMC error point (=AO path) is not very happy during the transition. It worked 8/8 times tonight, but would be good to figure out how to make this even more robust.
Attachment 1: DARM_OLTF_20210317.pdf
Attachment 2: CARMTF_20210317.pdf
Attachment 3: PRFPMI_Mar_17sensMat.pdf
15372   Wed Jun 3 18:49:47 2020 gautamUpdateLSCPRG and CARM signal sign

Summary:

I am inclined to believe that the arm cavity losses are such that the IFO is overcoupled. Some calculations, validated with Finesse modeling also suggest that there isn't a sign change for the CARM error signal when the IFO goes from being undercoupled to overcoupled, but I may have made a mistake here?

Details:

• We’d like to gain some insight into whether the interferometer is undercoupled, critically coupled, or overcoupled. Factors that determine which of these is true include:
• Arm cavity losses
• Recycling cavity losses
• The proxy by which we determine the recycling gain is usually the arm cavity transmission. Assuming T_PRM = 5.637 % according to the wiki, and assuming the arm cavity transmission is normalized to 1 when locked in the POX/POY state, we can say that the PRG is given by G_PRC = TRX × T_PRM, assuming that the (i) the RF sideband fields are perfectly rejected by the arm cavities and (ii) mode-matching efficiency between the input beam and the arm mode is the same as that between the input beam and the CARM mode.
• Apart from this, the other measurement we have available to us is the buildup of the sideband fields, namely POP22 and POP110. We can compare the values in the PRMI lock vs the PRFPMI to make some inference.
• I started off with an analytic calculation of the reflectivity of the compound arm cavity mirror.
• Attachment #1 suggests we will have an over-coupled IFO for arm cavity losses below ~200 ppm, which is a regime we are almost certainly in now.
• Then, I repeat the analysis for the coupled CARM cavity, with the end mirror as the compound arm mirror and the input mirror as the PRM.
• I assume 2 % loss in the PRC.
• Attachment #2 shows that while the carrier field goes through a sign change in amplitude reflectivity (as expected), the sideband fields dont.
• Per equation 4.2 of Koji's thesis, the error signal for CARM depends on the (signed) IFO reflectivity, and the absolute value of the derivative of the arm cavity reflectivity for the carrier w.r.t. CARM phase.
• So, we don't expect the REFL11 signal to show a sign change.
• The situation is more complicated for PRCL in REFL11, because as explicitly evaluated in Eq 4.3 of Koji's thesis, there are two terms that contribute, and their relative magnitudes will dictate the overall sign.
• For a Finesse validation, I use a simplified 3 mirror coupled cavity to approximate the PRFPMI. I also retained the RF sidebands for diagnostic purposes. The idea was to study these PRG proxies and what their expected behavior is.
• Attachment #3 shows the PDH error signal in the (arbitrarily defined) REFL11 I quadrature. While the optical gain changes as a function of the arm cavity loss, the actual slope does not change sign. The fact that the zero crossing doesn't happen at exactly 0 CARM offset is because of higher order mode light at the REFL port (in my model, I tried to preserve the flipped folding mirror situation so the mode matching between the arm cavity and PRC in my model is ~96%).
• In fact, this may explain why a CARM_B offset is required to do the ALS-->IR handoff - the ALS servo wants to keep the arm offset to zero, but at that point, the PDH error signal isn't zero, and so the two loops end up fighting each other?
• Attachment #4 is a more detailed study of the recycling gain as a function of arm cavity loss, but now including losses in the recycling cavity.

Conclusions:

1. I think the arm cavity losses are in the 60-80 ppm round-trip region. I don't see how we can explain the arm cavity transmission of ~350 otherwise.
2. The fact that REFLDC decreases as the arm transmission increases is because the input beam is getting better matched to the CARM mode, and there is less junk carrier light.

Thoughts from others?

Attachment 1: armCavReflectivities.pdf
Attachment 2: IFOreflectivities.pdf
Attachment 3: PDHerrSigs.pdf
Attachment 4: PRGvsLoss_finesse.pdf
15041   Wed Nov 20 21:29:28 2019 gautamUpdateLSCPRG ~13

After the QPD fix, both arms report consistent buildup - see Attachment #1. The peak values touch ~250, corresponding to a PRG of ~13. The IFO becomes critically coupled at PRG=15. I am finding that the 3f signal offsets are changing as a function of the CARM offset, and this could be responsible for the lock breaking as I approach 0 CARM offset. I found that I could maintain a more stable and deterministic transition to zero CARM offset by dynamically adjusting the 3f PRCL error signal offset to keep the REFL11 signal approximately at 0. Some shaking seems to have commenced so I am breaking for now.

Note that I find scattered throughout the elog references to a similar problem of the PRMI losing lock as the CARM offset is reduced, e.g. here. But haven't stumbled across what the resolution was, the PRFPMI could be locked pretty easily in 2015 I remember.

Attachment 1: PRG13.pdf
13484   Fri Dec 15 18:24:46 2017 ranaSummaryOptical LeversPRM

Today Angelina and I looked at the PRM OL with an eye towards installing a 2nd QPD. We want to try out using 2 QPDs for a single optic to see if theres a way to make a linear combination of them to reduce the sensitivity to jitter of the HeNe laser or acoustic noise on the table.

The power supply for the HeNe was gone, so I took one from the SP table.

There are WAY too many optics in use to get the beam from the HeNe into the vacuum and then back out. What we want is 1 steering mirror after the laser and then 1 steering mirror before the QPD. Even though there are rumors that this is impossible, I checked today and in fact it is very, very possible.

More optics = more noise = bad.

4616   Tue May 3 16:20:13 2011 steveUpdateSUSPRM & BS oplevs are ready

 Quote: The returning spot diameter on the qpd ~10 mm. In order to reduce the spot size I moved the f 1145 mm lens toward the PRM ~ 25 cm. The spot size was reduced to ~8 mm, 3200 counts. I'll try to find an other lens tomorrow.

Atm 1,  PRM oplev inward path with 2 lens solution: 14 cm gap between F 1145 and F 1545 mm lenses.

Atm 2,   The PRM beam size 3 mm and the beam  quality is still bad. The BS path only needed alignment.

Attachment 1: P1070630.JPG
Attachment 2: P1070632.JPG
7637   Mon Oct 29 09:33:42 2012 SteveUpdateSUSPRM & ETMY sus damping restored
10270   Thu Jul 24 14:20:30 2014 SteveUpdateSUSPRM & other oplev gain settings checked

The PRM sus gains checked OK

All other suspension oplev gains setting were checked out OK

Attachment 1: PRMgainsSensors.png
3741   Tue Oct 19 15:14:51 2010 JenneUpdateSUSPRM (little) update

[Jenne, Suresh]

We've aligned the guiderod and wire standoff to the PRM, each partly.  They have both been aligned to the correct distance above the scribe lines, but they have not yet been centered forward/backward along the thickness of the optic.  So, we're working on it...

7913   Thu Jan 17 15:48:21 2013 JenneUpdateLockingPRM - Flat mirror cavity

2" G&H mirror is installed on a DLC mount just in front of the BS.  I had to remove one of the 4 BS dog clamps, so we must put it back when we are finished with this test.

I aligned the G&H mirror such that the reflected beam is overlapped with the incident beam, and I aligned the PRM such that the regular REFL beam is retro-reflected.  This is the same as getting the beam bouncing off the PRM back to the G&H to be overlapped.

I then saw flashes of the cavity, when I held a card with a hole in the cavity, so the beam was going through a small aperture in the card, but I still saw flashes.  I was not able to see flashes on the IR card transmitted through the G&H mirror.

I also cannot see any flashes or scattered light on the face of PR2 camera.

I do, however, see flashes on the face of the PRM.  Movie saved, will post soonly.

Light is coming out of REFL on the AS table, but it's clipped somewhere....needs investigation/work before we can lock.

I also didn't see anything at the POP port with a card, but I'm hopeful that perhaps with a camera I'll see something.

7917   Fri Jan 18 09:54:18 2013 JenneUpdateLockingPRM - Flat mirror cavity

 Quote: I do, however, see flashes on the face of the PRM.  Movie saved, will post soonly.

Dang it.  I didn't confirm that the movie was good, just that it was there.  It's corrupted or something, and won't play.  I'll just have to make a new movie today after I realign the cavity.

7906   Wed Jan 16 18:52:49 2013 JenneUpdateLockingPRM - Flat mirror cavity plan

Game plan:

* Put 2" G&H mirror into BS chamber, in front of BS.

* Align it, lock cavity using an existing REFL PD.

* Align POP setup so I can use POP camera to take image of transmitted cavity mode, and actually take that image.

* Take image of face of PR2.

* Measure finesse of cavity using POP, or a Thorlabs PD at POP (looking at transmission through PR2) by scanning PRM, and infer cavity gain....compare with values in elog 7905.

* If time / inclination allow, take beam scan measurements of the REFL port.

I will not be able to do as was done in elog 6421 to look at the beam size at POP for non-resonating beams.  I expect ~0.1uW of light at POP in the non-resonant case:  100mW * 5.5% * 20ppm = 0.11microwatts.

9634   Thu Feb 13 19:36:36 2014 KojiSummaryLSCPRM 2nd/4th violin filter added

Jenne and I noticed high pitch sound from our acoustic interferometer noise diagnostic system.
The frequency of this narrow band noise was 1256Hz, which is enough close to twice of the PRM violin mode freq.
After putting notch filter at 1256+/-25Hz at the violin filters, the noise is gone. Just in case I copied the same filters to all of the test masses.

Later, I found that the 4th violin modes are excited. Additional notch filters were added to "vio3" filter bank to mitigate the oscillation.

9619   Mon Feb 10 18:59:25 2014 JenneUpdateASCPRM ASC better, but not great yet

I have turned off the 3.2Hz res gains in the PRC ASC loops, since those seem to make the loops unstable.

Right now the pitch gain is -0.001, with FM1,3,9 on.  Yaw gain is -0.004, with FM1,3,9 on.

Pitch gain can't increase by factor of 2 without oscillating.

I tried to take transfer functions, but I think the ASC situation is really confusing, since I have OSEM damping, oplev damping, and this POP QPD damping on the PRM.  It's hard to get coherence without knocking the PRC out of lock, and it keeps looking like my gain is 0dB, with a phase of 0 degrees, from ~1 Hz to ~10 Hz.  Outside that range I haven't gotten any coherence.  Moral of the story is, I'm kind of puzzled.

Anyhow, as it is right now, the ASC helps a bit, but not a whole lot.  I increased the trigger ON value, so that it shouldn't kick the PRM so much.  I wish that I had implemented a delay in the trigger, but I'm not in the mood to mess with the simulink diagrams right now.

9620   Mon Feb 10 19:56:10 2014 ranaUpdateASCPRM ASC better, but not great yet

Ignoring the OSEM damping loops, the oplev servo loops make it so that the POP ASC loops do not see a simple pendulum plant, but instead see the closed loop response. Since the filter in the OL bank is proportional to f, this means that the open loop gain (OLG):

$OLG = \frac{s^2}{s0^2 + i*s0*s/Q +s^2}$

Which means that the CLG that the ASC sees is going to dip below unity in the band where the OL is on. For example, if the OL loop has a UGF of 5 Hz, it also has a lower UGF of ~0.15 Hz, which means that the ASC needs to know about this modified plant in this band.

For i/eLIGO, we dealt with this in this way: anti-OL in iLIGO

9769   Mon Mar 31 23:57:22 2014 KojiSummaryASCPRM ASC characterization / design

A series of measurements / calculations for the PRM ASC characterization and servo design

1) Actuator characterization

The actuator responses of the PRM in pitch and yaw were measured (attachment figure 1). I believed the calibration of the oplev QPD to be
1 count/urad. The oplev servo loops were turned off at the FM inputs, and the filter banks were turned off so that the response has the open
loop transfer function except for the servo filter.

The measured transfer functions were fitted with LISO. The LISO results (c.f. the source codes) were shown in the figure. The responses also
include the 60Hz comb filter present in the input filters. The responses are well approximated by the single pendulum with f0 of 0.6-0.8 and q of 3.5 and 6.3.

From this measurement, the actuator responses of the PRM at DC are estimated to be 2.2 urad/cnt and 1.8 urad/cnt in pitch and yaw, respectively.

2) Sensor response of the POP QPD

As we already know how the actuators respond, the QPD optical gain can be characterized by measuring the actuator response of the QPD
(attachment figure 2). The QPD signals are such noisy that the response above 1Hz can't be measured with sufficient coherence. Below 1Hz,
the response is well represented by the actuator response measured with the oplev. From this measurement, the optical gains of the QPD
with respect to the PRM motion are 650 cnt/urad and 350 cnt/urad.

3) Open loop transfer function of the current ASC servo

By combining the above information with the servo setting of the servo filters, the open loop transfer functions of the PRM QPD ASC loops
were estimated (attachment figure 3). Actually the expected suppression of the fluctuation is poor. The yaw loop seems to have
too low gain, but in fact increasing gain is not so beneficial as there is no reasonable phase margin at higher frequency.

With the estimated openloop transfer functions and the measured free-running angular fluctuation, the suppressed angular spectra can be
estimated (attachment figure 4). This tells us that the suppression of the angular noise at around 3Hz is not sufficient in both pitch and yaw.
As there is no mechanical resonance in the actuator response at the frequency, intentional placement of poles and zeros in the servo filter is necessary.

4) Newly designed ASC filter

Here is the new design of the QPD ASC servo (attachment figure 5). The target upper UGF is 10Hz with the phase margin of 50 to 60deg.
The servo is AC coupled so that we still can tweak the alignment of the mirror.

As this servo is conditionally stable, at first we should close the loops with stable filter and then some boosts should be turned on.
Estimated suppressed fluctuation is shown in the attachment figure 6. We can see that the fluctuation was made well white between 0.5Hz to 10Hz.

The filter design is shown as follows:

Pitch
FM1: zero at 0Hz, pole at 2000Hz, gain at 2000Hz = 2000

FM3: (boost)
zero: f: 0.5Hz q: 1  /  4.5Hz, q: 1 / f: 1Hz, q: 3
pole: f: 2Hz q: 3  / f: 2.7Hz, q: 2  / f: 1Hz, q: 15

FM9: (HF Roll-off)
pole: f: 40Hz q: 1.7

Servo gain: -0.028

Yaw
FM1: zero at 0Hz, pole at 2000Hz, gain at 2000Hz = 2000

FM3: (boost)
zero: f: 0.7Hz q: 2  /  3Hz, q: 7 / f: 2Hz, q: 6
pole: f: 1.02Hz q: 10  / f: 4.5Hz, q: 0.8  / f: 1.5Hz, q: 10

FM9: (HF Roll-off)
pole: f: 40Hz q: 1.7

Servo gain: -0.0132

Attachment 1: PRM_OPLEV.pdf
Attachment 2: PRM_QPD.pdf
Attachment 3: OLTF_design.pdf
Attachment 4: QPD_spe.pdf
Attachment 5: OLTF_design2.pdf
Attachment 6: QPD_spe2.pdf
Attachment 7: 140328.zip
16384   Wed Oct 6 15:04:36 2021 HangUpdateSUSPRM L2P TF measurement & Fisher matrix analysis

[Paco, Hang]

Yesterday afternoon Paco and I measured the PRM L2P transfer function. We drove C1:SUS-PRM_LSC_EXC with a white noise in the 0-10 Hz band (effectively a white, longitudinal force applied to the suspension) and read out the pitch response in C1:SUS-PRM_OL_PIT_OUT. The local damping was left on during the measurement. Each FFT segment in our measurement is 32 sec and we used 8 non-overlapping segments for each measurement. The empirically determined results are also compared with the Fisher matrix estimation (similar to elog:16373).

Results:

Fig. 1 shows one example of the measured L2P transfer function. The gray traces are measurement data and shaded region the corresponding uncertainty. The olive trace is the best fit model.

Note that for a single-stage suspension, the ideal L2P TF should have two zeros at DC and two pairs of complex poles for the length and pitch resonances, respectively. We found the two resonances at around 1 Hz from the fitting as expected. However, the zeros were not at DC as the ideal, theoretical model suggested. Instead, we found a pair of right-half plane zeros in order to explain the measurement results. If we cast such a pair of right-half plane zeros into (f, Q) pair, it means a negative value of Q. This means the system does not have the minimum phase delay and suggests some dirty cross-coupling exists, which might not be surprising.

Fig. 2 compares the distribution of the fitting results for 4 different measurements (4 red crosses) and the analytical error estimation obtained using the Fisher matrix (the gray contours; the inner one is the 1-sigma region and the outer one the 3-sigma region). The Fisher matrix appears to underestimate the scattering from this experiment, yet it does capture the correlation between different parameters (the frequencies and quality factors of the two resonances).

One caveat though is that the fitting routine is not especially robust. We used the vectfit routine w/ human intervening to get some initial guesses of the model. We then used a standard scipy least-sq routine to find the maximal likelihood estimator of the restricted model (with fixed number of zeros and poles; here 2 complex zeros and 4 complex poles). The initial guess for the scipy routine was obtained from the vectfit model.

Fig. 3 shows how we may shape our excitation PSD to maximize the Fisher information while keeping the RMS force applied to the PRM suspension fixed. In this case the result is very intuitive. We simply concentrate our drive around the resonance at ~ 1 Hz, focusing on locations where we initially have good SNR. So at least code is not suggesting something crazy...

Fig. 4 then shows how the new uncertainty (3-sigma contours) should change as we optimize our excitation. Basically one iteration (from gray to olive) is sufficient here.

We will find a time very recently to repeat the measurement with the optimized injection spectrum.

Attachment 1: prm_l2p_tf_meas.pdf
Attachment 2: prm_l2p_fisher_vs_data.pdf
Attachment 3: prm_l2p_Pxx_evol.pdf
Attachment 4: prm_l2p_fisher_evol.pdf
12476   Wed Sep 7 17:23:26 2016 gautamUpdateSUSPRM LR fixed for now

[johannes, gautam]

• We took the heavy door off in the morning with Steve's help
• The problem was quickly identified as the Al foil on the back of the PRM OSEMs (placed to mitigate scattered light making it into the OSEM that was making locking difficult) shorting out the pins on the rear of the OSEM
• We decided against using a black glass beam stop behind the PRM - rather, we decided to go for Al foil hats that were
1. More "domed" - so the back plane of the OSEM isn't in direct contact with the Al foil, though the hats themselves are secure and shouldn't simply fly off during pump down etc
2. Have a piece of kapton (courtesy Koji from the OMC lab) in the dome so that even if the foil hats move around slightly, there should be no danger of accidentally shorting out any pins
• Without removing the PRM OSEMs, we were only able to image UR and UL unambiguously showing that they have no filters. Not a single of the 5 spare 'short' OSEMs have filters. We have to open the ITMY chamber to reposition the OSEMs in the near future, which is when we will inspect SRM for filters.
• Attachment #1 shows a picture of these foil hats - the ones actually put on are shaped slightly differently, but the idea is the same
• Attachment #2 shows the PRM with its new OSEM hats (we also used a piece of clean copper wire to tie the OSEM cables to the tower on the bottom left of the cage as viewed from the BS-PRM chamber door)
• After closing up the BS-PRM chamber, I locked the IMC to see if the input pointing had gone way off because of our work on the table and the reputation of the tip-tilts hysteresis - I can see weak flashes in the Y arm but not enough to lock - so I will tweak the alignment a little
• Once I can recover the Y arm alignment, we can move on to peeling first contact and putting the X arm optics in.

Edit 7.30pm: I have managed to recover Y-arm in air locking, and the transmission is up at ~0.6 again which is what we were seeing prior to touching anything on the BS-PRM table, so it looks like the tip-tilt has not gone badly astray... I have also restored the Satellite boxes so that both PRM and SRM have their designated boxes

Attachment 1: IMG_3208.JPG
Attachment 2: IMG_3211.JPG
12546   Tue Oct 11 00:43:50 2016 ericqUpdateSUSPRM LR problematic again

Tonight, and during last week's locking, we noticed something intermittently kicking the PRM. I've determined that PRM's LR OSEM is problematic again. The signal is coming in and out, which kicks the OSEM damping loops. I've had the watchdog tripped for a little bit, and here's the last ten minutes of the free swinging OSEM signal:

Here's the hour trend of the PRM OSEMS over the last 7 days a plot of just LR since the fix on the 9th of September.

It looks like it started misbehaving again on the evening of the 5th, which was right when we were trying to lock... Did we somehow jostle the suspension hard enough to knock the foil cap back into a bad spot?

12549   Tue Oct 11 10:15:04 2016 SteveUpdateSUSPRM LR problematic again

It started here

Attachment 1: PRMalfoiled.png
12551   Tue Oct 11 13:30:49 2016 gautamUpdateSUSPRM LR problematic again

Perhaps the problem is electrical? The attached plot shows a downward trend for the LR sensor output over the past 20 days that is not visible in any of the other 4 sensor signals. The Al foil was shorting the electrical contacts for nearly 2 months, so perhaps some part of the driver circuit needs to be replaced? If so a Satellite Box swap should tell us more, I will switch the PRM and SRM satellite boxes. It could also be a dying LED on the OSEM itself I suppose. If we are accessing the chamber, we should come up with a more robust insulating cap solution for the OSEMs rather than this hacky Al foil + kapton arrangement.

The PRM and SRM Satellite boxes have been switched for the time being. I had to adjust some of the damping loop gains for both PRM and SRM and also the PRM input matrix to achieve stable damping as the PRM Satellite box has a Side sensor which reads out 0-10V as opposed to the 0-2V that is usually the case. Furthermore, the output of the LR sensor going into the input matrix has been turned off.

12552   Wed Oct 12 13:34:28 2016 gautamUpdateSUSPRM LR problematic again

Looks like what were PRM problems are now seen in the SRM channels, while PRM itself seems well behaved. This supports the hypothesis that the satellite box is problematic, rather than any in-vacuum shenanigans.

Eric noted in this elog that when this problem was first noticed, switching Satellite boxes didn't seem to fix the problem. I think that the original problem was that the Al foil shorted the contacts on the back of the OSEM. Presumably, running the current driver with (close to) 0 load over 2 months damaged that part of the Satellite box circuitry, which lead to the subsequent observations of glitchy behaviour after the pumpdown. Which begs the question - what is the quick fix? Do we try swapping out the LM6321 in the LR LED current driver stage?

GV Edit Nov 2 2016: According to Rana, the load of the high speed current buffer LM6321 is 20 ohms (13 from the coil, and 7 from the wires between the Sat. Box and the coil). So, while the Al foil was shorting the coil, the buffer would still have seen at least 7 ohms of load resistance, not quite a short circuit. Moreover, the schematic suggests that that the kind of overvoltage protection scheme suggested in page 6 on the LM6321 datasheet has been employed. So it is becoming harder to believe that the problem lies with the output buffer. In any case, we have procured 20 of these discontinued ICs for debugging should we need them, and Steve is looking to buy some more. Ben Abbot will come by later in the afternoon to try and help us debug.

10269   Thu Jul 24 13:01:39 2014 ericqUpdateSUSPRM OPLEV!

## Here's a fun fact: since the great computer failure of June2014, the PRM Oplev gains have been ZERO.

arrrrggggh

I've restored the gains to their old values, and measured the loop TFs.

[Suresh / Kiwamu]

We tried adjusting the OSEMs on PRM, but we didn't complete it due to a malfunction on the coils.

The UL and LL coils are not working correctly, the forces are weak.

Tomorrow we will look into the satellite box, which is one of the suspects.

During the adjustment we found that the POS excitation force was unequal in each sensor.

At the beginning we thought it's because of the difference of the sensitivity in each OSEM due to the bad OSEM orientations.

However it turned out that it comes from the actual force imbalance on each coil.

We checked the force of each coil by putting an offset (-2000 cnts) in each output digital filter and looked at the OSEM signals in time series.

The UL and LL coils are too weak and the responses are almost buried in the noise of the OSEMs in time series.

We briefly checked some analog electronics and found the DAC, AI board and deWhitening board were healthy.

We were able to see the right amount of voltage from the monitor pin on the front panel of the coil driver.

So something downstream are suspicious, including the satellite box, feedthrough and coils.

- - -

Although the coil issue, it could be worth trying to check the input matrix.

Adjustment of the PRM OSEMs are done. The coils turned out to be healthy.

The malfunction was fixed. It was because the UL OSEM was too deeply inserted and barely touching the AR surface of the mirror.

+ Excited POS at 6.5 Hz with an amplitude of 3000 cnts by the LOCKIN oscillator.

+ Looked at the signal of each sensor in frequency domain.

+ Maximized the excitation peak for each of the four face OSEMs by rotating them.

+ Minimized the excitation peak in the SIDE signal by rotating it.

+ Adjusted the OSEM translational position so that they are in the midpoint of the OSEM range.

(POS sensitivity check)

From the view point of the matrix inversion, one thing we want to have is the equally sensitive face sensors and insensitive SIDE OSEM to the POS motion.

To check the success level of today's PRM adjusment, I ran swept sine measurements to take the transfer function from POS to each sensor.

The plots below are the results.  The first figure is the one measured before the adjustment and the second plot is the one after the adjustment.

As shown in the plot, before the adjustment the sensitivity of OSEMs were very different and the SIDE OSEM is quite sensitive to the POS motion.

So PRM used be in an extremely bad situation.

After the adjustment, the plot became much better.

The four face sensors have almost the same sensitivity (within factor of 3) and the SIDE is quite insensitive to the POS motion.

 Quote from #5203 We tried adjusting the OSEMs on PRM, but we didn't complete it due to a malfunction on the coils. The UL and LL coils are not working correctly, the forces are weak.

ELOG V3.1.3-