40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 102 of 344  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Authordown Type Category Subject
  13091   Fri Jun 30 15:25:19 2017 jigyasaUpdateCamerasGigE camera at ETMX

All thanks to Steve, we cleaned the view port on the ETMX on which the camera is installed, and with a little fine tuning of the focus of the camera, here's a really good image of the beam spot at 6 and 14 ms.

Quote:
Steve's note: AR coated camera lens M5018-SW installed at ~40 degrees

 

  13092   Fri Jun 30 16:03:54 2017 jigyasaUpdateCamerasGigE camera at ETMX

 

Quote:

All thanks to Steve, we cleaned the view port on the ETMX on which the camera is installed, and with a little fine tuning of the focus of the camera, here's a really good image of the beam spot at 6 and 14 ms.

Quote:
Steve's note: AR coated camera lens M5018-SW installed at ~40 degrees

 

 

  13098   Thu Jul 6 11:58:28 2017 jigyasaUpdateCamerasHDR images of ETMX

I captured a few images of the beam spot on ETMX at 5ms, 10ms, 14ms, 50ms, 100ms, 500ms, 1000ms exposure and ran them through my python script for HDR images. Here's what I obtained. 
The resulting image is an improvement over the highly saturated images at say, 500ms and 1 second exposures. 
Additionally, I also included a colormapped version of the image. 

  13105   Mon Jul 10 17:13:21 2017 jigyasaUpdateComputer Scripts / ProgramsCapture image without pylon GUI

Over the day, I have been working on a C++ program to interface with Pylon to capture images and reduce dependence on the Pylon GUI. The program uses the Pylon header files along with opencv headers. While ultimately a wrapper in python may be developed for the program, the current C++ program at, 

/users/jigyasa/GigEcode/Grab/Grab.cpp when compiled as

g++ -Wl,--enable-new-dtags -Wl,-rpath,/opt/pylon5/lib64 -o Grab Grab.o -L/opt/pylon5/lib64 -Wl,-E -lpylonbase -lpylonutility -lGenApi_gcc_v3_0_Basler_pylon_v5_0 -lGCBase_gcc_v3_0_Basler_pylon_v5_0 `pkg-config opencv --cflags --libs`

returns an executable file named Grab which can be executed as ./Grab

This captures one image from the camera and displays it, additionally it also displays the gray value of the first pixel.

I am working on adding more utility to the program such as manually adjusting exposure, gain and also on the python wrapper (Cython has been installed locally on Ottavia for the purpose)!

  13118   Sat Jul 15 01:28:53 2017 jigyasaUpdateCamerasBRDF Calibrations

This evening, Gautam helped me with setting up the apparatus for calibrating the GigE for BRDF measurements.
The SP table was chosen to set up the experiment and for this reason a few things including a laser and power meter (presumably set up by Steve) had to be moved around.

We initially started by setting up the Crysta laser with its power source (Crysta #2, 150-190 mW 1064 laser) on the SP table. The Ophir power meter was used to measure the laser power. We discovered that the laser was highly unstable as its output on the power meter fluctuated (kind of periodically) between 40 and 150 mW. The beam spot on the beam card also appeared to validate this change in intensity. So we decided to use another 1064 nm laser instead.
Gautam got the LightWave NPro laser from the PSL table and set it up on the SP table and with this laser the output as measured by the same power meter was quite stable.

We manually adjusted the power to around 150 mW. This was followed by setting up the half wave plate(HWP) with the polarizing beam splitter (PBS), which was very gently and precisely done by Gautam, while explaining how to handle the optics to me.
 On first installing the PBS, we found that the beam was already quite strongly polarized as there seemed to be zero transmission but a strong reflection.
With the HWP in place, we get a control over the transmitted intensity. The reflected beam is directed to a beam dump.
I have taken down the GigE(+mount) at ETMX and wired a spare PoE injector.
We tried to interface with the camera wirelessly through the wireless network extenders but that seems to render an unstable connection to the GigE so while a single shot works okay, a continuous shot on the GigE didn’t succeed.

The GigE was connected to the Martian via Ethernet cable and images were observed using a continuous shot on the Pylon Viewer App on Paola. 

We deliberated over the need of a beam expander, but it has been omitted presently. White printer paper is currently being used to model the Lambertian scatterer. So light scattered off the paper was observed at a distance of about 40 cm from the sample.
While proceeding with the calibrations further tonight, we realized a few challenges.

While the CCD is able to observe the beam spot perfectly well, measuring the actual power with the power meter seems to be tricky. As the scattered power is quite low, we can’t actually see any spot using a beam card and hence can’t really ensure if we are capturing the entire beam spot on the active region of the power meter (placed at a distance of ~40cm from the paper) or if we are losing out on some light, all the while ensuring that the power meter and the CCD are in the same plane.

We tried to think of some ways around that, the description of which will follow. Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks a ton for all your patience and help Gautam! :) 

More to follow.. 

  13121   Sun Jul 16 11:58:36 2017 jigyasaUpdateCamerasBRDF Calibrations

 

From what I understood froom my reading, [Large-angle scattered light measurements for quantum-noise filter cavity design studies(Refer https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2528)], we do the white paper test in order to calibrate for the radiometric response, i.e. the response of the CCD sensor to radiance.‘We convert the image counts measured by the CCD camera into a calibrated measure of scatter. To do this we measure the scattered light from a diffusing sample twice, once with the CCD camera and once with a calibrated power meter. We then compare their readings.’

But thinking about this further, if we assume that the BRDF remains unscaled and estimate the scattered power from the images, we get a calibration factor for the scattered power and the angle dependence of the scattered power!

Quote:

Power meter only needed to measure power going into the paper not out. We use the BRDF of paper to estimate the power going out given the power going in.

 

  13122   Sun Jul 16 12:09:47 2017 jigyasaUpdateCamerasBRDF Calibrations

With this idea in mind, we can now actually take images of the illuminated paper at different scattering angles, assume BRDF is the constant value of (1/pi per steradian), 

then scattered power Ps= BRDF * Pi cosθ * Ω, where Pi is the incident power, Ω is the solid angle of the camera and θ is the scattering angle at which measurement is taken. This must also equal the sum of pixel counts divided by the exposure time multiplied by some calibration factor. 

From these two equations we can obtain the calibration factor of the CCD. And for further BRDF measurements, scale the pixel count/ exposure by this calibration factor.  

Quote:

 

From what I understood froom my reading, [Large-angle scattered light measurements for quantum-noise filter cavity design studies(Refer https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2528)], we do the white paper test in order to calibrate for the radiometric response, i.e. the response of the CCD sensor to radiance.‘We convert the image counts measured by the CCD camera into a calibrated measure of scatter. To do this we measure the scattered light from a diffusing sample twice, once with the CCD camera and once with a calibrated power meter. We then compare their readings.’

But thinking about this further, if we assume that the BRDF remains unscaled and estimate the scattered power from the images, we get a calibration factor for the scattered power and the angle dependence of the scattered power!

Quote:

Power meter only needed to measure power going into the paper not out. We use the BRDF of paper to estimate the power going out given the power going in.

 

 

  3916   Sun Nov 14 16:26:31 2010 jenne, valeraUpdateElectronicsSRM side OSEM noise with no magnet

We realized that the SRM sensors are connected to the readout but just sitting on the BS in vacuum table with no magnets and therefore no shadows in them. We swapped the inputs to the SRM and PRM satellite boxes to use the higher transimpedance gain of the PRM side sensor. The attached plot shows the current spectrum in this configuration. The PD readback voltage was 9.5 V. Since this is close to the rail we put a slightly higher voltage into the AA of this channel to test that we can read out more ADC counts to make sure we are not saturating. The margin was 15800 vs 15400 counts with p-p of 5 counts on the dataviewer 1 second trend. We returned all cables to nominal configuration.

The calibration from A to m is 59 uA/1 mm.

  7673   Tue Nov 6 16:38:37 2012 jenne, jamie, ayaka, manasaUpdateAlignmentAlignment back under control again

We had a big alignment party early this morning, and things are back to looking good.  We have been very careful not to bump or touch tables any more than necessary.  Also, we have removed the apertures from the BS and PRM, so there are no more apertures currently left in the chambers (this is good, since we won't forget).

We started over again from the PZTs, using the PRM aperture and the freestanding aperture in front of PR2, to get the height of the beam correct.  We then moved PZTs to get the beam centered on BS, ITMY, ETMY.  We had to do a little poking of PR2 (and PR3?) to get pitch correct everywhere.

We then went to ETMX to check beam pointing, and used BS to steer the beam to the center of ETMX.  We checked that the beam was centered on ITMX.

We went through and ensured that ITMX, ITMY, PRM, SRM are all retroreflecting.  We see nice MICH fringes, and we see some fringes (although still not so nice...) when we bring PRM and SRM into alignment.

We checked the AS path (with only MICH aligned), and made sure we are centered on all of the mirrors.  This included steering a little bit on the mirrors on the OMC table, in yaw.  Initially, AS was coming out of the vacuum, but hitting the side of the black beam tube.  Now it gets nicely to the table.

For both AS and REFL, we made sure there is no clipping in the OMC chamber.

I recentered the beams for AS and REFL on their respective cameras.

IPPOS was centered on the QPD.  This involved moving the first out-of-vac steering mirror sideways a small amount, since the beam was hitting the edge of the mirror.  IPANG was aligned in-vac, and has been centered on the QPD.

Right now, Manasa, Jamie and Ayaka are doing some finishing touches work, checking that POY isn't clipping on OM2, the second steering mirror after the SRM, and they'll confirm that POX comes out of the chamber nicely, and that POP is also still coming out (by putting the green laser pointer back on that table, and making sure the green beam is co-aligned with the beam from PR2-PR3.  Also on the list is checking the vertex oplevs.  Steve and Manasa did some stuff with the ETM oplevs yesterday, but haven't had a chance to write about it yet.

  7463   Tue Oct 2 15:14:54 2012 jenne, jamieUpdateIOOPZT diagnosis

pzt2 mod signals matched slider vals for both pitch and yaw

  pzt2 yaw mon output = 6
  pzt2 pitch mon output = 11.3

From the PZT connector-converter board we determined the following pin-outs:

  X=Yaw:  red=1, white=14, black=3 
  Y=Pitch:  red=2, white=15, black=16

We believe that red is signal, white/black/shield are all ground.  We also believe (although this is from the PMC PZT) that the expected capacitance of the PZTs should be in the 100's of nF range.

Here are the readings from the two PZT dsub connectors:

  pin 1:14   PZT1 = ".003" on 2uF scale
             PZT2 = ".184"
   
  pin 2:15   PZT1 = ".002" on 2uF scale
             PZT2 = ".202"

So we think this means (given this crappy capacitance meter) that PZT2 is showing roughly 200nF, which sounds ok, but that PZT1 is indeed bad.

So next we investigate the PZT2 driver.

 
  1170   Wed Dec 3 12:49:11 2008 jenneUpdateComputerssomething sketchy with NDS ... or something
Never mind...I had forgotten that you have to run mdv_config every time you open matlab, not just every time you boot a computer.

I am not able to get channels using get_data from the mDV toolbox on Allegra, Megatron or Rosalba.

The error I get while running the "hello_world" test program is:
hello_world
setting up configuration...
added paths for nds
added paths for qscan
couldn't add path for matapps_SDE
couldn't add path for matapps_path
couldn't add path for framecache
couldn't add path for ligotools_matlab
added paths for home_pwd
fetching channels for C...
Warning: get_channel_list() failed.
??? Error using ==> NDS_GetChannels
Failed to get channel list.

Error in ==> fetch_nds at 47
eval(['CONFIG.chl.' server ' = NDS_GetChannels(ab);']);

Error in ==> get_data at 100
out = fetch_nds(channels,dtype,start_time,duration);

Error in ==> hello_world at 6
aa = get_data('C1:LSC-DARM_ERR', 'raw', gps('now - 1 hour'), 32);
  1890   Wed Aug 12 10:35:17 2009 jenneSummaryComputersNodus rebooted / SVN down

Quote:

Looks like someone rebooted nodus at ~3 PM today but did not elog it. Also the SVN is not running. Why?

 The Nodus business was me....my bad.  Nodus and the elog were both having a bad day (we couldn't ssh into nodus from op440m (which doesn't depend on the names server)), so I called Alex, and he fixed things, although I think that all he did was reboot.  I then restarted the elog per the instructions on the wiki.

 

  2069   Thu Oct 8 14:41:46 2009 jenneUpdateComputersc1susvme1 is back online

Quote:

Power cycling c1dcuepics seems to have fixed the EPICs channel problems, and c1lsc, c1asc, and c1iovme are talking again.

I burt restored c1iscepics and c1Iosepics from the snapshot at 6 am this morning.

However, c1susvme1 never came back after the last power cycle of its crate that it shared with c1susvme2.  I connected a monitor and keyboard per the reboot instructions.  I hit ctrl-x, and it proceeded to boot, however, it displays that there's a media error, PXE-E61, suggests testing the cable, and only offers an option to reboot.  From a cursory inspection of the front, the cables seem to look okay.  Also, this machine had eventually come back after the first power cycle and I'm pretty sure no cables were moved in between.

 

 I had a go at trying to bring c1susvme1 back online.  The first few times I hit the physical reset button, I saw the same error that Joe mentioned, about needing to check some cables.  I tried one round of rebooting c1sosvme, c1susvme2 and c1susvme1, with no success.  After a few iterations of jiggle cables/reset button/ctrl-x on c1susvme1, it came back.  I ran the startup.cmd script, and re-enabled the suspensions, and Mode Cleaner is now locked.  So, all systems are back online, and I'm crossing my fingers and toes that they stay that way, at least for a little while.

  2119   Mon Oct 19 17:12:54 2009 jenneUpdatePEMaccelerometers and seismomters are all good.

Quote:

Some of these channels are not like the others.

 All of the PEM channels seem to be okay right now.  The accelerometers didn't turn out to have any differences in the traces when we put both XYZ triplets right next to each other, so we put them back where they belong.  Gur2 seismometer was showing a few problems, especially with Gur2_X, as Rana posted in elog 2079.  This was solved by tightening the cable screws which hold the Dsub end of the Guralp cable to the front panel of the Guralp box.  All is now well.

  2440   Mon Dec 21 10:09:06 2009 jenneUpdateASSOAF Model update and build instructions
OAF stands for Online Adaptive Filtering. We use the same computer which was once the ASS. One of these days, we'd like to completely be rid of all things which refer to ASS, and make even the computer's name OAF.
  2685   Fri Mar 19 18:00:14 2010 jenneUpdatePEMGuralp2 centered again

[Jenne, Sanjit]

It looks like Steve used a GND-12V supply to power the Guralp through the little breakout box (the box is for checking the centering of the mass).  This is BAD.  The Guralps want +/- 12V.

We centered all of the channels on Gur2, and checked the channels on Gur1, so we'll see how they're feeling after a while.

  6750   Mon Jun 4 23:48:43 2012 jenneUpdateGreen Lockinglowered gain

We're trying to do a yarm measurement....before I forget, I want to write this down...

I changed the gain of each of the top 2 SR560's down, by a factor of 2.  This made the overload lights quit coming on.

  10812   Wed Dec 17 19:04:12 2014 jenneUpdateASCASS retuned

I made the Xarm follow the new (old) topology of Length -> test masses, and Trans -> input pointing.

It takes a really long time to converge (2+ min), since the input pointing loops actuate on the BS, which has an optical lever, which is slow.  So, everything has to be super duper slow for the input pointing to be fast relative to the test mass motion.

Also, between last night and this afternoon, I moved the green ASX stuff from a long list of ezca commands to a burt file, so turning it on is much faster now.  Also, I chose new frequencies to avoid intermodulation issues, set the lockin demodulation phases, and tuned all 4 loops.  So, now the green ASX should work for all 4 mirrors, no hand tuning required.  While I was working on it, I also removed the band pass filters, and made the low pass filters the same as we are using for the IR ASS.  The servos converge in about 30 seconds.

  7326   Fri Aug 31 10:16:02 2012 janosch, SteveUpdate ETMX, scattering preps

The alignment of the pick-off mirror near ETMX is done. Everything turned out to be easy once we realized that there is no sense getting the alignment laser (going through viewport to pick-off to ITMX) back to ETMX. It is only necessary to hit ITMX somehow, since this makes sure that there is one scattered beam that will make it from ITMX to pick-off through viewport.

After the auxiliary optic (that we never used in the end) was removed again, we levelled the optical table.

So in the current setup, we can have small-angle scattering measurements on ITMX and large-angle scattering measurements on ETMX.

  7317   Thu Aug 30 12:01:27 2012 janosch, Manasa,SteveUpdate ETMX

We have done some work at ETMX today. We installed the baffle and placed two mirrors on the table.

The baffle position/orientation still needs to be checked more thoroughly to make sure that the beam will pass through the center of the baffle hole.

One of the two mirrors will stay on the table as pickoff. The other is only temporarily installed for alignment purposes. Later today we will shoot a laser into the chamber that will reflect off one of these mirrors towards the center of ITMX, then go back to the pickoff mirror next to ETMX and hopefully make it through the viewport.

To place the pickoff mirror, we had to move the "cable rack" next to ETMX a few inches towards the back of the table.

  7319   Thu Aug 30 17:03:32 2012 janosch, Manasa, SteveUpdate ETMX

The baffle has been moved away from ETMX towards the edge of the table (in fact, it is a little beyond the edge). It is also rotated so that its long edge is horizontal. In this way it was possible to center the baffle hole with respect to the optical axis, but also make it possible that the camera looks over the baffle.

We have tried to get an alignment beam from view port -> ETMX pick-off ->ITMX-> back to EX. This work was pretty much unsuccessful though. We could see the green laser scattering around ITMX, but there was no good way to know when the beam hit ITMX. So tomorrow we will find a better way to check where the beam is hitting at ITMX and finish the alignment of the scattering pick-off mirror.

  7352   Thu Sep 6 17:11:40 2012 janosch, Manasa, SteveUpdate pick-off and baffle at ETMY

We have installed the pick-off mirror at the ETMY table for the small-angle scattering measurement on ITMY. As we had already done for the X arm pick-off, the pick-off mirror at ETMY was aligned shooting a green laser normally through the viewport on the pick-off and steering it onto ITMY.

A baffle was also installed at a distance of about 30cm from ETMY near the edge of the table.

  1898   Thu Aug 13 11:20:43 2009 janoschHowToPEMthree-channel self-noise estimation

There are two new Matlab files on the svn in /mDV/extra/C1. 'mycsd.m' is to calculate the cross-spectral density between two channels, 'csd_40T_40T_SS1.m' calls this function with the available seismic channels and derives a self-noise spectrum for the vertical axis using all three seismometers. The method requires that there are no correlations between two instruments only which is a bad idealization for certain frequencies if you have seismometers of totally different types.

'mycsd.m' uses the high-gain, low-resolution Nuttall window (built-in Matlab function 'nuttallwin.m'). High-gain windows are used for broad-band spectra like seismic spectra, but it should be exchanged by another window if you plan to look at small-bandwidth features like peaks.

Since the three-channel analysis does not require knowledge of response functions, it could be used to evaluate the performance of the adaptive filter. For example, if three channels responding to the same signal are available, then the ratio of any two csds corresponds to one of the relative transfer functions. You can then compare this function with the result produced by the adaptive filter.

  7029   Wed Jul 25 15:33:55 2012 janoschUpdateLSCringdown measurement

We did our first ringdown measurement on the Y arm. First we tried to keep the arm locked in green during the ringdown, but for some reason it was not possible to get the cavity locked in green. So we decided to do the first measurement with infrared locked only.

For the measurement we had to change the LSC model to acquire the C1:LSC-TRY_OUT_DQ at higher sampling frequency. We changed the sampling frequencies of C1:LSC-{TRX,TRY}_OUT_DQ from 2048Hz to 16384Hz.

The measurement was done at GPS 1027289507. The ringdown curve looks very clean, but there seem to be two time constants involved. The first half of the curve is influenced by the shutter speed, then curvature is changing sign and the ringdown is likely taking over. We will try to fit a curve to the ringdown part, but it would certainly be better to have a faster shutter and record a more complete ringdown.

Rindown1.png

 

  7038   Thu Jul 26 13:10:51 2012 janoschUpdateLSCmodelled ringdown

We fitted shutter and ringdown functions to the ringdown data. It is not perfectly clear how the power change due to the shutter is handed over to the power change due to ringdown. The fit suggests that the ringdown starts at a later time, but this does not necessarily make sense. It could be that the slow power decrease when the shutter starts clipping the TEM00 beam is followed by the cavity, but then the power decrease becomes too fast when the shutter reaches the optical axis and the ringdown takes over. Also, the next measurement should be taken with adjusted DC offset.

Ringdown.png

  7301   Tue Aug 28 18:28:21 2012 janoschMetaphysicsRingdownripples

Let's see if the ripples observed in the MC ringdown can be due to tilt motion of the mirrors.

The time it takes to produce a phase shift corresponding to N multiples of 2*pi is given by:

t = sqrt(2*N*lambda/(L*omega_T^2*(alpha_1+alpha_2)))

L is the length of the MC (something like 13m), and alpha_1, alpha_2 are the DC tilt angles of the two mirrors "shooting into the long arms of the MC" produced by the MC control with respect to the mechanical equilibrium position. omega_T is the tilt eigenfrequency of the three mirrors (assumed to be identical). lambda = 1.064e-6m;

The time it takes from N=1 to N=2 (the first observable ripple) is given by: tau1 = 0.6/omega_T*sqrt(lambda/L/(alpha_1+alpha_2))

The time it takes from N=2 to N=3 is given by: tau2 = 0.77*tau1

etc

First, we also see in the measurement that later ripples are shorter than early ripples consistent with some accelerated effect. The predicted ripple durations tau seem to be a bit too high though. The measurements show something like a first 14us and a late 8us ripple. It depends somewhat on the initial tilt angles that I don't know really.

In any case, the short ripple times could also be explained if the tilt motions start a little earlier than the ringdown, or the tilt motion starts with some small initial velocity. The next step will be to program a little ringdown simulation that includes mirror tilts and see what kind of tilt motion would produce the ripples exactly as we observe them (or maybe tilt motion cannot produce ripples as observed).

  7303   Tue Aug 28 19:21:37 2012 janoschMetaphysicsRingdownripples

Hmm. I don't know what ringing really is. Ok, let's assume it has to do with the pump... I don't see how the pump laser could produce these ripples. They have large amplitudes and so I always suspected something happening to the intracavity field. Therefore I was looking for effects that would change resonance conditions of the intracavity field during ringdown. Tilt motion seemed to be one explanation to me, but it may be a bit too slow (not sure yet). Longitudinal mirror motion is certainly too slow. What else could there be?

Quote:

Isn't it just a ringing of the intracavity power as you shifted the laser frequency abruptly?

Quote:

Let's see if the ripples observed in the MC ringdown can be due to tilt motion of the mirrors.

The time it takes to produce a phase shift corresponding to N multiples of 2*pi is given by:

t = sqrt(2*N*lambda/(L*omega_T^2*(alpha_1+alpha_2)))

L is the length of the MC (something like 13m), and alpha_1, alpha_2 are the DC tilt angles of the two mirrors "shooting into the long arms of the MC" produced by the MC control with respect to the mechanical equilibrium position. omega_T is the tilt eigenfrequency of the three mirrors (assumed to be identical). lambda = 1.064e-6m;

The time it takes from N=1 to N=2 (the first observable ripple) is given by: tau1 = 0.6/omega_T*sqrt(lambda/L/(alpha_1+alpha_2))

The time it takes from N=2 to N=3 is given by: tau2 = 0.77*tau1

etc

First, we also see in the measurement that later ripples are shorter than early ripples consistent with some accelerated effect. The predicted ripple durations tau seem to be a bit too high though. The measurements show something like a first 14us and a late 8us ripple. It depends somewhat on the initial tilt angles that I don't know really.

In any case, the short ripple times could also be explained if the tilt motions start a little earlier than the ringdown, or the tilt motion starts with some small initial velocity. The next step will be to program a little ringdown simulation that includes mirror tilts and see what kind of tilt motion would produce the ripples exactly as we observe them (or maybe tilt motion cannot produce ripples as observed).

 

 

  7305   Wed Aug 29 09:35:03 2012 janoschMetaphysicsRingdownripples 2

Ok, so the whole idea that mirror motion can explain the ripples is nonsense. At least, when you think off the ringdown with "pump off". The phase shifts that I tried to estimate from longitudinal and tilt mirror motion are defined against a non-existing reference. So I guess that I have to click on the link that Koji posted...

Just to mention, for the tilt phase shift (yes, there is one, but the exact expression has two more factors in the equation I posted), it does not matter, which mirror tilts. So even for a lower bound on the ripple time, my equation was incorrect. It should have the sum over all three initial tilt angles not only the two "shooting into the long arms" of the MC.

Quote:

Laser frequency shift = longitudinal motion of the mirrors

Ringing: http://www.opticsinfobase.org/ol/abstract.cfm?uri=ol-20-24-2463

Quote:

Hmm. I don't know what ringing really is. Ok, let's assume it has to do with the pump... I don't see how the pump laser could produce these ripples. They have large amplitudes and so I always suspected something happening to the intracavity field. Therefore I was looking for effects that would change resonance conditions of the intracavity field during ringdown. Tilt motion seemed to be one explanation to me, but it may be a bit too slow (not sure yet). Longitudinal mirror motion is certainly too slow. What else could there be?

 

 

  7356   Fri Sep 7 00:08:10 2012 janoschMetaphysics baffle clipping loss

With a curvature radius of about 57m for the ETMs, flat ITMs at the beam waist, and using 39m for the arm lengths, one finds that the beam radius at the ETMs is about 5.3mm. The clipping power loss of a 5.3mm beam through a 20mm radius baffle hole would be less than a ppm of a ppm if the beam was perfectly centered. If the baffle hole had 15mm radius, the clipping loss would be 0.01ppm. If the baffle hole had 10mm radius, the loss would be 810ppm. The loss values are calculated using the formula of the  "Gaussian beam" Wikipedia article, "Power through an aperture" section. So I did not check if that one is ok.

  7480   Thu Oct 4 18:48:04 2012 janoschConfigurationPSLAOM installation

Quote:

Jenne and Jamie also find that the PMC is behaving very weird 

 Can someone detail what "weird" means? Is it singing old songs from Guns & Roses?

  7527   Thu Oct 11 11:20:05 2012 janoschUpdateGeneralbeam shape simulation, PRC

I started to create a Finesse model of the PRC cavity. We have the phase maps for the PRC and the two ITMs. I could not find anything for PR2,3 and BS. All files can be found in my SVN folder /janosch/PRC40m. I used the AutoCAD model to determine angles of incidence and distances. These numbers are largely inconsistent with numbers that you can find elsewhere on the 40m wiki, but this certainly depends on what accuracy is required for interferometer alignment and I don't understand anything about alignment.

The phase maps come in a format that needs to be modified before they can be used in Finesse. I have started with this work, but maybe someone else can take over. The phase maps show tilts and the PRC also has the curvature. These have to be subtracted out before the maps can be loaded into Finesse. I asked GariLynn for the code that they use. The Finesse model (MichPRC_40m.kat) does not load the phasemaps yet, and I just wrote some random parameter values for the TEM00 input beam to the PRC. So these Gauss parameters need to be corrected.

I will only go on with this work if Rana tells me that I should do so, otherwise it is on hold until we have a volunteer.

  7533   Thu Oct 11 21:26:40 2012 janoschUpdateGeneralPRC phase maps

Just some plots. There is nothing new here except for the fact that I learned how to analyze phase maps myself and how to prepare them for Finesse. In other words, everything is ready for a Finesse simulation.

These phase maps show the raw measurement of ITMY, ITMX and PRC:

ITM03_HR_raw.pngITM04_HR_raw.pngPRM02_HR_raw.png

Subtracting out the tilt from all phase maps, and the curvature from the PRC (I found the fit 121m consistent with previous fits), the one obtains the following residuals that can be used in Finesse (order is again ITMY, ITMX and PRC):

ITM03_HR_untilted.pngITM04_HR_untilted.pngPRM02_HR_untilted_uncurved.png

  7615   Wed Oct 24 22:48:46 2012 janoschUpdateComputer Scripts / ProgramsPhase map summary of LaserOptik mirrors

Quote:

After a long search, I've found a way to finally read and analyze(?)  the Wyko opd format data using Image SXM, an image analysis software working only on mac osx.

I am attaching the images (in tiff) and profile plot of all the 6 mirrors.

 Great, however, unless you can save the images in FITS format, we still need another reader for the opd images.

  7627   Thu Oct 25 22:52:07 2012 janoschUpdateGeneraltip-tilt phase maps

Now that I read Koji's last elog about phase maps, I am not sure if these are still required, but here they are (the tilt-removed phase maps of the Laser Optik mirrors), first 1, 2, 3:

sn1Laseroptik_untilted.pngsn2Laseroptik_untilted.pngsn3Laseroptik_untilted.png

Then 4,5,6:

sn4Laseroptik_untilted.pngsn5Laseroptik_untilted.pngsn6Laseroptik_untilted.png

So they all have an elevated center. I am not sure why the phase maps of mirrors 5 and 6 are slightly smaller in dimension. Anyhow, all mirrors have quite strong aberrations. Also, there is no big difference between the mirrors. Check for yourself, but be careful with the colors since the scales are all different.

  7629   Thu Oct 25 23:14:42 2012 janoschUpdateGeneraltip-tilt phase maps

Quote:

Are these maps drawn from the data we extracted using Image SXM??

 Indeed. So the only manipulation that I did was to remove the tilt (since this should usually be seen as an artifact of the measurement, or better, we can assume that tilt is compensated by alignment). I did not remove the curvature.

  7639   Mon Oct 29 14:57:41 2012 janoschUpdateGeneraltip-tilt phase maps

Quote:

 [Jan, Manasa]

Below are phasemaps for the tip-tilts with both tilt and RoC removed. We have not used Koji's code; but tweaked the earlier code to remove curvature. 

 The posted residual phase maps show circular contours since the data came with relatively low resolution in height. This is ok for what we want to do with these phase maps (i.e. simulating higher-order mode content in the PRC using Finesse). Better resolution is only required if you want to understand in detail optical scattering out of the cavity. Anyhow, the circular artifacts can be removed by first interpolating the phase maps to a higher lateral resolution, and then performing tilt and curvature subtraction. So we will soon have better looking phase maps posted. Then we should think about what type of Finesse simulation we could run. Certainly one simulation is to look at the beam shape in the PRC, but more interesting could be how sensitive the shape is to mirror alignments. The current simulation shows a mode that resembles the TEM01, but I have not yet tried to find optimal alignment of the mirrors (in simulation) to search for the TEM00 mode.

  7734   Tue Nov 20 16:03:37 2012 janoschUpdatePEMSeismometers and a microphone

Quote:

 I got two seismometers and one microphone back from Tara.

They are now near the Gurlap under the MC.

 If anybody wants a fancy single-axis seismometer for a while (GS-13), then please let me know.

  9276   Thu Oct 24 09:08:27 2013 jamie.UpdateLSCPRMI + 2 ALS arms

nice.

  7599   Tue Oct 23 17:30:33 2012 jamie, nic, jenne, raji, manasaUpdateAlignmentInitial attempts to fix IFO alignment

We went into the vertex today to see about fixing the alignment.  The in-air access connector is in place, and we took heavy doors off of BS, ITMY, and ETMY chambers.

We started by looking at the pointing from the PZTs.  Manasa and Raji hooked up HV power supplies to the PZTs and set them to the middle of their ranges (75 V).

We installed a target on the BS cage, and new "free standing" targets made special by Steve for the SOSs on ITMY and ETMY.

Using a free-standing aperture target we looked at the beam height before PZT2.  It was a little high, so we adjusted it with PZT1.  Once that was done we looked at the beam height at PR2, and adjusted that height with PZT1.

We then tried to use the hysteresis in PR2 to adjust the beam height at ITMY.  Pushing just a little bit at the top or bottom of PR2 would repoint the beam in pitch.  This sort of works, but it's stupid.  Using this method we got the beam more or less centered vertically at ITMY.

We moved on to ETMY with the idea that we would again use the hysteresis in PR3 to get the vertical pointing to the ETM correct.  This was a good demonstration of just how stupid the tip-tilts really are.  Just touching slightly at the top or bottom or PR3 we could completely change the pointing at ETMY, by mili-radians (~4 cm over 40m).

At this point I cried foul.  This is not an acceptable situation.  Very little stimulation to the tip-tilts can repoint the beam inside the PR cavity.

Steve says that the TT weights, which will attach to the base of the TT mirror mounts and should help keep the mirrors vertical and not hysteretic, are being baked now and should be available tomorrow.  We therefore decided to stop what we were doing today, since we'll have to just redo it all again tomorrow once the weights are installed.

 

  5258   Wed Aug 17 20:14:49 2011 jamie, kiwamu, suresh, jenne, keiko, anamariaUpdateGeneralin-vacuum work status, prep for pump

This afternoon's work:

  • OSEMs were adjusted on all suspended optics.
  • X and Y-arms were aligned to green.
  • Once that was done, the input pointing was adjusted with the PZTs to get the IR beam centered on ITMY and ETMY.
  • Once the input pointing was ok we extracted IPANG and IPPOS.
  • BS, ITMY, PRM, SRM optical levers (oplevs) were extracted.
  • Prepared rails and stops for TMs for morning drag wiping.

TODO before drag wiping:

  • Check full IFO alignment.
  • Readjust OSEMs if needed.
  • Extract ITMX oplev.
  5259   Thu Aug 18 00:53:48 2011 jamie, kiwamu, suresh, jenneUpdateGeneralPUMP PLAN ABORTED; need to work more on IFO alignment

We have decided that the IFO alignment is bad enough that we're not ready to pump down.  PUMP ABORTED.

The IFO alignment is somewhat OK, in that the green and IR beams are flashing in the arms, and the return beams are overlapping at the BS.  However the beams appear to be not centered on any of the optics at the moment.  They are all displaced in yaw by ~0.5 to 1 cm or so in various directions.

From this we have decided that we need to step back and reattack the IFO alignment from square one.  Here is our current suggested procedure:

  1. check ETM positions relative to what we think they should be on the drawings.  This is to verify that the ETMs were not placed in the wrong places laterally.
  2. translate Y green axis north, centering green on ETMY and ITMY (by looking at cards).  North is the opposite direction from how the beams are displaced from the TM centers.
  3. steer input pointing to overlap IR on green beam at BS, ITMY, and ETMY.  IR should visibly overlap green at both BS and ITMY, and we should be able to see IR on target in front of ETMY with ETMY face camera, and in ETMY trans camera.
  4. center IR on ETMX by steering BS with DC bias.
  5. align Y arm cavity for green resonance by adjusting ITMY.
  6. adjust ITMX to achieve michelson fringes at AS
  7. adjust PRM lateral translation to center beam on PRM, if needed
  8. adjust SRM lateral translation to center beam on SRM, if needed
  9. align PRC to see fringes
  10. align SRC to see fringes
  11. extract AS (no clipping)

 Once this is done, we will need to check the following:

  • IPANG/IPPOS extraction
  • pick-off extraction
  • OPLEVs
  • OSEMs
  • green periscopes and green beam extraction at PSL

We've decided to stop for the night, get a good nights rest, and attack all of this tomorrow morning.

Beam_spot_shifts.png

  5295   Wed Aug 24 11:30:27 2011 jamie, jenne, kiwamu, suresh, steveUpdateSUSETMX wiped, replaced, door on

We've closed up ETMX:

  • the optic was drag wiped
  • the suspension tower was put back in place
  • earthquake stops were backed off the appropriate number of turns, and de-ionized
  • chamber door was put on
  5296   Wed Aug 24 11:40:21 2011 jamie, jenne, kiwamu, suresh, steveUpdateSUSproblem with ITMX

ITMX was drag wiped, and the suspension was put back into place.  However, after removing all of the earthquake stops we found that the suspension was hanging in a very strange way.

The optic appears to heavily pitched forward in the suspension.  All of the rear face magnets are high in their OSEMs, while the SIDE OSEM appears fine.  When first inspected, some of the magnets appeared to be stuck to their top OSEM plates, which was definitely causing it to pitch forward severely.  After gently touching the top of the optic I could get the magnets to sit in a more reasonable position in the OSEMs.  However, they still seem to be sitting a little high.  All of the PDMon values are also too low:

  nominal now
UL 1.045 0.767
UR 0.855 0.718
LR

0.745

0.420

LL

0.780

0.415
SD

0.840

0.752

Taking a free swing measurement now.

  5288   Tue Aug 23 14:49:14 2011 jamie, jenne, kiwamu, suresh, keikoUpdateSUSAdjustment of ETMY, issue with ITMY whitening

Before lunch we took a closer look at two of the suspensions that were most problematic: ITMY and ETMY.  Over lunch we took new free swinging data.  Results below:

  • For ITMY we discovered that the whitening on the UL sensor was not switching.  This was causing the UL sensor to have a different response, with a steeper roll of, which was causing all of the transfer function estimates to the other sensors to have large imaginary components.   We took new free swing data with all of the whitening turned OFF.  The result is a much improved matrix and diagnalization.  The input matrix elements are mostly the same, but the coupling is basically gone.  We'll fix the whitening after the pump down.
ITMY ITMY.png       pit     yaw     pos     side    butt
UL    0.157   1.311   1.213  -0.090   0.956 
UR    1.749  -0.490   0.886  -0.038  -1.042 
LR   -0.251  -2.000   0.787  -0.007   1.066 
LL   -1.843  -0.199   1.114  -0.059  -0.936 
SD   -0.973  -0.205   1.428   1.000   0.239 
4.34779
  • ETMY has a very problematic SIDE OSEM.  The magnet does not line up with the OSEM axis, and since there is no lateral adjustment in the side OSEMs, there's not much we can do about this.  We're using aluminum foil to wedge the OSEM over as far as possible, but it's not quite enough.  With the OSEM plates horizontal there is a lot of POS->SIDE coupling.  With the OSEM plates vertical, the magnetic sits a little too close to the rear face, which can cause the magnet to get stuck to the LED plate.  We're trying to decide where to leave it now, but the new diagnalization with the OSEM plates vertical is definitely better: 
ETMX ETMY.png        pit     yaw     pos     side    butt
UL   -0.138   1.224   1.463  -0.086   0.944  
UR    0.867  -0.776   1.501  -0.072  -1.051  
LR   -0.995  -0.896   0.537  -0.045   0.754  
LL   -2.000   1.104   0.499  -0.059  -1.251  
SD    0.011   0.220   1.917   1.000   0.224 
 4.42482
  7671   Mon Nov 5 19:38:52 2012 jamie, jenne, ayaka, denUpdateAlignmentmore alignment woes

Earlier this morning we thought things were looking pretty good.  IPPOS, IPANG, and the AS and REFL spots looked like they hadn't moved too much over the weekend.  Our plan was to do a quick check of things, check clearances, etc., tweak up the oplevs, and then close up.  This is when I made the ill-fated decisions to check the table levelling.

The BS table was slightly off so I moved one of the thick disk weights off of the other disk weight that it was sitting on, and on to the table next to it.  This seemed to improve things enough so I left it there.  ITMY didn't need any adjustment, and I move a couple smaller weights around on ITMX.  Meanwhile Jenne was adjusting the output PSL power back into it's nominal range (<100mW), and re-tweaking up the mode cleaner.

When we then looked at the vertex situation again it was far off in yaw.  This was clearly evident on PZT2, where the beam was no longer centered on the PZT2 mirror and was near the edge.  This was causing us to clip at the BS aperture.

We took some deep breaths and tried to figure out what we did that could have messed things up.

Jenne noticed that we had moved slightly on the PSL QPDs, so she adjusted the PSL output pointing to re-aquire the previous pointing, and realigned the MC.  This had a very small positive affect, but not nearly enough to compensate for whatever happened.

We spent some more time trying to track down what might have changed, but were unable to come up with anything conclusive.  We then decided to see if we could recover things by just adjusting the PZT input steering mirrors.  We couldn't; recentering at PRM, BS, ITMY, and ETMY was moving us off of PR3.

Jenne suggested we look at the spot positions on the MMT mirrors.  I had checked MMT1 and it looked ok, but we hadn't looked at MMT2.  When we checked MMT2 we noticed that we were also off in yaw.  This made us consider the possibility that the BS table had twisted, most likely when I was securing the moved mass.  Sure enough, when I manually twisted BS table, by grabbing it with my hand, very little force would cause the input beam to walk much of the way across PZT2, more than accounting for the offset.  The effect was also very clearly hysteretic as well; I could twist the table a little and it would stay in the new position.

At this point we had fucked things up enough that we realized that we're basically going to have to walk through the whole alignment procedure again, for the third time this vent.  We were able to recover the PRM retro-reflection a bit, but the tip-tilts have drifted in pitch (likely again because of the table levelling).  So we're going to have to walk through the whole procedure systematically again.

Lessons learned:  Many things are MUCH more sensitive than I had been assuming.  The tip-tilts are of course ridiculous, in that lightly touching the top or bottom of the mirror mount will move it by quite a lot in pitch.  The tables are also much more sensitive than I had realized.  In particular, tightening screws can twist the table hystereticly by milliradians, which can of course completely loose the pointing.  We need to be a lot more careful.

Assuming the table hasn't moved too much we should be able to recover the alignment by just adjusting the PZTs and tweaking the pitch of the tip-tilts.  At least that's the hope.    No more touching the table.  No more leveling.  Hopefully we can get this mostly done tomorrow morning.

  5248   Tue Aug 16 11:49:17 2011 jamie, jenneUpdateGeneraltoday's work to do

>If necessary steer ETMs and ITMs to make the X and Y green beam flashing.

Green is now flashing in both X and Y arms

>Open the IOO and OMC chamber and lock MC.

Open, and cover in place. MC is flashing and locking.

 

  7235   Mon Aug 20 13:10:31 2012 jamie, jenneUpdateSUSETMX is not happy

Quote:

ETMX has some periodic oscillation. It's damping was found tripped this morning. 

We tracked this down to the power normalization stuff that Yoichi added over the weekend.

With a non-zero normalization factor, and a small TRX transmission, the input the XARM controller gets really big.  When XARM is then triggered, a huge impulse is sent into the SUS_ETMX_LSC input, which causes the Vio2 filter in FM0 to ring like crazy.  This probably also explains why Yoichi was seeing trouble locking the arm when the normalization is on

The solution, as Yoichi also mentions, is probably to trigger the normalization like we trigger the rest of the boost filters.

  9786   Mon Apr 7 15:26:32 2014 jamie, ericqUpdateCDSaborted attempt to update c1sus machine with second CPU

This morning we attempted to replace the c1sus front end machine with a spare that had been given a second CPU, and therefore 6 additional cores (for a total of 12).  The idea was to give c1sus more cores so that we could split up c1rfm into two separate models that would not be running on the hairy edge of their cycle time allocation.  Well, after struggling to get it working we eventually aborted and put the old machine back in.

The problem was that the c1sus model was running erratically, frequently jumping up to 100 usec of a 60 usec clock allocation.  We eventually tracked the problem down to the fact that the CPUs in the new machine are of an inferior and slower model, than what's in the old c1sus machine.  The CPU were running about 30% slower, which was enough to bump c1sus, which nominally runs at ~51 usec, over it's limit.

This is of course stupid, and I take the blame.  I skimped on the CPUs when I bought the spare machines in an attempt to keep the cost down, and didn't forgot that I had done that when we started discussing using one of the spares as a c1sus replacement.

I think we can salvage things, though, by just purchasing a better CPU, one that matches what's currently in c1sus.  I'll get Steve on it:

c1sus CPU: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5680 3.33GHz

In any event, the old c1sus is back in place, and everything is back as it was.

  407   Mon Mar 31 14:01:40 2008 jamieSummaryLSCSummary of DC readout PD non-linearity measurements
From March 21-26, I conducted some measurements of the response non-linearity of some mock-up DC readout photodetectors. The detectors are simple:
Vbias ---
        |
       PD
        |-------- output
     resistor
        |
       ---
        -
This is a description of the final measurement.

The laser current modulation input was given a 47Hz sine wave at 20mV. A constant small fraction of the beam was shown onto the reference detector, and a beam that was varied in DC power level was incident on the test detector. Spectra were taken from both detectors at the same time, 0.25Hz bandwidth, over 100 averages.

At each incident power level on the test detector, the Vpk in all multiples of the modulation frequency were measured (ie. V[i*w]). The difference between the 2f/1f ratio in the test and reference was then calculated, ie:
V_test[2*w]/V_test[1*w] - V_ref[2*w]/V_ref[1*w]
This is the solid black line in the plot ("t21-r21_v_power.png").

The response of a simulated non-linear detector was also calculated based on the Vpk measured at each harmonic in the reference detector, assuming that the reference detector had a purely linear response, ie:
V_nl[beta,2*w]/V_nl[beta,1*w] - V_l[2*w]/V_l[1*w]
these are the dashed colored lines in the plot ("t21-r21_v_power.png").

The result of the measurement seems to indicate that the non-linearity in the test detector is less than beta=-1.

The setup that was on the big optics table south of the laser, adjacent to the mode cleaner, is no longer needed.
  4549   Wed Apr 20 23:20:49 2011 jamieSummaryComputersinstallation of CDS tools on pianosa

This is an overview of how I got (almost) all the CDS tools running on pianosa, the new Ubuntu 10.04 control room work station.

This is machine is experiment in minimizing the amount of custom configuration and source code compiling. I am attempting to install as many tools as possible from existing packages in

available packages

I was able to install a number of packages directly from the ubuntu archives, including fftw, grace, and ROOT:

apt-get install \
libfftw3-dev \
grace \
root-system

LSCSOFT

I installed all needed LSCSOFT packages (framecpp, libframe, metaio) from the well-maintained UWM LSCSOFT repository.

$ cat /etc/apt/sources.list.d/lscsoft.list
deb http://www.lsc-group.phys.uwm.edu/daswg/download/software/debian/ squeeze
deb-src http://www.lsc-group.phys.uwm.edu/daswg/download/software/debian/ squeeze contrib
sudo apt-get install lscsoft-archive-keyring
sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get install ldas-tools-framecpp-dev libframe-dev libmetaio-dev lscsoft-user-en

You then need to source /opt/lscsoft/lscsoft-user-env.sh to use these packages.

EPICS

There actually appear to be a couple of projects that are trying to provide debs of EPICS. I was able to actually get epics working from one of them, but it didn't include some of the other needed packages (such as MEDM and BURT) so I fell back to using Keith's pre-build binary tarball.

Prereqs:

apt-get install \
libmotif-dev \
libxt-dev \
libxmu-dev \
libxprintutil-dev \
libxpm-dev \
libz-dev \
libxaw7-dev \
libpng-dev \
libgd2-xpm-dev \
libbz2-dev \
libssl-dev \
liblapack-dev \
gfortran

Pulled Keith's prebuild binary:

cd /ligo/apps
wget https://llocds.ligo-la.caltech.edu/daq/software/binary/apps/ubuntu/epics-3.14.10-ubuntu.tar.gz
tar zxf epics-3.14.10-ubuntu.tar.gz

GDS

I built GDS from svn, after I fixed some broken stuff [0]:

cd ~controls/src/gds
svn co https://redoubt.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/svn/gds/trunk
cd trunk
#fixed broken stuff [0]
source /opt/lscsoft/lscsoft-user-env.sh
./bootstrap
export GDSBUILD=online
export ROOTSYS=/usr
./configure --prefix=/ligo/apps/gds --enable-only-dtt --with-epics=/ligo/apps/epics-3.14.10
make
make install

dataviewer

I installed dataviewer from source:

cd ~controls/src/advLigoRTS
svn co https://redoubt.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/svn/advLigoRTS/trunk
cd trunk/src/dv
#fix stupid makefile /opt/rtapps --> /ligo/apps
make
make install

I found that the actual dataviewer wrapper script was also broken, so I made a new one:

$ cat /ligo/apps/dv/dataviewer
#!/bin/bash
export DVPATH=/ligo/apps/dv
ID=$$
DCDIR=/tmp/${ID}DC
mkdir $DCDIR
trap "rm -rf $DCDIR" EXIT
$DVPATH/dc3 -s ${NDSSERVER} -a $ID -b $DVPATH "$@"

environment

Finally, I made a environment definer file:

$ cat /ligo/apps/cds-user-env.sh
# source the lscsoft environment
. /opt/lscsoft/lscsoft-user-env.sh

# source the gds environment
. /ligo/apps/gds/etc/gds-user-env.sh

# special local epics setup
EPICS=/ligo/apps/epics
export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=${EPICS}/base/lib/linux-x86_64:$LD_LIBRARY_PATH
export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=${EPICS}/extensions/lib/linux-x86_64:$LD_LIBRARY_PATH
export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=${EPICS}/modules/seq/lib/linux-x86_64:$LD_LIBRARY_PATH
export PATH=${EPICS}/base/bin/linux-x86_64:$PATH
export PATH=${EPICS}/extensions/bin/linux-x86_64:$PATH
export PATH=${EPICS}/modules/seq/bin/linux-x86_64:$PATH

# dataviewer path
export PATH=/ligo/apps/dv:${PATH}

# specify the NDS server
export NDSSERVER=fb

[0] GDS was not compiling, because of what looked like bugs. I'm not sure why I'm the first person to catch these things. Stricter compiler?

To fix the following compile error:

TLGExport.cc:1337: error: ‘atoi’ was not declared in this scope

I made the following patch:

Index: /home/controls/src/gds/trunk/GUI/dttview/TLGExport.cc
===================================================================
--- /home/controls/src/gds/trunk/GUI/dttview/TLGExport.cc (revision 6423)
+++ /home/controls/src/gds/trunk/GUI/dttview/TLGExport.cc (working copy)
@@ -31,6 +31,7 @@
#include <iomanip>

#include <string.h>

#include <strings.h>

+#include <stdlib.h>


namespace ligogui {
using namespace std;

To fix the following compile error:

TLGPrint.cc:264: error: call of overloaded ‘abs(Int_t&)’ is ambiguous

I made the following patch:

Index: /home/controls/src/gds/trunk/GUI/dttview/TLGPrint.cc
===================================================================
--- /home/controls/src/gds/trunk/GUI/dttview/TLGPrint.cc (revision 6423)
+++ /home/controls/src/gds/trunk/GUI/dttview/TLGPrint.cc (working copy)
@@ -22,6 +22,7 @@
#include <fstream>

#include <map>
#include <cmath>

+#include <cstdlib>


namespace ligogui {
using namespace std;

ELOG V3.1.3-