40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 110 of 344  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Dateup Author Type Category Subject
  5488   Tue Sep 20 19:00:49 2011 PaulUpdateSUSITMY and SRM oplev calibrations - measured and estimated

 

Kiwamu noticed that the 1/L in the counts per radian should have just been L, which accounts for most of the discrepancy. We checked the input filters on the OSEMs, and they have 10dB of gain at DC. Accounting for this, estimates on the order of 20urad/count, which is much more reasonable!

  5489   Tue Sep 20 20:58:35 2011 AnamariaConfigurationLSCNew AP Table Drawing

As promised, I have made a final AP table drawing, including the MC camera relocation changes by Kiwamu. I have posted it in the wiki on the tables list, and on the AP table page I've attached the inkscape .svg I used to make it, if someone needs to do small modifications.

Attached is a pdf version of it.

Big changes:

1) REFL beam has been split into 4, to go in equal powers and equal beam size to the now 4 REFL RFPDs, 11, 33, 55 and 165. A lens had to be added for REFL165 because it's a 1mm PD instead of 2mm like the other 3.

2) MC camera has moved.

3) I've cleaned up most of the random components on the table, put them away, and tidied up the cabling.

 

Attachment 1: APtableSep20th.pdf
APtableSep20th.pdf
  5490   Tue Sep 20 21:13:39 2011 SureshUpdateIOOMC aligned and PSL beam into MC readjusted

This morning after Kiwamu maximised the PSL beam coupling into the MC we noticed that the MC2 face camera showed the spot position had moved away from the center by about a diameter.  So I checked the beam spot positions with MCASS and indeed found that the spot on MC2 had moved to about 6mm away from the center in yaw and about 3mm in pitch.  I adjusted the MC2 (and only MC2) to recenter the spots on all the three mirrors.  The new spot positions are given below

spot positions in mm (MC1,2,3 pit MC1,2,3 yaw):
    1.3337   -0.2660    0.6641   -1.0973    0.0468   -1.7130

The PSL beam into MC has been readjusted for maximal coupling into MC.

 

  5491   Tue Sep 20 23:01:37 2011 KeikoUpdateIOOAM modulation mistery

Keiko, Suresh

AM modulations are still there ... the mechanical design for the stages, RF cables, and connections are not good and affecting the alignment.

I write the activity in the time series this time - Because we suspect the slight EOM misalignment to the beam produces the unwanted AM sidebands, we tried to align the EOM as much as possible. First I aligned the EOM tilt aligner so that the maximum power goes through. I found that about 5% power was dumped by EOM. After adjusting the alignment, the AM modulation seemed be much better and stable, however, it came up after about 20 mins. They grew up up to about -40dBm, while the noise floor is -60 dBm (when AM is minimised, with DC power of 8V by PDA225 photodetector).

We changed the EOM stage (below the tilt aligner) from a small plate to a large plate, so that the EOM base can be more stable. The EOM stands on the pile of several black plate. There was a gap below the tilt aligner because of a small plate.  So we swapped the small plate to large plate to eliminate the springly gap. However it didn't make any difference - it is the current status and there is still AM modulations right now.

During above activities, we leaned that the main cause of the EOM misalignment may be the RF cables and the resonator box connected to the EOM. They are connected to the EOM by an SMA adaptor, not any soft cables. It is very likely applying some  torc force to the EOM box. The resonator box is almost hunging from the EOM case and just your slight touch changes EOM alinment quite a bit and AM mod becomes large. 

I will replace the SMA connector between the resonator box and EOM to be a soft cable, so that the box doesn't hung from EOM tomorrow. Also, I will measure the AM mod depth so that we compare with the PM mod depth.

 

Quote:

 Keiko, Anamaria

We started to investigate the AM modulation mistery again. Checking just after the EOM, there are AM modulation about -45dBm. Even if we adjust the HWP just before the EOM, AM components grow up in 5 mins. This is the same situation as before. Only the difference from before is that we don't have PBS and HWP between the EOM and the monitor PD. So we have a simpler setup this time.

We will try to align the pockells cell alignment tomorrow daytime, as it may be a problem when the crystal and the beam are not well parallel. This adjustment has been done before and it didn't improve AM level at that time.

 

  5492   Tue Sep 20 23:59:53 2011 KojiSummaryLSCPlan to update the LSC code for multiple lock-ins

DRMI team needs to use at least three lockins on LSC

  • Increase the number of the lockin matrix  done
  • Duplicate lockin modules in the LSC code  done
  • modify the main LSC screen done
  • modify the lockin screen done
  • modify the lockin matrix screen done
  5493   Wed Sep 21 00:34:29 2011 ranaUpdateSUSSUS diag stuff... just so I remember what I'm doing

ETMX was ringing up when it was mis-aligned for Y arm locking. I restored the input matrix to something more diagonal and its now damping again. Needs more work before we can use the calculated matrix.

  5494   Wed Sep 21 00:37:01 2011 ranaUpdateSUSITMY and SRM oplev calibrations - measured and estimated

I found that some of the Optical Lever Servos were ON today and injecting nonsense into the interferometer optics. I have set all of the gains = 0 to save us more headaches.

Please leave them OFF until we review the servo and noise characterization results in the elog.

  5495   Wed Sep 21 02:49:39 2011 KeikoSummaryLSCLSC matrices

I created 3 kinds of LSC matrices, PRMI condition with carrier resonant in PRC, PRMI condition with SB resonant in PRC, and DRMI with SB resonant in PRC. The matrices are with AS55 and REFL11 which are used for locking right now. The signal numbers are written in log10, and the dem phases are shown in degrees.

From CR reso PRMI to SB reso PRMI, demodulation phases change  ----

 

PRMI - Carrier resonant in PRC

 

            PRCL      MICH  SRCL

REFL11 7.7079 2.9578 0
REFL33 5.2054 3.2161 0
REFL55 7.7082 2.9584 0
REFL165 3.9294 2.5317 0
AS11 1.0324 3.5589 0
AS33 1.0286 1.6028 0
AS55 1.1708 4.2588 0
AS165 1.1241 0.9352 0
POP11 2.8015 -1.3331 0
POP33 0.2989 -1.6806 0
POP55 2.8017 -0.6493 0
POP165 -0.9769 -2.3708 0
POX11 3.7954 -0.3363 0
POX33 1.293 -0.7058 0
POX55 3.796 0.355 0
POX165 0.0187 -1.3837 0
       
Dem Phase      
REFL11 3 179 0
REFL33 165 -172 0
REFL55 13 170 0
REFL165 86 177 0
AS11 -32 73 0
AS33 176 -72 0
AS55 -41 12 0
AS165 -7 146 0
POP11 -11 -116 0
POP33 124 147 0
POP55 -54 -146 0
POP165 -117 -25 0
POX11 -87 15 0
POX33 -105 -80 0
POX55 -76 16 0
POX165 180 -91 0

PRMI - SB resonant in PRC

SB reso PRMI    
  PRCL MICH SRCL
REFL11 7.6809 5.2777 0
REFL33 5.2465 3.1565 0
REFL55 7.2937 5.589 0
REFL165 4.3892 2.6857 0
AS11 1.3123 3.545 0
AS33 0.9331 1.6022 0
AS55 1.7425 4.0514 0
AS165 1.5838 1.1344 0
POP11 2.7745 0.3791 0
POP33 0.3401 -1.7392 0
POP55 2.3872 0.6904 0
POP165 -0.5171 -2.2279 0
POX11 3.7684 1.3574 0
POX33 1.3341 -0.7664 0
POX55 3.3815 1.6688 0
POX165 0.4785 -1.2163 0
       
Dem Phase
     
REFL11 155 -115 0
REFL33 -8 3 0
REFL55 91 -178 0
REFL165 -62 28 0
AS11 109 62 0
AS33 -39 99 0
AS55 13 -38 0
AS165 -155 168 0
POP11 141 -128 0
POP33 -48 -38 0
POP55 24 115 0
POP165 95 -176 0
POX11 65 155 0
POX33 83 95 0
POX55 2 92 0
POX165 32 123 0

DRMI - SB resonant in PRC

REFL11 7.6811 5.0417 4.2237 
REFL33 5.2751 4.1144 3.7766
REFL55 7.2345 7.0288 6.6801
REFL165 4.3337 4.1266 3.7775
AS11 1.1209 3.512 0.9248
AS33 0.9159 1.6323 0.7971
AS55 2.6425 5.3915 2.5519
AS165 2.6423 2.4881 2.3272
POP11 2.7747 0.1435 -0.6846
POP33 0.3687 -0.7849 -1.122
POP55 2.3244 2.1302 1.7815
POP165 -0.5833 -0.8 -1.1548
POX11 3.7676 3.261 0.8086
POX33 1.3896 0.2372 0.2333
POX55 3.4619 3.0097 3.1326
POX165 0.782 0.6668 0.4357
                        
Dem Phase
     
REFL11 154 -16 4
REFL33 -5 12 51
REFL55 129 -166 -123
REFL165 -23 40 83
AS11 132 79 69
AS33 -92 -127 -83
AS55 -33 -55 -5
AS165 154 179 -144
POP11 141 -29 -9
POP33 -46 -27 12
POP55 62 127 170
POP165 135 -161 -117
POX11 64 -102 -83
POX33 85 143 118
POX55 57 103 124
POX165 99 155 -164

 

 

  5496   Wed Sep 21 09:10:15 2011 PaulUpdateSUSITMY and SRM oplev calibrations - measured and estimated

Quote:

I found that some of the Optical Lever Servos were ON today and injecting nonsense into the interferometer optics. I have set all of the gains = 0 to save us more headaches.

Please leave them OFF until we review the servo and noise characterization results in the elog.

 I had previously set the gains to zero, see the first line of my entry on Monday 5468. I should have the servo and noise characterisation done today for these oplevs today, so we can review it soon.

  5497   Wed Sep 21 11:35:07 2011 steveUpdateVACRGA scan

RGA scan with maglev pumping speed at day 14 of the pump down.

The larger inserted box contains the tuning parameters of the SRS  200 amu RGA

Attachment 1: rgascanpd71m14d.jpg
rgascanpd71m14d.jpg
  5498   Wed Sep 21 14:28:25 2011 KojiSummaryLSCThe LSC code/screen modification for LSC LOCKINs

The LSC code has been modified

- The code was modified, compiled, and installed.

- The code is now running. FB was restarted to deal with the change of the channel names.

- Now we have LOCKIN1, 2, and 3. This required the change of the names from C1:LSC-LOCKIN_.... to C1:LSC-LOCKIN1_...

 

- The LSC screen has also modified. It has three lockins on the screen.

- The corresponding matrix screens have been modified/created and linked from the main screen.

- I need to make the screens more cool but the locking team can start to use those lockins.

  5499   Wed Sep 21 14:44:25 2011 PaulUpdateSUSITMY and SRM open loop transfer functions

 

 Here are the open loop transfer functions for ITMY and SRM. The various settings for the OLTFs were as follows:

Oplev filter used for all OLTFs: 300^2:0

Gains for oplev servos (for each OLTF only the 1 servo for the measured TF was on. They are all set back to 0 now):

SRM yaw gain = 1

SRM pitch gain = -1

ITMY yaw gain = -1

ITMY pitch gain = 1

measurement band = 0.2Hz to 200Hz

points = 33

swept sine magnitude envelope: amp = 2 for f > 60Hz, amp = 0.1 for f < 60Hz

Measurement points were from e.g. C1-SUS-ITMY-OLPIT-IN2 to C1-SUS-ITMY-OLPIT-IN1 to give a TF of -(loop gain).

Next step is to divide this through by the sensor reponse (i.e. the calibration factor measured earlier) and the filter response to get just the actuator response. 

 

Attachment 1: ITMY_SRM_oplev_OLTFs.png
ITMY_SRM_oplev_OLTFs.png
  5500   Wed Sep 21 16:22:14 2011 ranaUpdateSUSSummary screen

The SUS SUMMARY screen is now fully activated. You should keep it open at all times as a diagnostic of the suspensions.

No matter how cool you think you are, you are probably doing something bad when trying to lock, measure any loop gains, set matrices, etc. Use the screen.

 

This is the link to the automatic snapshot of the SUS SUMMARY screen. You can use it to check the Suspensions status with your jPhone.

Auto SUS SUMMARY Snapshot

When the values go yellow its near the bad level. When its red, it means the optic is misaligned or not damped or has the wrong gain, etc.

So don't ignore it Steve! If you think the thresholds are set too low then change them to the appropriate level with the scripts is SUS/

  5501   Wed Sep 21 16:31:28 2011 PaulUpdateSUSITMY and SRM actuator response functions

 I divided the open loop transfer functions by the filter response and the sensor responses (previously measured calibration factors) to leave just the actuator responses. I've attached the actuator responses plotted in radians/count and phase over frequency.

Next step: fit the actuator response with poles and zeros.

EDIT: I divided by the wrong filter function earlier - the plots there now are divided by the correct filter function

Attachment 1: ITMY_PITCH_actuator_response.png
ITMY_PITCH_actuator_response.png
Attachment 2: ITMY_YAW_actuator_response.png
ITMY_YAW_actuator_response.png
Attachment 3: SRM_PITCH_actuator_response.png
SRM_PITCH_actuator_response.png
Attachment 4: SRM_YAW_actuator_response.png
SRM_YAW_actuator_response.png
  5502   Wed Sep 21 16:44:18 2011 KeikoUpdateIOOAM modulation mistery

AM modulation depths are found to be 50 times smaller than PM modulation depths.

m(AM,f1) ~ m(AM, f2) = 0.003 while m(PM, f1)=0.17 and m(PM, f2)=0.19.

Measured values;

* DC power = 5.2V which is assumed to be 0.74mW according to the PDA255 manual.

*AM_f1 and AM_f2 power = -55.9 dBm = 2.5 * 10^(-9) W.

P92101381.jpg

AM f2 power is assumed to be the similar value of f1. I can't measure f2 (55MHz) level properly because the PD (PDA255) is 50MHz bandwidth. From the (P_SB/P_CR) = (m/2) ^2 relation where P_SB and P_CR are the sideband and carrier power, respectively, I estimated the rough the AM modulation depths. Although DC power include the AM SB powers, I assumed that SB powers are enough small and the DC power can be considered as the carrier power, P_CR. The resulting modulation depth is about 0.003.

On the other hand, from the OSA, today's PM mod depths are 0.17 and 0.19 for f1 and f2, respectively. Please note that these numbers contains (small) AM sidebands components too. Comparing with the PM and AM sideband depths, AM sidebands seems to be enough small.

Quote:

Keiko, Suresh

AM modulations are still there ... the mechanical design for the stages, RF cables, and connections are not good and affecting the alignment. 

 

Attachment 1: P9210138.JPG
P9210138.JPG
  5503   Wed Sep 21 17:42:35 2011 ranaUpdateIOOAM modulation misery

I'd like to see some details about how to determine that the ratio of 1:50 is small enough for AM:PM.

* What have people achieved in past according to the elogs©  of the measurements?

* What do we expect the effect of 1:50 to be? How much offset does this make in the MICH/PRC/SRC loops? How much offset is too much?

Recall that we are using frontal modulation with a rather small Schnupp Asymmetry...

  5504   Wed Sep 21 18:53:03 2011 KeikoUpdateIOOAM modulation misery

The signal offset due to the AM modulation is estimated by a simulation for PRCL for now. Please see the result below.

Too see how bad or good the AM modulation with 1/50 modulation depths of PM, I ran a simulation. For example I looked at PRCL sweep signal for each channel. I tried the three AM modulation depths, (1) m_AM=0 & m_PM = 0.17 (2) m_AM = 0.003 & m_PM = 0.17 which is the current modulation situation (3) m_AM = 0.17 & m_PM = 0.17 in which AM is the same modulation depth as PM.  For the current status of (2), there are offsets on signals up to 0.002 while the maximum signal amplitude is 0.15. I can't tell how bad it is.... Any suggestions?

 

(1) m_AM=0 & m_PM = 0.17. There is no offset in the signals.

AM0.png

(2) m_AM = 0.003 & m_PM = 0.17. There are offsets on signals up to 0.002 while the maximum signal amplitude is 0.15.

AMratio50.png

(3) m_AM = 0.17 & m_PM = 0.17. There are offsets on signals up to 0.1 while the maximum signal amplitude is 0.2.

AMratio1.png

I will look at MICH and SRCL in the same way. 

Quote:

I'd like to see some details about how to determine that the ratio of 1:50 is small enough for AM:PM.

* What have people achieved in past according to the elogs©  of the measurements?

* What do we expect the effect of 1:50 to be? How much offset does this make in the MICH/PRC/SRC loops? How much offset is too much?

Recall that we are using frontal modulation with a rather small Schnupp Asymmetry...

 

  5505   Wed Sep 21 19:20:41 2011 SureshUpdateIOOPSL beam into MC was off in Pitch. Readjusted.

I found the PSL beam into the MC off in pitch by large amount.  I readusted the PSL beam for optimal coupling.

The beam had shifted on the WFS as well.  So I recentered the DC signal on the WFS with the MC unlocked.  However both the DC and RF signals on the WFS shift when we lock the MC.  This ought to indicate sub-optimal coupling of PSL into MC.  But instead, if we were to reduce these offsets on the WFS by adjusting the MC axis it leads to higher reflected power from the MC.

The current plan is to retain these RF offsets and lock the WFS with a DC offset in the servo filters.

  5506   Wed Sep 21 21:13:35 2011 ranaUpdateIOOAM modulation misery

How about changing the x-axis of all these plots into meters or picometers and tell us how wide the PRC resonance is? (something similar to the arm cavity linewidth expression)

Also, there's the question of the relative AM/PM phase. I think you have to try out both I & Q in the sim. I think we expect Q to be the most effected by AM.

  5507   Wed Sep 21 23:05:16 2011 PaulUpdateSUSITMY and SRM actuator response functions - fitting results

 I used an fminsearch function to fit the SRM and ITMY actuator response magnitudes. The testfunction was just that for a single second order pole, but it gave what I consider to be good fits for the following reasons:

*for 3 of the 4 fits the residuals were less than 0.5% of the summed input data points. The worst one (ITMY pitch) was about 2.7%, which I think is due to the resonance happening to be right in the middle of two data points.

*the tolerance of 1 part in 10^9 was reached quickly from not very finely tuned starting points.

The test function was: G=abs(Gp./(1+1i.*f./fp./Qp-(f./fp).^2)), where G(f) is the actuator response magnitude, Gp is the pole gain, fp is the pole frequency, and Qp is the pole Q factor.

In the end I just fitted the response magnitude. I was initially fitting the complex response function, but ran into problems which I think were cased by overall phase offsets between the data and test function. Can I canvass for opinion if fitting the magnitude is OK, or should I try again fitting the phase too?

Anyway, here are the results of the fits, and I've attached plots of each too (each one in linear and log y axis because each on its own might be misleading for fits):

EDIT - I added more points to the otherwise sparse looking fitted curves

 

ITMY PITCH actuator response fit

-- Fit completed after 190 iterations--

 Started with: Gain = 3e-06,

 Q factor = 5,

 Pole frequency = 1,

 Fit results:  Gain = 1.32047e-06,

 Q factor = 4.34542,

 Pole frequency = 0.676676

 Residual (normalised against the sum of input datapoints) = 0.0268321

 

ITMY YAW actuator response fit

-- Fit completed after 156 iterations--

 Started with: Gain = 3e-06,

 Q factor = 5,

 Pole frequency = 1,

 Fit results:  Gain = 1.14456e-06,

 Q factor = 8.49875,

 Pole frequency = 0.730028

 Residual (normalised against the sum of input datapoints) = 0.00468077

 

SRM PITCH actuator response fit

 -- Fit completed after 192 iterations--

 Started with: Gain = 3e-06,

 Q factor = 5,

 Pole frequency = 1,

 Fit results:  Gain = 7.94675e-06,

 Q factor = 7.16458,

 Pole frequency = 0.57313

 Residual (normalised against the sum of input datapoints) = 0.00301265

 

SRM YAW actuator response fit

 -- Fit completed after 156 iterations--

 Started with: Gain = 3e-06,

 Q factor = 5,

 Pole frequency = 1,

 Fit results:  Gain = 3.34179e-06,

 Q factor = 9.57601,

 Pole frequency = 0.855322

 Residual (normalised against the sum of input datapoints) = 0.000840468

Attachment 1: ITMY_PITCH_actuator_response_FIT.png
ITMY_PITCH_actuator_response_FIT.png
Attachment 2: ITMY_YAW_actuator_response_FIT.png
ITMY_YAW_actuator_response_FIT.png
Attachment 3: SRM_PITCH_actuator_response_FIT.png
SRM_PITCH_actuator_response_FIT.png
Attachment 4: SRM_YAW_actuator_response_FIT.png
SRM_YAW_actuator_response_FIT.png
  5508   Wed Sep 21 23:25:51 2011 kiwamuUpdateSUSRe:ITMY and SRM actuator response functions - fitting results

Did you take the 180 deg shift into your account ?

Since your measurement was done when the loop was closed, there must be an additional 180 deg phase shift (in other words, minus sign).

Quote from #5507

In the end I just fitted the response magnitude. I was initially fitting the complex response function, but ran into problems which I think were cased by overall phase offsets between the data and test function. Can I canvass for opinion if fitting the magnitude is OK, or should I try again fitting the phase too?

  5509   Wed Sep 21 23:44:45 2011 PaulUpdateSUSRe:ITMY and SRM actuator response functions - fitting results

Quote:

Did you take the 180 deg shift into your account ?

Since your measurement was done when the loop was closed, there must be an additional 180 deg phase shift (in other words, minus sign).

Quote from #5507

In the end I just fitted the response magnitude. I was initially fitting the complex response function, but ran into problems which I think were cased by overall phase offsets between the data and test function. Can I canvass for opinion if fitting the magnitude is OK, or should I try again fitting the phase too?

 I thought I had, but apparently not, and I'd made another error or two in the complex version of my fitting routine. I've fixed them now, thanks! I'll put up the new fitting results tomorrow morning.

  5510   Thu Sep 22 00:00:10 2011 PaulUpdateSUSITMY and SRM actuator response functions - complex fitting results

Here are the results of the complex fitting. The residuals are bigger this time, but still probably small enough to be ok(?), with the possible exception of ITMY PITCH (due again I think to the data points straddling the resonance).

ITMY YAW actuator response complex fit

-- Fit completed after 282 iterations--

 Started with: Gain = 3e-05,
 Q factor = 5,
 Pole frequency = 0.6776,
 Fit results:  Gain = 1.14673e-06,
 Q factor = 12.9471,
 Pole frequency = 0.766531
 Residual (normalised against the sum of input datapoints) = 0.0688174
 
ITMY PITCH actuator response complex fit
-- Fit completed after 191 iterations--
 Started with: Gain = 3e-05,
 Q factor = 5,
 Pole frequency = 0.6776,
 Fit results:  Gain = 1.25105e-06,
 Q factor = 3.88981,
 Pole frequency = 0.706744
 Residual (normalised against the sum of input datapoints) = 0.144165
 
SRM YAW actuator response complex fit
-- Fit completed after 246 iterations--
 Started with: Gain = 3e-05,
 Q factor = 5,
 Pole frequency = 0.6776,
 Fit results:  Gain = 3.34137e-06,
 Q factor = 9.6875,
 Pole frequency = 0.854913
 Residual (normalised against the sum of input datapoints) = 0.0153646
 
SRM PITCH actuator response complex fit
-- Fit completed after 266 iterations--
 Started with: Gain = 3e-05,
 Q factor = 5,
 Pole frequency = 0.6776,
 Fit results:  Gain = 7.97529e-06,
 Q factor = 7.63888,
 Pole frequency = 0.568227
 Residual (normalised against the sum of input datapoints) = 0.0319653
Attachment 1: ITMY_PITCH_actuator_response_complex_FIT.png
ITMY_PITCH_actuator_response_complex_FIT.png
Attachment 2: ITMY_YAW_actuator_response_complex_FIT.png
ITMY_YAW_actuator_response_complex_FIT.png
Attachment 3: SRM_PITCH_actuator_response_complex_FIT.png
SRM_PITCH_actuator_response_complex_FIT.png
Attachment 4: SRM_YAW_actuator_response_complex_FIT.png
SRM_YAW_actuator_response_complex_FIT.png
  5511   Thu Sep 22 01:05:28 2011 KatrinUpdateGreen LockingNew modulation frequency (Y arm)

[Kiwamu / Katrin]

 

On Wednesday, the green light was locked to the Y arm cavity.

Modulation frequency was changed from 279kHz to 178875Hz. The amplitude was changed from 10Vpp to 0.01Vpp to achieve a modulation index of 0.38. The modulation frequency was changed to minimize AM. With the new modulation frequency the laser light could still locked to the cavity.

The signal of the LO and the photodiode are multiplied by a ZAD-8 mini circuit mixer (Level 7). This mixer requires LO input is +7dBm = 1.4Vpp. Thus we put a 36dB attenuator between the LO and the PZT at the laser. PDH error signal shows lots of peaks that are most likely higher order sidebands. Thus, the next step is to work on the low-pass filter. However the SNR of the error signal has improved with the new modulation frequency. With the old mod. frequency the PDH signal was 4mVpp and the noise floor was 2mVpp.

Phase between the photodiode signal and LO is shifted by about 10 degrees. Step two is to work on a phase shifter.

 

 

  5512   Thu Sep 22 01:45:41 2011 KeikoUpdateLSCLocking status update

Keiko, Anamaria

Tonight we want to measure the LSC matrix for PRMI and compare the simulation posted last night (#5495).

First. we locked MICH and PRCL, and measured the OLT to see how good the locking is. The following rough swept sine plots are the OLTs for MICH and PRCL. The gain setting was -10 and 0.5 for MICH and PRCL, respectively. Integrators were off. Looking at the measured plots, MICH has about 300 Hz UGF, when the gain is -20, and PRCL has about 300 HZ UGF, too, when the gain is 0.8.

MICH-OLT.pdf

PRCL-OLT.pdf

As these lokings seemed good, so we tried the LSC matrix code written by Anamaria. However it is not working well at this point. When the script add excitations to the exc channels, they kick the optics too much and the lockings are too much disturbed...

Also, we have been trying to lock PRC with the SB resonant, it doesn't work. Looking at the simulated REFL11I (PRCL) signal (you can see it in #5495 too), the CR and SB resonances have the opposite signs... But minus gain never works for PRCL. It only excites the mirror rather than locking.

  5513   Thu Sep 22 04:49:14 2011 AnamariaUpdateLSCLocking status update - Some Scripts, No Louck

The scripts I wrote can be found in /users/anamaria/scripts/sensemat/

]There are two of them:

- one that sets all the switches, gains, frequencies, etc, then cycles through the various RFPDs I and Q into the LOCKIN signal, so as to see the sensing matrix.

- the second one is a matlab script that takes the crappy file tdsavg outputs and makes it into a cute mag/phase matrix.

They're quite primitive at this point, I've forgotten a lot of tcsh... may improve later. But could be useful later to someone else at least.

I don't think it's particularly the fault of the script that we can't measure the sensing matrix. We can slam on the excitation by hand, and it holds for a little while. I set a wait time for lock to adjust, and most times it just oscillates a bit for a few seconds. Also, the script turns on the excitation and it's done, the rest is just measurement, then turns it off at the end. So during the script, there's not much to deal with, except keeping the lowpass filters quiet when switching the signal to demod; but that doesn't go anywhere, so it definitely doesn't disturb the ifo. Turns out pressing the RSET clear history button needs a 2 to make it happen.

I think I might prefer to set the excitation to run, and then do the old retrieve-data-later-nds-matlab thing. I do not trust these measurements without coherence and a bit of variance study, given instabilities.

Point is... Even on carrier, the PRC lock is not stable by any means. Can barely turn on low freq boosts, every other lock. Until we fix the lock stability issue, there's not much to measure I guess.

Unfortunately, I don't know how to make that happen. Before we leave on Friday we could do a few sanity checks such as measuring the noise of the RFPDs vs ADC+whitening, which I may have said I would do; and perhaps setting up a couple OSAs, one on REFL, one on AS, to make sure we know what the sidebands are doing. Both of which Rana suggested at some point.

(There used to be a quote here from Keiko here but I got mad when it reformated my entire log to be one cluster- hence the look)

  5514   Thu Sep 22 10:43:50 2011 PaulUpdateSUSPower spectrum with different filter gains

 I thought it might be informative before trying to optimise the filter design to see how the current one performs with different gain settings. I've plotted the power spectra for ITMY yaw with filter gains of 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4.

All of the higher gains seem to perform better than the 0 gain, so can I deduce from this that so far the oplev control loop isn't adding excess noise at these frequencies?

Attachment 1: ITMY_YAW_closed_vs_open_noise.pdf
ITMY_YAW_closed_vs_open_noise.pdf
  5515   Thu Sep 22 11:49:05 2011 kiwamuUpdateLSCsome LSC scripts don't run on pianosa

Found some LSC scripts didn't run on pianosa. Particularly all the scripts on the C1:IFO_CONFIGURE screen don't run.

They need to be fixed.

  5516   Thu Sep 22 11:50:37 2011 KojiUpdateLSCLocking status update

Both loops basically have no phase margins. i.e. unstable. How can you lock PRMI with these servos?

Quote:

The following rough swept sine plots are the OLTs for MICH and PRCL. The gain setting was -10 and 0.5 for MICH and PRCL, respectively. Integrators were off. Looking at the measured plots, MICH has about 300 Hz UGF, when the gain is -20, and PRCL has about 300 HZ UGF, too, when the gain is 0.8.

 

  5517   Thu Sep 22 13:45:17 2011 PaulUpdateSUSETMX actuator response fits

Fitting results: 

 Pitch

-- Fit completed after 305 iterations--
 Started with: Gain = 3e-05,
 Q factor = 5,
 Pole frequency = 0.6776,
 Fit results:  Gain = 1.85497e-06,
 Q factor = 23.7233,
 Pole frequency = 0.956686
 Residual (normalised against the sum of input datapoints) = 0.0202483
 
Yaw
-- Fit completed after 334 iterations--
 Started with: Gain = 3e-05,
 Q factor = 5,
 Pole frequency = 0.6776,
 Fit results:  Gain = 2.518e-06,
 Q factor = 7.21618,
 Pole frequency = 0.853559
 Residual (normalised against the sum of input datapoints) = 0.0570132
Attachment 1: ETMX_PITCH_actuator_response_complex_fit.png
ETMX_PITCH_actuator_response_complex_fit.png
Attachment 2: ETMX_YAW_actuator_response_complex_fit.png
ETMX_YAW_actuator_response_complex_fit.png
  5518   Thu Sep 22 13:56:56 2011 kiwamuUpdateASCC1ASS : status update

The output matrix in the C1ASS servo were coarsely readjusted and the servos seemed working.

However it is difficult to say the servo is very good or so-so,

because the ETMY suspension moves a lot and hence the cavity eigen axis moves a lot too.

 


(to do)

 + optimization of the ETMY oplevs and OSEM damping.
 + evaluation of the performance of the C1ASS with a good damping.

(Background)

 Since we have installed the new mid-HV amplifier for the PZT1 mirror (#5450) it changed the response of the PZT1 (gains from EPICS to the actual angles).
Therefore the C1ASS output matrix needs be adapted to the new PZT1 response.
 
(What I have done)
  What I was measuring was a coupling from each PZT mirror to both beam angle and beam position by looking at the output from the LOCKINs.
So this measurement eventually gives us a nicely diagonalized output matrix by inverting the coupling.
However the measurement turned out to be difficult because the ETMY moved too much.
In fact the cavity eigen axis also moves and the fluctuation was larger than the intentionally introduced beam angle/translation offsets, which are for the coupling measurement.
 
 Instead of measuring the couplings, I put some numbers into the matrix based on a guess.
Since the PZT1 HV amp became weaker than that of PZT2, the elements in the output matrix should be amplified by some number.
Right now the PZT1 amp can drive the mirror in a range of -5 -30 V with EPICS range of +/-10 counts, and for PZT2 it is about 0 -150V with EPICS range of +/-5 counts.
So the difference of the responses in unit of V/counts is about 8.5.
The PZT1 elements in the matrix were multiplied by this number and I became able to close the servos.

Quote from #5455

  + Modification of C1ASS (Kiwamu)

  5519   Thu Sep 22 15:53:37 2011 MirkoUpdateLSCRF modulation depth measurement again

Toyed around with the modematching some more today.

The outermost glass elements of the OSA are about 28cm apart.

With the OSA beeing a confocal cavity that should mean that the ROC of every mirror is 28cm on the cavity side. If the input surface is flat we need a 28cm focusing lens for good MM. If it's not we shouldn't need any MM.

Tried a f=250mm lens on different positions first. Got at best about 570mV (PD gain=10) in transmission of the OSA.

Then tried a f=1000mm lens. Best transmission 1.22V (7.2% transmission). SB were (PD gain =100) 11MHz: 87.2mV (m=0.17) , 55MHz: 59.2mV (m=0.14)

Lost the position while toying around. Left it then at 1.0V transmisison at 15:15 local time. Let's see how much it drifts. SBs for this were 11MHz: 52.8mV (m=0.17), 55MHz: 73.8mV (m=0.14)

[Ed by KA: If the carrier transmission was really 1.22V and 1.0V the modulation depths calculated are inconsistent with the measurement.]

Spacing between carrier 11MHz and 55MHz SBs seems consistent, and leads to a FSR measurement of 1.5GHz, also fine.

 

Update: After 90mins no change in carrier transmitted power. Next morning: Carrier transmission down by 10%.

DSC_3478.JPG

 DSC_3481.JPG

DSC_3480.JPG

  5520   Thu Sep 22 17:29:42 2011 KeikoUpdateIOOAM modulation mistery

AM modulation will add offset on SRCL signal as well as PRCL signal. About 2% of the signal amplitude with the current AM level. MICH will not be affected very much.

From #5504, as for the AM modulation I checked the MICH and SRCL signals in addition to the last post for PRCL, to see the AM modulation effect on those signals. On the last post, PRCL (REFL11I) was found to have 0.002 while the maximum signal amplitude is 0.15 we use . Here, I did the same simulation for MICH and SRCL.

As a result, MICH signals are not affected very much. The AM modulation slightly changes signal slopes, but doesn't add offsets apparently. SRCL is affected more, for REFL signals. All the REFL channels get about 0.0015 offsets while the signal ampliture varies up to 0.002. AS55I (currently used for SRCL) has 1e-7 offset for 6e-6 amplitude signal (in the last figure) - which is the same offset ratio comparing with the amplitude in the PRCL case -

 

(1) MICH signals at AS port with AM m=0

AMmod0MICH.png

(2) MICH signals at AS port with AM m=0.003

AMmod1e-1MICH.png

(3) SRCL signals at AS/REFL port with AM m=0

AMmod0SRCL.png 

(3) SRCL signals at AS/REFL port with AM m=0.003

AMmod3e-3SRCL.png

AMmod3e-3SRCL-AS55I.png

 

Quote:

How about changing the x-axis of all these plots into meters or picometers and tell us how wide the PRC resonance is? (something similar to the arm cavity linewidth expression)

Also, there's the question of the relative AM/PM phase. I think you have to try out both I & Q in the sim. I think we expect Q to be the most effected by AM.

 

  5521   Thu Sep 22 17:48:20 2011 kiwamuUpdateSUSbad oplev on ETMY

It turned out the oplev controls on ETMY were just bad.

It looks like the whitening filters have been OFF and because of that the resultant open-loop was not crossing the unity gain.

I will check the whitening filters.

 

(open-loop transfer function)

The blue dots are the measured data points and the green curve is the fit.

Apparently the open-loop doesn't go above the unity gain, so the oplev had been doing nothing.

If we try to increase the overall gain it will oscillate because of the phase delay of more than 180 deg around 3 Hz.

The red curve is the expected one with the whitening filters (WFs) properly engaged.

Note that WF are supposed to have two zeros at 1 Hz and two poles at 10 Hz.

 OLETMY.png

Quote from #5518
(to do)
 + optimization of the ETMY oplevs and OSEM damping.

  5522   Thu Sep 22 18:33:01 2011 KojiSummaryLSCThe LSC screen modification

As per the request of Anamaria, I have added the slider of the demodulation phase for each RF PD screens.

Attachment 1: PD_screen.png
PD_screen.png
  5523   Thu Sep 22 20:12:54 2011 kiwamuUpdateSUSETMY oplev whitening engaged

The whitening filters for the ETMY oplevs are back.

The whitening board had been in the rack but the ADC was connected directly to the oplev interface board without going through the whitening board.

In fact the interface board and the whitening board had been already connected. So the ADC was making a shortcut.

I disconnected the ADC from the interface board and plugged it to the output of the whitening board.

Here is an example of the new open-loop transfer function with the whitening filters.

OLETMY_WF.png

 Note :

before the measurement I increased the control gain by an arbitrary number to obtain gain of more than 1 around 1 Hz.

Quote from #5521

I will check the whitening filters.

  5524   Thu Sep 22 22:53:06 2011 SureshUpdateComputer Scripts / ProgramsActivated DAQ channels in C1IOO model and restared fb

To look at the WFS servo signals I was using test points in the servo filter banks.  This is not recommended for regular operation since acquiring the testpoint data at 16k loads the fb. Instead, I ran the daqconfig script from the scripts directory and activated the IN1_DQ, IN2_DQ and OUT_DQ channels in all the six servo filter banks (at 2048 Hz sampling rate) and then restarted the fb.   However the c1ioo Sun machine stopped responding after this.  Koji and I went in to see what was going on and the machine was not reponding to a keyboard plugged directly into the machine.  The screen display showed no reponse to our key press.  So we did a hardware reboot with the tiny switch in front of the machine.  It came up okay and all the c1ioo models were back in action.

I then checked with the dataviewer to make sure that I can see the trends on the newly activated DQ channels.  They were all fine.

  5525   Thu Sep 22 22:55:01 2011 AnamariaUpdateLSCPOX channel = POY PD connected + Bad Rack

Keiko, Anamaria

We decided we needed a DC channel to sense the gain in the PRC, so we set to align POY55. It took a while because the beam was very weak, and it comes in upwards, so we used a couple of mirrors to bring to a reasonable flat level, and put it on the PD. Then we went to read the DC out and we got 1.3V stationary! Nonsense. We also realized there is no LO for this PD, or any other 55MHz PD, aside from REFL55. Oh well, we only wanted the DC for now. POY55 is aligned (decently).

Koji told me to try swapping the power cable, so I unplugged it at the rack and plugged it in another power card. And it worked! I then moved the DC out (back of rack) to follow the front, and it turns out POY55 diode is read on the POXDC channel. I plugged and unplugged it in disbelief, but it is what it is. At least we have a readout on the power level in PRC.

I attach a picture of the power cards for the LSC RFPDs, with the 3 I found to be bad, and showing current config. I had to move REFL11 and POY55 from their assigned spot.

The two on the lower left are bad in the sense that they put an offset on the PD and make the DC readout be 1.3V for no reason (when working, for example, POY55 read 60mV). The one on the lower right I had trouble with some time ago, it made the PD not read any voltage at all (when working it would read at least 100mV). Beyond that I have not investigated what is up, since I could find working plugins.

Attachment 1: RFPDpowerRack2.pdf
RFPDpowerRack2.pdf
  5526   Thu Sep 22 23:02:15 2011 SureshUpdateIOOno light on WFS2. Realigned input onto both WFS

Rana noticed that the sum on WFS2 was about 10 times smaller than that on WFS1. Though the beam appeared centered on the DC QPD screens it was not really true.  When I went and checked the actual beam position it was landing on the metal enclosure of the WFS2 sensor and scattering back on to the diode. 

I also checked the power levels of light landing on the sensors  It was about 0.25mW in both cases.  This needs further investigation since the power split at the beam spitter is like 0.25mW onto WFS1 and 0.45 towards WFS2. The lost 0,20 mW has to be traced and we have to be sure that it is not scattered around on the table.

 

  5527   Thu Sep 22 23:10:07 2011 SureshUpdateIOOproposed modifications to the C1IOO model

Rana advised that we put in a lockin-output matrix which will allow us to excite any combination of MC mirrors so that we can excite pure translations or rotations of the MC beam axis.  This would require us to direct a lockin output into all the three mirrors simultaneously with a +1 or -1 as needed in the matrix..

  5528   Thu Sep 22 23:18:51 2011 KojiSummaryLSCThe LSC screen modification

 

C1LSC_RFPD.adl screen was modified to have more information.

Attachment 1: C1LSC_RFPD.png
C1LSC_RFPD.png
  5529   Fri Sep 23 16:25:01 2011 steveUpdateVACvac rack UPS battery replaced

APC Smart -UPS 2200   model: SUA2200RM2U   batteries were replaced by compatible RBC43, 8x  12V5A

Attachment 1: P1080252.JPG
P1080252.JPG
Attachment 2: P1080254.JPG
P1080254.JPG
  5530   Fri Sep 23 16:56:07 2011 MirkoUpdateLSCDesired MC modulation frequency measurement, tuning of modulation frequency

[ Mirko, Koji, Suresh ]

Looked into the modulation frequency that should pass the input MC. With a locked MC looked at the RF output of the PD in refl of the MC. Looked at the beat between 11MHz and 29.5MHz. Minimizing it by fine-tuning the 11MHz freq. ( which means maximizing the 11MHz transmission).

SB freq. [MHz]     Beat power [dBm]

11.065650          -75

11.065770          -80 (diving into spec. analyzer instrument noise)

11.066060          -80 (surfacing out of spec. analyzer instrument noise)

Set the freq. to the middle of the last two points: 11.065910MHz at 16:26.

ToDo: How big a problem is the AM?

  5531   Fri Sep 23 17:31:14 2011 KatrinUpdateGreen LockingStray light reduction (Y)

I inserted several beam blocks and iris on the Y arm Green table. There was/is lots of stray light because a lot of the mirrors are not under an angle of incident of 45°. Some stray light is left since couldn't find an appropriate beam block/dump due to lack of space on the table.

 

  5532   Fri Sep 23 17:57:34 2011 PaulUpdateSUSOplev filter optimization for 2 poles and 2 zeros

I have made a function to optimise the overall gain, pole frequencies and zero frequencies for the oplev filter. The script will optimize any user defined number of poles and zeros in order to minimise the RMS motion below a certain cut off frequency (in this case 20Hz). The overall gain is adjusted so that each trial filter shape always has a UGF of 10 Hz.

I have a attached a plot showing the power spectrum and RMS curves for the optimization result for 2 zeros and 2 poles, optimized to give a minimal RMS below 20Hz.

I have also attached a plot showing the loop gain and the filter transfer function.

The noise spectrum shows that the optimised filter gives a better noise performance below 10Hz, but a servo oscillation at the UGF of 10 Hz means it injects a lot of motion around this frequency. Should I consider some more aggressive way to force the script to keep a decent phase margin?

The fminsearch results show that the 'optimized' solution is two resonant peaks:

 

 -- Optimisation completed after 571 iterations--

 Started with: 

 Pole 1 frequency = 1 Hz 

 Pole 2 frequency = 2 Hz 

 Zero 1 frequency = 0.1 Hz 

 Zero 2 frequency = 5 Hz 

Overall gain = 1 

 Finished with: 

 Pole 1 frequency = 0.0497181 Hz 

 Pole 2 frequency = 2.01809 Hz 

 Zero 1 frequency = 0.0497181 Hz 

 Zero 2 frequency = 2.01809 Hz 

Overall gain = 71970.1 

 Initial RMS below 10 Hz = 5.90134e-06

 Remaining RMS below 10 Hz = 8.42898e-07

 

 

 

Attachment 1: optimised2p2z_v1.png
optimised2p2z_v1.png
Attachment 2: optimised2p2z_v1_TFs.png
optimised2p2z_v1_TFs.png
  5533   Fri Sep 23 18:00:54 2011 SureshUpdateIOOPSL beam realigned to MC

I noticed that the beam centering on the WFS had changed over night and the MC_TRANS_SUM was about 40k counts.  When well aligned this SUM is around 50-55k counts. So PSL coupling into MC was suboptimal. It was not clear whether the MC shifted or the PSL beam shifted. So I looked at the PSL ANG and POS QPDs. 

 trend.png

The plots above show the gradual drift of the PSL beam in vertical direction during the last 8hrs or so. But the last bit shows the adjustments I had to make to reobtain optimal alignment.  And these adjustments are not undoing the drift!  This would indicate that the MC axis has also shifted during the same time period. 

  5534   Sat Sep 24 01:21:11 2011 kiwamuUpdateSUSdamping test

As a suspension test I am leaving all of the suspensions restored and damped with OSEMS but without oplevs

  5535   Sat Sep 24 01:38:14 2011 kiwamuUpdateCDSc1scx and c1x01 restarted

[Koji / Kiwamu]

 The c1scx and c1x01 realtime processes became frozen. We restarted them around 1:30 by sshing and running the kill/start scripts.

  5536   Sat Sep 24 01:51:02 2011 ranaUpdateSUSOplev filter optimization for 2 poles and 2 zeros

Quote:

I have made a function to optimise the overall gain, pole frequencies and zero frequencies for the oplev filter. The script will optimize any user defined number of poles and zeros in order to minimise the RMS motion below a certain cut off frequency (in this case 20Hz). The overall gain is adjusted so that each trial filter shape always has a UGF of 10 Hz.

I think this is a nice start. Its clear that we don't want to use this feedback law, but the technique can be tweaked to do what we want by just tweaking our cost function.

Let's move the scripts into the SUS/ scripts area and then start putting in weights that do what we want:

1) Limit the gain peaking at the upper UGF to 6 dB.

2) Minimum phase margin of 45 deg.

3) Minimum gain margin of 10 dB.

4) Lower UGF = 0.1 Hz / Upper UGF = 10 Hz.

5) Assume a A2L coupling of 0.003 m/rad and constrain the injected noise at the test mass to be less than the seismic + thermal level.

6) Looser noise contraint above 50 Hz for the non TM loops.

  5537   Sat Sep 24 02:09:43 2011 kiwamuUpdateSUSRe:Oplev filter optimization for 2 poles and 2 zeros

Good work for the oplev noise simulations. Here are some comments/questions:

 (A) The noise looks suppressed but the open-loop transfer function doesn't look so good, because it doesn't have sufficient phase margins at the UGFs (0.01 and 10 Hz).

      I guess it is better to have a phase margin detector in your code so that the code automatically rejects a bad phase margin case.

      Actually since the number of data points are finite, the rms detector in the simulation can not always find a sharp loop oscillation.

 (B) The resultant poles and zeros seem canceling each other but the filter still has a structure. Is something wrong ?

Quote from #5332

 Pole 1 frequency = 0.0497181 Hz 

 Pole 2 frequency = 2.01809 Hz 

 Zero 1 frequency = 0.0497181 Hz 

 Zero 2 frequency = 2.01809 Hz

ELOG V3.1.3-