40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
 40m Log, Page 123 of 344 Not logged in
ID Date Author Type Category Subject
27   Mon Oct 29 23:10:05 2007 waldmanConfigurationOMCLost in DAQspace
[Pinkesh, Sam]

In setting up a Digital based control of the hanging OMC, we naively connect the Anti-Imaging filter output to an Anti-Aliasing input. This led to no end of hell. For one thing, we found the 10 kHz 3rd order butterworth at 10 kHz, where it should be based on the install hardware. One wonders in passing whether we want a 10 kHz butter instead of a 15 kHz something else, but I leave that for a later discussion. Much more bothersome is a linear phase shift between output and input that looks like ~180 microseconds. It screams "What the hell am I!?" and none of us could scream back at it with an answer. I believe this will require the Wilson House Ghost Busters to fully remedy on the morrow.
6097   Fri Dec 9 17:08:41 2011 JenneUpdateRF SystemLots of current used in Rich's demod box

I checked the power regulators on the Rich demod box (according to the schematic, D1000217).  The positive one is LM2941CT, and the negative one is LM2991T.  Both accept input voltage up to +26V or -26V respectively.  So my use of +\- 24V to be regulated down to +\- 15V isn't too crazy.  It's a little crazy, but not too crazy.  They recommend having only a 3V difference between the input and output voltages.  We don't have any 18V or 20V power supplies in the regular LSC power supply rack, so Rana suggested using the 24's.

When I plug in and turn on the Rich box, the current on the +24V power supply goes up by about 0.8A, and the -24V supply goes up by about 0.3A.  That seems like kind of a lot.  Is that too much?  Do I need to find a better plan that involves +\- 18V?  Thoughts?

For now, the Rich box is off, just in case.

6099   Fri Dec 9 17:44:45 2011 KojiUpdateRF SystemLots of current used in Rich's demod box

Those asymmetric currents are same as what I saw with the table top +/-18V supply. If you really don't like it, there could be an option to disconnect CH3/4 in the box.

In any case, this could be a good long-run test of the demod box, couldn't it?

 Quote: I checked the power regulators on the Rich demod box (according to the schematic, D1000217).  The positive one is LM2941CT, and the negative one is LM2991T.  Both accept input voltage up to +26V or -26V respectively.  So my use of +\- 24V to be regulated down to +\- 15V isn't too crazy.  It's a little crazy, but not too crazy.  They recommend having only a 3V difference between the input and output voltages.  We don't have any 18V or 20V power supplies in the regular LSC power supply rack, so Rana suggested using the 24's.  When I plug in and turn on the Rich box, the current on the +24V power supply goes up by about 0.8A, and the -24V supply goes up by about 0.3A.  That seems like kind of a lot.  Is that too much?  Do I need to find a better plan that involves +\- 18V?  Thoughts? For now, the Rich box is off, just in case.

6101   Fri Dec 9 20:03:57 2011 ZachUpdateRF SystemLots of current used in Rich's demod box

D0902745-v5 (probably the AP1053's):

Quote:

Those asymmetric currents are same as what I saw with the table top +/-18V supply. If you really don't like it, there could be an option to disconnect CH3/4 in the box.

In any case, this could be a good long-run test of the demod box, couldn't it?

 Quote: I checked the power regulators on the Rich demod box (according to the schematic, D1000217).  The positive one is LM2941CT, and the negative one is LM2991T.  Both accept input voltage up to +26V or -26V respectively.  So my use of +\- 24V to be regulated down to +\- 15V isn't too crazy.  It's a little crazy, but not too crazy.  They recommend having only a 3V difference between the input and output voltages.  We don't have any 18V or 20V power supplies in the regular LSC power supply rack, so Rana suggested using the 24's.  When I plug in and turn on the Rich box, the current on the +24V power supply goes up by about 0.8A, and the -24V supply goes up by about 0.3A.  That seems like kind of a lot.  Is that too much?  Do I need to find a better plan that involves +\- 18V?  Thoughts? For now, the Rich box is off, just in case.

7552   Mon Oct 15 22:24:45 2012 JenneUpdateComputersLots of new White :(

Evan and I are starting to lock, and there is lots of new, unfortunate white stuff on several different screens.

C1:TIM-PACIFIC_STRING is gone, C1:IFO-STATE (MC state) is gone, C1:LSC-PZT..._requests are gone (all 4 of them), C1:PSL-FSS_FASTSWEEPTEST from the FSS screen is gone (although I'm not sure that that one is newly gone), lots of the WF AA lights on the LSC screen are gone.

Those are the things I find in a few minutes of not really looking around.

EDIT:  IPPOS is also gone, so I can't see how my current alignment relates to old alignments.

13464   Thu Dec 7 11:14:37 2017 johannesHowToComputer Scripts / ProgramsLots of red on the FE status screen

Since we're getting ready to put the replacement slow DAQ for c1auxex in I wanted to bring the IFO back to operating condition after the PMC hasn't been locked for days. Something seems wrong with the CDS system though, many of the frontent models have red background and don't seem to be responsive. I followed the instructions laid out in https://wiki-40m.ligo.caltech.edu/Computer_Restart_Procedures.

In the attached screenshot, initially all c1ioo models were red, and on c1iscex only c1x01 was blue, the other ones red. I was able to ssh into both machines and tried to restart indivitual models, which didn't work and instead turned their background white. Still following the wiki page, I restarted both machines but they don't respond to pinging anymore and thus I cannot use ssh to reach them. Not sure what to do, I also rebooted fb over telnet.

So far I couldn't find any records of how to fix this situation.

13465   Thu Dec 7 15:02:37 2017 KojiHowToComputer Scripts / ProgramsLots of red on the FE status screen

Once a realtime machine was rebooted, it did not come back. I suspect that the diskless hosts have a difficulty to boot up.

13466   Thu Dec 7 15:46:31 2017 johannesHowToComputer Scripts / ProgramsLots of red on the FE status screen

[Koji, Johannes]

The issue was partially fixed and the interferometer is in workable condition now.

What -probably- fixed it was restarting the dhcp server on chiara

`sudo service isc-dhcp-server restart`

Afterwards the frontends were restarted one by one. SSH access was possible and the essential models for IFO operation were started.

c1iscex reported initially that no DAQ card was found, and inside the IO chassis the LED indicator strip was red. Turning off the machine, checking the cables and rebooting fixed this.

13467   Thu Dec 7 16:28:06 2017 KojiUpdateIOOLots of red on the FE status screen

Once the RT machines were back, we launched only the five IOPs. They had bunch of red lights, but we continued to run essential models for the IFO. SOme of the lights were fixed by "global diag reset" and "mxstream restart".

The suspension were damped. We could restore the IMC lock. The locking became OK and the IMC was aligned. The REFL spot came back.

At least, I could confirm that the WFS ASC signals were not transmitted to c1mcs. There must be some disconneted links of IPC.

13474   Thu Dec 14 07:07:09 2017 ranaUpdateIOOLots of red on the FE status screen

I had to key the c1psl crate to get the PMC locking again. Without this, it would still sort of lock, but it was very hard to turn on the loop; it would push itself off the fringe. So probably it was stuck in some state with the gain wrong. Since the RF stuff is now done in a separate electronics chain, I don't think the RF phase can be changed by this. Probably the sliders are just not effective until power cycling.

 Quote: Once the RT machines were back, we launched only the five IOPs. They had bunch of red lights, but we continued to run essential models for the IFO. SOme of the lights were fixed by "global diag reset" and "mxstream restart". The suspension were damped. We could restore the IMC lock. The locking became OK and the IMC was aligned. The REFL spot came back. At least, I could confirm that the WFS ASC signals were not transmitted to c1mcs. There must be some disconneted links of IPC.

I then tried to get the MC WFS back, but running rtcds restart --all would make some of the computers hang. For c1ioo I had to push the reset button on the computer and then did 'rtcds start --all' after it came up. Still missing IPC connections.

I'm going to get in touch with Rolf.

4329   Sat Feb 19 01:58:20 2011 ranaSummaryElectronicsLow Noise BJT Pre-Amp

Frank put his low noise preamp info here.

I suggest that we build these (using Altium) but replace the cheapo transistors with the high class MAT03 matched BJT pair from Analog Devices.

This will allow us to have a pre-amp better matched to the noise of the mixers down to low frequency.

13291   Tue Sep 5 02:07:49 2017 gautamUpdateLSCLow Noise DRMI attempt

Summary:

Tonight, I was able to lock the DRMI, turn on the whitening filters for the sensing PDs, and also turn on the coil de-whitening filters for ITMX, ITMY and BS. However, I didn't see the expected improvement in the MICH spectrum between ~50-300 Hz . Sad.

Details:

I basically went through the list of tasks I made in the previous elog. Some notes:

• The UGF servos suggested that I had to lower the SRCL gain. I lowered it from -0.055 to -0.025. OLTF measurement using In1/In2 method suggested UGF ~120Hz. I don't know why this should be. Plot to be uploaded later.
• Since we aren't actuating on the ITMs, I was able to leave their coils de-whitened all the time.
• For the BS, it was trickier - I had to play around a little with the "Tolerance" setting in Foton while looking at transients (using DTT, not a scope for now) while switching the filters.
• This transition isn't so robust yet - but eventually I found a setting that worked, and I was able to successfully turn on the de-whitening thrice tonight (but also failed about the same number of times). [GV Oct 6 2017: Remember that the PD whitening has to be turned on for this transition to be successful - otherwise the RMS from the high frequencies saturate the DAC.]
• The locks were pretty stable. One was ~10mins, one was ~15mins, and I broke both deliberately because I was out of ideas as to why the part of the MICH error signal spectrum that I thought was due to DAC noise didn't improve.
• I've made a bunch of shell scripts to help with the various switchings - but now that I think of it, I should make these python scripts.

Attachment #1: Comparison of MICH_ERR with and without the BS de-whitening. Note that the two ITMs have their coils de-whitened in both sets of traces.

Attachment #2: Spectra of MICH output and one of the BS coil outputs in both states. The DAC RMS increases by ~30x when the de-whitening is engaged, but is still well within limits.

So it looks like the switching of paths is happening correctly. The "CDS BIO STATUS" MEDM screen also shows the appropriate bits toggling when I turn the de-whitening on/off. There is no broadband coherence with MCF between 50-300 Hz so it seems unlikely that this could be frequency noise.

Clearly I am missing something. But anyways I have a good amount of data, may be useful to put together the post CDS/electronics modification DRMI noise budget. More analysis to follow.

3040   Wed Jun 2 22:25:39 2010 KevinUpdatePSLLow Power 2W Beam Profile

Koji is worried about thermal lensing introducing errors to the measurement of the 2W beam profile so I measured the profile at a lower power.

I used the same setup and methods used to measure the profile at 2W (see entry). This measurement was taken with an injection current of 1.202 A and a laser crystal temperature of 25.05° C. This corresponds to approximately 600 mW (see power measurement).

The data was fit to  w = sqrt(w0^2+lambda^2*(x-x0)^2/(pi*w0)^2) with the following results

For the horizontal beam profile:

`reduced chi^2 = 2.7`

`x0 = (-203 ± 3) mm`

`w0 = (151.3 ± 1.0) µm`

For the vertical beam profile:

`reduced chi^2 = 6.8`

`x0 = (-223 ± 6) mm`

`w0 = (167.5 ± 2.2) µm`

In the following plots, the blue curve is the fit to the vertical beam radius, the purple curve is the fit to the horizontal beam radius, * denotes a data point from the vertical data, and + denotes a data point from the horizontal data.

The differences between the beam radii for the low power and high power measurements are

Δw0_horizontal = (38.3 ± 1.2) µm

Δw0_vertical = (43.5 ± 2.4) µm

Thus, the two measurements are not consistent. To determine if the thermal lensing is in the laser itself or due to reflection from the W2 and mirror, we should measure the beam profile again at 2W with a razor blade just before the W2 and a photodiode to measure the intensity of the reflection off of the front surface. If this measurement is consistent with the measurement made with the beam scan, this would suggest that the thermal lensing is in the laser itself and that there are no effects due to reflection from the W2 and mirror. If the measurement is not consistent, we should do the same measurement at low power to compare with the measurement described in this entry.

``` ```

11611   Thu Sep 17 13:06:05 2015 ericqSummaryLSCLow input impedance on CM board

As it turns out, our version of the common mode board does not have high input impedence. I think this is what is messing with the lowpass.

I added photos of the PCB to our 40m DCC page about this board: D1500308, wherein you can see that we have Revision B.

On the aLIGO wiki's CommonModeServo page, one finds that high input impedence was added in Revision E. At LIGO-D040180, one finds this was implemented via an additional dual AD829 instrumentation amplifier stage before the input amplification stage that exists on our board.

Also, I find that the boosts installed are the default 40:4k, 1k:20k, 1k:20k, 500:10k pole zero pairs. Given our 30-40kHz UGF for CARM thus far, maybe we would like to lower some of these boost corner frequencies, to actually be able to use them; so far we only use the first two.

14129   Fri Aug 3 15:53:25 2018 gautamUpdateSUSLow noise bias path idea

Summary:

The idea we are going with to push the coil driver noise contribution down is to simply increase the series resistance between the coil driver board output and the OSEM coil. But there are two paths, one for fast actuation and one that provides a DC current for global alignment. I think the simplest way to reduce the noise contribution of the latter, while preserving reasonable actuation range, is to implement a precision DC high-voltage source. A candidate that I pulled off an LT application note is shown in Attachment #1.

Requirements:

• The series resistance in the bias path should be $10 k\Omega$, such that the noise from this stage is dominated by the Johnson noise of said resistor, and hence, the current noise contribution is negligible compared to the series resistance in the fast actuation path ($4.5 k\Omega$).
• Since we only really need this for the test masses, what actuation range do we want?
• Currently, ETMY has a series resistance of $400\Omega$ and has a pitch DC bias voltage of -4 V.
• This corresponds to 10 mA of DC current.
• To drive this current through $10 k\Omega$, we need 100 V.
• I'm assuming we can manually correct for yaw misalignments such that 10mA of DC current will be sufficient for any sort of corrective alignment.
• So +/- 120 V DC should be sufficient.
• The current noise of this stage should be negligible at 100 Hz.
• The noise of the transistors and the HV supply should be suppressed by the feedback loop and so shouldn't be a significant contribution (I'll model to confirm).
• The input noise of the LT1055 is ~20nV/rtHz at 100 Hz, while the Johnson noise of $10 k\Omega$ is ~13nV/rtHz so maybe the low-passing needs to be tuned, but I think if it comes to it, we can implement a passive RC network at the output to achieve additional filtering.
• To implement this circuit, we need +/- 125V DC.
• At EX and EY, we have a KEPCO HV supply meant to be used for the Green Steering PZTs.
• I'm not sure if these can do bipolar outputs, if not, for temporary testing, we can transport the unit at EY to EX.

If all this seems reasonable, I'd like to prototype this circuit and test it with ETMX, which already has the high series resistance for the fast path. So I will ask Steve to order the OpAmp and transistors.

14130   Fri Aug 3 16:27:40 2018 ranaUpdateSUSLow noise bias path idea

Bah! Too complex.

11226   Mon Apr 20 16:18:29 2015 JenneUpdateElectronicsLow noise pre-amps: returned

The Rai box was in the Cryo lab, and the Busby box was in the TCS lab.  Neither had been signed out.  Lame.  Anyhow, thanks to Evan and Zach's memories of having seen them recently, they have been returned to the 40m where they belong.  (Also, I grabbed a spare Marconi while I was over there, for the phase noise measurement).

11228   Mon Apr 20 21:26:46 2015 ranaUpdateElectronicsLow noise pre-amps: returned

+1 to both Evan and Zach for prompt info and +2 to you for getting more stuff than you started looking for. -2 karma to whomever had swiped them and hoarded without signing. You should put a 40m sticker on both of them. Make sure to check / use fresh batteries. The Busby box is BJT based and works on low impedance sources, the Rai box works on anything, but (I am guessing) has less CMRR.

 Quote: The Rai box was in the Cryo lab, and the Busby box was in the TCS lab.  Neither had been signed out.  Lame.  Anyhow, thanks to Evan and Zach's memories of having seen them recently, they have been returned to the 40m where they belong.  (Also, I grabbed a spare Marconi while I was over there, for the phase noise measurement).

11225   Sun Apr 19 15:03:26 2015 JenneUpdateElectronicsLow noise pre-amps?

Does anyone know where the Busby or Rai low noise pre-amp boxes are?

I think I need one in order to measure the noise of the Marconi.  Right now, I am trying to measure the amplitude noise, but I'm not seeing anything on the SR785 above the analyzer's noise level.

17310   Thu Nov 24 11:23:35 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSLow noise state

I've turned off HEPA fan and all lights at
PST: 2022-11-24 11:23:59.509949 PST
UTC: 2022-11-24 19:23:59.509949 UTC
GPS: 1353353057.509949

c1ioo model has been updated to acquire C1:IOO-MC2_TRANS_PIT_OUT  and C1:IOO-MC2_TRANS_YAW_OUT at 512 Hz rate.

I'll update when I turn the HEPA on again. I plan to turn it on for a few hours everyday to keep the PSL enclosure clean.

Turned on HEPA again at:

PST: 2022-11-25 12:14:34.848054 PST
UTC: 2022-11-25 20:14:34.848054 UTC
GPS: 1353442492.848054

However this was probably not a low noise state due to vacuum disruption mentioned here.

17313   Fri Nov 25 15:35:23 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSLow noise state

Turned off HEPA at:

PST: 2022-11-25 15:34:55.683645 PST
UTC: 2022-11-25 23:34:55.683645 UTC
GPS: 1353454513.683645

4456   Tue Mar 29 15:01:58 2011 Larisa ThorneUpdateElectronicsLow pass filter for X arm laser temperature control

This is the continuation of http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/4402

The first picture is of the actual component, where the resistor is 1M and capacitor is 10uF.

But before the component can be put into place, its transfer function had to be checked to make sure it was doing what we calculated it would do. The results of these are in the graphs generated: frequency vs. gain, and frequency vs. phase.

According to these graphs, we are not achieving the targeted cutoff frequency: need to recalculate and compensate for the extra 100k resistance being encountered.

4457   Tue Mar 29 15:50:21 2011 KojiUpdateElectronicsLow pass filter for X arm laser temperature control

For bode plot:

USE LOG-LOG plot for the amplitude

USE LOG-LINEAR plot for the phase

Search "Bode Plot" on web

4531   Fri Apr 15 13:40:00 2011 Larisa ThorneUpdateElectronicsLow pass filter for X arm laser temperature control, second try

Plotting the data points yielded by the spec analyzer of my first LPF yielded a result that was not expected: the desired cutoff frequency wasn't achieved because of some extra 100k resistance that wasn't taken into consideration. (see  here ). I have redrawn the Bode graphs for this configuration so that it is easier to see that it is wrong (first attachment)

After some calculation adjustments, it was found that the capacitor value could remain at 10uF, but the resistance needed to be changed to 100k to maintain a gain of 0.5 and critical frequency at 0.1Hz. Second attachment is the Bode graph that results from this configuration.

Note: Bode graphs are both in Log-Linear scales (Wikipedia said so)

14068   Fri Jul 13 18:01:13 2018 gautamUpdateGeneralLow power MC

After getting the go ahead from Steve, I removed the physical beam block on the PSL table, sent the beam into the IFO, and re-aligned the MC to lock at low power. I've also revived my low power autolocker (running on megatron), seems to work okay though the gains may not be optimal, but it seems to do the job for now. Nominal transmission when well aligned at low power is ~1200cts. I briefly checked Y arm alignment with the green, seems okay, but didn't try locking the Y arm yet. All doors are still on, and I'm closing the PSL shutter again while Keerthana and Sandrine are working near the AS table.

1346   Mon Mar 2 21:16:32 2009 YoichiUpdateLockingLow-gain High-gain PD switching may not be working well
Osamu, Yoichi

This afternoon, I run the locking script while doing calculations for the upgrade.
The IFO lost lock even at lower arm powers (around 6) if it was operated for a while (~ 5min).
It seemed as if there were some intermittent glitches (seismic? laser?) causing the lock losses.
We also saw once the TRX and TRY signals saturated at around arm power = 11 when there was a large fluctuation in the arm power.
Osamu suggested that it looked like the high-gain to low-gain PD switching was not working.

I won't come tonight as I may have caught a cold, but if someone comes tonight, it is worth checking the PD switching.
1350   Tue Mar 3 19:26:44 2009 YoichiUpdateLockingLow-gain High-gain PD switching may not be working well
I checked the switching of the QPDX from high gain to low gain.
Switching happens as expected, but the low gain QPDX output was very low compared to QPDY.
Also the digital gain for the high gain TRX was not matched with the low gain one. So when the switching happens, there is a large jump in the TRX.

I also found that the offset values for the low gain QPDX were totally wrong. I adjusted it.
Then I removed a beam splitter in front of the QPDX to increase the power falling on it.
But still the low gain QPDX output is four times lower than the low gain QPDY.

I'm still working on it. So don't expect the switching to work correctly at this moment.
I'm planning to be back after the dinner.

 Quote: Osamu, Yoichi This afternoon, I run the locking script while doing calculations for the upgrade. The IFO lost lock even at lower arm powers (around 6) if it was operated for a while (~ 5min). It seemed as if there were some intermittent glitches (seismic? laser?) causing the lock losses. We also saw once the TRX and TRY signals saturated at around arm power = 11 when there was a large fluctuation in the arm power. Osamu suggested that it looked like the high-gain to low-gain PD switching was not working. I won't come tonight as I may have caught a cold, but if someone comes tonight, it is worth checking the PD switching.
1351   Tue Mar 3 23:59:26 2009 YoichiUpdateLockingLow-gain High-gain PD switching may not be working well

 Quote: I checked the switching of the QPDX from high gain to low gain. Switching happens as expected, but the low gain QPDX output was very low compared to QPDY. Also the digital gain for the high gain TRX was not matched with the low gain one. So when the switching happens, there is a large jump in the TRX. I also found that the offset values for the low gain QPDX were totally wrong. I adjusted it. Then I removed a beam splitter in front of the QPDX to increase the power falling on it. But still the low gain QPDX output is four times lower than the low gain QPDY. I'm still working on it. So don't expect the switching to work correctly at this moment. I'm planning to be back after the dinner.

This sounds like the QPD whitening gain sliders may be stuck. The slider twiddling script should be run, or the sliders should be twiddled by hand.
1352   Wed Mar 4 03:37:51 2009 YoichiUpdateLockingLow-gain High-gain PD switching may not be working well

 Quote: This sounds like the QPD whitening gain sliders may be stuck. The slider twiddling script should be run, or the sliders should be twiddled by hand.

Yes, it was indeed the whitening gain slider problem.
I moved them and the QPDX gain went up suddenly. I reinstalled the BS in front of the QPDX and adjusted the offsets, gains accordingly.
Now the high-gain to low-gain switching is fine.
13424   Fri Nov 10 13:46:26 2017 SteveUpdatePEMM3.1 local earthquake

BOOM SHAKA-LAKA

15580   Sat Sep 19 01:49:52 2020 KojiUpdateGeneralM4.5 EQ in LA

M4.5 EQ in LA 2020-09-19 06:38:46 (UTC) / -1d 23:38:46 (PDT) https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/ci38695658/executive

I only checked the watchdogs. All watchdogs were tripped. ITMX and ETMY seemed stuck (or have the OSEM magnet issue). They were left tripped. The watchdogs for the other SUSs were reloaded.

15581   Sat Sep 19 11:27:04 2020 ranaUpdateGeneralM4.5 EQ in LA

the seismometers obviously saturated during the EQ, but the accelerometers captured some of it. It looks like there's different saturation levels on different sensors.

Also, it seems the mounting of the MC2 accelerometers is not so good. There's some ~10-20 Hz resonance its mount that's showing up. Either its the MC2 chamber legs or the accelerometers are clamped poorly to the MC2 baseplate.

Sun Sep 20 00:02:36 2020 edit: fixed indexing error in plots

* also assuming that the sensors are correctly calibrated in the front end to 1 count = 1 um/s^2 (this is what's used in the summ pages)

15583   Sat Sep 19 18:08:34 2020 ranaUpdateGeneralM4.5 EQ in LA

the EQ was ~14 km south of Caltech and 17 km deep

 Quote: the seismometers obviously saturated during the EQ, but the accelerometers captured some of it. It looks like there's different saturation levels on different sensors. Also, it seems the mounting of the MC2 accelerometers is not so good. There's some ~10-20 Hz resonance its mount that's showing up. Either its the MC2 chamber legs or the accelerometers are clamped poorly to the MC2 baseplate.

I'm amazed at how much higher the noise is on the MC2 accelerometer. Is that really how much amplification of the ground motion we're getting? If so, its as if the MC has no vibration isolation from the ground in that band. We should put one set on the ground and make the more direct comparison of the spectra. Also, perhaps do some seismic FF using this sensor - I'm not sure how successful we've been in this band.

Attaching the coherence plot from ldvw.ligo.caltech.edu (apparently it has access to the 40m data, so we can use that as an alternative to dtt or python for remote analysis):

It would be interesting to see if we can use the ML based FF technology from this summer's SURF project by Nadia to increase the coherence by including some slow IMC alignment channels.

14755   Fri Jul 12 07:37:48 2019 gautamUpdateSUSM4.9 EQ in Ridgecrest

All suspension watchdogs were tripped ~90mins ago. I restored the damping. IMC is locked.

ITMX was stuck. I set it free. But notice that the UL Sensor RMS is higher than the other 4? I thought ITMY UL was problematic, but maybe ITMX has also failed, or maybe it's coincidence? Something for IFOtest to figure out I guess. I don't think there is a cable switch between ITMX/ITMY as when I move the ITMX actuators, the ITMX sensors respond and I can also see the optic moving on the camera.

Took me a while to figure out what's going on because we don't have the seis BLRMS - i moved the usual projector striptool traces to the TV screen for better diagnostic ability.

Update 16 July 1515: Even though the RMS is computed from the slow readback channels, for diagnosis, I looked at the spectra of the fast PD monitoring channels (i.e. *_SENSOR_*) for ITMX - looks like the increased UL RMS is coming from enhanced BR-mode coupling and not of any issues with the whitening switching (which seems to work as advertised, see Attachment #3, where the LL traces are meant to be representative of LL, LR, SD and UR channels).

13739   Mon Apr 9 08:39:39 2018 SteveUpdatePEMM5.3 eq Souther CA

Earth quake M5.3    2018-04-05 19:29:16UTC          Santa Cruz Island, CA

13302   Fri Sep 8 07:54:04 2017 SteveUpdatePEMM8.1 eq

Nothing tripped. No obvious damage.

11572   Fri Sep 4 04:12:05 2015 ericqUpdateComputer Scripts / ProgramsMATLAB down on all workstations

There seems to be something funny going on with MATLAB's license authentication on the control room workstations. Earlier today, I was able to start MATLAB on pianosa, but now attempting to run` /cvs/cds/caltech/apps/linux64/matlab/bin/matlab -desktop` results in the message:

```License checkout failed. License Manager Error -15 MATLAB is unable to connect to the license server.  Check that the license manager has been started, and that the MATLAB client machine can communicate with the license server.```

```Troubleshoot this issue by visiting:  http://www.mathworks.com/support/lme/R2013a/15```

```Diagnostic Information: Feature: MATLAB  License path: /home/controls/.matlab/R2013a_licenses:/cvs/cds/caltech/apps/linux64/matlab/licenses/license.dat:/cv s/cds/caltech/apps/linux64/matlab/licenses/network.lic  Licensing error: -15,570. System Error: 115```

320   Fri Feb 15 22:16:04 2008 AndreyUpdateComputersMATLAB is not working: "Licence checkout failed"

For some unknown to me reason,

Matlab stopped working about 20 minutes ago on all computers in the control room (both UNIX control machines and Windows).

It says: "License checkout failed. License Manager Error -15. MATLAB is unable to connect to the license server."

I do not know how to revive Matlab.

At the same time, I consider that I made a significant progress in building my theoretical/computational model in the last 2 days. I was able to compute the time-evolution of accelerometer signals through stacks and pendulums using Matlab command "lsim", and I am now able to calculate RMS of spectrum of differential arm length in different frequency intervals. It seemed to me that everything is ready in my program to make the three-dimensional theoretical/computational plot (RMS as a function of Q-factors of ETMX and ITMX), but unfortunately Matlab stopped working. It seemed to me that all that was remaining was to run a loop with all possible values of Q-factors. Let's hope that Matlab will be working after the weekend.

Andrey.
15207   Tue Feb 11 19:11:35 2020 shrutiUpdateComputer Scripts / ProgramsMATLAB on donatella

Tried to open MATLAB on Donatella and found the error:

`MATLAB is selecting SOFTWARE OPENGL rendering.`

```License checkout failed. License Manager Error -9 This error may occur when:  -The hostid of this computer does not match the hostid in the license file.  -A Designated Computer installation is in use by another user.  If no other user is currently running MATLAB, you may need to activate.```

```Troubleshoot this issue by visiting:  http://www.mathworks.com/support/lme/R2015b/9```

```Diagnostic Information: Feature: MATLAB  License path: /home/controls/.matlab/R2015b_licenses/license_donatella_865865_R2015b.lic:/cvs/cds/caltech/apps/lin ux64/matlab15b/licenses/license.dat:/cvs/cds/caltech/apps/linux64/matlab15b/licenses/license_chiara_ 865865_R2015b.lic:/cvs/cds/caltech/apps/linux64/matlab15b/licenses/license_pianosa_865865_R2015b.lic  Licensing error: -9,57.```

So I used  my caltech credentials to get an activation key for the computer. I could not find the option for a campus license so I used the individual single machine license.

Now it can be run by going to the location:

/cvs/cds/caltech/apps/matlab17b/bin

and running

./matlab

On opening MATLAB, there were a whole bunch of other errors including a low-level graphics error when we tried to plot something.

6294   Sat Feb 18 12:23:09 2012 DenUpdateIOOMC

When I came to the 40m this afternoon, the MC was unlocked. Here is the trend of MC_F for last 2 hours

C1:PSL-PMC_PMCTRANSPD = 0.800

Should I just disable the auto locker or try to realign it?

8343   Mon Mar 25 23:17:11 2013 ranaSummaryIOOMC

I measured the dark noise and regular intensity noise in MC trans tonight to get some estimate for the free running spectrum that the Chas ISS must overcome. PDF is attached.

XML file is /users/rana/dtt/MC-trans_130325.xml

The RIN normalization was done by using the mean of the SUM time series. The dark noise was measured by misaligning MC2 and making the same measurement with the bright normalization.

9211   Sun Oct 6 23:50:14 2013 ranaConfigurationSUSMC filters adjusted
1. Found the low pass filters OFF in a couple of the MC SUS damping loops. This allows injection of OSEM noise all the way up to ~100 Hz. I deleted unused ones and turned on the 'Cheby' for all SUS DOFs: cheby1("LowPass",2,0.1,3)cheby1("LowPass",6,1,12)gain(1.13501)
2. Tuned the Bounce/Roll filters to catch the bounce and roll modes for all 3 MC SUS (based on the Mech Res Wiki page). These are now engaged on ALL MC SUS DOFs. They have been deleted from the ASCPIT/YAW filter banks and moved into the WFS screen into the MC1,2,3 filter banks there to be more in line with our knowledge of multi loop instability from notches in individual loops:ellip("BandStop",4,1,40,15.9,17.2)ellip("BandStop",4,1,40,23.5,24.7)gain(1.25893)
9697   Thu Mar 6 09:47:11 2014 SteveUpdateIOOMC trend of 20 days

 Quote: The IMC has not been behaving well since this morning and totally not happy when Q was finishing his measurements. The WFS servo had large offsets in pitch. Looking back at the trend and using ezcaservo to restore the suspensions did not help. I realigned the IMC and brought TRANS SUM to ~18000 and MCREFL to < 0.5. The spot positions are not very good; nearly 2 mm off in pitch on MC1 and MC3. But after the alignment of MC, the WFS servo offsets were below +/-20. The MC has been locked stably with WFS servo ON for the last few hours. P.S. I did not touch the WFS pointing or reset the WFS offsets.

10225   Thu Jul 17 01:24:35 2014 ranaUpdateIOOMC / EOM Stability Mystery Solved!

MC loop is near unstable. Common gain reduced. Needs more loop tuning.

We've often seen that the MC gets into a state where it keeps losing lock and the EOM drive shows a large RMS. We've usually been looking at the noise spectrum to diagnose this.

Tonight we finally just measured the OLG. The attached plot shows the loop gain measured with the 4395 on the MC servo board

Although the phase margin is a healthy 45 degrees, its close to instability at 1 MHz. For this plot, I reduced the gain by 3 dB and now the margin is ~7 dB. So usually its pretty close to unstable and at least its always making a noise peak.

That whole TF above a few hundred kHz is weird. We should tune out whatever makes it so flat and also remove the resonance that makes the 1 MHz peak; maybe its from some post mixer low pass?

Anyone interested in helping in the investigation ought to measure the TF of the MC demod board, the MC servo board, and the FSS box.

Silver lining: if we fix this loop shape, we might be able to have a much more stable IMC and IFO.

5167   Wed Aug 10 11:22:55 2011 SureshUpdateIOOMC A2L alignment

[Kiwamu, Suresh]

We attempted to minimise the A2L coupling in the MC mirrors (centering the beam spot on the actuation node on each optic).  While it was easy to minimise the coupling in the pitch for all the three optics and yaw of MC2, the yaw alignment of MC1 and MC3 proved to be difficult.  For one the adjustment required was quite large, so much so that PSL alignment into the MC is often lost during this adujstment.  We had to align the PSL coupling several times in order to proceed.   And the MC settles into a new position when the MC-PSL servo loop was disturbed by random denizens in the lab.  Requiring us to start over again.

Kiwamu wrote a script to measure the MC(optic)(Pitch/yaw) -> Lockin(#1 to #6) matrix.  Inverting this matrix gave us the linear combination of the offsets to put on the MC# PIT/YAW  inorder to minimise a specific Lockin output.  However the cross couplings were not completely eliminated.  This made it very hard to predict what a given set of offsets were going to do to the Lockin outputs.

Net result:  the spots are centered in vertical direction (pitch) but not in the horizontal (yaw)

Day time tasks have started so I am quitting now.

9205   Sun Oct 6 17:05:49 2013 ranaSummaryIOOMC ASC problems

MC unlocked over the weekend and also got severely mis-aligned. It all started around midnight on Saturday.

At first I thought that this was due to the MCS CPU meter being railed at 60 us, so I deleted a bunch of filters in MC1,2,3 that are unused and left over from Den's quantization noise investigations. This reduced the CPU load somewhat, but didn't make any real improvements. Turning on the ASC filter banks in the MC SUS still mis-aligned the MC.

With the MC WFS and MC ASS turned off, there is still some digital junk coming in and misaligning things. Plot attached.

Similar stuff coming in on ITMX, but not ITMY.

Tried restarting various FEs, but there was no effect. Also tried rebooting c1lsc, c1ioo, & c1sus. Finally did 'shutdown -r now' on all 5 computers on the CDS overview screen and simultaneously (almost) pressed the reset button on the RFM switch above the old c1pem crate. Everything came back OK except for c1oaf (I had to manually button his BURT button) and now the ASC inputs on all the SUS are zero when they should be and MC is well locked and aligned.

Rob and I used to do this trick when he thought that a cosmic ray had corrupted a bit in the RFM network.

7289   Mon Aug 27 18:59:24 2012 jamieUpdateIOOMC ASC screen was confusing - Jenne is not stupid

 Quote: We have figured out that some of these measurements, those with the WFS off, were also not allowing the dither lines through, so no dither, so no actual measurement. Jamie is fixing up the model so we can force the WFS to stay off, but allow the dither lines to go through.  He'll elog things later.

In the c1ioo model there were filter modules at the output of the WFS output matrix, right before going to the MC SUS ASCs but right after the dither line inputs, that were not exposed in the C1IOO_WFS_OVERVIEW screen (bad!).  I switched the order of these modules and the dither sums, so these output filters are now before the dither inputs.  This will allow us to turn off all the WFS feedback while still allowing the dither lines.

I updated the medm screens as well (see attached images).

357   Tue Mar 4 20:14:02 2008 ranaConfigurationIOOMC Alignment
The MC alignment was pretty far off. We were getting TEM01 mode locks only.
Rather than inspect what happened I just aligned the MC suspensions to get
the transmission higher. Now Matt should be able to lock the X arm and collect
1166   Tue Dec 2 17:56:56 2008 Alberto, RanaConfigurationPSLMC Alignment
In the attempt to maximize the Mode Cleaner transmission and minimize the reflection from the steering mirrors of the MC periscope, we could not get more ~2 V at the MC Trans PD and ~ 0.5 V at MC REFL_DC. As it turned out from the SUS Drift Monitor, the reason was that the MC optics had been somehow displaced from the optimal position.

After restoring the reference position values for the mirrors and tweaking again the periscope, we got ~3V at the MC TransPD and 0.5V at the reflection.
The beam was then probably clipped at the REFL PD so that we had to adjust the alignment of one of the BS in the transmitted beam path on the AS table.
We also zeroed the WFS PDs, but not before reducing the power from the MZ, for their QPDs not to saturate.

After relocking, the transmission was 3V and the reflection ~0.3V.

The beam isnow centered on the Trans PD and REFL PD and the Mode Cleaner locked. More details on the procedure will follow.
1169   Wed Dec 3 11:58:10 2008 AlbertoUpdatePSLMC Alignment
Rana, Alberto,

more details on the MC alignment we did yesterday.

Last week Rana re-aligned the Mach Zender (MZ) on the PSL table to reduce the power at the dark port (see elog entry #1151). After that, the beam was aligned to the MZ but not properly aligned to the Mode Cleaner (MC) anymore. As a result the MC could not lock or did it on unwanted transverse modes. To fix that we decided to change the alignment of the MC input periscope on the PSL table.

The ultimate goal of the operation was to align the MC transmitted beam to the IFO and to maximize the power.
Such a condition depends on:
a) a good cavity alignment and
b) input beam matching to the cavity TEM00 mode.

Since the MZ alignment had only affected the input beam, we assumed the cavity alignment was still good, or at least it had not changed, and we focused on the input beam.

The IOO computer, by the MC autolocker script, is able to change the cavity alignment and the length to match the input beam and lock the cavity. Although both the length servo (LSC) and the alignment servo (WFS) have a limited effective operating range. So for the script to work properly and at best, input beam and cavity matching have to be not far from that range.

The MC periscope has two mirrors which control the pitch and yaw input angles. By changing either yaw or pitch of both mirrors together (“two-knob" technique) one can change the input angle without moving the injection point on the cavity input mirror (MC1). So this is the procedure that we followed:

• 1) turned of the autolocker running the MC-down script
2) brought the reflected beam spot back on the MC-reflection camera and on the reflection photodiode (REFL-PD)
3) turned on the LSC servo
4) tweaked the periscope's mirrors until the cavity got locked on a TEM00 mode
5) tweaked the periscope aiming at ~0.3V from the REFL-PD and ~3V on the transmission photodiode (TRANS-PD).

Following the steps above we got ~0.5 V on the REFL-PD and ~2V on the TRANS-PD but no better than that.

Looking at the Drift Monitor MEDM screen, we found that the cavity was not in the reference optimal position, as we initially assumed, thus limiting the matching of the beam to the MC.

We restored the optics reference position and repeated the alignment procedure as above. This time we got ~3V on the TRANS-PD and ~0.5 on the REFL-PD. We thought that the reason for still such a relatively high reflection was that the beam was not well centered on the REFL-PD (high order modes pick-up?).

On the AS table we centered the REFL-PD by aligning a beam splitter in the optical path followed by the light to reach the photodiode.

We also centered the beam on the reflection Wave Front Sensors (WFS). To do that we halved the power on the MZ to reduce the sidebands power and prevent the WFS QPD from saturating. We then aligned the beam splitters on the QPD by balancing the power among the quadrants. Finally we restored the power on the MZ.

As a last thing, we also centered the transmitted beam on the TRANS-QPD.

The MC is now aligned and happily locked with 3V at the TRANS-PD and 0.3V at REFL-PD.
ELOG V3.1.3-