REFL33 and REFL165 cables were connected from the AP table to the rack. Cables on the rack for REFL33I, 33Q, 165I, 165Q ports were connected, too. Connections were confirmed by the data viewer. Two SMA cables which will be used for the two PDs on the AP tabl were built. We will be able to place the two PDs tomorrow. The beamsplitters to split the laser to REFL33 and REFL165 ports were mounted and ready to be placed.
I'm working on a better wiring diagram that takes into account multiple power supplies, how their GND is passed forward to the circuits or sensors using those power supplies and what possible wiring configurations on Acromag would give low noise. I think I have two configurations in mind which I will test and update here with data and better diagrams.
I took some striptool images earlier yesterday. So I'm dumping them here for further comments or inferences.
I have taken transfer functions and noise measurements of the two HAM-A coil driver boxes D1100687 #S2100027 and #S2100028. All transfer functions look as expected. I'm not sure about the noise measurements. If anyone sees flaw in my measurement method, please let me know. I'm not sure why in some channels I got 10Hz harmoni peaks in the noise. That was very strange. Also let me know if my current noise estimate is wrong.
I took transfer function and noise measurement of satellite amplifier box's photodiode transimpedance circuit. For the measurement, I created a makeshift connector to convert backside DB25 into DB9 with the 4 channels for PDA input. The output was taken in differential form at the front PD Output port. To feed current to the circuit, I put in 12 kOhm resistors in series at the inputs, so the V/V transfer function measured was multiplied by 12 kOhm to get the transimpedance of the circuit.
Edit Wed Feb 10 15:14:13 2021 :
THE NOISE MEASUREMENT WAS WRONG HERE. SEE 40m/15799.
Taking inspiration from SR785 on how it reads differential signal, I figured that acromag too always need a way to return current through RTN ports always. That must be the reason why everything goes haywire when RTN is not connected to IN-. Now for single ended signals, we can always short RTN to IN- and keep same GND but then we need to be careful in avoiding ground loops. I'm gonna post a wiring diagram in next post to show how if two signal sources connect to each other separately, a GND loop can be formed if we tie each IN- port to RTN on an acromag.
Coming to the issue of reading a differential signal, what SR785 does is that it connects 50 Ohm resistance between Earth GND and differential signal shields (which are supposed to signal GND). In a floating GND setting, SR785 connects a 1 MOhm resistor between input shield and Earth GND. This can be used to read a differential signal through a single BNC cable since the shiled can take arbitrary voltages thanks ti the 1 MOhm resistor.
We can do the same in acromag. Instead of shorting RTN to IN- ports, we can connect them through a large resistor which would let IN- float but will give a path for current to return through RTN ports. Attached here are few scenarios where I connected IN- to RTN throguh wire, 820 Ohms, 10kOhms and 1MOhms in two sub cases where RTN was left open or was shorted to Earth GND. In all cases, the signal was produced by a 9V battery outputing roughly 8.16V. It seems that 10kOhm resistor between RTN and IN- with RTN connected to Earth GND is the best scenario noise wise. I'll post more results and a wiring diagram soon.
Here I present few wiring diagrams when using Acromag to avoid noisy behavior and ground loops.
Edit Wed Jan 27 13:38:19 2021 :
This solution is not acceptable as well. Even if it is successfull in reading the value, connecting resistor between IN- and RTN will not break the ground loops and the issue of ground loops will persist. Further, IN- connection to RTN breaks the symmetry between IN- and IN+, and hence reduces the common mode rejection which is the intended purpose of differential signal anyways. I'll work more on this to find a way to read differential signals without connecitng IN- and RTN. My first guess is that it would need the GND on the source end to be connected to EarthGND and RTN on acromag end to be connected to EarthGND as well.
I took some steps to reduce the coupling of 60 Hz harmonics in noise measurement. The box was transferred to the floor instead of on top of another instrument. Measurement was immediately converted into single-ended using SR560 in battery mode with a gain of 10. All of the setups was covered in aluminum foil to increase isolation.
I did the recommended modifications on of the boards with serial number S2100028. These included:
I took transfer function measurements with same method as in 40m/15774 and I'm presenting it here to ensure the modifications are correct and if I should proceed to the next board as well. I didn't have the data used to make plots in here but I think the poles and zeros have landed in the right spot. I'll wait for comments until tomorrow to proceed with changes in the other board as well. I'll do noise measurements tomorrow.
I fitted zeros and poles in the measured transfer function of D1100687 S2100027 and got zeros at 130 Hz and 234 Hz and poles at 10Hz and 2845 Hz. These values are different from the aimed values in this doc, particularly the 234Hz zero which was aimed at 530 Hz in the doc.
I also took the noise measurement using the same method as described in 40m/15780. The noise in Acquisition mode seems to have gone up in 10 Hz - 500 Hz region compared to the measurement in 40m/15780 before the modifications.
All channels are consistent with each other.
Edit Mon Feb 1 12:24:14 2021:
Added zero model prediction after the changes. The measurements match with the predictions.
Edit Wed Feb 3 16:46:59 2021:
Added zero modeled noise in the noise spectrum curves. The acquisition mode curves are in agreement with the model. The noise in Run mode is weirdly lower than predicted by zero.
I found a white paper from Acromag which discusses how to read differential signal using Acromag units. The document categorically says that differential signals are always supposed to be transmitted in three wires. I provides the two options of either using the RTN to connect to the signal ground (as done in Attachment 3) or locally place 10k-100k resistors between return and IN+ and IN- both (Attachment 2).
I have provided possible scenarios for these.
Using an acromag card without making any connection with RTN is basically not allowed as per this document.
I have made the modifications on the other board D1100687 S2100028 as well. The measurements were taken as mentioned in 40m/15784. All conclusions remain the same as 40m/15784. The attached zip file contains all measurement data, before and after the modifications.
Edit Wed Feb 3 16:44:51 2021 :
I have made modifications recommended in this doc. The changes made are:
I took transfer function measurements, fitted them with zeros and poles and plotted it against the zero model of the circuit. The zeros and poles we intended to shift are matching well with 3Hz zero and 30 Hz pole. The later pole at 1500 Hz is at a higher value from what is predicted by zero.
I also took noise measurements and they are in good agreement with the noise predicted by zero.
As suggested, I wrapped the satellite amplifier box D10028128 S2100029 in blanket and foam and took very low frequency spectrum starting from 32 mHz to 3 Hz. The results are attached along with stiched high frequency measurements from 40m/15793.
THIS MEASUREMENT WAS WRONG. SEE 40m/15799.
I measured the output DC voltage of the satellite amplifier box at PDMon port when the PDA input was shorted and got following offsets:
However, I think I'm making a mistake while measuring this offset as well as all the noise measurements of this satellite amplifier box so far. Since it is a current input, transimpedance circuit, the noise of the circuit should be measured with open input, not closed. Infact, by shorting the PDA input, I'm giving DC path to input bias current of AD833 transimpedance amplifier to create this huge DC offset. This won't be the case when a photodiode is connected at the input which is a capacitor and hence no DC path is allowed. So my issue of offset was bogus and past two noise measurements in 40m/15797 and 40m/15793 are wrong.
Here is a proper measurement for PD transimpedance amplifier circuit in the Satellite amplifier box D1002818 S2100029. The input from rear DB25 connector was left open and measurement was taken with AC coupling with correction by the AC coupling transfer function (Zero at 0, pole at 160 mHz). I have calculated the input referred displacement noise by calculating the conversion factor of OSEM in A/m. From 40m/12470, old conversion factor of OSEM to output of sat amplifier was 1.6 V/mm. then, the transimpedance was 39.2 kOhm, so that must mean a conversion factor of 1.6e3/39.2 A/m. This I scaled with increased drive current by factor of 35/25 as mentioned in this document. The final conversion factor turned out to be around 57 mA / m. If someone finds error in this, please let me know.
There is excess noise in the low-frequency region below 5-6 Hz. If people think I should make a measurement of amplified noise to go further away from the instrument noise floor, let me know.
I understand this mst be frustrating for you. But we did not change these settings, knowingly atleast. We have documented all the things we did there. The only thing I can think of which could possibly change any of those channels are the scripts that we ran that are mentioned and the burt restore that we did on all channels (which wasn't really necessary). We promise to be more vigilant of changes that occur when we are present in future.
To my dismay, I found today that somebody had changed the oscillator frequencies for the sensing matrix infrastructure we have. The change happened 2 days and 2 hours ago (I write this at ~1230 on Saturday, 3/6), i.e. ~1030am on Thursday. According to the elog, this is when Anchal and Paco were working on the interferometer, but I can find no mention of these settings being changed. Not cool guys 😒 .
This was relatively easy to track down but I don't know what else may have been messed with. I don't understand how anything that was documented in the elog can lead to this weird doubling of the frequencies.
I have now restored the correct settings. The "sensing matrix" I posted last night is obviously useless.
No we didn't fix the issue. We'll post some screenshots tomorrow. From "sitemap>Shutter>PSL" we meant in Shutter medm window, we clicked on the PSL close button. As pointed later, it switches C1:AUX-PSL_ShutterRqst while the PSL shutter switch on Lock MC medm screen switches C1:PSL-PSL_ShutterRqst. We were not sure if this was intentional, so we didn't change anything.
allegra had fresh Debian 10 installed on it already. I installed cds-workstation packages (with the help of Erik von Reis). I checked that command line caget, caput etc were working. I'll see if medm and other things are working next time we visit the lab.
Here, I present the same input matrices now normalized row by row to have same norm as current matrices rows. These now I plotted better than last time. Other comments same as 15902. Please let us know what you think.
Thu Mar 18 09:11:10 2021 :
Note: The comparison of butterfly dof in the two cases is bit bogus. The reason is that we know what the butterfly vector is in sensing matrix (N_osems x (N_dof +1)) and that is the last column being (1, -1, 1, -1, 0) corresponding to (UL, UR, LR, LL, Side). However, the matrix we multiply with the OSEM data is the inverse of this matrix (which becomes the input matrix) which has dimensions ((N_dof + 1) x N_osem) and has the last row corresponding to the butterfly dof. This row was not stored for old calculation of the input matrix (which is currently in use) and can not be recovered (mathematically not possible) with the existing 5x4 part of that input matrix. We just added (1, -1, 1, -1, 0) row in the bottom of this matrix (as was done in the matlab codes) but that is wrong and hence the butterfly vector looks so bad for the existing input matrix.
Proposal: We should store the last row of generated input matrix somewhere for such calculations. Ideally, another row in the epics channels for the input matrix would be the best place to store them but I guess that would be too destructive to implement. Other options are to store this 5 number information in wiki or just elogs. For this post, the buttefly row for the generated input matrix is present in the attached files (for future references).
Rana asked us to write out here the new MC3 input matrix we have calculated along with the old one. The new matrix is not working out for us as it can't keep the suspension loops stable.
Note that the new matrix has been made so that the norm of each row is the same as the norm of the corresponding row in the old (current) input matrix.
Peak finding results:
Note: The highest peak on SIDE OSEM sensor free swinging data as well as the DOF basis data created using existing input matrix, comes at 0.978 Hz. Ideally, this should be 1 Hz and in MC1 and MC2, we see the resonance on SIDE DOF to show near 0.99 Hz. If you look closely, there is a small peak present near 1 Hz actually, but it is too small to be the SIDE DOF eigenfrequency. And if it is indeed that, then which of the other 4 peaks is not the DOF we are interested in?
On possiblity is that the POS eigenfrequency which is supposed to be around 0.97 Hz is split off in two peaks due to some sideways vibration and hence these peaks get strongly coupled to SIDE OSEM as well.
P.S. I think something is wrong and out limited experience is not enough to pinpoint it. I can show up more data or plots if required to understand this issue. Let us know what you all think.
A longer measurement is set to trigger at 5:00 tomorrow on April 2nd, 2021. This measurement will run for 35 iterations with an excitation duration of 120s and bandwidth for CSD measurement set to 0.1 Hz. The script is set to trigger in a tmux session named 'cB' on pianosa.
Last run gave similar results as the quick run we did earlier. The code has been unable to strike out couplings with POS. We found the bug which is causing this. This was because the sampling rate of MC_F channel is different from the test-point channels used for PIT and YAW. Even though we were aware of it, we made an error in handling it while calculating CSD. Due to this, CSD calculation with POS data was performed by the code with zero padding which made it think that no PIT/YAW <-> POS coupling exist. Hence our code was only able to fix PIT <-> YAW couplings.
We'll need to do another run with this bug fixed. I'll update this post with details of the new measurement.
To test if our method is working at all, we went for the simpler case of just uncoupling PIT and YAW. This is also because the sensor used for these two degrees of freedom is similar (the MC Trans WFS).
We saw a successful decrease in cross-coupling between PIT and YAW over the first 50 iterations that we tried. Here are some results:
I'm not sure I understand what F2A is? I couldn't find a description of this filter anywhere and don't remember if you have already explained it. Can you describe what is needed to be done again, please? We would keep SUS state space model and seismic transfer functions calculation ready meanwhile.
Next we wanna get the F2A filters made since most of the IMC control happens at f < 3 Hz. Once you have the SUS state space model, you should be able to see how this can be done using only the free'swinging eigenfrequencies. Then you should get the closed loop model including the F2A filters and the damping filters to see what the closed loop behavior is like.
Sorry about that. It must be me. I'll make sure it doesn't happen again. I was careless to not check back, no further explanation.
That makes sense. I assumed that IFO-STATE is configured as you have proposed it to be configured. This could be implemented in later.
a better way would be to configure the EPICS record to automatically set / unset itself based on some diagnostic channels. For example, the "PMC locked" bit should be set if (i) the PMC REFL is < 0.1 AND (ii) PMC TRANS is >0.65 (the exact thresholds are up for debate). Then we are truly recording the state of the IFO and not relying on some script to write to the bit (I haven't thoguht through if there are some edge cases where we need an unreasonable number of diagnostic channels to determine if we are in a certain state or not).
Edit Thu Apr 15 08:32:58 2021 :
Comments are from Rana.
Corrected the plot in the attachment. It shows the correct behavior at high frequencies now.
Here' s aquick update before we leave for lunch. We have managed to calculate some filter that would go on the POS column in MC2 output matrix filter banks aka F2A aka F2P filters. In the afternoon if we can come and work on the IMC, we'll try to load them on the output matrix. We have never done that so it might take some time for us to understand on how to do that. Attached is the bode plot for these proposed filters. Let us know if you have any comments.
Following up from morning's work, I balanced the coils at DC as well. Attachment 1 is screenshot of striptool in which blue and red traces show ASCYAW and ASCPIT outputs when C1:SUS-MC2_LSC_OFFSET was switched by 500 counts. We see very slight disturbance but no real DC offset shown on PIT and YAW due to position step. This data was taken while nominal F2A filter calculated to balance coils at DC was uploaded
I have uploaded the filters on filter banks 7-10 where FM7 is the nominal filter with Q close to 1 and 8-10 are filters with Q 3, 7 and 10 respectively. The transfer function of these filters can be seen in Attachment 2. Note, that the high frequency gain drops a lot when higher Q filters are used.
These filters are designed such that the total DC gain after the application of coil outputs gains for high frequency balancing (as done in morning 16054) balances the coils at DC.
Since I had access to the complete output matrix that balances the coils to less than 1% cross coupling at high frequencies from 16009, I also did a quick test of DC coil balancing with this kind of high frequency balancing. In this case, I uploaded another set of filters which were made at Q close to 1 and gain such that effective DC gain matrix becomes what I got by balancing in the above case. This set of filter also worked as good as the above filters. This completes the proof that we can also use complete matrix for high frequency coil balancing which can be calculated by a script in 20min and works with DC coil balancing as well. In my opinion, this method is more clear and much faster than toggling values in coil output gains where we have only 4 values to optimize 6 cross-coupling parameters. But don't worry, I'm not wasting time on this and will abandon this effort for now, to be taken up in future.
Corrected the calculation of filters in case of Q different than . There was a bug in the code which I overlooked. I'll correct the filter bank modules tomorrow.
Edit Wed Apr 21 11:06:42 2021 :
I have uploaded the corrected foton filters. Please see attachment 3 for the transfer functions calculated by foton. They match the filters we intended to upload. Only after uploading and closing the foton filter, I realized that the X=7 filter plot (bottom left in attachment 3) does not have dB units on y-axis. It is plotted in linear y-scale (this plot in foton is for phase by default to I guess I forgot to change the scaling when repurposing it for my plot).
Yes, during the AC balancing, POS column was set to all 1. This table shows the final values after all the steps. The first 3 columns are DC balancing results when output matrix was changed. While the last column is for AC balancing. During AC balancing, the output matrix was kept to ideal position as you suggested.
the POS column should be all 1 for the AC balancing. Where did those non-1 numbers come from?
Koji mentioned that the mode of the laser is different for lower diode currents. So that might be the reason why we got less transmission at the low input power but more afterward.
The mix up was my fault I think. I restored the channels manually instead of using burt restore. Your message suggests that we can set burt to start noticing channel changes at home point and create a .req file that can be used to restore later. We'll try to learn how to do that. Right now, we only know how to burt restore using the existing snapshots from the autoburt directory, but they touch more things than we work on, I think. Or can we just always burt restore it to morning time? If yes, what snapshot files should we use?
I have uploaded all the new settings mentioned in 16066 and 16072. The settings were uploaded through a single script present at anchal/20210428_IMC_Tuned_Suspension/uploadNewConfigIMC.py. The settings can be reverted back to old settings through anchal/20210428_IMC_Tuned_Suspension/restoreOldConfigIMC.py. Both these scripts can be run only through python3 in donatella or allegra.
GPSTIME of new settings: 1303690144
New settings include:
We'll wait and watch the performance through summary pages and check back the performance on Monday.
In 16087 we mentioned that we were unable to do a step response test for WFS loop to get an estimate of their UGF. The primary issue there was that we were not putting the step at the right place. It should go into the actuator directly, in this case, on C1:SUS-MC2_PIT_COMM and C1:SUS-MC2_YAW_COMM. These channels directly set an offset in the control loop and we can see how the error signals first jump up and then decay back to zero. The 'half-time' of this decay would be the inverse of the estimated UGF of the loop. For this test, the overall WFS loops gain, C1:IOO-WFS_GAIN was set to full value 1. This test is performed in the changed settings uploaded in 16091.
I did this test twice, once giving a step in PIT and once in YAW.
Attachment 1 is the striptool screenshot for when PIT was given a step up and then step down by 0.01.
Attachment 2 is the striptool screenshot when YAW was given a step up and down by 0.01. Note the difference in x-scale in this plot.
Tried locking the arms
Did the WFS step response test on IMC in between while waiting for help. See 16094.
Back to trying arm locking
PMC got unlocked
I double checked today and the F2A filters in the output matrices of MC1, MC2 and MC3 in the POS column are ON. I do not get what SDF means? Did we need to add these filters elsewhere?
The IMC suspension team should double check their filters are on again. I am not familiar with the settings and I don't think they've been added to the SDF.
t Both arms were locked simply by using IFO > Configure > ! (YARM) > Restore YARM. I had to use ASS to improve the TRX/TRY to ~0.95.
I measured C1:LSC-XARM_IN1_DQ and C1:LSC-YARM_IN1_DQ while injecting band limited noise in C1:IOO-WFS1_PIT_EXC using uniform noise with amplitude 1000 along with filter defined by string: cheby1("BandPass",4,1,80,100). I calibrated the control arms signals by 2.44 nm/cts calibration factor directly picked up from 13984.
For the duration of this test, all LIMIT switches in the WFS loops were switched OFF.
I do not see any affect on the arm control signal power spectrums with or without the noise injection. Attachement 1 shows the PSD along with PSD of the injection site IN2 signal. I must be doing something wrong, so would like feedback before I go further.
With the input matrix, coil ouput gains and F2A filters loaded as in 16091, I tested the suspension loops' step response to offsets in LSC, ASCPIT and ASCYAW channels, before and after applying the "new damping gains" mentioned in 16066 and 16072. If these look better, we should upload the new (higher) damping gains as well. This was not done in 16091.
Note that in the plots, I have added offsets in the different channels to plot them together, hence the units are "au".
We repeated the same test with IMC unlocked. We had found these gains when IMC was unlocked and their characterization needs to be done with no light in the cavity. attached are the results. Everything else is same as before.
Edit Tue May 4 14:43:48 2021 :
Overall, I would recommend setting the new gains in the suspension loops as well to observe long term effects too.
For past few days, a weird sound of decaying gas leakage comes in the 40m control room from the south west corner of ceiling. Attached is an audio capture. This comes about every 10 min or so.
We have uploaded the new damping gains on all the suspensions of IMC. This completes changing all the configuration to as mentioned in 16066 and 16072. The old setting can be restored by running python3 /users/anchal/20210505_IMC_Tuned_SUS_with_Gains/restoreOldConfigIMC.py from allegra or donatella.
Here's my first attempt at doing angular actuation calibration for IMC mirrors using the method descibed in /users/OLD/kakeru/oplev_calibration/oplev.pdf by Kakeru Takahashi. The key is to see how much is the cavity mode misaligned from the input mode of beam as the mirrors are moved along PIT or YAW.
There two possible kinds of mismatch:
Kakeru's document goes through cases for linear cavities. For IMC, the mode mismatches are bit different. Here's my take on them:
Calibration factor at DC [µrad/cts]
Koji and I did a few tests with an OSEM emulator on the satellite amplifier box used for MC1 which is housed on 1X4. This sat box unit is S2100029 D1002812 that was recently characterized by me 15803. We found that the differential output driver chip AD8672ARZ U2A section for the UL PD was not working properly and had a fluctuating offset at no input current from the PD. This was the cause of the ordeal of the morning. The chip was replaced with a new one from our stock. The preliminary test with the OSEM emulator showed that the channel has the correct DC value.
In further testing of the board, we found that the channel 8 LED driver was not working properly. Although this channel is never used in our current cable convention, it might be used later in the future. In the quest of debugging the issue there, we replaced AD8672ARZ at U1 on channel 8. This did not solve the issue. So we opened the front panel and as we flipped the board, we found that the solder blob shorted the legs of the transistor Q1 2N3904. This was replaced and the test with the LED out and GND shorted indicated that the channel is now properly providing a constant current of 35mA (5V at the monitor out).
After the debugging, the UL channel became the least noisy among the OSEM channels! Mode cleaner was able to lock and maintain it.
We should redo the MC1 input matrix optimization and the coil balancing afterward as we did everything based on the noisy UL OSEM values.
For future reference, the new settings can be upoaded from a script in the same directory. Run python /users/anchal/20210505_IMC_Tuned_SUS_with_Gains/uploadNewConfigIMC.py from allegra.
There isn't any instruction here on how to upload the new settings
I attempted a single arm actuation calibration using IR beatnote (in the directions of soCal idea for DARM calibration)
I fixed the PSL shutter button on Shutters summary page C1IOO_Mech_Shutter.adl. Now PSL switch changes C1:PSL-PSL_ShutterRqst channel. Earlier it was C1:AUX-PSL_ShutterRqst which doesn't do anything.
Attachment 1 shows the closed loop of Xend Green laser Arm PDH lock loop. Free running laser noise gets injected at laser head after the PZT actuation as . The PDH error signal at output of miser is fed to a gain 1 SR560 used as summing junction here. Used in 'A-B mode', the B port is used for sending in excitation where .
We have access to three ports for measurement, marked at output of mixer, at output of SR560, and at PZT out monitor port in uPDH box. From loop algebra, we get following:
, where is the open loop transfer function of the loop.
So measurement of can be done in following two ways (not a complete set):
Working in Xend with mask on has become unbearable. It is very hot there and I would really like if we fix this issue.
Today, the Xend Green laser was just unable to hold lock for longer than 10's of seconds. The longest I could see it hold lock was for about 2 minutes. I couldn't find anything obviously wrong with it. Attached are noise spectrums of error and control points. The control point spectrum shows good matching with typical free running laser noise.
Are the few peaks above 10 kHz in error point spectrum worrysome? I need to think more about it in a cooler place to make sure.
I wanted to take a high frequency spectrum of error point to make sure that higher harmonics of 250 kHz modulation frequency are not leaking into the PDH box after demodulation. However, the lock could not be maintained long enough to take this final measurement. I'll try again tomorrow morning. It is generally cooler in the mornings.
This post is just an update on what's happening. I need to work more to get some meaningful inferences about this loop.