ID |
Date |
Author |
Type |
Category |
Subject |
5246
|
Tue Aug 16 04:50:17 2011 |
kiwamu | Update | SUS | free swinging again | Since Suresh and I changed the DC biases on most of the suspension, the free swingning spectra will be different from the past.
- -
EXcited ETMX ETMY ITMX ITMY PRM SRM BS
Tue Aug 16 04:48:02 PDT 2011
997530498
|
5247
|
Tue Aug 16 10:59:06 2011 |
jamie | Update | SUS | SUS update | Data taken from: 997530498+120
Things are actually looking ok at the moment. "Badness" (cond(B)) is below 6 for all optics.
- We don't have results from PRM since its spectra looked bad, as if it's being clamped by the earthquake stops.
- The SRM matrix definitely looks the nicest, followed by ITMX. All the other matrices have some abnormally high or low elements.
- cond(B) for ETMY is better than that for SRM, even though the ETMY matrix doesn't look as nice. Does this mean that cond(B) is not necessarily the best figure of merit, or is there something else that our naive expectation for the matrix doesn't catch?
We still need to go through and adjust all the OSEM ranges once the IFO is aligned and we know what our DC biases are. We'll repeat this one last time after that.
TM |
|
M |
cond(B) |
BS |
 |
pit yaw pos side butt
UL 1.456 0.770 0.296 0.303 1.035
UR 0.285 -1.230 1.773 -0.077 -0.945
LR -1.715 -0.340 1.704 -0.115 0.951
LL -0.544 1.660 0.227 0.265 -1.070
SD 0.612 0.275 -3.459 1.000 0.046 |
5.61948 |
SRM |
 |
pit yaw pos side butt
UL 0.891 1.125 0.950 -0.077 0.984
UR 0.934 -0.875 0.987 -0.011 -0.933
LR -1.066 -1.020 1.050 0.010 1.084
LL -1.109 0.980 1.013 -0.056 -0.999
SD 0.257 -0.021 0.304 1.000 0.006 |
4.0291 |
ITMX |
 |
pit yaw pos side butt
UL 0.436 1.035 1.042 -0.068 0.728
UR 0.855 -0.965 1.137 -0.211 -0.969
LR -1.145 -1.228 0.958 -0.263 1.224
LL -1.564 0.772 0.863 -0.120 -1.079
SD -0.522 -0.763 2.495 1.000 -0.156 |
4.55925 |
ITMY |
 |
pit yaw pos side butt
UL 1.375 0.095 1.245 -0.058 0.989
UR -0.411 1.778 0.975 -0.022 -1.065
LR -2.000 -0.222 0.755 0.006 1.001
LL -0.214 -1.905 1.025 -0.030 -0.945
SD 0.011 -0.686 0.804 1.000 0.240 |
4.14139 |
ETMX |
 |
pit yaw pos side butt
UL 0.714 0.191 1.640 0.404 1.052
UR 0.197 -1.809 1.758 -0.120 -1.133
LR -1.803 -1.889 0.360 -0.109 0.913
LL -1.286 0.111 0.242 0.415 -0.902
SD 1.823 -3.738 -0.714 1.000 -0.130 |
5.19482 |
ETMY |
 |
pit yaw pos side butt
UL 1.104 0.384 1.417 0.351 1.013
UR -0.287 -1.501 1.310 -0.074 -1.032
LR -2.000 0.115 0.583 -0.045 0.777
LL -0.609 2.000 0.690 0.380 -1.179
SD 0.043 -0.742 -0.941 1.000 0.338 |
3.57032 |
|
5248
|
Tue Aug 16 11:49:17 2011 |
jamie, jenne | Update | General | today's work to do | >If necessary steer ETMs and ITMs to make the X and Y green beam flashing.
Green is now flashing in both X and Y arms
>Open the IOO and OMC chamber and lock MC.
Open, and cover in place. MC is flashing and locking.
|
5249
|
Tue Aug 16 16:59:20 2011 |
Anamaria | Update | RF System | AM in the PM | Kiwamu, Keiko, Anamaria
Looking at the I and Q signals coming from REFL11 and REFL55 we saw large offsets, which would mean we have amplitude modulation, especially at 11MHz. We checked the PD themselves with RF spectrum analyzer, and at their frequencies we see stationary peaks (even if we look only at direct reflection from PRM). We changed the attenuation of the PSL EOM, and saw the peak go down. So first check is beam out of PSL EOM, to make sure the input beam is aligned to the crystal axis and is not giving AM modulation in adition to PM. |
5250
|
Tue Aug 16 17:09:55 2011 |
Jenne | Update | General | today's work to do |
Quote: |
+ Rotate the SRM tower to get the SRMI fringes on the AS CCD camera.
=> This is because the required amount of the YAW correction on SRM is currently beyond the range of the DC bias.
|
Kiwamu aligned things for me, and I rotated the SRM tower so that the reflected beam was pretty much totally overlapping the incident beam. The SRC was aligned to make sure things were good. Now the DC bias for SRM Yaw is ~1.4, so we're totally good.
To rotate SRM, Jamie had the idea of using 2 screws so I could push the tower on one side, and back off the screw an equal amount on the other side and push the tower to be touching both screws again, to ensure that I was rotating about the center of the tower and wasn't introducing any Pos action.
While I was at it, I also moved the OSEM connector tower back to its normal place on the table, so it's not in the way of oplev beams. It had been moved previously to accommodate ITMY near the door. |
5251
|
Wed Aug 17 02:48:56 2011 |
kiwamu | Update | RF System | Re: AM in the PM | [Keiko / Suresh / Anamaria / Kiwamu]
The AM components do exist also on the beam after the EOM.
The peaks were found at 11, 29 and 55 MHz, where the PM are supposed to be imposed.
Suresh and Keiko minimized them by rotating the HWP, which is in front of the EOM.
Also Anamaria and I tried minimizing them by adjusting the EOM crystal alignment.
However everytime after we minimized the AM peaks, they grew back in a time scale of ~ 1 min.
Potentially it could be a problem of the HWP and/or EOM alignment.
Since we wanted to proceed the in-vac work anyways, we stopped investigating it and decided to postpone it for tomorrow.
We again adjusted the incident power to 20 mW.
-- P.S.
The incident power going to MC went down to 7 mW for some reasons. This was found after ~ 6 hours from our works on the PSL table.
We haven't touched anything on the PSL table since the daytime work.
Possibly the angle of the HWP is drifting (why?) and changed the amount of the P-polarizing beam power.
Suresh locked the angles of two HWPs, which are the one just after the EOM and the one after the attenuation PBS.
Quote from #5249 |
So first check is beam out of PSL EOM, to make sure the input beam is aligned to the crystal axis and is not giving AM modulation in adition to PM.
|
|
5252
|
Wed Aug 17 03:10:06 2011 |
kiwamu | Update | General | current status of in-vac work | [Jamie / Suresh / Kiwamu]
The in-vac work is ongoing.
Before we run out our energy we are posting this entry to briefly report the current status.
- (done) BS earthquake stop adjustment.
- (done) PRM earthquake stop adjustment
- (done) MC spot position check => They are almost the same within 10 %.
- (done) Injection and alignment of the ABSL laser to make the beam brighter in the vertex region.
- (done) POY => We repositioned an in-vac steering mirror to get the POY beam hitting the center of the steering mirror.
It's now coming out from the chamber.
- (done) IPANG => realigned two mirrors on the ETMY table to get the IPANG out from the chamber. Now it's reaching the ETMY optical table.
It needs a final touch before we pump down. We revisited it later in the night after realigning the IFO and it is well aligned now.
- (done) POP => We have aligned the ABSL laser injected from the AS port to reach the REFL camera. We turned it up to max power of 300mW and used it as a substitute for the PRC beam.
Even this was not enough to see anything in the POP beam path after the PR2 (tip-tilt). So we used a green beam from the Y-arm as a guide of the POP beam path because the ABSL (POP) beam was too dim to work with.
We placed a lens and a CCD camera to detect the green and then blocked the Y-green. It was then possible to see the ABSL-POP beam in the CCD camera. The lens and the CCD are markers for this beam.
Do not remove these markers unless absolutely necessary.
-(done) POX => We located the ABSL (mimicking POX) beam on the POXM1 mirror and adjusted the mirror to ensure that the beam exits at the right height and a convenient location on the POX table.
- (0%) OSEM mid-range adjustment
- (0%) IPPOS
- (0%) oplev re-alignment |
5253
|
Wed Aug 17 06:42:38 2011 |
kiwamu | Update | General | in-vac work : the end is near | We will pump down the chambers on Thursday morning.
Today will be a day of the OSEM and oplev party.
-- to do list for today --
+ OSEM mid-range adjustment
+ oplev realignment
+ placement of beam traps
+ extraction of IPPOS
+ table leveling
+ interferometer alignment
+ AM-PM mystery
+ preparation for drag and wipe |
5255
|
Wed Aug 17 15:47:18 2011 |
Anamaria | Update | SUS | ETMX Side Sensor slow channel down for a long time | Jenne, Anamaria
We aligned the ETMX OSEMs and ran into this issue. Looking at the SENSOR_SIDE channel, we pulled out the OSEM and determined that the open light voltage is 874 counts, so we centered it around 440 as well as we could. This is same channel as its slow counterpart SDSEN_OUTPUT (grey number immediately to the right on SUS medms).
Quote: |
The slow signal from the side sensor on ETMX was last seen in action sometime in May 2010! And then the frame builder has no data for a while on this channel. After that the channel shows some bistability starting Sept 2010 but has not been working. The fast channel of this sensor (C1:SUS-ETMX_SDSEN_OUTPUT) does work so the sensor is working. Probably is a loose contact... needs to be fixed.
|
|
5256
|
Wed Aug 17 15:55:01 2011 |
Jenne | Update | General | in-vac work : the end is near |
Quote: |
We will pump down the chambers on Thursday Friday morning.
|
All hands on deck at 9am Thursday for drag wiping and doors. We'll do the 5 doors first (including drag wiping), then put on the access connector last. Steve will then begin pumping early Friday morning.
|
5257
|
Wed Aug 17 17:51:54 2011 |
Jenne | Update | Treasure | Prepared for drag wiping | While waiting for the IFO team to align things (there were already ~5 people working on a ~1 person job...), I got all of our supplies prepped for drag wiping in the morning.
The syringes are still on the flow bench down the Xarm. I put fresh alcohol from unopened spectrometer-grade bottles into our alcohol drag wiping bottles.
The ITMs already had rails for marking their position in place from the last time we drag wiped. I placed marker-rails for both ETMs. |
5258
|
Wed Aug 17 20:14:49 2011 |
jamie, kiwamu, suresh, jenne, keiko, anamaria | Update | General | in-vacuum work status, prep for pump | This afternoon's work:
- OSEMs were adjusted on all suspended optics.
- X and Y-arms were aligned to green.
- Once that was done, the input pointing was adjusted with the PZTs to get the IR beam centered on ITMY and ETMY.
- Once the input pointing was ok we extracted IPANG and IPPOS.
- BS, ITMY, PRM, SRM optical levers (oplevs) were extracted.
- Prepared rails and stops for TMs for morning drag wiping.
TODO before drag wiping:
- Check full IFO alignment.
- Readjust OSEMs if needed.
- Extract ITMX oplev.
|
5259
|
Thu Aug 18 00:53:48 2011 |
jamie, kiwamu, suresh, jenne | Update | General | PUMP PLAN ABORTED; need to work more on IFO alignment | We have decided that the IFO alignment is bad enough that we're not ready to pump down. PUMP ABORTED.
The IFO alignment is somewhat OK, in that the green and IR beams are flashing in the arms, and the return beams are overlapping at the BS. However the beams appear to be not centered on any of the optics at the moment. They are all displaced in yaw by ~0.5 to 1 cm or so in various directions.
From this we have decided that we need to step back and reattack the IFO alignment from square one. Here is our current suggested procedure:
- check ETM positions relative to what we think they should be on the drawings. This is to verify that the ETMs were not placed in the wrong places laterally.
- translate Y green axis north, centering green on ETMY and ITMY (by looking at cards). North is the opposite direction from how the beams are displaced from the TM centers.
- steer input pointing to overlap IR on green beam at BS, ITMY, and ETMY. IR should visibly overlap green at both BS and ITMY, and we should be able to see IR on target in front of ETMY with ETMY face camera, and in ETMY trans camera.
- center IR on ETMX by steering BS with DC bias.
- align Y arm cavity for green resonance by adjusting ITMY.
- adjust ITMX to achieve michelson fringes at AS
- adjust PRM lateral translation to center beam on PRM, if needed
- adjust SRM lateral translation to center beam on SRM, if needed
- align PRC to see fringes
- align SRC to see fringes
- extract AS (no clipping)
Once this is done, we will need to check the following:
- IPANG/IPPOS extraction
- pick-off extraction
- OPLEVs
- OSEMs
- green periscopes and green beam extraction at PSL
We've decided to stop for the night, get a good nights rest, and attack all of this tomorrow morning.

|
5260
|
Thu Aug 18 00:58:40 2011 |
jamie | Update | SUS | optics kicked and left free swinging | ALL optics (including MC) were kicked and left free swinging at:
997689421
The "opticshutdown" script was also run, which should turn the watchdogs back on in 5 hours (at 6am).
|
5261
|
Thu Aug 18 10:17:04 2011 |
kiwamu, steve | Update | SUS | oplevs reestablished at Vertex | Kiwamu and Steve, from yesterday
PRM and BS oplev paths were relaid after setting 1/2 OSEM voltages. The incident beam on suspended optics are centered within ~ +- 2 mm
I noticed many unvected ss screws are used on the big Al table tops. The SS 1/4-20 screws
used on the optical tables in vacuum MUST be VENTED!
Also, please use SS clamps. Replace aluminum ones when you can. We have plenty baked ones.
|
5262
|
Thu Aug 18 10:59:04 2011 |
steve | Update | Treasure | Prepared for drag wiping |
Quote: |
While waiting for the IFO team to align things (there were already ~5 people working on a ~1 person job...), I got all of our supplies prepped for drag wiping in the morning.
The syringes are still on the flow bench down the Xarm. I put fresh alcohol from unopened spectrometer-grade bottles into our alcohol drag wiping bottles.
The ITMs already had rails for marking their position in place from the last time we drag wiped. I placed marker-rails for both ETMs.
|
We should use the deionizer before drag wiping with isopropanol. |
5263
|
Thu Aug 18 12:22:37 2011 |
jamie | Update | SUS | suspension update | Most of the suspension look ok, with "badness" levels between 4 and 5. I'm just posting the ones that look slightly less ideal below.
- PRM, SRM, and BS in particular show a lot of little peaks that look like some sort of intermodulations.
- ITMY has a lot of elements with imaginary components
- The ETMY POS and SIDE modes are *very* close together, which is severely adversely affecting the diagonalization
|
5264
|
Thu Aug 18 15:54:35 2011 |
steve | Update | SUS | damped and undamped OSEMs | damped sus at atm1 and freeswingging sus at atm2
|
5266
|
Fri Aug 19 01:15:22 2011 |
Suresh | Update | SUS | FreeSwing all optics | I ran "freeswing all" at Fri Aug 19 01:09:28 PDT 2011 (997776583) and "opticshutdown" as well.
|
5267
|
Fri Aug 19 01:46:06 2011 |
Suresh | Update | General | IFO alignment | [Keiko, Jamie, Kiwamu, Anamaria,
We followed the procedure that we laid-out in our elog of yesterday. We completed the first six steps and we now have the y-arm well aligned to the green beam which passes through the center of of both ETMY and ITMY.
The IR beam was steered with the PZTs to coincide with the green beam. The BS was adjusted to see IR beam scatter on a target placed near the center of the ETMX. And then the AS IR beam was steered to the AS camera by adjusting several components along OM path ( we touched OM1, OM2, OM3, OM4, OM5, OMPO and OM6). We then looked for IR fringes in the AS port from the Y-arm. But no luck there. We need to realign the IR beam into the Y-arm cavity axis using the pzts.
We aligned ITMX and PRM to get power recycled Michelson fringes at the AS.
|
5268
|
Fri Aug 19 09:14:56 2011 |
steve | Update | IOO | degrading laser power at atm | Light into the MC is 20 mW at atm, MC_Transmitted ~10 MW = 400 count
The PMC_T is OK but something else is drifting. |
5269
|
Fri Aug 19 10:26:53 2011 |
steve | Update | SUS | OSEM sensor spectra | Free swingging OSEM sensors LL at atm |
5270
|
Fri Aug 19 15:31:53 2011 |
steve | Update | General | power interruption rescheduled to 10-1-2011 | UTILITY & SERVICE INTERRUPTION
**PLEASE POST**
Building: Central Engineering Services (C.E.S.)
Date: Saturday, October 1, 2011
Time: 8:00 a.m. To 9:00 a.m.
Interruption: Electricity
Contact: Mike Anchondo ext. 4999 Tom Brennan 4984
*This interruption is required for maintenance of high voltage switchgear in Campus Sub Station.
(If there is a problem with this Interruption, please notify
the Service Center X-4717 or the above Contact as soon as possible.
If no response is received we will proceed with the interruption.)
Reza Ohadi,
Director, Campus Operations & Maintenance |
5271
|
Fri Aug 19 19:08:40 2011 |
Jenny | Update | PSL | Relocking NPRO to reference cavity. | I am trying again to measure a temperature step response on the reference cavity on the PSL table.
I have been working to relock the NPRO to the cavity. I unblocked the laser beam, reassembled the setup described in my previous elog entry: 5202. I then did the following:
1) Monitored error signal (from LB1005 PDH servo), transmitted signal, and control signal sent to drive PZT on oscilloscope.
2) With loop open, swept through 0,0-mode resonance, saw a peak in the transmission, saw an accompanying error signal similar to the signal shown in 5202.
3) Tried to lock. Swept the gain on the LB1005 and could not find a gain that would make it lock. Tried changing the PI-corner freq. from 10 kHz to 30 kHz and back and still could not lock.
4) Noticed that the open loop error signal displayed on the scope was DC-offset from zero. Changed the offset to zero the error signal.
5) Tried to lock again and succeeded.
6) Noticed that upon closing the loop, the error signal became offset from zero again. Turning on the integrator on the LB1005 increased DC-offset.
7) Reduced the gain on the SR560 being used as a low pass filter from 5 to 1. Readjusted the open loop error signal offset on the LB1005.
8) Closed the loop and locked. Closing the loop then caused a much smaller DC change in the signal than I had seen with the larger gain (now around 3mV). RMS fluctuations in error signal are now 1 mV (well within the linear region of the error signal).
9) Noticed transmission has a strange distorted harmonic oscillation in it a 1MHz. (Modulation freq is 230kHz, so it's not that). Checked reflected signal and also saw a strange oscillation--in a sawtooth-like pattern.
I intend to
1) Post oscilloscope traces here showing transmitted and reflected signal when locked.
2) Look upstream to see if the sawtooth-like oscillation is in the laser beam before it enters the cavity:
- Sweep the temperature of the laser so that the beam is no longer resonating in the cavity.
- Compare the reflected signal off the cavity to the signal detected before being directed into the cavity (using the PDA255 that I used for measuring the AM response of the PZT) both with and and without the frequency modulation.
3) At some point, try to close the slow digital loop, perhaps readjusting the gain.
4) Try to measure a temperature step response. |
5272
|
Fri Aug 19 23:41:20 2011 |
Jenny | Update | PSL | Relocking NPRO to reference cavity. |
Quote: |
I am trying again to measure a temperature step response on the reference cavity on the PSL table.
I have been working to relock the NPRO to the cavity. I unblocked the laser beam, reassembled the setup described in my previous elog entry: 5202. I then did the following:
1) Monitored error signal (from LB1005 PDH servo), transmitted signal, and control signal sent to drive PZT on oscilloscope.
2) With loop open, swept through 0,0-mode resonance, saw a peak in the transmission, saw an accompanying error signal similar to the signal shown in 5202.
3) Tried to lock. Swept the gain on the LB1005 and could not find a gain that would make it lock. Tried changing the PI-corner freq. from 10 kHz to 30 kHz and back and still could not lock.
4) Noticed that the open loop error signal displayed on the scope was DC-offset from zero. Changed the offset to zero the error signal.
5) Tried to lock again and succeeded.
6) Noticed that upon closing the loop, the error signal became offset from zero again. Turning on the integrator on the LB1005 increased DC-offset.
7) Reduced the gain on the SR560 being used as a low pass filter from 5 to 1. Readjusted the open loop error signal offset on the LB1005.
8) Closed the loop and locked. Closing the loop then caused a much smaller DC change in the signal than I had seen with the larger gain (now around 3mV). RMS fluctuations in error signal are now 1 mV (well within the linear region of the error signal).
9) Noticed transmission has a strange distorted harmonic oscillation in it a 1MHz. (Modulation freq is 230kHz, so it's not that). Checked reflected signal and also saw a strange oscillation--in a sawtooth-like pattern.
I intend to
1) Post oscilloscope traces here showing transmitted and reflected signal when locked.
2) Look upstream to see if the sawtooth-like oscillation is in the laser beam before it enters the cavity:
- Sweep the temperature of the laser so that the beam is no longer resonating in the cavity.
- Compare the reflected signal off the cavity to the signal detected before being directed into the cavity (using the PDA255 that I used for measuring the AM response of the PZT) both with and and without the frequency modulation.
3) At some point, try to close the slow digital loop, perhaps readjusting the gain.
4) Try to measure a temperature step response.
|
I decided to go forward and try to close the digital loop in spite of the unexplained oscillations in the transmission.
1) Plugged the 20dB attenuator into the slow port on the laser drive. This pushed the laser out of lock and, for some reason, made the laser temperature stop responding to sweeping the set point manually with the knob.
2) Plugged the output from the digital system into the slow port (with the attenuator still in place).
3) Displayed the beam seen by the camera on a monitor in the control room
4) Stepped the laser temperature using MEDM until finding the 0,1 mode. Locked to that mode.
5) Closed the digital loop (input to slow laser drive attenuated 20dB attenuator). Gain 0.010
6) Loop appeared stable for 30 minutes, then temperature began shooting off. I opened the loop, cleared history, reduced the gain to 0.008, and started it again. Loop appears stable after 15 minutes of watching. I'm going to leave it for a few hours, then come back to check on it and, if it's stable, step the can temperature. |
5273
|
Sat Aug 20 00:42:22 2011 |
Keiko | Update | LSC | Tolerance of PRC, SRC, MICH length = 2 mm ? |
Keiko, Kiwamu
I have run Kiwamu's length tolerance code (in CVS iscmodeling, ArmTolerance.m & analyseArmTorelance.m ) for the vertex ifo.
In his previous post, he monte-carlo-ed the arm lengths and saw the histogram of the sensing matrix and the demodulation phase between POP55 MICH and POP55 SRCL. From these plots, he roughly estimated that the tolerance is about 1 cm (sigma of the rondom gaussian) and in that case POP55 MICH and SRCL is separated by the demodulation phase 60-150 degrees.
This time I put the length displacements of random gaussian on PRC, SRC, MICH lengths at the same time (Fig.1).

Fig. 1. History of random walk in PRC, SRC, MICH lengths parameter space. Same as Kiwamu's previous post, The position of the three degrees are randomly chosen with a Gaussian distribution function in every simulaton. This example was generated when \sigma = 1 cm for all the three lengths, where \sigma is the standard deviation of the Gaussian function. The number of simulation is 1000 times.
When the sigma is 1 cm, we found that the sensing matrix is quite bad if you look at Fig. 2. In Fig.2 row POP55, although the desired degrees of freedoms are MICH and SRCL, they have quite a bit of variety. Their separation in the demodulation phase is plotted in Fig.3. The separation in the demodulation phase varies from 40 degrees to 140 degrees, and around 270 degrees. It is not good as ideally we want it to be 90.

Fig. 2 Histgram of the sensing signal power in the matrix when 1 cm sigma rondom gaussian is applied on PRC, SRC, MICH lengths. x axis it the signal power in log10.

Fig.3 POP55 MICH and POP55 SRCL separation with the displacement sigma 1 cm.
Kiwamu suspected that PRC length as more strict tolerance than other two (SRC, MICH) for POP55, as 55MHz is fast and can be sensitive to the arm length change. So I ran the same monte-carlo with SRC, MICH displacements but no PRC displacements when sigma is the same, 1cm. The results were almost same as above, nothing obvious difference.
With 2mm sigma, the signal power matrix and the POP55 MICH and POP55 SRCL separation in the demodulation phase look good (Fig. 4 and Fig. 5).
Fig.4 Signal power matrix when PRC, SRC, MICH lengths fractuate with random gaussian distribution with 2mm sigma. The signal powers are shown in log10 in x axis, and they do not vary very much in this case.
Fig.5 POP55 MICH and POP55 SRCL separation with the displacement sigma 2 mm. The separation of the two signal is 60-90 degrees, much better than when sigma is 1 cm. We may need to check 60 degree separation is really ok or not.
PRC SRC MICH lengths tolerances of 2 mm in the real world will be very difficult !
Next I will check what happens on 3f signals.
Quote: |
Required arm length = 37.7974 +/- 0.02 [m]
This is a preliminary result of the estimation of the Arm length tolerance.
This number was obtained from a simulation based on Optickle.
Note that the simulation was done by considering misplacements in only the arm lengths while keeping PRCL, SRCL and MICH at the ideal lengths.
Therefore the tolerance will be somewhat tighter if misplacements in the central part are taken into account.
Next : check 3f signals, and include misplacements in PRCL, SRCL and MICH.
Figure.2 A sensing matrix of the 40-m DRFPMI while changing the position of ETMX/Y by \sigma = 2 cm.
For convenience, only REFL11, AS55, POP11 and POP55 are shown. They are the designed signal ports that
mentioned in the aLIGO LSC document ( T1000298). In all the histograms, x-axis represents the optical gain in log scale in units of [W/m].
The y-axis is the number of events. The diagonal ports are surrounded by red rectangular window.
(Results2 : demodulation phase of MICH and SRCL on POP55)
Now a special attention should be payed on the MICH and SRCL signals on POP55.
Since MICH and SRCL are designed to be taken from POP55, they must be nicely separated in their demodulation phases.
Therefore the demodulation phase of MICH and SRCL has to be carefully examined.
The plot in Figure.3 is the resultant phase difference between MICH and SRCL on POP55 when \sigma_x = \sigma_y = 2 cm.
As shown in the plot the phase are always within a range of 60 - 120 deg, which satisfies my requirement (2) mentioned in the last section.
Figure.3 Difference in the demodulation phase of MICH and SRCL on POP55.
x-axis is the difference in the demodulation phase of MICH and SRCL, and y-axis the number of events.
|
|
5274
|
Sat Aug 20 23:01:39 2011 |
Jenny | Update | PSL | Taking temperature step-response data: successes and tribulations | After finishing my last elog entry, I monitored the digital loop's error signal (the control signal for the fast loop) and the output to the laser heater remotely, (from West Bridge), using dataviewer. The ref cav surrounding can temperature was set to 36 degrees C.
With the loop closed and a gain of 0.008, after seeing the output voltage to the laser heater (TMP_OUTPUT) remain fairly constant and the error signal (TMP_INMON) stay close to zero for ~3 hours, I tried to step the temperature. (This was at 2am last night). I was working remotely from West Bridge. To step the temperature I used the following command:
ezcawrite C1:PSL-FSS_RCPID_SETPOINT 35.5
Rather than change the can temperature to 35.5 C, it outputted:
C1:PSL-FSS_RCPID_SETPOINT=0.
It had set the setpoint to 0 degrees C, which was essentially turning the heater off. I tried resetting it back to 36 and had no luck. I tried changing the syntax slightly.: ezcawrite C1:PSL-FSS_RCPID_SETPOINT=36 and ezcawrite C1:PSL-FSS_RCPID_SETPOINT (36). No success.
I ran over to the 40m and changed the temperature back to 36 manually. The in-loop temp sensor had decreased to 31.5 degrees C before I was able to step the setpoint back up. The system seems to have recovered from this large impulse though, and the laser has remained locked.


(5 hours of minute-trend data)
From left to right:
Top: Out-of-loop can temp sensor; Voltage sent to heat can
Middle: signal sent to heat the laser (TMP_OUTPUT); room temp
Bottom: Error signal for slow loop (sampled control signal from fast loop); In-loop can temp sensor
At 9:30 this morning (7 and a half hours after accidentally setting the setpoint to zero), I came in to the 40m. TMP_OUTPUT was still decreasing but was slowing somewhat, so I decided to step the can temperature up half a decree to 36.5 C.
TMP_OUTPUT responded to the step, but it is also oscillating slowly with room-temperature changes, and these oscillations are on the same order as the step response. The oscillations look like the room-temp oscilations, but inverted. (TMP_OUTPUT reaches maxima when RMTEMP reaches minima). Oddly, there does not appear to be much of a time delay between the room temperature and TMP_OUTPUT signals. I would expect a time delay since there's a time constant for a room-temperature change to propagate into the cavity. Perhaps the laser itself is susceptible to room-temperature changes and those propagate into the laser cavity on a much faster time scale. I don't know the thermal coupling of ambient temperature changes into the laser.


(24-hours of second-trend data)
Options are:
--If the system can handle it, do a larger temperature step (3 degrees, say), so that I can more clearly distinguish the oscillations with room temp from the step response.
--Insulate the cavity with foam (will in principle make the temperature over the can surrounding the ref cav more uniform and less affected by room temperature changes).
--Insulate the laser? Is this possible?
--Leave the system as is and, as a first approximation, fit the room-temp data to a sine wave and subtract it off somehow from my data to just see the step response.
--Don't bother with steps and just try to get the transfer function from out-of-loop temperature (RCTEMP, which is affected by temperature noise from the room) to TMP_OUTPUT via taking the Fourier transforms of both signals.
I'm flying out tomorrow morning, so I'll either need to figure out how to step the temperature set point of the can remotely, successfully, or I'll need someone to manually enter in the temperature steps for me in the control room. |
5275
|
Mon Aug 22 02:43:28 2011 |
kiwamu | Update | General | in-vac work | [Kieko / Kiwamu]
The AS beam shows a little bit of clipping and right now this is the only concern for the alignment of the interferometer.
Other than that everything is okay including :
+ Beam centering on all the suspended optics
+ Arm cavity alignments. The Fabry-Perot fringes from both arm cavity were found on the AS camera.
+ POX/POY/POP, they are still successfully coming out from the chambers
+ IPPOS/ANG
+ Alignment of the green beams and the associated optics. Both green are reaching to the PSL table
We need to check/fix the AS beam clipping and once it's done we will readjust the OSEM mid range and the oplevs.
Then it will be ready for the drag/wipe and door closing. |
5276
|
Mon Aug 22 11:40:08 2011 |
steve | Update | VAC | cranes checked | Cranes are checked and they are ready for lifting. At the east end will use the manual Genei-lift to put door on. |
5277
|
Mon Aug 22 16:28:44 2011 |
Suresh | Update | General | SRM tower shifted on Friday | [Kiwamu, Suresh] This is a belated elog entry from last Friday night + Saturday morning!
We shifted the SRM tower across the beam and away from the door by about 5mm.
After the input beam from MC was aligned to the Y-arm, Kiwamu noticed that the AS beam was being clipped and that the correction had to start from SRM onwards as the beam had become offcentered on the SRM. So we shifted the SRM tower by about 5mm away from the door and transverse to the beam and rotated it by a few degrees to center the OSEM offsets. After this we aligned all optics along the AS beam path to extract the AS beam from the chamber. We then aligned each optic in the vertex so that their beams overlap at the AS port with the reflection from ITMY. Then we aligned BS to center the beam on ETMX and then looked for flashes from the Y arm.
At this point Kiwamu checked and found that the input beam from the MC had shifted. It was landing on the ITMY about 5mm below the center. And (inexplicably) it was still centered on ETMY! The Y- green which traced the cavity axis (since this was still flashing) was not coincident with the IR beam. So all the work we did in aligning the AS beam and the vertex optics work was lost..... and had to be done again.
|
5279
|
Mon Aug 22 21:32:10 2011 |
kiwamu | Update | General | more in-vac work : AS clipping fixed and OSEM/oplev adjustment | [Keiko / Jenne / Jamie / Kiwamu]
We did the following things today :
+ fixed the AS clipping issue
+ realigned all the oplevs
+ checked and adjusted the all OSEM DC values, including PRM, SRM, BS, ITMs, ETMs, MC1 and MC3
Since we touched the OSEMs the alignment has changed somewhat.
Right now Jenne, Suresh and I are working on the "confirmation alignment".
Once we find the alignment is still good (steerable by the PZTs and the DC coil bias), tomorrow we will do the drag&wipe and door closing.
Quote from #5275 |
We need to check/fix the AS beam clipping and once it's done we will readjust the OSEM mid range and the oplevs.
|
|
5280
|
Tue Aug 23 00:55:13 2011 |
Jenne | Update | General | IFO ready for doors | [Kiwamu, Jenne]
After the IFO was aligned in air one final time, we tapped on a few OSEMs until we were happy with all of the centering of all of the optics' OSEMs. All are within 0.05 of their halfway values, with the exception of one each on MC1 and MC3, one of which is within 0.06, and the other 0.08. Because of the realignment pain of dealing with MC OSEMs, we elected to leave these alone. Also, since we obviously didn't open the MC2 tank, we don't know how they are, although the numbers look reasonable.
Also, we took photos (to be posted on Picasa in a day or two) of all the main IFO magnet-in-OSEM centering, as best we could. SRM, BS, PRM all caused trouble, due to their tight optical layouts. We got what we could. Various people have been looking at these for the past 2 weeks, and I think they're all fine, even if we didn't get stellar photos.
We are now prepared for pumping. For real this time.
|
5281
|
Tue Aug 23 01:05:40 2011 |
Jenne | Update | Treasure | All Hands on Deck, 9am! | We will begin drag wiping and putting on doors at 9am tomorrow (Tuesday).
We need to get started on time so that we can finish at least the 4 test masses before lunch (if possible).
We will have a ~2 hour break for LIGOX + Valera's talk.
I propose the following teams:
(Team 1: 2 people, one clean, one dirty) Open light doors, clamp EQ stops, move optic close to door. ETMX, ITMX, ITMY, ETMY
(Team 2: K&J) Drag wipe optic, and put back against rails. Follow Team 1 around.
(Team 3 = Team 1, redux: 2 people, one clean, one dirty) Put earthquake stops at correct 2mm distance. Follow Team 2 around.
(Team 4: 3 people, Steve + 2) Close doors. Follow Team 3 around.
Later, we'll do BS door and Access Connector. BS, SRM, PRM already have the EQ stops at proper distances.
|
5282
|
Tue Aug 23 01:09:44 2011 |
kiwamu | Update | SUS | free swinging test | excited all the optics ---
Tue Aug 23 01:08:00 PDT 2011
998122096 |
5283
|
Tue Aug 23 02:03:04 2011 |
Suresh | Update | IOO | MC realigned and spot positions recentered | After the MC1 and MC3 OSEMs were repositioned MC had to be realigned and the beam spots had to be recentered on the actuation nodes.
To do that I had to change the input beam direction into the MC and the coil offsets.
I also measured the resultant spot positions
spot positions in mm (MC1,2,3 pit MC1,2,3 yaw):
0.1354 -0.2522 -0.1383 -1.0893 0.7122 -1.5587

The MC1 and MC3 yaw can be improved further after the chambers are closed and evacuated. The PZT adjustments needed to realign the input beam pointing are quite small and should not pose a problem.
|
5284
|
Tue Aug 23 06:49:24 2011 |
Anamaria | Update | General | more in-vac work : AS clipping fixed and OSEM/oplev adjustment | Where was the AS clipping?! Ah, the suspense...
Quote: |
+ fixed the AS clipping issue
Quote from #5275 |
We need to check/fix the AS beam clipping and once it's done we will readjust the OSEM mid range and the oplevs.
|
|
|
5285
|
Tue Aug 23 09:40:37 2011 |
kiwamu | Update | General | Re: AS clipping fixed | Indeed it was suspenseful.
We tried finding where the clipping happened, but we couldn't find any obvious clippings.
So we checked centering of the beams on all the optics associated with the AS path, starting from BS, SR3,... to the AS optical bench.
And during the work some of them were recentered.
At the end we found no clipping. To make sure we tested the available range (no clipping range) by exciting the angular motion of BS with AWG (f ~ 1Hz, a ~ 1000).
The beam looked successfully coming out at the most of the angular oscillation point.
Quote from #5284 |
Where was the AS clipping?! Ah, the suspense...
|
|
5286
|
Tue Aug 23 10:38:27 2011 |
jamie | Update | SUS | SUS update | SUS update before closing up:
- MC1, MC2, ITMX look good
- MC3, PRM look ok
- SRM pos and side peaks are too close together to distinguish, so the matrix is not diagnalizable. I think with more data it should be ok, though.
- all ITMY elements have imaginary components
- ITMY, ETMX, ETMY appear to have modest that swapped position:
- ITMY: pit/yaw
- ETMX: yaw/side
- ETMY: pos/side
- MC3, ETMX, ETMY have some very large/small elements
Not particularly good. We're going to work on ETMY at least, since that one is clearly bad.
OPTIC |
|
M |
cond(B) |
MC1 |
 |
pit yaw pos side butt
UL 0.733 1.198 1.168 0.050 1.057
UR 1.165 -0.802 0.896 0.015 -0.925
LR -0.835 -1.278 0.832 -0.002 0.954
LL -1.267 0.722 1.104 0.032 -1.064
SD 0.115 0.153 -0.436 1.000 -0.044 |
4.02107 |
MC2 |
 |
pit yaw pos side butt
UL 1.051 0.765 1.027 0.128 0.952
UR 0.641 -1.235 1.089 -0.089 -0.942
LR -1.359 -0.677 0.973 -0.097 1.011
LL -0.949 1.323 0.911 0.121 -1.096
SD -0.091 -0.147 -0.792 1.000 -0.066 |
4.02254 |
MC3 |
 |
pit yaw pos side butt
UL 1.589 0.353 1.148 0.170 1.099
UR 0.039 -1.647 1.145 0.207 -1.010
LR -1.961 -0.000 0.852 0.113 0.896
LL -0.411 2.000 0.855 0.076 -0.994
SD -0.418 0.396 -1.624 1.000 0.019 |
3.60876 |
PRM |
 |
pit yaw pos side butt
UL 0.532 1.424 1.808 -0.334 0.839
UR 1.355 -0.576 0.546 -0.052 -0.890
LR -0.645 -0.979 0.192 0.015 0.881
LL -1.468 1.021 1.454 -0.267 -1.391
SD 0.679 -0.546 -0.674 1.000 0.590 |
5.54281 |
BS |
 |
pit yaw pos side butt
UL 1.596 0.666 0.416 0.277 1.037
UR 0.201 -1.334 1.679 -0.047 -0.934
LR -1.799 -0.203 1.584 -0.077 0.952
LL -0.404 1.797 0.321 0.247 -1.077
SD 0.711 0.301 -3.397 1.000 0.034 |
5.46234 |
SRM |
NA |
NA |
NA |
ITMX |
 |
pit yaw pos side butt
UL 0.458 1.025 1.060 -0.065 0.753
UR 0.849 -0.975 1.152 -0.199 -0.978
LR -1.151 -1.245 0.940 -0.243 1.217
LL -1.542 0.755 0.848 -0.109 -1.052
SD -0.501 -0.719 2.278 1.000 -0.153 |
4.4212 |
ITMY |
 |
pit yaw pos side butt
UL 0.164 1.320 1.218 -0.086 0.963
UR 1.748 -0.497 0.889 -0.034 -1.043
LR -0.252 -2.000 0.782 -0.005 1.066
LL -1.836 -0.183 1.111 -0.058 -0.929
SD -0.961 -0.194 1.385 1.000 0.239 |
4.33051 |
ETMX |
 |
pit yaw pos side butt
UL 0.623 1.552 1.596 -0.033 1.027
UR 0.194 -0.448 1.841 0.491 -1.170
LR -1.806 -0.478 0.404 0.520 0.943
LL -1.377 1.522 0.159 -0.005 -0.860
SD 1.425 3.638 -0.762 1.000 -0.132 |
4.89418 |
ETMY |
 |
pit yaw pos side butt
UL 0.856 0.007 1.799 0.241 1.005
UR -0.082 -1.914 -0.201 -0.352 -1.128
LR -2.000 0.079 -0.104 -0.162 0.748
LL -1.063 2.000 1.896 0.432 -1.119
SD -0.491 -1.546 2.926 1.000 0.169 |
9.11516 |
|
5287
|
Tue Aug 23 11:57:22 2011 |
kiwamu | Update | SUS | free swinging test during lunch time | excited all the optics. (with ITMY WTF OFF)
Tue Aug 23 11:52:52 PDT 2011
998160788 |
5288
|
Tue Aug 23 14:49:14 2011 |
jamie, jenne, kiwamu, suresh, keiko | Update | SUS | Adjustment of ETMY, issue with ITMY whitening | Before lunch we took a closer look at two of the suspensions that were most problematic: ITMY and ETMY. Over lunch we took new free swinging data. Results below:
- For ITMY we discovered that the whitening on the UL sensor was not switching. This was causing the UL sensor to have a different response, with a steeper roll of, which was causing all of the transfer function estimates to the other sensors to have large imaginary components. We took new free swing data with all of the whitening turned OFF. The result is a much improved matrix and diagnalization. The input matrix elements are mostly the same, but the coupling is basically gone. We'll fix the whitening after the pump down.
ITMY |
 |
pit yaw pos side butt
UL 0.157 1.311 1.213 -0.090 0.956
UR 1.749 -0.490 0.886 -0.038 -1.042
LR -0.251 -2.000 0.787 -0.007 1.066
LL -1.843 -0.199 1.114 -0.059 -0.936
SD -0.973 -0.205 1.428 1.000 0.239 |
4.34779 |
- ETMY has a very problematic SIDE OSEM. The magnet does not line up with the OSEM axis, and since there is no lateral adjustment in the side OSEMs, there's not much we can do about this. We're using aluminum foil to wedge the OSEM over as far as possible, but it's not quite enough. With the OSEM plates horizontal there is a lot of POS->SIDE coupling. With the OSEM plates vertical, the magnetic sits a little too close to the rear face, which can cause the magnet to get stuck to the LED plate. We're trying to decide where to leave it now, but the new diagnalization with the OSEM plates vertical is definitely better:
ETMX |
 |
pit yaw pos side butt
UL -0.138 1.224 1.463 -0.086 0.944
UR 0.867 -0.776 1.501 -0.072 -1.051
LR -0.995 -0.896 0.537 -0.045 0.754
LL -2.000 1.104 0.499 -0.059 -1.251
SD 0.011 0.220 1.917 1.000 0.224 |
4.42482 |
|
5289
|
Tue Aug 23 16:23:33 2011 |
Jenne | Update | VAC | Access connector in place | [Steve, Bob, Jamie, Kiwamu, Valera, Jenne]
The access connector is now in place, in preparation for pump-down. Tomorrow (hopefully) we will do all the other doors.
|
5290
|
Tue Aug 23 17:21:45 2011 |
kiwamu | Update | SUS | free swinging test for ETMY |
Excited ETMY
Tue Aug 23 17:20:45 PDT 2011
998180460
|
5291
|
Tue Aug 23 17:45:22 2011 |
jamie | Update | SUS | ITMX, ITMY, ETMX clamped and moved to edge of tables | In preparation for tomorrow's drag wiping and door closing, I have clamped ITMX, ITMY, and ETMX with their earthquake stops and moved the suspension cages to the door-edge of their respective tables. They will remain clamped through drag wiping.
ETMY was left free-swinging, so we will clamp and move it directly prior to drag wiping tomorrow morning. |
5292
|
Tue Aug 23 17:51:37 2011 |
Keiko | Update | LSC | Tolerance of PRC, SRC, MICH length = 2 mm ? | Keiko, Kiwamu
We noticed that we have used wrong code for MICH degree of freedom for both of the ELOG entries on this topic (cavity lengths tolerance search). It will be modified and posted soon. |
5293
|
Tue Aug 23 18:25:56 2011 |
jamie | Update | SUS | SRM diagnalization OK | By looking at a longer data stretch for the SRM (6 hours instead of just one), we were able to get enough extra resolution to make fits to the very close POS and SIDE peaks. This allowed us to do the matrix inversion. The result is that SRM looks pretty good, and agrees with what was measured previously:
SRM |
 |
pit yaw pos side butt
UL 0.869 0.975 1.140 -0.253 1.085
UR 1.028 -1.025 1.083 -0.128 -1.063
LR -0.972 -0.993 0.860 -0.080 0.834
LL -1.131 1.007 0.917 -0.205 -1.018
SD 0.106 0.064 3.188 1.000 -0.011 |
4.24889 |
|
5294
|
Wed Aug 24 09:11:19 2011 |
jamie | Update | SUS | ETMY SUS update: looks good. WE'RE READY TO CLOSE | We ran one more free swing test on ETMY last night, after the last bit of tweaking on the SIDE OSEM. It now looks pretty good:
ETMY |
 |
pit yaw pos side butt
UL -0.323 1.274 1.459 -0.019 0.932
UR 1.013 -0.726 1.410 -0.050 -1.099
LR -0.664 -1.353 0.541 -0.036 0.750
LL -2.000 0.647 0.590 -0.004 -1.219
SD 0.021 -0.035 1.174 1.000 0.137 |
4.23371 |
So I declare: WE'RE NOW READY TO CLOSE UP. |
5295
|
Wed Aug 24 11:30:27 2011 |
jamie, jenne, kiwamu, suresh, steve | Update | SUS | ETMX wiped, replaced, door on | We've closed up ETMX:
- the optic was drag wiped
- the suspension tower was put back in place
- earthquake stops were backed off the appropriate number of turns, and de-ionized
- chamber door was put on
|
5296
|
Wed Aug 24 11:40:21 2011 |
jamie, jenne, kiwamu, suresh, steve | Update | SUS | problem with ITMX | ITMX was drag wiped, and the suspension was put back into place. However, after removing all of the earthquake stops we found that the suspension was hanging in a very strange way.
The optic appears to heavily pitched forward in the suspension. All of the rear face magnets are high in their OSEMs, while the SIDE OSEM appears fine. When first inspected, some of the magnets appeared to be stuck to their top OSEM plates, which was definitely causing it to pitch forward severely. After gently touching the top of the optic I could get the magnets to sit in a more reasonable position in the OSEMs. However, they still seem to be sitting a little high. All of the PDMon values are also too low:
|
nominal |
now |
UL |
1.045 |
0.767 |
UR |
0.855 |
0.718 |
LR |
0.745
|
0.420
|
LL |
0.780
|
0.415 |
SD |
0.840
|
0.752 |
Taking a free swing measurement now. |
5297
|
Wed Aug 24 12:08:56 2011 |
jamie | Update | SUS | ITMX, ETMX, ETMY free swinging | ITMX: 998245556
ETMX, ETMY: 998248032 |
5298
|
Wed Aug 24 16:13:36 2011 |
kiwamu | Update | SUS | broke UL magnet on ITMX | I broke the UL magnet on ITMX
The ITMX tower was shipped into the Bob's clean room to put the magnet back on.
Since we found that all the magnets were relatively high (#5296) in the shadow sensors, we decided to slide the OSEM holder bar upward.
During the work, I haven't made the OSEMs far enough from the magnets.
So the magnets and OSEMs touched as I moved the holder.
Then the UL magnets were broken off and fell into the UL coil.
|
|