40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 151 of 341  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Categorydown Subject
  15923   Tue Mar 16 16:02:33 2021 KojiUpdateLSCREFL11 demod retrofitting

I'm going to remove REFL11 demod for the noise check/circuit improvement.


  • The module was removed (~4pm). Upon removal, I had to loosen AS110 LO/I out/Q out. Check the connection and tighten their SMAs upon restoration of REFL11.
  • REFL11 configuration / LO: see below, PD: a short thick SMA cable, I OUT: Whitening CH3, Q OUT: Whitening CH4, I MON daughterboard: CM board IN1 (BNC cable)
  • The LO cable for REFL11 was made of soft coax cable (Belden 9239 Low Noise Coax). The vendor specifies that this cable is for audio signals and NOT recommended for RF purposes [Link to Technical Datasheet (PDF)].
    I'm going to measure the delay of the cable and make a replacement.
  • There is a bunch of PD RF Mon cables connected to many of the demo modules. I suppose that they are connected to the PD calibration system which hasn't been used for 8 years. And the controllers are going to be removed from the rack soon.
    I'm going to remove these cables.


First I checked the noise levels and the transfer functions of the daughterboard preamp were checked. The CH-1 of the SR785 seemed funky (I can't comprehensively tell yet how it was), so the measurement maybe unreliable.

For the replacement of AD797, I tested OP27 and TLE2027. TLE2027 is similar to OP27, but slightly faster, less noisy, and better in various aspects.

The replacement of the AD797 and whatever-film resistors with LTE2027 and thin-film Rs were straightforward for the I phase channel, while the stabilization of the Q phase channel was a struggle (no matter I used OP27 or TLE2027). It seems that the 1st stage has some kind of instability and I suffered from 3Hz comb up to ~kHz. But the scope didn't show obvious 3Hz noise.

After a quite bit of struggle, I could tame this strange noise by adjusting the feedback capacitor of the 1st stage. The final transfer functions and the noise levels were measured. (To be analyzed later)


Now the REFL11 LO cable was replaced from the soft low noise audio coax (Belden 9239) to jacketed solder-soaked coax cable (Belden 1671J - RG405 compatible). The original cable indicated the delay of -34.3deg (@11MHz, 8.64ns) and the loss of 0.189dB.

I took 80-inch 1671J cable and measured the delay to be ~40deg. The length was adjusted using this number and the resulting cable indicated the delay of -34.0deg (@11MHz, 8.57ns) and the loss of 0.117dB.

The REFL11 demod module was restored and the cabling around REFL11 and AS110 were restored, tightened, and checked.


I've removed the PD mon cables from the NI RF switch. The open ports were plugged with 50Ohm temirnators.


I ask commissioners to make the final check of the REFL11 performance using CDS.

Attachment 1: IMG_0545.jpeg
Attachment 2: IMG_0547.jpeg
Attachment 3: D040179-A.pdf
Attachment 4: IMG_0548.jpeg
Attachment 5: IMG_0550.jpeg
  15927   Wed Mar 17 00:05:26 2021 gautamUpdateLSCDelay line BIO remote control

While Koji is working on the REFL 11 demod board, I took the opportunity to investigate the non-remote-controllability of the delay line in 1Y2, since the TTs have already been disturbed. Here is what I found today.

  1. First, I brought over the spare delay line from the rack Chiara sits in over to 1Y2. 
    • Connected a Marconi to the input, monitored a -3dB pickoff and the delay line output simultaneously on a 300MHz scope.
    • With the front panel selector set to "Internal", verified that local (i.e. toggling front panel switches) switchability seems to work 👍 
    • Set the front panel switch to "External", and connected the D25 cable from the BIO card in 1Y3 to the back panel of the delay line unit - found that I could not remotely change the delay 😒 
    • I thought it'd be too much of a coincidence if both delay lines have the same failure mode for the remote switching part only, so I decided to investigate further up the signal chain.
  2. BIO switching - the CDS BIO bit status MEDM screen seems to respond, indicating that the bits are getting set correctly in software at least. I don't know of any other software indicator for this functionality further down the signal processing chain. So it would seem the BIO card is not actually switching.
  3. The Contec DO cards don't actually source the voltage - they just provide a path for current to flow (or isolate said path). I checked that pin 12 of the rear panel D25 connector is at +5 V DC relative to ground as indicated in the schematic (see P1 connector - this connector isn't a Dsub, it is IDE24, so the mapping to the Dsub pins isn't one-to-one, but pin 23 on the former corresponds to pin 12 on the latter), suggesting that the pull up resistors have the necessary voltage applied to them.
  4. Made a little LED tester breakout board, and saw no swtiching when I toggled the status of some random bits.
  5. Noted that the bench power supply powering this setup (hacky arrangement from 2015 that never got unhacked) shows a current draw of 0A.
    • I am not sure what the quiescent draw of these boards is - the datasheet says "Power consumption: 3.3VDC, 450mA", but the recommended supply voltage is "12-24V DC (+/-10%)" not 3.3VDC, so not sure what to make of that.
    • To try and get some insight, I took one of the new Contec-32L-PE cards we got from near Jon's CDS test stand (I've labelled the one I took lest there be some fault with it in the future), and connected it to a bench supply (pin 18 = +15V DC, pin1 = GND). But in this condition, the bench supply reports 0A current draw.
  6. Ruled out the wrong cable being plugged in - I traced the cable over the cable tray, and seems like it is in fact connecting the BIO card in the c1lsc expansion chassis to the delay line.

So it would seem something is not quite right with this BIO card. The c1lsc expansion chassis, in which this card sits, is notoriously finicky, and this delay line isn't very high priority, so I am deferring more invasive investigation to the next time the system crashes.

* I forgot we have the nice PCB Contec tester board with LEDs - the only downside is that this board has D37 connectors on both ends whereas the delay line wants a D25, necessitating some custom ribbon cable action. But maybe there is a way to use this.

As part of this work, I was in various sensitive areas (1Y3, chiara rack, FE test stand etc) but as far as I can tell, all systems are nominal.

  15935   Thu Mar 18 01:12:31 2021 gautamUpdateLSCPRFPMi
  1. Integrated >1 hour at RF only control, high circulating powers tonight.
    • All of the locklosses were due to me typing a wrong number / turning on the wrong filter.
    • So the lock seems pretty stable, at least on the 20 minute timescale.
    • No idea why given the various known broken parts.
  2. Did a bunch of characterization.
    • DARM OLTF - Attachment #1. The reference is when DARM is under ALS control.
    • CARM OLTF - Attachment #2. Seems okay.
    • Sensing matrix - Attachment #3. The CARM and DARM phases seem okay. Maybe the CARM phase can be tuned a bit with the delay line, but I think we are within 10 degrees.
  3. TRX/TRY between 300-400, with large fluctuations mostly angular. So PRG ~17-22, to answer Koji's question in the meeting today.
    • This is similar to what I had before the vent of Sep 2020.
    • Not surprising to me, since I claim that we are in the regime where the recycling gain is limited by the flipped folding mirrors.
  4. Tried to tweak the ASC (QPD only) by looking at the step responses, but I could never get the loop gains such that I could close an integrator on all the loops.

I need to think a little bit about the ASC commissioning strategy. On the positive side

  1. REFL11 board seems to perform at least as well as before.
  2. ALS performance made me (as Pep would say), so so happy.
  3. Whole lock acquisiton sequence takes ~5mins if the PRMI catches lock quickly (5/7 times tonight).
  4. Process seems repeatable.

Things to think about:

  1. How to get the AS WFS in the picture?
  2. What does the (still) crazy sensing matrix mean? I think it's not possible to transfer vertex control to 1f signals with this kind of sensing.
  3. What does it mean that the PRM actuation seems to work, even though the coils are imabalnced by a factor of 3-5, and the coil resistances read out <2 ohms???
  4. What's going on at the ALS-->CARM transition? The ALS noise is clearly low enough that I can sit inside the CARM linewidth. Yet, there seems to be some offset between what ALS thinks is the resonant point, and what the REFL11 signal thinks is the resonant point. I am kind of able to "power through" this conflict, but the IMC error point (=AO path) is not very happy during the transition. It worked 8/8 times tonight, but would be good to figure out how to make this even more robust.
Attachment 1: DARM_OLTF_20210317.pdf
Attachment 2: CARMTF_20210317.pdf
Attachment 3: PRFPMI_Mar_17sensMat.pdf
  15936   Thu Mar 18 07:02:27 2021 KojiUpdateLSCREFL11 demod retrofitting

Attachment 1: Transfer Functions

The original circuit had a gain of ~20 and the phase delay of ~1deg at 10kHz, while the new CH-I and CH-Q have a phase delay of 3 deg and 2 deg, respectively.

Attachment 2: Output Noise Levels

The AD797 circuit had higher noise at low frequency and better noise levels at high frequency. Each TLE2027 circuit was tuned to eliminate the instability and shows a better noise level compared to the low-frequency spectrum of the AD797 version.

RXA: AD797 sad, all hail the op-amps ending with 27 !

Attachment 1: TFs.pdf
Attachment 2: PSD.pdf
  15942   Thu Mar 18 21:37:59 2021 ranaUpdateLSCPRMI investigations: what IS the matrix??
  • Locked PRMI several tmes after Gautam setup. Easy w IFO CONFIG screenheart
  • tuned up alignment
  • Still POP22_I doesn't go above ~111, so not triggering the loops. Lowered triggers to 100 (POP22 units) and it locks fine now. smiley
  • Ran update on zita, and now it lost its mounts (and maybe its mind). Zita needs some love to recover the StripTool plots  sad
  • Put the $600 ebay TDS3052 near the LSC rack and tried to look at the RF power, but found lots of confusing information. Is there really a RF monitor in this demod board or was it disconnected by a crazy Koji cheeky ? I couldn't see any signal above a few mV.angry
  • Put a 20 dB coupler in line with the RF input and saw zip. Then I put the RF signal directly into the scope and saw that the 55 MHz signal is ~30 mVpp into 50 Ohms. I waited a few minutes with triggering to make sure I was getting the largest flashes. Why is the optical/RF signal so puny? surprise This is ~100x smaller than I think we want...its OK to saturate the RF stuff a little during lock acquisition as long as the loop can suppress it so that the RMS is < 3 dBm in the steady state.
Attachment 1: PXL_20210319_045925024.jpg
  15944   Fri Mar 19 11:18:25 2021 gautamUpdateLSCPRMI investigations: what IS the matrix??

From Finesse simulation (and also analytic calcs), the expected PRCL optical gain is ~1 MW/m (there is a large uncertainty, let's say a factor of 5, because of unknown losses e.g. PRC, Faraday, steering mirrors, splitting fractions on the AP table between the REFL photodiodes). From the same simulation, the MICH optical gain in the Q-phase signal is expected to be a factor of ~10 smaller. I measured the REFL55 RF transimpedance to be ~400 ohms in June last year, which was already a little lower than the previous number I found on the wiki (Koji's?) of 615 ohms. So we expect, across the ~3nm PRCL linewidth, a PDH horn-to-horn voltage of ~1 V (equivalently, the optical gain in units of V/m for PRCL is ~0.3 GV/m).

In the measurement, the MICH gain is indeed ~x10 smaller than the PRCL gain. However, the measured optical gain (~0.1GV/m, but this is after the x10 gain of the daughter board) is ~10 times smaller than what is expected (after accounting for the various splitting fractions on the AS table between REFL photodiodes). We've established that the modulation depth isn't to blame I think. I will check (i) REFL55 transimpedance, (ii) cable loss between AP table and 1Y2 and (iii) is the beam well centered on the REFL55 photodiode.

Basically, with the 400ohm transimpedance gain, we should be running with a whitening gain of 0dB before digitization as we expect a signal of O(1V). We are currently running at +18dB.


Then I put the RF signal directly into the scope and saw that the 55 MHz signal is ~30 mVpp into 50 Ohms. I waited a few minutes with triggering to make sure I was getting the largest flashes. Why is the optical/RF signal so puny? surprise This is ~100x smaller than I think we want...its OK to saturate the RF stuff a little during lock acquisition as long as the loop can suppress it so that the RMS is < 3 dBm in the steady state.

  15949   Fri Mar 19 22:24:54 2021 gautamUpdateLSCPRMI investigations: what IS the matrix??

I did all these checks today. 


I will check (i) REFL55 transimpedance, (ii) cable loss between AP table and 1Y2 and (iii) is the beam well centered on the REFL55 photodiode.

  1. The transimpedance was measured to be ~420 ohms at 55 MHz (-4.3 dB relative to the assumed 700V/A of the NF1611), so close to what I measured in June (the data download didn't work apparently and so I don't have a plot but it can readily be repeated). The DC levels also checked out - with 20mA drive current for the Jenne laser, I measured ~2.3 V on the NF1611 (10kohm DC transimpedance) vs ~13mV on the DC output of the REFL55 PD (50 ohm DC transimpedance).
  2. Time domain confirmation of the above statement is seen in Attachment #1. The Agilent was used to drive the Jenne laser with 0dBm RF signal @ 55 MHz. Ch1 (yellow) is the REFL55 PD output, Ch2 (blue) is the NF1611 RFPD, measured at the AP table (sorry for the confusing V/div setting).
  3. Re-connected the cabling at the AP table, and measured the signal at 1Y2 using the scope Rana conveniently left there, see Attachment #2. Though the two scopes are different, the cable+connector loss estimated from the Vpp of the signal at the AP table vs that at 1Y2 is 1.5 dB, which isn't outrageous I think.
  4. For the integrated test, I left the AM laser incident on the REFL55 photodiode, reconnected all the cabling to the CDS system, and viewed the traces on ndscope, see Attachment #3. Again, I think all the numbers are consistent. 
    • REFL55 demod board has an overall conversion gain (including the x10 gain of the daughter board preamp) of ~5V I/F per 1V RF.
    • There is a flat 18 dB whitening gain.
    • The digitized signal was ~13000 ctspp - assuming 3276.8 cts/V, that's ~4Vpp. Undoing the flat whitening gain and the conversion efficiency, I get 13000 / 3276.8 / (10^(18/20)) / 5 ~ 100 mVpp, which is in good agreement with Attachment #3 (pardon the thin traces, I didn't realize it looked so bad until I closed everything).

So it would seem that there is nothing wrong with the sensing electronics. I also think we can rule out any funkiness with the modulation depths since they have been confirmed with multiple different measurements.

One thing I checked was the splitting ratios on the AP table. Jenne's diagram is still accurate (assuming the components are labelled correctly). Let's assume 0.8 W makes it through the IMC to the PRM - then, I would expect, according to the linked diagram, 0.8 W * 0.8 * (1-5.637e-2) * 0.8 * 0.1 * 0.5 * 0.9 ~ 22 mW to make it onto the REFL55 PD. With the PRM aligned and the beam centered on the PD (using DC monitor but I also looked through an IR viewer, looked pretty well centered), I measured 500 mV DC level. Assuming 50 ohm DC transimpedance, that's 500 / 50 / 0.8 ~ 12.5 mW of power on this photodiode, which while is consistent with what's annotated on Jenne's diagram, is ~50% off from expectation. Is the uncertainty in the Faraday transmission and IMC transmission enough to account for this large deviation?

If we want more optical gain, we'd have to put more light on this PD. I suppose we could have ~10x the power since that's what is on IMC REFL when the MC is unlocked? If we want x100 increase in optical gain, we'd also have to increase the transimpedance by 10. I'll double check the simulation but I"m inclined to believe that the sensing electronics are not to blame.

Unconnected to this work but I feel like I'm flying blind without the wall StripTool traces so I restored them on zita (ran /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/general/startStrip.sh).

Attachment 1: IMG_9140.jpg
Attachment 2: IMG_9141.jpg
Attachment 3: REFL55.png
  15956   Wed Mar 24 00:51:19 2021 gautamUpdateLSCSchnupp asymmetry

I used the Valera technique to measure the Schnupp asymmetry to be \approx 3.5 \, \mathrm{cm}, see Attachment #1. The data points are points, and the zero crossing is estimated using a linear fit. I repeated the measurement 3 times for each arm to see if I get consistent results - seems like I do. Subtle effects like possible differential detuning of each arm cavity (since the measurement is done one arm at a time) are not included in the error analysis, but I think it's not controversial to say that our Schnupp asymmetry has not changed by a huge amount from past measurements. Jamie set a pretty high bar with his plot which I've tried to live up to. 

Attachment 1: Lsch.pdf
  15958   Wed Mar 24 15:24:13 2021 gautamUpdateLSCNotes on tests

For my note-taking:

  1. Lock PRMI with ITMs as the MICH actuator. Confirm that the MICH-->PRCL contribution cannot be nulled. ✅  [15960]
  2. Lock PRMI on REFL165 I/Q. Check if transition can be made smoothly to (and from?) REFL55 I/Q.
  3. Lock PRMI. Turn sensing lines on. Change alignment of PRM / BS and see if we can change the orthogonality of the sensing.
  4. Lock PRMI. Put a razor blade in front of an out-of-loop photodiode, e.g. REFL11 or REFL33. Try a few different masks (vertical half / horizontal half and L/R permutations) and see if the orthogonality (or lack thereof) is mask-dependent.
  5. Double check the resistance/inductance of the PRM OSEMs by measuring at 1X4 instead of flange. ✅  [15966]
  6. Check MC spot centering.

If I missed any of the tests we discussed, please add them here.

  15960   Wed Mar 24 22:54:49 2021 gautamUpdateLSCNew day, new problems

I thought I'd get started on some of the tests tonight. But I found that this problem had resurfaced. I don't know what's so special about the REFL55 photodiode - as far as I can tell, other photodiodes at the REFL port are running with comparable light incident on it, similar flat whitening gain, etc etc. The whitening electronics are known to be horrible because they use the quad LT1125 - but why is only this channel problematic? To describe the problem in detail:

  • I had checked the entire chain by putting an AM field on the REFL 55 photodiode, and corroborating the pk-to-pk (counts) value measured in CDS with the "nominal" setting of +18dB flat whitening gain against the voltage measured by a "reference" PD, in this case a fiber coupled NF1611.
  • In the above test, I confirmed that the measured signal was consistent with the value reported by the NF1611.
  • So, at least on Friday, the entire chain worked just fine. The PRMI PDH fringes were ~6000cts-pp in this condition.
  • Today, I found that while trying to acquire PRMI lock, the PDH fringes witnessed in REFL55 were saturating the ADC. I lowered the whitening gain to 0 dB (so a factor of 8). Then the PDH fringes were ~20,000cts-pp. So, overall, the gain of the chain seems to have gone up by a factor of ~25. 
  • Given my NF1611 based test, the part of the chain I am most suspicious of is the whitening filter. But I don't have a good mechanism that explains this observation. Can't be as simple as the input impedance of the LT1125 being lowered due to internal saturations, because that would have the opposite effect, we would measure a tiny signal instead of a huge one

I request Koji to look into this, time permitting, tomorrow. In slightly longer term, we cannot run the IFO like this - the frequency of occurrence is much too high and the "fix" seems random to me, why should sweeping the whitening gain fix the problem? There was some suggestion of cutting the PCB trace and putting a resistor to limit the current draw on the preceeding stage, but this PCB is ancient and I believe some traces are buried in internal layers. At the same time, I am guessing it's too much work to completely replace the whitening electronics with the aLIGO style units. Anyone have any bright ideas?

Anyway, I managed to lock the PRMI (ETMs misaligned) using REFL165I/Q. Then, instead of using the BS as the MICH actuator, I used the two ITMs (equal magnitude, opposite sign in the LSC output matrix).

  • The digital demod phase in this config is different from what is used when the arm cavities are in play (under ALS control). Probably the difference is telling us something about the reflectivity of the arm cavity for various sideband fields, from which we can extract some useful info about the arm cavity (length, losses etc). But that's not the focus here - the correct digital demod phase was 11 degrees. See Attachment #1 for the sensing matrix. I've annotated it with some remarks.
  • The signals appear much more orthogonal when actuating on the ITMs. However, I was still only able to null the MICH line sensed in the PRCL sensor to a ratio of 1/5 (while looking at peaks on DTT). I was unable to do better by fine tuning either the digital demod phase, or the relative actuation strength on each ITM
  • The PRCL loop had a UGF of ~120 Hz, MICH loop ~60 Hz.
  • With the PRMI locked in this config, I tried to measure the appropriate loop gain and sign if I were to use the REFL55 photodiode instead of REFL165 - but I didn't have any luck. Unsurprising given the known electronics issues I guess...

I didn't get around to running any of the other tests tonight, will continue tomorrow.

Update Mar 26: Attachments #2 and #3 show that there is clearly something wrong with the whitening electronics associated with REFL55 channels - with the PSL shutter closed (so the only "signal" being digitized should be the electronics noise at the input of the whitening stage), the I and Q channels don't show similar profiles, and moreover, are not consistent (the two screenshots are from two separate sweeps). I don't know what to make of the parts of the sweep that don't show the expected "steps". Until ndscope gets a log-scaled y-axis option, we have to live with the poor visualization of the gain steps which are dB (rather than linearly) spaced. For this particular case, StripTool isn't an option either because the Q channel as a negative offset, and I opted agains futzing with the cabling at 1Y2 to give a small fixed positive voltage instead. I will emphasize that on Friday, this problem was not present, because the gain balance of the I and Q channels was good to within 1dB.

Attachment 1: PRMI3f_noArmssensMat.pdf
Attachment 2: REFL55_whtGainStepping.png
Attachment 3: REFL55_whtGainStepping2.png
  15977   Mon Mar 29 19:32:46 2021 gautamUpdateLSCREFL55 whitening checkout

I repeated the usual whitening board characterization test of:

  • driving a signal (using awggui) into the two inputs of the whitening board using a spare DAC channel available in 1Y2
  • demodulating the response using the LSC sensing matrix infrastructure
  • Stepping the whitening gain, incrementing it in 3dB steps, and checking if the demodulated lock-in outputs increase in the expected 3dB steps.

Attachment #1 suggests that the steps are equal (3dB) in size, but note that the "Q" channel shows only ~half the response of the I channel. The drive is derived from a channel of an unused AI+dewhite board in 1Y2, split with a BNC Tee, and fed to the two inputs on the whitening filter. The impedance is expected to be the same on each channel, and so each channel should see the same signal, but I see a large asymmetry. All of this checked out a couple of weeks ago (since we saw ellipses and not circles) so not sure what changed in the meantime, or if this is symptomatic of some deeper problem.

Usually, doing this and then restoring the cabling returns the signal levels of REFL55 to nominal levels. Today it did not - at the nominal whitening gain setting of +18dB flat gain, when the PRMI is fringing, the REFL55 inputs are frequently reporting ADC overflows. Needless to say, all my attempts today evening to transition the length control of the vertex from REFL165 to REFL55 failed.

I suppose we could try shifting the channels to (physical) Ch5 and Ch6 which were formerly used to digitize the ALS DFD outputs and are currently unused (from Ch3, Ch4) on this whitening filter and see if that improves the situation, but this will require a recompile of the RTCDS model and consequent CDS bootfest, which I'm not willing to undertake today. If anyone decides to do this test, let's also take the opportunity to debug the BIO switching for the delay line.

Attachment 1: REFL55wht.png
  15994   Sat Apr 3 00:42:40 2021 gautamUpdateLSCPRFPMI locking with half input power


I wanted to put my optomechanical instability hypothesis to the test. So I decided to cut the input power to the IMC by ~half and try locking the PRFPMI. However, this did not improve the stability of the buildup in the arm cavities, while the control was solely on the ALS error signal


  1. The waveplate I installed for this purpose was rotated until the MC RFPD DCMON channel reported ~half it's nominal value.
  2. I adjusted the IMC servo gains appropriately to compensate. IMC lock was readily realized.
  3. I increased the whitening gains on the POX, POY and REFL165 photodiodes by 6dB, to compensate for the reduced light levels.
    • One day soon, we will have remote power control, and it'd be nice to have this process be automated.
    • Really, we should have de-whitening filters that undo these flat gains in addition to undoing the frequency dependent whitening.
    • I'm not sure the quality of the electronics is good enough though, for the changing electronics offsets to not be a problem.
    • One possibility is that we can normalize some signals by the DC light level at that port, but I still think compensating the changing optical gain as far upstream as possible is best, and the whitening gain is the convenient stage to do this.
  4. Recovered single arm POX/POY locking. 
  5. Then I decided to try and lock the PRFPMI with the reduced input power.

Basically, with some tweaks to loop gains, it worked, see Attachment #1. Note that the lower right axis shows the IMC transmission and is ~7500 cts, vs the nominal ~15,000 cts.


Cutting the input power did not have the effect I hoped it would. Basically, I was hoping to zero the optical CARM offset while the IFO was entirely under ALS control, and have the arm transmission be stable (or at least, stay in the linear regime of REFL11). However, the observation was that the IFO did the usual "buzzing" in and out of the linear regime. Right now, this is not at all a problem - once the IR error signal is blended in, and DC control authority is transferred to that signal, the lock acquisition can proceed just fine. And I guess it is cool that we can lock the IFO at ~half the input power, something to keep in mind when we have the remote controlled waveplate, maybe we always want to lock at the lowest power possible such that optomechanical transients are not a problem. 

I also don't think this test directly disputes my claim that the residual CARM noise when the arm cavities are under purely ALS control is smaller than the CARM linewidth.

What does this mean for my hypothesis? I still think it is valid, maybe the power has to be cut even further for the optomechanics to not be a problem. In Finesse (see Attachment #2), with 0.3 W input power to the back of the PRM, and with best guesses for the 40m optical losses in the PRC and arms, I still see that considerable phase can be eaten up due to the optomechanical resonance around ~100 Hz, which is where the digital CARM loop UGF is. So I guess it isn't entirely unreasonable that the instability didn't go away?

After this work, I undid all the changes I made for the low power lock test. I confirmed that IMC locking, POX/POY locking, and the dither alignment systems all function as expected after I reverted the system.

Attachment 1: PRFPMIlock_1301464998_1301465238.pdf
Attachment 2: CARMplant.pdf
  15996   Mon Apr 5 22:26:01 2021 gautamUpdateLSCPRMI 1f locking (no ETMs) recovered

Since it seems like the entire electronics chain has no obvious failure, I decided to compensate for the apparent increased optical gain by turning the flat whitening gain down from +18dB to 0dB. Then, after some fiddling around with alignment, settings etc, I was able to lock the PRMI once again, with the ETMs misaligned, using REFL55_I to sense PRCL, and REFL55_Q to sense MICH. Some sensing matrices attached. Some notes:

  1. I made some changes to the presentation so that the units of the sensing matrix are now in [W/m] sensed on a photodiode. 
    • The info printed on the plot is also more verbose, I now indicate explicitly the actuator driven to make the measurement, and also the drive frequency. The various gains used to convert counts to Watts on a photodiode are also indicated.
    • I thought about printing the actual matrix too but haven't arrived at a clean prez style yet.
    • This is to facilitate easier comparison to Finesse models / analytic calcs.
    • I take into account all the gains from the photodetector to the servo error point where the measurement is made. However, the splitting fractions between various photodiodes is not included, so you will have to do that yourself when comparing to a Finesse model.
    • For example, in pg2 of Attachment #1, the measured gain of PRCL sensed in REFL55_I is ~2e6 W/m. But only ~4% of IFO REFL ends up on the REFL55 photodiode. So, this measurement would be consistent with a Finesse simulated optical gain of ~50MW/m, which is in the ballpark of what I do actually see.
  2. There seems to be reasonable agreement between Finesse and these measurements. But why should the old settings / locking have worked at all then?
  3. I tried two schemes for MICH actuation today.
    • The first was the usual BS + PRM combo, and I got the sensing matrix on pg 1 of Attachment #1. With this scheme, the MICH/PRCL orthogonality is a joke.
    • Then I changed the MICH actuator to the ITMs, and got the sensing matrix on pg 2 of Attachment #1. With this scheme, the orthogonality looks much better. I think the slight non-orthogonality in the 11/33 MHz photodiodes may even be reasonable, since the 11 MHz field isn't a good sensor of the anti-symmetric modes, but have to confirm by calculation/simulation. But certainly the separation of signals is much cleaner when the ITMs are used to control MICH.

So there is clearly something funky with the nominal MICH actuation scheme (MICH suspension, PRM suspension or both), which we should get to the bottom of before trying any low noise locking. I think using the ITMs as the MICH actuator in the full lock will not be a good low nosie strategy, as we would then be "polluting" all our suspended optics with our control loops, which seems highly suboptimal for technical noise sources like coil driver noise etc.

Attachment 1: PRMI_Apr5sensMat_consolidated.pdf
PRMI_Apr5sensMat_consolidated.pdf PRMI_Apr5sensMat_consolidated.pdf
  16095   Thu Apr 29 11:51:27 2021 AnchalSummaryLSCStart of measuring IMC WFS noise contribution in ar cavity length noise

Tried locking the arms

  • Ran IFO > Configure > ! (YARM) > Restore YARM. Nothing happened.
  • Trying to align through tip-tilt:
    • Previous values: TT1: PIT: -1.7845, YAW: -0.2775; TT2: PIT: -1.3376, YAW: -0.0436
    • Couldn't get flashing of light in the arms at all.
    • Restored values to previous values.
  • Noticed that ITMY OPLEV YAWW Error has gone very high overnight while other oplevs remained the same.
  • Trying to change the C1:SUS-ITMY_YAW_OFFSET to bring this oplev yaw error back to near zero.
  • Changed C1:SUS-ITMY_YAW_OFFSET from -34 to 50. OPLEV_YEROR reduced to around -23 from -70.
  • Same thing with BS PIT. OPLEV_PERROR is highlighted in red at -52.
  • Changing C1:SUS-BS_PIT_OFFSET from 55 to 30. This brought OPLEV_PERROR to -15 from -52.
  • Trying to align PRM by changing C1:SUS-PRM_PIT_OFFSET and C1:SUS-PRM_YAW_OFFSET.
  • Inital values: C1:SUS-PRM_PIT_OFFSET: -20 , C1:SUS-PRM_YAW_OFFSET: 39.

Did the WFS step response test on IMC in between while waiting for help. See 16094.

Back to trying arm locking

  • Tried IFO > Configure > ! (XARM) > Restore YARM. Nothing happened.
  • Tried IFO > Configure > ! (YARM) > Restore YARM. Nothing happened again.
  • Tried Movie Capture of AS screen from VIDEO > Movie Capture > AS. But the script failed due to module not present error.

PMC got unlocked

  • Infront of me, PMC got unlocked. I did not go to PMC locking the screen at all since morning.
  • I opened the C1PSL_PMC screen. The PSL Autolocker blinker is not blinking but the switch is set to Enable. 
  • I do not see any automatic effort happening for regaining lock at PMC.
  • I'll try it manually. I was able to get the PMC locked again. C1:PSL-PMC_PMCTRANSPD is showing 0.761 V and C1:PSL-PMC_RFPDDC is showing 0.053 V.
  • Now IMC auto locker seems to be trying to get the lock acquired.
  • It acquired a lock a few times but struggled to keep it on. I reduced C1:IOO-WFS_GAIN to 0 and then the lock could stay on. Seemed like the accumulated offsets were not good.
  • So I cleared the history on WFS1, TRANS and WFS2 filter banks and then ramped the WFS overall gain (C1:IOO-WFS_GAIN) back to 1 and now IMC seems to stay locked in a stable configuration.
  • However, I still don't know what caused the PMC to get unlocked in the first place. Did my repeated arm locking attempts did something to the main laser frequency?

Back to trying arm locking

  • Tried IFO > Configure > ! (YARM) > Restore YARM again. Nothing happened again.
  16101   Thu Apr 29 17:51:19 2021 AnchalSummaryLSCStart of measuring IMC WFS noise contribution in arm cavity length noise

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.

Attachment 1: WFS1_PIT_exc_80-100Hz_Arms_ASD.pdf
  16104   Fri Apr 30 00:18:40 2021 gautamSummaryLSCStart of measuring IMC WFS noise contribution in arm cavity length noise

This is the actuator calibration. For the error point calibration, you have to look at the filter in the calibration model. I think it's something like 8e-13m/ct for POX and similar for POY.


I calibrated the control arms signals by 2.44 nm/cts calibration factor directly picked up from 13984.

  16108   Mon May 3 09:14:01 2021 Anchal, PacoUpdateLSCIMC WFS noise contribution in arm cavity length noise

Lock ARMs

  • Try IFO Configure ! Restore Y Arm (POY) and saw XARM lock, not YARM. Looks like YARM biases on ITMY and ETMY are not optimal, so we slide C1:SUS-ETMY_OFF from 3.0 --> -14.0 and watch Y catch its lock.
  • Run ASS scripts for both arms and get TRY/TRX ~ 0.95
    • We ran X, then Y and noted that TRX dropped to ~0.8 so we ran it again and it was well after that. From now on, we will do Y, then X.

WFS1 noise injection

  • Turn WFS limits off by running switchOffWFSlims.sh
  • Inject broadband noise (80-90 Hz band) of varying amplitudes from 100 - 100000 counts on C1:IOO-WFS1_PIT_EXC
  • After this we try to track its propagation through various channels, starting with
    • C1:IOO-MC_F_DQ
    • C1:IOO-WFS1_PIT_IN2

** denotes [UL, UR, LL, LR]; the output coils.

  • Attachment 1 shows the power spectra with IMC unlocked
  • Attachment 2 shows the power spectra with the ARMs (and IMC) locked
Attachment 1: WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_IMC_unlocked.pdf
WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_IMC_unlocked.pdf WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_IMC_unlocked.pdf WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_IMC_unlocked.pdf WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_IMC_unlocked.pdf WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_IMC_unlocked.pdf WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_IMC_unlocked.pdf WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_IMC_unlocked.pdf WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_IMC_unlocked.pdf WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_IMC_unlocked.pdf
Attachment 2: WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_ARM_locked.pdf
WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_ARM_locked.pdf WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_ARM_locked.pdf WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_ARM_locked.pdf WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_ARM_locked.pdf WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_ARM_locked.pdf WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_ARM_locked.pdf WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_ARM_locked.pdf WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_ARM_locked.pdf WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_ARM_locked.pdf
  16112   Mon May 3 17:28:58 2021 Anchal, Paco, RanaUpdateLSCIMC WFS noise contribution in arm cavity length noise

Rana came and helped us figure us where to inject the noise. Following are the characteristics of the test we did:

  • Inject normal noise at C1:IOO-MC1_PIT_EXC using AWGGUI.
  • Excitation amplitude of 54321 in band 12-37Hz with Cheby1 8th order bandpass filter with same limits.
  • Look at power spectrum of C1:IOO-MC_F_DQ, C1:IOO-WFS1-PIT_OUT_DQ and the C1:IOO-MC1_PIT_EXC itself.
  • Increased the gain of the noise excitation until we see some effect in MC_F.
  • Diaggui also showed coherence plot in the bottom, which let's us have an estimate of how much we need to go further.

Attachment 1 shows a screenshot with awggui and diaggui screens displaying the signal in both angular and longitudinal channels.

Attachment 2 shows the analogous screenshot for MC2.


Attachment 1: excitationoftheMCanglessothatwecanseesomethingdotpng.png
Attachment 2: excitationoftheMCanglessothatwecanseesomethingdotpngbutthistimeitsMC2.png
  16117   Tue May 4 11:43:09 2021 Anchal, PacoUpdateLSCIMC WFS noise contribution in arm cavity length noise

We redid the WFS noise injection test and have compiled some results on noise contribution in arm cavity noise and IMC frequency noise due to angular noise of IMC.

Attachment 1: Shows the calibrated noise contribution from MC1 ASCPIT OUT to ARM cavity length noise and IMC frequency noise.

  • For calibrating the cavity length noise signals, we sent 100 cts 100Hz sine excitation to ITMX/Y_LSC_EXC, used actuator calibration for them as 2.44 nm/cts from 13984, and measured the peak at 100 hz in time series data. We got calibration factors: ETMX-LSC_OUT: 60.93 pm/cts , and ETMY-LSC_OUT: 205.0 pm/cts.
  • For converting IMC frequency noise to length noise, we used conversion factor given by \lambda L / c where L is 37.79m and lambda is wavelength of light.
  • For converting MC1 ASCPIT OUT cts data to frequency noise contributed to IMC, we sent 100,000 amplitude bandlimited noise (see attachment 3 for awggui config) from 25 Hz to 30 Hz at C1:IOO-MC1_PIT_EXC. This noise was seen at both MC_F and ETMX/Y_LSC_OUT channels. We used the noise level at 29 Hz to get a calibration for MC1_ASCPIT_OUT to IMC Frequency in Hz/cts. See Attachment 2 for the diaggui plots.
  • Once we got the calibration above, we measured MC1_ASCPIT_OUT power spectrum without any excitaiton and multiplied it with the calibration factor.
  • However, something must be wrong because the MC_F noise in length units is coming to be higher than cavity length noise in most of the frequency band.
    • It can be due to the fact that control signal power spectrum is not exactly cavity length noise at all frequencies.  That should be only above the UGF of the control loop (we plan to measure that in afternoon).
    • Our calibration for ETMX/Y_LSC_OUT might be wrong.
Attachment 1: ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf
ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf
Attachment 2: IOO-MC1_PIT_NoiseInjTest2.pdf
IOO-MC1_PIT_NoiseInjTest2.pdf IOO-MC1_PIT_NoiseInjTest2.pdf
Attachment 3: IOO-MC1_PIT_NoiseInjTest_AWGGUI_Config.png
  16127   Fri May 7 11:54:02 2021 Anchal, PacoUpdateLSCIMC WFS noise contribution in arm cavity length noise

We today measured the calibration factors for XARM_OUT and YARM_OUT in nm/cts and replotted our results from 16117 with the correct frequency dependence.

Calibration of XARM_OUT and YARM_OUT

  • We took transfer function measurement between ITMX/Y_LSC_OUT and X/YARM_OUT. See attachment 1 and 2
  • For ITMX/Y_LSC_OUT we took calibration factor of 3*2.44/f2 nm/cts from 13984. Note that we used the factor of 3 here as Gautum has explicitly written that the calibration cts are DAC cts at COIL outputs and there is a digital gain of 3 applied at all coil output gains in ITMX and ITMY that we confirmed.
  • This gave us callibration factors of XARM_OUT: 1.724/f2 nm/cts , and YARM_OUT: 4.901/f2 nm/cts. Note the frrequency dependence here.
  • We used the region from 70-80 Hz for calculating the calibration factor as it showed the most coherence in measurement.

Inferring noise contributions to arm cavities:

  • For converting IMC frequency noise to length noise, we used conversion factor given by \lambda L / c where L is 37.79m and lambda is wavelength of light.
  • For converting MC1 ASCPIT OUT cts data to frequency noise contributed to IMC, we sent 100,000 amplitude bandlimited noise  from 25 Hz to 30 Hz at C1:IOO-MC1_PIT_EXC. This noise was seen at both MC_F and ETMX/Y_LSC_OUT channels. We used the noise level at 29 Hz to get a calibration for MC1_ASCPIT_OUT to IMC Frequency in Hz/cts. This measurement was done in 16117.
  • Once we got the calibration above, we measured MC1_ASCPIT_OUT power spectrum without any excitaiton and multiplied it with the calibration factor.
  • Attachment 3 is our main result.
    • Page 1 shows the calculation of Angle to Length coupling by reading off noise injects in MC1_ASCPIT_OUT in MC_F. This came out to 10.906/f2 kHz/cts.
    • Page 2-3 show the injected noise in X arm cavity length units. Page 3 is the zoomed version to show the matching of the 2 different routes of calibration.
    • BUT, we needed to remove that factor of 3 we incorporated earlier to make them match.
    • Page 4 shows the noise contribution of IMC angular noise in XARM cavity.
    • Page 5-6 is similar to 2-3 but for YARM. The red note above applied here too! So the factor of 3 needed to be removed in both places.
    • Page 7 shows the noise contribution of IMC angular noise in XARM cavity.


  • IMC Angular noise contribution to arm cavities is atleast 3 orders of magnitude lower then total armc cavity noise measured.

Edit Mon May 10 18:31:52 2021

See corrections in 16129.

Attachment 1: ITMX-XARM_TF.pdf
Attachment 2: ITMY-YARM_TF.pdf
Attachment 3: ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf
ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf
  16129   Mon May 10 18:19:12 2021 Anchal, PacoUpdateLSCIMC WFS noise contribution in arm cavity length noise, Corrections

A few corrections to last analysis:

  • The first plot was not IMC frequency noise but actually MC_F noise budget.
    • MC_F is frequency noise in the IMC FSS loop just before the error point where IMC length and laser frequency is compared.
    • So, MC_F (in high loop gain frequency region upto 10kHz) is simply the quadrature noise sum of free running laser noise and IMC length noise.
    • Between 1Hz to 100 Hz, normally MC_F is dominated by free running laser noise but when we injected enough angular noise in WFS loops, due to Angle to length coupling, it made IMC length noise large enough in 25-30 Hz band that we started seeing a bump in MC_F.
    • So this bump in MC_F is mostly the noise due to Angle to length coupling and hence can be used to calculate how much Angular noise normally goes into length noise.
  • In the remaining plots, MC_F was plotted with conversion into arm length units but this was wrong. MC_F gets suppressed by IMC FSS open loop gain before reaching to arm cavities and hence is hardly present there.
  • The IMC length noise however is not suppresed until after the error point in the loop. So the length noise (in units of Hz calculated in the first step above) travels through the arm cavity loop.
  • We already measured the transfer function from ITMX length actuation to XARM OUT, so we know how this length noise shows up at XARM OUT.
  • So in the remaining plots, we plot contribution of IMC angular noise in the arm cavities. Note that the factor of 3 business still needed to be done to match the appearance of noise in XARM_OUT and YARM_OUT signal from the IMC angular noise injection.
  • I'll post a clean loop diagram soon to make this loopology clearer.
Attachment 1: ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf
ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf
  16132   Wed May 12 10:53:20 2021 Anchal, PacoUpdateLSCPSL-IMC PDH Loop and XARM PDH Loop diagram

Attached is the control loop diagram when main laser is locked to IMC and a single arm (XARM) is locked to the transmitted light from IMC.

  • I'll post a clean loop diagram soon to make this loopology clearer.


Attachment 1: IMC_SingleArm.pdf
  16228   Tue Jun 29 17:42:06 2021 Anchal, Paco, GautamSummaryLSCMICH locking tutorial with Gautam

Today we went through LSC locking mechanics with Gautam and as a "Hello World" example, worked on locking michelson cavity.

MICH settings changed:

  • Gautam at some point added 9 dB attenuation filters in MICH filter module in LSC to match the 9 dB pre-amplifier before digitization.
  • This required changing teh trigger thresholds, C1:LSC-MICH_TRIG_THRESH_ON and C1:LSC-MICH_TRIG_THRESH_OFF.
  • We looked at C1:LSC-AS55_Q_ERR_DQ and C1:LSC-ASDC_OUT_DQ on ndscope.
  • The zero crossings in AS55_Q correspond to ASDC going to zero. We found the threshold values of ASDC by finding the linear region in zero crossing of AS55_Q.
  • We changed the thresold values to UP: -0.3mW and DOWN -0.05mW. The thresholds were also changed in C1LSC_FM_TRIG.
  • We also set FM2,3,6 and 8 to be triggered on threshold.

We characterized the loop OLTF, found the UGF to be 90 Hz and measured the noise at error and control points.

gautam: one aim of this work was to demonstrate that the "Lock Michelson (dark)" script call from the IFOconfigure screen worked - it did, reliably, after the setting changes mentioned above.

  16232   Wed Jun 30 18:44:11 2021 AnchalSummaryLSCTried fixing ETMY QPD

I worked in Yend station, trying to get the ETMY QPD to work properly. When I started, only one (quadrant #3) of the 4 quadrants were seeing any lights. By just changing the beam splitter that reflects some light off to the QPD, I was able to get some amount of light in quadrant #2. However, no amount of steering would show any light in any other quadrants.

The only reason I could think of is that the incoming beam gets partially clipped as it seems to be hitting the beam splitter near the top edge. So for this to work properly, a mirror upstream needs to be adjusted which would change the alignment of TRX photodiode. Without the light on TRX photodiode, there is no lock and there is no light. So one can't steer this beam without lossing lock.

I tried one trick, in which, I changed the YARM lock trigger to POY DC signal. I got it to work to get the lock going even when TRY was covered by a beam finder card. However, this lock was still bit finicky and would loose lock very frequently. It didn't seem worth it to potentially break the YARM locking system for ETMY QPD before running this by anyone and this late in evening. So I reset everything to how it was (except the beam splitter that reflects light to EMTY QPD. That now has equal ligth falling on quadrant #2 and #3.

The settings I temporarily changed were:

  • C1:LSC-TRIG_MTRX_7_10 changed from 0 to -1 (uses POY DC as trigger)
  • C1:LSC-TRIG_MTRX_7_13 changed from 1 to 0 (stops using TRY DC as trigger)
  • C1:LSC-YARM_TRIG_THRESH_ON changed from 0.3 to -22
  • C1:LSC-YARM_TRIG_THRESH_OFF changed from 0.1 to -23.6
  • C1:LSC-YARM_FM_TRIG_THRESH_ON changed from 0.5 to -22
  • C1:LSC-YARM_FM_TRIG_THRESH_OFF changed from 0.1 to -23.6

All these were reverted back to there previous values manually at the end.


  16233   Thu Jul 1 10:34:51 2021 Paco, AnchalSummaryLSCETMY QPD fixed

Paco worked on alignign the beam splitter to get light on the ETMY QPD and was successful in centering it without any other changes in the settings.

  16237   Fri Jul 2 12:42:56 2021 Anchal, Paco, GautamSummaryLSCsnap file changed for MICH

We corrected the MICH locking snap file C1configure_MI.req and saved an updated C1configure_MI.snap. Now the 'Restore MICH' script in IFO_CONFIGURE>!MICH>Restore MICH works. The corrections included adding the correct rows of PD_DOF matrices to be at the right settings (use AS55 as error signal). The MICH_A_GAIN and MICH_B_GAIN needed to be saved as well.

We also were able to get to PRMI SB resonance. PRM was misalgined earlier from optimal position and after some manual aligning, we were able to get it to lock just by hitting IFO_CONFIGURE>!PRMI>Restore PRMI SB (3f).

  16241   Thu Jul 8 11:20:38 2021 Anchal, Paco, GautamSummaryLSCPRFPMI locking attempts

Last night Gautam walked us through the algorithm used to lock PRFPMI. We tried it several times with the PSL HEPA filter off between 10:00 pm July 7th to 1:00 am July 8th. None of our attempts were successful. In between, we tried to do the locking with old IMC settings as well, but it did not change the result for us. In most attempts, the arms would start to resonate with PRMI with about 200 times the power than without power recycling while the arms are still controlled by ALS beatnote. The handover of lock controls "CARM+DARM locked to ALS beatnote" to "Main laser + IMC locked to the CARM+DARM" would always fail. More specifically, we were seeing that as soon as we hand over the DC control of CARM from ALS beatnote to IR by feeding back to MC2, the lock would inevitably fail before the rest of the high-frequency control can be transferred over.

Nonetheless, Paco and I got a good demo of how to do PRFPMI locking if the need appears. With more practice and attempts, we should be able to achieve the lock at some point in the future. The issues in handover could be due to any of the following:

  • Although it seems like ALS beatnote fed control of arms keep them within the CARM IR linewidth as we see the IR resonating, there still could be some excess noise that needs to be dealt with.
  • Gautam conjectures, that the presence of high power in the arms connects the ITMs and the ETMs with an optical spring changing the transfer function of the pendula. This in turn changes the phase margin and possibly makes the CARM loop in IR PRFPMI unstable.
  • We should also investigate the loop transfer functions near the handover point for the ALS beatnote loop and the IR CARM loop and calculate the crossover frequency and gain/phase margins there.

More insights or suggestions are welcome.

Note; An earthquake came around lunch time and tripped all watchdogs. Most suspensions were recovered without issues, but ITMX appeared to be stuck. We tried the shaking procedure, but after this we couldn't restore the XARM lock. From alignment, we tried optimizing the TRX but we only got up to ~0.5 and ASS wouldn't work as usual. In the end the issue was that we had forgotten to enable the LL coil output devil so after we did this, we managed to recover the XARM.

  16247   Wed Jul 14 20:42:04 2021 gautamUpdateLSCLocking

[paco, gautam]

we decided to give the PRFPMI lock a go early-ish. Summary of findings today eve:

  1. Arms under ALS control display normal noise and loop UGFs.
  2. PRMI took longer than usual to lock (when arms are held off resonance) - could be elevated sesimic, but warrants measuring PRMI loop TFs to rule out any funkiness. MICH loop also displayed some saturation on acquisition, but after the boosts and other filters were turned on, the lock seemed robust and the in-loop noise was at the usual levels.
  3. We are gonna do the high bandwidth single arm locking experiments during daytime to rule out any issues with the CM board.

The ALS--> IR CARM handoff is the problematic step. In the past, getting over this hump has just required some systematic loop TF measurements / gain slider readjustments. We will do this in the next few days. I don't think the ALS noise is any higher than it used to be, and I could do the direct handoff as recently as March, so probably something minor has changed.

  16248   Thu Jul 15 14:25:48 2021 PacoUpdateLSCCM board

[gautam, paco]

We tested the CM board by implementing the high bandwidth IR lock (single arm). In preparation for this test we temporarily connected the POY11_Q_MON output to the CM board IN1 input and checked the YARM POY transfer function by running the AA_YARM_TEMPLATE under users/Templates/LSC/LSC_loops/YARM_POY/. We made sure the YARM dither optimized TRY so as to maximize the optical gain stage. Then we proceeded as follows:

  • From the LSC --> CM Servo screen, we controlled the REFL 1 Gain (dB) slider (nominal +25) and MC Servo IN2 Gain (dB) slider (nominal -32 dB) to transfer the low bandwidth (digital) control to the high bandwidth (analog) control of the YARM.
  • During this game, we monitored the C1:LSC-POY11_I_ERR_DQ & C1:LSC-CM_SLOW_OUT_DQ error signal channels for saturation, oscillations, or stability.
  • Once a set of gains was successful in maintaining a stable lock, we measured the OLTF using SR 785 to track the UGF as we mix the two paths.
  • Once the gains have increased, a boost and super-boost stages may be enabled as well.

Ultimately, our ability to progressively increase the control bandwidth of the YARM is a proxy that the CM board is working properly. Attachment 1 shows the OLTF progression as we increased the loop's UGF. Note how as we approached the maximum measured UGF of ~ 22 kHz, our phase margin decreased signifying poor stability.

At the end of this measurement, at about ~ 15:45 I restored the CM board IN1 input and disconnected the POY11_Q_MON

gautam: the conclusion here is that the CM board seems to work as advertised, and it's not solely responsible for not being able to achieve the IR handoff. 

Attachment 1: high_BW_TFs.pdf
  16251   Mon Jul 19 22:16:08 2021 pacoUpdateLSCPRFPMI locking

[gautam, paco]

Gautam managed to lock PRFPMI a little before ~ 22:00 local time. The ALS to RF handoff logic was found to be repeatable, which enabled us to lock a total of 4 times this evening. Under this nominal state, we can work on PRFPMI to narrow down less known issues and carry out systematic optimization. The second time we achieved lock, we ran sensing lines before entering the ASC stage (which we knew would destroy the lock), and offline analysis of the sensing matrix is pending (gpstime = 1310792709 + 5 min).

Things to note:

(a) there is an unexpected offset suggesting that the ALS and RF disagreed on what the lock setpoint should be, and it is still unclear where the offset is coming from.

(b) the first time the lock was reached, the ASC up stage destroyed it, suggesting these loops need some care (we were able to engage the ASC loops at low gains (0.2 instead of 1) but as soon as we enabled some integrators this consistently destroyed the lock

(c) gautam had (burt) restored to the settings from back in March when the PRFPMI was last locked, suggesting there was a small but somehow significant difference in the IFO that helped today relative to last week

Take home message--> The mere fact that we were able to lock PRFPMI rules out the considerably more serious problems with the signal chain electronics or processing. This should also be a good starting point for further debugging and optimization.

gautam: the circulating power, when the ASC was tweaked, hit 400 (normalized to single arm locked with a misaligned PRM) suggesting a recycling gain of 22.5, and an average arm loss of ~30ppm round trip (assuming 2% loss in the PRC). 

  16261   Tue Jul 27 23:04:37 2021 AnchalUpdateLSC40 meter party

[ian, anchal, paco]

After our second attempt of locking PRFPMI tonight, we tried to resotre XARM and YARM locks to IR by clicking on IFO_CONFIGURE>Restore XARM (POX) and IFO_CONFIGURE>Restore YARM (POY) but the arms did not lock. The green lasers were locked to the arms at maximum power, so the relative alignments of each cavity was ok. We were also able to lock PRMI using IFO_CONFIGURE>Restore PRMI carrier.

This was very weird to us. We were pretty sure that the aligment is correct, so we decided to cehck the POX POY signal chain. There was essentially no signal coming at POX11 and there was a -100 offset on it. We could see some PDH signal on POY11 but not enough to catch the locks.

We tried running IFO_CONFIGURE>LSC OFFSETS to cancel out any dark current DC offsets. The changes made by the script are shown in attachment 1.

We went to check the tables and found no light visible on beam finder cards on POX11 or POY11. We found that ITMX was stuck on one of the coils. We unstuck it using the shaking method. The OPLEVs on ITMX after this could not be switched on as the OPLEV servo were railing to limits. But when we ran Restore XARM (POX) again, they started working fine. Something is done by this script that we are not aware of.

We're stopping here. We still can not lock any of the single arms.

Wed Jul 28 11:19:00 2021 Update:

[gautam, paco]

Gautam found that the restoring of POX/POY failed to restore the whitening filter gains in POX11 / POY11. These are meant to be restored to 30 dB and 18 dB for POX11 and POY11 respectively but were set to 0 dB in detriment of any POX/POY triggering/locking. The reason these are lowered is to avoid saturating the speakers during lock acquisition. Yesterday, burt-restore didn't work because we restored the c1lscepics.snap but said gains are actually in c1lscaux.snap. After manually restoring the POX11 and POY11 whitening filter gains, gautam ran the LSCOffsets script. The XARM and YARM were able to quickly lock after we restored these settings.

The root of our issue may be that we didn't run the CARM & DARM watch script (which can be accessed from the ALS/Watch Scripts in medm). Gautam added a line on the Transition_IR_ALS.py script to run the watch script instead.

Attachment 1: Screenshot_2021-07-27_22-19-58.png
  16264   Wed Jul 28 17:10:24 2021 AnchalUpdateLSCSchnupp asymmetry

[Anchal, Paco]

I redid the measurement of Schnupp asymmetry today and found it to be 3.8 cm \pm 0.9 cm.


  • One of the arms is misalgined both at ITM and ETM.
  • The other arm is locked and aligned using ASS.
  • The SRCL oscillator's output is changed to the ETM of the chosen arm.
  • The AS55_Q channel in demodulation of SRCL oscillator is configured (phase corrected) so that all signal comes in C1:CAL-SENSMAT_SRCL_AS55_Q_DEMOD_I_OUT.
  • The rotation angle of AS55 RFPD is scanned and the C1:CAL-SENSMAT_SRCL_AS55_Q_DEMOD_I_OUT is averaged over 10s after waiting for 5s to let the transients pass.
  • This data is used to find the zero crossing of AS55_Q signal when light is coming from one particular arm only.
  • The same is repeated for the other arm.
  • The difference in the zero crossing phase angles is twice the phase accumulated by a 55 MHz signal in travelling the length difference between the arm cavities i.e. the Schnupp Asymmetry.

I measured a phase difference of 5 \pm1 degrees between the two paths.

The uncertainty in this measurement is much more than gautam's 15956 measurement. I'm not sure yet why, but would look into it.



I used the Valera technique to measure the Schnupp asymmetry to be \approx 3.5 \, \mathrm{cm}, see Attachment #1. The data points are points, and the zero crossing is estimated using a linear fit. I repeated the measurement 3 times for each arm to see if I get consistent results - seems like I do. Subtle effects like possible differential detuning of each arm cavity (since the measurement is done one arm at a time) are not included in the error analysis, but I think it's not controversial to say that our Schnupp asymmetry has not changed by a huge amount from past measurements. Jamie set a pretty high bar with his plot which I've tried to live up to. 


Attachment 1: Lsch.pdf
  16275   Wed Aug 11 11:35:36 2021 PacoUpdateLSCPRMI MICH orthogonality plan

[yehonathan, paco]

Yesterday we discussed a bit about working on the PRMI sensing matrix.

In particular we will start with the "issue" of non-orthogonality in the MICH actuated by BS + PRM. Yesterday afternoon we played a little with the oscillators and ran sensing lines in MICH and PRCL (gains of 50 and 5 respectively) in the times spanning [1312671582 -> 1312672300], [1312673242 -> 1312677350] for PRMI carrier and [1312673832 -> 1312674104] for PRMI sideband. Today we realize that we could have enabled the notchSensMat filter, which is a notch filter exactly at the oscillator's frequency, in FM10 and run a lower gain to get a similar SNR. We anyways want to investigate this in more depth, so here is our tentative plan of action which implies redoing these measurements:

Task: investigate orthogonality (or lack thereof) in the MICH when actuated by BS & PRM
    1) Run sensing MICH and PRCL oscillators with PRMI Carrier locked (remember to turn NotchSensMat filter on).
    2) Analyze data and establish the reference sensing matrix.
    3) Write a script that performs steps 2 and 3 in a robust and safe way.
    4) Scan the C1:LSC-LOCKIN_OUTMTRX, MICH to BS and PRM elements around their nominal values.
    5) Scan the MICH and PRCL RFPD rotation angles around their nominal values.

We also talked about the possibility that the sensing matrix is strongly frequnecy dependant such that measuring it at 311Hz doesn't give us accurate estimation of it. Is it worthwhile to try and measure it at lower frequencies using an appropriate notch filter?

Wed Aug 11 15:28:32 2021 Updated plan after group meeting

- The problem may be in the actuators since the orthogonality seems fine when actuating on the ITMX/ITMY, so we should instead focus on measuring the actuator transfer functions using OpLevs for example (same high freq. excitation so no OSEM will work > 10 Hz).

  16303   Mon Aug 30 17:49:43 2021 PacoSummaryLSCXARM POX OLTF

Used diaggui to get OLTF in preparation for optimal system identification / calibration. The excitation was injected at the control point of the XARM loop C1:LSC-XARM_EXC. Attachment 1 shows the TF (red scatter) taken from 35 Hz to 2.3 kHz with 201 points. The swept sine excitation had an envelope amplitude of 50 counts at 35 Hz, 0.2 counts at 100 Hz, and 0.2 at 200 Hz. In purple continous line, the model for the OLTF using all the digital control filters as well as a simple 1 degree of freedom plant (single pole at 0.99 Hz) is overlaid. Note the disagreement of the OLTF "model" at higher frequencies which we may be able to improve upon using vector fitting.

Attachment 2 shows the coherence (part of this initial measurement was to identify an appropriately large frequency range where the coherence is good before we script it).

Attachment 1: XARM_POX_OLTF.pdf
Attachment 2: XARM_POX_Coh.pdf
  16304   Tue Aug 31 14:55:24 2021 ranaSummaryLSCXARM POX OLTF

this model doesn't seem to include the analog AA, analog AI, digital AA, digital AI, or data transfer delays in the system. I think if you include those you will get more accuracy at high frequencies. Probably Anchal has those included in his DARM loop model?


  16320   Mon Sep 13 09:15:15 2021 PacoUpdateLSCMC unlocked?

Came in at ~ 9 PT this morning to find the IFO "down". The IMC had lost its lock ~ 6 hours before, so at about 03:00 AM. Nothing seemed like the obvious cause; there was no record of increased seismic activity, all suspensions were damped and no watchdog had tripped, and the pressure trends similar to those in recent pressure incidents show nominal behavior (Attachment #1). What happened?

Anyways I simply tried reopening the PSL shutter, and the IMC caught its lock almost immediately. I then locked the arms and everything seems fine for now cool.

Attachment 1: VAC_2021-09-13_09-32-45.png
  16322   Mon Sep 13 15:14:36 2021 AnchalUpdateLSCXend Green laser injection mirrors M1 and M2 not responsive

I was showing some green laser locking to Tega, I noticed that changing the PZT sliders of M1/M2 angular position on Xend had no effect on locked TEM01 or TEM00 mode. This is odd as changing these sliders should increase or decrease the mode-matching of these modes. I suspect that the controls are not working correctly and the PZTs are either not powered up or not connected. We'll investigate this in near future as per priority.

  16368   Thu Sep 30 14:13:18 2021 AnchalUpdateLSCHV supply to Xend Green laser injection mirrors M1 and M2 PZT restored

Late elog, original date Sep 15th

We found that the power switch of HV supply that powers the PZT drivers for M1 and M2 on Xend green laser injection alignment was tripped off. We could not find any log of someone doing it, it is a physical switch. Our only explanation is that this supply might have a solenoid mechansm to shut off during power glitches and it probably did so on Aug 23 (see 40m/16287). We were able to align the green laser using PZT again, however, the maximum power at green transmission from X arm cavity is now about half of what it used to be before the glitch. Maybe the seed laser on the X end died a little.

  16888   Fri Jun 3 15:22:51 2022 yutaUpdateLSCBoth arms locked with POY/POX, IR beam centered on TMs with ASS

[JC, Paco, Yuta]

We locked both Y and X arms with POY11 and POX11.
RFM fix (40m/16887) enabled us to use triggering using C1:LSC-TRY/X_OUT.
IR beam is now centered on TMs using ASS (for Yarm, ASS loops cannot be closed fully, so did it manually).

What we did:
 - Aligned both arms so that the beams are roughly centered at TMs using cameras.
 - Yarm lock was easy, but Xarm lock required gain tuning. Somehow, Xarm required x3 higher gain as follows, although the amplitude of POX11_I_ERR seems to be almost the same as POY11_I_ERR. I suspect it is something to do with power normalization matrix (TRX flashing is almost a double of TRY flashing).


 - Run ASS for Yarm. ASS loops cannot be closed fully using default feedback parameters. I guess this is because ITMY ULCOIL is not working (40m/16873). ASS demodulated signals were manually zero-ed by manually aligning ETMY, ITMY and PR3 (and some TT1 and TT2), except for demodulated signals related to ITMY. Beam on ITMY was centered just by using our eyes.
 - Run ASS for Xarm. It seemed to work well.
 - After this, TRX and TRY were as follows and beam positions on TMs were as attached.

C1:LSC-TRX_OUT ~0.95
C1:LSC-TRY_OUT ~ 0.58

(TRX is somehow lower than what we had yesterday... 40m/16886; TRX and TRY photodiode alignment was checked, but seems to be OK.)

 - Centered TMs and BS oplevs.

 - POX and POY demodulation phases are not fully optimized. Needs re-tuning.
 - Tweak GRX and GRY injection (restore GRY PZTs?)
 - Install ETMXT camera (if it is easy)
 - MICH locking
 - RTS model for BHD needs to be updated

Attachment 1: IRBeamsOnTMs.JPG
Attachment 2: Screenshot_2022-06-03_15-03-51.png
  16889   Fri Jun 3 17:42:50 2022 yutaUpdateLSCMICH locks with AS55_Q

AS path at AP table as re-aligned and confirmed that MICH can be locked with AS55 Q.

What we did:
  - Aligned AS55 and AS110 paths at AP table. AS55 was not receiving enough light. AS110 was not receiving light at all.
  - Changed AS55 I and Q whitening gain from 3dB to 42dB.
  - Zero-ed the RF offsets manually. C1:LSC-AS55_Q_IN1 is having too large offset. When PSL shutter was closed, it reads 13950! Needs investigation.
  - Locked MICH with PRM mis-aligned with configurations attached.

Other Issues:
 - C1:IOO-MC_TRANS_SUM is now stuck at 14009. MC auto locker doesn't work correctly. FIX ME!

Attachment 1: Screenshot_2022-06-03_17-41-55.png
  16890   Sun Jun 5 19:46:40 2022 PacoUpdateLSCFixed IMC Trans sum issue


Fixed the issue below:


Other Issues:
 - C1:IOO-MC_TRANS_SUM is now stuck at 14009. MC auto locker doesn't work correctly. FIX ME!

by noting that the C1:IOO-MC_TRANS_SUMFILT_OUT was being held to 14009 counts for some reason. Disabling hold quickly let the IMC autolocker act back.

WFS were also turned ON, and there were a couple other control outputs being held on that loop... Strange!

  16892   Mon Jun 6 13:35:11 2022 PacoUpdateLSCFirst calibrated spectra of MICH at AS55 Q

[Paco, Yuta]

On the topic of high AS55_Q RFPD offset, it seems it stems from a small residual offset on top of the 42 dB whitening filter gain (previously 3 dB). We verified this by looking in the past using dtt and seeing an offset of ~ 100 counts, which are consistent with the hotfix. We reverted the whitening filter gain to +24 dB, in order to accomodate the 10% power difference from AS2. We decided to move forward, and try locking MICH using AS55_Q_ERR. The IQ mixing angle was changed to -167 deg from -122 deg to minimize the signal in AS55_I_ERR. We have also added comb60 filters for AS55. The LSC_MICH filter gain was adjusted to -6 (used to be -13 in the configuration script) to get a MICH_OLTF UGF of 90 Hz (which is the previously measured value as of 2021 July), see Attachment #1 for the MICH OLTF estimate.

We then calibrate MICH using the fringe amplitude, so that  4 \pi I_{0} / \lambda = 1.299 \times 10^9 {\rm cts / m}, where I_{0} is the amplitude of the error point (C1:LSC-AS55_Q_ERR_DQ) in our case ~ 110 +- 2 counts. The calibrated error point spectral density is shown in Attachment #2. Calibration is done into meters in terms of difference between BS to ITMX length and BS to ITMY length.

Attachment 1: Screenshot_2022-06-06_17-30-16_MICHOLTF.png
Attachment 2: Calibrated_MICH_ERR.pdf
  16929   Fri Jun 17 16:22:21 2022 yutaUpdateLSCActuator calibration of BS. ITMX, ITMY, updated MICH displacement spectra from c1cal

Following what we have done in 2013 (40m/8242), actuator calibration was done using MICH.

AS55_Q in MICH : 9.74e8 counts/m
BS   : 26.08e-9 /f^2 m/counts
ITMX : 5.29e-9 /f^2 m/counts
ITMY : 4.74e-9 /f^2 m/counts

Optical gain is 25% lower than the measurement in June 6 (40m/16892), probably because our estimate was too rough then and also we now have ~15% lower IMC transmission.
Actuator gains are 2-30% higher than the measurement in 2013.

MICH error signal calibration:
 C1:LSC-AS55_Q_ERR was calibrated by taking data with C1:LSC-ASDC_OUT, when Michelson was aligned and free swinging (Attachment #1).
 AS55_Q and ASDC were X-Y plotted and fitted with ellipse to get an amplitude of AS55_Q to be 82.51 counts (Attachment #2).
 4*pi*A/lambda gives you 9.74e8 counts/m, where meters are in terms of difference between BS to ITMX length and BS to ITMY length.
 Jupyter notebook: https://git.ligo.org/40m/scripts/-/blob/main/CAL/MICH/MICHOpticalGainCalibration.ipynb

Openloop transfer function for actuator calibration:
 C1:LSC-MICH_GAIN was lowered to -1 (instead of -6), and some of filters are turned off to make the MICH UGF to be ~10.
 Also, ellip("LowPass",4,1,40,50) was added to C1:LSC-MICH_A filter bank to cut the feedback above 50 Hz, so that the loop does not suppress the measurement.
 The configuration is in Attachment #3.

Actuator calibration of BS, ITMX, ITMY:
 With this MICH OLG, transfer functions from C1:LSC-BS,ITMX,ITMY_EXC to C1:LSC-AS55_Q_ERR were measured.
 AS55_Q was calibrated to meters using the calibration factor above, and fitted the transfer function with 1/f^2 in 70-150 Hz range to get the actuator efficiency mentioned above (Attachement #4).
 Thus, meters in this calibration is in terms of ITM POS motion (not in BS POS motion).
 Jupyter notebook: https://git.ligo.org/40m/scripts/-/blob/main/CAL/MICH/MICHActuatorCalibration.ipynb

MICH displacement noise:
 Measured values were added to c1cal model as follows.
  C1:CAL-MICH_CINV FM2: 1/9.74e8 = 1.03e-9
  C1:CAL-MICH_A FM2: 2.608e-8 (it was 2.07e-8 from 2013!)
  C1:CAL-MICH_A_GAIN = 0.5 to take into account of C1:LSC-OUTPUT_MTRX_8_2=0.5 in the LSC output matrix for BS
 Spectrum of C1:CAL-MICH_W_OUT (now calibrated in nm) with configuration in Attachment #5 was taken.
 Attachement #6 is the result. I also took the spectrum with PSL shutter off to measure the sensing noise. The sensing noise limits our sensitivity above ~40 Hz at 5e-11 m/rtHz.

Attachment 1: MICHOpticalGainCalibrationFig1.png
Attachment 2: MICHOpticalGainCalibrationFig2.png
Attachment 3: Screenshot_2022-06-17_14-23-04_MICHOLTF_ActuatorCalibration.png
Attachment 4: MICHActuatorCalibration.png
Attachment 5: Screenshot_2022-06-17_15-54-41_MICHCalibrationFilters.png
Attachment 6: Screenshot_2022-06-17_15-53-41_MICHDisplacement.png
  16940   Wed Jun 22 18:55:31 2022 yutaUpdateLSCDaily alignment work; POY trouble solved

[Koji, Yuta]

I found that Yarm cannot be locked today. Both POY11 and POYDC were not there when Yarm was aligned, and ITMY needed to be highly misaligned to get POYDC.
POY beam also could not be found at ITMY table.
Koji suggested to use AS55 instead to lock Yarm. We did it (AS55_I_ERR, C1:LSC-YARM_GAIN=-0.002) and manually ASS-ed to get Yarm aligned (ASS with AS55 somehow didn't work).
After that, we checked ITMY table and found that POY beam was clipped at an iris which was closed!
I opened it and now Yarm locks with POY11 again. ASS works.
PMC was also aligned.


Attachment 1: Screenshot_2022-06-22_17-17-42_XYaligned.png
Attachment 2: Screenshot_2022-06-22_18-58-26_Transmission.png
  16941   Wed Jun 22 19:41:13 2022 KojiUpdateLSCDaily alignment work; POY trouble solved

Before the final measurement of the DC values for the transmissions, I aligned the PMC. This made the PMC trans increased from 0.67 to 0.74.

  16952   Mon Jun 27 18:54:27 2022 yutaUpdateLSCModulation depths measurement using Yarm cavity scan

[Yehonathan, Yuta]
EDITED by YM on 22:11 June 27, 2022 to correct for a factor of two in the modulation index

Since we have measured optical gain in MICH to be an order of magnitude less compared with Yehonathan's FINESSE model (40m/16923), we measured the power at AS55 RF PD, and measured the modulation depths using Yarm cavity scan.
We found that 50/50 beam splitter which splits AS55 path into RF PD and RF QPD was not included in the FINESSE model. Measured modulation index were as follows:

TEM00 peak height: 0.6226 +/- 0.0237
RF11 peak height: 0.0067 +/- 0.0007
RF55 peak height: 0.0081 +/- 0.0014
RF11 modulation index: 0.208 +/- 0.012
RF55 modulation index: 0.229 +/- 0.020
RF11 modulation index: 0.104 +/- 0.006
RF55 modulation index: 0.114 +/- 0.010

Here, modulation depth m is defined in E=E_0*exp(i*(w*t+m*sin(w_m*t))), and m m/2 equals to square of the intensity ratio between sidebands and TEM00.

Power measurement at AS55 RF PD:
 - ITMY and ITMX single bounce reflection was measured to be 50-60 uW at the front of AS55 RFPD.
 - In the FINESSE model, it was expected to be ~110 uW with 0.8 W input to PRM (0.8 W * 5%(PRM) * 50%(BS) * 50%(BS) * 10%(SRM) * 10%(AS2) gives 100 uW)
 - In AP table, AS55 beam was split into two paths with 50/50 beam splitter, one for AS55 RF PD and one for AS WFS and AS110. This will be included in the FINESSE model.

Modulation depth measurement using Yarm cavity scan:
 - Aligned Yarm using ASS, and unlocked Yarm to get the 2sec scan data of C1:LSC-TRY_OUT_DQ, C1:LSC-POY11_I_ERR_DQ, C1:LSC-AS55_I_ERR_DQ.
 - TRY data was used to get TEM00 peak heights
 - POY11/AS55 data was used to find RF11/RF55 sideband peaks, and height was measured at TRY (see attached).
 - If we define m to be E=E_0*exp(i*(w*t+m*sin(w_m*t))), the amplitude of TEM00 I_00 is proportional to J_0(m) and the amplitude of upper/lower sideband I_f1 is proportional to J_1(m), where J_n(m) is the bessel function of the first kind.
 - m can be calculated using 2*sqrt(I_f1 / I_00).
 - Results were shown above. Error is calculated from the standard deviation of multiple measurements with multiple peaks,
 - The code for doing this lives in https://git.ligo.org/40m/measurements/-/blob/main/LSC/YARM/modulationIndex.ipynb

 - Power at AS55 account for the factor of 2, In the FINESSE model, modulation index of 0.3 was used (could be m=0.3/2 or m=0.3; needs check). These combined can explain a factor of 3 at least (or 6).
 - Gautam's measurement in Jan 2021 (40m/15769) gives almost double modulation index, but I'm not sure what is the definition Gautam used. It agrees with Gautam's measurement in Jan 2021.

Attachment 1: YarmModIndex.png
  16968   Fri Jul 1 08:50:48 2022 yutaSummaryLSCFPMI with REFL/AS55 trial

[Anchal, Paco, Yuta]

We tried to lock FPMI with REFL55 and AS55 this week, but no success yet.
FPMI locks with POX11, POY11 and ASDC for MICH stably, but handing over to 55's couldn't be done yet.

What we did:
 - REFL55: Increased the whitening gain to 24dB. Demodulation phase tuned to minimize MICH signal in I when both arms are locked with POX and POY. REFL55 is noisier than AS55. Demodulation phase and amplitude of the signal seem to drift a lot also. Might need investigation.
 - AS55: Demodulation phase tuned to minimize MICH signal in I when both arms are locked with POX and POY. Whitening gain is 24dB.
 - Script for demodulation phase tuning lives in https://git.ligo.org/40m/scripts/-/blob/main/RFPD/getPhaseAngle.py
 - Locking MICH with REFL55 Q: Kicks BS much and not so stable probably because of noisy REFL55. Offtet also needs to be adjusted to lock MICH to dark fringe.
 - BS coil balancing: When MICH is "locked" with REFL55 Q, TRX drops rapidly and AS fringe gets worse, indicating BS coil balancing is not good. We balanced the coils by dithering POS with different coil output matrix gains to minimize oplev PIT and YAW output manually using LOCKINs.
 - Locking MICH with ASDC: Works nicely. Offset is set to -0.1 in MICH filter and reduced to -0.03 after lock acquisition.
 - ETMX/ETMY actuation balancing: We found that feedback signal to ETMX and ETMY at LSC output is unbalanced when locking with POX and POY. We dithered MC2 at 71 Hz, and checked feedback signals when Xarm/Yarm are locked to find out actuation efficiency imbalance. A gain of 2.9874 is put into C1:LSC-ETMX filter to balance ETMX/ETMY. I think we need to check this factor carefully again.
 - TRX and TRY: We normalized TRX and TRY to give 1 when arms are aligned. Before doing this, we also checked the alignment of TRX and TRY DC PDs (also reduced green scattering for TRY). Together with ETMX/ETMY balancing, this helped making filter gains the same for POX and POY lock to be 0.02 (See, also 40m/16888).
 - Single arm with REFL55/AS55: We checked that single arm locking with both REFL55_I and AS55_Q works. Single arm locking feeding back to MC2 also worked.
 - Handing over to REFL55/AS55: After locking Xarm and Yarm using POX to ETMX and POY to ETMY, MICH is locked with ASDC to BS. Handing over to REFL55_I for CARM using ETMX+ETMY and AS55_Q for DARM using -ETMX+ETMY was not successful. Changing an actuator for CARM to MC2 also didn't work. There might be an unstable point when turning off XARM/YARM filter modules and switching on DARM/CARM filter modules with a ramp time. We also need to re-investigate correct gains and signs for DARM and CARM. (Right now, gains are 0.02 for POX and POY, -0.02 for DARM with AS55_Q (-ETMX+ETMY), -0.02 for CARM with REFL55_I with MC2 are the best we found so far)
 - Measure ETMX and ETMY actuation efficiencies with Xarm/Yarm to balance the output matrix for DARM.
 - Measure optical gains of POX11, POY11, AS55 and REFL55 when FPMI is locked with POX/POY/ASDC to find out correct filter gains for them.
 - Make sure to measure OLTFs when doing above to correct for loop gains.
 - Lock CARM with POY11 to MC2, DARM with POX11 to ETMX. Use input matrix to hand over instead of changing filter modules from XARM/YARM to DARM/CARM.
 - Try using ALS to lock FPMI.

  16977   Thu Jul 7 18:18:19 2022 yutaUpdateLSCActuator calibration of ETMX and ETMX

(This is a complete restore of elog 40m/16970 from July 5, 2022 at 14:34)

ETMX and ETMY actuators were calibrated using single arm lock by taking the actuation efficiency ratio between ITMs. Below is the result.

ETMX :  2.65e-9 /f^2 m/counts (0.5007 times ITMX)
ETMY : 10.91e-9 /f^2 m/counts (2.3017 times ITMY)

- ETMX and ETMY actuators seemed to be unbalanced when locking DARM (see 40m/16968)

What we did:
- Reverted to C1:LSC-ETMX_GAIN = 1
- XARM was locked using POX11_I_ERR (42dB whitening gain, 132.95 deg for demod phase) with ETMX and C1:LSC-XARM_GAIN=0.06
- YARM was locked using POY11_I_ERR (18dB whitening gain, -66.00 deg for demod phase) with ETMX and C1:LSC-YARM_GAIN=0.02
- OLTFs for each was measured to be Attachment #1; UGF was ~180 Hz for XARM, ~200 Hz for YARM.
- Measured TF from C1:LSC-(E|I)TM(X|Y)_EXC to C1:LSC-(X|Y)ARM_IN1 (see Attachment #2)
- Took the ratio between ITM actuation and ETM actuation to calculate ETM actuation. For ITM actuation, we used the value measured using MICH (see 40m/16929). The average of the ratio in the frequency range 70-150 Hz was used.

- Measurement files live in https://git.ligo.org/40m/measurements/-/tree/main/LSC/XARM and YARM
- Script for calculation lives at https://git.ligo.org/40m/scripts/-/blob/main/CAL/ARM/ETMActuatorCalibration.ipynb

- ETMX actuation is 4.12 times less compared with ETMY. This is more or less consistent with what we measured in 40m/16968, but we didn't do loop-correction at that time.
- We should check if this imbalance is as expected or not.

Summary of actuation calibration so far:
BS   : 26.08e-9 /f^2 m/counts (see 40m/16929)
ITMX :  5.29e-9 /f^2 m/counts (see 40m/16929)
ITMY :  4.74e-9 /f^2 m/counts (see 40m/16929)
ETMX :  2.65e-9 /f^2 m/counts (0.5007 times ITMX)
ETMY : 10.91e-9 /f^2 m/counts (2.3017 times ITMY)


Attachment 1: Screenshot_2022-07-05_14-52-01_OLTF.png
Attachment 2: Screenshot_2022-07-05_14-54-03_TF.png
Attachment 3: Screenshot_2022-07-05_14-56-41_Ratio.png
  16978   Thu Jul 7 18:22:12 2022 yutaUpdateLSCActuator calibration of MC2 using Yarm

(This is also a restore of elog 40m/16971 from Jul 5, 2022 at 17:36)

MC2 actuator calibration was also done using Yarm in the same way as we did in 40m/16970 (now 40m/16977).
The result is the following;
MC2 : -14.17e-9 /f^2 m/counts in arm length (-2.9905 times ITMY)
MC2 :   5.06e-9 /f^2 m/counts in IMC length
MC2 :  1.06e+05 /f^2 Hz/counts in IR laser frequency

What we did:
- Measured TF from C1:LSC-MC2_EXC to C1:LSC-YARM_IN1 during YARM lock using ETMY (see Attachment #1). Note that the sign of MC2 actuation and ITMY actuation is flipped.
- Took the ratio between ITM actuation and MC2 actuation to calculate MC2 actuation. For ITM actuation, we used the value measured using MICH (see 40m/16929). The average of the ratio in the frequency range 70-150 Hz was used (see Attachment #2).
- The actuation efficiency in meters in arm length was converted into meters in IMC length by multiplying it by IMCLength/ArmLength, where IMCLength=13.5 m is half of IMC round-trip length, ArmLength=37.79 m is the arm length.
- The actuation efficiency in meters in arm length was converted into Hz in IR laser frequency by multiplying it by LaserFreq/ArmLength, where LaserFreq=1064 nm / c is the laser frequency.

- Measurement files live in https://git.ligo.org/40m/measurements/-/tree/main/LSC/YARM
- Script for calculation lives at https://git.ligo.org/40m/scripts/-/blob/main/CAL/ARM/ETMActuatorCalibration.ipynb

Summary of actuation calibration so far:
BS   : 26.08e-9 /f^2 m/counts (see 40m/16929)
ITMX :  5.29e-9 /f^2 m/counts (see
ITMY :  4.74e-9 /f^2 m/counts (see
ETMX :  2.65e-9 /f^2 m/counts (0.5007 times ITMX)
ETMY : 10.91e-9 /f^2 m/counts (2.3017 times ITMY)

MC2 : -14.17e-9 /f^2 m/counts in arm length (-2.9905 times ITMY)
MC2 :   5.06e-9 /f^2 m/counts in IMC length


NOTE ADDED by YM on July 7, 2022

To account for the gain imbalance in ETMX, ETMY, MC2, LSC violin filter gains were set to:
C1:LSC-MC2_GAIN = -0.77
This is a temporary solution to make ETMX and MC2 actuation efficiencies from LSC in terms of arm length to be the same as ETMY 10.91e-9 /f^2 m/counts.

I think it is better to make C1:LSC-ETMX_GAIN = 1, and put 4.12 in C1:SUS-ETMX_TO_COIL gains. We need to adjust local damping gains and XARM ASS afterwards.
As for MC2, it is better to put -0.77 in LSC output matrix, since this balancing depends on LSC topology.

Attachment 1: TF.png
Attachment 2: MC2.png
  16981   Fri Jul 8 16:18:35 2022 ranaUpdateLSCActuator calibration of MC2 using Yarm

although I know that Yuta knows this, I will just put this here to be clear: the NNN/f^2 calibration is only accurate abouve the pendulum POS eiegenfrequency, so when we estimate the DC part (in diaggui, for example), we have to assume that we have a pendulum with f = 1 Hz and Q ~5, to get the value of DC gain to put into the diaggui Gain field in the calibration tab.

ELOG V3.1.3-