40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 165 of 344  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Categoryup Subject
  11281   Mon May 11 13:26:02 2015 manasaUpdateIMCMC_F calibration

The last MC_F calibration was done by Ayaka : Elog 7823


And does anyone know what the MC_F calibration is?


  11284   Mon May 11 18:14:52 2015 ranaUpdateIMCMC_F calibration

I saw that entry, but it doesn't state what the calibration is in units of Hz/counts. It just gives the final calibrated spectrum.

  12623   Thu Nov 17 15:17:16 2016 gautamUpdateIMCMCL Feedback

As a starting point, I was looking at some of the old elogs and tried turning on the MCL feedback path with the existing control filters today. I tried various combinations of MCL Feedback and FF on and off, and looked at the MCL error signal (which I believe comes from the analog MC servo board?) spectrum for each case. We had used this earlier this year when EricQ and I were debugging the EX laser frequency noise to stabilize the low frequency excursions of the PSL frequency. The low frequency suppression can be seen in Attachment #1, there looks to be some excess MCL noise around 16Hz when the servo is turned on. But the MC transmission (and hence the arm transmission) decays and gets noisier when the MCL feedback path is turned on (see Attached StripTool screenshots).

Attachment 1: MCLerror.pdf
Attachment 2: MCLtest.png
Attachment 3: YarmCtrl.pdf
  12635   Wed Nov 23 01:13:02 2016 gautamUpdateIMCMCL Feedback

I wanted to get a clearer idea of the FSS servo and the various boxes in the signal chain and so Lydia and I poked around the IOO rack and the PSL table - I will post a diagram here tomorrow.

We then wanted to characterize the existing loop. It occurred to me later in the evening to measure the plant itself to verify the model shape used to construct the invP filter in the feedback path. I made the measurement with a unity gain control path, and I think there may be an extra zero @10Hz in the model.

Earlier in the evening, we measured the OLG of the MCL loop using the usual IN1/IN2 prescription, in which above 10Hz, the measurement and FOTON disagree, which is not surprising given Attachment #1.

I didn't play around with the loop shape too much tonight, but we did perform some trials using the existing loop, taking into account some things I realized since my previous attempts. The summary of the performanceof the existing loop is:

  • Below 1Hz, MCL loop injects noise to the arm control signal. I need to think about why this is, but perhaps it is IMC sensing noise?
  • Between 1-4Hz, the MCL loop suppresses the arm control signal
  • Between 4-10Hz (and also between 60-100Hz for the Xarm), the MCL loop injects noise. Earlier in the evening, we had noticed that there was a bump in the X arm control signal between 60-100Hz (which was absent in the Y arm control signal). Koji later helped me diagnose this as too low loop gain, this has since been rectified, but the HF noise of the X arm remains somewhat higher than the Y arm.

All of the above is summarized in the below plots - this behaviour is (not surprisingly) in line with what Den observed back when he put these in.



The eventual goal here is to figure out if we can get an adaptive feedback loop working in this path, which can take into account prevailing environmental conditions and optimally shape the servo to make the arms follow the laser frequency more closely at low frequencies (i.e. minimize the effect of the noise injected by IMC length fluctuations at low frequency). But first we need to make a robust 'static' feedback path that doesn't inject control noise at higher frequencies, I need to think a little more about this and work out the loop algebra to figure out how to best do this...

Attachment 1: MCL_plant.pdf
Attachment 2: OLG.pdf
Attachment 3: MC_armSpectra_X.pdf
Attachment 4: MC_armSpectra_Y.pdf
  12637   Wed Nov 23 15:08:56 2016 ranaUpdateIMCMCL Feedback

In the Generic Pentek interface board, which is used to take in the analog 2-pin LEMO cable from the MC Servo board, there is some analog whitening before the signal is sent into the ADC.

There are jumpers in there to set whether it is 0, 1, or 2 stages of 150:15 (z:p) whitening.

  12655   Thu Dec 1 20:20:15 2016 gautamUpdateIMCIMC loss measurement plan

We want to measure the IMC round-trip loss using the Isogai et. al. ringdown technique. I spent some time looking at the various bits and pieces needed to make this measurement today, this elog is meant to be a summary of my thoughts.

  1. Inventory
    • AOM (in its new mount to have the right polarization) has been installed upstream of the PMC by Johannes. He did a brief check to see that the beam is indeed diffracted, but a more thorough evaluation has to be done. There is currently no input to the AOM, the function generator on the PSL table is OFF.
    • The Isogai paper recommends 3 high BW PDs for the ringdown measurement. Souring through some old elogs, I gather that the QPDs aren't good for this kind of measurement, but the PDA255 (50MHz BW) is a suitable candidate. I found two in the lab today - one I used to diagnose the EX laser intensity noise and so I know it works, need to check the other one. We also have a working PDA10CF detector (150 MHz BW). In principle, we could get away with just two, as the ringdown in reflection and transmission do not have to be measured simultaneously, but it would be nice to have 3
    • DAQ - I think the way to go is to use a fast scope triggered on the signal sent to the AOM to cut the light to the IMC, need to figure out how to script this though judging by some 2007 elogs by rana, this shouldn't be too hard...
  2. Layout plans
    • Where to put the various PDs? Keeping with the terminology of the Isogai paper, the "Trans diode" can go on the MC2 table - from past measurements, there is already a pickoff from the beam going to the MC TRANS QPD which is currently being dumped, so this should be straightforward...
    • For the "Incident Diode", we can use the beam that was used for the 3f cancellation trials - I checked that the beam still runs along the edge of the PSL table, we can put a fast PD in there...
    • For the "REFL diode" - I guess the MC REFL PD is high BW enough, but perhaps it is better to stick another PD in on the AS table, we can use one of the existing WFS paths? That way we avoid the complicated transfer function of the IMC REFL PD which is tuned to have a resonance at 29.4MHz, and keeps interfacing with the DAQ also easy, we can just use BNC cables...
    • We should be able to measure and calibrate the powers incident on these PDs relatively easily.
  3. Other concerns
    • I have yet to do a thorough characterization of the AOM performance, there have been a number of elogs noting possible problems with the setup. For one, the RF driver datasheet recommends 28V supply voltage but we are currently giving it 24V. In the (not too distant) past, the AOM has been seen to not be very efficient at cutting the power, the datasheet suggests we should be able to diffract away 80% of the central beam but only 10-15% was realized, though this may have been due to sub-optimal alignment or that the AOM was receiving the wrong polarization...
  4. Plan of action
    • Check RF driver, AOM performance, I have in mind following the methodology detailed here
    • Measure PMC ringdown - this elog says we want it to be faster than 1us
    • Put in the three high BW PDs required for the IMC ringdown, check that these PDs are working
    • Do the IMC ringdown

Does this sound like a sensible plan? Or do I need to do any further checks?

  12660   Fri Dec 2 16:40:29 2016 gautamUpdateIMC24V fuse pulled out

I've pulled out the 24V fuse block which supplies power to the AOM RF driver. The way things are set up on the PSL table, this same voltage source powers the RF amplifiers which amplify the green beatnote signals before sending them to the LSC rack. So I turned off the green beat PDs before pulling out the fuse. I then disconnected the input to the RF driver (it was plugged into a DS345 function generator on the PSL table) and terminated it with a 50 ohm terminator. I want to figure out a smart way of triggering the AOM drive and recording a ringdown on the scope, after which I will re-connect the RF driver to the DS345. The RF driver, as well as the green beat amplifiers and green beat PDs, remain unpowered for now...

  12663   Mon Dec 5 01:58:16 2016 gautamUpdateIMCIMC ringdowns

Over the weekend, I worked a bit on getting these ringdowns going. I will post a more detailed elog tomorrow but here is a quick summary of the changes I made hardware-wise in case anyone sees something unfamiliar in the lab...

  • PDA10CF PD installed on PSL table in the beam path that was previously used for the 3f cancellation trials
  • PDA255 installed on MC2 trans table, long BNC cable running from there to vertex via overhead cable tray
  • PDA255 installed on AS table in front of one of the (currently unused) WFS

I spent a while in preparation for these trials (details tomorrow) like optimizing AOM alignment/diffracted power ratio, checking AOM and PMC switching times etc, but once the hardware is laid out, it is easy to do a bunch of ringdowns in quick succession with an ethernet scope. Tonight I did about 12 ringdowns - but stupidly, for the first 10, I was only saving 1 channel from the oscilloscope instead of the 3 we want to apply the MIT method.

Here is a representative plot of the ringdown - at the moment, I don't have an explanation for the funky oscillations in the reflected PD signal, need to think on this.. More details + analysis to follow...

Dec 5 2016, 130pm:

Actually the plot I meant to put up is this one, which has the time window acquired slightly longer. The feature I am referring to is the 100kHz oscillation in the REFL signal. Any ideas as to what could be causing this?

Attachment 1: IMCringdown.pdf
Attachment 2: IMCringdown_2.pdf
  12665   Mon Dec 5 15:55:25 2016 gautamUpdateIMCIMC ringdowns

As promised, here is the more detailed elog.

Part 1: AOM alignment and diffraction efficiency optimization

I started out by plugging in the input to the AOM driver back to the DS345 on the PSL table, after which I re-inserted the 24V fuse that was removed. I first wanted to optimize the AOM alignment and see how well we could cut the input power by driving the AOM. In order to investigate this, I closed the PMC, unlocked the PSL shutter, and dialed the PSL power down to ~100mW using the waveplate in front of the laser. Power before touching anything just before the AOM was 1.36W as measured with the Coherent power meter. 

The photodiode (PDA255) for this experiment was placed downstream of the 1%(?) transmissive optic that steers the beam into the PMC (this PD would also be used in Part 2, but has since been removed)...

Then I tuned the AOM alignment till I maximized the DC power on this newly installed PD. It would have been nicer to have the AOM installed on the mount such that the alignment screws were more easily accessible, but I opted against doing any major re-organization for the time being. Even after optimizing the AOM alignment, the diffraction efficiency was only ~15%, for 1V to the AOM driver input. So I decided to play with the AOM driver a bit.

Note that the AOM driver is powered by 24V DC, even though the spec sheet says it wants 28V. Also, the "ALC" input is left unconnected, which should be fine for our purposes. I opted to not mess with this for the time being - rather, I decided to tweak the RF adjust potentiometer on the front of the unit, which the spec sheet says can adjust the RF power between 1W and 2W. By iteratively tuning this pot and the AOM alignment, I was able to achieve a diffraction efficiency of ~87% (spec sheet tells us to expect 80%), in a switching time of ~130ns (spec sheet tells us to expect 200ns, but this is presumably a function of the beam size in the AOM). These numbers seemed reasonable to me, so I decided to push on. Note that I did not do a thorough check of the linearity of the AOM driver after touching the RF adjust potentiometer as Koji did - this would be relevant if we want to use the AOM as an ISS servo actuator, but for the ringdown, all that matters is the diffraction efficiency and switching time, which seemed satisfactory. 

At this point, I turned the PSL power back up (measured 1.36W just before the AOM). Before this, I estimated the PD would have ~10mW power incident on it, and I wanted it to be more like 1mW, so I I put an ND 1.0 filter on to avoid saturation.

Part 2: PMC "ringdown"

As mentioned in my earlier elog, we want the PMC to cut the light to the IMC in less than 1us. While I was at it, I decided to see if I could do a ringdown measurement for the PMC. For this, I placed two more PDs in addition to the one mentioned in Part 1. One monitored the transmitted intensity (PDA10CF, installed in the old 3f cancellation trial beam path, ~1mW incident on it when PMC is locked and well aligned). I also split off half the light to the PMC REFL CCD (2mW, so after splitting, PMC CCD gets 1mW through some ND filters, and my newly installed PD (PDA255) receives ~1mW). Unfortunately, the PMC ringdown attempts were not successful - the PMC remains locked even if we cut the incident light by 85%. I guess this isn't entirely surprising, given that we aren't completely extinguishing the input light - this document deals with this issue.... But the PMC transmitted intensity does fall in <200ns (see plot in earlier elog), which is what is critical for the IMC ringdown anyways. So I moved on.

Part 3: IMC ringdown

The PDA10CF installed in part 2 was left where it was. The reflected and transmitted light monitors were PDA255. The former was installed in front of the WFS2 QPD on the AS table (needed an ND1.0 filter to avoid damage if the IMC unlocks not as part of the ringdown, in which case ~6mW of power would be incident on this PD), while the latter was installed on the MC2 transmission table. We may have to remove the former, but I don't see any reason to remove the latter PD. I also ran a long cable from the MC2 trans table to the vertex area, which is where I am monitoring the various signals.


The triggering arrangement is shown below.


To actually do the ringdown, here is the set of steps I followed.

  1. Make sure settings on scope (X & Y scales, triggering) are optimized for data capture. All channels are set to 50ohm input impedance. The trigger comes from the "TTL" output of the DS345, whose "signal" output drives the AOM driver. Set the trigger to external, the mode should be "normal" and not "auto" (this keeps the data on the screen until the next trigger, allowing us to download the data via ethernet.
  2. The DS345 is set to output a low frequency (0.005Hz) square wave, with 1Vpp amplitude, 0.5V offset (so the AOM driver input is driven between 0V and 1V DC, which is what we want). This gives us ~100 seconds to re-lock the IMC, and download the data, all while chilling in the control room
  3. The autolocker was excellent yesterday, re-acquiring the IMC lock in ~30secs almost every time. But in the few instances it didn't work, turn the autolocker off (but make sure the MC2 tickle is on, it helps) and manually lock the IMC by twiddling the gain slider (basically manually do what the autolock script does). As mentioned above, you have ~100 secs to do this, if not just wait for 200secs and the next trigger...
  4. In the meantime, download the data (script details to follow). I've made a little wrapper script (/users/gautam/2016_12_IMCloss/grabChans.sh) which uses Tobin's original python script, which unfortunately only grabs data one channel at a time. The shell script just calls the function thrice, and needs two command line arguments, namely the base name for the files to which the data will be written, and an IP address for the scope...

It is possible to do ~15 ringdowns in an hour, provided the seismic activity is low and the IMC is in a good mood. Unfortunately, I messed up my data acquisiton yesterday, so I only have data from 2 ringdowns, which I will work on fitting and extracting a loss number from. The ringing in the REFL signal is also a mystery to me. I will try using another PDA255 and see if this persists. But anyways, I think we can exclude the later part of the REFL signal, and fit the early exponential decay, in the worst case. The ringdown signal plots have been uploaded to my previous elog. Also, the triggering arrangement can be optimized further, for example by using the binary output from one of our FEs to trigger the actual waveform instead of leaving it in this low frequency oscillation, but given our recent experience with the Binary Output cards, I thought this is unnecessary for the time being...

Data analysis to follow.

I have left all the PDs I put in for this measurement. If anyone needs to remove the one in front of WFS2, go ahead, but I think we can leave the one on the MC2 trans table there...

Attachment 2: AOMswitching.pdf
Attachment 6: electricalLayout.pdf
  12666   Mon Dec 5 19:29:52 2016 gautamUpdateIMCIMC ringdowns

The MC1 suspension troubles vanished as they came - but the IMC was remaining locked stably so I decided to do another round of ringdowns, and investigate this feature in the reflected light a bit more closely. Over 9 ringdowns, as seen in the below figure, the feature doesn't quite remain the same, but qualitatively the behaviour is similar.

Steve helped me find another PDA255 and so I will try switching out this detector and do another set of ringdowns later tonight. It just occurred to me that I should check the spectrum of the PD output out to high frequencies, but I doubt I will see anything interesting as the waveform looks clean (without oscillations) just before the trigger...

Attachment 1: REFLanomaly.pdf
  12667   Tue Dec 6 00:43:41 2016 gautamUpdateIMCmore IMC ringdowns

In an effor to see if I could narrow down the cause of the 100kHz ringing seen in the reflected PD signal, I tried a few things.

  1. Changed the PD - there was a PDA 255 sitting on the PSL table by the RefCav. Since it wasn't being used, I swapped the PD I was using with this. Unfortunately, this did not solve the problem.
  2. Used a different channel on the oscilloscope - ringing persisted
  3. Changed BNC cable running from PD to oscilloscope - ringing persisted
  4. Checked the spectrum of the PD under dark and steady illumination conditions for any features at 100kHz, saw nothing (as expected) 

I was working under the hypothesis that the ringing was due to some impedance mismatch between the PD output and the oscilloscope, and 4 above supports this. However, most documents I can find online, for example this one, recommend connecting the PD output via 50ohm BNC to a scope with input impedance 50ohms to avoid ringing, which is what I have done. But perhaps I am missing something.

Moreover, the ringdown in reflection actually supplies two of the five variables needed to apply the MIT method of loss estimation. I suppose we could fit the parameter "m4" from the ringdown in transmission, and then use this fitted value on the ringdown in reflection to see where the reflected power settles (i.e. the parameter "m3" as per the MIT paper). I will try analyzing the data on this basis.

I also measured the power levels at each of the PDs, these should allow us to calibrate the PD voltage outputs to power in Watts. All readings were taken with the Ophir power meter, with the filter removed, and the IMC locked.

PD Power level
REFL 0.47 mW (measured before 1.0 ND filter)
Trans 203 uW
Incident 1.06 mW


  12672   Wed Dec 7 11:52:48 2016 ericqUpdateIMCPartial IMC ringdowns

The transients are likely due to doppler interference due to the input laser frequency sloshing due to errant control signals after the IMC unlock. I performed a few "partial" ringdowns by reducing the power by about 80% while keeping the IMC servo locked. (Function generator at 0.5Vpp square wave, 0.25V offet. Turned IMC boosts off to increase the stable range of the servo).

I need to work out how to extract the loss from this, I think having a partial ringdown may change the calculations somewhat; the time constants in the trans and refl signals are not identical.

Thanks to Gautams nice setup, it was very easy to take these measurements. Thanks! Code and data attached.

Attachment 2: IMCpartial.zip
  12675   Thu Dec 8 19:01:21 2016 ranaUpdateIMCPartial IMC ringdowns

Mach Zucker on howto do Ringdowns:  https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T900007

  12751   Wed Jan 25 01:27:45 2017 gautamUpdateIMCIMC feedforward checkup

This is probably just a confirmation of something we discussed a couple of weeks back, but I wanted to get more familiar with using the multi-coherence (using EricQs nice function from the pynoisesub package) as an indicator of how much feedforward noise cancellation can be achieved. In particular, in light of our newly improved WFS demod/whitening boards, I wanted to see if there was anything to be gained by adding the WFS to our current MCL feedforward topology.

I used a 1 hour data segment - the channels I looked at were the vertex seismometer (X,Y,Z) and the pitch and yaw signals of the two WFS, and the coherence of the uncorrelated part of these multiple witnesses with MCL. I tried a few combinations to see what is the theoretical best achievable subtraction:

  1. Vertex seismometer X and Y channels - in the plot, this is "Seis only"
  2. Seis + WFS 1 P & Y
  3. Seis + WFS 2 P & Y
  4. Seis + WFS 1 & 2 P
  5. Seis + WFS 1 & 2 Y

The attached plot suggests that there is negligible benefit from adding the WFS in any combination to the MCL feedforward, at least from the point of view of theoretical achievable subtraction

I also wanted to put up a plot of the current FF filter performance, for which I collected 1 hour of data tonight with the FF on. While the feedforward does improve the MCL spectrum, I expected better performance judging by previous entries in the elog, which suggest that the FIR implementation almost saturates the achievable lower bound. The performance seems to have degraded particularly around 3Hz, despite the multi-coherence being near unity at these frequencies. Perhaps it is time to retrain the Weiner filter? I will also look into installation of the accelerometers on the MC2 chamber, which we have been wanting to do for a while now...

Attachment 1: IMC_FF_potential.pdf
  12755   Wed Jan 25 15:41:29 2017 LydiaUpdateIMC29.5 MHz modulation depth measurement plan

[Lydia, gautam]

To measure the modulation depth of the 29.5 MHz sideband, we plan to connect a bidirectional coupler between the EOM and the triple resonant circuit box. This will let us measure the power going into the EOM and the power in the reflection. According to the manual for the EOM (Newport 4064), the modulation depth is 13 mrad/V at a wavelength of 1000 nm. Before disconnecting these we will turn off the Marconi.

Hopefully we can be gentle enough that the EOM can be realigned without too much trouble. Before touching anything we'll measure the beam power before and after the EOM so we know what to match after.

If anyone has an objection to this plan, speak now or we will proceed tomorrow morning.

  12756   Wed Jan 25 17:30:03 2017 KojiUpdateIMC29.5 MHz modulation depth measurement plan

I'm afraid that the bidirectional coupler, designed to be 50ohm in/out, disturbs the resonant circuit designed for the EOM which is almost purely capacitive.

One possible way could be to measure the transfer function using the active FET probe from the triple resonant input to the output with the EOM attached.

Another way: How about to measure the reflection before the resonant circuit? Then, of course, there is the triple resonant interface circuit between the power combiner and the EOM. This case, we will see how much power is consumed in EOM and the resonant circuit. Then we can use the previous measurement to see the conversion factor between the power consumption to the modulation depth. Kiwamu may give us his measurement.

  12758   Wed Jan 25 19:39:07 2017 gautam UpdateIMC29.5 MHz modulation depth measurement plan

Just collecting some links from my elog searching today here for easy reference later.

  • EOM datasheet: Newfocus 4064 (according to this, the input Impedance is 10pF, and can handle up to 10W max input RF power).
  • An elog thread with some past measurement details: elog 5339. According to this, the modulation depth at 29.5 MHz is 4mrad. The EOM's manual says 13mrad/V @1000nm, so we expect an input signal at 29.5MHz of 0.3V(pk?). But presumably there is some dependance of this coefficient on the actual modulation frequency, which I could not find in the manual. Also, Kiwamu's note (see next bullet) says that the EOM was measured to have a modulation depth of 8 mrad/V
  • A 2015 update from Kiwamu on the triple resonant circuit: elog 11109. In this elog, there is also a link to quite a detailed note that Kiwamu wrote, based on his analysis of how to make this circuit better. I will go through this, perhaps we want to pursue installing a better triple resonant circuit...

I couldn't find any details of the actual measurement technique, though perhaps I just didn't look for the right keywords. But Koji's suggestion of measuring powers with the bi-directional coupler before the triple resonant circuit (but after the power combiner) should be straightforward. 

  12767   Fri Jan 27 21:25:11 2017 LydiaUpdateIMC29.5 MHz modulation depth

[gautam, Lydia]

We set out to measure the 29.5 MHz power going to the EOM today but decided to start by looking at the output of the RF AM stabilizer box first. We wanted to measure the AM noise with a mixer, so we needed to know the power it was giving. We looked at the ouput that goes to the power combiner on the PSL table and found it was putting out only -2.0 dBm (~0.5 Vpp)! This was measured by taking a spectrum with the AG4395 and confirmed by looking on a scope.

To find out if this could be adjusted, we found an old MEDM screen (/opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/medm/c1lsc/master/C1LSC_RFADJUST.adl) and moved the 29.5 MHz EOM Mod Index Adjust slider while measuring the voltage coming in to the MOD CONTOL connection on the front of the AM stabilizer box. Moving the slider from 0 to 10 changes the input voltage linearly from -10 V to 10 V measured with a DMM at the cross-connects as we couldn't find an appropriate adapter for the LEMO cable. The 29.5 MHz modulation only appeared for slider values between 0 and 5, after which it abruptly shuts off. However, changing the slider value between 0 and 5 (Voltage from -10 to 0) does not change the amplitude of the output.

This seems like a problem; further investigation into the AM stabilizer box is neccessary. This DCC document outlines how to test the box, but we can't find a schematic. Since we don't have any mixers that can handle signals as small as -2 dBm, we gave up trying to measure the AM noise and will attempt to measure that and the reflection power from the EOM + resonant circuit once this problem has been diagnosed and fixed.

GV: After some digging, I found the schematic for the RF AM stabilization box (updated wiki and added it to the 40m document tree). According to it, there should be up to +22dBm of RF AM stabilized output to the EOM available, though we measured -2dBm yesterday, and could not vary this level by adjusting the EPICS voltage value. Neglecting losses in the cabling and the power combiner on the PSL, this translates to a paltry 0.178Vrms*0.6*8mard/Vrms ~ 0.85 mrad of modulation depth (gain at 29.5 MHz of the triple resonant circuit taken from this elog)... I think we need to pull this 1U chassis out and debug more thoroughly...


  12768   Sat Jan 28 01:25:51 2017 gautamUpdateIMC29.5 MHz modulation depth

Some more details of our investigation:

  1. Here is a spectrum of the signal to the power combiner on the PSL table, measured on the output of the RF AM Stabilization box.

    Perhaps these sidebands were the ones I observed while looking at the input to the WFS demod board.
  2. The signal looked like a clean sinusoid when viewed on an oscilloscope with input impedance set to 50ohms. There were no sharp features or glitches in the time we observed, except when the 29.5 MHz MEDM slider was increased beyond 5, as noted by Lydia.
  3. We couldn't find a schematic for this RF AM Stabilization servo, so we are not sure what RF output power to the EOM we should expect. Schematic has since been found.
  4. I measured the power level at the input side (i.e. from the crystal) and found that it is ~12dBm, which seems reasonable (the front panel of the box housing the 29.5 MHz oscillator is labelled 13dBm). The schematic for the RF AM stabilization box says we should expect +10dBm at the input side, so all this points to a problem in the RF AM stabilization circuit...
  5. There is an attenuator dial on the front panel of the said RF AM stabilization servo that allows one to tune the power to the LO input of the WFS. Right now, it is set to approximately 7dB of attentuation, which corresponds to -12dBm at the WFS demod board input. I did a quick check to see if turning the dial changed the signal level at the LO input of the WFS board. The dial moves in clicks of 1dB, and the RF power at the LO input of the demod board increased/decreased by ~1dBm for each click the dial was rotated (I only explored the region 3dB-11dB of atttentuation). So it should be possible to increase the LO level to the WFS demod boards, is there any reason we shouldn't increase this to -8bBm (~0.25Vpp into 50ohms, which is around the level Koji verified the mixer to be working well at)?
  6. There were a couple of short ribbon cables which were just lying around on top of the cards in the eurocrate, Koji tells me that these were used as tester cables for checking the whitening filters and that they don't serve any purpose now. These have been removed.
  7. Added a button to IMC MEDM screen to allow easy access to the MEDM screen with slider to control the 29.5MHz modulation depth - though as mentioned in Lydia's elog, at the moment, this slider has no effect on the 29.5MHz power level to the EOM...
Attachment 1: IMC_mod.pdf
  12771   Mon Jan 30 19:07:48 2017 gautamUpdateIMCRF AM stabilization box pulled out

[johannes, gautam]

We pulled out the RF AM stabilization box from the 1X2 rack. PSL shutter was closed, marconi output, RF distribution box and RF AM stabilization box were turned off in that order. We had to remove the 4 rack nut screws on the RF distribution box because of the stiff cables which prevented the RF AM stabilization box extraction. I've left the marconi output and the RF distribution boxes off, and have terminated all open SMA connections with 50 ohm terminators just in case. Rack nuts for RF distribution box have been removed, it is currently sitting on a metal plate that is itself screwed onto the rack. I deemed this a stable enough ledge for the box to sit on in the short run, while we debug the RF AM stabilization box. We will work on the debugging and re-install the box as soon as we are done...

  12772   Tue Jan 31 01:07:20 2017 LydiaUpdateIMCRF AM stabilization box pulled out

[gautam, Lydia]

We looked at the RF AM stabilizer box to see if we could find out 1) Why the output power is so low, and 2) Why it can't be changed with the DC input "MOD CONT IN." Details to follow, attached is the annotated schematic from DCC document D000037

We are not returning the box tonight so the PSL shutter remains closed. 

Attachment 1: AM_stablilizer_annotation.pdf
  12773   Tue Jan 31 13:46:34 2017 ranaUpdateIMCRF AM stabilization box pulled out
  1. What is the probe situation? Ought to use a high impedance FET probe to measure this or else the scope would load the circuit.
  2. The ERA amplifiers are known to slowly die over ~10 year times scales. Search our ELOG for ERA-5. We'll have to replace some; ask Steve to order if we don't have many in the Plateau Tournant.
  3. What kind of HELA are the HELA amplifiers? Please a link to the data sheet if you can find it. I wonder what the gain and NF are at 30 MHz. I think the HELA-10D should be a good variant.
  12775   Tue Jan 31 14:17:48 2017 gautamUpdateIMCRF AM stabilization box pulled out

> What is the probe situation? Ought to use a high impedance FET probe to measure this or else the scope would load the circuit.

We did indeed use the active probe, with the 100:1 attenuator in place. The values Lydia has quoted have 40dB added to account for this.

> What kind of HELA are the HELA amplifiers? Please a link to the data sheet if you can find it. I wonder what the gain and NF are at 30 MHz. I think the HELA-10D should be a good variant

The HELA is marked as HELA-10. It doesn't have the '+' suffix but according to the datasheet, it seems like it is just not RoHS compliant. It isn't indicated which of the varieties (A-D) is used either on the schematic or the IC, only B and D are 50ohms. For all of them, the typical gain is 11-12dB, and NF of 3.5dB.

  12780   Tue Jan 31 22:07:13 2017 gautamUpdateIMCRF AM stabilization box revamp

I've added the schematic of the RF AM stabilization board to the 40m PSL document tree, after having created a new DCC document for our 40m edits. Pictures of the board before and after modification will also be uploaded here...

  12782   Tue Jan 31 22:28:39 2017 LydiaUpdateIMCRF AM stabilization box pulled out

[rana, gautam, lydia]

Today we looked at the schematics for the RF AM stabilizer box and decided that there were an unnecessary amount of attenuators and amplifiers cancelling each other out and adding noise. At the end of the path are 2 HELA-10D amplifiers which we guessed based on the plots for the B version would have an acceptable amount of compression if the output of the second one is ~27dBm. This means the input to the first one should be a few dBm. This should be achieved with as simple a path as possible.

This begged the question, do we need the amplitude to be stabilized at all? Maybe it's good enough already when it comes into this box from the RF distribution box. So I tried to measure the AM noise of the 29.5 MHz signal that usually goes into the AM stabilizer:

  • I first measured the power to be 12.8 dBm with the AG4395.
  • I sent the signal through a splitter, then sent one side attenuated by 3 dB to the LO side of a level 7 mixer, and the other side attenuated by 10 dB to the RF side of the mixer.
  • The output of the mixer went through a lowpass filter at 1.9 MHz (with a 50Ω inline terminator). Initially I connected this directly to a DAQ channel (C1:ALS-FC_X_F_IN), but the ADC noise was stronger than the AM signal.
  • To fix this I used the SR560, AC coupled with a gain of 10^4. Attachment 1 is a spectrum of the noise measured with everything connected as described, and also for separate portions of the signal chain:
    • I measured the ADC noise by connecting a terminator to the cable going to DAQ.
    • I measured the mixer noise by putting a terminator on the RF input (and the end of the cable that was connected to it), while still driving LO.
    • I measured the SR560 noise by putting a terminator on the input.

It seems like I'm getting mostly noise from the SR560. Maybe it would be better to use an SR785 to take data instead of DAQ, and then skip the SR560? At low frequencies it seems like the AM noise measurement may be actually meaningful. In any case, if the actual AM noise from the crystal is lower than any of these other noise sources, it means we probably don't need to stabilize the amplitude with a servo, which means we can simplify the AM stabilizer board considerably to just amplify what it gets to 27 dBm.

Attachment 1: AM_noise.pdf
  12783   Wed Feb 1 11:51:19 2017 KojiUpdateIMCRF AM stabilization box pulled out

For a comparison: OMC ELOG 238

  12784   Wed Feb 1 16:45:56 2017 LydiaUpdateIMCRF AM stabilizer box Modification Plan

Here's what I'm planning to do to the RF AM stabilizer box. I'm going to take out several of the components along the path to the EOM (comments in green), including the dead ERA-4 and ERA-5 amplifiers, the variable attenuator which is controlled by a switch that can't be accessed outside the box, and the feedback path from the daughter board servo. I'm arranging things so that the output of the HELA-10 does not exceed the maximum output power. 

I wasn't quite as sure what to do about the path to the ASC box (comments in blue). I talked with Gautam and he said this gets split equally between several singals, one of which goes to the LO of the demod board which expects -10 dBm and currently gets -12 dBm (can go up to -8 by turning switch). So maybe we don't actually want the signal to be anywhere near +27 dBm at the output. The plans for the box are here, it looks like +27 in will end up with +10 at each output, which is way more than what's currently coming out. But maybe this needs to be increased to match the other path? 

Also we haven't measured the actual response of the variable attenuator U4 for various switch positions; it's the same model as the one I'm removing from the EOM path and that one had slightly different behavior for different switch positions than what the spec sheet says. Same goes for the HELA-10 units along this path: what is their actual gain? So perhaps these should be measured and then a single attenuator should be chosen to get the right output signal level. Alternatively it could just be left alone, if it is at an OK level right now. Advice on what to do here would be appreciated.  

I'll work on the EOM path tonight and wait for feedback on the rest of it. 

EDIT: Gautam pointed out that there's some insertion loss from the components I'll be removing that hasn't been accounted for. Also the plans have been updated to reflect that I'm replacing AT5 with a 1dB attenuator (from 6 dB). 

Attachment 1: RF_AM_stabilizer_modification.pdf
  12785   Wed Feb 1 20:49:34 2017 ranaUpdateIMCRF AM stabilizer box Modification Plan

I suggest:

  1. Disable the path which goes to the two spare outputs. Replace the ERA-5 with a 50 Ohm resistor to terminate that path. Make sure the ERA bias voltage is not shorting into something.
  2. Remove the ERA amps from the ASC path and remove the switch. Make it fixed gain such that we get +27 dBm out of the front.
  3. Put the ASC output into the 1U multi-splitter box and attenuate those outputs so that they supply ~0 dBm to the 2 WFS and the LSC Demod board.

I think this then allows us to have the low noise OCXO signals everywhere with enough oomph.


  12786   Wed Feb 1 23:13:30 2017 LydiaUpdateIMCRF AM stabilizer box Modification Plan

I made some of the changes. Gautam and I will finish tomorrow. 

While I was soldering the sharpest tip of the soldering iron (the one whose power supply shows the temperature) stopped working and I switched to a different one. Not sure how to fix this. 

Do we want to replace all of the removed ERA's with 50 Ohm resistors, or just the one along the spare output path? I shorted one of them with a piece of wire and left all the others open. 

I couldn't get one of the attenuators off (AT1, at beginning of ASC path). In trying I messed up the solder pad. Part of the connecting trace on the PCB board is exposed so we should be able to fix it. 

  12793   Fri Feb 3 00:36:52 2017 gautamUpdateIMCMCL Feedback - framing the problem

Rana motivated me to take a step back and reframe the objectives and approach for this project, so I am collecting some thoughts here on my understanding of it. As I write this, some things still remain unclear to me, so I am leaving these as questions here for me to think about...


  1. The PSL is locked to the IMC cavity - but at frequencies near 1 Hz, the laser frequency is forced to follow the IMC cavity length fluctuations, even though the free-running PSL frequency noise at those frequencies is lower. This excess is also imprinted on the arms when locked to the IR. We would like to improve the situation by feeding back a portion of the MC PDH error signal to the cavity length actuator to stabilize the MC cavity length at low frequencies. Moreover, we would like this loop to not imprint additional control noise in the arm control signals, which is a problem we have observed with the existing MCL loop. 
  2. The borader goal here is to use this project as a case study for designing the optimal loop and adaptive feedback. Can we come up with an algorithm, which takes
    • A model of our system (made with measured data where possible)
    • A list of our requirements (e.g. in this case, frequency noise requirements in various frequency bands, smooth crossovers between the various loops that enable locking the PSL to the IMC cavity and avoid injecting excess control noise into the plant)

and come up with the best loop that meets all our rquirements? What constitutes the "best" loop? How do we weight the relative importance of our various requirements? 

Proposed approach:

For the specific problem of making the MCL feedback loop better, the approach I have in mind right now is the following:

  1. Build a model of the 40m IMC loop. Ultimately the performance of the loop we implement will depend on the transfer function from various additive noise sources and disturbances in the feedback loop (e.g. electronics noise) to the output (i.e. laser frequency). Building an accurate model will allow us to quantify the performance of the proposed control loop, and hence, optimize it with some algorithm. I did some work on a simplistic, purely analytical model of the two MC loops (MCF and MCL), but Rana pointed out that it is better to have something more realistic for this purpose. I have inherited his Simulink models, which I will now adapt to reflect the 40m topology. 
  2. Come up with a list of requirements for the MCL controller. Some things that come to mind:
    • Reduce the arm control signal spectral amplitude below 20 Hz
    • Not increase the arm control signal spectral amplitude above 20 Hz
    • Crossover smoothly with the FSS slow temperature control loop and the MCF loop. 
    • What factor of suppression are we looking for? What is achievable? Once I build the model, it should shed some light on these..
    • Is the PMC a more stable frequency reference than the NPRO crystal at low frequencies? This measurement by Koji seems to suggest that it isn't (assuming the 1e4 product for the NPRO free-running frequency noise)..
  3. Once we have a model and a satisfactory list of requirements, design a control loop that meets these using traditional techniques, i.e. desired tracking error in the control band of 0.1-20 Hz (is this possible? The model will tell us...), gain and phase margin requirements etc. But this need not necessarily be the optimal controller that meets all of our requirements
  4. Optimize the controller - how? Can we define an objective function that, for example, rewards arm control signal suppression and penalizes injection of control noise, and just fminsearch in the [z,p,k] parameter space of the controller? Is there a smarter way to do this?
  5. Can this algorithm be adaptive, and optimize the controller to adapt to prevailing seismic conditions for example? Is this the same as saying we have a model that is accurate enough for us to predict the response of the plant to environmental disturbances? 

My immediate goal is to have the Simulink model updated.

Thoughts/comments on the above will be appreciated...

  12795   Fri Feb 3 11:40:09 2017 ranaUpdateIMCMCL Feedback - framing the problem

In working on automatic DARM loop design, we have this code:


the things in there like mkCost*, etc. have examples of the cost functions that are used. It may be useful to look at those and then make a similar cost function calculation for the MCL/MCF loop.

  12801   Sun Feb 5 21:56:50 2017 LydiaUpdateIMC29.5 MHz stabilizer box replacement

Since the "stablizer box" doesn't really need to stabilize, it just needs to amplify, I decided to replace it with an off the shelf amplifier we already had, ZHL-2. I worked on getting it set up today, but didn't connect anything so that people have a chance to give some feedback. 

  • The gain we expect is 18 dB, and the maximum output with 1dB of compression is 29 dBm. To avoid compression, I'm aiming for ~26 dBm output, so ~8 dBm input. We measured the output of the source to be 12.8 dBm before, so I attached a 5dB attenuator to the input side of the amplifier. 
  • Across the 24V power input and the ground pin, I soldered a 100 uF, 50V electrolytic capacitor and a .27 uF, 50V metal film capacitor. Note that unlike the other similar amplifiers we have, the ground and +24 pins are separated (see image on datasheet). I wasn't sure if that changed what to do so I just found comparable caps to the ones that were there on another model. 
  • I twisted and soldered wires to the +24 and ground, making sure they were long enough to reach the clips where the power from the Sorensens gets split up. I placed the amplifer in the rack on top of the RF distribution box and ziptied the power cable in place. 
  • I connected a splitter to the output of the amplifier. Should I use a 10dB coupler instead, to maximize the power to the EOM?

So, I think the remaining thing to do is to connect the splitter to ASC out and to the line to the EOM, the +24V supply to the amplifier, and the 29.5 MHz input to the attenuator. I wanted to wait on this to get confiration that the setup is OK. Eventually we can put all of this in a box. 

Also, I noticed that in the clear cabinet with the Sorensens next to this rack, the +24 V unit is not supplying any voltage and has a red light that says "OVP." 

  12804   Mon Feb 6 17:03:41 2017 gautamUpdateIMCMCL Feedback - simulink model updated

I've edited Rana's Simulink model to reflect the current IMC servo topology (to the best of my understanding). I've tried to use Transfer Function blocks wherever possible so that we can just put in the appropriate zpk model in the script that will linearize the whole loop. I've also omitted the FSS SLOW loop for now.

I've been looking through some old elogs and it looks like there have been several modifications to both the MC servo board (D040180) and the TT FSS Box (D040105). I think it is easiest just to measure these TFs since the IMC is still down, so I will set about doing that today. There is also a Pomona Box between the broadband EOM and the output of the TT FSS box, which is meant to sum in the modulation for PMC locking, about which I have not yet found anything on the elog.

So the next steps are:

  1. Measure/estimate all the unknown TFs and gains in this schematic
  2. Linearize the model, get the OLG, see if the model matches previously measured OLGs (with the MCL part disabled)
  3. Once the model is verified to be correct, look at couplings of various noise sources in the MCL part of the loop, and come up with a suitable controller.

If anyone sees something wrong with this topology, please let me know so that I can make the required changes.

Attachment 1: mc40_v1.pdf
  12805   Mon Feb 6 18:20:08 2017 KojiUpdateIMCMCL Feedback - simulink model updated

It is more accurate to model the physical frequency noises at various places.

cf. See also 40m ALS paper or Shigeo Nagano PDH thesis on https://wiki-40m.ligo.caltech.edu/40m_Library

- The output 4 should be "Laser frequency"

- Seismic path should be excluded from the summing node

- The output after the PMC: "Laser frequency after the PMC"

- "Laser frequency after the PMC" is compared (diffed) with the output 1 "mirror motion in Hz"

- The comparator output goes to the cav pole, the PD, and the PDH gain: This is the output named "PDH Error"

- Tap a new path from "Laser frequency after the PMC" and multiply with the cav pole (C_IMC)
- Tap a new path from "Mirror motion" and multiply with the cavity high pass  (s C_IMC/omega)
- Add these two: This is the output named "Frequency noise transmitted by IMC"

  12806   Tue Feb 7 10:18:58 2017 gautamUpdateIMCMC REFL weirdness

A few minutes back, I glanced up at the control room StripTool and noticed that the MCREFL PD DC level had gone up from ~0 to ~0.7, even though the PSL shutter was closed. This seemed bizzare to me. Strangely, simply cycling the shutter returned the value to the expected value of 0. I wonder if this is just a CDS problem to do with c1iool0 or c1psl? (both seem to be responding to telnet though...)

Since things look to be back to normal, I am going to start with my characterization of the various TFs in the IMC FSS loop...

  12807   Tue Feb 7 12:01:10 2017 LydiaUpdateIMC29.5 MHz stabilizer box replacement

I tested the amplifier with the Agilent network analyzer and measured 19.5 dB of gain between 29 and 30 mHz. The phase only changed by 1 degree over this same 1 MHz span. Since everything seems to be in order I'll hook it up this afternoon, unless there are any objections

Attachment 1: RF_amp.pdf
  12809   Tue Feb 7 17:00:55 2017 LydiaUpdateIMC29.5 MHz stabilizer box replacement

I set everything up and connected it as shown on the block diagram attached to the previous entry, with the exception of the DC power. This is becuase there is no place open to connect to on the DIN rail where the DC power is distributed, so the +24V power will have to be shut off to the other equipment in 1X1 before we can connect the amplifier. (The amplifier is in 1X2, but the DC power distribution was more accessible in 1X1.) I also added 3 new +24 V clips with fuses despite needing only one, so next time we need to connect something new it's not such a hassle. 

The RF distribution box where the 29.5 MHz signal originates should not be turned on until the amplifer has DC power. Since we may have a power interruption tomorrow, the plan is to wait until things are shut down in preparation, and then shut off anyhting else necessary before connecting the new clips on the rail to the existing ones. 

  12812   Wed Feb 8 19:13:02 2017 gautamUpdateIMCMCL Feedback - TF measurements

Quick summary elog, details to follow. I did the following:

  • Updated the Simulink model based on Koji's feedback. 
  • Today morning, I measured the (electronic) open-loop TFs of
    • MC Servo Board
    • FSS Fast path (PZT)
    • FSS PC Drive path
  • The summing amplifiers in the latter two paths are assumed to be broadband for the purposes of this model.

The measurements I have look reasonable. But I had a hard time trying to look at the schematic and determine what is the appropriate number and locations of poles/zeros with which to fit the measured transfer function. Koji and I spent some time trying to go through the MC Servo board schematic, but looks like the version uploaded on the 40m DCC tree doesn't have changes made to it reflected (we compared to pictures on the 40m google photos page and saw a number of component values were different). Since the deviation between fit and measurement only occurs above 1MHz (while using poles/zeros inferred from the schematic), we decided against pulling out the servo board and investigating further - but this should be done at the next opportunity. I've marked the changes we caught on a schematic and will upload it to the 40m DCC page, and we can update this when we get the chance.

So it remains to fit the other two measured TFs, and add them to the Simulink model. Then the only unknown will be the PDH discriminant, which we anyway want to characterize given that we will soon have much more modulation.  

Data + plots + fits + updated schematics to follow...


  12815   Thu Feb 9 23:35:34 2017 gautamUpdateIMCMCL Feedback - TF measurements

Here are the details as promised.

Attachment #1: Updated simulink model. Since I haven't actually run this model, all the TF blocks are annotated "???", but I will post an updated version once I have run the model (and fix some of the questionable aesthetic choices)

Attachment #2: Measured and fitted transfer functions from the "IN1" input (where the demodulated MC REFL goes) to the "SERVO" output of the MC servo board (to FSS box). As mentioned in my previous elog, I had to put in a pole (fitted to be at ~2MHz, called pole 9 in the plot) in order to get good agreement between fit an measurement up to 10MHz. I didn't bother fitting all the high frequency features. Both gain sliders on the MEDM screen ("IN1 Gain" and "VCO gain") were set to 0dB for this measurement, while the super boosts were all OFF.

Attachment #3: Measured and fitted transfer function from "TEST 1 IN" to "FAST OUT" of the FSS box. Both gains on the FSS MEDM screen ("Common gain adjust" and "fast gain adjust") were set to 0dB for this measurement. I didn't need any ad-hoc poles and zeros for this fit (i.e. I can map all the fitted poles and zeros to the schematic), but the fit starts to deviate from the measurement just below 1 MHz.. perhaps I need to add a zero above 1MHz, but I can't see why from the schematic...

Attachment #4: Measured TF from "TEST 1 IN" to "PC OUT" on the FSS box. MEDM gains were once again 0dB. I can't get a good fit to this, mainly because I can't decipher the poles and zeros for this path from the schematic (there are actually deviations from the schematic posted on the 40m DCC page in terms of component values, I will try and correct whatever I notice. I'll work on this...

Attachment #5: Data files + .fil files used to fit the data with LISO



Data + plots + fits + updated schematics to follow...

Most of the model has come together, I am not too far from matching the modelled OLG to the measured OLG. So I will now start thinking about designing the controller for the MCL part (there are a couple of TFs that have to be measured for this path).

Attachment 1: mc40_v1.pdf
Attachment 2: CMboard_OLTF_fit.pdf
Attachment 3: FSSFast_OLTF_fit.pdf
Attachment 4: PCdrive_OLTF_measured.pdf
Attachment 5: data.zip
  12816   Fri Feb 10 02:14:10 2017 gautamUpdateIMC29.5 MHz stabilizer box replacement

Lydia finished up installing the new RF amplifier, and will elog the details of the installation.

I wanted to try and measure the IMC OLG to compare against my Simulink model. So I went about performing a few checks. Summary of my findings:

  1. The amplifier seems to be working fine. I checked powers at the input, output to EOM and output to distribution box (that serves the various LOs) first with a 30dB attenuator at the input, and subsequently with the design choice of 5dB attenuator at the input. Everything seemed in order.
  2. I installed a 30 dB attenuator at the MC REFL PD input to the demod board since my (rough) calculations suggested that our modifications would have resulted in the RF beat power between carrier and sideband increasing in power by ~27dB.
  3. I then opened the PSL shutter and tried locking the IMC - with manual tweaking of the various gains, I was able to lock.
  4. But getting to this point took me a while so I couldn't get an OLG measurement in.

TBC tomorrow, I'm leaving the PSL shutter closed and the RF source off for tonight...

  12817   Fri Feb 10 11:41:43 2017 LydiaUpdateIMC29.5 MHz stabilizer box replacement

To install the replacement amplifier, I did the following:

  • Mounted the amplifier in a 2U chassis, with a metal plate between the amplifier and the bottom of the box. The plate is separated from the box and the amplifier with 2 sets of Nylon screws. I did it this way to make use of the holes that were already in the chassis bottom and just drill holes into a plate instead. 
  • Cannibalized mounting brackets and back panel from old ALS Beatbox. The back panel has an on/off switch and a 3W3 feedthrough for power. 
  • Made a power cable to reach from the 1X1 fuse blocks to the back panel of my box. Goes up through the top of the rack and then back down. 
  • Installed the chassis in the rack. The lid is currently off and there is no front panel yet. 
  • Changed the +5dB attenuator to +30 to be able to check things first before supplying a way stronger signal. 
  • Installed 4 new +24 V fuse blocks on the adjacent rack (1X1). 
    • Put the new fuses on the DIN rail and wired them together. Connected the new power cable to one of them. 
    • Blocked PMC transmission and made sure all RF sources in 1X1 and 1X2 were turned off
    • Turned off the + 24 V and -24 V Sorensens, trying to keep them fairly balanced as I turned them to 0. 
    • At this point Rana suggested I turn off the other DC power supplies in the rack, which I did.
    • Connected the new fuse blocks to the existing +24 V ones. Note that they are not contiguous but they follow the color code and will be labeled. 
    • I'm only using one of the new +24 outputs, but I made more for future use to minimize the number of times we have to turn the power off. 
  • Connected the output of the amplifier to the EOM, and the coupled signal to the distribution box (which splits it and sends it to the demod boards). 
  • Turned on the power switch and checked that the amplifier was in fact getting 24 V. 
  • Connected the input from the 29.5 MHz source and measured the power coming from the amplifier. I measured -12 dBm instead of the expected ~0 dBm, but Gautam was able to see the expected power later, so maybe something just wasn't connected right.
  • Double checked the power coming into the amplifier, which was consistent with earlier measurements at about 12.8 dBm. 


Still to be done:

  • Label/relabel several things (fuse blocks, back panel, etc) 
  • Current label on +24 Sorensen needs to be updated
  • Order front panel and install
  • Install power indicator lights on front and back 
  • Readjust gains (analog and digital) to use full signal output and measure (hopefully) improved WFS performance
  • Insert bi-directional coupler and measure modulation depth and reflections from EOM
  12819   Fri Feb 10 13:24:28 2017 ranaUpdateIMC29.5 MHz stabilizer box replacement

To remind myself about how to put filter caps on the mini-circuits RF Amps, I looked at Koji's recent elog. Its mostly about op-amps, but the idea holds for us.

We want a big (~100 uF) electrolytic with a 50V rating for the +24V RF Amp. And then a 50V ceramic capacitor of ~0.1 uF close to the pins. Remember that the power feed through on the Mini-circuits case is itsself a capacitive feedthrough (although I guess its a ~100 pF).

Later, we should install in this box an active EMI filter (e.g. Vicor)

  12820   Fri Feb 10 18:21:21 2017 gautamUpdateIMCIMC Demod board

Rana and I spent some time looking at the IMC demod board earlier today. I will post the details shortly, but there was a label on the front panel which said that the nominal LO level to the input should be -8dBm. The new 29.5MHz routing scheme meant that the LO board was actually being driven at 0dBm (that too when the input to the RF distribution box was attenuated by 5dB).

An elog search revealed this thread, where Koji made some changes to the demod board input attenuators. Rana commented that it isn't a good idea to have the LO input be below 0dBm, so after consulting with Koji, we decided that we will

  • Remove the 5dB attenuator to the input of the distribution box such that the LO is driven at ~5dBm
  • Remove the input 10dB attenuator, first ERA-5SM amplifier, and the mini circuits power splitter from the demod board (schematic to follow).

After implementing these changes, and testing the board with a Marconi on the workbench, I found that the measured power levels (measured with an active FET probe) behave as expected, up till the ERA-5SM immediately prior to the LO (U4 and U6 on the schematic). However, the power after this amplifier (i.e. the input to the on-circuit LO, Minicircuits JMS-1H, which we want to be +17dBm), is only +16dBm. The input to these ERA-5SMs, which are only ~2years old, is -2dBm, so with the typical gain of +20dB, I should have 18dBm at their output. Moreover, increasing the input power to the board from the Marconi doesn't linearly increase the output from the ERA-5SM. Just in case, I replaced one of the ERA-5SMs, but observed the same behaviour, even though the amplifier shouldn't be near saturation (the power upstream of the ERA-5SM does scale linearly).

This needs to be investigated further, so I am leaving the demod board pulled out for now...

  12821   Fri Feb 10 19:32:15 2017 KojiUpdateIMCIMC Demod board

The input impedance of the mixer is not constant. As the diode switches, it changes dynamically. Because of this, the waveform of the LO at the mixer input (i.e. the amplifier output) is not sinusoidal. Some of the power goes away to harmonic frequencies. Also, your active probe is calibrated to measure the power across the exact 50Ohm load, which is not in this case. The real confirmation can be done by swapping the mixer with a 50Ohm resistor. But it is too much. Just confirm the power BEFORE the amp is fine. +/-1dB does not change the mixer function much.

Instead, we should measure
- Orthogonality
- Gain imbalance
of the I/Q output. This can be checked by supplying an RF signal that is 100~1kHz away from the LO frequency and observe I&Q outputs.

  12822   Sun Feb 12 01:16:57 2017 gautamUpdateIMCIMC length loop - summary of changes

29.5 MHz RF Modulation Source

  • The +13dBm from the Wenzel oscillator gets amplified to +27dBm by a ZHL-2-S. There is a 5dB attenuator on the input to the amplifier to avoid compression/saturation.
  • The amplified output goes to the EOM (+26dBm measured at the rack, no measurement done at the input to the triple-resonant circuit box yet), while a 10dB coupled part goes to the RF distribution box which splits the input into 16 equal parts. The outputs were measured to spit out +5dBm.
  • 2 of these go to the WFS demod boards - it was verified that this level of drive is okay for the comparator chips on the demod board.
  • A third output goes to the IMC Demod board. The demod board was modified so that the nominal LO input level is now +5dBm (details below).
  • The remaining outputs are all terminated with 50ohms.

IMC Demodulation Board

  • The input attenuator, amplifier and power splitter were removed.
  • Schematic with changes marked and power levels measured, along with a high-res photograph (taken with our fancy new Macro lens + LED light ring) has been uploaded to a page I made to track changes for this part on the DCC (linked to 40m document tree).
  • After making the changes, it was verified that the power levels in the signal chain were appropriate up till the input to the ERA-5SM amplifier directly before the LO. These levels were deemed appropriate, and also scaled in a predictable manner with the input power. As Koji mentions in the previous elog, the dynamically changing input impedance of the mixer makes it difficult to measure the LO level at this point, but I am satisfied that it is within ~1dBm of the nominal +17dBm the mixer wants.
  • The board was further checked for gain imbalance and orthogonality of the I and Q outputs. The graphic below show that there is negligible gain imbalance, but the relative phase between the I and Q channels is ~78 degrees (they should be 90 degrees). Of course this doesn't matter for the IMC locking as we only use the I phase signal, but presumably, we want to understand this effect and compensate for it. 

  • The label on the front panel has been updated to reflect the fact that the nominal LO input is now +5dBm
  • The demodulation phase had changed since the RF signal change was modified - Rana and I investigated this effect on Monday morning, and found that a new ~1.5m long cable was needed to route the signal from the RF distribution box to the LO input of the demod board, which I made. Subsequent modifications on the demod board meant that an extra ~10cm length was needed, so I just tacked on a short length of cable. All of the demodulated signal is now in the I output of the demod board (whereas we had been using the Q output).
  • The graphics below confirms that claim above. Note the cool feature on the digital scopes that the display persistence can be set to "infinity"!

I wanted to do a quick check to see if the observed signal levels were in agreement with tests done on the workbench with the Marconi. The mixers used, JMS-1H, have an advertised conversion loss of ~7dB (may be a little higher if we are not driving the LO at +17dBm). The Lissajous ellipse above is consistent with these values. I didn't measure powers with the MC REFL PD plugged into the demod board, but the time series plot above suggest that I should have ~0dBm power in the MC REFL PD signal at 29.5MHz for the strongest flashes (~0.3Vpp IF signal for the strong flashes). 


MC Servo Board

  • As mentioned above, we now use the I phase signal for lMC PDH locking.
  • This has resulted in an overall sign change of the servo. I have updated the MEDM screen to reflect that "MINUS" is the correct polarity now..
  • To set the various gains, I measured the OLTF for various configurations using the usual IN1/IN2 prescription on the MC Servo Board (using the Agilent analyzer). 
  • I started at 0dBm "In1 Gain", and the nominal (old) values for "VCO gain", "FSS Common Gain" and "FSS FAST gain"  and found that though I could lock the MC, I couldn't reliably turn on the boosts.
  • After some tweaking, I settled on +10dB "In1 Gain". Here, locking was much more reliable, and I was able to smoothly turn on the Super Boosts. The attached OLTF measurement suggests a UGF of ~118kHz and phase margin of a little more than 30 degrees. There is room for optimization here, since we have had UGFs closer to 200kHz in the recent past. 
  • I didn't get around to measuring the actual PZT/EOM crossover yesterday. But I did measure the OLTF for various values of the FSS gains. At the current value of +20dBm, the PC drive signal is hovering around 1.5V. This bit of optimization needs to be done more systematically. 
  • I've edited mcup and mcdown to reflect the new gains. 

Some general remarks

  • The whole point of this exercise was to increase the modulation depth for the 29.5MHz signal. 
  • By my estimate, assuming 8mrad/V modulation index for the EOM and a gain of 0.6 at 29.5 MHz in the triple resonant box, we should have 100mrad of modulation after installing the amplifier (compared to 4mrad before the change). 
  • The actual RF power at 29.5 MHz at the input/output of the triple resonant box has not yet been measured. 
  • The WFS input error signal levels have to be re-measured (so I've turned off the inputs to the digital WFS filters for now)
Attachment 1: DemodBoardOrthogonality.pdf
Attachment 2: IMC_PDH.pdf
Attachment 4: IMC_OLTF.pdf
Attachment 5: FSS_gain_comparison.pdf
  12823   Mon Feb 13 11:55:14 2017 ranaUpdateIMCIMC length loop - summary of changes

I would think that we want to fix the I/Q orthog inside the demod board by trimming the splitter. Mixing the Q phase signal to the I would otherwise allow coupling of low frequency Q phase junk from HOMs into the MC lock point.frown


Of course this doesn't matter for the IMC locking as we only use the I phase signal, but


  12824   Mon Feb 13 13:34:44 2017 gautamUpdateIMCIMC length loop - bad SMA cable replaced

I was a little confused why the In1 Gain had to be as high as +10dB - before the changes to the RF chain, we were using +27dB, and we expect the changes made to have increased the modulation depth by a factor of ~25, so I would have expected the new In1 Gain to be more like 0dB.

While walking by the PSL table, I chanced upon the scope monitoring PMC transmission, and I noticed that the RIN was unusually high (see the scope screenshot below). We don't have the projector on the wall anymore, but it doesn't look like this has shown up in the SLOW monitor channel anyways. Disabling the MC autolocker / closing the PSL shutter had no effect. I walked over to the amplifier setup in 1X2, and noticed that the SMA cable connecting the output of the amplifier to the EOM drive was flaky. By touching the cable a little, I noticed that the trace on the scope appeared normal again. Turning off the 29.5MHz modulation source completely returned the trace to normal.


So I just made a new cable of similar length (with the double heat shrink prescription). The PMC transmission looks normal on the scope now. I also re-aligned the PMC for good measure. So presumably, we were not driving the EOM with the full +27dBm of available power. Now, the In1 Gain on the MC servo board is set to +2dB, and I changed the nominal FSS FAST gain to +18dB. The IMC OLTF now has a UGF of ~165kHz, though the phase margin is only ~27 degrees.. 


MC Servo Board

  • After some tweaking, I settled on +10dB "In1 Gain". Here, locking was much more reliable, and I was able to smoothly turn on the Super Boosts. The attached OLTF measurement suggests a UGF of ~118kHz and phase margin of a little more than 30 degrees. There is room for optimization here, since we have had UGFs closer to 200kHz in the recent past. 
  12827   Mon Feb 13 19:44:55 2017 LydiaUpdateIMCFront panel for 29.5 MHz amplifier box

I made a tentative front panel design for the newly installed amplifier box. I used this chassis diagram to place the holes for attaching it. I just made the dimensions match the front of the chassis rather than extending out to the sides since the front panel doesn't need to screw into the rack; the chassis is mounted already with separate brackets. For the connector holes I used a caliper to measure the feedthroughs I'm planning to use and added ~.2 mm to every dimension for clearance, because the front panel designer didn't have their dimensions built in. Please let me know if I should do something else. 

The input and coupled output will be SMA connectors since they are only going to the units directly above and below this one. The main output to the EOM is the larger connector with better shielded cables. I also included a hole for a power indicator LED. 

EDIT: I added countersinks for 4-40 screws on all the screw clearance holes. 

Johannes, if you're going to be putting a front panel order in soon, please include this one. 

Also, Steve, I found a caliper in the drawer with a dead battery and the screws to access it were in bad shape- can this be fixed? 


Attachment 1: rfAmp.pdf
  12833   Wed Feb 15 23:54:13 2017 gautamUpdateIMCIMC saga continues...

Following the discussion at the meeting today, I wanted to finish up the WFS tuning and then hand over the IFO to Johannes for his loss stuff. So I did the following:

  1. First I set the dark offsets on the WFS (with PSL shutter closed). Then I hand aligned the MC to maximize transmission, centered the beam on the WFS, and set the RF offsets with the MC unlocked.
  2. Given that the demod phase for the IMC PDH demodulation board changed by |45 degrees|, I tried changing the digital demod phases in each of the WFS quadrant signals by +/- 45 degrees. Turns out +45 degrees put all the error signal into the I Phase, which is what we use for the WFS loops.
  3. Then I attempted to check the WFS loops. I estimated that we have ~25 times the modulation depth now, so I reduced the WFS1/2 P/Y gains by this factor (but left the MC2 TRANS P/Y gains as is). The loop gain seemed overall too low, so I upped the gain till I saw instability in the loop (error signals ringing up). Then I set the loop gains to 1/3 of this value - it was 0.01 before, and I found the loop behaved well (no oscillations, MC TRANS stabilized) at a gain of 0.002.

At this point, I figured I would leave the WFS in this state and observe its behaviour overnight. But abruptly, the IMC behaviour changed dramatically. I saw first that the IMC had trouble re-acquiring lock. Moreover, the PC Drive seemed saturated at 10.0V, even when there was no error signal to the MC Servo board. Looking at the MEDM screen, I noticed that the "C1-IOO_MC_SUM_MON" channel had picked up a large (~3V) DC offset, even with In1 and In2 disabled. Moreover, this phenomenon seemed completely correlated with opening/closing the PSL shutter. Johannes and I did some debugging to make sure that this wasn't a sticky button/slider issue, by disconnecting all the cables from the front panel of the servo board - but the behaviour persisted, there seemed to be some integration of the above-mentioned channel as soon as I opened the PSL shutter.



Next, I blocked first the MC REFL PD, and then each of the WFS - turns out, if the light to WFS2 was blocked and the PSL shutter opened, there was no integrating behaviour. But still, locking the MC was impossible. So I suspected that something was wrong with the LO inputs to the WFS Demod Boards. Sure enough, when I disconnected and terminated those outputs of the RF distribution box, I was able to re-lock the MC fine.

I can't explain this bizzare behaviour - why should an internal monitor channel of the MC Servo board integrate anything when the only input to it is the backplane connector (all front panel inputs physically disconnected, In1 and In2 MEDM switches off)? Also, I am not sure how my work on the WFS could have affected any hardware - I did not mess around at the 1X1 rack in the evening, and the light has been incident on the WFS heads for the past few days. The change in modulation depth shouldn't have resulted in the RF power in this chain crossing any sort of damage threshold since the measured power before the changes was at the level of -70dBm, and so should be at most -40dBm now (at the WFS demod board input). The only thing different today was that the digital inputs of the WFS servos were turned on...

So for tonight I am leaving the two outputs of the RF distribution box that serve as the LO for the WFS demod boards terminated, and have also blocked the light to both WFS with beam blocks. The IMC seems to be holding lock steady, PC drive levels look normal...

Unrelated to this work, but I have committed to the svn the updated versions of the mcup and mcdown scripts, to reflect the new gains for the autolocker...

  12838   Fri Feb 17 20:10:18 2017 gautamUpdateIMCWFS servos turned back on

[Koji, gautam]

Turns out the "problem" with WFS2 and the apparent offset accumulation on the IMC Servo board is probably a slow machine problem.

Today, Koji and I looked at the situation a little more closely. This anomalous behaviour of the C1:IOO-MC_SUM channel picking up an offset seems correlated with light being incident on WFS2 head. Placing an ND filter in front of WFS 2 slowed down the rate of accumulation (though it was still present). But we also looked at the in-loop error signal on the IMC board (using the "Out 2" BNC on the front panel), and this didn't seem to show any offset accumulation. Anyways, the ability of the Autolocker doesn't seem to be affected by this change, so I am leaving the WFS servo turned on.

The new demod phases (old +45degrees) and gains (old gains *0.2) have been updated in the SDF table. It remains to see that the WFS loops don't drag the alignment over longer timescales. I will post a more detailed analysis here over the weekend...

Also, we thought it would be nice to have DQ channels for the WFS error signals for analysis of the servo (rather than wait for 30 mins to grab live fine resolution spectra of the error signals with the loop On/Off). So I have added 16 DQ channels [recorded at 2048 Hz] to the c1ioo model (for the I and Q demodulated signal from each quadrant for the 8 quadrants). The "DRATE" for the c1ioo model has increased from ~200 to 410. Comparing to the "DRATE" of c1lsc, which is around 3200, we think this isn't significantly stretching the DAQ abilities of the c1ioo model...


ELOG V3.1.3-