40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 175 of 344  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Authorup Type Category Subject
  6963   Wed Jul 11 14:27:29 2012 YaakovSummarySTACISCurrent STACIS Status

The X and Y directions in the STACIS still both oscillate uncontrollably in closed loop, so I'll be doing my testing in Z for now. If I need to use the other axes I'll lower their gain with the pots and add weight to the STACIS platform to try to make it more stable.

Measurements I've taken for Z:

--Open loop gain, taken by driving the PZTs with a swept sine signal and measuring with both internal geophones and external accelerometers. These measurements look a lot like the plots supplied by the STACIS manufacturer, with a resonance at 15-16 Hz (X and Y also look good). Figure below was taken with geophones:

geo_open_z2.png

--Open loop gain, where the input is ambient seismic noise measured by one set of accelerometers on the floor and one set on top of the STACIS:

 ambient_open_z.png

--Closed loop gain, where the input is ambient seismic noise, and feedback is supplied by the geophones (like normal STACIS operation). There's a definite drop in the transfer function, as expected:

ambient_closed_z_geoFeed.png

--Open and closed loop transfer functions superimposed (the higher one is open):

openVclosed.GIF

I am currently working on using the less-noisy accelerometers to provide feedback instead of the geophones. I have found the right point before the extension board to input the accelerometer signal which is NOT the same as the Signal IN/OUT cables- those are at the end of the board, after amplifying and filtering. I want the accelerometer signal to go through the same circuitry as the geophone signal so that the noise of the sensors themselves can be compared.

Problem: Coherence isn't great between the accelerometer sets at low frequencies, which leads to a not very smooth transfer function. I might try using the shaker, because the larger motion may lead to better coherence between the accelerometers on top of the STACIS and at its base.

 

 

Attachment 1: geo_open_z.png
geo_open_z.png
  6969   Thu Jul 12 15:43:07 2012 YaakovUpdateSTACISNew input point, using accelerometers for feedback

 Here's a picture of where I am now inputting signals into the STACIS with the accelerometers (the orange and blue wires): 

new_input.JPG

I know this is the right point because I could see the geophone signal from these points . By inputting a swept sine signal into this point, I was able to take a transfer function of this first amplifier/filtering circuit board, which will be useful if I need to make my own filter for the STACIS:

cBoard_tFunction.png

I have unplugged the geophones and am inputting a signal from an accelerometer into this point. The accelerometers output a different signal than the geophones, so I am trying to modify the accelerometer signal to be closer to the geophone one. I've lowered the gain on all the pots for the z axis and put in several BNC attenuators to lower the accelerometer signal amplitude.

At the moment, using the accelerometers as feedback makes the platform vibration worse, which will hopefully be solved by some more attenuation or filtering of the accelerometer signal.

  6988   Wed Jul 18 13:53:34 2012 YaakovUpdateSTACISWeekly update

I have been working on substituting the internal geophones in the STACIS with accelerometers, and this week specifically I have been trying to modify the accelerometer signal so the STACIS PZTs respond properly.

The major problem was that the high signal amplitude caused the STACIS to oscillate uncontrollably, so I lowered all of the pots (for the z direction) and placed several BNC attenuators before the accelerometer signal enters the first amplifier board. The accelerometers now successfully provide feedback without making the STACIS unstable, as shown by this transfer function (the higher and flatter line is open loop, the lower is closed loop with accelerometers providing feedback):

really_accelFeed.GIF

The next step is to optimize the accelerometer feedback so it provides good isolation from 0.1 to 3 Hz, a span that the geophones introduced a lot of noise into. The accelerometers definitely don't introduce as much noise in that region, but don't seem to be doing much isolation either. I will also make some more quantitative plots of the platform motion (using the calibration value for the Wilcoxon accelerometers in the velocity setting with a gain of 1).

Some random discoveries I made this week which are relevant for STACIS testing:

1) Placing weight on the STACIS platform improves stability, but NOT if several blocks are placed on top of each other (they rub against each other, causing lots of vibrations).

2) The accelerometer that is providing feedback must be VERY securely fastened to the STACIS platform; even with three clamps there was extra motion that caused instability. Luckily, there's a convenient steel flange Steve showed me which has a hole that perfectly accommodates the accelerometer and doubles as a weight for the platform. Here is said flange, clamped to the STACIS platform with the accelerometer sitting in the center:

flange.JPG

 3) Using the shaker next to the STACIS (all on one platform) improves coherence between the base and platform accelerometers above around 10 Hz, but does nothing lower than that, which unfortunately is the region I'm most concerned with.

  7020   Tue Jul 24 18:33:12 2012 YaakovUpdateVIDEOCentering the MCR camera

Jenne and I centered the MCR camera on the AP table.

We moved the camera as far as it could go on its mount without shifting its screws, and adjusted the optic that the camera looks at for the rest of the way.

  7026   Wed Jul 25 11:41:00 2012 YaakovUpdateVIDEOCentering the MCR camera

Quote:

Jenne and I centered the MCR camera on the AP table.

We moved the camera as far as it could go on its mount without shifting its screws, and adjusted the optic that the camera looks at for the rest of the way.

 The spot was still off center on the quad display in the control room, so I re-recentered it today.

  7027   Wed Jul 25 12:00:21 2012 YaakovUpdateSTACISWeekly update

The past few days I've been working on making a noise budget for the STACIS that incorporates all the different noises that might be contributing.

The noises I am concentrating on are accelerometer noise, geophone noise, electrical noise, and ground noise. Noise from the PZT stacks themselves should be tiny according to various PZT spec sheets, but I haven't actually found a value for it (they all just say it's negligible), so I'll keep it in mind as a potential contributor.

Here's how I am determining accelerometer noise: I take two vertical accelerometers side by side, sitting on a granite block and covered in a foam box, and take the time series of both. Then I take the difference of the time series and calculate the PSD of that, which with the calibration factor of the accelerometers (the V/m/s sensitivity) I am able to find the noise in m/s/rtHz. The noise agreed with the accelerometer specs I found at low frequencies but was higher than expected at high frequencies, so I'm still investigating. If I can't find an obvious problem with my measurements I'll try the three-corner hat method (as per Jenne's recommendation), which would allow me to determine the noises of the independent accelereometers.

I tried a similar method for the geophone noise, but the value I came up with was actually higher than the accelerometer noise, which seems very fishy. I realized that the geophones were still connected to the STACIS circuitry when I took the measurements ,which was probably part of the problem. So this morning I disconnected the STACIS entirely and am looking at just the geophone signals which should give a more accurate noise estimate.

Once I have all the noises characterized, the next step is seeing how those noises affect the closed loop performance of the STACIS. I've been working on a block model that incorporates the different noises and transfer functions involved, and when I have the noises characterized I can test a prediction about how a certain noise affects the platform motion.

 

  7040   Thu Jul 26 16:08:59 2012 YaakovUpdateSTACISNoise plot update

I have a tentative noise plot for the STACIS that includes accelerometer noise, geophone noise, and platform motion with the STACIS off. (Accelerometer noise was measured for the VEL and NONE setting, which are settings on the accelerometer box which make the accelerometer signal correspond to velocity and acceleration, respectively. ) I'm focusing on sensor noise because this is the variable I am looking at changing, and knowing how the sensor noise translates into STACIS platform motion is therefore important.

stacy_noise.bmp

stacy_noise.fig

The accelerometer and geophone noise I determined as described in my last eLog (http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/7027) Along the way I found out several things of importance:

1) Horizontal geophones are ONLY horizontal geophones. This is obvious in retrospect, because the springs supporting the magnet inside must be oriented based on vertical/horizontal operation.

2) The geophones in the STACIS are GS-11D (geospace), with a sensitivity of 32 V/m/s (compared to about 3.9 V/m/s for the accelerometers in VEL setting).

3) The accelerometers have different V/m/s sensitivities. I noticed the voltage output of one was consistently higher than the other, leading to very high noise estimates, but then Jenne showed me the actual calibration factors of the individual accelerometers which differed by as much as 0.4 V/m/s (a few percent difference). Taking this into account made the noise plots much more reasonable, but variations in calibration could still create some error.

The accelerometer noise agrees fairly well with the specs on the Wilcoxon page (http://www.wilcoxon.com/prodpdf/731A-P31%2098079a1.pdf). The geophone noise seems surprisingly low; it is even better than the geophone below about 4 Hz. 

To see how this noise translates into actual platform motion, I took PSDs of the STACIS while it was off, on with accelerometer feedback, and on with geophone feedback (the "off" PSD is in the above noise plot). Using this data I'm working on estimating a transfer function that shows how the sensor noise translates to motion so I can come up with a sensor noise budget.

feedbacks.bmp

feedbacks.fig

This shows that the geophones are actually doing a better job of isolating than the accelerometers, which is not surprising if the noise plot is accurate and the geophones are actually lower noise. It must be noted, though, that the noise plot was for the horizontal geophones whereas the plot above is for the vertical axis which may have a different noise level. Also, the vertical have some extra isolation by being enclosed in a metal stack with rubber padding at its base.

The problem with the STACIS in the past was the differential motion it introduced. I think this might be because the horizontal isolation was not uniform for each chamber. This means that even what would be symmetric motion (no differential length change) would be translated to differential motion because one end is more fixed than the other. Having accelerometers or better-padded geophones (maybe like the vertical geophones) in the STACIS ought to help with this by making the horizontal isolation more consistent and thus reducing differential motion. So the key may not be the geophone noise as much as varying geophone sensitivities or variation in how well they're mounted in the STACIS. I can test this by swapping out the horizontal geophones with other spares, changing the tightness of the mount, and seeing if either of these changes the horizontal isolation significantly, since these are factors that may differ from unit to unit.

I will also compare horizontal closed loop response with geophone vs. accelerometer feedback to see if the geophones are only doing a good job in the above plot because of their extra padding (the vertical stack).

  7053   Mon Jul 30 17:24:45 2012 YaakovUpdateSTACISRevised sensor noise plot; dead PZT

The geophone noise in my last eLog was taken before any amplification of the signal, but what really matters is the noise after amplification, since it is this signal that the PZTs are driven by. The noise goes on to be amplified about 1000x before the geophone signal gets to the PZTs.

To obtain a more relevant noise plot, I multiplied the geophone noise by 1,000, the approximate gain of the amplification stage for the geophones (called the "compensator board", the semicircular board that sits toward the top of the STACIS). Below is a plot (sensor_noise.fig) that shows the noise for the geophones after amplification and the accelerometer noise (with accelerometers set with a gain of 100x, their highest).

sensor_noise.bmp

The actual signal from both these sensors has the right magnitude to drive the PZTs (whereas it was much too small in my last plot, where I looked at the sensors before any gain)- this means that for these sensors, both of which are outputting signals that are ready to provide feedback to the STACIS, the accelerometer noise is significantly lower than the geophone noise. This is good news, because it means that there could be a real advantage to using the accelerometers instead of the geophones.

In the process of investigating further advantages of the accelerometers, I believe I killed one of the horizontal PZTs in the spare STACIS (the eBay one). The story: I had that axis in closed loop, and I saw the STACIS shudder, heard a noise, and there was a faint acrid smell. I shut the STACIS off and took out the high voltage card at the base but couldn't find any visible signs of damage (like the current-limiting resistors which burn when a PZT shorts, acc. to old STACIS records). I then tried driving the PZTs with a sine wave, and there was no response in that axis (the other axes looked fine), which leads me to believe I either did unseen damage to the high voltage amplifier (for the y-axis) or killed the PZT itself.

Attachment 1: sensor_noise.bmp
  7054   Mon Jul 30 22:52:51 2012 YaakovUpdateSTACISGeophone calibration

Tonight I looked at the signal from a geophone and accelerometer side by side, in order to see if they show the same ground motion and if the sensitivity factor I am using to convert from V to m/s is right. This is plotted below, along with the current estimates for accelerometer and geophone noise:

sensor_comp.bmp

sensor_comp.fig

From this it is pretty clear that at least one of the sensitivity factors (V/m/s) I am using is wrong (the noise levels are much lower than the ground motion, so they can't account for the difference). I suspect it is the geophone one, because Wilcoxon provided these sensitivities for each individual accelerometer, but I was just using the number I found in online specs for the geophones.

The reason the online value is wrong is probably because of the value of the shunt resistor, a resistor that just goes across the top of the geophone (its purpose is to provide damping, by Lenz's Law). The specs assume a value of 380 Ohm, but I measured the one in the STACIS to be about 1.85 kOhm.

Assuming the accelerometer signal is correct, I multiplied the geophone signal by different factors to try to get an idea of what the true calibration factor is, and found that a value of 0.25 (m/s)/V gives decent agreement at higher frequencies (below 10 Hz the sensitivity drops off, according to the online specs). This is shown below:

sensor_comp2.bmp

sensor_comp2.fig

Above, the geophone noise was recalculated with the new sensitivity and assuming that both geophones in the noise measurement had the same sensitivity. I took the transfer function of two geophones side by side to see if their gains were dramatically different; this plot is shown below. The coherence is only good for a small band, but looking at that band the gain is approximately unity, implying very roughly that the sensitivity of each is approximately the same. The lack of coherence is strange, and I'm not sure what the cause is. Even using the shaker near the geophones only improved the coherence slightly.

2_geo_gain.bmp2_geo_coherence.bmp

Attachment 2: sensor_comp2.bmp
  7058   Tue Jul 31 15:24:53 2012 YaakovUpdateSTACISOpen loop gains and block diagram

First, a quick note on the PZT I thought I killed- it was most likely something in the high voltage amplifier that broke, since I put the amplifier in another STACIS with a working y-axis PZT and it still didn't work properly. Conclusion: something in the y-axis amplifier circuitry is broken, not the PZT itself.

Today I retook the open loop gains in the X and Z axes (Y axis out of commission for now, see above). With the loop open, I input a swept sine signal from 0.1 to 100 Hz, and measure the output of the geophones. This way all the transfer function that are present in the closed loop are present here as well: the transfer functions of the physical STACIS, the geophone pre-amplifier circuit, the high-voltage amplifier, and the PZT actuators.

Here is a block diagram showing what I am measuring, with the various transfer functions in blue boxes (the measurement is their product):

 stacis_block.bmp

x_OL.bmpz_OL.bmp

z_OL.fig

x_OL.fig

These open loop gains show there is gain of at least 10x from 2 to 80 Hz in the z-axis and 2 to 60 Hz in the x-axis. This is the region I was seeing isolation in when I switched to closed loop, which is consistent. These measurements were with all the pots in the geophone preamplifier set very low, so more gain (and thus isolation) is hypothetically possible if I find a way to stop the horizontal axes from becoming unstable at higher gains. There is unity gain at around 0.5 Hz and 100 Hz for the z-axis, but the phase is nowhere near 180 deg. at these points so there shouldn't be instability due to this. The peak at around 15 Hz is consistent with old records of the STACIS open loop gain.

  7068   Wed Aug 1 11:54:59 2012 YaakovSummarySTACISGeophone calibration and open loop gains

This week I've looked into finding an accurate sensitivity for the geophones in the STACIS. I found that when placing a geophone and accelerometer side by side, and using the sensitivity values I had from spec sheets, the readings were very different (see eLog 7054: http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/7054).

I cut the shunt resistor off one of the STACIS geos and found it to be 4000 Ohm, which is one of the standard values for this geophone model. When it is connected to the geophone the net resistance is 2000 Ohm (I took a more careful measurement, I took the geophone out). Then the internal coil resistance should be 4000 Ohm, if they are connected in parallel. However, the geophone spec sheet does not have a sensitivity value for this exact scenario, so I'll have to find a different way to determine the calibration (maybe by putting it next to a seismometer with a known sensitivity). So I know for sure that the sensitivity value I was originally using is wrong, because it assumed an internal coil resistance of 380 Ohm, but I have to check if the value I found by forcing the geophones to agree with the accelerometers (eLog 7054 --> 0.25 (m/s)/V) is correct.

I've also been looking again at the open loop gains of the STACIS (see eLog 7058: http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/7058). Attached is what TMC, which makes the STACIS, says it should look like (with a 4000 lb load on the STACIS). Today I am taking the open loop gains into higher frequencies to get a better comparison, but the plots look quite similar to what I have so far. So if it is an unstable open loop gain, then it's at least not new.

Attachment 1: 08011201.pdf
08011201.pdf 08011201.pdf
  7109   Tue Aug 7 21:34:50 2012 YaakovUpdateSTACISMore noise data

Yesterday I plugged the geophone and accelerometer output into the ADC, rather than the SR785, so I could collect for longer and take more data at once.

As per Rana's suggestion, I am also now taking the geophone output after the first op-amp in the circuitry following the geophone (a low-noise op-amp, OPA227). It acts as a buffer so I'm not just measuring other local noise sources (which explains why the geophone noise curve sort of matched the SR785 noise curve in my old plots).

With these changes, I remeasured the accelerometer and geophone noises as well as collected an ASD of a geophone sitting on the STACIS in open loop operation. I also looked up the noise specs for the various op-amps in the geophone pre-amp and high voltage board; everything I found, I added in quadrature to come up with an approximate op-amp noise value for the STACIS. All of this is plotted below:

budget.bmpbudget.fig

I left the y-axis in V/rtHz instead of converting it to m/s/rtHz so that the op-amp noise could be compared to the other noises. All sensor data was taken with the sensors horizontal (noise data taken in granite and foam).

The accelerometer and geophone noise still appear to be similar, and the op-amp noise, at least according to specs, is low compared to the other noises. This implies there's not much to gain from switching the geophones with accelerometers nor with swapping out the op-amps for lower-noise components (unless the ones I couldn't find specs for were high-noise, though it seems like mainly low-noise components were used). 

  7118   Wed Aug 8 11:47:52 2012 YaakovSummarySTACISWeekly summary

As Rana pointed out (http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/7112), the geophone/accelerometer noise lines from my last eLog (http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/7109) were dominated by ADC noise. I checked this today by terminating the ADC channels with 50 Ohm terminators and measuring the noise. The ADC noise line is included on the plot below, and it is clearly dominating the sensor noise data.

budget_with_adc.pngbudget_with_adc.fig

I set the accelerometer gain to 100, and will hook up the geophones to the SR560 pre-amp today- this should put both signals above the ADC noise, and I can calculate the sensor noises without the ADC noise being significant.

I have also begun to make some progress in understanding the pre-amp circuitry, and I will post a schematic when I've sketched it all.

Another issue that seems increasingly relevant to me is the power supply to the high voltage amplifier. It appears to go into the high voltage board from the power supply, then into the geophone pre-amp, then back into the high voltage board (see block diagram below). I tested this by inputting a signal after the pre-amp, with the geophones disconnected- the signal only drives the PZT if the pre-amp is plugged in, so the power that returns from the pre-amp must be powering some chips on the high voltage amplifier.

 

Power flow through the STACIS :

power_diagram.png

This is somewhat inconvenient, because it means if I want to provide external feedback (with accelerometers, for example) or actuation (such as feedforward), which I want to input after the geophone pre-amp, the pre-amp still needs to be plugged in for the high voltage amplifier to work and drive the PZTs.  I am cataloging all of the pins on the high voltage amplifier and pre-amp so I can figure out how to reroute the power and cut out the geophone pre-amp entirely if necessary. I'll include a pin diagram with the pre-amp circuit sketch.

  7148   Fri Aug 10 18:11:55 2012 YaakovUpdateSTACISCorrected noise budget, plan for external actuation

I hope you're not all tired of the STACIs noise budgets, because I have another one! Here, the main difference is my modeling of the geophone sensitivity according to a predicted physical model for the system (just a damped oscillator) instead of trying to fit it to the accelerometer motion signal with more arbitrary functions.

The result of this calibration is shown below (accel and geo signals taken for 5 minutes at the same time, in granite and foam):

sensor_comp.pngsensor_comp.fig

The m/s/V sensitivity function I am using is g*[(w^2-2idww(0)-w(0)^2)/w^2], where g (the high freq. m/s/V sensitivity) was 2.5*10^-5 and d (damping) was set to 2.

Now, the recalculated noise plot looks like this:

noise_budget_8-10.pngnoise_budget_8-10.fig

The accel. specs I took from the Wilcoxon spec sheet, and the geo specs I found in https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0028/T950046/000/T950046-00.pdf, a LIGO document about the STACIS. The geo noise was measured for the STACIS geo and their pre-amp, while I was using the SR560 as the pre-amp. If anything, my noise should be lower, since the SR560 noise spec is lower than what I estimated for the STACIS geophone pre-amp, so I'm not sure about that order of magnitude difference between the experimental and expected geo noise. A sign that my noise values are at least reasonable is that the geophone noise flattens out above the geophone's resonant frequency (4.5 Hz), as Jan pointed out it should.

The sensor noise (either accel. or geo.) is the dominating signal below 1 Hz in the STACIS platform measurement, which then limits the closed loop performance at those frequencies. Since the noises I am finding are looking reasonable, I think it's fair to definitively state that accelerometers will not significantly help at low frequencies (there may be at most a factor of 2 lower noise below 1 Hz for the accel., but I need more data to say for sure).

The plan right now is to concentrate on using the STACIS as actuators, perhaps with seismometers on the ground and a feedforward signal sent into the high voltage amplifier.

I took the transfer function of the high voltage board itself (no pre-amp included) by driving the PZTs with a swept sine and measuring the accelerometer response (which I am now fairly confident is calibrated correctly). The input point was the signal IN on the extender board, but with the geophones disconnected from the pre-amp.

hv_bode.pnghv_bode.fig

I took the coherence at just a few single frequencies (you can't do coherence measurements in swept sine mode on the SR785) to make sure I was really driving the PZTs, and it was near 1 (998, 999.9, etc) at the frequencies at which I drove. Without the extra notches at 1 Hz (which may be real, it's coherent there too), it looks like a 2-pole high pass filter (goes from -180 to 180 deg, approx. an f^2 dependence). This transfer function should be taken into account by the feedforward algorithm.

The current plan is to make a box with a switch that allows geophone feedback and/or external signals into the high voltage amplifier. It would act sort of like the extender card, except more compact so it could fit into the STACIS. It also would have the advantage of not having to reroute the power, since those lines from the pre-amp could all still be connected (see eLog 7118: http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/7118).

  7166   Mon Aug 13 21:47:30 2012 YaakovUpdateSTACISTwo changes to STACIS noise budget

In eLog 7148 (http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/7148), Koji pointed out that the op-amp and SR560 noise values (which I took from specs and then multiplied by the geophone calibration factor to get m/s/rtHz) were waaay too low. My error was an extra multiplication factor in the plotting script.

The other change was recalculating the ADC noise by splitting a signal into two ADC channels and subtracting the time series (then taking the PSD and converting to m/s/rtHz). It compares well to the value I got by terminating the ADC channels, which was the ADC noise line in my last eLog.

Both these changes are included in the below plot:

noise_budget_8-13.bmpnoise_budget_8-13.fig

Attachment 1: noise_budget_8-13.bmp
  7186   Wed Aug 15 01:14:19 2012 YaakovUpdatePEMDifferential Motion of X and Y Arm

Den and I measured the differential motion of the x and y arms using Guralp 1 at the end of the y arm, Guralp 2 at the beamsplitter, and the Streckeisen at the end of the x arm.

I calibrated the Streckeisen to the Guralp by calculating the relative gain of the seismometer signals at the microseism. The Guralp 1-y amplitude was 1.0237 times Guralp 2-y and Guralp 2-x was 38.54 times STS-x. The Guralp calibration (to go from counts to meters) I used was 0.61/1000/800/80/(2*pi*f) m/count.

The differential motion should keep decreasing at low frequencies because the ground will move together at such large wavelengths. It goes up because the seismometer noise begins to dominate at low frequencies (below about 0.5 Hz). Another possible error source could be that the seismometers are not perfectly aligned along the arm.

diff_motion_x_arm.pngdiff_motion_y_arm.png

Attachment 1: diff_motion_x_arm.png
diff_motion_x_arm.png
Attachment 2: diff_motion_y_arm.png
diff_motion_y_arm.png
  7190   Wed Aug 15 11:40:15 2012 YaakovSummarySTACISWeekly Summary

This week I've been focusing mainly on two things: 1) Designing a port for the STACIS that will allow external actuation and/or local feedback and 2) Investigating the seismic differential motion along the interferometer arms.

The circuit for the port is just a signal summing junction (in case we want to do feedforward and feedback at the same time) with BNC inputs for the external signal and switches that allow you to turn the external signal or feedback signal on/off. I'll test this on a breadboard and post the schematic if it works. I looked at the noise of the geophone pre-amp and DAC, which would be the feedback and external signal sources, respectively. According to Rolf Bork, the DAC noise is 700 nV/rtHz, and I measured the pre-amp board's minimum noise level at 20*10^-6 V/rtHz (which seems quite high). Both these noises are higher than the op-amp noise for my circuit (I'm considering the op-amp LT1012), which according to the specs is 30 nV/rtHz. This confirms that my circuit will not be the limiting noise source

Along with Den, I calibrated the seismometers in the lab and measured the displacement differential arm motion (see eLog 7186: http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/7186). I'm trying to find a transfer function for the seismic stacks (and pendulum, but that's simpler) so I can calculate the differential motion in the chamber. After doing this offline, I'll make new channels in the PEM to look at the ground and chamber differential motion along the arms online.

I also am looking at the noise of the geophones with their shunt resistor (4k resistor across the coil) removed, to see if it improves the noise at low frequencies. My motivation for this was that the geophone specs show a better V/m/s sensitivity at low frequencies when the shunt resistor is removed, so the actual signal may become larger than the internal noise at these frequencies.

  7204   Thu Aug 16 13:49:33 2012 YaakovUpdatePEMTransfer functions of seismic stacks, differential motion of test mass

I estimated the transfer function of the seismic stacks using a rough model I made based on the LIGO document LIGO T000058 -00. I used a Q of 3.3 for the viton springs, and resonant frequencies of 2.3, 7.5, 15, and 22 Hz (measured in that document for the horizontal motion). I multiplied the simple mass-spring transfer function four times for each layer of metal/spring, with the respective resonant frequency for each. The pendulum suspending the test masses has a resonant frequency of 0.74 and a Q of 3, according to the same document.

stack_tf.pngstack_tf.fig

When I multiply the net transfer function (pendulum included, the green line above) by the differential motion of the x arm that I measured in eLog 7186, I find the differential motion of the test mass (NOTE: I converted the differential motion to displacement by multiplying by (1/2*pi*f)).

mass_diff_motion.pngmass_diff_motion.fig

It agrees within an order of magnitude to the seismic wall from the displacement noise spectrum hanging above the control room computers.

Finally, I looked at how the geophone and accelerometer noise spectra looked compared to the ground differential motion (any STACIS sensor signal will also be multiplied by the stack/pendulum transfer function, so I'm comparing to the differential motion before it goes through the chamber). Below about 1 Hz, it is clear from the plot below that the STACIS could never be of any benefit, even with accelerometers rather than geophones as the feedback sensors.

noise_v_diff_motion.pngnoise_v_diff_motion.fig

Attachment 1: stack_tf.png
stack_tf.png
Attachment 5: stack_tf.fig
  7209   Thu Aug 16 20:04:46 2012 YaakovUpdatePEMTransfer functions of seismic stacks, differential motion of test mass

 

 I made the plots a little nicer and added new sensor noises (from Brian Lantz's scripts and measurements). Click to enlarge.

stack_tf.pngstack_tf.figmass_diff_motion.pngmass_diff_motion.fig

 sensor_noises_diff.pngsensor_noises_diff.fig

The last plot shows that these other sensors' noises are lower than the differential ground motion below 1 Hz.  Though 3 seismometers per STACIS is impractical, this shows that such seismometers could be used as feedforward sensors and provide isolation against differential ground motion. At these noise levels, the noise of the high voltage amplifier circuit in the STACIS would probably be the limiting factor.

  7210   Thu Aug 16 20:18:39 2012 YaakovUpdateSTACISInput for feedforward/feedback in the STACIS

Below is the bottom view of the geophone preamplifier and controller for the STACIS. It slides into the upper part of the STACIS, under the blue platform. The geophone signal goes in the bottom left, gets amplified, filtered, and otherwise pampered, and goes out from the bottom right. From there it goes on to the high voltage amplifier, and finally to the PZT stacks. Below right is a closer view of the output port for the preamplifier, top and bottom.

SAM_0256.JPGSAM_0259.JPGSAM_0258.JPG

I suggest de-soldering and bending up the pins that carry the geophone signal (so the signals don't go directly to the high voltage amplifier), and adding the circuit below between the preamp and amplifier. The preamp connector is still attached to the high voltage amplifier connector in this setup, only the geophone signal pins are disconnected.

x-chip.png

More on the circuit and its placement:

The first op-amp is a summing junction, and the second is just a unity gain inverter so that signal doesn't go into the high voltage amplifier inverted. I tested this with the breadboard, and it seems to work fine (amplitudes of two signals add, no obvious distortion). The switches allow you to choose local feedback, external feedforward, or both.

The geo input will be wires from the preamp (soldered to where the pins used to go), and the external input will be BNC cables, with the source probably a DAC. The output will go to the bent up pins that used to be connected to the preamp (they go into the high voltage amplifier). This circuit can sit outside of the STACIS- there is a place to feed wires in and out right near where the preamplifier sits. For power, it can use the STACIS preamp supply, which is +/- 15V. The resistors I used in the breadboard test were 10 kOhm, and the op-amp I used was LT1012 (whose noise should be less than either input, see eLog 7190).

This is visually represented below, with the preamp pin diagram corresponding to the soldering points with the preamp upside down (top right picture):

SAM_0266.JPGSAM_0265.JPG

 

  7231   Sun Aug 19 19:56:20 2012 YaakovUpdateSTACISSTACIS signal box made

I made the signal box as described in eLog 7210. It adds the geophone signal and an external signal.

It has six switches, for x, y, and z signals from both an external and local (geophone) source. The x signals add if both x switches are flipped down (and the same for the other directions). For example, if you want to feed in only an external signal in the x direction, flip down the external x direction switch (it's labeled on the box), leaving all others flipped up.

The x, y, and z outputs are wired to the pins from the preamplifier that go to the high voltage board. These I disconnected from the preamplifier by cutting at their base (there are spare connectors if this wants to be undone, or, a wire can just be soldered from the pin to its old spot on the board). The power (plus/minus) and ground are wired to the respective pins from the geophone preamplifier (naturally, the STACIS must be turned on for the box to work since the box shares its power source). Below, the front (switches and geophone/external inputs) and back (power, ground, outputs) of the box are shown:

SAM_0276.JPGSAM_0277.JPG

The preamplifier can plug into its regular connectors- the x,y,and z signals will all be redirected to the signal box with these modifications. The box sits outside the STACIS, there is room to feed the wires out from underneath the STACIS platform.

SAM_0275.JPG

NOTE: The geophone z switch is a little different than the others, just make sure it's flipped all the way down if you want that signal to be seen in the z output.

 

  7262   Thu Aug 23 21:53:18 2012 YaakovUpdatePEMAccelerometer location

The MC1 accelerometer cube (3 accelerometers arranged in x,y,z) is under the PSL table, as I found it at the beginning of the summer.

The MC2 accelerometer cube is on the table where I worked on the STACIS, right when you walk into the lab from the main entrance. Their cables are dangling near the end of the mode cleaner, so the accelerometers are ready to be placed there if wanted.

All accelerometers are also plugged into their ADC channels.

  6882   Wed Jun 27 14:18:30 2012 Yaakov SummarySTACISFirst week summary

The beginning of my first week was spent at various orientations and safety meetings, some for general SURF and some more specific to LIGO and the lab. In between these I started  work.

Jenne and I took out the spare STACIS and took it apart, taking out the circuit boards. I've spent some time looking through the boards and sketching various parts of the board in trying to understand the exact function without any useful technical diagrams (STACIS supplied us only with a picture of the board without components, not all that helpful). I think I now at least understand the basic block diagram of the circuitry: the STACIS geophone signal goes through a preamplifier and filters (the semi-circular board), and converts it into a signal for the PZT stacks. This signal then goes through a high voltage amplifer, and then goes to the five PZTs (3 in the z, one each in the x and y direction). The unit I am looking at has an extension board, which allows us to tap into the signal going into the preamp and the one leaving it. This should allow us to input our own signal instead of the geophone signal, and thereby drive the PZTs ourselves.

My next step, once I get a resistor to replace a burnt one on the high voltage amplifier, is to take a transfer function of the STACIS and see if it is possible to drive the PZT stacks with the cables from the extension board. If that does not work, I'll have to keep tracing the circuit to determine where to input our own signal.

  14568   Wed Apr 24 17:39:15 2019 YehonathanSummaryLoss MeasurementBasic analysis of loss measurement

Motivation

  • Getting myself familiar with Python.
  • Characterize statistical errors in the loss measurement.

Summary

​The precision of the measurement is excellent. We should move on to look for systematic errors. 

In Detail

According to Johannes and Gautam (see T1700117_ReflectionLoss .pdf in Attachment 1), the loss in the cavity mirror is obtained by measuring the light reflected from the cavity when it is locked and when it is misaligned. From these two measurements and by using the known transmissions of the cavity mirrors, the roundtrip loss is extracted.

I write a Python notebook (AnalyzeLossData.ipynb in Attachment 1) extracting the raw data from the measurement file (data20190216.hdf5 in Attachment 1) analyzing the statistics of the measurement and its PSD.

Attachment 2 shows the raw data. 

Attachment 3 shows the histogram of the measurement. It can be seen that the distribution is very close to being Gaussian.

The loss in the cavity pre roundtrip is measured to be 73.7+/-0.2 parts per million. The error is only due to the deviation in the PD measurement. Considering the uncertainty of the transmissions of the cavity mirrors should give a much bigger error.

Attachment 4 shows noise PSD of the PD readings. It can be seen that the noise spectrum is quite constant and there would be no big improvement by chopping the signal.

The situation might be different when the measurement is taken from the cavity lock PD where the signal is much weaker.

Attachment 1: LossMeasurementAnalysis.zip
Attachment 2: LossMeasurement_RawData.pdf
LossMeasurement_RawData.pdf
Attachment 3: LossMeasurement_Hist.pdf
LossMeasurement_Hist.pdf
Attachment 4: LossMeasurement_PSD.pdf
LossMeasurement_PSD.pdf
  15005   Sat Nov 2 16:36:55 2019 YehonathanUpdatePSLUp to date sketch of the 1x1 and 1x2 Eurocrates

I reproduced Gautam's sketch of the 1x1 and 1x2 Eurocrates into a pdf image that contains links to the appropriate DCCs in the legend (see attachement).

Attachment 1: 1x1_1X2_Eurocrates_with_links.pdf
1x1_1X2_Eurocrates_with_links.pdf
  15006   Sat Nov 2 17:08:34 2019 YehonathanUpdatePSLUp to date sketch of the 1x1 and 1x2 Eurocrates

Thanks. Please update this wiki page too.

https://wiki-40m.ligo.caltech.edu/Electronics/ElectronicsRacks#A1X1

  15008   Mon Nov 4 13:26:04 2019 YehonathanUpdatePSLUp to date sketch of the 1x1 and 1x2 Eurocrates

Done.

Quote:

Thanks. Please update this wiki page too.

https://wiki-40m.ligo.caltech.edu/Electronics/ElectronicsRacks#A1X1

  15011   Mon Nov 4 19:02:25 2019 YehonathanUpdatePSLMapping the PSL electronics

I created a spreadsheet (Attached) by taking Koji's c1psl sheet from slow_channel_list and filtering out the channels that do not need an Acromag. I added in the QPD channels that are relevant to the PSL from the c1iool0 sheet.

I began mapping the PSL related Eurocrates connectors to their respective VME channels starting with the PMC electronics.

I am confused about the TTFSS interface (D040423): While it is a Eurocrate card, in the schematics it seems to have 50 pin connectors.

I found old wiring schematics that might help with identifying the channels once the connector issue is clarified.

 

 

Attachment 1: PSL_Wirings_-_Sheet1_(1).pdf
PSL_Wirings_-_Sheet1_(1).pdf
  15039   Wed Nov 20 17:20:24 2019 YehonathanUpdateLSCQPD Investigation

{Gautam, Yehonathan}

In search of the source of discrepancy between the QPD readings in the X and Y arms, we look into the schematics of the QPD amplifier - DCC #D990272.

We find that there are 4 gain switches with the following gain characteristics (The 40m QPD whitening board has an additional gain of 4.5):

S4 S3 S2 S1 V/A
0 0 0 0 2e4
0 0 0 1 2e5
0 0 1 0 4e4
0 0 1 1 4e5
0 1 0 0 1e5
0 1 0 1 1e6
0 1 1 0 2e5
0 1 1 1 2e6
1     0 5e2
1     1 5e3

Switch 4 bypasses the amps controlled by switch 2 and 3 when it is set to 1 so they don't matter in this state.

Note that according to elog-13965 the switches are controlled through the QPD whitening board by a XT1111a Acromag whose normal state is 1.

Also, according to the QPD amplifier schematics, the resistor on the transimpedance, controlled by switch 1, is 25kOhm. However, according to the EPICS it is actually 5kOhm. We verify this by shining the QPD with uniform light from a flashlight and switching switch1 on and off while measuring the voltages of the different segments. The schematics should be updated on the DCC.

Surprisingly, QPDX switches where 0,0,0,0 while QPDY switches where 1,0,0,1. This explains the difference in their responses.

We check by shining a laser pointer with a known power on the different segments of QPDX that we get the expected number of counts on the ADC and that the response of the different segments is equal.
 

gautam edits:

  1. Lest there be confusion, the states of the switches in the (S1, S2, S3, S4) order are (0,0,0,0) for QPDX and (0,1,0,1) for QPDY.
  2. The Acromag XT1111 is a sinking BIO unit - so when the EPICS channel is zero, the output impedance is low and the DUT (i.e. MAX333) is shorted to ground. So, the state of the MAX333 shown on the schematics corresponds to EPICS logic level 1, and the switched state corresponds to logic level 0.
  3. For the laser pointer test, we used a red laser pointer. Using a power meter, we measured ~100uW of 632nm power. However, we think this particular laser pointer had failing batteries or something because the spot looked sometimes brighter/dimmer to the eye. Anyways, we saw ~10,000 ADC counts when illuminating a single segment (with the QPD gain switches at the 0,0,0,0 setting, before we changed anything). We expect 100uW * 0.4 A/W * 500 V/A * 10 * 40 * 4.5 * 3267.8 cts/V = ~12000 cts. So everything seems to check out. We changed the gain to the 5kohm setting and bypassed the subsequent gain stages, and saw the expected response too. The segments were only balanced to ~10%, but presumably this can be adjusted by tweaking digital gains.
  15048   Tue Nov 26 13:33:33 2019 YehonathanUpdateCamerasMC2 Camera rotated by 90 degrees

MC2 analog camera was rotated by 90 degrees. Orientation correctness was verified by exciting the MC2 Yaw degree of freedom.

Attached before and after photos of the camera setup.

Attachment 1: MC2AnalogCameraAfter.jpg
MC2AnalogCameraAfter.jpg
Attachment 2: MC2AnalogCameraBefore.jpg
MC2AnalogCameraBefore.jpg
  15070   Wed Dec 4 08:54:07 2019 YehonathanUpdateIMCMirror analog shaking

{Yehonathan, Gavin}

Yesterday we tried to shake ITMX with a function generator in order to observe the 28.8kHz drum mode.

We laid a long BNC cable that runs from the YARM to the XARM. This cable either needs to be collected back to the BNC big plastic cable box under the IMC or be labeled so that it could be found easily in the future.

First, we tried to shake it at a lower frequency (100's of Hz) where the shaking should be easily observed in the POSX channel. We try driving the POS channel on the ITMX servo but nothing happens. Most likely it is disconnected.

While setting up for shaking the individual OSEM channels 4 CDSs crashed (c1lsc, c1ass, c1oaf, c1cal).

 

  15071   Wed Dec 4 09:11:42 2019 YehonathanUpdateCDSReboot script

After the CDSs crashed we run the rebootC1LSC.sh script.

The script is a bit annoying in that it requires entering the CDSs' passwords multiple times over the time it runs which is long.

The resulting CDS screen is a bit different than what was reported before (attached). Also, not all watchdogs were restored.

We restore the remaining watchdogs and do XARM locking. Everything seems to be fine.

Attachment 1: medmScreen11.ps
medmScreen11.ps
  15086   Mon Dec 9 13:08:24 2019 YehonathanSummaryPEMJump test of seismometers: EX needs recentering

I check the seismometers in the last 14 hours (Attached). Seems like the coherenece is restored in the x direction.

 

 

Attachment 1: seis_191208.pdf
seis_191208.pdf
  15087   Mon Dec 9 19:19:04 2019 YehonathanUpdatePSLAOM first order beam alignment

{Yehonathan, Rana}

In order to setup a ringdown measurement with perfect extinction we need to align the first order beam from the AOM to the PMC instead of the zeroth order.

We connected a signal generator to the AOM driver and applied some offset voltage. We spot the first order mode and align it to the PMC. The achieved transmitted power is roughly as it was before this procedure.

Along the way few changes has been made in the PSL table:

1. Some dangling BNCs were removed.

2. Laser on the south east side of the PSL table was turned off.

3. DC power supplies were removed (Attachment 1 & 2). The rubber legs on the first one are sticky and leave black residue.

4. The beam block that orginally blocked the AOM high order modes was raised to block the zeroth order mode (Attachment 3).

5. The unterminated BNC T junction (Attachment 4 - before picture). from the PMC mixer to the PMC servo was removed.

However, we are currently unable to lock the PMC on high gain. When the gain is too high the PZT voltage goes straight to max and the lock is lost.

Attachment 1: 20191209_193112.jpg
20191209_193112.jpg
Attachment 2: 20191209_193203_HDR.jpg
20191209_193203_HDR.jpg
Attachment 3: imageedit_2_7551928142.gif
imageedit_2_7551928142.gif
Attachment 4: imageedit_3_5863650538.gif
imageedit_3_5863650538.gif
  15089   Tue Dec 10 01:24:17 2019 YehonathanUpdatePSLAOM first order beam alignment

 

However, we are currently unable to lock the PMC on high gain. When the gain is too high the PZT voltage goes straight to max and the lock is lost.

Just realized that the diffracted beam is frequency shifted by 80MHz. It would shift the PZT position in the PMC lock acquisition, wouldn't it?

  15090   Tue Dec 10 13:26:46 2019 YehonathanUpdatePSLAOM first order beam alignment

nvm the PZT can scan over many GHz.

Quote:

 

However, we are currently unable to lock the PMC on high gain. When the gain is too high the PZT voltage goes straight to max and the lock is lost.

Just realized that the diffracted beam is frequency shifted by 80MHz. It would shift the PZT position in the PMC lock acquisition, wouldn't it?

 

  15091   Tue Dec 10 15:17:17 2019 YehonathanUpdatePSLPMC is locked

{Jon, Yehonathan}

We burt-restored the PSL and the PMC locked immediately.

The PMC is now locked on the AOM first order mode.

  15092   Tue Dec 10 18:27:22 2019 YehonathanUpdatePSLPMC is locked

{Yehonathan, Jon}

We are able to lock the PMC on the TEM00 mode of the deflected beam.

However when we turn off the driving voltage to the AOM and back on the lock is not restored. It get stuck on some higher order mode.

There are plethora of modes present when the PZT is scanned, which makes us believe the cavity is misaligned.

 

To lock again on the TEM00 mode again we disconnect the loop (FP Test point 1), find a TEM00 mode using the DC output adjust and close the loop again.

 

  15094   Wed Dec 11 15:29:17 2019 YehonathanUpdatePSLPMC is locked

Make sure to measure the power drop of the beam downstream of the AOM but before the PMC. Need to plot both together to make sure the chop time is much shorter than the 1/e time.

  15096   Thu Dec 12 19:20:43 2019 YehonathanUpdatePSLPMC cavity ringdown measurement

{Yehonathan, Rana, Jon}

To check whether we laser is being shut fast enough for the ringdown measurement we put a PD55 in the path that leads to the beat note setup. The beam is picked off from the back steering mirror after AOM and before the PMC.

@Shruti the PD is now blocking the beam to your setup.

As before, we drive the AOM to deflect the beam. The deflected beam is coupled to the PMC cavity. We lock the PMC and then shut the beam by turning off the output of the function generator that provides voltage to the AOM driver.

We measure the transmitted light of the PMC together with the light that is picked off before the PMC. In Attachment 1, the purple trace is the PMC transmission, the green trace is the peaked-off beam and the yellow trace is the function generator signal.

Rana was pointing out that the PDs, the function generator and the scope were not carefully impedance matched, which could lead to erroneous measurements. He also mentioned that the backscattered beam was too bright which might indicate that the PMC is oscillating. To remedy this we lowered the gain of the PMC lock to ~8.

We repeat the measurement after setting all the components to 50ohm (attachment 2). We then realize that the BNC T junction connected on the function generator is splitting the signal between the 50ohm AOM driver and 1Mohm oscilloscope channel which causes distortions as can be seen. We remove the T junction and get a much cleaner measurement (see next elog).

 

It seems like either the shutting speed or the PDs are only slightly faster than the PMC. I also check the AOM driver RF output fall time doing the same kind of measurement (attachment 3).

We suspect the PDs' bandwidth is to blame (although they are quoted to have 10MHz bandwidth).

In any case, this is fast enough for the IMC and arm cavities whose lifetime should be much longer than the PMC.

I will post an elog with some numbers tomorrow.

Attachment 1: IMG_0105.jpeg
IMG_0105.jpeg
Attachment 2: TEK00001.PNG
TEK00001.PNG
Attachment 3: 20191212_151642.jpg
20191212_151642.jpg
  15097   Fri Dec 13 12:28:43 2019 YehonathanUpdatePSLPMC cavity ringdown measurement

I grab the data we recorded yesterday from the scope and plot it in normalized units (remove noise level and divide by maximum). See attachment.

It can be seen that the measured ringdown time is ~ 17us while the shut-off time is ~12us.

I plan to model the PD+AOM as a lowpass filter with an RC time constant of 12us and undo its filtering action on the PMC trans ringdown measurement to get the actual ringdown time.

Is this acceptable?

 

Attachment 1: Ringdown_InitialProcess.pdf
Ringdown_InitialProcess.pdf
  15099   Tue Dec 17 00:23:28 2019 YehonathanUpdatePSLMapping the PSL electronics

I added to the PSL wiring list the ioo channels and the laser shutter (See attached pdf for an updated list).

The total channel numbers for now:

ai 57
ao 13
bi 1
bo 36

I counted each mbbo as 1 bo but I am not sure that's correct.

Still need to allocate Acromags.

Attachment 1: PSL_Wirings_-_Sheet1_(2).pdf
PSL_Wirings_-_Sheet1_(2).pdf PSL_Wirings_-_Sheet1_(2).pdf
  15100   Tue Dec 17 18:05:06 2019 YehonathanUpdatePSLMapping the PSL electronics

Updated the channel list (Attached):

1. Removed the MC steering mirror PZT channels

2. Added Sourcing/Sinking column

3. Recounted the mbbos correctly

4. Allocated Acromags:

Model Purpose No. Spare channels
XT1221 ai 7 11
XT1541 ao + src bo 2 9 ao
XT1121 src bo 2 4
XT1121 sink bo 1 4

I think we can start wiring.

Attachment 1: PSL_Wirings_-_Sheet1_(3).pdf
PSL_Wirings_-_Sheet1_(3).pdf PSL_Wirings_-_Sheet1_(3).pdf
  15103   Fri Dec 20 18:33:21 2019 YehonathanUpdatePSLMapping the PSL electronics

Final (hopefully) PSL channel list is attached with allocated Acromag channels. Wiring spreadsheet coming soon.

Current Acromag count:

AI 8
AO 2
BIO 4
Number of channels 8*8+2*8+4*16=144
Number of wires 144*2=288

 

Attachment 1: PSL_Wirings_-_Channel_List.pdf
PSL_Wirings_-_Channel_List.pdf PSL_Wirings_-_Channel_List.pdf PSL_Wirings_-_Channel_List.pdf PSL_Wirings_-_Channel_List.pdf PSL_Wirings_-_Channel_List.pdf
  15104   Mon Dec 23 19:30:20 2019 YehonathanUpdatePSLMapping the PSL electronics

PSL wiring spreadsheet is ready. (But the link was stripped. Koji)

Link to a wiki page  with the link to the wiring spreadsheet (Yehonathan)

  15105   Fri Dec 27 15:01:02 2019 YehonathanUpdatePSLPMC cavity ringdown measurement

I measured PMC ringdowns for several input powers. I change the input power by changing the DC voltage to the AOM.

First, I raise the DC voltage to the AOM from 0V and observe the signal on the picked off PD. I see that at around 0.6V the signal stops rising. The signal on the PD is around 4V at that point so it is not saturated.

Up until now, we provided 1.5V to the AOM, which means it was saturated.

I measured ringdowns at AOM voltages of 0.05, 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 1 volt by shutting off the DC voltage to the AOM and measuring the signal at the PMC transmission PD and the picked off PD simultaneously for reference.

Attachment 1 shows the reference measurement for different AOM voltages. For low AOM DC voltages, the response of the AOM+PD is slower.

Attachment 2 shows the PMC transmission PD measurements which barely change as a function of AOM voltage but shows the same trend. I believe that if the AOM+PD response was much faster there would be no observable difference between those measurements.

Attachment 3 shows PMC transmissions and references for AOM voltages 0.05V and 1V. It seems like for low AOM voltages we are barely fast enough to measure the PMC ringdown.

I fitted the 0.3V ringdown and reference to a sum of two exponentials (Attachment 4).

The fitting function is explicitly a * nm.exp(-x/b) +c* nm.exp(-x/d) +e

For the PMC transmission I get:

a = 0.21
b = 3.64 (us)
c = 0.69, 
d = 39.62 (us)
e = 2.0e-04

For the reference measurement:

a = 0.34
b = 4.97 (us)
c = 0.58
d= 31.22 (us)
e = 1.11e-03

I am still not able to do deconvolution of the ref from the measurement reliably. I think we should do a network analyzer measurement.

Shruti, the PD is again in your beam path.

Attachment 1: PDAOMResponse.pdf
PDAOMResponse.pdf
Attachment 2: PMCTransmission.pdf
PMCTransmission.pdf
Attachment 3: RingdownsAndRefs.pdf
RingdownsAndRefs.pdf
Attachment 4: TwoExponentialFitAOM0.3V.pdf
TwoExponentialFitAOM0.3V.pdf
  15106   Fri Dec 27 16:26:11 2019 YehonathanUpdatePSLPMC Linewidth measurement

I try to measure the linewidth of the PMC by ramping the PMC PZT. 

I do it by connecting a triangular shape signal to FP Test 1 on the PMC servo front panel (I know, it is probably better to connect it to DC EXT. next time.) and turn the servo gain to a minimum.

Attachment 1 shows the PMC transmission PD as the PZT is swept with the EOM connected and when it is disconnected. It shows the PMC over more than 1 free spectral range.

For some reason, I cannot seem to be able to find the 35MHz sidebands which I want to use to calibrate the PZT scan. I made sure that the EOM is driven by a 35MHz signal using the scope. I also made sure that the PMC cannot to lock without the EOM connected.

I am probably doing something silly.

Attachment 1: PMCTransmissionSpectra.pdf
PMCTransmissionSpectra.pdf
  15109   Wed Jan 1 14:14:00 2020 YehonathanUpdatePSLPMC Linewidth measurement

Turns out the 35MHz sidebands are way too weak to resolve from the resonance when doing a PZT scan.

I connect the IFR2023B function generator on the PSL table to the EOM instead of the FSS box and set it to generate 150MHz at 13dbm.

To observe the resulting weak sideband I place a PDA55 at the peak-off path from the transmission of the PMC where there is much more light than the transmission of the PMC head mirror. Whoever is using this path there is a PD blocking it right now.

I do a PZT scan by connecting a triangular signal to the EXT DC on the PMC servo with and without the EOM (Attachment 1). A weak sideband can clearly be spotted now.

Using the above 150MHz sideband calibration I can find the roundtrip time to be 1.55ns.

I take a high-resolution scan of a resonance peak and fit it to a Lorentzian (Attachment 2) and find a roundtrip loss of 1.3%.

Using the above results the cavity decay time is 119ns.

We should investigate what's going on with the ringdown measurements.

Attachment 1: 150MHzSideBandCreation.pdf
150MHzSideBandCreation.pdf
Attachment 2: LinewidthMeasurment.pdf
LinewidthMeasurment.pdf
  15110   Wed Jan 1 16:04:37 2020 YehonathanUpdatePSLMapping the PSL electronics

Done.

Quote:

For the IMC servo board, it'd be easiest to copy the wiring scheme for the BIO bits as is configured for the CM board (i.e. copy the grouping of the BIO bits on the individual Acromag units). This will enable us to use the latch code with minimal modifications (it was a pain to debug this the first time around). I don't see any major constraint in the wiring assignment that'd make this difficult.

Quote:

PSL wiring spreadsheet is ready. (But the link was stripped. Koji)

Link to a wiki page  with the link to the wiring spreadsheet (Yehonathan)

 

  15115   Fri Jan 10 14:21:19 2020 YehonathanUpdatePSLc1psl reboot

PSL controls on the sitemap went blank. Rebooted c1psl. PSL screens seem normal again.

ELOG V3.1.3-