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 Author Type Categoryup Subject
  5189   Thu Aug 11 12:54:06 2011 kiwamuUpdateIOOMC spot positions

The spot positions on the MC mirrors were adjusted by steering the MC mirrors, resulting in 1 mm off-centering on each optic.

DONE.

 

(Requirement cleared)

One of the requirements in aligning the MC mirrors is the differential spot positions in MC1 and MC3.

It determines the beam angle after the beam exists from MC, and if it's bigger than 3 mm then the beam will be possibly clipped by the Faraday (#4674).

The measured differential spot positions on MC1 and MC3 are : PIT = 0.17 mm and YAW = 1.9 mm, so they are fine.

 

(Measurement and Results)

 Suresh and I aligned the MC cavity's eigen axis by using MCASS and steering the MC mirrors.

Most of the alignment was done manually by changing the DC biases

because we failed to invert the output matrix and hence unable to activate the MCASS servo (#5167).

Then I ran Valera's script to measure the amount of the off-centering (#4355), but it gave me many error messages associated with EPICS.

So a new script newsensedecenter.csh, which is based on tdsavg instead of ezcaread, was made to avoid these error messages.

 

The resultant plot is attached. The y-axis is calibrated into the amount of the off-centering in mm.

In the plot each curve experiences one bump, which is due to the intentional coil imbalance to calibrate the data from cnts to mm (#4355).

The dashed lines are the estimated amount of off-centering.

For the definition of the signs, I followed Koji's coordinate (#2864) where the UL OSEM is always in minus side.

    Feb 26 2011      May 08 2011 Aug 2 2011 [NEW!!] Aug 10 2011 (in air)
MC1 pit [mm]   1.6   1.9  1.93 -0.858
MC2 pit [mm]   6.4   9.0 9.03 -0.844
MC3 pit [mm]   1.4   2.0 2.01 -1.03
MC1 yaw [mm]   -1.5   -1.7 -1.72 -0.847
MC2 yaw [mm]   1.0   0.2 0.178 0.582
MC3 yaw [mm]   -1.3   -1.9 -1.87 -1.06

 

Quote from #5182

After the beam spots on MC1 and MC3 were close to the actuation nodes (<1mm away)

Attachment 1: MCoffcenter.png
MCoffcenter.png
  5236   Mon Aug 15 10:58:52 2011 kiwamuUpdateIOOMC misaligned a lot

This morning Steve and I opened the doors on the IOO and OMC chamber to let the IR beam go to MC.

And found the MC flashing is way far from TEM00, there were very higher order modes.

The MC suspensions were realigned based on an assumption that the incident beam didn't change recently.

Anyways we should check the leveling of the IOO table and the spot positions on the MC mirrors again to make sure.

  5238   Mon Aug 15 14:07:39 2011 kiwamuUpdateIOORe: MC misaligned a lot

The leveling was still okay. The MC mirrors were realigned and now they all are fine.

We will go ahead for the vertex alignment and extraction of the pick-off beams.

 

Here is a summary of the spot measurement.

    Feb 26 2011      May 08 2011 Aug 2 2011  Aug 10 2011 (in air) [NEW!!] Aug 14 2011 (in air)
MC1 pit [mm]   1.6   1.9  1.93 -0.858 -0.2
MC2 pit [mm]   6.4   9.0 9.03 -0.844 -0.8
MC3 pit [mm]   1.4   2.0 2.01 -1.03 -0.1
MC1 yaw [mm]   -1.5   -1.7 -1.72 -0.847 -1.1
MC2 yaw [mm]   1.0   0.2 0.178 0.582 0.6
MC3 yaw [mm]   -1.3   -1.9 -1.87 -1.06 -1.1

 

Quote from #5236

Anyways we should check the leveling of the IOO table and the spot positions on the MC mirrors again to make sure.

 

  5268   Fri Aug 19 09:14:56 2011 steveUpdateIOOdegrading laser power at atm

Light into the MC is 20 mW at atm, MC_Transmitted ~10 MW = 400 count

The PMC_T is OK but something else is drifting.

Attachment 1: power@atm.jpg
power@atm.jpg
  5283   Tue Aug 23 02:03:04 2011 SureshUpdateIOOMC realigned and spot positions recentered

After the MC1 and MC3 OSEMs were  repositioned  MC had to be realigned and the beam spots had to be recentered on the actuation nodes.  

To do that I had to change the input beam direction into the MC  and the coil offsets.   

I also measured the resultant spot positions

spot positions in mm (MC1,2,3 pit MC1,2,3 yaw):
    0.1354   -0.2522   -0.1383   -1.0893    0.7122   -1.5587

mcdecenter20110822.png

 

The MC1 and MC3 yaw can be improved further after the chambers are closed and evacuated.  The PZT adjustments needed to realign the input beam pointing are quite small and should not pose a problem.

 

 

  5313   Sat Aug 27 20:38:17 2011 SureshUpdateIOOLight is back on WFS

[Valera, Suresh]

   We wanted to continue the work with WFS servo loops.  As the current optical paths on the AP table do not send any light to the WFS, I changed a mirror to a 98% window and a window to a mirror to send about 0.25mW of light towards the WFS.   The MC locking is unaffected by this change.   The autolocker works fine.

   When the power to the MC is increased, these will have to be replaced or else the WFS will burn.

  5321   Mon Aug 29 19:14:31 2011 SureshUpdateIOOWFS phase adjustments

[Valera, Suresh]

1) To see if there are significant dark-offsets on the WFS sensors we closed the PSL shutter and found that the offsets are in the 1% range.  We decided to ignore them for now.

2) To center the MC_REFL beam on the WFS we opened the PSL shutter, unlocked the MC and then centered the DC_PIT and DC_YAW signals in the C1IOO_WFS_QPD screen.

3) We then looked at the power spectrum of the I and Q signals from WFS1 to see if the spectrum looked okay and found that some of the quadrants looked very different from others.  The reason was traced to incorrect Comb60 filters.   After correcting these filters we adjusted the R phase angle in the WFS1_SETTINGS screen to suppress the 1Hz natural oscillation signal in the Q channels of all the four quadrants.  We repeated this process for WFS2

4) To see if the relative phase of all four quadrants was correct we first drove the MC_length and tried to check the phase of the response on each quadrant.  However the response was very weak as the signal was suppressed by the MC servo.  Increasing the drive made the PMC lock unstable.  So we introduced a 6Hz, 50mVpp signal from an SR785 into the MC_servo (Input2) and with this we were able to excite a significant response in the WFS without affecting the PMC servo.    By looking at the time series of the signals from the quadrants we set the R phase angle in WFS_Settings such that all the quadrants showed the same phase response to the MC_length modulation. 

     Using the larger response were were able to further tweak the R angle to supress the Q channels to about 1% of the I phase signals.

5)  I then edited the c1ioo.mdl so that we can use the six lockins just as they are used in MC_ASS.  However we can now set elements of the SEN_DMD_MATRX (sensor demod matrix) to select any of the MCL, WFS PIT and YAW channels (or a linear combination of them) for demodulation.  The change is shown below.  While compiling and model on C1IOO FE machine there were problems which eventually led to the FB crash.

Screenshot-1.png

 

  

  5327   Tue Aug 30 17:31:55 2011 SureshUpdateIOOC1IOO model reverted and fb restarted

I reverted the C1IOO model to the last working version and restarted the fb at this time..Tue Aug 30 17:28:38 PDT 2011

  5335   Fri Sep 2 13:12:08 2011 kiwamuUpdateIOOtriple resonant box : ready to install

The triple resonant box was checked again. Each resonant frequency was tuned and the box is ready to go.

Before the actual installation I want to hear opinions about RF reflections because the RF reflection at 29 MHz isn't negligible.

It might be a problem since the reflection will go back to the RF generation box and would damage the amplifiers.

 

(Frequency adjustment and resultant reflection coefficient)

In order to tune the resonant frequencies the RF reflection was continuously monitored while the variable inductors were tweaked.

The plot below shows the reflection coefficient of the box after the frequency adjustment. 

refl_eom.png

In the upper plot, where the amplitude of the reflection coefficient of the box is plotted, there are three notches at 11, 29.5 and 55 MHz.

A notch means an RF power, which is applied to the resonant box, is successfully absorbed and consequently the EOM obtains some voltage at this frequency.

These power absorptions take place at the resonant frequencies as we designed so.

A good thing by monitoring this reflection coefficient is that one can easily tune the resonant frequency by looking at the positions of the notches.

Note that :

If amplitude is  0dB ( =1),  it means all of the signal is reflected.

If a circuit under test is impedance matched to 50 Ohm the amplitude will be ideally zero (= -infinity dB).

 

Reflections :

at 11 MHz = -15 dB (3% of RF power is reflected)

at 29.5 MHz = -2 dB (63% of RF power is reflected)

at 55 MHz = -8 dB (15% of RF power is reflected)

  5336   Fri Sep 2 15:56:32 2011 KojiUpdateIOOtriple resonant box : ready to install

What are the reflected RF powers for those frequencies? 
Is the 29.5MHz more problem than the 55MHz, considering the required modulation depth?

 

  5339   Sat Sep 3 14:47:50 2011 kiwamuUpdateIOOtriple resonant box : brief estimations about reflections and mode. depths

(RF reflections)

The reflected RF power going back to the RF generation box will be :

    Power at 11MHz =  2 dBm

   Power at 29.5 MHz = 3 dBm

   Power at 55 MHz = 9dBm

Assuming the input power at 11 and 55 MHz are at 27 dBm (40m wiki page). And 15 dBm for 29.5 MHz.

Since there is an RF combiner in between the generation box and the resonant box, it reduces the reflections by an additional factor of 10 dB (#4517)

In the estimation above, the reduction due to the RF combiner was taken into account.

 

(Modulation depths)

Besides the reflection issue, the circuit meets a rough requirement of 200 mrad at 11 and 55 MHz.

For the 29.5 MHz modulation, the depth will be reduced approximately by a factor of 2, which I don't think it's a significant issue.

So the modulation depths should be okay.

Assuming the performance of the resonant circuit remains the same (#2586), the modulation depths will be :

      Mod. depth at 11 MHz =  280 mrad

      Mod. depth at 29.5 MHz = 4 mrad (This is about half of the current modulation depth)

      Mod. depth at 55 MHz = 250 mrad

 

Quote from #5336

What are the reflected RF powers for those frequencies? 
Is the 29.5MHz more problem than the 55MHz, considering the required modulation depth?

 

  5344   Tue Sep 6 17:43:01 2011 SureshUpdateIOOFree Swing ITMY started

Free swing of ITMY started at

Tue Sep  6 17:41:43 PDT 2011

 

  5347   Tue Sep 6 17:56:53 2011 JenneUpdateIOOFree Swing ITMY started

Quote:

Free swing of ITMY started at

Tue Sep  6 17:41:43 PDT 2011

 

 I think Kiwamu accidentally restarted this kick at 17:48:02 PDT.

  5351   Wed Sep 7 00:01:23 2011 SureshUpdateIOOITMY chamber ready for heavy doors

[Jenne, Suresh]

We did the following things in the ITMY chamber today:

1) We tried to get the ITMY stuck again by adjusting the coil gains so that it goes into the orientation where it used to get stuck.  We (reassuringly) failed to get it stuck again.  This, as we came to know later, is because kiwamu had rotated the side OSEM such that the optic does not get stuck . However the OSEM beam is at about 30 deg to the vertical and the SD is sensitive to POS motion now resulting in the poorer separation of modes as noted by Jenne earlier (5439)

2) We checked the earthquake stops and repositioned two at the bottom (towards the AR side of the optic)  which we had backed out earlier.

3) We took pics of all the OSEMS.

4) Checked to see if there are any stray beams with an IR card.  There were none.

5) I obtained the max values of the OSEMS by misaligning the optic with the coil offsets.  These values are in good agreement with those on the wiki

OSEM     UL     UR     LR     LL      SD

Max      1.80    1.53   1.68   1.96    2.10

Current  0.97   0.79    0.83   0.97   1.02

 

We can close the heavy doors tomorrow morning.

  5364   Wed Sep 7 22:17:04 2011 ranaUpdateIOORF Amp for EOM on PSL Table

After Steve pointed out the 'deep hoop' issue, we decided to examine putting an RF Amp on the PSL table, between the RF combiner and the triple resonant box.

This will reduce the chances of standing waves in the cables and reduce the radiation induced pick-up in the RF PD and Demod electronics.

We would like to send ~10 dBm from the distribution box to the combiner. We also want to able to get as much as ~33 dBm of drive at 11 and 55 MHz. So the amp should have a gain of ~20-30 dB and an operating range of 10-100 MHz.

Also desirable are low distortion (high IP3) and good reverse isolation ( > 40 dB).

Some possibilities so far (please add your RF Google Results here):

1) Mini-Circuits ZHL-1-2W-S:  G = +32 dB, Max Out = +33 dBm, NF = 6 dB, Directivity = 25 dB

2) Mini-Circuits TIA-1000-1R8:  G=+40 dB, Max Out = +36 dBm, NF = 15 dB   (AC Powered, Inst. Amp), Directivity = 58 dB.

3) Mini-Circuits ZHL-2-8: G = +27dB, Max out = +29 dBm, NF = 6dB, Directivity = 32 dB

4) RFbay MPA-10-40: G = +40dB, Max Out = + 30 dBm, NF = 3.3 dB, Rev Iso = 23 dB

5) No proper stuff from Teledyne Couger

 

  5367   Thu Sep 8 20:13:24 2011 kiwamuUpdateIOOMC is back to full power

[Suresh / Kiwamu]

 The attenuator was removed and now the MC is happily locked with the full power of 1.2 W.

 

(what we did)

 + replaced the perfect reflector, which was before the MCREFL_PD, by a 10% beam splitter like it used to be.

 + removed the attenuator (combination of HWP and PBS).

 + realigned the beam path on the AP table, including the MCREFL path and WFS path.

 + made the aperture of the MC2F camera narrower in order to avoid a saturation.

 + aligned the MC suspensions so that it resonates with the TEM00 mode.

 + put a ND filter on the AS camera

 

(notes)

C1:IOO-MC_RFPD_DCMON = 0.98 (locked)

C1:IOO-MC_TRANS_SUM = 17500 (locekd)

 

(next things to do)

 + measurement of the spot positions on each MC mirror.

 + centering of the beam spot by steering the input mirrors on the PSL table

  5368   Fri Sep 9 11:59:58 2011 kiwamuUpdateIOOPZT1 doesn't work

Last night I noticed that PZT1 didn't work properly

I am not sure what is going on. Today I will try localizing the cause of the problem.

As far as I remember it was perfectly working at the time just after we readjusted the OSEMs on MC1 and MC3 (Aug 23th)

 

The symptoms are :

  + No response to both pitch and yaw control from EPICS (i.e. C1:LSC-PZT1_X and C1:LSC-PZT1_Y)

  + When a big value (-3 or so) from EPICS was applied, the PZT1 mirror suddenly jumped.

     However it turned out it just corresponded to a state where OOR (Out Of Range) LED lights up.

 

I did some brief checks :

  + checked the voltage going into the HV amplifiers' "MOD" input. Those are the voltage coming out from DACs and controlled from EPICS.

   --> looked healthy. They went from -10 to 10 V as expected (although the HV amp takes up to only +/-5V).

  + swapped the ''MOD" input cables such that C1:LSC-PZT1 controls the PZT2 HV and vice versa.

    --> The PZT2 mirror was still controlable, but the PZT1 mirror still didn't move. So the DAC and EPICS are innocent.

  + swapped the D-dub cables, which are directly going into the feedthroughs, such that the PZT1 HV drives the PZT2 mirrors and vice versa.

    --> the PZT2 mirror became unable to be controlled. For the PZT1 mirror, only PITCH worked smoothly.


  5369   Fri Sep 9 13:29:09 2011 kiwamuUpdateIOOa history of PZT mirror

Something happened about 8 years ago.

Old iLog entry by AJW (2003/Sep/8)

Old iLog entry by AJW (2003/Sep/9)

Quote:

Last night I noticed that PZT1 didn't work properly

 

  5371   Fri Sep 9 16:16:59 2011 kiwamuUpdateIOOspot positions on MC mirrors (in-vac)

The spot positions on the MC mirrors were measured in the vacuum condition.

The obtained spot positions are quite bad and roughly at 2-3 mm level. We have to realign the beam axis and the MC mirrors.

 

    Feb 26 2011      May 08 2011 Aug 2 2011  Aug 10 2011 (in air) Aug 14 2011 (in air)

Aug 23 2011 (in air)

[NEW]  Sep 9 2011
MC1 pit [mm]   1.6   1.9  1.93 -0.858 -0.2 0.1354  -1.55
MC2 pit [mm]   6.4   9.0 9.03 -0.844 -0.8 -0.2522  -2.28
MC3 pit [mm]   1.4   2.0 2.01 -1.03 -0.1 -0.1383  -1.8
MC1 yaw [mm]   -1.5   -1.7 -1.72 -0.847 -1.1 -1.0893  -0.02
MC2 yaw [mm]   1.0   0.2 0.178 0.582 0.6 0.7122  3.52
MC3 yaw [mm]   -1.3   -1.9 -1.87 -1.06 -1.1 -1.5587  -2.145

 

  5372   Fri Sep 9 19:15:17 2011 ranaUpdateIOORF Amp for EOM on PSL Table

Quote:

After Steve pointed out the 'deep hoop' issue, we decided to examine putting an RF Amp on the PSL table, between the RF combiner and the triple resonant box.

5) No proper stuff from Teledyne Couger

 

By looking at what Daniel used in the low noise EOM Driver for aLIGO, we found the A2CP2596 from Cougar.

G = +24 dB, NF = 5 dB, Max Out = +37 dBm. It comes in a 2-stage SMA connector package. I've asked Steve to order 2 of them with the appropriate heatsinks.

  5373   Fri Sep 9 20:52:59 2011 kiwamuUpdateIOOspot positions on MC mirrors (in-vac)

The spot positions on the MC mirrors were readjusted.

All the amount of the off-center became smaller than 2 mm, which meet requirements of the beam clearance on the Faraday.

 

    Feb 26 2011      May 08 2011 Aug 2 2011  Aug 10 2011 (in air) Aug 14 2011 (in air)

Aug 23 2011 (in air)

 Sep 9 2011 [NEW] Sep 9 2011
MC1 pit [mm]   1.6   1.9  1.93 -0.858 -0.2 0.1354  -1.55  0.22
MC2 pit [mm]   6.4   9.0 9.03 -0.844 -0.8 -0.2522  -2.28  -0.34
MC3 pit [mm]   1.4   2.0 2.01 -1.03 -0.1 -0.1383  -1.8 -0.21
MC1 yaw [mm]   -1.5   -1.7 -1.72 -0.847 -1.1 -1.0893  -0.02 -1.15
MC2 yaw [mm]   1.0   0.2 0.178 0.582 0.6 0.7122  3.52 0.07
MC3 yaw [mm]   -1.3   -1.9 -1.87 -1.06 -1.1 -1.5587  -2.145 -1.07

 

 In order to improve the MC1-YAW and MC3-YAW spot positions, the angle of the incident beam has to be shifted by approximately 1/100 rad.

However it turned out to be very difficult to introduce such amount of angle only with the steering mirrors on the PSL table since we have to keep the same translation while changing the angle.

 

Quote from #5371

The obtained spot positions are quite bad and roughly at 2-3 mm level. We have to realign the beam axis and the MC mirrors.

 

  5383   Sat Sep 10 20:30:01 2011 ranaUpdateIOOMC trans re-aligned / MC2 shifted mysteriously / MC2 re-aligned

MCdecenter.png

I re-aligned the beam onto the MC TRANS QPD since Kiwamu had centered the spots on the mirrors. However, I then inspected the MC2F camera. After coming back into the control room I noticed that the MC transmission had gone down by 50% and that the MC2 OSEMs showed a large step. My guess is that somehow the opening and closing of the can shifted the suspension. So I adjusted the MC2 alignment biases to recover the transmitted power (its now ~50000 instead of the ~33000 from Friday).

  5391   Mon Sep 12 23:54:10 2011 kiwamuUpdateIOOEOM resonant box installed

[Mirko / Kiwamu]

 The resonant box has been installed together with a 3 dB attenuator.

The demodulation phase of the MC lock was readjusted and the MC is now happily locked.

 

(Background)

We needed more modulation depth on each modulation frequency and so for the reason we installed the resonant box to amplify the signal levels.

Since the resonant box isn't impedance matched well, the box creates some amount of the RF reflections (#5339).

In order to reduce somewhat of the RF reflection we decided to put a 3 dB attenuator in between the generation box and the resonant box.

 

(what we did)

 + attached the resonant box directly to the EOM input with a short SMA connector.

 + put stacked black plates underneath the resonant box to support the wight of the box and to relief the strain on the cable between the EOM and the box.

 + put a 3 dB attenuator just after the RF power combiner to reduce RF reflections.

 + readjusted the demodulation phase of the MC lock.

 

(Adjustment of MC demodulation phase)

 The demodulation phase was readjusted by adding more cable length in the local oscillator line.

After some iterations an additional cable length of about 30 cm was inserted to maximize the Q-phase signal.

So for the MC lock we are using the Q signal, which is the same as it had been before.

 

 Before the installation of the resonant box, the amplitude of the MC PDH signal was measured in the demodulation board's monitor pins.

The amplitude was about 500 mV in peak-peak (see the attached pictures of the I-Q projection in an oscilloscope). Then after the installation the amplitude decreased to 400 mV in peak-peak.

Therefore the amplitude of the PDH signal decreased by 20 %, which is not as bad as I expected since the previous measurement indicated 40 % reduction (#2586).

 

Attachment 1: EOM.png
EOM.png
Attachment 2: before.png
before.png
Attachment 3: after.png
after.png
  5393   Tue Sep 13 09:16:00 2011 SureshUpdateIOOMC spots recentered and input beam aligned

The shift of MC2 which Rana noted caused the beam spots on the MC mirrors to decenter. I used the mcassUp and mcassOn scripts and checked the output of the C1IOO lockins to get the spot positions.  I first tried to realign just the MC2 to recenter the spots.  But this was not sufficient.  I then worked on the pitch of all three optics since it is easier to align.   By the time this was done the offset in yaw also reduced, probably due to cross coupling between pitch and yaw in the coils.  At the end of the process I obtained all decentering around 1.5mm or less, then I went over to adjust the MC2TransQPD beam path so that we center the spot on the QPD.  This action shifted the stack,  I had to iterate this two more times before the successive corrections grew sufficiently small.  I think it may shift again if we touch the chamber (the image of MC2Face is still inverted).

The new spot positions in mm (MC1,2,3 pit MC1,2,3 yaw):
    1.3212   -0.8415    0.6795   -1.4292   -0.3574   -1.5208

 

 mcdecenter20110912_1.png    mcdecenter20110912_2.png      

 

- Further improvement of beam centering can be done but first I would like to be sure that the MC is stable.  The MC2Trans light is centered on the QPD as a reference.

 

  5431   Fri Sep 16 11:15:12 2011 KojiUpdateIOOPZT1 situation

[Koji Kiwamu]

- We have checked the situation of the broken Piezo Jenna PZT (called PZT1)

- Tested PZT1 by applying a dc voltage on the cables. Found that pitch and yaw reasonably moving and the motions are well separated each other.
  The pitch requires +20V to set the IPPOS spot on the QPD center.

- Made a high-voltage (actually middle voltage) amp to convert +/-10V EPICS control signal into -5 to +30V PZTout. It is working on the prototype board and will be put into the actual setup soon.


Details:

- The Piezo Jenna driver box has 4 modules. From the left-hand side, the HV module, Yaw controller, Pitch controller, and Ben abbot's connector converter.

- We checked the voltage on Ben's converter board. (Photo1)
  It turned out that the red cable is the one have the driving voltage while the others stays zero.

- We hooked a 30V DC power supply between the red cable and the shield which is actually connected to the board ground.

- Applying +/-10V, we confirmed the strain gauge is reacting. If we actuated the pitch cable, we only saw the pitch strain gauge reacted. Same situation for yaw too.

- Kiwamu went to IPPOS QPD to see the spot position, while I change the voltage. We found that applying +20V to the pitch cable aligns the spot on the QPD center.

------------------------

- I started to make a small amplifier boards which converts +/-10V EPICS signals into -5V to +30V PZT outs.

- The OPAMP is OPA452 which can deal with the supply voltages upto +/-40V. We will supply +/-30V. The noninerting amp has the gain of +2.

- It uses a 15V zener diode to produce -15V reference voltage from -30V. This results the output voltage swing from -5V to +35V.
The actual maximum output is +30V because of the supply voltage.

- On the circut test bench, I have applied +/-5V sinusoidal to the input and successfully obtained +5V to +25V swing.

- The board will be put on Ben's board today.

Attachment 1: P9151574.JPG
P9151574.JPG
Attachment 2: P9161576.JPG
P9161576.JPG
Attachment 3: P9161577.JPG
P9161577.JPG
  5447   Sat Sep 17 14:04:45 2011 KojiUpdateIOOPZT1 driver in place

The PZT driver is now in place. The actual PZTs are not connected yet!

It is accommodated on Ben's connector adapter board.

The panel has additional connectors now: two inputs and a power supply connector.

The supply voltage is +/-30V (actual maximum +/-40V), and the input range is +/-10V
which yields the output range of -5V to 30V. The gain of the amplifier is +2.

It is confirmed that the HV outputs react to the epics sliders although the PZT connector is not connected yet
so as not to disturb the locking activity.

When we engage the PZT connector, we should check the HV outputs with an oscilloscope to confirm they
have no oscillation with the capacitances of the PZTs together with the long cable.

Attachment 1: P9171579.JPG
P9171579.JPG
Attachment 2: P9171580.JPG
P9171580.JPG
  5450   Sun Sep 18 15:57:00 2011 KojiUpdateIOOThe PZT driver engaged to PZT1

[Koji Kiwamu]

The pzt driver for PZT1 has been installed.
As there was unknown resistive connection in the vacuum chamber as described below,
the PZT out cable at the PJ driver module should always be disconnected.
The sensor cables have no problem to be connected to the controller.
In fact, they are a good monitor for the state of the PZTs.

In this configuration, Pitch and Yaw direction of PZT1 is under the control of the EPICS value as we expected.


Details:

- At the beginning, we tested the PZT driver output with low voltage level (~10V). We did not see any oscillation of the opamps.
  The pitch output was observed to be OK, while the YAW output exhibited a half of the expected output voltage.
  The opamp was holding correct voltage, however the voltage after the 1K output resister was about a half.
  This indicated there was a voltage division happening.

- The cause of the voltage division was tracked. We found that the yaw red (=hot) line is connected to pitch black
  in the vacuum chamber with a resistance of 1.4kOhm. The black cables are shorted to the ground level in the PJ driver.

- We decided to unplug the PJ's cable so that we can isolate the black cables while hoping the PZTs were drived only
  by the red and white cables. And they did.

- This means that we should not connect the PZT driving cable to the PJ's driver. The sensors have no problem to be connected.

- Pinouts:

DSUB25
|. .|
|. .|
|. o|  5
|o  | 17
|  o|  4 
|o  | 16   Yaw Black
|  o|  3   Pitch Black
|o  | 15   Yaw White
|  o|  2   Yaw Red
|o  | 14   Pitch White
 \ o|  1   Pitch Red
  \-+

* Pitch White and Yaw White are connected to the ground at the amplifier side.
* Yaw Red and Pitch Black is connected with 1.4kOhm and isolated from the others.


  5459   Mon Sep 19 14:57:36 2011 kiwamuSummaryIOOIP POS is back

IPPOS is back. A cable had been disconnected at the 1Y2 rack. So I put it back to place.

The cartoon below shows the current wiring diagram. I think this configuration is exactly the same as it it used to be.

wiring.png

Quote from #5455

  + Fixing IPPOS (volunteers) 

  5472   Mon Sep 19 23:19:40 2011 KeikoUpdateIOOAM modulation mistery

 Keiko, Anamaria

We started to investigate the AM modulation mistery again. Checking just after the EOM, there are AM modulation about -45dBm. Even if we adjust the HWP just before the EOM, AM components grow up in 5 mins. This is the same situation as before. Only the difference from before is that we don't have PBS and HWP between the EOM and the monitor PD. So we have a simpler setup this time.

We will try to align the pockells cell alignment tomorrow daytime, as it may be a problem when the crystal and the beam are not well parallel. This adjustment has been done before and it didn't improve AM level at that time.

  5478   Tue Sep 20 13:57:44 2011 kiwamuUpdateIOOincident beam to MC aligned

Since the MC wasn't able to capture the 00 mode in this morning I aligned the incident beam going to MC.

As a result C1:IOO-RFPD_DCMON went down to 0.6. However the beam on IPPOS is almost falling off from the QPD.

  5483   Tue Sep 20 16:31:24 2011 KeikoUpdateIOOSmall modulation depth

 Modulation resonator box is removed and the modulation depth is small right now.

I have broke the BNC connector on the modulation resonator box. The connector was attached by the screw inside very loosely and when we connect and disconnect the BNC cables from outside, extra force was applied to the cable inside and it was broke. It is being fix by Kiwamu and will be back in a bit.

 

 

 

 

  5484   Tue Sep 20 16:38:25 2011 KeikoUpdateIOOSmall modulation depth

Resonator box and the modulations are back now. But the modulation depth seems to be a bit smaller than yesterday, looking at the optical spectrum analyser.

 

Quote:

 Modulation resonator box is removed and the modulation depth is small right now.

I have broke the BNC connector on the modulation resonator box. The connector was attached by the screw inside very loosely and when we connect and disconnect the BNC cables from outside, extra force was applied to the cable inside and it was broke. It is being fix by Kiwamu and will be back in a bit

 

  5490   Tue Sep 20 21:13:39 2011 SureshUpdateIOOMC aligned and PSL beam into MC readjusted

This morning after Kiwamu maximised the PSL beam coupling into the MC we noticed that the MC2 face camera showed the spot position had moved away from the center by about a diameter.  So I checked the beam spot positions with MCASS and indeed found that the spot on MC2 had moved to about 6mm away from the center in yaw and about 3mm in pitch.  I adjusted the MC2 (and only MC2) to recenter the spots on all the three mirrors.  The new spot positions are given below

spot positions in mm (MC1,2,3 pit MC1,2,3 yaw):
    1.3337   -0.2660    0.6641   -1.0973    0.0468   -1.7130

The PSL beam into MC has been readjusted for maximal coupling into MC.

 

  5491   Tue Sep 20 23:01:37 2011 KeikoUpdateIOOAM modulation mistery

Keiko, Suresh

AM modulations are still there ... the mechanical design for the stages, RF cables, and connections are not good and affecting the alignment.

I write the activity in the time series this time - Because we suspect the slight EOM misalignment to the beam produces the unwanted AM sidebands, we tried to align the EOM as much as possible. First I aligned the EOM tilt aligner so that the maximum power goes through. I found that about 5% power was dumped by EOM. After adjusting the alignment, the AM modulation seemed be much better and stable, however, it came up after about 20 mins. They grew up up to about -40dBm, while the noise floor is -60 dBm (when AM is minimised, with DC power of 8V by PDA225 photodetector).

We changed the EOM stage (below the tilt aligner) from a small plate to a large plate, so that the EOM base can be more stable. The EOM stands on the pile of several black plate. There was a gap below the tilt aligner because of a small plate.  So we swapped the small plate to large plate to eliminate the springly gap. However it didn't make any difference - it is the current status and there is still AM modulations right now.

During above activities, we leaned that the main cause of the EOM misalignment may be the RF cables and the resonator box connected to the EOM. They are connected to the EOM by an SMA adaptor, not any soft cables. It is very likely applying some  torc force to the EOM box. The resonator box is almost hunging from the EOM case and just your slight touch changes EOM alinment quite a bit and AM mod becomes large. 

I will replace the SMA connector between the resonator box and EOM to be a soft cable, so that the box doesn't hung from EOM tomorrow. Also, I will measure the AM mod depth so that we compare with the PM mod depth.

 

Quote:

 Keiko, Anamaria

We started to investigate the AM modulation mistery again. Checking just after the EOM, there are AM modulation about -45dBm. Even if we adjust the HWP just before the EOM, AM components grow up in 5 mins. This is the same situation as before. Only the difference from before is that we don't have PBS and HWP between the EOM and the monitor PD. So we have a simpler setup this time.

We will try to align the pockells cell alignment tomorrow daytime, as it may be a problem when the crystal and the beam are not well parallel. This adjustment has been done before and it didn't improve AM level at that time.

 

  5502   Wed Sep 21 16:44:18 2011 KeikoUpdateIOOAM modulation mistery

AM modulation depths are found to be 50 times smaller than PM modulation depths.

m(AM,f1) ~ m(AM, f2) = 0.003 while m(PM, f1)=0.17 and m(PM, f2)=0.19.

Measured values;

* DC power = 5.2V which is assumed to be 0.74mW according to the PDA255 manual.

*AM_f1 and AM_f2 power = -55.9 dBm = 2.5 * 10^(-9) W.

P92101381.jpg

AM f2 power is assumed to be the similar value of f1. I can't measure f2 (55MHz) level properly because the PD (PDA255) is 50MHz bandwidth. From the (P_SB/P_CR) = (m/2) ^2 relation where P_SB and P_CR are the sideband and carrier power, respectively, I estimated the rough the AM modulation depths. Although DC power include the AM SB powers, I assumed that SB powers are enough small and the DC power can be considered as the carrier power, P_CR. The resulting modulation depth is about 0.003.

On the other hand, from the OSA, today's PM mod depths are 0.17 and 0.19 for f1 and f2, respectively. Please note that these numbers contains (small) AM sidebands components too. Comparing with the PM and AM sideband depths, AM sidebands seems to be enough small.

Quote:

Keiko, Suresh

AM modulations are still there ... the mechanical design for the stages, RF cables, and connections are not good and affecting the alignment. 

 

Attachment 1: P9210138.JPG
P9210138.JPG
  5503   Wed Sep 21 17:42:35 2011 ranaUpdateIOOAM modulation misery

I'd like to see some details about how to determine that the ratio of 1:50 is small enough for AM:PM.

* What have people achieved in past according to the elogs©  of the measurements?

* What do we expect the effect of 1:50 to be? How much offset does this make in the MICH/PRC/SRC loops? How much offset is too much?

Recall that we are using frontal modulation with a rather small Schnupp Asymmetry...

  5504   Wed Sep 21 18:53:03 2011 KeikoUpdateIOOAM modulation misery

The signal offset due to the AM modulation is estimated by a simulation for PRCL for now. Please see the result below.

Too see how bad or good the AM modulation with 1/50 modulation depths of PM, I ran a simulation. For example I looked at PRCL sweep signal for each channel. I tried the three AM modulation depths, (1) m_AM=0 & m_PM = 0.17 (2) m_AM = 0.003 & m_PM = 0.17 which is the current modulation situation (3) m_AM = 0.17 & m_PM = 0.17 in which AM is the same modulation depth as PM.  For the current status of (2), there are offsets on signals up to 0.002 while the maximum signal amplitude is 0.15. I can't tell how bad it is.... Any suggestions?

 

(1) m_AM=0 & m_PM = 0.17. There is no offset in the signals.

AM0.png

(2) m_AM = 0.003 & m_PM = 0.17. There are offsets on signals up to 0.002 while the maximum signal amplitude is 0.15.

AMratio50.png

(3) m_AM = 0.17 & m_PM = 0.17. There are offsets on signals up to 0.1 while the maximum signal amplitude is 0.2.

AMratio1.png

I will look at MICH and SRCL in the same way. 

Quote:

I'd like to see some details about how to determine that the ratio of 1:50 is small enough for AM:PM.

* What have people achieved in past according to the elogs©  of the measurements?

* What do we expect the effect of 1:50 to be? How much offset does this make in the MICH/PRC/SRC loops? How much offset is too much?

Recall that we are using frontal modulation with a rather small Schnupp Asymmetry...

 

  5505   Wed Sep 21 19:20:41 2011 SureshUpdateIOOPSL beam into MC was off in Pitch. Readjusted.

I found the PSL beam into the MC off in pitch by large amount.  I readusted the PSL beam for optimal coupling.

The beam had shifted on the WFS as well.  So I recentered the DC signal on the WFS with the MC unlocked.  However both the DC and RF signals on the WFS shift when we lock the MC.  This ought to indicate sub-optimal coupling of PSL into MC.  But instead, if we were to reduce these offsets on the WFS by adjusting the MC axis it leads to higher reflected power from the MC.

The current plan is to retain these RF offsets and lock the WFS with a DC offset in the servo filters.

  5506   Wed Sep 21 21:13:35 2011 ranaUpdateIOOAM modulation misery

How about changing the x-axis of all these plots into meters or picometers and tell us how wide the PRC resonance is? (something similar to the arm cavity linewidth expression)

Also, there's the question of the relative AM/PM phase. I think you have to try out both I & Q in the sim. I think we expect Q to be the most effected by AM.

  5520   Thu Sep 22 17:29:42 2011 KeikoUpdateIOOAM modulation mistery

AM modulation will add offset on SRCL signal as well as PRCL signal. About 2% of the signal amplitude with the current AM level. MICH will not be affected very much.

From #5504, as for the AM modulation I checked the MICH and SRCL signals in addition to the last post for PRCL, to see the AM modulation effect on those signals. On the last post, PRCL (REFL11I) was found to have 0.002 while the maximum signal amplitude is 0.15 we use . Here, I did the same simulation for MICH and SRCL.

As a result, MICH signals are not affected very much. The AM modulation slightly changes signal slopes, but doesn't add offsets apparently. SRCL is affected more, for REFL signals. All the REFL channels get about 0.0015 offsets while the signal ampliture varies up to 0.002. AS55I (currently used for SRCL) has 1e-7 offset for 6e-6 amplitude signal (in the last figure) - which is the same offset ratio comparing with the amplitude in the PRCL case -

 

(1) MICH signals at AS port with AM m=0

AMmod0MICH.png

(2) MICH signals at AS port with AM m=0.003

AMmod1e-1MICH.png

(3) SRCL signals at AS/REFL port with AM m=0

AMmod0SRCL.png 

(3) SRCL signals at AS/REFL port with AM m=0.003

AMmod3e-3SRCL.png

AMmod3e-3SRCL-AS55I.png

 

Quote:

How about changing the x-axis of all these plots into meters or picometers and tell us how wide the PRC resonance is? (something similar to the arm cavity linewidth expression)

Also, there's the question of the relative AM/PM phase. I think you have to try out both I & Q in the sim. I think we expect Q to be the most effected by AM.

 

  5526   Thu Sep 22 23:02:15 2011 SureshUpdateIOOno light on WFS2. Realigned input onto both WFS

Rana noticed that the sum on WFS2 was about 10 times smaller than that on WFS1. Though the beam appeared centered on the DC QPD screens it was not really true.  When I went and checked the actual beam position it was landing on the metal enclosure of the WFS2 sensor and scattering back on to the diode. 

I also checked the power levels of light landing on the sensors  It was about 0.25mW in both cases.  This needs further investigation since the power split at the beam spitter is like 0.25mW onto WFS1 and 0.45 towards WFS2. The lost 0,20 mW has to be traced and we have to be sure that it is not scattered around on the table.

 

  5527   Thu Sep 22 23:10:07 2011 SureshUpdateIOOproposed modifications to the C1IOO model

Rana advised that we put in a lockin-output matrix which will allow us to excite any combination of MC mirrors so that we can excite pure translations or rotations of the MC beam axis.  This would require us to direct a lockin output into all the three mirrors simultaneously with a +1 or -1 as needed in the matrix..

  5533   Fri Sep 23 18:00:54 2011 SureshUpdateIOOPSL beam realigned to MC

I noticed that the beam centering on the WFS had changed over night and the MC_TRANS_SUM was about 40k counts.  When well aligned this SUM is around 50-55k counts. So PSL coupling into MC was suboptimal. It was not clear whether the MC shifted or the PSL beam shifted. So I looked at the PSL ANG and POS QPDs. 

 trend.png

The plots above show the gradual drift of the PSL beam in vertical direction during the last 8hrs or so. But the last bit shows the adjustments I had to make to reobtain optimal alignment.  And these adjustments are not undoing the drift!  This would indicate that the MC axis has also shifted during the same time period. 

  5538   Sat Sep 24 09:55:42 2011 KeikoUpdateIOOAM modulation mistery

From the night day before yesterday (Sep 22nd, Thursday night. Sorry for my late update), there are more AM modulations than I measured in the previous post. It is changing a lot, indeed! Looking at the REFL11 I and Q signals on the dataviewer, the signal offset were huge, even after "LSCoffset" script. Probably the modulation index of AM was same order of PM at that time. The level of AM mod index is changing a lot depending on the EOM alingment which is not very stable, and also on the environment such as temperature .

To reduce AM modulations, here I note some suggestions you may want to try :

* Change the SAM connectors between RF resonator and EOM to be a soft but short connector, so that the resonator box doesn't hung from the EOM.

* Change the RF resonator base to be stable posts. Now several black plates are piled to make one base.

* Install a temperature shield

* Also probably you want to change the BNC connector on the RF resonator to be SMA.

* Be careful of the EOM yaw alignment. Pitch seemed to be less sensitive in producing AM than yaw alignment.

 

Quote:

AM modulation will add offset on SRCL signal as well as PRCL signal. About 2% of the signal amplitude with the current AM level. MICH will not be affected very much.

From #5504, as for the AM modulation I checked the MICH and SRCL signals in addition to the last post for PRCL, to see the AM modulation effect on those signals. On the last post, PRCL (REFL11I) was found to have 0.002 while the maximum signal amplitude is 0.15 we use . Here, I did the same simulation for MICH and SRCL.

As a result, MICH signals are not affected very much. The AM modulation slightly changes signal slopes, but doesn't add offsets apparently. SRCL is affected more, for REFL signals. All the REFL channels get about 0.0015 offsets while the signal ampliture varies up to 0.002. AS55I (currently used for SRCL) has 1e-7 offset for 6e-6 amplitude signal (in the last figure) - which is the same offset ratio comparing with the amplitude in the PRCL case -

 

  5588   Fri Sep 30 17:40:03 2011 kiwamuUpdateIOOAM / PM ratio

[Mirko / Kiwamu]

 We have reviewed the AM issue and confirmed the ratio of AM vs. PM had been about 6 x103.

The ratio sounds reasonably big, but in reality we still have some amount of offsets in the LSC demod signals.

Next week, Mirko will estimate the effect from a mismatch in the MC absolute length and the modulation frequency.

 


(Details)

 Please correct us if something is wrong in the calculations.

 According to the measurement done by Keiko (#5502):

        DC = 5.2 V

        AM @ 11 and 55 MHz = - 56 dBm = 0.35 mV (in 50 Ohm system)

Therefore the intensity modulation is 0.35 mV / 5.2 V = 6.7 x 10-5

Since the AM index is half of the intensity modulation index, our AM index is now about 3.4 x 10-5

According to Mirko's OSA measurement, the PM index have been about 0.2.

As a result,  PM/AM = 6 x 103

Quote from #5502

Measured values;

* DC power = 5.2V which is assumed to be 0.74mW according to the PDA255 manual.

*AM_f1 and AM_f2 power = -55.9 dBm = 2.5 * 10^(-9) W.

 

  5589   Fri Sep 30 18:06:24 2011 kiwamuSummaryIOOPZTs straing guage

beforeOutage110930.png

  5612   Tue Oct 4 14:41:47 2011 JenneUpdateIOOMC Trans channels are digital 0

I relocked the PMC (why is it unlocking so much lately??), and then noticed that even though the MC is locked, MC Trans Sum, P, Y, are all seeing digital zero.  I'm putting Suresh, as IOO guy, in charge of figuring it out.

  5613   Tue Oct 4 15:43:10 2011 KojiUpdateIOOclosed the shutter before the MC

The shutter before the MC was closed at 3:30 as I started working on the RFAM.

MC REFL (INLOCK): 0.6~0.7
MC REFL (UNLOCK): 6.9
MC TRANS: 50000~52000

  5614   Tue Oct 4 15:57:30 2011 SureshUpdateIOOMC Trans channels are digital 0

I thought this problem might be arising because the MC2_TRANS QPD signals are not being passed from the c1mcs to c1ioo models over the rfm.   But there was no way to check if there is any data being picked up in c1mcs model.  So I copied the MCTRANS block from the c1ioo model into the c1mcs.  This block takes the four segments of the MC2_TRANS QPD and computes the pitch, yaw and sum signals from that.   It also exports these into epics channels.  I then recompiled and started the c1ioo c1mcs and c1rfm models. 

Restared fb at

Tue Oct  4 15:19:10 PDT 2011

Koji then noted that the MC2_TRANS filter banks in c1rfm and in c1ioo were showing nonzero values.   So the signals were infact reaching the c1ioo model.  They were being blocked by the INMATRIX (which the autoburt had not restored) of the MC_TRANS block, because all its elements were zero.  We burtrestored the c1iooepics to about 30hrs ago and then MC_TRANS signals were back in the LOCK_MC screen.

 

  5617   Tue Oct 4 19:06:46 2011 KojiUpdateIOOclosed the shutter before the MC

Finished the work at 6:30

MC REFL (INLOCK): 0.50-0.52
MC REFL (UNLOCK): 6.9
MC TRANS: 54400~547000


RFAM level

Before the work: -48.5dBm for 1.07VDC (both 50Ohm terminated)

Right after the work: -80dBm for 0.896VDC (both 50Ohm terminated)
10min after:   -70dBm
1hour after:   -65dBm
3hours after: -62dBm
1day after (Oct 5, 20:00):    -62.5dBm
2days after (Oct 6, 23:20): -72.5dBm
3 days after (Oct 7, 21:00): -57.8dBm

Quote:

The shutter before the MC was closed at 3:30 as I started working on the RFAM.

MC REFL (INLOCK): 0.6~0.7
MC REFL (UNLOCK): 6.9
MC TRANS: 50000~52000

 

ELOG V3.1.3-