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
  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

 

  5632   Fri Oct 7 19:06:46 2011 SureshUpdateIOOMC spot positions: checked and corrected.

Koji and Kiwamu had adjusted the MC beam axis slightly such that we can couple the MC output into the Y-arm without exceeding the current range of adjustability on PZT1.  This changed the centering of beam spots on MC mirrors.  I checked the mc-decentering make sure we have not made too big a compromise.  And since we can move MC2 spot position while maintaining the current positions on MC1 and MC3 decentering, we can atleast eliminate the A2L coupling on that mirror.  I used the scripts in $scripts$/MC/moveMC2/ to adjust the MC2 spot position.

Spot positions in mm (MC1,2,3 pit MC1,2,3 yaw) before adjustment:
    1.4674   -0.3548    1.0199   -1.5519    1.9834   -1.5971

After correcting MC2:

    1.4528    0.1431    0.9958   -1.2147    0.3823   -2.0163

After correcting MC1:

    1.3745    0.0669    0.8899   -1.5269    0.0296   -1.7314

 

The spot positions on MC1 and MC3 are very nearly (+/- 0.06 mm) same as before, while the MC2  decentering has been reduced close to zero.

A slight adjustment of the PZTs may be required to reset the beam pointing.

  5635   Fri Oct 7 22:48:26 2011 SureshUpdateIOOMC2 Trans QPD spot size and incident power decreased

After centering the spot on the MC2, I started to adjust the spot position on MC_TRANS_QPD to center the beam on it.  I noticed that the spot size was about 3 to 4mm dia. because the 200mm lens was too close to the QPD.  I moved it back and decreased the spot size to about 1mm and the sensitivity to spot position increased.  However, Koji noted that the QPD sectors were near saturation, so I put in a ND=0.3 filter to reduce the incident power on the QPD.

At optimal alignment the current QPD_SUM is around 25k to 26k counts (factor of 2 down). Eventually the gain of the QPD ckts have to be reduced to prevent saturation, for the moment this is temporary fix.

The MC_TRANS_SUM trigger for MC autolocker is working fine no further change was required.

  5647   Tue Oct 11 00:59:55 2011 SureshUpdateIOOPreliminary locking of WFS loops

[Kiwamu, Koji, Suresh]

After correcting several errors in the WFS loops, we turned them on today and saw them working!

A while back (last week actually) I noticed that the WFS1 and WFS2  QPD segments were numbered in a different order but that their input matrices did not reflect this change.  As result the WFS pitch and yaw definitions were pretty much mixed up.  However even after clearing this up the signals still showed significant amount of cross couplings. 

This problem was finally traced to the relative phase between I and Q channels of the WFS segments.  Koji suggested that I check the relative phase between all the segments to be sure.  I then repeated the procedure that Valera and I followed in our earlier elog # 5321 , and found that the phases indeed required to be adjusted.  The excitation of MCL was at 6Hz, 100mVpp, as before.   The WFS response after this was much improved i.e.  the pitch yaw cross couplings were not visible when we misalign the MC with sliders in MC_ALIGN.  And the magnitude of the response also increased since the signal was transferred from the Q to I channels.  The the phases were tweaked by hand till Q< 1% of I.  However when I repeated this measurement an hour later (I wanted to save the plots) I found that the phases had changed by a few percent! 

Koji noticed that the MC_REFL camera image showed significant intensity fluctuations and advised that we try a higher frequency and lower amplitude to avoid nonlinear effects in the WFS and in the MCL to PSL lock.  So we repeated the process at 20Hz and 20mVpp, introduced at the IN2 of the MC_Servo.  The fig below shows the level to which we reduced the signal in Q.

WFS1_IQphase20111010.pdf    WFS2_IQphase20111010.pdf

We then checked the relative phase between various quadrants by looking at the time series in dataviewer.  WFS2 Seg4 phase had to be flipped to bring it into phase with all the rest. 

WFS_IQ_RelativePhase.png

 

After this I tried to see the WFS response to moving the MC1 and MC3 with the sliders and determined the following relations:

Pitch WFS1 WFS2
MC1 + -
MC2 - -
MC3 + +

 

Yaw WFS1 WFS2
MC1 + +
MC2 - -
MC3 + -

 

Disregarding the MC2 for now and assuming arbitrary gains of 1 for all elements we inverted these matrices inserted them into the WFS_servo_outmatrix.  We then found that the with a sign flip on all elements the loops were stable.  In the servo filters we had turned on only the filter modules 3 and 4.  There was no low frequency boost.   We gradually increased gain till we saw a significant suppression of the error signal at low frequencies as shown below.  There was also an associated suppression of Intensity noise at REFL_DC after a single bounce from PRM.

 WFS_error_signal_Oct10.pdf        WFS_reduction_intensity_noise_Oct10.png

 

To see if the locks can actually realign the MC if it were manually misaligned, we turned the loops off and misaligned MC by moving MC3 pitch by 0.05 (slider position), and then turned on the loops.  The locks were reengaged successfully and the MC regained alignment as seen on the StripTool below:

WFS_recentering_Oct10.png

 

We can now proceed with the fine tuning the servo filters and understand the system better:

Q1:    Does the WFS (I to Q) phase drift rapidly?  How can we prevent it?

Q2:   How is that we do not see any bounce or roll resonances on the WFS error signals?

Q3:  How do we include the MC2 QPD into the WFS Servo?

I will proceed with determination of the actual transfer coefs between the MC DoF and the WFS sensors. 

 

 

  5668   Sat Oct 15 04:53:41 2011 SureshUpdateIOOMC WFS Output Matrix determination

After we had a rough idea of what the output matrix looks like (see this elog),
I tried to measure the transfer function coefs (TFCs) between mirror degrees of freedom and the WFS sensors (WFS1, WFS2 and MC_Trans QPD)
I found that the TFCs that I obtained at 10.15 Hz did not have any resemblance to the previously identified output matrix.

The problem, I realised, arises because the various lockins used
in the C1IOO model do not have the same relative phase; So if we try to excite a mirror with one of them
and demodulate a sensor signal on any of the other lockins the resulting output would not have the correct phase
(relative to the 1st lockin output). As a result unless we can reset the phase of all the lockins
simultaneously, we cannot demodulate multiple signals at the same time. (Joe/Jamie, Is it possible to
reset/reinitialise the phase of the CLK signals of the lockings? )


To get around this problem Koji suggested that I use just one lockin and determine all the 36 elements of the transfer matrix with it one at a
time rather than six at a time. When I did that, I got results consistent with the previoulsly determined outmatrix. It, of course, takes six times longer.

The matrix I first got is this one

 

(Mag, Phase) WFS1P WFS2P MC_T_P WFS1Y WFS2Y MC_T_Y
MC1P 0.332 0.518 0.316 0.019 0.066 0.000
  5.832 1.892 8.180 38.285 8.807 0.000
             
MC2P 0.355 1.798 0.342 0.023 0.144 0.000
  72.977 76.683 76.804 -16.364 77.451 71.579
             
MC3P 0.352 0.394 0.254 0.036 0.023 0.000
  2.005 3.249 6.249 5.712 26.349 NAN
             
MC1Y 0.051 0.055 0.058 0.788 1.024 0.001
  15.979 -4.487 -9.707 2.642 1.276 0.000
             
MC2Y 0.142 0.044 0.130 1.966 0.579 0.017
  70.044 83.818 76.397 74.283 76.134 77.269
             
MC3Y 0.044 0.052 0.022 0.080 0.948 0.194
  22.932 14.227 -45.924 9.677 1.125 1.124
             
Which can be  recast as below          
             
             
Magnitude WFS1P WFS2P MC_T_P WFS1Y WFS2Y MC_T_Y
MC1P 0.332 0.518 0.316 0.02 0.07 0
MC2P 0.355 1.798 0.342 0.02 0.14 0
MC3P 0.352 0.394 0.254 0.04 0.02 0
MC1Y 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.788 1.024 0.001
MC2Y 0.14 0.04 0.13 1.966 0.579 0.017
MC3Y 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.080 0.948 0.194

Phase WFS1P WFS2P MC_T_P WFS1Y WFS2Y MC_T_Y
MC1P 5.8 1.9 8.2 38.3 8.8 0.0
MC2P 73.0 76.7 76.8 -16.4 77.5 71.6
MC3P 2.0 3.2 6.2 5.7 26.3 NA
MC1Y 16.0 -4.5 -9.7 2.6 1.3 0.0
MC2Y 70.0 83.8 76.4 74.3 76.1 77.3
MC3Y 22.9 14.2 -45.9 9.7 1.1 1.1

 

Note that when MC2 is excited all the sensors showed a response about 75 deg out of phase with the reference (MC1 --> WFS1_PIT ) This was traced to the fact that while there is a 28Hz Elliptic LP filter on

both MC1 and MC3, while it is absent on MC2.  The Transfer functions  below show the difference in the phase of their response

WFS1P_RespTo_MC1andMC2.pdf

 

Since the MC2 POS is used in servos involving MCL we cannot afford to install a 28 Hz LP filter into the MC2 coil drivers.  However a module with the 28 Hz ELP was switched on, in each of the

 MC2 PIT and YAW filter banks.   I then checked to see if this has affected the relative phase of variour sensors.  The Phase angle between I and Q on each sensor channel was checked and corrected. 

Below are the spectra with the "before" and "after" correction of phases.

Before:

 WFS1_IQphase20111015_1.pdf        WFS2_IQphase20111015_1.pdf

 

Obviously this needed adjustment to reduce Q phase.   

  After twealkng the angle "R":

WFS1_IQphase20111015_2.pdf      WFS2_IQphase20111015_2.pdf

 

And again determined the transfer matrix (below). 

( I , Q ) WFS1P WFS2P MC_T_P WFS1Y WFS2Y MC_T_Y
MC1P 0.236 -0.300 0.229 0.049 -0.008 0.000
  0.015 -0.004 -0.027 0.011 -0.019 0.000
             
MC2P -0.125 -0.962 -0.135 0.114 0.028 0.000
  0.007 -0.052 -0.028 -0.004 -0.002 0.000
             
MC3P -0.225 -0.254 -0.255 -0.026 -0.010 0.000
  0.004 -0.012 -0.010 0.009 0.002 0.000
             
MC1Y -0.059 -0.023 -0.040 0.460 0.705 0.001
  0.004 0.003 0.009 0.009 0.017 0.000
             
MC2Y 0.030 0.190 0.040 -1.144 -0.296 0.015
  0.007 0.006 -0.009 -0.038 -0.009 0.001
             
MC3Y 0.018 -0.108 -0.018 0.134 -0.832 -0.001
  0.017 0.005 0.001 0.006 -0.016 0.000
 

Magnitude WFS1P WFS2P MC_T_P WFS1Y WFS2Y MC_T_Y
MC1P 0.236 0.300 0.231 0.05 0.02 0
MC2P 0.125 0.964 0.138 0.11 0.03 0
MC3P 0.225 0.254 0.255 0.03 0.01 0
MC1Y 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.460 0.705 0.001
MC2Y 0.03 0.01 0.19 1.145 0.296 0.015
MC3Y 0.02 0.11 0.02 0.134 0.832 0.001

Phase WFS1P WFS2P MC_T_P WFS1Y WFS2Y MC_T_Y
MC1P 3.694 0.784 -6.778 13.1 66.67 #DIV/0!
MC2P -3.214 3.100 11.557 -2.05 -4.48 0
MC3P -1.020 2.665 2.158 -19.1 -10.76 NA
MC1Y -3.96 -6.45 -12.14 1.085 1.357 0.000
MC2Y 13.22 41.08 -2.6 1.887 1.706 4.987
MC3Y 42.69 -2.56 -3.73 2.652 1.068 0.000

 

This time the signals are all nearly in the same phase and in agreement with the  outmatrix estimate made earlier.

 

I plugged these TFCs into the matrix inversion code: wfsmatrix2.m.   And get the following inverse:

 

  WFS1P_Act WFS2P_Act MC_Trans_P_Act WFS1Y_Act WFS2Y_Act MC_TRANS_Y_Act
MC1P 1 -0.64        
MC2P -0.27 -1        
MC3P 0.98 -0.65        
MC1Y       -0.26 -1  
MC2Y       1 0.12  
MC3Y       0.16 0.07  

 

I have ignored the MC2_Trans_P and Y sensors for now.

  5669   Sat Oct 15 10:58:32 2011 ranaUpdateIOOMC WFS Output Matrix determination

In order to save time and sanity, you should not measure the pitch ->yaw and yaw-> pitch. It makes things too complicated and so far is just not significant. In the past we do not use these for the matrix work.

i.e. there should just be a 3x3 pitch matrix and a 3x3 yaw matrix. Once the loops are working we could investigate these things, but its really a very fine tweak at the end. There are quite a few other, more significant effects to handle before then.

To make things faster, I think we can just make a LOCKIN which has 3 inputs: it would have one oscillator, but 6 mixers. Should be simple to make.

  5670   Sat Oct 15 16:01:26 2011 kiwamuUpdateIOOabout LOCKIN module

Quote from #5669

To make things faster, I think we can just make a LOCKIN which has 3 inputs: it would have one oscillator, but 6 mixers. Should be simple to make.

 I think the idea of having multiple inputs in a LOCKIN module is also good for the LSC sensing matrix measurement.

Because right now I am measuring the responses of multiple sensors one by one while exciting a particular DOF by one oscillator.

Moreover in the LSC case the number of sensors, which we have to measure, is enormous (e.g. REFL11I/Q, REFL33I/Q, REFL55I/Q, ... POY11I/Q,...) and indeed it has been a long-time measurement.

  5683   Mon Oct 17 23:56:34 2011 SureshUpdateIOOMC WFS Integrators switched on and WFS_MASTER screen updated

[Rana, Suresh]

     To see if the loops will stay locked when the Integrators in the servo are switched on, we stayed with the same simple output matrix (just 1 or -1 elements) and switched on the FM1 on all WFS servo filter banks.  We monitored the time domain error signals to see if engaging the locks made the error signals go to zero.  Most of the error signals did go to zero even when an intentional offset was introduced into the MC pitch of the suspension.

      We need to include TestPoints just before the Input Servo Matrix so that we can monitor the error signals without being affected by the gain changes in the WFS_GAIN slider.   These are currently not present in the C1IOO model and the position of the WFS_GAIN also has to be shifted to the other side of the Input matrix.

      The C1IOO_WFS_MASTER screen has been changed to the new one.  This incorporates filter banks for the MC_TRANS_P and _Y channels.  The screen is not yet fully functional but I am working on it and I it will continue to improve it.

WFS_MASTER_screenshot_20111017.png

  5686   Tue Oct 18 15:20:03 2011 kiwamuSummaryIOORFAM plan

[Suresh / Koji / Rana / Kiwamu]

Last night we had a discussion about what we do for the RFAM issue. Here is the plan.

 

(PLAN)

  1. Build and install an RFAM monitor (a.k.a StochMon ) with a combination of a power splitter, band-pass-filters and Wenzel RMS detectors.

       => Some ordering has started (#5682). The Wenzel RMS detectors are already in hands.

  2. Install a temperature sensor on the EOM. And if possible install it with a new EOM resonant box.

      => make a wheatstone bridge circuit, whose voltage is modulated with a local oscillator at 100 Hz or so.

  3. Install a broadband RFPD to monitor the RFAMs and connect it to the StochMon network.

      => Koji's broadband PD or a commercial RFPD (e.g. Newfocus 1811 or similar)

  4. Measure the response of the amount of the RFAM versus the temperature of the EO crystal.

      => to see whether if stabilizing the temperature stabilizes the RFAM or not.

  5.  Measure the long-term behavior of the RFAM.

      => to estimate the worst amount of the RFAM and the time scale of its variation

  6. Decide which physical quantity we will stabilize, the temperature or the amount of the RFAM.

  7. Implement a digital servo to stabilize the RFAMs by feeding signals back to a heater

     => we need to install a heater on the EOM.

  8. In parallel to those actions, figure out how much offsets each LSC error signal will have due to the current amount of the RFAMs.

    => Optickle simulations.

  9. Set some criteria on the allowed amount of the RFAMs

    => With some given offsets in the LSC error signal, we investigate what kind of (bad) effects we will have.

  5687   Tue Oct 18 20:50:19 2011 SureshUpdateIOOC1IOO and WFS associated screens

In keeping with the current protocol,  I have started to move all the user-built medm screens associated with C1IOO into the $screens$/c1ioo/master/ directory. 

I then edited the menu button in the sitemap.adl to point to the screens in the ..c1ioo/master/ directory.  All the screens in $screens$/c1ioo/ directory have been backed up into bak/.  I plan to edit the c1ioo model soon and at that time I will delete all the screens in the $screens$/c1ioo directory and let only the automatically regenerated screens  stay there.   If there are broken links to user-built screens associated with c1ioo, please copy the relevant screen to the master/ directory and edit the path in the menus.

 

  5688   Tue Oct 18 21:19:18 2011 ranaConfigurationIOOWFS disabled in SUS

I found that the MC WFS had large offset control signals going to the MC SUS. Even though the input switch was off, the integrators were holding the offset.

I have disabled the ASCPIT outputs in the MC SUS. Suresh is going to fix the MC autolocker script to gracefully handle the OFF and ON and then test the script before resuming the WFS testing.

MCL data for OAF may be suspect from this morning.

  5689   Tue Oct 18 22:47:09 2011 SureshConfigurationIOOMC autolocker script edited to shutdown and restart WFS loops

Quote:

I found that the MC WFS had large offset control signals going to the MC SUS. Even though the input switch was off, the integrators were holding the offset.

I have disabled the ASCPIT outputs in the MC SUS. Suresh is going to fix the MC autolocker script to gracefully handle the OFF and ON and then test the script before resuming the WFS testing.

MCL data for OAF may be suspect from this morning.

 I have edited (uncommented existing commands)  the following scripts to enable WFS locking to come on when the MC is locked.

1) $scripts$/MC/autolockMCmain40m*

2) $scripts$/MC/mcup

3) $scripts$/MC/mcdown

4) $scripts$/MC/WFS/mcwfson

5) $scripts$/MC/WFS/mcwfsoff.

I have checked that the autolocker script switches off the mcwfs when mc loses lock and then switches it on after re-obtaining lock.

 

  5724   Fri Oct 21 15:49:35 2011 SureshUpdateIOOPMC input alignment improved

The image on the PMCR camera was quite assymetric and PMC output was at 80% .... upon improving the alignment I managed to push it up to 87%

 

  5732   Tue Oct 25 01:14:15 2011 SureshUpdateIOOC1IOO model modified to include new WFS lockin structure

A while back we faced the problem that when we use several lockins to excite the MC degrees of freedom, their relative phase was not known.  The solution suggested was to use one oscillator and several demodulators.

I have now modified the C1IOO.mdl so that this can be implemented.  Previously we were using the MC_ASS lockins for WFS work.  I have now separated the WFS and MC_ASS structures. 

Other jobs to be done in this context are:

1) The medm screens associated with WFS lockins need to be updated with new channel names.

2) The scripts associated with both MC_ASS decentering and WFS ouput matrix determination have to be updated with the new channel names.

3) I also deleted all medm screens in the $screens$/c1ioo/ directory after copying them to $screens$/c1ioo/bak/.  After installing the new c1ioo model $screens$/c1ioo directory now contains just the automatically created screens.  All other user made screens should go into $screens$/c1ioo/master/ directory

This is a pic of the new c1ioo model:

 

 c1ioo20111025.png

 

  5735   Tue Oct 25 16:24:58 2011 SureshUpdateIOOC1IOO model modified to include new WFS lockin structure

I forgot to mention another change I made to the C1IOO model.

The location of the WFS global switch and the WFS_GAIN have been shifted. The switch now cuts off signals just before the WFS servo filters.

I have also added some test points just before the switch and the so that we can monitor the WFS error signals which would be unaffected even if the WFS_GAIN is changed..

 

 

Quote:

A while back we faced the problem that when we use several lockins to excite the MC degrees of freedom, their relative phase was not known.  The solution suggested was to use one oscillator and several demodulators.

I have now modified the C1IOO.mdl so that this can be implemented.  Previously we were using the MC_ASS lockins for WFS work.  I have not separated the WFS and MC_ASS structures. 

Other jobs to be done in this context are:

1) The medm screens associated with WFS lockins need to be updated with new channel names.

2) The scripts associated with both MC_ASS decentering and WFS ouput matrix determination have to be updated with the new channel names.

3) I also deleted all mdem screens in the $screens$/c1ioo/ directory after copying them to $screens$/c1ioo/bak/.  After installing the new c1ioo model $screens$/c1ioo model now contains just the automatically created screens.  All other user made screens should to into $screens$/c1ioo/master/ directory

This is a pic of the new c1ioo model:

 

 c1ioo20111025.png

 

 

  5737   Tue Oct 25 18:50:22 2011 SureshUpdateIOOC1IOO model modified to include new WFS lockin structure

Some small fixes to the c1ioo model.

1) I edited the WFS lockin modules to make use of new library part called demod.

2) c1ioo model has been compiled and restarted.

3) fb was restarted at Tue Oct 25 18:43:55 PDT 2011

 

Quote:

I forgot to mention another change I made to the C1IOO model.

The location of the WFS global switch has been shifted. It now cuts off signals just before the WFS servo filters.

I have also added some test points just before the switch so that we can monitor the WFS sensor signals even if the switch is off.

 

 

Quote:

A while back we faced the problem that when we use several lockins to excite the MC degrees of freedom, their relative phase was not known.  The solution suggested was to use one oscillator and several demodulators.

I have now modified the C1IOO.mdl so that this can be implemented.  Previously we were using the MC_ASS lockins for WFS work.  I have not separated the WFS and MC_ASS structures. 

Other jobs to be done in this context are:

1) The medm screens associated with WFS lockins need to be updated with new channel names.

2) The scripts associated with both MC_ASS decentering and WFS ouput matrix determination have to be updated with the new channel names.

3) I also deleted all mdem screens in the $screens$/c1ioo/ directory after copying them to $screens$/c1ioo/bak/.  After installing the new c1ioo model $screens$/c1ioo model now contains just the automatically created screens.  All other user made screens should to into $screens$/c1ioo/master/ directory

This is a pic of the new c1ioo model:

 

 c1ioo20111025.png

 

 

 

  5745   Thu Oct 27 03:32:45 2011 KojiSummaryIOORFAM monitor progress

[Suresh, Mirko, Koji]

A cable from the stochmon box to the cross connect for the EPICS ADCs is installed.

The power supply and the signal outputs are concentrated in a single DSub 9pin connector
that is newly attached on the box.

The connection from the stochmon side of the cable and the EPICS value was confirmed.
The calibration of them looks fine.

To do:
- Once the stochmon box is completed we can immediately test it.
- The EPICS channel names are still as they were. We need to update the database file of c1iool0, the chans file for the slow channel.


The pinout is as following

-------------
| 1 2 3 4 5 |   Female / Inside View
\  6 7 8 9  /
 \---------/

1 - 11MHz Signal
2 - 30MHz Signal
3 - 55MHz Signal
4 - NC
5 - +5V supply
6 - 11MHz Return
7 - 30MHz Return
8 - 55MHz Return
9 - Supply ground

  5751   Fri Oct 28 03:12:37 2011 SureshUpdateIOOMC2 realigned to align MC to PSL

Around 6PM on the 27th, I found that the C1:IOO-MC_RFPD_DCMON had risen to about 2.5V.   I checked the trend of MC2 sensors and found that  between 2PM and 6PM, MC2 had drifted in a strange way.  And also that the alignment had grown worse over several days.   I also noticed that the spot on the MC2F camera had shifted to the left.

I attempted to correct the alignment (decrease the C1:IOO-MC_RFPD_DCMON to ~0.5V ) by just moving the MC2 and succeeded!! So it is quite likely that most of the slow MC drift is arising due to MC2 table drift.

MC2_Drift_20111027.png

 

I decided to try and close the MC2_TRANS QPD to MC2 loops separately to see if MC alignment becomes stable  But several screens needed to be fixed before we could try anything.   So I fixed C1IOO_WFS_MASTER,  C1IOO_WFS_INMATRIX and ...OUTMATRIX screens.  Deleted the older ones to avoid confusion.

In this process I noticed that the directory of $screens$/c1mcs/master contains copies of older C1SUS_MC1 , 2. and 3 screens which look very similar to the new autogenerated screens.  Some of the links in the WFS screens were pointing to the old screens.  I have redirected the links and I will delete these in a couple of days, if no one objects.

 

 

 

  5761   Sat Oct 29 02:35:39 2011 SureshUpdateIOOWFS_MASTER screen and lockin screens fixed

I have fixed the WFS_MASTER screen and several of the subscreens such as the MCASS and MC_WFS_LKIN.

Since MC_WFS_LKIN uses six demodulators and single oscillator I could not use the automatically built Lockin screens. 

I built one using the compact filter banks mentioned earlier

The phases in the WFSlockins have yet tp be set.

  5768   Mon Oct 31 09:42:12 2011 steveUpdateIOOPMC locked

The PMC HV drops off more offen lately.

Attachment 1: pmcHV.png
pmcHV.png
  5799   Thu Nov 3 17:19:54 2011 SureshUpdateIOOMC realigned to center the spots on actuation nodes

Several activities in the past week (elog1, Mirko's rough realignment of MC and adjustment of the PSL zig-zag on Monday and elog2 ), had led to an MC state where the spots were not centered on the actuation nodes.

The change in the C1IOO model part dealing with MC_ASS led to the disappearance of all MC_ASS filter definitions in the lockins.  I have fixed all that, remade the screens and scripts for making the MC Decenter measurements.

I have just completed the re-centering of the spots on the MC and this of course will lead to some change in the input pointing. 

The MC_REFL beam also was recented on the WFS and the MC2_TRANS QPD.

Will add the mc-decenter measurement in a few mins

  5803   Thu Nov 3 22:32:48 2011 SureshUpdateIOOMC realigned to center the spots on actuation nodes

Quote:

Several activities in the past week (elog1, Mirko's rough realignment of MC and adjustment of the PSL zig-zag on Monday and elog2 ), had led to an MC state where the spots were not centered on the actuation nodes.

The change in the C1IOO model part dealing with MC_ASS led to the disappearance of all MC_ASS filter definitions in the lockins.  I have fixed all that, remade the screens and scripts for making the MC Decenter measurements.

I have just completed the re-centering of the spots on the MC and this of course will lead to some change in the input pointing. 

The MC_REFL beam also was recented on the WFS and the MC2_TRANS QPD.

Will add the mc-decenter measurement in a few mins

 The current MC spot decentering is given below:

spot positions in mm:

MC1P     MC2P     MC3P      MC1Y     MC2Y     MC3Y

0.4089    0.4800   -0.1266   -1.4095    0.3808   -1.7517

 

The yaw measurement probably has the wrong scale factor in the conversion to mm.  It could be under estimated by a factor 2.65/2.00 since the 10% step in coil gains produces a 2mm offset rather than the expected 2.65mm.  See the figures below.  I will check this during the next iteration when another mode clearner alignment comes up.

As I had to redefine all the MC_ASS lockin filters it is possible that Lockin phase might have changed by a few degrees giving rise to a change in the scale factor.

20111103_1.png    20111103_2.png

  5813   Fri Nov 4 16:23:41 2011 SureshUpdateIOOMC spot decenter measured

After Kiwamu adjusted the MC2 PIT to accommodate the limited range of the PZT1 ( elog ),  I remeasured the spot positions today.  

  MC1P MC2P MC3P MC1Y MC2Y MC3Y
Yesterday 0.1354 -0.2522 -0.1383 -1.0893 0.7122 -1.5587
Today 4.0411 4.4994 3.5564 -1.4170 -0.2606 -1.7109

 

As expected there is a translation of the beam axis to one side (Up? Down?) .  

I wonder how a beam translation by 5mm solved the PZT1 angular range limitation problem (?!)

  5819   Sat Nov 5 01:10:29 2011 SureshUpdateIOOWFS output matrix measured (open loop)

 

The scripts and screens needed to make the MC WFS ouput matrix are once again functional

I corrected the WFS lockins' phases to ensure that the Q outputs are minimised.  Since all the lockins have the same relative phase with respect to the oscillator I found that the same phase works for all of them.  About 90 deg in this case.

The scripts used to make the WFS outmatrix measurement live in /cvs/cds/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/MC/WFS

1) setupWFSlockins:   This script makes sure that all the ASC, WFS_ LKIN and WFS_servo filter banks used in this measurement are set up properly.  It also sets the WFS_lockin oscillator to 10 Hz.  There are filter modules in the SIG filter bank of the WFS demodulators. 

2) senseWFSoutMATRX:  This script cycles through the various MC actuators ( MC 1 2 3 : PIT and YAW ) and measures the response of the various ASC sensors (WFS and MC2_TRANS QPD).

3) The data collected by the sensWFSoutMATRX can be analysed with a matlab file called " wfsmatrix3.m " located in a subdirectory under WFS called 'matlab'.   I have added some comments in this file to make it easier to follow.   The output of this file, at the moment, gives only the " Actuation Vectors " for WFS1P, WFS2P, WFS1Y and WFS2Y.  It ignores the MC2TransQPD for now. 

4)  The lockin outputs are given below ( the 'reduceddata' )

             wfs1p      wfs2p      mc2tp      wfs1y      wfs2y     mc2ty

mc1p    0.2926   -0.4086    0.2926    0.0340    0.0064    0.0001
mc2p   -0.2830   -1.3060   -0.2833    0.0628    0.1171   -0.0003
mc3p   -0.3283   -0.3455   -0.3288   -0.0456    0.0275    0.0000
mc1y    0.0440    0.0261    0.0429    0.7204    0.9351   -0.0008
mc2y   -0.1006    0.0850   -0.1036   -1.5509   -0.3882    0.0165
mc3y     0.0150   -0.0832    0.0144    0.1114   -1.0573    0.0006

5) The actuation vectors are given below

Pitch WFS1P WFS2P
MC1 1.00 -0.86
MC2 -0.12 -1
MC3 -0.72 0.09

 

Yaw WFS1Y WFS2Y
MC1 0.16 0.59
MC2 -1.00 0.20
MC3 0.51 -1

6) This measurement was performed with the WFS servo loops open. I will try to close the loops with this matrix and run the script again to measure the output matrix in closed loop.

7) This a.vectors obtained above are significantly different from that obtained a while ago (elog 5668) before the lockin demod phases (relative to each other) were fixed.  This could also be because both are open loop measurements and we might have wandered into the nonlinear regime of the WFS sensors.

 

 

 

  5826   Mon Nov 7 08:08:24 2011 steveUpdateIOOPMC locked

The PMC acted like it was sleeping. The HV slider was dead. The MC locked instantly as the PMC had transmission.

Attachment 1: pmcHV.png
pmcHV.png
  5834   Mon Nov 7 15:49:26 2011 jamieUpdateIOOWFS output matrix measured (open loop)

Quote:

 The scripts used to make the WFS outmatrix measurement live in /cvs/cds/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/MC/WFS

 I assume you mean /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/MC/WFS.

As I've tried to reitterate many times: we do not use /cvs/cds anymore.  Please put all new scripts into the proper location under /opt/rtcds.

  5839   Tue Nov 8 10:34:42 2011 SureshUpdateIOOMC spot decenter measured

Quote:

After Kiwamu adjusted the MC2 PIT to accommodate the limited range of the PZT1 ( elog ),  I remeasured the spot positions today.  

  MC1P MC2P MC3P MC1Y MC2Y MC3Y
Yesterday 0.1354 -0.2522 -0.1383 -1.0893 0.7122 -1.5587
Today 4.0411 4.4994 3.5564 -1.4170 -0.2606 -1.7109
8Nov2011 4.7341 4.8794  4.3907 1.3542 -3.0508 -1.7167


As expected there is a translation of the beam axis to one side (Up? Down?) .  

I wonder how a beam translation by 5mm solved the PZT1 angular range limitation problem (?!)

 The MC alignment was bad and I wondered if it is because MC shifted or because the input PSL beam shifted.   So I remeasured the spot positions and find that MC2 Yaw has shifted a lot.   Todays measurements are in Cyan boxes above. The shift in MC3P is probably an associated shift due to some pit--yaw coupling.  So I am going to move MC2 and try to align the MC to the PSL.

  5840   Tue Nov 8 12:07:08 2011 SureshUpdateIOOMC WFS Servo: suppression of WFS error signals below 3Hz

I switched on the WFS servos with the output matrix (open loop) determined last Friday.  Only the WFS1Pit, WFS2Pit, WFS1Yaw and WFS2Yaw servo filters are now on.   I then adjusted the gains to obtain maximum suppresson of error signals without oscillations in the loops

I now proceed to determine the output matrix again.

WFS_servo-20111108.png

  5857   Wed Nov 9 21:21:30 2011 SureshUpdateIOOMC WFS: Output matrix determined with loops closed.

With the loops closed I ran the $SCRIPTS/MC/WFS/senseWFSoutMATRX script and analysed the lockin outputs with $SCRIPTS/MC/WFS/matlab/wfsmatrix3.m.  I had to edit both the setupWFSlockins and the sensWFSoutMATRX scripts because in the past we used to switch on / off the ASC filter bank GAINs on the MC suspensions to start / stop the lockin excitation.  We cannot do this any more since these the WFS feedback signals have to get through these filters while the WFS loops are closed.  So the current, more sensible, scheme is to set the appropriate elements to 1 / 0 in the C1IOO_LKIN_OUT_MTRX.

Note:  The senseMCdecenter script will also have to be ammended in the same manner.

The lockin outputs measured are (reduceddata):

             wfs1P    wfs2P       mc2tP        wfs1Y     wfs2Y       mc2tY

MC1P  -10.3694    7.0642  -10.2133   -0.1025    0.4653   -0.0000
MC2P    8.2838   21.5141    8.4102   -0.2215    0.0734    0.0000
MC3P    9.4804    6.0835    9.6346   -0.0080    0.0366   -0.0000
MC1Y   -0.7339   -1.4498   -0.6175  -11.7502  -13.0480    0.0004
MC2Y    0.9004    0.6645    1.0554   25.6083    7.3399   -0.0046
MC3Y   -0.2914    2.1573   -0.1829   -2.1130   14.3038   -0.0000
 

After inverting and normalising a subset of the above matrix ( done in the wfsmatrix3.m )  we obtain the following output matrix coefs:

  WFS1P WFS2P
MC1P -1.0 0.82
MC2P 0.15 1.0
MC3P 0.62 0.02

 

  WFS1Y WFS2Y
MC1Y -0.11 -0.56
MC2Y 1.00 -0.17
MC3Y -0.62 1.00

 

Apart from a negative sign (introduced by the negative gains in the WFS servo filters ) these values are quite close to the actuation vectors determined in open loop.

I have plugged these values into the WFS output matrix.  Will determine the open loop gain later when there arent so many people stomping around the MC.

 


 

  5859   Wed Nov 9 21:48:43 2011 SureshUpdateIOOWFS Servo included into the MC_Autolocker

The WFS servo loop will come on 5 seconds after the MC is locked

 

I have uncommented the lines in the mcup script which turn on the WFS servos.  But I shifted their location to the part after the MC is locked.

  5866   Thu Nov 10 20:20:57 2011 SureshUpdateIOOMC Spot positions have shifted after accelerometer installation on MC2 chamber

[ Jenne, Suresh ]

We were tying the fix the WFS and noticed that the PSL --> MC alignment was poor.   The PMC output was also at about 0.5 instead of its optimal 0.86 .   So Jenne started by first realinging the PMC input and pushed the PMC ouput to about 0.8  

Then we decided to fix the PSL--> MC alignment by using the zigzag.  After Jenne finished that, we realised that it was probably not the best thing to do since the MC2 might have shifted after the accelerometer installation on the MC2 chamber.

So I measured the spot positions and find that the MC2Y has shifted by about 3.6mm and  MC2P has shifted by about a mm.  There is also a shift of 2mm in MC3P, but hopefully it will go away when we adjust the MC2

 

    MC1P MC2P MC3P MC1Y MC2Y MC3Y
03Nov2011   0.1354 -0.2522 -0.1383 -1.0893 0.7122 -1.5587
04Nov2011   4.0411 4.4994 3.5564 -1.4170 -0.2606 -1.7109
08Nov2011   4.7341 4.8794  4.3907 1.3542 -3.0508 -1.7167
10Nov2011 ........ 3.9944 3.7676 6.1001 -1.3058 -3.8087 -1.6418

 

I am going to adjust the MC2 to recover its nominal position as marked above in green

  5878   Fri Nov 11 22:07:43 2011 SureshUpdateIOOTried to recover the MC alignment of 4th Nov: partial success, PSL beam clipping

I have recovered the yaw values pretty much .  As the PZT1 rails in this direction perhaps this is the more relevant of the two alignments.  The beam is translated in the vertical direction, but this can be easily corrected by changing the pitch of MC2

However note that if the WFS are switched on .. MC is going to follow the PSL beam. 

 

 

 Date  #### MC1P MC2P MC3P MC1Y MC2Y MC3Y
03Nov2011   0.1354 -0.2522 -0.1383 -1.0893 0.7122 -1.5587
04Nov2011   4.0411 4.4994 3.5564 -1.4170 -0.2606 -1.7109
08Nov2011   4.7341 4.8794  4.3907 1.3542 -3.0508 -1.7167
10Nov2011    1   3.9944 3.7676 6.1001 -1.3058 -3.8087 -1.6418
11Nov2011    1  3.8542 3.6831 3.0418 -0.8383 0.1550 -2.3841
11Nov2011    2    3.6876 2.7429 2.7830 -1.6250 -0.0386 -1.6346

 

 

  5883   Sat Nov 12 03:46:55 2011 SureshUpdateIOOMC WFS Servo: Open loop gain

[Mirko, Suresh]

I closed the WFS loops and measured the transfer function from IN2 to IN1 testpoints on the WFS1_PIT filterbank. 

We looked at the filter shape consisting of

1) Integrator: zpk([0.8],[0],0.8,"n")

2) zpk([0.8],[100,100],1,"n")

3) zpk([1:10],[3,30],1,"n")

The combined filter shape (along with an added pendulum filter, zpk([ ],0.8,1,"n")  ) is given below

WFS1_PIT_servo_filtershape_20111111_1.png

 

The OL Transfer function measured for WFS1_PIT loop is

WFS1_PIT_servo_OLG_20111111_1.png

 The blue reference is a measurement  without the third "45 deg" filter in the list above.  Without it the UGF is around 1.5Hz and increasing the gain results in additional noise from the servo bump seen in the earlier elog .  With it the UGF is around 3Hz.

The supression of the error signal is shown here

 Error_signal_WFS1_PIT_20111111_1.png

The other WFS loops are expected to have a similar behaviour with the exception of the MC2 QPD channels.  I will measure their OLTF shortly and then proceed with the inclusion of the QPD sensors into the WFS system.

 

 

  5884   Sat Nov 12 08:09:47 2011 ranaUpdateIOOMC WFS Servo: Open loop gain

Somehow, I generically don't like the idea of lead filters for the WFS loops. We don't really need so much bandwidth. I think you should include with the servo measurements, a servo model ( on the same plot ) that matches the loop shape.

For example, this means including the 28 Hz ELP in the MC1/3 hardware and MC2 ASCPIT/YAW digital filter banks. BY comparing the model v. measurement we can determine if the cross-coupling due to imperfect output matrix is very serious or not.

In the measurements, the loop with the most low frequency gain looks the most promising.

ELOG V3.1.3-