In preparation for the armloss map I checked the calibration of the Y-Arm ITM and ETM OpLevs with the method originally described in https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8081/40m/1247. I was getting a little confused about the math though, so I attached a document at the end of this post in which I work it out for myself and posteriority. Stepping through an introduced offset in the control filter for the corresponding degree of freedom, I recorded the change in transmitted power and the reading of the OpLev channel with the current calibration. One thing I noticed is that the calibration for ITM PIT is inverted with respect to the others. This can of course be compensated at any point in any readout/feedback chain, but it might be nice to establish some sort of convention where positive feedback to the mirror will increase the OpLev reading.
The calibration factors I get are within ~10% of the currently stored values. The table (still incomplete, need to relate to the current values) summarizes the results:
The individual graphs:
I poked around a bit thinking about what we need for a single AS WFS.
New things that we would need:
Things we have:
We'd have 12 new signals to acquire: 4 quadrants x DC, I, Q. In principle the DC part could go into a slow channel, but we have the ADC space to do it fast, and it'll be easier than mucking around with c1iscaux or whatever.
Open question: What to do about AA? A quick search didn't turn up any eurocard AA chassis like the ones we use for the LSC PDs. However, given the digital AA that happens from 64kHz->16kHz in the IOP, we've talked about disabling/bypassing the analog AA for the LSC signals. Maybe we can do the same for the QPD signals? Or, modify the post-demod audioband amplifer in the demod chassis to have some simple, not too agressive lowpass.
POP QPD checkout:
Attachments #1 is the current setup of AUX Y Green locking and it has to be improved because:
About the above two:
One of the example for improvement is just adding a new lens (f=10cm) soon after the doubling crystal. That will make mode matching better (100%) and also make separation better (85 deg) (Attachments #4 and #5). I'm checking whether we have the lens and there is space to set it. And I will measure current power of transmitted main laser in order to confirm the improvement of alignment.
About the last:
I am considering what component is needed.
[ Yuki, Koji, Gautam ]
An alignment of AUX Y end green beam was bad. With Koji and Gautam's advice, it was recovered on Friday. The maximum value of TRY was about 0.5.
[ Yuki, Gautam ]
The setup I designed before has abrupt gouy phase shift between two steering mirrors which makes alignment much sensitive. So I designed a new one (Attached #1, #2 and #3). It improves the slope of gouy phase and the difference between steering mirrors is about 100 deg. To install this, we need new lenses: f=100mm, f=200mm, f=-250mm which have 532nm coating. If this setup is OK, I will order them.
There may be a problem: One lens should be put soon after dichroic mirror, but there is little room for fix it. (Attached #4, It will be put where the pedestal is.) Tomorrow we will check this problem again.
And another problem; one steering mirror on the corner of the box is not easy to access. (Attached #5) I have to design a new seup with considering this problem.
[ Yuki, Steve ]
With Steve's help, we checked a new lens can be set soon after dichroic mirror.
We want to remotely control steeing PZT mirrors so its driver is needed. We already have a PZT driver board (D980323-C) and the output voltage is expected to be verified to be in the range 0-100 V DC for input voltages in the range -10 to 10 V DC.
Then I checked to make sure ir perform as we expected. The input signal was supplied using voltage calibrator and the output was monitored using a multimeter.
But it didn't perform well. Some tuning of voltage bias seemed to be needed. I will calculate its transfer function by simulation and check the performance again tommorow. And I found one solder was off so it needs fixing.
diagram --> elog 8932
Plan of Action:
I fixed the input terminal that had been off, and made sure PZT driver board performs as we expect.
At first I ran a simulation of the PZT driver circuit using LTspice (Attached #1 and #2). It shows that when the bias is 30V the driver performs well only with high input volatage (bigger than 3V). Then I measured the performance as following way:
The result of this is attached #3 and #4. It is consistent with simulated one. All ports performed well.
The high voltage points (100V DC) remain to be tested.
SHEET 1 2120 2120
WIRE 1408 656 1408 624
WIRE 1552 656 1552 624
WIRE 1712 656 1712 624
WIRE 1872 656 1872 624
WIRE 2016 656 2016 624
WIRE 1408 768 1408 736
WIRE 1552 768 1552 736
WIRE 1712 768 1712 736
[ Yuki, Gautam, Steve ]
I calibrated a QPD (D1600079, V1009) and made sure it performes well. The calibration constants are as follows:
X-Axis: 584 mV/mm
Y-Axis: 588 mV/mm
The calibration of QPD is needed to calibrate steeing PZT mirrors. It was measured by moving QPD on a translation stage. The QPD was connected to its amplifier (D1700110-v1) and +-18V was supplied from DC power supplier. The amplifier has three output ports; Pitch, Yaw, and Sum. I did the calibration as follows:
The results are attached. The main signal was fitted with error function and I drawed a slope at zero crossing point, which is calibration factor. I determined the linear range of the QPD to be when the output was in range -50V to 50V, then corresponding displacement range is about 0.2 mm width. Using this result, the PZT mirrors will be calibrated in linear range of the QPD tomorrow.
previous experiment by Gautam for X-arm: elog:40m/8873, elog:40m/8884
I assume this QPD set is a D1600079/D1600273 combo.
How much was the SUM output during the measurement? Also how much were the beam radii of this beam (from the error func fittings)?
Then the calibration [V/m] is going to be the linear/inv-linear function of the incident power and the beam radus.
You mean the linear range is +/-50mV (for a given beam), I guess.
How much was the SUM output during the measurement? Also how much were the beam radii of this beam (from the error func fittings)?
Then the calibration [V/m] is going to be the linear/inv-linear function of the incident power and the beam radus.
Then the calibration factor of the QPD is
X axis: 584 * (POWER / 2.96mW) * (0.472mm / RADIUS) [mV/mm]
Y axis: 588 * (POWER / 2.96mW) * (0.472mm / RADIUS) [mV/mm].
We need to set up a copy of the c1asx model (which currently runs on c1iscex), to be named c1asy, on c1iscey for the green steering PZTs. The plan discussed at the meeting last Wednesday was to rename the existing model c1tst into c1asy, and recompile it with the relevant parts copied over from c1asx. However, I suspect this will create some problems related to the "dcuid" field in the CDS params block (I ran into this issue when I tried to use the dcuid for an old model which no longer exists, called c1imc, for the c1omc model).
From what I can gather, we should be able to circumvent this problem by deleting the .par file corresponding to the c1tst model living at /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/target/gds/param/, and rename the model to c1asy, and recompile it. But I thought I should post this here checking if anyone knows of other potential conflicts that will need to be managed before I start poking around and breaking things. Alternatively, there are plenty of cores available on c1iscey, so we could just set up a fresh c1asy model...
I calibrated PZT mirrors. The ROUGH result was attached. (Note that some errors and trivial couplings coming from inclination of QPD were not considered here. This should be revised and posted again.)
The PZT mirrors I calibrated were:
I did the calibration as follows:
The calibration factor was
CVI-pitch: 0.089 mrad/V
CVI-yaw: 0.096 mrad/V
Laseroptic-pitch: 0.062 mrad/V
Laseroptic-yaw: 0.070 mrad/V
Previous calibration of the same mirrors, elog:40/8967
Interim Procedure Report:
The current setup of AUX Y-arm Green locking has to be improved because:
What to do
I improved Anti-Imaging board (D000186-Rev.D), which will be put between DAC port and PZT driver board.
It had notches at f = 16.6 kHz and 32.7 kHz, you can see them in the plot attached. So I replaced some resistors as follows:
Then the notch moved to 65.9 kHz (> sampling frequency of DAC = 64 kHz, good!).
(The plot enlarged around the notch frequency and the plot of all channels will be posted later.)
All electronics and optics seem to be ready.
I made a cable which connects DAC port (40 pins) and AI board (25 pins). I will check if it works.
Tomorrow I will change setup for improvement of AUX Y-end green locking. Any optics for IR will not be moved in my design, so this work doesn't affect Y-arm locking with main beam.
While doing this work, I will do:
Before changing setup at Y-end table, I measured the status value of the former setup as follows. These values will be compared to those of upgraded setup.
(These numbers are shown in the attachment #2.)
The setup I designed is here. It can bring 100% mode-matching and good separation of degrees of TEM01, however I found a probrem. The picture of setup is attached #3. You can see the reflection angle at Y7 and Y8 is not appropriate. I will consider the schematic again.
The SHG crystal has the conversion efficiency of ~2%W (i.e. if you have 1W input @1064, you get 2% conversion efficiency ->20mW@532nm)
It is not possible to produce 0.58mW@532nm from 20.9mW@1064nm because this is already 2.8% efficiency.
I measured it with the wrong setting of a powermeter. The correct ones are here:
The calculated conversion efficiency of SHG crystal is 1.2%W.
What about just copying the Xend layout? I think it has good MM (per calculations), reasonable (in)sensitivity to component positions, good Gouy phase separation, and I think it is good to have the same layout at both ends. Since the green waist has the same size and location in the doubling crystal, it should be possible to adapt the X end solution to the Yend table pretty easily I think.
I designed a new layout. It has good mode-matching efficiency, reasonable sensitivity to component positions, good Gouy phase separation. I'm setting optics in the Y-end table. The layout will be optimized again after finishing (rough) installation. (The picture will be posted later)
After installation I measured these power again.
There is a little power loss. That may be because of adding one lens in the beam path. I think it is allowable margin.
While pointing Yuki to the c1asx servo system, I noticed that the filter file for c1asx is missing in the usual chans directory. Why? Backups for it exist in the filter_archive subdirectory. But there is no current file. Clearly this doesn't seems to affect the realtime code execution as the ASX model seems to run just fine. I copied the latest backup version from the archive area into the chans directory for now.
Setting up c1asy:
Now Yuki can work on copying the simulink model (copy c1asx structure) and implementing the autoalignment servo.
Final Procedure Report for Green Locking in YARM:
To do for Green Locking in YARM:
The auto-alignment servo should be completed. This servo requires many parameters to be optimized: demodulation frequency, demodulation phase, servo gain (for each M1/2 PIT/YAW), and matrix elements which can remove PIT-YAW coupling.
To practise the dither alignment servo tuning, I decided to make the ASX system work again (mainly because it has fewer DoFs and so I thought it'd be easier to manage). Setup is: dither PZT mirrors on EX table-->demodulate green transmission at the dither frequencies-->Servo the error signals to 0 by an integrator.
The adjusted demod phases, servo gains were saved to the .snap file which gets called when we run the "DITHER ON" script. Also updated the StripTool template.
I plan to repeat similar characterization on the IR dither alignment servos. I think the tuning of the ASS settings can be done independently of figuring out the mystery of why the TRY level is so low.
I tried implementing a basic PRMI ASC using the POP QPD as a sensor. The POP22 buildup RMS is reduced by a factor of a few. This is just a first attempt, I think the loop shape can be made much better, but the stability of the lock is already pretty impressive. For some past work, see here.
I made a change to the c1ass model to normalize the PIT and YAW POP QPD outputs by the SUM channel. A saturation block is used to prevent divide-by-zero errors, I set the saturation limits to [1,1e5], since the SUM channel is being recorded as counts right now. Model change is shown in the attached screenshots. I compiled and installed the model. Ran the reboot script to reboot all the vertex FEs to avoid the issue of crashing c1lsc.
Attachment #1 - comparison of the POP QPD PIT and YAW output signal spectra with and without them being normalized by the SUM channel. I guess the shape is different between 30-100 Hz because we have subtracted out the correlated singal due to RIN?
This did not have the effect I desired - I was hoping that by normalizing the signals, I wouldn't need to change the gain of the ASC servo as the buildup in the PRC changed, but I found that the settings that worked well for PRMI locked with the carrier resonant (no arm cavities, see Attachment #2, buildup RIN reduced by a factor of ~4) did not work for the PRMI locked with the sideband resonant. Moreover, Koji raised the point that there will be some point in the transition from arms off resonance to on resonance where the dominant field in the PRC will change from being the circulating PRC carrier to the leaking arm carrier. So the response of the actuator (PRM) to correct for the misalignment may change sign.
In conclusion, we decided that the best approach to improve the angular stability of the PRC will be to revive the PRC angualr feedforward, which in turn requires the characterization and repair of the apparently faulty vertex seismometer.
I'd like to revive the PRC angular feedforward system. However, it looks like the coherence between the vertex seismometer channels and the PRC angular motion witness sensor (= POP QPD) is much lower than was found in the past, and hence, the stabilization potential by implementing feedforward seems limited, especially for the Pitch DoF.
I found that the old filters don't work at all - turning on the FF just increases the angular motion, I can see both the POP and REFL spots moving around a lot more on the CRT monitors.
I first thought I'd look at the frequency-domain weiner filter subtraction to get a lower bound on how much subtraction is possible. I collected ~25 minutes of data with the PRC locked with the carrier resonant (but no arm cavities). Attachment #1 shows the result of the frequency domain subtraction (the dashed lines in the top subplot are RMS). Signal processing details:
The coherence between target signal (=POP QPD) and the witness channels (=seismometer channels) are much lower now than was found in the past. What could be going on here?
This afternoon, I kept the PRM locked for ~1hour and then measured transfer functions from the PRM angular actuators to the POP QPD spot motion for pitch and yaw between ~1pm and 4pm. After this work, the PRM was misaligned again. I will now work on the feedforward filter design.
Using the data I collected yesterday, the POP angular FF filters have been trained. The offline time-domain performance looks (unbelievably) good, online performance will be verified at the next available opportunity(see update).
The sequence of steps followed is the same as that done for the MCL FF filters. The trace that is missing from Attachment #1 is the measured online subtraction. Some rough notes:
Update Apr 5 1145pm:
that's pretty great performance. maybe you can also upload some code so that we can do it later too - or maybe in the 40m GIT
I wonder how much noise is getting injected into PRC length at 10-100 Hz due to this. Any change the PRC ERR?
I don't have a recent measurement of the optical gain of this config so I can't undo the loop, but in-loop performance doesn't suggest any excess in the 10-100 Hz band. Interestingly, there is considerable improvement below 10 Hz. Maybe some of this is reduced A2L noise because of the better angular stability, but there is also improvement at frequencies where the FF isn't doing anything, so could be some bilinear coupling. The two datasets were collected at approximately the same time in the evening, ~5pm, but on two different days.
I've been thinking about the IMC WFS. I want to repeat the sort of analysis done at LLO where a Finesse model was built and some inferences could be made about, for example, the Gouy phase separation b/w the sensors by comparing the Finesse sensing matrix to a measured sensing matrix. Taking the currently implemented output matrix as a "measurement" (since the IMC WFS stabilize the IMC transmission), I don't get any agreement between it and my Finesse model. Could be that the model needs tweaking, but there are several known issues with the WFS themselves (e.g. imbalanced segment gains).
Building the finesse model:
Some notes about the WFS heads:
Update 215 pm 5/6: adding in some comments from Rana raised during the meeting:
This is the doc from Keita Kawabe on why the WFS heads should be rotated.
OK so the QPD segments are in the "+" orientation when the 40m IMC WFS heads are mounted at 45 deg. I thought "+" was the natural PIT/YAW basis but I guess in the the LIGO parlance, the "X" orientation was considered more natural.
I implemented an ASC servo for the PRC, with the POP QPD as a sensor, and the PRM as the actuator. This has improved the stability of the lock (longer locks are possible), and also reduced the RIN of the arm transmission.
Attachment #1 shows the in-loop error signal suppression, and some out-of-loop monitors (POP22 and POPDC).
Attachment #2 compares the arm transmission RIN with the PRFPMI locked, with and without PRC ASC. The 3 Hz bump is definitely squished, but I think we can do better yet.
Attachments #3-5 are in the style of elog15361. No Oplev signals yet, I'll add them soon.
I guess what this means is that the stability of the lock could be improved by turning on some POP QPD based feedback control, I'll give it a shot
In ELOG 15368, I had claimed that the POP QPD based feedback servo actuating on the PRM stabilized the lock. I now believe this scheme of sensing using the POP QPD and feeding back to the PRM is not a good topology for stabilizing the PRC angular motion.
I would also like to bring up the topic of implementing some WFS for the interferometer fields again, there doesn't seem to be any mention of this in the procurement/planning for the BHD. It is not obvious to me yet that we need WFS and not just DC QPDs from a noise point of view, but at least we should discuss this.
I want to be able to run the dither alignment servo with the PRFPMI locked - I've been thinking about what the scheme should be, and I list here some questions I had while thinking about this.
Where do we want to install the interface and readout electronics for the AS port WFS? Options are:
There isn't much difference in terms of cable length that will be required - I believe the AS WFS is going to go on the AP table even in the new optical layout and not on the ITMY in-air oplev table?
The project requires a large number of new electronics modules. Here is a short update and some questions I had:
Approximately half of the assembly of the various electronics is now complete. The basic electrical testing of the interface chassis and demod chassis are also done (i.e. they get power, the LEDs light up, and are stable for a few minutes). Detailed noise and TF characterization will have to be done.
Attachment #1 - Proposed mods for 40m RF freqs.
Attachment #2 - Modelled TFs for the case where all the notches are stuffed, and where only the 2f notch is stuffed.
Attachment #3 - Modelled TFs for the case where all the notches are stuffed, and where only the 2f notch is stuffed.
Any other red flags anyone sees before I finish stuffing the board?
WFS head and housing. Need to finalize the RF transimpedance gain (i.e. the LC resonant part), and also decide which notches we want to stuff.
Last week and this week I've been working on the characterization of the Q3000 QPDs. The QPDs were named 81, 82, 83, and 94.
My recommendation is to use #81 and #84 as they have similar dark current characteristics between the segments. But basically, all the QPDs look fine.
The actual junction capacitance and the RF dark noise should be characterized by the actual WFS head circuit.
The QPD packages were labeled and returned to Gautam to be implemented in the WFS heads.
gautam: S/N #84 was installed as the AS WFS QPD. The remaining 3 are stored in the clean cabinet at EX (where the rest of the RF photodiodes are).
I am confused by the discussion during the call today. I revisited Hartmut's paper - the circuit in Fig 6 is essentially what I am calling "only 2f_2 notch stuffed" in my previous elog. Qualitatively, the plot I presented in Attachment #2 of the preceeding elog in this thread shows the expected behavior as in Fig 8 of the paper - the impedance seen by the photodiode is indeed lower. In Attachment #1, I show the comparison - the "V(anode)/I(I1)" curve is analogous to the "PD anode" curve in Hartmut's paper, and the "V(vout)/I(I1)" curve is analogous to the "1f-out" curve. I also plot the sensitivity analysis (Attachment #2), by varying the photodiode junction capacitance between 100pF and 200 pF (both values inclusive) in 20 pF steps. There is some variation at 55 MHz, but it is unlikely that the capacitance will change so much during normal operation?
I understand the motivation behind stuffing the other notches, to reduce intermodulation effects. But the impression I got from the call was that somehow, the model I presented was wrong. Can someone help me identify the mistake?
I didn't bother to export the LTspice data and make a matplotlib plot for this quick analysis, so pardon the poor presentation. The colors run from green=100pF to grey=200pF.
An 8 channel whitening chassis was prepared and tested. I measured:
Whitening chassis. Waiting for front panels to arrive, PCBs and interface board are in hand, stuffed and ready to go. A question here is how we want to control the whitening - it's going to be rather difficult to have fast switchable whitening. I think we can just fix the whitening state. Another option would be to control the whitening using Acromag BIO channels.
I don't think your simulation looked inaccurate (at least not to me). In my opinion, we just want to minimize any excess noise from intermodulation. Of course, its possible that stuffing too many notches will make it difficult to have the same low noise as a simple circuit, so that's worth considering.
Also, the intermodulation is mainly a problem when the other peaks are not suppressed by some feedback: e.g. POP55_I can have excess noise if POP55_Q or POP11_I are not controlled by some MICH/PRCL/SRCL loops.
For the WFS, perhaps this is not a significant issue, but I'm not sure. My suggestion is to stuff 11 & 55 for sure, and then the others depending on the amplitude of the peaks and the consequent intermodulation. IF it works with all stuffed, that seems good. If its tricky to get it to work with all stuffed, I'd back off on a couple of them...but it probably takes more careful thought to figure out which ones are least important.
I'm thinking of making some modifications to the RF distribution box in 1X2, so as to have an extra 55 MHz pickoff. Koji already proposed some improvements to the layout in 2015. I've marked up his "Possible Improvement" page of the document in Attachment #1, with my proposed modifications. I believe it will be possible to get 15-16 dBm of signal into a 4 way RF splitter in the quad demod chassis. With the insertion loss of the splitter, we can have 9-10 dBm of LO reaching each demod board, which will then be boosted to +20 dBm by the Teledyne on board. The PE4140 mixer claims to require only -7 dBm of LO signal. So we have quite a bit of headroom here - as long as we limit the RF signal to 0dBm (=0.5 Vpp from the LMH6431 opamp at 55 MHz, we shouldn't be having a much larger signal anyways), we should be just fine with 15 dBm of LO power (which is what we will have after the division into the I and Q paths, and nominal insertion losses in the transmission path). These numbers may be slight overestimates given the possible degradation of the RF amps over the last 10 years, but shouldn't be a show-stopper.
Do the RF electronics experts agree with my assessment? If so, I will start working on these mods tomorrow. Technically, the splitter can be added outside the box, but it may be neater if we package it inside the box.
I got a bit confused by your description.
The demod board claims that the nominal power at each LO port is 10dBm. So we want to give at least 16dBm to the (external?) 4way power splitter, but we only have 15dBm. As you said, the actual LO power reaching the FET mixier (PE4140) is the level of ~20dBm. But you said the requirement for the mixer is -7dBm. So are you proposing to reduce the LO level (slightly) than the LIGO recommendation because the minimum for PE4140 is -7dBm?
If that's the message, then I can say "yes". We supply 8~9dBm to the LO ports instead of 10dBm. I suppose the mixers don't care about this level of reduction.
Looking at my original post [40m ELOG 11817], the necessary modification is much larger than you have indicated in your post (as yours is the modification of my modification plan.)
If you do your modification you have to deal with the components rearrangement in the chassis. I think you can still accomplish it as you are going to remove an amplifier and gain the space from it.
The main RF line still has 5dBm Attn. How about to insert another 3dB power splitter there and create a spare 55MHz port for the future use?
Before doing any modification you should check how much the distributed powers are at the ports.
Also your modification will change the relative phase between 11MHz and 55MHz.
Can you characterize how much phase difference you have between them, maybe using the modulation of the main marconi? And you might want to adjust it to keep the previous value (or any new value) after the modification by adding a cable inside?