40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 187 of 341  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Authorup Type Category Subject
  138   Thu Nov 29 10:36:47 2007 albertoConfigurationComputer Scripts / ProgramsAgilent 82357B GPIB to USB Interface Installation Procedeure
To run the Agilent Automation-Ready CD provided with the interface is only the first step of the installation. Apparently there should be also a second CD with the drivers for Windows XP but I couldn't find it. So, after Installaing the IO Libraries Suite from the CD, I had to install the drivers with an executable downloaded from the Agilent's website at:

http://www.home.agilent.com/agilent/editorial.jspx?cc=US&lc=eng&ckey=1188958&nid=-35199.0.00&id=1188958

and only then I could plug in the interface.
Anyway, I burned a cd with the file and put it together with the other one.
  164   Wed Dec 5 10:57:08 2007 albertoHowToComputersConnecting the GPIBto USB interface to the Dell laptop
The interface works only on one of the USB ports of the laptop (the one on the right, looking at the computer from the back).
  165   Wed Dec 5 13:49:08 2007 albertoUpdateElectronicsRF AM PD lines monitor
In the last weeks Iíve been working on the design of an electronic board to measure directly the power of the main spectral lines on of the RF-AM photodiode from as many independent outputs. The idea is to have eventually a monitor channel in the CDS network for the power of each line.
Looking at at the spectrum from the RF-AM PD (see attached plot), there are 5 main lines:
Frequency
3 fsr = 33 195 439 Hz
4 fsr = 66 390 878 Hz
12 fsr = 132 781 756 Hz
15 fsr = 165 977 195 Hz
18 fsr = 199 172 634 Hz

Two main approaches have been proposed for the circuit depending on the way followed to isolate the lines:
1) Filters: the frequencies are separated by narrow notch filters, then a diode bridge rectifies and a low pass filter extracts the DC component.
2) Mixers: for each frequency there is a mixer driven by a copy of the correspondent modulation frequency provided by the function generators (the Marconi). The mixers automatically give the DC component of the rectified signals.
Because of the phase lags that we should compensate if we used mixers, we would prefer the first approach, if it works.
Starting with a tolerance of about 10% between the channels, the spectrum (see attachment) sets the constraint to the filterís suppression:
Filter central frequency [MHz]******Suppression within 30 Mhz [dB]
33*********************************-7-20 = -27
66**********************************7-20 = -13
133*********************************12-20 = -8
166********************************-12-20 = -32
199*********************************10-20 = 10

So far Iíve tried two kinds of designs for the filters, Butterworth (see attachment) and LC and I'm measuring transfer functions tuning the components to match the central frequency and the bandwdth of the filters with the requirements.

The frequencies weíre dealing with are rather high and several adjustments had to be done to the measurement system in order to shield the circuit from the impedance of the input and the output line (i.e., amplifier turned out to be necessary). Also, an the mixer had to be replaced to an RF one.
It seems I'm now measuring new transfer functions (which look quite different from what I've got with no amplifiers).
To be posted soon.
Attachment 1: alberto.spectrum2.png
alberto.spectrum2.png
Attachment 2: Butterworth.PNG
Butterworth.PNG
  173   Thu Dec 6 15:21:59 2007 albertoFrogsElectronicsRF Transfer Function of Stiff Aluminum Wires
Transfer function of 3cm long Aluminum wires and of 3cm stranded wires
Attachment 1: TF_3cm_stiff_wires.amplitude.png
TF_3cm_stiff_wires.amplitude.png
Attachment 2: DSC_0225compressed.JPG
DSC_0225compressed.JPG
Attachment 3: TF_3cm_stranded_wires.amplitude.png
TF_3cm_stranded_wires.amplitude.png
  188   Wed Dec 12 16:22:22 2007 albertoOmnistructureElectronicsLC filter for the RF-AM monitor circuit
In the LC configuration (see attached schematic) the resonant frequency is tuned to one of the peak of our RF-AM monitor and it is amplified by a factor equal to the Q of the filter. As I wrote in one of the last elog entries, we would like amplifications of about 10-30 dB in order to have negligible couplings. Such values are obtained only with small capacitances (few or less pF). The drawback is relatively large inductance (uH or more) which has inevitably low Self Resonant Frequencies (SRF - the resonant frequencies of the RLC circuit usually associated with an actual inductor - ~ MHz). Even before, one limit is also the input impedance of the RF amplifier. Quality factors > 1 require megaohms, far from the 50 ohms in the MiniCircuit amplifiers Iím using now. So, if we plan to use these even for the final design of the circuit, we have to abandon the LC configuration.
For this same reason the only way I could get the expected responses from my several test boards was with a 10 megaohm input probe (see attachment for the measurement with and without probe). Assuming that impedance, I found these as the best trade-offs between the attenuation requirements and the values of the inductors for respectively the peaks at 33, 66,133, 166,199 MHz:
26uH, 6.6u, 20u, 73u, 16u
If we could find inductor with these values and high SRF the configuration should work. The problem is I couldnít find any. Above a few uH they all seem to have SRF ~ MHz.
That is why I switched to the Butterworth. This should work despite the input impedance of the amplifier and with much smaller inductances. I made a totally new test circuit, with surface mount components. I think I still have to fix some things in the measurements but (this time I got rid of the simulator I was using earlier and designed a new configuration with new values from the Horowitzís tables) it seems I have the expected peaks. More soon.
Attachment 1: TF_LC_filter_10pF_1.8uH_scope_probe.png
TF_LC_filter_10pF_1.8uH_scope_probe.png
Attachment 2: TF_LC_filter_10pF_1.8mH_no_probe.png
TF_LC_filter_10pF_1.8mH_no_probe.png
Attachment 3: LC_filter_schematic.png
LC_filter_schematic.png
  190   Thu Dec 13 12:05:36 2007 albertoOmnistructureElectronicsThe new Butterworth seems to work quite well
It works better probably because of the small inductors I'm using this time.
The peak is at 30 MHz because I didn't have the precise elements to get 33.

The bandwidth and the Q could be improved by adding one or two more order to the filter and trying to better match the low-pass' resonant frequency with the high-pass'.

Also I have to see if it could work at 166 and 199 MHz as well.
Attachment 1: TF_New_Butterworth_12-Nov-2007_TF.png
TF_New_Butterworth_12-Nov-2007_TF.png
Attachment 2: Bultervverth2.png
Bultervverth2.png
  193   Mon Dec 17 11:47:13 2007 albertoUpdateElectronicsan alternative design for the RFAM monitor's filter at 33Mhz
Since the Butterworth turned out o be rather wide-band, I tried an other configuration for the 33 MHz filter. Attached are the simulated transfer function and the measured. As one can see, the measured peak is much broader than expected.
Attachment 1: RFSim99-33MHz.png
RFSim99-33MHz.png
Attachment 2: RF99-SimmButterworthPrototype.png
RF99-SimmButterworthPrototype.png
Attachment 3: RFSim99-33MHz-TFplot.png
RFSim99-33MHz-TFplot.png
  650   Tue Jul 8 21:58:22 2008 albertoUpdateGeneralSecondaty beam aligned to the IFO beam again
Yesterday the alignment of the secondary beam to the IFO was completely lost and today I had to realign all the optics before I was able to match the two spots again. I had to reset the height of the irises and I had also to replace mirror M1 with one with a larger angular motion. Eventually I obtained the beat again. Working on the optics table I inadvertently misaligned the OSA but I didn't make in time to bring it back before the night shift people came. I'll work on that tomorrow morning.
  943   Thu Sep 11 23:28:35 2008 albertoUpdateGeneralabs cavity length experiment
The MC lost lock for some reason not related to either the FSS or the PMC I'm done with my measurement for tonight. I've shut the NPRO beam before leaving.
  1108   Mon Nov 3 19:12:27 2008 albertoUpdateGeneralTransverse mode spacing measurement for the X arm
I know a lot of expectations have been building up on these days in the scientific community at the 40m towards a conclusive elog entry about the g-factor measurement of the X arm cavity.
The reason of the delay is that the results are still under review by the author. It turned out that the measurements of the transverse mode spacing have been performed on the beat
of the TEM02/20 and TEM00 modes between the two laser beams instead of on the beat between 00 and 01/10. However, the results posted on the elog in the last weeks seem likewise correct,
in particular my plot of the HOM of the sidebands.

Anyways, lately I have been trying to repeat the measurement on the beat of TEM01/10 with 00 but, despite all the efforts and the countless configurations tried (on the locking of
the arm, on the tilt of the mirrors, on the injection of the secondary beams, on the chopping with the blade), only the beat of TEM10 has been measured - although quite clearly -
whereas that of TEM01 has so far hidden itself.

The search continues but even if it does not succeeds, a summarizing document is going to be posted soon.

Here I attach a plot that shows the kind of difficulties trying to detect TEM10. The red neat peak is the beat of TEM01 whereas the other curves are some of the resulting
resonances after trying to couple TEM10 with 00 (or vice versa, according to whether I'm locking the cavity to the 00 mode of the main laser or to that of the secondary beam).
Attachment 1: 2008-11-02_summarizingplot.png
2008-11-02_summarizingplot.png
  1830   Tue Aug 4 23:03:56 2009 albertoUpdateLockingIFO Alignment

After the mini boot fest that Jenne did today, I checked whether that fixed the overflow issues we yesterday prevented the alignemnt of the arms. 

I ran the alignment script for the arms getting 0.85 for TRX and 0.75 for TRY: low values.

After I ran the script ,C1SUSVME1 and C1SUSVME2 started having problems with the FE SYNC (counter at 16378). I rebooted those two and fix the sync problem but the transmitted powers didn't improve.

Are we still having problem due to MC misalignment?

  1833   Wed Aug 5 09:48:05 2009 albertoUpdateLockingIFO Alignment

Quote:

After the mini boot fest that Jenne did today, I checked whether that fixed the overflow issues we yesterday prevented the alignemnt of the arms. 

I ran the alignment script for the arms getting 0.85 for TRX and 0.75 for TRY: low values.

After I ran the script ,C1SUSVME1 and C1SUSVME2 started having problems with the FE SYNC (counter at 16378). I rebooted those two and fix the sync problem but the transmitted powers didn't improve.

Are we still having problem due to MC misalignment?

I also noticed that the FSS transmitted power has been constantly decaying for the last 6 months. Only in the last month tt dropped by 15%. The laser power hasn't decayed as much, so it's probably not the cause.
Maybe this is one reason why lately of less power going to the IFO.
 
We call it FSS Transmission, but I guess we mean power transmitted TO the IFO, that is it measures the power reflected from reference cavity, right?
 
Still on the front of the FSS, the reflected power has dropped from -0.5 to -1.2. Here I also wonder about the reason of negative values for that.
 

See attachments

Attachment 1: 2009-08-09_FSStransPD.png
2009-08-09_FSStransPD.png
Attachment 2: 2009-08-09_FSreflPD.png
2009-08-09_FSreflPD.png
  1842   Thu Aug 6 09:33:08 2009 albertoUpdateLockingFSS Transmitted and Reflected Power Trends

 I've now also trended the MOPA output power for the last 200 days to check a possible correlation with the FSS reflected power. See attachment.

The trend shows that the laser power has decayed but it seems that the FSS reflected power has done it even faster: 30% drop in the FSS vs 7% for the MOPA in the last 60 days (attachment n.2).

Attachment 1: 2009-08-06_PSL_trends200days.png
2009-08-06_PSL_trends200days.png
Attachment 2: 2009-08-06_PSL_trends.png
2009-08-06_PSL_trends.png
  2876   Tue May 4 06:32:58 2010 albertoConfigurationPSLRC Temperature Servo Turned OFF temporarily

Quote:

 

 My attempt to passively measure the transfer function of the foam failed fantastically.

As it turns out, the room temperature fluctuations inside the PSL box reach the 1 mK/rHz noise floor of the  AD590 (or maybe the ADC) at ~1-2 mHz. Everything at higher frequencies is noise.

So to see what the foam is doing we will have to do something smarter - we need a volunteer to disable the RC temperature servo from the EPICS screen and then cycle the PSL table lights every hour in the morning.

We'll then use our knowledge of the Laplace transform to get the TF from the step responses.

 more detailed instructions needed....

  3075   Mon Jun 14 07:57:07 2010 albertoUpdateLocking40m Upgrade Optickle Model

Quote:

 

 In my calculation of the digital filters of the optical transfer functions the carrier light is resonant in coupled cavities and the sidebands are resonant in recycling cavities (provided that macroscopic lengths are chosen correctly which I assumed).

Carrier and SB (f2) shouldn't be resonant at the same time in the SRC-arms coupled cavity. No additional filtering of the GW signal is wanted.

The SRC macroscopic length is chosen to be = c / f2 - rather than = [ (n+1/2) c / (2*f2) ] - accordingly to that purpose.

  3079   Tue Jun 15 21:28:44 2010 albertoUpdateLocking40m Upgrade Optickle Model

Quote:

Quote:

 

 In my calculation of the digital filters of the optical transfer functions the carrier light is resonant in coupled cavities and the sidebands are resonant in recycling cavities (provided that macroscopic lengths are chosen correctly which I assumed).

Carrier and SB (f2) shouldn't be resonant at the same time in the SRC-arms coupled cavity. No additional filtering of the GW signal is wanted.

The SRC macroscopic length is chosen to be = c / f2 - rather than = [ (n+1/2) c / (2*f2) ] - accordingly to that purpose.

I calculated the frequency of the double cavity pole for the 40m SRC-arm coupled cavity.

w_cc = (1 + r_srm)/(1- r_srm) * w_c

where w_c is the arm cavity pole angular frequency [w_c = w_fsr * (1-r_itm * r_etm)/sqrt(r_itm*r_etm) ]

I found the pole at about 160KHz. This number coincides with what I got earlier with my optickle model configured and tuned as I said in my previous entry. See attachments for plots of transfer functions with 0 and 10pm DARM offsets, respectively.

I think  the resonance at about 20 Hz that you can see in the case with non-zero DARM offset, is due to radiation pressure. Koji suggested that I could check the hypothesis by changing either the mirrors' masses or the input power to the interferometer. When I did it frequency and qualty factor of the resonance changed, as you would expect for a radiation pressure effect.

Independently, Jan also calculated the pole frequency of the transfer function DARM / ASQ2 as we would expect it for the SRC-coupled cavity. He also found the pole at about 160KHz. I'm attaching the plot with the transfer function he calculated.
He also said that the little bump at the pole frequency is OK considering that our signal recycling cavity is not much shorter than the arms.

This gave me more confidence about my optickle model of the 40m. This is quite comforting since I used that model other times in the past to calculate several things (i.e. effects of higher unwanted harmonics from the oscillator, or, recently, the power at the ports due to the SB resonating in the arms).

I don't know anymore what Valera said that wasn't right.
Also, as he said, he set it for the carrier to be resonant in the SRC-arms couple cavity. But that is not our case.
Attachment 1: allTransferFunctions_DARMoff_0.pdf
allTransferFunctions_DARMoff_0.pdf allTransferFunctions_DARMoff_0.pdf allTransferFunctions_DARMoff_0.pdf
Attachment 2: allTransferFunctions_DARM2AS_10pmDARMoffset.pdf
allTransferFunctions_DARM2AS_10pmDARMoffset.pdf allTransferFunctions_DARM2AS_10pmDARMoffset.pdf allTransferFunctions_DARM2AS_10pmDARMoffset.pdf
Attachment 3: Jan_DARM2AS.pdf
Jan_DARM2AS.pdf
  3009   Fri May 28 13:32:01 2010 alberto, kiwamuUpdateVACvacuum work

We started a vacuum work in this morning. And still it's going on.

 

Although the last night the green team replaced a steering mirror by an 80% reflector on the PLS table, the beam axis to the MC looks fine.

The MC refl beam successfully goes into the MCrefl PD, and we can see the MC flashing as usual.

We started measuring the distance of the optics inside the vacuum chamber, found the distance from MC3 to MMT1(curved mirror) is ~13cm shorter than the design.

We moved the positions of the flat mirror after the Faraday and the MMT1, but could not track the beam very well because we did not completely lock the MC.

Now we are trying to get the lock of the MC by steering the MC mirrors.

 

P.S.

Kevin suceeded in locking it !!

  1843   Thu Aug 6 10:32:45 2009 alberto, robUpdateLockingMore PSL trends: NPRO, MOPA, FSS, PMC and MZ

 Here we trended also the PMC and the MZ. The drop in the PMC happens at the same rate as the MOPA's.

That let us think that the FSS transmitteed power has gone down because of the reference cavity progressive misalignment to the laser beam.

We need to adjust that alignment sometime.

The drop in the NPRO output power (upper row, 3rd plot: Ch10 C1:PSL_126MOPA_126MON) accompained an increase of "fuzziness" in PMCTRANSPD and both coincided in time with the day we tempoarirly removed the flap from the laser chiller's chiller (July 14 2009).

Attachment 1: 2009-08-06_PSLtrends.png
2009-08-06_PSLtrends.png
  425   Fri Apr 18 16:02:58 2008 alexUpdateSUSend station sus front-end bug fix
installed and started new susEtmx.o and susEtmy.o to fix a problem with ETMY optical lever variables.
  3629   Thu Sep 30 17:11:01 2010 alex iUpdateCDSDAQ system update

The frame builder is timed from the Symmetricom GPS card now, which is getting the IRIGB timecode from the freq. distribution amplifier (from the VME GPS receiver card).

I have adjusted the GPS seconds to match the real GPS time and the DTT seems to be happy: sweeping MC2 MCL filter module produces nice plot.

Test points are working on SUS.

Excitations are working on SUS.

I am leaving the frame builder running and acquiring the data.

 

Alex

 

  15482   Wed Jul 15 17:46:05 2020 anchalSummaryALSNoise budget for ALS

I started my attempt on noise budgeting of ALS by going back to how Kiwamu did it and adding as many sources as I could find up till now. This calculation is present in ALS_Noise_Budget notebook. I intend to collect data for noise sources and all future work on ALS in the ALS repo.

The noise budget runs simulink through matlab.engine inside python and remaining calculations including the pygwinc ones are done in python. Please point out any errors that I might have done here. I still need to add noise due to DFD and the ADC after it. For the residual frequency noise of AUX laser, I have currently used an upper limit of 1kHz/rt Hz at 10 Hz free-running frequency noise of an NPRO laser.

Attachment 1: ALS_nb.pdf
ALS_nb.pdf
  15496   Mon Jul 20 19:21:16 2020 anchalSummaryALSFew proposals for Voyager ALS

I've added 4 proposed schemes for implementing ALS in voyager. Major thing to figure out is what AUX laser would be and how we would compare the different PSL and AUX lasers to create an error signal for ALS. Everywhere below, 2um would mean wavelengths near 2 um including the proposed 2128nm. Since it is not fixed, I'm using a categorical name. Same is the case for 1um which actually would mean half of whatever 2 um carries.


Higher Harmonic Generation:

  • We can follow the current system of ALS with using 1.5 times PSL frequency as AUX instead of second harmonic as 1 um is strongly absorbed in Si.
  • To generate 1.5 times PSL frequency, three stages would be required.
    • SHG: Second Harmonic Generation mode matched to convert 2um to 1um. If we are instead making 2 um from 1um to start with, this stage will not be required.
    • SFG: Sum Frequency Generation mode matched to sum 2um photon and 1um photon to give 0.65 um photon.
    • DPDC: Degenerate Parametric Down Conversion mode matched to convert 0.65 um to 1.3 um (which would be 1.5 times PSL frequency).
  • To compare, we can either convert pick-off from PSL to AUX frequency by doing the above 3 stages (Scheme II).
  • Or we can just do SHG and SFG at PSL pick-off and do another SHG at AUX end (Scheme I) to compare the AUX and PSL both converted to 0.65 um (which would be 2 times AUX and 3 times PSL frequency).
  • This method would have added noise from SHG, SFG and DPDC processes along with issues to be inefficiency of conversion.

Arbitrary AUX frequency:

  • We can get away with using some standard laser near 1.5 um region directly as AUX. Most probably this would be 1550 nm.
  • What's left is to devise a method of comparing 1.5 um and 2um frequencies. Following are two possible ways I could think of:

Using a frequency comb:

  • Good stable frequency combs covering the wavelength region from 1.5 um to 2 um are available of the shelf.
  • We would beat PSL and transmitted AUX separately with the frequency comb. The two beat note frequencies would be:
    \Delta_\text{PSL} = \nu_\text{PSL} - \nu_{CEO} - m_1 \nu_\text{Rep}
    \Delta_\text{AUX} = \nu_\text{AUX} - \nu_{CEO} - m_2 \nu_\text{Rep}
  • Here, m1 and m2 represent the nearest modes (comb teeth) of frequency comb to PSL and AUX respectively.
  • Carrier Envelope Offset frequency (\nu_{CEO}) can be easily generated by using an SHG crystal in front of the Frequency comb. This step is not really required since most of the modern frequency combs now comb with inbuilt zero \nu_{CEO} stabilization.
  • Mixing above beatnotes with \nu_{CEO} would remove \nu_{CEO} from them along with any noise associated with \nu_{CEO}.
  • Further, a Direct Digital Synthesis IC is required to multiply the AUX side RF signal by m1/m2. This finally makes the two RF signals to be:
    \nu_{A} = \nu_\text{PSL} - m_1 \nu_{Rep}
    \nu_{B} = \frac{m_1}{m_2}\nu_\text{AUX} - m_1 \nu_{Rep}
  • Which on mixing would give desired error signal for DFD as :
    \nu_\text{PSL} - \frac{m_1}{m_2}\nu_\text{AUX}
  • This method is described in Stenger et al. PRL. 88, 073601 and is useful in comparing two different optical frequencies with a frequency comb with effective cancellation of all noise due to the frequency comb itself. Only extra noise is from the DDS IC which is minimal.
  • This method, however, might be an overkill and expensive. But in case (for whatever reason) we want to send in another AUX at another frequency down the 40m cavity, this method allows the same setup to be used for multiple AUX frequencies at once.

Using a Transfer Cavity:

  • We can make another more easily controlled and higher finesse cavity with a PZT actuator on one of the mirrors.
  • In the schematic, I have imagined it has a triangular cavity with a back end mirror driven by PZT.
  • Shining PSL from one side of the transfer cavity and employing the usual PDH, we can lock the cavity to PSL.
  • This lock would require to be strong and wide bandwidth. If PZT can't provide enough bandwidth, we can also put an EOM inside the cavity! (See this poster from Simon group at UChicago)
  • Another laser at AUX frequency, called AUX2 would be sent from the other side of the cavity and usual PDH is employed to lock AUX2 to the transfer cavity.
  • So clearly, this cavity also requires coatings and coarse length such that it is resonant with both PSL and AUX frequencies simultaneously.
  • And, the FSS for AUX2 needs to be good and high bandwidth as well.
  • The transmitted AUX2 from the transfer cavity now would carry stability of PSL at the frequency of AUX and can be directly beaten with transmitted AUX from the 40m cavity to generate an error signal for DFD.
  • I believe this is a more doable and cheaper option. Even if we want to do a frequency comb scheme, this could be a precursor to it.

_________________________

EditTue Jul 21 17:24:09 2020: (Jamie's suggestion)

Using Mode Cleaner cavity as Transfer Cavity:

  • If we coat the mode cleaner cavity mirrors appropriately, we can use it to lock AUX2 laser (mentioned above).
  • This will get rid of all extra optics. The only requirement is for FSS to be good on AUX2 to transfer PSL (MC) stability to AUX frequency.
  • I've added suggested schematic for this scheme at the bottom.

 

Attachment 1: VoyagerALSSchemes.pdf
VoyagerALSSchemes.pdf VoyagerALSSchemes.pdf VoyagerALSSchemes.pdf VoyagerALSSchemes.pdf VoyagerALSSchemes.pdf
  15587   Sat Sep 19 23:59:22 2020 anchalSummaryALSALS noise budget update

Setting the record straight

I found out an error I did in copying some control model values from Kiwamu's matlab code. On fixing those, we get a considerably reduced amount of total noise. However, there was still an unstable region around the unity gain frequency because of a very small phase margin. Attachment 3 shows the noise budget, ALS open-loop transfer function, and AUX PDH open-loop transfer function with ALS disengaged. Attachment 4 is the yaml file containing all required zpk values for the control model used. Note that the noise budget shows out-of-loop residual arm length fluctuations with respect to PSL frequency. The RMS curve on this plot is integrated for the shown frequency region.


Trying to fix the unstable region

Adding two more poles at 100 Hz in the ALS digital filter seems to work in making the ALS loop stable everywhere and additionally provides a steeper roll-off after 100 Hz. Attachment 1 shows the noise budget, ALS open-loop transfer function, and AUX PDH open-loop transfer function with ALS disengaged. Attachment 2 is the yaml file containing all required zpk values for the control model used. Note that the noise budget shows out-of-loop residual arm length fluctuations with respect to PSL frequency. The RMS curve on this plot is integrated for the shown frequency region.

But is it really more stable?

  • I tried to think about it from different aspects. One thing is sure that  1+G_{OL} remains greater than 1 in all of the frequency region plotted for. This is also evident in the common-mode to residual noise transfer function which shows no oscillation peaks and is a clean mirror image of the open-loop transfer function (See Attachment 1, page 2).
  • Another way is to look for the phase margin. This is a little controversial way of checking stability. For clarity, the open-loop transfer function I'm plotting does not contain the '-1' feedback in it. So the bad phase value at unity gain frequency is -180 degrees (or 180 degrees) for us. I've taken the difference from the closest side and got 76.2 degrees of phase margin.
  • Another way I checked was by plotting a Nyquist plot for the open-loop transfer function. It is said that if the contour does not encircle the point '-1' in the real axis, then the loop would be stable even if the f_{180} < f_{UGF} where f_{180} is the frequency where phase lag becomes -180 degrees at the lowest frequency. For us, f_{180} is at 1 Hz because of the test mass actuator pole. But I have verified that the Nyquist contour of the open-loop transfer function does not encircle '-1' point. I have not uploaded the Nyquist plot as it is not straight forward to plot. Because of large dc gain, it covers a large region and one needs to zoom in and out to properly follow what the contour is really doing. I didn't get time to make insets for it.

Is this close to reality?

For that, we'll have to take present noise source estimates but Gautum vaguely confirmed that this looked more realistic now 'shape-wise'. If I remember correctly, he mentioned that we currently can achieve 8 pm of residual rms motion in the arm cavity with respect to the PSL frequency. So we might be overestimating our loop's capability or underestimating some noise source. More feedback on this welcome and required.


Additional Info:

The code used to calculate the transfer functions and plot them is in the repo 40m/ALS/noiseBudget

Attachment 5 here shows a block diagram for the control loop model used. Output port 'Res_Disp' is used for referring all the noise sources at the residual arm length fluctuation in the noise budget. The open-loop transfer function for ALS is calculated by -(ALS_DAC->ALS_Out1 / ALS_DAC->ALS_Out2) (removing the -1 negative feedback by putting in the negative sign.) While the AUX PDH open-loop transfer function is calculated by python controls package with simple series cascading of all the loop elements.

 

 

Attachment 1: ALS_nb_ExtraPoles.pdf
ALS_nb_ExtraPoles.pdf ALS_nb_ExtraPoles.pdf ALS_nb_ExtraPoles.pdf
Attachment 2: ALS_controls.yaml
# -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
# AUX
# -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
## Cavity Pole
C_AUX:
  p: 1.8883e+04
  k: 1.1865e+05

H_AUX:
  z: 0
... 109 more lines ...
Attachment 3: ALS_nb_Kiwamus_Values.pdf
ALS_nb_Kiwamus_Values.pdf ALS_nb_Kiwamus_Values.pdf ALS_nb_Kiwamus_Values.pdf
Attachment 4: ALS_controls_Kiwamus_Values.yaml
# -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
# AUX
# -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
## Cavity Pole
C_AUX:
  p: 1.8883e+04
  k: 1.1865e+05

H_AUX:
  z: 0
... 107 more lines ...
Attachment 5: ALS_simulink_model.svg
ALS_simulink_model.svg
  15593   Tue Sep 22 00:14:43 2020 anchalSummaryALSALS noise budget update

This is not a reply to comments given to the last post; Still working on incorporating those suggestions.


Trying out a better filter from scratch

Rana suggested looking first at what needs to be suppressed and then create a filter suited for the noise from scratch. So I discarded all earlier poles and zeros and just kept the resonant gains in the digital filter. With that, I found that all we need is three poles at 1 Hz and a gain of 8.1e5 gives the lowest RMS noise value I could get.

Now there can be some practical reasons unknown to me because of which this filter is not possible, but I just wanted to put it here as I'll add the actual noise spectra into this model now.


Few questions:

  • What anti-aliasing filters are used in ALS?
  • Is the digital delay fixed to a constant upper limit or is it left to change as per filters? I have already used a 470 us delay (modeled with Pade 4th order approximation).
  • I could not find a good place where channel names are listed with corresponding meaning. Where can I find them?
  • Is there a channel which keeps a record of lock status? In short, how do I find the in-lock times
Attachment 1: ALS_NoiseBudgetUpdate.pdf
ALS_NoiseBudgetUpdate.pdf ALS_NoiseBudgetUpdate.pdf ALS_NoiseBudgetUpdate.pdf
Attachment 2: ALS_controls.yaml
# -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
# AUX
# -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
## Cavity Pole
C_AUX:
  p: 1.8883e+04
  k: 1.1865e+05

H_AUX:
  z: 0
... 106 more lines ...
  15601   Wed Sep 23 11:13:49 2020 anchalSummaryALSALS noise budget update

Yes, that loop was unstable. I started using the time domain response to check for the stability of loops now. I have been able to improve the filter slightly with more suppression below 20 Hz but still poor phase margin as before. This removes the lower frequency region bump due to seismic noise. The RMS noise improved only slightly with the bump near UGF still the main contributor to the noise.


For inclusion of real spectra, time delays and the anti-aliasing filters, I still need some more information.

Few questions:

  • What anti-aliasing filters are used in ALS?
  • Is the digital delay fixed to a constant upper limit or is it left to change as per filters? I have already used a 470 us delay (modeled with Pade 4th order approximation).
  • I could not find a good place where channel names are listed with corresponding meaning. Where can I find them?
  • Is there a channel which keeps record of lock status? In short, how do I find the in-lock times

Additional Info:

The code used to calculate the transfer functions and plot them is in the repo 40m/ALS/noiseBudget

Related Elog post with more details: 40m/15587

Attachment 1: ALS_NoiseBudgetUpdate.pdf
ALS_NoiseBudgetUpdate.pdf ALS_NoiseBudgetUpdate.pdf ALS_NoiseBudgetUpdate.pdf ALS_NoiseBudgetUpdate.pdf
Attachment 2: ALS_controls.yaml
# -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
# AUX
# -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
## Cavity Pole
C_AUX:
  p: 1.8883e+04
  k: 1.1865e+05

H_AUX:
  z: 0
... 113 more lines ...
  15622   Fri Oct 9 18:32:14 2020 anchalSummaryALSALS noise budget update - Updated AUX PDH Loop values

The only two PZT Phase modulation transfer function measurements I could find are 40m/15206 and 40m/12077. Both these measurements were made to find a good modulation frequency and do not go below 50 kHz. So I don't think these will help us. We'll have to do a frequency transfer function measurement at lower frequencies.
I'm still looking for ALS PDH loop measurements to verify the model. I found this 40m/15059 but it is only near the UGF. The UGF measured here though looks very similar to the model prediction. A bit older measurement in 2017 was this 40m/13238 where I assume by ALS OLTF gautum meant the green laser PDH OLTF. It had similar UGF but the model I have has more phase lag, probably because of a 31.5 kHz pole which comes at U7 through the input low pass coupling through R28, C20 and R29 (See D1400293)

If the green laser is not being used, can I go and take some of these measurements myself?

  15626   Wed Oct 14 17:03:55 2020 anchalSummaryALSALS noise budget update - Added whitening filter for ADC

Koji recommended that I can add whitening filters to suppress ADC noise easily. I added a filter before ADC in ALS loop with 4 zeros at 1.5 Hz and 4 poles at 100 Hz and added a reversed filter in the digital filter of ALS. This did not change the performance of the loop but significantly reduced the contribution of ADC noise above 1 Hz. One can see ALS_controls.yaml for the filter description. Please let me know if this does not make sense or there is something that I have overlooked.

Now, the dominant noise source is DFD noise below 100 Hz and green laser frequency noise above that. For DFD noise, I used data dating back to Kiwamu's paper. The noise contribution from DFD in the model is lower than the latest measured ALS noise budget post on elog. I'll look further into design details and noise of DFD.


Code, data, and schematics

Attachment 1: ALS_NoiseBudgetUpdate.pdf
ALS_NoiseBudgetUpdate.pdf ALS_NoiseBudgetUpdate.pdf ALS_NoiseBudgetUpdate.pdf ALS_NoiseBudgetUpdate.pdf ALS_NoiseBudgetUpdate.pdf
  15629   Thu Oct 15 13:48:58 2020 anchalSummaryGeneralLab Entry Notification

I entered 40m today at around 1:20 pm and left by 1:45 pm. I entered 104 through the machine shop entry. I did the following:

  • I took photos and videos of the PSL table with lights on.
  • I uncovered the AP table, took photos and video, and covered it back.
  • I went to the X End table and took a video without opening the enclosure.
  • Apart from flipping light switches, nothing else should have changed.
  15632   Fri Oct 16 19:44:41 2020 anchalSummaryGeneralLab Entry Notification

I entered 40m today at around 1:10 pm and left by 1:50 pm. I entered 104 through the machine shop entry. I took top view single picture photos of ITMY, BS, AP, ITMX, ETMX and ETMY tables. The latest photos will be put here on the wiki soon.

  15640   Fri Oct 23 09:03:43 2020 anchalUpdateElectronicsHV coil driver packaged into 2U chassis

Andrew made a battery-powered 0.7 nVrtHz input-referred noise pre-amplifier for gain of 200. That might help you.

Quote:

we'd need a preamp with better than 1nV/rtHz to directly measure the noise I guess.

RXA: 0.7 nV is OK if you're not interested in low noise measurements. Otherwise, we have the transformer coupled pre-amp from SRS which does 0.15 nV/rHz and the Rai Weiss FET amp which has 0.35 nV for high impedance sources.

  15650   Thu Oct 29 09:50:12 2020 anchalSummaryCalibrationPreliminary calibration measurement taken

I went to 40m yesterday at around 2:30 pm and Koji showed me how to acquire lock in different arms and for different lasers. Finally, we took a preliminary measurement of shaking the ETMX at some discrete frequencies and looking at the beatnote frequency spectrum of X-end laser's fiber-coupled IR and Main laser's IR pick-off.


Basic controls and measurement 101 at 40m

  • I learned a few things from Koji about how to align the cavity mirrors for green laser or IR laser.
  • I learned how to use ASS and how to align the green end laser to the cavity. I also found out about the window at ETMX chamber where we can directly see the cavity mode, cool stuff.
  • Koji also showed me around on how to use diaggui and awggui for taking measurements with any of the channels.

Preliminary measurement for calibration scheme

We verified that we can send discrete frequency excitation signals to ETMX actuators directly and see a corresponding peak in the spectrum of beatnote frequency between fiber-coupled X-end IR laser and main laser IR pickoff.

  • I sent excitation signal at 200 Hz, 250 Hz and 270 Hz at C1:SUS-ETMX_LSC_EXC channel using awggui with an amplitude of 100 cts and gain of 2.
  • I measured corresponding peaks in the beatnote spectrum using diaggui.
  • Page 1 shows the ASD data for the 4 measurements taken with Hanning window and averaging of 10.
  • Page 2 shows close up Spectrum data for the 4 measurements taken with flattop window and averaging of 10.
  • I converted this frequency signal into displacement by using conversion factor \nu_{FSR}/\frac{\lambda}{2} or \frac{L \lambda}{c}.

If full interferometer had been locked, we could have used the DARM error signal output to calibrate it against this measurement.

Data

Attachment 1: PreliminaryCalibrationData.pdf
PreliminaryCalibrationData.pdf PreliminaryCalibrationData.pdf
  15760   Tue Jan 12 08:21:47 2021 anchalHowToCDSAcromag wiring investigation

I used an Acromag XT1221 in CTN to play around with different wiring and see what works.  Following are my findings:


Referenced Single Ended Source (Attachment 1):

  • If the source signal is referenced single ended, i.e. the signal is only on the positive output and the negative side is tied to GND on the source side AND this GND is also shared by the power supply powering the Acromag, then no additional wiring is required.
  • The GND common to the power supply and the source is not required to be Earth GND but if done so, it should be at one point only.
  • RTN terminal on Acromag can be left floating or tied to IN- terminal.

Floating Single Ended Source (Attachment 2):

  • If the source signal is floating single-ended i.e. the signal is only on the positive output and the negative output is a floating GND on the source, the the IN- should be connected to RTN.
  • This is the case for handheld calibrators or battery powered devices.
  • Note that there is no need to connect GND of power supply to the floating GND on the source.

Differential Source (Attachment 3):

  • If the source is differential output i.e. the signal is on both the positive output and the negative output, then connect one of the RTN terminals on Acromag to Earth GND. It has to be Earth GND for this to work.
  • Note that you can no longer tie the IN- of different signals to RTN as they are all carrying different negative output from the source.
  • Earth GND at RTN gives acromag a stable voltage reference to measure against the signals coming in IN+ and IN-. And the most stable voltage reference is of course Earth GND.

Conclusion:

  • We might have a mix of these three types of signals coming to a single Acromag box. In that case, we have to make sure we are not connecting the different IN- to each other (maybe through RTN) as the differential negative inputs carry signal, not a constant voltage value.
  • In this case, I think it would be fine to always use differential signal wiring diagram with the RTN  connected to Earth GND.
  • There's no difference in software configuration for the two types of inputs, differential or single-ended.
  • For cases in which we install the acromag box inside a rack mount chasis with an associated board (example: CTN/2248), it is ok and maybe the best to use the Attachment 1 wiring diagram.

Comments and suggestions are welcome.


Related elog posts:

40m/14841    40m/15134


Edit Tue Jan 26 12:44:19 2021 :

Note that the third wiring diagram mentioned actually does not work. It is an error in judgement. See 40m/15762 for seeing what happens during this.

Attachment 1: SingleEndedNonFloatingWiring.pdf
SingleEndedNonFloatingWiring.pdf
Attachment 2: SingleEndedFloatingWiring.pdf
SingleEndedFloatingWiring.pdf
Attachment 3: DifferentialSignalWiring.pdf
DifferentialSignalWiring.pdf
  10424   Fri Aug 22 15:11:55 2014 andres, nicolasSummaryIOOMC WFS activity

1. Before doing anything, we centered the IOO QPDs.
2. With the WFS enabled, we offloaded the control signals onto the bias sliders. Then we saved the slider values. The MC LSC diode had a DC value of ~0.5
3. Turned down power with half wave plate before PMC.  Power injected to vacuum ~ 100mW.
4. We did a beam scan of MC REFL, it looks smaller than what Andres predicted based on the MC eigenmode by 10-20%.
5. We made many changes on the table, pictures to be added by Andres.
6. We didn't have the 80% reflector we wanted to increase the WFS power, so it's still a 98%.
6. Beams were aligned on MC REFL PL, camera, beam dumps, WFSs.
7. Clean up
8. PSL power increased to 1.2W, MC locked right away.
9 We didn't change the IOO WFS output matrix, but we changed some signs and gains to make everything stable. MC autolocker brings it back from cold just fine.
10. All time bombs that we've left will be E.Q.'s to clean up. Sorry.\
11. Yay

  74   Wed Nov 7 00:51:33 2007 andrey, rob, tobinConfigurationIOOMC ringdowns
We completed several ringdown measurements this afternoon; Andrey is currently processing the data.
  8892   Mon Jul 22 17:17:30 2013 annalisaUpdateendtable upgradeEnd table picture
Attachment 1: YendTable.jpg
YendTable.jpg
  13711   Tue Mar 27 19:32:03 2018 arijitUpdateIOOPSL noise eater was off

Kevin, Gautam and Arijit

We made a measurement of the MC_REFL photodiode transfer function using the network analyzer. We did it for two different power input (0dB and -10dB) to the test measurement point of the MC_REFL photodiode. This was important to ensure the measurements of the transfer function of the MC_REFL photodiode was in the linear regime. The measurements are shown in attachment 1. We corrected for phase noise for the length of cable (50cm) used for the measurement. With reference to ELOG 10406, in comparison to the transimpedance measurement performed by Riju and Koji, there is a much stronger peak around 290MHz as observed by our measurement.


We also did a noise measurement for the MC_REFL photodiode. We did it for three scenarios: 1. Without any light falling on the photodiode 2. With light falling on the photodiode, the MC misaligned and the NPRO noise eater was OFF 3. With light falling on the photodiode, the MC misaligned and the NPRO noise eater was ON. We observed that the noise eater does reduce the noise being observed from 80kHz to 20MHz. This is shown in attachment 2.


We did the noise modelling of the MC_REFL photodiode using LISO and tried matching the expected noise from the model with the noise measurements we made earlier. The modeled noise is in good agreement with the measured noise with 10Ohms in the output resistance. The schematic for the MC_REFL photodiode however reveals a 50Ohm resistance being used. The measured noise shows excess noise ~ 290MHz. This is not predicted from the simplied LISO model of the photodiode we took.


Discussion with Koji and Gautam revealed that we do not have the exact circuit diagram for the MC_REFL photodiode. Hence the simplified model that was assumed earlier is not able to predict the excess noise at high frequencies. One thing to note however, is that the excess noise is measured with the same amplitude even with no light falling on the MC_REFL photodiode. This means that there is a positive feedback and oscillation in the op-amp (MAX4107) at high frequencies. One way to refine the LISO model would be to physically examine the photodiode circuit.

We also recorded the POX and POY RF monitor photodiode outputs when the interferometer arms are independently stabilized to the laser. Given the noise outputs from the RF photodiodes were similar, we have only plotted the POY RF monitor output for the sake of clarity and convenience.

Quote:

While Kevin and Arijit were doing their MC_REFL PD noise measurements (which they will elog about separately shortly), I noticed a feature around 600kHz that reminded me of the NPRO noise eater feature. This is supposed to suppress the relaxation oscillation induced peak in the RIN of the PSL. Surprisingly, the noise eater switch on the NPRO front panel was set to "OFF". Is this the normal operating state? I thought we want the noise eater to be "ON"? Have to measure the RIN on the PSL table itself with one of the many available pick off PDs. In any case, as Attachment #1 showed, turning the noise eater back on did not improve the excess IMC frequency noise.

 

Attachment 1: MCREFL_TF.pdf
MCREFL_TF.pdf
Attachment 2: MCREFL_SPECTRUM.pdf
MCREFL_SPECTRUM.pdf
  13716   Wed Mar 28 21:47:37 2018 arijitUpdateIOOMCREFL_PD Optical response measurement

Kevin, Gautam and Arijit

We did a optical measurement of the MCREFL_PD transimpedance using the Jenny Laser set-up. We used 0.56mW @1064nm on the NewFocus 1611 Photodiode as reference and 0.475mW @1064nm on the MCREFL_PD. Transfer function was measured using the AG4395 network analyzer. We also fit the data using the refined LISO model. From the optical measurement, we can see that we do not have a prominent peak at about 300MHz like the one we had from the electrical transimpedence measurement. We also put in the electrical transimpedence measurement as reference. RMS contribution of 300MHz peak to follow.

 

As per Rana`s advice I have updated the entry with information on the LISO fit quality and parameters used. I have put all the relevant files concerning the above measurement as well as the LISO fit and output files as a zip file "LISO_fit" . I also added a note describing what each file represents. I have also updated the plot with fit parameters and errors as in elog 10406.

Attachment 1: LISO_fit_with_info.pdf
LISO_fit_with_info.pdf
Attachment 2: LISO_fit.zip
  13719   Thu Mar 29 17:57:36 2018 arijitUpdateIOOMCREFL_PD Optical response measurement

Kevin, Gautam and Arijit

Today we performed the in-loop noise measurements of the MCREFL-PD using the SR785 to ascertain the effect of the Noise Eater on the laser. We took the measurements at the demodulated output channel from the MCREFL-PD. We performed a series of 6 measurements with the Noise Eater ''ON'' and ''OFF''. The first data set is an outlier probably, due to some transient effects. The remaining data sets were recorded in succession with a time interval of 5 minutes each between the Noise Eater in the ''ON'' and ''OFF'' state. We used the calibration factor of 13kHz/Vrms from elog 13696 to convert the V_rms to Hz-scale.

The conclusion is that the NOISE EATER does not have any noticeable effect on the noise measurements.

ALS beat spectrum and also the arm control signal look as they did before. coherence between arm control signals (in POX/POY lock) is high between 10-100Hz, so looks like there is still excess frequency noise in the MC transmitted light. Looking at POX as an OOL sensor with the arm under ALS control shows ~10x the noise at 100 Hz compared to the "nominal" level, consistent with what Koji and I observed ~3weeks ago.

We tried swapping out Marconis. Problem persists. So Marconi is not to blame. I wanted to rule this out as in Jan, Steve and I had installed a 10MHz reference to the rear of the Marconi.

Attachment 1: NOISE_EATER_On_OFF.pdf
NOISE_EATER_On_OFF.pdf
  12628   Sun Nov 20 23:53:38 2016 awadeUpdatePSLFSS Slow control -> Python, WFS re-engaged

I made a very slighly updated version of Yinzi's script that pulls the channel names and actuator hardstop limits from an external .ini config file. The idea was to avoid having as many versions of the script as there are implimentations of it. Seems like slighly better practice, but maybe I'm wrong. The config files are also easier to read. Its posted on the elog (PSL:1758) with lastest on the 40mSVN .../trunk/CTNLab/current/computing/scripts . 

If you're working off her first implimentation 'RCAV_thermalPID.py' then there is an indent issue after the if statement on line 88: only line 89 should be indended. If you deactivate the debug flag then the script fails to read in PID factors and dies.

Quote:

[yinzi, craig, gautam]

Yinzi had translated the Perl PID script used to implement the discrete-time PID control, and had implemented it with Andrew at the PSL lab. Today afternoon we made some minor edits to make this suitable for the FSS Slow loop (essentially just putting the right channel names into her Python script). I then made an init file to run this script on megatron, and it looks to be working fine over the last half hour of observation or so. I am going to leave things in this state over the weekend to see how it performs.


We have been running with just the MC2 Transmission QPD for angular control of the IMC for a couple of months now because the WFS loops seemed to drag the alignment away from the optimum. We did the following to try and re-engage the WFS feedback:

  • Close the PSL shutter, turned off all the lights in the lab and ran the WFS DC offsets script
  • Locked the IMC, optimized alignment by hand (WFS feedback turned off)
  • Unlocked the IMC, went to the AS table and centered the spots on the WFS
  • Ran WFS RF offsets script
  • Re-engaged WFS servo

 

 

  13456   Tue Nov 28 17:27:57 2017 awadeBureaucracyCalibration-RepairSR560 return, still not charging

I brought a bunch of SR560s over for repair from Bridge labs. This unit, picture attached (SN 49698), appears to still not be retaining charge. I’ve brought it back. 

Attachment 1: 96B6ABE6-CC5C-4636-902A-2E5DF553653D.jpeg
96B6ABE6-CC5C-4636-902A-2E5DF553653D.jpeg
Attachment 2: image.jpg
image.jpg
  13500   Wed Jan 3 16:25:32 2018 awadeUpdateOptimal ControlOplev loop tuning

Another cool feature is client side pre-commit hooks. They can be used to run checks on the local version at the time of commit and refuses to push until the pass/fail exits 0.

Can be the same as the Gitlab CI or just basic code quality checks.  I use them to prevent jupyter notebooks being commited with uncleared cells. It needs to be set up on the user's computer manually and is not automatically cloned with the directory: a script can be included in the repo to do this and run manually on first time clone.

Quote:

When putting code into git.ligo.org, one way to have automated testing is to use the Gitlab CI. This is an automated 'checker', much like the 'Travis' system used in GitHub. Essentially, you give it a make files which it runs somewhere and your GIT repo web page gets a little 'failed/passing' badge telling you if its working. You can also browse the logs to see in detail what happened. This avoids the 'but it works on my computer!' thing that we usually hear.

 

  14174   Tue Aug 21 17:32:51 2018 awadeBureaucracyEquipment loanOne P-810.10 Piezo Actuators element removed

I've taken a PI Piezo Actuator (P-810.10) from the 40m collection. I forgot to note it on the equipment checklist by the door, will do so when I next drop by.

  14555   Fri Apr 19 12:06:31 2019 awadeBureaucracyElectronicsBorrowed Busby Box May 19th 2019

I've borrowed the Busby Box for a day or so.  Location: QIL lab at Bridge West.

Edit  Sat Apr 20 21:16:46 2019 (awade): returned.

  14565   Wed Apr 24 11:22:59 2019 awadeBureaucracyEquipment loanBorrowed Zurich HF2LI Lock in Amplifer to QIL

Borrowed Zurich HF2LI Lock in Amplifer to QIL lab Wed Apr 24 11:25:11 2019.

  12385   Tue Aug 9 13:53:57 2016 babbottUpdateSEIlong Guralp EX cable repaired on the D-sub side

I checked out the cable that I took from you, and all of the connections looked right.  The only thing I did notice was that some of the soldered wires on the 37-pin connector had gotten hot enough to melt their insulation, and potentially short together.  I cut off that connector, and left it on your desk to check out.  I put on a new connector, and checked the pinout.  If the Guralps still doesn't work, we'll have to check out other possibilities.

  13934   Fri Jun 8 14:40:55 2018 c1lscUpdateCDSi am dead
Attachment 1: 31.png
31.png
  1102   Thu Oct 30 20:39:47 2008 carynConfigurationPEMtemperature sensor
We attached the temperature sensor box to the MC1/MC3 chamber with a C-clamp. We connected the temp sensor to a 2nd box with a short BNC. Bob set up a power cable coming from the X-end towards the MC1/MC3 chamber(Thanks, Bob!) We soldered the end of Bob's power cable to a plug and attached it to the 2nd box (The power supply enters through the 2nd box). A ~20ft BNC cable connects the output signal of the 2nd box to the tall thing by the PSL where all the signals go labeled 1Y2. Once we had everything connected, we put in the fuses for the power supply. So, now the temperature sensor is receiving power. We checked that the power supply was working (we measured +15.08V and -14.95V, and we wanted 15V and -15V so it's OK for now). Tomorrow we will modify C1IOOF.INI file and reboot the frame builder.

About sensor-
There is an LM34 (looks like a transistor) glued w/ epoxy and thermal paste to the inside of a Pomona box ~1"x"1.5"x2". The lid to the box is covered with a 1-2mm thick piece of copper and a little thermal paste is sandwiched between the Pomona lid and the copper piece. A C-clamp attaches the copper piece to the chamber. A BNC is connected to one side of the box (the side with less copper)

About power supply box-
There is a power regulator and an op-amp inside a Pomona box ~2.5"x4"x2". The power regulator is attached to the center of lid of the pomona box with a screw and washer. There's a power plug on the front of the box
Left:+15V:red wire
Center:GND:white wire
Right:-15V:black wire
There are 2 BNC connections on the sides of the box. The left BNC connection is for the output signal and the right BNC connection is for the temperature sensor (if the power plug is coming out of the box towards you).

Sensor location-
Chamber which contains MC1/MC3. On the door facing towards the Y-end. On the bottom-left side. Behind the door. Attached with a C-clamp.

Power supply box location-
Chamber which contains MC1/MC3. On some metal leg thing near the floor facing towards the Y-end. Attached with a zip-tie

Power supply-
Coming from the X-end from a tall thing with all the fuses labeled 1X1
Fuse 160:+15V:red wire
Fuse 171:GND:white wire
Fuse 172:-15V:black wire

Signal-
Going towards the PSL to the tall thing labeled 1Y1 on the rack labeled SN208
ICS-110B
J12 (which we believe corresponds to 50-51 and channel number 13650)
Temperature sensor is connected to J12 with a ~20ft BNC attached to a BNC2LEMO connector we found lying around
  1176   Thu Dec 4 17:42:23 2008 carynUpdateIOOdrum modes observable without excitation
So, the mode cleaner was evidently aligned better and now the drum modes are observable using DTT.
The Lock-In was set to 27.8kHz and the drum mode frequencies were previously observed to be 28.039kHz(MC2), 28.222kHz(MC3) and 28.221kHz(MC1). So, we might expect peaks at ~239Hz,421Hz,422Hz.
Peaks have been observed around the expected frequencies in channel IOO-MC-DRUM1.
Note that it is possible to resolve the separate MC1 and MC3 peaks which are so close together.
(sorry these are pdf's and not png's)
Attachment 1: drum_modes.pdf
drum_modes.pdf
Attachment 2: drum_modes2.pdf
drum_modes2.pdf
  1185   Mon Dec 8 00:10:42 2008 carynSummaryGeneralcalibrating the jenne laser
I apologize in advance for the long list of numbers in the attachment. I can't seem to make them hide for some reason.

So, since Jenne's laser will probably be used for the Stoch mon calibration, Alberto and I took some measurements to calibrate Jenne's laser.
We focused the beam onto the New Focus RF 1GHz photodetector that we stole from rana's lab (powered with NewFocus power 0901). Measured the DC output of the photodetector with scope. Aligned the beam so DC went up (also tried modulating laser at 33MHz and aligning so 33MHz peak went up). Hooked up the 4395a Spectrum/Network Analyzer to the laser and to the AC out of the photodetector (after calibrating Network analyzer with the cables) so that the frequency response of the laser*photodetector could be measured.
(Note: for a while, we were using a splitter, but for the measurements here, I got rid of the splitter and just sent the RFout through the cables to channel A for the calibration, sent RFout to the laser and photodetector to channel A for the measurement)

Measured the frequency response. At first, we got this weird thing with a dip around 290MHz (see jcal_dip_2_norm.png below).
After much fiddling, it appeared that the dip was from the laser itself. And if you pull up just right on the corner of this little metal flap on the laser (see picture), then the dip in the frequency response seems to go away and the frequency response is pretty flat(see jcal_flat_3_norm below). If you press down on the flap, the dip returns. This at least happened a couple of times.
Note that despite dividing the magnitude by the DC, the frequency responses don't all line up. I'm not sure why. In some cases the DC was drifting a bit(I presume the laser was coming out of alignment or decided to align itself better) and maybe with avgfactor=16, and measuring mean DC on the scope, it made the DC meas not match up the the frequ resp meas...
I've attached the data for the measurements made (I'm so sorry for all the #'s. I can't figure out how to hide them)
name/lasercurrent/DC/analyzer SourcePower/analyzer avgfactor
jcal7_1/I=31.7mA/DC=-4.41/SourcePower=0dBm/avgfactor=16
jcal7_2/I=31.7mA/DC=-1.56/SourcePower=0dBm/avgfactor=none
jcal8_1/I=31.7mA/DC=-4.58/SourcePower=0dBm/avgfactor=16
jcal8_2/I=31.7mA/DC=-2.02/SourcePower=0dBm/avgfactor=16
jcal8_3/I=31.7mA/DC=-3.37/SourcePower=0dBm/avgfactor=16
Note also that the data from the 4395a seems to have column1-frequency, column2-real part, column3-imaginary part...I think. So, to calculate the magnitude, I just took (column2)^2+(column3)^2.


To get sort of an upper-bound on the DC, I measured how DCmax varied with laser current, where DCmax is the DC for the best alignment I could get. After setting the current, the laser was modulated at 33MHz and the beam was aligned such that the 33MHz peak in the photodetector output was as tall as I could manage. Then DC was measured. See IvsDCmax.png. Note the DC is negative. I don't know why.

Also, the TV's don't look normal, the alarm's going off and I don't think the mode cleaner's locked.
Attachment 1: IvsDCmax.png
IvsDCmax.png
Attachment 2: data.tar.gz
Attachment 3: jcal_dip_2_norm_log.png
jcal_dip_2_norm_log.png
Attachment 4: jcal_flat_3_norm_log.png
jcal_flat_3_norm_log.png
  1246   Thu Jan 22 14:38:41 2009 carynDAQPSLMC temperature sensor

Quote:

Quote:
I added a channel for the temperature sensor on the MC1/MC3 chamber: C1:PSL-MC_TEMP_SEN.
To do that I had to reboot the frame builder. The slow servo of the FSS had to get restarted, the reference cavity locked and so the PMC and MZ.


Where is this channel?


That's not the name of the channel anymore. The channel name is PEM-MC1_TEMPS. It's written in a later entry.
ELOG V3.1.3-