40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 192 of 344  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Categoryup Subject
  8839   Fri Jul 12 18:30:20 2013 CharlesUpdateISSRMS Noise from PMC Transmission

Quote:

It would be better to measure the power spectrum density of the fluctuation.
The RMS does not tell enough information how the servo should be.
In deed, the power spctrum density gives you how much the RMS is in the entire or a specific frequency range.

I wanted the RMS noise simply to establish a very rough estimate of thresholds on RMS detectors that will be part of my device. If you refer to elog 8830, I explain it there. Essentially, when the ISS is first engaged, only one of the 2 or 3 filter stages will be active. Internal RMS threshold detection serves to create a logic input to switch subsequent filters to their 'on' stage.

  8876   Thu Jul 18 21:45:36 2013 CharlesUpdateISSISS - Full Schematic

 Here I have included the full schematic (so far) of the proposed ISS. There are two sheets: the first schematic details the filter stages and their accompanying circuitry while the second schematic details the RMS threshold detection and subsequent triggering.

The first schematic is fairly self explanatory as to what different portions do, and I have annotated much of the second schematic as there are some non-traditional components etc.

I have not yet included some mechanism to adjust the threshold voltage in real time or any of the power regulation, but these should follow fairly quickly.

  8920   Wed Jul 24 22:58:03 2013 CharlesUpdateISSISS - Full Schematic - Updated

 I have made significant changes to the ISS schematic, mostly in the form of adding necessary subsystems.

Some changes I have made:

  • Added a front page with sheet symbols that are representations of the other schematic sheets.
  • Added an 'Excitation' subsystem for use in determining the closed-loop transfer function
  • Added an instrumentation amplifier (with ADA4004s at Rana's recent suggestion) to handle the differential input from the PD
  • Included a switchable inverting amplifier (Gain of 1 or -1) to ensure we have the correct polarity
  • Made it so the first filtering stage is immediately active when the ISS loop is closed
  • Added LP filters with large time constants to buffer/delay trigger signals
  • Added test points all over the board
  • Refined a few buffer amplifiers

On the front page, all inputs and outputs are currently BNC ports, although this is most likely not the final design that will be used. For instance, the ports ENABLE, INPUT GND and INVERT are supposed to be logic inputs for a MAX333a switch. These will most likely be front panel switches that either connect the switch's logic pin to GND (Logic 0) or something like a +5 V supply (Logic 1).

I also have not included power regulation for my board although I have some of the actual D1000217 Chasis Power Regulator boards and I'll incorporate those in my design soon.

  8922   Thu Jul 25 12:53:45 2013 CharlesUpdateISSComparator + Triggering Prototype

 I realized I totally forgot to post this last week, but I prototyped the comparator and boost triggering portion of the ISS, at least in part. Below is a schematic that shows the prototype circuit I made. Note that it includes ports for the oscilloscope channels that appear in the second image included. Essentially, I was able to verify that the output from the LT1016, as it's currently constructed in the ISS schematic, would be sufficient logic to switch the MAX333a.

Comparator_Prototype.png

Below, we can first see that the comparator is switching its output as desired. When the DC level of the input drops below a certain threshold (~1.6 V) the output of the comparator switches on to ~4 V. When the DC level of the input goes back up above the upper threshold (~3.2 V), the comparator switches off to ~0.3 V. The exact values of the threshold voltages can be determined/tuned at a later date, but this is the basic behavior that the comparator circuit will have.

To detect whether or not the MAX333a was switching properly, I connected the common terminal of one of the switches to a +5 V supply, and looked at the voltage coming off both the 'open' and 'closed' terminals of said SPDT switch. We can see that with Logic 0 (comparator output ~0.3 V) Channel 4 exhibits a ~5 V signal, just as we would expect from the above schematic. With Logic 1 (comparator output ~4 V), Channel 3 exhibits the characteristic 5 V signal.

Comp_Triggering_Behavior.jpg

  8927   Fri Jul 26 14:39:08 2013 CharlesUpdateISSPower Regulation for ISS Board

I constructed a regulator board that can take ±24 V and supply a regulated ±15 V or ±5 V. I followed the schematics from LIGO-D1000217-v1.

I was going to make 2 boards, one for ±15 V and one for ±5, but Chub just gave me a second assembled board when I asked him for the parts to construct it 

 

  8928   Fri Jul 26 22:19:24 2013 CharlesUpdateISSISS - Full Schematic - Updated

Quote:

 I have made significant changes to the ISS schematic, mostly in the form of adding necessary subsystems.

Some changes I have made:

  • Added a front page with sheet symbols that are representations of the other schematic sheets.
  • Added an 'Excitation' subsystem for use in determining the closed-loop transfer function
  • Added an instrumentation amplifier (with ADA4004s at Rana's recent suggestion) to handle the differential input from the PD
  • Included a switchable inverting amplifier (Gain of 1 or -1) to ensure we have the correct polarity
  • Made it so the first filtering stage is immediately active when the ISS loop is closed
  • Added LP filters with large time constants to buffer/delay trigger signals
  • Added test points all over the board
  • Refined a few buffer amplifiers

On the front page, all inputs and outputs are currently BNC ports, although this is most likely not the final design that will be used. For instance, the ports ENABLE, INPUT GND and INVERT are supposed to be logic inputs for a MAX333a switch. These will most likely be front panel switches that either connect the switch's logic pin to GND (Logic 0) or something like a +5 V supply (Logic 1).

I also have not included power regulation for my board although I have some of the actual D1000217 Chasis Power Regulator boards and I'll incorporate those in my design soon.

 More changes that I've made:

  • Added daughter boards for power regulation. Currently I have ±24V going into two boards, with ±15V coming out of one and ±5V coming out of the other. Again, these are based off of LIGO-D1000217
  • Added an optional Dewhitening filter (with p=1Hz and z=100Hz, although these can easily be changed) to accommodate any PD's that have whitening
  • Added a bypass to allow the boosts (stages 2 and 3 of the filtering servo) to be enabled/disabled by a front panel switch
  • I also put in jumpers that can be used to provide Logic 1 (boost enabled) to both Boost 1 and Boost 2 without depending on the internal RMS detection/triggering
  • Changed the input grounding switch so that it's set up correctly. Before, it was taking the PD signal and sending it to GND, not actually grounding the input to the rest of the ISS 
  8959   Thu Aug 1 22:58:45 2013 CharlesUpdateISSCTN Servo - Explicit Requirement and Proposed Servo

 In PSL elog 1270, Evan elucidated the explicit requirements for the CTN ISS board. Essentially, the transfer function of the ISS should be something like:

     TF_mag = (Unstabilized RIN) / (Calculated RIN Requirement)

I took Evan's data and did exactly this. I then designed a servo (using the general design I proposed here) to meet this requirement with a safety factor of ~10. By safety factor, I mean that if the ISS operates exactly according to theory, it should suppress the noise by a factor of 10 more than what is necessary/set out by the requirement. Below is a plot of the loop gain obtained directly from the requirement (the above expression for TF_mag) and the transfer function of the servo I am proposing.

CTN_Servo_TF_-_Proposed_v_Req.png

I don't have the actual schematics attached as I was working with a LISO file and have yet to update the corresponding Altium schematic. The LISO file is attached and I will add the schematics later, although one can reference the second link to find a simple drawing.

  8961   Fri Aug 2 21:59:36 2013 CharlesUpdateISSFinalized ISS Schematic (hopefully)

Attached is the finalized schematic. The general circuit topology should remain the same from this point forward, although individual component values are subject to change. I will also be adding some more annotations to ensure everything on the board is clear.

In general, I have finally included all of the correct components (i.e. front panel switches are now actually switches and front panel LEDs are now included). I also added an external 'Boost' switch, which can be used to enable or disable the boosts. The motivation for including this switch is that one might want to test functionality of the ISS without using the 'fancy' RMS detection and triggering circuitry. Additionally, one can disable the boosts when all the circuitry is stuffed in order to troubleshoot, so it essentially grants the board some flexibility in its operation.

I am now working on the PCB layout and I should hopefully have that done next week. 

  8964   Mon Aug 5 11:53:45 2013 EvanUpdateISSCTN Servo - Explicit Requirement and Proposed Servo

I goofed on the transfer function requirement by not giving you the plant transfer function, which looks to be about 0.014 V/V, independent of frequency (PSL:1278). This needs to be compensated for in the electronic transfer function.

  9016   Thu Aug 15 21:42:53 2013 CharlesUpdateISSISS - Schematic + PCB Layout

 After many, many moons of getting to know exactly how frustrating Altium can be, I have completed the PCB layout for my ISS board (final page of ISS_v3.pdf).

Before I get into detail about the PCB, there is one significant schematic change to note: the comparator circuit was changed (with significant help from Koji) so that the voltage reference for boost triggering is established in a more logical way. Instead of the somewhat convoluted topology I had before, now there are only two feedback resistors, R82 and R83. Because their resistances (500k and 50k respectively) are so much larger than the total resistance of the 1k potentiometer (used to establish a tunable threshold voltage), the current flowing through the feedback loop is negligible compared to the 5 mA current flowing through the potentiometer (the pot is rated for 2 W and with 5 mA -> 25 mW dissapation). This allows one to set the threshold voltage for my schmitt trigger, at pin 2 of both the pot and the comparator, entirely with the pot. This trigger also has hysteresis given by the relation deltaV ~ (R83/R82) * (Voh - Vol) where deltaV is the separation between threshold voltages, Voh is the high-level comparator ouput and Vol is the low-level comparator output. Koji simulated this using CircuitLab and I plan to verify the behavior by making a quick prototype circuit.

Now, on to the PCB. The board itself is of a 'standard' LIGO size (11" x 6") has 3 routing layers and 3 internal planes, one for +15 V, one for -15 V and one for GND. In the attached pdf, red is the top routing layer, blue is the bottom layer and brown is the middle routing layer (used for ±5 V exclusively). The grey circles are pads and vias (drilled through) and anything in black is silkscreen overlay. I placed each component and track by hand, attempting to minimize the signal path and following the general rules below,

  • Headers for power, ±5 V and ±15V, are at the back of the board
  • For sections of the board such as filter stages or buffers, resistors and capacitors were grouped around their respective op-amps.
  • As often as was possible, routing was confined to the top layer. Tracks on the bottom layer were placed mostly out of necessity (i.e. no possible connection on top routing layer).
  • The signal generally proceeds from left to right (directions with respect to the attached printout) in the same logical order as on the schematic sheets. Refer to the global sheet (page 1) of the attached "ISS_v3.pdf".
  • External ports such as the PD input, various monitoring ports and panel mounted switches/LEDs were all connected to the board via headers located along the front edge. These are also ordered following the schematic layout.
  • Occasionally, similar signal paths were grouped together although this was a rarity on my board

Sections of the board have been partitioned and labeled with silkscreen overlay to help in both signal pathway recognition as well as eventual troubleshooting.

On the board, I have also included holes so that it can be mounted inside of an enclosure. There is a DCC number printed as well as a 'barcode' (TrueType font: IDAutomationC39S), although they both contain filler asterisks as I haven't published this to the DCC and thus do not have a number.

  9328   Fri Nov 1 18:59:41 2013 EvanConfigurationISSAOM cabling

[Rana, Nic, Evan]

We did some work today on getting the AOM back up and running so that we can implement an SR560-based ISS.

We've removed the 18 AWG wire that was previously used to power the driver and have replaced it with a 12 AWG twisted pair (black and white, enclosed in a single gray cladding). This pair runs into the PSL rack's 24 V terminal block with a 2 A fuse. We've also replaced the cable connecting the AOM to the driver; it's now RG405.

Also disconnected the power to the old Kalmus FSS crystal driver box and turned it off. It was powered illegally. Also disconnected the power connection between the Sorensen and the old ISS AA chassis since it was wired directly without any fuse (which is a code violation). It will stay off until someone uses a proper fuse and wiring to hook it back up.

  9331   Sat Nov 2 22:49:44 2013 CharlesUpdateISSCTN ISS Noise Suppression Requirement - Updated 10/27

 Previously in elog 8959, I gave a very simple method for determining the noise suppression behavior of the ISS. Recently, I recalculated this requirement in a more correct fashion and again redesigned the ISS to be used in the CTN experiment.

  • Determining the Requirement

Just as before, the data from PSL elog 1270 is necessary to infer a noise suppression requirement. The data presented there by Evan consists of two noise spectra, 1) the unstabilized RIN presently observed in the CTN experiment readout and 2) the theoretical brownian noise produced by thermal processes in the mirror coating+substrate. The statement "TF_mag = (Unstabilized RIN) / (Calculated Brownian Noise Limit)", where TF_mag refers to the required open-loop gain of the ISS, is actually a first order approximation of the 'required' noise suppression. In fact if we wanted the laser noise to be suppressed below the calculated brownian noise level, it is more correct to say 

        Closed-loop ISS gain = (Calculated Brownian Noise Limit) / (Unstabilized RIN)

As this essentially gives a noise suppression spectrum i.e. a closed-loop gain in linear control theory. Below is a very simple block diagram showing how the ISS fits into the CTN experiment. The F(f) block represents my full servo board.

    ISS_path.png

Some of the relevant quantities involved:

            plant-quant_1.png

            plant-quant_2.png

So looking at the block diagram, our full closed-loop transfer function is given by,

cl-loop.png

So then to determine the required F(f), i.e. the required transfer function for my servo, we consider the expression 

               requirement.png

The plant transfer function is simply Plant = (C(f) * a * P * A) ~ 0.014 V/V, where I have ignored the cavity pole around 97 kHz as our open-loop transfer function ends up crossing unity gain around 10 kHz. In the above, I have included what I call a 'safety factor' of 10. Essentially, I want to design my servo such that it suppresses noise well beyond what is actually required so that we can be sure noise contributions to experiment readouts are not significantly influenced by the laser intensity noise.

  • Proposed Servo Design

Using the data Evan reported for the brownian noise and free-running RIN, I came up with an F(f) to the meet the requirement as shown below.

CTN_TF_req-vs-proposed.png

 Where the blue curve includes the safety factor mentioned before. This plot just demonstrates that using my modular ISS design, I can meet the given noise suppression requirements.

To be complete, I'll say a little more about the final design.  As usual, the servo consists of three stages. The first is the usual LP filter that is always 'on' when the ISS loop is closed. The boosts I have chosen to use consist of an integrator with a single zero and a filter that looks somewhat like a de-whitening filter. The simulated open-loop transfer functions are shown below.

switching-filters.png

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  9332   Sun Nov 3 00:05:52 2013 CharlesSummaryISSISS Update - Bout' time

Right near the end of summer, I had an ISS board that was nominally working, but had a few problems I couldn't really sort out. Since I've been back, I've spent a lot of time just replacing parts, trying different circuit topologies and generally attempting to make the board function as I hoped it might in all those design stages. Below is a brief list of some of the problems I've been fixing as well as the first good characterization of the board transfer function that I've been able to get.

We'll start with some of the simple problems and proceed to more complicated ones.

  • The 5V reference I was using to obtain an error signal from some arbitrary DC photodiode readout was only producing ~2.5 V. 
    • Turns out I just need a FET type op-amp for the Sallen-Key Filter that I was using to clean up any noise in the reference output, as the leakage current in a AD829 was causing a significant voltage drop. I put in an OPA140 and everything worked marvelously.
  • The way I set up input grounding (i.e. send a ~0 amplitude signal through the board as an input) passed a few Amps through one of my chips causing it to burn out rather fantastically.
    • There isn't a good way to fix this on the current board (besides just getting rid of the functionality altogether) so my solution so far has just been to redesign that particular sub-system/feature and when we implement the second version of the ISS, the input grounding will be done correctly
  • One of the ICs I'm using, specifically the AD8436 RMS-to-DC converter, causes some super strange oscillations in -5V power line. When this chip is soldered onto the board, the -5V supply jumps between -3V and -10V rather sporadically and the DC power-supply used to provide that -5V says that board is drawing ~600 mA on that particular power line.
    • To date, I don't really have any idea what's going with this chip, and I've tried a lot of things to remedy the problem. My first thought was that I had some sort of short somewhere so I took the chip off the board, cleaned up all the excess solder and flux around the chip's footprint and then meticulously soldered a new chip on (when I say meticulously, it took over an hour to solder 20 little feet. I really really didn't want to short anything accidentally as the chip only comes in a package with ridicously small spacing between the leads). Lo and behold, nothing happened. I still saw the same oscillations in power supply and the board was still drawing between >500 mA on that line. Just to be sure, I soldered on a third chip taking the same amount of care and had the same problems.
    • I went over the schematic in Altium that we used to order the board, and unless the manufacturer made a mistake somewhere, there aren't any incorrectly routed signals would cause, say, two active devices to try setting the voltage of a particular node to different values.
    • I got some QSOP-to-DIP package converters so that I could mess around with the AD8436 on a breadboard to make sure it functioned correctly. I set up an identical circuit to the one on the PCB and didn't see any oscillations in the power supply, both for +-5V and +-15V as the chip can handle both supply voltages. I'm not really sure how to interpret this...
    • I'm still actively trying to figure this particular problem out, but I'm shooting in the dark at this point. 
  • Initial attempts to measure the transfer-function of the board were wrought with failure.
    • I figured out, with Nic's help, that the board needs the 'loop closed' with a significant broadband attenuator (to simulate the plant optics discussed in elog 9331) in order to not have constant railing of the high gain op-amp filter stages. Even after I did this, the measured transfer functions were not at all consistent with simulation. I wasn't sure if it was just a part issue, a design issue or a misunderstanding/bad data collection on my part so I just redesigned the whole servo and stuffed the board with entirely new components from around the 40m. Turns out the newly designed servo behaved more properly, as I will show below.

The above list encompasses all the issues I've had in making the ISS board function correctly. No other major problems exist to my knowledge.

I was able to measure both the open- and closed-loop transfer functions of the servo with the SR785. The results are shown below.

full-op-loop.png

The transfer function with the boosts on caps at a particular value set by op-amp railing, i.e. below 100 Hz, the op-amps are already putting out their max voltage. This is the usual physical limitation when measuring the transfer function of an integrator. We can also see that the measured phase follows the simulated phase above ~300 Hz. The 'phase matching' at low frequency is again do to the op-amp railing in the servo output..

The closed-loop gain is shown below,

full-cl-loop.png

The measured closed-loop gain with the boosts on again matches the LISO simulation quite well except at low frequency where we are limited by op-amp railing. We compare the measured closed-loop transfer function to the desired noise suppression stipulated in my previous elog 9331,

req-vs-meas.png

 And we might hopefully conclude that my servo functions as desired. One should note that the op-amp railing seen in these measurements is not indicative of limitations we might face in some application of the ISS for the following reason. These transfer functions were measured with a 100 mV excitation signal (it is necessary to keep this signal amplitude large enough so that the inherent signal-to-noise ratio of the excitation source is large enough for accurate measurement) which leads to somewhat prompt railing of the op-amps. When the ISS operates to actually stabilize a laser, the input error signal will be much smaller (on the order of a few 10's of mV or less) and will decrease significantly assuming correct operation of the ISS. This means we won't see the same type of gain limitations.

 

What now, you ask?

Aside from the problem with the AD8436 chip, the ISS board seems to be functioning correctly. The transfer functions we have measured are correct to within the component tolerances and all of the various subsystems are behaving as they were designed to. Moving toward the goal of having this system work in situ for the CTN experiment, I need to do the following things,

  • Design a housing for the board -> order said housing and the front panel previously designed
  • Make sure the power supply daughter PCB boards are compatible with the ISS board and can provide power correctly
  • Talk to Evan and Tara about integrating the ISS with their experiment and make sure my board can do everything it needs to in that context.

So close, or so I say all the time 

 

  9376   Wed Nov 13 18:32:04 2013 Nic, EvanUpdateISSSR560 ISS loop

We have implemented an SR560-based ISS loop using the AOM on the PSL table. This is a continuation of the work in 40m:9328.

We dumped the diffracted beam from the AOM onto a stack of razor blades. This beam is not terribly well separated from the main beam, so the razor blades are at a very severe angle. Any alternatives would have involved either moving the AOM or attempting to dump the diffracted beam somewhere on the PMC refl path. We trimmed the RF power potentiometer on the driver so that with 0.5 V dc applied to the AM input, about 10% of the power is diverted from the main beam.

We ran the PMC trans PD into an AC-coupled SR560. To shape the loop, we set SR560 to have a single-pole low- pass at 300 Hz and an overall gain of 5×104. We take the 600 Ω output and send it into a 50 Ω feed-through terminator; this attenuates the voltage by a factor of 10 or so and thereby ensures that the AOM driver is not overdriven.

The AOM driver's AM input accepts 0 to 1 V, so we add an offset to bias the control signal. The output of the 50 Ω feedthrough is sent into the 'A' input of a second SR560 (DC coupled, A − B setting, gain 1, no filtering). Using a DS345 function generator, a 500 mV offset is put into the 'B' input (the function generator reads −0.250 V because it expects 50 Ω input). The 50 Ω output of this SR560 is sent into the AOM driver's AM input.

A measurement of suppressed and unsuppressed RIN is attached. We have achieved a loop with a bandwidth of a few kilohertz and with an in-loop noise suppression factor of 50 from 100 Hz to 1 kHz. This measurement was done using the PMC trans PD, so this spectrum may underestimate the true RIN.

  9379   Wed Nov 13 19:41:55 2013 JenneUpdateISSISS AOM

AOM driving from DAC:

I found that the DAC channels for TT3 and TT4 are connected up in the simulink model, but we aren't using them, since we don't actually have those tip tilts installed.  So, we hooked up the TT4 LR DAC output, which is channel 8 on the 2nd set of SMA outputs.  We put our AOM excitations into TT4_LR_EXC.

 

  9380   Wed Nov 13 20:02:12 2013 Nic, EvanUpdateISSSR560 ISS loop

Quote:

We have implemented an SR560-based ISS loop using the AOM on the PSL table. This is a continuation of the work in 40m:9328.

We dumped the diffracted beam from the AOM onto a stack of razor blades. This beam is not terribly well separated from the main beam, so the razor blades are at a very severe angle. Any alternatives would have involved either moving the AOM or attempting to dump the diffracted beam somewhere on the PMC refl path. We trimmed the RF power potentiometer on the driver so that with 0.5 V dc applied to the AM input, about 10% of the power is diverted from the main beam.

We ran the PMC trans PD into an AC-coupled SR560. To shape the loop, we set SR560 to have a single-pole low- pass at 300 Hz and an overall gain of 5×104. We take the 600 Ω output and send it into a 50 Ω feed-through terminator; this attenuates the voltage by a factor of 10 or so and thereby ensures that the AOM driver is not overdriven.

The AOM driver's AM input accepts 0 to 1 V, so we add an offset to bias the control signal. The output of the 50 Ω feedthrough is sent into the 'A' input of a second SR560 (DC coupled, A − B setting, gain 1, no filtering). Using a DS345 function generator, a 500 mV offset is put into the 'B' input (the function generator reads −0.250 V because it expects 50 Ω input). The 50 Ω output of this SR560 is sent into the AOM driver's AM input.

A measurement of suppressed and unsuppressed RIN is attached. We have achieved a loop with a bandwidth of a few kilohertz and with an in-loop noise suppression factor of 50 from 100 Hz to 1 kHz. This measurement was done using the PMC trans PD, so this spectrum may underestimate the true RIN.

 A small followup measurement. Here are spectra of the MC trans diode with and without the ISS on. The DC value of the diode (in counts) changed from 17264.2 (no ISS) to 17504.3 (with ISS), but I didn't account for this change in the plot.

There is a small inkling of benefit between 100Hz and 1kHz. Above about 100Hz, the RIN is suppressed to about the noise level of this measurement. Below 100Hz there is no change, which probably means that power fluctuations are introduced downstream of the AOM, which argues for an outer-loop ISS down the road.

Atm #2 is in units of RIN.

  9392   Fri Nov 15 10:31:45 2013 SteveUpdateISSSR560 ISS loop connection

Quote:

Quote:

We have implemented an SR560-based ISS loop using the AOM on the PSL table. This is a continuation of the work in 40m:9328.

We dumped the diffracted beam from the AOM onto a stack of razor blades. This beam is not terribly well separated from the main beam, so the razor blades are at a very severe angle. Any alternatives would have involved either moving the AOM or attempting to dump the diffracted beam somewhere on the PMC refl path. We trimmed the RF power potentiometer on the driver so that with 0.5 V dc applied to the AM input, about 10% of the power is diverted from the main beam.

We ran the PMC trans PD into an AC-coupled SR560. To shape the loop, we set SR560 to have a single-pole low- pass at 300 Hz and an overall gain of 5×104. We take the 600 Ω output and send it into a 50 Ω feed-through terminator; this attenuates the voltage by a factor of 10 or so and thereby ensures that the AOM driver is not overdriven.

The AOM driver's AM input accepts 0 to 1 V, so we add an offset to bias the control signal. The output of the 50 Ω feedthrough is sent into the 'A' input of a second SR560 (DC coupled, A − B setting, gain 1, no filtering). Using a DS345 function generator, a 500 mV offset is put into the 'B' input (the function generator reads −0.250 V because it expects 50 Ω input). The 50 Ω output of this SR560 is sent into the AOM driver's AM input.

A measurement of suppressed and unsuppressed RIN is attached. We have achieved a loop with a bandwidth of a few kilohertz and with an in-loop noise suppression factor of 50 from 100 Hz to 1 kHz. This measurement was done using the PMC trans PD, so this spectrum may underestimate the true RIN.

 A small followup measurement. Here are spectra of the MC trans diode with and without the ISS on. The DC value of the diode (in counts) changed from 17264.2 (no ISS) to 17504.3 (with ISS), but I didn't account for this change in the plot.

There is a small inkling of benefit between 100Hz and 1kHz. Above about 100Hz, the RIN is suppressed to about the noise level of this measurement. Below 100Hz there is no change, which probably means that power fluctuations are introduced downstream of the AOM, which argues for an outer-loop ISS down the road.

Atm #2 is in units of RIN.

 I have disconnected the cable from the SR560 to LSC -ch8 for 15minutes this morning. It is moved from the floor to the top of the chambers as preparation for 40m tour. The SR560 seems to be overloading.

The  ISS servo is off according to the MEDM screen. Why MC-T plot showing zero?  The MC was happy yesterday.

 

  9929   Thu May 8 02:03:51 2014 ranaUpdateISSISS: fuse was blown, repaired, loop back on

Back in November, Nic and Evan turned on an SR560 based ISS. It uses the PMC TRANS PD as the error signal and makes an AC coupled loop with 2 SR560's and then it drives the RF amplifier which drives the AOM upstream of the PMC.

This was the saturating SR560 under the PSL table that Steve found this week*. Tonight I found that the +24 V rack fuse for this was blown. I replaced the previous 2A fuse with a new 2A fuse (turned off the +/24 V Sorensens during this operation). I think all of the servo settings are basically the same as before, except that I'm using a gain of 10000 instead of 50000 on the first SR560. It was saturating otherwise. My guess is that the fuse blew many months ago and no one has noticed...

 I checked the out of loop performance in MC_TRANS and in the IFO REFL_DC and there's some high frequency improvement with the loops on.

The main improvement, however, was in lowering the HEPA fan speed. This should only be turned up to Hurricane when you are working on the table. Similarly, those of us trying to lock at night, can't really trust that the HEPA is set to its nominal low setting of 20%. The whole difference in the MC_TRANS from 5-50 Hz is from this however, so we can use this ISS reference .xml as a way to see if the HEPA is up too high.

If we want to do better for RIN from 100-1000 Hz for improving the REFL_DC/CARM noise, we would have to think of how to improve the PMC_TRANS PD RIN.

 

* Steve gets +1 point for finding this, but then -3 points for not elogging.

  69   Tue Nov 6 15:36:03 2007 robUpdateLSCXARM locked
Easily, after resetting the PSL Uniblitz shutters. There's no entry from David or Andrey about the recovery from last week's power outage, in which they could have indicated where the procedure was lacking/obscure. Tsk, tsk.
  240   Wed Jan 16 14:06:24 2008 robUpdateLSCmonday's locking
rob, tobin, johnnie

We did some locking work monday night, with decent progress. Working in the PRFPMI style, we managed to get through the part of the script that hands off the offset-CARM DOF to the MCL, but were not successful in engaging the AO path.

We also confirmed the problem with tdsread which prevent it from reading from multiple TLS (Three Lettered Subsystems) at the same time. Tobin traced this to a problem with the ezca library which tds uses, but it's not clear how to fix it. For now we just split the tdsread calls so that there are no multiple TLS calls. Tobin will report further on this.
  241   Wed Jan 16 14:09:45 2008 robUpdateLSCtuesday's locking

I got a little further with the locking (PRFPMI) last night, after discovering that the cable going from the CM board to the MC board was unplugged at the MC side. This explains why we weren't able to engage the AO path last night. Tonight, I got up to the point where DARM is handed off to OMC transmission, a step which repeatedly failed.
Eventually I realized that although all the lights are the green, the OMC Trans signal was not being updated in the LSC's memory. I suspect this is because the c1ass machine was powered down. Work continues.
  244   Thu Jan 17 14:13:20 2008 robUpdateLSCWednesday's locking
Incremental progress on locking yet again. This time the handoff of DARM to the OMC worked, and progress halted at handing off control of the common mode to REFL166.
  249   Fri Jan 18 15:31:47 2008 robUpdateLSCThursday's locking

rob, johnnie, andrey

On Thursday night we got the intereferometer fully locked in a power-recycled FPMI state. The obstacles included the REFL166 phase being wrong by 180 deg (because that's the correct phase for DRMI locking) and getting confused (again) by the "manual" mode dewhite switching at the ETMs. After turning on the dewhites and the MICH correction, we took the noise spectrum below.
  252   Tue Jan 22 02:33:45 2008 robUpdateLSCDRMI work

0) The ETMY oplev needs work/centering

1) recentered DRMI oplevs

2) Did some light DRMI locking. Looked at the loops and the DD signals. The PODD signals look flaky; the beam may not be on the diode. MICH and PRC handoffs to DD signals were spotty, but not a total disaster. Changed the PD9 phase by 115 degs. Work continues on the DD_handoff subscript.

3) John says "There are ants everywhere."

4) Andrey is now versed in the arts of decimation.
  272   Sat Jan 26 02:08:53 2008 JohnOmnistructureLSCFibres
There is now a fibre running from the SP table to the ISCT at the Y-end. In the coming days I will try to mode match the beam from this fibre into the arm through ETMY. To achieve this I will be altering the optical layout of this table.
  296   Mon Feb 4 22:01:57 2008 JohnSummaryLSCFibres auxiliary locking - Fibers
I managed to couple ~75% of the light transmitted from the y arm, through the fibre, back to the SP table. I hoped that this would be a good way to match the beam from the fibre into the arm. Still no flashes. It looks like the cameras just aren't sensitive enough.
  315   Wed Feb 13 20:37:11 2008 JohnUpdateLSCFibre locking - Fiber
Sam and I observed fringes in the light reflected from the Y arm. These fringes are due to the sidebands and not the carrier. To improve matters we plan to reduce the RF AM and increase our modulation index.
  342   Wed Feb 27 22:05:03 2008 JohnUpdateLSCAuxiliary locking
A summary of the status of the auxiliary arm locking effort.

To help with lock acquisition we are attempting to independently lock the Y arm using light injected through ETMY. At present this secondary light source is an NPRO laser situated on the SP table. The laser light is transported to the ETM using a single mode optical fibre. In the future we might pick off some PSL light and apply a frequency shift.

We have been able to successfully mode match the fibre beam into the cavity and have been attempting lock the cavity using standard PDH signals (phase modulation sidebands are added to the light before it enters the fibre).

As yet no acceptable error signals have been produced. The demodulated RF signal is showing a time varying, bipolar dc offset.

We have minimised the residual amplitude modulation of the EOM but we expect small signals due to the undercoupled nature of the system, it could be that whatever RFAM still present is varying with time and causing this behaviour. We are also able to produce similar offsets by stressing (i.e. bending, shaking) the fibre. Could it be that the fibre is somehow converting PM into AM? Are we seeing etalon effects in the fibre or elsewhere?

If we cannot make any further progress with the existing setup we shall move the NPRO to the ETM table and try again. We are also looking into purchasing some other types of fibre.

Other things to consider are injecting through POY or using some other wavelength - neither seems obviously better.

Fiber, behavior
  348   Fri Feb 29 13:51:17 2008 JohnSummaryLSCPD6 response
I checked the response of PD6 using the AM laser. It looks happy enough.

16 averages
-10dBm source power
77.3mV dc on the diode
  349   Sun Mar 2 23:43:45 2008 ranaHowToLSCPD6 response
John's PD plotting script is superior to all of the ones we had before; lets make him post the script so we can all use it.

Looks like PD6 is not too happy after all; the 199 MHz response is not much higher than the 166 MHz response. I thought we were supposed to have them balanced to within 6 dB or so?
  360   Wed Mar 5 12:51:48 2008 JohnSummaryLSCInitial Ligo Arm finesse versus lambda
I've taken the coating recipes for the initial ligo arm cavity from Rana's web page (ligo.caltech/edu/~rana/mat/)
and plotted the finesse as a function of wavelength. There is some uncertainty over the indices of refraction but
the main conclusion remains unchanged - i.e. it appears that using other wavelengths will be difficult.
Stefan is looking at how to tune the layers of any new mirrors to make dichroic optics.
  367   Mon Mar 10 20:46:41 2008 JohnConfigurationLSCETMY Trans PD & QPD
I've placed a 10% reflector in the path from ETMY to the trans and quadrant photodiodes.
  373   Thu Mar 13 02:52:06 2008 LisaConfigurationLSCLocking with 3f
Today we have tried to use the reflected signal demodulated at 3*f1 ~ 99 MHz (REFL31) for length control.
This signal is cool because it is generated by the beating of sidebands, so it is not very sensitive to what the carrier does inside the IFO.
In particular, its gain and the demodulation phase shouldn't change much while changing the CARM offset during the locking sequence.
The idea is therefore to use REFL31_I and REFL31_Q for controlling MICH and PRCL, with the goal of making the lock acquisition sequence more robust.

We minimized hardware changes by using the 199MHz demodulation board, changing the local oscillator to 99.586317 MHz, with an amplitude of +10 dbm (the 3f signals are therefore acquired as LSC-PD6_I and LSC-PD6-Q).

We locked both the PRM and the DRM in a stable way using the REFL31_I and REFL31_Q, after tuning the demodulation phase (50) and removing their offsets.
On the other hand, we weren't able to acquire the lock in the DRM configuration directly by using the 3f signals. We needed instead to use the f signals first, and switch to the 3f signals once the lock was already acquired, otherwise ending up locking DRM at a different working point.
One explanation for that might be the fact that the beam impinging upon the 3f diode is too big compared with the diode size (only 1 mm, half of the size of the f1 diode).
For these reason, in presence of misalignments, some of the reflected light goes in high order modes, which can be partially (or all) off the diode, thereby generating multi-zero crossing in the demodulated error signal.

The next step before making the test with the whole IFO is therefore to modify the telescope in front of the 3f diode in order to reduce the beam size and repeat the tests we did tonight in DRM configuration.


P.S.: We made a test by changing the frequency of the local oscillator by a little bit and then coming back to the original value. We observed that the phase of the signal can change, so every time this frequency is moved the 3f demod phase need to be retuned.

John, Rob, Rana, Lisa
  381   Fri Mar 14 15:52:07 2008 robConfigurationLSCLSC code change

I've edited the LSC code to send different signals to the ASS box. Now, instead of the previously selected error signals deemed to be acceptable for the Alignment Sensing and Stabalization system, it sends the LSC control signals for each suspension to the ASS box (in its new incarnation as the Adaptive Susurration Subtraction system). These are the signals after the output matrix, and also after the LSC-[SUS] filter modules.
  386   Thu Mar 20 16:06:27 2008 robConfigurationLSCLSC code change

I changed the LSC code again. I noticed that when turning off the LSC (e.g., going from LA to OFF), the cpu time would jump from ~50 to ~80, and irrevocably de-sync all the SUS controllers. This was because turning off the LSC would suddenly zero the inputs to the decimation filters that send information to the ASS box, which for some reason greatly increases the computation time of the iir filter function call. I changed the code so that these inputs are never zeroed. The ASS receives inputs from the LSC all the time now.

I also noticed that the ASS machine was running in ~2400 usec. Yes, 2,400 microseconds. I don't know how long it's been doing that, but I restarted it. Immediately after restart, it ran at 1700 microseconds. After using the "RESET" field in the adaptOnline code, that dropped to ~100 usec. Now it's not doing any adaptive filtering, as I don't know what the good settings are and no-one has been elogging their IFO work the last few days.
  396   Sun Mar 23 00:56:42 2008 JohnUpdateLSCMore on 3f
We ended our last attempt at 3f locking concerned about the beam size on PD6. I investigated tonight. The beam was not obviously overfilling the diode and a quick tweak of the steering mirror revealed a decent plateaux. Nevertheless we decided to try a different approach to see if we found the same problems as before on a different diode.

This time our 3f diode was Refl 33. I put a splitter on the output of the diode at the LSC rack sending one half into the usual refl 33 board, the other into refl DD 199 (which is demodulating at 99Mhz).

I got as far as handing off PRC to the 3f signal in lock. More work needed.
  407   Mon Mar 31 14:01:40 2008 jamieSummaryLSCSummary of DC readout PD non-linearity measurements
From March 21-26, I conducted some measurements of the response non-linearity of some mock-up DC readout photodetectors. The detectors are simple:
Vbias ---
        |
       PD
        |-------- output
     resistor
        |
       ---
        -
This is a description of the final measurement.

The laser current modulation input was given a 47Hz sine wave at 20mV. A constant small fraction of the beam was shown onto the reference detector, and a beam that was varied in DC power level was incident on the test detector. Spectra were taken from both detectors at the same time, 0.25Hz bandwidth, over 100 averages.

At each incident power level on the test detector, the Vpk in all multiples of the modulation frequency were measured (ie. V[i*w]). The difference between the 2f/1f ratio in the test and reference was then calculated, ie:
V_test[2*w]/V_test[1*w] - V_ref[2*w]/V_ref[1*w]
This is the solid black line in the plot ("t21-r21_v_power.png").

The response of a simulated non-linear detector was also calculated based on the Vpk measured at each harmonic in the reference detector, assuming that the reference detector had a purely linear response, ie:
V_nl[beta,2*w]/V_nl[beta,1*w] - V_l[2*w]/V_l[1*w]
these are the dashed colored lines in the plot ("t21-r21_v_power.png").

The result of the measurement seems to indicate that the non-linearity in the test detector is less than beta=-1.

The setup that was on the big optics table south of the laser, adjacent to the mode cleaner, is no longer needed.
  429   Sun Apr 20 18:23:27 2008 ranaSummaryLSClocking attempts
I noticed that the adaptive FF for the MC had stopped doing anything; this turned out
to be that the MC lost lock and the mcdown script turned off the FF path to MC1.

Although there's no elog, it looks like there was ~60 attempts at locking the IFO
between 12:38 and 4:27 on Saturday afternoon. I'm attaching here a plot showing
lock attempt durations and a histogram of lock times.
  466   Tue May 6 17:28:39 2008 robConfigurationLSCAP33 -> POX33

I am in the process of switching the POX166 and AP33 photodetectors, so that they become POX33 and AP166. The IFO_CONFIGURE buttons won't work until I finish.
  467   Wed May 7 15:25:41 2008 robConfigurationLSCAP33 -> POX33

Quote:

I am in the process of switching the POX166 and AP33 photodetectors, so that they become POX33 and AP166. The IFO_CONFIGURE buttons won't work until I finish.


Done. We're now in the 40m CDD configuration.
  468   Thu May 8 01:07:24 2008 ranaSummaryLSCFrequency Noise test: MC Trans Backscatter
There is a wandering hump in the MC_F spectrum. It can move around on the time
scale of seconds between 40 and 200 Hz. It has an amplitude ~5-50x above the background spectrum. This seems new; I don't remember it
from a year ago. It is there in the IFO unlocked as well as the IFO locked as well as the locked + CM mode.

Tapping the AS table and/or the PSL table enclosures produces a broadband increase in the MC_F spectrum but doesn't
selectively effect the hump.

We thought it might be backscatter from the MC TRANS path and so we stuck in one of Steve's cool black glass V's into
this space. No effect. We should design a black glass V dump which we can replicate in large quantities for us and for
the sites. Something like the one on the LSC PDs, but with a 1 sq. inch opening area and a 2 inch depth.


We have also done this on the MC2 - TRANS beam before. No noise reduced there either.

The noise hump is appearing in MC_F but not in CARM_IN1 (after the CM handoff) so it seems like the MC has enough gain
to squash it. This also exonerates the MC REFL path since anything there would not be effected by the MC servo gain and
so would be visible in CARM.

My best guess is that there is something really, really scattery on the PSL table. But for now it looks like this is not a
big factor in the locking
issues.
  557   Tue Jun 24 15:15:09 2008 JohnSummaryLSCLocking efforts
Rob, Rana, John

In the past week or so we've been working on reducing the CARM offset using a DC signal (SPOB DC).
We were able to get up to arm powers of around 30 (where a single arm cavity lock is a power of 1)
before instability set in and we would lose lock for, as yet, unknown reasons.

In recent nights locking efforts have taken a few backward steps.

Since last Thursday engaging the AO path has proved troublesome, i.e. engaging it would instantly
cause loss of lock. This seems to be related to problems with the mode cleaner servo. For the past
few nights it has been behaving strangely and could not be operated with the usual super boost stages.
Last night the situation was improved. MC boost stages could be used and the AO path engaged. The
cause of this problem and its spontaneous resolution are not understood.

Last night we were unable to switch CARM to SPOB DC. I've attached a spectrum of the MC2 length signal.
This path is being used for CARM and so gives an indication of the frequency noise after the mode
cleaner. At the moment the plot is calibrated in units of Rana's gut feeling. We already tested to see if
any of the excess noise was introduced by the WFS. No evidence was found. We'll try to make a useful
calibration soon and see if our problems are related to excess frequency noise.

Another realisation from last night was the effect of arm detuning on the analogue CARM path. When CARM is detuned
the coupled cavity pole removes an extra 90 degrees of phase. The digital path has the `moving zero' to compensate
for this. The analogue path has no such compensation and can therefore become unstable at moderate detunings.
We propose trying to reduce the CARM offset further before engaging the analogue path. This will give higher
gain and move the UGF to a region of increased phase margin.
  583   Fri Jun 27 15:20:52 2008 robDAQLSC.ini file change

I removed C1:LSC-XARM_CTRL from the frames and added C1:LSC-CARM_ERR
  690   Thu Jul 17 13:08:37 2008 JohnSummaryLSCHOM resonances in the arms
On Tuesday night we attempted to lock the full DRFPMI in the optical spring configuration with the +f2 sideband resonant in the SRC.
Despite having no problems locking on the +f2 in a DRM we couldn't lock the full IFO.

There was some discussion about whether a +f2 higher order mode resonance in the arms could cause this problem.

I calculated the positions of the first six higher order modes for the carrier and all sidebands (using Siegman p 762 (23) with a plus sign).
Plot attached. Colors indicate different frequency components, numbers are the mode index (m+n). Thick lines are fundamental modes of
the sidebands. Heights of HOM indicators have been scaled by 1/(m+n)^2.

It appears that the first order transverse mode of the +166 is indeed partially resonant. We might try to tweak the sideband frequencies a
little to see if this helps us. It would probably be prudent to measure the MC length first.

Numbers used:

L = 38.5750; %average of Alberto's recent measurements elog #556
Retm = 57.375;
f166 = 165.977195e6;
f33 = 33.195439e6;
  717   Tue Jul 22 22:11:58 2008 YoichiUpdateLSCX-arm g factor measurement
Alberto, Yoichi

We measured the g factor of the X-arm by slightly shifting the 166MHz sideband frequency:

We first locked the X-arm to TEM00 mode. Then misaligned the ETMX in yaw a little bit until the transmitted power is a half of the normal value.
In this way, we can expect that TEM01 mode will be resonated in the arm if a sideband with a suitable frequency is introduced.
To add such a sideband, we used the 166MHz EOM. According to John's calculation (ELog entry 690), the TEM01 mode of the 166MHz upper sideband is only about 100kHz away from the resonance. So by changing the 166MHz modulation frequency, we should be able to see the 166MHz upper sideband resonating in the X-arm.
We used the 166MHz PD at the AS to find the resonance.
When we modulated the 166MHz RF frequency by +/- 100kHz, we could see spikes in the AS166_I signal.
Then we fine tuned the RF frequency slowly by hand to find the exact resonant frequency. At that time, the X-arm PDH servo was oscillating at ~480Hz.
So the resonance was determined by maximizing this signal in the AS166_I.
The 166MHz signal was originally at 165.977195 MHz. I found the resonance around 165.985MHz. It is surprisingly close to the original modulation frequency (only 7.3kHz away). This number yields the g factor of 0.626 and the transverse mode interval of 0.285*FSR. I used the arm length of 38.5750m in this calculation. Because of the 480Hz oscillation, it was difficult to precisely determine the resonant frequency. We will try this again tomorrow after mitigating the oscillation.
Although the resonance of the 166MHz upper sideband is located at a lower frequency in John's prediction, we found a resonance at a higher frequency.
This can be interpreted as the discrepancy between the actual g-factor and the designed g-factor.

To confirm what we saw was really an arm cavity resonance, we will try to do the same thing with the arm cavities all mis-aligned.
(We expect no signal in this configuration.)

Appendix: the expected signal from AS166 port when the 166MHz upper sideband passes by a resonance of the arm cavity.
Since the carrier is resonating in the cavity and kept there by the PDH feedback using 33MHz sideband, its phase is virtually fixed at the AS166 port. The lower sideband's phase also does not change much because it is off resonance. The upper sideband get a large phase change when approaching to the resonance. This effectively rotates the modulation angle of the 166MHz sidebands, which was orthogonal to the carrier when off resonance (i.e. phase modulation), to create 166MHz amplitude modulation. Because the sideband axis is rotated, the signal should appear both in I and Q phases.
  718   Tue Jul 22 22:25:31 2008 ranaUpdateLSCLooptickle for existing 40m
John and I have adapted the Stefan-Looptickle model of the 40m upgrade to have the parameters of the old one.
(old one = what we have had for the last 4 years).

Its in the /cvs/cds/caltech/iscmodeling directory on the CDS computers but you can also check it out from the
MIT CVS repo; its part of the whole shebang.

It makes the attached theoretical NB. Feel free to modify it.
  728   Wed Jul 23 22:34:07 2008 YoichiUpdateLSCArm cavity g-factor measurement
I tried the same thing as the X-arm to the Y-arm.
I'm puzzled. I found exactly the same behavior as the X-arm in the AS166 demodulated signals, whereas I expected different resonance frequency because of the arm length difference.

Here is more detailed account of the measurement today.

I locked the Y-arm and mis-aligned the end mirror in Yaw until the transmission power gets half.
Then I injected a 30Hz sinusoid into the error point of the Y-arm servo to shake the ETMY.
I observed AS166_I and AS166_Q as I changed the 166MHz frequency.

At 165.977MHz, both AS166_I and AS166_Q showed the 30Hz signal (15cnt p-p).
At 165.981MHz, Only I phase showed the 30Hz signal (40cnt p-p). No signal in Q.
At 165.984MHz, I and Q became the same amplitude again (20cnt p-p).
At 165.987MHz, Only Q phase showed the 30Hz signal (40cnt p-p). No signal in I.

Outside the above range, the signal decreases as the frequency go away. I think this is (at least partly) because the 166MHz sidebands no longer go through the MC at those frequencies.

I then locked the X-arm to the TEM01 mode. I saw exactly the same behavior as described above. This could be the resonance of TEM02 mode. I was expecting to see the resonance of TEM00 mode at the opposite side, but nothing there.

I unlocked the arm cavities and tried the same frequency scan of the 166MHz with one of the end mirrors shaken at 30Hz. I saw no signal at the AS166 port.
I also tried locking Y-arm and shaking the ETMX. No signal.
So it has to be something to do with the cavity resonance.

Since the MC transmission curve for 166MHz is folded in the measurement, it makes the interpretation of the results harder.
  729   Thu Jul 24 01:04:01 2008 robConfigurationLSCIFR2023A (aka MARCONI) settings

Quote:


P.S.: We made a test by changing the frequency of the local oscillator by a little bit and then coming back to the original value. We observed that the phase of the signal can change, so every time this frequency is moved the 3f demod phase need to be retuned.



We discovered this little tidbit in March, and remembered it tonight. Basically we found that whenever you change the frequency on one of these signal generators (and maybe any other setting as well), the phase of the signal can change (it's probably just the sign, but still...), meaning that you when you return settings to their intial value, not everything is exactly as it once was. For most applications, this doesn't matter. For us, where we use one Marconi to demodulate the product of two other Marconis, it means we can easily cause a great deal of grief for ourselves, as the demod phase for the double demod signals can appear to change.

Programmatically, what this means is that every time you touch a Marconi you must elog it. Especially if you change a setting and then put it back.
  730   Thu Jul 24 01:27:00 2008 KojiUpdateLSCArm cavity g-factor measurement

Quote:
I locked the Y-arm and mis-aligned the end mirror in Yaw until the transmission power gets half.
Then I injected a 30Hz sinusoid into the error point of the Y-arm servo to shake the ETMY.
I observed AS166_I and AS166_Q as I changed the 166MHz frequency.


A-ha! Do you always expect the 30Hz signal, don't you?
Because this is the PDH technique.

---------------
Recipe:
You have a carrier and phase modulation sidebands at 166MHz this time.
Inject them into a cavity. Detect the reflection by a photo detector.
Demodulate the photocurrent at 166MHz.

This is the PDH technique.

A 30Hz sinusoid was injected to the error point of the cavity lock.
This means that the cavity length was fluctuated at 30Hz.

We should see the 30Hz signal at the error signal of the 166MHz demodulation, regardless of the tuning of the modulation frequency!
In other words, the 30Hz signal in the demod signal at the 166MHz is also understandable as the beating between the 30Hz sidebands and the 166MHz sidebands.

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

So, now I feel that the method for the TEM01 quest should be reconsidered.

If we have any unbalanced resonance for the phase modulation sidebands, the offset of the error signal is to be observed even with the carrier exactly at the resonance. We don't need to shake or move the cavity mirrors.

Presence of the MC makes the things more complicated. Changing the frequency of the modulation that should go throgh the MC is a bit tricky as the detuning produces FM-AM conversion. i.e. The beam incident on the arm cavity may be not only phase modulated but also amplitude modulated. This makes the measurement of the offset described above difficult.

The setup of the abs length measurement (FSR measurement) will be easily used for the measurement of the transverse mode spacings. But it needs some more time to be realized.
  731   Thu Jul 24 02:57:26 2008 robUpdateLSCArm cavity g-factor measurement

Quote:

So, now I feel that the method for the TEM01 quest should be reconsidered.

If we have any unbalanced resonance for the phase modulation sidebands, the offset of the error signal is to be observed even with the carrier exactly at the resonance. We don't need to shake or move the cavity mirrors.

Presence of the MC makes the things more complicated. Changing the frequency of the modulation that should go throgh the MC is a bit tricky as the detuning produces FM-AM conversion. i.e. The beam incident on the arm cavity may be not only phase modulated but also amplitude modulated. This makes the measurement of the offset described above difficult.

The setup of the abs length measurement (FSR measurement) will be easily used for the measurement of the transverse mode spacings. But it needs some more time to be realized.


We should be able to see 166MHz sideband resonances using the double demodulated photodetectors. With these, the 33MHz sidebands will be acting as LO when the 166MHz sideband (or mode) resonates. Some modeling may be necessary to determine if the SNR will be good enough to make this worthwhile, however.
ELOG V3.1.3-