40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 199 of 341  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Categoryup Subject
  6380   Wed Mar 7 20:53:13 2012 keikoUpdateLSCMICH noise budget on 5 Mar

 

 Mar6-MICHbudget.png

This is the MICH noise budget on 6th March. 1Hz peak got a bit better as the BS sus control gain was increased.

 

  6382   Wed Mar 7 22:04:05 2012 kiwamuUpdateLSCREFL OSA : how the signal look like

I was also wondering about the same thing, comparing with what Mirko obtained before with the same OSA ( #5519).

Quote from #6379

I'm puzzled why the 11MHz peak can be such high considering 1.7~2 times smaller the modulation depth.

 

  6384   Wed Mar 7 23:29:28 2012 keikoUpdateLSCREFL OSA observation

 kiwamu, keiko

 

 

REFLOSA.png

We measure the REFL OSA spectrum when (1) direct reflection from the PRM (2) CR lock at PRC (3) SB lock at PRC. When CR lock, both SBs are reflected from the PRC and when SB lock (ref line), some SB is sucked by PRM and looked lower than the other two lines.

 

  6385   Thu Mar 8 00:57:48 2012 keikoUpdateLSCMICH noise budget on Mar 5, Mar 6, and old

Here is the recent two noise budgets of MICH, with the old measurement by Jenne. The most latest Mar 6 data is quite close to the old data, even better around 20-30 Hz. Probably some scattering source was improved?

Mar7MICHbudgettotal.png

  6386   Thu Mar 8 04:13:12 2012 kiwamuUpdateLSCupdate on the locking activity

[Keiko / Kiwamu]

 Some updates on the locking activity:

  • Started summarizing the data of the Michelson lock in a wiki page:
  • Gradually moving on to the PRMI lock
    • The lock stays for reasonably a long time (~20 min or more)
    • POP22/110 demod signals seemed just ADC noise.
    • A first noise budget is in process
      • The glitches make the noise level worse above 40 Hz or so in both the MICH and PRCL budgets.
    • Sensing matrix will be measured tomorrow
    • The data will be also summarized in a wiki page
  6393   Fri Mar 9 13:34:13 2012 keikoUpdateLSCupdate on the locking activity

We tried to measure the sensing matrix for MICH and PRCL last night. They look too much mixed as we expect... the matrix may be posted later. We suspect the IX and IY of the MICH excitation is not balanced very well, although Kiwamu adjusted that about two weeks ago, and it is mixing the dof. We'll try to balance it again, ans see the matrix. 

Keiko, Kiwamu

 

Quote:

[Keiko / Kiwamu]

 Some updates on the locking activity:

  • Started summarizing the data of the Michelson lock in a wiki page:
  • Gradually moving on to the PRMI lock
    • The lock stays for reasonably a long time (~20 min or more)
    • POP22/110 demod signals seemed just ADC noise.
    • A first noise budget is in process
      • The glitches make the noise level worse above 40 Hz or so in both the MICH and PRCL budgets.
    • Sensing matrix will be measured tomorrow
    • The data will be also summarized in a wiki page

 

  6398   Sat Mar 10 02:00:03 2012 keikoUpdateLSCupdate on the locking activity

ITMX and ITMY balance for the MICH excitation (lockin) is adjusted again. Now it's ITMx = -0.992, ITMy = 1 for MICH (lockin output matrix values).

RA: what were the old values? Does this change make any difference for the signal mixing noticed before?

  6400   Mon Mar 12 01:04:18 2012 keikoUpdateLSCRAM simulation update, RAM LSC matrix

 I calculated the DRMI RAM LSC matrix with RAM and the operation point offsets.

  • configuration: C1 DRMI
  • RAM is added by an Mach-Zehnder ifo placed before the PRM
  • demodulation phases are optimised for each DoF
  • the operation points offset from the PDH signals are calculated and added to the optical configuration as mirror position offsets
  • Then the matrix is calculated with the offsets and the RAM
  • The set of the scrips are found as RAMmatrix.m, normMAT.m, newGetMAT.m,  on CVS/ifomodeling/40m/fullIFO_Optickle. They are a bit messy scripts at this moment.

Results:

(1) No RAM LSC matrix

  PRCL MICH SRCL
REFL11I 1 -0.001806 -0.000147
AS 55Q 0.000818 1 0.000474
AS 55 I 1.064561 902.292816 1

(2) With 1% RAM mod index of PM (normalised by (1) )

  PRCL MICH SRCL
REFL11I 1.000618 -0.001837 -0.000163
AS 55Q 0.000919 1.000521 0.000495
AS 55 I 1.169741 924.675187 1.018479
 

(3) With 5% RAM mod index of PM (normalised by (1) )

  PRCL MICH SRCL
REFL11I 0.999986 -0.001812 -0.000150
AS 55Q 0.000838 1.000028 0.000479
AS 55 I 1.084598 906.83668 1.003759
 

  6401   Mon Mar 12 18:57:58 2012 keikoUpdateLSCRAM simulation update, RAM LSC matrix

Quote:

 I calculated the DRMI RAM LSC matrix with RAM and the operation point offsets.

  • configuration: C1 DRMI
  • RAM is added by an Mach-Zehnder ifo placed before the PRM
  • demodulation phases are optimised for each DoF
  • the operation points offset from the PDH signals are calculated and added to the optical configuration as mirror position offsets
  • Then the matrix is calculated with the offsets and the RAM
  • The set of the scrips are found as RAMmatrix.m, normMAT.m, newGetMAT.m,  on CVS/ifomodeling/40m/fullIFO_Optickle. They are a bit messy scripts at this moment.

Results:

(1) No RAM LSC matrix

  PRCL MICH SRCL
REFL11I 1 -0.001806 -0.000147
AS 55Q 0.000818 1 0.000474
AS 55 I 1.064561 902.292816 1

(2) With 1% RAM mod index of PM (normalised by (1) )

  PRCL MICH SRCL
REFL11I 1.000618 -0.001837 -0.000163
AS 55Q 0.000919 1.000521 0.000495
AS 55 I 1.169741 924.675187 1.018479
 

(3) With 5% RAM mod index of PM (normalised by (1) )

  PRCL MICH SRCL
REFL11I 0.999986 -0.001812 -0.000150
AS 55Q 0.000838 1.000028 0.000479
AS 55 I 1.084598 906.83668 1.003759
 

Adding some more results with more realistic RAM level assumption.

(4) With 0.1% RAM mod index of PM (normalized by (1) )

  PRCL MICH SRCL
REFL11I 0.99999 -0.001807 -0.000148
AS 55Q 0.000822 1.000002 0.000475
AS 55 I 1.068342 906.968167 1.00559
 

(5) With 0.5% RAM mod index of  PM (normalized by (1) )

  PRCL MICH SRCL
REFL11I  0.999978  -0.001810    -0.000149 
AS 55Q 0.000830  1.000010  0.000476 
AS 55 I 1.075926 904.321433  1.001677
 

  6403   Tue Mar 13 07:04:55 2012 kiwamuUpdateLSCevolution of the sensing matrix in PRMI as a function of time

The punch line is -- the sensing matrix still looks strange in the PRMI configuration.

 

I have been measuring the sensing matrix of the PRMI configuration because it didn't make sense (#6283).

One strange thing I have noticed before was that all the I-phase signals showed a weird behavior -- they fluctuate too much in time series.

Tonight I measured the sensing matrix again but this time I recorded them as a function of time using the realtime LOCKINs in the LSC front end.

The attached plots are the responses (optical gains) of PRCL and MICH in watts / meter at various sensors in time series.

I will explain some more details about how I measured and calibrated the data in another elog entry.

 

PRCL.png

 MICH.png

 

  6405   Tue Mar 13 16:40:06 2012 kiwamuUpdateLSCevolution of the sensing matrix in PRMI as a function of time: details

Here I describe the measurement of the sensing matrix.

 

Motivations

  There were two reasons why I have been measuring the sensing matrix :

  1.  I wanted to know how much each element in the sensing matrix drifted as a function of time because the sensing matrix didn't agree with what Optickle predicted (#6283).
  2.  I needed to estimate the MICH responses in the 3f demodulated signals, so that I can decide which 3f signal I should use for holding MICH.

 I will report #2 later because it needs another careful noise estimation.

 

Measurement

 In order to measure the sensing matrix, the basic steps are something like this:

  1. Excite one of the DOF at a certain frequency, where a notch filter is applied in the LSC servos so that the servos won't suppress the excitation signal.
  2. Demodulate the LSC signals (e.g. C1:LSC-REFL11_I_ERR and etc.,) by the realtime LOCKINs (#6152) at the same frequency.
  3. Calibrate the obtained LOCKIN outputs to watts/meter.
In the actual measurement I choose the frequency of the excitation signal to be at 283.1 Hz,
at which any of the LSC servos don't have gains of more than 1 and there were no particular structures in the spectra.
For the amplitude of the excitation, I usually choose it to be 1000 - 2000 counts.
Because all the actuators have response functions of approximately 10-9 / f^2 meter/counts  (#5637), the actual displacement in the excited DOF should be about 10 pm level.
Therefore the excited displacements must be always in the linear ranges and also the amplitude in counts is reasonably smaller than the DAC range.
 

LOCKIN detection

The attached cartoon below shows how the LOCKIN system works for the MICH response measurement.
In the case of the PRCL response measurement, the setup is the same except that only PRM is shaken.
Here is some notes about the LOCKIN detection.
  • The LOCKIN oscillator excites ITMs differentially
    • In order to purely excites the MICH DOF, the actuation coefficients were precisely adjusted (#6398).
    • Currently ITMY has a gain of 1, and ITMX has a gain of -0.992 for the pure MICH excitation. Those numbers were put in the output matrix of the LOCKIN oscillator.
  • The demodulation phase of the LOCKIN system was adjusted to be -22 deg at the digital phase rotator.
    • This number maximizes the in-phase signals while the quadrature-phase signals give almost zero.
    • This number was adjusted when the simple MICH configuration was applied.
  • In the demodulations, the LO signals have amplitude of 100 counts to just make the demodulated signals readable numbers.

 

lockins_MICH.png

 

Calibration of the LOCKINs

  The calibration of the LOCKIN detectors is easy because all the processes takes place in the digital land, where we know all the parameters.
In this phase the goal is to calibrate the signals into counts / meter.
To calibrate the LOCKIN output signals, the following equation is used :
 
 [The obtained LOCKIN output in counts ] = H x ADOF x CLO x CEXC x 1/2  ,
 
 where H is the response of a sensor (e.g. AS55_I, AS55_Q and so on) against a particular DOF in unit of counts / m and this the quantity which we want to measure here,
ADOF is the actuator efficiency of the DOF at the excitation frequency in unit of m/counts,
CLO is the amplitude of the local oscillator signal for demodulating the sensor signals in unit of counts,
CEXC is the amplitude of the excitation signal in unit of counts,
the last 1/2 term comes from the fact there is a low pass filter in each demodulation path. 
Therefore once we measure the response of a sensor, dividing the obtained LOCKIN output by ADOF x CLO x CEXC x 1/2 gives the calibrated response in unit of counts/meter.
  ADOF are well known as they have been measured several times (#5637).
For the MICH actuator I assumed that AMICH = 2 x (ITMY response) since they are balanced through the actuation coefficients.
Note that a confirmation of this calibration has been done
when the configuration is in the simple Michelson, where we can easily estimate the response of a sensor by letting the MICH freely swing.
 

Calibration of the responses to watts/meter

  With the calibration process described above, we obtain the sensor responses in unit of counts/m.
 Then we need to do another calibration to make them into unit of W/m.
If we think about how the RFPD signal flows, we get the following gain chain.
 
[raw response in counts/m ] = Hopt x CADC x Ldemod x GWF x Ztrans x RPD
 
Hopt  is the optical gain at a sensor which we want to calibrate. It is in unit of W/m.
CADC  is the conversion factor of the ADCs and the value is CADC = 1638.4 counts/m because their resolution is 16 bit and the range is +/-20 V.
Ldemod is the conversion efficiency of the demodulation boards in unit of V/V. I used the values which Suresh measured yesterday (#6402).
GWF is the gain of the whitening filter in unit of V/V,
Ztrans is the transimpedance gain of an RFPD in unit of V/A and I used the values summarized in (the wiki),
and RPD is the responsivity of the photo diodes and I assumed RPD = 0.75 A/W for all the RFPDs.
 
Therefore the calibration can be done by dividing the raw response value by the entire gain chain of CADC x Ldemod x GWF x Ztrans x RPD.
 

Settings and parameters

  •  LSC RF demodulation phases
    •  AS55 = 17.05 deg (minimizing the PRCL sensitivity in the Q-phase)
    •  REFL11 = -41.05 deg (maximizing the PRCL sensitivity in the I-phase)
    • REFL33 = -25.85 deg (maximizing the PRCL sensitivity in the I-phase)
    • REFL55 = 4 deg (maximizing the PRCL sensitivity in the I-phase)
    • REFL165 = 39 deg (random number)
  •  Whitening filters
    • AS55 = 30 dB
    • REFL11 = 0 dB
    • REFL33 = 42 dB
    • REFL55 = 30 dB
    • REFL165 = 45 dB
  • MICH servo
    • AS55_Q for the sensor
    • G = -5 in the digital gain
    • FM2, FM3, FM5 and FM9 actiavted
    • UGF ~ 100 Hz
    • Feedback to ITMs differentially
  • PRCL servo
    • REFL33_I for the sensor
    • G = 1 in the digital gain
    • FM2, FM3, FM4, FM5 and FM9 activated
    • UGF ~ 100 Hz
    • Feedback to PRM

Quote from #6403

Tonight I measured the sensing matrix again but this time I recorded them as a function of time using the realtime LOCKINs in the LSC front end.

I will explain some more details about how I measured and calibrated the data in another elog entry.

  6406   Tue Mar 13 16:56:19 2012 kiwamuUpdateLSCevolution of the sensing matrix in PRMI as a function of time

Next steps:

  • Compare the obtained sensing matrix with an Optickle model. Particularly I am interested in the absolute strengths in watts/meter
  • Noise estimation of the REFL33_Q as a MICH sensor to see if this sensor is usable for holding MICH.

Quote from #6403

Tonight I measured the sensing matrix again but this time I recorded them as a function of time using the realtime LOCKINs in the LSC front end.

The attached plots are the responses (optical gains) of PRCL and MICH in watts / meter at various sensors in time series.

  6407   Tue Mar 13 19:14:40 2012 kiwamuUpdateLSCNoise estimatino in the REFL33Q as a MICH sensor

A feasibility study of the REFL33Q as a MICH sensor was coarsely performed from the point view of the noise performance.

The answer is that :

  the REFL33Q can be BARELY used as a MICH sensor in the PRMI configuration, but the noise level will be at only sub-nano meter level.

  Tonight I will try to use the REFL33Q to control the MICH DOF to see what happens.

 

(Background)

  I neeeeeeeed a 3f signal which is sensitive enough to hold the Michelson in the PRMI configuration so that I can test the single arm + PRMI configuration.
Based on the data I got in the sensing matrix measurement (#6403) I wanted to see how noises in the REFL33Q look like.
 

(Noise analysis)

  I did a coarse noise analysis for the REFL33Q signal as shown in the attached plot below while making some assumptions as follows.

  •  Optical gain for MICH = 0.8  W/m (#6403)
    • In the plot below, I plotted a unsuppressed MICH motion which had been measured the other day with a different sensor. This is for a comparison.
  •  Shot noise due to DC light on the REFL33 photo diode
    •  With a power of 5.0 mW (#6355)
    • Assume that the responsivity is 0.75 A/W, this DC light creates the shot noise in the photo current at a level of 35 pA/sqrtHz.
    • Then I estimated the contribution of this shot noise in terms of the MICH displacement by calibrating the number with the optical gain and responsivity.
    • It is estimated to be at 60 pm/sqrtHz
  • Dark current
    • I assumed that the dark current is 0.52 mA. (see the wiki)
    • In the same manner as that for the shot noise, the dark current is estimated to be at 20 pm/sqrtHz in terms of the displacement
  • Whitening filter input referred noise
    • I assumed that it is flat with a level of 54 nV/sqrtHz based on a rough measurement by looking at the spectrum of the LSC input signals.
    • The contribution was estimated by applying some gain corrections from the conversion efficiency of the demod board, transimpedance gain, responsivity and the optical gain.
    • This noise is currently the limiting factor over a frequency range from DC to 1 kHz.
  • ADC noise
    • I did the same thing as that for the whitening filter noise.
    • I assumed the noise level is at 6 uV/sqrtHz and it is flat (I know this not true particularly at mHz region the noise becomes bigger by some factors)
    • Then I applied the transfer function of the whitening filter to roll off the noise above 15 Hz.

 NB_REFL33.png

(Some thoughts)

  •   Obviously the limiting noises are that of ADC and the whitening filter.
    • These noise can be easily mitigated by installing an RF amplifier to amplify the RF signals from the REFL33Q RFPD.
    • Therefore this is not the real issue
  • The real issue is that the shot noise is already at a level of 60 pm/sqrtHz, and we can't suppress the MICH motion less than that.
    • In order to decrease it, one possibility is to increase the modulation depth. But it is already at the maximum.
    • If the REFL165 RFPD is healthy, it is supposed to give us a bigger MICH signal. But it didn't look healthy ... (#6403)
  6411   Wed Mar 14 04:19:51 2012 kiwamuUpdateLSCREFL33Q for MICH control : not good

 I tried the REFL33Q for controlling MICH in the PRMI configuration (#6407)

The result was --

 It was barely able to lock MICH in a short moment but didn't stay locked for more than 10 sec. Not good.

 

The attached screenshot below shows a moment when the PRMI was locked with REFL33I and REFL33Q for PRCL and MICH respectively.
Apparently the lock was destroyed after 10 sec or so and it was locked again.
Untitled.png

 

(Tricks)

 At the beginning I tried minimizing the PRCL signal in the Q phase by rotating the demodulation phase because the PRCL signal was always huge.
However it turned out that the rotation of the demodulation phase didn't completely eliminate the PRCL signal for some reason.
 
This could be some kind of imbalance in the electronics or somewhere between the I and Q signal paths.
So instead, I tried blending the I and Q signals by a linear combination through the LSC input matrix.
Then I was able to eliminate the PRCL signal.
I put a gain of -0.1 for the I signal and 1 for the Q signal to get the good blend when the demodulation phase was at -17.05 deg.
  6414   Wed Mar 14 13:16:50 2012 kiwamuUpdateLSCA correction on Noise estimatino in the REFL33Q

A correction on the previous elog about the REFL33Q noise:

 Rana pointed out that the whitening filter's input referred noise should not be such high (I have estimated it to be at 54 nV/sqrtHz).
In fact the measurement was done in a condition where no laser is on the photo diode by closing the mechanical shutter at the PSL table.
Therefore the noise I called "whitening filter input referred noise" includes the voltage noise from the RFPD and it could have such a noise level.
So the noise curve drawn in the plot should be called "whitening filter + RFPD electronics noise".

Quote from #6407

A feasibility study of the REFL33Q as a MICH sensor was coarsely performed from the point view of the noise performance.

  • Whitening filter input referred noise
    • I assumed that it is flat with a level of 54 nV/sqrtHz based on a rough measurement by looking at the spectrum of the LSC input signals.
    • The contribution was estimated by applying some gain corrections from the conversion efficiency of the demod board, transimpedance gain, responsivity and the optical gain.
    • This noise is currently the limiting factor over a frequency range from DC to 1 kHz.

 

  6417   Wed Mar 14 16:33:20 2012 keikoUpdateLSCRAM simulation / RAM pollution plot

In the last post, I showed that SRCL element in the MICH sensor (AS55I-mich) is chaned 1% due to RAM.

Here I calculated how is this 1% residual in MICH sensor (AS55 I-mich) shown in MICH sensitivity. The senario is:

(1) we assume we are canceling SRCL in MICH by feed forward first (original matrix (2,3) element).

(2) SRCL in MICH (matrix(2,3) is changed 1% due to RAM, but you keep the same feed forward with the same feedforward gain

(3) You get 1% SRCL residual motion in MICH sensor. This motion depends on how SRCL is quiet/loud. The assumed level is

Pollution level = SRCL shot noise level in SRCL sensor  x  SRCL closed loop TF  x  1% residual .... the following plot.

 

 

AS sensor = AS55I-mich  --- SN level 2.4e-11 W/rtHz ------- MICH SN level 6e-17 m/rtHz

SRCL sensor = AS55 I-SRCL --- SN level 2e-11 W/rtHz ---  SRCL SN level 5e-14 m/rtHz

 

 

RAMexampleplot.png

 

 

Quote:

Adding some more results with more realistic RAM level assumption.

(4) With 0.1% RAM mod index of PM (normalized by (1) )

  PRCL MICH SRCL
REFL11I 0.99999 -0.001807 -0.000148
AS 55 Im 0.000822 1.000002 0.000475
AS 55 Is 1.068342 906.968167 1.00559
 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 1: Mar14pollution.png
Mar14pollution.png
  6419   Wed Mar 14 21:01:36 2012 keikoUpdateLSCevolution of the sensing matrix in PRMI as a function of time

This is the simulated signals to compare with the original post #6403

 

 

PRMI configuration, PRCL signal

[W/m] Simulation Measured
REFL11 575440

 

~10000

REFL33 4571 ~50
REFL55 288400 ~5000
REFL165 891 NA
AS55 71 70

 

PRMI configuration, MICH signal

[W/m] Simulation Measured
REFL11 2290

 

~600

REFL33 36 ~4
REFL55 5623 ~200
REFL165 17 NA
AS55 6456 ~200
 

Simulated DC REFL power is 9mW (before the attenuator). AS DC is 0.3mW.

They don't agree. I suspect the PR gain for the SBs are somehow different. It is about 40 (or a bit less) in the simulation for 11MHz.

 

 

 

 

  6420   Wed Mar 14 23:02:09 2012 KojiUpdateLSCLocking activity

Kiwamu and Koji

The target is to realize DRMI or PRMI + one arm with ALS.

The focus of the night is to achive stable lock of the PRMI (SB resonant) with 3f signals.
Particularly, REFL165 is back now, we are aiming to see if any of the 165 signals is useful.

We made a comparison between  REFL33Q/REFL165Q/AS55Q to find any good source of MICH.
However, none of them showed a reasonable shape of the spectra. They don't have reasonable coherence between them.

Nonetheless, we have tried to lock the IFO with those REFL signals. But any of them were useful to keep the PRMI (SB resonant).
The only kind of stable signal for MICH was AS55Q as we could keep the PRMI locked.

  6464   Thu Mar 29 11:29:27 2012 keikoUpdateLSCPOP22/POP110 amplifires

Yesterday I and Kiwamu connected two amplifiers (mini-circuit, ZFL-1000LNB+) for POP22/110. Dataviewer can see some signals. I'll test the signal levels and freq components before the rack just in case. [Kiwamu, Keiko]

  6466   Thu Mar 29 18:42:11 2012 keikoUpdateLSCPOP22/POP110 amplifires

Adding two amplifiers on POP22/110, I checked the signals going to the dmod board of 22 and 110.

The signal flows: Photodetector of POP --> Amp1 --> Amp2 --> RF splotter --> bandpass filter for 22MHz / 110MHz --> 22MHz / 110MHz demod board.

 

 

 

 Here is the picture of RF spectrum just after the bandpass filter of 22MHz going to the 22MHz demod board. The signal peak at 22MHz is about -40dBm. There is a structure slightly lower than 22MHz.

P3290004.JPG

The below is the RF spectrum for 110MHz branch. The peak at 110MHz is about -15dBm. The peak on the left of 110MHz is 66MHz peak.

P3290005.JPG

 

Quote:

Yesterday I and Kiwamu connected two amplifiers (mini-circuit, ZFL-1000LNB+) for POP22/110. Dataviewer can see some signals. I'll test the signal levels and freq components before the rack just in case. [Kiwamu, Keiko]

 

  6471   Fri Mar 30 10:20:51 2012 kiwamuUpdateLSClocking last night

I was trying to make the DRMI lock more robust.

Increasing the gains of the oplev on SRM helped a lot, but the lock is still not solid enough for measurements.

According to some line injection tests, the SRCL and MICH signals show up in AS55Q with almost the same amplitudes.

I tried to diagonalize the input matrix (particularly MICH-SRCL in AS55) based on the result of the line injection tests, but I ran out the time.

Work continues.

  6474   Sat Mar 31 08:01:07 2012 kiwamuUpdateLSCDRMI measurement

I have measured the sensing matrix of the DRMI although the lock still doesn't stay for a long time.

As for the noise budget, it looks very tough as there are more glitches than that in the PRMI.

In this weekend I will take some more trials in the DRMI lock until I am satisfied.

  6475   Mon Apr 2 18:24:34 2012 keikoUpdateLSCRAM simulation for Full ifo

 I extended my RAM script from DRMI (3DoF) to the full IFO (5DoF).

Again, it calculates the operation point offsets for each DoF from the opt model with RAM. Then the position offsets are added to the model, and calculates the LSC matrix. RAM level is assumed as 0.1% of the PM modulation level, as usual, and lossless for a simple model.

 

 

Original matrix without RAM:

REFL f1 : 1.000000    0.000000    0.000008    -0.000005    0.000003 

  AS f2 : 0.000001    1.000000    0.000005    -0.003523    -0.000001 

 POP f1 : -3956.958708    -0.000183    1.000000    0.019064    0.000055 

 POP f2 : -32.766392    -0.154433    -0.072624    1.000000    0.024289 

 POP f2 : 922.415913    -0.006625    1.488912    0.042962    1.000000 

 

(MICH and SRCL uses the same sensor, with optimised demodulation phase for each DoF.) 

Operation position offsets are:

PRCL   -3.9125e-11 m

SRCL    9.1250e-12 m

CARM  5.0000e-15 m  

and no position offsets for DARM and MICH (because they are differential sensor and not affected by RAM offsets).

 

Resulting matrix with RAM + RAM offsets, normalised by the original matrix:  

REFL f1 : 0.001663    -0.000000    0.003519    0.000005    -0.000003 

  AS f2 : 0.000004    0.514424    0.000004    -0.001676    -0.000001 

 POP f1 : 7.140984    -0.001205    15.051807    0.019254    0.000417 

 POP f2 : 0.029112    -0.319792    0.042583    1.000460    0.024298 

 POP f2 : -0.310318    -0.014385    -1.761519    0.043005    0.999819 

 

As you can see in the second matrix, the CARM and DARM rows are completely destroyed by the RAM offsets! The signals are half reduced in the DARM case, so the mixture between DARM and MICH are about 50% degraded.

 I also would like to extend this script to use the DC readout, but don't know how to calculate the postion offset for AS_DC because the error signal is not zero-crossing for AS_DC anymore. Do you have any suggestions for me?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  6478   Tue Apr 3 01:52:15 2012 ZachUpdateLSCRAM simulation for Full ifo

Quote:

 I also would like to extend this script to use the DC readout, but don't know how to calculate the postion offset for AS_DC because the error signal is not zero-crossing for AS_DC anymore. Do you have any suggestions for me?

 I don't think I understand the question. AS_DC should not have a zero crossing, correct?

  6480   Tue Apr 3 14:11:33 2012 keikoUpdateLSCRAM simulation for Full ifo

Quote:

Quote:

 I also would like to extend this script to use the DC readout, but don't know how to calculate the postion offset for AS_DC because the error signal is not zero-crossing for AS_DC anymore. Do you have any suggestions for me?

 I don't think I understand the question. AS_DC should not have a zero crossing, correct?

 That's right. I calculate the offset of the operation point (when you have RAM) from the zero-crossing point of the PDH signals. I don't know how to do that for AS_DC, because it doesn't cross zero anymore anytime.

  6481   Tue Apr 3 14:17:18 2012 keikoUpdateLSCRAM simulation for Full ifo

I add a flow-chart drawing what the scripts do and how the scripts calculate the LSC matrix.

flowchart.png

 

(1) First, you calculate the LSC matrix WITHOUT RAM or anything, just for a reference. This is the first matrix shown in the quoted post.

(2) The script calculates the LSC matrix with RAM. Also, the heterodyne signals for all 5 DoF are calculated. The signals have offsets due to the RAM effect. The operating position offsets are saved for the next round.

(3) The script calculates the LSC matrix again, with RAM plus the offset of the operation points. The matrix is shown in the last part of the quoted post.

 

Now I am going to check (A) LSC matrices (matrix 2, the second matrix of above chart) with different RAM levels (B) Are pos-offsets degrade the CARM and DARM so much (See, the quated result below), is that true?

Quote:

Original matrix without RAM:

REFL f1 : 1.000000    0.000000    0.000008    -0.000005    0.000003 

  AS f2 : 0.000001    1.000000    0.000005    -0.003523    -0.000001 

 POP f1 : -3956.958708    -0.000183    1.000000    0.019064    0.000055 

 POP f2 : -32.766392    -0.154433    -0.072624    1.000000    0.024289 

 POP f2 : 922.415913    -0.006625    1.488912    0.042962    1.000000 

 

(MICH and SRCL uses the same sensor, with optimised demodulation phase for each DoF.) 

Operation position offsets are:

PRCL   -3.9125e-11 m

SRCL    9.1250e-12 m

CARM  5.0000e-15 m  

and no position offsets for DARM and MICH (because they are differential sensor and not affected by RAM offsets).

 

Resulting matrix with RAM + RAM offsets, normalised by the original matrix:  

REFL f1 : 0.001663    -0.000000    0.003519    0.000005    -0.000003 

  AS f2 : 0.000004    0.514424    0.000004    -0.001676    -0.000001 

 POP f1 : 7.140984    -0.001205    15.051807    0.019254    0.000417 

 POP f2 : 0.029112    -0.319792    0.042583    1.000460    0.024298 

 POP f2 : -0.310318    -0.014385    -1.761519    0.043005    0.999819 

 

 

 

  6482   Tue Apr 3 15:50:58 2012 keikoUpdateLSCRAM simulation for Full ifo

Oops, Yesterday's results for DARM was wrong!

I got more convincing results now. 

 

> (B) Are pos-offsets degrade the CARM and DARM so much (See, the quoted result below), is that true? 

 

Here is the new results. It does change CARM a lot, but not DARM:
 
Matrix1 (normalised so that the diagonals are 1):
REFL f1 : 1.000000    0.000000    0.000008    -0.000005    0.000003 
  AS f2  : 0.000001    1.000000    0.000005    -0.003523    -0.000001 
 POP f1 : -3956.958708    -0.000183    1.000000    0.019064    0.000055 
 POP f2 : -32.766392    -0.154433    -0.072624    1.000000    0.024289 
 POP f2 : 922.415913    -0.006625    1.488912    0.042962    1.000000 
(=Matrix 2)
 
Position offsets:
only CARM, 4.6e-16 (this number changed because I increased the resolution of the calculation)
 
Matrix3 (normalised by matrix 1):
REFL f1 : 0.039780    -0.000000    0.003656    0.000005    -0.000003 
  AS f2  : 0.000008    1.000017    0.000005    -0.003499    -0.000001 
 POP f1 : 159.146819    -0.000138    15.605155    0.019393    0.000055 
 POP f2 : 1.277223    -0.154415    0.047344    1.000008    0.024289 
 POP f2 : -35.422498    -0.006633    -1.886454    0.042963    1.000000 

 

  • CARM got a small position offset which degrades CARM signal 2 orders of mag (still the biggest signal in the sensor, though).
  • DARM was not so bad, and probably the change of the DoF mixture is mostly not changed.
  • Matrices don't change only with 1e-4 RAM. It changes with position offsets.
  • I'll see how the matrix changes without position offsets but only with RAM effects, changing RAM levels.
  • Again, above is C1 configuration, 1e-4 RAM level of PM level.

 

 

Quote:

I add a flow-chart drawing what the scripts do and how the scripts calculate the LSC matrix.

flowchart.png

 

(1) First, you calculate the LSC matrix WITHOUT RAM or anything, just for a reference. This is the first matrix shown in the quoted post.

(2) The script calculates the LSC matrix with RAM. Also, the PDH signals for all 5 DoF are calculated. The PDH signals have offsets due to the RAM effect. The operating position offsets are saved for the next round.

(3) The script calculates the LSC matrix again, with RAM plus the offset of the operation points. The matrix is shown in the last part of the quoted post.

 

Now I am going to check (A) LSC matrices (matrix 2, the second matrix of above chart) with different RAM levels (B) Are pos-offsets degrade the CARM and DARM so much (See, the quated result below), is that true? 

 

  6483   Tue Apr 3 22:50:37 2012 keikoUpdateLSCRAM simulation for Full ifo

Koji and Jamie suggested me to include the coupling between DoFs when I calculate the last matrix. So far, I just add all the pos-offsets of 5 DoFs and re-calculate the matrix again. However, once I add one DoF pos-offset, it could already change the LSC matrix therefore different pos-offset to the other four DoF, we must iterate this process until we get the equilibrium pos-offsets for 5 DoFs.

I also noticed an error in the optical configuration file. AM mod levels were smaller than that supposed to be because of the hald power going through the AM-EOMs in the MZI paths. Also I have put PM-Mods in the MZT path which gives the smaller mod indexes. So, smaller mod levels were applied both for PM and AM. As PM-AM ratio is still kept in this, so the matrices were not very wrong, I assume. I'll modify that and post the results again.

  6486   Wed Apr 4 23:57:35 2012 keikoUpdateLSCRAM simulation for Full ifo

 I'm still wondering whether iteration version or simple version is closer approximation to the real situation. Sorry for few explanations here. I will try to present those on Friday.

 

Anyway, here is the results for both:

%*.*.*. Original matrix w/o RAM .*.*.*

REFL f1 : 1.000000        0.000000    -0.000003    -0.000005    0.000007 

  AS f2 : 0.000002        1.000000    0.000009    -0.003522    -0.000002 

 POP f1 : -3954.521443    -0.000965    1.000000    0.019081    -0.000152 

 POP f2 : -32.770726    -0.154433    -0.072594    1.000000    0.024284 

 POP f2 : 922.393978    -0.006608    1.488319    0.042948    1.000000 

 

*** Iteration *** 

%*.*.*. Resulting matrix w/ RAM .*.*.*

REFL f1 : 0.039125    -0.000000    0.003665       0.000005    -0.000007 

  AS f2 : 0.000010    1.000431    0.000009       -0.003500    -0.000002 

 POP f1 : 156.420221    -0.000246    15.586838    0.019406    -0.000154 

 POP f2 : 1.255806    -0.154275    0.047313       1.000008    0.024285 

 POP f2 : -34.814720    -0.006600    -1.884850    0.042950    1.000000 

Offsets converged to:

PRCL =  2.1e-15, MICH = 1.1e-17, SRCL = -3.8e-15, CARM = 2.2e-16, DARM = 0 

(POP CARMs became so much smaller compared with the other matrix below, because the offsets are added al of 5 DoFsl at once here.)

 

*** no iteration, offsets added for each DoF separately ***

REFL f1 : 0.020611        -0.000000    0.003600    0.000005    -0.000007 

AS f2   : 0.000002        1.000000    0.000009    -0.003522    -0.000002 

POP f1  : 1842.776419    -0.000198    21.533358    0.019404    -0.000132 

POP f2  : -32.700639    -0.153095    -0.072481    0.999995    0.024360 

 POP f2 : 922.393862    -0.006435    1.488298    0.042949    0.999982 

Added offsets:

PRCL =  7.5e-15, MICH = 6.25e-16, SRCL = -1.4e-14, CARM = 4.5e-16, DARM = 0

* So far, I used to add all the offsets at once. This time I add CARM and get the CARM row, add PRCL and get the PRCL row... and so on.

Quote:

Koji and Jamie suggested me to include the coupling between DoFs when I calculate the last matrix. So far, I just add all the pos-offsets of 5 DoFs and re-calculate the matrix again. However, once I add one DoF pos-offset, it could already change the LSC matrix therefore different pos-offset to the other four DoF, we must iterate this process until we get the equilibrium pos-offsets for 5 DoFs.

I also noticed an error in the optical configuration file. AM mod levels were smaller than that supposed to be because of the hald power going through the AM-EOMs in the MZI paths. Also I have put PM-Mods in the MZT path which gives the smaller mod indexes. So, smaller mod levels were applied both for PM and AM. As PM-AM ratio is still kept in this, so the matrices were not very wrong, I assume. I'll modify that and post the results again.

 

  6488   Thu Apr 5 06:27:51 2012 kiwamuUpdateLSCAS110 sideband monitor installed

[Jenne / Kiwamu]

 We have installed a broad band PD in the AS path in order to monitor the 110 MHz signal associated with the SRC.

The PD is currently connected to the POP110 demodulation board and it seems working fine.

I know this is confusing but right now the signal appears as "POP110" in the LSC front end model.

 


  • Installed a 50% BS at the AS path
    • The AS beam is split to two path - one goes to AS55 and the other goes to the OSA.
    • The new BS is installed on the way of the OSA branch therefore AS55 isn't affected by the new BS.
  • Installed a PDA10A
    • This is a silicon diode with a bandwidth of 150 MHz, and is fast enough to detect the 110 MHz signals.
    • The 110 MHz signal seems going up to approximately -40 dBm according to a coarse measurement with an RF spectrum analyzer.
    • Also a SMA-style high pass filter, HPF-100, was attached to the output to cut off unnecessary sidebands (e.g. 11, 22 MHz and etc.)
  • Put a long BNC cable, which goes from the PD to LSC rack.
    • The end of the cable at the LSC rack was directly connected to the POP110 demod board.
    • The actual POP110 signal path is currently terminated by a 50 Ohm load and therefore this signal  is unavailable.
  • Adjustment of the demodulation phase
    • The demod phase was adjusted to be 7 deg in the EPICS screen. This phase minimize the Q-signal.
    • Locking PRMI with sidebands resonating makes the AS110 signal ~ a few counts and this level is still noticeable.
    • Perhaps we may need to put an RF amplifier to get the signal bigger.
  6489   Thu Apr 5 07:19:16 2012 kiwamuUpdateLSCDRMI locking

 I tried locking the DRMI to the signal-extraction condition with the new trigger by AS110.

A first thing I tried was : flipping the control sign of the SRCL while keeping the same control setups for the PRCL and MICH.

Occasionally the DRMI was "sort of" locked and hence I believe this setup must be a good starting point.

As a next step I will try some different gains and demodulation phase to make it more lockable.

 


(Time series)

DRMI_2012Apr4_edit.png

 The picture above is time series of some signals when the DRMI was barely locked.
The red arrows indicate the durations when the DRMI was sort of locked.
 (Green curve) REFLDC becoming a high value state, which indicates that the carrier is anti-resonant.
 (Red curve) ASDC becoming dark, which indicates the MICH is in the vicinity of the dark condition.
 (Brown curve) AS110 becoming a high value state, which means the 55 MHz sidebands got amplified by the SRCL.
 (Blue curve) POP22 becoming a high value state, which indicates that the 11 MHz sidebands are resonating in the PRC.
 
According to the measurement of AS110 when PRMI was locked (#6488), the AS110 signal went up to ~ 1 counts or so.
On the other hand when the DRMI was locked the AS110 went to up more than 10 counts as shown in the plot above.
Therefore at least some kind of signal amplification is happening for the 55 MHz sidebands in the SRC.
Looking at the AS CCD, I found that the beam looked like a TEM01 mode (two beam spots at top and bottom) every time when the DRMI was locked.
 
(settings)
  • REFL33I => PRCL  G = -0.2
  • AS55Q => MICH    G = -6
  • AS55I => SRCL     G = 1   (G = -50 for the signal recycling condition)
  • AS55 demod phase = 17 deg
  6504   Sat Apr 7 00:31:12 2012 keikoUpdateLSCRAM simulation for Full ifo

I didn't understand how CARM can be decreased 2 orderes of magnitude and PRCL can be INCREASED by such small offsets (see the matrix quoted).

Apparently it was because of an optical-spring ish effect from the "detuning" (which is actually RAM position offsets). I put two plots which are CARM and PRCL tranfer functions to REFL f1 or POP f1, when there is a slight PRCL offset (0, 1e-14m, and 1e-15m cases are plotted). Looking at these plots, it was not a good idea to calculate the LSC matrix in DC because they are affected by this detuning a lot. I'll try f = 150 Hz for the matrix.

plot4a.pngplot4b.png

Quote:

*** Iteration *** 

%*.*.*. Resulting matrix w/ RAM .*.*.*

REFL f1 : 0.039125    -0.000000    0.003665       0.000005    -0.000007 

  AS f2 : 0.000010    1.000431    0.000009       -0.003500    -0.000002 

 POP f1 : 156.420221    -0.000246    15.586838    0.019406    -0.000154 

 POP f2 : 1.255806    -0.154275    0.047313       1.000008    0.024285 

 POP f2 : -34.814720    -0.006600    -1.884850    0.042950    1.000000 

Offsets converged to:

PRCL =  2.1e-15, MICH = 1.1e-17, SRCL = -3.8e-15, CARM = 2.2e-16, DARM = 0  

  6506   Sat Apr 7 01:56:05 2012 kiwamuUpdateLSCOSA signal in DRMI condition

It wasn't a dream or illusion -- I was locking the DRMI to the right condition last Wednesday (#6489).

Here is a snap shot of the AS-OSA signal taken today when the DRMI was locked with the same control settings (#6489).

The blue curve is data taken when the PRMI was locked for comparison.

You can see that both the upper and lower 55 MHz sideband are amplified by the SRC.

OSA.png

 

(Some notes)

Currently SRM is slightly misaligned such that the MICH optical gain at AS55Q doesn't increase so much with the presence of SRM.

With this condition I was able to acquire the lock more frequently than how it used to be on the Wednesday.

The next step is to gradually align SRM, to optimize the controls and to repeat this process several times until SRM is fully aligned.

Quote from #6489

A first thing I tried was : flipping the control sign of the SRCL while keeping the same control setups for the PRCL and MICH.

Occasionally the DRMI was "sort of" locked and hence I believe this setup must be a good starting point.

  6508   Sat Apr 7 06:58:34 2012 kiwamuUpdateLSCDRMI lock : lost good alignment

Somehow I lost the good alignment, where the lock can be frequently acquired and hence I didn't go further ahead.

I will try locking the DRMI during the weekend again. My goal is to take time series when the DRMI is being locked and sensing matrix.

Quote from #6506

Currently SRM is slightly misaligned such that the MICH optical gain at AS55Q doesn't increase so much with the presence of SRM.

With this condition I was able to acquire the lock more frequently than how it used to be on the Wednesday.

The next step is to gradually align SRM, to optimize the controls and to repeat this process several times until SRM is fully aligned.

 

  6509   Mon Apr 9 15:02:30 2012 JenneUpdateLSCLocked MICH

I was going to try some locking, but things are a little too noisy. 

Just so Kiwamu knows what I did today, in case he comes back....

I ran LSCoffsets, and aligned both X and Y arms and saved their positions, and aligned MICH, and saved the BS position. 

I'll play with it more later, when there aren't trucks driving around outside that I can hear / feel in the control room.

  6510   Mon Apr 9 15:09:34 2012 JenneUpdateLSCLocked MICH

Quote:

I was going to try some locking, but things are a little too noisy. 

Just so Kiwamu knows what I did today, in case he comes back....

I ran LSCoffsets, and aligned both X and Y arms and saved their positions, and aligned MICH, and saved the BS position. 

I'll play with it more later, when there aren't trucks driving around outside that I can hear / feel in the control room.

 After giving up on locking, the MC is getting unlocked every now and again (2 times so far in the last few minutes) from transient seismic stuff.

  6512   Mon Apr 9 18:18:14 2012 kiwamuUpdateLSCDRMI time series

Here is a time series when the DRMI is being locked.

You can see that the AS110 goes up because the SRCL is engaged and amplifies the 55 MHz sidebands.

 time_series1.png

  6535   Sat Apr 14 00:19:35 2012 SureshOmnistructureLSCOptical Fibers for insitu RFPD characterisation

   I have worked out the fibers we need to get for the following distribution scheme:

1) We have a laser placed at the 1Y1 rack.  A part of the power is split off for monitoring the laser output and sent to a broadband PD also placed in the same rack.  The RF excitation applied to the laser is split and sent to LSC rack (1Y2) and used to calibrate the full PD+Demod board system for each RFPD.

2) A single fiber goes from the laser to a 11+ way switch located in the OMC electronics cabinet next to the AP table.  From here the fibers branch out to three different tables.

Table / Rack   RF PDs on the table Number of PDs Fiber Length from OMC
The AP table AS11,AS55,AS165,REFL11,REFL33,REFL55,REFL165 7 6 m
The ITMY table POY11 1 12 m
The ITMX table POX11, POP22/110 and POP55 3 20 m

 

Cable for the laser source to the OMC table:

The 1Y1 Rack to OMC rack AM Laser Source to Switch 25 m

We also require a cable going from PSL table to the ETMY table:   This is not a part of the RFPD characterisation.  It is a part of the PSL to Y-end Aux laser lock  which is a part of the green locking scheme.  But it is  fiber we need and might as well order it now along with the rest.

PSL Table to ETMY Table PSL to ETMY Aux laser 75m

 

If you would like to add anything to this layout / scheme, please comment.  On Monday Eric is going to take a look at this and place orders for the fibers.

(I have included the lengths required for routing the fibers and added another 20% to that ) 

 

  6598   Thu May 3 17:15:38 2012 KojiUpdateLSCc1iscaux2 rebooted/burtrestored

[Jenne/Den/Koji]

We saw some white boxes on the LSC screens.
We found c1iscaux2 is not running.

Once the target was power-cycled, these epics channels are back.
Then c1iscaux2 were burtrestored using the snapshot at 5:07 on 4/16, a day before the power glitch.

  6716   Wed May 30 18:08:40 2012 JamieUpdateLSCc1lsc: add error point pick-offs, moved ctrl pick-offs after feedforward

I made some modifications to the c1lsc model in order to extract both the error and control signals.

I added pick-offs for the error signals right before IFO DOF filter modules.  These are then sent with GOTOs to outputs.

I also modified things on the control side.  The OAF stuff was picking off control signals before feedforward in/outs.  After discussing with Jenne we decided that it would make sense for the OAF to be looking at the control signals after feedforward.  It also makes sense to define the control signal after the feedforward.  These control signals are then sent with GOTOs to another set of outputs.

Finally, I moved the triggers to after the control signal pickoffs, and right before the output matrix.  The final chain looks like (see attachment):

input matrix --> power norm --> ERR pickoff --> DOF filters --> FF out --> FF in --> CTRL pickoff --> trigger --> output matrix

The error pickoff outputs in the top level of the model are left terminated for the moment.  Eventually I will be hooking these into the new c1cal calibration model.

The model was recompiled, installed, and restarted.  Everything came up fine.

Attachment 1: LSCchain.png
LSCchain.png
  6717   Wed May 30 18:16:44 2012 JamieUpdateLSCskeleton of new c1cal calibration model created

[Jamie, Xavi Siemens, Chris Pankow]

We built the skeleton of a new calibration model for the LSC degrees of freedom.  I named it "c1cal".  It will run on the c1lsc FE machine, in CPU slot 4, and has been given DCUID 50.

Right now there's not much in the model, just inputs for DARM_ERR and DARM_CTRL, filters for each input, and the sum of the two channels that is h(t).

Tomorrow we'll extract all the needed signals from c1lsc, and see if we can generate something resembling a calibrated signal for one of the IFO DOFs.

 

  6735   Thu May 31 23:53:00 2012 JenneUpdateLSCLSC trigger update

I modified the lsc model (after Jamie finished) to use a new triggering scheme.  It HAS NOT yet been compiled and tested, since it's way past time for us to start beatnote-ing.  I will compile, test, debug, etc. tomorrow. Don't compile the LSC model tonight. 

Now we also have (assuming no bugs.....) triggering capability for the filter modules in the filter banks.  Yay!  Testing, etc will commence tomorrow.

  6749   Mon Jun 4 17:14:31 2012 JenneUpdateLSCLSC recompiled several times today

As of now, the regular LSC DoF triggers work, just as they used to.  There is a problem with the filter module triggers that I haven't figured out yet. 

We can't send integers (like control words for the filter banks) through Choice blocks, since those pass doubles by default.  I fixed that by removing the choice block, but the triggering still isn't happening properly.

  6831   Mon Jun 18 23:38:39 2012 JenneUpdateLSCAdded LSC channels to frames

Since the .ini files get overwritten every time a model is compiled now, we need to put all channels we want saved to frames in the DAQ Channels list inside the model.

I added the _ERR channels for all RFPDs (I and Q for each), as well as the _OUT channels for the DCPDs.  I also added the _OUT channels for the DoF servos (ex. C1:LSC-DARM_OUT).  I don't remember off the top of my head what else we used to save from the LSC model, but those all seemed like ones we'll possibly want access to later. 

We need to go through and do this to all the models we use regularly.

Since SUS hasn't been recompiled in a while, all those channels are saved (until such time as someone does a recompile).  Den has gone through and edited the PEM and OAF .ini files by hand each time he recompiles, so we have that data, although we need to put it into the model (which is the new proper way to acquire channels).

  6834   Tue Jun 19 23:36:19 2012 yutaUpdateLSCcalibrated POY error signal

[Jenne, Yuta]

We calibrated POY error signal(C1:LSC-POY11_I_ERR). It was 1.4e12 counts/m.

Modeling of Y arm lock:
  Let's say H is transfer function from Y arm length displacement to POY error signal. This is what we want to measure.
  F is the servo filter (filter module C1:LSC-YARM).
  A is the actuator TF using ITMY. According to Kiwamu's calibration using MICH (see elog #5583),

  A_ITMY  = 4.832e-09 Hz^2*counts/m / freq^2

  We used ITMY to lock Y arm because ITMY is already calibrated.

What we did:
  1. Measured openloop transfer function of Y arm lock using POY error signal using ITMY (G=HFA). We noticed some discrepancy in phase with our model. If we include 1800 usec delay, phase fits well with the measurement. I think this is too big.
LSCyarmTF_usingITMY.png


  2. Measured a transfer function between actuator to POY error signal during lock. This should give us HA/(1+G).
LSCyarm_HAover1plusG.png

  4. Calculated H using measurements above. Assuming there's no frequency dependance in H, we got

  H = 1.4e12 counts/m

POYerrorcalibration.png

 For sanity check; Peak to peak of the POY error signal when crossing the IR resonance is about 800 counts. FWHM is about 1 nm, so our measurement is not so crazy.

  6835   Wed Jun 20 00:01:04 2012 JenneUpdateLSCcalibrated POY error signal

[Yuta, Jenne]

We have measured the out of loop residual motion of the Yarm while locked with the ALS.  We see ~70pm RMS, as compared to Kiwamu's best of ~24pm RMS.  So we're not yet meeting Kiwamu's best measurement, but we're certainly not in crazy-land.

The Yarm ALS was locked, I took a spectrum of POY11_I_ERR, and used the calibration that we determined earlier this evening.  For reference, I attach a screenshot of our ALS loop filters - we had on all the boosts, and both resonant gain filters (~3Hz and ~16Hz).

A large part of the RMS is coming from the 60Hz power line and the 180Hz harmonic....if we could get rid of these (how were they eliminated from the measurement that Kiwamu used in the paper?? - plotted elog 6780) we would be closer. 

Also, it looks like the hump (in our measurementf ~100Hz, in Kiwamu's ~200Hz) is not quite an order of magnitude higher in amplitude in our measurement vs. Kiwamu's.  We have ~5e-11 m/rtHz, Kiwamu had ~7e-12 m/rtHz.  This increase in noise could be coming from the fact that Yuta and Koji decreased the gain in the Ygreen PDH loop to prevent the PDH box from oscillating. 

While we should still think about why we can't use the same gain that Kiwamu was able to ~6 months ago, we think that we're good enough that we can move on to doing mode scans and residual motion measurements of the Xarm.

 

Attachment 1: LSC_POY_11_I_ERR_calib_19June2012.pdf
LSC_POY_11_I_ERR_calib_19June2012.pdf
Attachment 2: POY_calib_19June2012_FiltBankSettings.png
POY_calib_19June2012_FiltBankSettings.png
  6841   Wed Jun 20 18:43:57 2012 yutaUpdateLSCcalibrated POX error signal

[Jenne, Yuta]

We did the same calibration for POX. It was 3.8e12 counts/m. See elog #6834 for the details of calibration we did.

According to Kiwamu's calibration, actuator response of ITMX is;

A_ITMX  = 4.913e-09 Hz^2*counts/m / freq^2

Plots below are results from our calibration measurement.

LSCxarmTF_usingITMX.pngLSCxarm_HAover1plusG.pngPOXerrorcalibration.png

  6931   Fri Jul 6 14:10:31 2012 yutaSummaryLSCcalculation of FPMI using ALS

From calculation, phase fluctuation of reflected beam from length stabilized arm is not disturbing MI lock.

Easy calculation:
  The phase PD at AS port sense is

phi = phi_x - phi_y = 2*l_MICH*omega/c + (phi_X - phi_Y)

  where l_MICH is the Michelson differential length change, omega is laser frequency, phi_X and phi_Y are phase of arm reflected beam. From very complicated calculation,

phi_X ~ F/2 * Phi_X

  at near resonance. Where F is arm finesse, Phi_X is the round trip phase change in X arm. So,

phi = 2*l_MICH*omega/c + F/2 * 2*L_DARM*omega/c

  Our ALS stabilizes arm length in ~ 70 pm(see elogs #6835#6858). Finesse for IR is ~450. Considering l_MICH is ~ 1 um, MICH signal at AS port should be larger than stabilized DARM signal by an order of magnitude.

Length sensing matrix of FPMI:
  Calculated length sensing matrix of 40m FPMI is below. Here, I'm just considering 11 MHz modulation. I assumed input power to be 1 W, modulation index 0.1i, Schnupp asymmetry 26.6 mm. PRM/SRM transmissivity is not taken into account.

[W/m]     DARM      CARM      MICH
REFL_I    0         1.69e8    0
REFL_Q    7.09e1    0        -3.61e3
AS_I      0         0         0
AS_Q      1.04e6    0         3.61e3


  Maybe we should use REFL_Q as MICH signal, but since IQ separation is not perfect, we see too much CARM. I tried to lock MI with REFL11_Q yesterday, but failed.

  6947   Mon Jul 9 23:18:09 2012 yutaUpdateLSCPRMI got more stable a bit

I modified filiters for LSC_MICH and LSC_PRCL.
Although modes we can see at POP and AS look still bad, error signals are less glitchy than I see before (elog #6886).

Measured power recylcing gain for PRMI was 1.6 (??)

Openloop transfer function for LSC_MICH:
  UGF ~130Hz, phase margin ~30 deg
  550 usec delay
LSCMICHOLTF.png

APOLOGIES: I forgot "pi" in previous delay calculation. (I put notes on elogs #6940 and #6941)

Openloop transfer function for LSC_PRCL:
  UGF ~130Hz, phase margin ~30 deg
  550 usec delay
  A bump cam be seen in ~200 Hz. Coupling of DOFs?
LSCPRCLOLTF.png

Beam shape and motion:
   Below left is the Sensoray capture of AS/REFL/POP when PRMI is carrier locked.
ALL_1025928219_PRMIlocked3.pngPRMIbeammotion20120709.png

  Beam spot motion looks less bouncy than before, but it still shows motion mostly at ~3.3Hz. This might be from PRM motion. Above right is uncalibrated spectra of POPDC and REFLDC. You can see 3.3 Hz peak. This peak has some coherence with PRM motion measured by oplevs. I centered BS/PRM oplev to do this measurement.

Power recycling gain:
 - Definition and designed value
  Power recylcing gain is

G = (PRC intracavity power) / (incident power)

  When MI is perfectly symmetric, this can be written as

G  = (t_PRM/1-r_PRM*r_ITM)**2

  where t_i, r_i is amplitude transmissivity, reflectivity. Inserting the designed values;

 t_PRM = sqrt(0.0575)
 r_ITM = sqrt(1-0.014)

  designed power recycling gain for PRMI is

G = 44

 - Measurement
  POP power when PRM is misaligned and MI is locked at dark fringe is

P_mis = P_in * T_PRM * (1-T_PR3) * (1-T_ITM) * T_PR3

  POP power when PRMI is locked is

P_PR = P_intra * T_PR3

  So,

G = P_intra / P_in = (P_PR / P_mis) * T_PRM * (1-T_PR3) * (1-T_ITM) ~ (P_PR / P_mis) * 0.06

  I measured power of POP using C1:LSC-POPDC_OUT. It was 268 when PRM is misalined and MI is locked at dark fringe. Also, it was ~850 when PRMI is carrier locked. When closing PSL shutter, it was ~246. So,

G_PR = (850-246)/(268-246) * 0.06 = 1.6

  It looks too small.

  6949   Tue Jul 10 01:52:47 2012 KojiUpdateLSCPRMI got more stable a bit

The phase margins looks still too small.

Do You need such high gain at LF? This is not a high finesse cavity so can we sacrifice
some DC gain while gaining more phase around UGFs?

Otherwise, the gain fluctuation should be nicely compensated (i.e. fancy normalization).

ELOG V3.1.3-