40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 214 of 344  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Category Subjectup
  2733   Tue Mar 30 06:37:32 2010 ranaConfigurationPSLReference Cavity PD Noise Spectrum

Some more words about the RFAM: I noticed that there was an excess RFAM by unlocking the RC and just looking at the RF out with the 50 Ohm input of the scope. It was ~100 mVp-p! In the end our method to minimize the AM was not so sensible - we aligned the waveplate before the EOM so as to minimize the p-pol light transmitted by the PBS cube just ahead of the AOM. At first, this did not minimize the RFAM. But after I got angry at the bad plastic mounting of the EOM and re-aligned it, the AM seemed to be small with the polarization aligned to the cube. It was too small to measure on the scope and on the spectrum analyzer, the peak was hopping around by ~10-20 dB on a few second timescale. Further reduction would require some kind of active temperature stabilization of the EOM housing (maybe a good SURF project!).

For the EOM mount we (meaning Steve) should replace the lame 2-post system that's in there with one of the mounts of the type that is used in the Mach-Zucker EOMs. I think we have spare in the cabinet next to one of the arms.

After the RFAM monkeying, I aligned the beam to the RC using the standard, 2-mirror, beam-walking approach. You can see from the attached plot that the transmission went up by ~20% ! And the reflection went down by ~30%. I doubt that I have developed any new alignment technique beyond what Yoichi and I already did last time. Most likely there was some beam shape corruption in the EOM, or the RFAM was causing us to lock far off the fringe. Now the reflected beam from the reference cavity is a nice donut shape and we could even make it better by doing some mode matching! This finally solves the eternal mystery of the bad REFL beam (or at least sweeps it under the rug).

At the end, I also fixed the alignment of the RFPD. It should be set so the incident angle of the beam is ~20-40 deg, but it was instead set to be near normal incidence ?! Its also on flimsy plastic legs. Steve, can you please replace this with the new brass ones?

Attachment 1: rc.png
rc.png
  2759   Sat Apr 3 11:35:47 2010 ranaConfigurationPSLReference Cavity PD Noise Spectrum

The units on this plot are completely bogus - we know that the thermal noise from the resonant part of the circuit is just V = sqrt(4*k*T*Z) ~ 3nV/rHz. Then the gain of the MAX4107 stage is 10. The output resistor is 50 Ohms, which forms a divide by 2 with the input impedance of the spectrum analyzer and so the bump in the dark noise should only be 15 nV/rHz and not microVolts.

Quote:

[Rana, Alberto]

This evening we measured the noise spectrum of the reference cavity PD used in the FSS loop. From that we estimated the transimpedance and found that the PD is shot-noise limited. We also found a big AM oscillation in correspondence of the FSS modulation sideband which we later attenuated at least in part.

This plot shows the spectrum noise from the RF output of the photodetector.

  2760   Sat Apr 3 16:07:40 2010 AlbertoConfigurationPSLReference Cavity PD Noise Spectrum

 I was aware of a problem on those units since I acquired the data. Then it wasn't totally clear to me which were the units of the data as downloaded from the Agilent 4395A, and, in part, still isn't.

It's clear that the data was in units of spectrum, an not spectral density: in between the two there is a division by the bandwidth (100KHz, in this case). Correcting for that, one gets the following plot for the FSS PD:

2010-03-29_FSS_PD_shotnoise_and_darknoise.png

Although the reason why I was hesitating to elog this other plot is that it looks like there's still a discrepancy of about 0.5dBm between what one reads on the display of the spectrum analyzer and the data values downloaded from it.

However I well know that, I should have just posted it, including my reserves about that possible offset (as I'm doing now).

Quote:

The units on this plot are completely bogus - we know that the thermal noise from the resonant part of the circuit is just V = sqrt(4*k*T*Z) ~ 3nV/rHz. Then the gain of the MAX4107 stage is 10. The output resistor is 50 Ohms, which forms a divide by 2 with the input impedance of the spectrum analyzer and so the bump in the dark noise should only be 15 nV/rHz and not microVolts.

Quote:

[Rana, Alberto]

This evening we measured the noise spectrum of the reference cavity PD used in the FSS loop. From that we estimated the transimpedance and found that the PD is shot-noise limited. We also found a big AM oscillation in correspondence of the FSS modulation sideband which we later attenuated at least in part.

This plot shows the spectrum noise from the RF output of the photodetector.

  2742   Wed Mar 31 15:31:53 2010 steveUpdatePSLReference Cavity RF PD base upgraded

Quote:

Some more words about the RFAM: I noticed that there was an excess RFAM by unlocking the RC and just looking at the RF out with the 50 Ohm input of the scope. It was ~100 mVp-p! In the end our method to minimize the AM was not so sensible - we aligned the waveplate before the EOM so as to minimize the p-pol light transmitted by the PBS cube just ahead of the AOM. At first, this did not minimize the RFAM. But after I got angry at the bad plastic mounting of the EOM and re-aligned it, the AM seemed to be small with the polarization aligned to the cube. It was too small to measure on the scope and on the spectrum analyzer, the peak was hopping around by ~10-20 dB on a few second timescale. Further reduction would require some kind of active temperature stabilization of the EOM housing (maybe a good SURF project!).

For the EOM mount we (meaning Steve) should replace the lame 2-post system that's in there with one of the mounts of the type that is used in the Mach-Zucker EOMs. I think we have spare in the cabinet next to one of the arms.

After the RFAM monkeying, I aligned the beam to the RC using the standard, 2-mirror, beam-walking approach. You can see from the attached plot that the transmission went up by ~20% ! And the reflection went down by ~30%. I doubt that I have developed any new alignment technique beyond what Yoichi and I already did last time. Most likely there was some beam shape corruption in the EOM, or the RFAM was causing us to lock far off the fringe. Now the reflected beam from the reference cavity is a nice donut shape and we could even make it better by doing some mode matching! This finally solves the eternal mystery of the bad REFL beam (or at least sweeps it under the rug).

At the end, I also fixed the alignment of the RFPD. It should be set so the incident angle of the beam is ~20-40 deg, but it was instead set to be near normal incidence ?! Its also on flimsy plastic legs. Steve, can you please replace this with the new brass ones?

 Teflon feet removed and heavy brass-delrin pd base installed. Ref-cavity reflected light remains to be beautiful doughnut shape on camera.

Attachment 1: brspdbs.JPG
brspdbs.JPG
  1954   Wed Aug 26 19:58:14 2009 Rana, AlbertoUpdatePSLReference Cavity Temperature Control: MINCO PID removed

Summary: This afternoon we managed to get the temperature control of the reference cavity working again.

We bypassed the MINCO PID by connecting the temperature box error signal directly into EPICS.

We couldn't configure the PID so that it worked with the modified temperature box so we decided to just avoid using it.

Now the temperature control is done by a software servo by using the channel C1:PSL-FSS_MINCOMEAS as error signal and driving C1:PSL-FSS_TIDALSET (which we have clip-doodle wired directly to the heater input).

 

We 'successfully' used ezcaservo to stabilize the temperature:

ezcaservo -r C1:PSL-FSS_MINCOMEAS -s 26.6 -g -0.00003 C1:PSL-FSS_TIDALSET

 

We also recalibrated the channels:

C1:PSL-FSS_RMTEMP

C1:PSL-FSS_RCTEMP

C1:PSL-FSS_MINCOMEAS

with Peter King on the phone by using ezcawrite (EGUF and EGUL) but we didn't change the database yet. So please do not reboot the PSL computer until we update the database.

 

More details will follow.

Attachment 1: rc.png
rc.png
  1956   Thu Aug 27 13:42:08 2009 ranaSummaryPSLReference Cavity Temperature Control: psl.db changes

I made the changes to the psl.db to handle the new Temperature box hardware. The calibrations (EGUF/EGUL) are just copied directly from the LHO .db file (I have rsync'd their entire target area to here).

allegra:c1psl>diff psl.db~ psl.db
341,353d340
< grecord(ai,"C1:PSL-FSS_TIDALOUT")
< {
<       field(DESC,"TIDALOUT- drive to the reference cavity heater")
<       field(DISV,"1")
<         field(SCAN,".5 second")
<       field(DTYP,"VMIVME-3113")
<       field(INP,"#C0 S28 @")
<       field(EGUF,"10")
<       field(EGUL,"-10")
<       field(EGU,"volts")
<       field(LOPR,"-10")
<       field(AOFF,"0")
< }
493,494c480,481
<         field(EGUF,"285.675")
<         field(EGUL,"-214.325")
---
>         field(EGUF,"67.02")
>         field(EGUL,"7.96")
508,509c495,496
<         field(EGUF,"726.85")
<         field(EGUL,"-1273.15")
---
>         field(EGUF,"75.57")
>         field(EGUL,"12.31")
531,532c518,519
<         field(EGUF,"726.85")
<         field(EGUL,"-1273.15")
---
>         field(EGUF,"75.57")
>         field(EGUL,"12.31")
605,617d591
< grecord(ai,"C1:PSL-FSS_TIDALINPUT")
< {
<       field(DESC,"TIDALINPUT- tidal actuator input")
<       field(DISV,"1")
<         field(SCAN,".5 second")
<       field(DTYP,"VMIVME-3123")
<       field(INP,"#C0 S3 @")
<       field(EGUF,"10")
<       field(EGUL,"-10")
<       field(EGU,"volts")
<       field(LOPR,"-10")
<       field(AOFF,"0")
< }
1130a1105,1130
> grecord(ai,"C1:PSL-FSS_TIDALINPUT")
> {
>       field(DESC,"TIDALINPUT- tidal actuator input")
>       field(DISV,"1")
>         field(SCAN,".5 second")
>       field(DTYP,"VMIVME-3123")
>       field(INP,"#C0 S3 @")
>       field(EGUF,"10")
>       field(EGUL,"-10")
>       field(EGU,"volts")
>       field(LOPR,"-10")
>       field(AOFF,"0")
> }
> grecord(ai,"C1:PSL-FSS_TIDALOUT")
> {
>       field(DESC,"TIDALOUT- drive to the reference cavity heater")
>       field(DISV,"1")
>         field(SCAN,".5 second")
>       field(DTYP,"VMIVME-3113")
>       field(INP,"#C0 S28 @")
>       field(EGUF,"10")
>       field(EGUL,"-10")
>       field(EGU,"volts")
>       field(LOPR,"-10")
>       field(AOFF,"0")
> }
1143,1144c1143,1144
<         field(HOPR,"0.010")
<         field(LOPR,"-0.010")
---
>         field(HOPR,"2")
>         field(LOPR,"0")

  1018   Wed Oct 1 23:21:03 2008 YoichiConfigurationPSLReference cavity reflection camera
I re-centered the reference cavity reflection camera, which has been mis-aligned for a while.
I also tweaked an input steering mirror to make the alignment better. This resulted in the increase of the transmission PD voltage
from 8V to 9V.
  1915   Mon Aug 17 02:05:49 2009 Yoichi,ranaUpdatePSLReference cavity reflection looks bad
Rana, Yoichi

It has been a well known fact that the reference cavity reflection beam looks ugly.

We measured the visibility of the RC by locking and unlocking it.
Comparing the reflected beam powers, we got the visibility of 0.46,
which is pretty bad.

The beam going into the RC looks fine (circular on a sensor card).
However, the beam reflected back from the RC is distorted into a
horizontal ellipse, even when the RC is not locked.

We took a picture of the reflected beam hitting a white paper with the
infrared camera (see the attachment). It looks like two overlapping
circles horizontally separated. Could it be a badly coated optics
producing a secondary reflection ?

We looked into the RC's front mirror with an inspection mirror, but we
could not identify any obstructing object.

Rana is now touching the RC alignment.

We plan to remove the periscope before the RC to have a better look
into the cavity for inspection.


Late breaking update:
- We also moved the Refcav reflection camera to look at the leakage through a reflection steering mirror so that there's less chance of distortion. There was previously a W1 window in there as a pickofff. Also changed the camera to autogain so that we can see something.

- Re-aligned onto the refl pd.

- Tweaked alignment into RC. Mainly in yaw. Transmission went from 5V to 7V. In your face, Aso!
Attachment 1: P8170113.JPG
P8170113.JPG
Attachment 2: Untitled.png
Untitled.png
  1917   Mon Aug 17 04:16:13 2009 YoichiUpdatePSLReference cavity reflection looks bad

Quote:
Rana, Yoichi
- We also moved the Refcav reflection camera to look at the leakage through a reflection steering mirror so that there's less chance of distortion. There was previously a W1 window in there as a pickofff. Also changed the camera to autogain so that we can see something.

- Re-aligned onto the refl pd.

- Tweaked alignment into RC. Mainly in yaw. Transmission went from 5V to 7V. In your face, Aso!


After our removal of the pick off window and Rana's re-alignment of the beam into the RC, the RC optical gain increased.
FSS was complaining about it by driving the PC feedback crazy.
I reduced the nominal common gain from 12.5dB to 11dB.
  1136   Fri Nov 14 19:20:42 2008 YoichiUpdatePSLReference cavity ring down
Thanks to Bob making the high-voltage BNC cables for the HV pulse generator, I was able to operate the EOM in front of
the reference cavity.

The conceptual setup is the following:
[HV pulse] ----+           +-->-- [PD2]
               V           |
->--[HWP]->-- [EOM] -->-- [PBS] --<->-- [QWP] --<->-- [Reference Cavity] -->-- [PD1]
                           |
                [PD3] --<--+

The high voltage pulse rotates the polarization of the light after the EOM. When the HV is applied, the PBS reflects most of the light
into PD2 (Thorlabs PDA255), shutting down the incident light into the cavity.
The transmitted light power of the reference cavity is monitored by PD1 (PDA255). The reflected light from the reference cavity
is monitored by the DC output of the RF PD (PD3). PD3 is low-passed so the response is not fast.
Thorlabs says PDA255 has 50MHz bandwidth.

The attached plot shows the time series of the above PD signals when the HV was applied.
Input Pulse (blue curve) is the input to the HV pulse generator. When it is high, the HV is applied.
"PBS reflection" (red) is PD2. "Reflection" (green) is PD3. "Transmission" (light blue) is PD1.

The red curve shows huge ringing. At first I thought this was caused by the bad response of the PD.
However, the same ringing can be seen in the PD3 and the peaks match very well.
When red curve goes down the green curve goes up, which is consistent with the energy conservation.
So it looks like the light power is actually exhibiting this ringing.
May be the HV pulse is distorted and the voltage across the EOM is showing this ringing.
I will check the input voltage shape to the EOM using a high impedance probe, if possible.

The green curve shows a slow decay because it has a long time constant. It is not an actual
trend of the reflected light power.

The RC transmission power shows some peaks, probably due to the ringing in the input power.
So just fitting with an exponential would not give a good estimate of the cavity pole.
Even though, we should be able to de-convolute the frequency response of the reference cavity
from the input (red curve) and output (light blue curve) signals.
Attachment 1: RingDown.png
RingDown.png
  1137   Fri Nov 14 20:35:47 2008 ranaUpdatePSLReference cavity ring down
To make the DEI pulser make a fast pulse on the EO shutter EOMs, we had to make sure:

1) the cable had a high voltage rated dielectric. cheap dielectrics show the 'corona'
effect, especially when there is a bend in the cable.

2) the EO has to have a resistor on it to prevent ringing due to the impedance mismatch.

3) We needed ~3.5 kV to get the EO shutter crystal to flip the light by 90 deg.
  1138   Fri Nov 14 22:40:51 2008 YoichiUpdatePSLReference cavity ring down

Quote:

To make the DEI pulser make a fast pulse on the EO shutter EOMs, we had to make sure:

1) the cable had a high voltage rated dielectric. cheap dielectrics show the 'corona'
effect, especially when there is a bend in the cable.


I'll check it with Bob.


Quote:

2) the EO has to have a resistor on it to prevent ringing due to the impedance mismatch.


Did you use a shunt or series resistor ?
If shunt, I guess it has to have a huge heat sink.
Actually, DEI says the pulser does not require any external shunt/series resistors or impedance-matching network.
Looks like it is not true ...


Quote:

3) We needed ~3.5 kV to get the EO shutter crystal to flip the light by 90 deg.


Yes, I adjusted the voltage to maximize the power change and it was about 3.5kV.
  1140   Mon Nov 17 15:07:06 2008 YoichiUpdatePSLReference cavity ring down
I used MATLAB's system identification tool box to estimate the response of the reference cavity, i.e. cavity pole.
What I did was basically to estimate a model of the RC using the time series of the measured input and output power.

First, I prepared the input and output time series for model estimation.
The input is the input power to the RC, which I produced by inverting the PBS reflected light power and adding an offset
so that the signal is zero at t=0. Offset removal was necessary to make sure that the input time series does not give an
unintentional step at t=0.
The output time series is the transmission power of the RC. I also added an offset to make it zero at t=0.
Then I commanded MATLAB to compute the response of a first order low-pass filter to the input and try to fit
the computed response to the measured output by iteratively changing the gain and the cut-off frequency.
("pem" is the name of the command to use if you are interested in).

The result is shown in the attachment.
Blue curve is the input signal (I added a vertical offset to show it separately from the output).
The green curve is the measured output (RC transmission). The red curve is the response of the estimated model.
The estimated cut-off frequency was about 45kHz.

You can see that the red curve deviates a lot from the green curve after t=15usec.
By looking at this, I realized that the bandwidth of the RC cavity servo was too high.
The time scale we are looking at is about 50kHz whereas the FSS bandwidth is about 400kHz.
So when the input light was cut off, the error signal of the FSS becomes meaning less and the
input laser frequency was quickly moved away from the resonance. This is why the green curve does not
respond to the large peaks in the blue curve (input). The cavity was already off-resonance when the input power
showed bumps.

Since the red curve matches nicely with the green curve at the very beginning of the ring down, the estimated 45kHz
cavity pole is probably not that a bad estimate.

To make a better measurement, I will try to reduce the bandwidth of the RC servo by using only the PZT actuator.
If there were no ringing in the input light power, we wouldn't have to worry about the bandwidth of the servo because our
feedback is all made to the laser, not the cavity length.
In order to reduce the ringing in the input power, I asked Bob to make new HV cables using HV grade coax cables.
Attachment 1: Fit.png
Fit.png
  1190   Fri Dec 12 22:51:23 2008 YoichiUpdatePSLReference cavity ring down measurement again
Bob made new HV-cables with HV compatible coaxes. The coax cable is rated for 2kV, which was as high as Bob
could found. I used it with 3kV hoping it was ok.
I also put a series resistor to the pockels cell to tame down the ripples I saw in elog:1136.

Despite those efforts, I still observed large ringings.
I tried several resistor values (2.5k, 1k, 330ohm), and found that 330ohm gives a slightly better result.
(When the resistance is larger, the edge of the PBS Refl. becomes dull).
Since the shape of the ringing does not change at all even when the pulse voltage is lowered to less than 1kV,
I'm now suspicious of the DEI pulser.

Anyway, I estimated the cavity pole using the MATLAB's system identification toolbox again.
This time, I locked the reference cavity using only the PZT feedback, which makes the UGF about a few kHz.
So, within the time scale shown in the plot below, the servo does not have enough time to respond, thus the laser
frequency stays tuned with the cavity. This was necessary to avoid non-linear behavior of the transmitted power
caused by the servo disturbing the laser frequency. With this treatment, I was able to approximate the response of
the cavity with a simple linear model (one pole low-pass filter).

MATLAB estimated the cavity pole to be 47.5kHz.
The blue curve in the plot is the measured RC transmitted power.
The incident power to the cavity can be inferred from the inverse of the red curve (the PBS reflection power).
The brown curve is the response of the first order low-pass filter with fc=47.5kHz to the input power variation.
The blue and brown curves match well for the first 10usec. Even after that the phases match well.
So the estimated 47.5kHz is probably a reasonable number. I don't know yet how to estimate the error of this measurement.

According to http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/~ajw/PSLFRC.png the designed transmission of the reference cavity mirrors is 300ppm (i.e.
the round trip loss (RTL) is 600ppm).
This number yields fc=35kHz. In the same picture, it was stated that fc=38.74kHz (I guess this is a measured number at some point).
The current fc=47.5kHz means, the RTL has increased by 200ppm from the design and 150ppm from the time fc=38.74kHz was measured.
Attachment 1: RC-Ringdown.png
RC-Ringdown.png
  1191   Tue Dec 16 19:06:01 2008 YoichiUpdatePSLReference cavity ring down repeated many times
Today, I repeated the reference cavity ring down measurement many times to see how much the results vary.

I repeated the ring down for 20 times and the first attachment shows the comparison of the measured and estimated cavity transmission power.
The blue curve is the measured one, and the red curve is the estimated one. There are only 10 plots because I made a mistake when transferring data
from the oscilloscope to the PC, and one measurement data was lost.

The second attachment shows the histogram of the histogram of the estimated cavity pole frequencies.
I admit that there are not enough samples to treat it statistically.
Anyway, the mean and the standard deviation of the estimated frequencies are 47.6kHz and 2.4kHz.
Assuming a Gaussian distribution and zero systematic error, both of which are bold assumptions though, the result is 47.6(+/-0.6)kHz.

Now I removed the Pockels Cell from the RC input beam path.
I maximized the transmission by tweaking the steering mirrors and rotating the HWP.
Since the transmission PD was saturated without an ND filter on it, I reduced the VCO RF power slider to 2.85.
Accordingly, I changed the nominal common gain of the FSS servo to 10.5dB.
Attachment 1: RC_Ringdown_Estimates.png
RC_Ringdown_Estimates.png
Attachment 2: Cavity_Pole_Histogram.png
Cavity_Pole_Histogram.png
  2915   Wed May 12 02:35:13 2010 Koji, Rana, KiwamuUpdateGreen LockingReflection from ETM and ITM !

We succeeded in getting the reflected green beam from both ITMY and ETMY.

After we did several things on the end table, we eventually could observe these reflections.

Now the spot size of the reflection from ITMY is still big ( more than 1 cm ), so tomorrow modematching to the 40m cavity is going to be improved by putting mode matching telescopes on right positions.

An important thing we found is that, the beam height of optics which directly guides the beam to the cavity should be 4.5 inch on the end table.

 


(what we did)

* Aidan, Kevin and Kiwamu set the beam to be linearly polarized by rotating a QWP in front of the Innolight. This was done by monitoring the power of the transmitted light from the polarizer attached on the input of the Faraday of 1064 nm. Note that the angle for QWP is 326.4 deg.

* We put some beam damps against the rejected beam from the Faraday

* To get a good isolation with the Faraday we at first rotated the polarization of the incident beam so to have a minimum transmission. And then we rotated the output polarizer until the transmission reaches a minimum. Eventually we got the transmission of less than 1mW, so now the Faraday should be working regardless of the polarization angle of the incident beam. As we predicted, the output polaerizer seems to be rotated 45 deg from that of the input.

* Rana, Koji and Kiwamu aligned the PPKTP crystal to maximize the power of 532 nm.  Now the incident power of 1064 nm is adjusted to 250mW and the output power for 532 nm is 0.77mW. Actually we can increase the laser power by rotating a HWP in front of the Faraday.

* We injected the green beam to the chamber and aligned the beam axis to the ETMY without the modematching lenses, while exciting the horizontal motion of the ETM with f=1Hz from awg. This excitation was very helpful because we could figure out which spot was the reflection from the ETM.

* Once we made the reflected beam going close to the path of the incident beam, we then put the modematching lenses and aligned the steering mirrors and lenses. At this time we could see the reflected beam was successfully kicked away by the Faraday of 532 nm.

* Koji went to ITMY chamber with a walkie-talkie and looked at the spot position. Then he told Rana and Kiwamu to go a right direction with the steering mirrors. At last we could see a green beam from ITM illuminating the ETM cage.

* We excited the ITMY with f=2Hz vertically and aligned the ITM from medm. Also we recovered a video monitor which was abandoned around ETMY chamber so that we could see the spot on the ETM via the monitor. Seeing that monitor we aligned the ITM and we obtained the reclection from the ITM at the end table.

* We also tried to match the mode by moving a lens with f=400mm, but we couldn't obtain a good spot size.

 

  2917   Wed May 12 03:52:54 2010 KojiUpdateGreen LockingReflection from ETM and ITM !

I could not understand this operation. Can you explain this a bit more?

It sounds different from the standard procedure to adjust the Faraday:

1) Get Max transmittion by rotating PBS_in and PBS_out.

2) Flip the Faraday 180 deg i.e. put the beam from the output port.

3) Rotate PBS_in to have the best isolation.

Quote:

* To get a good isolation with the Faraday we at first rotated the polarization of the incident beam so to have a minimum transmission. And then we rotated the output polarizer until the transmission reaches a minimum. Eventually we got the transmission of less than 1mW, so now the Faraday should be working regardless of the polarization angle of the incident beam. As we predicted, the output polaerizer seems to be rotated 45 deg from that of the input.

  2919   Wed May 12 09:16:29 2010 steveUpdateGreen LockingReflection from ETM and ITM !

 

 Now I know why Rana was wearing his bright green pants yesterday. It is nice to see the green beam in the 40m IFO again. It calls for celebration!

I stopped AWG 1Hz drive of ITMYs (south-arm) I still see unblocked beams at the ETMYs table. We have plenty of cleaned razor beam traps to be used. Please block Faraday rejects etc

  2930   Fri May 14 08:18:46 2010 steveUpdateGreen LockingReflection from ETM and ITM !

I stopped AWG  1 Hz drive to ITMYs. ITMXe was also driven or oscillating. ITMXe damping was off, so I turned it on. It did not effect it's oscillation

Attachment 1: itmx1hzos.jpg
itmx1hzos.jpg
  476   Wed May 14 13:14:19 2008 AndreySummaryComputersReflective Memory Network is restored

Reflective Memory Network is restored, all watchdogs and oplevs are returned to the "enabled" state.

In order to revive the computers, several things were done.

1) Following Mr. Adhikari's elog entry #353, I walked around the interferometer room, and switched off the power keys in all crates with computers whose names are contained in the MEDM Reflective Memory screen, including the rack with the framebuilder. By the way, it was nontrivial to find the switch in the 1Y4 crate that would shut off/on processors "c1susvme1" and "c1susvme2": the switch turned out to be located at the rear side of the crate, and it is not a key but it is a button.

2) I was trying to follow wiki-40 computer restart procedures, but every time that I was trying to run "startup.cmd" screen from the corresponding target subdirectory, I got the error message "Device or resource busy".
By the way, one more thing was learned: if you firstly open in terminal burtgooey, select the snap file, then reboot the processor, and then will try to burt-restore it, you will get the message "Status Not OK". In order to really burt-restore the processor which was recently rebooted, you need to close the terminal with burtgooey and open burtgooey in a new terminal window which should be opened after rebooting the processor.

Feeling that my activities according to wiki-40 procedures do not revive computers, I invited Alex Ivanov.

3) Alex tried to touch the memory card in "c1iovme" in rack 1Y2, because once before this card failed causing network problems, but this did not help.

4) We shutted off and restarted again (pressing the power-switching button) the black Linux machine "c1dcuepics" (located in the very bottom below the framebuilder). Alex says that this machine is responsible for all EPICS. It was not restarted for 182 days, and probably some process there went wrong.

After restarting this machine "c1dcuepics" we were able to follow wiki-40 procedures for restarting all other computers (whose names are on the MEDM RFM network). We ran correcponding "startup.cmd" files and burt-restored them without error messages.

Now all the computers work and communicate in a proper way.

Mr. Joseph Betzwiezer was helping me with all these activities (we decided that it is more important that cameras for now), thanks to him. But our joint skills turned out to be insufficient, so Alex Ivanov's contribution was the most important.
  2362   Mon Dec 7 19:02:22 2009 MottUpdateGeneralReflectivity Measurements

I have made some measurements of the R value for some coatings we are interested in.  The plots have statistical error bars from repeated measurements, but I would suspect that these do not dominate the noise, and would guess these should be trusted to plus or minus 5% or so.  They still should give some indication of how useful these coatings will be for the green light.  I plan to measure for the ITM as soon as possible, but with the venting and finals this may not be until late this week.

 

EDIT (12/9/09): I fixed the label on the y axis of the plots, and changed them to png format.

Attachment 1: Y1-45P_R.png
Y1-45P_R.png
Attachment 2: Y1-45S_R.png
Y1-45S_R.png
Attachment 3: Y1-50CC_R.png
Y1-50CC_R.png
  1520   Sat Apr 25 00:45:31 2009 YoichiConfigurationVACReflector for the cryopump temperature monitor changed
The temperature of the cryopump head is monitored by a photo switch looking at an aluminum foil reflector attached to the needle of the temperature gauge.
If the needle moves out of the 14K position, the photo switch will be triggered to close the cryopump gate valve.
However, this photo switch system has been touchy.
Tonight, the switch falsely tripped several times and closed the gate valve, which caused lock losses as the motion of the valve generates a lot of vibrations.
Seems to me, it was caused by the poor/irregular reflection from the wrinkled aluminum foil on the needle.
So I replaced the aluminum foil with a brand-new shiny one.
  1521   Sat Apr 25 02:54:25 2009 YoichiConfigurationVACReflector for the cryopump temperature monitor changed

Quote:
The temperature of the cryopump head is monitored by a photo switch looking at an aluminum foil reflector attached to the needle of the temperature gauge.
If the needle moves out of the 14K position, the photo switch will be triggered to close the cryopump gate valve.
However, this photo switch system has been touchy.
Tonight, the switch falsely tripped several times and closed the gate valve, which caused lock losses as the motion of the valve generates a lot of vibrations.
Seems to me, it was caused by the poor/irregular reflection from the wrinkled aluminum foil on the needle.
So I replaced the aluminum foil with a brand-new shiny one.


The photo switch still trips randomly. We need a better interlock.
  300   Wed Feb 6 16:50:47 2008 josephbConfigurationCamerasRegions of Interest and max frame rate
The Snap code has once again been modified such that setting the -l option to 0 will take images as fast as possible. Also, the -H and -W options set the height and width, while in principle the -Y and -X options set the position in pixels of the top edge and left edge of the image. It also seems possible to set these values such that the saved image wraps around. I'll be adding some command checking so that the user can't do this in the near future.

Doing some timed runs, using a -H 350 and -W 350 (as opposed to the full 752x480), 100 images can be saved in roughly 8 seconds, and 1000 images took about 73 seconds. This corresponds to a frame rate of about 12-13 frames per second (or a 12-13 Hz display). The size of this area was sufficient to cover the current PMC transmission beam.

The command line I used was

time ./Snap -l 0 -m 1000 -f 'test' -W 350 -H 350 -Y 50 -X 350 -E 2000

Interestingly enough, there would be bursts of failed frame saves if I executed commands in another terminal (such as using ls on the directory where the files were being stored).

As always, this code is available in /cvs/cds/caltech/target/Prosilica/40mCode/.
  301   Wed Feb 6 19:39:11 2008 ranaConfigurationCamerasRegions of Interest and max frame rate
We really need to look into making the 40m CDS network have an all GigE backbone so that we can have cooler cameras as well as collect multiple datastreams...
  5090   Tue Aug 2 10:53:03 2011 JenneOmnistructureSAFETYRegular door out of service. Use Control Room Door only!!

The hazardous waste people are moving chemicals around outside our door, and have roped off our regular front door. 

Please go around, and use the control room door to enter and exit.  It is currently unlocked, although I'll lock up when I leave for LIGOX.

  11214   Fri Apr 10 17:05:45 2015 ericqUpdateLSCRelative ETM calibration (Rough MC2 calibration)

I did a quick measurement get an idea of the ETM actuator calibration, relative to the ITMs. This will still hold if/when we revisit the ITM calibration via the Michelson. 

For the test masses, I locked the arms individually using MC2 as the actuator, and took transfer functions from the SUS-[OPTIC]_LSC_EXC point to the PO[X/Y]_I_ERR error signals. There were two points with coherence less than 99% that I threw away. I then took the fraction at each point, and am using the standard deviation of those fractions as the reported random error, since the coherence was super high for all points, making the error of each point negligible relative to their spread. 

This gives:

  • ETMX/ITMX: 2.765 +- 0.046
  • ETMY/ITMY: 2.857 +- 0.029

With the data from ELOG 8242, this implies:

  • ETMX: 13.00 +- 0.22 x 10 -9 / f2 m/counts
  • ETMY: 13.31 +- 0.15x 10 -9 / f2 m/counts

MC2 data was taken with the arms locked with the ETMs. The results are not so clean, the fractions don't line up; there is some trend with excitation frequency... The ratio is around the same as the ETMs, but I'm not going to quote any sort of precision, since I don't fully understand what's happening. Kind of a bummer, because it struck me that we could get an idea of the arm length mismatch by the difference in IMC frequency / arm FSR. I'll think about this some more...

Attachment 1: quickCal.png
quickCal.png
  11215   Fri Apr 10 18:39:39 2015 ericqUpdateLSCRelative ETM calibration (Rough MC2 calibration)

I didn't verify that the loop gain was low enough at the excitation frequencies. blush

I put a 1kHz ELP in both arm servos, and got cleaner data for both. The ETM numbers are pretty much consistent with the previously posted ones, and the MC2 data now is consistent across frequencies. However, the MC2 numbers derived from each arm are not consistent.

Now:

  • ETMX / ITMX: 2.831 +- 0.043
  • MC2 / ITMX: 3.260 +- 0.062
  • ETMY / ITMY: 2.916 +- 0.041
  • MC2 / ITMY: 3.014 +- 0.036

With the data from ELOG 8242, this implies:

  • ETMX: 13.31 +- 0.21 x 10-9 / f2 m/counts
  • ETMY: 13.59 +- 0.20 x 10-9 / f2 m/counts
  • MC2 in Xarm meters : 15.32 +- 0.30 x 10-9 / f2 m/counts
  • MC2 in Yarm meters : 14.04 +- 0.18 x 10-9 / f2 m/counts
This is, of course, pretty fishy. Each arm sees the same frequency fluctuation of the light coming out of the IMC, especially given that the MC2 to arm data was taken simultaneously for both arms. Now, one possible source of this kind of mismatch would be a mismatch of the arm lengths, but there is no way they differ by 10%, as they would have to in order to explain the above numbers. To me, it seems more likely that the ITM calibrations are off. 
Attachment 1: betterCal.png
betterCal.png
  15326   Tue May 12 18:16:17 2020 gautamUpdateLSCRelative importance of losses in the arm and PRC

Attachment #1 is meant to show that having a T=500ppm PR2 optic will not be the dominant contributor to the achievable recycling gain. Nevertheless, I think we should change this optic to start with. Here, I assume:

  • \eta_A denotes the (average) round trip loss per arm cavity (i.e. ITM + ETM). Currently, I guess this is ~100ppm.
  • Fixed 0.5% loss from mode mismatch between the CARM mode and the PRC mode (the x-axis does NOT include this number).
  • No substrates/AR coatings inside the cavity.
  • For the nominal case, let's say the intracavity loss sums to 100 ppm.
  • For the T=500ppm PR2, I assumed a total of 550 ppm loss in the PRC.

In relaity, I don't know how good the MM is between the PRC and the arms. All the scans of the arm cavity under ALS control and looking at the IR resonances suggest that the mode-matching into the arm is ~92%, which I think is pretty lousy. Kiwamu and co. claim 99.3% matching into the interferometer, but in all the locks, the REFL mode looks completely crazy, so idk

Attachment 1: armLossVSPRCloss.pdf
armLossVSPRCloss.pdf
  15327   Tue May 12 20:16:31 2020 KojiUpdateLSCRelative importance of losses in the arm and PRC

Is \eta_A the roundtrip loss for an arm?

Thinking about the PRG=10 you saw:
- What's the current PR2/3 AR? 100ppm? 300ppm? The beam double-passes them. So (AR loss)x4 is added.
- Average arm loss is ~150ppm?

Does this explain PRG=10?

 

  15328   Tue May 12 22:47:49 2020 gautamUpdateLSCRelative importance of losses in the arm and PRC

Yes, \eta_A is the (average) round-trip loss for an arm cavity. I'd estimate this is ~100ppm currently. I edited the original elog to fill in this omission.

The RC mirror specs require some guesswork - the available specs for the Laseroptik mirrors (PR3) are for a 48 degree angle of incidence, and could be as high as 0.5 %. According to the poster, the spec is 2.6% loss inside the recycling cavity but I don't know where I got the number for the AR surface of the G&H PR2, and presumably that includes some guess I made for the MM between the PRC and the arm. Previously, assuming ~1-2% loss inside the RC gave good agreement between model and measurement. Certainly, if we assume similar numbers, a recycling gain of ~11 (200 * T_P=5.637%) is reasonable. But I think we need more data to make a stronger statement.

Quote:

Is \eta_A the roundtrip loss for an arm?

Thinking about the PRG=10 you saw:
- What's the current PR2/3 AR? 100ppm? 300ppm? The beam double-passes them. So (AR loss)x4 is added.
- Average arm loss is ~150ppm?

Does this explain PRG=10?

  10848   Tue Dec 30 17:26:23 2014 ranaUpdatePSLRelaxation Osc and the NPRO Noise eater

I wonder if the variable bump around 100 kHz can be something about the NPRO and if the bump we see is the closed loop response due to the Noise Eater.

NE_Mephisto.png

This plot (from the Mephisto manual) shows the effect of the NE on the RIN, but not the frequency noise. I assume its similar since the laser frequency noise above 10 kHz probably just comes from the pump diode noise.

I went out to the PSL and turned off the NE at ~4:53 PM local time today to see what happened. Although the overall PCDRIVE signal looks more ratty, there is no difference in the spectra of ON/OFF when the PCDRIVE is low. When its noisy, I see a tiny peak around 1 MHz with NE OFF. Turned it back on after a few hours.

  11141   Fri Mar 13 23:49:28 2015 ranaUpdatePSLRelaxation Osc and the NPRO Noise eater

Another thought about the mystery PCDRIVE noise: we've been thinking that it could be some slow death inside the NPRO, but it might also be a broken and intermittent thing in the MC servo or MC REFL PD.

Another possibility is that its frequency noise in the old oscillator used to drive the pre-PMC EOM (which is the Pockel Cell for the FSS). To check this, we should swap in a low noise oscillator for the PMC. I have one for testing which has 36 and 37 MHz outputs.

  13952   Wed Jun 13 01:02:40 2018 gautamUpdateLSCReliable and repeatable 1f DRMI locking

[koji, gautam]

With Koji's help, I got repeatable and reliable DRMI locking going again tonight - this is with the AS path optics for the spectroscopy measurement in place, although the AUX laser remained shuttered tonight. Results + spectra tomorrow, but here's what I did:

  • Initial alignment procedure was as usual - use arms+ASS to align ITMs, and then PRMI carrier+ASS to align PRM and BS.
  • Found the appropriate gains and demod phases.
  • Measured loop TFs - PRCL is a big mystery. Used these to finalize loop gains.
  • Ran some sensing lines.
  • Whitened DRMI PDs for a calibrated "low-noise" spectrum (although the coils were not de-whitened).

As I have found before, it is significantly easier to get the locking going post 11pm - the wall Seis BLRMS don't look that much quieter at midnight compared to 10pm, but this might be a scaling issue. I'll do a quantitative assessment next time... Also, Foton takes between 25-45 secs to save an updated filter (timed twice today).

  13966   Thu Jun 14 18:09:24 2018 gautamUpdateLSCReliable and repeatable 1f DRMI locking

I finally analyzed the sensing measurement I ran on Tuesday evening. Sensing responses for the DRMI DOFs seems consistent with what I measured in October 2017, although the relative phasing of the DoFs in the sensing PDs has changed significantly. For what it's worth, my Finesse simulation is here

Attachment 1: DRMI1f_June14.pdf
DRMI1f_June14.pdf
  17202   Thu Oct 20 19:47:24 2022 TegaUpdateCDSRelocate front-ends to Rack 1X7

We mounted chiara, all front-end machines and switches in rack 1x7; reconnected power, dolphin, onestop and timing cables; and restarted the front-ends. Attachments 1 & 2 show the front and rear of rack 1X7. We are going to continue the clean up work tomorrow.

 

The ifo is not back up as can be seen in attachment 3. We think the timing issue mentioned earlier is the culprit, but all FEs seem to agree to within a second, so I am not sure. I restarted the models with iop errors other than the timing error, i.e. c1lsc, c1sus, c1ioo and c1iscex. This eliminated most of the errors but the timing error. However, the overflow field on c1lsc is non-zero and the number keeps increasing - indicating a problem with c1lsc? The new status is shown in attachement 4. My understanfin is the a red `TIM` flag in the CDS stateword is not a functional problem, so I guess we are almost there. I did a burt restore on rossa using a snapshot we took earlier today before the shutdown, reset the SUS watchdogs and started the docker services on optimus. Now the IMC is locked.

 

We are still getting shared memory glitch on c1ioo, see attachment 5.


Note: We left nodus, megatron, optimus and fb1 in rack 1X6 for now.

 

Attachment 1: IMG_20221020_193623269.jpg
IMG_20221020_193623269.jpg
Attachment 2: IMG_20221020_193637034.jpg
IMG_20221020_193637034.jpg
Attachment 3: iop_status_20221020.png
iop_status_20221020.png
Attachment 4: iop_status_20221020_restart_models.png
iop_status_20221020_restart_models.png
Attachment 5: c1ioo_shm_glitch.png
c1ioo_shm_glitch.png
  16838   Mon May 9 18:49:05 2022 TegaUpdateBHDRelocate green TRX and TRY PDs/cams/optics from PSL table to BS table

[Paco, Tega]

Started work on the relocating the green transmission optics, cameras and PDs. Before removing the any of the optics, we checked and confirmed that the PDs and Cams are indeed connected to the GRN TRX/Y medm channels. Then added labels to the cables before moving them.

Plumbing:

  • Moved all power and signal cables for the PDs and cameras from PSL table to BS table. See attachment #1

Relocated Optics & PDs & Cameras:

  • TRX and TRY cameras
  • TRX and TRY PDs
  • 1 BS, 2 lens for PDs and a steering mirror, see Atachement #2

 

Attachment 1: IMG_20220509_184439943.jpg
IMG_20220509_184439943.jpg
Attachment 2: IMG_20220509_184154722.jpg
IMG_20220509_184154722.jpg
  16842   Tue May 10 15:46:38 2022 JCUpdateBHDRelocate green TRX and TRY components from PSL table to BS table

[JC, Tega]

Tega and I cleaned up the BS OPLEV Table and took out a couple of mirrors and an extra PD. The PD which was removed is "IP-POS - X/Y  Reversed". In addition to this, the cable is zip-tied to the others located on the outside of the table in case this is required later on. 

Next, we placed the cameras and mirrors for the green beam into their postions. A beam splitter and 4 mirrors were relocated from PSL table and placed onto the BS Oplev table to complete this. I will upload the picture of the newly updated photo with arrows of the beam routes.

Attachment 1: IMG_0741.jpeg
IMG_0741.jpeg
Attachment 2: IMG_0753.jpeg
IMG_0753.jpeg
  12114   Tue May 10 03:44:59 2016 ericqUpdateLSCRelocked

ALSX noise is solidly within past acceptable performance levels. The DRFPMI was locked on four out of six attempts. 

Some housekeeping was done:

  • PMC aligned
  • Static alignment voltages of X end PZT mirrors offloaded by turning mount screws
  • Rough comissioning of AUX X dither alignment
  • Locking scripts reverted to AUX X Innolight voltage/temperature sign convention

The recombination of the QPD signals to common / differential is imperfect, and limited how well we could keep the interferometer aligned, since the QPD at X has changed. This needs some daytime work. 

Some sensing matrix measurements were made, to be meditated upon for how to 1F the DRMI.

Other to-dos:

  • Bandpass + notch combo for green refl PDs
  • SRCL, and to a lesser extant, MICH feedforward subtraction (See DARM vs. other length DOF coherence plot below)
  • Fiber couple AUX X light
  • Make IFO work good


As an aside, Gautam and I noticed numerous green beams coming from inside the vacuum system onto the PSL table. They exist only when green is locked to the arms. Some of them come out at very non-level angles and shine in many places. This doesn't make me feel very happy; I suppose we've been living with it for some time. 

Attachment 1: 2016-05-10_DARMcoherence.pdf
2016-05-10_DARMcoherence.pdf
  5271   Fri Aug 19 19:08:40 2011 JennyUpdatePSLRelocking NPRO to reference cavity.

I am trying again to measure a temperature step response on the reference cavity on the PSL table.

I have been working to relock the NPRO to the cavity. I unblocked the laser beam, reassembled the setup described in my previous elog entry: 5202. I then did the following:

1) Monitored error signal (from LB1005 PDH servo), transmitted signal, and control signal sent to drive PZT on oscilloscope.

2) With loop open, swept through 0,0-mode resonance, saw a peak in the transmission, saw an accompanying error signal similar to the signal shown in 5202.

3) Tried to lock. Swept the gain on the LB1005 and could not find a gain that would make it lock. Tried changing the PI-corner freq. from 10 kHz to 30 kHz and back and still could not lock.

4) Noticed that the open loop error signal displayed on the scope was DC-offset from zero. Changed the offset to zero the error signal.

5) Tried to lock again and succeeded.

6) Noticed that upon closing the loop, the error signal became offset from zero again. Turning on the integrator on the LB1005 increased DC-offset.

7) Reduced the gain on the SR560 being used as a low pass filter from 5 to 1. Readjusted the open loop error signal offset on the LB1005.

8) Closed the loop and locked. Closing the loop then caused a much smaller DC change in the signal than I had seen with the larger gain (now around 3mV). RMS fluctuations in error signal are now 1 mV (well within the linear region of the error signal).

9) Noticed transmission has a strange distorted harmonic oscillation in it a 1MHz. (Modulation freq is 230kHz, so it's not that). Checked reflected signal and also saw a strange oscillation--in a sawtooth-like pattern.

 

I intend to

1) Post oscilloscope traces here showing transmitted and reflected signal when locked.

2) Look upstream to see if the sawtooth-like oscillation is in the laser beam before it enters the cavity:

  • Sweep the temperature of the laser so that the beam is no longer resonating in the cavity.
  • Compare the reflected signal off the cavity to the signal detected before being directed into the cavity (using the PDA255 that I used for measuring the AM response of the PZT) both with and and without the frequency modulation.

3) At some point, try to close the slow digital loop, perhaps readjusting the gain.

4) Try to measure a temperature step response.

  5272   Fri Aug 19 23:41:20 2011 JennyUpdatePSLRelocking NPRO to reference cavity.

Quote:

I am trying again to measure a temperature step response on the reference cavity on the PSL table.

I have been working to relock the NPRO to the cavity. I unblocked the laser beam, reassembled the setup described in my previous elog entry: 5202. I then did the following:

1) Monitored error signal (from LB1005 PDH servo), transmitted signal, and control signal sent to drive PZT on oscilloscope.

2) With loop open, swept through 0,0-mode resonance, saw a peak in the transmission, saw an accompanying error signal similar to the signal shown in 5202.

3) Tried to lock. Swept the gain on the LB1005 and could not find a gain that would make it lock. Tried changing the PI-corner freq. from 10 kHz to 30 kHz and back and still could not lock.

4) Noticed that the open loop error signal displayed on the scope was DC-offset from zero. Changed the offset to zero the error signal.

5) Tried to lock again and succeeded.

6) Noticed that upon closing the loop, the error signal became offset from zero again. Turning on the integrator on the LB1005 increased DC-offset.

7) Reduced the gain on the SR560 being used as a low pass filter from 5 to 1. Readjusted the open loop error signal offset on the LB1005.

8) Closed the loop and locked. Closing the loop then caused a much smaller DC change in the signal than I had seen with the larger gain (now around 3mV). RMS fluctuations in error signal are now 1 mV (well within the linear region of the error signal).

9) Noticed transmission has a strange distorted harmonic oscillation in it a 1MHz. (Modulation freq is 230kHz, so it's not that). Checked reflected signal and also saw a strange oscillation--in a sawtooth-like pattern.

 

I intend to

1) Post oscilloscope traces here showing transmitted and reflected signal when locked.

2) Look upstream to see if the sawtooth-like oscillation is in the laser beam before it enters the cavity:

  • Sweep the temperature of the laser so that the beam is no longer resonating in the cavity.
  • Compare the reflected signal off the cavity to the signal detected before being directed into the cavity (using the PDA255 that I used for measuring the AM response of the PZT) both with and and without the frequency modulation.

3) At some point, try to close the slow digital loop, perhaps readjusting the gain.

4) Try to measure a temperature step response.

I decided to go forward and try to close the digital loop in spite of the unexplained oscillations in the transmission.

1) Plugged the 20dB attenuator into the slow port on the laser drive. This pushed the laser out of lock and, for some reason, made the laser temperature stop responding to sweeping the set point manually with the knob.

2) Plugged the output from the digital system into the slow port (with the attenuator still in place).

3) Displayed the beam seen by the camera on a monitor in the control room

4) Stepped the laser temperature using MEDM until finding the 0,1 mode. Locked to that mode.

5) Closed the digital loop (input to slow laser drive attenuated 20dB attenuator). Gain 0.010

6) Loop appeared stable for 30 minutes, then temperature began shooting off. I opened the loop, cleared history, reduced the gain to 0.008, and started it again. Loop appears stable after 15 minutes of watching. I'm going to leave it for a few hours, then come back to check on it and, if it's stable, step the can temperature.

  5468   Mon Sep 19 20:56:36 2011 PaulSummarySUSRemaining SRM and ITMY OSEMs calibrations

 

I've now taken data for the pitch and yaw calibrations for the OSEMs of SRM and ITMY. Until such time as I know what the calibrated oplev noise spectra are like, I'm leaving the servo gains at zero.

I estimate the length of the lever arm from SRM to measurement position to be 3.06m, and the length of the lever arm from the ITMY to the measurement position to be 3.13m.

From the fits shown on the attached plots, this gives the following calibration factors for the SRM and ITMY OSEMs pitch and yaw counts (i.e. counts from channels such as SUS-ITMY_ULSEN_SW2 multiplied by a matrix of 1s and -1s) to pitch and yaw angle:

 

SRM PITCH: 1 OSEMs pitch count = 11.74 microradians

SRM YAW: 1 OSEMs yaw count = 12.73 microradians

 

ITMY PITCH: 1 OSEMs pitch count = 13.18 microradians

ITMY YAW: 1 OSEMs yaw count = 13.52 microradians

 

Next step is to do some DC offsets with the oplev paths back in place to get the final calibration between OSEMs counts and oplev counts, thus finally getting a conversion factor from oplev counts to radians.

I noticed while taking these measurements that the DC offsets I put on ITMY caused around 5 times larger change in angle than those on the SRM. The different path length is not enough to account for this, so I propose that the actuation is working differently for the two. I guess this should be taken into account when designing the output matrices (unless the control is passed through a different output matrix than the DC offsets?). I'll quantify the difference shortly, and write a conversion factor between output alignment count (e.g. SUS-ITMY_PIT_COMM) and angle.

 

 

Attachment 1: SRM_PITCH_calib_curve.png
SRM_PITCH_calib_curve.png
Attachment 2: SRM_YAW_calib_curve.png
SRM_YAW_calib_curve.png
Attachment 3: ITMY_PITCH_calib_curve.png
ITMY_PITCH_calib_curve.png
Attachment 4: ITMY_YAW_calib_curve.png
ITMY_YAW_calib_curve.png
  16519   Fri Dec 17 12:32:35 2021 KojiUpdateSUSRemaining task for 2021

Anything else? Feel free to edit this entry.

- SUS: AS1 hanging

- SUS: PR3/SR2/LO2 3/4" thick optic hanging

v Electronics chain check (From DAC to the end of the in-air cable / From the end of the in-air cable to the ADC)
[ELOG 16522]

- Long cable installation (4x 70ft)

- In-air cable connection to the flange

- In-vac wiring (connecting LO1 OSEMs)

- LO1 OSEM insertion/alignment

- LO1 Damping test

 

  16522   Fri Dec 17 19:19:42 2021 KojiUpdateSUSRemaining task for 2021

I had the fear that any mistake in the electronics chain could have been the show stopper.

So I quickly checked the signal assignments for the ADC and DAC chains.

I had initial confusion (see below), but it was confirmed that the electronics chains (at least for LO1) are correct.

Note: One 70ft cable is left around the 1Y0 rack

 


There are a few points to be fixed:

- It looks like the ADC/DAC card # assignment has been messed up.

CDS ADC0 -> Cable label ADC1 -> AA A1 -> ...
CDS ADC1 -> Cable label ADC0 -> AA A0 -> ...
CDS DAC0 -> Cable label DAC2 -> AI D2 -> ...
CDS DAC1 -> Cable label DAC0 -> AI D0 -> ...
CDS DAC2 -> Cable label DAC1 -> AI D1 -> ...
(What is going on here... please confirm and correct as they become straight forward)

Once this puzzle was solved I could confirm reasonable connections from the end of the 70 cables to the ADC/DAC.

- We also want to change the ADC card assignment. The face OSEM readings must be assigned to ADC1 and the side OSEM readings to ADC0.
  My system wiring diagram needs to be fixed accordingly too.
  This is because the last channel of the first ADC (ADC0) is not available for us and is used for DuoTone.

Attachment 1: PXL_20211218_030145356.MP.jpg
PXL_20211218_030145356.MP.jpg
  16525   Sun Dec 19 07:52:51 2021 AnchalUpdateSUSRemaining task for 2021

The I/O chassis reassigns the ADC and DAC indices on every power cycle. When we moved it, it must have changed it from the order we had. We were aware of this fact and decided to reconnect the I/O chassis to AA/AI to relect the correct order. We forgot to do that but this is not an error, it is expected behavior and can be solved easily.

Quote:

I had the fear that any mistake in the electronics chain could have been the show stopper.

So I quickly checked the signal assignments for the ADC and DAC chains.

I had initial confusion (see below), but it was confirmed that the electronics chains (at least for LO1) are correct.

Note: One 70ft cable is left around the 1Y0 rack

 


There are a few points to be fixed:

- It looks like the ADC/DAC card # assignment has been messed up.

CDS ADC0 -> Cable label ADC1 -> AA A1 -> ...
CDS ADC1 -> Cable label ADC0 -> AA A0 -> ...
CDS DAC0 -> Cable label DAC2 -> AI D2 -> ...
CDS DAC1 -> Cable label DAC0 -> AI D0 -> ...
CDS DAC2 -> Cable label DAC1 -> AI D1 -> ...
(What is going on here... please confirm and correct as they become straight forward)

Once this puzzle was solved I could confirm reasonable connections from the end of the 70 cables to the ADC/DAC.

- We also want to change the ADC card assignment. The face OSEM readings must be assigned to ADC1 and the side OSEM readings to ADC0.
  My system wiring diagram needs to be fixed accordingly too.
  This is because the last channel of the first ADC (ADC0) is not available for us and is used for DuoTone.

 

  16534   Wed Dec 22 18:16:23 2021 KojiUpdateSUSRemaining task for 2021

The in-vacuum installation team has reported that the side OSEMs of ITMX and LO1 are going to be interfering if place LO1 at the planned location.
I confirmed that ITMX has the side magnet on the other side (Attachment 1 ITMX photo taken on 2016/7/21). So we can do this swap.

The ITMX side OSEM is sticking out most. By doing this operation, we will recover most of the space between the ITMX and LO1. (Attachment 2)

Attachment 1: ITMX_2016_07_21.jpg
ITMX_2016_07_21.jpg
Attachment 2: Screen_Shot_2021-12-22_at_18.03.42.png
Screen_Shot_2021-12-22_at_18.03.42.png
  2074   Fri Oct 9 03:53:56 2009 JenneUpdateAdaptive FilteringRemaking the ASS

The c1ass computer, which is now used for the OAF system, has many remnants from the days when it was actually used as an ASS.  These PIT and YAW filter banks and other things were taking up a lot of unnecessary space, so I deleted them in the ass.mdl file.  These files are all backed up, so we can always revert back to an older version when we want some Alignment Stabilization again someday.  I then did a make ass, following the instructions on the 40m Wiki -> Computers and Scripts -> Simulink to Front-End Code page.  Rana moved some things around, most notably all of the things (like the ASS screens) which were only in ...../users/alex/.... are now in ....../caltech/cds/advLigo/..... .  This required a few restarts of the c1ass machine (after a couple different versions of the simulink diagram....one to make sure we knew how to do it, and then again actually deleting the unused portions).

The big lesson of the night was that there are 2 signal paths for the PEM channels.  As is shown in Figure 3 in the mevans document, the PEM channels get the matching filters when they go to the adaptation algorithm, but when they go to the FIR filter, they do not get the matching filters. This is implemented by taking the output of the giant PEM matrix, and having a duplicate of each of the channels "selected for adaptation", one which gets filtered through the PEM_N_ADPT banks, and one which goes straight (in code-land) to the FIR filter.  So, it seems like all the filters which we had been including in the input side of the matrix for matching purposes need to be put in the output side.  One of the AA32 filters needs to stay in the input side, for actual anti imaging of the PEM channels, then we put the AA32 and AI32 which are for matching the ERR_EMPH and CORR filter banks up in the PEM_N_ADAPT banks.  Rana and I made these filters, and they are now turned on appropriately with the OAF down script (so that all the filters are ready and waiting for the OAF to be turned on).

A little success with getting the 3Hz peak reduced, but not a lot beyond that.  Tomorrow I'll put the accelerometers back where they used to be to see if they help out at all.

  11563   Thu Sep 3 00:45:25 2015 IgnacioUpdateIOORemeasured MC2 to MCL TF + Improved subtraction performance

Today, I remeasured the transfer function for MC2 to MCL in order to improve the subtraction performance for MCL and to quantify just how precisely it needs to be.

Here is the fit, and the measured coherence. Data is also attached here: TF.zip

 

OMG, I forgot to post the data and any residuals. LOL!

The transfer function was fitted using vectfit with a weighting based on coherence being greater than 0.95.

I then used the following filters to do FF on MCL online:

Here are the results:

Performance has definelty increased when compared to previous filters. The reason why I think we still have poor performance at 3 Hz, is 1) When I remeasured the transfer function, Eric and I were expecting to see a difference on its shape due to the whitening filters that were loaded a couple days ago. 2) Assuming the transfer function is correct, there is poor coherence at 3 Hz 3) The predicted IIR subtraction is worst at this frequency.

Attachment 1: TF.zip
  8498   Fri Apr 26 20:43:51 2013 JenneUpdateLSCRemeasuring the Schnupp asymmetry

[Jenne, Annalisa, with guidance from Koji]

We took data to remeasure the Schnupp asymmetry, using the Valera method that Jamie described in elog 4821

1  First, we locked the arms each with their PO(X,Y) signals, to get the alignment of each arm. 

2.  Then, we locked the Xarm with AS55I (Yarm optics, and PRM very misaligned, more than the misalign script).  Since AS55 was saturating, I changed the analog gain from 24dB to 21dB. (After work was completed, the analog gain was put back to the nominal 24dB for both I&Q.)

3.  We set up the Lockin similar to Jamie's description, with a few differences.  We used the same f = 103.1313, but used ampl=10cts.  Sin and cos gain were each 100.  We changed the lowpass filter from 0.1Hz to 0.05Hz (so each measurement had a settling time of at least 20sec).  We were using LSC-Lockin4, so the Lockin matrix was set so Lockin4 was reading from AS55Q, and the LSC output matrix was such that we were actuating on the ETM (X, then Y when we switched arms later).

4.  By hand, we roughly found the zero crossing of the lockin-q output (which corresponded also to zero of the lockin-I, since this is the place where all of the PDH signal was in AS55I, and the lockin was reading AS55Q). 

5.  We took points separated by 0.2 degrees, plus and minus 1 degree from the zero-crossing phase we had found (i.e., for the Xarm, we roughly found the zero crossing at -14.39 deg, so took data from -15.39 to -13.39degrees).  For each phase, we took 5 measurements (using ezcaread), at least 20 seconds apart.  After moving the phase, we waited at least ~40 seconds (watching the lockin outputs on striptool, they had completely settled after 30 or 40 seconds).

6.  We then repeated steps 2, 4 and 5 for the Y arm.  The lockin setup didn't change, except that now we actuate on ETMY.

We did a quick estimate calculation, from our rough zero-crossings to get a rough measurement of the Schnupp asymmetry.  DeltaPhi = (-14.39 -   -19.79) = 5.40 . This gives us (using F_sideband = 5*11066134, the current 11MHz marconi freq) a rough Schnupp asymmetry of 4 cm. 

Analysis to follow.

EDIT, JCD:  The Xarm gain at this time was -0.160, and the Yarm gain was -0.170

  8528   Fri May 3 17:32:59 2013 JenneUpdateLSCRemeasuring the Schnupp asymmetry

I have looked at / analyzed the Schnupp data that Annalisa and I took last week, as well as some more Yarm data that I took this week.

I only have one set of Xarm data, but 3 sets of Yarm data.  I had intended to do careful error analysis of the data, but from the 3 sets of Yarm data, the variance in the answer I get using any one of the Yarm sets is much larger than the error in a single measurement.

 Xarm_SchnuppData_April2013.png

Yarm_SchnuppData_April2013.png

Using the central Yarm zero crossing, I get a Schnupp asymmetry of 3.9cm.  The other 2 Yarm data points give Schnupp asymmetries of 3.7cm and 4.1cm, so I'm claiming a value of 3.9 +\- 0.2cm . This is within error of Jamie's measurement of 3.64 ± 0.32 cm (elog 4821).

ELOG V3.1.3-