Hmmmm, yup.  I forgot to pay attention to what the UGFs of our LSC loops are when I was picking a low-noise region.  Since they're (currently, at least) around 100Hz, I want to find a frequency in the few hundred Hz region.  Masayuki has the IFO right now for ALS diagnostics, so I'll pick new frequencies later.   If we decide to omit the bandpass filters, it's even easier to change frequencies on the fly (although we'll always still have to make the servo notch filters match).

After staring and thinking, I remembered that there is a limit to the number of characters that a channel name can have.  So, I removed the "_LOCKIN" part of the names, and recompiled, and everything seems to work.  I modified the screens that I had made, and they show all the appropriate things now.  

The symptoms were that the numbers in the filter banks (for example, INMON) were white with the usual black background.  The numbers are supposed to be green with a black background.  After I recompiled, all the numbers were green.

This also means I need to re-put in the low pass filters. 

Plots:

PRCL Open Loop Transfer Function.  PRMI locked on REFL 165 I&Q, Xarm held on IR resonance using ALS, ETMY misaligned:

MICH Open Loop Transfer Function.  PRMI locked on REFL 165 I&Q, Xarm held on IR resonance using ALS, ETMY misaligned:

 Time series data during our PRMI + 2 arm attempt:

 that's some hot stuff

its time to get the CM servo hardware turned back on. We're going to want to switch it on when we're about ~1/50th of the way up the CARM fringe.

A good way to re-commission it is to lock it to the single arm, using a Pomona box filter to move the arm pole down to the coupled cavity pole frequency.

 I worked today some more on the new Sensing Matrix situation.  I have added stuff to the CAL model, so that the sensing matrix elements come out calibrated to W/m, with phase in degrees.  The idea is that we can see time series of the calibrated lockin outputs, so that we have minimal post-processing to do, since these are things that will be interesting to look at live.

The first step is to go from I and Q to magnitude and phase.  Each "sensor" (ex. REFL55Q) is demodulated with a lockin part, which outputs sub I and Q channels (so, something like REFL55Q_I and REFL55Q_Q).  We are only interested in the _I component of the lockin.  But, REFL55I also has a _I and _Q.  Again, we only take the _I part.  Now, we have REFL55I_I and REFL55Q_I.  We call these the I and Q components of the sensors (this is exactly what we normally call them, but it can get confusing since the lockins also have _I and _Q before we discard the _Q part).  Now, we want to take these I and Q components, and transform them to a magnitude and phase. After we do that, we want to calibrate the magnitude to "Watts per meter" from "counts sensed per counts driven".  I also converted the phase to degrees, since that's the unit we usually use when talking about the sensing matrices. 

To go from the I and Q components to Mag and Phase, I wrote a little block of c-code, which is in /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/userapps/release/isc/c1/src/MagPhaseFromIQ.c . Since we can't use the arctan function, I approximated it using equation 17 from Full Quadrant Approximations for the Arctangent Function [Tips and Tricks] from IEEE.  (I used x -> y/x in equation 17, so that I had a 2D situation).  I also have an "if / else if" cascade to determine what quadrant I'm in.  Since the formula in the paper is from [0,pi/2), I just needed to add pi, subtract the answer from pi, or negate the answer to get to the other quadrants.  Also, note that they are using a "normalized" arctan function, so equation 17 is really from [0,1), and you have to remember to multiply by pi/2 on your own.

To get from drive counts to drive meters, I put in an EPICS variable for the optic's actuation constant (ex, PRM's constant can be found in elog 8255).  Right now, we have to transfer the oscillation frequency from the oscillator part's _FREQ variable to a new EPICS variable, but Zach and Joe just today made a new oscillator part that makes it easier to access the frequency and amplitude of the drive within the front end.  See LLO aLog 9139 for details on this new part.  I had trouble compiling with their new part, but once I get that figured out, I won't need to do this transfer of information.  Anyhow, the drive calibration is (optic actuation constant)/[(drive frequency)^2]. 

Then the total calibration of the magnitude is Mag in cts/m = 2 * mag / [(drive amplitude) * (drive calibration)] .  The factor of 2 comes from the fact that the lockin output is a factor of 2 smaller than the true sensing matrix element.  The lower case "mag" in the formula is the output of the c-code. 

After this, there is yet another EPICS variable, to hold the calibration for the photodiode, to get from counts sensed to Watts of power at the actual port.  By "actual port", I mean the true IFO port, taking into account any optical elements between the port and the photodiode, like beam splitters and dumps, or loss from the imperfect reverse isolation of the input Faraday.

The code all compiles and runs fine, although I haven't done any explicit testing yet.

Still to-do for Sensing Matrix:

* Find all of the numbers for all of the EPICS variables.  In particular, I need to get the ratio of the power hitting each photodiode to the power at that port. 

* Write a script to do a burt-restore with all the correct settings, and turn on the dither lines.

* Put the lowpass filters back in the demodulators, now that they have new (shorter) names.

* Try it, and compare with the optickle model, and previous measurements.

* Copy Anamaria's script to look at the error statistics for my measurements.

Koji reminded me that we should also save the data from the PRMI+Xarm, just in case we want to look at it later.

Here is the time series, in which you can see us finding the Xarm IR resonance, moving the arm off resonance, locking PRMI, and bringing the arm back into resonance.  At the very end, the arm is still held on resonance, but I had disabled the LSC locking, so we see very large flashes at TRX (of order 40, rather than 1).

The data is in the same folder as the 2arm data: /users/jenne/PRCL/PRMI_Xarm_ALS_16Oct2013/

The text files have been differentiated, so that the 2arm data has "_2arms" at the end of the filename, while the Xarm data had "_Xarm" appended to the filename. Since we left the cavities locked for many minutes (during which transfer functions were taken), the data set for the PRMI+Xarm is very long.

I locked PRMI, and (after fixing the POP QPD situation, noted in elog 9249) took power spectra of all the REFL RFPDs.  It looks like the area above 500 Hz is pretty clean and flat for all the signals, so I'm going to use 560Hz, 562Hz, 564Hz, 566Hz and 568Hz for my 5 sensing matrix frequencies.

Also, I'm not sure what is going on with REFL11, but there's a weird dip between 630 Hz and 660 Hz in both I and Q.  I recentered this guy not too long ago (elog 9218), but it clearly needs some more looking-at.

While Manasa, Jenne, and Masayuki are working on the preparing the interferometer, I write the elog for them.

- 6PM-ish: X and Y arms were was locked. They were aligned with ASS.

- PRMI was locked. The PRM was aligned with ASS.

- Jenne went into the lab and aligned the PRM ASC QPD.

- Jenne also aligned all of the oplev spots except for the SRM.

- 6:40PM Then, Manasa and Masayuki checked the out-of-loop stability of the arms.
The X and Y arms have the rms of 2.2kHz and 600Hz, respectively.
The X arm is significantly worse than the Y arm.
Masayuki saved the plot somewhere in his directory.

- 7:20PM X beat: 41.2MHz, Y beat: 14.8MHz

- 7:22PM PRMI locked POP110 115-120 

- 7:30PM Lost lock of everything. Start over. Taking the arm alignment.

- 7:45PM start the 2nd trial. PRMI+one arm ready.

- 8:00PM explosion! Lost lock.

- 8:30PM The Xarm ALS is not stable anymore. It loses the control in ~10sec.
We are investigating the out-of-loop stability of the Yarm ALS.
(i.e. Look at the beat note error signal while locking the Yarm with the IR PDH)

I have modified the Sensing Matrix I,Q to Mag, Phase library part in the new sensing matrix system.

I had forgotten that in the c-code, I convert from radians to degrees, and so was doing the conversion again in the model.  As it turns out, this gives you a nonsense number.  I removed the multiplication by 180/pi in the model, and just use the output of the c-code, which is already in degrees.

I also put in some "choice" blocks just before the divisions in the calibration section of this library part.  If it's about to divide by zero, divide by one instead.

The last modification so far today was adding the _PHASE_DEG and _MAG_WPERM (watts per meter) channels to a DAQ channels block, so that they are saved.

The RCG was very unhappy with me having 2 channels, with no data rate after them (doing this is supposed to imply that both should be saved at the default data rate), however after I put in "2048", it was happy.  The symptom was a little tricky:  The channel names in Dataviewer showed up red, even though the model compiles and runs.  An indicator that you have a problem is a note in the model's "GDS" screen (the details screen that you can click to from the CDS front end overview screen).  The channel name is "C1:FEC-50_MSGDAQ" (where the number 50 is specific to the c1cal model).  After restarting the model, but before restarting the framebuilder's daqd process, this channel said "Error reading DAQ file!", rather than the date and time of the last successful read.   At this point, before restarting the daqd process on the framebuilder, all of the fb statuses are green and good.  However, after restarting the daqd process on the framebuilder, I got status "0x2000".  Anyhow, after trying many different things, I determined that I could have 1 channel, without a specified rate, but if I wanted more than one channel, I needed to specify the rate for both.

[Masayuki, Jenne, Rana]

We have, for the past hour and a few minutes, had PRMI + 2 arms locked.  Yup, that's right, we did it! (We never gave control of the arms to the IR LSC system, so it's kind of cheating, but it was still cool.)

A little after midnight, we felt that the Yarm was behaving well enough that we could give PRMI + 2 arms a try.  So we did.  Probably around 1am-ish, or maybe a little bit before, we had the system locked. 

How did we do it?

* Locked arms in IR to help find green beatnotes.

* Misalign ETMs, lock and align PRMI.

* Misalign PRM.

* Restore ETMs, find arm resonances, then step away (I did +3 counts, which is 29 kHz).

* Restore PRM, lock PRMI.

* Brought Xarm back close to resonance using ALS (-3 counts). It seems like this may not actually have gotten us back to perfect resonance, but that actually made bringing in the other arm easier.

* Brought Yarm back close to resonance using ALS (-3 counts). 

* Turned on Sensing Matrix notches and oscillators (10,000 counts for MICH, actuating on BS and PRM at 562.01 Hz, 200 counts for PRCL actuating on PRM at 564.01 Hz). 

* Stepped arms back and forth to see how things responded.

Notes:

During this process, particularly during the various arm steps, the PRMI lost lock many times.  However, the ALS system never lost lock for either arm, for an hour and a half or so.  Good work, ALS team!!  The PRMI would reaquire lock (sometimes we'd have to undo whatever arm step we just took, to get farther away from resonance) without any intervention.  It seemed that as we came closer to full arm resonance, we were never able to hold PRMI locked.  This is what is instigating some of our investigations for tomorrow.

Also, Rana reported to me that he turned the c1tst model back off, and opened the door(s?) to the ETMY rack to allow more air flow sometime before midnight, which seems to have reduced the rate of the CPU going over 61 microseconds, as well as reduced the number of times the ETMY suspension glitches.  We definitely need to make some changes so that we're not so close to the edge.  This may have been one of the big things that allowed our success tonight.

The transmission PDs at the ends of the arms are saturating around 50 counts (they have gains of 2e-3 so that they are roughly normalized to 1 being the max power in a single arm).  We need to commission the end transmission QPDs. 

All of the signals looked a little ratty, and we heard lots of noise - Rana suggests that we recommission our CARM servo.

ALS beat info:  [Xarm  40.9 MHz,  -11.4 dB], [Yarm  50.5 MHz,  -17.7 dB]

Things to look at tomorrow:

Data!  I should be able to extract sensing matrix information, even though my sensing matrix software isn't totally ready yet.  I know what the oscillators were doing, and I can look at the PD error signals.  We also save the Offsetter numbers, so I can kind of tell what the PRMI+arms situation was. 

Can we tell by looking at the end laser PZT feedback signals whether we're making our arms longer or shorter?  So that we can tell if we're putting on DARM or CARM offsets.

Spectrum and time series of REFL 165 (our PRMI LSC locking PD) to see if we're saturating while we bring the arms into resonance.  Basically, does anything bad happen, particularly since the PD is not a resonant PD, so there are some 1f signals floating around in addition to the 3f signals.  We want to put in a directional coupler after the PD, before the demod board, and send that signal to a spectrum analyzer and a 'scope.  Hopefully we can use the power of the internet to not need to sit in the IFO room saving data as we move the arms around.  Do we need to put bandpass filters on the PD signal before it goes to the demod board?

Optickle model of 1f vs. 3f signals in the different ports, as the CARM offset is reduced.

Violin notches for the arms - should be put into ALS and LSC models.  It looks like the modes are around 631 Hz, but we should check. 

Hardware for end low gain transmission QPDs.

Software (schmidt triggering) for end transmission QPDs.

Modifying / preparing a matrix in the ALS system so that we can give CARM and DARM offsets conveniently.

 Nice work. Congratulation

nice.

 Just in case people were confused, although the PRMI + 2 ALS arms were controlled, we weren't able to bring them in to resonance. They were in some unknown off-resonant state.

We can try to calculate the expected recycling gain (ignoring losses in the PRM) following section F.2.1 of my Manifesto:

T_PRM = 5.6%, R_ARMS ~ 98%, G_PRC ~38.

So the full TRX/TRY powers should be G_PRC/T_PRM = 690.

In our stable configuration, we were sitting at TRX/Y powers of ~5-10. Once in awhile we could get a state where the power was saturating the detectors at ~50 and possibly would have gone up to 100, but it was all oscillation at that point. (we've got to find and notch the ETM violin mode frequencies in the ALS feedback servos.

As we move in towards resonance, we have to now consider all of complications of handing off to various error signals and CARM optical spring compensation and RF saturation that have been discussed in Rob's thesis and Lisa's lock acquisition modeling.

> all of complications of handing off

That involves:

- ALS error signals transfered to the LSC input matrix.

- Handing off from the ALS to the 1/sqrt(TRX)+offset signal

- Handing off to the RF signal

- And, of course, CM servo.

 I have modified the ETM suspension models to include a schmidt triggering block, so that we can choose between using the high gain low power Thorlabs PD and the low gain high power QPD. 

The Thorlabs high gain PD signal is used as the signal to trigger on, so we need to put appropriate thresholds in.

If things are "triggered", that will imply that the Thorlabs PD is seeing a lot of power, so we should be using the QPD SUM channel instead.  There is a "choice" block after the trigger block, to do this switching.

Since the LSC model will only see the output of this choice block, the gain that is currently in C1:LSC-TR[X or Y]_GAIN should be moved to the end SUS model.  We also need to find the correct gain for the QPD sum channels so that they are also normalized to "1" for single arm full power so that we can smoothly go between the 2 diodes.

Rana has promised to make screens, and write scripts for the switching stuff.

As Jenne's Elog we want to see Spectrum and time series of REFL 165 (our PRMI LSC locking PD) to see if the signal is saturated while bring the arms into resonance.
I started to connect the spectrum analyser and the 'scope to REFL165 output.

Directional coupler (Mini=-circuits ZMDC-10-2 ZMDC-20-3) was connected just before the dimod boad input. The main output of coupler is plugged into demod board's input.The other output of the coupler is connected to AG4395A using BNC cable.

The spectrum analyser output can be read using netgpibdata in control room. The IP address is 192.168.113.108 and the GPIB address is 17. For this I dissconected the network hub from another AG4395A, which is at the front of 1X2 lack.

I didn't connected the 300 MHz 'scope right now, but tomorrow it will be connected using power splitter and also be able to get data by internet. For connect 'scope to network, I disconected the network hub from SR785.

We were locking the PRMI, but it is very rumbly today.  I reduced the MICH servo gain from -0.8 to -0.4 , and things seem to be better.  Now my MICH UGF is about 60Hz.

 I measured the spectrum of the REFL165 output using AG4395A. As this entry we put the directional coupler between REFL165 output and demod board input, so I measure the signal from the coupler during the PRMI was locked.

 After measure REFL165, I also measured REFL55 output in order to make sure that the signal is not smaller than noise because of coupler. I terminated the couple output of coupler on the REFL165, and take signal from REFL55 output port directly. Both plots seems same except for around the resonant frequency of each PDs. From this plot we cannot say that the coupler reduce signal to spectrum analyser too much.

 After this measurement I reconnected the REFL165 to analyser and reconnected the REFL55 output to demod board.

[Jenne, Masayuki]

We changed the Directional coupler from ZMDC-20-3 to ZMDC-20-5-S+ because that coupler seemed to introduce some high frequency noise.

 I connected the 'scope between REFL165 output and demod board input. I split the signal from coupler using the splitter (Mini-Circuits ZFSC-2-5). One signal is going to 'scope CH1 and the other is going to spectrum analyzer. I connected the 'scope to 40MARS. The IP adress is 192.168.113.25. I connected that by cabling from 1X2.

The command to get the data from spectrum analyzer right now

From command line, put ./netgpibdata -i 192.168.113.108 -d AG4395A -a 17 -f meas01

(EDIT JCD:  You must first be in the correct folder:  /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/general/netgpibdata/)

(EDIT JCD again: "meas01" in the command line instruction will be the name of the filename.  Also, the output file meas01.dat has a comment in the first line that must be deleted before you can plot the data.  This sucks, and we should write a script to strip that line, then make nice plots.)

Please take notice that although IP address of AG4395A is same as written in the help of netgpibdata, the GPIB address is not same. It's 17.

How to use  'scope from control room.

Open the browser. Put the IP adress of 'scope (192.168.113.25) into adrress bar of the browser. If it's on the network, below screen will open.

You can control 'scope, get the data, and so on from control room.

Please take notice that Google Chrome cannot connect the 'scope. So you have to use the Firefox or other browser.

As we are meditating on things to look at for PRMI + 2 arms, Rana brought up the question of the demod board situation. 

We then found this table on the wiki (LSC demod boards) that indicates that all of the demod boards were originally given lowpass filters, no matter the demodulation frequency.  Back in September, I switched out the low pass filter for a bandpass filter in POP110, and put in the same bandpass when putting together AS110 (elog 9100).  So, the 11MHz diodes are probably okay with lowpasses, and the 110 diodes are okay, but we need to think about all the other ones. 

We should probably do a first guess by putting in a bandpass filter, but then simulate and measure to figure out what our requirements are for attenuation at the non-demodulation frequencies for each board.

The SXBPs from Minicircuits look pretty good, but there are lots of options on their website.

For tonight, Rana has put a coax 100 MHz highpass filter on the input to the REFL165 demod board.

 This of course changes our demod phase.  Rana plotted a 4th order elliptic filter in Matlab, and from the plot determined that we should expect around 60 degrees of difference in our phase. 

To actually set the phase, I locked PRMI on AS55Q and REFL33I (MICH gain = -8.0, PRCL gain = +0.05, with 1's in the matrix elements).  I then turned on the PRCL oscillation notch (564 Hz), and turned on the sensing matrix's drive at that frequency, and looked at the spectrum of REFL165. 

The previous REFL165 demod phase was 96 degrees, so I was looking around either 36 degrees or 156 degrees.  The phase that minimized the peak in the Q signal while driving PRCL was 37.5 degrees.  Good work Matlab/Rana.

I then looked at the transfer functions between REFL33 and AS55 and REFL165, to see if there were any sign flips that happened.  There were not.  As expected, it was just a little extra phase delay.

I was able to lock PRMI with REFL 165 again after this phasing, and I am now taking transfer functions of the MICH and PRCL loops to make sure that we have the gains about right.

 I have set the PRCL UGF to be about 180Hz, and the MICH UGF to be about 70 Hz. 

This is with locking on REFL165 I&Q, with MICH gain of -2.0 and PRCL gain of 0.70 . 

The PRCL loop only has about 30 degrees of phase margin, and is not near the top of its phase bubble.  During the day, I need to look at why we don't have more phase near 200 Hz.

I worked on the script SPAG4395A.py tonight with Masayuki's help. This sets up the parameters on the Agilent 4395A and then acquires the spectrum data. It had a couple of bugs before: no matter what channel you requested, you always got channel R. It also would disobey any requests to reduce the attenuation and left the Auto Atten ON. The version now in the SVN allows you to choose the channel and the attenuation.

It then makes this plot using matplotlib. The attached image is from the REFL165 pickoff at a time tonight when the arm powers were ~5-10. I have converted the spectrum from RF electrical Watts into Volts (V = 50*sqrt(W)). To go from the analyzer input to the demod board input we should scale this spectrum by a factor of ~15 (to account for the 20 dB from the coupler and the 3 dB of the splitter and a little more for losses). On the oscilloscope we see Vpp ~5 mV, so that's ~75 mVpp at the output of the BBPD which we're using for REFL165. Perhaps we can handle another factor of ~2-3 ? I'm not sure what we have in terms of linearity measurements on this thing.

EDIT: Evan is right, its V = sqrt(50*W), not V = 50*sqrt(W). ignore y-axis above

Masayuki was able to hold both arms off-resonance with ALS long enough for me to lock the PRMI (arms still held off resonance), and take a set of transfer functions.

MICH gain is still -2.0, PRCL gain is still 0.070, which, with the ETMs misaligned, gave me UGFs of 70 for MICH and 180 for PRCL.

Now, however, with the ETMs aligned, but arms held off resonance with ALS, the UGFs have been lowered by a factor of 2 in frequency!  What is doing this??  MICH is now 40 Hz, and PRCL is now 80 Hz.

We measured the MICH and PRCL loops for several arm powers, and there was no change, at least until the arms were both resonating with powers of ~4 . 

After misaligning the ETMs, I remeasured the loops, and the UGFs went back up to where they started.

 I simulated how the 3f signal is affected by the resonance condition of the arms.

To keep it simple, I only simulated a double cavity. The attached plot shows the result. In x there is the arm cavity detuning from resonance (in log scale to show what happens close to the 0 value). In the y axis there is the PRC detuning. So every vertical slice of the upper plot gives a PDH signal for a given arm detuning. The bottom plot shows the power build up inside the arm, which is dominated by the carrier.

The 3f signal is not perturbed in any significant way by the arm resonance condition. This is good and what we expected.

However, in this simulation I had to ensure that the 1f sidebands are not perfectly anti-resonant inside the arms. They are indeed quite far away from resonance. If the modulation frequency is chosen in order to make the 1f sidebands exactly ant-resonant, the 2f will be resonant. This screws up the signal: REFL_3f is made of two contributions of equal amplitude, one on the PRC sidebands resonance and the other on the PRC carrier resonance. When the arm tuning goes to zero, these two cancels out and there is no more PDH...

However, this is a limit case, since the frequency show match perfectly. If the modulation frequency is few arm line widths away from perfect anti-resonance, we have no problem.

Yes, the resonance of the 2nd-order sidebands to the IFO screws up the 3f scheme.

2f (~22MHz) and 10f (~110MHz) are at x 5.6 and x 27.9 FSR from the carrier, so that's not the case.

Could we also see how much gain fluctuation of the 3f signals we would experience when the arm comes into the resonance?

 From the simulation there is no visible change in the gain.

5:31pm - This is still a work in progress, but I'm going to submit so that I save my writing so far. I think I'm done writing now.

First, a transcription of some of the notes that I took last Tuesday night, then a few looks at the data, and finally some thoughts on things to investigate.

MICH and PRCL Transfer Functions while arms brought in to resonance (both arms locked to ALS beatnotes):

This is summarized in elog 9317, which I made as we were finishing up Tuesday night.  Here's the full story though.  Note that I didn't save the data for these, I just took notes (and screenshots for the 1st TF).

POP22I was ~140 counts, POP110I was ~100 counts.

MICH gain = -2.0, PRCL gain = 0.070. 

First TF (used as reference for 2-10), PRMI locked on REFL165, Xarm transmission = 0.03, Yarm transmission = 0.05 (both arms off resonance).  MICH UGF~40Hz, PRCL UGF~80Hz.

2: X=off-res (xarm not moved), Y=0.13, no change in TF

3: X=off-res (xarm not moved), Y=0.35, no change in TF

4: X=off-res (xarm not moved), Y=0.60, MICH high freq gain went up a little, otherwise no change (no change in either UGF)

5:  X=off-res (xarm not moved), Y=0.95, same as TF#4.

6: X=0.20, Y=1.10 (yarm not moved), same as TF#4

7:  X=0.40, Y=1.30 (yarm not moved), same as TF#4

8:  X=0.70, Y=1.55 (yarm not moved), same as TF#4

9: X=1.40, Y=2.20 (yarm not moved), same as TF#4

10: X=4.0, Y=4.0 (yarm not moved), PRCL UGF is 10Hz higher than TF#4, MICH UGF is 20Hz lower than TF#4.

11: (No TF taken), Xarm and Yarm transmission both around 20!  To get this, MICH FMs that were triggered, are no longer triggered to turn on.  Also, MICH gain was lowered to -0.15 and PRCL gain was increased to 0.1

12: (No TF taken), Xarm and Yarm transmissions both around 40!  The peaks could be higher, but we don't have the QPD ready yet.

After that, we started moving away from resonance, but we didn't take any more transfer functions.

OpLev spectra for different arm resonance values:

We were concerned that the ETMs and ITMs might be moving more, when the arms are resonating high power, due to some optical spring / radiation pressure effects, so I took spectra of oplevs at various arm transmissions.

I titled the first file "no lock", and unfortunately I don't remember what wasn't locked.  I think, however, that nothing at all was locked.  No PRMI, no arm ALS, no nothing.  Anyhow, here's the spectrum:

I have a measurement when the Yarm's transmission was 1, and the Xarm's transmission was 1.75.  This was a PRMI lock, with ALS holding the arms partially on resonance:

Next up, I have a measurement when Yarm was 0.8, Xarm was 2.  Again, PRMI with the arms held by ALS:

And finally, a measurement when Xarm was 5, Yarm was 4:

Just so we have a "real" reference, I have just now taken a set of oplev spectra, with the ITMs, ETMs and PRM restored, but I shut the PSL shutter, so there was no light flashing around pushing on things.  I noticed, when taking this data, that if the PSL shutter was open, so the PRFPMI is flashing (but LSC is off), the PRM oplev looks much like the original "no Lock" spectra, but when I closed the shutter, the oplev looks like the others.  So, perhaps when we're getting to really high powers, the PRM is getting pushed around a bit?

Conclusions from OpLev Spectra:  At least up to these resonances (which is, admittedly, not that much), I do not see any difference in the oplev spectra at the different buildup power levels.  What I need to do is make sure to take oplev spectra next time we do the PRMI+2arms test when the arms are resonating a lot. 

Time series while bringing arms into resonance:

I had wondered if, since the POP 22 and 110 values looked so shakey, we were increasing the PRCL RIN while we brought the arms into resonance.  You can see in the above time series that that's not true.  The left side of the plot is PRMI locked, arms held out of resonance using ALS.  First the Yarm is brought close to resonance, then the Xarm follows.  The RIN of the arms is maybe increasing a little bit as we get closer to resonance, but not by that much.  But there seems to be no correlation between arm power and RIN of the power recycling cavity.

Alternatively, here is some time series when the arm powers got pretty high:

Possible Saturation of Signals:

One possibility for our locklosses of PRMI is that some signal somewhere is saturating, so here are some plots showing that that's not true for the error and control signals for the PRMI:

Here, for the exact same time, is a set of time series for every optic except the SRM.  We can see that none of the signals are saturating, and I don't see any big differences for the ITMs or ETMs in the times that the PRMI is locked with high arm powers (center of the x-axis on the plot) and times that the PRMI is not locked, so we don't have high arm powers (edges of the plot - first half second, and last full second).  You can definitely see that the PRM moves much more when the PRMI is locked though, in both pitch and yaw. 

DCPD signals at the same time:

NB:  These latest 3 plots were created with the getdata script, with arguments "-s 1067163405 -d 7".  It may be a good idea to take some spectra starting at, say 1067163406, 1 second in, and going for ~2 seconds. (It turns out that this is kind of a pain, and I can't convince DTT to give me a sensible spectrum of very short duration....we'll just need to do this live next time around).

Things to think about and investigate:

Why are we losing lock? 

On paper, is the (will the) optical spring a problem once we get high resonance in the arms? 

Spectra of oplevs when we're resonating high arm power.

What is the coupling between 110MHz and 165MHz on the REFL165 PD?  Do we need a stronger bandpass? 

Why are things so shakey when the arm power builds up?

Why do PRCL and MICH have different UGFs when the arms are controlled by ALS vs. ETMs misaligned?

Does QPD for arm transmissions switching work?  Can we then start using TRX and TRY for control?

What is the meaning of the similar features in both transmission signals, and the power recycling cavity?  Power fluctuation in the PRC due to PRM motion? 

Gabriele and I talked for a while on Wednesday afternoon about ideas for transitioning to IR control, from ALS. 

I think one of the baseline ideas was to use the sqrt(transmission) as an error signal.  Gabriele pointed out to me that to have a linear signal, really what we need is sqrt( [max transmission] - [current transmission] ), and this requires good knowledge of the maximum transmission that we expect.  However, we can't really measure this max transmission, since we aren't yet able to hold the arms that close to resonance.  If we get this number wrong, the error signal close to the resonance won't be very good.

Gabriele suggested maybe using just the raw transmission signal.  When we're near the half-resonance point, the transmission gives us an approximately linear signal, although it becomes totally non-linear as we get close to resonance.  Using this technique, however, requires lowering the finesse of PRCL by putting in a medium-large MICH offset, so that the PRC is lossy.  This lowering of the PRC finesse prevents the coupled-cavity linewidth of the arm to get too tiny.  Apparently this trick was very handy for Virgo when locking the PRFPMI, but it's not so clear that it will work for the DRFPMI, because the signal recycling cavity complicates things.

I need to look at, and meditate over, some Optickle simulations before I say much else about this stuff.

 You have the data. Why don't you just calculate 1/SQRT(TRX)?

...yeah, you can calculate it but of course you don't have no any reference for the true displacement...

I made some small edits to the LSC screen. 

* When I added columns for the new AS110 PD, I had forgotten to make the Trigger matrix and Power Normalization matrix icons on the screen bigger, so we weren't seeing the last 2 columns in the overview screen.

* I added "show if not zero" oscillator icons to the Sensing Matrix part of the LSC overview screen, so that it's easier at a glance to see that there is an oscillator on.

 The idea of introducing a large MICH offset to reduce the PRC finesse might help us to get rid of the transmitted power signal. We might be able to increase enough the line width of the double cavity to make it larger than the ASL length fluctuations. Then we can switch from ASL to the IR demodulated signal without transitioning through the power signal.

I think Steve is trying to align the end transmission QPDs, since the arms are locked nicely right now.  I noticed that the QPDX pitch and yaw signals were digital zeros.  A quick look determined that the QPDX matrix to go from 4 quadrants to 3 degrees of freedom had been filled in for the POS row, but not pitch and yaw.  So, I copied the QPDY matrix over to QPDX (so the ordering of the rows and columns is assumed to be the same). 

Hopefully this will get us close to centered, but I suppose we ought to check really which quadrant is which, by shining a laser pointer at each quad at each end.

 Is this your illegally installed HP bench power supply?

If so, or if not but you care about the signal that passes through these amplifiers, I suggest you remove this temporary power supply and wire the power from the rack power supplies through the fuse blocks and possibly use a voltage regulator.

In 24 hours, that power supply will be disconnected and the wires snipped if they are still there.

 Full list tomorrow: IP-Ang & Pos, ETMY-T, ETMY-Oplev, ETMX-T, IOO-Ang & Pos

 RA: No one in the control room this evening can understand what this ELOG means. Please use more words.

 Steve has promised to add another row of fuses to the LSC rack first thing in the morning.  Then, during Wednesday Chores, we can move the wires from the power supply to the fused power.

STEVE:  NEVER MIND about doing this in the morning.  Let's chat at the lunch meeting about what needs to be done to power things down, then back up again, in a nice order, and we can do it after lunch.  

So, please do not do anything to the LSC rack tomorrow!  Thank you.

[Rana, Jenne]

We looked at the time series for all the oplevs except the BS, from last Tuesday night, during a time when we were building up the power in the arms.  We conclude from a 400 second stretch of data that there is not discernible difference in the amount of motion of any optic, when the cavities are at medium power, and when they're at low power.  Note however, that we don't have such a nice stretch of data for the really high powers, so the maximum arm power in these plots is around 5.  Both the TRX and TRY signals look fairly stationary up to powers of 1 or 2, but once you get to 4 or 5, the power fluctuations are much more significant.  So, since this isn't caused by any optic moving more, perhaps it's just that we're more sensitive to optic motion when we're closer to resonance in the arms.

However, from this plot, it looks like the ETMY is moving much more than any other optic.  On the other hand, ETMY has not ever been calibrated (there's an arbitrary 300 in there for the calibration numbers on the ETMY oplev screen).  So, perhaps it's not actually moving any more than other optics.  We should calibrate the ETM oplevs nicely, so we have some real numbers in there.  ETMX also only is roughly calibrated, relative to the OSEMs.  We should either do the move-the-QPD calibration, or a Kakeru-style pitch and yaw some mirrors and look at transmitted power.

Traces on this xml file have been filtered with DTT, using zpk([0],[0.03],1,"n").

 The north side of the LSC rack is full. I installed more DIN connectors with fuses on the south side of the rack 1Y2

The access to this may be a little bit awkward. You just remove the connector, wire it and put it back in.

We have decided that, rather than replacing the power source for the amplifiers that are on the rack, and leaving the Thorlabs PD as POP22/110, we will remove all of the temporary elements, and put in something more permanent.

So, I have taken the broadband PDs from Zach's Gyro experiment in the ATF.  We will figure out what needs to be done to modify these to notch out unwanted frequencies, and amplify the signal nicely.  We will also create a pair of cables - one for power from the LSC rack, and one for signal back to the LSC rack.  Then we'll swap out the currently installed Thorlabs PD and replace it with a broadband PD.

Between the 40m meeting, and chatting with Gabriele, there was lots of talking yesterday about our 40m Lock Acquisition game plan. 

From those talks, here is my current understanding of the plan, in a Ward-style cartoon:

 (This is a 2 page document - description of steps is on 2nd page)

If you look closely, you will notice that there are several places that I have used "?" rather than numbers, to indicate what RFPD signal we should be using.  To fill these in, I need to look at some more simulations, and think more carefully about what signals exist at what ports, and what SNR we have at each of those ports.

Also, while the overall scale of the arm power plot is correct, the power level at each step is totally arbitrary right now, and should just be taken to mean places (in time) where the CARM offset is reduced a little more.

There are several things at this point that we know we need to look into:

* POP 22/110 PD and filtering electronics should be switched to a broadband PD, rather than the Thorlabs PD + Miniciruits filters. (Hardware)

* Whitening for the transmission QPDs needs to be thought about more carefully. (Calculation, then hardware)

* Chose a good SNR REFL DC signal, which may or may not be from the PD we are currently using (I think it's the DC of REFL11, but I'll have to check). (Calculation)

* For DRMI locking, what is the size of the SRCL error signal at AS55, AS165, and the REFL ports?  Do we need to lock with AS port, and then switch over to a REFL 3f port, to make acquisition easier?  (Simulation)

* Similarly, I want to make the equivalent of Figure 3 of T1000294, with our 40m parameters. (Simulation)

* To set the phase of AS110, simulate the demod phase of AS110 in both DRMI and SRMI cases.  If no (significant) change, maybe we can set the phase in the real system by misaligning the PRM, and watching the SRMI flash.  (Simulation)

* Simulate an arm sweep, up to many orders of the sidebands, to see how close to the carrier resonance any sideband resonances might be.  If something like the 4th order sideband resonates, and then beats with a 1st order sideband, is that signal big enough to disturb our 3f locking of the PRMI / DRMI?  We want to be holding the arms off resonance with ALS closer to the carrier than any "important" sideband resonances (where the definition of "important" is still undetermined).  (Simulation)

* Check if we can hand DARM from the DC transmission signals to the final RF signal while we still have a large CARM offset. Is there a point where the CARM offset is too large, and we must be still using the DC signals? (Simulation)

* At what arm power level can we transition from ALS to IR DC transmission signals for the individual arms? (Simulation)

* Still need to finish calculating what could be causing our big arm power fluctuations (Test mass angular motion?  PRM angular motion? ALS noise?) (Calculation)

Replys, and comments are welcome, particularly to help me understand where I may have (likely did) go wrong in drawing my cartoon. 

Here is a photo of the board inside the broadband photodiode (one of them) that I took from the Gyro experiment:

This PD is Serial Number S1200271.

We need to have a look at the schematic, figure out what's in here now, and then modify this to be useful (appropriate resonances / notches, as well as amplification) for POP 22/110.

 I have done a sweep of CARM, while looking at the fields inside of one arm (I've chosen the Xarm), to see where any resonances might be, that could be causing us trouble in keeping the PRMI locked as we bring the arms into resonance. 

Since Gabriele pointed out to me that we're using the 3x55MHz signal for locking, we should be most concerned about resonances of the higher orders of 55, and not of 11.  So, on this plot, I have up to the 6th order 55 MHz sidebands, which are 332 MHz.  Although the Matlab default color chart has wrapped around, it's clear that the carrier is the carrier, and the +4f2, which is the same blue, is not the giant central peak.  So, it's kind of clear which trace is which, even though the legend colors are degenerate.  Also, the main point that I want to show here is that there is nothing going on near the carrier, with any relevant amplitude.  The nearest things are the plus and minus 55 MHz sidebands themselves, and they're more than 50 nm away from the carrier. 

Recalling from elog 9122, the PRFPMI and DRFPMI linewidths are about 40pm.  50pm away from the resonant point is ~1/10 the power, and 100pm away from the resonant point is ~1/100 the power.  So, 50 nm is a looooong ways away. 

Just for kicks, here is a plot of all the resonances of the 1f and 2f modulation frequencies, up to 30*f1, which is the same 6*f2:

The resonances which are "close" to the carrier are the 9th order 11 MHz sidebands, and they're 280pm from the carrier, so twice as far as we need to be, to get our arm powers to ~1/100 of the maximum, and, they're a factor of ~1e4 smaller than the carrier.

General Remarks on the BBPD

- To form the LC network: Use fixed SMD inductors from Coilcraft. SMD tunable capacitors are found in the shelf right next to Steve's desk.
  If the tuning is too coarse, combine an appropriate fixed ceramic SMC C and the tunable C (in parallel, of course)

- L1/C1a/C1b pads are specifically designed for an additional notch

- Another notch at the diode stage can be formed between the middle PD pin (just left of the marking "C3b") to the large GND pad (between C1a/C1b to C3a).
  You have to scratch off the green resin with a small flat screw driver (or anything similar)

- A notch at the amplifier stage can be formed between the output of MAR-6SM ("+" marking)  and one of the GND pads (left side of the "U1" marking)

- The original design of the PD is broadband. So additional notches on the diode stage provides notches and resonances.
  Check if the resonances do not hit the signal frequencies.

- One would think the PD can have resonant feature to reduce the coupling of the undesired signals.
  In some sense it is possible but it will be different from the usual resonant tank circuit in the following two points.

  * Just adding a parallel L between the cathode and ground does not work. As this DC current should be directed to the DC path,
    L&C combo should be added. In fact this actually give a notch-resonance pair. This C should be big enough so that you can ignore it
    at the target resonant frequency. Supply complimentary small C if necessary to keep low impedance of the Cs at the target frequency.
    (i.e. Check SRF - self-resonant frequency of the big C)

  * Since the input impedance of MAR-6SM is 50Ohm, the top of the resonant curve will be cut at 50Ohm. So the resultant shape looks
    like a bandpass rather than a resonance.

- So in total, simulation of the circuit is very important to shape the transimpedance. And, consider the circuit can not be formed as simulated
  because of many practical imperfections like stray Ls and Cs.

 I have the X end transmission QPD, as well as the whitening board, out on the electronics bench.  Since the Thorlabs high-gain TRX PD also goes through this whitening board, we have no transmission signal for the Xarm at this time. The whitening board was in the left-most slot, of the top crate in the Xend rack.  The only cables that exist for it (like the Yend), are the ribbon from the QPD, the 4-pin lemo from the Thorlabs PD, and the ribbon going to the ADC.

I have taken photos, and want to make sure that I know what is going on on the circuits, before I put them back in. 

The QPD:

The whitening board:

 I think that our problem of seeing significant arm power fluctuations while we bring the arms into resonance during PRMI+arms tests is coming from PRM motion. I've done 3 calculations, so I will describe below why I think the first two are not the culprit, and then why I think the PRM motion is our dominant problem.

===============================================================

ALS length fluctuations

Arm length fluctuations seem not to be a huge problem for us right now, in terms of what is causing our arm power fluctuations.

What I have done is to calculate the derivative of the power in the arm cavity, using the power buildup that optickle gives me. The interferometer configuration I'm using is PRFPMI, and I'm doing a CARM sweep. Then, I look at the power in one arm cavity. The derivative gives me Watts buildup per meter CARM motion, at various CARM offsets. Then, I multiply the derivative by 60 nm, which is my memory of the latest good rms motion of the ALS system here at the 40m. I finally divide by the carrier buildup in the arm at each offset, to give me an approximation of the RIN at any CARM offset.

I don't know exactly what the calibration is for our ALS offset counts, but since we are not seeing maximum arm cavity buildup yet, we aren't very close to zero CARM offset. 

From this plot, I conclude that we have to be quite close to zero offset for arm length fluctuations to explain the large arm power fluctuations we have been seeing.

=======================================================================

AS port contrast defect from ETM motion

For this calculation, I considered how much AS port contrast defect we might expect to see given some ETM motion. From that, I considered what the effect would be on the power recycling buildup. 

Rather than doing the integrals out, I ended up doing a numerical analysis. I created 2 Gaussian beams, subtracted the fields, then calculated the total power left. I did this for several separations of the beams to get a plot of contrast defect vs. separation. My simulated Gaussian beams have a FWHM of 1 unit, so the x-axis of the plot below is in units of spot motion normalized by spot size. 

Unfortunately, my normalization isn't perfect, so 2 perfectly constructively interfering beams have a total power of 0.3, so my y-axis should all be divided by 0.3. 

The actual beam separation that we might expect at the AS port from some ETM motion (of order 1e-6 radians) causing some beam axis shift is of the order 1e-5 meters, while the beam spot size is of the order 1e-3 meters. So, in normalized units, that's about 1e-2. I probably should change the x-axis to log as well, but you can see that the contrast defect for that size beam separation is very small. To make a significant difference in the power recycling cavity gain, the contrast defect, which is the Michelson transmission, should be close to the transmission of the PRM. Since that's not true, I conclude that ETM angular motion leading to PRC losses is not an issue. 

I still haven't calculated the effect of ITM motion, nor have I calculated either test mass' angular effect directly on arm cavity power loss, so those are yet to be done, although I suspect that they aren't our problem either. 

========================================================================

PRM motion

I think that the PRM moving around, thus causing a loss in recycling gain, is our major problem. 

First, how do I conclude that, then some thoughts on why the PRM is moving at all. 

=========

theta = 12e-6 radians (ref: oplev plot from elog 9338 last week)

L = 6.781 meters

g = 0.94

a = theta * L /(1-g) = 0.0014 meters axis displacement

w0 = 3e-3 meters = spot size at ITM

a^2/w0^2 = 0.204 ==>> 20% power loss into higher order modes due to PRM motion.

That means 20% less power circulating, hitting the ITMs, so less power going into the arm cavities, so less power buildup. This isn't 50%, but it is fairly substantial, using angular fluctuation numbers that we saw during our PRMI+arms test last week. If you look at the oplev plot from that test, you will notice that when the arm power is high (as is POP), the PRM moves significantly more than when the carrier buildup in the cavities was low. The rms motion is not 12 urad, but the peak-to-peak motion can occasionally be that large. 

So, why is that? Rana and I had a look, and it is clear that there is a difference in PRM motion when the IFO is aligned and flashing, versus aligned, but PSL shutter is closed. Written the cavities flash, the PRM gets a kick. Our current theory is that some scattered light in the PRC or the BS chamber is getting into the PRM's OSEMs, causing a spike in their error signal, and this causes the damping loops to push on the optic. 

We should think a little more on why the PRM is moving so much more that any other optic while the power is building up, and if there is anything we can do about the situation without venting. If we have to, we should consider putting aluminum foil beam blocks to protect the PRM's OSEMs. 

Interesting results. When you compute the effect of ETM motion, you maybe should also consider that moving around the arm cavity axis changes the matching of the input beam with the cavity, and thus the coupling between PRC and arms. But I believe this effect is of the same order of the one you computed, so maybe there is only one or two factors of two to add. This do not change significantly the conclusion.

Instead, the numbers you're giving for PRM motion are interesting. Since I almost never believe computations before I see that an experiment agrees with them, I suggest that you try to prove experimentally your statement. The simplest way is to use a scatter plot as I suggested the past week: you plot the carrier arm power vs PRM optical lever signals in a scatter plot. If there is no correlation between the two motions, you should see a round fuzzy ball in the plot. Otherwise, you will se some non trivial shape. Here is an example: https://tds.ego-gw.it/itf/osl_virgo/index.php?callRep=18918

[Gabriele, Jenne]

Nic and Evan put the ISS together (elog 9376), and we used an injection into the error point (?) to modulate the laser power before the PMC (The AOM had a bias offset, but there is no loop).  This gives us some RIN, that we can try to correlate with the PRM OSEM sensors. 

We injected several lines, around 100, 200, 500 and 800 Hz.  For 100, 200 and 800 Hz lines, we see a ratio between POPDC and the OSEM sensors of 1e-4, but at 500 Hz, the ratio was more like 1e-3. We're not sure why this ratio difference exists, but it does.  These ratios were true for the 4 face OSEMs.  The side OSEM saw a slightly smaller signal.  

For these measurements, the PRMI was sideband locked, and we were driving the AOM with an amplitude of 10,000 counts (I don't know what the calibration is between counts and actual drive, which is why we're looking at the POPDC to sensor *ratio*).  

To get a more precise number, we may want to consider locking the PRMI on carrier, so we have more power in the cavity, and so more signal in the OSEMs.  

These ratios look, by eye, similar to the ratios we see from the time back on 30 Oct when we were doing the PRMI+2arms test, and the arms were resonating about 50 units.  So, that is nice to see some consistency.

This time series is from 1067163395 + 27 seconds, from 30 Oct 2013 when we did the PRMI+2arms.

Ideas to go forward:

We should think about chopping the OSEM LEDs, and demodulating the PD sensors. 

We should also take a look in the chamber with a camera from the viewport on the north side of the BS chamber, to see if we see any flashes in the chamber that could be going into the OSEMs, to see where we should maybe put aluminum foil shields.

In the process of figuring out what we can do to fix our PRM motion problem, I am looking at the PRM oplev. 

Eventually (as in, tomorrow), I'd like to be able to simulate some optic motion as a result of an impulse, and see what the oplev loops do to that motion.  (For starters, I'll take the impulse response of the OSEM loop as my time series that the oplev loop sees).

One thing that I have done is look at the oplev model that Rana put together, which is now in the noisebudget svn: /ligo/svncommon/NbSVN/aligonoisebudget/trunk/OpLev/C1

This script plots the open loop gain of the modeled oplev:

This should be compared to the pitch and yaw measured transfer functions:

In the YAW plot, there are 2 transfer functions.  The first time around, the UGF was ~2.5Hz, which is too low, so I increased the gain in the C1:SUS-PRM_OLYAW filter bank from -3 to -9. 

The shapes of the measured and modeled transfer functions look reasonably similar, but I haven't done a plot overlay.  I suspect that the reason I don't see the same height peak as in the model is just that I'm not taking a huge number of points.  However, if the other parts of the TF line up, I'll assume that that's okay.

I want to make sure that the modeled transfer function matches the measured ones, so that I know I can trust the model.  Then, I'll figure out how to use the time series data with the simulated loop.  Ideally, I'd like to see that the oplev loop can fully squish the motion from the OSEM kicks.  Once I get something that looks good (by hand-tweaking the filter shape), I'll give it a try in the actual system.  We should, as soon as I get the optimal stuff working, redo this in a more optimal way.  Both now, and after I get an optimal design, I'll look at the actual step and impulse responses of the loop, to make sure there aren't any hidden instabilities.

Other thoughts for the night:

Rana suggests increasing the gain in some of the oplev QPD heads (including PRM), so that we're getting more than a few hundred counts of power on each quadrant.  Since our ADCs go to 32,000 counts, a few hundred is very small, and keeping us close to our noise limits.

Also, just an observation, but when I watch the REFL camera along with POP and AS, it's clear that the PRM is getting kicked, and I don't have the ETMs aligned right now, so this is just PRMI flashes.  There is also a lot of glow in the BS chamber during flashes (as seen on the PRM face video camera).