40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 216 of 344  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Categoryup Subject
  10713   Fri Nov 14 02:43:05 2014 ericqUpdateLSCPRFPMI HOM resonances

I've extended my analysis to the PRFPMI case, with the current working knowledge of radii of curvature and cavity lengths. However, losses were not included.

I do not see any HOM activity within about 20nm of the carrier TM00 resonance. 

Basically, what I did was use the standard formulae for the reflection and transmission coefficients of FB cavities viewed as compound mirrors. However, I modified the normal spatial propagation terms to include the additional Guoy phase accumulated by the HOMs. I created these coefficients for each arm individually, and then used (rX + rY)/2 as a mirror in the PRC, and used that to create the transmission coefficient for the PRFPMI as a whole, as a function of frequency offset from the carrier, spatial mode order and CARM offset. As a check, this produced the correct finesse for the carrier lock to the single arm and PRFPMI. 

Here is a PRFPMI CARM FSR of all of the fields' power transmission coefficients, up to order n+m=5. 

HOMcurves.pdf 

One can observe some split peaks. There are two causes, the biggest effect is the mismatch between ETM radii of curvatures (ETMX:59.48, ETMY:60.26):, followed by asymmetric arm length(X:37.79, Y:37.81). (I judged this by the visual change of the plot when changing different factors). 

In the following plot, I broke down the peaks by mode order:

 HOMpeaks.pdf

Code, plots attached!

 

  10718   Fri Nov 14 17:08:17 2014 JenneUpdateLSCRIN vs. Seismic

T-240 has a different convention than we use.  It assumes that North is aligned with the Y-axis.  Since this is the new guy, and we've been using the Guralps with North = X for many years, Diego and I rotated the T-240, and put a label on it that N/S is Y, and E/W is X.  Obviously Vert is still Z.

  10720   Fri Nov 14 20:31:13 2014 ericqUpdateLSCRIN in transmission a problem?

I took a quick look at single arm RIN. Actuating on MC2 vs. the ETM, or using AS55 instead of POY11 made no noticeable difference in the arm cavity RIN.  Not too surprising, but there it is.

  10725   Tue Nov 18 15:20:58 2014 JenneUpdateLSCSome lockloss plots from PRFPMI

Elog from ~5am last night:

Tonight was just several trials of PRFPMI locking, while trying to pay more attention to the lockloss plots each time.

General notes: 

I tried once to acquire DRMI on 1f while the arms were held off resonance.  I wasn't catching lock, so I went back to PRMI+arms.  I aligned the PMC, which I noted in a separate elog.  

I was able to hold the PRMI on REFL33I&Q, and have ALS CARM and DARM at zero CARM offset.  The arm would "buzz" through the resonance regularly.  I use the word buzz because that's kind of what it sounded like.  This is the noise of the ALS system.

I think we want to add the transmission QPD angular signals to the frames.  Right now, we just keep the sums.  It would have been handy to glance at them, and see if they were wiggling in the same way that some other signal was waggling. 

All the data files are in /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/LSC/LocklossData.  Each folder is one lockloss.  It includes text files for each trace, as well as any plots that I've made, and any notes taken.  The text files are several MB each, so I'm not going to bog the elog down with them.  There are a few folders that end in "_notInteresting".  These ones are, as one might guess, not interesting.  2 were MC locklosses (I'm not actuating on MC2, so I declared these independent from my work) and one was when I knew that my ALS was bad - the beatnotes weren't in good places, and so the ALS noise was high.


 Folder:  1100342268_POP22goesLow

Working notes:  Lost lock because POP22 went too low.  PRCL and MICH triggered off.  After this, changed PRCL and MICH "down" thresholds to 0.5, from 10.
 

Plots:

ErrorSignals_NothingObviouslyOscillating.pngErrorSignals_Zoom_MICHprclWeird.pngPowers_POP22goesLow.png

Conclusion:  Easy fix.  Changed the down thresholds for MICH and PRCL to be lower, although still low enough that they will trigger off for a true lockloss.  Why though do we lose so much sideband power when the arm transmission goes high?  POP22 dipped below 10 when TRX went above 29.  Does this happen on both sides of the CARM offset?  Quick simulation needed.

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

Folder:  1100330534_maybePRCLangular

Working notes:  PRFPMI, reducing CARM offset to arm powers of 7.  CARM on sqrtInv, DARM on DCtrans. PRMI on REFL33 I&Q. Don't know why I lost lock.  Maybe angular stuff in PRC? I think POP spot was moving in yaw as it started to go bad.
Note, later:  regathered data to also get POP angular stuff. Don't think it's POP angular.  Not sure what it is.

Plots:

ErrSigs_NothingJumpingAtMe.pngNotPOPangular.png

Conclusion:  I'm not sure what this lockloss was caused by, although it is not something that I can see in the POP QPD (which was my initial suspicion).  It is, like many of the rest of the cases, one where I see significant bounce and roll mode oscillations (error and control signals oscillating at 16 and 24 Hz).  I don't think those are causing the locklosses though.

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

Folder:  1100334680_unknown_highArmPowers

Working notes:  PRFPMI, carm_up script finished, sitting at arm powers of 8.  CARM, DARM on DC trans.  PRMI on REFL33.   Don't know why lost lock.

Plots:

[Don't have any? - I'll make some]

Conclusion:  Again, I see 16 and 24 Hz oscillations, but I don't think those are causing the lockloss.

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

Folder: 1100331950_unknown

Working notes: PRFPMI, arms about 8.  CARM, DARM on DC trans.  PRMI on REFL33.  Don't know why I lost lock.

Plots:

More16and24Hz.png

Conclusion: Don't have an answer.

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

Folder: 1100345981_unknown

Working notes: Lockloss while going to arm powers of 7ish from 6ish.  Not POP angular, POP22 didn't go low.

Plots:

ErrSigs_16and24Hz.pngNotPOPsFault.png

Conclusions:  This one wasn't from POP22 going too low, but again, I don't see anything other than 16 and 24Hz stuff.

 

  10726   Tue Nov 18 17:11:30 2014 JenneUpdateLSCSome lockloss plots from PRFPMI

I am still staring at / trying to figure out the latter 4 locklosses posted earlier.  But, I have just included the transmission QPD angular output signals to the frames, so we should be able to look at that with locklosses tonight. 

To get the lockloss plots:  in ..../scripts/LSC/LocklossData/ , first run ./FindLockloss.sh <gps time> .  This just pulls the TRX and TRY data, and doesn't save it, so it is pretty quick.  Adjust the gps time until you capture the lockloss in your plot window.  Then run ./LockLossAutoPlot.sh <gps time> to download and save the data.  Since it has become so many channels, it first makes a plot with all of the error and control signals, and then it makes a plot with the power levels and angular signals.  The data folder is just called <gps time>.  I have started also including a text file called notes inside of the folder, with things that I notice in the moment, when I lose lock.  Don't use .txt for the suffix of the notes file, since the ./PlotLockloss.py <folder name> script that will plot data after the fact tries to plot all .txt files.  I have also been appending the folder name with keywords, particularly _notInteresting or _unknown for either obvious lockloss causes or mysterious lockloss cases.

 

  10727   Tue Nov 18 22:34:28 2014 JenneUpdateLSCSome other plots from PRFPMI

Quote:

I was able to hold the PRMI on REFL33I&Q, and have ALS CARM and DARM at zero CARM offset.  The arm would "buzz" through the resonance regularly.  I use the word buzz because that's kind of what it sounded like.  This is the noise of the ALS system.

Here is a plot of when the arm powers went pretty high from last night.  CARM and DARM were on ALS comm and diff, PRMI was on REFL33 I&Q.  I set the CARM offset so that I was getting some full arm resonances, and it goes back and forth over the resonance.

The Y axes aren't perfect when I zoom, but the maximum TRX value was 98 in this plot, while the max TRY value was 107. 

MICH_OUT was hitting its digital rails sometimes, and also it looks like PRCL and MICH occasionally lost lock for very brief periods of time. 

Glitch-like events in PRCL_OUT are at the edges of these mini-locklosses. I don't know why POPDC has glitch-y things, but we should see if that's real.

TRXmax98_TRYmax107_CARMdarmOnALS_0carmOffset.png

Okay, I've zoomed in a bit, and have found that, interestingly, I see that both POP22 and POP110 decrease, then increase, then decrease again as we pass through full resonance.  This happens in enough places that I'm pretty sure we're not just going back and forth on one side of the resonance, but that we're actually passing through it.  Q pointed out that maybe our demod phase angle is rotating, so I've made some zoom-in plots to see that that's not a significant effect.  I plot the I and Q phases individually, as well as the total=sqrt(I**2 + Q**2), along with TRY (since the increases and decreases are common to both arms, as seen in the plot above).

For POP 22:

Zoom_with_POP22.png

For POP 110:

Zoom_with_POP110.png

I also plot the MICH and PRCL error signals along with TRY and POP22 total.  You can see that both MICH and PRCL were triggered off about 0.1msec after POP22 total this it's first super low point.  Then, as soon as POP22 becomes large enough, they're triggered back on, which happens about 1.5msec later. (The triggering was actually on POP22I, not POP22tot, but the shapes are the same, and I didn't want to overcrowd my plots).

Zoom_with_ErrSigs.png

I am not sure if we consistently lose sideband signal in the PRC more on one side of the CARM resonance than the other, but at least POP22 and POP110 are both lower on the farther side of this particular peak.  I want to think about this more in relation to the simulations that we've done.  One of the more recent things that I see from Q is from September:  elog 10502, although this is looking specifically at the REFL signals at 3f, not the 2f circulating PRCL power as a function of CARM offset.

  10729   Fri Nov 21 02:22:25 2014 ericqUpdateLSCMore ALS PRFPMI exploration

 Similar to what Jenne did the other night, I kept the PRFPMI arm DoFs locked on ALS, in hopes to check out the RF error signals. 

I was able to stably sit at nominally zero offset in both CARM and DARM, tens of minutes at a time, and the PRMI could reacquire without a fuss. Arm powers would rest between 10 and 20, intermittently exhibiting the "buzzing" behavior that Jenne mentioned when passing through resonance. 100pm CARM offset means arm powers of around 10, so since our ALS RMS is on this order, this seems ok. I saw TRX get as high as 212 counts, which is just about the same that I've simulated as the maximum power in our IFO. 

To get this stable, I turned off all boosts on MICH and PRCL except PRCL FM6, and added matrix elements of 0.25 for TRX and TRY in the trigger line for the PRMI DoFs. The logic for this is that if the arm powers are higher than 1, power recycling is happening, so we want to keep things above the trigger down value of 0.5, even if POP22 momentarily drops. 

I also played around a bit with DARM offsets. We know from experience that the ALS IR resonance finding is not super precise, and thus zero in the CARM FM is not zero CARM offset when on ALS. The same obviously holds for DARM, so I moved the DARM offset around, and could see the relative strengths of flashes change between the arms as expected.

I've written down some GPS times that I'm going to go back and look at, to try to back out some information about our error signals. 

Lastly, there may be something undesirable happening with the TRX QPD; during some buzzing, the signal would fluctuate into negative values and did not resemble the TRY signal as it nominally would. Perhaps the whitening filters are acting up...

  10734   Tue Nov 25 02:04:19 2014 JenneUpdateLSCPRFPMI tonight - need some PRCL and MICH tuning at high arm powers

Take-away for the night:  We need to do some more fine-tuning of the PRCL and MICH loops when we have arm resonance.

Koji sat with me for the first part of the night, and we looked back at the data from last week (elog 10727), as well as some fresh data from tonight.  Looking at the spectra, we noticed that last week, and early in the evening today, I had a fairly broad peak centered around ~51Hz.  We are not at all sure where this is coming from.  The PRMI was locked on REFL 33 I&Q, and CARM and DARM were both on ALS comm and diff.  This peak would repeat-ably come and go when I changed the CARM offset.  At high arm powers (above a few tens? I don't know where exactly), the peak would show up.  Move off resonance, and the peak goes away.  However, later in the night, after an IFO realignment, I wasn't able to reproduce this effect.  So.  We aren't sure where it comes from, but it is visible only in the CARM spectra, so there's some definite feedback funny business going on. 

Anyhow, after that, since I couldn't reproduce it, I went on to trying to hold the PRMI at high arm powers, but wasn't so successful.  I would reduce the CARM offset, and instead of a 50Hz peak, I would get broadband noise in the PRMI error signals, that would eventually also couple in to the CARM (but not DARM) error signal, and I would lose PRMI lock. I measured the PRCL and MICH transfer functions while the arms were at some few units of power, and found that while MICH was fine, PRCL was losing too much phase at 100Hz, so I took away the FM3 boost.  This helped, but not enough. I had 1's in the triggering matrix for TRX and TRY to both PRCL and MICH, so that even if POP22 went low, if the arms were still locked then the PRMI wouldn't lose lock unnecessarily, but I was still having trouble.  In an effort to get around this, I transitioned PRMI over to REFL 165 I&Q. 

While the arms were held around powers of 2ish, I readjusted the REFL 165 demod phase.  I found it set to 150 deg, but 75 deg is better for PRMI locking with the arms.  For either acquiring or transitioning from REFL33, I would use REFL165I * -1.5 for PRCL, and REFL 165Q * 0.75 for MICH.  (Actually, I was using -2 for REFL165I->PRCL, and +0.9 for REFL165Q->MICH, but I had to lower the servo gains, so doing some a posteriori math gives me -1.5 and +0.75 for what my matrix elements should have been, if I wanted to leave my servo gains at 2.4 for MICH and -0.02 for PRCL.) I don't always acquire on REFL165, and if it's taking a while I'll go back to putting 1's in the REFL33 I&Q matrix elements and then make the transition. 

With PRMI on REFL 165 I&Q, I no longer had any trouble keeping the PRMI locked at arbitrarily high arm powers.  I was still using 1*POP22I + 1*TRX + 1*TRY for triggering PRCL and MICH.  My thresholds were 50 up, 0.1 down.  The idea is that even if POP goes low (which we've seen about halfway up the CARM resonance), if we're getting some power recycling and the arms are above 1ish, then that means that the PRMI is still locked and we shouldn't un-trigger anything.  I didn't try switching over to POP110 for triggering, because POP22 was working fine.

Earlier in the night, Koji and I had seen brief linear regions in POX and POY, as well as some of the REFL signals when we passed quickly through the CARM resonance.  I don't have plots of these, but they should be easy to reproduce tomorrow night.  Koji tried a few times to blend in some POY to the CARM error signal, but we were not ever successful with that.  But, since we can see the PDH-y looking regions, there may be some hope, especially if Q tells us about his super secret new CESAR plan. 

Okay, I'm clearly too tired to be writing, but here are some plots.  The message from these is that the PRMI loops are causing us to fluctuate wildly in arm transmission power.  We should fix this, since it won't go away by getting off of ALS.  The plots are from a time when I had the PRMI locked on REFL165, and CARM and DARM were still on ALS comm and diff.  All 3 of these colored plots have the same x-axis.   They should really be one giant stacked plot.

HighPower_7pt3sec_Powers.png

HighPower_7pt3sec_ErrAndCtrls.png

HighPower_7pt3sec_AuxErrs.png

Also, bonus plot of a time when the arm powers went almost to 200:

CARMDARMonALScommdiff_StayingAbove5_upTo175_24Nov2014.png

  10736   Wed Nov 26 05:15:48 2014 JenneUpdateLSCPRFPMI tonight PRMI 100Hz osc?

[Jenne, EricQ]

Just to get our day started right, we tweaked up the alignment of the Ygreen to the Yarm (after IR alignment), and also touched up the X beatnote alignment on the PSL table.  Ran the LSC offsets script, and then started locking. 

All of the locking tonight has been based on CARM and DARM held on ALS comm/diff, and PRMI held on REFL165.  Today, CARM was actuated using MC2.  No special reason for the switch from ETMs. The AS port is noticeably darker when using REFL165 instead of REFL33. 

Around 12:33am(ish), we were able to hold the arms at powers of about 100, for almost a minute.  The fluctuations were at least 50% of that value, but the average was pretty high.  Exciting.

Q and I tried a few times to engage the AO path while the arms were held at these high powers.  Q hopefully remembers what the gain and sign values were where we lost lock.  We didn't pursue this very far, since I was seeing the 50Hz oscillation that Koji and I saw the other day.  I increased the CARM gain from 6 to 10, and that seemed to help significantly.  Also, messing with the PRMI loops a bit helped.  Q increased the pole frequency in FM 5 for both MICH and PRCL from 2k to 3k.  While he had Foton open, he made sure that all of the LSC DoF filters use the z:p notation. 

I then did a few trials of trying to transition CARM over to normalized REFL11I.  Now that I'm typing, it occurs to me that I should have checked REFL11's demod phase.  Ooops.  Anyhow, using the phase that was in there, I turned on a cal line pushing on ETMs CARM, and found that using -0.002*REFL11I / (TRX + TRY) was the right set of elements.  I also put an offset of 0.05 into the CARM CESAR RF place, and started moving.  I tried several times, but never got past about 30% normalized REFL11 and 70% ALS comm. 

During these trials, Q and I worked also on tweaking up the PRMI lock.  As mentioned last night, PRCL FM3 eats too much phase (~30deg at 100Hz!), so I don't turn that on ever.  But, I do turn on FM1 (which is new tonight), FM2, 6, 8 and 9.  FM8 is a flat gain of 0.6 that I use so I can have higher gain to make acquisition faster, but immediately turn the gain down to keep the loop in the center of the phase bubble.  MICH needed a lowpass, so in addition to FM2, I am now also triggering FM 8, which is a 400Hz lowpass that was already in there. 

Now, my MICH gain is 2.4, with +0.75*REFL165Q, and PRCL gain is -0.02 with -3*REFL165I.  Triggering for both MICH and PRCL is 1*POP22I + 5*TRX with 50 up, 0.1 down. 

In my latest set of locks, I have been losing lock semi-regularly due to a 100Hz oscillation in either the PRCL or MICH loops.  If I watch the spectra, most times I take a step in CARM offset reduction, I get a broad peak in both the MICH and PRCL error signals.  Most of the time, I stay locked, and the oscillation dies away.  Sometimes though it is large enough to put me out of lock.  I'm not sure yet where this is coming from, but I think it's the next thing that needs fixing.

Here is a shot of the spectra just as one of these 100Hz oscillations shows up.  The dashed traces are the nominal error signals when I'm sitting at some CARM offset, and the solid traces are just after a step has been made. The glitch is only happening in the PRMI, not CARM and DARM. 

PRFPMI_currentErrSigs_25Nov2014.pdf

  10737   Wed Nov 26 22:24:28 2014 JenneUpdateLSCDARM loop improved, other work

[Jenne, Koji]

We have done several things this evening, which have incrementally helped the lock stability.  We are still locking CARM and DARM on ALS, and PRMI on REFL165.

  • Saw peaks in CARM error signal at 24Hz and 29 Hz, so put in moderate-Q resonant gains. 
  • DARM at low frequency was much noisier than CARM.  We discovered that we had put in a nice boost at some point for CARM in FM1, but hadn't transferred that over to DARM.  Copying FM1 from CARM to DARM (so replacing an integrator with a boost below ~10Hz) dropped the DARM noise down to match the CARM noise at low frequencies.
  • Koji noticed that we were really only illuminating one quadrant of the Xend QPD, so we aligned both trans QPDs.  Also, I reset the transmission normalization so that all 4 diodes (Thorlabs and QPDs at each end) all read 1 with good alignment.
  • We've got some concerns about the ASS.  It needs some attention and tuning.
    • The X ASS needs an overall gain of about 0.3.  This may be because I forgot to put the new lower gains into the burt restore after Rana's oplev work, or this may be something new.
    • When Koji did a very careful arm alignment, we turned on the Y ASS and saw it methodically reduce the transmitted power.  Mostly it was moving ETMY in yaw.  Why is the DC response of the ASS not good?  The oplev work shouldn't have affected DC.
    • We don't like the way the ASS offloads the alignment.  Maybe there's a better way to do it overall, but one thought is to have an option to offload (for long-term alignment fixing, so maybe once a day) and another option to just freeze the current output (for the continual tweak-ups that we do throughout the evening).  We'd want the ASS to start up again with these frozen values, and not clear them.
  • ETMY was being fussy, in the same way that ETMX had been for the last few months.  I went down to squish the cables, and found that it was totally not strain-relieved, and that the cable was pulling on the connector.  I have zip tied the cable to the rack so that it's not pulling anymore.
  • At high arm powers, it is hard to see what is going on at the AS port because there is so much light.  Koji has added an ND filter to the AS camera so that we can more easily tweak alignment to improve the contrast.

Something that has been bothering me the last few days is that early in the evening, I would be able to get to very high arm powers, but later on I couldn't.  I think this has to do with setting the contrast at the AS port separately for the sideband versus the carrier.  I had been minimizing the AS port power with the arms held off resonance, PRMI locked.  But, this is mostly sideband.  If instead I optimize the Michelson fringes when the arms are held with ALS at arm powers of 1, and PRM is still misaligned, I end up with much higher arm powers later.  Some notes about this though:  most of this alignment was done with the arm cavity mirrors, specifically the ETMs, to get the nice Michelson fringes.  When the PRM is restored and the PRMI locked, the AS port contrast doesn't look very good.  However, when I leave the alignment alone at this point, I get up to arm powers above 100, whereas if I touch the BS, I have trouble getting above 50.


Around GPS time 1101094920, I moved the DARM offset after optimizing the CARM offset.  We were able to see a pretty nice zero crossing in AS55, although that wasn't at the same place as the ALS diff zero offset (close though).  At this time, the arm powers got above 250, and TRY claimed almost 200.  These are the plots below, first as a wide-view, then zoomed in.  During this time, PRCL still has a broadband increase in noise when the arm powers are high, and CARM is seeing a resonance at a few tens of Hz.  But, we can nicely see the zerocrossing in AS55, so I think there's hope of being able to transition DARM over. 

DARMcrossing_Power.png

DARMcrossing_ErrCtrl.png

DARMcrossing_AuxErr.png

DARMcrossing_Angles.png

Now, the same data, but zoomed in more.

DARMcrossing_Power_Zoom.png

DARMcrossing_ErrCtrl_Zoom.png

DARMcrossing_AuxErr_Zoom.png

DARMcrossing_Angles_Zoom.png


During the 40m meeting, we had a few ideas of directions to pursue for locking:

  • Look into using POX or POY as a proxy for POP and instead of REFL, for CARM control.  Maybe we have some nice juicy SNR.
  • Check the linearity of our REFL signals by holding the arms on (or close to) resonance, then do a swept sine exciting CARM ctrl and taking a transfer function to the RF signals.
  • Q is going to look into the TRX QPD, since he thought it looked funny last week, although this may no longer be necessary after we put the beam at the center of the QPD.
  • Koji had a thought for making it easier to blend the CARM error signals.  What if we put a pole into the ALS CARM signals at the place where the final coupled cavity pole will be, and then compensate for this in the CARM loop.  Since any IR signals will naturally have this pole, we want the CARM loop to be stable when it's present.
  • Diego tells us that the Xarm IR beatnote is basically ready to go.  We need to see how big the peak is so we can put it into the frequency counter and read it out via EPICS.  The freq counter wants at least -15dBm, so we may need an amplifier.
  10743   Mon Dec 1 17:43:22 2014 JenneUpdateLSCReset Yarm trans normalization

After Koji and I reset the transmission normalizations last Friday, he did some alignment work that increased the Yarm power.  So, I had set the transmission normalization when we weren't really at full Yarm power.  Today I reset the normalization so that instead of ~1.2, the Y transmission PDs read ~1.0.

  10746   Tue Dec 2 02:44:45 2014 JenneUpdateLSCTried cav pole compensation trick - fail

[Jenne, Diego]

First, random notes:

  • saw a violin peak in CARM / DARM at 638.0Hz.  Assumed it was one of the ETMs, even though it doesn't match any of the frequencies in our handy-dandy chart: wiki resonances
    • Put an extra notch in the ETM violin filters.
    • Just now realized that I was actuating MC2 at the time for CARM (although 638 is also not what we have in the chart for MC2).  The MC2/ETM violin filters should be shared between eachother.
  • Measured CARM and DARM loops on ALS comm and diff, gains should be 8, not 6.  Fixed in Lock_ALS_CARM_and_DARM script. 
  • MC has been fussy tonight.  I started actuating CARM on ETMs, and that helped, but we've still had several unexplained MC locklosses. 
    • PC and FSS Slow are okay right now, but they have been mad earlier tonight.  Do we need to check the PID tuning for FSS slow?
  • When I first started locking this evening, I was able to hold nice high arm powers (with the usual factor of 2+ RIN), so the IFO seemed okay except for the fussy MC.

Koji suggested last week that we put a cavity pole filter into the ALS error signals, and then compensate for that in the CARM and DARM servos.  The idea is that any RF signals we want to transfer to will have some kind of frequency dependence, and at the final zero CARM offset that will be a simple cavity pole. 

I put a pole at 200 Hz, with a zero at 6 kHz into the LSC-ALS[X,Y] filter banks in FM1, and then also put a zero at 200 Hz with a pole at 6 kHz into both the CARM and DARM servos at FM7.  Ideally I wouldn't have the 6kHz in there, but the compensation filter in the CARM/DARM servos needs a pole somewhere, so I put in the zero in the ALS signals so that they match.  Foton thinks that multiplying the two filters should give a flat response, to within 1e-6dB and 1e-6 deg. 

We can lock CARM and DARM on ALS with the new filters, but it seems to be not very stable.  We've measured transfer functions in both configurations, and between 50-500Hz, there is no difference (i.e., our matching filters are matching, and cancelling each other out).  We sometimes spontaneously lose lock when we're just sitting somewhere with the new configuration, and we cannot run any find IR resonance scripts and stay locked.  We've tried the regular old script, as well as Diego's new gentler script.  We always fail with the regular script during the coarse scan.  With Diego's script, we made it through the coarse scan, but spontaneously lost lock while the script was calculating the location of the peak.  So, we determine that there is something unstable about the new configuration that we don't understand.  Turning off all the new filters and going back to the old configuration is just as robust as always.  Confusing. 

 

  10747   Wed Dec 3 01:18:15 2014 diegoUpdateLSCIR Resonance Script Status

Tonight I started testing a new method for the fine scan:

  • the idea is to use the zero crossings of the PO*11_ERR_DQ signals after (or as an alternative of) the fine scan, but such signals are quite dirty, so I need to find some good way to smooth/filter them;
  • I didn't manage to make many tests, because:
    • once arms were locked fine with ALS, the CARM & DARM lock wasn't very robust, in both acquiring and maintaining lock;
    • during the night, the slow OFSs of the arms misbehaved, and at least once per arm they raised their warning box (independently from each other, and it was hastily recovered), even for values that had been perfectly fine before; I am confused about this;
    • as a result, notwithstanding many tries, the beatnotes are gone;
  • I have enough information to push the script a little further, but I'll do more testing soon;

 

  10748   Wed Dec 3 01:46:12 2014 KojiUpdateLSCTried cav pole compensation trick - fail

Where did these 200Hz, 6kHz come from?


I wonder what are the correct filters to be incorporated in the filter banks for the cav pole compensarion.

Facts:

1. ALS Common and Diff have the cavity pole for the green (fcav_GR)

2. IR DARM has the cavity pole of the arms for IR (fcav_IR_DARM)

3. IR CARM (REFL, POP, POX, or POY) has the double cavity pole (fcav_IR_CARM)

Calculations:

1. T(ITM_GR) = 1.094%, T(ETM_GR) = 4.579% => F=108.6 (cf. https://wiki-40m.ligo.caltech.edu/Core_Optics)
L = 37.8 m (cf. http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/9804)
=> fcav_GR = c /( 4 L F) = 18.3 kHz ... ignore

2. T(ITM_IR) = 1.384%, T(ETM_IR) = 13.7ppm => F=450.4
=> fcav_IR_DARM = 4.40 kHz

3. The common cavity pole is lower than fcav_IR by factor of power recycling gain.
=> fcav_IR_CARM = fcav_IR / (P_TR * T_PRM)
P_TR is normalized for the locked arm cavity with the PRM misaligned.
T_PRM is 5.637%

e.g. for the TR of 100, fcav_IR_CARM = 4.40/(100*0.05637) = 780Hz

                         (IR CARM) o--|
                                      +--[CARM 780Hz zero / ??? pole]
(ALSX) o--|   |-[ALS C 780Hz pole]----|
          | M |
(ALSY) o--|   |-[ALS D 4.40kHz pole]--|
                                      +--[DARM 4.40kHz zero / ??? pole]
                         (IR DARM) o--|

???Hz pole is to ensure the servo filters does not have infinite gain at f=infinite, but in practice we probably can ignore it as long as it is provided by a roll-off filter

  10749   Wed Dec 3 02:01:57 2014 KojiUpdateLSCIR Resonance Script Status

The other night (before the holidays), I tried ALS offset tuning  with IR POX/POY signals and it worked pretty good.
I didn't need to tune the offset after the scanning script stopped.

Once we are at the foot hill of the main resonance, I ran something like

ezcaservo -r C1:LSC-POX11_I_MON C1:LSC-ALSX_OFFSET -g -0.003 &
ezcaservo -r C1:LSC-POY11_I_MON C1:LSC-ALSY_OFFSET -g -0.003 &

(... I am writing this with my memory. I could be wrong but conceptually the commands looked like these)

  10750   Wed Dec 3 08:36:49 2014 SteveUpdateLSCgood IFO status
  10754   Thu Dec 4 02:59:05 2014 ericqUpdateLSCBump in Darm Plant

[J,Q]

After some housekeeping (ASS is wonky, alignment of X green beat was bad, tuning of demod angles, fm gains for REFL165), we were able to bring the PRFPMI up to arm powers of 8 very stably. 

We were keeping an eye on the DARM OLG, to make sure the gain was correct. We then saw a bump around 120Hz. Here is the bump. 

Dec4_darmbump.pdf

Changing CARM offset changes its amplitude. Maybe it's a DARM optical spring. It didn't occur to me until after we lost lock that we could have tweaked the DARM offset to move it around if this was the case. 

Unfortunately, due to some unexplained locklosses, we weren't able to get back into a state to measure this more... which is annoying. During that stable lock, Jenne stated that PRCL and DARM noises were looking particularly good. 

We may want to tweak the way we handle the transmission PD handoff; maybe we want to force the switch at a certain place in the carm_up script, so that we're not flipping back and forth during an IR handoff; I think this may have been responsible for a lock loss or two. 

  10755   Thu Dec 4 03:09:06 2014 JenneUpdateLSCBump in Darm Plant: Lockloss after measurement

We were sitting around arm powers of 6, and that loop measurement had finished.  I was about to go down to arm powers of 5ish, but we lost lock.  I'm not sure why.  There's some slow stuff going on in some of the servos, but nothing jumps out at me as a loop oscillation.  It does however kind of look like the PRMI lost lock just before the arm powers went down?  Perhaps this somehow triggered a lockloss?

The time is 1101721675.

Wide view plots:

Arms6_3Dec2014_powers.png

Arms6_3Dec2014_errctrl.png

Arms6_3Dec2014_auxerr.png

Arms6_3Dec2014_angles.png

Zooms:

Arms6_3Dec2014_powers_Zoom.png

Arms6_3Dec2014_errctrl_Zoom.png

Arms6_3Dec2014_auxerr_Zoom.png

Arms6_3Dec2014_angles_Zoom.png


We're stopping for tonight because ETMX is back to its lame-o jumping around.  I went in and squished the cables, but it's still happening.

Also, the FSS PC drive has been high the last few minutes (only starting after we quit for the night).  When the MC re-locks, it sounds like an ocean wave dying out as the noise goes down a little bit.  But, after a few minutes, it'll get mad again and unlock the MC.

Also, also, I noticed this on Monday with Diego, but the LSC-ALS[x,y] filter module gains sometimes mysteriously get set to zero.  WTF?  Eric and I have both independently checked, and we cannot find a single script in the scripts directory with the string "LSC-ALS", so we aren't deliberately changing those.  Does anyone know what might be going on here?

  10785   Thu Dec 11 18:12:46 2014 ericqUpdateLSC(Fixed) Y end whitening board

Quote:

Gain mystery

- It was not sure how the whitening gains have been given.

- The corresponding database entry was found in /cvs/cds/caltech/target/c1auxey/ETMYaux.db as

grecord(ao,"C1:ASC-QPDY_S1WhiteGain")
grecord(ao,"C1:ASC-QPDY_S2WhiteGain")
grecord(ao,"C1:ASC-QPDY_S3WhiteGain")
grecord(ao,"C1:ASC-QPDY_S4WhiteGain")

- The gains for S2-S4 were set to be 30. However, C1:ASC-QPDY_S1WhiteGain was set to be 8.62068.
And it was not writable.

- After some investigation, it was found that the database was wrong. The DAC channel was changed from S100 to S0.
The corrected entry is shown here.

grecord(ao,"C1:ASC-QPDY_S1WhiteGain")
{
        field(DESC,"Whitening gain for QPDY Seg 1")
        field(DTYP,"VMIVME-4116")
        field(OUT,"#C0 S0 @")
        field(PREC,"1")
        field(EGUF,"42")
        field(EGUL,"-22")
        field(EGU,"dB")
        field(LINR,"LINEAR")
        field(DRVH,"30")
        field(DRVL,"-10")
        field(HOPR,"30")
        field(LOPR,"-10")
}

- Once c1auxey was rebooted, the S1 whitening gain became writable. Now all of the channels were set to be +30dB (max). 

This exact situation was happening at ETMX. I did the exact same change to the database, now I can read and write all four gain segments.

  10786   Thu Dec 11 22:44:23 2014 ranaUpdateLSCQPD screens

All of the QPDX matrix fields had a missing underscore in them. So I committed all of the c1asc screens to the SVN (because no one but me and Jamie seems to be able to remember to do this).

Then I did find/replace on the QPDY screen and saved it over the QPDX screen and committed the new thing to SVN as well. Values are now accessible.

  10796   Sat Dec 13 14:26:36 2014 ericqUpdateLSCMismatched gains on ETMY Transmon QPD

Yesterday, we were seeing anomalously high low frequency RIN in the y-arm (rms of 4% or so). I swung by the lab briefly to check this out. Turns out, despite TRY of 1.0, there was reasonable misalignment. ASS with the excitation lowered by a factor of two, and overall gain at 0.5 or so aligned things to TRY=1.2, and the RIN is back down to ~0.5% I reset the Thorlabs FM to make the power = 1.0

I then went to center the transmitted beam on the transmon QPD. Looking at the quadrant counts as I moved the beam around, things looked odd, and I poked around a little... 

I strongly suspect that we have significantly mismatched gains for the different quadrants on the ETMY QPD. 

Reasoning: With the y-arm POY locked, I used a lens to focus down the TRY beam, to illuminate the quadrants individually. Quadrants 2 and 3 would go up to 3 counts, while 1 and 4 would go up to 0.3 and 0.6, respectively. (These counts are in some arbitrary units that were set by setting the sum to 1.0 when pitch and yaw claimed to be centered, but mismatched gains makes that meaningless.)

I haven't looked more deeply into where the mismatch is occurring. The four individual whitening gain sliders did affect the signals, so the sliders don't seem sticky, however I didn't check the actual change in gains. Will the latest round of whitening board modifications help this?

Hopefully, once this is resolved, the DC transmission signals will be much more reliable when locking...

  10803   Tue Dec 16 01:50:27 2014 rana, diegoFrogsLSCMICH filter is nuts

 This is ridiculous.

How many RGs can I fit into one button???

  10804   Tue Dec 16 03:43:09 2014 JenneUpdateLSCPRMI loops need help

[Jenne, Rana, Diego]

After deciding that the Yend QPD situation was not significant enough to prevent us from locking tonight, we got started.  However, the PRMI would not acquire lock with the arms held off resonance. 

This started some PRMI investigations.

With no arms, we can lock the PRMI with both REFL55 I&Q or REFL165 I&Q.  We checked the demod phase for both Refl 55 and 165.  REFL55 did not need changing, but REFL165 was off significantly (which probably contributed to the difficulty in using it to acquire lock).  I didn't write down what REFL165 was, but it is now -3 degrees.  To set the phase (this is also how Rana checked the 55 phase), I put in an oscillation using the sensing matrix oscillators.  For both REFL165I and 165Q, I set the sensing matrix demod phases such that all of the signal was in the I phase (so I_I and Q_I, and basically zero in I_Q and Q_Q).  Then, I set the main PD demod phase so that the REFL165Q phase (the Q_I phase) was about zero.

Here are the recipes for PRMI-only, REFL55 and REFL165:

Both cases, actuation was PRCL = 1*PRM and MICH = (0.5*BS - 0.2625*PRM).  Trigger thresholds for DoFs and FMs were always POP22I, 10 up and 0.5 down.

REFL55, demod phase = 31deg.

MICH = 2*R55Q, gain = 2.4, trig FMs 2, 6, 8.

PRCL = 12*R55I, gain = -0.022, trig FMs 2,6,9.

REFL165, demod phase = -3deg.

MICH = -1*R165Q, gain = 2.4, trig FMs 2,6,8.

PRCL = 2.2*R165I, gain = -0.022, trig FMs 2,6,9.

These recipes assume Rana's new resonant gain filter for MICH's FM6, with only 2 resonant gains at 16 and 24 Hz instead of a whole mess of them: elog 10803.  Also, we have turned down the waiting time between the MICH loop locking, and the filters coming on.  It used to be a 5 second delay, but now is 2 sec.  We have been using various delays for the PRCL filters, between 0.2s and 0.7s, with no particular preference in the end.

We compared the PRCL loop with both PDs, and note that the REFL 165 error signal has slightly more phase lag, although we do not yet know why.  This means that if we only have a marginally stable PRCL loop for REFL55, we will not be stable with REFL165. Also, both loops have a non-1/f shape at a few hundred Hz.  This bump is still there even if all filters except the acquisition ones (FM4,5 for both MICH and PRCL) are turned off, and all of the violin filters are turned off.  I will try to model this to see where it comes from.

PRMI_55vs165_15Dec2014.pdf

To Do list:

Go back to the QPDY situation during the daytime, to see if tapping various parts of the board makes the noise worse.  Since it goes up to such high frequencies, it might not be just acoustic.  Also, it's got to be in something common like the power or something, since we see the same spectra in all 4 quadrants. 

The ASS needs to be re-tuned. 

Rana was talking about perhaps opening up the ETMX chamber and wiggling the optic around in the wire.  Apparently it's not too unusual for the wire to get a bit twisted underneath, which creates a set of places that the optic likes to go to.

Diego is going to give us some spectra of the MC error point at various levels of pockel's cell drive.  Is it always the same frequencies that are popping up, or is it random?

  10806   Tue Dec 16 20:51:18 2014 diegoUpdateLSCPRMI loops need help

Quote:

[...]

Diego is going to give us some spectra of the MC error point at various levels of pockel's cell drive.  Is it always the same frequencies that are popping up, or is it random?

 I found out that the Spectrum Analyzer gives bogus data... Since now is locking time, tomorrow I'll go and figure out what is not working

  10809   Wed Dec 17 13:14:38 2014 ericqUpdateLSCPRMI loops need help

Quote:

However, the PRMI would not acquire lock with the arms held off resonance. 

This is entirely my fault. 

Last week, while doing some stuff with PRY, I put this filter in SUS_PRM_LSC, to stop some saturations from high frequency sensing noise

oops.pdf

After the discussion at today's meeting, it struck me that I might have left it on. Turns out I did. 

20 degree phase lag at 200Hz can explain the instability, some non-flat shape at few hundreds of Hz explains the non 1/f shape.

Sorry about all that...

  10810   Wed Dec 17 14:42:13 2014 JenneUpdateLSCPRMI loops need help

EricQ's crazy people filter has been deleted.  I'm trying to lock right now, to see if all is well in the world.

  10814   Thu Dec 18 02:23:34 2014 ericqUpdateLSCLocking update

 [ericq, Diego]

Some locking efforts tonight; many locklosses due to PRC angular motion. Furthest progress was arm powers of 15, and I've stared at the corresponding lockloss plot, with little insight into what went wrong. (BTW, lastlock.sh seems to catch the lock loss reliably in the window)

15lockloss.png

CARM and DARM loops were measured not long before this lock loss, and had nominal UGFs (~120Hz, ~20deg PM). However, there was a reasonably clear 01 mode shape at the AS camera, which I did nothing to correct. Here's a spectrum from *just* before the lockloss, recovered via nds. Nothing stands out to me, other than a possible loss of DARM optical gain. (I believe the references are the error signal spectra taken in ALS arms held away + PRMI on 3F configuration)

15spec.pdf

The shape in the DARM OLTF that we had previously observed and hypothesized as possible DARM optical spring was not ever observed tonight. I didn't induce a DARM offset to try and look for it either, though.

Looking into some of the times when I was measuring OLTFs, the AS55 signals do show coherence with the live DARM error signal at the excitation frequencies, but little to no coherence under 30Hz, which probably means we weren't close enough to swap DARM error signals yet. This arm power regime is where the AS55 sign flip has been modeled to be...


A fair amount of time was spent in pre-locking prep, including:

  • The usual X green beat alignment tweak, to make the X ALS control not terrible
  • Both ITM oplevs were centered
  • For some reason, I had to flip the signs of the REFL165 matrix elements for the PRMI...
  • "Restore PRMI SB" has ASC automatically enabled, which results in unexpected kicks even with LSC off, which caused a few minutes head-scratching
  10818   Fri Dec 19 15:59:49 2014 JenneUpdateLSCLockloss from Wed

I swapped out one of the channels on Q's lockloss plotter - we don't need POP22Q, but I do want the PC drive.  

So, we still need to look into why the PC drive goes crazy, and if it is related to the buildup in the arms or just something intrinsic in the current FSS setup, but it looks like that was the cause of the lockloss that Q and Diego had on Wednesday.

1102929772_PCdriveRailed.png

  10856   Tue Jan 6 03:09:17 2015 diegoUpdateLSCPRFPMI status & IFO status

 [Jenne, Rana, EricQ, Diego]

Tonight we worked on getting the IFO back in a working status after the break, and then tried some locking.

  • the MC is behaving better, it could stay in a stable condition for hours, even if a couple of times it lost lock, and one of them persisted for a little time;
  • we managed to get to arm power of 20ish, before losing lock (this happened a couple of times);
  • the main thing seems to be that we have only ~ 20 degrees of phase margin at UGF for DARM, which is evidently too little;
  • one hypothesis is that DARM may change sign due to some weird length/angular interaction, and that this messes up the actuation causing the lockloss;
  • one other possibility is that maybe, when arm power rises, there are some weird flashes that go back to the MC and then cause the locklosses, but this has to be verified;
  • attached there is a plot of the last lockloss (and a zoom of it), which seems to point at DARM as the culprit;

 Lockloss_20150106_074552.png

 

Lockloss_20150106_074552_zoom.png

 

We left the IFO uncontrolled and in a "flashy" state so that tomorrow we can look into the "back-flashing to the MC" hypothesis.

  10857   Tue Jan 6 03:13:09 2015 ericqUpdateLSCPRFPMI status & IFO status

Two plots from tonight:

Lock loss. Based on the fact that it looked like the DARM servo was running away, Rana posited an effective sign flip in the DARM loop, perhaps due to a parasitic angular feedback mechanism.

Jan6lockloss1_zoom.png

 


While Jenne was probing the IFO at lower powers, we noticed a sudden jump in ASDC. Found the GPS time and fed it to the lockloss plotter. Seems fairly evident that some sudden ETMX motion was to blame. (~2urad kick in yaw)

Jan6_asdcjump.png

  10860   Wed Jan 7 02:54:09 2015 JenneUpdateLSCFiddling with DARM filters

One of the things that we had talked about last night was the totally tiny amount of phase margin that we have in the CARM and DARM loops.  DARM seemed to be the most obnoxious loop last night, so I focused on that today, although the CARM and DARM loops are pretty much identical.

(Q tells me via email that the phase budget has the same ~14 degree discrepancy between what we expect and what we measure as his estimate last night.  However, the Caltech network issues prevented his posting an elog.)

So, we definitely need to figure out where this 14 deg is going, but for now, I wanted to see if I could recover a couple of extra degrees just by modifying the filters.

The original filters do seem to eat a lot of phase:

DARM_design_orig.pdf

The short version of the story is that I didn't leave the filters changed at all.  I reverted back to the last version of the filter file from Monday night, so currently everything is as it was.

I tried increasing the Q of the zeros on the cyan and brown filters, which would sacrifice some gain at ~20 Hz, but hopefully win us 10+ degrees of phase.  This gave me a dip of about a factor of 2 between the new and old filters (all servo filters combined added up to this factor of 2 in magnitude) between ~20Hz - 70Hz. 

When we were locked using DARM for just the Yarm (for the UGF servo commissioning), I took a spectra of the error signal (which was POY) as a reference, then loaded in my new filters.  For the most part, the spectra didn't change (which is good, since the magnitude of the filter didn't change much.).  The spectra was bigger though between 50-70Hz, in kind of a sharp bandpass-looking shape that I wasn't expecting.    I don't know exactly why that's happening.

Anyhow, we tried the new filters once or twice with the full IFO, but kept losing lock.  Since I clearly haven't put in enough thought yet for these (particularly, how much suppression do we really need? what are our requirements???), I reverted back to the filter file from last night.  We continued locking, and checking out the new UGF servo that Diego is elogging about.

  10861   Wed Jan 7 02:56:15 2015 diegoUpdateLSCUGF Servo for DARM

 [Jenne, Diego]

Today we began implementing the UGF Servos. Things we did:

  • we updated the LSC model with both DARM and CARM servos, and moved them from after the control system to before it, at the level of the error signal;
  • we updated the medm screens; new buttons are located in the main LSC screen;
  • we started commissioning the DARM servo, at first using DARM for the lock of the single Y arm, then we moved on to the PRFPMI lock and the usual transition from ALS to Transmission;
  • although we had several lock losses during the night, we managed to tweak the parameters of the DARM UGF servo (phases, excitation, gains), which now seems to work sufficiently fine;
  • the filters added to the I and Q filter banks are a single lowpass in each, while the only filter in the main servio is a standard integrator;
  • we don't have a step response at the moment, but we can say that the settling time of the servo is in the range of 10 seconds;
  • we updated the ALSdown.py and ALSwatch.py scripts with a call to a new UGFdown.py script; this script, located in the scripts/PRFPMI folder, takes care of disabling the servos and putting the excitation to zero in case of a lock loss; re-enablement of such things must be done manually;
  10862   Wed Jan 7 03:04:13 2015 JenneUpdateLSCTRY (thorlabs pd) weird noise

[Jenne, Diego, Rana]

This is a note about work done last night. 

We were starting to lock, and saw glitches in the Thorlabs TRY PD about once every 1/60th of a second.  It is not a sine wave, so it is not 60Hz line noise directly.  It looks like this:

TRY_60Hz_peaks_5Jan2015.pdf

Rana pointed out that this looks like it could be from a power supply that is converting AC to DC. 

We went down to the Yend, and noticed some weird symptoms.  So far, we do not know where the noise is coming from.  Rather, we are just using the QPD for locking.

* The noise comes and goes, particularly if someone is moving around at the end station.

* Moving the Thorlabs power supply farther from the HeNe power supply didn't do much.  Turning off and disconnecting the HeNe supply didn't make the noise go away, so we conclude that it is not the HeNe's fault.

* We suspected the loops of excess cable that were sitting on top of iscey, but moving the coils away from the computer did not make the noise go away.

* We removed a few disconnected BNC cables that were near or touching the end table, but that didn't fix things.

* We disconnected the PD's signal cable and pulled it out of the table enclosure, and then put it back.  Noise was gone when cable was disconnected (good), but it was back after plugging the cable back in.

* The noise still comes and goes, but we don't have to use the Thorlabs PD for locking, so we leave it for another day.

RXA: also moved the Thorlabs power supply to a different power strip and tried putting it closer/farther to the Uniblitz shutter controller. Another suspect is that its some PWM type noise from the doubler crystal temperature driver. Need to try turning off the heater and the Raspberry PI to if it effects the noise.

  10863   Wed Jan 7 03:09:15 2015 JenneUpdateLSCPRFPMI status & IFO status

As a warm-up after the holidays, before the real locking began, I installed 1064nm bandpass filters in front of the transmission QPDs to eliminate the stray green light that is there.

The Yend had threads epoxied to it, so that end should be good.  Steve is going to repeat that for the Xend QPD at some point.  Right now, the filter is just on a lens mount about 2cm away from the PD box aperture, since that's as close as I could get it.

Also, while I was at the Xend, I noticed that the transmission camera is gone.  I assume that it was in the way of Manasa's fiber work, and that it'll get put back somehow, sometime.  She elogged that she had removed it, but I mistakenly thought that it was already replaced.  We don't use that camera much, so I'm not worried.

  10864   Wed Jan 7 09:44:33 2015 ericqUpdateLSCDARM phase budget

As Jenne mentioned, I created a model of the DARM OLG to see why we have so little phase margin. However, it turns out I can explain the phase after all.

Chris sent me his work for the aLIGO DARM phase budget, which I adapted for our situation. Here's a stacked-area plot that shows the contributions of various filters and delays on our phase margin, and a real measurement from a few days ago . 

DarmPhaseBudget.pdf

This isn't so great! Informed by Chris's model, the digital delays look like: (Here I'm only listing pure delays, not phase lags from filters)

  • 64k cycle (End IOP)
  • 16k cycle (End isce[x/y])
  • 16k cycle x 2 (end to LSC through RFM) [See ELOG 10811]
  • 16k cycle (LSC)
  • 16k cycle (LSC to SUS through dolphin) [See ELOG 9881]
  • 16k cycle (SUS)
  • 16k cycle x2 (SUS to end through RFM)
  • 16k cycle (End isce[x/y])
  • 64k cycle (SUS IOP)
  • DAC zero order hold

This adds up to about 570usec, 20.5 degrees at 100Hz, largely due to the sheer number of computer hops the transmission loops involve. 

As a check, I divided the measured OLG by my model OLG, to see if there is any shape to the residual, that my model doesn't explain. It looks like it fits pretty well. Plot:

 DarmOLGresidual.pdf

So, unless we undertake a bunch of computer work, we can only improve our transmission loops through our control filter design. 

Everything I used to generate these plots is attached. 

  10865   Wed Jan 7 11:20:22 2015 SteveUpdateLSCX arm T-QPD gets SM1 thread adapter

C1:SUS-ETMX_QPD is removed and internal SM1 thread adapter epoxied into position as it is at the Y end

This adapter will take FL1064-10 line filter holder

Line filter is attached and qpd needs alignment.

  10868   Wed Jan 7 13:39:42 2015 ChrisUpdateLSCDARM phase budget

I think the dolphin and RFM transit times are double-counted in this budget. As I understand it, all IPC transit times are already built in to the cycle time of the sending model. That is, the sending model is required to finish its computational work a little bit early, so there's time left to transmit data to the receivers before the start of the next cycle. Otherwise you get IPC errors. (This is why the LSC models at the sites can't use the last ~20 usec of their cycle without triggering IPC errors. They have to allow that much time for the RFM to get their control signals down the arms to the end stations.)

For instance, the delay measurement in elog 9881 (c1als to c1lsc via dolphin) shows only the c1lsc model's own 61 usec delay. If the dolphin transfer really took an additional cycle, you would expect 122 usec.

And in elog 10811 (c1scx to c1rfm to c1ass), the delay is 122 usec, not because the RFM itself adds delay, but because an extra model is traversed.

Bottom line: there may still be some DARM phase unaccounted for. And it would definitely help to bypass the c1rfm model, as suggested in 9881.

  10869   Wed Jan 7 14:16:27 2015 JenneUpdateLSCtrans QPDs realigned

Now that both end transmission QPDs have the line filters, I aligned them.

I locked and aligned the IR using the ASS, then went to each end table and put the beam in the center of the QPD.

  10872   Wed Jan 7 15:53:01 2015 JenneUpdateLSCDC PD analog settings exposed

I have added another block to the LSC screen (and made the corresponding sub-screen) to expose the analog settings for the DC photodiodes. 

Note that we have 2 open channels there, which are still called something like "PD2" and "PD3" from olden times.

If we ever chose to use those, we will probably want to change their names, in /cvs/cds/caltech/target/c1iscaux2/LSC_aux2.db and /cvs/cds/caltech/target/c1iscaux/LSC_aux.db

  10875   Thu Jan 8 02:52:09 2015 ericqUpdateLSCUGF Servo for LSC

I added UGF servos for the DRMI DoFs, after creating a library block for the servos. I also deleted the FMs before the phase rotation, since we can just do it afterwards in other existing FMs. I've only added the MICH and PRCL buttons to the LSC screen because in the end, I feel like a dropdown is better, but I just wanted to get it running quickly tonight. The LSC model and the UGF block have been committed to the svn. 

We were able to use the PRCL UGF servo successfully, as Jenne was exploring MICH offset space. 

  10876   Thu Jan 8 03:09:07 2015 JenneUpdateLSCToward variable finesse locking

[Jenne, EricQ, Rana]

Tonight we started prepping for an attempt at variable finesse locking. 

The idea is to put in a MICH offset and hold the lock with ASDC/POPDC (so that the offset can be larger than if we were just using RF signals).  This reduces the PRC buildup, which reduces / removes the double cavity resonance problems while reducing the CARM offset. 

  • So.  Today, I pulled out the POP22 razor blade so that we can use the Thorlabs PD as POPDC, without the yaw coupling.  Our other option is to use the POP QPD SUM, but that would require some model changes and more importantly it's not a particularly low noise readout path.
  • We re-set the analog whitening gains for ASDC and POPDC.
    • For ASDC, we want the half-fringe in the PRMI case to be not saturating.  We chose 18dB (it had been the default 0dB).
    • For POPDC, Rana and I saw that it was saturating all the time with the 33dB that it had when the carrier became resonant.  This was never really a problem in the past, but if we use it for normalization, we get glitches that knock us out of lock every time POPDC saturated.  So, now POPDC is at 0dB.  It still occasionally saturates when the PRMI is flashing, but we can't get lower than 0dB without going and putting an ND filter on the PD.
  • We turned off the analog whitening filters and digital unwhitening for both ASDC and POPDC.  We can consider turning them back on later after we have acquired lock if we need them, but we need them off for acquisition.
  • Locked MICH with ASDC/POPDC.  Good.  Stays locked even if PRM is flashing.
  • Locked PRMI with PRCL on REFL33I and MICH on ASDC/POPDC.
  • Locked arms, held off resonance with ALS, lock MICH with ASDC/POPDC. 
  • Failed to lock PRMI with arms held off resonance, using the new scheme (no transition, trying to directly acquire)
  • Locked PRMI on REFL33 I&Q with the arms held off resonance, and tried to transition MICH over to ASDC/POPDC, failed.
  • Confusion about the relative phase between REFL33Q and ASDC.  It looks like it is ~45deg at 100 Hz, or ~90 deg at 375 Hz.  Why isn't it 0 or 180?
  • Went back to PRMI-only, tried to map out fringe by changing MICH offset (tried while MICH was on both REFL33 and ASDC/POPDC).  Not really sure where we are on the fringe.

MICH locked on ASDC normalized by POPDC, PRM and ETMs (and SRM) all misaligned.

MICH offset of -20

MICH input = -0.04*ASDC normalized by 0.1*POPDC.

MICH gain = +5

MICH always triggered on (no triggering for DoF), but FM8 (CLP400) triggered to come on after lock (didn't write down the values).

 

PRMI locked with MICH on ASDC normalized by POPDC, PRCL on REFL33I, ETMs and SRM misaligned.

MICH offset of -10

MICH input = -0.04*ASDC normalized by 0.1*POPDC.

PRCL input = 1*REFL33I

MICH gain = +5

PRCL gain = -0.4 (factor ten times the regular value)

MICH always on, PRCL triggered on POP22.  MICH FM8 and PRCL FM1,2,6,9 triggered on.

Gives POPDC of about 20 counts, POP22 of about 12 counts, ASDC of about 500 counts.

 

Arms held at 3nm, MICH locked on ASDC/POPDC, PRM and SRM misaligned.

MICH offset of -10

MICH input = -0.04*ASDC normalized by 0.1*POPDC.

MICH gain = +5

MICH always on, PRCL triggered on POP22.  MICH FM8 and PRCL FM1,2,6,9 triggered on.

 

Arms held at 3nm, attempt at PRMI lock with MICH on ASDC/POPDC.

Failed.  Tried mostly same MICH gains as arms+mich, and PRCL at 10* normal gain.

 

Arms held at 3nm, PRMI locked with REFL 33 I&Q, attempt at transition to MICH on ASDC/POPDC.

Failed.  At first, I was putting in the TF line at ~375Hz, but we looked at the full transfer function between 100Hz and 1kHz, and there was a weird dip near 300Hz from PRCL-MICH loop coupling.  Here we were seeing that the phase between REFL33Q and ASDC was ~90 degrees.  What?

Tried putting the TF line at ~100 Hz (since MICH UGF is in the few tens of Hz anyway, so 100 is still above that), but still get weird relative phase.  Here it seems to be about 45 degrees when I inject a single line, although it didn't seem like a weird phase when we did the full swept sine earlier.  Maybe I was just not doing something right at that point??

Anyhow, no matter what values I tried to put into the input matrix (starting with REFL33I&Q, trying to get MICH to ASDC/POPDC), I kept losing lock.  This included trying to ramp up the MICH offset simultaneously with the matrix changing, which was meant to help with the PRCL gain change.  Q has since given us MICH and PRCL UGF servos.

 


Tomorrow:

  • Why is there some weirdo phase between REFL33Q and ASDC at 100Hz?  Was I just being a spaz?
  • With PRMI-only, figure out how to transition from REFL33 I&Q over to MICH on ASDC/POPDC.
  • Then hold the arms off resonance, and do the same transition.  (First make sure we're at a good place on the fringe)
  • Lower the CARM and DARM offsets, transition them to RF, engage CARM AO path.
  • Reduce MICH offset, transition to RF.
  • Celebrate (maybe).
  10887   Tue Jan 13 00:42:15 2015 JenneUpdateLSCError signals for MICH with variable finesse technique

In order to know where we should try to make the transition from REFL##Q to ASDC for MICH, I did a quick Optickle simulation to see what the error signals will look like.

The idea is to try to lock the PRMI on a single REFL diode (ex. REFL33 I&Q) with some MICH offset, and then transition over to ASDC.  As soon as we have completed the transition, we can engage the normalization matrix to normalize ASDC by POPDC, and also increase the MICH offset if we want.  Unfortunately, we do not as yet have the ability in our model to independently normalize different error signals, and then blend them, so we have to turn on the normalization after we've transitioned.

Here is the situation for PRMI-only:

You can see that REFL33Q has a slightly wider range than REFL165Q.  It seems like we can perhaps try to make the transition around -15nm or so.  Note that the error signals are not quite symmetric about 0nm, so we can use that to help determine what + and - mean.  We expect that we need to add about 1nm offset to REFL33Q to get a true minimum in ASDC, so the sign of the digital offset that we need will tell us if there is a sign flip or not between the digital offset and this x-axis. 

After we get this to work (hopefully in the next hour or so....), we will want to try the same thing with the arms held off resonance. 

Usually we lock the PRMI at an offset of about 3nm:

However we could do it lower, perhaps around 1nm (which is where we currently are doing our CARM/DARM ALS->IR signals transitions):

At some point, we will arrive at 0nm CARM offset, when we'll want to transition back to RF signals (although probably we could jump straight to a 1f signal, not plotted):

The moral of the story here is that I'm not sure how we were ever successfully locking MICH on REFL165Q, unless my phase-setting in Optickle is way off.  Certainly it looks like we should be sticking with REFL33 for PRFPMI.  Also, since we have an offset in REFL33Q anyway (which we have seen and have commented on before), at 3nm CARM offset it looks like we could try to just do the jump without any extra digital offset.  Here's a zoom of the 3nm situation:

  10888   Tue Jan 13 01:11:51 2015 diegoUpdateLSCResponse of error signals to MICH EXC

For several MICH offsets, I measured the response of REFL33Q, ASDC and the ratio ASDC/POPDC to a MICH EXC. It appears that there is no frequency-dependent effect. The plots for MICH_OFFSET = 0.0 and 2.0 are slightly lower in magnitude: the reason is they were the first measurements done, and after that a little realignment of BS was necessary, so probably that is the reason.

 

 

  10891   Tue Jan 13 03:58:27 2015 JenneUpdateLSCTransitioned to ASDC MICH (PRMI and PRFPMI)

[Jenne, Diego, EricQ]

Hopefully there will be more later, but Chiara just went down (network? other?  Q is in there right now looking at it), so this is a so-far-tonight elog.

We have successfully transitioned MICH over from REFL33Q to ASDC in both the PRMI and PRFPMI configurations.  Next up is to start reducing the CARM offset.


Resetting the REFL demod phases

I have been unable to lock the PRMI for more than teeny blips since Thursday.  So, tonight I finally got it to lock with MICH on AS55Q and PRCL on REFL33I, and used that to set the demod phases. 

PRMI, AS55Q and REFL33I MICH PRCL
Input matrix 1*AS55Q 1*R33I
Gain -7 -0.022
DoF trigger POP22I; 80up, 2down POP22I; 80up, 2down
FM trigger FM 2,6,8; 100up, 2down; 0.3sec FM 2,6,9; 100up, 2down; 0.01sec
Normalization n/a n/a
Output matrix 0.5*BS, -0.2625*PRM 1*PRM
UGF servo n/a

n/a

Setting the demod phases, I used an oscillation of 100 cts to PRM, at 400.123 Hz.

REFL 33 demod phase started at 148deg, now 133.2deg.

REFL165 phase started at -105.53, now -172.

No signal in REFL55????  Time series and spectra both look just like noise.  Need to check alignment of beam on PD, or if cables unplugged!!

REFL11 phase started at 16.75, now 18.9deg.

Was then able to lock on REFL 33 I&Q, like normal.

PRMI, REFL33I&Q MICH PRCL
Input matrix 1*R33Q 1*R33I
Gain 2.5 -0.02
DoF trigger POP22I; 80up, 2down POP22I; 80up, 2down
FMs FM 4,5 on FM 4,5 on
FM trigger FM 2,6,8; 100up, 2down; 0.3sec FM 2,6,9; 100up, 2down; 0.01sec
Normalization n/a n/a
Output matrix 0.5*BS, -0.2625*PRM 1*PRM
UGF servo n/a

n/a



Transitioning PRMI from REFL33Q to ASDC

With the PRMI locked on REFL33 I&Q, I found that a MICH offset of -5 counts gives a minimum in ASDC.  From my earlier elog this evening (http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/10887), I expect the minimum to be at +1.4nm.  This is only one point though, so I don't know the calibration of the MICH offset yet (we should get this calib during the day by looking at MICH-only).  Anyhow, this informed which side was positive and negative relative to my Optickle plots, so I know that I wanted positive offset in the MICH servo.

I was able to comfortably hold lock at +20 counts.  Looking at a calibration line at 143.125 Hz, I determined that I wanted the matrix element for ASDC to be -0.05.  After I made that transition using ezcastep, I put the POPDC normalization in.  At the time, POPDC was about 151counts, so I put 1/151 in the POPDC->Mich matrix element.

So, here were the final lock parameters.  Note that in PRMI-only, you can acquire lock like this, and with a variety of MICH offsets:

PRMI, ASDC and REFL33I MICH PRCL
Input matrix -0.05 * ASDC 1*R33I
Gain 2.5 -0.02
DoF trigger POP22I; 80up, 2down POP22I; 80up, 2down
FMs FM 4,5 on FM 4,5 on
FM trigger FM 2,6,8; 100up, 2down; 0.3sec FM 2,6,9; 100up, 2down; 0.01sec
Normalization  0.0066 n/a
Output matrix 0.5*BS, -0.2625*PRM 1*PRM
UGF servo n/a

n/a


Locking PRMI part of PRFPMI

Since the PRMI has been fussy, I'm including a brief note on the PRMI settings when the arms are held with ALS off by roughly 3nm.  To get to this point, we just ran the usual carm_cm_up script, and didn't let it run anymore when it asked for confirmation that PRMI was locked.

PRFPMI, Arms=ALS, PRMI=REFL33I&Q MICH PRCL CARM DARM
Input matrix 1*R33Q 1*R33I -1*alsX+1*alsY 1*alsX+1*alsY
Gain 2.5 -0.012 8 8
DoF trigger POP22I; 80up, 2down POP22I; 80up, 2down n/a n/a
FMs FM 4,5 on FM 4,5 on FM 1,2,3,5,6 FM 1,2,3,5,6
FM trigger FM 2,6,8; 50up, 2down; 0.3sec FM 1,2,6,9; 50up, 2down; 0.01sec n/a n/a
Normalization n/a n/a n/a n/a
Output matrix 0.5*BS, -0.2625*PRM 1*PRM 1*etmx+1*etmy -1*etmx+1*etmy
UGF servo n/a set to 150Hz n/a n/a

With MICH offset of -30 counts, AS port is pretty bright.  ASDC dark offset is set to -475.4 by the LSCoffsets script. with MICH offset = 0, ASDC_OUT is around 300counts.  But, with MICH offset = -30, ASDC_OUT is about 525 counts.  So, I put that 525 counts into the ASDC filterbank offset (so it is now the dark offset + this extra offset), so the ASDC offset is currently around -1,000.  This makes the ASDC signal roughly zero when I am ready to transition MICH over to it.  In principle I should probably set it so the average is the same as the MICH offset, but the noise is so high relative to that offset, that it doesn't matter.

After this, we engaged the CARM and DARM UGF servos.  MICH was gain peaking, so I think we might want to turn that one on too, rather than my by-hand turning down the gain.

The transition has been successful 4 or 5 times with the arms held off resonance at 3nm.  Once, we reduced the CARM offset as low as 1.7 (and had to lower the MICH gain to 1.5), but we were still hearing a woomp-woomp sound.  Not sure what that was from.  At this point, Chiara died, so we lost lock.  After that, we re-acquired lock a few more times, but MC keeps losing it.  We are still able to make the MICH to ASDC transition though, which is good.

The transition won't work if the PRCL UGF servo is not on.  The gain multiplier goes from about 1.1 up to 2.4, so the PRCL gain is certainly changing through the transition.

Diego has written up scripts for the individual UGF servos (look for an elog from him separately), so now the carm_cm_up script goes as far as locking the PRMI on REFL33 I&Q, and then it starts to transition.  PRCL UGF is engaged, MICH offset is set to -30 counts, MICH is transitioned to ASDC, POP normalization engaged, CARM UGF servo turned on, and DARM UGF servo turned on.  There are "read"s in the script before each step, so you can stop whenever you like.

Here's the final configuration for the PRFPMI while the arms are held at 3nm, with MICH on ASDC (so after the transition):

PRFPMI, Arms=ALS, PRCL=REFL33I, MICH=ASDC MICH PRCL CARM DARM
Input matrix 0.27*ASDC 1*R33I -1*alsX+1*alsY 1*alsX+1*alsY
Gain 2.5 -0.015 8 8
DoF trigger POP22I; 80up, 2down POP22I; 80up, 2down n/a n/a
FMs FM 4,5 on FM 4,5 on FM 1,2,3,5,6 FM 1,2,3,5,6
FM trigger FM 2,6,8; 50up, 2down; 0.3sec FM 1,2,6,8,9; 50up, 2down; 0.01sec n/a n/a
Normalization 0.0042*POPDC n/a n/a n/a
Output matrix 0.5*BS, -0.2625*PRM 1*PRM 1*etmx+1*etmy -1*etmx+1*etmy
UGF servo n/a set to 150.001Hz set to 115.1Hz set to 110.1

 

The transition for MICH to ASDC has been successful with the arms held off resonance several times tonight. It's all part of the carm_cm_up script now. I think that if we hadn't lost about an hour of time and our momentum, we would have gotten farther.  I have high hopes for tomorrow night!

  10896   Tue Jan 13 15:11:30 2015 diegoUpdateLSCTransitioned to ASDC MICH (PRMI and PRFPMI)

These are the parameters of the UGF servos we used last night:

DOF / Parameters Exc. Frequency (Hz) Exc. Gain Loop Gain
DARM 110.1 0.025 -0.03
MICH n/a n/a n/a
PRCL 150.001 2.0 -0.03
CARM 115.1 0.01 -0.03

 

Some tweaking of such parameters and the commissioning of the MICH servo will be done soon; an elog post about the UGF scripts/medm screens also will be done soon.

  10900   Wed Jan 14 03:42:31 2015 JenneUpdateLSCThoughts on going forward with variable finesse

[Jenne, Rana]

We tried locking with the variable finesse MICH offset technique again today. 

A daytime task tomorrow will be to figure out where we are in MICH and CARM offset spaces.  This will require some thinking, and perhaps some modelling.

We were using the UGF servos and checking out their step resonses, and had the realization that we don't want the gain multiplication to happen before the offsets are applied, in the case of MICH and CARM.  Otherwise, as the UGF servo adjusts the gain, the offset is changed.  I think this is what ChrisW and I saw earlier on in the evening, when it seemed like the CARM offset spontaneously zoomed toward zero even though I didn't think I was touching any buttons or parameters.  Anyhow, we no longer used the MICH and CARM UGF servos for the rest of the night.  We need to think about where we want the offset to happen, and where we want the UGF servo multiplication to happen (maybe at the control point, with a very low bandwidth?) such that this is not an issue.

Also, I'm no longer sure that the sqrt(I^2 + Q^2) instead of the usual demodulation is going to work for the UGF servos (Q made this change the other day, after we had talked about it).  When the numbers going into the I and Q servo banks are small (around 1e-5), the total UGF servo gets the answer wrong by a factor of 10 or so.  If I made the "sin gain" and "cos gain" 1000 instead of the usual 1, the numbers were of the order 1e-2, and the servo worked like normal.  So, I think we were perhaps running into some kind of numerical error somehow.  We first noticed this when we lowered the DARM excitation by a factor of 10, and the servo no longer functioned.  We should take out this non-linear math and go back to linear math tomorrow.

During the evening tomorrow, we should try locking the PRMI with a large MICH offset, and then leaving CARM and DARM on ALS, and seeing how far we can get.  Is it possible to just jump over to RF signals, since we won't have to worry about the detuned cavity pole?

Tonight, the locking procedure was the same as usual, but stopping the carm_up script before it starts to lower the CARM offset at all.  Only difference was that MICH triggered FMs were 2,3,7 rather than the usual 2,6,8. 

So, assuming you have the IFO with CARM and DARM on ALS held at +3 CARM offset counts (which we think is about 3nm), and the PRMI is locked on REFL33I&Q with no offsets, here's what we did:

  • PRCL UGF servo on
  • MICH offset goes to -20
  • MICH transitions to ASDC (0.27*ASDC, then normalize by POPDC)
  • DARM UGF servo on
  • CARM offset to 1 (arms about 0.25)
  • CARM transition to SqrtInvTrans
  • Lower CARM gain to 4
  • CARM offset to 0.6 (arms about 1)
  • DARM transition to DC transmission
  • Increase MICH offset to about -650 or -670
  • Lower CARM offset, see what happens

Something else to think about:  Should we normalize our DC transmission signals by POPDC, so that the arm powers will change when we change the MICH offset (for a constant CARM offset)?

The best we got was holding for a few minutes at arm powers of 7.5, but since the MICH offset was large and the power recycling was low, this was perhaps pretty far.  This is why we need some calibration action.

Also, earlier today I copied the CARM and DARM "slide" filter module screens so that we have the same thing for MICH.  Now all 3 of these degrees of freedom have slider versions of the filter module screens, which are called from the ctrl_compact screen.

  10901   Wed Jan 14 19:27:09 2015 ericqUpdateLSCUGF servo now linear again

The UGF servos have been moved to the control point, are are once again totally linear!

  10902   Thu Jan 15 03:18:11 2015 diegoUpdateLSCUGF servo now linear again

The UGF servos were recommissioned today:

  • suitable values of frequency, excitation, phases and gain were found;
  • the phases were chosen in order to maximize the I signal and suppress the Q one;
  • the servos seemed sufficiently stable when in a quiet state, but they didn't performed well in other cases;
  • I also found out that DARM & CARM and MICH & PRCL are maybe too much coupled, but that could be actually due to the main loops rather than the UGF ones;
  • however, after some weird rampings with no apparent reasons, and after some quite bad and glitchy step responses, I found out that the effect of the chosen phases vanished: the I and Q signals were of the same order of magnitude again, probably causing the bad performance;
  • Jenne and I tried to increase che SINGAINs and COSGAINs (but keeping them equal to each other): this has the good effect of separating more the I and Q signals, but it's just a zoom effect: there still are mixing effects and, more important, some zero-crossings into negative values that cause the signal going into the servo to go crazy.

Our idea is that we need with some thinking about these servos and most of all try to figure out all this phase thing before we can start to trust the servos to be used for locking.

  10903   Thu Jan 15 04:41:01 2015 JenneUpdateLSCThoughts on going forward with variable finesse

[Jenne, Diego]

Life would be easier with the UGF servos working.  As Diego already elogged, we aren't sure why the demod phases are changing, but that is certainly causing the I-signals to dip below zero, which the log function can't handle (there is a limiter before the log, so that the signal can't go below 1e-3).  Anyhow, this is causing the UGF servos to freak out, so we have not been using them for tonight's locking.

Our goal tonight was to see if we could introduce a nice big MICH offset, and then lower the CARM offset while keeping the arms locked on ALS.  We hope to see some kind of sign of a PDH signal in some RF PD. 

In the end, the highest we got to was -460 MICH offset counts, which we think is about 29nm (if our rough calibration is accurate). The MICH half fringe should be 188nm. With this offset, we got down to 0.3 CARM offset counts while locked on ALS.  We think that this is around 300pm, plus or minus a lot.  Note that while yesterday I had a pretty easy time getting to -660 counts of MICH offset, tonight I struggled to get past -200.  The only way we ended up getting farther was by lowering the CARM offset.  Although, as I type this, I realized that last night's work already had a lower CARM offset, so maybe that's key to being able to increase the MICH offset. 

We watched REFL11I and REFL11I/(TRX+TRY) on striptool, but we didn't see any evidence of a PDH signal.  We lost lock when I tried to transition CARM over to REFLDC, but I wasn't careful about my offset-setting, so I am not convinced that REFLDC is hopeless.

So.  Tonight, we didn't make any major locking progress (the MC started being fussy for about an hour, right after I ran the LSC offsets script, just before we started locking in earnest).  However, we have some ideas from talking with Rana about directions to go:

* Can we transition CARM over to REFL11I, and then engage the AO path?

* Then, while the MICH offset is still large, can we transition DARM over to POX or POY, actuating on a single arm?  If CARM is totally suppressed, this is DARM-y.  If CARM doesn't have the AO path yet, this is halfsy-halfsy, but maybe we don't care.

* Then, can we lower the MICH offset and transition back to a REFLQ signal?

* Separately, it seemed like we kept losing PRC lock due to PRC motion.  If the MICH offset is very large, are we sideband-limited at the POP port, such that we can use the POP DC QPD?  Is it even worth it?

 

MICH calibration:

A single mirror (ITM) moving by lambda/2, in the MICH-only situation is the full range, from bright to dark fringe.  So, half fringe should be lambda/4, or about 133nm.  If we are thinking about pushing on the BS, there's an extra factor of sqrt(2), so I think the half fringe should be at 188nm of BS motion.

When we had MICH locked on ASDC/POPDC, we put in a line at 143.125Hz, at 20 counts to (0.5*BS-0.2625*PRM), so a total of 10 counts to the BS at 143Hz.  Given the BS calibration in http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/8242, this is 10.1pm of actuation.  We saw a line in the error signal of 0.1 counts, so we infer that the MICH error signal of ASDC/POPDC has a calibration of 94pm/count. This number was invariant over a few different MICH offsets, although the ones I measured at were all below about 100 counts of MICH offset, so maybe this number changes as we start to get farther from the MICH dark fringe.

 

IFO left flashing (all mirrors aligned except SRM) in case anyone wants fresh data for that.

  10904   Thu Jan 15 14:28:14 2015 JenneUpdateLSCLSC model change idea

Something that kind of drives me crazy with our current LSC model setup is that I can't make "finished" error signals before blending them.  The blending happens before the normalization matrix, and there is no place to put an offset to help match a new error signal to the current offset.  So.  While I'm sure this is not going to be immediately popular, here's a cartoon of a proposed model change to the LSC. 

The most important difference between this and the ramping matrix that is used at the sites is that you can put in offsets before the blend.  Also useful is the fact that the normalization can happen before the blend.  This proposal would make the LSC input matrix  and the normalization matrix have twice as many rows, and add an extra "selector matrix" just before the triggering at the error point of the loops. 

I've only drawn one degree of freedom in my cartoon, but assume that they all have the same capability (maybe we don't have to do XARM, YARM and MC this way).  One row is currently being used for the error signal, while the other row is just used to prep a new singal.  For a first transition (say, ALS to DC transmission), maybe the ALS signals are on row 1, and the DC trans is on row 2.  Once the transition is complete, row 1 is available to prep for the next transition (such as AS55Q).

 

Thoughts?  Is there a better way to achieve what I'm going for here?

ELOG V3.1.3-