The SRM Oplev injection and detection paths interfere heavily with the POY11. Due to the limited optical access, I suggest we try steering POYM1 YAW and adapting the RFPD path accordingly.
After agreement from Yuta/Anchal, I moved POYM1 yaw to clear the aforementioned path, and Ian restored the POY11 RFPD path. The demodulation phase might need to be corrected afterwards, before any lockign attempts.
I helped the vacuum installation work in the evening.
- Three steering mirrors after the SRM (OM1-OM3) were installed on the table. OM1 and OM2 were aligned.
OM3 is in-place but not aligned to the OM4 (PZT).
- The ITMY oplev setup was disintegrated. The SRM/ITMY oplev beams were prepared.
- The SRM oplev mirrors were placed on the table and aligned.
- The ITMY oplev mirrors were placed on the table but not in-place.
After the DRMI measurements on Friday, SRY cavity was locked in order to compare ITMY and SRM actuators.
SRY cavity was locked with AS55Q -> SRM servo with gain of +10?
(My memory is fading. I tried +50 and noticed it was saturated at the limiter. So I thought it was 10)
Then the transfer functions between SRM->AS55Q TF and ITMY->AS55Q TF were measured.
The ratio between two transfer functions was obtained as seen in the second attachment.
The average at f<100Hz was 4.07 +/- 0.15. Therefore the calibration is ... as you can find below
SRM = (19.0 +/- 0.7) x 10 -9/ f2
PRM: (19.6 +/- 0.3) x 10 -9 / f2 m/counts
BS = (20.7 +/- 0.1) x 10 -9 / f2 m/counts
ITMX = (4.70 +/- 0.02) x 10 -9/ f2 m/counts
ITMY = (4.66 +/- 0.02) x 10 -9/ f2 m/counts
I've made the LISO models for the dewhitening board and coil driver boards I pulled out.
Attached is a plot of the current noise in the current configuration (i.e. dewhitening board just has a gain x3 stage, and then propagated through the coil driver path), with the top 3 noise contributions: The op-amps (op3 and op5) are the LT1125s on the coil driver board in the bias path, while "R12" is the Johnson noise from the 1k input resistace to the OP27 in the signal path.
Assuming the OSEMs have an actuation gain of 0.016 N/A (so 0.064 N/A for 4 OSEMs), the current noise of ~1e-10 A/rtHz translates to a displacement noise of ~3e-15m/rtHz at ~100Hz (assuming a mirror mass of 0.25kg).
I have NOT included the noise from the LM6321 current buffers as I couldn't find anything about their noise characteristics in the datasheet. LISO files used to generate this plot are attached.
I've added marked-up schematics + high-res photographs of the SRM coil driver board and dewhitening board to the 40m DCC Document tree (D1700217 and D1700218).
In the attached marked-up schematics, I've also added the proposed changes which Rana and I discussed earlier today. For the thick-film -> thin-film resistor switching, I will try and make a quick LISO model to see if we can get away with replacing just a few rather than re-stuff the whole board.
Another change I think should be made, but I forgot to include on the markups: On the dewhitening board, we should probably replace the decoupling capacitors C41 and C52 with equivalent value electrolytic caps (they are currently tantalum caps which I think are susceptible to fail by shorting input to output).
We have looked a little more at the SRM situation. We aligned the SRM, and then aligned the oplev, so that we had a convenient monitor of the optic's motion.
When we use the _COMM channels, which are the usual ones on the IFO_ALIGN screen, the pitch slider makes pitch motion, but the yaw slider makes the oplev spot move ~45degrees from horizontal.
However, when we use the bias channels that are in the front end model, parallel to the ASC path, pitch moves pitch, and yaw moves pure yaw.
So, we conclude that the SRM coils are fine, and there is something funny going on with the slow part of the actuation.
Koji restarted the slow computer susaux, and burt restored it, but that did not fix the situation. We went inside and looked at all of the ribbon cable connections, and pushed them all in, but that also has not fixed things.
We have been looking at D010001-b, the coil driver board, and we think that's where the summing resistor network between the slow bias slider, and the coil outputs from the fast model exists. (It's not 100% clear, but we're confident that that's what is going on).
Tomorrow, we will pull the SRM's coil driver board, and see if any of the components in the slow slider path, before the summing point, look burned / broken / bad.
By looking at a longer data stretch for the SRM (6 hours instead of just one), we were able to get enough extra resolution to make fits to the very close POS and SIDE peaks. This allowed us to do the matrix inversion. The result is that SRM looks pretty good, and agrees with what was measured previously:
pit yaw pos side butt
UL 0.869 0.975 1.140 -0.253 1.085
UR 1.028 -1.025 1.083 -0.128 -1.063
LR -0.972 -0.993 0.860 -0.080 0.834
LL -1.131 1.007 0.917 -0.205 -1.018
SD 0.106 0.064 3.188 1.000 -0.011
The following optics were kicked:
Wed Oct 19 04:22:53 PDT 2011
I made the first measurements towards oplev calibration measurements: calibrating the oplevs in SRM YAW. The measurements seemed fine, I had a range of between -1.5 and 1.5 in SRM DC alignment before clipping on mirrors on the oplev bench became a problem. This seemed to be plenty to get a decent fit for the spot position against DC alignment value - see attached plot. The fitted gradient was -420um oplev yaw count. I calculated oplev yaw values as UL+LL-UR-LR. Pitch next.
I checked the dark and bright noise of the SRM oplev QPD. The SRM QPD has a rather high dark level for SUM of 478 counts. The dark noise for the SRM QPD looked a little high in the plot against the bright noise (see first attachment), so I plotted the dark noise with the ITMY QPD dark noise (see second attachment). It seems that the SRM QPD has a much higher dark noise level than the ITMY! In case anyone is wondering, to make these traces I record the data from the pitch and yaw test points, then multiply by the SUM (to correct for the fact that the test point signal has already been divided by SUM). I will check the individual quadrants of the SRM QPD to see if one in particular is very noisy. If so, we/I should probably fix it.
The SRM oplev beam is clipping.
Same measurements for SRM pitch (as previously done for yaw in entry 5460) are complete. The QPD is back in the path and aligned. I will be doing the same measurements for ITMY now though, so please ask before activating the SRM or ITMY oplev servos, as I may be blocking the beam.
Currently, SRM is misaligned in pitch so that SRM reflected beam hits on the top edge of SR3 (not on the mirror, but on the cage holding the mirror).
We also confirmed that SRM oplev beam is coming out from the chamber unclipped, and centered on QPD when SRM is "aligned".
The sum vs. pitch and yaw signals for the SRM QPD weren't making sense to me - centering on the PD lowered the sum, etc. So, I had a look at the SRM oplev setup.
The beam going in to the chamber looked fine, but the beam coming out was weird, like it was being clipped, or diffracted off of a sharp edge. The beam was spread out in yaw over almost 1cm as seen by eye. I looked into the vacuum window, and the beam was sitting on the edge of one of the in-vac steering optics. So, I adjusted the yaw of the beam-launching optic on the out of vac table so that I was roughly centered on both of the in-vac SRM steering mirrors. This required moving the first out of vac mirror for the SRM oplev path on the way to the QPD to move a small amount to one side, since the beam was near-ish the edge of the optic. I then centered the beam on the oplev (I had the SRM roughly aligned already).
Now the SRM oplev makes more sense to me. I have turned on FMs 1, 2, 5, 9 to match ITMY's loop shape. I have set the gains to -10 for pitch and +10 for yaw, to make the upper UGF about 6 Hz.
The SRM oplevs were found to be oscillating because of a small phase margin.
I reduced the gains to the half of them. The peak which Steve found today maybe due to this oscillation.
The SRM bounce peak 18.33 Hz. Suresh helped me to retune filter through Foton, but we failed to remove it.
We realized that the SRM sensors are connected to the readout but just sitting on the BS in vacuum table with no magnets and therefore no shadows in them. We swapped the inputs to the SRM and PRM satellite boxes to use the higher transimpedance gain of the PRM side sensor. The attached plot shows the current spectrum in this configuration. The PD readback voltage was 9.5 V. Since this is close to the rail we put a slightly higher voltage into the AA of this channel to test that we can read out more ADC counts to make sure we are not saturating. The margin was 15800 vs 15400 counts with p-p of 5 counts on the dataviewer 1 second trend. We returned all cables to nominal configuration.
The calibration from A to m is 59 uA/1 mm.
IF I believe this calibration and IF I believe that the noise is the same with no magnet in there, then its almost 1 nm/rHz @ 1 Hz.
I am guessing that Jenne's calculation will show that this is an unacceptably high level of OSEM sensor noise, OAF-wise.
Sorry Kiwamu, I realized too late that you were freeswigging. Hopefully 4 hrs was enough.
[Kiwamu, Suresh] This is a belated elog entry from last Friday night + Saturday morning!
We shifted the SRM tower across the beam and away from the door by about 5mm.
After the input beam from MC was aligned to the Y-arm, Kiwamu noticed that the AS beam was being clipped and that the correction had to start from SRM onwards as the beam had become offcentered on the SRM. So we shifted the SRM tower by about 5mm away from the door and transverse to the beam and rotated it by a few degrees to center the OSEM offsets. After this we aligned all optics along the AS beam path to extract the AS beam from the chamber. We then aligned each optic in the vertex so that their beams overlap at the AS port with the reflection from ITMY. Then we aligned BS to center the beam on ETMX and then looked for flashes from the Y arm.
At this point Kiwamu checked and found that the input beam from the MC had shifted. It was landing on the ITMY about 5mm below the center. And (inexplicably) it was still centered on ETMY! The Y- green which traced the cavity axis (since this was still flashing) was not coincident with the IR beam. So all the work we did in aligning the AS beam and the vertex optics work was lost..... and had to be done again.
[Jenne, Kiwamu, Rana, Eric Gustafson]
The SRM and PRM have been re-hung, and are ready for installation into the chambers. Once we put the OSEMs in, we may have to check the rotation about the Z-axis. That was not confirmed today (which we could do with the microscope on micrometer, or by checking the centering of the magnets in the OSEMs).
Also, Eric and Rana inspected the Tip Tilt magnets, and took a few that they did their best to destroy, and they weren't able to chip the magnets. There was concern that several of the magnets showed up with the coatings chipped all over the place. However, since Rana and Eric did their worst, and didn't put any new chips in, we'll just use the ones that don't have chips in them. Rana confiscated all the ones with obvious bad chips, so we'll check the strengths of the other magnets using a gaussmeter, and choose sets of 4 that are well matched.
Eric, photographer extraordinaire, will send along the pictures he took, and we'll post them to Picasa.
The SRM qpd cable was removed from the BS-table. It's path was changed from 1x4 to ITMY-table following the inner cable tray.
Laser diode oplev SRM is working. Qpd matrix values were reset like others.
In 0.44mW, returning 0.1mW, -500 counts.
Kiwamu and Koji
- Checked the SRM/PRM balancing after the gluing.
- The mirrors were removed from the suspensions for baking.
- Bob is going to bake them next week.
Koji's design of the SS 2" mirror holder with flexure spring optic retainer like Polaris-K1 has been ordered. We are getting just one to see it's effect on the hysteresis.
LIGO GC notified us that nodus had SSL2.0 and SSL3.0 enabled. This has been disabled now.
The details are described on 40m wiki.
I made the signal box as described in eLog 7210. It adds the geophone signal and an external signal.
It has six switches, for x, y, and z signals from both an external and local (geophone) source. The x signals add if both x switches are flipped down (and the same for the other directions). For example, if you want to feed in only an external signal in the x direction, flip down the external x direction switch (it's labeled on the box), leaving all others flipped up.
The x, y, and z outputs are wired to the pins from the preamplifier that go to the high voltage board. These I disconnected from the preamplifier by cutting at their base (there are spare connectors if this wants to be undone, or, a wire can just be soldered from the pin to its old spot on the board). The power (plus/minus) and ground are wired to the respective pins from the geophone preamplifier (naturally, the STACIS must be turned on for the box to work since the box shares its power source). Below, the front (switches and geophone/external inputs) and back (power, ground, outputs) of the box are shown:
The preamplifier can plug into its regular connectors- the x,y,and z signals will all be redirected to the signal box with these modifications. The box sits outside the STACIS, there is room to feed the wires out from underneath the STACIS platform.
NOTE: The geophone z switch is a little different than the others, just make sure it's flipped all the way down if you want that signal to be seen in the z output.
I found this entry in the old 40m ilog which describes the STACIS performance. It shows that even though the STACIS is bad for the differential arm motion below 3 Hz. It has quite a big and positive effect at 10-30 Hz. The OSEMs show a bigger effect than what the single arm does. I think this is because the single arm is limited by the MC frequency noise above 10 Hz.
We should figure out how to turn on the STACIS but set the lower UGF to be ~5 Hz.
Yesterday I handed Deeksha a red pitaya (stemlab 125 - 10) to begin her summer work in the lab. The short term goal (~1 week) is to get it to work as a network analyzer and perhaps characterize its ADC/DAC noise spectra.
Den and investigated the STS-1 problem (which is currently plugged into ADC channels 13, 14, and 15, which correspond to the STS-3 channels in dtt). It turns out that I had plugged in the power to the monitor in the host box rather than the remote. The X, Y, and Z readout is currently approaching a mean of zero, and I will let it continue to do so overnight (pressing auto-zero as necessary). Attached is a plot of the coherence with GUR 1, and the time-domain signals.
I realized what the ADC channel mismatch was, and apologize for plotting a terrible coherence in log scale. The channels are now properly matched (there is decent coherence between GUR1_X/STS_X, etc.).
We were wondering why the STS-2 signal was funny. When I went to look at it, the X-axis indicator was pointing ~45deg from the x-axis, so that it was pointing between the arms of the IFO. Also, the bubble in the level was totally stuck on one side. We locked the masses, and I put the seismometer back to the correct orientation, and then leveled it. We unlocked the masses and turned the power back on, and hit the auto-zero button a few times. Right now the X-axis signal is fine, but Y and Z are still railed, but it's been like 24 seconds, not 24 hours since we last hit auto zero, so there's still some time to wait.
Also, GUR2 was unplugged on both ends of the cable. We plugged it back in. However, it looks like the *seismometer* labeled #1 is now plugged into *channels* GUR2, and the seismometer labeled #2 is plugged into channels GUR1. Recall that Den has only modified X, Y, Z for GUR1 channels, not any other channels in the breakout box.
Den and I moved the Streckeisen, Guralp 2, and Trillium seismometers to the isolation box in order to measure the noise of the Streckeisen while we have the Trillium.
It seems that the STS-1 ADC channels had the same mismatch issue as the GUR-2 channels. The PEM_MONITOR has STS_1 listed as channels 6, 7, 8 (+1 on the actual ADC) whereas it was plugged into channels 13, 14, 15 (+1 on the actual ADC as well) with nothing in channels 6, 7, 8. Thus, I moved the cables and reset STS_1. The readout, however, is still only a magnitude of ~10 counts (I checked, however, that this is indeed the readout when the seismometer is plugged in vs. when it is unplugged), but hopefully it will stabilize during the day, as did GUR 2.
The 'Bacardi' STS-2 seismometer was tested with the "purple" breakout box and it was found out that all the three axes gave a voltage of 11 V (as shown on the screen of the oscilloscope) before pressing the auto-zero button and after pressing it the voltage shown was 6 V. We tried again the blue box and it was working perfectly after pushing the auto zero button (the auto zero took a few seconds). The power of the purple box is still on, we will wait a few hours, to see if something changes.
We have two STS-2 seismometer boxes... the blue box & the purple box. Initially we used the blue box for the STS-2 seismometer (named Bacardi by Jenne).
X = +10 V
Y = +11 V
Z = -0.1 V
Thus, X and Y axes showed abnormally high DC volt. It was also found out that in AC coupling mode of the oscilloscope... changes were observed in the signal received from Z axis when some seismic wave was generated near the Bacardi by jumping near it. No such changes were observed from signals received from X & Y axes.
X = +4.4 V
Y = +4.4 V
Z = +4.4 V
In Ac coupling mode of the oscilloscope... changes were observed in the signals from X, Y, Z axes when someone jumped near Bacardi.
[Jan, Manuel, Jenne]
Jenne called Jan to check and figure out why the Streckeisen seismometer (SN #100151) doesn't work, hence we checked the output of the seismometer boxes as we did last friday. (This is the problem of seeing the X and Y channels saturated, when we look at them on a floating 'scope, as in the linked elog entry.)
Jan unplugged and plugged again the orange cable into the seismometer and nothing happened. Well, what Jan was listening for was "clicks" inside the seismometer indicating that it was receiving power. We heard these, and moved on to examining the breakout boxes. Also, we checked that we could hear the "clicks" (one per mass) when we pushed the mass-centering button on the little green companion box.
We weren't sure that the purple box was working properly, so since we had seen the blue box work last time, we changed the purple box with the blue box in rack 1X6.
The Z-channel of the purple box returns a correct signal, that means that all the masses in the seismometer work (because the Z-signal is a linear combination of the three masses U, V, W), the X and Y channel have a DC component of about 10 Volts, Jan said that the recentering of the seismometer masses could need all the night, so we keep the power of the box on. If tomorrow morning the X and Y signal won't both be zero mean, we will open and check the box.
The power of the box is still on so that the masses can recenter overnight.
Edits by JD
The WWF_M connector is the end of the STS2 seismometer orange cable and the S1 connector is the end of the gray 26-pin-cable
I unpacked the STS2 seismometers that we borrowed from LLO. They are sitting underneath the Xarm, in the middle of the mode cleaner, near the other seismometer stuff.
I started playing with matlab for the first time, accurately simulated a coupled harmonic oscillator (starting from the basic differential equations, if anyone's curious), wrote a program to get a bode plot out of any simulation (regardless of the number of inputs/outputs), and read a lot.
I'm currently going through the first stage of simulating an ideal Fabry-Perot cavity (I technically started yesterday, but yesterday's work turned out to be wrong, so fresh start!), and other than yesterday's setback, its going okay.
I attached a screenshot of my simulation of the pitch/pendulum motion of one of the mirrors LIGO uses. The bode plots for this one are turning out a little weird, but I'm fairly certain its just a computational error and can be ignored (as the simulation matlab rendered without the coupling was really accurate - down to a floating point error). I have also attached these bode plots. The first bode is based on the force input, while the second is based on the torque input. It makes sense that there are two resonant frequencies, since there ought to be one per input.
These past two weeks, I've been working on simulating a basic Fabry-Perot cavity. I finished up a simulation involving static, non-suspension mirrors last week. It was supposed to output the electric field in the cavities given a certain shaking (of the mirrors), and the interesting thing was that it outputted the real and imaginary components seperately, so I ended up with six different bode plots. Since we're only interested in the real part, bodes 2, 4, and 6 can be discarded (see attachment 1). There was a LOT of split-peak behavior, and I think it has to do either with matlab overloading or with the modes of the cavity being very close together (I actually think the first is more likely since a smaller value of T_1 resulted in actual peaks instead of split ones).
At any rate, there really wasn't much I could improve on that simulation (neither was there any point), but I attach the subsystem governing the electric field in the cavity as a matter of academic interest (see attachment 2). So I moved onto simulations where the mirrors are actually suspended pendulums as they are in reality.
A basic simulation of the suspended mirrors gave me fairly good results (see attachment 3). A negative Q resulted in a phase flip, detuning the resonance from the wrong side resulted in a complete loss of the resonance peak, and the peak looked fairly consistent with what it should be. The simulation itself is pretty bare bones, and relies on the two transfer functions P(s) and K(s); P(s) is the transfer function for translating the force of the shaking of the two test masses (lumped together into one transfer function) into actual displacement. Note that s = i*w, where w is the frequency of the force being applied. K(s), on the other hand, is the transfer function that feeds displacement back into the original applied force-based shaking. Like I said, pretty bare bones, but working (see attachment 4 for a bode plot of a standard detuning value and positive Q). Tweaking the restoring (or anti restoring, depending on the sign of the detuning) force constant (K_0 for short) results in some interesting behavior. The most realistic results are produced for K_0 = 1e4, when the gain is much lower overall but the peak in resonance gets you a gain of 100 in dB. For those curious as to where I got P(s) and K(s), see "Measurement of radiation-pressure-induced optomechanical dynamics in a suspended Fabry-Perot cavity" by Thomas Corbitt, et. al.
I'm currently working on a more realistic simulation, with frequency and force noise as well as electronic feedback (via transfer functions, see attachment 5). The biggest thing so far has been trying to get the electronic transfer functions right. Corbitt's group gave some really interesting transfer functions (H_f(s) and H_l(s) for short; H_f(s) gives the frequency-based electronic transfer function, while H_l(s) gives the length-based electronic transfer function), which I've been trying to copy so that I can reproduce their results (see attachment 6). It looks like H_l(s) is a lowpass Butterworth filter, while H_f(s) is a Bessel filter (order TBD). Once that is successful, I'll figure out what H_f(s) and H_l(s) are for us (they might be the same!), add in degrees of freedom, and my first shot at the OSEM system of figuring out where the mirror's position is.
This past week, I've been working on moving forward with the basic cavity model I developed last week (for future reference, that model was FP_3, and I am now working on FP_4) and refining the suspensions. I added three degrees of freedom to my simulation (such that it now consists of yaw, pitch, displacement, and side-to-side motion) and am attempting to integrate them with the OSEMS. I have also added mechanical damping for all degrees of freedom, and am adding electric damping and feedback. Concerning that, are all of the degrees of freedom locally damped in addition to being actuated on by the control system? Or does the control system do all of the damping itself? The first is the way I'm working on setting it up, but can easily change this if needed.
The next iteration of FP (FP_5) will replace my complicated OSEM --> Degrees of Freedom and vice versa system with the matrix system (see the poster Jenne and Jamie made, "Advanced Suspension Diagnostic Procedure"), as well as adding bounce/roll, yaw/y coupling, various non-damping filters as needed (i.e. the a2f filters), and noise sources. However, I'll only move on to that once I'm sure I have FP_4 working reasonably well. For now at least, the inputs/outputs look fine, and some of the DOF show resonance peaks. I'll become more concerned about where these resonance peaks actually are once I add damping.
Attached is a screenshot my work in progress. Only one of the suspensions has a basic feedback/damping loop going (as a prototype). It looks complicated now, but will simplify dramatically once I have damping worked out. Pink inputs are noises (will probably replace those with noise generators in FP_5) and green inputs are the OSEMS. The red output is the displacement of the cavity from resonance. The blue boxes are suspensions.
This week I've been working on refining my simulation and getting it ready to be plugged into the control system. In particular, I've added a first attempt at a PDH control system, matrix conversion from OSEMs to DOF and back, and all necessary DAC/ADC/AA/AI/whitening/dewhitening filters. Most of these work well, but the whitening filters have been giving me trouble. At one point, they were amplifying the signal instead of flatting it out, such that my simulation started outputting NaN (again).
This was wholeheartedly depressing, but switching out the whitening filters for flat ones seemed to make the problem go away, but brought another problem to light. The output to input ratio is minuscule (as in 10^-300/10^243, see Attachment 3 for the resulting bode plot between a force on the suspension pt in the x-direction and my two outputs - error signal and length signal, which is pretty much what you would expect it to be). I suspect that its related to the whitening filter problem (perhaps the dewhitening filter is flattening the signal instead of amplifying?). If that is the case, then switching the whitening/dewhitening filters ought to work. I'll try today and see what happens. The white/dewhite filters together result in a total gain of 1, which is a good fundamental test, but could mean absolutely nothing (i.e. they could both be wrong!). Judging from the fact that we want to flatten out low frequency signal when it goes through the whitening filter, the filters don't look switched (see Attachment 4 for a bode plot of white and dewhite).
The only other source of problems (given that the suspensions/local damping have been debugged extensively throughout this process - though they could bug out in conjunction with the cavity controls?) is the PDH system. However, separating each of the components showed that the error signal generated is not absurd (I haven't tested whether it makes sense or not, but at any rate it doesn't result in an output on the order of 10^-300).
In summary, I've made progress this week, but there is still far to go. Attachment 1 is my simulation from last week, Attachment 2 is my simulation from this week. A talk with Jamie about the "big picture" behind my project helped tremendously.
Here's a screenshot of what's going on inside the cavity (Attachment 1). The PDH/mixer system outputs 0 for pretty much everything except really high numbers, which is the problem I'm trying to solve now. I assumed that the sidebands were anti-resonant, calculated reflection coefficient F(dL) = Z * 4pi * i/(lambda), where Z = (-r_1 + r_2*(r_1^2 + t_1^2)/(1 - r_1*r_3)), then calculated P_ref = 2*P_s - 4sqrt(P_c*P_s) * Im(F(dL)) * sin(12.5 MHz * t) (this is pictured in Attachment 2), then mixed it with a sin(12.5MHz * t) and low-passed it to get rid of everything but the DC term (this is pictured in Attachment 3), which is the term that then gets whitened/anti-aliased/passed through the loop.