40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 224 of 341  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Categoryup Subject
  14999   Wed Oct 30 01:27:00 2019 gautamUpdateLSCMore locking updates

Tried a bunch of things tonight.

  1. Modified the "ELP300" filter module in the MICH filter bank - this was really a 4th order elliptic low pass with corner at 80 Hz, which was much too low. I tried upping the corner to 500 Hz, and reducing the order, while I was able to enable the filter, there was clearly a gain-peaking feature visible after engaging this module, so the exercise of reducing the high frequency MICH actuation requires more careful (daytime) loop optimization.
  2. Tried adding some POPDC to the MICH/PRCL trigger once the PRMI was locked - I thought this would help if the problem was just with POP22 triggering turning off the MICH/PRCL loops, but the problem seems to persist with the mixed matrix trigger as well, once I reach a CARM offset where the arm powers exceed ~10, the PRMI loses lock.
  3. One strange feature I don't understand is that with the PRMI locked with the carrier field resonant, when running the dither alignment servo to minimize REFLDC (= more carrier coupled into the PRC), the POPDC level also goes down, but TRX and TRY go up slightly. I confirmed that the beam isn't falling off the POP22 photodiode (Thorlabs PDA10CF), but I don't understand why these two DC powers should fall simultaneously - if I couple more carrier into the PRC, shouldn't the POPDC level also increase?

One possibility is that the arm buildup is exerting some torque on the ITMs, which can also change the PRC cavity axis - as the buildup increases, the dominant component of the circulating field in the PRC comes from the leakage from the overcoupled arm cavity. We used to DC couple the ITM Oplev servos when locking the PRMI. The TRX level of 1 corresponds to ~5W of circulating power in the arm cavity, and the static radiation pressure force due to this circulating power is ~30 nN, rising up to 300nN as the TRX level hits 10. So for 1mm offset of the spot position on the ITM, we'd still only exert 300 pN m of torque. I don't see any transient in the Oplev error signals when locking the arm cavity as usual with POX/POY, but on timescales of several seconds, the Oplev error point shows ~3-5 urad of variation.

Attachment 1: POP_ASS.png
POP_ASS.png
  15000   Wed Oct 30 11:53:41 2019 gautamUpdateLSCMICH loop shape tuning

I changed the shape of the low pass filter to reduce high frequency sensor noise injection into the MICH control signal. The loop stability isn't adversely affected (lost ~5 degrees of phase margin but still have ~50 degrees), while the control signal RMS is reduced by ~x10. This test was done with the PRMI locked on the carrier, need to confirm that this works with the arms controlled on ALS and PRMI lcoked on sideband.

Attachment 1: MICH_ELP.pdf
MICH_ELP.pdf
Attachment 2: MICH_ELP_TFs.pdf
MICH_ELP_TFs.pdf
  15001   Wed Oct 30 17:08:40 2019 gautamUpdateLSCPOP22 investigation

The POP beam coming out of the vacuum chamber is split by a 50/50 BS and half is diverted to the POP22/POP110/POPDC photodiode (Thorlabs PDA10CF) and the other half goes to the POP QPD. This optical layout is still pretty accurate. I looked at the data of the POPDC and POP QPD SUM channels while the dither alignment was running, to see if I could figure out what's up with the weird correlated dip in REFLDC and POPDC. While the POPDC channel shows some degradation as the REFLDC level goes down (=alignment gets better), the QPD sum channel shows the expected light level increase. So it could yet be some weird clipping somewhere in the beampath - perhaps at the 50/50 BS? I will lock the PRMI (no arms) and check...

Attachment 1: POP22anomaly.pdf
POP22anomaly.pdf
  15009   Mon Nov 4 15:29:47 2019 gautamUpdateLSCPOP signal path

There are many versions of the POP22 signal path I found on the elog, e.g. this thread. But what I saw at the LSC rack was not quite in agreement with any of those. So here is the latest greatest version.

Since the 2f signals are mainly indicators of power buildups and are used for triggering various PDH loops, I don't know how critical some of these things are, but here are some remarks:

  1. There is no Tee + 50 ohm terminator after the minicircuits filters, whose impedance in the stopband are High-Z (I have been told but never personally verified).
  2. The RF amplifier used is a Minicircuits ZFL-1000-LN+. This has a gain of 20dB and 1dB compression output power spec of 3dBm. So to be safe, we want to have not more than -20dBm of signal at the input. On a 50-ohm scope (AC coupled), I saw a signal that has ~100mVpp amplitude (there is a mixture of many frequencies so this is not the Vpp of a pure sinusoid). This corresponds to -16dBm. Might be cutting it a bit close even after accounting for cable loss and insertion loss of the bias tee.
  3. We use a resistive power splitter to divide the power between the POP22 and POP110 paths, which automatically throws away 50% of the RF power. A better option is the ZAPD-2-252-S+.
  4. The Thorlabs PDA10CF photodiode (not this particular one) has been modelled to have a response that can be approximated by a complex pole pair with Q=1 at ~130 MHz. But we are also using this PD for measuring the 110 MHz PD which is a bit close to the band edge?
Attachment 1: POPchain.pdf
POPchain.pdf
  15010   Mon Nov 4 16:06:58 2019 gautamUpdateLSCPOP optical path

I did some re-alignment of the POP beam on the IX in air table. Here are the details:

  1. Attachment #1 - optical layout.
  2. With the PRC locked with the carrier resonant (no arm cavities), there is ~300uW of DC power incident on the Thorlabs PDA10CF, which serves as POP22, POP110 and POPDC photosensor.
    • See this elog for the signal paths.
    • On a scope, this corresponded to ~1.8 V DC of voltage. This is in good agreement with the expected transimpedance gain of 10 kOhms and responsivity of ~0.65 A/W given on the datasheet.
    • This is also in agreement with the ~6000 ADC counts I see in the CDS system (although there are large fluctuations). 
  3. These was significant misalignment of the beam on this photodiode at some point:
    • Previously, I had used the CDS system to walk the beam on thde photodiode to try and maximize the power.
    • Today I took a different approach - triggered the MICH and PRCL loops on REFLDC (instead of the usual POPDC / POP22) so I could freely block the beam.
    • I found that there is a fast (f=35mm) lens to make the beam small enough for the PDA10CF. The beam was somewhat mis-centered on this strongly curved optic, and I suspect it was amplifying small misalignments. Anyway it is much better centered now (see Attachment #2) and I have a much stronger POPDC signal (by a factor of ~2-3, see Attachment #3).
    • The ASS dither alignment now shows much more consistent behavior - minimizing REFLDC maximises POPDC, see Attachment #4.
    • I took this opportunity to take some spectra/time-series of the PD output with the interferometer in this configuration. 

Tangentially related to this work - I took the nuclear option and did a hard reboot of the c1susaux Acromag crate on Sunday to fix the EPICS issue - it seems to be gone for now, see Attachment #5.

Attachment 1: IMG_8027.JPG
IMG_8027.JPG
Attachment 2: lensRealignment.jpg
lensRealignment.jpg
Attachment 3: POPrealigned.png
POPrealigned.png
Attachment 4: POPdither.png
POPdither.png
Attachment 5: PRMfixed.png
PRMfixed.png
  15012   Tue Nov 5 11:52:27 2019 gautamUpdateLSCLocking notes

Summary:

I am still unable to achieve arm powers greater than TRX/TRY ~10 while keeping the PRMI locked. A couple of times, I was able to get TRY ~50, but TRX stayed at ~10, or even dropped a little, suggestive of a DARM offset? On the positive side, the ALS system seems to work pretty reliably, and I can keep the arms controlled by ALS for several tens of minutes.

Details:

  • Despite my POP beam path improvements, I saw the POP22 level drop as I lowered the CARM offset.
  • One strange feature last night was that with the arms held off resonance using ALS, I had to flip the sign and increase the gain by ~x2 of the REFL33_I-->PRCL loop in order to lock the PRMI. This was confirmed by locking on the 1f error signals and measuring the ratio of the response between the 1f and 3f signals while shaking PRCL using DTT swept sine.
  • At different CARM offsets, I noted that the DC offset level on the 1f photodiodes (i.e. REFL11 and AS55) were changing significantly.
  • I ran a measurement of the sensing matrix with the arm powers hovering around ~10, which is just before I lose the PRMI lock - managed to stay locked for >5 minutes, but the sensing matrix seems to suggest that the REFL33 demod angle needs to be rotated - maybe this is the reason why the PDH horn-to-horn voltage of REFL33 is lower now than it was last week? No idea why that should be, I was around the LSC rack but if the situation is so fragile, seems hopeless.
  • MICH sensed by REFL165_Q still seems stable, so that's good...
  • So my best hypothesis at the moment is that the PRCL optical gain is falling as I reduce the CARM offset (due to DC offset? or something else?). Needs some detailed modeling for more insight, I'm out of ideas for tests to run while locking as I've gone through the full gamut of OLTF and sensing matrix measurements at various CARM offsets without getting any clues as to what's going on.
Attachment 1: PRMI3f_ALS_Nov4sensMat.pdf
PRMI3f_ALS_Nov4sensMat.pdf
  15014   Wed Nov 6 02:08:48 2019 gautamUpdateLSCLocking updates

Summary:

There seems to be stronger-than-expected coupling between CARM and the 3f sensors. 

Details:

Full analysis tomorrow, but I collected sensing matrix measurements with lines driven in PRCL,MICH and CARM at a couple of CARM offsets. I also wanted to calibrate the CARM offset to physical units so I ran some scans of the CARM offset and collected the data so I can use the arm cavity FSR to calibrate CARM. Koji suggested using REFL165_I for PRCL and REFL165_Q for MICH control - this would allow us to see if the problem was with the 1f sideband only. While the lock could be established, we still couldn't push the arm powers above 10 without breaking the PRMI lock. While changing the CARM offset, we saw a significant shift in the DC offset level of the out-of-loop REFL33_I signal. Need to think about what this means...

  15015   Wed Nov 6 17:05:45 2019 gautamUpdateLSCCARM calibration

Summary:

A coarse calibration of the CARM error point (when on ALS control) is 7.040 +/- 0.030 kHz/ct. This corresponds to approximately 0.95nm/ct. I typically lose the PRMI lock when the CARM offset is ~0.2 cts, which means I am about 1kHz away from the resonance. This is >10 CARM linewidths.

Details:

The calibration was done by sweeping the CARM offset (no PRM) and identifying the arm cavity FSRs by looking for peaks in TRX / TRY. Attachment #1 shows the scan, while Attachment #2 shows a linear fit to the FSRs. In Attachment #2, the frequency axis is taken from the phase tracker servo, which was calibrated by injecting a "known" frequency with the Marconi, and there is good agreement to the expected FSR with 37.79 m long arm cavities. There is much more info in the scan (e.g. modulation depths, mode matching to the arm cavities etc) which I will extract later, but if anyone wants the data (pre-downsampled by me to have a managable filesize), it's attached as a .zip file in Attachment #3.

Attachment 1: CARMscan.pdf
CARMscan.pdf
Attachment 2: CARMcalib.pdf
CARMcalib.pdf
Attachment 3: scan.hdf5.zip
  15016   Wed Nov 6 17:45:34 2019 gautamUpdateLSC~

Here is a comparison of the response of various DoFs in our various RFPD sensors for two different CARM offsets. Even in the case of the smaller CARM offset of ~1kHz, we are several linewidths away from the resonance. Need to do some finesse modeling to make any meaningful statement about this - why is the CARM response in REFL11 apparently smaller for the smaller CARM offset?

If you mistrust my signal processing, the GPS times for which I ran the sensing lines are:

CARM offset = ~30kHz (arm transmission <0.02) --- 1257064777+5min

CARM offset = ~1kHz (arm transmission ~5) --- 1257065566+5min

Quote:

Summary:

There seems to be stronger-than-expected coupling between CARM and the 3f sensors. 

  15026   Thu Nov 14 23:56:18 2019 ranaUpdateLSCoff the bad Violin filters

We turned off many excessive violin mode bandstop filters in the LSC.

Due to some feedforward work by Jenne or EQ some years ago, we have had ~10 violin notches on in the LSC between the output matrix and the outputs to the SUS.

They were eating phase, computation time, and making ~3 dB gain peaking in places where we can't afford it. I have turned them off and Gautam SDF safed it.

Offensive BS shown in brown and cooler BS shown in blue.

To rotate the DTT landscape plot to not be sideways, use this command (note that the string is 1east, not least):
pdftk in.pdf cat 1east output out.pdf

Attachment 1: out.pdf
out.pdf
  15028   Fri Nov 15 11:58:12 2019 gautamUpdateLSCoff the bad Violin filters

The clue was that the loop X arm POX loop looked to have low (<3dB)) gain margin around 600 Hz (and again at 700 Hz). Attachment #1 shows a comparison of the OLTF for this loop (measured using the IN1/IN2 method) before and after our change. We hypothesize that one of the violin filters that were turned off had non-unity DC gain, because I had to lower the loop gain by 20% after these turn-offs to have the same UGF. I updated the snap files called by the arm locking scripts.

I think I caught all the places where the FM settings are saved, but some locking scripts may still try and turn on some of these filters, so let's keep an eye on it.

Quote:

We turned off many excessive violin mode bandstop filters in the LSC.

Attachment 1: violinFix.pdf
violinFix.pdf
Attachment 2: newViolinConfig.png
newViolinConfig.png
  15029   Fri Nov 15 12:08:04 2019 gautamUpdateLSCPOPDC whitening board

The DC port of the Bias-Tee is routed to (a modified version of) the iLIGO whitening board. This has the well-known problem of the protection diodes of the LT1125 quad-op-amp lowering the (ideally infinite) input impedance of the first gain stage (+24 dB). To be sure as to how much signal we can put into this port (in anticipation of trying some variable finesse PRFPMI locking but also for general book-keeping), I tested the usable input range by driving a triangle wave at ~3 Hz and changing the amplitude of the signal until we observed saturation. We found that we could drive a 10 Vpp signal at which point there was evidence of some clipping (it was asymmetric, the top end of the signal was getting clipped at +14,000 cts while the bottom end still looked like a triangle wave at -16,000 counts). Anyway we probably don't want to exceed +/- 10,000 counts on this channel. This is consistent with Hartmut's statement of having +/- 4V of usable range (although the counts he mentions are twice what I saw yesterday).

Other discussion points between Rana, Koji and Gautam:

  1. Conside putting an in-vacuum (Silicon ?) QPD for the PRC angular motion sensing
    • In-vacuum will yield lower acoustic noise coupling
    • Bring the photocurrent out and do the transimpedance amplification in air 
    • Use a large area QPD so as to be more tolerant to alignment drifts without having to introduce picomotors (but how much does the POP spot actually drift and is this feasible?)
  2. Is there some better telescope configuration for the existing in-air QPD?
    • What is the correct Gouy-phase for this to be able to best sense the PRC cavity axis motion?
  15034   Mon Nov 18 21:04:38 2019 gautamUpdateLSCLocking - some ideas

Some ideas Koji suggested:

  1. Try approaching the CARM offset zero point "from the other side" - i.e. start with a CARM offset of the opposite sign (I typically use negative CARM offset).
  2. With the PRMI locked, try bringing one arm onto resonance while the other arm is held off resonance. 

For the second idea, it is convenient to be able to control the arms in the XARM/YARM basis as opposed to the CARM/DARM basis as we usually do when going through the locking sequence. After some fiddling, I am able to reliably execute this transition, and achieve a state where the FP arm cavities are resonant for the IR with the ALS beat note frequency being the error signal being used. Some important differences:

  1. The frequency actuator (ETM) is weaker in this case than in the CARM/DARM basis (where MC2 is the frequency actuator) due to the longer length of the arm cavity (and for ETMX, the higher coil driver series resistance). I had to twiddle the limits of the servo banks to accommodate this. 
  2. The ALS error signal is significantly noisier than POX/POY. Hence, the control signal RMS is often in danger of saturating the DAC range. I implemented a partial fix by adding a 1st order Butterworth LPF with 1kHz corner frequency. According to the model, this eats <5 degrees of phase at the desired UGF of ~150 Hz.
  15037   Wed Nov 20 01:07:18 2019 gautamUpdateLSCLocking - progress

Summary:

  1. CARM offset was reduced to 0 with the PRMI locked.
  2. TRY levels touched ~200 (Recycling gain ~10, IFO is still undercoupled).
  3. TRX level never went so high - I suspect QPD issues or clipping in the beampath.

Details:

  • Attachment #1 is a StripTool summary of the lock - encouragingly, the PRMI stayed locked for several 10s of minutes even when the CARM offset was brought to 0.
  • The MICH signal was pretty glitchy - we increased the gain of the MICH and PRCL loops and thought we saw some improvement, but needs more quantitative investigation.
  • Main differences in locking procedure today were:
    • Added some POPDC to the MICH/PRCL trigger elements in addition to POP22
    • Tried adding a DARM offset before doing the final steps of CARM offset reduction, and then zerod the DARM offset too.
  • The TRX level never went as high as TRY - even though on the CRT monitors, both arms seemed to saturate somewhat more evenly. Potentially the EX QPD needs a checkout, or there is some clipping in the in-air TRX path. Although, puzzilingly, the POXDC level never goes as high as POYDC either. So maybe the buildup is really lower in the XARM? For the daytime tomorrow.

Next steps:

  1. Check the EX QPD / TRX situation.
  2. Figure out how to make the PRMI lock more stable as I reduce the CARM offset.
  3. Start figuring out the CM board, as we'd want to do the handoff to RF at some point.
Attachment 1: PRFPMI.png
PRFPMI.png
  15038   Wed Nov 20 12:14:17 2019 gautamUpdateLSCLocking - progress

I took a look at the TRX/TRY RIN reported in the single arm POX/POY lock, and compared the performance of the two available PDs at each of the two ends. Attachment #1 shows the results. Some remarks:

  1. The noise performance of the two QPDs at each end isn't identical - is there some transimpedance gain difference?
  2. The lower plot shows the angular motion reported by each QPD when the arm cavity is locked. The EX QPD seems much more sensitive than the EY QPD.
  3. I estimate that in this condition, each photodiode is receiving ~20uW of power, corresponding to a shot noise limited RIN of ~10^-7. None of the photodiodes saturate this bound.
  4. There are some ND filters placed in front of the QPDs at both ends. Do we really need these ND filters? I estimate that for the highest buildups, we will have ~10kW * 15ppm * 0.5 ~75mW of power incident on the QPD, so ~20mW per segment. Assuming silicon responsivity of 0.2 A/W, a transimpedance of 1kohm would give us 4V of signal. But the schematic shows higher transimpedance. Do we still have the switching capability for this QPD?
Quote:

Next steps:

  1. Check the EX QPD / TRX situation.
Attachment 1: TRX_TRY_comparison.pdf
TRX_TRY_comparison.pdf
  15039   Wed Nov 20 17:20:24 2019 YehonathanUpdateLSCQPD Investigation

{Gautam, Yehonathan}

In search of the source of discrepancy between the QPD readings in the X and Y arms, we look into the schematics of the QPD amplifier - DCC #D990272.

We find that there are 4 gain switches with the following gain characteristics (The 40m QPD whitening board has an additional gain of 4.5):

S4 S3 S2 S1 V/A
0 0 0 0 2e4
0 0 0 1 2e5
0 0 1 0 4e4
0 0 1 1 4e5
0 1 0 0 1e5
0 1 0 1 1e6
0 1 1 0 2e5
0 1 1 1 2e6
1     0 5e2
1     1 5e3

Switch 4 bypasses the amps controlled by switch 2 and 3 when it is set to 1 so they don't matter in this state.

Note that according to elog-13965 the switches are controlled through the QPD whitening board by a XT1111a Acromag whose normal state is 1.

Also, according to the QPD amplifier schematics, the resistor on the transimpedance, controlled by switch 1, is 25kOhm. However, according to the EPICS it is actually 5kOhm. We verify this by shining the QPD with uniform light from a flashlight and switching switch1 on and off while measuring the voltages of the different segments. The schematics should be updated on the DCC.

Surprisingly, QPDX switches where 0,0,0,0 while QPDY switches where 1,0,0,1. This explains the difference in their responses.

We check by shining a laser pointer with a known power on the different segments of QPDX that we get the expected number of counts on the ADC and that the response of the different segments is equal.
 

gautam edits:

  1. Lest there be confusion, the states of the switches in the (S1, S2, S3, S4) order are (0,0,0,0) for QPDX and (0,1,0,1) for QPDY.
  2. The Acromag XT1111 is a sinking BIO unit - so when the EPICS channel is zero, the output impedance is low and the DUT (i.e. MAX333) is shorted to ground. So, the state of the MAX333 shown on the schematics corresponds to EPICS logic level 1, and the switched state corresponds to logic level 0.
  3. For the laser pointer test, we used a red laser pointer. Using a power meter, we measured ~100uW of 632nm power. However, we think this particular laser pointer had failing batteries or something because the spot looked sometimes brighter/dimmer to the eye. Anyways, we saw ~10,000 ADC counts when illuminating a single segment (with the QPD gain switches at the 0,0,0,0 setting, before we changed anything). We expect 100uW * 0.4 A/W * 500 V/A * 10 * 40 * 4.5 * 3267.8 cts/V = ~12000 cts. So everything seems to check out. We changed the gain to the 5kohm setting and bypassed the subsequent gain stages, and saw the expected response too. The segments were only balanced to ~10%, but presumably this can be adjusted by tweaking digital gains.
  15040   Wed Nov 20 17:52:00 2019 gautamUpdateLSCQPD MEDM screen update

Koji and I had noticed that there was some discrepancy between the switchable gain stages of the EX and EY QPDs. Sadly, there was no indication that these switches even exist on the QPD MEDM screen. Yehonathan and I rectified this today. Both EX and EY Transmon QPDs now have some extra info (see Attachment #1). We physically verified the indicated quadrant mapping for the EX QPD (see previous elog in this thread for the details), and I edited the screen accordingly. EY QPD still has to be checked. Note also that there is an ND=0.4 + ND=0.2 filter and some kind of 1064nm light filter installed in series on the EX QPD. The ND filters have a net transmission T~25%.

After making the EX and EY QPDs have the same switchable gain settings (I also reset the trans normalization gains), the angular motion witnessed is much more consistent between the two now - see Attachment #2. The high-frequency noise of the sum channel is somewhat higher for EX than EY - maybe the ND filters are different on the two ends?

Note that there was an extra factor of 40 gain on the EX QPD relative to EY during the lock yesterday. So really, the signals were probably just getting saturated. Now that the gains are consistent between the ends, it'll be interesting to see how balanced the buildup of the two arms is. There still remains the problem that the MICH loop was too unstable, which probably led to to excess arm power fluctuations.

There is a mark on the QPD surface that is probably dirt (since we never have such high power transmitted through the ETM to damage the QPD). I'll try cleaning it up at the next opportunity.

Attachment 1: newLookQPD.png
newLookQPD.png
Attachment 2: TRX_TRY_comparison.pdf
TRX_TRY_comparison.pdf
Attachment 3: IMG_8186.JPG
IMG_8186.JPG
  15041   Wed Nov 20 21:29:28 2019 gautamUpdateLSCPRG ~13

After the QPD fix, both arms report consistent buildup - see Attachment #1. The peak values touch ~250, corresponding to a PRG of ~13. The IFO becomes critically coupled at PRG=15. I am finding that the 3f signal offsets are changing as a function of the CARM offset, and this could be responsible for the lock breaking as I approach 0 CARM offset. I found that I could maintain a more stable and deterministic transition to zero CARM offset by dynamically adjusting the 3f PRCL error signal offset to keep the REFL11 signal approximately at 0. Some shaking seems to have commenced so I am breaking for now.

Note that I find scattered throughout the elog references to a similar problem of the PRMI losing lock as the CARM offset is reduced, e.g. here. But haven't stumbled across what the resolution was, the PRFPMI could be locked pretty easily in 2015 I remember.

Attachment 1: PRG13.pdf
PRG13.pdf
  15042   Thu Nov 21 12:46:22 2019 gautamUpdateLSCCM board study

In preparation for trying out some high-bandwidth Y arm cavity locking using the CM board, I hooked up the POY11_Q_Mon channel of the POY11 demod board to the IN1 of the CM board (and disconnected the usual REFL11 cable that goes to IN1). The digital phase rotation for usual POY Yarm locking is 106 degrees, so the analog POY11_Q channel contains most of the signal. I then set the IN1 gain of the servo to 0dB, and looked at the CM_Slow signal - I changed the whitening gain of this channel to +18dB (to match that used for POY11_I and POY11_Q), and found that I had to apply a digital gain of 0.5 to get the PDH horns in the usual POY11_I signal and the CM_Slow signal to line up. There was also a sign inversion. Then I was able to use the digital LSC system and lock the Y arm cavity length to the PSL frequency by actuating on ETMY, using CM_Slow as an error signal. A comparison of the in-loop POY11_I ASD when the arm is locked is shown in Attachment #1 - CMslow seems to be dominated by some kind of electroncis noise above ~100 Hz, so possibly needs more whitening (even though the nominal whitening filter is engaged)?

Anyway, now that I have this part of the servo working, the next step is to try and engage the AO path and achieve a higher BW lock of the Y arm cavity to the PSL frequency (= IMC length). Maybe it makes more sense to actuate on MC2 for the slow path.

Attachment 1: YARM_CMslow.pdf
YARM_CMslow.pdf
  15043   Thu Nov 21 13:14:33 2019 KojiUpdateLSCCM board study

One of the differences between the direct POY and the CM_SLOW POY is the presence of the CM Servo gain stages. So this might mean that you need to move some of the whitening gain to the CM IN1 gain.

  15044   Thu Nov 21 19:08:58 2019 gautamUpdateLSCHigh BW lock of Y arm length to PSL frequency

Summary:

The Y arm cavity length was locked to the PSL frequency with ~26kHz UGF, and 25 degrees phase margin. Slow actuation was done on ETMY using CM_Slow as an error signal, while fast actuation was done on the IMC error point via the IN2 input of the IMC servo board. Attachment #1 shows the comparison of the in-loop error signal spectra with only slow actuation and with the full CM loop engaged.

Details:

  1. LSC enable OFF.
  2. Configure the CM board for locking:
    • CM board IN1 gain = 25dB.
    • CM_Slow whitening gain = +18dB, make sure the offsets are correctly set. CM_Slow filter bank = -0.015.
    • CM_Slow-->YARM matrix element in LSC input matrix is -2.5.
    • YARM-->ETMY matrix element in LSC Output matrix is 1.
    • AO gain set to +5dB. IMC Servo board IN2 gain starts at -32dB, the path is disabled. The polarity is Plus.
    • Usual YARM FM triggers are set (FM1, FM2, FM3, FM6, FM8), usual YARM servo gain is used (0.01), usual triggering conditions (ON @ TRY>0.3, OFF @ TRY < 0.1), usual power normalization by TRY.
  3. Enable LSC mode, wait for the arm to acquire lock.
  4. Once the digital boosts are engaged, enable the IMC IN2 path, ramp up the gain to -2 dB. Note that this IN2 path is AC coupled, according to this elog. The corner frequency is 1/2/pi/2e3/6.8uF ~11 Hz. This was confirmed by measurement, see Attachment #3. I couldn't find a 2-pin LEMO-->BNC adaptor so I measured at the BNC connector for the IN2 input, which according to the schematic is shorted to the LEMO (which is what we use for the AO path).
  5. Enable the CM board boost.
  6. Ramp up the CM board IN1 gain to +31dB. In this config, the CM_Slow signal is ~18,000 cts pk (with the +18dB whitening gain), so not saturating the ADC.
  7. Ramp up the IMC IN2 gain to 3dB, engage 2 Super Boosts (can't turn on the third). Limiter is always ON.
  8. Use the CM board error point offset adjust to zero the POY11_I error signal average value - there seems to be some offsets when engaging the boosts. The value I used was 0.9 V (this is internally divided by 40 on the CM board).
  9. Whiten the CM_Slow signal - this doesn't seem to have any impact on the noise anywhere.

I hypothesize that the high-frequency noise (>100 Hz) is higher for POY than POX in Attachment #1 because I am using the "MON" port of the demod board - this has a gain of 2, and there could also be some flaky components in this path, hence the high frequency noise is a factor of a few greater in the POY spectrum relative to the POX spectrum (which is using the main demodulated output). For REFL11, we have a low noise preamp generating the input signal so I don't think we need to worry about this too much.

The PC Drive RMS didn't look any stranger than it usually does for the duration of the lock.

Attachment #2 shows the OLTF of the locking servo with the final gains / settings, which are in bold. The loop is maybe a bit marginal, could possibly benefit from backing off one of the super boosts. But the arm has stayed locked for >1 hour.

The purpose of this test was to verify the functionality of the CM board and also the IN2 of the IMC servo board in a low-pressure environment. Once I confirm that the modelled OLTF lines up with the measured, I will call this test a success, and move on to looking at REFL11 in the arms on ALS, PRMI on 3f config. I am returning the REFL11 signal to the input of the CM board, but the SR785 remains hooked up.

Unrelated to this work - PMC alignment was tweaked to improve input power to IMC by ~5%.

Attachment 1: highBW_POY.pdf
highBW_POY.pdf
Attachment 2: CM_UGF.pdf
CM_UGF.pdf
Attachment 3: IN2_ACcoupling.pdf
IN2_ACcoupling.pdf
  15045   Fri Nov 22 00:54:14 2019 gautamUpdateLSClocking notes

[KA, GV]

There was no shaking (that disturbed the locking) tonight!

  1. REFL165 Demod phase was adjusted from -111deg to -125deg. To minimize coherence b/w MICH and PRCL.
  2. MICH 3f loop gain changed to 0.3.
  3. If the POP mode shape looks weird, it probably means that the PRM is sligntly misaligned. Tweaking the alignment improves PRMI stability and also makes the arm buildup higher.
  4. Ditto for MICH - slightly touching up the BS alignment can lower ASDC.
  5. Main finding tonight was that the ALS noise seems to get degraded as a function of the CARM offset! As a result of this, CARM goes through several linewidths, and the arm transmission fluctuates wildly.
    • We suspect some scattered light shenanigans. It is not clear to me why this is happening. Possibilities:
    • Scattered ETM transmission somehow makes it into the fiber coupler and degrades the ALS noise.
    • Sacttered ETM transmission makes it onto the Green PDH photodiode and degrades the ALS noise.
    • Backscatter into the PSL degrades the ALS noise.
    • Shadow sensors of either the ITMs, ETMs, BS, or PRM don't have 1064nm filters and get scatterd light, making the cavity length noise worse.
    • Other possibilities?

The problem is hard to debug because we are feeding back on the ETMs, BS and PRM, and at the low CARM offset (= high PRG), all the DoFs are cross coupled strongly so just by looking at error/control signals, I can't directly determine where the noise is originating. The fact that the ALS CARM spectrum shows a noise increase suggests that the problem has to do with the test masses, PSL, IMC, or end green PDH setups.

My plan is to do a systematic campaign and eliminate some of these possibilities - e.g. install some baffling around the fiber coupler and the end green PDH photodiodes and see if there is any improvement in the situation.

* In attachment #1, the "Ref" traces are when the CARM offset is 0, and the arms are buzzing in and out of resonance. The non-reference traces are for when the CARM offset is ~28kHz (so several linewidths away from resonance).

Attachment 1: ALSnoiseIncrease.pdf
ALSnoiseIncrease.pdf
  15046   Mon Nov 25 19:11:22 2019 gautamUpdateLSCALS noise re-look

I re-checked the ALS noise in the following configurations:

  • PRM is misaligned.
  • Michelson is not locked.
  • TRX/TRY is maintained at ~1.
  1. Arm lengths are controlled using POX/POY as a sensor, and the ETMs as actuators [orange traces in Attachment #1].
    • EX laser frequency is locked to the arm cavity length using the end PDH servo.
    • ALS beat note frequency fluctuations are read out using the calibrated DFD channels.
    • In this config, the DFD outputs are the out-of-loop sensor.
  2. Arm lengths are controlled using the ALS beat frequencies as a sensors [blue traces in Attachment #1]
    • The control is no longer in the XARM/YARM basis, but in the CARM/DARM basis.
    • The CARM actuator is MC2, the DARM actuator is an admixture of the ETMs (equal magnitude of output matrix element, opposite sign).
    • The calibrated POX/POY photodiodes are used as the out-of-loop sensor in this config.

The RMS noise sensed by POX/POY is ~20pm, which is somewhat higher than the best I've seen (maybe the arms are moving more at the time of measurement or the AUX PDH loops need a bit of touching up). But the orange traces in the top row of Attachment #1 are already ~x2 better than the equivalent traces from when we were using the green beams to make the beats. So it's hard to explain the 0-300 fluctuations in the arm powers when the CARM offset is reduced to 0 - i.e. the ALS noise is becoming worse as I reduce the CARM offset (= have more circulating power compared to the conditions of this test). I assume the transmission is Lorentzian, in which case even if we have 5x the CARM linewidth worth of ALS noise, we should see the arm power fluctuate between ~10 and 300. 

* I notice that a big jump in the RMS sensed by POX/POY comes from the 24 Hz peak, which is presumably the Roll mode coupling to length - maybe a ResG can make the situation better. The high frequency noise can also be probably rolled off better.

Attachment 1: ALSnoise.pdf
ALSnoise.pdf
  15049   Tue Nov 26 17:07:41 2019 gautamUpdateLSCPOX / POY calibration

Summary:

Since we are using the POX and POY photodiodes as out-of-loop sensors for measuring the ALS noise, I decided to double-check their calibrations. I determined the following numbers (for the single arm lock):

POX_I [with 30dB whitening gain]: (8 +/- 1)e-13 m/ct

POY_I [with 18dB whitening gain]: (0.9 +/- 0.1)e-13 m/ct

With this calibration, I measured the in-loop spectra of the XARM and YARM error-points when they are locked - they line up well, see Attachment #1. Note that these numbers are close to what we determined some time ago using the same method (I drove the ITMs then, but yesterday I drove the ETMs, so maybe the more accurate measure of uncertainty is the difference between the two measurements).

Attachment #2 shows the out-of-loop spectra sensed by these photodiodes with this calibration applied, when the arms are under control using ALS beat frequencies as the error signals, and controlled in the CARM/DARM basis. Need to think about why there is such a difference between the two signals.

Methodology:

The procedure used was the same as that outlined here.

  • I started by calibrating the AS55_Q output with the free-swinging Michelson.
  • Next, I lock the Michelson and calibrate the BS and ITM actuators using the newly calibrated AS55_Q.
  • Next, I calibrate the ETM actuator gains by measuring the ratio of response in POX/POY of driving the (unknown) ETMs and the (known) ITMs.
  • Finally, I calibrate the POX/POY photodiodes by driving the ETMs by a known amount of meters (at ~310 Hz where the loop gain is negligible because of the sensing matrix measurement notches).

Summary of DC actuator gains:

Optic Series resistance [ohms] x3 Analog gain? x3 Digital gain? DC gain [nm/ct]
BS 100 No Yes 9.48 +/- 0.01
ITMX 400 No Yes 2.42 +/- 0.01
ITMY 400 No Yes 2.41 +/- 0.01
ETMX 2.2k Yes No 1.23 +/- 0.02
ETMY 400 Yes No 6.62 +/- 0.12

The quoted values of the DC gain are for counts seen at the output of the LSC filter bank. I've attempted to show that once we account for the different series resistance and some extra gains between the output of the LSC filter bank and the actual coil, things are fairly consistent.

Some remarks:

  • I do not understand why we need an extra 12dB of whitening gain on the POX channel to get similar PDH fringe height as the POY channel. The light level on these photodiodes is the same, and the RF transimpedances at 11 MHz are also close according to the wiki (3kohm for POX, 2kohm for POY).
  • At night-time, the ALS noise did indeed get reduced compared to what I measured earlier in the evening.
  • Even assuming 50% error in the calibration factors, it's hard to explain the swing of TRX/TRY when the CARM offset is brought to zero.
  • The increase in (admittedly in-loop) CARM noise as the offset is reduced still seems to me to be correlated with the buildup of IR power in the arm cavities.
Attachment 1: POX_POY_sensorNoise.pdf
POX_POY_sensorNoise.pdf
Attachment 2: ALSnoise_20191125.pdf
ALSnoise_20191125.pdf
  15050   Tue Nov 26 18:16:08 2019 ranaUpdateLSCPOX / POY calibration

...maybe the opto-mechanical CARM plant is changing as a function of the CARM offset...

Quote:

Even assuming 50% error in the calibration factors, it's hard to explain the swing of TRX/TRY when the CARM offset is brought to zero.

  • The increase in (admittedly in-loop) CARM noise as the offset is reduced still seems to me to be correlated with the buildup of IR power in the arm cavities.
  15051   Wed Nov 27 12:16:52 2019 gautamUpdateLSCITMX and ITMY OSEMs with low and high circulating power

Summary:

The ITMX OSEMs report elevated noise in the 10-100 Hz band when we have high circulating power in the arm cavities, see Attachment #1. Since there is no LSC actuation on the ITMs in this state, this could be a radiation presssure effect, or could be scattered 1064nm light entering the OSEMs. The Oplevs don't report any elevated noise however. ITMY has the OSEM whitening broken for two channels, but the other two channels don't report as significant an increase as ITMX, see Attachment #2. I can't find the status of which OSEMs have the 1064nm blocking filters installed. The local damping loops are rolled off by ~100dB at 30 Hz, so the sensing noise re-injection should be attenuated by this factor, so maybe the OSEM sensor noise isn't the likely culprit. But radiation pressure didn't worsen the length noise in the past, even after our mirror cleaning and the increased PRG.

Quote:

...maybe the opto-mechanical CARM plant is changing as a function of the CARM offset...

Attachment 1: ITMXshadowSensors.pdf
ITMXshadowSensors.pdf
Attachment 2: ITMYshadowSensors.pdf
ITMYshadowSensors.pdf
  15052   Wed Nov 27 13:14:02 2019 ranaUpdateLSCITMX and ITMY OSEMs with low and high circulating power

if the RP don't fit

u must acquit

sweep the laser amplitude

to divine the couplin w certitude

  15053   Wed Nov 27 16:10:29 2019 gautamUpdateLSCAOM reconnected

i reconnected the AOM driver to the AOM in the main beam path (it was hijacked for the AOM in the AUX laser path for Anjali's MZ experiment). I also temporarily hooked up the AOM to a CDS channel to facilitate some swept-sine measurements. This was later disconnected. The swept sine will need some hardware to convert the bipolar drive signal from the CDS system to the unipolar input that the AOM driver wants (DTT swept sine wont let me set an offset for the excitation, although awggui can do this).

Quote:

if the RP don't fit

u must acquit

sweep the laser amplitude

to divine the couplin w certitude

  15056   Wed Nov 27 23:24:01 2019 gautamUpdateLSCNo shaking but no inspiration either

Summary:

I tried the following minor changes to the locking procedure to see if there were any differences in the ALS noise performance:

  1. Actuate DARM only on one ETM (tried both ETMX and ETMY)
  2. Enable MCL and PRC seismic feedforward
  3. DC couple the ITM Oplevs for better angular stability during the lock acquisition

None of these changes had any effect - the ALS noise still goes up with arm buildup. 

I think a good way to determine if the problem is to do with the IR part of the new ALS system is to resurrect the green beat setup - I expect this to be less invasive than installing attenuators/beam dumps in front of the fiber couplers at the ends. We should at the very least recover the old ALS noise levels and we were able to lock the PRFPMI with that config. If the excess noise persists, we can rule out the problem being IR scatter into the beat-mouth fibers. Does this sound like a reasonable plan?

  15057   Sun Dec 1 13:38:48 2019 ranaUpdateLSCNo shaking but no inspiration either

yes, reasonable

  15062   Tue Dec 3 00:03:57 2019 gautamUpdateLSCGreen ALS also shows elevated noise with high arm buildup

Summary:

  1. While noisier, I was able to control the arm lengths to ~30pm RMS(!) using the green ALS beats as error signals (cf. ~10 pm RMS with the IR ALS system).
  2. The PRMI could be locked with a CARM offset applied.
  3. When lowering the CARM offset, I saw an increase in the in-loop ALS error signal, just as I had with the IR beat.
  4. IR TRX / TRY unsurprisingly did not stabilize in any meaningful way.cool
  5. The noise increase seems to have some periodicity along the frequency axis - need to think about what this means.
  6. Since there is no apparent benefit to using the green ALS beats, I restored the IR system. The green PDs should still retain somewhat good alignment if one wishes to do a comparison measurement.
  7. While the shadow sensors of the ITMs report elevated noise, it is unlikely to be responsible for the cavity moving by the amount suggested by the elevated ALS error signals because of the digital low-pass filtering and 1/f^2 of the pendulum.
  8. I confirmed that the ITM shadow sensors do not report elevated noise when the PRMI is locked such that the carrier is resonant. In this config, there is comparable circulating power in the PRC as to when the CARM offset is reduced to ~0.
  9. The fact that the IR and green beats both show similar increase in noise suggestes that the cavity length / laser frequency is in fact being modulated, but I still don't know what the exact mechanism is.

was worth a shot i guess.

Trawling through some elogs, I see that this kind of feature showing up in the ALS CARM is not a new problem, see for example here. But I can't find out what the resolution was.

Attachment 1: ALSnoiseIncrease_greenBeat.pdf
ALSnoiseIncrease_greenBeat.pdf
  15073   Wed Dec 4 19:54:27 2019 gautamUpdateLSCA look to the past

Trawling through some past elogs, I saw that the ALS noise increase as a function of CARM offset reduction is not really a new thing (see e.g. this elog). In the past, when we were able to lock, when the CARM offset is reduced to zero, the arms would "buzz" through resonance. It just wasn't clear to me how much the buzzing was - in all the plots we presented, we were not looking at the fast 16k output, so it looked like the arm powers had stabilized. But today, looking at the frame data at 16k from back in 2016, it is clear to me that the arm transmission was in fact swinging all the way from 0 to some maximum. Once the IR signal (=REFL11) blending is turned on, we were able to stabilize the arm power somewhat. What this means is that we are in a comparable state as to when we were able to lock in the past (since I'm able to sit at 0 CARM offset with the PRMI locked almost indefinitely).

So, I think what I'll try for the next 3 days is to get this blending going, I think I couldn't enable the CM_slow path because when I was experimenting with the high bandwidth Y arm cavity locking, I had increased the whitening gain of this channel, but REFL11 has much more optical gain (=larger signal) than POY11, and so I'll start from 0dB whitening gain and see if I can turn the magic integrator on. Long term, we should try and compensate the optomechanical plant that changes as our CARM offset gets reduced, as this would further reduce the lock acquisition time and simplify the procedure (no need to fiddle with the integrator, offsets etc). A relevant thread from the past.

Attachment 1: DRFPMI_2016March.pdf
DRFPMI_2016March.pdf
  15075   Thu Dec 5 01:54:39 2019 gautamUpdateLSCPartial CM board path engaged
  • The arm powers could be stabilized somewhat once the CM_SLOW path to MC2 was engaged.
  • However, I was never able to get the AO path to do anything good.
  • Took a bunch of CM board TFs, need to think about what I need to do differently to get this next bit to work.
  • An SR785 is sitting next to the LSC rack hooked up to the CM board. I also borrowed the GPIB unit from the AG4395 to grab data from said SR785.
  • One thing I noticed that the CARM_B (=CM_SLOW) and DARM_B (=AS55_Q) signals both had a DC offset, so maybe this is indicative of some DC offset in the PRMI 3f signals? Right now, I lock the PRMI without any offsets, and as I reduce the CARM offset, I can see the DC value of REFL11_I and AS55_Q changing significantly. To be investigated in tonight's locking.
Attachment 1: AOengaged.pdf
AOengaged.pdf
  15080   Fri Dec 6 00:02:48 2019 gautamUpdateLSCWhat is the correct way to set the 3f offsets?

Summary:

I made it to 0 CARM offset, PRMI locked a bunch of times today. However, I could not successfully engage the AO path.

Details:

Much of the procedure is scripted, here is the rough set of steps:

  • Transition control of the arms from IR signals to ALS signals.
  • DC couple the ITM oplev servos
  • Burt-restore the settings for PRMI locking with REFL165I-->PRCL, REFL165Q-->MICH, and then enable the MICH_B / PRCL_B locking servos.
  • Add some POPDC to the PRMI triggering (nominally only POP22_I) to let these loops be locked while POP22_I fluctuates wildly when we are near the CARM=0 point.
  • Zero the CARM offset.
  • Adjust the CARM_A/DARM_A offsets such that CARM_B/DARM_B are fluctuating symmetrically about 0.
  • CARM_B gain --> 1.0, to begin the RF blend.
  • Prepare to hand the DC control authority to ALS by turning off FM1 in the CARM filter bank, and turning ON an integrator in the CARM_B filter.

As I type this out, I realized that I was incorrectly setting offsets to maximize the arm powers by adjusting CARM/DARM offsets as opposed to CARM_A / DARM_A offsets. Tried another round of locking, but this time, I can't even turn the integrator on to get the arms to click into somewhat stable powers. 

One thing I noticed is that depending on the offsets I put into the 3f locking loops, the mean value of REFL11 and AS55 when the ALS CARM/DARM offsets are zeroed changes quite significantly. What is the correct condition to set these offsets? They are different when locking the PRC without arm cavities, and also seem to change continuously with CARM offset. I am wondering if I have too much offset in one of the vertex locking loops?

  15081   Fri Dec 6 15:22:01 2019 gautamFrogsLSCDAFI system revived

[Jordan, gautam]

We did the following:

  • Route the fiber from the control room to 1Y2.
  • Plug fiber in to FiBox at either end, turned FiBoxes ON.
  • Tested the optical connection by driving a 1Vpp 440 Hz sine wave from a function generator - Yehonathan hears it loud and clear in the control room.
  • Tested that both CH1 and CH2 work - only CH1 is connected to the speakers in the control room at the moment.
  • There is some cross-coupling between the channels - not sure if this is happening in the multi-mode fiber or in the electroncis, but I estimate the isolation to be >30dB.
  • Connected CH8 and CH9 of DAC0 in the c1lsc expansion chassis to CH1 and CH2 respectively of the FiBox in 1Y2. 
  • Restarted the c1daf model on c1lsc, came up smooth.
  • Routed the POY11 error signal through the various matrices in c1daf, and we could 👂 the Y-arm cavity 🔐 😎 
  • Channels are muted for now - I'll give this a whirl while doing the PRFPMI locking.
  15172   Wed Jan 29 00:29:43 2020 gautamUpdateLSClocking 2020

The goal tonight was to go through the locking scripts to see if I could recover the state from November 2019, when I could have the arm lengths controlled by ALS, and sit at zero CARM offset with the PRMI remaining locked and the arm powers fluctuating between 0-300. The IR-->ALS transitions went smoothly tonight, and the PRMI locking was also fairly robust when the CARM offset was large, but was less good when reduced to 0. Nevertheless, it is good to know that the system can be restored to the state it was late last year. Next step is to figure out how to keep the PRMI locked and get the AO path engaged, this was what I was struggling with before the new year.

Attachment 1: PRFPMI_2020Jan.png
PRFPMI_2020Jan.png
  15185   Tue Feb 4 02:13:02 2020 gautamUpdateLSCLocking updates

Summary:

The CARM-->RF transition remains out of reach. No systematic diagnosis scheme comes to mind.

Details:

  • Config is PRFPMI, SRM is misaligned macroscopically.
  • PRMI can easily be locked with 3f signals while CARM is offset from resonance. Aided by DAFI, I turned on the PR violin filter in the BS output section to prevent it from ringing up, making the lock much more robust.
  • When the CARM offset is reduced
    • POP22 level dips and sometimes goes negative - i don't see this in my simple simulations. POP22 is the trigger signal for MICH/PRCL loops, so to prevent the PRMI lockloss, I mix in some POPDC into the trigger matrix element.
    • Once the circulating power exceeds ~10, the ALS noise apparently increases.
    • The arms "buzz" through resonance, but the power fluctuation is nearly 0-200 in TRX/TRY, corresponding to several CARM linewidths, but all the out-of-loop ALS noise measurements have me believe that we are close to the CARM linewidth in noise. So we should only see ~factor of 2 fluctuation in power.
    • The RF error signal for CARM (=REFL 11) doesn't show any features that i can use to aid the transition / diagnose what is going on systematically.
  • Koji suggested changing the actuation for CARM from MC2 to the ETMs, and check if the MC OSEMs witness the excess motion at small CARM offsets
    • The ALS transition is scripted, so I had to make a modified version that accommodates this changed actuation scheme.
    • The usual CARM-->MC2 matrix element is -1. 
    • The frequency actuation strength of MC2 is ~3x that of the ETMs. Additionally, ETMX has 5x the series resistance of ETMY. So I used the output matrix elements shown in Attachment #1 so as to get the same loop UGF with the same loop gains elsewhere in the chain. Confirmed the actuation strength is the same using the sensing matrix infrastructure and comparing line heights.
    • Attachment #2 shows the measured UGF - both CARM and DARM look okay to me.
  • With this new ALS output matrix actuation scheme, I was able to make it to PRMI + arms on zero offset a couple of times tonight, but the drifting input alignment makes the PRMI lock not so robust anymore.

TBC. Mercifully at least the shaker stayed still tonight.

Attachment 1: modifiedOutMat.png
modifiedOutMat.png
Attachment 2: OLTFs.pdf
OLTFs.pdf
  15188   Wed Feb 5 16:35:12 2020 gautamUpdateLSCDiagnosis plan

The goal is to try and identify the source of the excess ALS noise as the CARM offset is reduced. The idea is to look at the MC_F spectrum (or the IMC error point) in a few conditions:

  1. Regular CARM --> MC2 actuation scheme, PRMI locked on 3f signals, CARM held off resonance.
  2. Regular CARM --> MC2 actuation scheme, PRMI locked on 3f signals, CARM held on resonance.
  3. Alternate CARM --> 7.5*ETMX + 1.5*ETMY, PRMI locked on 3f signals, CARM held on resonance.
  4. Control arms in X/Y basis, lock PRMI on 3f signals and bring the arms into resonance individually, look for excess ALS noise.

#1 vs #2 is like a control experiment, we expect to see the excess noise imprinted on the MC length and hence in MC_F (provided the sensing noise is low enough). #2 vs #3 will be informative of something like backscatter to the PSL increasing the frequency noise. #2/3 vs #4 will help isolate the problem to an individual arm's AUX PDH loop or some optomechanical effect.

I was looking back at some spectra from the last couple of nights but I don't really have an apple-to-apple comparison in the various actuation schemes (some ALS loops were engaged/disengaged), so I'll do a more systematic test tonight. Already, it looks like MC_F is not a good candidate to look for the excess frequency noise, I don't really see a big difference between conditions #1 and #2. According to this, we are looking for an increase at the level of a few 100Hz/rtHz @ ~40 Hz, wheras MC_F is much noisier.

Attachment 1: ALSnoise.pdf
ALSnoise.pdf
  15191   Thu Feb 6 01:16:58 2020 gautamUpdateLSCDiagnosis results

Summary:

I did some more detailed tests to see if I could isolate where the excess ALS noise at low CARM offset is coming from, by measuring the spectrum of the IMC error point (in loop). The results, shown in Attachment #1 and #2, are inconclusive.

Details:

Since MC_F didn't show any signatures of elevated noise, I decided to hook up an SR785 to the A excitation bank TEST1 input of the IMC servo board to monitor the in-loop error signal. I initially took a few measurements spanning 800 Hz in frequency, and to my surprise, I found that there was elevated noise in the frequency band we see an increase in the ALS noise, even when the CARM feedback goes to the ETMs (so the IMC cavity is in principle isolated from the main interferometer). This is Attachment #1. So I re-took a couple of measurements (this time only for the case of CARM feedback to the ETMs), with a 200 Hz frequency span, and found no significant noise elevation. This is Attachment #2. I am led to conclude that the IMC error point level changes over time for reasons other than the CARM offset - it'd be nice to have a spectrogram of the IMC error point and compare excursions relative to the median level over a few 10s of minutes, but we don't have this data stream digitized by the CDS system - maybe I will hijack the MC_L channel temporarily to record this data stream. It seems a waste that we're not able to take full advantage of the measured <10pm RMS noise of the IR ALS system.

Attachment 1: IMCspec_ALS.pdf
IMCspec_ALS.pdf
Attachment 2: IMCspec_ALS_smallSpan.pdf
IMCspec_ALS_smallSpan.pdf
  15192   Thu Feb 6 01:25:50 2020 gautamUpdateLSCLocking updates

Summary:

I managed to partially stabilize the arm citculating powers - they stay in a region in which the REFL 11 signal is hopefully approximately linear and so I can now measure some loop TFs and tweak the transition appropriately. 

Procedure:

The main change I made tonight was to look at the REFL11 signal as I swept the ALS CARM offset through 0. I found that the maximum arm powers coincided with a non-zero REFL11 signal value (i.e. a small CARM offset was required at the input to the CARM_B filter bank). Not so long ago, I had measured the PM/AM ratio for 11 MHz to be ~10^5 - so it's not entirely clear to me where this offset is coming from. Then, I was able to turn on the integrator (z:p = 20:0) in the CARM_B filter bank while maintaining high POP_DC. At this point, I ramped up the IN2 gain on the IMC servo board (= AO path), and was able to further stabilize the power. 

Attachment #shows this sequence from earlier in the evening. Note that in this state, both ALS and IR control of CARM is in effect. The circulating power is fluctuating wildly - partly this is probably the noisy ALS control path, but there is also the issue of the (lack of) angular control - although looking at the transmon QPDs and the POP QPD signals, they seem pretty stable.

The next step will be to try and turn off the ALS control path. Eventually, I hope to transition DARM control to AS55 as well. But at this point, I can at least begin to make sense of some of the time series signals, and get some insight into how to improve the lock.

Quote:

No systematic diagnosis scheme comes to mind.

Attachment 1: semiStableArms.png
semiStableArms.png
Attachment 2: armAngStability.png
armAngStability.png
  15195   Fri Feb 7 02:24:24 2020 gautamUpdateLSCSome short notes

[koji, gautam] 

Plots + interpretation tomorrow.

  • CM_Slow path can be used to stabilize the arm powers somewhat but the AO crossover remains out of reach.
  • The REFL11 (=CARM_B) path offset has to be manually determined - we found that it can change by ~20% depending on the alignment, which maybe isn't surprising given that the mode shapes seen at POP, REFL and AS look like Rorschach inkblots.
  • We saw TRX/TRY regularly hit ~150, and at times even 200 (= recycling gain of ~10). Though any conclusive statement about the PRG can only be made once the lock is stabilized.
  • I was able to take a few CARM loop TFs with an SR785 hooked up at 1Y2. Despite ramping up the AO gain, we saw no effect at high frequencies in the TF shape (the phase bubble continued to roll off at ~100 Hz and there was no visible phase lead even as the AO gain was increased). It has to be estimated what the expected crossover gain is from the experiment with the high BW POY locking (taking into account the net difference in optical gain between POY for single arm and REFL for the full IFO).
  • The fact that I was able to hold the high BW POY lock makes me think that the IMC servo board's IN2 input (and indeed the rest of the IMC locking loop) is functioning as expected. But maybe this board will benefit from a detailed checkout like Koji did for the CM board.

Getting closer... To facilitate this work, I made some convenience scripts that can be run from the CM MEDM screen.

  15199   Fri Feb 7 15:00:16 2020 gautamUpdateLSCMore high BW POY experiments

To study the evilution of the AO path TFs a bit more, I've hooked up POY11_Q Mon to IN1 of the CM board. I will revert the usual setup later in the evening.

Update 1730: I've returned the cabling at 1Y2 to the nominal config, and also reverted all EPICS settings that I modified for this test. Y-arm POY locking works. Attachment #1 shows the summary of the results of this test - note that the AO gain was kept fixed at +5dB throughout the test. I have arbitrarily trimmed the length of the frequency vector for some of these traces so that the noisy measurement doesn't impede visual interpretation of the plots so much. At first glance, the performance is as advertised. I basically followed the settings I had here to get started, and then ramped up various gains to check if the measured OLTF evolved in the way that I expected it to. The phase lead due to the AO path is clearly visible.

Some important differences between this test and the REFL11 blending is (i) in the latter case, there will also be a parallel loop, CARM_A, which is effecting some control, and (ii) the optical gain of CARM-->REFL11_I is much higher than L_Y-->POY. So the initial gain settings will have to be different. But I hope to get some insight into what the correct settings should be from this test. I think IMC servo IN2 gain and AO gain slider on the CM board are degenerate in the effect they have, modulo subtle effects like saturation.

One possibility is that the gain allocation I used yesterday was wrong for the dynamic range of the CARM error signal. In some initial trials today, when I set the CM board IN1 gain to -32dB (as in the case of attempting the CARM RF handoff) and compensated for the reduced POY PDH fringe amplitude by increasing the digital gain for the CM_Slow path, I found that there was no phase advance visible even when I ramped up the IMC IN2 gain to +10dB. So, for the CARM handoff too, I might have to start with a higher CM board IN_1 gain, compensate by reducing the CM_Slow digital gain even more, and then try upping the IMC IN2 gain.

P.S. When the excitation input to the CM board was enabled in order to make TF measurements, I saw significant increase in the RMS of the error signal. Probably some kind of ground loop issue.

Attachment 1: AO_TFs.pdf
AO_TFs.pdf
  15200   Fri Feb 7 19:39:10 2020 KojiUpdateLSCMore high BW POY experiments

This measurement tells you how the gain balance between the SLOW_CM and AO paths should be. Basically, what you need is to adjust the overall gain before the branch of the paths.

Except for the presence of the additional pole-zero in the optical gain because of the power recycling.

You have compensated this with a filter (z=120Hz, p=5kHz) for the CM path. However, AO path still don't know about it. Does this change the behavior of the cross over?

If the servo is not unconditionally stable when the AO gain is set low, can we just turn on the AO path at the nominal gain? This causes some glitch but if the servo is stable, you have a chance to recover the CARM control before everything explodes, maybe?

  15208   Wed Feb 12 12:13:37 2020 gautamUpdateLSCAO path attempts

Summary:

  1. The PRFPMI can be controlled by a mix of ALS and RF signals and circualting arm powers > 100 can be maintained for several tens of minutes at a stretch.
  2. The complete RF handoff still cannot be realized - I need to study the AO path crossover more carefully to understand what exactly is wrong and what needs to be done to rectify the problem.

Measurements:

Over the last couple of days, I've been trying to see if I can measure the phase advance due to the AO path - however, I've been unable to do so for any combination of CM board IN1 gain and MC Servo board IN2 gain I've tried. Yesterday, I tried to understand the loop shapes I was measuring a little more, and already, I think I can't explain some features.

Attachment #1 shows the TF measured (using SR785, and the EXC_A bank of the CM board) when the CM Slow path has been engaged.

  • All CARM control in this state is digital.
  • For the CM Slow path, the digital filter includes a pole at 700 Hz, pole at 5 kHz and zero at 120 Hz (the latter two for coupled cavity pole compensation).
  • In this conditions, the arm powers are somewhat stable at ~150, but still there are fluctuations of the order of 50%.
  • The "buzzing" as the arms rapidly go in and out of resonance is no longer present though.
  • The UGF of the hybrid REFL11+ALS loop is ~200 Hz, with ~45 deg of phase margin.
  • Turning off the MC2 violin filters gives some phase back. But I don't really understand the flattening of the TF gain between ~250-500 Hz.

Attachment #2 shows error signal spectra for the in-loop PRFPMI DoFs, for a few different conditions.

  • Engaging the REFL11 digital path smooths out the excess noise in the ~30-50 Hz band, which is consistent with the fact that the arm powers stabilize somewhat.
  • However, there is some gain peaking around ~400 Hz.
  • This is in turn imprinted on the vertex DoFs, making the whole system's stability marginal.

I believe that a stable crossover is hopeless under these conditions.

Next steps:

  1. Account for the measured OLTF, understand where the flattening in the few hundred Hz region is coming from.
  2. Repeat the high BW POY experiments, but with the simulated coupled cavity pole - maybe this will be a closer simulation to the PRFPMI transition.
Attachment 1: CARM_OLTF.pdf
CARM_OLTF.pdf
Attachment 2: PRFPMI_errSigs.pdf
PRFPMI_errSigs.pdf
  15210   Thu Feb 13 02:07:26 2020 gautamUpdateLSCAO path transfer function measurement

Summary:

I measured the transfer function of the AO path, and think that there are some features indicative of a problem somewhere in the IMC locking loop.

Details:

Regardless of the locking scheme used, high bandwidth control of the laser frequency relies on the fact that the laser frequency is slaved to the IMC cavity length with nearly zero error below ~50 kHz (assuming the IMC loop has a UGF > 100 kHz). In my single arm experiments, I didn't know what to make of the ripples that became apparent in the measured OLTF as the AO gain was ramped up.

Tonight, I measured the TF of the "AO path", which modifies the error point of the IMC, thereby changing the laser frequency. 

  • An SR785 was used to make the measurement.
  • The signal was injected at the "EXC B" input on the CM board.
  • The CM_SLOW path was disabled, AO gain = 0dB, IMC IN2 gain = 0dB.
  • Between "EXC B" and the IMC error point (which I measured at TP1A on the IMC board), we expect that there are 2 poles at ~ 6 Hz, and one pole at ~ 11 Hz.

Attachment #1 shows the result of the measurement. 

  • This measurement should be the "Closed Loop Gain" [= 1/(1+L) where L is the open loop gain] of the IMC locking loop. For comparison, I've overlaid the inferred CLG from a measurement of the IMC OLG I made in Jun 2019. The magnitude lines up quite well, but the phase does not 🤔 
  • Above 10 kHz, the measurement is as I expect it to be.
  • However, between 1 kHz and 10 kHz, I see some periodic features every 1 kHz, which I don't understand. In the IMC OLTF, these would be sharp dips in the OLTF gain.
  • I was careful not to overdrive the servo, so I believe these features are not a measurement artefact.
  • Combing through past elogs, I couldn't really find any measurements of the IMC OLTF in the 1 kHz - 10 kHz band.
  • I decided to measure the spectrum of the IMC error point (with no excitation input), to see if that offered any additional insight. Attachment #2 shows the result - again, periodic features at ~ 1 kHz intervals.

I didn't use POX / POY as a sensor to confirm that this is real frequency noise, I will do so tomorrow. But it may be that realizing a stable crossover is difficult with so many features in the AO path.

Previous thread with a somewhat detailed characterization of the IMC loop electronics.

Attachment 1: AOpathTF.pdf
AOpathTF.pdf
Attachment 2: IMCinLoop.pdf
IMCinLoop.pdf
  15232   Thu Feb 27 17:59:02 2020 gautamUpdateLSCSome AO thoughts

While my checks of the AO signal path have thrown up some unanswered questions, I don't think there's any evidence in those measurements to suggest the AO crossover can't be realized. Thinking about it today though - I was wondering if it could be that the IN1 gain slider of the CM board is configured optimally. Looking back at some data, when the ALS CARM offset is zeroed, the CM_SLOW digitized data has a peak-to-peak range of ~200 cts. This is paltry. One possibility is that as I am upping the AO path gain, I'm simply injecting the electronics noise of the CM board into the IMC error point. I'd say it is safe to up the IN2 gain by 20dB to -12 dB, in which case the peak-to-peak would be ~2000 cts, still only 10% of the ADC range. It'll be straightforward to re-scale the CARM_B loop gain to account for this. Let's see if this helps.

I'd also like to measure the spectrum of the REFL11_I signal in a few different states. I think I should be able to do this using the OUT2 of the CM servo board. These are the things to try tonight:

  • Try CARM RF handoff with CM_SLOW gain starting at -12dB instead of -32dB.
  • Measure spectrum of REFL11_I when it is in the linear range.
  15245   Tue Mar 3 19:11:48 2020 gautamUpdateLSCSome locking prep
  • Re-aligned and locked the arm cavities for IR and green.
  • Re-set trans normalization because after the c1iscex and c1iscey reboots, these didn't come back to the old values.
  15268   Thu Mar 12 01:33:21 2020 gautamUpdateLSCResuming locking activities

It's been a while since I've attempted any locking, so tonight was mostly getting the various subsystems back together.

  • Reconnected SR785 at 1Y3 to CM board for TF measurements.
  • POX/POY locking work fine
  • Locked PRMI (no ETMs) with carrier resonant, fixed PRM and BS alignment.
  • ALS-X noise is still elevated - disconnected it from the switchable delay line and now I'm directly piping the 3dB coupled part of the beat to the LO input of the demod board. But the high freq contribution to the RMS is still ~x2-x3 of what it was in November 2019. But the noise should only depend on the other (delayed) part of the beat (the discriminant is set thus).
  • With arms POX/POY locked, checked that there was no elevated coherence between POX_I/POY_I signals between 800 Hz - 1.2 kHz, which is where I see the excess noise in the laser frequency control signal (see Attachment #1). So this suggests that the IMC locking loop suppresses the noise to a level that the arm cavities don't witness it. It's probably still worth checking this out and fixing it, but it wasn't a show stopper.
  • Transition from POX/POY lock to ALS lock was smooth - I forgot to use the POX/POY photodiodes as OOL sensors to measure the noise in this config to see if it was elevated, but anyway, I was able to push on.
  • PRMI 3f locking worked okay.
  • Main thing I wanted to check today is to try the AO transition with a bit more IN1 gain on the CM board - hypothesis being the high frequency part of the CARM signal is buried in the noise if we run with -32dB of IN1 gain. 
    • Set IN1 gain to -10dB instead.
    • In this config, I checked that with the CARM offset at 0 (CARM still under purely ALS control), the CM_SLOW path was registering ~4000 cts pk-pk, which is healthily within the ADC's range.
    • I was able to engage the CARM_B path and semi-stabilize the arm powers (after compensating for the increased IN1 gain by decreasing the CARM_B gain) and turn on the integrator.
    • However, before I could try any AO path action, the IMC loses lock - too tired to try more tonight, I'll try again tomrrow.
Attachment 1: ExcessFreqNoise_LSC.pdf
ExcessFreqNoise_LSC.pdf
  15273   Fri Mar 13 00:32:38 2020 gautamUpdateLSCSome progress

Finally, some RF only CARM, see Attachment #1. During this time, DARM was also on a blend of IR and ALS control, but I couldn't turn the ALS path off in ~4-5 attempts tonight (mostly me pressing a wrong button). Attachment #2 shows the CARM OLTF, with ~2kHz UGF - for now, I didn't bother turning any boosts on. PRCL and MICH are still on 3f signals.

The recycling gain is ~7-8 (so losses >200ppm), but there may be some offset in some loop. I'll look at REFL DC tomorrow.

Can we please make an effort to keep the IFO in this state for the next week or two
- it really helped tonight I didn't have to spend 2 hours fixing some random stuff and could focus on the task at hand.

Attachment 1: RFonly_CARM.png
RFonly_CARM.png
Attachment 2: CARMTF.pdf
CARMTF.pdf
  15278   Tue Mar 17 01:22:03 2020 gautamUpdateLSCLocking updates

Summary:

No real progress tonight - I made it a bunch of times to the point where CARM was RF only, but I never got to run a measurement to determine what the DARM_B loop gain should be to make the control fully RF.

Details:

  • Touched up PMC alignment.
  • There were very few BNC cables available at the rack near SW corner of the PSL table - the short BNC cables are NOT meant to be daisy chained to make long cables to run along the arm, I removed all those.
  • Restored SR785 at LSC rack for CARM TF measurements.
  • I was able to get the CARM UGF ~5 kHz, but everytime I was trying to run a DTT swept sine to measure the ratio of DARM_B_IN1 / DARM_A_IN1, the lock was lost - not sure if this is because of the excitation injected or something else.
  • I'll probably give this another shot Wednesday eve.
ELOG V3.1.3-