40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
 40m Log, Page 242 of 344 Not logged in
ID Date Author Type Category Subject
13444   Wed Nov 22 05:41:32 2017 ranaUpdateOptical LeversOplev "noise budget"

For the OL NB, probably don't have to fudge any seismic noise, since that's a thing we want to suppress. More important is "what the noise would be if the suspended mirrors were no moving w.r.t. inertial space".

For that, we need to look at the data from the OL test setup that Steve is putting on the SP table.

13448   Wed Nov 22 15:29:23 2017 gautamUpdateOptical LeversOplev "noise budget"

[steve, gautam]

What is the best way to set this test up?

I think we need a QPD to monitor the spot rather than a single element PD, to answer this question about the sensor noise. Ideally, we want to shoot the HeNe beam straight at the QPD - but at the very least, we need a lens to size the beam down to the same size as we have for the return beam on the Oplevs. Then there is the power - Steve tells me we should expect ~2mW at the output of these HeNes. Assuming 100kohm transimpedance gain for each quadrant and Si responsivity of 0.4A/W at 632nm, this corresponds to 10V (ADC limit) for 250uW of power - so it would seem that we need to add some attenuating optics in the way.

Also, does anyone know of spare QPDs we can use for this test? We considered temporarily borrowing one of the vertex OL QPDs (mark out its current location on the optics table, and move it over to the SP table), but decided against it as the cabling arrangement would be too complicated. I'd like to use the same DAQ electronics to acquire the data from this test as that would give us the most direct estimate of the sensor noise for supposedly no motion of the spot, although by adding 3 optics between the HeNe and the QPD, we are introducing possible additional jitter couplings...

 Quote: For the OL NB, probably don't have to fudge any seismic noise, since that's a thing we want to suppress. More important is "what the noise would be if the suspended mirrors were no moving w.r.t. inertial space". For that, we need to look at the data from the OL test setup that Steve is putting on the SP table.

13449   Wed Nov 22 16:40:00 2017 KojiUpdateOptical LeversOplev "noise budget"

You may want to consult with the cryo Q people (Brittany, Aaron) for a Si QPD. If you want the same QPD architecture, I can look at my QPD circuit stock.

13451   Wed Nov 22 19:20:01 2017 ranaUpdateOptical LeversOplev "noise budget"

too complex; just shoot straight from the HeNe to the QPD. We lower the gain of the QPD by changing the resistors; there's no sane reason to keep the existing 100k resistors for a 2 mW beam. The specular reflection of the QPD must be dumped on a black glass V dump (not some flimsy anodized aluminum or dirty razor stack)

13452   Wed Nov 22 23:56:14 2017 gautamUpdateOptical LeversOplev "noise budget"

## Do not turn on BS/ITMY/SRM/PRM Oplev servos without reading this elog and correcting the needful!

I've setup a test setup on the ITMY Oplev table. Details + pics to follow, but for now, be aware that

1. I've turned off the HeNe that is used for the SRM and ITMY Oplev.
2. Moved one of the HeNe's Steve setup on the SP table to the ITMY Oplev table.
3. Output power was 2.5mW, whereas normal power incident on this PD was ~250uW.
4. So I changed all transimpedance gains on the ITMY Oplev QPD from 100k to 10k thin film - these should be changed back when we want to use this QPD for Oplev purposes again. Note that I did not change the compensation capacitors C3-C6, as with 10k transimpedance, and assuming they are 2.2nF, we get a corner frequency of 6.7kHz. The original schematic recommends 0.1uF. In hindsight, I should have changed these to 22nF to keep roughly the same corner frequency of ~700Hz.
I've implemented this change as of ~5pm Nov 23 2017 - C3-C6 are now 22nF, so the corner frequency is 676Hz, as opposed to 723Hz before... This should also be undone when we use this QPD as an Oplev QPD again...
5. I marked the position of the ITMY Oplev QPD with sharpie and also took pics so it should be easy enough to restore when we are done with this test.
6. I couldn't get the HeNe to turn on with any of the power supplies I found in the cabinet, so I borrowed the one used to power the BS/PRM. So these oplevs are out of commission until this test is done.
7. There is a single steering mirror in a Polaris mount which I used to center the spot on the QPD.
8. The specular reflection (~250uW, i.e. 10% of the power incident on the QPD) is dumped onto a clean razor beam stack. Steve can put in a glass beam dump on Monday.
9. Just in case someone accidentally turns on some servos - I've disabled the inputs to the BS, PRM and SRM oplevs, and set the limiter on the ITMY servo to 0.

Here are some pics of the setup: https://photos.app.goo.gl/DHMINAV7aVgayYcf1.None of the existing Oplev input/output steering optics were touched. Steve can make modifications as necessary, perhaps we can make similar mods to the SRM Oplev QPD and the BS one to run the HeNe test for a few days...

 Quote: too complex; just shoot straight from the HeNe to the QPD. We lower the gain of the QPD by changing the resistors; there's no sane reason to keep the existing 100k resistors for a 2 mW beam. The specular reflection of the QPD must be dumped on a black glass V dump (not some flimsy anodized aluminum or dirty razor stack)

13453   Thu Nov 23 18:03:52 2017 gautamUpdateOptical LeversOplev "noise budget"

Here are a couple of preliminary plots of the noise from a 20minute stretch of data - the new curve is the orange one, labelled sensing, which is the spectrum of the PIT/YAW error signal from the HeNe beam single bounce off a single steering mirror onto the QPD, normalized to account for the difference in QPD sum. The peaky features that were absent in the dark noise are present here.

I am a bit confused about the total sum though - there is ~2.5mW of light incident on the PD, and the transimpedance gain is 10.7kohm. So I would expect 2.5e-3 mW * 0.4A/W * 10.7 kV/A ~ 10.7V over 4 quadrants. The ADC is 16 bit and has a range +/- 10V, so 10.7 V should be ~35,000 cts. But the observed QPD sum is ~14,000 counts. The reflected power was measured to be ~250uW, so ~10% of the total input power. Not sure if this is factored into the photodiode efficiency value of 0.4A/W. I guess there is some fraction of the QPD that doesn't generate any photocurrent (i.e. the grooves defining the quadrants), but is it reasonable that when the Oplev beam is well centered, ~50% of the power is not measured? I couldn't find any sneaky digital gains between the quadrant channels to the sum channel either... But in the Oplev setup, the QPD had ~250uW of power incident on it, and was reporting a sum of ~13,000 counts with a transimpedance gain of 100kohm, so at least the scaling seems to hold...

I guess we wan't to monitor this over a few days, see how stationary the noise profile is etc. I didn't look at the spectrum of the intensity noise during this time.

Quote:

## I've setup a test setup on the ITMY Oplev table. Details + pics to follow, but for now, be aware that

Here are some pics of the setup: https://photos.app.goo.gl/DHMINAV7aVgayYcf1.None of the existing Oplev input/output steering optics were touched. Steve can make modifications as necessary, perhaps we can make similar mods to the SRM Oplev QPD and the BS one to run the HeNe test for a few days...

13484   Fri Dec 15 18:24:46 2017 ranaSummaryOptical LeversPRM

Today Angelina and I looked at the PRM OL with an eye towards installing a 2nd QPD. We want to try out using 2 QPDs for a single optic to see if theres a way to make a linear combination of them to reduce the sensitivity to jitter of the HeNe laser or acoustic noise on the table.

The power supply for the HeNe was gone, so I took one from the SP table.

There are WAY too many optics in use to get the beam from the HeNe into the vacuum and then back out. What we want is 1 steering mirror after the laser and then 1 steering mirror before the QPD. Even though there are rumors that this is impossible, I checked today and in fact it is very, very possible.

More optics = more noise = bad.

13548   Mon Jan 15 17:36:03 2018 gautamHowToOptical LeversOplev calibration

## Summary:

I checked the calibration of the Oplevs for both ITMs, both ETMs and the BS. The table below summarizes the old and new cts->urad conversion factors, as well as the factor describing the scaling applied. Attachment #1 is a zip file of the fits performed to calculate these calibration factors (GPS times of the sweeps are in the titles of these plots). Attachment #2 is the spectra of the various Oplev error signals (open loop, so a measure of seismic induced angular motion for a given optic, and DoF) after the correction. Loop TF measurements post calibration factor update and loop gain adjustment to be uploaded tomorrow.

ETMX, Pitch 200 175 0.88
ETMX, Yaw 222 175 0.79
ITMX, Pitch 122 134 1.1
ITMX, Yaw 147 146 1
BS, Pitch 130 136 1.05
BS, Yaw 170 176 1.04
ITMY, Pitch 239 254 1.06
ITMY, Yaw 226 220 0.97
ETMY, Pitch 140 164 1.17
ETMY, Yaw 143 169 1.18

## Details:

1. I locked and dither aligned the individual arms.
2. I then used a 60 second ramp time to misalign <optic> in {ITMX, ITMY, BS, ETMX, ETMY} one at a time, and looked at the appropriate arm cavity transmission while the misalignment was applied. The amplitude of the misalignment was chosen such that in the maximally misaligned state, the arm cavity was still locked to a TEM00 mode, with arm transmission ~40% of the value when the cavity transmission was maximized using the dither alignment servos. The CDS ramp is not exactly linear, it looks more like a sigmoid near the start and end, but I don't think that really matters for these fits.
3. I used the script OLcalibFactor.py (located at /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/OL) to fit the data and extract calibration factors. This script downloads the arm cavity transmission and the OL error signal during the misalignment period, and fits a Gaussian profile to the data (X=oplev error signal, Y=arm transmission). Using geometry and mode overlap considerations, we can back out the misalignment in physical units (urad).

1. For the most part, the correction was small, of the order of a few percent. The largest corrections were for the ETMs. I believe the last person to do Oplev calibration for the TMs was Yutaro in Dec 2015, and since then, we have certainly changed the HeNes at the X and Y ends (but not for the ITMs), so this seems consistent.
2. From attachment #2, most of the 1Hz resonances line up quite well (around 1-3urad/rtHz), so gives me some confidence in this calibration.
3. I haven't done a careful error analysis yet - but the fits are good to the eye, and the residuals look randomly distributed for the most part. I've assumed precision to the level of 1 urad/ct in setting the new calibration factors.
4. I think the misalignment period of 60 seconds is sufficiently long that the disturbance applied to the Oplev loop is well below the lower loop UGF of ~0.2Hz, and so the in loop Oplev error signal is a good proxy for the angular (mis)alignment of the optic. So no loop correction factor was applied.
5. I've not yet calibrated the PRM and SRM oplevs.

Now that the ETMX calibration has been updated, let's keep an eye out for a wandering ETMX.

14345   Tue Dec 11 18:20:59 2018 gautamUpdateOptical LeversBS/PRM HeNe is dead

I found that the BS/PRM OL SUM channels were reading close to 0. So I went to the optical table, and found that there was no beam from the HeNe. I tried power-cycling the controller, there was no effect. From the trend data, it looks like there was a slow decay over ~400000 seconds (~ 5 days) and then an abrupt shutoff. This is not ideal, because we would have liked to use the Oplevs as a DC alignment reference during the ventI plan to use the AS camera to recover some sort of good Michelson alignment, and then if we want to, we can switch out the HeNe.

*How can I export PDF from NDscope?

14402   Tue Jan 15 18:16:00 2019 gautamUpdateOptical LeversETMY Oplev HeNe needs replacement

Perhaps the ETMY Oplev HeNe is also giving up - the power has fallen by ~30% over 1 year (Attachment #2), nearly twice as much as ETMX but the RIN spectrum (Attachment #1, didn't even need to rotate it!) certainly seems suspicious. Some "nominal" RIN levels for HeNes can be found earlier in this thread. I can't close any of the EY Oplev loops in this condition. I'll double check to make sure I'm routing the right beam onto the QPD, but if the problem persists, I'll replace the HeNe. ITMX HeNe also looks to be near EOL.

 Quote: Finally I reallized what is killing the ETMY oplev laser. Wrong  power supply, it  was driving the HeNe laser by 600V higher voltage than recommended. Power supply 101T-2300Vdc replaced by 101T-1700Vdc ( Uniphase model 1201-1, sn 2712420 ) The laser head 1103P, sn P947049 lived for 120 days and it was replaced by sn P964431   New laser output 2.8 mW,  quadrant sum 19,750 counts
14404   Fri Jan 18 12:52:07 2019 gautamUpdateOptical LeversBS/PRM Oplev HeNe replaced

I replaced the BS/PRM Oplev HeNe with one of the heads from the SP table where Steve was setting up the OL RIN/pointing noise experiment. The old one was dead. The new one outputs 3.2 mW of power, I've labelled it with this number, serial number and date of replacement. The beam comes out of the vacuum chamber for both the BS and PRM, and the RIN spectra (Attachment #1) look alright. The calibration into urad and loop gains possibly have to be tweaked. Since the beam comes out of vacuum, I say that we shouldn't open the BS/PRM chamber for this vent - we don't have a proper plan for the in-air layout yet, so we can add this to the list of to-dos for the next vent.

I think we are down to our last spare HeNe head in the lab - @Chub, please look into ordering some more, the ITMX HeNe is going to need replacement soon.

14484   Mon Mar 18 17:06:12 2019 gautamUpdateOptical LeversITMY HeNe replaced

Oplev HeNe was replaced this afternoon. We did some HeNe shuffling:

1. A new HeNe was being used for the fiber illumination demo at EX. We took that out and decided to use it as the new ITMX HeNe. It had 2.6mW output at 632nm (measured with the Ophir power meter)
2. Old ETMY HeNe was used for fiber illumination demo.
3. Old ITMX HeNe was putting out no light - it will be disposed.

Attachment #1 shows the RIN and Attachment #2 and #3 show the PIT and YAW TFs with the new HeNe.

The ITMX Oplev path is still not great - the ingoing beam is within 2mm of clipping on a 2" lens used in the POX path, and there is a bunch of scattered red light everywhere. We should take the opportunity when the chamber is open to try and have a better layout (it may be tricky to optize without touching the two in-vacuum steering optics).

 Quote: I'll ask Chub to replace it this afternoon.
14541   Mon Apr 15 10:20:44 2019 gautamUpdateOptical LeversBS Oplev PIT was oscillating

The AS spot on the camera was oscillating at ~3 Hz. Looking at the Oplevs, the culprit was the BS PIT DoF. Started about 12 hours ago, not sure what triggered it. I disabled Oplev damping, and waited for the angular motion to settle down a bit, and then re-enabled the servo - damps fine now...

14902   Fri Sep 20 11:39:04 2019 gautamUpdateOptical LeversETMX Oplev HeNe Dead

While working on recovering interferometer alignment, I noticed that the ETMX Oplev SUM channel reported 0 counts. Attachment #1 shows the 200 day trend - despite the missing data, the accelerating downward decay is evident. I confirmed that there is no light coming out of the HeNe by walking down to EX. The label on the HeNe says it was installed in March 2017, so the lifetime was ~30 months. Seems a little short? I may replace this later today.

14911   Sun Sep 29 16:08:25 2019 gautamUpdateOptical LeversETMX Oplev HeNe replaced

To facilitate POX locking investigations, I replaced this HeNe today with one of the spares Chub/Steve had acquired some time ago. Details:

• Part number: Lumentum 22037130 (1103P)
• Serial number: PA00836
• Manufacture date: 01/2019
• Power output: ~2.64 mW (Measured with Ophir power meter in the 632nm setting)
• Power received on QPD: ~0.37 mW = ~18700 cts (Measured with Ophir power meter in the 632nm setting)

The RIN of the sum channel with the Oplev servo engaged, along with that for the other core FPMI optics, in shown in Attachment #1. The ETMX HeNe RIN is compatible with the other HeNes in the lab (the high-frequency behaviour of the BS Oplev is different from the other four because the QPD whitening electronics are different).

Not sure what to make of the ETMY RIN profile being so different from the others, seems like some kind of glitchy behaviour, I could see the mean level of the ASD moving up and down as I was taking the averages in DTT. Needs further investigation.

The old / broken HeNe is placed i(nside the packaging of the abovementioned replacement HeNe) on Steve's old desk for disposal in the proper way.

*It looked like Steve had hooked up a thermocouple to be able to monitor the temperature of the HeNe head. I removed this feature as I figured if we don't have this hooked up to the DAQ, it isn't a really useful diagnostic. If we want, we can restore this in a more useful way.

 Quote: While working on recovering interferometer alignment, I noticed that the ETMX Oplev SUM channel reported 0 counts. Attachment #1 shows the 200 day trend - despite the missing data, the accelerating downward decay is evident. I confirmed that there is no light coming out of the HeNe by walking down to EX. The label on the HeNe says it was installed in March 2017, so the lifetime was ~30 months. Seems a little short? I may replace this later today.
15079   Thu Dec 5 18:15:01 2019 gautamUpdateOptical LeversITM, PRM and BS Oplevs re-centered

In preparation for locking tonight, I re-centered the spots on the Oplev QPDs for the ITMs, BS and PRM after locking and running the dither alignment for the arms and also the PRMI carrier. In the past, DC coupling the ITM Oplevs helped the angular stability a bit, let's see if it still does.

15607   Fri Oct 2 10:29:49 2020 gautamUpdateOptical LeversETMY, BS and ITMX HeNes degrading

Attachment #1 shows that the ITMX, ETMY and beamsplitter Oplev light levels have decayed significantly from their values when installed. In particular, the ETMY and ITMX sum channels are now only 50% of the values when a new HeNe was installed. ELOG search revealed that ITMY and ETMX HeNes were replaced with newly acquired units in March and September of last year respectively. The ITMX oplev was also replaced in March 2019, but the replacement was a unit that was being used to illuminate our tourist attraction glass fiber at EX.

We should replace these before any vent as they are a useful diagnostic for the DC alignement reference.

15717   Wed Dec 9 11:54:11 2020 gautamUpdateOptical LeversITMX HeNe replaced

The ITMX Oplev (installed in March 2019) was near end of life judging by the SUM channel (see Attachment #1). I replaced it yesterday evening with a new HeNe head. Output power was ~3.25 mW. The head was labelled appropriately and the Oplev spot was recentered on its QPD. The lifetime of ~20 months is short but recall that this HeNe had already been employed as a fiber illuminator at EX and so maybe this is okay.

Loop UGFs and stability margins seem acceptable to me, see Attachment #2-#3.

15749   Wed Jan 6 16:18:38 2021 gautamUpdateOptical LeversBS Oplev glitchy

As part of the hunt why the X arm IR transmission RIN is anomalously high, I noticed that the BS Oplev Servo periodically kicks the optic around - the summary pages are the best illustration of this happening. Looking back in time, these seem to have started ~Nov 23 2020. The HeNe power output has been degrading, see Attachment #1, but this is not yet at the point where the head usually needs replacing. The RIN spectrum doesn't look anomalous to me, see Attachment #2 (the whitening situation for the quadrants is different for the BS and the TMs, which explains the HF noise). I also measured the loop UGFs (using swept sine) - seems funky, I can't get the same coherence now (live traces) between 10-30 Hz that I could before (reference traces) with the same drive amplitude, and the TF that I do measure has a weird flattening out at higher frequencies that I can't explain, see Attachment #3.

The excess RIN is almost exactly in the band that we expect our Oplevs to stabilize the angular motion of the optics in, so maybe needs more investigation - I will upload the loop suppression of the error point later. So far, I don't see any clean evidence of the BS Oplev HeNe being the culprit, so I'm a bit hesitant to just swap out the head...

16231   Wed Jun 30 15:31:35 2021 AnchalSummaryOptical LeversCentered optical levers on ITMY, BS, PRM and ETMY

When both arms were locked, we found that ITMY optical lever was very off-center. This seems to have happened after the c1susaux rebooting we did in June 17th. I opened the ITMY table and realigned the OPLev beam to the center when the arm was locked. I repeated this process for BS, PRM and ETMY. I did PRM because I've known that we have been keeping its OpLev off. The reason was clear once I opened the table. The oplev reflection beam was hitting the PD box instead of the PD. After correcting, I was able to swithc on PRM opLev loops and saw normal functioning.

16236   Thu Jul 1 16:55:21 2021 AnchalSummaryOptical LeversFixed Centeringoptical levers PRM

This was a mistake. When arms are locked, PRM is misaligned by setting -800 offset in PIT dof of PRM. The oplev is set to function in normal state not this misalgined configuration. I undid my changes today by switching off the offset, realigning the oplev to center and then restoring the single arm locked state. The PRM OpLevs loops are off now.

 Quote: PRM because I've known that we have been keeping its OpLev off. The reason was clear once I opened the table. The oplev reflection beam was hitting the PD box instead of the PD. After correcting, I was able to swithc on PRM opLev loops and saw normal functioning.

16266   Thu Jul 29 14:51:39 2021 PacoUpdateOptical LeversRecenter OpLevs

[yehonathan, anchal, paco]

Yesterday around 9:30 pm, we centered the BS, ITMY, ETMY, ITMX and ETMX oplevs (in that order) in their respective QPDs by turning the last mirror before the QPDs. We did this after running the ASS dither for the XARM/YARM configurations to use as the alignment reference. We did this in preparation for PRFPMI lock acquisition which we had to stop due to an earthquake around midnight

16268   Tue Aug 3 20:20:08 2021 AnchalUpdateOptical LeversRecentered ETMX, ITMX and ETMY oplevs at good state

Late elog. Original time 08/02/2021 21:00.

I locked both arms and ran ASS to reach to optimum alignment. ETMY PIT > 10urad, ITMX P > 10urad and ETMX P < -10urad. Everything else was ok absolute value less than 10urad. I recentered these three.

Than I locked PRMI, ran ASS on PRCL and MICH and checked BS and PRM alignment. They were also less than absolute value 10urad.

16407   Fri Oct 15 16:46:27 2021 AnchalSummaryOptical LeversVent Prep

I centered all the optical levers on ITMX, ITMY, ETMX, ETMY, and BS to a position where the single arm lock on both were best aligned. Unfortunately, we are seeing the TRX at 0.78 and TRY at 0.76 at the most aligned positions. It seems less power is getting out of PMC since last month. (Attachment 1).

Then, I tried to lock PRMI with carrier with no luck. But I was able to see flashing of up to 4000 counts in POP_DC. At this position, I centered the PRM optical lever too (Attachment 2).

16751   Fri Apr 1 14:26:50 2022 TegaUpdateOptical LeversSimplified sketch on MC table

Here is an early sketch of the MC table.

 Quote: I have made an editable draw.io diagram of the planned simplified BHD setup on the ITMY table (see attached).  10 pts = 1 inch. This is very sketchy but easily adjustable since we are removing everything but the ITMY Oplev from that table.

16752   Fri Apr 1 17:02:02 2022 KojiUpdateOptical LeversSimplified sketch on MC table

We are supposed to have BS Oplev Beams. We don't like the shallow angle reflections (i.e. AOI>45deg).

The laser is too big but I suspect the other components are too small. So it'd be check the actual size of the components including the optical mounts that are missing on the figure so far.

16753   Fri Apr 1 22:22:29 2022 KojiUpdateOptical LeversSimplified sketch on MC table

Possibility to swap BS and ITMX tables:
BS table, which Tega said MC table, is 2ft x 4ft. The ITMX table is 3ft x 5ft and only the central 2ft x 4ft area is used. The area around the BS table is the narrowest for the east arm. We need at least (2+delta) ft of the hallway width so that we can move the instrument. I'm not yet sure if the ITMX table can be placed there without precise investigation.

16755   Mon Apr 4 15:49:06 2022 TegaUpdateOptical LeversSimplified sketch on BS table

I have updated the BS table using feedback from Koji and Paco and the attached pdf document is the latest iteration.

8018   Wed Feb 6 20:19:52 2013 ManasaUpdateOpticsG&H and LaserOptik mirrors

[Koji, Manasa]

We measured the wedge angle of the G&H and LaserOptik mirrors at the OMC lab using an autocollimator and rotation stage.

The wedge angles:

G&H : 18 arc seconds (rough measurement)

LaserOptik : 1.887 deg

8023   Thu Feb 7 14:10:25 2013 ManasaUpdateOpticsLaserOptik - AR Reflectivity - Bad data

Reflectivity of AR surface of LaserOptik (SN6)

The first step measurements of R for AR surface. I am not convinced with the data....because the power meter is a lame detector for this measurement.

I'm repeating the measurements again with PDs. But below is the log R plot for AR surface.

R percentage

6000ppm @ 42 deg
3560ppm @ 44 deg
7880ppm @ 46 deg
4690ppm @ 48 deg

8045   Fri Feb 8 21:14:52 2013 ManasaUpdateOpticsG&H - AR Reflectivity

Hours of struggle and still no data

I tried to measure the AR reflectivity and the loss due to flipping of G&H mirrors

With almost no wedge angle, separating the AR reflected beam from the HR reflected beam seems to need more tricks.

The separation between the 2 reflected rays is expected 0.8mm. After using a lens along the incident beam, this distance was still not enough to be separable by an iris.

The first trick: I could find a prism and tried to refract the beams at the edge of the prism...but the edges weren't that sharp to separate the beams (Infact I thought an axicon would do the job better..but I think we don't have any of those).

Next from the bag of tricks: I installed a camera to see if the spots can actually be resolved.

The camera image shows the 2 sets of focal spots; bright set to the left corresponding to HR reflected beam and the other from the AR surface. I expect the ghost images to arise from the 15 arcsec wedge of the mirror. I tried to mask one of the sets using a razor blade to see if I can separate them and get some data using a PD. But, it so turns out that even the blade edge is not sharp enough to separate them.

If there are any more intelligent ideas...go ahead and suggest!

8046   Fri Feb 8 22:49:31 2013 KojiUpdateOpticsG&H - AR Reflectivity

How about to measure the AR reflectivity at larger (but small) angles the extrapolate the function to smaller angle,
or estimate an upper limit?

The spot separation is

D = 2 d Tan(\phi) Cos(\theta), where \phi = ArcSin(Sin(\theta) * n)

D = 2 d Tan(\phi) Cos(\theta), where \phi = ArcSin(Sin(\theta) / n)         (<== correction by Manasa's entry)

\theta is the angle of incidence. For a small \theta, D is propotional to \theta.

So If you double the incident angle, the beam separation will be doubled,
while the reflectivity is an even function of the incident angle (i.e. the lowest order is quadratic).

I am not sure until how much larger angle you can use the quadratic function rather than a quartic function.
But thinking about the difficulty you have, it might be worth to try.

8047   Fri Feb 8 23:04:40 2013 ManasaUpdateOpticsG&H - AR Reflectivity

 Quote: D = 2 d Tan(\phi) Cos(\theta), where \phi = ArcSin(Sin(\theta) * n) \theta is the angle of incidence. For a small \theta, D is propotional to \theta.

n1Sin(\theta1) = n2 Sin(\theta2)

So it should be

\phi = ArcSin(Sin(\theta) / n

I did check the reflected images for larger angles of incidence, about 20 deg and visibly (on the IR card) I did not see much change in the separation. But I will check it with the camera again to confirm on that.

8051   Sat Feb 9 19:34:34 2013 ranaUpdateOpticsG&H - AR Reflectivity

Use the trick I suggested:

Focus the beam so that the beam size at the detector is smaller than the beam separation. Use math to calculate the beam size and choose the lens size and position. You should be able to achieve a waist size of < 0.1 mm for the reflected beam.

8060   Mon Feb 11 17:54:02 2013 KojiSummaryOpticsCurvature radii of the G&H/LaserOptik mirrors

I, by chance, found  that my windows partition has Vision32 installed.
So I run my usual curvature characterization for the TT phasemaps.

They are found under this link
https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:30889/40m_phasemap/40m_TT/（requires: LVC credentials)
or
/cvs/cds/caltech/users/public_html/40m_phasemap/40m_TT

asc/ (ascii files) --> .asc files are saved in Wyko ascii format.
bmp/ (screen shots of Vision32)
mat/ (Matlab scripts and results)
opd/ (Raw binary files)

Mirror / RoC from Vision32 / RoC from KA's matlab code
G&H "A" 0864 / -527.5 m / -505.2 m
G&H "B" 0884 / -710.2 m / -683.6 m
LaserOptik SN1 / -688.0 m / -652.7 m
LaserOptik SN2 / -605.2 m / -572.6 m
LaserOptik SN3 / -656.7 m / -635.0 m
LaserOptik SN4 / -607.5 m / -574.6 m
LaserOptik SN5 / -624.8 m / -594.3 m
LaserOptik SN6 / -658.5 m / -630.2 m

The aperture for the RoC in Vision32 seems a bit larger than the one I have used in the code (10mm in dia.)
This could be the cause of the systematic difference of the RoCs between these, as most of our mirrors
has weaker convex curvature for larger aperture, as seen in the figure. (i.e. outer area is more concave
after the subtration of the curvature)

I did not see any structure like Newton's ring which was observed from the data converted with SXMimage. Why???

8063   Mon Feb 11 19:55:47 2013 ManasaUpdateOpticsG&H - AR Reflectivity

I adjusted the focal length of the focusing lens and reduced the beam size enough to mask with the razor blade edge while looking at the camera and then making measurements using PD.

I am still not satisfied with this data because the R of the HR surface measured after flipping seems totally unbelievable (at around 0.45).

G&H AR reflectivity

R percentage

11 ppm @4 deg
19.8 ppm @6 deg
20 ppm @ 8 deg
30 ppm @ 20 deg

8069   Tue Feb 12 18:28:46 2013 JamieSummaryOpticsCurvature radii of the G&H/LaserOptik mirrors

 Quote: I, by chance, found  that my windows partition has Vision32 installed. So I run my usual curvature characterization for the TT phasemaps.

Is it possible to calculate astigmatism with your tools?  Can we get curvature in X/Y direction, preferably aligned with some axis that we might align to in the vacuum?

8075   Wed Feb 13 09:28:56 2013 SteveUpdateOpticsG&H - HR plots

Gooch & Housego optics order specification from 03-13-2010

Side 1: HR Reflectivity >99.99 % at 1064 nm for 0-45 degrees for S & P polarization

Side 2: AR coat R <0.15

The HR coating scans uploaded to 40mwiki / Aux optics today

8316   Wed Mar 20 14:44:47 2013 JamieUpdateOpticsupdated calculations of PRC/SRC g-factors and ARM mode matching

Below are new alamode calculations of the PRC and SRC g-factors and arm mode matchings.  These include fixes to the ABCD matrices for the flipped folding mirrors that properly (hopefully) take into account the focusing effect of passing through the optic substrates.

I've used nominal curvatures of -600 m for the G&H PR2/SR2 optics, and -700 m for the Laseroptik PR3/SR3 dichroics.

An interesting and slightly disappointing note is that it looks like it actually would have been better to flip PR3 instead of PR2, although the difference isn't too big.  We should considering flipping SR3 instead or SR2 when dealing with the SRC.  I'll take responsibility for messing up the calculation for the flipped TTs.

### PRC

 PR2 Reff PR3 Reff PRC g-factor (t/s) ARM mode matching Inf Inf .94/.94 .999 -600 -700 .99/.98 .84 413 (flipped) -700 .94/.93 .999 -600 409 (flipped) .92/.94 .999 413 (flipped) 409 (flipped) .87/.89 .97

### SRC

 SR2 Reff SR3 Reff SRC g-factor (t/s) ARM mode matching Inf Inf .96/.96 .999 -600 -700 NA NA 413 (flipped) -700 .96/.95 .998 -600 391 (flipped) .94/.96 .996 413 (flipped) 391 (flipped) .90/.92 .96

RXA: maybe nominal, but we don't actually have measurements of the installed optics' curvatures, so there could be ~10-15% errors in the RoC. Which translates into a 1-2% error in the g-factor.

8339   Mon Mar 25 16:51:59 2013 JenneUpdateOpticsupdated calculations of PRC/SRC g-factors and ARM mode matching

I think we like the idea of flipping SR2 better than SR3 for the same ghost beam reasons as PR2 is better than PR3.  There isn't very much free space in the BS chamber, and if we flip PR/SR3, we have to deal with green ghosts as well as IR.

The flipping SR2 case seems okay to me - flipping either one of the SR folding mirrors gives us a slightly better g-factor than the design with infinite curvatures, and flipping SR2 gives us slightly better mode matching to the arm than the flipped SR3 case, but more importantly, there are fewer ghosts to deal with.  I vote we flip SR2, not SR3.

8352   Tue Mar 26 11:33:55 2013 JamieUpdateOpticsHOWTO calculate effective RoC of flipped TT

In case anyone is curious how I got the numbers for the effective radius of curvature of the flipped TT mirrors, I include the code below.  Now you can calculate at home!

Here's the calculation for the effective RoC of a flipped SR2 with nominal un-flipped HR RoC of -600:

>> [Mt, Ms] = TTflipped(600, 5);
>> M2Reff('t', Mt, 5)

ans =

412.9652

>>



13450   Wed Nov 22 17:52:25 2017 gautamUpdateOptimal ControlVisualizing cost functions

I've attempted to visualize the various components of the cost function in the way I've defined it for the current iteration of the Oplev optimal control loop design code. For each term in the cost function, the way the cost is computed depends on the ratio of the abscissa value to some threshold value (set by hand for now) - if this ratio is >1, the cost is the logarithm of the ratio, whereas if the ratio is <1, the cost is the square of the ratio. Continuity is enforced at the point at which this transition happens. I've plotted the cost function for some of the terms entering the code right now - indicated in dashed red lines are the approximate value of each of these costs for our current Oplev loop - the weights were chosen so that each of the costs were O(10) for the current controller, and the idea was that the optimizer could drive these down to hopefully O(1), but I've not yet gotten that to happen.

Based on the meeting yesterday, some possible ideas:

1. For minimizing the control noise injection - we know the transfer function from the Oplev control signal coupling to MICH from measurements, and we also have a model for the seismic noise. So one term could be a weighted integral of (coupling - seismic) - the weight can give more importance to f>30Hz, and even more importance to f>100Hz. Right now, I don't have any suc frequency dependant requirement on the control signal.
2. Try a simpler problem first - pendulum local damping. The position damping controller for example has fewer roots in the complex plane. Although it too has some B/R notches, which account for 16 complex roots, and hence, 32 parameters, so maybe this isn't really a simpler problem?
3. How do we pick the number of excess poles compared to zeros in the overall transfer function? The OL loop low-pass filters are elliptic filters, which achieve the fastest transition between the passband and stopband, but for the Oplev loop roll-off, perhaps its better to have a just have some poles to roll off the HF response?
13497   Tue Jan 2 16:37:26 2018 gautamUpdateOptimal ControlOplev loop tuning

I've made various changes to the optimal loop design approach, but am still not having much success. A summary of changes made:

1. Parametrization of filter - enforcing uniqueness
• Previously, the input to the particle swarm was a vector of root frequencies and associated Q-factors.
• This way of parametrization is not unique - permuting the order of the roots yield the same filter, but particles traversing the high (65) dimensional parameter space may have to go over very expensive regions in order to converge with the global minimum / best performing particle.
• One way around this is to parametrize the filter by the highest pole/zero frequency, and then specifying the remaining roots by the cumulative separation from this highest root. This guarantees that a unique vector input to the particle swarm function specifies a unique filter.
• To avoid negative frequencies, I manually set a particular element of the vector to 0 if the cumulative sum yields a negative frequency. I believe this is how MATLAB's particle swarm implements the "constraints" in the constrained optimization routines.
2. Cost function - I've reformulated this into something that makes more sense to me, but probably can be improved further.
• Term #1 - integral of the area (evaluated with MATLAB's trapz utility) between the in-loop (i.e. suppressed) error signal and the sensing noise spectrum (for the latter, I use the orange curve from this plot). This is a signed number, so that suppression below the sensing noise is penalized. Target value is 1 urad rtHz. One problem I see with this approach is that if we believe the sensing noise measurement, then even at 10mHz, it looks like sensing noise is below the out-of-loop error signal level. So the optimizer doesn't seem to want to make the loop AC coupled.
• Term #2 - stability margin. I'm using this number, which is the distance-of-closest-approach to the point -1 in the Nyquist plot, instead of gain and phase margins, as this yields a more conservative robustness measure. Target value is 0.65.
• Term #3 - A2L contribution of in-loop control signal. This contribution is calculated using measurements of A2L coupling for the DRMI. The actual term that goes into the cost function is the ratio of the area under the in-loop control signal to that under the seismic noise curve above 35Hz. Further, f>100Hz is given 10x the weight of 35Hz<f<100Hz (I've not really played around with this weighting function). The goal is to be as close to the seismic curve as possible, at which point this term becomes 1.
• Terms #4 and #5 - the maximum open loop gain evaluated in a 1Hz wide bin centered around the bounce and roll resonances. The aim is to not exceed -40dB in these bins. Perhaps this needs to be reformulated, as the optimizer seems to be giving this term too much importance - the optimized loops have extremely deep bandstops around the BR resonances.
• To normalize each term, I divide by the "target" value mentioned above, so as to make the various terms comparable.
• Each term in the cost function has two regimes - one where it is rapidly varying close to the desired operating point, and one far away where the cost still increases monotonically, but slower (see Attachment #2).
• A scalar cost function is evaluated by taking a weighted sum of the above terms. The weights are chosen so as to make each term ~10 for the controller currently implemented.
• All of the above are only applicable if the resulting loop is stable - else, a large cost is assigned (exponential of sum of real parts of poles of OLTF).

Attachment #1 shows the outcome of a typical optimization run - so while I am having some more success with this than before, where the PSO algorithm was stalling and terminating before any actual optimization was done, it seems like I need to re-think the cost function yet again...

Attachment #2 shows the current terms entering the cost function, and their "desired" values.

The current version of the code I am using is here: although I may not have inculded some of the data files required to run it, to be fixed...

13498   Wed Jan 3 12:33:16 2018 ranaUpdateOptimal ControlOplev loop tuning

When putting code into git.ligo.org, one way to have automated testing is to use the Gitlab CI. This is an automated 'checker', much like the 'Travis' system used in GitHub. Essentially, you give it a make files which it runs somewhere and your GIT repo web page gets a little 'failed/passing' badge telling you if its working. You can also browse the logs to see in detail what happened. This avoids the 'but it works on my computer!' thing that we usually hear.

 Quote: The current version of the code I am using is here: although I may not have inculded some of the data files required to run it, to be fixed...

13500   Wed Jan 3 16:25:32 2018 awadeUpdateOptimal ControlOplev loop tuning

Another cool feature is client side pre-commit hooks. They can be used to run checks on the local version at the time of commit and refuses to push until the pass/fail exits 0.

Can be the same as the Gitlab CI or just basic code quality checks.  I use them to prevent jupyter notebooks being commited with uncleared cells. It needs to be set up on the user's computer manually and is not automatically cloned with the directory: a script can be included in the repo to do this and run manually on first time clone.

 Quote: When putting code into git.ligo.org, one way to have automated testing is to use the Gitlab CI. This is an automated 'checker', much like the 'Travis' system used in GitHub. Essentially, you give it a make files which it runs somewhere and your GIT repo web page gets a little 'failed/passing' badge telling you if its working. You can also browse the logs to see in detail what happened. This avoids the 'but it works on my computer!' thing that we usually hear.

13520   Tue Jan 9 21:57:29 2018 gautamUpdateOptimal ControlOplev loop tuning

After some more tweaking, I feel like I may be getting closer to a cost-function definition that works.

• The main change I made was to effectively separate the BR-bandstop filter poles/zeros and the rest of the poles and zeros.
• So now the input vector is still a list of highest pole frequency followed by frequency separations, but I can specify much tighter frequency bounds for the roots of the part of the transfer function corresponding to the Bounce/Roll bandstops.
• This in turn considerably reduces the swarming area - at the moment, half of the roots are for the notches, and in the (f0,Q) basis, I see no reason for the bounds on f0 to be wider than [10,30]Hz.

Some things to figure out:

1. How the "force" the loop to be AC coupled without explicitly requiring it to be so? What should the AC coupling frequency be? From the (admittedly cursory) sensing noise measurement, it would seem that the Oplev error signal is above sensing noise even at frequencies as low as 10mHz.
2. In general, the loops seem to do well in reducing sensing noise injection - but they seem to do this at the expense of the loop gain at ~1Hz, which is not what we want.
• I am going to try and run the optimizer with an excess of poles relative to zeros
• Currently, n(Poles) = n(Zeros), and this is the condition required for elliptic low pass filters, which achieve fast transition between the passband and stopband - but we could just as well use a less rapid, but more monotonic roll-off. So the gain at 50Hz might be higher, but at 200Hz, we could perhaps do better with this approach.
3. The loop shape between 10 and 30Hz that the optimizer outputs seems a but weird to me - it doesn't really quite converge to a bandstop. Need to figure that out.
17192   Sat Oct 15 17:22:56 2022 ChrisUpdateOptimal ControlIMC alignment controller testing

We conducted a test of three alternative controllers for the IMC pitch DOFs on Friday. These were loaded into a new RTS model c1sbr, which runs on the c1ioo front end as a user-space program at 256 Hz. It communicates with the c1ioo controller via shared memory IPCs to exchange error and control signals.

The IMC maintained lock during the handoffs, and we were able to take one minute of data for each (circa GPS 1349807926, 1349808426, 1349808751; spectra attached), which we can review to assess the performance vs the baseline. (On the first trial, lock was lost at the end when the script tried to switch back to the baseline controller, because we did not take care to clear the integrators. On subsequent trials we did that part by hand.)

The method of setting up this test was convoluted, but now that we see it working, we can start putting in the merge requests to get the changes better integrated into the system. First, modifications were required to the realtime code generator, to get controllers running at the new sample rate of 256 Hz. (This was done in a separate filesystem image on fb1, /diskless/root.buster256, which is only loaded by c1ioo, so as to isolate the changes from the other front end machines.) The generated code then needed hand-edits to insert additional header files and linker options, so that the alternative controllers could be loaded from .so shared libraries. Also, the kernel parameters had to be set as described here, to allow the user-space controller to have a CPU core all to itself. Finally, isolating the core was done following the recipe in this script (skipping the parts related to docker, since we didn’t use it).

17198   Tue Oct 18 20:43:38 2022 AnchalUpdateOptimal ControlIMC open loop noise monitor

WFS loops were running for past 2 hours when I made the overall gain slider zero at:

PDT: 2022-10-18 20:42:53.505256 PDT
UTC: 2022-10-19 03:42:53.505256 UTC
GPS: 1350186191.505256

The output values are fixed to a good alignment. IMC transmission is about 14100 counts right now. I'll turn on the loop tomorrow morning. Data from tonight can be used for monitoing open loop noise.

17199   Wed Oct 19 09:48:49 2022 AnchalUpdateOptimal ControlIMC open loop noise monitor

Turning WFS loops back on at:

PDT: 2022-10-19 09:48:16.956979 PDT
UTC: 2022-10-19 16:48:16.956979 UTC
GPS: 1350233314.956979

17314   Sun Nov 27 15:30:22 2022 ChrisUpdateOptimal ControlIMC alignment controller testing

Five more mode cleaner alignment controllers were tested this morning (remotely). These were designed to run in tandem with the standard controller, instead of supplanting it. Before the test, c1ioo was burt restored back to the settings of the previous test on Oct 28, and in MC TRANS PIT/YAW filter banks the 80 dB gain filters were disengaged and outputs were enabled. Subsequently, all settings were returned to the original values. Each test consisted of five minutes with pitch alignment uncontrolled, five minutes with the standard controller only, and twenty minutes with both controllers enabled. GPS times for each phase of testing are the following:

• musgo
• OL start 1353602764
• CL start 1353603074
• policy start 1353603410
• musgo_ghost
• OL start 1353604697
• CL start 1353605007
• policy start 1353605355
• musgo_stumble
• OL start 1353606574
• CL start 1353606884
• policy start 1353607229
• musgo_goldfish
• OL start 1353608446
• CL start 1353608756
• policy start 1353609099
• musgo_late
• OL start 1353610321
• CL start 1353610631
• policy start 1353610971
ELOG V3.1.3-