40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 243 of 346  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Category Subjectup
  5522   Thu Sep 22 18:33:01 2011 KojiSummaryLSCThe LSC screen modification

As per the request of Anamaria, I have added the slider of the demodulation phase for each RF PD screens.

  5528   Thu Sep 22 23:18:51 2011 KojiSummaryLSCThe LSC screen modification

 

C1LSC_RFPD.adl screen was modified to have more information.

  4304   Tue Feb 15 21:45:08 2011 ranaUpdateIOOThe MC TRANS Story

I forgot to elog that last night I touched up the MC2_TRANS QPD setup. I was perplexed by it always going out of alignment so I investigated.

I found that the fork clamp for the steering mirror for the QPD was not tightened. Shame. The beam diameter was equal to the aperture of the QPD and was clipping. Double shame.

I added a lens and tightened the mounts and centered the beam at ~9 PM yesterday. You can see in the attached trend that the measured power went up by ~10%.

Later, there's a big gap where Valera and Steve change out the PMC. You can see that the MC REFL voltage goes from 4.5 V to 5 V (10% increase in the power delivered to the MC).

There's essentially no change in the total transmission - this indicates that although the PMC transmission is now higher by ~10%, the matching to the IMC has been degraded by an equivalent fraction.

Needs some mode matching work.

  2616   Fri Feb 19 10:18:19 2010 JenneUpdateVACThe P1 vac pressure is almost to 3mTorr

The Vac pressure measured at P1 is at 2.5mTorr.  I expect we'll hit 3mTorr sometime this afternoon, at which point (according to Steve) the interlock will shut the shutter, and we won't have light in the IFO.  Anything which needs to happen with light in the IFO before Monday needs to happen fairly soon.

  11175   Thu Mar 26 10:41:06 2015 SteveUpdateIOOThe PMC is not clamped

The PMC is seated on 3 SS balls and it is free to move. I'm sure it will move in an earthquake. Not much, because the input and output K1 mirror frame will act as an earthquake stop.Atm2

Are there a touch of super glue on the balls? No, but there are V grooves at the bottom and on the top of each ball.Atm3

 

  4223   Fri Jan 28 15:50:44 2011 JenneConfigurationPSLThe PSL has a name!

Back in the days when we were talking about getting a new 2W PSL, I was given naming rights by Rana for this new laser. 

Today, the 40m PSL was given its new name: Edwin.

Here he is, with his shiny new label:

EdwinTheLaser.jpg

  5450   Sun Sep 18 15:57:00 2011 KojiUpdateIOOThe PZT driver engaged to PZT1

[Koji Kiwamu]

The pzt driver for PZT1 has been installed.
As there was unknown resistive connection in the vacuum chamber as described below,
the PZT out cable at the PJ driver module should always be disconnected.
The sensor cables have no problem to be connected to the controller.
In fact, they are a good monitor for the state of the PZTs.

In this configuration, Pitch and Yaw direction of PZT1 is under the control of the EPICS value as we expected.


Details:

- At the beginning, we tested the PZT driver output with low voltage level (~10V). We did not see any oscillation of the opamps.
  The pitch output was observed to be OK, while the YAW output exhibited a half of the expected output voltage.
  The opamp was holding correct voltage, however the voltage after the 1K output resister was about a half.
  This indicated there was a voltage division happening.

- The cause of the voltage division was tracked. We found that the yaw red (=hot) line is connected to pitch black
  in the vacuum chamber with a resistance of 1.4kOhm. The black cables are shorted to the ground level in the PJ driver.

- We decided to unplug the PJ's cable so that we can isolate the black cables while hoping the PZTs were drived only
  by the red and white cables. And they did.

- This means that we should not connect the PZT driving cable to the PJ's driver. The sensors have no problem to be connected.

- Pinouts:

DSUB25
|. .|
|. .|
|. o|  5
|o  | 17
|  o|  4 
|o  | 16   Yaw Black
|  o|  3   Pitch Black
|o  | 15   Yaw White
|  o|  2   Yaw Red
|o  | 14   Pitch White
 \ o|  1   Pitch Red
  \-+

* Pitch White and Yaw White are connected to the ground at the amplifier side.
* Yaw Red and Pitch Black is connected with 1.4kOhm and isolated from the others.


  7335   Tue Sep 4 13:31:55 2012 JenneUpdateGeneralThe Plan

We need a plan for the rest of the week.  I want to be closing the heavy doors on Friday at the latest.  Please add to / comment on this list!

 

Tues

* Lock MICH to get BS, ITMs aligned well

* Check if beam is hitting center of ITMs. 

* Check for clipping around BS

     - Use Watek in-vac to look at beam at all 4 BS ports - make sure no clipping going into BS, after BS in the michelson, or the AS port

* Try to get arms to flash??

* Prepare glass beam dumps??

Wed

* IPPOS / IPANG - make sure beam gets out of chambers (this may require opening ETMY)

* Jan take photos of ETMX scattering setup

* Manasa take in-vac photos of all tables, for table layouts

* Jan / Manasa viewport transmission

* Install glass beam dumps?

* If ETMY open, install glass baffle

* ????

Thurs

* ????

* Check table levelling one last time on all tables. 

Fri

* Close all heavy doors.  (Access connector, ITMX, ITMY, BS, ETMX, ETMY? )

* Drag wipe test masses

* Start at ~10am?

Mon (if not Fri)

* Start pumping

  7336   Tue Sep 4 13:44:17 2012 ManasaUpdateGeneralThe Plan

Quote:

We need a plan for the rest of the week.  I want to be closing the heavy doors on Friday at the latest.  Please add to / comment on this list!

 

Tues

* Lock MICH to get BS, ITMs aligned well

* Check if beam is hitting center of ITMs. 

* Check for clipping around BS

     - Use Watek in-vac to look at beam at all 4 BS ports - make sure no clipping going into BS, after BS in the michelson, or the AS port

* Try to get arms to flash??

* Prepare glass beam dumps??

Wed

* IPPOS / IPANG - make sure beam gets out of chambers (this may require opening ETMY)

* Jan take photos of ETMX scattering setup

* Manasa take in-vac photos of all tables, for table layouts

* Install glass beam dumps?

* If ETMY open, install glass baffle

* ????

Thurs

* ????

* Check table levelling one last time on all tables. 

Fri

* Close all heavy doors.  (Access connector, ITMX, ITMY, BS, ETMX, ETMY? )

* Start at ~10am?

Mon (if not Fri)

* Start pumping

Wed

* Jan/Manasa - Measure transmission of viewport at ETMX

 

 

 

 

 

  10614   Wed Oct 15 22:39:17 2014 JenneUpdateLSCThe Plan

 [Rana, Jenne]

We're summarizing the discussions of the last few days as to the game plan for locking.  

  1. PRMI on REFL165.  The factor of 5 in frequency will give us more MICH signal.    We want this.
    1. Drive CARM, measure coupling to PRCL, MICH while locked on REFL33.
    2. Switch to REFL165, re-measure CARM coupling.
    3. Hopefully this will reduce the AS port fluctuations, and reduce the POP22 power decrease as CARM offset decreases. 
  2. DARM transition from ALSdiff to an intermediate signal.  Simulate, and try empirically.
    1. Maybe try ASDC normalized by sum of transmissions?
    2. Maybe try difference of transmissions divided by sum of transmissions?  
  3. Look at data on disk.
    1. Do we have anything specific causing our locklosses (lately there haven't been obvious loop instabilities causing the locklosses)?
    2. How much do we think our lengths are actually changing right now (particularly DARM on ALSdiff)?
    3. Are there better ways of combining error signals that could be useful?
    4. Do we need to work on angular loops?
      1. Oplevs
      2. POP ASC for sidebands
      3. POP QPD or Trans QPDs for arms
  4.  Think about what could be causing ETMX to be annoying.  The connection that is most suspect has been ziptied, but we're still seeing ETMX move either at locklosses or sometimes just spontaneously.
  5.  RAM.  What kind of RAM levels do we have right now, and how do they affect our locking offsets?  Do we have big offsets, or negligible offsets?
  7340   Tue Sep 4 20:13:46 2012 JenneUpdateGeneralThe Plan - Tues evening version

 Tues

* Hit center of ETMY, using input optics, PR3.

* Get IPANG out of vac, center QPD.

Wed

* AM: Riju do MC mode scans

* Starting right after 40m meeting, if not before: Lock MICH to get BS, ITMs aligned well

* Check if beam is hitting center of ITMX.

* Check for clipping around BS

     - Use Watek to look at beam at all 4 BS ports - make sure no clipping going into BS, after BS in the michelson, or the AS port

       - Use some old in-vac mirrors to direct beam out the BS door.  Cameras are waiting near BS chamber.

* Prepare glass beam dumps??

* IPPOS - make sure beam gets out of chamber

* Jan take photos of ETMX scattering setup

* Manasa take in-vac photos of all tables, for table layouts

* Jan / Manasa viewport transmission

* Install glass beam dumps?

* Install glass baffle at ETMY. Jan maybe install baffle at one of ITMs.

* ????

Thurs

* ????

* Check table levelling one last time on all tables. 

Fri

* Close all heavy doors.  (Access connector, ITMX, ITMY, BS, ETMX, ETMY? )

* Drag wipe test masses

* Start at ~10am?

Mon (if not Fri)

* Start pumping

  3161   Tue Jul 6 17:29:04 2010 ChipUpdatePEMThe Ranger is mine!
  7212   Fri Aug 17 04:13:45 2012 SashaUpdateSimulationsThe SimPlant Saga CONTINUES

THE GOOD: SimPlants ITMX and ETMX are officially ONLINE. Damping has been instituted in both, with varying degrees of success (see Attachment 1). An overview screen for the SimPlants is up (under XARM_Overview in the sitemap - you can ignore the seperate screens for ETMX and ITMX for now, I'll remove them later), C1LSP will be online/functional by Monday.

The super high low-frequency noise in my simPlant is from seismic noise and having a DC response of 1, so that the seismic noise at low frequencies is just passed as is and then amplified along with everything else in the m --> counts conversion. Not quite sure how to deal with this except by NOT having a DC response of 1 (which it technically doesn't have when you do the algebra - Rana said that "it made sense" for the optic to have unity gain at low frequencies, but the behavior is not matching up with reality).

THE BAD: It looks like the ITMX Switch from Reality to simPlant doesn't work (or some of the signals aren't getting switched). When switching from reality to simulation, it looks like the control system is receiving signals from the SimPlant, but is transmitting them to the real thing. As a result, when you flip the switch from reality to sim, ITMX goes seriously crazy and starts slamming back and forth against the stop. REALLY NOT GOOD. As soon as I saw what was going on, I turned back to reality and flipped the watch dogs on (YES THEY WERE OFF). I'll investigate the connections between the plant and control system some more in the morning (i.e. later today) (this is also probably what is causing the "lost connections" in c1sup/sus we can see in the machine status screen).

  7218   Fri Aug 17 12:47:30 2012 SashaUpdateSimulationsThe SimPlant Saga CONTINUES

Quote:

THE GOOD: SimPlants ITMX and ETMX are officially ONLINE. Damping has been instituted in both, with varying degrees of success (see Attachment 1). An overview screen for the SimPlants is up (under XARM_Overview in the sitemap - you can ignore the seperate screens for ETMX and ITMX for now, I'll remove them later), C1LSP will be online/functional by Monday.

The super high low-frequency noise in my simPlant is from seismic noise and having a DC response of 1, so that the seismic noise at low frequencies is just passed as is and then amplified along with everything else in the m --> counts conversion. Not quite sure how to deal with this except by NOT having a DC response of 1 (which it technically doesn't have when you do the algebra - Rana said that "it made sense" for the optic to have unity gain at low frequencies, but the behavior is not matching up with reality).

THE BAD: It looks like the ITMX Switch from Reality to simPlant doesn't work (or some of the signals aren't getting switched). When switching from reality to simulation, it looks like the control system is receiving signals from the SimPlant, but is transmitting them to the real thing. As a result, when you flip the switch from reality to sim, ITMX goes seriously crazy and starts slamming back and forth against the stop. REALLY NOT GOOD. As soon as I saw what was going on, I turned back to reality and flipped the watch dogs on (YES THEY WERE OFF). I'll investigate the connections between the plant and control system some more in the morning (i.e. later today) (this is also probably what is causing the "lost connections" in c1sup/sus we can see in the machine status screen).

 Problem with ITMX solved! The ITMX block in c1sup hadn't been tagged as "top_names". I rebuilt and installed the model, and there are no longer lost connections, :D

  703   Sat Jul 19 19:41:56 2008 YoichiAoGPSLThe author of the entry 702 is Yoichi not Rob
I made a mistake.
  3482   Fri Aug 27 22:09:37 2010 JenneUpdatePSLThe beginnings of the new PSL

[Rana, Jenne]

Like a new phoenix, the 40m PSL is in the process of being reborn...

phoenix.jpg

We cleared many old optics and components (including Alberto's favorite periscope) off of the north end of the PSL table.  Some optics are stored on the SP table, others on the shelf inside the PSL enclosure.

The new Innolight 2W NPRO is on the table, the PMC has been moved, and the main path of the laser has been sketched out using steering mirrors. Since we still don't have a beam, we're roughly placing all of our optics, and we'll finalize the alignment after turning on the laser.

Using a leveled HeNe, I checked the height of optics we should use to match the height of optics in the chambers by shining the light at the first steering mirror in the chamber, and ensuring that the beam hit the center of that optic .  Since the new PSL table height is identical to the AP table, it's not a surprise that from now on we will be using a 4" beam height on the PSL table, rather than the old PSL 3" beam height.

On the to-do list is to make a plate with 4 through holes to raise the PMC up by 1 inch, and to make an adapter plate (or come up with another plan) for mounting the AOM that goes directly after the NPRO/Faraday, among many other things.  We also still need to make some space for the RefCav to be put in its new place on the table, and then install it with Steve's help.   

  3483   Sat Aug 28 01:02:31 2010 ranaUpdatePSLThe beginnings of the new PSL

In fact, many of the mounts need to be adapted to 4": the beefy steering mirrors going into the PMC, the PMC RFPD, the ISS AOM, the Faraday between the NPRO and the AOM, the NPRO itself, the ISS PDs.

Also for the FSS: the 21.5 MHz EOM, the PBS, the AOM, the refcav periscope, and the RFPD.

Its obvious, in retrospect, that we would have to do this, but it somehow didn't occur to me until actually trying to put things on the table...

The NPRO itself is already tapped with 3 (metric) M3 holes. It also has 4 (un-tapped) holes at its 4 corners which look like they are for feet. Anyone have a mount design for the Innolight NPRO already?

We also started labeling the table with the new coordinate system. In this system, the NE corner is the origin. The screw hole which is most NE is 1,1. The numbering increases in the south (+X) direction and goes negative in the west (-Y) direction.

  3871   Fri Nov 5 19:33:18 2010 JenneUpdateElectronicsThe beginnings of the new phase of the RF work

Joon Ho and I took a look at the RF stuff that Alberto left, and we determined that we've got most everything that we need.  On Monday, Joon Ho will list off the stuff that we're missing, and we'll have Steve order it.

Joon Ho also replaced the temporary front panel to the RF generation box with Alberto's fancy new panel.  Pics are here (although you have to sign in as foteee to see them). 

Work on the frequency distribution box will continue on Monday.

  13995   Thu Jun 21 13:24:00 2018 keerthanaUpdateelogThe cavity scan data of June 20

(Jon, Keerthana, Sandrine)

We tried to align the AUX and PSL laser yesterday. We collected the data from the spectrum analyser for the Y-ARM reflection and also for the Y-ARM transmission from the ETM mirror. I am attaching the plots here.

  2969   Fri May 21 16:27:45 2010 AlbertoOmnistructureEnvironmentThe control room is molding...

... not just because we haven't locked the interferometer for quite some time. I mean, it literally stinks. The chiller's chiller is molding. Its' dripping water and there's mold all under it (Jo just confirmed: "yeah, it's mold").

Someone from Caltech maintenance just crossed the door. Hopefully he'll help us fix it.

I'll keep you updated. Stay tuned.

  4067   Fri Dec 17 00:55:30 2010 KojiUpdateIOOThe dark port beams reached the AP table

[Koji and Kiwamu]

We obtained two dark port beams on the AP table: OMC REFL and AS

- First, IPANG and BS were aligned so as to have the beams on the center of the ETMs.

- Then ITMX/ITMY/PRM/SRM were aligned to have fringes in a single spot anywhere.

- As we already had the dark port beam on the steering mirrors on the BS table, today the PZT mirrors were adjusted.
This work was the beam steering between the BS table to the OMC table. After some tweaking of the mirror mounts, 
the spot on the last PZT mirror was found.

As we have not touched any of the OMC optics since they were aligned well, the alignment has been adjusted by the nobs of the PZT steering mirrors.
Once the beam is on the output mode matching telescope (OMMT), the work was quite easy thanks to the beam shrinking by the OMMT.

Note that the dark port beam is slightly clipped by the green steering mirror. The steering mirror will be moved next time.

After the alignment, we indeed obtained OMC REFL and AS beams on the AP table.
The fringes were visible on the OMC REFL CCD.

We keep the dark port setup on the OMC (in-vac) and AP tables so that they can be the reference of the dark port alignment.
In principle we can align the beams onto the OMC by the two PZT mirrors.


What is left?

Our minimum success of this vent is to setup the X arm cavity which is needed for the green locking.
This setup was already realized. So we fulfilled the condition to close the tank even if the damping of
the ETMY is not achieved. (But we should try)

Tomorrow, we make a light touches to POY, Green, IPPOS, and check the table leveling, clamping, etc, in general.

JD:  We should check OSEMs for all optics *after* table leveling.  Some of them (esp. BS and ITMX) are currently close to their limits right now.

KA: Check green alignment. / Take photos of the tables. / Fix the leveling weights


Location    Optics            Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
@ITMY -     POY               mirror replacement (45deg->0deg) / alignment

@BSC -      Green steering    alignment
            IPPOS steering    alignment
            Beam dumps
            Table Leveling

@ETMX -     Al foil removal
            Table Leveling

@ETMY -     ETMY damping
            OSEM
            OPLEV
            Table Leveling

@ITM/ETM -  Mirror Wiping

  4714   Fri May 13 22:45:37 2011 SureshUpdateRF SystemThe full set of 8 Demod boards is ready for testing

We have Completed the hardware changes to the full set of 8 demod boards.  The last one completed today is AS11.  I have collected the info on all the demod boards available so far in the table below.  As we measure the actual phase and amplitude unbalance we will expand this table to include new info.

The set of 8 demod boards
Demod Board S. No. Power Splitter Frequency range of splitter (MHz) Phase unbalance from datasheet (deg) Amplitude Unbalance from datasheet (dB)
AS11 121 PSCQ-2-51W 5 to 50 87.49 0.1
REFL11 021 PSCQ-2-51W 5 to 50 87.49 0.1
POY11 119 PSCQ-2-32 3.2 to 32 87.58 0.05
AS55 029 PSCQ-2-51W 5 to 50 no info no info
REFL55 118 PQW-2-90 30 to 90 90.14 0.92
POY11 119 PSCQ-2-32 3.2 to 32 87.58 0.05
POY22 020 PSCQ-2-32 3.2 to 32 90.26 0.02
POY110 120 PSCQ--120 80 to 120 90.88 0.58

 

  7789   Wed Dec 5 01:06:22 2012 AyakaUpdateWienerFilteringThe microphones and the speaker on the AP table

 In order to see the acoustic coupling on arm signals, I set 6 microphones and the speaker on the AP table. The microphones are not seismically isolated for now.
I have a signal generator under the AP table.

DSC_4956.JPGDSC_4961.JPG

When I played the 43 Hz triangular wave sound, I could see some coherence between POY error signal and microphones even though there is no peak in POY.

APsig.pdf

To Do:

  • Try to subtract the acoustic signal and see with which microphone the acoustic signal can be subtracted best. But how can I find whether the signal is subtracted or not? Is coherence information enough?
  • Make circuits for microphones to come to 40m.
  • Make suspension systems for microphones. One idea is that the microphones should be suspended from bridges which is to be put around at the top of the tables since there is no space for stacks for each microphones.
  • Prepare a new ADC.
  • Perform the same measurements at the other tables, such as POX and POY.
  7792   Wed Dec 5 09:53:01 2012 ranaUpdateWienerFilteringThe microphones and the speaker on the AP table

  Don't try to re-invent the mic mount: just copy the LIGO mic mount for the first version.

  7768   Fri Nov 30 14:21:18 2012 ranaHowToComputer Scripts / ProgramsThe mystery of PDFs and you. As deep as the mystery of Rasputin.

This is how to post PDF:

From DTT, print the plot as a postscript file.

Then use ps2pdf to make a archival PDF version (the flag is the key!). Example:

ps2pdf -dPDFX /home/controls/Desktop/darm.ps

  190   Thu Dec 13 12:05:36 2007 albertoOmnistructureElectronicsThe new Butterworth seems to work quite well
It works better probably because of the small inductors I'm using this time.
The peak is at 30 MHz because I didn't have the precise elements to get 33.

The bandwidth and the Q could be improved by adding one or two more order to the filter and trying to better match the low-pass' resonant frequency with the high-pass'.

Also I have to see if it could work at 166 and 199 MHz as well.
  1861   Fri Aug 7 17:46:21 2009 ZachUpdateCamerasThe phase camera is sort of working

Shown below are the plots of the amplitude and phase of the Mephisto laser light modulated with a chopper as a square wave at about 1 kHz.  The color bar for the phase should run from -pi to pi, and it does when I don't accidently comment out the color bar function.  Anyway, the phase is consistently pi/4 or pi/4 plus or minus pi.  Usually all three of these phases occur within the same image, as shown below.  Also, the amplitude is a factor of two or so higher than it should be where this phase jump occurs.  I think these problems are associated with the nature of the square wave.  However, there is a software bug that appears to be independent of the input data: there is a rounding error that causes the amplitude to jump to infinity at certain points.  This happened for only a dozen or so pixels so I deleted them from the amplitude plot shown below.  I am currently working on a more robust code that will use the Newton-Raphson method for nonlinear systems of equations. 

  7845   Mon Dec 17 22:42:27 2012 KojiSummaryGeneralThe projector lamp ended its life?

i just heard a rather large exploding sound in the control room.
I tried to locate the source and found the projector is not illuminating the wall anymore.
There is a slight smell of burning, but nothing is smoking.

Probably the lamp ended its life.

Rana and I just talked about the projector life time an hour ago! It must have been hearing!

  7846   Mon Dec 17 22:49:33 2012 ManasaSummaryGeneralThe projector lamp ended its life?

Quote:

i just heard a rather large exploding sound in the control room.
I tried to locate the source and found the projector is not illuminating the wall anymore.
There is a slight smell of burning, but nothing is smoking.

Probably the lamp ended its life.

Rana and I just talked about the projector life time an hour ago! It must have been hearing!

 LOL

We should try purchase a projector with LED this time...longer lifetime! I guess the price of replacing the lamp in the one we have will be more or less same as a new one!

  7847   Tue Dec 18 00:45:19 2012 KojiSummaryGeneralThe projector lamp ended its life?

...Nah. The projector is pretty new (t<1yr) and this is the first time to have the lamp busted after the installation last year in Jan.

We just should purchase two bulbs.

  7885   Wed Jan 9 13:34:34 2013 KojiSummaryGeneralThe projector lamp ended its life?

[Koji, Manasa]

- A new projector lamp installed.

- The old lamp lasted 8751 "equivalent lamp hours".

- The old lamp was found being shattered inside. It contains mercury.
So next time you hear the explosion sound of the lamp, establish the ventilation of the room and escape for an hour.

  4920   Thu Jun 30 08:18:08 2011 SureshUpdateIOOThe resonances and notches on WFS1 have been tuned.

As noted before the  resonances had to be tuned to the 29.5 MHz ( or rather 29.485 MHz to match with the Wenzel) and notches to twice that frequency (58.97 MHz). 

I tuned these frequencies and remeasured the transimpedance curves .  These are in the attached pdf file. 

Some notes.

1) The variable inductances on the PCB have a ferrite core which is actually ferrite powder compacted around an iron screw.  The screw serves to provide the adjustability.  However, being iron, it seems to have rusted and so the cores are stuck.  So several of the cores splintered when I tried to adjust the frequencies.

2) The WFS1 had a finger print/smudge on the face of the PD.  I drag wiped it with methanol to get rid of it.

 

WFS1 is ready to go on the table.  I am going to work on WFS2 today.

 

  1186   Mon Dec 8 11:41:27 2008 YoichiSummaryVACThe rough pump for the TP2 replaced
Bob, Yoichi

The foreline pressure of the TP2 (the foreline pump for the main mag-lev turbo (TP1)) was at 2.8torr this morning
when Bob came in.
Looked like the foreline pump (Varian SH-110) was leaking.
Bob started the backup rough pump in parallel with the "leaking" one to keep the foreline pressure low.
We then closed the valve 4 (between TP2 and TP1) and stopped the TP2 and the SH-110.
We replaced SH-110 with another one, but still the foreline pressure was high.
So we replaced it with yet another one. We also changed the quick coupling fasteners on the SH-110 and wiped the O-rings.
This time, it worked fine and the foreline pressure dropped to around 38 mTorr.

Since there is no valve between the TP2 and the SH-110, we could not keep the TP2 running while we were replacing the
problematic SH-110. This means the TP1 was running without a foreline pump during the work. We tried to minimize the
down time of the TP2. The temperature of the TP1 was 33.6C before we stopped the TP2 and it went up to 37.3C during the
work. It is now coming down to the original temperature.

Since we don't know if the problem was caused by bad SH-110s or leaking quick couplings, Bob is checking these apparently
"leaking" SH-110s.
  2215   Mon Nov 9 14:59:34 2009 josephb, alexUpdateComputersThe saga of Megatron continues

Apparently the random file system failure on megatron was unrelated to the RFM card (or at least unrelated to the physical card itself, its possible I did something while installing it, however unlikely).

We installed a new hard drive, with a duplicate copy of RTL and assorted code stolen from another computer.  We still need to get the host name and a variety of little details straightened out, but it boots and can talk to the internet.  For the moment though, megatron thinks its name is scipe11.

You still use ssh megatron.martian to log in though.

We installed the RFM card again, and saw the exact same error as before.  "NMI EVENT!" and "System halted due to fatal NMI".

Alex has hypothesized that the interface card the actual RFM card plugs into, and which provides the PCI-X connection might be the wrong type, so he has gone back to Wilson house to look for a new interface card.  If that doesn't work out, we'll need to acquire a new RFM card at some point

After removing the RFM card, megatron booted up fine, and had no file system errors.  So the previous failure was in fact coincidence.

 

  16265   Wed Jul 28 20:20:09 2021 YehonathanUpdateGeneralThe temperature sensors and function generator have arrived in the lab

I put the temperature sensors box on Anchal's table (attachment 1) and the function generator on the table in front of the c1auxey Acromag chassis (attachment 2).

 

  3230   Thu Jul 15 16:57:31 2010 josephb, kiwamuUpdateCDSThe temporarily named c1scx machine getting ready to connect to IO chassis

This is the machine which will be the new x end front end machine.  Its IP is 192.168.113.86. 

We changed the root and controls passwords to the usual.  We have modified the controls user group to be 1001, by using "usermod -u 1001 controls" (we had to use the non-rtl kernel to get that command to work).

We changed /etc/fstab to point to /cvs/cds on Linux rather than some downs machine.  We added a link to /cvs/cds/rtcds in the local /opt directory.

We modified the /etc/rc.d/rc.local file to no longer run /opt/open-mx/sbin/omx_init start, /cvs/cds/geo/target/fb/mx_stream -d scipe12:0 om1, and /cvs/cds/geo/target/fb/mx_stream -d scipe12:0 -e2 -r2 om2.  We modified the /usr/bin/setup_shmem.rtl to run only c1x00 c1scx and c1spx.

I also commented out a line0 "/bin/rm -f /rtl*"

 

  4464   Wed Mar 30 19:43:33 2011 BryanConfigurationGreen LockingThe wonderful world of mode-matching

Right. I've got a whole load of info and data and assorted musings I've been saving up and cogitating upon before dumping it into these hallowed e-pages. there's so much I'll probably turn it into a threaded entry rather than put everything in one massive page.

An overview of what's coming:

I started out using http://lhocds.ligo-wa.caltech.edu:8000/40m/Advanced_Techniques/Green_Locking?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=modematch_END.png as a reference for roughly what we want to achieve... and from http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/100730_093643/efficiency_waist_edit.png we need a waist of about 50um at the green oven. Everything else up to this point is pretty much negotiable and the only defining things that matter are getting the right waist at the doubling oven with enough available power and (after that point) having enough space on the bench to separate off the green beam and match it into the Y arm.

 

So…

Step 1: Measure the properties of the beam out of the laser. Really just need this for reference later because we'll be using more easily measurable points on the bench.


Step 2:
Insert a lens a few cm from the laser to produce a waist of about of a few 100um around the Faraday. Note that there's really quite a lot of freedom here as to where the FI has to be - on the X arm it's around columns 29/30 on the bench, but as long as we get something that works we can get it closer to the laser if we need to.


Step 3:
After inserting the FI need to measure the beam after it (there *will* be some distortion and the beam is non-circular to begin with)


Step 3b:
If beam is non-circular, make it circular.


Step 4:
Insert a lens to produce a 50um waist at the doubling oven position. This is around holes 7/8 on the X arm but again, we're free to change the position of the oven if we find a better solution. The optical set-up is a little bit tight near that side of the bench on the X end so we might want to try aiming for something a bit closer to the middle of the bench? Depends how the lenses work out, but if it fits on the X end it will fit on the Y end.

 
Oh... almost forgot. While I've been doing most of the grunt-work and heavy lifting - thanks go out to Suresh, Kiwamu, Koji, Steve and everyone else who's helped out with discussion of results and assorted assists to numerous to mention.

 

  4465   Wed Mar 30 19:54:19 2011 BryanConfigurationGreen LockingThe wonderful world of mode-matching

RIght! Overview out of the way - now comes the trivial first bit

 

Step 1: Beam out of the laser - this will be tricky, but we'll see what we can actually measure in this set-up. Can't get the Beamscan head any closer to the laser and using a lambda/2 plate + polariser to control power until the Faraday isolator is in place. Using 1 inch separation holes as reference points for now - need better resolution later, but this is fine for now and gives an idea of where things need to go on the bench. The beam is aligned to the 3rd row up (T) for all measurements, the Beamscan spits out diameters (measuring only the 13.5% values) so convert as required to beam radius and the beam is checked to ensure a reasonable Gaussian profile throughout.

 

Position A1_13.5%_width A2_13.5%_width

(bench) (um mean) (um mean)

32 2166.1 1612.5

31 2283.4 1708.3

30 2416.1 1803.2

29 2547.5 1891.4

27 2860.1 2070.3

26 2930.2 2154.4

25 3074.4 2254.0

24 3207.0 2339.4

 

OK. As expected, this measurement is in the linear region of the beampath - i.e. not close to the  waist position and beyond the Rayleigh length) so it pretty much looks like two straight lines. There's no easy way to get into the path closer to the laser, so reckon we'll just need to infer back from the waist after we get a lens in there. Attached the plot, but about all you really need to get from this is that the beam out of the laser is very astigmatic and that the vertical axis expands faster than the horizontal.

Not terribly exciting, but have to start somewhere.

 

laser_output_non_circular.png

 

 

 

  4466   Wed Mar 30 20:08:34 2011 BryanConfigurationGreen LockingThe wonderful world of mode-matching

Step 2: Getting the beam through the Faraday isolator (FI).

Started out with an f=100mm lens at position 32,T on the bench which gave a decent looking waist of order 100 um in the right sort of position for the FI, but after checking the FI specs, it's limited to 500W/cm^2. In other words, if we have full power from the laser passing into it we'd need a beam width of more than 211 um. Solution? Use an f=150mm lens instead and don't put the FI at the waist. I normally don't put a FI at a waist anyway, for assorted reasons - scattering, thermal lensing, non-linear magnetic fields, the sharp changing of the field components in an area where you want as constant a beam as possible.  Checked with others to make sure they don't do things differently around these parts… Koji says it doesn't matter as long as it passes cleanly through the aperture. So… next step is inserting the Faraday.

The beam profiles in vertical and horizontal around the FI position with the f=150mm lens in place are attached. Note that the FI will be going in at around 0.56m.

Beam_Matching_02c_Vertical.pngBeam_Matching_02c_Horizontal.png

 

 

 

  4467   Wed Mar 30 20:14:17 2011 BryanConfigurationGreen LockingThe wonderful world of mode-matching

Additional:

I fired up some old waistplotter routines, and set the input conditions as the measured waist after the lens and used that to work out what the input waist is at the laser. It may not be entirely accurate, but it /will/ be self consistent later on.

 

Vertical waist      = 105.00 um at 6.282 cm after laser output (approx)

Horizontal waist = 144.63 um at 5.842 cm after laser output (approx)

 

Definitely astigmatic.

 

  4468   Wed Mar 30 20:31:30 2011 BryanConfigurationGreen LockingThe wonderful world of mode-matching

Step 3: Inserting FI and un-eliptical-ification of the beam

The FI set up on it's mount and the beam passes through it - centrally through the apertures on each side. Need to make sure it doesn't clip and also make sure we get 93% through (datasheet specs say this is what we should achieve). We will not achieve this, but anything close should be acceptable.

Setting up for minimum power through the FI is HWP @125deg.

Max is therefore @ 80deg

 

Power before FI = 544 mW

Power after FI =     496 mW (after optimising input polarisation)

Power dumped at input crystal = 8.6mW

Power dumped at input crystal from internal reflections etc = 3.5mW

Power dumped at output crystal on 1st pass = approx 8mW

 

OK. that gives us a 90.625% transmission and a 20.1mW absorption/unexplained loss.

 

Well - OK. The important part about isolators isn't their transmission, it's about how well they isolate. Let's see how much power gets ejected on returning through the isolator…

 

Using a beam splitter to pick off light going into and returning from the FI. A 50/50 BS1-1064-50-1025-45P. And using a mirror near the waist after the FI to send the beam back through. There are better ways to test the isolation performance of FI's but this will suffice for now - really only want to know if there's any reasonable isolation at all or if all of the beam is passing backwards through the device.

 

Power before BS = 536 mW (hmmn - it's gone down a bit)

Power through BS = (can't access ejected on first pass)

Power through FI = 164 mW (BS at odd angle to minimise refractive effect so less power gets through)

Power lost through mirror = 8.3mW (mirror is at normal incidence so a bit transmissive)

 

Using earlier 90.6% measurement as reference, power into FI = 170.83 mW

So BS transmission = 170.83/536 = 0.3187

BS reflectivity therefore = 1 - 0.3187 = 0.6813

 

Power back into FI = Thru FI - Thru mirror = 155.7 mW

 

Power reflected at BS after returning through FI = 2.2mW

Baseline power at BS reflection from assorted internal reflections in FI (blocked return beam) = 1.9mW

Note - these reflections don't appear to be back along the input beam, but they *are* detectable on the power meter.

 

Actual power returning into FI that gets reflected by BS = 0.3 mW

(note that this is in the fluctuating noise level of measurement so treat as an upper limit)

 

Accounting for BS reflectivity at this angle, this gives a return power = 0.3/0.6813 = 0.4403 mW

 

Reduction ratio (extinction ratio) of FI =  0.4403/155.7 = 0.00282

 

Again - note that this upper limit measurement is as rough and ready as it gets. It's easy to optimise this sort of thing later, preferable on a nice open bench with plenty of space and a well-calibrated photodiode. It's just to give an idea that the isolator is actually isolating at all and not spewing light back into the NPRO.

 

Next up… checking the mode-matching again now that the FI is in place. The beam profile was scanned after the FI and the vertical and horizontal waists are different...

  4469   Wed Mar 30 20:50:43 2011 BryanConfigurationGreen LockingThe wonderful world of mode-matching

Step 3b: Non-circular? We can fix that...

A quick Beamscan sweep of the beam after the Faraday:

Position A1_13.5%_width A2_13.5%_width

(bench) (um mean) (um mean)

25.8 503.9 478.8

25 477.5 489.0

24 447.1 512.4

21 441.6 604.5

20 476.3 645.4

19 545.4 704.1

18 620.3 762.8

 

After_Faraday.png

 

OK. It looks not too bad - doesn't look too different from what we had. Note that the x axis is in local table units - I found this useful for working out where things were relative to other things (like lenses and the FI) - but it means the beam propagates from right to left in the plot. in other words, the horizontal waist occurs first and is larger than the vertical waist. Also - they're not fitted curves - they're by-eye, best guesses and there's no solution for the vertical that doesn't involve offsets... discussion in a later part of the thread.

 

Anyway! The wonderful thing about this plot is that the horizontal and vertical widths cross and the horizontal focussing at this crossing point is shallower than the vertical. This means that we can put a lens in at the crossing point and rotate it such that the lens is stronger in the horizontal plane. The lens can be rotated until the effective horizontal focal length is right to fix the astigmatism.

 

 

I used a 200mm lens I had handy - a rough check sweeping the Beamscan quickly indicated should be about right though. Adjusting the angle until the beam size at a distant point is approx circular - I then move the profiler and adjust again. Repeat as required. Now… taking some data. with just that lens in:

 

Position A1_13.5%_width A2_13.5%_width

(bench) (um mean) (um mean)

24 371.7 366.1

21 360.3 342.7

20 447.8 427.8

19 552.4 519.0

18 656.4 599.2

17 780.1 709.9

16 885.9 831.1

 

After_Faraday_and_Rotated_Lens.png

 

Well now. That looks quite OK. Fit's a bit rubbish on vertical but looks like a slight offset on the measurement again.

The angle of the lens looks awful, but if it's stupid and it works then it isn't stupid. If necessary, the lens can be tweaked a bit more, but there's always more tweaking possible further down the line and most of the astigmatic behaviour has been removed. It's now just a case of finding a lens that works to give us a 50 um beam at the oven position...

 

 

  4470   Wed Mar 30 21:21:15 2011 BryanConfigurationGreen LockingThe wonderful world of mode-matching

Step 4: Matching into the oven

 

 

Now that the astigmatism is substantially reduced, we can work out a lens solution to obtain a 50um waist *anywhere* on the bench as long as there's enough room to work with the beam afterwards. The waist after the Faraday and lens is at position 22.5 on the bench. A 50 mm lens placed 18 cm after this position (position 14.92 on the bench) should give a waist of 50 um at  24.57 cm after the waist (position 12.83 on the bench). This doesn't give much room to measure the beam waist in though - the Beamscan head has a fairly large finite size… wonder if there's a slightly less strong lens I could use…

OK. With a 66 mm lens at 23 cm (position 13.45 on the bench) after the waist we get a 50 um waist at 31.37 cm after the waist (position 10.15 on the bench). 

 

Oven_Lens_Solution_66mm.png

 

Closest lens I found was 62.9mm which will put the 50um point a bit further towards the wall, but on the X-arm the oven is at position 8.75 ish. So anything around there is fine.

 

Using this lens and after a bit of manual fiddling and checking with the Beamscan, I figured we needed a close in, fine-grained measurement so set the Beamscan head up on a micrometer stage Took a whoie bunch of data around position 9 on the bench:

 

 

Position A1_13.5%_width A2_13.5%_width

(mm) (um mean) (um mean)

-15 226.8 221.9

-14 210.9 208.3

-13 195.5 196.7

-12 181.0 183.2

-11 166.0 168.4

-10 154.0 153.1

-9 139.5 141.0

-8 127.5 130.0

-7 118.0 121.7

-6 110.2 111.6

-5 105.0 104.8

-4 103.1 103.0

-3 105.2 104.7

-2 110.9 110.8

-1 116.8 117.0

0 125.6 125.6

0 125.6 125.1

1 134.8 135.3

2 145.1 145.6

3 155.7 157.2

4 168.0 168.1

5 180.5 180.6

6 197.7 198.6

7 211.4 209.7

8 224.0 222.7

9 238.5 233.7

10 250.9 245.8

11 261.5 256.4

12 274.0 270.4

13 291.3 283.6

14 304.2 296.5

15 317.9 309.5

 

Matching_Into_Green_Oven_zoomed_out.pngMatching_Into_Green_Oven_zoomed_in.png

 

And at this point the maximum power available at the oven-waist is 298mW. With 663mW available from the laser with a desired power setting of 700mW on the supply. Should make sure we understand where the power is being lost. The beam coming through the FI looks clean and unclipped, but there is some stray light around.

 

Position A1_13.5%_width A2_13.5%_width

(bench) (um mean) (um mean)

7 868.5   739.9

6 1324 1130

5 1765 1492

4 2214 1862

 

The plot looks pretty good, but again, there looks to be an offset on the 'fitted' curve. Taking a couple of additional points further on to make sure it all works out as the beam propagates. I took a few extra points at the suggestion of Kiwamu and Koji - see the zoomed out plot.  The zoomed in plot has by-eye fit lines - again, because to get the right shape to fit the points there appears to be an offset. Where is that coming from? My suspicion is that the Beamscan doesn't take account of the any background zero offsets when calculating the 13.5% and we've been using low power when doing these measurements - very small focussed beams and didn't want to risk damage to the profiler head.

 

Decided to take a few measurements to test this theory. Trying different power settings and seeing if it gives different offset and/or a changed width size

 

7 984.9 824.0 very low power

7 931.9 730.3 low power

7 821.6 730.6 higher power

7 816.4 729.5 as high as I'm comfortable going

 

Trying this near the waist…

 

8.75 130.09 132.04 low power

8.75 106.58 105.46 higher power

8.75 102.44 103.20 as high as it can go without making it's saturated

 

So it looks like offset *is* significant and the Beamscan measurements are more accurate with more power to make the offsets less significant. Additionally, if this is the case then we can do a fit to the previous data (which was all taken with the same power setting) and simply allow the offset to be a free parameter without affecting the accuracy of the waist calculation. This fit and data coming to an e-log near you soon.

 

Of course, it looks from the plots above (well... the code that produces the plots above) that the waist is actually a little bit small (around 46um) so some adjustment of the last lens back along the beam by about half a cm or so might be required.

 
  4473   Thu Mar 31 02:59:49 2011 KojiConfigurationGreen LockingThe wonderful world of mode-matching

 I went through the entries.

1. Give us a photo of the day. i.e. Faraday, tilted lens, etc...

2. After all, where did you put the faraday in the plot of the entry 4466?

3. Zoomed-in plot for the SHG crystal show no astigmatism. However, the zoomed out plot shows some astigmatism.
How consistent are they? ==> Interested in seeing the fit including the zoomed out measurements.

  4476   Thu Mar 31 14:10:00 2011 BryanConfigurationGreen LockingThe wonderful world of mode-matching

Quote:

 I went through the entries.

1. Give us a photo of the day. i.e. Faraday, tilted lens, etc...

2. After all, where did you put the faraday in the plot of the entry 4466?

3. Zoomed-in plot for the SHG crystal show no astigmatism. However, the zoomed out plot shows some astigmatism.
How consistent are they? ==> Interested in seeing the fit including the zoomed out measurements.

 OK. Taking these completely out of order in the easiest first...

2. The FI is between positions 27.75 and 32 on the bench - i.e. this is where the input and output apertures are. (corresponds to between 0.58 and 0.46 on the scale of those two plotsand just before both the vertical and horizontal waists) At these points the beam radius is around 400um and below, and the aperture of the Faraday is 4.8mm (diameter).

1. Photos...

Laser set up - note the odd angles of the mirrors. This is where we're losing a goodly chunk of the light. If need be we could set it up with an extra mirror and send the light round a square to provide alignment control AND reduce optical power loss...

P3310028.JPG

 

Faraday and angled lens - note that the lens angle is close to 45 degrees. In principle this could be replaced with an appropriate cylindrical lens, but as long as there's enough light passing through to the oven I think we're OK.

P3310029.JPG

3. Fitting... coming soon once I work out what it's actually telling me. Though I hasten to point out that the latter points were taken with a different laser power setting and might well be larger than the actual beam width which would lead to astigmatic behaviour.

  4477   Thu Mar 31 15:23:14 2011 BryanConfigurationGreen LockingThe wonderful world of mode-matching

Quote:

3. Zoomed-in plot for the SHG crystal show no astigmatism. However, the zoomed out plot shows some astigmatism.

How consistent are they? ==> Interested in seeing the fit including the zoomed out measurements.

Right. Fitting to the data. Zoomed out plots first. I used the general equation f(x) = w_o.*sqrt(1 + (((x-z_o)*1064e-9)./(pi*w_o.^2)).^2)+c for each fit which is basically just the Gaussian beam width parameter calculation but with an extra offset parameter 'c'

Vertical fit for zoomed out data:

Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):

       c =   7.542e-06  (5.161e-06, 9.923e-06)

       w_o =   3.831e-05  (3.797e-05, 3.866e-05)

       z_o =       1.045  (1.045, 1.046)

 

Goodness of fit:

  SSE: 1.236e-09

  R-square: 0.9994

 
Horizontal fit for zoomed out data:
 

Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):

       c =   1.083e-05  (9.701e-06, 1.195e-05)

       w_o =   4.523e-05  (4.5e-05, 4.546e-05)

       z_o =       1.046  (1.046, 1.046)

 

Goodness of fit:

  SSE: 2.884e-10

  R-square: 0.9998

  Adjusted R-square: 0.9998

  RMSE: 2.956e-06

 

Zoomed_out_fitting01.png

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

 

OK. Looking at the plots and residuals for this, the deviation of the fit around the waist position, and in fact all over, looks to be of the order 10um. A bit large but is it real? Both w_o values are a bit lower than the 50um we'd like, but… let's check using only the zoomed in data -  hopefully more consistent since it was all taken with the same power setting.

 

 

Vertical data fit using only the zoomed in data:

 

Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):

       c =   1.023e-05  (9.487e-06, 1.098e-05)

       w_o =   4.313e-05  (4.252e-05, 4.374e-05)

       z_o =       1.046  (1.046, 1.046)

 

Goodness of fit:

  SSE: 9.583e-11

  R-square: 0.997

 

Horizontal data fit using only the zoomed in data:

 

Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):

       c =   1.031e-05  (9.418e-06, 1.121e-05)

       w_o =    4.41e-05  (4.332e-05, 4.489e-05)

       z_o =       1.046  (1.046, 1.046)

 

Goodness of fit:

  SSE: 1.434e-10

  R-square: 0.9951

 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Zoomed_in_fitting01.png

 

The waists are both fairly similar this time 43.13um and 44.1um and the offsets are similar too  - residuals are only spread by about 4um this time.

 

I'm inclined to trust the zoomed in measurement more due to the fact that all the data was obtained under the same conditions, but either way, the fitted waist is a bit smaller than the 50um we'd like to see. Think it's worthwhile moving the 62.9mm lens back along the bench by about 3/4 -> 1cm to increase the waist size.

 

 

 

 

 

  4485   Mon Apr 4 14:20:32 2011 BryanConfigurationGreen LockingThe wonderful world of mode-matching

Last bit of oven matching for now.

 

I moved the lens before the oven position back along the beam path by about 1cm - waist should be just above position 9 in this case. Note - due to power-findings from previous time I'm maximising the power into the head to reduce the effect of offsets.

 

From position 9:

Position A1_13.5%_width A2_13.5%_width

(mm) (um mean) (um mean)

-1 121.1 123.6

0 112.5 113.8

1 106.4 106.1

2 102.9 103.4

3 103.6 103.6

4 106.6 107.4

5 111.8 112.5

6 118.2 120.1

7 126.3 128.8

8 134.4 137.1

9 143.8 146.5

10 152.8 156.1

11 163.8 167.1

12 175.1 176.4

13 186.5 187.0

14 197.1 198.4

15 210.3 208.9

16 223.5 218.7

17 237.3 231.0

18 250.2 243.9

19 262.8 255.4

20 274.7 269.0

21 290.4 282.3

22 304.3 295.5

23 316.7 303.1

 

Note - had to reduce power due to peak saturation at 15mm - don't think scale changed, but be aware just in case. And saturated again at 11. And again at 7. A little bit of power adjustment each time to make sure the Beamscan head wasn't saturating. Running the fit gives...

 

Waist_Fits_from_laser.pngWaist_Fits_Bench_Position.png

 

OK. The fit is reasonably good. Residuals around the area of interest (with one exception) are <+/- 2um and the waists are 47.5um (vertical) and 50.0um (horizontal) at a position of 9.09 on the bench. And the details of the fitting output are given below.

 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Vertical Fit

 

cf_ =

 

     General model:

       cf_(x) = w_o.*sqrt(1 + (((x-z_o)*1064e-9)./(pi*w_o.^2)).^2)+c

     Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):

       c =   5.137e-06  (4.578e-06, 5.696e-06)

       w_o =   4.752e-05  (4.711e-05, 4.793e-05)

       z_o =        1.04  (1.039, 1.04)

 

 

cfgood_ = 

 

           sse: 1.0699e-11

       rsquare: 0.9996

           dfe: 22

    adjrsquare: 0.9996

          rmse: 6.9738e-07

 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Horizontal Fit

 

cf_ =

 

     General model:

       cf_(x) = w_o.*sqrt(1 + (((x-z_o)*1064e-9)./(pi*w_o.^2)).^2)+c

     Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):

       c =    3.81e-06  (2.452e-06, 5.168e-06)

       w_o =   5.006e-05  (4.909e-05, 5.102e-05)

       z_o =        1.04  (1.04, 1.04)

 

 

cfgood_ = 

 

           sse: 4.6073e-11

       rsquare: 0.9983

           dfe: 22

    adjrsquare: 0.9981

          rmse: 1.4471e-06

 

 

 

  9476   Sun Dec 15 20:37:41 2013 ranaSummaryTreasureThere is a Wagonga in the container that Steve does not believe in

From Linda and Bram:

  10272   Thu Jul 24 19:28:43 2014 AkhilUpdateGeneralThermal Actuator Transfer Functions

 As a part of temperature actuator characterization, today Eric Q and I made some measurements for the open loop TF of both the X-arm and Y-arm  thermal actuators. 

For this, we gave an input  of random excitation for the temperature offset input( since we faced some serious issues when we gave in Swept sine yesterday) and observed the PZT actuation signal keeping the arm to be locked all the time of our measurements and ensuring that the PZT signal doesn't saturate.

The  channels used for the measurement were  C1:ALS-X_SLOW_SERVO2_EXC as the input and C1:ALS-X_SLOW_SERVO1_IN1  as the output.

The random noise used for the measurement :

Y-ARM:  Gain- 6000;  Filter - butterworth-first order - band-pass filter with start frequency= 1 Hz stop frequency = 5 Hz.

X-ARM: Gain -3000; Filter - butterworth- first order- band-pass filter with start frequency 3 Hz and stop frequency = 30 Hz and  notch(1,10,20).

The Y-ARM measurement was stable but for the X-ARM, the PZT was saturating too often so Eriq Q went inside the lab and placed a 20dB attenuator in the path of the  X-ARM PZT signal readout to carry out the stable measurements.

The units of the TF of these measurements are not calibrated and are in count/count. I will have to calibrate the units by measuring the PZT count by changing the cavity length so that I can get a standard conversion into Hz/count. I will elog the calibrated TFs in my next elog after I take the cavity length and PZT TFs.

The attached are the bode plots for both the X-ARM and Y-ARM thermal actuators(non-calibrated). I will work on finding the poles and zeroes of this system once I finish calibration of the TF measurements.

  10275   Sat Jul 26 13:10:14 2014 AkhilUpdateGeneralThermal Actuator Transfer Functions

Koji said that the method we used for X-arm thermal actuator TF measurement was not correct and suggested us to make measurements separately for high and low frequencies( ensuring coherence at those frequencies is high).

(Edit by KA: The previous measurements for X/Y arm thermal actuators were done with each arm individually locked. This imposes the MC stability to the arm motion. The MC stability is worse than the arm stability due to shorter length and more number of the mirrors. Thus the arm motions were actually amplified rather than stabilized. The correct configuration was to stabilize MC using the other arm and control the measurement arm with the arm cavity length.)

So I and Eric Q took some improved TF measurements last night for the X-arm. The input excitation and the filters used were similar to that of the previous measurement . The attached are the TF plots showing two different frequency measurements.The data was saved and will be used to generate a complete TF. The attached (TFX_new.pdf)shows the independent TF measurement for X-arm temperature actuator. The black legend shows the TF at high frequencies(>1 Hz) and the red at low frequencies(<1 Hz). The final TF plots( from the data) will be posted in my next elog. 

We also made the measurements needed for calibration of these actuator Transfer functions. For this we gave some excitation for the arm length( separately for X arm and Y arm) and measured the PZT response. I will eLog with the details of the measurement and results shortly.

ELOG V3.1.3-