40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
 40m Log, Page 244 of 344 Not logged in
ID Date Author Type Category Subject
11538   Fri Aug 28 19:05:53 2015 ranaUpdateIOOIMC Tweak

Well, green looks better than blue, but it makes the PCDRIVE go high, which means its starting to saturate the EOM drive. So we can't just maximize the phase margin in the PZT/EOM crossover. We have to take into account the EOM drive spectrum and its RMS.

Also, your gain bump seems suspicious. See my TF measurements of the crossover in December. Maybe you were saturating the EOM in your TF ?

Lets find out what's happening with FSS servos over in Bridge and then modify ours to be less unstable.

15215   Sat Feb 15 12:56:24 2020 YehonathanUpdateIOOIMC Transfer function measurement

{Yehonathan, Meenakshi}

We measure the IMC transfer function using SR785.

We hook up the AOM driver to the SOURCE OUT, Input PD to CHANNEL ONE and the IMC transmission PD to CHANNEL TWO.

We use the frequency response measurement feature in the SR785. A swept sine from 100KHz to 100Hz is excited with an amplitude of 10mV.

Attachment 1 shows the data with a fit to a low pass filter frequency response.

IMC pole frequency is measured to be 3.795KHz, while the ringdowns predict a pole frequency 3.638KHz, a 4% difference.

The closeness of the results discourages me from calibrating the PDs' transfer functions.

I tend to believe the pole frequency measurement a bit more since it coincides with a linewidth measurement done awhile ago Gautam was telling me about.

Thoughts:

I think of trying to try another zero-order ringdown but with much smaller excitation than what used before (500mV) and than move on to the first-order beam.

Also, it seems like the reflection signal in zero-order ringdown (Attachment 2,  green trace) has only one time constant similar to the full extinction ringdown. The reason is that due to the fact the IMC is critically coupled there is no DC term in the electric field even when the extinction of light is partial. The intensity of light, therefore, has only one time constant.

Fitting this curve (Attachment 3) gives a time constant of 18us, a bit too small (gives a pole of 4.3KHz). I think a smaller extinction ringdown will give a cleaner result.

16094   Thu Apr 29 10:52:56 2021 AnchalUpdateSUSIMC Trans QPD and WFS loops step response test

In 16087 we mentioned that we were unable to do a step response test for WFS loop to get an estimate of their UGF. The primary issue there was that we were not putting the step at the right place. It should go into the actuator directly, in this case, on C1:SUS-MC2_PIT_COMM and C1:SUS-MC2_YAW_COMM. These channels directly set an offset in the control loop and we can see how the error signals first jump up and then decay back to zero. The 'half-time' of this decay would be the inverse of the estimated UGF of the loop. For this test, the overall WFS loops gain,  C1:IOO-WFS_GAIN was set to full value 1. This test is performed in the changed settings uploaded in 16091.

I did this test twice, once giving a step in PIT and once in YAW.

Attachment 1 is the striptool screenshot for when PIT was given a step up and then step down by 0.01.

• Here we can see that the half-time is roughly 10s for TRANS_PIT and WFS1_PIT corresponding to roughly 0.1 Hz UGF.
• Note that WFS2 channels were not disturbed significantly.
• You can also notice that third most significant disturbance was to TRANS_YAW actually followed by WF1 YAW.

Attachment 2 is the striptool screenshot when YAW was given a step up and down by 0.01. Note the difference in x-scale in this plot.

• Here, TRANS YAW got there greatest hit and it took it around 2 minutes to decay to half value. This gives UGF estimate of about 10 mHz!
• Then, weirdly, TRANS PIT first went slowly up for about a minutes and then slowly came dome in a half time of 2 minutes again. Why was PIT signal so much disturbed by the YAW offset in the first place?
• Next, WFS1 YAW can be seen decaying relatively fast with half-life of about 20s or so.
• Nothing else was disturbed much.

• So maybe we never needed to reduce WFS gain in our measurement in 16089 as the UGF everywhere were already very low.
• What other interesting things can we infer from this?
• Should I sometime repeat this test with steps given to MC1 or MC3 optics?
16175   Wed Jun 2 16:20:59 2021 Anchal, PacoSummarySUSIMC Suspension gains reverted to old values

Following the conclusion, we are reverting the suspension gains to old values, i.e.

IMC Suspension Gains
MC1 MC2 MC3
SUSPOS 120 150 200
SUSPIT 60 10 12
SUSYAW 60 10 8

While the F2A filters, AC coil gains and input matrices are changed to as mentioned in 16066 and 16072.

The changes can be reverted all the way back to old settings (before Paco and I changed anything in the IMC suspensions) by running python scripts/SUS/general/20210602_NewIMCOldGains/restoreOldConfigIMC.py on allegra. The new settings can be uploaded back by running python scripts/SUS/general/20210602_NewIMCOldGains/uploadNewConfigIMC.py on allegra.

Change time:

Unix Time = 1622676038

 UTC Jun 02, 2021 23:20:38 UTC Central Jun 02, 2021 18:20:38 CDT Pacific Jun 02, 2021 16:20:38 PDT

GPS Time = 1306711256

 Quote: Conclusion 1:  The 'new settings with new gains' cause more coupling to seismic noise, probably due to low phase margin in control loops. We should revert back the suspension damping gains. Conclusion 2: The 'new settings' work as expected and can be kept when WFS loops are optimized further. Conjecture: From our experience over last 2 weeks, locking the arms to the main laser with 'new settings with new gains' introduces noise in the arm length large enough that the Xend green laser does not remain locked to the arm for longer than tens of seconds. So this is definitely not a configuration in which we can carry out other measurements and experiments in the interferometer.

16110   Mon May 3 16:24:14 2021 AnchalUpdateSUSIMC Suspension Damping Gains Test Repeated with IMC unlocked

We repeated the same test with IMC unlocked. We had found these gains when IMC was unlocked and their characterization needs to be done with no light in the cavity. attached are the results. Everything else is same as before.

 Quote: With the input matrix, coil ouput gains and F2A filters loaded as in 16091, I tested the suspension loops' step response to offsets in LSC, ASCPIT and ASCYAW channels, before and after applying the "new damping gains" mentioned in 16066 and 16072. If these look better, we should upload the new (higher) damping gains as well. This was not done in 16091. Note that in the plots, I have added offsets in the different channels to plot them together, hence the units are "au".

Edit Tue May 4 14:43:48 2021 :

• Adding zoomed in plots to show first 25s after the step.
• MC1:
• Our improvements by new gains are only modest.
• This optic needs a more careful coil balancing first.
• Still the ring time is reduced to about 5s for all step responses as opposed to 10s at old gains.
• MC2:
• The first page of MC2 might be bit misleading. We have not changed the damping gain for SUSPOS channel, so the longer ringing is probably just an artifact of somthing else. We didn't retake data.
• In PIT and YAW where we increased the gain by a factor of 3, we see a reduction in ringing lifetime by about half.
• MC3:
• We saw the most optimistic improvement on this optic.
• The gains were unusually low in this optic, not sure why.
• By increasing SUSPOS gain from 200 to 500, we saw a reduction of ringing halftime from 7-8s to about 2s. Improvements are seen in other DOFs as well.
• You can notice rightaway that YAW of MC3 keeps oscillating near resonance (about 1 Hz). Maybe more careful feedback shaping is required here.
• In SUSPIT, we increased gain from 12 to 35 and saw a good reduction in both ringing time and initial amplitude of ringing.
• In SUSYAW, we only increased the gain to 12 from 8, which still helped a lot in reducing big ringing step response to below 5s from about 12s.

Overall, I would recommend setting the new gains in the suspension loops as well to observe long term effects too.

16102   Thu Apr 29 18:53:33 2021 AnchalUpdateSUSIMC Suspension Damping Gains Test

With the input matrix, coil ouput gains and F2A filters loaded as in 16091, I tested the suspension loops' step response to offsets in LSC, ASCPIT and ASCYAW channels, before and after applying the "new damping gains" mentioned in 16066 and 16072. If these look better, we should upload the new (higher) damping gains as well. This was not done in 16091.

Note that in the plots, I have added offsets in the different channels to plot them together, hence the units are "au".

16174   Wed Jun 2 09:43:30 2021 Anchal, PacoSummarySUSIMC Settings characterization

## Plot description:

• We picked up three 10 min times belonging to the three different configurations:
• 'Old Settings': IMC Suspension settings before Paco and I changed anything. Data taken from Apr 26, 2021, 00:30:42 PDT (GPS 1303457460).
• 'New Settings': New input matrices uploaded on April 28th, along with F2A filters and AC coil balancing gains (see 16091). Data taken from May 01, 2021, 00:30:42 PDT (GPS 1303889460).
• 'New settings with new gains' Above and new suspension damping gains uploaded on May5th, 2021 (see 16120). Data taken from May 07, 2021, 03:10:42 PDT (GPS 1304417460).
• Attachment 1  shows the RMS seismic noise along X direction between 1 Hz and 3 Hz picked from C1:PEM-RMS_BS_X_1_3 during the three time durations chosen. This plot is to establish that RMS noise levels were similar and mostly constant. Page 2 shows the mean ampltidue spectral density of seismic noise in x-direction over the 3 durations.
• Attachment 2 shows the transfer function estimate of seismic noise to MC_F during the three durations. Page 1 shows ratio of ASDs taken with median averaging while page 2 shows the same for mean averaging.
• Attachment 3 shows the transfer function estimate of seismic noise to MC_TRANS_PIT during the three durations. Page 1 shows ratio of ASDs taken with median averaging while page 2 shows the same for mean averaging.
• Attachment 4 shows the transfer function estimate of seismic noise to MC_TRANS_YAW during the three durations. Page 1 shows ratio of ASDs taken with median averaging while page 2 shows the same for mean averaging.

## Inferences:

• From Attachment 2 Page 1:
• We see that 'old settings' caused the least coupling of seismic noise to MC_F signal in most of the low frequency band except between 1.5 to 3 Hz where the 'new settings' were slightly better.
• 'new settings' also show less coupling in 4 Hz to 6 Hz band, but at these frequencies, seismix noise is filtered out by suspension, so this could be just coincidental and is not really a sign of better configuration.
• There is excess noise coupling seen with 'new settings' between 0.4 Hz and 1.5 Hz. We're not sure why this coupling increased.
• 'new settings with new gains' show the most coupling in most of the frequency band. Clearly, the increased suspension damping gains did not behaved well with rest of the system.
• From Attachment 3 Page 1:
• Coupling to MC_TRANS_PIT error signal is reduced for 'new settings' in almost all of the frequency band in comparison to the 'old settings'.
• 'new settings with new gains' did even better below 1 Hz but had excess noise in 1 Hz to 6 Hz band. Again increased suspension damping gains did not help much.
• But low coupling to PIT error for 'new settings' suggest that our decoupling efforts in matrix diagonalization, F2A filters and ac coil balancing worked to some extent.
• From Attachment 4 Page 1:
• 'new settings' and 'old settings' have the same coupling of seismic noise to MC_TRANS_YAW in all of the frequency band. This is in-line witht eh fact that we found very little POS to YAW couping in our analysis before and there was little to no change for these settings.
• 'new settings with new gains' did better below 1 Hz but here too there was excess coupling between 1 Hz to 9 Hz.
• Page 1 vs Page 2:
• Mean and median should be same if the data sample was large enough and noise was stationary. A difference between the two suggests existence of outliers in the data set and median provides a better central estimate in such case.
• MC_F: Mean and median are same below 4 hz. There are high frequency outliers above 4 Hz in 'new settings with new gains' and 'old settings' data sets, maybe due to transient higher free running laser frequency noise. But since, suspension settigns affect below 1 Hz mostly, the data sets chosen are stationary enough for us.
• MC_TRANS_PIT: Mean ratio is lower for 'new settings' and 'old settings' in 0.3 hz to 0.8 Hz band. Same case above 4 Hz as listed above.
• MC_TRANS_YAW:  Same as above.
• Conclusion 1:  The 'new settings with new gains' cause more coupling to seismic noise, probably due to low phase margin in control loops. We should revert back the suspension damping gains.
• Conclusion 2: The 'new settings' work as expected and can be kept when WFS loops are optimized further.
• Conjecture: From our experience over last 2 weeks, locking the arms to the main laser with 'new settings with new gains' introduces noise in the arm length large enough that the Xend green laser does not remain locked to the arm for longer than tens of seconds. So this is definitely not a configuration in which we can carry out other measurements and experiments in the interferometer.
15257   Thu Mar 5 19:51:14 2020 gautamUpdateElectronicsIMC Servo board being tested

I am running some tests on the IMC servo board with an extender card so the IMC will not be locking for a couple of hours.

15258   Fri Mar 6 01:12:10 2020 gautamUpdateElectronicsIMC Servo IN2 path looks just fine

It seems like the AO path gain stages on the IMC Servo board work just fine. The weird results I reported earlier were likely a measurement error arising from the fact that I did not disconnect the LEMO IN2 cable while measuring using the BNC IN2 connector, which probably made some parasitic path to ground that was screwing the measurement up. Today, I re-did the measurement with the signal injected at the IN2 BNC, and the TF measured being the ratio of TP3 on the board to a split-off of the SR785 source (T-eed off). Attachments #1, #2 shows the result - the gain deficit from the "expected" value is now consistent with that seen on other sliders.

Note that the signal from the CM board in the LSC rack is sent single-ended over a 2-pin LEMO cable (whose return pin is shorted to ground). But it is received differentially on the IMC Servo board. I took this chance to look for evidence of extra power line noise due to potential ground loops by looking at the IMC error point with various auxiliary cables connected to the board - but got distracted by some excess noise (next elog).

15912   Fri Mar 12 11:44:53 2021 Paco, AnchalUpdatetrainingIMC SUS diagonalization in progress

[Paco, Anchal]

- Today we spent the morning shift debugging SUS input matrix diagonalization. MC stayed locked for most of the 4 hours we were here, and we didn't really touch any controls.

15175   Wed Jan 29 12:40:24 2020 YehonathanUpdateIOOIMC Ringdowns preliminary data analysis

I analyze the IMC ringdown data from last night.

Attachment 1 shows the normalized raw data. Oscillations come in much later than in Gautam's measurement. Probably because the IMC stays locked.

Attachment 2 shows fits of the transmitted PD to unconstrained double exponential and the Zucker model.

Zucker model gives time constant of 21.6us

Unconstrained exponentials give time constants of 23.99us and 46.7us which is nice because it converges close to the Zucker model.

15183   Mon Feb 3 13:54:10 2020 YehonathanUpdateIOOIMC Ringdowns extended data analysis

I extended the ringdown data analysis to the reflected beam following Isogai et al.

The idea is that measuring the cavity's reflected light one can use known relationships to extract the transmission of the cavity mirrors and not only the finesse.

The finesse calculated from the transmission ringdown shown in the previous elog is 1520 according to the Zucker model, 1680 according to the first exponential and 1728 according to the second exponential.

Attachment 1 shows the measured reflected light during an IMC ringdown in and out of resonance and the values that are read off it to compute the transmission.

The equations for m1 and m3 are the same as in Isogai's paper because they describe a steady-state that doesn't care about the extinction ratio of the light.

The equation for m2, however, is modified due to the finite extinction present in our zeroth-order ringdown.

Modelling the IMC as a critically coupled 2 mirror cavity one can verify that:

$m_2=P_0KR\left[T-\alpha\left(1-R\right)\right]^2+\alpha^2 P_1$

Where $P_0$ is the coupled light power

$P_1$ is the power rejected from the cavity (higher-order modes, sidebands)

$K=\left(\mathcal{F} /\pi \right )^2$ is the cavity gain.

$R$ and $T$ are the power reflectivity and transmissivity per mirror, respectively.

$\alpha^2$ is the power attenuation factor. For perfect extinction, this is 0.

Solving the equations (m1 and m3 + modified m2), using Zucker model's finesse, gives the following information:

Loss per mirror = 84.99 ppm
Transmission per mirror = 1980.77 ppm
Coupling efficiency (to TEM00) = 97.94%
15190   Wed Feb 5 21:13:17 2020 YehonathanUpdateIOOIMC Ringdowns extended data analysis

I translate the results obtained in the previous elog to the IMC 3 mirror cavity. I assume the loss in each mirror in the IMC is equal and that M2 has a negligible transmission.

I find that to a very good approximation the loss per IMC mirror is 2/3 the loss per mirror in the 2 mirror cavity model. That is the loss per mirror in the IMC is 56 ppm. The transmission per mirror in the IMC is the same as in the 2 mirror model, which is 1980 ppm.

The total transmission is the same as in the 2 mirror model and is given by:

$\frac{P_0}{P_0+P1}KT^2\approx 90\%$

where $\frac{P_0}{P_0+P1}$ is the coupling efficiency to the TEM00 mode.

7256   Thu Aug 23 12:17:39 2012 ManasaUpdate IMC Ringdown

The ringdown measurements are in progress. But it seems that the MC mirrors are getting kicked everytime the cavity is unlocked by either changing the frequency at the MC servo or by shutting down the input to the MC. This means what we've been observing is not the ringdown of the IMC alone. Attached are MC sus sensor data and the observed ringdown on the oscilloscope.  I think we need to find a way to unlock the cavity without the mirrors getting kicked....in which case we should think about including an AOM or using a fast shutter before the IMC.

P.S. The origin of the ripples at the end of the ringdown still are of unknown origin. As of now, I don't think it is because of the mirrors moving but something else that should figured out.

7257   Thu Aug 23 15:35:33 2012 ranaUpdate IMC Ringdown

It is HIGHLY unlikely that the IMC mirrors are having any effect on the ringdown. The ringdowns take ~20 usec to happen. The mirrors are 0.25 kg and you can calculate that its very hard to get enough force to move them any appreciable distance in that time.

7260   Thu Aug 23 17:51:25 2012 ManasaUpdate IMC Ringdown

 Quote: It is HIGHLY unlikely that the IMC mirrors are having any effect on the ringdown. The ringdowns take ~20 usec to happen. The mirrors are 0.25 kg and you can calculate that its very hard to get enough force to move them any appreciable distance in that time.

The huge kick observed in the MC sus sensors seem to last for ~10usec; almost matching the observed ringdown decay time. We should find a way to record the ringdown and the MC sus sensor data simultaneously to know when the mirrors are exactly moving during the measurement process. It could also be that the moving mirrors were responsible for the ripples observed later during the ringdown as well.

* How fast do the WFS respond to the frequency switching (time taken by WFS to turn off)? I think this information will help in narrowing down the many possible explanations to a few.

17194   Mon Oct 17 17:42:35 2022 JCHowToOPLEV TablesIMC Reflected beam sketch

I sketched up a quick drawing with estimated length for the IMC reflected beam. This includes the distances and focal length. Distances are from optic to optic.

11795   Sat Nov 21 00:46:33 2015 KojiUpdateIOOIMC OLTF

Here is the comparison before and after the fix.

Before the work, the UGF was ~40kHz. The phase margin was ~5deg. This caused huge bump of the frequency noise.

After the LO power increase, I had to reduce the MC loop gain (VCO Gain) from 18dB to 6dB. This resulted 4dB (x2.5) increase of the OLTF. This means that my fix increased the optical gain by 16dB (x6.3). The resulting UGF and phase mergin were measured to be 117kHz and 31deg, respectively.

Now I was curious to see if the PMC err shows reasonable improvement when the IMC is locked. Attachment 2 shows the latest comparison of the PMC err with and without the IMC locked. The PMC error has been taken up to 500kHz. The errors were divided by 17.5kHz LPF and 150kHz LPF to compensate the sensing response. The PMC cavity pole was ignored in this calculation. T990025 saids the PMC finesse is 4400 and the cavity pole is 174kHz. If this is true, this also needs to be applied.

Observations:

1. Now we can see improvement of the PMC error in the region between 10kHz to 70kHz.

2. The sharp peak at 8kHz is due to the marginally stable PMC servo. We should implement another notch there. T990025 suggests that the body resonance of the PMC spacer is somewhere around there. We might be able to damp it by placing a lossy material on it.

3. Similarly, the features at 12kHz and 28kHz is coming from the PMC. They are seen in the OLTF of the PMC loop.

4. The large peak at 36kHz does not change with the IMC state. This does mean that it is coming from the laser itself, or anything high-Q of the PMC. This signal is seen in the IMC error too.

5. 72kHz, 108kHz, 144kHz: Harmonics of 36kHz?

6. Broad feature from 40kHz to 200kHz. The IMC loop is adding the noise. This is the frequency range of the PC drive. Is something in the PC drive noisy???

7. The feature at 130kHz. Unknown. Seems not related to IMC. The laser noise or the PMC noise.

Remaining IMC issues:

Done (Nov 23, 2015) - 29.5MHz oscillator output degraded. Possibly unstable and noisy. Do we have any replacement? Can we take a Marconi back from one of the labs?

Done (Nov 23, 2015) - Too high LO?

- Large 36kHz peak in the IMC

- IMC loop shape optimization

- IMC locking issue. The lock streatch is not long.

- IMC PC drive issue. Could be related to the above issue.

Maybe not relevant - PC drive noise?

11798   Sun Nov 22 12:12:17 2015 KojiUpdateIOOIMC OLTF

Well. I thought a bit more and now I think it is likely that this is just the servo bump as you can see in the closed-loop TF.

 Quote: 6. Broad feature from 40kHz to 200kHz. The IMC loop is adding the noise. This is the frequency range of the PC drive. Is something in the PC drive noisy???
16685   Sun Feb 27 00:37:00 2022 KojiUpdateGeneralIMC Locking Recovery

Summary:

- IMC was locked.
- Some alignment change in the output optics.
- The WFS servos working fine now.
- You need to follow the proper alignment procedure to recover the good alignment condition.

Locking:
- Basically followed the previous procedure 40m/16673.
- The autolocker was turned off. Used MC2 and MC3 for the alignment.
- Once I hit the low order modes, increased the IN1 gain to acquire the lock. This helped me to bring the alignment to TEM00
- Found the MC2 spot was way too off in pitch and yaw.
- Moved MC1/2/3 to bring the MC2 spot around the center of the mirror.
- Found a reasonably good visibility (<90%) at a MC2 spot. Decided this to be the reference (at least for now)

SP Table Alignment Work
- Went to the SP table and aligned the WFS1/2 spots.
- I saw no spot on the camera. Found that the beam for the camera was way too weak and a PO mirror was useless to bring the spot on the CCD.
- So, instead, I decided to catch an AR reflection of the 90% mirror. (See Attachment 1)
- This made the CCD vulnerable to the stronger incident beam to the IMC. Work on the CCD path before increasing the incident power.

MC2 end table alignment work
- I knew that the focusing lens there and the end QPD had inconsistent alignment.
- The true MC2 spot needs to be optimized with A2L (and noise analysis / transmitted beam power analysis / etc)
- So, just aligned the QPD spot using today's beam as the temporary target of the MC alignment. (See Attachment 2)

Resulting CCD image on the quad display (Attachment 3)

WFS Servo
- To activate the WFS with the low transmitted power, the trigger threshold was reduced from 5000 to 500. (See Attachment 4)
- WFS offset was reset with /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/MC/WFS/WFS_RF_offsets
- Resulting working state looks like Attachment 5

16679   Thu Feb 24 19:26:32 2022 AnchalUpdateGeneralIMC Locking

I think I have aligned the cavity, including MC1 such that we are seeing flashing of fundamental mode and significant transmission sum value as well.However, I'm unable to catch lock following Koji's method in 40m/16673. Autolocker could not catch lock either. Maybe I am doing something wrong, I'll pickup again tomorrow, hopefully the cavity won't drift too much in this time.

15902   Thu Mar 11 08:13:24 2021 Paco, AnchalUpdateSUSIMC First Free Swing Test failed due to typo, restarting now

[Paco, Anchal]

The triggered code went on at 5:00 am today but a last minute change I made yesterday to increase number of repititions had an error and caused the script to exit putting everything back to normal. So as we came in the morning, we found the mode cleaner locked continuously after one free swing attempt at 5:00 am. I've fixed the script and ran it for 2 hours starting at 8;10 am. Our plan is to get some data atleast to play with when we are here. If the duration is not long enough, we'll try to run this again tomorrow morning. The new script is running on same tmux session 'MCFreeSwingTest' on Rossa

10:13 the script finished and IMC recovered lock.

Thu Mar 11 10:58:27 2021

The test ran succefully with the mode cleaner optics coming back to normal in the end of it. We wrote some scripts to read data and analyze it. More will come in future posts. No other changes were made today to the systems.

16089   Wed Apr 28 10:56:10 2021 Anchal, PacoUpdateSUSIMC Filters diagnosed

Good morning!

We ran the f2a filter test for MC1, MC2, and MC3.

Filters

The new filters differ from previous versions by a adding non-unity Q factor for the pole pairs as well.

$\frac{f^2 - i \frac{f_z}{Q}f + f_z^2}{f^2 - i \frac{f_0}{Q}f + f_0^2}$
This in terms of zpk is: [ [zr + i zi, zr - i zi], [pr + i pi, pr - i pi], 1] where
$z_r = -\frac{f_z}{2Q}, \quad z_i = f_z \sqrt{1 - \frac{1}{4Q^2}}, \quad p_r = -\frac{f_0}{2Q}, \quad p_i = f_0 \sqrt{1 - \frac{1}{4Q^2}}$$, \quad f_z = f_0 \sqrt{G_{DC}}$

• Attachment #1 shows the filters for MC1 evaluated for Q=3, 7,and 10.
• Attachment #2 shows the filters for MC2 evaluated for Q=3, 7, and 10.
• Attachment #3 shows the filters for MC3 evaluated for Q=3, 7, and 10.
• Attachment #4 shows the bode plots generated by foton after uploading for Q=3 case.

We uploaded all these filters using foton, into the three last FM slots on the POS output gain coil.

Tests

We ran tests on all suspended optics using the following (nominal) procedure:

2. Lower the C1:IOO-WFS_GAIN to 0.05.
3. Upload AC coil balancing gains.
4. Take ASD for the following channels:
• C1:IOO-MC_TRANS_PIT_IN1
• C1:IOO-MC_TRANS_YAW_IN1
• C1:IOO-MC_WFS1_PIT_IN1
• C1:IOO-MC_WFS1_YAW_IN1
• C1:IOO-MC_WFS2_PIT_IN1
• C1:IOO-MC_WFS2_YAW_IN1
5. For the following combinations:
• No excitation** + no filter
• No excitation + filter
• Excitation + no filter
• Excitation + filter

** Excitation = 0.05 - 3.5 Hz uniform noise, 100 amplitude, 100 gain

### Plots

• Attachment 5-7 give the test results for MC1, MC2 and MC3.
• In each pdf, the three pages show ASD of TRANS QPD, WFS1 and WFS2 channels' PIT and YAW, respectively.
• Red/blue correspond to data taken while F2A filters were on. Pink/Cyan correspond to data taken with filters off.
• Solid curves were taken with excitation ON and dashed curves were taken with excitation off.
• We see good suppression of POS-> PIT coupling in MC2 and MC3. POS->YAw is minimally affected in all cases.
• MC1 is clearly not doing good with the filters and probably needs readjustement. Something to do later in the future.
17242   Tue Nov 8 10:35:26 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSIMC F2A test

This time the test was succesful but I have reverted MC3 f2a filters back to with Q=3, 7, and 10. The inital part of the test is still useful though. I'm attaching amplitude spectral density curves for WFS control points and C1:IOO-MC_F_DQ in the different configurations. The shaded region is the 15.865 percentile to 84.135 percentile bounds of the PSD data. This corresponds to +/- 1 sigma percentiles for a gaussian variable. Also note that in each decade of freqeuncy, the FFt bin width is different such that each decade has 90 points (eg 0.1 Hz bin width for 1Hz to 10 Hz data, 1 Hz binwidth  for 10 Hz to 100 Hz and so on.)

The WFS control points do not show any significant difference in most of the frequency band. The differences below 10 mHz are not averaged enough as this was 30min data segments only.

C1:IOO-MC_F_DQ channel also show no significant difference in 0.1 Hz to 20 Hz. Between 20-100 Hz, we see that higher Q filters resulted in slightly less noise but the effect of the filters in this frequency band should be nothing, so this could be just coincidence or maybe the system behaves better with hgiher Q filters. In teh lower frequency band, we would should take more data to average more after shortlisting on some of these f2a filters. It seems like MC1 Q=10 (red curve) filter performs very good. For MC2, there is no clear sign. I'm not sure why MC2 Q=3 curve got a big offset in low frequency region. Such things normally happen due to significant linear trend presence in signal.

I'm not sure what other channels might be interesting to look at. Some input would be helpful.

12820   Fri Feb 10 18:21:21 2017 gautamUpdateIMCIMC Demod board

Rana and I spent some time looking at the IMC demod board earlier today. I will post the details shortly, but there was a label on the front panel which said that the nominal LO level to the input should be -8dBm. The new 29.5MHz routing scheme meant that the LO board was actually being driven at 0dBm (that too when the input to the RF distribution box was attenuated by 5dB).

An elog search revealed this thread, where Koji made some changes to the demod board input attenuators. Rana commented that it isn't a good idea to have the LO input be below 0dBm, so after consulting with Koji, we decided that we will

• Remove the 5dB attenuator to the input of the distribution box such that the LO is driven at ~5dBm
• Remove the input 10dB attenuator, first ERA-5SM amplifier, and the mini circuits power splitter from the demod board (schematic to follow).

After implementing these changes, and testing the board with a Marconi on the workbench, I found that the measured power levels (measured with an active FET probe) behave as expected, up till the ERA-5SM immediately prior to the LO (U4 and U6 on the schematic). However, the power after this amplifier (i.e. the input to the on-circuit LO, Minicircuits JMS-1H, which we want to be +17dBm), is only +16dBm. The input to these ERA-5SMs, which are only ~2years old, is -2dBm, so with the typical gain of +20dB, I should have 18dBm at their output. Moreover, increasing the input power to the board from the Marconi doesn't linearly increase the output from the ERA-5SM. Just in case, I replaced one of the ERA-5SMs, but observed the same behaviour, even though the amplifier shouldn't be near saturation (the power upstream of the ERA-5SM does scale linearly).

This needs to be investigated further, so I am leaving the demod board pulled out for now...

12821   Fri Feb 10 19:32:15 2017 KojiUpdateIMCIMC Demod board

The input impedance of the mixer is not constant. As the diode switches, it changes dynamically. Because of this, the waveform of the LO at the mixer input (i.e. the amplifier output) is not sinusoidal. Some of the power goes away to harmonic frequencies. Also, your active probe is calibrated to measure the power across the exact 50Ohm load, which is not in this case. The real confirmation can be done by swapping the mixer with a 50Ohm resistor. But it is too much. Just confirm the power BEFORE the amp is fine. +/-1dB does not change the mixer function much.

- Orthogonality
- Gain imbalance
of the I/Q output. This can be checked by supplying an RF signal that is 100~1kHz away from the LO frequency and observe I&Q outputs.

14818   Tue Jul 30 20:11:12 2019 ranaSummaryIMCIMC ASC: thoughts and hopes

One of the biggest challenges in LIGO is reducing the alignment control noise. If you haven't worked on it for at least a few years, it probably seems like a trivial problem. But all versions of LIGO since 2001 have been limited by ASC noise below ~50 Hz.

I think the 40m IMC is a good testbed for us to try a few approaches towards mitigating this noise in LIGO. The following is a list of steps to take to get there:

1. Using step responses and TF measurements, characterize the full existing system: SISO loop shapes, cross-couplings, and how diagnonal is the input and output matrices of the WFS. In principle, since we have 2 WFS in reflection and 1 DC QPD in the MC2 transmission, we should have full sensing of all angular DoFs.
2. Check the correct operation of the WFS heads and the whole RF chain. We want the gains in the system to be such that either the shot noise or the RF electronics noise of the head is the limiting broadband noise in the system.
3. Balancing the gains and phases of the demodulated signals is tricky, because we have no good reference. Should we use the JenneAM laser or the PSL beam?
4. Estimate the coupling from the angular feedback signal to the IMC length noise using (1) sine wave injections for linear coupling, and (2) broadband noise for nonlinear coupling.
5. We think the bilinear noise is due to the beam spot motion modulating the angle to length coupling as sensed by the laser beam. If this is true, we can increase the low frequency gain to minimize the beam spot motion (is this true?).
6. By sinusoidally driving the mirror angles we can measure the instantaneous beam spot positions. We can then derive the matrix required to convert from our angular sensors (WFS + QPD) into beam spot motion. We should modify our IMC-WFS real-time model to give us DAQ channels which are beam spot estimators.
7. Build a simulation of an IMC which has WFS, QPD, shot noise, and seismic noise.
8. Use our optimal linear-feedback design tools to make Angular loops which minimize the bilinear noise coupling.
9. Build a nonlinear controller (neural networks: dense + CNN) that outperforms the linear one by estimating the beam spot motion continuously and driving the cavity length to cancel the angle-to-length noise.

I think that steps 1-6 are well within our existing experience, but we should do it anyway so as to reduce the IMC beam motion at low frequencies, and also to reduce the 10-100 Hz frequency noise as seen by the rest of the interferometer.

Steps 7-8 are medium hard, but we can get some help from the CSWG in tackling it.

Step is pretty tough, but I would like to try it and also get some help from MLWG and CSWG to address it.

17189   Thu Oct 13 23:25:22 2022 ranaUpdateIMCIMC ASC: summary pages and notes

Tega has kindly made a summary page for the IMC WFS. Its in a tab on the usual summary pages.

One thing I notice is that the feedback to MC2 YAW seems to have very little noise. What's up with that?

The output matrix (attached) shows that the WFS have very little feedback to MC2 in YAW, but normal feedback in PIT. Has anyone recalculated this output matrix in the past ~1-2 years?

I'm going to read Prof. Izumi's paper (https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.02703) to get some insight.

The output matrix doesn't seem to have any special thing to make this happen. Any ideas on what this could be?

17190   Thu Oct 13 23:52:45 2022 KojiUpdateIMCIMC ASC: summary pages and notes

The output matrices have been calculated on Aug 4, 2022 by me. [40m ELOG 17060]

Regarding the noise see [40m ELOG 17061]

With regard to the current IMC WFS design, a SURF student in 2014 (Andres Medina) and Nick Smith made the revision.
The telescope design was described in the elogs [40m ELOG 10410] [40m ELOG 10427] and also T1400670.

16833   Thu May 5 17:05:31 2022 TegaUpdateBHDIMC & X/Y-arm alignment

[Yuta, Tega]

In order to setup POP camera and RFPD on the ITMX table, we decided to first work on the IMC and X/Y-arm alignment.

IMC alignment:

We zeroed IMC WFS outputs and aligned IMC manually to get IMC transmission of 1200 and reflection of 0.35.

Y-arm alignment:

We used the new video game tool that moves the pairs of mirrors - PR3 & ETMY, ITMY & ETMY - in common and differential modes. This brought the Y-arm flashing to 0.8. Note that we used the _OFFSET bias values for PR3 & ETMY alignment instead of the _COMM bias values.

X-arm alignment:

We repeated the same procedure of moving the pairs of mirrors - BS & ETMX, ITMX & ETMX - in common and differential modes but manually this time. This brought the X-arm flashing to ~1.0.

729   Thu Jul 24 01:04:01 2008 robConfigurationLSCIFR2023A (aka MARCONI) settings

 Quote: P.S.: We made a test by changing the frequency of the local oscillator by a little bit and then coming back to the original value. We observed that the phase of the signal can change, so every time this frequency is moved the 3f demod phase need to be retuned.

We discovered this little tidbit in March, and remembered it tonight. Basically we found that whenever you change the frequency on one of these signal generators (and maybe any other setting as well), the phase of the signal can change (it's probably just the sign, but still...), meaning that you when you return settings to their intial value, not everything is exactly as it once was. For most applications, this doesn't matter. For us, where we use one Marconi to demodulate the product of two other Marconis, it means we can easily cause a great deal of grief for ourselves, as the demod phase for the double demod signals can appear to change.

Programmatically, what this means is that every time you touch a Marconi you must elog it. Especially if you change a setting and then put it back.
16441   Sun Oct 31 14:21:31 2021 ranaHowToTreasureIFOCad

IFOcad model/video of the AEI 10m interferometer:

https://10m.aei.mpg.de/design-and-sensitivity/

2667   Thu Mar 11 15:24:51 2010 steveMetaphysicsEnvironmentIFO was well protected

 Quote: There is a planned power outage tomorrow, Saturday from 7am till midnight. I vented all annulies and switched to ALL OFF configuration. The small region of the RGA is still under vacuum. The vac-rack: gauges, c1vac1 and UPS turned off.

In the process of finding the signal of the big chilean earthquake I just realized that we were all off

10262   Wed Jul 23 11:32:04 2014 KojiUpdateLSCIFO warming up

Alone with the IFO. Started from some conversation with it.

Some ALS trials: Found the Y-end green alignment was terrible. In fact the end green set up is terrible.
Unfixed optics, clipping/fringing in the faraday, unstable suprema mounts which is unnecessarily big.

Eventualy I stopped touching the end alignment. Run ALS to see the stability of the things.
This is a performance confirmation after some touching of the ALS electronics by Manasa/SURFs

The sensing noise levels of the ALSs looks the same as before.

The intensity noise of the transmission was also checked. They are not RIN but very close to RIN
as the DC was the unity for both arms.

The X arm has worse ALS noise level and RIN.
Although I forgot to turn off the HEPA flow at the south bench during the measurement. Gurrr.

10740   Mon Dec 1 16:34:20 2014 JenneUpdateGeneralIFO wake-up

After its' several days of rest, it is time to wake up the IFO.

• FSS temp was railed at +10, which was making the MC not want to lock.  Set it to zero, locked the MC, and ran the MC WFS relief scripts.
• PMC trans is down to 0.686, so I'll probably want to tweak that up before I get too carried away for tonight.
• c1iscex computer was frozen, which I suspect is why Steve found ETMX tripped this morning.  Soft reboot, and we're back to normal.

With that, it's time for a new week of locking, and trying to catch up with the big kids at the sites.

10778   Thu Dec 11 10:08:10 2014 manasaUpdateGeneralIFO update

Status of IFO:

1. The X end slow computer is down. ETMX sliders and buttons on the ETMX suspension screens have gone white. I have disabled the ETMX oplev because it is largely misaligned in yaw. I am not poking it and leaving it as is for the time being.

2. The Y arm green alignment had drifted and GTRY was down to 0.15 . I tweaked the alignment using the last two steering mirrors and brought GTRY to 0.7 which gives a beat note of -14dBm.

7891   Fri Jan 11 11:07:04 2013 ManasaUpdateGeneralIFO status update - PMC problems

I came in this morning to see that the PMC was down. The PZT voltage had drifted to below 50V. I adjusted the FSS slow controls to 0V and PZT was back at 126V.

PMC and IMC could eventually be locked.

History of PZT voltage behaviour in dataviewer over the last 24 hours shows it has been drifting everytime after it has been fixed.

7892   Fri Jan 11 16:13:47 2013 JenneUpdateGeneralIFO status update - PMC fixed

 Quote: I came in this morning to see that the PMC was down. The PZT voltage had drifted to below 50V. I adjusted the FSS slow controls to 0V and PZT was back at 126V. PMC and IMC could eventually be locked. History of PZT voltage behaviour in dataviewer over the last 24 hours shows it has been drifting everytime after it has been fixed.

FSS was saturating.  Fixed.

10134   Mon Jul 7 11:02:22 2014 manasaConfigurationGeneralIFO status post earthquake

 Quote: All suspension damping restored. There had to be an earth quake.

PMC was relocked.

MC did not need any fixing to its alignment. I had to lock it manually and autolocker is set running now. So that should take care of things

The arms were aligned and ASS'd for IR PDH.

Green light PDH locks to the arms alright.

774   Thu Jul 31 10:24:32 2008 KojiUpdateGeneralIFO status
Last night I used the Y-arm for the abs length measurement. The Yarm was aligned by the script.
I left the ifo with the Yarm locked as it is the only meaningful configuration so far.
14483   Mon Mar 18 12:27:42 2019 gautamUpdateGeneralIFO status
1. c1iscaux2 VME crate is damaged - see Attachment #1.
• It is not generating the 12V supply voltage, and so nothing in the crate works.
• Tried resetting via front panel button, power cycling by removing power cable on rear, all to no effect.
• Tried pulling out all cards and checking if there was an internal short that was causing the failure - looks like the problem is with the crate itself.
• Not sure how long this machine has been unresponsive as we don't have any readback of the status of the eurocrate machines.
• Not a showstopper, mainly we can't control the whitening settings for AS55, REFL55, REFL165 and ALSY.
• Acromag installation schedule should be accelerated.
• * Koji reminded me that $\text{VME crate} \ \neq \ \text{eurocrate}$. The former is what is used for the slow machines, the latter is what is used for holding the iLIGO style electronics boards.
2. ITMX oplev is dead - see Attachment #2.
• Lasted ~3 years (installed March 2016).
• I confirmed that no light is coming out of the laser head on the optical table.
• I'll ask Chub to replace it this afternoon.
3. c1susaux is unresponsive
• I didn't reboot it as I didn't want to spend some hours freeing ITMY.
• At some point we will have to bite the bullet and do it.
4. Input pointing is still not stable
• I aligned the input pointing using TT1/TT2 to maximize TRX/TRY before lunch, but in 1 hour, the pointing has already drifted.
5. POX/POY locking is working okay. TRX has large low-frequency fluctuations because of ITMX not having an Oplev servo, should be rectified once we swap out the HeNe.

The goal for this week is to test out the ALS system, so this is kind of a workable state since POX/POY locking is working. But the number of broken things is accumulating fast.

14642   Tue May 28 17:41:13 2019 gautamUpdateGeneralIFO status

[chub, gautam]

Today, we tried to resuscitate the c1iscaux2 channels by swapping the existing, failed VME crate with the newly freed up crate from c1susaux. In summary, the crate gets power, and the EPICS server gets satrted, but I am unable to switch the whitening gain on the whitening boards. I belive that this has to do with the FAIL LEDs that are on for the XVME-220 units. We were careful to preserve the location of the various cards in the VME crates during the swap. Rather than do a detailed debugging with custom RJ45 cables and terminal emulators, I think we should just focus the efforts on getting the Acromag system up and running.

Our work must have bumped a cable to the c1lsc expansion chassis in the same rack - the c1lsc FE had crashed. I rebooted it using the script - everything came back gracefully.

2630   Tue Feb 23 06:47:57 2010 KojiUpdateGeneralIFO situations / low power MC lock

## [MC recovery]

- Tried to lock MC after the computer recovery by Joe.
- A lot of higher modes. I can touch the input periscope or the MC mirrors.
- First tried to align the MC mirrors. MC1 was aligned against the MC REFL PD. MC2/3 was aligned to maximize the transmitted power.
- After the alignment, I got the MC Trans Sum ~8V. Also I saw the flashing of the arm cavities. I decided to take this alignment although the beam looks little bit clipped by the faraday.

## [IFO alignment recovery]

- Aligned the arms for TEM00 manually.
- Arm alignment script seems not working now. This could come from the move of the end QPDs
- PRMI/DRMI were aligned. All alignment values saved.

## [Low power MC]

[Optical config]

- I fixed the MCT CCD camera. It is quite useful to align the MC.

- Inserted HWP+Cube PBS+HWP combo in the MC incident path.
- First HWP and PBS adjust the light power. The second HWP is fixed at 342deg such that it restores the poralization to S.
- The incident power was measured by the SCIENTECH power meter. Offset of 3mW was subtracted in the table below.

 HWP1 angle P_MC_incident comment 126deg 1.03W Max 100 0.39 90 0.098 Low power max 85 0.021 Low power nominal

- HWP1 85deg is the nominal.

- I needed to touch the steering mirror (indicated by the picture) to obtain TEM00.
The alignment of the HWPs and the cube PBS didn't change the mode. Thermal lense of the cube?

- I could not lock the MC with the incident power below 100mW. So the BS in the MC REFL path was replaced by a total reflector (Y1-45S).
- This increased the power on the MC REFL PD x10 of the previous. NOW WE ARE CONSTRAINED BETWEEN 81deg~90deg. DON'T ROTATE FURTHER!
- The original BS was stored on the AP table as shown in the picture.
- This total reflector disabled the MC WFS QPDs. We can't use them.

[Lock of the MC with 20mW incident]
- Disable the MC autolocker.
- Disable the MC WFS.
- Run
/cvs/cds/caltech/scripts/MC/mcloopson
- Turn on the MCL servo.
- Set the MCL gain to 1.5 (it was nominally 0.3 for the high power)
- Just wait until lock.

[Gain boost after the lock] ...If you like to have more gain
- There was almost no room to increase the MCL gain.
- MC_REFL_GAIN can be increased from +6dB to +20dB
ezcawrite "C1:IOO-MC_REFL_GAIN" 20 - MC_VCO_GAIN can be increased from -3dB to +2dB
ezcawrite "C1:IOO-MC_VCO_GAIN" 2
- Crank the FSS gains
ezcawrite C1:PSL-FSS_MGAIN ezcaread -n C1:PSL-STAT_FSS_NOM_C_GAIN
 ezcawrite C1:PSL-FSS_FASTGAIN ezcaread -n C1:PSL-STAT_FSS_NOM_F_GAIN

[If lock is lost]
- Run
/cvs/cds/caltech/scripts/MC/mcdown

2401   Fri Dec 11 17:36:37 2009 kiwamuUpdateGeneralIFO restoring plan

Alberto, Jenne, Kiwamu

We together will lead the IFO restoring and the following is our plan.

- - - - -|- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

#.0     |  measuring the free swinging spectra                     (weekend by kiwamu)   DONE

#.1     |  turn ON the PZTs for steering mirror and so on.         (Dec.14 Mon.) DONE

#. 1            |    lock around PSL  DONE

#.2     |  deal with mechanical shutter                            (Dec.14 Mon.)DONE

#.3     |  lock MCs                                                (Dec.14 Mon.)DONE

#.4     |  align the IFO                                           (Dec.15 Tue.)DONE

#.5     |  lock full IFO                                           (Dec.15 Tue.)DONE

- - - - -|- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Thank you.

9731   Mon Mar 17 12:02:55 2014 KojiSummaryGeneralIFO recovery / confirmed ETMX in trouble

I confirmed that we need to vent the chambers.

All of the mirrors have been aligned except for ETMX.

ETMX does not respond to the excitation by the UR and LR coils. Likely that the magnets are knocked off, or stuck in the coil.

PRM/SRM oplevs are too much off and can't be turned on. Need realignment of the beams on the QPDs.

- FB was down. FB restarted ("telnet fb 8087", then type shutdown)

- Aligned the MC mirrors.

- Aligned PRM. Look at the REFL. It was slightly mislisligned.

- AS has no beam. The Y arm was resonating with the green. So I determined that the TTs were the misaligned guys.

- Touched TT2 pitch with an increment of 0.1. Immediately the AS beam spot for ITMY was found. And the arm was resonating.

- The RM was further aligned. The bias sliders were saved and then the PRM was misaligned.

- Yarm was locked on TEM01. The ASS maximized the transmission for TEM01, and then the arm was locked on TEM00.
The ASS aligned the arm and TTs. These values were saved.

- Yarm was aligned and I can see the AS spot. So I believe the BS is still well aligned.

- Aligned the PRM to reduce the ghost beams.

- Moved the ITMX to have Michelson fringes properly.

- Also aligned the SRM.

- Now ETMX was checked. Played with the alignment biases to see if the mirror was sticking on the coils. The mirror can rock a little, but it did not come back.

- Then, checked each magnets. 0.8Hz 1000cnt signals were injected to each coils (cf. C1:SUS-PRM_**COIL_EXC) to see how the mirror could react.
The OSEM output and green spot on the ETMX cage were observed.

- Saw some response by actuating the UL, LL, SD coils.

- Saw no response from the UR and LR coils. They show the OSEM output of zero. Does this mean the magnets fell in the coils?

//Manasa// MC spot positions measured and they look alright with not much change from before the earthquake (attach)

9733   Mon Mar 17 20:14:34 2014 KojiSummaryGeneralIFO recovery / confirmed ETMX in trouble

I tried to take the photos of the magnets from outside. So far most suspicious was LL.
Otherwise, the magnets are OK.
(The SD magnet is the one with most reasonable response.)
Steve will try to take much more zoomed photo with Olympus. But the LL coil already showed some response in my observation in the morning.

11174   Wed Mar 25 21:44:20 2015 KojiUpdateLSCIFO recovery / PRFPMI locking activity

[Koji, Den]

- Aligned the arms with ASS. It had alot of offset accumulated. We offloaded it to the suspension.

- We could lock the PRMIsb with the new setup.
PRCL: REFL165I (-14deg, analog +9dB)) -0.1, Locking FM4/5, Triggered FM 2
MICH: REFL165Q (-14deg, analog +9dB) -1.5, Locking FM4/5, Triggered FM2/6/9

- Demod phases at REFL were adjusted such that PRCL in Q signals were minimized :
REFL165 -80deg => -14deg
POP55 -63deg
REFL11 +164 => +7
REFL33 +136 => +133

Note: analog gains: REFL11: +18dB,  REFL33: +30dB, POP55: +12dB, REFL165: +9dB

- Try some transition between REFL signals to check the signal quality.
Measure TFs between the REFL signals

PRCL gain
REFL11I/REFL165I = +58 REFL33I/REFL165I = +8.5 POP55I /REFL165I = -246

MICH gain
REFL11Q/REFL165Q = +11 REFL33Q/REFL165Q = -1.5 POP55Q /REFL165Q = +280

- This resulted us to figure out the relationships of the numbers in the input matrix

REFL55I/Q -4e-3/4e-3
REFL165I/Q 1.0/1.0 (reference) REFL11I/Q  0.02/0.1 REFL33I/Q +0.12/-0.7

Full locking trial

Arm locked -> ALS -> Arm offset locked
PRMI locking
REFL165 phase tuned -110deg
PRCL gain -0.1 / MICH gain -2

We needed script editing.
Previous script saved in: /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/PRFPMI/carm_cm_up_BACKUP.sh

Change:
- PRMI gain setting (input matrix & servo gain)
- CARM/DARM transition setting (see below)

The current CARM/DARM transition procedure:

== CARM TRANSITION (PART1) ==
- CM REFL1 gain is set to be -32
- CARM_B is engaged and the gain is ramped from 0 to +2.5
- Turn on FM7 (integrator)
- MC IN2 (AO path) engaged
- MC IN2 gain increased from -32 to -21

== DARM TRANSITION (PART1) ==
- DARM_B is engaged and the gain is ramped from 0 to +0.1
- Turn on FM7 (integrator)

== CARM TRANSITION (PART2) ==
- CM REFL1 Gain is increased from -32 to -18
- Ramp down CARM A gain to 0

== DARM TRANSITION (PART2) ==
- DARM_B gain is incrased to 0.37. At the same time DARM_A gain is reduced to 0

We succeeded to make the transition several times in the new setting.

- But later the transition got hard. We started to see big jump of the arm trans (TRX/Y 50->100) at the CARM transition.

- We tested the PRCL transition from 165MHz to 55MHz. 55MHz (i.e. POP55 which is REFL55PD) looks alot better now.

- ~1:30 The PMC was realigned. This  increased PMC_TRANS about 10%. This let the Y arm trans recover ~1.00 for the single arm locking

- Decided to end around 3:00AM

16874   Wed May 25 16:56:44 2022 PacoConfigurationBHDIFO recovery - IMC alignment

[Yuta, Paco]

We aligned IMC to recover the IFO progressively. First step was to center the MC REFL beamspot on the camera as well as the WFS DC. Then slide MC2 and MC3 together. Below are the alignment slider positions before/after.

 MC1 (before --> after) MC2 (before --> after) MC3 (before --> after) PIT -0.3398 --> -0.4768 4.1217 --> 4.0737 -1.9808 --> -1.9308 YAW -0.8947 --> -0.7557 -1.2350 --> -1.3350 1.5598 --> 1.5638
16875   Wed May 25 17:34:47 2022 yutaConfigurationBHDIFO recovery - IFO alignment

IFO aligned to maximize flashings, except for GRY and LO-AS.

What we did:
0. After recovering IMC, C1:IOO-MC_TRANS_SUM was ~1300 with C1:IOO-MC_RFPD_DCMON of ~0.11 (~10% better than what we had during vent). Xarm and Yarm was already flashing and could see the beam at AS and POP cameras.
1. Aligned ETMX and ITMX to green X input beam to maximize C1:ALS-TRX_OUT, to ~0.19.
2. Aligned TT2-PR3 to get C1:SUS-ETMX_TRX_OUT flashing at 0.09 at max
3. Aligned ITMY to have nice POP blinking of MICH at POP camera
4. Aligned ETMY-PR3 to have C1:SUS-ETMX_TRX_OUT flashing at 0.06 at max
5. Misaligned ITMY (with +2 in C1:SUS-ITMY_PIT_COMM), and aligned PRM to have PRX (PRM-ITMX cavity) flashing at C1:LSC-ASDC_IN1 at ~20 (offset -70) at max
6. Misaligned PRM, and aligned SRM to have SRX (SRM-ITMX cavity) flashing at C1:LSC-ASDC_IN1 at ~20 (offset -70) at max
7. Restored all the alignment. ITMY didn't quite come back, so I need to tweak the alignement to maximize TRY flashing.

Result:
Current alignment is as attached. IR beam at AS, REFL, MCR and green beam at GTRX cameras all seem slightly to the left from monitors, but looks as it was before the pump down. GTRY is still clipped, but green Y locks stably. Oplevs were not so useful to recover the alignment. ETMX/Y oplevs did not drifted too much probably because we don't have in-vac steering mirrors.

Next:
- Tweak alignment of green Y input to follow Yarm
- Do LO-AS alignment
- REFL DC is not receiving beam. Re-alignment necessary
- Oplev centering
- BHD PDs need to be replaced to lower gain PDs and need to be connected to CDS

9512   Wed Jan 1 15:01:29 2014 KojiSummaryGeneralIFO recovery

IFO restart after the recovery of linux1

Machine recovery in the following order
- Start fb
- Start the following machines: mafalda, megatron, op340m
- Start c1ioo, c1lsc, c1sus, c1iscex, c1iscey

CDS recovery / burtrestore

- Confirm all of the RT systems are running in "green". If not, restart corresponding model.
- c1iscaux, ciscaux2 didn't have response (white boxes). Went to the LCS digital rack and power cycled these targets
- burtrestore: The snapshots at Dec 19 05:07 were used. For c1iscaux and c1iscaux2 the snapshots at Dec 22 05:07 were used.

fast machines
c1alsepics.snap
c1assepics.snap
c1asxepics.snap
c1calepics.snap
c1iooepics.snap
c1lscepics.snap
c1lspepics.snap
c1mcsepics.snap
c1oafepics.snap
c1pemepics.snap
c1rfmepics.snap
c1scxepics.snap
c1scyepics.snap
c1spxepics.snap
c1supepics.snap
c1susepics.snap
c1tstepics.snap

slow machines
c1auxex.snap
c1auxey.snap
c1aux.snap
c1iool0.snap
c1iscaux2.snap
c1iscaux.snap
c1psl.snap
c1susaux.snap

IFO recovery

- Reload watchdogs => restore sus damping
- MC misaligned but TEM00 was locked
- Gave a small touch on MC2 yaw => IMC almost aligned
- Autolocker wasn't running => Manually launched rather than wait for an hour for cron to launch it
- PMC was largely misaligned. => Aligned on the PSL table (PSLTRANS 0.640->0.753)
- MC WFS ON
- IFO X/Y arm locked and aligned with ASS.
- PRMI mode: manually aligned PRM. The PRMIsb momentally locked.

ELOG V3.1.3-