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
16487   Tue Nov 30 11:03:44 2021 YehonathanMetaphysicsGeneralToilet tank broken

a plumber came in yesterday and fixed the issue.

 Quote: The toilet tank in the big bathroom stopped refilling. I contacted PPService@caltech.edu and put up an "Out of Order sign".

483   Fri May 16 17:27:55 2008 AndreyOmnistructureGeneralToilets are broken, do not use them !!!

Both toilets in 40-meter were constantly flushing, the leaking water was on the floor inside of the restrooms, so

BOTH RESTROOMS ARE CLOSED TILL MONDAY

I have heard the constant loud sound of flushing water, opened the door, and was unpleasantly surprised because all the floor was under the layer of water and the toilets were constantly flushing. I called security at X5000, a plumber came in and told that a team of plumbers needs to repair the flushing system after the weekend. The plumber today just shut off the flushing water, wiped off the floor and told not to use the restrooms in the weekend. We should expect a team of plumbers on Monday.

Sinks are working, so you can wash your hands.
5076   Sun Jul 31 17:28:34 2011 kiwamuSummaryLSCTolerance of Arm length = 2 cm

Required arm length = 37.7974 +/- 0.02 [m]

This is a preliminary result of the estimation of the Arm length tolerance.

This number was obtained from a simulation based on Optickle.
Note that the simulation was done by considering misplacements in only the arm lengths while keeping PRCL, SRCL and MICH at the ideal lengths.
Therefore the tolerance will be somewhat tighter if misplacements in the central part are taken into account.

Next : check 3f signals, and include misplacements in PRCL, SRCL and MICH.

(Background)
We will re-position the ETMY/Y suspensions to adjust the arm lenghts during the coming vent.
To get a reasonable sensing matrix for LSC, the arm length must be adjisted within a certain precision.
So we need to know the tolerance of the arm lengths.

(How to estimate)
Optickle, a frequency domiain interferomtere simulator, is used to model the response of the 40m interferometer.
I buit a 40m model in Optickle, and in this model every optical distance is adjusted to the perfect length.
Then some offsets are added on the macroscopic position of ETMs to see what will happen in the LSC sensing matrix.
When putting the offsets, the amount of offsets are randomly assigned with a Gaussian distribution (see Figure.1).
Therefore the calculation is a Monte-Calro style, but this doesn't have to be a Monte-Calro
because the parameter space is only 2-dimensions (i.e. X-arm and Y-arm length) and it can be done by simply scanning the 2-dimentional parameter space.
The reason why the Monte-Calro style was chosen is because I wanted to expand this simulation
to a more general simulation which can handle PRCL, SRCL and MICH misplacements as well.
This time I ran the Monte-Calro 1000 times.

Figure.1 History of random walk in X-Y arm lengths parameter space.
The position of ETMY and ETMX are randomly chosen with a Gaussian distribution function in every simulation.
This example was generated when \sigma_x = \sigma_y = 2 cm, where \sigma is the standard deviation of
the Gaussian function. The number of simulation is 1000 times.

(Criteria)
I made two criteria for the acceptable sensing matrix as follows :
(1) The decrease in the optical gain of the important signals (diagonal signals) must be within a factor of 3 (factor of ~ 0.5 in log scale).
(2) MICH and SRCL signals are separated within a range of 60 - 120 deg in their demodulation phases on POP55.

(Results1 : sensing matrix)
Figure.2 shows the resultant sensing matrix with histograms when \sigma_x = \sigma_y = 2,
where \sigma_x, \sigma_y are the given standard deviation in the position of ETMX and ETMY.
The diagonal signals (in red-rectangular window) shows variation in their optical gain within a factor of 0.5 in log scale (factor of 3 in linear scale).
This satisfies my requirement (1) mentioned in the last section.

Figure.2  A sensing matrix of the 40-m DRFPMI while changing the position of ETMX/Y by \sigma = 2 cm.
For convenience,  only REFL11, AS55, POP11 and POP55 are shown. They are the designed signal ports that
mentioned in the aLIGO LSC document (T1000298). In all the histograms, x-axis represents the optical gain in log scale in units of [W/m].
The y-axis is the number of events. The diagonal ports are surrounded by red rectangular window.

(Results2 : demodulation phase of MICH and SRCL on POP55)
Now a special attention should be payed on the MICH and SRCL signals on POP55.
Since MICH and SRCL are designed to be taken from POP55, they must be nicely separated in their demodulation phases.
Therefore the demodulation phase of MICH and SRCL has to be carefully examined.
The plot in Figure.3 is the resultant phase difference between MICH and SRCL on POP55 when \sigma_x = \sigma_y = 2 cm.
As shown in the plot the phase are always within a range of 60 - 120 deg, which satisfies my requirement (2) mentioned in the last section.

Figure.3 Difference in the demodulation phase of MICH and SRCL on POP55.
x-axis is the difference in the demodulation phase of MICH and SRCL, and y-axis the number of events.

(Notes on the Optickle model)
In my current simulation I omitted some foldng mirrors including PR3, SR2 and SR3.
If those mirrors are added on the model, loss from those mirrors will affect the build up powers in all the cavities and hence changes the sensinag matrix somewhat.
I assumed that each optic has loss of 50 ppm in its HR surface.
Input power, after the MC, of 1 W is assumed.
The modulation depth are all 0.1 rad for 11MHz and 55MHz.
The model files were uploaded on the MIT CVS server and files reside under /export/cvs/iscmodeling/40m/fullIFO_Optickle.

5081   Mon Aug 1 11:46:56 2011 ranaSummaryLSCTolerance of Arm length = 2 cm

wow. This Monte-Carlo matrix is one of the most advanced optical modeling things I have ever seen. We never had this for any of the interferometers before.

5273   Sat Aug 20 00:42:22 2011 KeikoUpdateLSCTolerance of PRC, SRC, MICH length = 2 mm ?

Keiko, Kiwamu

I have run Kiwamu's length tolerance code (in CVS iscmodeling, ArmTolerance.m & analyseArmTorelance.m ) for the vertex ifo.

In his previous post, he monte-carlo-ed the arm lengths and saw the histogram of the sensing matrix and the demodulation phase between POP55 MICH and POP55 SRCL. From these plots, he roughly estimated that the tolerance is about 1 cm (sigma of the rondom gaussian) and in that case POP55 MICH and SRCL is separated by the demodulation phase 60-150 degrees.

This time I put the length displacements of random gaussian on PRC, SRC, MICH lengths at the same time (Fig.1).

Fig. 1. History of random walk in PRC, SRC, MICH lengths parameter space. Same as Kiwamu's previous post, The position of the three degrees are randomly chosen with a Gaussian distribution function in every simulaton. This example was generated when \sigma = 1 cm for all the three lengths, where \sigma is the standard deviation of  the Gaussian function. The number of simulation is 1000 times.

When the sigma is 1 cm, we found that the sensing matrix is quite bad if you look at Fig. 2. In Fig.2 row POP55, although the desired degrees of freedoms are MICH and SRCL, they have quite a bit of variety. Their separation in the demodulation phase is plotted in Fig.3. The separation in the demodulation phase varies from 40 degrees to 140 degrees, and around 270 degrees. It is not good as ideally we want it to be 90.

Fig. 2 Histgram of the sensing signal power in the matrix when 1 cm sigma rondom gaussian is applied on PRC, SRC, MICH lengths. x axis it the signal power in log10.

Fig.3 POP55 MICH and POP55 SRCL separation with the displacement sigma 1 cm.

Kiwamu suspected that PRC length as more strict tolerance than other two (SRC, MICH) for POP55, as 55MHz is fast and can be sensitive to the arm length change. So I ran the same monte-carlo with SRC, MICH displacements but no PRC displacements when sigma is the same, 1cm. The results were almost same as above, nothing obvious difference.

With 2mm sigma, the signal power matrix and the POP55 MICH and POP55 SRCL separation in the demodulation phase look good (Fig. 4 and Fig. 5).

Fig.4 Signal power matrix when PRC, SRC, MICH lengths fractuate with random gaussian distribution with 2mm sigma. The signal powers are shown in log10 in x axis, and they do not vary very much in this case.

Fig.5 POP55 MICH and POP55 SRCL separation with the displacement sigma 2 mm. The separation of the two signal is 60-90 degrees, much better than when sigma is 1 cm. We may need to check 60 degree separation is really ok or not.

PRC SRC MICH lengths tolerances of 2 mm in the real world will be very difficult !

Next I will check what happens on 3f signals.

 Quote: Required arm length = 37.7974 +/- 0.02 [m] This is a preliminary result of the estimation of the Arm length tolerance. This number was obtained from a simulation based on Optickle. Note that the simulation was done by considering misplacements in only the arm lengths while keeping PRCL, SRCL and MICH at the ideal lengths. Therefore the tolerance will be somewhat tighter if misplacements in the central part are taken into account. Next : check 3f signals, and include misplacements in PRCL, SRCL and MICH.         Figure.2  A sensing matrix of the 40-m DRFPMI while changing the position of ETMX/Y by \sigma = 2 cm. For convenience,  only REFL11, AS55, POP11 and POP55 are shown. They are the designed signal ports that mentioned in the aLIGO LSC document (T1000298). In all the histograms, x-axis represents the optical gain in log scale in units of [W/m]. The y-axis is the number of events. The diagonal ports are surrounded by red rectangular window.         (Results2 : demodulation phase of MICH and SRCL on POP55) Now a special attention should be payed on the MICH and SRCL signals on POP55. Since MICH and SRCL are designed to be taken from POP55, they must be nicely separated in their demodulation phases. Therefore the demodulation phase of MICH and SRCL has to be carefully examined. The plot in Figure.3 is the resultant phase difference between MICH and SRCL on POP55 when \sigma_x = \sigma_y = 2 cm. As shown in the plot the phase are always within a range of 60 - 120 deg, which satisfies my requirement (2) mentioned in the last section.          Figure.3 Difference in the demodulation phase of MICH and SRCL on POP55. x-axis is the difference in the demodulation phase of MICH and SRCL, and y-axis the number of events.

5292   Tue Aug 23 17:51:37 2011 KeikoUpdateLSCTolerance of PRC, SRC, MICH length = 2 mm ?

Keiko, Kiwamu

We noticed that we have used wrong code for MICH degree of freedom for both of the ELOG entries on this topic (cavity lengths tolerance search). It will be modified and posted soon.

5334   Fri Sep 2 04:41:35 2011 KeikoUpdateLSCTolerance of PRC, SRC, MICH length = 5 mm ?

Keiko, Kiwamu

Length tolerance of the vertex part is about 5 mm.

Sorry for my procrastinating update on this topic. In my last post, I reported that the length tolerance of the vertex ifo would be 2mm, based on Kiwamu's code on CVS. Then we noticed that the MICH degrees of freedom was wrong in the code. I modified the code and ran again. You can find the modified codes on CVS (40m folder, analyzeDRMITolerance3f.m and DRMITolerance.m)

In this code, the arm lengths were kept to be ideal while some length offsets of random gaussian distribution were added on PRCL, SRCL and MICH lengths. The iteration was 1000 times for each sigma of the random gaussian distribution. The resulting sensing matrix is shown as histogram. Also, a histogram of the demodulation phase separation between MICH and SRCL is plotted by this code, as these two length degrees of freedom will be obtained by one channel separated by the demodulation phase. We check this separation because you want to make sure that the random length offsets does not make the separation of these two signals close.

The result is a bit different from the previous post, in the better way! The length tolerance is about 5 mm for the vertex ifo. Fig.1 shows the sensing matrix. Although signal levels are changed by the random offsets, only few orders of magnitude is changed in each degrees of freedom. Fig.2 shows that the signal separation between MICH and SRCL at  POP55 varies from  55 to 120 degrees, which may be OK. If you have 1cm sigma, it varies from 50 degrees to 150 degrees.

Fig. 1 Histgram of the sensing matrix including 3f channels, when sigma is 5mm. Please note that the x-axis is in long 10.

Fig. 2 Histogram of the demodulation phase difference between MICH and SRCL, when sigma is 5 mm. To obtain the two signals independently, 90 is ideal. With the random offsets, the demodulation phase difference varies from 55 degrees to 120 degrees.

My next step is to run the similar code for LLO.

17000   Wed Jul 13 17:30:19 2022 KojiUpdateCDSToo huge script_archive

I wanted to check the script archive to see some old settings. I found that the script archive inflated to huge volume (~1TB).
The size of the common NFS volume (/cvs/cds) is 3TB. So it is really significant.

- The scripts living in /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts are archived daily in /cvs/cds/caltech/scripts_archive as bz2 files. This is done by crontab of megatron (see https://wiki-40m.ligo.caltech.edu/Computers_and_Scripts/CRON)

- In fact, the script folder (say old script folder) /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts has the size of 10GB. And we have the compressed copy of thi s everyday.

- This large script folder is due to a couple of huge files/folders listed below

• (scripts)/MEDMtab is 5.3GB / This is probably related to the web MEDM view (on nodus) but I don't think the web page is not updated. (i.e. the images are unused)
• (scripts)/MC/logs/AutoLocker.log 2.9GB / This is just the accumulated MC autolocker log.
• (scripts)/GigE 780M / This does not look like scripts but source and object files
• (scripts)/Admin/n2Check.log 224M / This is important but increases every minute.
• (scripts)/ZI 316MB / Zurich Instrument installation. This should not be here.

Here I propose some changes.
For the script archive

• We can remove most of the scripts for the past (say ~2019). We leave an archive file per month.
• For the scripts in 2020, we leave a weekly archive.
• For 2021 and 2022, we leave all the archive files.

For the existing large files/folders

• MEDMtab: the stored files are redundant with the burt snapshots. Remove the image files. Also, we want to move the image-saving location.
• Autolocker.log: simply zap it
• n2Check.log: we should move the saving location
• GigE /ZI: they need a new home where the daily copy is not taken.
17043   Thu Jul 28 15:11:59 2022 KojiUpdateCDSToo huge script_archive

As a result of the following work, the file volume of /cvs/cds was reduced from 3.2TB to 2.2TB, and /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts was reduced from 10GB to 1.5GB

/cvs/cds/caltech/scripts_archive was cleaned up. Now the archive files are reduced to have:

• every month 1st day from 2005 to 2018/12
• every ten days (1, 11, 21) for 2019 and 2020
• everyday for 2021 and 2022

(scripts)/MEDMtab/image was deleted. I can be restore back from one of the script_archive files.

(scripts)/MC/logs/AutoLocker.log was just deleted and refreshed. For the past settings, we can refer autoburt snapshots or script_archive files.

(scripts)/Admin/n2Check.log

• It turned out that the frequency of the check was reduced to once per 10min on Sep 9th, 2021 (unelogged activity).
• The volume of the text since then was not much volume. So I deleted the lines before this date. And the file size is <7MB now.

(scripts)/ZI was moved to /cvs/cds/apps

/opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/burt/autoburt/snapshots

• 2018, 2019, 2020 snapshots were archived in tar.gz.
• These snapshots were then deleted

7983   Fri Feb 1 12:34:55 2013 JenneUpdatePSLToo much power injected into vacuum

I noticed (while relocking the MC after Jamie and I zeroed the LSC offsets) that the MC refl power was 4.8 V.  Usually we should be ~4.2, so I closed the PSL shutter and went in to measure the power.  We were injecting ~125mW or a little more.  I had adjusted the power the other day, and through yesterday, it looked fine, but overnight it looks like it drifted up.

3584   Fri Sep 17 14:55:01 2010 josephbUpdateCDSTook 5565 RFM card from IOVME to place in the new IOO chassis

I took the 5565 RFM card out of the IOVME machine to so I could put it in the new IO chassis that will be replacing it.  It is no longer on the RFM network.  This doesn't affect the slow channels associated with the auxilliary crate.

10195   Mon Jul 14 16:19:41 2014 AndresUpdate40m Xend Table upgradeTook the measurement for the Mode Matching

Nick and I measured the reflected power of the green light in locked and unlocked. I'm working on the calculation of the mode matching. Tonight, I'll be posted my calculation I'm still working on it.

JCD:  Andres forgot to mention that they closed the PSL shutter, so that they could look at the green light that is reflected off the harmonic separator toward the IR trans path.  Also, the Xarm (and the Yarm) were aligned to IR using the ASS, and then ASX was used to align the green beam to the cavity.

16784   Mon Apr 18 15:17:31 2022 JancarloUpdateGeneralTool box and Work Station Organization

I cleaned up around the 40 m lab. All the Laser Safety Glasses have been picked up and placed on the rack at the entrance.

Some miscellaneous BNC Connector cables have been arranged and organized along the wall parallel to the Y-Tunnel.

Nitrogen tanks have been swapped out. Current tank is at 1200 psi and the other is at 1850 psi.

The tool box has been organized with each tool in its specified area.

16787   Mon Apr 18 23:22:39 2022 KojiUpdateGeneralTool box and Work Station Organization

Whoa! Thanks!

Attachment 1: PXL_20220419_062101907.jpg
3186   Fri Jul 9 11:41:58 2010 GopalSummaryOptic StacksTop Optic Layer Complete; Mechanical Tests Giving Problems

For the last week, I have been attempting to determine the mirror stack transfer function which relates mechanical mirror response to a given ground-motion drive. The idea is to model the stacks in COMSOL and ultimately apply mechanical tests for manual calculation.

Procuring the correct drawings to base my 3D models off of was no simple task. There are two binders full of a random assortment of drawings, and some of them are associated with the smaller chambers, while others are appropriate for the main chamber, which is what we're interested in right now. For future workers, I suggest checking that your drawings are appropriate for the task at hand with other people before wasting time beginning the painstaking process of CAD design in COMSOL.

The drawings that I ultimately decided to use are attached below. They detail four layers of stacks, each which arrange 15, 12, 8, and 5 (going from bottom to top) Viton damping springs in an orderly fashion. The numbers have been chosen to keep the load per spring as constant as possible, in order for all springs to oscillate with as close a resonant frequency to each other as possible.

After making some minor simplifications, I have finished modeling the top stack:

After triangular meshing, before my many failed attempts at mechanical testing:

Both the Viton and steel portions have been given their material properties, and so I should be (theoretically ) ready to perform some eigenfrequency calculations on this simplified system. If my predictions are correct, these eigenfrequencies shouldn’t be too far of the eigenfrequencies of the 4-layer stacked system, because of the layout of the springs. I’ve tried doing mechanical tests on the top stack alone, but there hasn’t been much progress yet on this end, mostly because of some boundary value exceptions that COMSOL keeps throwing at me.

In the next couple weeks or so, I plan to extend this model to combine all four layers into one completed stack, along with a simple steel base and mirror platform. I also plan to figure out how to make eigenfrequency and transfer function measurements.

Lastly, to anyone who is experienced with COMSOL, I am facing two major roadblocks and could really use your help:

1) How to import one model into another, merge models together, or copy and paste the same model over and over.

2) Understanding and debugging run-time errors during mechanical testing.

If you have any idea how to attack either of these issues, please talk to me! Thanks!

5569   Wed Sep 28 21:28:34 2011 MirkoUpdateComputersTorturing control computers. Fine again now

[Mirko, Jenne]

We tried to run an extended version of Matt's LMS adaptive filter c-code. We got the extension to compile separately in gcc first. Then after some tweaking of the code we could make-install c1oaf with the c-code.

This killed c1lsc (the FE computer running c1oaf). Not responding to ssh or even pings. We replaced the bad c-code with harmless code, then reset c1lsc via the hardware button. While looking for c1lsc we discovered the problem with c1iscy network card (see previous entry).

After c1lsc reboot, restart of the FB, and a BURT restore not ok yet

5571   Wed Sep 28 22:25:25 2011 JenneUpdateComputersTorturing control computers. Fine again now

 Quote: [Mirko, Jenne] We tried to run an extended version of Matt's LMS adaptive filter c-code. We got the extension to compile separately in gcc first. Then after some tweaking of the code we could make-install c1oaf with the c-code. This killed c1lsc (the FE computer running c1oaf). Not responding to ssh or even pings. We replaced the bad c-code with harmless code, then reset c1lsc via the hardware button. While looking for c1lsc we discovered the problem with c1iscy network card (see previous entry). After c1lsc reboot, restart of the FB, and a BURT restore not ok yet

We had lots of trouble damping the Vertex Suspensions after this craziness.  A symptom was that even if all of the damping servos on an optic were OFF, and I turned the watchdog on (LSC is disabled, so no OAF siganls, no LSC signals), there were signals going to the coils.

We did a reboot of the c1sus computer, did another BURT restore, and the optics started damping happily.   Burt restore, at least for c1susepics and c1mcsepics, seems to not be happening automatically.  I thought it was supposed to happen when the model was restarted?

Things now appear to be normal again.

2002   Fri Sep 25 16:45:29 2009 JenneUpdateMOPATotal MOPA power is constant, but the NPRO's power has decreased after last night's activities?

[Koji, Jenne]

Steve pointed this out to me today, and Koji and I just took a look at it together:  The total power coming out of the MOPA box is constant, about 2.7W.  However, the NPRO power (as measured by 126MOPA_126MON) has decreased from where we left it last night.  It's an exponential decay, and Koji and I aren't sure what is causing it.  This may be some misalignment on the PD which actually measures 126MON or something though, because 126MOPA_LMON, which measures the NPRO power inside the NPRO box (that's how it looks on the MEDM screen at least...) has stayed constant.  I'm hesitant to be sure that it's a misalignment issue since the decay is gradual, rather than a jump.

Koji and I are going to keep an eye on the 126MON value.  Perhaps on Monday we'll take a look at maybe aligning the beam onto this PD, and look at the impedance of both this PD, and the AMPMON PD to see why the reading on the DMM changed last night when we had the DAQ cable T-ed in, and not T-ed in.

Attachment 1: AMPMONconstant_126MONdown.jpg
4358   Fri Feb 25 14:35:06 2011 Larisa ThorneUpdateElectronicsTotal harmonic distortion results for +7dBm mixer

This experiment deals with measuring the total harmonic distortion (THD) contribution of mixers in a circuit.

(a circuit diagram is attached) where:

Mixer: ZFM-3-S+ at +7dBm

Attenuator: VAT-7+, at +7dB

Low-pass filter: SLP-1.9+, which is set to DC-1.9MHz

The total harmonic distortion can be calculated by the equation:

$\mbox{THD} = \frac{V_2^2 + V_3^2 + V_4^2 + \cdots + V_\infty^2}{V_1^2}$

where Vn represents the voltage of the signal at a certain harmonic n.

In this experiment, only the voltages of the first three harmonics were measured, with the first harmonic at 400Hz, the second at 800Hz, and the third at 1.2kHz. The corresponding voltages were read off the spectrum analyzer after it had time averaged 16 measurements. (picture of the general shape of the spectrum analyzer output is attached)

(results for this mixer's particular configuration are on the pdf attached)

There really isn't that much correlation between the modulations and the resulting THD.

We won't know how good these numbers are until more experiments on other mixers are done, so they can be compared. Since the rest of the mixers are relatively high levels (+17dBm, +23dBm in comparison to this experiment's +7dBm), an RF amplifier will need to be hooked up first to do any further measurements.

Attachment 1: THDcircuit.jpg
Attachment 2: Photo_on_2011-01-17_at_12.25.png
Attachment 3: THDwithoutamp.pdf
13910   Fri Jun 1 21:47:23 2018 KojiFrogsGeneralTouch screen manipulation of the IFO

[Koji Gautam]

We talked about touch interface of medm. We realized that android (and iOS) has vnc clients. I just installed VNC viewer on my phone and connected to my mac. Typing is tricky but I managed to get into pianosa, then launched sitemap. We could unlock/lock the IMC by screen touch!

Basically we can connect to one of the laptops (or control machines) from a tablet (either android or ipad). It'd be better to put both in a same network. It'd be great if we have a tablet case with a keyboard so that we can type without blocking the screen.

Attachment 1: Screenshot_20180601-214459.png
16339   Thu Sep 16 14:08:14 2021 Ian MacMillanFrogs Tour

I gave some of the data analysts a look around because they asked and nothing was currently going on in the 40m. Nothing was changed.

413   Thu Apr 3 19:27:50 2008 AndreySummaryPhotosTour for prospective grad students
Last Friday (March 28), there was a tour of 40-meter lab for prospective graduate students.

Rana showed to the prospective students the interferometer. See pdf-attachment with pictures (two pictures of Rana with undergraduates (I took them) and two old pictures which I discovered on the memory card of Nikon d-40, it was not me who took those two last pictures).
Attachment 1: Rana_Lecturing.pdf
10876   Thu Jan 8 03:09:07 2015 JenneUpdateLSCToward variable finesse locking

[Jenne, EricQ, Rana]

Tonight we started prepping for an attempt at variable finesse locking.

The idea is to put in a MICH offset and hold the lock with ASDC/POPDC (so that the offset can be larger than if we were just using RF signals).  This reduces the PRC buildup, which reduces / removes the double cavity resonance problems while reducing the CARM offset.

• So.  Today, I pulled out the POP22 razor blade so that we can use the Thorlabs PD as POPDC, without the yaw coupling.  Our other option is to use the POP QPD SUM, but that would require some model changes and more importantly it's not a particularly low noise readout path.
• We re-set the analog whitening gains for ASDC and POPDC.
• For ASDC, we want the half-fringe in the PRMI case to be not saturating.  We chose 18dB (it had been the default 0dB).
• For POPDC, Rana and I saw that it was saturating all the time with the 33dB that it had when the carrier became resonant.  This was never really a problem in the past, but if we use it for normalization, we get glitches that knock us out of lock every time POPDC saturated.  So, now POPDC is at 0dB.  It still occasionally saturates when the PRMI is flashing, but we can't get lower than 0dB without going and putting an ND filter on the PD.
• We turned off the analog whitening filters and digital unwhitening for both ASDC and POPDC.  We can consider turning them back on later after we have acquired lock if we need them, but we need them off for acquisition.
• Locked MICH with ASDC/POPDC.  Good.  Stays locked even if PRM is flashing.
• Locked PRMI with PRCL on REFL33I and MICH on ASDC/POPDC.
• Locked arms, held off resonance with ALS, lock MICH with ASDC/POPDC.
• Failed to lock PRMI with arms held off resonance, using the new scheme (no transition, trying to directly acquire)
• Locked PRMI on REFL33 I&Q with the arms held off resonance, and tried to transition MICH over to ASDC/POPDC, failed.
• Confusion about the relative phase between REFL33Q and ASDC.  It looks like it is ~45deg at 100 Hz, or ~90 deg at 375 Hz.  Why isn't it 0 or 180?
• Went back to PRMI-only, tried to map out fringe by changing MICH offset (tried while MICH was on both REFL33 and ASDC/POPDC).  Not really sure where we are on the fringe.

MICH locked on ASDC normalized by POPDC, PRM and ETMs (and SRM) all misaligned.

MICH offset of -20

MICH input = -0.04*ASDC normalized by 0.1*POPDC.

MICH gain = +5

MICH always triggered on (no triggering for DoF), but FM8 (CLP400) triggered to come on after lock (didn't write down the values).

PRMI locked with MICH on ASDC normalized by POPDC, PRCL on REFL33I, ETMs and SRM misaligned.

MICH offset of -10

MICH input = -0.04*ASDC normalized by 0.1*POPDC.

PRCL input = 1*REFL33I

MICH gain = +5

PRCL gain = -0.4 (factor ten times the regular value)

MICH always on, PRCL triggered on POP22.  MICH FM8 and PRCL FM1,2,6,9 triggered on.

Arms held at 3nm, MICH locked on ASDC/POPDC, PRM and SRM misaligned.

MICH offset of -10

MICH input = -0.04*ASDC normalized by 0.1*POPDC.

MICH gain = +5

MICH always on, PRCL triggered on POP22.  MICH FM8 and PRCL FM1,2,6,9 triggered on.

Arms held at 3nm, attempt at PRMI lock with MICH on ASDC/POPDC.

Failed.  Tried mostly same MICH gains as arms+mich, and PRCL at 10* normal gain.

Arms held at 3nm, PRMI locked with REFL 33 I&Q, attempt at transition to MICH on ASDC/POPDC.

Failed.  At first, I was putting in the TF line at ~375Hz, but we looked at the full transfer function between 100Hz and 1kHz, and there was a weird dip near 300Hz from PRCL-MICH loop coupling.  Here we were seeing that the phase between REFL33Q and ASDC was ~90 degrees.  What?

Tried putting the TF line at ~100 Hz (since MICH UGF is in the few tens of Hz anyway, so 100 is still above that), but still get weird relative phase.  Here it seems to be about 45 degrees when I inject a single line, although it didn't seem like a weird phase when we did the full swept sine earlier.  Maybe I was just not doing something right at that point??

Anyhow, no matter what values I tried to put into the input matrix (starting with REFL33I&Q, trying to get MICH to ASDC/POPDC), I kept losing lock.  This included trying to ramp up the MICH offset simultaneously with the matrix changing, which was meant to help with the PRCL gain change.  Q has since given us MICH and PRCL UGF servos.

Tomorrow:

• Why is there some weirdo phase between REFL33Q and ASDC at 100Hz?  Was I just being a spaz?
• With PRMI-only, figure out how to transition from REFL33 I&Q over to MICH on ASDC/POPDC.
• Then hold the arms off resonance, and do the same transition.  (First make sure we're at a good place on the fringe)
• Lower the CARM and DARM offsets, transition them to RF, engage CARM AO path.
• Reduce MICH offset, transition to RF.
• Celebrate (maybe).
6198   Sat Jan 14 00:50:08 2012 rana, kojiConfigurationIOOTowards coating thermal noise measurement with RefCav / MC beat

Koji asked aloud tonight if we could measure the coating thermal noise of the refcav optics by beating the refcav light with the MC_TRANS light. Then we looked at our calculations for the noises:

Displacement noise of T=200ppm silica/tantala coating on a 1" silica substrate with a 300 micron beam spot = 1e-18 * sqrt(100 Hz / f) m/rHz.

Displacement noise from coating thermal in the MC is roughly smaller by the beam size ratio (1.8 mm / 0.3 mm). Some differences due to 3 mirrors and more layers on MC2 than the others, but those are small factors.

So, the frequency noise from the refcav should by larger than the MC thermal noise by a total factor of (1.8 / 0.3) * (13 m / 8 inches) ~ 400.

Another way to say it is that the effective strain noise in the RC is (1e-18 / 0.200) = 5e-18 /rHz. This translates into (5e-18 * 13) = 6.5e-17 m/rHz in the MC. (in frequency noise its 1.5 mHz/rHz).

I have measured the frequency noise in the LLO MC to be at this level back in 2009, so it seems possible to use our RC + MC to measure coating thermal noise by the length amplification factor and compete with Frank+Tara.

So today we set up the Jenny RC temperature setup to lock the LWE NPRO to the RC and then set up the beat note with the IFO REFL beam on the AS table. By using the 2 laser beat, we are avoiding the VCO phase noise issue which used to limit the PSL frequency noise at ~0.01 Hz/rHz. To do this we have reworked some of the optics on the PSL and AS tables, but I think its been done without disturbing the beams for the regular locking. Beat note has been found, but the NPRO has still not been locked to the RC - next we setup the lockin amp, dither the PZT, and then use the New Focus lock box to lock it to the RC.

You might think that its hard to measure this since the MC has ~1 MHz frequency fluctuations and we want to measure down to 1e-4 Hz. But, in fact, we can just use a 200 m MFD with a LT1128 preamp. Then we use the MFD to stabilize the MC length to the refcav and just use the control + error signal of the MFD setup as the coating thermal noise measurement.

Note: Beat found at ~40deg for the aux laser. The aux laser is on but the shutter is closed.
The AS camera seems to be hosed. Need a bit of alignment. (KA) ==> Fixed. (Jan 15)

16306   Wed Sep 1 21:55:14 2021 KojiSummaryGeneralTowards the end upgrade

- Sat amp mod and test: on going (Tega)
- Coil driver mod and test: on going (Tega)

- IDC10-DB9 cable / D2100641 / IDC10F for ribbon in hand / Dsub9M ribbon brought from Downs / QTY 2 for two ends -> Made 2 (stored in the DSUB connector plastic box)
- IDC40-DB9 cable / D2100640 / IDC40F for ribbon in hand / DB9F solder brought from Downs  / QTY 4 for two ends -> Made 4 0.5m cables (stored in the DSUB connector plastic box)

- DB15-DB9 reducer cable / ETMX2+ETMY2+VERTEX16+NewSOS14 = 34 / to be ordered

- End DAC signal adapter with Dewhitening (with DIFF/SE converter) / to be designed & built
- End ADC adapter (with SE/DIFF converter) / to be designed & built

MISC Ordering

• -> Gave 2 to Tega, 1.5 in the DSUB box
• 5747842-4 A32100-ND -> ‎5747842-3‎ A32099-ND‎ Qty40
• 5747846-3 A32125-ND -> ‎747846-3‎ A23311-ND‎ Qty40
• Tega's sat amp components
• 499Ω P499BCCT-ND 78 -> Backorder -> ‎RG32P499BCT-ND‎ Qty 100
• 4.99KΩ TNPW12064K99BEEA 56 -> Qty 100
• 75Ω YAG5096CT-ND 180 -> Qty 200
• 1.82KΩ P18391CT-ND 103 -> Qty 120
• 68 nF P10965-ND 209
• Order more DB9s for Tega's sat amp adapter 4 units (look at the AA IO BOM)
• 4x 8x 5747840-4 DB9M PCB A32092-ND -> 6-747840-9‎ A123182-ND‎ Qty 35
• 4x 5x 5747844-4 A32117-ND -> Qty 25
• 4x 5x DB9M ribbon MMR09K-ND -> 8209-8000‎ 8209-8000-ND‎ Qty 25
• 4x 5x 5746861-4 DB9F ribbon 5746861-4-ND -> 400F0-09-1-00 ‎LFR09H-ND‎ Qty 35
• Order 18bit DAC AI -> 16bit DAC AI components 4 units
• 4x 4x 5747150-8 DSUB9F PCB A34072-ND -> ‎D09S24A4PX00LF‎609-6357-ND‎ Qty 20
• 4x 1x 787082-7 CONN D-TYPE RCPT 68POS R/A SLDR (SCSI Female) A3321-ND -> ‎5787082-7‎ A31814-ND‎ Qty 5
• 4x 1x 22-23-2021 Connector Header Through Hole 2 position 0.100" (2.54mm)    WM4200-ND -> Qty5

16334   Wed Sep 15 23:53:54 2021 KojiSummaryGeneralTowards the end upgrade

Ordered compoenents are in.

- Made 36 more Sat Amp internal boards (Attachment 1). Now we can install the adapters to all the 19 sat amp units.

- Gave Tega the components for the sat amp adapter units. (Attachment 2)

- Gave Tega the componennts for the sat amp / coil driver modifications.

- Made 5 PCBs for the 16bit DAC AI rear panel interface (Attachment 3)

Attachment 1: P_20210915_231308.jpg
Attachment 2: P_20210915_225039.jpg
Attachment 3: P_20210915_224341.jpg
5900   Tue Nov 15 22:31:39 2011 MirkoUpdateAdaptive FilteringTowards wiener filtering and improved OAFing

[Jenne, Mirko]

### 1. We should help the OAF by compensating for the actuator TF:

The actuator TF, from adaptive filter output to MC2, through PD, mixer, Pentek and into C1:IOO looks like this:

If we assume a white-ish error signal that the adaptive code tries to compensate for its job gets extra complicated because it has to invert this TF. So we really should compensate for that. Easiest place for that is the CORR filter directly behind the adaptive code block.

Using the TF measurement from above I used the vectfit (" /cvs/cds/caltech/apps/mDV/extra/firfit_forFotonMirkoComplex.m" ) to get fit a corresponding digital filter:

If we invert swap the zeros and poles in the digital filter we get the inverted TF.
(Todo: Figure out how to invert the TF. Just switching the poles and zeros doesn't work).

### 2. Wiener filtering

The idea was to use the adaptive filtering only for small corrections to the wiener filtering. So we really should try to get the wiener filtering going.

#### Howto:

1. Get data for STS1X and GUR1X and MC_F in matlab. E.g. via ligodv
2. Check the MC was in lock the entire time.
3, Filter MC_F with the actuator TF, so the wiener filter knows about that and compensates for it
4. Calculate the wiener filter " h1winolevLigoDV.m "
5. Export the data to the workspace. It is also saved to the disc as "h1filtcoeffTS.mat". Make sure there are first the witnesses, then MC_F
6. Execute " /cvs/cds/caltech/apps/mDV/extras/LHO/firfit_for_FotonMirko.m" while one directory higher.
7. Copy the digital filter in SOS form that is printed into the matlab command line and put it into the corresponding filter in the OAF model via foton.

With data from 11-11-15 04:00 to 05:45. Sampling freq. 256Hz. 8000 Taps => length = 30.2s. Prefiltered to notch the 60Hz line in MC_F, but not compensation the actuator TF. This results in the following wiener filter and corresponding SOS filter to be copied into foton.
STS1X:

GUR1X:

Attachment 3: MCL_round_trip.fig
Attachment 6: STS1X_Wiener_filter_data_from_11-11-15.fig
Attachment 7: GUR1X_Wiener_filter_data_from_11-11-15.fig
13398   Tue Oct 24 16:22:53 2017 gautamUpdateCDSToy DARM model setup in c1tst

[alex, gautam]

Alex is going to have an undergrad work on a calibration optimization project on the 40m RTCDS system. For this purpose, we wanted to setup a "Simulated DARM loop". Today, Alex and I set this up. I figured we can use the c1tst model for this purpose. We basically copied the topology from Figure 2 of the h(t) paper. Attached are screenshots of the MEDM screens of the system we setup, and the simulink block diagram - the main screen can be accessed from the "SIM PLANT" tab in the sitemp.

It remains to setup the appropriate filters in the filter banks, and an EPICS channel monitor for monitoring the single excitation testpoint in the model. We also did not set up any DQ channels for the time being, as it is not even clear to me what channels need to be DQ-ed.

Attachment 1: TOY_DARM.png
14626   Mon May 20 21:45:20 2019 MilindUpdate Traditional cv for beam spot motion

Went through all of Pooja's elog posts, her report and am currently cleaning up her code and working on setting up the simulations of spot motion from her work last year. I've also just begun to look at some material sent by Gautam on resonators.

This week, I plan to do the following:

1) Review Gabriele's CNN work for beam spot tracking and get his code running.

2) Since the relation between the angular motion of the optic and beam spot motion can be determined theoretically, I think a neural network is not mandatory for the tracking of beam spot motion. I strongly believe that a more traditional approach such as thresholding, followed by a hough transform ought to do the trick as the contours of the beam spot are circles. I did try a quick and dirty implementation today using opencv and ran into the problem of no detection or detection of spurious circles (the number of which decreased with the increased application of median blur). I will defer a more careful analysis of this until step (1) is done as Gautam has advised.

3) Clean up Pooja's code on beam tracking and obtain the simulated data.

4) Also data like this  (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VbXcPTfC9GH2ttZNWM7Lg0RqD7qiCZuA/view) is incredibly noisy. I will look up some standard techniques for cleaning such data though I'm not sure if the impact of that can be measured until I figure out an algorithm to track the beam spot.

A more interesting question Gautam raised was the validity of using the beam spot motion for detection of angular motion in the presence of other factors such as surface irregularities. Another question is the relevance of using the beam spot motion when the oplevs are already in place. It is not immediately obvious to me how I can ascertain this and I will put more thought into this.

14963   Thu Oct 10 22:11:53 2019 gautamUpdateLSCTrans QPD checkout
1. I removed the flip-mount that was installed on the EY in-air table for the mode-spectroscopy project (see Attachment #1). The Transmon QPD at EY sees IR light again.
2. Dark noise checkout - see Attachment #2.
3. Light-level expectations:
• For the current config, let's say 0.8 W reaches the PRM, and we will have a PRG of 50.
• This implies ~5.5 kW circulating power in the arms.
• This implies ~70mW will get transmitted through the ETM, of which at most half makes it to the QPD.
• In the nominal operating condition, we expect more like 6 W circulating in the arm cavity. So something like 30uW is expected to make it out onto the Trans QPDs.
• But in this condition, we expect to run with the high-gain Thorlabs PD.
• In reality the number is likely to be somewhat smaller. But we should set the transimpedance gain of this photodiode accordingly. Currently, there are a bunch of ND filters installed on this photodiode, which probably should be removed.
4. Angular control
• The other purpose these QPDs are expected to serve is to stabilize the angular motion of the cavities when locked with high circulating power.
• Need to calculate what the sensing noise requirement is.
Attachment 1: EY_table_20191010.jpeg
Attachment 2: darkNoise.pdf
4875   Fri Jun 24 01:05:32 2011 NicoleSummarySUSTransfer Function Model Analysis Summary and New Posted LED V vs. I Curve

I have updated the TT suspension wiki to include a new page on my transfer function model. In this new page, an introduction and analysis of my transfer function (including a comparison of the transfer functions for a flexibly- and rigidly-supported damper) are included.  This page contains linear and logarithmic bode plots.  Here is a link to the transfer function page.

I have also updated my photosensor page on the TT suspension wiki so that the experimental data points in my current versus voltage plot are plotted against the curve provided by the Hamamtsu data sheet. I have also included an introduction and analysis for my mini-experiment with the forward voltage and forward current of the LED. Here is link to the photsosensor page.

13086   Thu Jun 29 00:13:08 2017 KaustubhUpdateComputer Scripts / ProgramsTransfer Function Testing

In continuation to my previous posts, I have been working on evaluating the data on transfer function. Recently, I have calculated the correlation values between the real and imaginary part of the transfer function. Also I have written the code for plotting the transfer function data stream at each frequency in the argand plane just for referring to. Also I have done a few calculations and found the errors in magnitude and phase using those in the real and imaginary parts of the transfer function. More details for the process are in this git repository.

The following attachments have been added:

1. The correlation plot at different frequencies. This data is for a 100 data files.
2. The Test files used to produce the abover plot along with the code for the plotting it as well as the text file containing the correlation values. (Most of the code is commented as that part wasn't needed fo rhte recent changes.)

Conclusion:

Seeing the correlation values, it sounds reasonable that the gaussian in real and imaginary parts approximation is actually holding. This is because the correlation values are mostly quite small. This can be seen by studying the distribution of the transfer function on the argand plane. The entire distribution can be seen to be somewhat, if not entirely, circular. Even when the ellipticity of the curve seems to be high, the curve still appears to be elliptical along the real and imaginary axes, i.e., correlation in them is still low.

To Do:

1. Use a better way to estimate the errors in magnitude and phase as the method used right now is a only valid with the liner approximation and gives insane values which are totally out of bounds when the magnitude is extrmely small and the phase is varying as mad.
2. Use the errors in the transfer function to estimate the coherence in the data for each frequency point. That is basically plot a cohernece Vs frequency plot showing how the coherence of the measurements vary as the frequency is varied.

In order to test the above again, with an even larger data set, I am leaving a script running on Ottavia. It should take more than just the night(I estimate around 10-11 hours) if there are no problems.

Attachment 1: Correlation_Plot.pdf
Attachment 2: 2x100_Test_Files_and_Code_and_Correlation_Files.zip
5713   Thu Oct 20 16:33:24 2011 KatrinUpdateGreen LockingTransfer function YARM PDH box

Yesterday, I measured the transfer function of the YARM PDH box.

I tested the electronic board and couldn't find a frequency dependent behaviour. So I measured the TF again and it looked nice.

Today's nice measurement could is/was reproducible. I suppose yesterday's measurement is just an artefact.

The electronic board is modified according to Kiwamu's wiki entry http://blue.ligo-wa.caltech.edu:8000/40m/Electronics/PDH_Universal_Box

Btw. The light could be locked to the cavity for ~3min.

3210   Tue Jul 13 21:04:49 2010 tara,ranaSummaryPSLTransfer function of FSS servo

I measured FSS's open loop transfer function.

For FSS servo schematic, see D040105-B.

4395A's source out is connected to Test point 2 on the patch panel.

Test Point 2 is enabled by FSS medm screen.

"A" channel is connected to In1, on the patch panel.

"R" channel is connected to In2, on the patch panel.

the plot shows signal from A/R.

Note that the magnitude has not been corrected for the impedance match yet.

So the real UGF will be different from the plot.

-------------------------

4395A setup

-------------------------

network analyzer mode

frequency span 1k - 10MHz

Intermediate frequency bandwidth 100Hz

Attenuator: 0 for both channels

Source out power: -30 dBm

sweep log frequency

------------------------------

medm screen setup

-----------------------------

TP2: enabled

Common gain -4.8 dB

Fast Gain 16 dB

Attachment 1: TF_FSS_ser.png
1935   Fri Aug 21 18:37:16 2009 JenneUpdateGeneralTransfer function of Mode Cleaner Stacks

Using free-swinging Mode Cleaner OSEM data and Guralp seismometers, I have taken transfer functions of the Mode Cleaner stacks.

During this experiment, the MC was unlocked overnight, and one Guralp seismometer was underneath each chamber (MC1/MC3, and MC2).  Clara will let me know what the orientation of the seismometers were (including which seismometer was underneath which chamber and what direction the seismometer axes were pointing), but for now I have included TFs for every combination of suspension motion and seismometer channels.

I combined the 4 OSEM channels for each optic in POS and PIT, and then calibrated each of my sus channels using the method described in Kakeru's elog entry 1413. Units are meters for POS, and radians for PIT.  I also calibrated the guralp channels into meters.

The traces on each plot are: MC_{POS or PIT} / Guralp_{1 or 2}_{direction}.  So each plot shows the coupling between every seismometer direction and a single mirror direction.  The colors are the same for all the plots, ie the gold trace is always Gur1Z.

Attachment 1: TF_osems_guralps.png
1938   Tue Aug 25 00:35:04 2009 ranaUpdateGeneralTransfer function of Mode Cleaner Stacks

Looks like all of the accelerometers and seismometers have been disconnected since early AM last Monday when Clara disconnected them for her sensor noise measurement.

Attachment 1: Untitled.png
886   Tue Aug 26 12:00:45 2008 JenneSummaryPEMTransfer function of Ranger seismometer
This finishes up the calibration that Rana started in elog # 881.

The calibration of the Ranger seismometer should also include:
2 zeros at 0 Hz
2 poles at 1.02 Hz

This comes from finding the transfer function between the mass's motion and the motion of the ground.
    ..
m * x  = (x_G - x) * k  + d(x_G - x) * b
dt

where
• m = mass
• x = displacement of the mass
• x_G = displacement of the ground
• k = spring constant
• b = damping constant

This gives
x               w0^2  +  i*w*w0/Q
----    =    -----------------------
x_G           w0^2 + i*w*w0/Q - w^2


where
• w0 = sqrt(k/m) = natural frequency of spring + mass
• w = frequency of ground motion
• Q = q-factor of spring + mass system = 1/2 for critically damped system

The readout of the system is proportional to
d  (x - x_G)          (    w0^2  +  i*w*w0/Q          )    .                    w^2               .
dt                 =  (  -----------------------  - 1 ) * x_G   =      ----------------------- * x_G
(   w0^2 + i*w*w0/Q - w^2       )                w0^2 + i*w*w0/Q - w^2

Since we read out the signal that is proportional to velocity, this is precisely the transfer function we're looking for. With w0 = 1.02 Hz and Q = 1/2 for the critically damped system, we have 2 zeros at 0 and 2 poles at 1.02.
7204   Thu Aug 16 13:49:33 2012 YaakovUpdatePEMTransfer functions of seismic stacks, differential motion of test mass

I estimated the transfer function of the seismic stacks using a rough model I made based on the LIGO document LIGO T000058 -00. I used a Q of 3.3 for the viton springs, and resonant frequencies of 2.3, 7.5, 15, and 22 Hz (measured in that document for the horizontal motion). I multiplied the simple mass-spring transfer function four times for each layer of metal/spring, with the respective resonant frequency for each. The pendulum suspending the test masses has a resonant frequency of 0.74 and a Q of 3, according to the same document.

When I multiply the net transfer function (pendulum included, the green line above) by the differential motion of the x arm that I measured in eLog 7186, I find the differential motion of the test mass (NOTE: I converted the differential motion to displacement by multiplying by (1/2*pi*f)).

It agrees within an order of magnitude to the seismic wall from the displacement noise spectrum hanging above the control room computers.

Finally, I looked at how the geophone and accelerometer noise spectra looked compared to the ground differential motion (any STACIS sensor signal will also be multiplied by the stack/pendulum transfer function, so I'm comparing to the differential motion before it goes through the chamber). Below about 1 Hz, it is clear from the plot below that the STACIS could never be of any benefit, even with accelerometers rather than geophones as the feedback sensors.

Attachment 1: stack_tf.png
Attachment 5: stack_tf.fig
7209   Thu Aug 16 20:04:46 2012 YaakovUpdatePEMTransfer functions of seismic stacks, differential motion of test mass

I made the plots a little nicer and added new sensor noises (from Brian Lantz's scripts and measurements). Click to enlarge.

The last plot shows that these other sensors' noises are lower than the differential ground motion below 1 Hz.  Though 3 seismometers per STACIS is impractical, this shows that such seismometers could be used as feedforward sensors and provide isolation against differential ground motion. At these noise levels, the noise of the high voltage amplifier circuit in the STACIS would probably be the limiting factor.

13016   Sat May 27 10:26:28 2017 KaustubhUpdateGeneralTransimpedance Calibration

Using Alberto's paper LIGO-T10002-09-R titled "40m RF PDs Upgrade", I calibrated the vertical axis in the bode plots I had obtained for the two PDs ET-3010 and ET-3040.

I am not sure whether the values I have obtained are correct or not(i.e. whether the calibration is correct or not). Kindly review them.

EDIT: Attached the formula used to calculate transimpedance for each data point and the values of other paramaters.

EDIT 2: Updated the plots by changing the conversion for gettin ghte ratio of the transfer functions from 10^(y/10) to 10^(y/20).

Attachment 1: ET-3040_test_transimpedance.pdf
Attachment 2: ET-3010_test_transimpedance.pdf
Attachment 3: Formula_for_Transimpedance.pdf
10079   Fri Jun 20 11:41:18 2014 NichinUpdateElectronicsTransimpedence measurement-BBPD

EDIT: Please ignore the following data. The revised data and plot are in Elog 10089

Yesterday evening, I conducted the same measurements done in Elog-10059 using the same REF PD (NF 1611) and the same model of BBPD, but on different piece that needed to be checked.

I moved the NA from near rack 1Y1 to the Jenne laser table and back again after the readings were done.

Acquiring data

• The following conditions were set on Network Analyzer Agilent 4395:

1) Frequency sweep range: 1MHz to 300 MHz.

2) Number of Points sampled in  the range: 201

3) Type of sweep: Logarithmic

• Set the NA to give the corresponding transfer function value (output of BBPD over output of 1611) and also Phase response in degrees.
• Save the data into floppy disk for processing on the computer.

Results

The Plots of transimpedence obtained are attached. The data and matlab code used is in the zip file.

The transimpedance of  Broadband photodiode (D1002969-v8) was around 50kV/A-70kV/A (Unusually high) for most of the range (2), but the value started falling as the frequency approached 200 MHz.

The high impedance might be because the PD is faulty.

Attachment 2: BBPD_transimpedence_19thJune2014.pdf
10085   Fri Jun 20 19:09:23 2014 KojiUpdateElectronicsTransimpedence measurement-BBPD

Oh, nice! This must be a new technique to have a higher transimpedance by breaking the PD.

Now both BBPDs are showing abnormally high impedance.
(Remember, you have not revised your
previous entry after my pointing out you have a bug in the code.)

You should break down the measurement into each raw numbers for validation.
And if this high impedance is still true, you should point out what is causing of this anomaly.

10089   Mon Jun 23 21:16:14 2014 NichinUpdateElectronicsTransimpedence measurement-BBPD

[Nichin, Koji]

Today evening, me and koji decided to get down to the problem of why the trasimpedence plots were not as they were supposed to be for Broadband photodiode (D1002969-v8) S1200269. There were a few problems that we encountered:

• Turns out the REF PD was not illuminated properly, for maximum output. The DC output voltage turned out to be much higher than the previous measurement. Since I assumed that the REF PD had not been touched since the first day I took readings, I did not check this.
• The fork holding the Test PD was a bit out of shape and only one side of it was clamping down the PD. This made the PD vulnerable swivel about that one side. We replaced it with a new one.
• I was setting the current diving the Jenne laser to about 20mA and this resulted in nocthes at higer frequencies in the network analyzer due to over driving of the diode laser. Once we reduced this to about 12.5-13 mA they disappeared. Also, the current limit setting was set at 40mA which is way too high for the jenne laser and might have resulted in damaging it if someone had accidentally increased the current. We have now set it at 20mA.

After these changes the measurements are as follows:

I moved the NA from near rack 1Y1 to the Jenne laser table.

Acquiring data

• Jenne Laser driving current: 12.8mA
• The following conditions were set on Network Analyzer Agilent 4395:

1) Frequency sweep range: 1MHz to 300 MHz.

2) Number of Points sampled in  the range: 801

3) Type of sweep: Logarithmic

• Set the NA to give the corresponding transfer function value (output of BBPD over output of 1611) and also Phase response in degrees.
• Save the data into floppy disk for processing on the computer.

Results

DC output voltage of REF PD: 0.568V

DC output voltage of BBPD: 18mV

Power incident on REF PD and BBPD respectively: 0.184mW  and 0.143mW

Hence, Responsivity for REF PD and BBPD respectively:  0.315 A/W and 0.063 A/W

Responsivity given in the Datasheet for REF PD and BBPD : 0.68 A/W and 0.1 A/W

The reason for these differences are unknown to me and must be investigated.

The Plots of transimpedence obtained are attached. The data and matlab code used is in the zip file.

The transimpedance of  Broadband photodiode (D1002969-v8) S1200269 was around 1kV/A-2kV/A for most of the range, but the value started falling as the frequency approached 100 MHz. This BBPD is best when used at 10-30 MHz.

Attachment 1: BBPD_transimpedence_06-23-2014.pdf
14121   Wed Aug 1 16:23:48 2018 KojiSummaryComputersTransition of the main NFS disk on chiara

[Gautam Koji]

Taking the opportunity to shutdown c1ioo for adding a DAC card, we shutdown chiara and worked on moving of the main disk to the bigger home.

We shutdown most of the martian machines including the control machines, megatron, optimus, and nodus.

- Before shutting down chiara, we ran rsync to make the 4TB disk (used to be teh backup) and /cvs/cds synced.

sudo rsync -a --progress /home/cds/ /media/40mBackup

- Modified /etc/fstab

proc            /proc           proc    nodev,noexec,nosuid 0       0 # / was on /dev/sda1 during installation UUID=972db769-4020-4b74-b943-9b868c26043a /               ext4    errors=remount-ro 0       1 # swap was on /dev/sda5 during installation UUID=a3f5d977-72d7-47c9-a059-38633d16413e none            swap    sw              0       0 UUID="90a5c98a-22fb-4685-9c17-77ed07a5e000"    /media/40mBackup       ext4      defaults,relatime,commit=60       0         0 #fb:/frames      /frames nfs     ro,bg

UUID=92dc7073-bf4d-4c58-8052-63129ff5755b   /home/cds    ext4    defaults,relatime,commit=60    0   0

- Shutdown chiara. Put the 4TB disk in the chassis. We also installed a new disk (but later it turned out that it only has 2TB...)

- Restart the mahcine. This already made the 4TB disk mounted as /cvs/cds .

- Restart bind9 with DHCP for the diskless clients (cf. https://wiki-40m.ligo.caltech.edu/CDS/How_to_join_martian)

sudo service bind9 restart
sudo service isc-dhcp-server restart

- Looks like /etc/resolv.conf is automatically overwritten by a tool or something everytime we restart the machine!? I still don't know how to avoid this. (cf.  https://www.ctrl.blog/entry/resolvconf-tutorial). But at least for today we manually wrote /etc/resolv.conf

controls@chiara|backup> cat /etc/resolv.conf # Dynamic resolv.conf(5) file for glibc resolver(3) generated by resolvconf(8) #     DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE BY HAND -- YOUR CHANGES WILL BE OVERWRITTEN nameserver 192.168.113.104 nameserver 131.215.125.1 nameserver 8.8.8.8

search martian

14138   Mon Aug 6 09:42:10 2018 KojiSummaryComputersTransition of the main NFS disk on chiara

- At least it was confirmed that the local backup (4TB->2TB) is regularly running every morning.

- The 2TB disk was used up to 95%. To ease the size of the remaining space, I have further compressed the burt snapshot folders. (~2016). This released another 150GB. The 2TB is currently used up to  87%.

Prev

Filesystem      1K-blocks       Used  Available Use% Mounted on
/dev/sdc1      3845709644 1731391748 1918967020  48% /home/cds /dev/sdd1      2113786796 1886162780  120249888  95% /media/40mBackup

Now

Filesystem      1K-blocks       Used  Available Use% Mounted on
/dev/sdc1      3845709644 1731706744 1918652024  48% /home/cds /dev/sdd1      2113786796 1728124828  278287840  87% /media/40mBackup

10947   Wed Jan 28 03:01:24 2015 JenneUpdateLSCTransitioned DARM to AS55Q

[Jenne, Diego]

Tonight we were able to transition DARM from DC transmission signals to AS55Q/(TRX+TRY).  That's about as far as we've gotten though.

Here are the details:

• Set the ASDC->MICH matrix element such that the MICH fringes were 0-1.  For some reason this number seems to change by ~10% or so each night.
• Followed main carm_cm_up script, although stopped at MICH offset of 25% (mostly because I forgot to let it go to 50% - no fundamental reason)
• So, MICH was at 25% (with a + for the gain accidentally, even though we decided yesterday that - was better), arm powers were about 1.1 or so.
• Took transfer functions driving DARM and looking at normalized AS55Q, and driving CARM looking at normalized REFL11I.
• There is still not a lot of coherence in the CARM->REFL11I case, so we decided to stick with DARM for starters.
• The TF between DARM and AS55Q looked really nice!
• Prepared the unused DARM error signal row, including an offset before the blend matrix.
• Transitioned over to normalized AS55Q.
• This left the DARM servo filterbank with a zero digital offset.
• But, the error signal had an offset before it got to the DARM filter bank.
• This offset does not have any ramping (I don't know how to do that when building a model), so it's not as nice for reducing an offset.
• Maybe we can, after transitioning to the new signal, move the offset to the DARM servo filterbank?
• Was reducing the DARM offset so that we were at the true AS55Q zero crossing.
• Saw that the UGF servo lines were starting to get a bit lost in the noise, so I increased the DARM's amplitude.
• I don't know if the UGF servo was already too far gone and increasing the SNR couldn't recover it, or if I was driving too hard and directly kicked myself out of lock.  Either way, we lost lock.

The carm_cm_up script now should get all the way to this point by itself, although occasionally the PRMI part will lose lock (but not the arms), so you have to go back to the 3nm CARM offset and relock the central part.  I have written a little "relockPRMI.sh" script that lives in ..../scripts/PRFPMI/ that will take care of this for you.

We were able to transition DARM to AS55Q a total of 3 or so times tonight.  The first time was with the + MICH gain, and the rest of the times were with - MICH gain.  The carm_up script now asks for a sign for the MICH gain just after asking for a CARM offset sign.

I think that we understand all of our locklosses from these states.  Twice (including the time described above) the UGF lines got lost in the noise, and the UGF servos went crazy.  Once the PRCL loop rang up, because a filter that wasn't supposed to be on was on.  This was a terrible filter that I had made a long time ago, and was never supposed to be part of the locking sequence, but it was getting turned on by a restore script, and kept eating our phase.  Anyhow, I have deleted this terrible boost filter so it won't happen again (it was called "boost test", which may give you an idea of how non-confident I was in its readiness for prime-time).  The last time of the night I must not have been quite close enough in CARM offset, so we should probably check with a TF before making this last jump.

Diego wrote a nifty burt restoring script that will clear out all the elements of the input matrix and the normalization matrix for a row that you tell it (i.e. DARM_A will clear out all the elements in the first row of those 2 matrices).  This is useful for the switches back and forth between the _A and _B signals, to make sure that everything is in order.  So, I now run those clear scripts, then put in the elements that I want for the next step.  For example, DARM initially locks with ALS using the A row.  Then, DARM transitions to the B row for DC transmission.  Then, I prepare the A row for AS55Q locking, and I don't want any elements accidentally left from the ALS signal.  It lives in ..../scripts/LSC/InputMatrix/

Thoughts for tomorrow:

Daytime re-commission the Xarm ASS.

Nighttime try to get back to DARM on AS55Q and push farther forward.

10949   Wed Jan 28 14:19:02 2015 ranaUpdateLSCTransitioned DARM to AS55Q

Why AS55/(TRX + TRY) instead of just TRX? Isn't (TRX+TRY) controlled by CARM?

(question is secretly from Kiwamu)

11090   Tue Mar 3 04:41:45 2015 JenneUpdateLSCTransitioned DARM to AS55Q, some other work

Better elog tomorrow - notes for now:

REFL165 for PRMI has been "a champ" (quote from Q).  We're able to sit on ALS at average arm powers of 30ish.  Nice.

Some ALSfool work - measured cancellation almost as good as single arm.

One time transitioned CARM -> normalized REFL55I

Many times did DARM -> normalized AS55Q, see lots of noise at 39ish Hz - may be coupling from MICH??

Arm ASC loops helped improve dark port contrast.

Note to selfs:  Need to make sure DTT templates have correct freq ordering - must be small freqs to large freqs.

11095   Tue Mar 3 19:19:54 2015 JenneUpdateLSCTransitioned DARM to AS55Q, some other work

[Jenne, EricQ]

A slightly more coherent elog for last night's work.

All night, we've been using REFL165 to hold the PRMI.  It's working very nicely.  To help it catch lock, I've set the gain in the PRCL filter bank high, and then the *0.6 filter triggers on.  The carm_cm_up script now will lock the PRMI on REFL165.

We had to reset the REFL165 phase after we acquired lock - it was -91, but now is -48.  I'm not sure why it changed so significantly from the PRMI-only config to the PRFPMI config.

We measured the ALS fool cancellation with the arms held off resonance, at arm powers of a few.  Although, they were moving around a lot, but the measurement stayed nice and smooth.  Anyhow, we get almost as good of cancellation as we saw with the single arm (after we made sure that both phase trackers had the same UGF):

ALSfool_PRFPMI_2Mar2015.pdf

We were able to partly engage it one time, but we lost lock at some point.  Since the frame builder / daqd decided that that would be just the *perfect* time to crash and restart, we don't have any frame data for this time.  We can see up to a few seconds before the lockloss, while we were ramping up the RF PD loop gain though, and MICH was hitting the rails.  I'm not sure if that's what caused the lockloss, but it probably didn't help.

The ALS fool gain was 22, and we were using FMs 4, 6 (the pendulum and Rana's "comp1"), the same filters that were used for the single arm case.  The LSC-MC filter bank gain lost lock when we got to about 5.6 (we were taking +3dB steps).

We were using REFL55I/(TRX + TRY) as our CARM RF error signal.  We were using REFL55 rather than REFL11 because we were worried that REFL11 didn't look good - maybe it was saturating or something.  To be looked into.

Here's the striptool that was running at the time, since we don't have frame data:

At this point, since we weren't sure what the final gain should be for the RF CARM signal, and we could sit at nice high arm powers (arm powers of 30ish correspond to CARM offsets of about 50pm), we decided to try just a straight jump over to the RF signals.

The first time around, we jumped CARM to (-0.2)*REFL55/(TRX+TRY), but we only stayed lock for 1 or 2 seconds.  That was around 1:55am.

We decided that perhaps it would be good to get DARM moved over first, since it has a much wider linewidth, so the rest of the trials for the night were transitioning DARM over to (0.0006)*AS55Q/(TRX + TRY).  AS55 was saturating, so we reduced its analog gain from 18dB to 9dB and re-ran the LSC offsets.  The MICH noise was pretty high when we were at low CARM offset, although we noticed it more when DARM was on AS55.  In particular, there is some peak just below 40Hz that is causing a whole comb of harmonics, and dominating the MICH, PRC and DARM spectra.  I will try to get a snapshot of that tonight - I don't think we saved any spectra from last night.  Turning off DARM's FM3 boost helped lower the MICH noise, so we think that the problem is significant coupling between the two degrees of freedom.

After the first one or two tries of getting DARM to AS55, we started engaging the arm ASC loops - they helped the dark port contrast considerably.  The POP spot still moves around, but the dark port gets much darker, and is more symmetric with the ASC on.

Attachment 1: ALSfool_PRFPMI_2Mar2015.pdf
Attachment 2: ALSfool_kindaEngaged_2March2015_noFrames.png
11096   Wed Mar 4 00:50:36 2015 ranaBureaucracyTreasureTransitioned DARM to AS55Q, some other work

Just in case there was some confusion, the champagne on my desk is not to be opened before I get back, no matter how many signals are transitioned to RF.

ELOG V3.1.3-