40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 245 of 344  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Category Subjectup
  7179   Tue Aug 14 15:58:44 2012 JenneUpdateGeneralTranslation to English: larger optical tables at the ends



I'm proposing larger optical tables at the ends to avoid the existing overcrowding. This would allow the initial pointing and optical level beams to set up correctly.

The existing table is 4 x 2 would be replaced by 4' x 3'   We would lose only ~3" space  toward exist door.

I'm working on the new ACRYLIC TABLE COVER for each end that will cost around $4k ea.  The new cover should fit the larger table.

Let me know what you think.

I'm not sure I see the motivation.  The tables are a little tight, but not that much.  If the issue is the incidence angle of the IP and OPLEV beams, then can't we solve that just by moving the table closer to the viewport?

The overcrowding alone doesn't seem bad enough to justify replacing the tables.

Steve pointed out to me (this is not in his original elog, although you can see it in the photo if you look closely), that we can't really move the table legs any closer to the chamber.  We have maybe 3" of clearance between the table leg and the blue support tube that supports the bottom of the stack.  Therefore, we can't just

So Steve's proposal is to leave the legs exactly where they are, and just put a larger table on those legs.  This leaves 9" unsupported on the chamber side, and 3" unsupported on the far side.  The tables are 4" thick. 

Steve also mentions that we will lose 1.5" on all 4 sides of the table, with the new acrylic boxes, so we'll be down to 1'9" unless we get the larger table, in which case we'd have 2'9", and 3'9" on the long direction.

I would like to see a sketch of the end tables, so we can see if 1'9" x 3'9" is enough.  Manasa is working on a new end table layout in parallel to the ringdown stuff.  If we're actually concerned about the input angle of the oplevs, then to fix that we need to either get the bigger table and hang it off the edge of the legs, or perhaps as Dmass suggested, get a "doggy cone collar", and give ourselves a larger opening angle of access to the viewport, from the current table location.


  7624   Thu Oct 25 15:38:06 2012 RajiUpdateAlignmentTransmitance Measurements on LaserOptik mirror

I measured the transmitted power @1064nm on one of the LaserOptik mirrors labled SN6

Here is the data

Polarization Input Angle Input Power(mW) Output Power(mW) Transmittance (%)
p 0 6.2 2.67 48
p 0 100 52 52
p 45 6.2 0.76 12
p 45 100 1,5 1
s 0 8.2 3.15 38
s 0 100 40 0.4
s 45 8.2 0.5 6
s 45 100 0.66 0.006

The mirror is not a good reflector at 0 deg.

  7644   Wed Oct 31 12:58:17 2012 RajiUpdateAlignmentTransmitance Measurements on LaserOptik mirror


I measured the transmitted power @1064nm on one of the LaserOptik mirrors labled SN6

Here is the data

Polarization Input Angle Input Power(mW) Output Power(mW) Transmittance (%)
p 0 6.2 2.67 48
p 0 100 52 52
p 45 6.2 0.76 12
p 45 100 1,5 1
s 0 8.2 3.15 38
s 0 100 40 0.4
s 45 8.2 0.5 6
s 45 100 0.66 0.006

The mirror is not a good reflector at 0 deg.

 More data on the transmission. Measured the tranmission as a funtion of incidence angle at 1064nm

  7648   Wed Oct 31 17:33:39 2012 KojiUpdateAlignmentTransmitance Measurements on LaserOptik mirror

...Looks like the coating is out of spec at any angle for 1064nm. E11200219-v2

  7653   Thu Nov 1 10:13:53 2012 jamieUpdateAlignmentTransmitance Measurements on LaserOptik mirror


...Looks like the coating is out of spec at any angle for 1064nm. E11200219-v2

The coating should have very low 1064nm p transmission at 45 degrees, which the plot seems to indicate that it does.  That's really the only part of the spec that this measurement is saying anything about.    What makes you say it's out of spec?

  7654   Thu Nov 1 10:19:11 2012 jamieUpdateAlignmentTransmitance Measurements on LaserOptik mirror



...Looks like the coating is out of spec at any angle for 1064nm. E11200219-v2

The coating should have very low 1064nm p transmission at 45 degrees, which the plot seems to indicate that it does.  That's really the only part of the spec that this measurement is saying anything about.    What makes you say it's out of spec?

Ok, yes, sorry, the data itself does indicate that the transmission is way too high at 45 degrees for 1064 p.

  10811   Wed Dec 17 18:14:36 2014 ericqUpdateASCTransmon QPD -> ASC servos ready for comissioning

 I have completed all of the model modifications and medm screen updates to allow for feedback from the transmon QPD pitch and yaw signals to the ITMs. Now, we can design and test actual loops...


The signals come from c1sc[x/y] to c1rfm via RFM, and then go to c1ass via dolphin. 

Out of curiosity about the RFM+dolphin delay, I took a TF of an excitation at the end SUS model (C1:SUS-ETM[X/Y]_QPD_[PIT/YAW]_EXC) to the input FM in the ASC model (C1:ASC-ETM[X/Y]_QPD_[PIT/YAW]_IN1). All four signals exhibit the same delay of 122usec. I saved the dtt file in Templates/ASC/transmonQPDdelay.xml

This is less than a degree under 20Hz, so we don't have to worry about it. 

  10157   Tue Jul 8 22:53:02 2014 Jenne, RanaUpdateElectronicsTransmon QPD / whitening

We need to work farther on checking out the end transmission QPD electronics situation. 

In bullet-point form, we need to:

* Ensure that the Weiss QPD head modifications have been made on these diodes.  (cf. Rai W's LLO elogs on QPDs)

* Ensure that the QPD biases are somewhere in the range of 10-15V, not the old 100V.  (Because we only need HV to make the capacitance low for RF use. Low voltage means less power dissipation in the head)

* Ensure the Rana/Rob modifications have been propagated to the whitening boards, so that we have full dynamic range.  (Steve is looking for the marked up paper schematics)

* Replace signal path resistors with low noise metal film resistors.

* Check QPDs / whitening boards for oscillation (with a scope probe), ensure that we chose an appropriate analog gain.


In thinking about the transimpedances that we want, we thought about the current that we expect.  We should get about 100 mW of light transmitted through the ETMs when we have full IFO lock.  There is a 50/50 BS to split the light between the QPD and the Thorlabs transmission diode, so we have about 50 mW incident on the QPDs, which is about 13 mW per quadrant.  With a sensitivity of about 0.15 Amps/Watt for silicon, this means that we're expecting to see about 2 mA of current per quadrant once we have the IFO fully resonant. We want this to correspond to about 5V, which means we want a transimpedance gain of around 2.5 kOhm. 


For the things that need checking, each quadrant has:

Photodiode  ------  Gain Switch 1 ----- Gain Switch 2  ------ Gain Switch 3 ------ Variable Gain Amplifier ------- Whitening stage 1 (z @ 4 Hz, p @ 40 Hz)  ------- Whitening stage 2 (z @ 4 Hz, p @ 40 Hz)

We want to check on the status of each of these switches, and whether they actually do what they say on the QPD Head screens.  Q has checked out and fixed the bit outputs for the whitening stages, but the rest still needs to be checked out.  Also note that the Switch 1, Switch 2 and Switch 3 are common to all 4 quadrants (i.e. enabling switch 1 on one quadrant enables it on all quadrants), but the variable gains and the whitening stages are individual for each quadrant.

  10908   Thu Jan 15 18:57:41 2015 ericqUpdateASCTransmon QPD loops live

I've measured the sensing for each of the arms, by using our calibrated oplevs, in terms of QPD counts per micron. It is:

ETMY: QPD PIT / OPLEV PIT =   22.0 count/urad
      QPD YAW / OPLEV YAW =   17.1 count/urad
ITMY: QPD PIT / OPLEV PIT =   -6.0 count/urad
      QPD YAW / OPLEV YAW =    5.9 count/urad
ETMX: QPD PIT / OPLEV PIT =   16.6 count/urad
      QPD YAW / OPLEV YAW =   -9.3 count/urad
ITMX: QPD PIT / OPLEV PIT =    4.0 count/urad
      QPD YAW / OPLEV YAW =   -6.0 count/urad

In the absence of a lens, the QPD would be significantly more sensitive to cavity axis translation than tilt, and thus about equally sensitive to ITM and ETM angle. However, there are lenses on the end tables. I didn't go out and look at them, but found some elogs from Annalisa that mentioned 1m focal length lenses. Back-of-the-envelope calculations convince me that this can plausibly lead to the above sensitivity ratios.

I used these quantities to come up with an actuation matrix for the ASC loops, and measured the effective plant seen by the FM, fitted it to some poles( looks like zpk([],-2*pi*[1.47+3.67i,1.47-3.67i],160); ), and designed a control servo. Here is the designed loop:

The servo works on both arms, both DoFs. A DTT measurement agrees with the designed loop shape, up to a few degrees, which are probably due to the CDS delay. The RMS of the QPD error signals goes down by about 20dB, and are currently dominated by the bounce mode, so maybe we can try to sneak in some resonant gain...?

Once we confirm that they work when locking, we can write up and down lines into the locking scripts...

  9637   Fri Feb 14 02:09:55 2014 ericqUpdateElectronicsTransmon QPD whitening

 [Quick post, will follow up with further detail later. Excuse my sleepy ELOG writing]

Goal: Check out the transmon QPD signal chain; see if whitening works. Assess noise for 1/sqrt(TRX/Y) use. 

First impression: Whitening would not switch on when toggling the de-whitening. The front monitors on the whitening boards are misleading; they are taken a few stages before the real output. ADC noise was by far the limiting noise source. 

I updated the binary logic in the c1scx and c1scy to actually make the binary IO module output some bits. 

After consulting a secret wiring diagram on the wiki, not linked on the rack information page (here), I worked out which bits correspond to the bypass switches in the whitening board ( a fairly modified D990399, with some notes here)

Now, FM1 and FM2 (dewhitening filters on the ETM QPD quadrants) trigger the corresponding whitening in the boards. Here's a quick TF I took of the quadrant 1 board at ETMY. (I should take a whitening+dewhitening TF too, and post it here...)


Seems to roughly work. Some features may be due to non-accounted for elements in the anti-imaging of the DAC channels I used for the excitation, or such things. The board likely needs some attention, and at least a survey of what is there. 

I also need to take dark noise data, and convert into the equivalent displacement noise in the 1/sqrt(TRX/Y) error signals. For the no-whitening ADC noise, I estimated ~1pm RMS noise on a 38pm linewidth of PRFPMI arms. 

  9642   Mon Feb 17 20:35:19 2014 ericqUpdateElectronicsTransmon QPD whitening

My apologies for all of that crap I left at the Y-end... I cleaned the rest of it up today. 

I took transfer functions of the four ETMY QPD whitening channels today. (Attempted the ETMX ones too, but had troubles driving the board; detailed below). I've attached a zip with the DTT xml files for the cases of no whitening / 1 whitening stage / both whitening stages engaged. Here's a plot of both whitening stages engaged. 



Given the way I measured, the DAC output anti-imaging is in the TFs as well. ( This is a D000186 board; with something like a 4th order elliptic LP, but I need to look at the board / fit the TF to see the parameters, there are different revisions with different filter shapes.) 

The c1scy model had excitation blocks on some of the unused DAC channels (C1:SCY-XXX_CHAN9 etc.), but these were in the second DAC output connection, and not cabled up. However, the 8th channel on the DAC had no connection in the simulink model, so I added another excitation block there (C1:SCY-XXX_CHAN8), and used the anti-imaging front panel lemo connector to drive the input of the whitening board. 

I also added a similar channel to the SCX model, but no data would show up in the channel as viewed by data viewer (though the channel name was black), or in analog world. There's the additional weirdness that the SCY excitation channels show up under SCX in DTT and awggui... I'm not entirely sure what's going on here.

I still need to look at the noise, and peek inside the boards, to check for homemade modifications and see if there are bad things like thick film resistors that may be spoiling the noise performance...

  1108   Mon Nov 3 19:12:27 2008 albertoUpdateGeneralTransverse mode spacing measurement for the X arm
I know a lot of expectations have been building up on these days in the scientific community at the 40m towards a conclusive elog entry about the g-factor measurement of the X arm cavity.
The reason of the delay is that the results are still under review by the author. It turned out that the measurements of the transverse mode spacing have been performed on the beat
of the TEM02/20 and TEM00 modes between the two laser beams instead of on the beat between 00 and 01/10. However, the results posted on the elog in the last weeks seem likewise correct,
in particular my plot of the HOM of the sidebands.

Anyways, lately I have been trying to repeat the measurement on the beat of TEM01/10 with 00 but, despite all the efforts and the countless configurations tried (on the locking of
the arm, on the tilt of the mirrors, on the injection of the secondary beams, on the chopping with the blade), only the beat of TEM10 has been measured - although quite clearly -
whereas that of TEM01 has so far hidden itself.

The search continues but even if it does not succeeds, a summarizing document is going to be posted soon.

Here I attach a plot that shows the kind of difficulties trying to detect TEM10. The red neat peak is the beat of TEM01 whereas the other curves are some of the resulting
resonances after trying to couple TEM10 with 00 (or vice versa, according to whether I'm locking the cavity to the 00 mode of the main laser or to that of the secondary beam).
  4431   Wed Mar 23 10:34:17 2011 josephbUpdateCDSTrend issue fixed

[Joe, Alex]

Yesterday during the day, Alex ran a script to fix the time stamps in the trends files we had messed up back during the daqd change overs around Feb 17th and 23rd.  See this elog for more information on the trend problem.

Due to how the script runs, basically taking all the data and making a new copy with the correct time stamps, the data collected while the script was running didn't get converted over.  So when he did the final copy of the corrected data, it created a several hour gap in the data from yesterday during the day time.

The original files still exist on the fb machine in /frames/trend/minute_raw_22mar2011 directory.


  870   Fri Aug 22 13:58:39 2008 SharonSummary Trend of the Wiener TF
In order to understand if we really need an adaptive filter, I used old data of MC_L and the accelerometers and seismometer to see if the Wiener (ideal) TF between MC_L and the others really changes all the time.
Two tests I made:
  • Compare the TF after different segments of time, starting from the same point. Meaning, measuring the TF after 5,10,15,20... minutes, looking when and if the TF stablizes (stops changing).
  • Compare the TF between same-length segments, from different times. Meaning, comparing for example 2 segments of 10 minutes taken from different times.

  • As you can see in the attached PDF, the changes start being minor after 200,000 data points, which correspont to 200,000/256 s, which is approximately 13 minutes.
    If you look at the PDF file, it is arranged from shorter times to longer in the order of: 3, 6, 13, 26 and 39 minutes.

  • As expected, the TF between different segmants of the same length is not completely the same. Again, you can look at the attached PDF.
    Sorry the titles are the same. Each 2 consecutive pages represent the same length of segment in different times. The order of segment's lengths is: 3, 13, 26 and 39 minutes

How do I explain what's going on?

Since the Wiener filter finds the correlation matrix between the data and the noise signals, it will maintain some kind of familiar shape when we don't add a significant amount of unusual data. I am assuming that if I had looked at longer time periods, we could see a more significant change in the TF in time. When looking at different times, the average noise is likely to be different which can explain the change in the correlation matrix and the TF.

To sum up

I think we should give adaptive filtering a go.
  762   Wed Jul 30 00:42:04 2008 ranaUpdateSUSTrends and file formats
I propose that we do not use .eps format but .pdf instead. For images like the plots Sharon
has below we should use only .png and for pictures like what Steve posted, use JPG or PNG.

PDF is a standard and light weight. PNG is very good for plots/lines and is lossless. JPG does
a good job with regular camera pictures because we don't really care about the compression
loss on those.

Here's a trend of the UL sensors for all the optics - conversion is 32768 cts / mm. You can see
that the quake was just before 19:00 UTC (noon our time). The events an hour after are when
Rob, Jenne, and I start exciting the optics to shake them loose - wanging the pit/yaw sliders
around is not violent enough and so I injected a 130000 count sine wave at 0.5 Hz so as to
create a high force square wave. This seems to have worked for ETMY but no such luck yet with
the others.
  594   Sun Jun 29 19:19:47 2008 ranaSummaryIOOTrends of the PSL/IOO Quads over 1000 days
Only IOO POS has been working for the past 2 years. I guess we should recommission the IOO ANG and REFL QPDs
  11097   Wed Mar 4 03:42:14 2015 JenneUpdateLSCTried a few CARM / ALS fool things, no success

Much of tonight was spent fighting with ETMX.  This time, ASC was definitely off, there was nothing coming out of the ASC filter banks except the static output of the ASS.  I tried turning off the 1000 count POS offset, but I think that made it a little worse. I ended up putting the offset back.

It's a little confusing, since it sometimes moves when there is no LSC actuation.  However, it definitely moves when there is some LSC actuation.  I did a test where every time I enabled the IR arm locking and caught lock, I saw a step in the SUSPIT and SUSYAW error signals.  Once lock was aquired, it would settle and stay somewhere. If I unlocked the cavity, there was no "undo" step - it just stayed where it was.  I wasn't letting it sit long enough to see if it spontaneously moved during this test.

Here's a plot of this test.  The only button I'm touching is the LSC enable button.  ASC is off, ASS is frozen (DC values exist, but no dither, no feedback).  This was done when the 1000 count POS offset was off. The steps are less bad when the offset is on.

Inline image 1

In between fighting with the ETM, I was able to do several trials with the PRFPMI. 

I was playing with CARM and ALS fool.

First, I used REFL55 normalized by the sum of the transmissions as the error signal for the MC filter bank and saw that REFL11 (as an out of loop signal) got much more smooth, and centered around zero.  However, I wasn't able to get the same thing with REFL11.  No matter the sign I used for the MC filter bank, the IFO would squeak (some high freq gain peaking I think), and then I'd lose lock.  This was true whether I used REFL11 through the common mode board or just directly into the ADC.

Just now, I did one trial of switching DARM over to AS55Q, just to grab a spectra of the MICH noise that Q and I saw yesterday.


I'm a little confused by some delay that seems to exist between the "A" and "B" error signals (right after the LSC input matrix) and the _IN1 point of the servo filters.  I didn't save the measurement (bad Jenne), but there's a ~40 degree difference between DARM_A_ERR/DARM_IN2 and DARM_IN1/DARM_IN2.  I don't think there should be anything there.  Anyhow, it makes the DARM loop measurements look funny.  If you just look at, say, DARM_B_ERR/DARM_IN2, you'll think that there's no way that the loop will be stable.  However, it will actually be fine. 

For tomorrow, we should take the DARM loop measurement with much less actuation.  As with last night, I blew the lock by trying to measure the DARM loop.

  10746   Tue Dec 2 02:44:45 2014 JenneUpdateLSCTried cav pole compensation trick - fail

[Jenne, Diego]

First, random notes:

  • saw a violin peak in CARM / DARM at 638.0Hz.  Assumed it was one of the ETMs, even though it doesn't match any of the frequencies in our handy-dandy chart: wiki resonances
    • Put an extra notch in the ETM violin filters.
    • Just now realized that I was actuating MC2 at the time for CARM (although 638 is also not what we have in the chart for MC2).  The MC2/ETM violin filters should be shared between eachother.
  • Measured CARM and DARM loops on ALS comm and diff, gains should be 8, not 6.  Fixed in Lock_ALS_CARM_and_DARM script. 
  • MC has been fussy tonight.  I started actuating CARM on ETMs, and that helped, but we've still had several unexplained MC locklosses. 
    • PC and FSS Slow are okay right now, but they have been mad earlier tonight.  Do we need to check the PID tuning for FSS slow?
  • When I first started locking this evening, I was able to hold nice high arm powers (with the usual factor of 2+ RIN), so the IFO seemed okay except for the fussy MC.

Koji suggested last week that we put a cavity pole filter into the ALS error signals, and then compensate for that in the CARM and DARM servos.  The idea is that any RF signals we want to transfer to will have some kind of frequency dependence, and at the final zero CARM offset that will be a simple cavity pole. 

I put a pole at 200 Hz, with a zero at 6 kHz into the LSC-ALS[X,Y] filter banks in FM1, and then also put a zero at 200 Hz with a pole at 6 kHz into both the CARM and DARM servos at FM7.  Ideally I wouldn't have the 6kHz in there, but the compensation filter in the CARM/DARM servos needs a pole somewhere, so I put in the zero in the ALS signals so that they match.  Foton thinks that multiplying the two filters should give a flat response, to within 1e-6dB and 1e-6 deg. 

We can lock CARM and DARM on ALS with the new filters, but it seems to be not very stable.  We've measured transfer functions in both configurations, and between 50-500Hz, there is no difference (i.e., our matching filters are matching, and cancelling each other out).  We sometimes spontaneously lose lock when we're just sitting somewhere with the new configuration, and we cannot run any find IR resonance scripts and stay locked.  We've tried the regular old script, as well as Diego's new gentler script.  We always fail with the regular script during the coarse scan.  With Diego's script, we made it through the coarse scan, but spontaneously lost lock while the script was calculating the location of the peak.  So, we determine that there is something unstable about the new configuration that we don't understand.  Turning off all the new filters and going back to the old configuration is just as robust as always.  Confusing. 


  10748   Wed Dec 3 01:46:12 2014 KojiUpdateLSCTried cav pole compensation trick - fail

Where did these 200Hz, 6kHz come from?

I wonder what are the correct filters to be incorporated in the filter banks for the cav pole compensarion.


1. ALS Common and Diff have the cavity pole for the green (fcav_GR)

2. IR DARM has the cavity pole of the arms for IR (fcav_IR_DARM)

3. IR CARM (REFL, POP, POX, or POY) has the double cavity pole (fcav_IR_CARM)


1. T(ITM_GR) = 1.094%, T(ETM_GR) = 4.579% => F=108.6 (cf. https://wiki-40m.ligo.caltech.edu/Core_Optics)
L = 37.8 m (cf. http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/9804)
=> fcav_GR = c /( 4 L F) = 18.3 kHz ... ignore

2. T(ITM_IR) = 1.384%, T(ETM_IR) = 13.7ppm => F=450.4
=> fcav_IR_DARM = 4.40 kHz

3. The common cavity pole is lower than fcav_IR by factor of power recycling gain.
=> fcav_IR_CARM = fcav_IR / (P_TR * T_PRM)
P_TR is normalized for the locked arm cavity with the PRM misaligned.
T_PRM is 5.637%

e.g. for the TR of 100, fcav_IR_CARM = 4.40/(100*0.05637) = 780Hz

                         (IR CARM) o--|
                                      +--[CARM 780Hz zero / ??? pole]
(ALSX) o--|   |-[ALS C 780Hz pole]----|
          | M |
(ALSY) o--|   |-[ALS D 4.40kHz pole]--|
                                      +--[DARM 4.40kHz zero / ??? pole]
                         (IR DARM) o--|

???Hz pole is to ensure the servo filters does not have infinite gain at f=infinite, but in practice we probably can ignore it as long as it is provided by a roll-off filter

  16232   Wed Jun 30 18:44:11 2021 AnchalSummaryLSCTried fixing ETMY QPD

I worked in Yend station, trying to get the ETMY QPD to work properly. When I started, only one (quadrant #3) of the 4 quadrants were seeing any lights. By just changing the beam splitter that reflects some light off to the QPD, I was able to get some amount of light in quadrant #2. However, no amount of steering would show any light in any other quadrants.

The only reason I could think of is that the incoming beam gets partially clipped as it seems to be hitting the beam splitter near the top edge. So for this to work properly, a mirror upstream needs to be adjusted which would change the alignment of TRX photodiode. Without the light on TRX photodiode, there is no lock and there is no light. So one can't steer this beam without lossing lock.

I tried one trick, in which, I changed the YARM lock trigger to POY DC signal. I got it to work to get the lock going even when TRY was covered by a beam finder card. However, this lock was still bit finicky and would loose lock very frequently. It didn't seem worth it to potentially break the YARM locking system for ETMY QPD before running this by anyone and this late in evening. So I reset everything to how it was (except the beam splitter that reflects light to EMTY QPD. That now has equal ligth falling on quadrant #2 and #3.

The settings I temporarily changed were:

  • C1:LSC-TRIG_MTRX_7_10 changed from 0 to -1 (uses POY DC as trigger)
  • C1:LSC-TRIG_MTRX_7_13 changed from 1 to 0 (stops using TRY DC as trigger)
  • C1:LSC-YARM_TRIG_THRESH_ON changed from 0.3 to -22
  • C1:LSC-YARM_TRIG_THRESH_OFF changed from 0.1 to -23.6
  • C1:LSC-YARM_FM_TRIG_THRESH_ON changed from 0.5 to -22
  • C1:LSC-YARM_FM_TRIG_THRESH_OFF changed from 0.1 to -23.6

All these were reverted back to there previous values manually at the end.


  5575   Thu Sep 29 11:25:55 2011 JenneUpdateAdaptive FilteringTried new c-code, Fail.

[Mirko, Jenne]

Mirko edited the c-code to use Den's stuff that he put in the elog last night.  We then tried to compile and install, but it crashed c1lsc again.  We reverted to the simple, working c-code, pushed the physical reset button on c1lsc, and things started getting better.  The suspensions had the same problem as last night...we had to do a soft shutdown of c1sus to get things better again. 

I did a by-hand burt restore for all of the models on c1lsc and c1sus, since the auto burt restore isn't working.

  5878   Fri Nov 11 22:07:43 2011 SureshUpdateIOOTried to recover the MC alignment of 4th Nov: partial success, PSL beam clipping

I have recovered the yaw values pretty much .  As the PZT1 rails in this direction perhaps this is the more relevant of the two alignments.  The beam is translated in the vertical direction, but this can be easily corrected by changing the pitch of MC2

However note that if the WFS are switched on .. MC is going to follow the PSL beam. 



 Date  #### MC1P MC2P MC3P MC1Y MC2Y MC3Y
03Nov2011   0.1354 -0.2522 -0.1383 -1.0893 0.7122 -1.5587
04Nov2011   4.0411 4.4994 3.5564 -1.4170 -0.2606 -1.7109
08Nov2011   4.7341 4.8794  4.3907 1.3542 -3.0508 -1.7167
10Nov2011    1   3.9944 3.7676 6.1001 -1.3058 -3.8087 -1.6418
11Nov2011    1  3.8542 3.6831 3.0418 -0.8383 0.1550 -2.3841
11Nov2011    2    3.6876 2.7429 2.7830 -1.6250 -0.0386 -1.6346



  14117   Mon Jul 30 16:11:54 2018 gautamUpdateSUSTrillium interface box is broken

[koji, steve, gautam]

We debugged this in the following way:

  1. Disconnect all fuses in the terminal blocks coming from the +/- 20 VDC Sorensens.
  2. Check that they are indeed isolated using DMM.
  3. Test blocks of fuses in order to identify where the problem is happening (i.e. plug fuses in, turn up Sorensen voltage knobs, look for current overload). We did things in the following order:
    • MC suspensions
    • BS, PRM and SRM
    • ITMY
    • ITMX
    • Trillium interface box.
  4. Turns out that the Trillium box is the culprit.
  5. Confirmed that the problem is in the trillium interface box and not in the seismometer itself by unplugging all cables leading out of the interface box, and checking that the problem persists when the box is powered on.

So for now, the power cable to the box is disconnected on the back end. We have to pull it out and debug it at some point.

Apart from this, megatron was un-sshable so I had to hard reboot it, and restart the MCautolocker, FSSslowPy and nds2 processes on it. I also restarted the modbusIOC processes for the PSL channels on c1auxex (for which the physical Acromag units sit in 1X5 and hence were affected by our work), mainly so that the FSS_RMTEMP channel worked again. Now, IMC autolocker is working fine, arms are locked (we can recover TRX and TRY~1.0), and everything seems to be back to a nominal state. Phew.

  14118   Mon Jul 30 18:19:03 2018 KojiUpdateSUSTrillium interface box was fixed and reinstalled

The trillium interface box was removed from the rack.

The problem was the incorrect use of an under-spec TVS (Transient Voltage Suppression) diodes (~ semiconductor fuse) for the protection circuit.
The TVS diodes we had had the breakdown voltages lower than the supplied voltages of +/-20V. This over-voltage eventually caused the catastrophic breakdown of one of the diodes.

I don't find any particular reason to have these diodes during the laboratory use of the interface. Therefore, I've removed the TVS diodes and left them unreplaced. The circuit was tested on the bench and returned to the rack. All the cables are hooked up, and now the BRLMs look as usual.


- The board version was found to be D1000749-v2

- There was an obvious sign of burning or thermal history around the components D17 and D14. The solder of the D17 was so brittle that just a finger touch was enough to remove the component.

- These D components are TVS diodes (Transient Voltage Suppression Diodes) manufactured by Littelfuse Inc. It is sort of a surge/overvoltage protector to protect rest of the circuit to be exposed to excess voltage. The specified component for D17/D14 was 5.0SMMDJ20A with reverse standoff voltage (~operating voltage) of 20V and the breakdown voltage of 22.20V(min)~24.50V(max). However, the spec sheet told that the marking of the proper component must be "5BEW" rather than "DEM," which is visible on the component. Some search revealed that the used component was SMDJ15A, which has the breakdown voltage of 16.70V~18.50V. This spec is way too low compared to the supplied voltage of +/-20V.

  14119   Tue Jul 31 08:17:55 2018 SteveUpdateSUSTrillium interface box was fixed,reinstalled & working



  13482   Fri Dec 15 17:05:55 2017 gautamUpdatePEMTrillium seismometer DC offset

Yesterday, while we were bringing the CDS system back online, we noticed that the control room wall StripTool traces for the seismic BLRMS signals did not come back to the levels we are used to seeing even after restarting the PEM model. There are no red lights on the CDS overview screen indicative of DAQ problems. Trending the DQ-ed seismometer signals (these are the calibrated (?) seismometer signals, not the BLRMS) over the last 30 days, it looks like

  1. On ~1st December, the signals all went to 0 - this is consistent with signals in the other models, I think this is when the DAQ processes crashed.
  2. On ~8 December, all the signals picked up a DC offset of a few 100s (counts? or um/s? this number is after a cts2vel calibration filter). I couldn't find anything in the elog on 8 December that may be related to this problem.

I poked around at the electronics rack (1X5/1X6) which houses the 1U interface box for these signals - on its front panel, there is a switch that has selectable positions "UVW" and "XYZ". It is currently set to the latter. I am assuming the former refers to velocities in the xyz directions, and the latter is displacement in these directions. Is this the nominal state? I didn't spend too much time debugging the signal further for now.


  13483   Fri Dec 15 18:23:03 2017 ranaUpdatePEMTrillium seismometer DC offset

UVW refers to the 3 internal, orthogonal velocity sensors which are not aligned with the vertical or horizontal directions. XYZ refers to the linear combinations of UVW which correspond to north, east, and up.

  8466   Fri Apr 19 15:19:25 2013 JamieUpdatePEMTrilliums moved from bench to concrete

I moved the two Trillium seismometers that Den left on the electronics bench out onto the new concrete blocks in the lab that will be their final resting places.  I moved one onto the slab at the vertex and the other to the slab at the Y end.  I left them both locked and just sitting on the concrete.

The pile of readout electronics that were sitting next to them I moved on to the yellow foam box half way down the MC tube, between the MC tube and the X arm tube.  This is obviously not a good place to store them, but I couldn't think of a better place to put them for the moment.

  11532   Thu Aug 27 01:41:41 2015 IgnacioUpdateIOOTriply Improved SISO (T240-X) FF of MCL

Earlier today I constructed yet another SISO filter for MCL. The one thing that stands out about this filter is its strong roll off wink. This prevents high frequency noise injection into YARM. The caviat, filter performance suffered broken heart quite a bit, but there is subtraction going on.

I have realized that Vectfit lacks the ability of constraining the fits it produces, (AC coupling, rolloff, etc) even with very nitpicky weighting. So the way I used vectfit to produce this filter will be explained in a future eLOG, I think it might be promising. 

Anyways, the usual plots are shown below. 



T240-X (SISO)



Training data + Predicted FIR and IIR subtraction:


Online subtraction results:(High freq. stuff shown for noise injection evaluation of the filter)


Subtraction performace:


  15698   Thu Dec 3 10:33:00 2020 gautamUpdateVACTrippLite UPS delivered

The latest greatest UPS has been delivered. I will move it to near the vacuum rack in its packaging for storage. It weighs >100lbs so care will have to be taken when installing - can the rack even support this?

  7123   Wed Aug 8 20:34:29 2012 JenneUpdateASSTrouble measuring sensing matrix

I turned on the ASS, without closing the loops, to try to measure the sensing matrix. 

The Yarm was locked (Eric did a nice job earlier - he'll ELOG ABOUT IT before he goes home!), and I used an LO CLKGAIN of 300 on all of the TRY Lockins.  Then I put on and took away a 10% offset in pitch, but it's almost impossible to see the difference. 

The attached is a truly awful screenshot, but you can kind of see what's going on.  The big steps are me increasing the LO gain, but around "0" on the x-axis I changed the pitch offset from 10% away to nominal.  Since there are such big oscillations, the change is basically non-existent.  Grrrr. I'll look at it again tomorrow, since I have an exiting bike ride home ahead of me....


  7124   Wed Aug 8 20:50:39 2012 KojiUpdateASSTrouble measuring sensing matrix

From the log, I couldn't understand what has been done.

The procedure we should perform is

  1. Dither total 4 dofs of the two mirrors with different frequencies. Some fluctuation of TRY is even visible in dataviewer.
  2. The cavity is aligned at the beginning. These 4 peaks in TRY in DTT is small or invisible. Some 2nd harmonics are visible.
  3. Misalign one of the dofs. Some peaks get bigger.
  4. Correspoding lockin output becomes bigger.

Then you can start measuring the sensing matrix. At which part did the attempt fail?


I turned on the ASS, without closing the loops, to try to measure the sensing matrix. 

The Yarm was locked (Eric did a nice job earlier - he'll ELOG ABOUT IT before he goes home!), and I used an LO CLKGAIN of 300 on all of the TRY Lockins.  Then I put on and took away a 10% offset in pitch, but it's almost impossible to see the difference. 

The attached is a truly awful screenshot, but you can kind of see what's going on.  The big steps are me increasing the LO gain, but around "0" on the x-axis I changed the pitch offset from 10% away to nominal.  Since there are such big oscillations, the change is basically non-existent.  Grrrr. I'll look at it again tomorrow, since I have an exiting bike ride home ahead of me....


  7129   Thu Aug 9 00:23:11 2012 JenneUpdateASSTrouble measuring sensing matrix


From the log, I couldn't understand what has been done.

The procedure we should perform is

  1. Dither total 4 dofs of the two mirrors with different frequencies. Some fluctuation of TRY is even visible in dataviewer.
  2. The cavity is aligned at the beginning. These 4 peaks in TRY in DTT is small or invisible. Some 2nd harmonics are visible.
  3. Misalign one of the dofs. Some peaks get bigger.
  4. Correspoding lockin output becomes bigger.

Then you can start measuring the sensing matrix. At which part did the attempt fail?


 Cavity started out aligned pretty well, but not 100%.  Transmission was ~0.8 . Perhaps this was part of the problem.

I realize now that you mention it, it was totally amateur hour of me to only look at the lockin outputs on StripTool (plus POY and TRY on Dataviewer), and not look at TRY on DTT...or any spectra at all.  Not so intelligent.  I could see some fluctuation of TRY on Dataviewer that corresponded to me turning on the oscillators, as well as the spot wiggling on the camera view of ETMYT a teeny bit.

When applying a 10% misalignment to ETMY Pit (by adding 0.1 to the Pit components of the output matrix, as is done in the MC spot position calibration), I could see that there was a small jump in the StripTool trace, but it was much smaller than the ambient fluctuations of the output. 

I just looked back and realized that I must have forgotten to add my screenshot, but it's saved on a desktop on Rossa.  It would be better if I had attached the data, but from that you see that the average of the lockin output signal didn't change very much in the last several minutes of the measurement, but the fluctuations (no misalignment offsets) are pretty big, maybe ~10% or 15% the size of the signal.  Then when I added the misalignment to one mirror (ETMY PIT), there is a very small jump in the lockin signal, but it is much, much smaller than the size of the ambient fluctuations.  Perhaps a long average would result in a "real" value, but by looking by eye, I can't see a discernible difference in the average value of the lockin outputs.

My plan is to do as you say, dithering all 4 optics, and misaligning a single optic's single DoF (Pit or Yaw), and seeing how that misalignment affected each of the sensors (the lockin outputs).  Then put that DoF back to nominal, and misalign a different DoF, rinse and repeat.

Okay, so this is a little stream-of-consciousness-y, and you're going to think I'm really dumb, but I just realized that I haven't set the phase of the lockin demodulators yet.  So I think I need to dither the optics, and go through each of the sensors, and adjust the phase until the peak in TRY in DTT is maximized for the I phase, and minimized for the Q phase (since we use the I-output).  Bah.  Bad Jenne.

  7131   Thu Aug 9 01:26:03 2012 KojiUpdateASSTrouble measuring sensing matrix

That's a good point, but I suspect that you end up with the in-phase (0deg) as the response of the IFO is immediate compared with the dithering frequency
as long as the whitening/dewhitening are properly compensated in the digital realm.


 Okay, so this is a little stream-of-consciousness-y, and you're going to think I'm really dumb, but I just realized that I haven't set the phase of the lockin demodulators yet.  So I think I need to dither the optics, and go through each of the sensors, and adjust the phase until the peak in TRY in DTT is maximized for the I phase, and minimized for the Q phase (since we use the I-output).  Bah.  Bad Jenne.


  11251   Sun Apr 26 00:08:56 2015 ranaHowToelogTroubles with putting plots in external locations

If it all possible, don't use links to your home directory. Its not robust. It would be like if you clicked on your Google Music and it told you to ask me to sing that song to you. Imagine that on auto-repeat next time your fancy-bone itches.

  6383   Wed Mar 7 23:28:41 2012 Lab Cleanup CrewHowToEnvironmentTrue Beauty....

Or, how a lab should look at the end of every day.


Beat that, Bridge kids!

  17138   Tue Sep 13 14:12:03 2022 YehonathanUpdateBHDTrying LO phase locking again

[Paco, Yehonathan]

Summary:  We locked LO phase using the DC PD (A - B) error point without saturating the control point, i.e. not a "bang bang" control.

Some suspensions were improved so we figure we should go back to trying to lock the LO phase.

We misalign ETMs and lock MICH using AS55. We put a small MICH offset by putting C1:LSC-MICH_OFFSET = -80.

AS and LO beams were aligned to overlap by maximizing the BHD signal visibility.

BHD DCPDs were balanced by misaligning the AS beam and using the LO beam only.

We measure the transfer function between the DCPDs and find the coherence is 1 at 1 Hz (because of seismic motion) so we measure the ratio between them to be 0.3db.

AS beam is aligned again to overlap with the LO beam. For the work below, we use the largest MICH OFFSET we could impinge before losing the lock = +90. This has the effect of increasing our optical gain.

We started using the HPC LOCK IN screen to dither POS on the different BHD SUS. We first started with AS1 (freq = 137.137 Hz, gain = 1000). The sensing matrix element was chosen accordingly (from the demodulated output) and fed to the LO_PHASE; because this affected the AS port alignment this was of course not the best choice. We moved over to LO2 (freq = 318.75 Hz, gain = 1000) but for the longest time couldn't see the dither line at the error point (A-B).

After this we added comb60 notch filters at DCPD_A and DCPD_B input signals. We ended up just feeding the (A-B) error point to LO1, and trying to lock mid fringe, which suceeded without saturation. The gain of the LO_PHASE filter was set to 0.2 (previously 20; attributable to the newly unclipped LO beam intensity?), and again we only enabled FM4 and FM5 for this. After this a dither line at 318.75 Hz finally appeared in the A-B error point! To be continued...

  15943   Fri Mar 19 10:49:44 2021 Paco, AnchalUpdateSUSTrying coil actuation balance

[Paco, Anchal]

  • We decided to try out the coil actuation balancing after seeing some posts from Gautum about the same on PRM and ETMY.
  • We used diaggui to send swept sine excitation signal to C1:SUS-MC3_ULCOIL_EXC and read it back at C1:SUS-MC3_ASCPIT_IN1. Idea was to create transfer function measurements similar to 15880.
  • We first tried taking the transfer function with excitation amplitude 0f 1, 10, 50, 200 with damping loops on (swept from 10 to 100 Hz lograthmically in 20 points).
  • We found no meaningful measurement and looked like we were just measuring noise.
  • We concluded that it is probably because our damping loops are damping all the excitation down.
  • So we decided to switch off damping and retry.
  • We repeated teh above measurements going up in amplitudes of excitation as 1, 10, 20. We saw the oscillation going out of UL_COIL but the swept sine couldn't measure any meaningful transfer function to C1:SUS-MC3_ASCPIT_IN1. So we decided to just stop. We are probably doing something wrong.

Trying to go back to same state:

  • But C1:SUS-MC3_ASCYAW_INMON had accumulated about 600 offset and was distrupting the alignment. We switched off C1:SUS-MC3_ASCYAW_SW2 hoping the offset will go away once the optic is just damped with OSEM sensors, but it didn't.
  • Even after minutes, the offset in C1:SUS-MC3_ASCYAW_INMON kept on increasing and crossed beyond 2000 counts limit set in C1:IOO-MC3_YAW filter bank.
  • We tried to unlock the IMC and lock it back again but the offset still persisted.
  • We tried to add bias in YAW DOF by increasing C1:SUS-MC3_YAW_OFFSET, and while it was able to somewhat reduce the WFS C1:SUS-MC3_ASCYAW_INMON offset  but it was misalgning the optic and the lock was lost. So we retracted the bias to 0 and made it zero.
  • We tried to track back where the offset is coming from. In C1IOO_WFS_MASTER.adl, we opened the WFS2_YAW filter bank to see if the sensor is indeed reading the increasing offset.
  • It is quite weird that C1:IOO-WFS2_YAW_INMON is just oscillating but the output in this WFS2_YAW filter bank is slowly increasing offset.
  • We tried to zero the gain and back to 0.1 to see if some holding function is causing it, but that was not the case. The output went back to high negative offset and kept increasing.
  • We don't know what else to do. Only this one WFS YAW output is increasing, everything else is at normal level with no increasing offset or peculiar behavior.
  • We are leaving C1:SUS-MC3_ASCYAW_SW2 off as it is disrupting the IMC lock.

[Jon walked in, asked him for help]

  • Jon suggested to do burt restore on IOO channels.
  • We used (selected through burtgooey):
    burtwb -f /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/burt/autoburt/snapshots/2021/Mar/19/08:19/c1iooepics.snap -l /tmp/controls_1210319_113410_0.write.log -o /tmp/controls_1210319_113410_0.nowrite.snap -v <
  • No luck, the problem persists.
  15951   Mon Mar 22 11:57:21 2021 Paco, AnchalUpdateSUSTrying coil actuation balance

[Paco, Anchal]

  • For MC coil balancing we will use the ASC (i.e. WFS) error signals since there are no OPLEV inputs (are there OPLEVs at all?).

Test MC1

  • Using the SUS screen LockIns the plan is to feed excitation(s) through the coil outputs, and look at the ASC(Y/P) error signals.
  • A diaggui xml template was saved in /users/Templates/SUS/MC1-actDiag.xml which was based on /users/Templates/SUS/ETMY-actDiag.xml
  • Before running the measurement, we of course want to plug our input matrix, so we ran /scripts/SUS/InMatCalc/writeMatrix.py only to find that it tripped the MC1 Watchdog.
    • The SIDE input seems to have the largest rail, but we just followed the procedure of temporarily increasing the WD max! threshold to allow the damping action and then restoring it.
    • This happened because in latest iteration of our code, we followed an advice from the matlab code to ensure the SIDE OSEM -> SIDE DOF matrix element remains positive, but we found out that MC1 SIDE gain (C1:SUS-MC1_SUSSIDE_GAIN) was set to -8000 (instead of a positive value like all other suspensions).
    • So we decided to try our new input matrix with a positive gain value of 8000 at C1:SUS-MC1_SUSSIDE_GAIN and we were able to stablize the optic and acquire lock, but...
    • We saw that WFS YAW dof started accumulating offset and started disturbing the lock (much like last friday). We disabled the ASC Input button (C1:SUS-MC1_ASCYAW_SW2).
    • This made the lock stable and IMC autolocker was able to lock. But the offset kept on increasing (see attachment 1).
    • After sometime, the offset begain to exponential go to some steady state value which was around -3000.
  • We wrote back the old matrix values and changed the C1:SUS-MC1_SUSSIDE_GAIN back to -8000. But the ASCYAW offset remained to the same position. We're leaving it disabled again as we don't know how to fix this. Hopefully, it will organically come back to small value later in the day like last time (Gautum just reenabled the ASCYAW input and it worked).

Test MC3

  • Defeated by MC1, we moved to MC3.
  • Here, the gain value for C1:SUS-MC3_SUSSIDE_GAIN was already positive (+500) so it could directly take our new matrix.
  • When we switched off watchdog, loaded the new matrix and switched the watchdog back on.
  • The IMC lock was slightly distrupted but remain locked. There was no unusual activity in the WFS sensor values. However, we saw the the SIDE coil output is slowly accumulating offset.
  • So we switched off the watchdog before it will trip itself, wrote back the old matrix and reinstated the status quo.
  • This suggests we need to carefully look back our latest changes of normalization and have new input matriced which keep the system stable other than working on paper with offline data.
  15952   Mon Mar 22 15:10:00 2021 ranaUpdateSUSTrying coil actuation balance

There's an integrator in the MC WFS servos, so you should never be disabling the ASC inputs in the suspensions. Disabling 1 leg in a 6 DOF MIMO system is like a kitchen table with 1 leg removedcheeky.

Just diagnose your suspension stuff with the cavity unlocked. You should be able to see the effect by characterizing the damping loops / cross-coupling.

  15954   Mon Mar 22 19:07:50 2021 Paco, AnchalUpdateSUSTrying coil actuation balance

We found that following protocol works for changing the input matrices to new matrices:

  • Shut the PSL shutter C1:PSL-PSL_ShutterRqst. Switch off IMC autolocker C1:IOO-MC_LOCK_ENABLE.
  • Switch of the watchdog, C1:SUS-MC1_LATCH_OFF.
  • Update the new matrix. (in case of MC1, we need to change sign of C1:SUS-MC1_SUSSIDE_GAIN for new matrix)
  • Switch on the watchdog back again which enables all the coil outputs. Confirm that the optic is damped with just OSEM sensors.
  • Switch on IMC autolocker C1:IOO-MC_LOCK_ENABLE and open PSL shutter C1:PSL-PSL_ShutterRqst.

We repeated this for MC2 as well and were able to lock. However, we could not do the same for MC3. It was getting unstable as soon as cavity was locked i.e. the WFS were making the lock unstable. However, the unstability was different in different attempts but we didn't try mroe times as we had to go.

Coil actuation balancing:

  • We set LOCKIN1 and LOCKIN2 oscillators at 10.5 Hz anf 13.5 Hz with amplitude of 10 counts.
  • We wrote PIT, YAW and Butterfly actuation vectors (see attached text files used for this) on LOCKIN1 and LOCKIN2 for MC1.
  • We measured C1:SUS-MC1_ASCYAW_IN1 and C1:SUS-MC1_ASCPIT_IN1 and compared it against the case when no excitation was fed.
  • We repeated the above steps for MC2 except that we did not use LOCKIN2. LOCKIN2 was found to already on at oscillator frequency of 0.03Hz with amplitude of 500 counts and was fed to all coils with gain of 1 (so it was effectively moving position DOF at 0.03 Hz.) When we changed it, it became ON back again after we turned on the autolocker, so we guess this must be due to some background script and msut be important so we did not make any changes here. But what is it for?
  • We have gotten some good data for MC1 and MC2 to ponder upon next.
  • MC1 showed no cross coupling at all while MC2 shoed significant cross coupling between PIT and YAW.
  • Both MC1 and MC2 did not show any cross coupling between butterfly actuation and PIT/YAW dof.

On another news, IOO channels died!

  • Infront of us, the medm channels starting with C1:IOO just died. See attachment 8.
  • We are not sure why that happened, but we have reported everything we did up here.
  • This happened around the time we were ready to switch back on the IMC autolocker and open the shutter. But now these channels are dead.
  • All optics were restored with old matrices and settings and are damped in good condition as of now.
  • IMC should lock back as soon as someone can restart the EPICS channels and switch on C1:IOO-MC_LOCK_ENABLE and C1:PSL-PSL_ShutterRqst.
  17146   Tue Sep 20 15:40:07 2022 yehonathanUpdateBHDTrying doing AC lock

We resume the LO phase locking work. MICH was locked with an offset of 80 cts. LO and AS beams were aligned to maximize the BHD readout visibility on ndscope.

We lock the LO phase on a fringe (DC locking) actuating on LO1.

Attachment 1 shows BHD readout (DCPD_A_ERR = DCPD_A - DCPD_B) spectrum with and without fringe locking while LO2 line at 318 Hz is on. It can be seen that without the fringe locking the dithering line is buried in the A-B noise floor. This is probably due to multiple fringing upconversion. We figured that trying to directly dither-lock the LO phase might be too tricky since we cannot resolve the dither line when the LO phase is unlocked.

We try to handoff the lock from the fringe lock to the AC lock in the following way: Since the AC error signal reads the derivative of the BHD readout it is the least sensitive to the LO phase when the LO phase is locked on a dark fringe, therefore we offset the LO to realize an AC error signal. LO phase offset is set to ~ 40 cts (peak-to-peak counts when LO phase is uncontrolled is ~ 400 cts).

We look at the "demodulated" signal of LO1 from which the fringe locking error signal is derived (0 Hz frequency modulation 0  amplitude) and the demodulated signal of LO2 where a ~ 700 Hz line is applied. We dither the LO phase at ~ 50Hz to create a clear signal in order to compare the two error signals. Although the 50 Hz signal was clearly seen on the fringe lock error signal it was completely unresolved in the LO2 demodulated signal no matter how hard we drove the 700Hz line and no matter what demodulation phase we chose. Interestingly, changing the demodulation phase shifted the noisy LO2 demodulated signal by some constant. Will post a picture later.

Could there be some problem with the modulation-demodulation model? We should check again but I'm almost certain we saw the 700Hz line with an SNR of ~ 100 in diaggui, even with the small LO offset changes in the 700Hz signal phase should have been clearly seen in the demodulated signal. Maybe we should also check that we see the 50Hz side-bands around the 700Hz line on diaggui to be sure.

  3467   Wed Aug 25 12:18:47 2010 josephbUpdateelogTrying new version of elog to see if it helps stability

So unfortunately, I made the start-elog-nodus script smart enough to kill the debugging run I had (although thats probably good since there might have been issues with continuing to run - just poor timing on part of the crash).

In related news, I have gotten the latest version of the elog code to actually compile on Nodus.  I had to hack the cryptic.c file (elog/src/cryptic.c) to get it to work though.

The following was copied from the #ifdef _MSC_VER section of the code into the #else directly following that section. 

#define MAX(x,y) ((x)>(y)?(x):(y))
#define MIN(x,y) ((x)<(y)?(x):(y))
#define __alignof__(x) sizeof(x)
#define alloca(x) malloc(x)
#define mempcpy(d, s, n) ((char *)memcpy(d,s,n)+n)
#define ERANGE 34

I also removed #include <stdint.h> as the functionality it provides is covered by inttypes.h on Solaris machines, which is automatically included.

This new code was released August 5th 2010, while the old elog code we were running was 2.7.5 and was released sometime in 2008.  There are several crash fixes mentioned in the version notes so I'm hoping this may improve stability. I'm in the process of making a copy of the elog logbooks into the elog-2.8.0 install (so as to have a backup with the original 2.7.5).  I'm also copying over all the configuration files.   In a few minutes I'm going to try switching over to the new elog.  If it doesn't work, or is worse, its easy enough to just start up the current version.

All files are located in /cvs/cds/caltech/elog/elog-2.8.0 (the old directory is elog-2.7.5).  I've made  a new startup script called start-elog-nodus-2.8.0.  To start the new one, just run that script.  To start the old one, just go to the elog-2.7.5 directory and run the old start-elog-nodus script.

  10641   Mon Oct 27 19:15:54 2014 ericqUpdateLSCTrying to PRMI on 165

I spent some time trying to debug our inability to get MICH onto REFL165Q while the arms are held off with ALS, to no real success. 

I set up our usual repeatable situation of PRMI on 33 I&Q, arms held off with ALS. I figured that it may help to first sideband lock on REFL55, since 165 is looking for the f2 sidebands and maybe there is some odd offset between the locking points for f1 and f2 or other weirdness. 

REFL 55 settings:

Demod angle 98->126 (was previously set for PRY locking)

PRCL = 0.5 * REFL55 I (UGF of ~200 Hz) (FM gain unchanged from REFL33 situation of -0.02)

MICH = 0.125 * REFL55 Q (UGF of ~60Hz) (same FM gain as 33)

Some REFL55 offset adjusting had to be done in order to not disturb the 33-initiated lock when handing off. 

I also adjusted POP110 phase to zero the Q when locked, and switched the triggering over to 110I

The PRMI can acquire lock like this with arms held off with ALS, no problem. 

Here, I tried to hop over to 165. PRCL was no problem, needing a +1 on 165I. However, I had no success in handing off MICH.   I twiddled many knobs, but none that provably helped. 

I saw indications that the sensing angle in 165 is small (~20deg), which is not consistent with current knowledge of the cavity lengths. We last interferometrically measured the PRC length by letting the PRMI swing and looking at sideband splitting in POP110. At LLO, they did a length measurement by looking at demod angle differences in PRMI carrier vs. sideband locking. (alog8562) This might be worth checking out...

  10649   Wed Oct 29 03:33:38 2014 ericqUpdateLSCTrying to PRMI on 165


Short report: Further frustrated by 165 tonight. The weird thing is, the procedure I'm trying with the arms held off on ALS (i.e. excitation line in MICH and PRCL, adjust relative gains to make the signs and magnitudes mach, ezcastep over) works flawlessly with the ETMs misaligned. One can even acquire SB PRMI lock on 165 I&Q, with 80-90 degrees of demod angle between MICH and PRCL. The only real difference in REFL55 settings for misaligned vs. ALS-offset arms is an extra factor of two in the FM gains to maintain the same UGF, so I hoped that the matrix elements for 165 with misaligned arms would hold for ALS-offset arms. 

Alas, no such fortune. I still have no clear explanation for why we can't get MICH on 165Q with the arms held off on ALS. 

I also gave a quick try to measuring the PRCL->REFL55 demod phase difference between carrier and sideband lock (with arms misaligned), and got something on the order of 55 degrees, which really just makes me think I wasn't well set up / aligned, rather than actually conveying information about the PRC length...

  13227   Thu Aug 17 22:54:49 2017 ericqUpdateComputersTrying to access JetStor RAID files

The JetStor RAID unit that we had been using for frame writing before the fb meltdown has some archived frames from DRFPMI locks that I want to get at. I spent some time today trying to mount it on optimus with no success crying

The unit was connected to fb via a SCSI cable to a SCSI-to-PCI card inside of fb. I moved the card to optimus, and attached the cable. However, no mountable device corresponding to the RAID seems to show up anywhere.

The RAID unit can tell that it's hooked up to a computer, because when optimus restarts, the RAID event log says "Host Channel 0 - SCSI Bus Reset."

The computer is able to get some sort of signals from the RAID unit, because when I change the SCSI ID, the syslog will say 'detected non-optimal RAID status'.

The PCI card is ID'd fine in lspci as "06:01.0 SCSI storage controller: LSI Logic / Symbios Logic 53c1030 PCI-X Fusion-MPT Dual Ultra320 SCSI (rev c1)"

'lsssci' does not list anything related to the unit

Using 'mpt-status -p', which is somehow associated with this kind of thing returns the disheartening output:

Checking for SCSI ID:0
Checking for SCSI ID:1
Checking for SCSI ID:2
Checking for SCSI ID:3
Checking for SCSI ID:4
Checking for SCSI ID:5
Checking for SCSI ID:6
Checking for SCSI ID:7
Checking for SCSI ID:8
Checking for SCSI ID:9
Checking for SCSI ID:10
Checking for SCSI ID:11
Checking for SCSI ID:12
Checking for SCSI ID:13
Checking for SCSI ID:14
Checking for SCSI ID:15
Nothing found, contact the author
I don't know what to try at this point.
  17105   Thu Aug 25 16:05:51 2022 YehonathanUpdateSUSTrying to fix some SUS

I tried to lock the Y/X arms to take some noise budget. However, we noticed that TRX/Y were oscillating coherently together (by tens of percent), meaning some input optics, essentially PR2/3 are swinging. There was no way I could do noise budgeting in this situation.

I set out to debug these optics. First, I notice side motion of PR2 is very weakly damped .

The gain of the side damping loop (C1:SUS-PR2_SUSSIDE_GAIN) was increased from 10 to 150 which seem to have fixed the issue. Attachment 1 shows the current step response of  the PR2 DOFs. The residual Qs look good but there is still some cross-couplings, especially when kicking POS. Need to do some balancing there.

PR3 fixing was less successful in the beginning. I increased the following gains:

C1:SUS-PR3_SUSPOS_GAIN: 0.5 -> 30




But the residual Q was still > 10. Then I checked the input matrix and noticed that UL->PIT is -0.18 while UR->PIT is 0.39. I changed UL->PIT (C1:SUS-PR3_INMATRIX_2_1) to +0.18. Now the Q became 7. I continue optimizing the gains.

Was able to increase C1:SUS-PR3_SUSSIDE_GAIN: 50 -> 100.

Attachment 2 shows the step response of PR3. The change of the entry of the input matrix was very ad-hoc, it would probably be good to run a systematic tuning. I have to leave now, but the IFO is in a very misaligned state. PR3/2 should be moved to bring it back.

  3644   Mon Oct 4 15:28:10 2010 josephbUpdateCDSTrying to get c1ioo booting as Gentoo.

I modified the dhcpd.conf file in /etc/dhcp on the fb machine.  I added a entry for c1ioo, listing its MAC address and ip number near the bottom of the file.  I then restarted the dhcp server using "sudo /etc/init.d/dhcpd restart" while on the fb machine.

I also modified the rtsystab, which is used to determine which front end codes start on boot up of a machine.  I added a line: c1ioo   c1x03  c1ioo

I am now in the process of getting c1ioo to come up as a Gentoo machine so I can build a model with an RFM connection in it and test the communication between c1sus and c1ioo.  This involves removing the hard drives and checking to make sure the boot priority is correct (i.e. it checks for a network boot).

  2927   Thu May 13 15:19:44 2010 josephbUpdateCDSTrying to get lsc.mdl and lsp.mdl working

I had a chat with Alex this morning and discovered that the dcu_ids 13,14,15,16 are reserved currently, and should not be used.  I was told 9-12 and 17-26 were fine to use.  I pointed out that we will eventually have more modules than that.  His response was he is currently working on the framebuilder code and "modernizing" it, and that those restrictions will hopefully be lifted in the future although he isn't certain at this time what the real maximum gds_id number is (he was only willing to vouch for up to 26 - although the OMC seems to be currently working and set to 30).

Alex also suggested running an iop module to provide timing (since we are using adcSlave=1 option in the models).  Apparently these are x00.mdl, x01.mdl, x11.mdl files in the /home/control/cds/advLigoRTS/src/epics/simLink/ directory.  I saved x00.mdl as io1.mdl (I didn't want to use io0 as its a pain to differentiate between a zero and 'O'.  This new IOP is using gds_node=1, dcu_id=9.  I modified the approriate files to include it.

I modified /etc/rc.d/rc.local and added io1 to shmem line.  I modified /cvs/cds/caltech/target/fb/daqdrc to use dcu_id 9 as the controller (this is the new iop model dcu_id number).  In that same directory I modifed the file master by adding /cvs/cds/caltech/chans/daq/C1IO1.ini as well as uncommenting tpchn_C1 line.  I modified testpoint.par in /cvs/cds/caltech/target/gds/param to include C-node0, and modified the prognum for lsc and lsp to 0x31001003 and 0x31001005.

So I started the 3 processes with startio1, startlsc, startlsp, then went to the fb directory and started the framebuilder.  However, the model lsc.mdl is still having issues, although lsp and io1 seem to be working.  At this point I just need to track down what fundamentally is different between lsc and lsp and correct it in the lsc model.  I'm hoping its not related to the fact that we actually had a previous lsc front end and there's some legacy stuff getting in the way.  One thing I can test is changing the name and see if that runs.


  2299   Thu Nov 19 09:55:41 2009 josephbUpdateComputersTrying to get testpoints on megatron

This is a continuation from last night, where Peter, Koji, and I were trying to get test point channels working on megatron and with the TST module.

Things we noticed last night:

We could run starttst, and ./daqd -c daqdrc, which allowed us to get some channels in dataviewer.  The default 1k channel selection works, but none of the testpoints do. 

However, awgtpman -s tst does appear in the processes running list.

The error we get from dataviewer is:

Server error 861: unable to create thread
Server error 23328: unknown error
datasrv: DataWriteRealtime failed: daq_send: Illegal seek

Going to DTT, it starts with no errors in this configuration.  Initially it listed both MDC and TST channels.  However, as a test, I moved the tpchn_C4.par , tpchn_M4.par and tpchn_M5.par files to the directory backup, in /cvs/cds/caltech/target/gds/param.  This caused only the TST channels to show up (which is what we want when not running the mdc module.

We had changed the daqdrc file in /cvs/cds/caltech/target/fb, several times to get to this state.  According to the directions in the RCG manual written by Rolf, we're supposed to "set cit_40m=1" in the daqdrc file, but it was commented out.  However, when we uncommented it, it started causing errors on dtt startup, so we put it back.  We also tried adding lines:

set dcu_rate 13 = 16384;
set dcu_rate 14 = 16384;

But this didn't seem to help.  The reason we did this is we noticed dcuid = 13 and dcuid = 14 in the /cvs/cds/caltech/target/gds/param/tpchn_C1.par file.  We also edited the testpoint.par file so that it correctly corresponded to the tst module, and not the mdc and mdp modules.  We basically set:


in that file, and commented everything else out.

At this point, given all the things we've changed, I'm going to try a rebuild of the tst and daq and see if that solves things.


ELOG V3.1.3-