40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 258 of 341  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Categoryup Subject
  595   Sun Jun 29 19:53:26 2008 JohnSummaryPSLISS

Quote:
I reduced the gain of the ISS (C1: PSL-ISS_VGAGAIN) from 5dB to 2dB. Any higher and it constantly saturates.


Seemed to go back to normal after the frame builder came back.
  597   Sun Jun 29 20:29:48 2008 ranaUpdatePSLCorrelation of PSL SLOW control v. Room temperature
Attachment 1: slowtemp.png
slowtemp.png
  602   Mon Jun 30 13:48:47 2008 John, RobConfigurationPSLDon't put the bin in front of the air conditioning unit
We spotted that the laser power was dropping.

The air conditioning unit was blocked by the blue bin/trash can/cestino causing the laser head temp to increase by 2 degrees.

Let's be careful about this in the future.
Attachment 1: binremoval.png
binremoval.png
  603   Mon Jun 30 14:07:26 2008 RobConfigurationPSLDon't put the bin in front of the air conditioning unit

Quote:
We spotted that the laser power was dropping.


the offending configuration:
Attachment 1: DSC_0140.png
DSC_0140.png
  604   Mon Jun 30 15:08:52 2008 JohnSummaryPSLMZ alignment
I adjusted the alignmnet of the Mach-Zehnder's two North mirrors (downstream of the EOMs).

MZ REFL is reduced from 0.54 to 0.43. The largest improvement was due to pitch on the PZT mirror.
Attachment 1: mzalign.png
mzalign.png
  607   Mon Jun 30 18:36:01 2008 YoichiUpdatePSLMZ alignment again
John, Yoichi

We re-adjusted the MZ alignment. The reason behind this is to make sure that the MZ dark port is not falling at a strange fringe, where it is only dark at the dark port PD. It can happen when the two beams poorly overlap.
We tried both the minimization of the MZ dark PD and the maximization of the MZ transmission at the same time.
We also placed another PD in the MZ dark port at a different distance from the original dark PD and tried to minimize this too.
If the MZ dark port is at a strange fringe, one of the dark PD can be dark where the other one is still bright.
If both of the dark PD get dark, the overlap between the beams should be ok.
We tweaked only the two mirrors of the MZ after the EOMs (mainly the one with a PZT).

Right now, the MZ dark power is 0.432.
BTW, we should change the name of the MZ dark port on the medm screen (it is now MZ reflection, where it is not a reflection).
I will try to change it later.

We wanted to put the beam position on the IOO-QPD_POS_* back to the original (before John tweaked the MZ alignment earlier).
However, the trends of IOO-QPD_POS_* show a lot of fluctuation and jumps, of which we don't know the cause. So we could not find reasonable original values.
We suspect a circuit problem in IOO-QPD_POS, especially because the jumps are very strange.
We will do this investigation later too.
  609   Tue Jul 1 10:15:22 2008 steveUpdatePSLeventfull two days
The laser recovered from a short temp rise. The MZ was aligned and realigned. The suspentions were kicked up accidentally.
Now the computers are down.
Attachment 1: 2d.jpg
2d.jpg
  611   Tue Jul 1 11:57:24 2008 YoichiConfigurationPSLMZ servo switch problem again
C1:PSL-MZ_BLANK switch (to turn on/off the servo) is not working again. The switch is always off regardless of the epics state.
I pushed the cables into the xycom card, but it did not fix the problem.
  612   Tue Jul 1 12:08:38 2008 John, JoeConfigurationPSLPMC input PD
Joe and I switched cables so that the PMCR screen actually shows reflection not transmission.

The trans camera had a BNC connected to "video out" labelled PMC input PD. The video signal
going to the monitors does not come from "video out", it comes out the "DC in/sync" cable.
As far as we can see this diode doesn't exist. Where should the PMC input PD BNC cable be
connected?
  616   Tue Jul 1 16:48:42 2008 rob, johnConfigurationPSLMZ servo switch problem resolved forever

Quote:
C1:PSL-MZ_BLANK switch (to turn on/off the servo) is not working again. The switch is always off regardless of the epics state.
I pushed the cables into the xycom card, but it did not fix the problem.


We have fixed this problem forever, by totally disabling this switch. Looking at the schematic for the MZ servo and the datasheet of the AD602, we found that a HI TTL on pin 4 disables the output of the AD602. Since the MZ servo was stuck in the off position, this seemed to indicate that it may be the XYCOM220 itself which is broken, constantly putting out a +5V signal regardless of the EPICS controls. We thought we might be able to get around this by disconnecting this signal at the cross-connect, but ultimately we couldn't find it because there is no wiring diagram for the Mach-Zehnder (!). So, we pulled the board and wired pin 9A of P1 to ground, permanently NORMALizing the MZ_BLANK switch. John has marked up the schematic, and someone should modify the MEDM screen and check the new screen into svn.

We can still the turn the MZ servo on and off by using the test input 1 switch.

Someone also will need to modify the MZ autolocker to use the test input 1 (MZ_SW1) instead of the old MZ_BLANK.
  618   Tue Jul 1 21:45:48 2008 JohnUpdatePSLMach Zehnder script and screen
I've edited C1: PSL_MACH_ZEHNDER.adl and /cvs/cds/caltech/scripts/PSL/MZ/lockMZ
to reflect the changes described in entry #616.
  639   Mon Jul 7 13:49:27 2008 YoichiHowToPSLMZ offset, gain tips
John, Yoichi

This morning John found that MZ servo is not working.
We were able to bring the MZ back by changing the output offset a bit. But we were not sure what was actually wrong.
So we pulled out the MZ board and checked several TPs to understand the behavior.
Here is the summary of what we learned this morning.

The MZ control board has the following stages:

[Mixer] -(error signal)-> [Sum amp for input offset] -(error + offset)-> [Variable Gain Amp] -> [Filter (x100 DC gain)] -(FB signal)-> [High Voltage Amp] -> output
(The HV amp also works as the sum amp for the output offset)

(1) We noticed that the Sum amp for the input offset has an output of -0.14V even when the offset input is 0V. This can be canceled by the input offset slider.
So for the moment, it is fine. But we might want to change the op-amp because the weird offset implies there might be something wrong with the chip.
The procedure to null the -0.14V offset is the following:
a) Enable Test 1 input on the MZ MEDM screen.
b) Move the input offset slider until the mixer monitor becomes 0V. Currently the input offset slider is at -7.5V to cancel the -0.14V offset.

(2) Because the gain of the Variable Gain Amp and the Filter combined is large, the Filter can be easily saturated if the output offset is not right.
This was the cause of the MZ problem this morning. The output offset slider was at a wrong position making the error signal slightly off centered from zero.
This residual DC error signal was amplified by the large gain chain and saturated the filter amp.
Our experience is that the output offset cannot go below -3V. We set it at 0V for now.
  642   Mon Jul 7 16:30:08 2008 steveUpdatePSLPSL-PEM 16 days trend
This morning the laser head temp was up to 20.3C because the laser chiller was overflowing.
I removed 700 cc water.

The PSL-FSS_RMTEMP became much more stable during the holidays as the psl enclosure was closed for 4 days

The high particle counts can be explaned by construction activity today.

The PMC & MZ PZT high voltages were out of range this morning.
Attachment 1: pempsl16d.jpg
pempsl16d.jpg
  645   Tue Jul 8 08:16:56 2008 steveUpdatePSLPMC problem
The PMC is unhappy. PMC auto locker is not working.
DC output slider adjust has to be moved from rail to rail before it locks.

MZ is working great.
Attachment 1: pmc.jpg
pmc.jpg
  648   Tue Jul 8 12:25:54 2008 JohnSummaryPSLISS gain set to 2dB
  649   Tue Jul 8 21:46:38 2008 YoichiConfigurationPSLGC650M moved to the PMC transmission
I moved a GC650M, which was monitoring the light coming out of the PSL, to the transmission port of the PMC to see the transmitted mode shape.
It will stay there unless someone find other use of it.

Just FYI, you can see the picture from the control computers by the following procedure:

ssh -X mafalda
cd /cvs/cds/caltech/target/Prosilica/40mCode
./SampleViewer

Chose 02-2210A-06223 and click on the Live View icon.
  659   Fri Jul 11 09:29:02 2008 steveUpdatePSLthe PMC still hangs up
Morning alarms:

PMC high voltage is railing, it's auto locker is frosen
I have to move DC Output Adjust slider by hand and it locks immediately

PSL_ISS is saturating. Saturation goes away when PMC is locked.

Laser chiller water is overflowing again: removed 450 cc water
Attachment 1: pmc4d.jpg
pmc4d.jpg
  662   Sat Jul 12 23:28:31 2008 ranaUpdatePSLPMC needs help
As everyone has noticed recently, the PMC seems to have a PZT problem. It often zooms
of to one of its rails after locking as if the PZT range has decreased dramatically.

WE should check this on Monday by disabling the FSS and applying a slow triangle wave to
the NPRO frequency. The PMC will track this frequency change and this will allow us to
diagnose its problems.

If it has real problems, I have a spare in W. Bridge which we can swap in temporarily.

The attached plot shows 3 years of trend; looks like it went bad in summer of last year.

This also seems to be the cause of our ISS saturation problems: lowering the gain of the PMC
even slightly increased the intensity noise enough to cause saturation. Increasing the gain
even slightly increased the intensity noise enough to cause saturation due to PMC servo oscillation.
Attachment 1: Untitled.png
Untitled.png
  663   Sun Jul 13 17:19:29 2008 ranaSummaryPSLMOPA SLOWM Calibration
John, Rana

We first unlocked the FSS and ramped the SLOW actuator. With the PMC locked we observed the PMC PZT voltage
as a function of SLOWM (SLOW loop actuator voltage). We believed this to be ~1-5 GHz / V. Since this is
not so precise we then ran a slow (2 min. period) triangle wave into the slow actuator and looked at the
ref cav transmission peaks to calibrate it.

Plot is attached>

We assume that the reference cavity length = 203.2 mm then the FSR = 737.7 MHz. So looking at the plot
and using our eye to measure the SLOWM calibration is 1054 +/- 30 MHz/V. This is probably dominated by
our eye method.

Note: we tried to get the length from T010159-00-R (Michele, Weinstein, Dugolini). In that doc,
the length used is 203.3 mm whereas its 203.2 mm in the PSL FDD (?). The calculation of the FSR is also
incorrect (looks like they used c = 299460900 instead of 299792458 m/s). We took the length from the PSL FDD
(T990025-00-D) but not the FSR, since they also did not find the right value of 'c'. I guess that the speed
of light just ain't what it used to be.
Attachment 1: SLOWDCcalibration.png
SLOWDCcalibration.png
  665   Mon Jul 14 00:36:19 2008 JohnSummaryPSLSlow sweep of laser temp - PMC PZT response
John, Rana

Follow up to # 663

Top trace: C1: PSL-PMC_PZT
Middle: C1: PSL-FSS_SLOWDC
Bottom: C1: PSL-PMC_PMCTRANSPD

The only calibration I could find for the PMC PZT (LLO e-log Sep 3 2003 - 23 MHz/V) predicts 31V for an FSR. I did a rough calibration and got our FSR to be around 210 V. I assumed 713 MHz for an FSR and applied this calibration (~3.4 MHz/ V) to the PZT data.

In terms of volts per metre our PZT gives 2.54 nm/ V whereas the LLO PZT is 17.16 nm/ V.
Attachment 1: SlowTsweep.png
SlowTsweep.png
  672   Tue Jul 15 10:24:57 2008 steveUpdatePSLPMC temp & pzt voltage
The PMC pzt HV was happy with no HEPA temp stability.
Can we thermally insulate the pmc ?
Attachment 1: pmctemp.jpg
pmctemp.jpg
  684   Wed Jul 16 17:36:51 2008 JohnDAQPSLFSS input offset
I changed the nominal FSS input offset to 0 from 0.3. Tolerance remains unchanged at +/-0.05.
  688   Thu Jul 17 08:30:15 2008 steveUpdatePSLPMC relocked manually
The PMC pzt HV and the servo gain adj. are railing at max this morning

Why is it on the decreasing side of FSS_RTTEMP slope?
Attachment 1: pmc4d.jpg
pmc4d.jpg
  689   Thu Jul 17 12:15:21 2008 EricUpdatePSLSwept PMC PZT voltage range
I unlocked the PMC and swept over C1:PSL-PMC_RAMP's full range a couple of times this morning.  The PMC should now be relocked and returned 
to normal.
  692   Thu Jul 17 20:13:34 2008 YoichiUpdatePSLPMC alignment/mode matching effort
I'm working to improve the mode matching of PMC.
Because I noticed that the beam was hitting the aperture of the EOM for PMC, I moved the EOM a little bit to maximize the transmission.
This did not change the alignment to the reference cavity but changed the alignment of the PMC a lot.
So I adjusted it back.
The alignment of the PMC can be easily optimized but the Hermite 02 mode still remains. This means the mode matching is bad.
Moving the lenses by a small amount (a few mm) did not change the height of 02 mode.
I'm planning to move the lenses by a large amount tomorrow. But it will destroy the alignment to the PMC.
So I installed two irises in the beam path after the lenses to remember the alignment roughly.
Right now the PMC transmission is slightly worse than before because the lens positions are not good.
  699   Fri Jul 18 19:41:09 2008 YoichiUpdatePSLPMC PZT investigation
I measured the HV coming to the PMC PZT by plugging it off from the PZT and hooking it up to a DVM.
The reading of DVM is pretty much consistent with the reading on EPICS. I got 287V on the DVM when the EPICS says 290V.

Then I used a T to monitor the same voltage while it is connected to the PZT. I attached a plot of the actual voltage measured by the DVM vs the EPICS reading.
It shows a hysteresis.
Also the actual voltage drops by more than a half when the PZT is connected. The output impedance of the HV amp is 64k (according to the schematic). If I believe this number, the impedance of the PZT should also be 64k. The current flowing the PZT is 1.6mA at 200V EPICS reading.
The impedance of the PZT directly measured by the DVM is 1.5M ohm, which is significantly different from the value expected above. I will check the actual output impedance of the HV amp later.
The capacitance of the PZT measured by the DVM is 300nF. I don't know if I can believe the DVM's ability to measure C.

I noticed that when a high voltage is applied, the actual voltage across the PZT shows a decay.
The second plot shows the step response of the actual voltage.
The voltage coming to the PZT was T-ed and reduced by a factor of 30 using a high impedance voltage divider to be recorded by an ADC.
The PMCTRANSPD channel is temporarily used to monitor this signal.
After the voltage applied to the PZT was increased abruptly (to ~230V), the actual voltage starts to exponentially decrease.
When the HV was reduced to ~30V, the actual voltage goes up. This behavior explains the weird exponential motion of the PZT feedback signal when the PMC is locked.
The cause of the actual voltage drop is not understood yet.
From the above measurements, we can almost certainly conclude that the problem of the PMC is in the PZT, not in the HV amp nor the read back.
Attachment 1: Hysteresis.png
Hysteresis.png
Attachment 2: StepResponse.png
StepResponse.png
  701   Fri Jul 18 23:24:24 2008 robUpdatePSLPMC PZT investigation

Quote:
I measured the HV coming to the PMC PZT by plugging it off from the PZT and hooking it up to a DVM.
The reading of DVM is pretty much consistent with the reading on EPICS. I got 287V on the DVM when the EPICS says 290V.

Then I used a T to monitor the same voltage while it is connected to the PZT. I attached a plot of the actual voltage measured by the DVM vs the EPICS reading.
It shows a hysteresis.
Also the actual voltage drops by more than a half when the PZT is connected. The output impedance of the HV amp is 64k (according to the schematic). If I believe this number, the impedance of the PZT should also be 64k. The current flowing the PZT is 1.6mA at 200V EPICS reading.
The impedance of the PZT directly measured by the DVM is 1.5M ohm, which is significantly different from the value expected above. I will check the actual output impedance of the HV amp later.
The capacitance of the PZT measured by the DVM is 300nF. I don't know if I can believe the DVM's ability to measure C.

I noticed that when a high voltage is applied, the actual voltage across the PZT shows a decay.
The second plot shows the step response of the actual voltage.
The voltage coming to the PZT was T-ed and reduced by a factor of 30 using a high impedance voltage divider to be recorded by an ADC.
The PMCTRANSPD channel is temporarily used to monitor this signal.
After the voltage applied to the PZT was increased abruptly (to ~230V), the actual voltage starts to exponentially decrease.
When the HV was reduced to ~30V, the actual voltage goes up. This behavior explains the weird exponential motion of the PZT feedback signal when the PMC is locked.
The cause of the actual voltage drop is not understood yet.
From the above measurements, we can almost certainly conclude that the problem of the PMC is in the PZT, not in the HV amp nor the read back.


I'd believe the Fluke's measurement of capacitance. Here's some info from PK about the PZT:


Quote:

But the PMC ones were something like
0.750 in. thick x 0.287 in. thick. 2 microns per 200 V displacement,
resonant frequency greater than 65 kHz. Typical capacitance is around 0.66
uF.


If the PZT capacitance has dropped by a factor of two, that seems like a bad sign. I don't know what to expect for a resistance value of the PZT, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's non-Ohmic. The 64k is the series resistor after the PA85, not the modeled resistance of the PZT itself.
  702   Sat Jul 19 19:39:44 2008 robUpdatePSLPMC PZT investigation

Quote:

Quote:
The 64k is the series resistor after the PA85, not the modeled resistance of the PZT itself.

Yes. What I meant was that because the measured voltage across the PZT was a half of the open voltage of the HV amp, the DC impedance of the PZT is expected to be similar to the output impedance of the HV amp. Of course, I don't think the DC impedance of a normal PZT should be such low.
I'm puzzled by the discrepancy between this expected DC impedance and the directly measured impedance by the Fluke DVM (1.5M Ohm).
One possibility is that the PZT leaks current only when a high voltage is applied.
  703   Sat Jul 19 19:41:56 2008 YoichiAoGPSLThe author of the entry 702 is Yoichi not Rob
I made a mistake.
  711   Tue Jul 22 03:03:22 2008 John, RobUpdatePSLFSS open loop transfer function
With the common gain slider maxed out the unity gain frequency is 58kHz.

The reference cavity refl diode appears to be okay. RF OUT/ TEST IN transfer function was normal.
There is a ~220mV offset in the RF out. We removed this using a coupler - no change. We also checked the
diode->FSS cable.

Tomorrow I'll take a closer look at the board.
  712   Tue Jul 22 09:24:17 2008 steveUpdatePSLlaser power
Laser power reality of 120 days
Attachment 1: power120d.jpg
power120d.jpg
  713   Tue Jul 22 11:55:22 2008 ranaUpdatePSLNote from R. Abbott re: the PMC
an email from Rich:
Your PZT is broken.

R
  714   Tue Jul 22 13:15:14 2008 robUpdatePSLNote from R. Abbott re: the PMC

Quote:
an email from Rich:
Your PZT is broken.

R


Quelle surprise

Frown
  715   Tue Jul 22 13:16:09 2008 John, RobUpdatePSLFSS open loop transfer function

Quote:
With the common gain slider maxed out the unity gain frequency is 58kHz.

The reference cavity refl diode appears to be okay. RF OUT/ TEST IN transfer function was normal.
There is a ~220mV offset in the RF out. We removed this using a coupler - no change. We also checked the
diode->FSS cable.

Tomorrow I'll take a closer look at the board.


Should note that the UGF of 58kHz was measured with the test cable (from RFPD to board), so the demod phase was presumably sub-optimal.
  719   Wed Jul 23 01:42:26 2008 ranaConfigurationPSLFSS RFPD: Examined, "repaired", and re-installed
Rob said that there might be something wrong with the FSS RFPD since the loop gain is so low.
Next time we should just use the Jenne laser on it in-situ and compare with our reference.

We had a 24.5 MHz LSC PD which Rob got from Sam. Sam got it from Rai. I gave it to Rai in Livingston
because it seemed suspicious. Seems fine now. This black box PD had a lower overall response than
the goldbox one we already had. The 2001-2005 era diodes which we got from the Canadian Perkin-Elmer
all had high capacitance and so that's not a surprise.

So the goldbox one was not broken totally.

I found that the offset came from a cracked capacitor. C25 was a yellow thru-hole ceramic 0.1 uF.
Its a surface mount board...don't know why this was like this but there's also no reason it should
have cracked unless it was soldered on with too much heat. I replaced it with a 0.47 uF ceramic
surface mount. Also R24 was a 20 Ohm resistor and L3 was not stuffed?? Removed R24 and put a 1 uH
inductor into L3. This is there so that the input to the MAX4107 is AC coupled.

However, the DC signal that Rob saw was actually because of the cracked C25. It had shorted and was
making a 25 mV signal at the input to the MAX4107 which has a gain of 10. This was producing ~165 mVdc
into a 50 Ohm load and so it could have saturated most mixers. The FSS board, however, has an overly
monstrous level 21 (I think) mixer and so this should not have been an issue. Maybe.

I was able to lock with the 24.5 MHz black box PD but it was not too hard to repair the gold box one
so I did. I tuned it so that the notch is truly at 43 MHz (2x the FSS 21.5 MHz modulation) but because
someone has done this using a hacky cap in parallel with the main PD, I am unable to get the resonant
peak to line up at 21.5 MHz. Its at 23 MHz instead. This loses us ~2 dB in signal. Since the frequency
is so low, we can increase the gain in the MAX4107 by another factor of 3 or so in the future.


So the PD is not our problem. Still worth verifying that the cable is good -- its around 10 miles long!!
And loops around in there with a bunch of other cables. We have an electronic phase shifter so this seems
totally misguided.

The other bad problem is that the mode matching is pretty horrible. Something like 1/3 of the carrier
power doesn't go into the cavity.
FSS TODO:
1) Check cable between RFPD and FSS box for quality. Replace with a good short cable.

2) Using a directional coupler, look at the RFPD output in lock on a scope with 50 Ohm term.
   I suspect its a lot of harmonics because we're overmodulating to compensate for the bad
   mode matching.

3) Purchase translation stages for the FSS mode matching lenses. Same model as the PMC lenses.
   Fix the mode matching.

4) Get the shop to build us up some more bases for the RFPDs on the PSL such as we have for the LSC.
   Right now they're on some cheesy Delrin pedestals. Too soft...

5) Dump the beam reflected off the FSS RFPD with a little piece of black glass or a razor dump.
   Anodized aluminum is no good and wiggles too much.

The attached PDF shows photos of the old and new style PDs. One page 3 there's a wire that I soldered on
as a handle so that we can remove the RF can (occasionally people claim that soldering to the lid screws
up the magnetic shielding magic of the lid. use this as a litmus test of their electronics know-how; its
a tin can - not an orgone box). Pages 4 & 5 are the circuit before I soldered, page 6 the cap after I
tried to remove it, page 7 is the circuit after I put in the new cap, and page 8 is the schematic with
the mark up of the changes.
Attachment 1: Untitled.pdf
Untitled.pdf Untitled.pdf Untitled.pdf Untitled.pdf Untitled.pdf Untitled.pdf Untitled.pdf Untitled.pdf
  726   Wed Jul 23 18:42:18 2008 JenneUpdatePSLAlignment of AOM
[Rana, Yoichi, Jenne]

Short Version: We are selecting the wrong diffracted beam on the 2nd pass through the AOM (we use the 2nd order rather than the first). This will be fixed tomorrow.

Long Version of AOM activities:

We checked the amount of power going to the AOM, through the AOM on the first pass, and then through the AOM on the second pass, and saw that we get about 50% through on the first pass, but only about 10% on the 2nd pass. Before the AOM=60mW, after the first pass=38mW, after the 2nd pass=4mW. Clearly the alignment through the AOM is really sketchy.

We translated the AOM so the beam goes through the center of the crystal while we align things. We see that we only get the first order beam, which is good. We twiddled the 4 adjust screws on the side of the AOM to maximize the power at the curved mirror for the 1st order of the first pass, which was 49.6mW. We then looked at the DC output of the Reference Cavity's Refl. PD, and saw 150mV on the 'scope. The power measured after the polarizing beam splitter and the next wave plate was still 4mW. Adjusting the curved mirror, we got up to 246mV on the 'scope for the Refl. PD, and 5.16mW after the PBS+Waveplate. We adjusted the 4 side screws of the AOM again, and the tip/tilt of the PBS, and got up to 288mV on the 'scope.

Then we looked at the beam that we keep after the 2nd pass through the AOM, and send to the reference cavity, and we find that we are keeping the SECOND order beam after the second pass. This is bad news. Yoichi and I will fix this in the morning. We checked that we were seeing a higher order beam by modulating the Offset of the MC servo board with a triangle wave, and watching the beam move on the camera. If we were chosing the correct beam, there would be no movement because of the symmetry of 2 passes through the AOM.

I took some sweet video of the beam spot moving, which I'll upload later, if I can figure out how to get the movies off my cell phone.
  735   Thu Jul 24 19:29:26 2008 YoichiConfigurationPSLC1:PSL-STAT_FSS_NOM_C_GAIN is changed from 30 to -0.7
Koji, Yoichi

Since the light power going to the ref. cavity is now significantly increased (see Janne's elog later),
C1:PSL-STAT_FSS_NOM_C_GAIN
is changed from 30 to -0.7.
Otherwise, the MC did not lock.
  736   Thu Jul 24 21:04:58 2008 ranaUpdatePSLFSS
Since Jenne and Yoichi are going to finish up their refcav/FSS work in the morning I decided to
look at the trends. I set the RF modulation level from 10.0 back down to 7.5 so that we would
have the same RF modulation depth as before. I also set the FSS common gain and its nominal to
1.0 dB since it seemed more stable this way.

With 7.5, the transmission of the refcav is ~6.9 V. It was around 0.7 V before so there's already
been a factor of 10 improvement in the power since the work started. In addition to the mode matching
work which is about to commence, we should attenuate the RC TRANS with a real mirror (not ND) so that
the camera and PD don't saturate. We should also do the same for the REFL PD and camera and make sure
to put in a steering mirror for the REFL PD and orient REFL so that it faces West (so that we can
look at its face with a viewer) and dumps its reflection.

Since the common gain is so low now, I expect that we will want less light in total. We can achieve
this by turning down the RF drive to the VCO.

I also fixed the MC down script which was putting the FSS common gain to the unstable +10 dB level
during the MC locking process.
  741   Fri Jul 25 19:57:18 2008 JenneUpdatePSLRef Cav & PMC
"PMC is in, but is still being worked on. Leave it alone." ---Rana

Ref. Cavity is locked again. Still a work in progress. I think we're ready to mode match on Monday. ---Jenne
  745   Sun Jul 27 23:06:17 2008 ranaUpdatePSLPMC, MZ, MC-MMT, etc.
With the new PMC now in I aligned the MZ to the new beam (there is sadly no steering
between the PMC and the MZ).

I also removed the pickoff that we had put before the MZ just in case we wanted to
move the FSS pickoff to there - its been 2 years now so I guess its not going to happen.


The new PMC's cavity axis seems to be a few hundred microns higher than the old one. So I
tried to move the MZ EOMs to compensate but ended up also steering all of the MZ's mirrors
to get the contrast good, the beam onto the ISS PDs, centered (sort of) onto the MMT lenses
and onto the periscope.

Along the way I also removed some of the vestigial squeezer stuff around the power control
PBS. The output of the PBS now goes directly into the high power dump with no steering. This
eliminated around a dozen clamps, bases, etc. and a couple of mirrors.


The MC is locked on the low power beam we have running through everything. I restored the
PSL launch beam just using the MC-WFS and it locked on a TEM00. So now we know that we
really don't need the PSL quads for this as long as the MC1 angle is stable.

The good news is that the PMC PZT voltage is now flat: the problem must have really been with
the PZT
and not the cabling or notch box like I had wondered about.

Todo:
-----
1) Continue mode matching into the PMC. Its transmission now is around the same as the
   old one.

2) Put a UHV foil covered lead brick onto the PMC to quiet it down.

3) Characterize the PMC loop and retune the body notch for the new body.

4) Tweak the MZ alignment to minimize the RFAM. We can use StochMon to do this as
   long as we have the MC WFS turned off or we can put in a flipper to take the
   beam before the MC and send it to the StochMon RFPD.

5) Re-align onto the ISS.

6) Install irises around the periscope for the beam. The old iris there is way off.

7) Fix PSL ANG and center both POS and ANG.
  746   Mon Jul 28 11:20:13 2008 JenneUpdatePSLWork on the FSS and Reference Cavity
[Yoichi, Jenne, Koji]

The Reference Cavity's saga continues....

Thursday, Yoichi and I worked to change the beam that we chose from the 2nd pass through the AOM, to the first order beam rather than the 2nd order beam (see elog #726). After choosing the correct beam, we get 29mW incident on the reference cavity (compared with 4mW before any work began). We adjusted the angle of the AOM in the plane of the table, and got up to 30.6mW. We adjusted the tip/tilt of the AOM and got to 30.7mW (the tip/tilt adjustment made a more significant difference in the work described in elog #726, but after that work, it was probably already pretty close to optimized). We noticed that for the above measurements, we had 2 beams through the Polarizing Beam Splitter and Waveplate (one very dim), so after excluding that beam, the power meter read 30.4mW. We adjusted the curved mirror a little, and got 30.8mW incident on the reference cavity.

We then put a triangle wave into the offset of the MC Servo Board using the "trianglewave <channel> <center> <amplitude> <period> <runtime>" command in a terminal screen. This changes the voltage to the VCO, and thus the frequency response of the AOM. We watch the diffracted spots from the second pass through the AOM, and confirm that the beam we have chosen is not moving, and all the others are. By symmetry, if we chose the first order beam after the first pass through the AOM, and then again chose the first order beam after the second pass, the resulting beam will not move with the frequency change of the AOM.

We saw 1.50V (Refl. PD, unlocked) on the 'scope after aligning the optics to make the newly chosen beam hit the input mirror of the reference cavity. Order of operations for this alignment:
  • Recenter the beam on the 2 lenses that are just after the PBS and the waveplate
  • Adjust pitch and yaw of the two steering mirrors until the beam reflected off the input mirror of the reference cavity is parallel to the incident beam
    • Use a sensor card to check the alignment of the incident and reflected beams, and adjust the steering mirrors to get the alignment close
      • Note the amplitude of the DC output of the Refl. PD with the iris completely open. Close the iris until the signal decreases by ~50%, then adjust the steering mirrors until the original amplitude is regained. Repeat until the iris can be almost completely closed but the Refl. PD signal doesn't change
    • Watch the DC output of the Refl. PD, and maximize the signal on a 'scope
    • Sweep the PZT of the laser using a function generator into the RAMP input on the FSS board (~10Vpp at ~1Hz), OR sweep the temperature of the laser using the trianglewave function on the SLOW FSS channel (amplitude~0.5, period~50)
    • Watch the modes that resonate in the cavity, and adjust pitch and yaw of the steering mirrors to get closer to the TEM00 mode
    • When the TEM00 mode appears in the sweep, stop the sweep, and lock the cavity
    • Watch the DC output of the Transmitted PD, and maximize the signal on a 'scope
  • Celebrate!

After all of this adjusting,
Refl. PD (unlocked) = 1.48V
Refl. PD (locked) = 680mV
Trans. PD (locked) = 6.28V
Power reflected (unlocked) = 26.28mW
Power transmitted (locked) = 13.89mW
Thus, 53% transmission

Next: check the amount of power transmitted by reducing the amplitude of the RF modulator. This reduces the amount of power used by the sidebands, and so should increase the transmission.
Power incident = 27mW
Power transmitted = 17.2mW
Thus, 64% transmission
We then put the RF modulator back where it was originally.

We then replaced the lens mounts for the f=802 and f=687 lenses between the AOM and the reference cavity, to the new mounts that Yoichi bought. Koji helped me realign into the reference cavity, and we got:
Refl. PD (unlocked) = 1.48V
Refl. PD (locked) = 880mV
Trans PD (locked) = 4.64V
Power incident = 26.97mW
Power transmitted = 10.39mW
39% transmission
Since more mode matching etc. is in the works, we left this for the night.

On Friday, we changed the setup of the cameras and PDs for both reflection and transmission, to avoid saturating the PDs and cameras.

On the Refl. side of the reference cavity, we put a W2-PW-1025-UV-1064-45P pickoff between the last mirror and lens before the camera and PD. We moved the camera to the pickoff side of the new optic. We then replaced teh 45UNP beam splitter that split the beam between the PD and the camera with a Y1-1037-45P highly reflective mirror, and put the PD in the old camera location.

On the Trans. side of the ref. cavity, we replaced the BSI-1064-50-1025-45S with a W2 pickoff, and replaced the Y1-1037-45-P highly reflective mirror with the 50/50 beam splitter that was replaced by the W2.

Now we have:
Refl. PD (unlocked) = 1.68V
Refl. PD (locked) = 640mV
Trans PD (locked) = 4.24V
Power incident = 25mW
Power transmitted = 14.48mW
58% transmission

Koji pointed out that when remounting, I had put the f=802 lens ~2cm away from its original position (along the z-axis), so I moved the lens back to where it should be, and realigned into the reference cavity. Since Rana was working on the PMC at the same time, the laser was turned down by about a factor of 100, so my starting measurements were:
Refl. PD (unlocked) = 23.6mV
Refl. PD (locked) = 10.2mV
Trans PD (locked) = 56mV
Power incident = 0.35mW
Power transmitted = 0.16mW
46% transmission

Since it was late on Friday by the time everything was realigned into the ref. cavity (I'm still working on my optics aligning skills), I forgot to measure the transmission after all of my work. I'll do that today (Monday) as soon as Sharon/Koji are done working with the IFO this morning. Also, I'll put up before/after pictures as soon as I find the camera...it seems to have walked off.

UPDATE:
Ref. Cav. measurements after Friday's alignment (and after turning the laser power back up to normal):
Refl. PD (unlocked) = 1.58V
Refl. PD (locked) = 304mV
Trans PD (locked) = 3.68V
Power incident = 24.96mW
Power transmitted = 16.45mW
66% transmission


To do: Start the actual mode-matching into the reference cavity.
  749   Mon Jul 28 17:44:07 2008 ranaUpdatePSLPMC PZT v. temperature
This plot shows that the PMC PZT has ~20 Vpp fluctuations on a 24 hour timescale
which is correlated to the 24 hour temperature fluctuations. By contrast, the MZ
has ~75 Vpp
.
Attachment 1: Untitled.pdf
Untitled.pdf
  751   Mon Jul 28 23:41:07 2008 robConfigurationPSLFSS/MC gains twiddled

I found the FSS and MC gain settings in a weird state. The FSS was showing excess PC drive and the MC wouldn't lock--even when it did, the boost stage would pull it off resonance. I adjusted the nominal FSS gains and edited the mcup and mcdown scripts. The FSS common gain goes to 30dB, Fast gain to 22dB, and MCL gain goes to 1 (which puts the crossover back around ~85 degrees where phase rises above 40 degrees).
  758   Tue Jul 29 19:41:38 2008 YoichiUpdatePSLFSS loop transfer functions
Last night I measured a bunch of transfer functions on the FSS loop.
All the loop gains were measured with the common gain = 30db and the fast gain = 18dB.

(1) The first attachment is the overall open loop transfer function of the FSS loop. I put a signal from the Test IN2 and observed signals from IN1 and IN2.
The UGF is about 180kHz.
By increasing the RF amplitude going to the EOM (i.e. increasing the sideband power), I can further increase the gain of the servo.
However, it made the PC drive immediately crazy. Probably it was some oscillation.

(2) Then I locked the ref. cav. with only the PZT actuator. I did so by simply unplugging the cable going to the PC.
Surprisingly, the cavity locked with the *same* gain setting as before. The second attachment shows the open loop transfer function measured in this configuration. It seems wrong, I mean, it should be unstable. But the cavity locked. A mystery.

(3) The third plot is the measured TF from the Test IN1 of the FSS board to the fast out (output to the PZT).

(4) By dividing the TF measured in (2) with the TF of (3), I got the response of the PZT times the cavity response. This is shown in the attachment 4.

(5) We can guess the open loop TF of the PC path by subtracting the TF in (2) from (1). It is shown in the attachment 5.

(6) The filter shape of the PC path is measured by injecting signal from the Test IN1 of the FSS board and observing it at the PC output. Since it is a high voltage output, I reduced the common gain to -8.5dB during the measurement. The attachment 6 is the measured filter shape. The gain is corrected to show what it should look like when the common gain = 30dB.

(7) By dividing (5) with (6), I plotted the response of the PC times the cavity response in the attachment 7. Since the 1/f cavity pole and the response of the PC, which is proportional to f, should cancel out, we expect a flat response above the cavity pole frequency (38kHz). You could say it is a sort of flat, if you have obscured eyes.

The measurement of the PZT open loop TF is very suspicious. According to this, the PC path has a very large gain even at very low frequencies (there is no cross over above 1kHz). This cannot be true. Maybe the cavity's optical gain was low when it was locked with only the PZT. I will re-measure it.
The plot (4) is also strange becaues it does not show the low pass feature expected from the cavity pole.
Attachment 1: OverallOPLTF.eps
OverallOPLTF.eps
Attachment 2: OpltfPZTOnly.eps
OpltfPZTOnly.eps
Attachment 3: PZTFilter.eps
PZTFilter.eps
Attachment 4: PZTxCavityPole.eps
PZTxCavityPole.eps
Attachment 5: OpltfPCOnly.eps
OpltfPCOnly.eps
Attachment 6: PCFilter.eps
PCFilter.eps
Attachment 7: PCxCavityPole.eps
PCxCavityPole.eps
  761   Tue Jul 29 23:04:34 2008 YoichiUpdatePSLFSS loop transfer functions

Quote:

The measurement of the PZT open loop TF is very suspicious. According to this, the PC path has a very large gain even at very low frequencies (there is no cross over above 1kHz). This cannot be true. Maybe the cavity's optical gain was low when it was locked with only the PZT. I will re-measure it.


I measured it again and found that the loop was oscillating at 13.5kHz. I think this oscillation prevented the ref. cavity from building up the power and consequently lowered the optical gain making it marginally stable. So the PZT path open loop TF posted in the previous entry is wrong.

I was able to stop the oscillation by lowering the gain down to CG=-7.6dB and FG=-8.78dB.
The first attachment shows the measured open loop transfer function.
Since the gain setting is different from when the over all open loop TF was measured, I scaled the gain (attachment 2).
However, this plot seems to have too much gain. Scaling it down by 20dB makes it overlap with the over all open loop TF.
Maybe the gain reading on the EPICS screen is wrong. I will measure the actual gain tomorrow.
Attachment 1: OpltfPZTOnlyRaw.eps
OpltfPZTOnlyRaw.eps
Attachment 2: OpltfPZTOnly.eps
OpltfPZTOnly.eps
  767   Wed Jul 30 13:09:40 2008 josephb, EricConfigurationPSLPMC scan experiment
We turned the PSL power down by a factor of 4, blocked one half of the Mach Zehnder and scanned the PMC by applying a ramp signal to PMC PZT. Eric will adding plots later today of those results.

We returned the power to close to original level and removed the block on the Mach Zehnder, and then relocked the PMC.
  772   Wed Jul 30 16:35:56 2008 EricUpdatePSLPMC Scan Graphs
Graphs of the PMC scan data that I got earlier today.

PMCLongScanWide.tiff shows the transmission intensity and PZT voltage plotted against time for a longer scan of the PMC (~120 seconds for one sweep).

PMCLongScanPeak.tiff is the same scan zoomed in on the primary peak. This scan was done with the laser power at around 1/3 its original value. However, scans done at around 1/6 the original value have peaks that are just as messy.

PMCShortScanWide.tiff shows the intensity and voltage for a more rapid scan (~30 second for one sweep). The black lines show how the peak positions are at very different PZT voltages (a difference of ~10 volts in both cases).

PMCShortScanPeak.tiff is zoomed in on the primary peak. The peak is much cleaner than for the long scan (less time for the laser's heat to expand the mirror?), though it is likely still too messy to reliably fit to a lorentzian.
Attachment 1: PMCLongScanPeak.tiff
Attachment 2: PMCLongScanWide.tiff
Attachment 3: PMCShortScanPeak.tiff
Attachment 4: PMCShortScanWide.tiff
  775   Thu Jul 31 10:27:17 2008 ranaUpdatePSLPMC Scan Graphs

Quote:
Graphs of the PMC scan data that I got earlier today.

On the UNIX computers, one can use 'convert' to change these to PNG. A DC offset should be added to the transmitted
light so that the scan can be plotted with a log y-scale. And, of course, Acrobat can be used to make it into a
single PDF file.

The PMC scan always has this distortion and so the input power has to be decreased to a few mW to reduce the
thermal expansion effect; the expansion coefficient for SiO2 is ~5 x 10^-7 / K and we're worried about nm level
expansions.
  778   Fri Aug 1 01:13:32 2008 ranaConfigurationPSLPSL Quad change and new script
Koji and I changed a few optics so that now ~60% of the beam that went to the PSL POS QPD
now goes to the west side of the table for the aux. laser locking PLL. The beam is sort of
on the QPD again but needs a centering.

After this work I wrote a script SUS/freeswing-all.csh which puts a 30000 count offset into
the UL coil of each suspension and then disables it. This is just good enough to kick it up
so that the eigenfrequency can be measured. I ran it and it worked -- it finished running at

Fri Aug 1 00:44:30 PDT 2008
  781   Fri Aug 1 16:33:52 2008 ranaConfigurationPSLPSL Quad change and new script
Here's the sensor ringdown trend from the kick.
Attachment 1: Untitled.png
Untitled.png
ELOG V3.1.3-