Today Steve was working around the 1X5 rack to strain relief the cable jungles and the jungle is now getting less jungle.

During the work he disconnected and reconnected some cables.

So for a doublecheck I checked all the suspensions to see if the suspensions are still healthy or not.

Aha, then I found a mistake.

See the pictures below. It's a very subtle difference. This wrong connection prevented MC1 and MC3 from damping.

The UL signal of the shadow sensor on ETMY went to zero this evening.

This was due to a loose connection on the cross connection board on the 1Y4 rack.

In order to make them tighten, a combination of stand-offs and screws were installed on the connectors. They won't be loose any more.

ETMY's watch dogs were found tripped. They were restored.

A new library part was made for the single suspension controller (it was originally made from the c1scx controller), using the following procedure:

1. Opened c1scx model (userapps/trunk/sus/c1/models/c1scx)
2. Cut ETMX subsystem block out of SUS subsystem
3. Pasted ETMX block into new empty library, and renamed it C1_SUS_SINGLE_CONTROL
4. Tweaked names of inputs, and generally cleaned up internals (cosmetically)
5. Saved library to: userapps/trunk/sus/c1/models/lib/sus_single_control.mdl

Once the new sus_single_control library part was made and the library was committed to the cds_user_apps repo, I replaced all sus controller subsystems with this new part, in:

• c1scx
• c1scy
• c1sus (x5 for each vertex mass)

All models were rebuild, installed, and tested, and everything seems to be working fine.

Some weeks ago, Joe, Jamie, and I reworked the ETMY controls.

Today we found that the model rebuilds and BURT restores have conspired to put the SUS damping into a bad state.

1) The FM1 files in the XXSEN modules should switch the analog shadow sensor whitening. I found today that, at least on ETMY and ETMX, they do nothing. This needs to be fixed before we can use the suspensions.

2) I found all of the 3:30 and cts2um buttons OFF AGAIN. There's something certainly wrong with the way the models are being built or BURTed. All of our suspension tuning work is being lost as a consequence. We (Joe and Jamie) need to learn to use CONLOG and check that the system is not in a nonsense state after rebuilds. Just because the monitors have lights and the MEDM values are fluctuating doesn't mean that "ITS WORKING". As a rule, when someone says "it seems to work", that basically means that they have no idea if anything is working.

3) We need a way to test that the CDS system is working...

 We measured the OSEM PD whitening transfer function of the ETMX OSEM UL whitening stage (D000210) by comparing the input signal to the whitening amplifier (single pin LEMO monitor) to the output signal - both were piped into the DAQ. The transfer function was close to constant 0 dB/180 deg independent of the whitening switch selection (FM1 filter engaged/disengaged)  up to ~20 Hz where we run out of coherence. All other ETMX and ETMY spectra at the input of the digital whitening compensation don't change when the whitening is switched on/off so by induction we conclude that all the ETMX/ETMY OSEM PD hardware whitening filters are not on.

Joe discovered today that ETMY in fact has no binary output module at all, so there is actually no digital control of the whitening filters at ETMY.

We suspect that the ETMY binary output module was maybe harvested to put in the LSC rack, but we're not sure.

We found a spare binary output adapter pcb, which I will try to assemble into a module to install in ETMY.

This does not explain what's going on with ETMX, though.  ETMX has a binary output module, that appears to be properly hooked up.  I'll try to debug what's going on there as well.

In the mean time, I've removed the ETMX binary output module to use as a reference for putting together another identical module for ETMY.

I checked the state of the whitening filters for the ETMY shadow sensors.

Result : They've been OFF  (i.e. flat response).

(measurement and setup)

 I measured the transfer functions of the whitening board (D000210) by looking at the signal before and after the whitening stage.

 The whitening board handles five signals; UL, UR, LR, LL and SD, and there are five single-pin lemo outputs for each signal on the front panel.

A good thing on those lemo monitors is that their signals are monitored before the whitening stages.

Rana suggested me to use these signals for the denominator of the transfer functions and consider the sensor signals as excitation signals.

So I plugged those signals into extra ADC channels via an AA-board and measured the transfer functions.

In the measurement the coherence above 4 Hz was quite small while the suspension was freely swinging.

Therefore I had to excite the ETMY suspension by putting random noise in a frequency band from 5 Hz to 35 Hz to obtain better coherence.

(results)

 The response is flat over frequency range from ~ 0.2 Hz to ~40 Hz, see the plot below. 

According to the spectrum of each signal the measurements above 10 Hz are just disturbed by the ADC noise.

If the whitening filters are ON, a pole and zero are expected to appear at 30 Hz and 3 Hz respectively according to the schematic, but no such features.

- I was investigating the SUS whitening issue.

- I could not find any suspension which can handle the input whitening switch correctly.

- I went to 1X5 rack and found that both of the two binary output boxes were turned off.
As far as I know they are pulling up the lines which are switched by the open collector outputs.

- I tried to turn on the switch. Immediately I noticed the power lamps did not work. So I need an isolated setup to investigate the situation.

- The cables are labelled. I will ask steve to remove the boxes from the rack.

 I shut down damping to the Vertex optics and removed Binary IO  Adapter chassy BO0 and BO1

About a week ago I discussed the BO0's power indicator lights with Kiwamu. They were  not on or they were blinking on-off.

I put screws into ps connectors in the back, but it did not helped.

[Jamie, Koji]

- We found the reason why some of the LEDs had no light. It was because the LEDs were blown as they were directly connected to the power supply.
The LEDs are presumably designed to be connected to a 5V supply (with internal current-limiting resistor of ~500Ohm). The too much current
with the 15V (~30mA) made the LED blown, or the life-time of them shorter.

- Jamie removed all of the BO modules and I put 800Ohm additional resister such that the resultant current is to be 12mA.
The LEDs were tested and are fine now.

- The four BO boxes for C1SUS were restored on the rack. I personally got confused what should be connected where
even though I had labeled for BO0 and BO1. I just have connected CH1-16 for BO0. The power supplies have been connected only to BO0 and BO1.

- I tested the whitening of PRM UL sensor by exciting PRM UL sensor. The transfer function told us that the pendulum response can be seen
up to 10-15Hz. When the whitening is on, I could see the change of the transfer function in that freq band. This is good.
So the main reason why I could not see theis was that the power supply for the BOs were not turned on.

- I suppose Jamie/Joe will restore all of the BO boxes on the racks tomorrow. I am going to make a test script for checking the PD whitenings.

ITMY sus damping restored.

I have installed a new binary output module in ETMY, where there was none previously.  It is installed, powered (with working LEDs), hooked up (to the binary output card and the cross connect), but it hasn't been fully tested yet.

I also re-installed the binary output module in ETMX, with newly modified power-indicator LEDs.

Both modules are fully installed, but they have not yet been fully tested to confirm that they are indeed switching the whitening and de-whitening filters.

ETMX sus damping restored

Here is my work plan for this week:

Current Week Plan (Week 2) (As of 6/17/11)

Setting Up for Horizontal Displacement Measurements

Begin Assembly of Sensors

The small optical bench (next to the MC-2 Chamber and the tool box tower) has been cleared of the misc. object previously on it, cleaned, and leveled (after much calibration X___X).

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE do NOT MOVE OR HIT THE TABLE! It was incredibly painful to level.

This is how leveling the table made me feel...

VERY SAD...so do not move please!

The shaker has already been moved to the table and the amplifier for my shaking experiment is located behind the table (not on the table, as to prevent scratching).

I have made my transfer function model and posted it to the suspension wiki. Here is the link to my model!

Bode Plot Model

Please let me know if there need to be any adjustments, but I have posted the bode plots, a model image, and an explanation of why I think it's right! ^ ___^ V

I am currently working on the photo sensor circuit for the displacement detector. So far, I have gotten the infared LED to light up! ^ ___^ V

I am now trying to get a plot of forward voltage versus current for the LED. HOPEFULLY it will match the curve provided in the LED datasheet.

I'm using the bread board circuit box and when I'm not working at the bench, I have signs posted. PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE THE CONNECTIONS! It is

fine to move the bread board circuit box, but please do not disturb the connections > ____<

Here is a photo of the workspace

NOTE: The potentiometers on the bread board circuit box (the one I have been using with the signal generator, DC power, LED displays, and pulse switches) is BROKEN!

The potential across terminals 1 and 2 (also 2&3) fluctuates wildly and there dial does not affect the potential for the second potentiometer (the one with terminals 4, 5, and 6).

This has been confirmed by Koji and Jaimie.  PS I didn't break it! >____<

NEVERTHELESS, using individual resistors and the 500 ohm trim resistor, I have managed to get the current versus forward voltage plot for the Hamamatsu L9337 Infared LED

We have fixed the counts-to-micron (cts2um) calibration for the suspension sensor filters. Each suspension sensor filter bank (e.g. ULSEN) has a "cts2um" calibration filter. These have now been set with the following flat gains:

   40 V       10^3 um         um
 -------- *  --------  = .36  --
 2^16 cts     1.7 V           ct

The INMTRX was also fixed with proper element values:

This was done for all core optic suspensions (BS, PRM, SRM, ITMX, ITMY, ETMX, ETMY).

I recorded a burt snapshot of these settings: /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/burt/autoburt/snapshots/2011/Jun/23/21:40

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

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

The PRM sus damping restored. C1:SUS-PRM_SDPD_VAR is still 20-30mV and going up.  Side gain  turned on. This pulled it down to 5-8 mV

Why is the side osem sensing voltage 4.4V ? It can not be higher than ~2.4V.......something is rotten in the state of Denmark?

Edit by KI:

 It's because Valera increased the transimpedance gain of the PRM SIDE OSEM to match the signal level to the new ADC range (#3913 ).

Today Ishwita, Sonali, and I completed basic laser safety training with Peter King. I completed the Laser Safety Quiz and have turned in my certificate sheet.

I just need to turn in a signed copy of the Lab Safety Checklist to SFP (which I can now have signed by Koji after completing the course).

Steve and I have removed the TT mirror from the clean box. It is now on the small optical table in the lab that I have been working on.  Thanks to Steve, all of the mechanical components for the horizontal displacement measurement experiment are compiled and on the small optical table. Here is a photo of the small optical table with the gathered components.

The plan is to attach the slider and the shaker directly to the black mounting plate. On the slider, we we then place the smaller black mounting plate (with the lip). The lip will attach to the shaker. We know exactly where to drill and everything is lined up. The shaker will be placed on the smaller black mounting plate (with the lip).  The assembly will begin on Monday.

Here is a photo of the planned set-up for the shaker and the horizontal slider + mounting base.

I used scripts/SUS/freeswing-all.csh to give the optics a kick and then turn off their watchdogs and collect the free swinging data.  Final script end time = 993173551. Start taking data ~ 993173751

I had to fix up the script a little: it had amateur stuff in there, such as undefined variables.

It still doesn't work that well. On the new Ubuntu workstations, pianosa, it fails by just not setting some of the EPICS variables using the EZCA stuff.

On Allegra, it failed on ~1 out of 10 commands by returning "epicsThreadOnce0sd epicsMutexLock failed" ???

On Pianosa, it sometimes says, instead, "epicsThreadOnceOsd: pthread_mutex_lock returned Invalid argument.".   Ah...now I understand?

So finally, I had to run the script on op340m to get it to actually run all of its commands. That's right; I used a 15 year old Solaris 9 Blade 150 because none of our fancy new Linux machines could do the job reliably.

Fixing our EZCA situation is a pretty high priority; if the locking scripts fail to run ~1 command every hour its going to completely derail the lock acquisition attempts.

If you want to use the IFO tonight, just run the script again on op340m again when you're done.

Chris Wipf tells me that the EPICS Mutex Jumbo Mumbo can be overcome by upgrading our EPICS. We should get one of Jamie's assistants to get this going on one of the Ubuntu workstations.

I have updated the sus_single_control model, adjusting/cleaning up/simplifying the LSC/POS input signals, and routing new signals to the lockins. Notably one of POS inputs to the part ("lockin_in") was eliminated (see below).

The 6 inputs to the TO_COIL output matrix are now:

LSCPOS + OFFSET + ALT_POS_IN
ASCPIT + OFFSET + SUSPIT + OLPIT
ASCYAW +OFFSET + SUSYAW + OLYAW
SIDE
LOCKIN1
LOCKIN2

The ALT_POS input is used only by the ETMs for the green locking. Just outside of the sus_single_control library part in the ETM models are the green locking controls, consisting of the ETM?_ALS filter bank and the ETM?_GLOCKIN lockin, the outputs from which are summed and fed into the aforementioned ALT_POS input.

As for the SUS lockins (LOCKIN1 and LOCKIN2 in the library model), their input matrix now gets the direct inputs from the OSEMS (before filtering) and the outputs to the coils, after all filtering. These will aid in doing binary output switching tests.

All suspension models (c1sus, c1scx, c1scy) have been rebuild and restarted so that they reflect these changes.

I have been checking the binary output switching for the SUS whitening filters. It appears that the whitening switching is working for (almost) all the vertex suspensions (BS, ITMX, ITMY, PRM, SRM), but not for the ETMs.

The table below lists the output from my switch-checking script (attached). The script uses the SUS digital lockin to drive one coil and measure the same coil's OSEM response, repeating for each coil/OSEM pair. I used a lockin drive frequency of about 10 Hz, at which the whitening filter should have 10 db of gain.

All but one of the vertex OSEMS show the proper response (~10db gain at 10Hz) when the whitening is switched on from the digital controls. ITMY UL appears to not be switching, which I fear is due to my electronics fail noted in my previous log post.  The ETMs are clearly not switching at all.

I will try to get the ETM switching working tomorrow, as well as try to asses what can be done about the ITMY UL switch.  After that I will work on confirming the coil drive dewhite switching.

lockin settings

freq: 10.123 Hz
amp: 10000
I/Q filters: 0.1 Hz LP, 4-pole butterworth

response

BS
ul : 3.31084503062 = 10.3987770676 db
ll : 3.34162124753 = 10.4791444741 db
sd : 3.43226254574 = 10.7116100229 db
lr : 3.28602651913 = 10.3334212798 db
ur : 3.29361593249 = 10.3534590969 db

ITMX
ul : 3.37499773336 = 10.5654697099 db
ll : 3.2760924572  = 10.3071229966 db
sd : 3.13374799272 =  9.9212813757 db
lr : 3.28133776018 = 10.3210187243 db
ur : 3.37250879937 = 10.5590618297 db

ITMY
ul : 0.99486434364 = -0.0447226830807 db
ll : 3.39420873724 = 10.6147709414 db
sd : 3.88698713176 = 11.7922620572 db
lr : 3.357123865   = 10.5193473069 db
ur : 3.37876008179 = 10.5751470918 db

PRM
ul : 3.26758918055 = 10.2845489876 db
ll : 3.32023820566 = 10.4233848529 db
sd : 3.25205538857 = 10.2431586766 db
lr : 3.24610681962 = 10.227256141  db
ur : 3.31311970305 = 10.4047425446 db

SRM
ul : 3.30506423619 = 10.3835980943 db
ll : 3.28152094133 = 10.3215036019 db
sd : 3.08566647696 =  9.7869796462 db
lr : 3.30298270419 = 10.378125991  db
ur : 3.3012249406  = 10.3735023505 db

ETMX
ul : 0.99903400106 = -0.00839461539757 db
ll : 0.99849991349 = -0.0130393683795 db
sd : 1.00314092883 =  0.0272390056874 db
lr : 1.00046493718 =  0.00403745453682 db
ur : 1.00265600785 =  0.0230392084558 db

ETMY
ul : 1.00223179107 =  0.0193634913327 db
ll : 0.96755532811 = -0.286483823189 db
sd : 1.00861855271 =  0.0745390477589 db
lr : 1.05718545676 =  0.483023602007 db
ur : 0.99777406174 = -0.0193558045143 db

Here I show several issues that we have encountered in the quad magnetic levitation system. It would be great if you can give
some suggestions and comments (Poor haixing is crying for help)

The current setup is shown by the figure below (I took the photo this morning):

Basically, we have one heavy load which is rigidly connected to a plane that we try to levitate. On corners of the
plane, there are four push-fit permanent magnets. Those magnets are attracted by four other magnets which are
mounted on the four control coils (the DC force is to counteract the DC gravity). By sensing the position of the plane
with four OSEMs (there are four flags attached on the plane), we try to apply feedback control and levitate the plane.
We have made an analog circuit to realize the feedback, but it is not successful. There are the following main issues
that need to be solved:

(1) DC magnetic force is imbalanced, and we found that one pair has a stronger DC force than others. This should
be able to solved simply by replacing them with magnets have comparable strength to others.

(2) The OSEM not only senses the vertical motion, but also the translational motion. One possible fast solution is to
cover the photodiode and only leave a very thin vertical slit so that a small translational motion is not sensed.
Maybe this is too crappy. If you have better ideas, please let me know. Koji suggested to use reflective sensing
instead of OSEM, which can also solve the issue that flags sometimes touche the hole edge of the OSEM and
screw up the sensing.

(3) Cross coupling among different degrees of freedom. Basically, even if the OSEM only senses the vertical motion,
the motion of four flags, which are rigidly connected to the plane, are not independent. In the ideal case, we only
need to control pith, yaw and vertical motion, which only has three degrees of freedom, while we have four sensing outputs
from four OSEMs. This means that we need to work out the right control matrix. Right now, we are in some kind of dilemma.
In order to obtain the control matrix, we first have to get the sensing matrix or calibrate the cross coupling; however, this is
impossible if the system is unstable. This is very different from the case of quad suspension control used in LIGO,
in which the test mass is stable suspended and it is relatively easy to measure the cross coupling by driving the test mass
with coils. Rana suggested to include a mechanical spring between the fixed plane and levitated plane, so that
we can have a stable system to start with. I tried this method today, but I did not figure out a nice way to place the spring,
as we got a hole right in the middle of the fixed plane to let the coil connectors go though. As a first trial, I plan to
replace the stop rubber band (to prevent the plane from getting stuck onto the magnets) shown in the figure with mechanical
springs. In this case, the levitated plane is held by four springs instead of one. This is not as good as one, because
of imbalance among the four, but we can use this setup, at least, to calibrate the cross coupling. Let me know if you come
up better solution.

After those issues are solved, we can then implement Jamie's Cymac digital control, which is now under construction,
to achieve levitation.

 I don't know if this would work, but it might be worth a try:

You've achieved single levitation before, with fairly good stability.  Can you try taking each magnet + coil and finding the DC coil current required to hold a mass at a given position?  If you can hold the same mass at the same place with all the different magnets+coils, then you're exerting the same force against gravity, so your DC forces are balanced. 

Update of Week 3 Work:

-I've finished reading The Art of Electronics Ch 1, 2, and 4.

-The mechanical stage for the horizontal displacement measurements is set up.

-I've opened up the circuit box for the quad photodiode and am currently working on the circuit diagram for the box and for the quad photodiode sensors.

Later this week, I plan to finish the circuit diagrams and figure out how the circuits work with the four inputs. I also plan to start working on my first

progress report.

I have finished drawing the circuit diagrams for the quad photodiode boxes. Here are copies of the circuit diagram.

There are three main operation circuits in the quad photdiode box: a summing circuit (summing the contributions from the four inputs),

a Y output circuit (taking the difference between the input sums 3+2 and 1+4), and an X output circuit (taking the difference between the

input sums 3+4 and 1+2). I will complete an mini report on my examination and conclusions of the QPD circuit for the suspension wiki tomorrow.

While closing up the whitening shop for the night, I noticed that the ITMX whitening state (Whitening "On") is opposite that of all other suspensions (they all have Whitening "Off").  I don't know which way is correct, but I assume they should all be the same.  Once all the whitening and BO testing is done, we should make sure that they're all the way we want them to be.

Also, Koji and I are leaving ETMX free swinging.  That's the way we found it, presumably from Jamie's BO testing at the end station today.  We don't know what the optic's story is, so we're leaving it the way we found it.  Jamie (or whomever left it free swinging), can you please restore it when it is okay to do so?  Thanks!

This was certainly my fault, probably left over from early debugging of my BO switch check script.  I've turned the ITMX whitening all off, to match the other suspensions.

Again, this was my fault.  Sorry.  I just accidentally left this off when I finished yesterday.  Much apologies.  I've turned the ETMX watchdog back on.

I have fixed the binary whitening switching for the ETMs (ETMX and ETMY).  See below for a description of what some of the issues were.

The ETMX whitening/no-whitening response (same measurements performed in my previous post on checking vertex sus whitening switching) looks as it should.  The ETMY response seems to indicate that the switching is happening, but the measurements are very noise.  I had to up the averaging significantly to get anything sensible.  There's something else going on with ETMY.  I'll follow up on that in another post.

response

ETMX
ul : 3.28258088774 = 10.3243087313 db
ll : 3.31203559803 = 10.4018999194 db
sd : 3.27932572306 = 10.3156911129 db
lr : 3.28189942386 = 10.3225053532 db
ur : 3.31351020008 = 10.4057662366 db

ETMY
ul : 2.9802607099  =  9.4850851468 db
ll : 1.46693103911 =  3.3281939600 db
sd : 2.19178266285 =  6.8159497462 db
lr : 2.2716636118  =  7.1268804285 db
ur : 3.42348315519 = 10.6893639064 db

End rack cable diagrams inconsistent with binary channel mapping

One of the big problems was that the most up-to-date end rack cable diagrams (that I can find) are inconsistent with the actual binary mapping. The diagram says that:

• BO adapter chassis output A (ch 1-16)   --> CAB_1X4_26 --> cross-connect 1X4-B7 (carrying QPD whitening switching signals)
• BO adapter chassis output B (ch 17-32) --> CAB_1X4_27 --> cross-connect 1X4-A6 (carrying OSEM whitening switching signals)

In fact, the binary outputs are switched, such that output A carries the OSEM signals, and output B carries the QPD whitening signals.

I SWITCHED THE CABLES AT THE BINARY OUTPUT ADAPTER CHASSIS so that:

• BO adapter chassis output A (ch 1-16)   --> CAB_1X4_27 --> cross-connect 1X4-A6 (carrying OSEM whitening switching signals)
• BO adapter chassis output B (ch 17-32) --> CAB_1X4_26 --> cross-connect 1X4-B7 (carrying QPD whitening switching signals)

The rest of the wiring remains the same.

I made the same transformation for ETMY as well.

I found many of the core optic (ETMs, ITMs, BS, PRM, SRM) suspension DOF damping controllers (SUSPOS, SUSPIT, SUSYAW, SUSSIDE) to be in various states of disarray:

• Many of the controllers did not have their "Cheby" and "BounceRoll" filters switched on.
• Some of the controllers didn't even have the Cheby or BounceRoll filters at all, or had other different filters in their place.
• ETMY was particularly screwy (I'll make a separate follow-up post about this)
• A bunch of random other unused filters lying around.
• oplev servos not on
• etc.

I went around and tried to clean things up, by "normalizing" all of the DOF damping filter banks, ie. giving them all the same filters and clearing out unused filters, and then turning on all the appropriate filters in all core optic damping filter banks ("3:0.0", "Cheby", "BounceRoll").  I also went sure that all the outputs were properly on, and the oplev servos were on.

A couple of the optics had to have their gains adjusted to compensate for filter changes, but nothing too drastic.

Everything now looks good, and all optics are nicely damped.

I didn't touch the MC sus damping controllers, but they're in a similar state of disarray and could use a once-over as well.

I'm not sure what happened to ETMY SUS, but it was in a pretty bad state.  Bad burt restore, I would guess.

Most egregiously, the inputs to all of the coil output filters were switched off.  This is a bit insidious, since these inputs being off doesn't show up on the overview screen at all.  This explains why ETMY had not been damping for the last couple of day, and why my binary whitening switching measurements were nonsense.

I also found that ETMYs damping filter was a 30 Hz high pass, instead of the 3 Hz high pass in all the other suspension controllers.  Unfortunately a messed up burt restore can't explain that.

I normalized the ETMY controller to match all of the other controllers (ie. gave it a nice new 3 Hz high pass), adjusted gains accordingly, and now ETMY is behaving nicely.

After finally figuring out what was messed up with ETMY I was able to get good measurements of the binary whitening switching on ETMY to determine that it is in fact working now:

ETMY
ul : 3.2937569959  = 10.3538310999 db
ll : 3.28988426634 = 10.3436124066 db
sd : 3.34670033732 = 10.4923365497 db
lr : 3.08727050163 =  9.7914936665 db
ur : 3.27587751842 = 10.3065531117 db

Actually, ETMY was the only good one. They should all have the 30 Hz High pass as the damping filter. I think these details are in the elog entry that we originally made while doing ETMY.

They should all also have a 3:30 in the XXSEN to compensate the whitening. The logic is supposed to be that FM1 is ON when the hardware whitening is ON. This is the opposite of the old logic and its why the damping filter has to be moved from 3 to 30 Hz.

         MC1    MC2    MC3    ETMX   ETMY   ITMX   ITMY   PRM    SRM    BS     mean   std
Pitch   0.671  0.747  0.762  0.909  0.859  0.513  0.601  0.610  0.566  0.747  0.698  0.129
Yaw     0.807  0.819  0.846  0.828  0.894  0.832  0.856  0.832  0.808  0.792  0.831  0.029
Pos     0.968  0.970  0.980  1.038  0.983  0.967  0.988  0.999  0.962  0.958  0.981  0.024
Side    0.995  0.993  0.971  0.951  1.016  0.986  1.004  0.993  0.973  0.995  0.988  0.019

There is a large amount of variation in the frequencies, even though the suspensions are nominally all the same. I leave it to the suspension makers to ponder and explain.

The PRM sus damping was restored. It's side rms motion came down from 35 to 4 mV immediately.      Lab   air quality is back to normal.

Based on Rana's comment I have gone through and moved all of the corner frequencies for the high pass filters in the SUS damping controllers to 30 Hz.  I did this for all optics (MC1, MC1, MC3, BS, ITMX, ITMY, PRM, SRM, ETMX, ETMY) all degrees of freedom (POS, PIT, YAW, SIDE).

Rana also suggested I turn off all of the BounceRoll filters until we get a chance to tune those individually for all the suspensions.

Finally, I normalized the MC SUSXXX filter banks to look just like all the other suspensions.

All damping filter banks for all degrees of freedom for all single suspensions should all be the same now (modulo the differences in the BounceRoll filters, which are now turned off).

This is getting closer, but with the whitening left OFF and the cts2um filter also OFF, none of the suspensions are working correctly. I'm shutting down all the watchdogs until someone gets around to setting the damping gains and filters correctly.

I'm attaching a screenshot of some of the problems I see so far with MC3.

I'm going to try to get the MC suspensions working OK for tonight so that we can use them for the PRMI locking work.

Update #1: None of the MC SUS DAQ channels are found by dataviewer....SUS debugging speed reduced by 10x.  Tue Jul 05 21:38:17 2011

Update #2: POS/PIT/YAW BIAS sliders now seem to work, but are ~1000x too weak to do anything.   Tue Jul 05 21:41:38 2011

[Jenne / Rana/ Kiwamu]

 We found the 30 Hz high pass filters had lower gain than what they used to be at low frequcnies.

So we increased the gain of the high pass filters called '30:0.0'  by a factor of 10 to have the same gain as before.

Now all the suspension shows some kind of damping. Needs more optimizations, for example Q-adjustments for all the suspensions...

I'm not convinced that this is what you want to do, or at least I wouldn't do it this way.  The "k" in the zpk filter was set such that the filter had unity gain above the high-pass cut-off frequency.  For a 30 Hz high-pass the k needs to be a factor of 10 smaller than it would be for a 3 Hz high-pass to achieve this high frequency unity gain.

As it is now these HP filters have 20 dB of gain above 30 Hz.  If the open loop transfer function needs to more gain I would have done that by adjusting the overall DC gain of the filter bank, not by increasing the gain in this one filter.  Maybe you guys have been doing it differently, though.  Or maybe I'm just completely off base.

I tried to fix all of the problems that I could identify in this screen shot:

• Fixed the TO_COIL output filter matrix screen to correctly point to the matrix element filter screens (all SUS)
• Removed MCL sections from SUS_XXX_POSITION screens, except for MC2.  I also modified the _POSITION screens for the ETMs to refer to ALS instead of MCL.
• Zeroed out all of the lockin gains in the TO_COIL matrices (MC SUS)
• Made sure all whitening filter were ON (all SUS)
• Made sure all cts2um calibration filters were on (all SUS)
• Made sure all oplev servos were on (all SUS)

So after talking to Kiwamu about it, I understand now that since the damping loops need all of this extra gain when the high-pass corner is moved up, it's more convenient to put that gain in the control filter itself, rather than having to crank the overall DC gain up to some inconveniently high value.

Healthy BS oplev

[Steve / Kiwamu]

Motivation:

 Since the oplevs were the ones we haven't carefully tested, so the oplevs need to be checked.

This checking is also a part of the suspension optimizations (see the minutes of the last 40m meeting).

 In this work Steve will check two things for all the oplevs :

    1. Noise level including the dark noise, electrical noise and ADC noise to just make sure that the noise are blow the signal levels below ~ 30Hz.

    2. The spectra of the signals to make sure there are no funny oscillations and unexpected structures

Measurement :

  To check the things listed above, we take two kinds of oplves' spectra :

     1. "dark noise" when the He-Ne beam is blocked.

     2. "signals" when the optics are damped by only OSEMs

 We did these checks on the BS oplev today (see the last entry).

All of them are fine, for example the dark noise (including electrical noise and ADC noise) are below the signal levels.

And no oscillation peak was found. Steve will go through all of the oplevs in this way.

A copy of my summer progress report 1 has been uploaded to ligodcc 7/711 and I have just added a copy to the TTsuspension wiki

PDF copy of Summer Progress Report

 I repeated the BS oplev spectrum today and I do not understand why it does look different. I did it as Kiwamu describes it in entry#4948  The oplev servo was left ON!