40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 314 of 335  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Authordown Type Category Subject
  4470   Wed Mar 30 21:21:15 2011 BryanConfigurationGreen LockingThe wonderful world of mode-matching

Step 4: Matching into the oven

 

 

Now that the astigmatism is substantially reduced, we can work out a lens solution to obtain a 50um waist *anywhere* on the bench as long as there's enough room to work with the beam afterwards. The waist after the Faraday and lens is at position 22.5 on the bench. A 50 mm lens placed 18 cm after this position (position 14.92 on the bench) should give a waist of 50 um at  24.57 cm after the waist (position 12.83 on the bench). This doesn't give much room to measure the beam waist in though - the Beamscan head has a fairly large finite size… wonder if there's a slightly less strong lens I could use…

OK. With a 66 mm lens at 23 cm (position 13.45 on the bench) after the waist we get a 50 um waist at 31.37 cm after the waist (position 10.15 on the bench). 

 

Oven_Lens_Solution_66mm.png

 

Closest lens I found was 62.9mm which will put the 50um point a bit further towards the wall, but on the X-arm the oven is at position 8.75 ish. So anything around there is fine.

 

Using this lens and after a bit of manual fiddling and checking with the Beamscan, I figured we needed a close in, fine-grained measurement so set the Beamscan head up on a micrometer stage Took a whoie bunch of data around position 9 on the bench:

 

 

Position A1_13.5%_width A2_13.5%_width

(mm) (um mean) (um mean)

-15 226.8 221.9

-14 210.9 208.3

-13 195.5 196.7

-12 181.0 183.2

-11 166.0 168.4

-10 154.0 153.1

-9 139.5 141.0

-8 127.5 130.0

-7 118.0 121.7

-6 110.2 111.6

-5 105.0 104.8

-4 103.1 103.0

-3 105.2 104.7

-2 110.9 110.8

-1 116.8 117.0

0 125.6 125.6

0 125.6 125.1

1 134.8 135.3

2 145.1 145.6

3 155.7 157.2

4 168.0 168.1

5 180.5 180.6

6 197.7 198.6

7 211.4 209.7

8 224.0 222.7

9 238.5 233.7

10 250.9 245.8

11 261.5 256.4

12 274.0 270.4

13 291.3 283.6

14 304.2 296.5

15 317.9 309.5

 

Matching_Into_Green_Oven_zoomed_out.pngMatching_Into_Green_Oven_zoomed_in.png

 

And at this point the maximum power available at the oven-waist is 298mW. With 663mW available from the laser with a desired power setting of 700mW on the supply. Should make sure we understand where the power is being lost. The beam coming through the FI looks clean and unclipped, but there is some stray light around.

 

Position A1_13.5%_width A2_13.5%_width

(bench) (um mean) (um mean)

7 868.5   739.9

6 1324 1130

5 1765 1492

4 2214 1862

 

The plot looks pretty good, but again, there looks to be an offset on the 'fitted' curve. Taking a couple of additional points further on to make sure it all works out as the beam propagates. I took a few extra points at the suggestion of Kiwamu and Koji - see the zoomed out plot.  The zoomed in plot has by-eye fit lines - again, because to get the right shape to fit the points there appears to be an offset. Where is that coming from? My suspicion is that the Beamscan doesn't take account of the any background zero offsets when calculating the 13.5% and we've been using low power when doing these measurements - very small focussed beams and didn't want to risk damage to the profiler head.

 

Decided to take a few measurements to test this theory. Trying different power settings and seeing if it gives different offset and/or a changed width size

 

7 984.9 824.0 very low power

7 931.9 730.3 low power

7 821.6 730.6 higher power

7 816.4 729.5 as high as I'm comfortable going

 

Trying this near the waist…

 

8.75 130.09 132.04 low power

8.75 106.58 105.46 higher power

8.75 102.44 103.20 as high as it can go without making it's saturated

 

So it looks like offset *is* significant and the Beamscan measurements are more accurate with more power to make the offsets less significant. Additionally, if this is the case then we can do a fit to the previous data (which was all taken with the same power setting) and simply allow the offset to be a free parameter without affecting the accuracy of the waist calculation. This fit and data coming to an e-log near you soon.

 

Of course, it looks from the plots above (well... the code that produces the plots above) that the waist is actually a little bit small (around 46um) so some adjustment of the last lens back along the beam by about half a cm or so might be required.

 
  4476   Thu Mar 31 14:10:00 2011 BryanConfigurationGreen LockingThe wonderful world of mode-matching

Quote:

 I went through the entries.

1. Give us a photo of the day. i.e. Faraday, tilted lens, etc...

2. After all, where did you put the faraday in the plot of the entry 4466?

3. Zoomed-in plot for the SHG crystal show no astigmatism. However, the zoomed out plot shows some astigmatism.
How consistent are they? ==> Interested in seeing the fit including the zoomed out measurements.

 OK. Taking these completely out of order in the easiest first...

2. The FI is between positions 27.75 and 32 on the bench - i.e. this is where the input and output apertures are. (corresponds to between 0.58 and 0.46 on the scale of those two plotsand just before both the vertical and horizontal waists) At these points the beam radius is around 400um and below, and the aperture of the Faraday is 4.8mm (diameter).

1. Photos...

Laser set up - note the odd angles of the mirrors. This is where we're losing a goodly chunk of the light. If need be we could set it up with an extra mirror and send the light round a square to provide alignment control AND reduce optical power loss...

P3310028.JPG

 

Faraday and angled lens - note that the lens angle is close to 45 degrees. In principle this could be replaced with an appropriate cylindrical lens, but as long as there's enough light passing through to the oven I think we're OK.

P3310029.JPG

3. Fitting... coming soon once I work out what it's actually telling me. Though I hasten to point out that the latter points were taken with a different laser power setting and might well be larger than the actual beam width which would lead to astigmatic behaviour.

  4477   Thu Mar 31 15:23:14 2011 BryanConfigurationGreen LockingThe wonderful world of mode-matching

Quote:

3. Zoomed-in plot for the SHG crystal show no astigmatism. However, the zoomed out plot shows some astigmatism.

How consistent are they? ==> Interested in seeing the fit including the zoomed out measurements.

Right. Fitting to the data. Zoomed out plots first. I used the general equation f(x) = w_o.*sqrt(1 + (((x-z_o)*1064e-9)./(pi*w_o.^2)).^2)+c for each fit which is basically just the Gaussian beam width parameter calculation but with an extra offset parameter 'c'

Vertical fit for zoomed out data:

Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):

       c =   7.542e-06  (5.161e-06, 9.923e-06)

       w_o =   3.831e-05  (3.797e-05, 3.866e-05)

       z_o =       1.045  (1.045, 1.046)

 

Goodness of fit:

  SSE: 1.236e-09

  R-square: 0.9994

 
Horizontal fit for zoomed out data:
 

Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):

       c =   1.083e-05  (9.701e-06, 1.195e-05)

       w_o =   4.523e-05  (4.5e-05, 4.546e-05)

       z_o =       1.046  (1.046, 1.046)

 

Goodness of fit:

  SSE: 2.884e-10

  R-square: 0.9998

  Adjusted R-square: 0.9998

  RMSE: 2.956e-06

 

Zoomed_out_fitting01.png

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

 

OK. Looking at the plots and residuals for this, the deviation of the fit around the waist position, and in fact all over, looks to be of the order 10um. A bit large but is it real? Both w_o values are a bit lower than the 50um we'd like, but… let's check using only the zoomed in data -  hopefully more consistent since it was all taken with the same power setting.

 

 

Vertical data fit using only the zoomed in data:

 

Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):

       c =   1.023e-05  (9.487e-06, 1.098e-05)

       w_o =   4.313e-05  (4.252e-05, 4.374e-05)

       z_o =       1.046  (1.046, 1.046)

 

Goodness of fit:

  SSE: 9.583e-11

  R-square: 0.997

 

Horizontal data fit using only the zoomed in data:

 

Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):

       c =   1.031e-05  (9.418e-06, 1.121e-05)

       w_o =    4.41e-05  (4.332e-05, 4.489e-05)

       z_o =       1.046  (1.046, 1.046)

 

Goodness of fit:

  SSE: 1.434e-10

  R-square: 0.9951

 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Zoomed_in_fitting01.png

 

The waists are both fairly similar this time 43.13um and 44.1um and the offsets are similar too  - residuals are only spread by about 4um this time.

 

I'm inclined to trust the zoomed in measurement more due to the fact that all the data was obtained under the same conditions, but either way, the fitted waist is a bit smaller than the 50um we'd like to see. Think it's worthwhile moving the 62.9mm lens back along the bench by about 3/4 -> 1cm to increase the waist size.

 

 

 

 

 

  4481   Fri Apr 1 18:54:41 2011 BryanConfigurationGreen LockingY end doubling oven

The doubling oven is now ready to go for the Y arm. The PPKTP crystal is mounted in the oven:

P4010036.JPG

Note - the crystal isn't as badly misaligned as it looks in this photo. It's just an odd perspective shot. I then closed it up and checked to make sure the IR beam on the Y bench passes through the crystal. It does. Just need to tweak the waist size/position a bit and then we can actually double some frequencies!

P4010041.JPG

  4485   Mon Apr 4 14:20:32 2011 BryanConfigurationGreen LockingThe wonderful world of mode-matching

Last bit of oven matching for now.

 

I moved the lens before the oven position back along the beam path by about 1cm - waist should be just above position 9 in this case. Note - due to power-findings from previous time I'm maximising the power into the head to reduce the effect of offsets.

 

From position 9:

Position A1_13.5%_width A2_13.5%_width

(mm) (um mean) (um mean)

-1 121.1 123.6

0 112.5 113.8

1 106.4 106.1

2 102.9 103.4

3 103.6 103.6

4 106.6 107.4

5 111.8 112.5

6 118.2 120.1

7 126.3 128.8

8 134.4 137.1

9 143.8 146.5

10 152.8 156.1

11 163.8 167.1

12 175.1 176.4

13 186.5 187.0

14 197.1 198.4

15 210.3 208.9

16 223.5 218.7

17 237.3 231.0

18 250.2 243.9

19 262.8 255.4

20 274.7 269.0

21 290.4 282.3

22 304.3 295.5

23 316.7 303.1

 

Note - had to reduce power due to peak saturation at 15mm - don't think scale changed, but be aware just in case. And saturated again at 11. And again at 7. A little bit of power adjustment each time to make sure the Beamscan head wasn't saturating. Running the fit gives...

 

Waist_Fits_from_laser.pngWaist_Fits_Bench_Position.png

 

OK. The fit is reasonably good. Residuals around the area of interest (with one exception) are <+/- 2um and the waists are 47.5um (vertical) and 50.0um (horizontal) at a position of 9.09 on the bench. And the details of the fitting output are given below.

 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Vertical Fit

 

cf_ =

 

     General model:

       cf_(x) = w_o.*sqrt(1 + (((x-z_o)*1064e-9)./(pi*w_o.^2)).^2)+c

     Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):

       c =   5.137e-06  (4.578e-06, 5.696e-06)

       w_o =   4.752e-05  (4.711e-05, 4.793e-05)

       z_o =        1.04  (1.039, 1.04)

 

 

cfgood_ = 

 

           sse: 1.0699e-11

       rsquare: 0.9996

           dfe: 22

    adjrsquare: 0.9996

          rmse: 6.9738e-07

 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Horizontal Fit

 

cf_ =

 

     General model:

       cf_(x) = w_o.*sqrt(1 + (((x-z_o)*1064e-9)./(pi*w_o.^2)).^2)+c

     Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):

       c =    3.81e-06  (2.452e-06, 5.168e-06)

       w_o =   5.006e-05  (4.909e-05, 5.102e-05)

       z_o =        1.04  (1.04, 1.04)

 

 

cfgood_ = 

 

           sse: 4.6073e-11

       rsquare: 0.9983

           dfe: 22

    adjrsquare: 0.9981

          rmse: 1.4471e-06

 

 

 

  4486   Mon Apr 4 18:58:44 2011 BryanConfigurationGreen LockingA beam of purest green

We now have green light at the Y end. 

The set-up (with careful instructions from Kiwamu) - setting up with 100mW of IR into the oven.

Input IR power = 100mW measured.

 

Output green power = 0.11mW

(after using 2 IR mirrors to dump IR light before the power meter so losing a bit of green there light too)

 

And it's pretty circular-looking too. Think there might be a bit more efficiency to be gained near the edges of the crystal with internal reflections and suchlike things but that gives us an UGLY looking beam.  Note - the polarisation is wrong for the crystal orientation so used a lambda/2 plate to get best green  power out.

 

Efficiency is therefore 0.11/100 = 0.0011 (0.11%) at 100mW input power.

 

Temperature of the oven seems to be around 35.5degC for optimal conversion.

Took a picture. Ta-dah! Green light, and lots more where that came from! Well... about 3x more IR available anyway.

 

P4040042.JPG

 

 

  4495   Wed Apr 6 22:13:24 2011 BryanConfigurationGreen LockingResonating green light!

Every so often things just work out. You do the calculations, you put the lenses on the bench, you manually adjust the pointing and fiddle with the lenses a bit, you get massive chunks of assistance from Kiwamu to get the alignment controls and monitors set up and after quite a bit of fiddling and tweaking the cavity mirror alignment you might get some nice TEM_00 -like shapes showing up on your Y-arm video monitors.

So. We have resonating green light in the Y-arm. The beam is horribly off-axis and the mode-matching, while close enough to give decent looking spots, has in no way been optimised yet. Things to do tomorrow - fix the off-cavity-axis problem and tweak up the mode-matching... then start looking at the locking...

  4520   Wed Apr 13 16:56:08 2011 BryanConfigurationGreen LockingY-ARM Green-Locked!

 Locked!

The Y-arm can now be locked with green light using the universal PDH servo. Modulation frequency is now 277kHz - chosen because it seems to produce smaller offsets due to AM effects

To lock, turn on the servo, align the system to give nice circular-looking TEM_00 resonances, and wait for a good one. It'll lock on a decent mode for a few seconds and then you can turn on the local boost and watch it lock for minutes and minutes and minutes.

The suspensions are bouncing around a bit on the Y-arm and the spot is quite low on the ETMY and a little low on ITMY, but from this point it can be tweaked and optimised.

 

 

 

  4525   Thu Apr 14 17:45:59 2011 BryanConfigurationGreen LockingI leave you with these messages...

OK… the Y-arm may be locked with green light, which was the goal, and this is all good but it's not yet awesome. Awesome would be locked and aligned properly and quiet and optimised. So...  in order to assist in increasing the awesome-osity, here are a few stream-of-consciousness thoughts and stuff I've noticed and haven't had time to fix/investigate or have otherwise had pointed out to me that may help...

 

Firstly, the beam is not aligned down the centre of the cavity. It's pretty good horizontally, but vertically it's too low by about 3/4->1cm on ETMY. The mirrors steering the beam into the cavity have no more vertical range left, so in order to get the beam higher the final two mirrors will have to be adjusted on the bench. Adding another mirror to create a square will give more range AND there will be less light lost due to off 45degree incident angles. When I tried this before I couldn't get the beam to return through the Faraday, but now the cavity is properly aligned this should not be a problem.

 

A side note on alignment - while setting cameras and viewports and things up, Steve noticed that one of the cables to one of the coils (UL) passes behind the ETMY. One of the biggest problems in getting the beam into the system to begin with was missing this cable. It doesn't fall directly into the beam path if the beam is well aligned to the cavity, but for initial alignment it obscures the beam - this may be a problem later for IR alignment.

 

Next, the final lambda/2 waveplate is not yet in the beam. This will only become a problem when it comes to beating the beams together at the vertex, but it WILL be a problem. Remember to put it in before trying to extract signals for full LSC cavity locking.

 

Speaking of components and suchlike things, the equipment for the green work was originally stored in 3 plastic boxes which were stored near the end of the X-arm. These boxes, minus the components now used to set up the Y-end, are now similarly stored near the end of the Y-arm.

 

Mechanical shutter - one needs to be installed on the Y-end just like the X-end. Wasn't necessary for initial locking, but necessary for remote control of the green light on/off.

 

Other control… the Universal PDH box isn't hooked up to the computers. Connections and such should be identical to the X-arm set-up, but someone who knows what they're doing should hook things up appropriately.

 

More control - haven't had a chance to optimise the locking and stability so the locking loop, while it appears to be fairly robust, isn't as quiet as we would like. There appears to be more AM coupling than we initially thought based on the Lightwave AM/PM measurements from before. It took a bit of fiddling with the modulation frequency to find a quiet point where the apparent AM effects don't prevent locking. 279kHz is the best point I've found so far. There is still a DC offset component in the feedback that prevents the gain being turned up - unity gain appears limited to about 1kHz maximum. Not sure whether this is due to an offset in the demod signal or from something in the electronics and haven't had time left to check it out properly yet. Again, be aware this may come back to bite you later.

 

Follow the bouncing spot - the Y-arm suspensions haven't been optimised for damping. I did a little bit of fiddling, but it definitely needs more work. I've roughly aligned the ETMY oplev since that seems to be the mass that's bouncing about most but a bit of work might not go amiss before trusting it to damp anything.

 

Think that's about all that springs to mind for now…

 

Thanks to everyone at the 40m lab for helping at various times and answering daft questions, like "Where do you keep your screwdrivers?" or "If I were a spectrum analyser, where would I be?" - it's been most enjoyable!

 
  4532   Fri Apr 15 13:43:23 2011 BryanConfigurationGreen LockingI leave you with these messages...

Y-end PDH electronics.

The transfer function of the Y-end universal PDH box:

Y_End_Electronics_TF.png

 

  13792   Thu Apr 26 18:58:21 2018 BruceConfigurationALSNew look EX Fiber coupling - pol stability

  8160   Mon Feb 25 20:25:33 2013 BrettUpdateSUSNew Global Damping MEDM Screens

Global damping screens are in progress for the new global damping infrastructure Jamie discussed in log #8159. The main overview screen is /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/medm/c1sus/master/C1SUS_GLOBAL.adl. The overview screen links to a few sub-screens in the same directory called C1SUS_GLOBAL_DAMPFILTERS.adl, C1SUS_GLOBAL_GLOBALTOLOCAL.adl, and C1SUS_GLOBAL_LOCALTOGLOBAL.adl.

This global damping is in intended to damp the 4 test masses along global interferometer degrees of freedom that are orthogonal to the cavity signals. Ideally the result will be that OSEM sensor noise from the damping loops is invisible to the cavity signals. Mismatches in the suspensions' dynamics and gains will cause some noise to leak through anyway, but we should be able to tune some of this out by carefully scaling the drives to each suspension.

  8161   Mon Feb 25 20:49:07 2013 BrettUpdateSUSMinor Mod made to SUS_GLOBAL block

 I made a minor modification to install some output filters in the new global damping GLOBAL box in c1sus.mdl. These will be needed for tuning the suspension drives to compensate for mismatches in the pendulums.

I recompiled and installed the model, but did not start it. Basically same as Jamie left it in 8159. Interestingly, I did not see the new POSOUT that was put in before the SUSPOS DOF filter. I made sure to reopen the .mdl file fresh before making more mods, but for some reason I do not see that update...

  8172   Tue Feb 26 16:13:18 2013 BrettUpdateSUSITMY and ETMY mysterious loop gain difference of 2.5

While doing initial measurements for the new global damping infrastructure I discovered that the ETMY loop between the OSEM actuation and the OSEM sensors has a gain that is 2.5 times greater than the ITMY.  The result is that to get the same damping on both, the damping gain on the ETMY must be 2.5 times less than the ITMY. I do not know where this is coming from, but I could not find any obvious differences between the MEDM matrices and gains.

I uploaded a screenshot of measured transfer functions of the damped ITMY and ETMY sus's. Notice that the ETMY measurement is 2.5 times higher than the ITMY. The peak also has a lower Q, despite having the same damping filters running because of this mysterious gain difference. Lowering the damping gain of the ETMY loop by this 2.5 factor results in similar Q's.

  8174   Tue Feb 26 17:56:15 2013 BrettUpdateSUSGlobal Damping Update

The global damping input and output matrices were installed to run for the Y-arm. Since we are using just one arm for now, only the DARM and CARM DOFs were entered into the matrices.

The input matrix was set to have elements with magnitudes of 0.5 while the output matrix was set to have elements with magnitudes of 1. The input matrix gets the 0.5 because the sensor signals must be avergaed for each global DOF, to make an 'equivalent sensor' with the same gain. The output matrix gets magnitudes of 1 so that the overall gain of the global loops is the same as the local loops. A transfer function was measured on the CARM loop to check that the overall gain is in fact the same as the measured ITMY and ETMY loops.

Simple damping filters were installed for the ITMY and ETMY as well as the global y arm CARM and DARM loops.

The ETMY output tuning filter ETMY_GLOBPOS was set to have a gain of 0.4 because there is an extra gain of 2.5 relative to ITMY in some mysterious place as discussed in log 8172.

  8193   Wed Feb 27 22:28:53 2013 BrettUpdateSUSGlobal Damping Update

 New excitation points were added after the global damping loops for more testing options. The updated c1sus.mdl model was re-committed to the svn. Two interesting simulink 'requirements' were found during this minor modification. First, excitation points must be placed on the top level of the diagram. If they are in a subsystem you will get compiling errors. Second, the excitation name must end in _EXC. It will compile OK if you don't do this, but the excitation points will not put out any excitations.

To do further investigation on the mysterious gain factor of 2.5 between the ETMY and ITMY POS damping loops, I measured TFs in the POS direction to the locked YARM signal for each. This provides an additional sensor, common to both, so we can see if the gain is coming from the actuation side or sensing side of the damping loops. The difference in these TFs is about 

2.895

So it seems the majority of the damping gain difference is on the actuation side with some small difference on the sensing side. In order to allow for the later splitting of YARM LSC control between ITMY and ETMY (global damping and the cavity control must be along the same coordinate system), I placed this gain of 2.95 in ITMY_LSC.

To get a first measure of the relative performance of global damping to local damping I measured some TFs between the sensor signal inputs and YARM. So first, while the cavity was still locked with just ETMY, I measured a TF between C1:SUS-ITMY_SUSPOS_EXC and C1:LSC-YARM_IN1. Second, I split the cavity control evenly between the ETMY and ITMY by adjusting C1:LSC-OUTPUT_MTRX. I turned off the local damping and turned on the common DOF global damping (called CARM at this point despite being on just one arm). I then repeated the same TF but driving from C1:SUS-GLOBAL_CARMDAMP_EXC.

The resulting TFs are displayed in the attached figure. The blue curve is then the TF from local damping sensor noise to YARM. The green is global damping sensor noise to YARM. The suppression between local to global is in red. The global damping curve is about 50 to 100 times lower (better) than local damping. This can probably be improved with further tuning to account for remaining differences between the ITMY and ETMY.

Note, the damping loop used in the filter modules for all of these is zpk(0,[15 15],1), with a gain of 30. This purposely has little high frequency filtering so it is easier to see the influence on YARM.

  8207   Fri Mar 1 16:37:45 2013 BrettUpdateSUSGlobal Damping Update

Brett and Kamal

The global damping testing for the week is now complete. The c1sus.mdl simulink diagram settled on the attached screenshot. The top level of c1sus.mdl is shown on the left zoomed in over the new global damping block. The right shows the inside of that block. Also attached in the second screenshot are two of the modal damping MEDM screens. The left shows the main overview screen, the right shows the global damping filters. The overview screen is called C1SUS_GLOBAL.adl and is found in ...medm/c1sus/master/.

We have measured transfer functions and power spectra that show that global damping, with just a moderate amount of tuning (30 minutes of work) reduces the OSEM damping noise seen by YARM_IN1 by a factor between 50 and 80. Log 8193 highlights the transfer function measurements. The power spectra directly measure the noise in the cavity. I am not putting that data here because I have to catch. I will process the data and post it here later.

Overall the global damping tests appear to have been successful, isolating (not removing) the test mass damping noise from the cavity by almost 2 orders of magnitude. Presumably even more isolation is possible with more tuning.

  8220   Mon Mar 4 16:26:45 2013 BrettUpdateSUSGlobal Damping Noise Measurement

Here is an amplitude spectrum plot of y-arm cavity noise with a 50 Hz cutoff damping filter of the form zpk(0,[50;50],1). The low passing of this filter was intentionally extremely poor in order to see the damping noise in the cavity. The blue trace is the noise with no damping, which may be considered the 'best case' scenario from a noise point of view. The green has regular local damping on the ITMY. The ETMY has no damping for this measurement because the cavity control feedback to the ETMY takes care of its control when the cavity is locked. Notice the the large increase in noise from 40 Hz to 250 Hz, up to 1 order of magnitude. This noise is from the OSEM sensors passing through the damping loops. The red curve shows the y-arm noise with the exact same damping, except it is now applied in the global scheme. In this case, the damping noise falls completely below the baseline level of the cavity and becomes indistinguishable from the 'no damping' case.

If the damping injected enough noise I'd expect we would see a drop of 50 to 80 times switching from local to global. That is, the same factor measured in the transfer functions listed in log entry 8193.  However, the damping noise is only at most 1 order of magnitude above the baseline in this measurement. We would have to increase the damping noise by about another order of magnitude before we could expect to see the global damping noise in the cavity measurement.

The units of the cavity displacement in the plot were calculated using the 1.4e12 counts per meter calibration in log 6834. The measured UGF of the LSC loop at the time was 205 Hz. The peak in the plot above 200 Hz appears to be from this unity crossing. Moving the UGF also moves this peak.

Moral of the story: global damping can isolate the damping noise pretty well from the cavity signal.

  4257   Mon Feb 7 19:21:32 2011 Beard PapaMetaphysicsPhotosThe Adventures of Dr Stochino and Beard Papa

  7730   Tue Nov 20 02:57:24 2012 Ayaka, Den, KojiUpdateLockingred in arms

We aligned and locked x and y arms.

MCL loop makes arms lock unstable, adds a lot of noise at frequencies 60-100 Hz. We'll fix it.

At some point we were not able to lock because of ADC overflows of PO signals. They happened if whitening filters were enabled. So we reduced the gain of POX whitening filters down to 36 dB and POY - to 39 dB. Now cavities can be locked with whitening filters.

Also we changed the pedestal of the lens in the beam path to the POX because the beam was too high.

 

arms.png    arms_psd.png

etmxf.png  etmyf.png

itmxf.png     itmyf.png

etmxt.png    etmyt.png

  7718   Fri Nov 16 03:12:39 2012 Ayaka, DenUpdateGreen Lockingxarm locked

We aligned and locked xarm for green.

etmxf.png

  7589   Mon Oct 22 20:44:49 2012 AyakaUpdateAdaptive Filteringmicrophone noise

I will do some experiments on acoustic noise canceling during my stay.
Now I am planning to cancel acoustic noise from PMC and see how the acoustic noise work and how we should place microphones.

First, I measured the noise in microphones and its circuit.
mic_noise2.png
-blue, green, red, solid lines; microphone signals
-blue, green, red, dashed lines; un-coherent noise in signals
-yellow, black, solid lines; circuit noise (signal input is open, not connected to the microphones)

We can see the acoustic signal above 1 Hz, and the circuit does not seem to limit its sensitivity. But I do not know why yellow and black is so different. I will check it tomorrow.

  7596   Tue Oct 23 10:24:42 2012 AyakaUpdateAdaptive Filteringmicrophone noise

Quote:

Quote:

I will do some experiments on acoustic noise canceling during my stay.
Now I am planning to cancel acoustic noise from PMC and see how the acoustic noise work and how we should place microphones.a

First, I measured the noise in microphones and its circuit.
mic_noise2.png
-blue, green, red, solid lines; microphone signals
-blue, green, red, dashed lines; un-coherent noise in signals
-yellow, black, solid lines; circuit noise (signal input is open, not connected to the microphones)

We can see the acoustic signal above 1 Hz, and the circuit does not seem to limit its sensitivity. But I do not know why yellow and black is so different. I will check it tomorrow.

Hi, Ayaka.  It would be good if you could give a little bit more detail about this plot:

  • What exactly are the "signals"?  Are you making a sound somehow?  If so, what is producing the sound?  What is it's spectrum?
  • Are the blue/green/red traces from three different microphones?
  • Coherence usually implies a comparison between two signals.  Is something being compared in the dashed traces?
  • Are the yellow and black traces from different amplifiers?
  • What are the units of the Y axis?

 

 Sorry for my poor explanation.

I measured this by the same way as you measured the instrumental noise of seismometers.
I put the three microphones at the same place so that the three can hear the same sound. I did not make any sounds, just put them in the lab.
The signals from microphones are all amplified by the circuit.
And I took the correlations of each signals and two others and got the noise (dashed lines) by subtracting the correlated signal from the original signal.

So,
-The signal is the acoustic sound in the lab, amplified by the circuit.
-Three lines are from three different microphones.
-Dashed lines are subtraction of coherent signal from the original.
-Yellow and black lines are from different amplifiers in the same circuit box. The circuit has 6 channels.
-I did not calibrate the signals I got by DTT since I do not know the calibration factor now. It is just the number I got from the real time system.

 

  7607   Wed Oct 24 14:15:34 2012 AyakaUpdateAdaptive Filteringmicrophone noise

Previous results
I am measuring the noise level of the microphones. The circuit does not seems to limit their sensitivities but the circuit's noise seems to be different from other channels.

Measurement
I measured the circuit noise of all 6 channels. (input open)
(mic_open.png)
The noise level is about 10 times different from the others.

Comparing the acoustic signal, microphone+circuit noise, and ADC noise;
(mic_noise.png)
- blue; acoustic signal
- green; microphone+circuit noise
- red; circuit (the data was not took simultaneously.)
- sky blue; ADC noise

To do
I will remake the circuit though the circuit does not limit the sensitivity. I would like to make sure that the circuit does not affect badly and to make the circuit noise level the same.
At the same time, I will get the PMC control signal and see coherence between it and acoustic sound.

  7621   Thu Oct 25 09:53:23 2012 AyakaUpdateAdaptive Filteringmicrophone noise

Quote:

Quote:

  We have to change the sample rate and AA filter for the mic channels before going too far with the circuit design.

 PEM model is running at 64K now. It turned out to be tricky to increase the rate:

  • BLRMS are computationally expensive and original pem model did not start at any frequency higher then 16k ( at 16k cpu meter readings were 59/60 ). Also when we go higher then 16k, front-end gives the model less resources. I guess it is assumed that this model is iop and won't need too much time. So in the end I had to delete BLRMS blocks for all channels except for GUR2Z and MIC1.
  • Foton files are modified during model compilation: lines with sampling rate and declaration of filters in the beginning of the file are changed only. Sos-representation and commands are the same. I hoped that filter commands will let me change sos-representation quickly. I've opened Foton and saved the file. However, Foton modified commands in such a way that the ratio of poles and zeros to sampling rate is preserved. I guess all filters have to be replaced or this process should be done in another way.
  • BLRMS block uses low-pass filters below 0.01 Hz, increasing the sampling rate by a factor of 32 might make calculations incorrect. I'll check it.

We should also increase cut off frequency of the low-pass filter in the microphone pre-amplifier from 2 kHz up to ~20-30 kHz.

 Thank you for changing the sample rate!
Also we have to change the Anti-Aliasing filter, as Jamie said.

Now my question is, whether S/N ratio is enough at high frequencies or not. The quality of EM172 microphone is good according to the data sheet. But as you can see in previous picture, the S/N ratio around 1kHz is not so good, though we can see some peaks, e.g. the sound that a fan will make. I have to check it later.
And, is it possible to do online adaptive noise cancellation with a high sampling rate such that computationally expensive algorithms cannot be run?

  7633   Fri Oct 26 18:25:02 2012 AyakaUpdateAdaptive FilteringMicrophone noise again

[Raji, Ayaka]

Thanks to Den, power supplies for microphone circuit are changed.
So I measured the microphone noise again by the same way as I did last time.

mic_noise.png
  solid lines: acoustic noise
 dashed lines: un-coherent noise
black line: circuit noise (microphone unconnected)

The circuit noise improves so much, but many line noises appeared.
Where do these lines (40, 80, 200 Hz...) come from?
These does not change if we changed the microphones...

Anyway, I have to change the circuit (because of the low-pass filter). I can check if the circuit I will remake will give some effects on these lines.

  7636   Mon Oct 29 08:41:22 2012 AyakaUpdateAdaptive FilteringMicrophone noise again

Quote:

Quote:

The circuit noise improves so much, but many line noises appeared.
Where do these lines (40, 80, 200 Hz...) come from?
These does not change if we changed the microphones...

Anyway, I have to change the circuit (because of the low-pass filter). I can check if the circuit I will remake will give some effects on these lines.

I do not think that 1U rack power supply influenced on the preamp noise level as there is a 12 V regulator inside. Lines that you see might be just acoustic noise produced by cpu fans. Usually, they rotate at ~2500-3000 rpm => frequency is ~40-50 Hz + harmonics. Microphones should be in an isolation box to minimize noise coming from the rack. This test was already done before and described here

I think we need to build a new box for many channels (32, for example, to match adc). The question is how many microphones do we need to locate around one stack to subtract acoustic noise. Once we know this number, we group microphones, use 1 cable with many twisted pairs for a group and suspend them in an organized way.

 I do not think they are acoustic sounds. If so, there should be coherence between three microphones because I placed three at the same place, tied together. However, there are no coherence at lines between them.

  7672   Mon Nov 5 20:37:01 2012 AyakaUpdateWienerFilteringPlay with wiener filtering

 I am trying to find what limits the reduction rate with wiener filtering.
I did some calculations below:

Reduction rate estimation by microphone noise
estimate.png

When the instrumental noise (noise in microphone) and noise injected to signal after the acoustic signal is injected exist, the noise cancellation rate is limited. (I will write a short document about it later.) I assumed that there is only instrumental noise and that the other noise in PMC is below enough, and calculated the cancellation rate. The instrumental noise is modeled according to the measurement before (ELOG).
The green line is the original PMC signal, the red one is PMC residual error, and the blue one is PMC residual error estimated by the cancelling rate.
Around 30 - 80 Hz, the wiener filtering seems to be already good enough. However, I do not know what limits the cancellation rate (such as 100 - 200 Hz).

 

Filtering signals

Wfilter_notch.png

I hypothesized that the wiener filter is not good because of some peaks or other noise. So I filtered the PMC signal and mic signal to see the difference.
The red line is wiener filter with no filters, the blue one is with filters (low pass, high pass, and notch).
The wiener filter seems to get smoother but the PMC residual error did not change at all.

 

  7688   Thu Nov 8 10:11:58 2012 AyakaUpdateWienerFilteringPlay with wiener filtering

I will attach a document which describes how the noise affect the wiener filter and the noise cancellation ratio.

And I re-estimate the SN ratio in the microphone (but still rough):

R_model.png

The yellow line is modeled signal level, and cyan line is modeled noise level.

Then, the estimated filtered residual noise is:

estimate.png

The noise is already subtracted enough below 80 Hz even though there is still coherence.
Above 300 Hz, the residual error is limited by other noise than acoustic noise since there is no coherence.
I am not sure about the region between 100-300 Hz, but I guess that we cannot subtract the acoustic noise because primary noise (see the document), such as a peak at 180 Hz, is so high.

  7702   Tue Nov 13 00:28:10 2012 AyakaUpdateIOOMC locked, spots centered

[Rana, Ayaka, Jenne]

We aligned the REFL beam to the center of PD.
Also we removed the small black parts from mirror holder so that the beam is not clipped. They are originally for holding the mirror, but the mirror should be held by the small screw on the side of the mirror mount. This screw was hidden by the label, so we moved the label on the right hand side of the mirror mount (See a picture below).  
DSC_4902.JPG

Also we removed the half-wave plates and PBS so that laser power is increased.
DSC_4904.JPG

Then I aligned the beam for PMC, locked MC, and centered the beam spots.

 spot1112.png

The MC2 pitch is a little bit high but still close enough to the center.

Jenne had also centered the beam spots on QPDs for WFS.

  7707   Tue Nov 13 21:05:22 2012 AyakaUpdateWienerFilteringAcoustic noise cancellation with MC

 In order to perform acoustic noise cancellation with MCL signal, I am trying to find sweet spots for microphones.

I set microphones at various places around MC chambers, and see how coherent microphones and MC signals are.
I had checked the half part of MC.

  • data set #1
    place where I set the microphones (left), MCL signal (blue) and its error (green) (right top), and coherence between microphones (original: fine lines, error: thick lines) (right bottom).
    microphone_pos1.pdfpsd_coh1.png
  • data set #2
    microphone_pos2.pdfpsd_coh.png 
  •  data set #3
    microphone_pos3.pdfpsd_coh.png
  • data set #4
    microphone_pos4.pdfpsd_coh4.png

The acoustic noise around the MC2 chamber is most critical so far. I could subtract the signal and the sensitivity got 2 times better.
I will see the acoustic coupling from the other side of MC.

  7733   Tue Nov 20 15:24:52 2012 AyakaUpdatePEMSeismometers and a microphone

 I got two seismometers and one microphone back from Tara.

They are now near the Gurlap under the MC.

  7738   Wed Nov 21 21:06:13 2012 AyakaUpdateLSCcalibration of arms

Motivation

In order to estimate whether we can see acoustic coupling in arms or not, we have to calibrate signals to phase noise.

Method

I used the same method as Yuta and Jenne did (6834).
I switched from ETM locking to ITM locking since only ITM actuators are calibrated (5583), and measured the open loop transfer function and the transfer function from ITM excitation to POX/POY error signal. Then I can estimate the calibration value H [counts/m] from POY/POX error signal to displacement.

Results

Yarm; H = 9.51 x 1011 counts/m
  OL_y.pngerr_exc_y.pngPOY_disp_y.png

Xarm; H = 6.68 x 1011 counts/m
OL_x.pngerr_exc_x.pngPOX_disp_x.png

Phase noise in arms:
XY_phase.png
blue; Xarm, green; Yarm

 

Next Step

I will calibrate the acoustic signal and see if it is reasonable that we can see the acoustic coupling signal in the arms.
But I guess it is difficult. Actually I have not seen coherence between ETM feedback signals and acoustic sounds yet. (I measured acoustic noise near POX and in PSL table.)

If I find that it is hopeless, I will create some sounds and try to measure transfer function from acoustic sound to arm cavity signals.
I am interested in how the transfer function calculated by wiener filtering is different from the measured transfer function.

 

Note

I found that we do not have enough phase margin. This is why the arm locking is not so stable.

  7743   Mon Nov 26 10:42:06 2012 AyakaUpdateLSCcalibration of arms

I uploaded a zip file that contains data files used for the calibration.

OLTF_x/y.txt: the open loop transfer function (measured by IN1/IN2 in arm servo filter bank).
coh_x/y.txt: coherence of OLTF. I used the data where coherence > 0.98.
ext_err_x/y.txt: the transfer function from ITM excitation signal to POX/POY error signal.
coh_x2/y2.txt: coherence of ext_err. I used the data where coherence > 0.98.

The LSC whitening filter was off because the xarm was unlocked when the POX Q whitening filter was turned on. (We have to study what was wrong.)
The SUS whitening filters were on.
The all digital filters except +6dB filter were on.

  7748   Mon Nov 26 23:45:52 2012 AyakaUpdateIOOTuning MC_L

[Rana, Jamie, Ayaka]

We could not lock the arms with MC_L loop on. Therefore we measured the change in YARM error signal when the MC_L is turned on.

POYerr_MCL.jpg

(data; POYerr_MCF.xml in zip file)

Green line; POY error signal when MCL loop was on and the YARM loop gain (0.5) was so high that the saturated control signal made funny peak around 250 Hz.
Blue line; POY error signal when MCL loop was off and the YARM loop gain was low (0.2).
Pink line; POY error signal when MCL loop was on (the gain was -300) and the YARM loop gain was low (0.2).
Red line; POY error signal when MCL loop was on, another low pass filter (2nd order, cut off frequency of 55Hz) was added to MCL loop and the YARM loop gain was low (0.2).

We also changed the filter trigger in order to lock YARM. The FM7 and 8 trigger was turned off. It means that spectrum above was took with FM2,3,4,5,6,9,10 on. Whitening filters were also on.

MCL control signal makes the arm spectrum bad because the MCL control signal moves MC2 mirror additionally and adds extra frequency noise.
Ideally, error signal should be the same at higher frequencies and go down at the lower frequencies when the MCL loop is on because MCL signal should suppress the seismic noise.

Before we added the LPF, MCF/MCL loop cross over (which was taken with the template /users/Templates/MC/MCL-MCF_xover-2012-8-23.xml) is below;

MCL-MCFxover.jpg

(MCL-MCF_xover.xml in zip file)

After the LPF is added, the cross over has been changed as below;
MCL-MCFxover2.jpg

(MCL-MCF_xover2.xml in zip file)

For now, I will just turn off the MCL loop for the acoustic noise experiments.

  7751   Tue Nov 27 01:03:42 2012 AyakaUpdateWienerFilteringSound on PSL

 Last Thursday, I put the speaker and my laptop in the PSL table, and make triangular wave sound with the basic frequency of 40Hz, and Gaussian distributed sound.
(I create the sounds from my laptop using the software 'NHC Tone Generator' because I could not find the connector from BNC to speaker plug.)
And I measured the acoustic coupling in MCF signal. The all the 6 microphones were set in PSL table around PMC and PSL output optics. 

The performance of the offline noise cancellation with wiener filter is below.
(The target signal is MCF and the witness signals are 6 microphones.)

  • With Gaussian sound (Sorry for wrong labeling 'XARM' and no calibration)
    gauss_psdcoh_mcf.png
  • With 40Hz Triangular sound (Sorry for no calibration again)
    tri40_psdcoh_mcf.png

I can see some effects on MCF due to the sound on PSL table. Though I can subtract some acoustic signal and there are no coherence between MCF signal and mic signals, still some acoustic noise remains.
This is maybe because of some non-linearity effects or maybe because we have other effective places for acoustic coupling measurement. More investigations are needed.

Also, I compared the wiener filter and the transfer function from microphones signal to MCF signal. They should be the same ideally.
gauss_filters_mcf.pngGauss_estimatefilters_mcf.png

(Left: Wiener filter, Right: Transfer function estimated by the spectrum. They are measured when the Gaussian sound is on.)

These are different especially lower frequencies than 50 Hz. The wiener filter is bigger at lower frequencies. I guess this adds extra noise on the MCF signal. (see the 1st figure.)
The wiener filter can be improved by filterings. But if so, I want to know how can we determine the filters. It is interesting if we have some algorithms to determine the filters and taps and so on.
The more investigations are also needed.

  7760   Wed Nov 28 23:55:13 2012 AyakaUpdateWienerFilteringSound on PSL

 I have been searching for the way we can subtract signal better since I could see the acoustic coupling signal remains in the target signal even though there are no coherence between them.

I changed the training time which is used to decide wiener filter.
I have total 10 minutes data, and the wiener filter was decided using the whole data before.
tri40_psdcoh_mcf_varioust.pnggauss_psdcoh_mcf_varioust.png

(Right: the performance with the data when the triangular sound was created. Left: the performance with the data when the gaussian sound was created.)

I found that the acoustic signal can be fully subtracted above 40 Hz when the training time is short. This means the transfer functions between the acoustic signals and MCF signal change.
However, if the wiener filter is decided with short-time training, the performances at lower frequencies get worse. This is because wiener filter do not have enough low-frequency information.

So, I would like to find the way to combine the short-time training merit and long-time training merit. It should be useful to subtract the broad-band coupling noise.

  7762   Thu Nov 29 02:43:48 2012 AyakaUpdatePEMDecreased RMS in Seismometers

Quote:

The attached plots display RMS noise from various accelerometers and seismometers over the past 90 days. One can see how after the reinstallation of the seismometers in November, RMS from the GUR1Z and GUR1X channels decreases by a factor of about 100 from data in August. Additionally, the RMS over the course of the last 90 days has notably decreased in all instruments. In many cases, the RMS is only the result of inherent electronics noise, rather than from a signal.

The Image is replaced

[Den, Ayaka]

We found that seismometer was working and the calibration in the filter banks should have been wrong.
We turned off the all FM2 filter in RMS filter banks.

We also installed STS seismometer. It is under the BS. Now we have spectrum of three seismometers.
GUR1Xfilterbank.pngseismometers1129.pdf


 

RA: the above plot is kind of unreadable and useless. Please replace with something legible and put in some words about why there is a wrong filter, what exactly it is, etc., etc. etc. And why would you leave in a filter which is not supposed to be on? We might as well leave a few secretly broken chairs in the control room...

  7778   Mon Dec 3 17:04:12 2012 AyakaUpdatePSLPMC calibration for MC_F calibration

In order to calibrate MC_F signal, I need to know the calibration value from thorlab's PZT driver to laser frequency.
The calibration value should be ~ 15MHz/V (the PZT driver has 15 gain, and the laser has the calibration value of ~ 1MHz/V according to the laser spec sheet), but I want to confirm it.
This can be measured by sweeping the input voltage of the PZT driver and see the transmission signal from unlocked PMC.
 

1. Response of PMC transmission when the signal is inputted to laser PZT

I inputted 0.2 Hz triangular wave with 5Vamp and 2.5V offset into the PZT driver and see the transmission signal from PMC. After the PZT driver and before the laser, there is an analog low pass filter but its cut off frequency is 1 Hz so I did not take it into consideration. 
DSC_4955.JPGsweep_PZTdriver.png(TEK00000.CSV, TEK00001.CSV in the zip file)

I could not the side-band resonances. I guess it was because the generated signal is not big enough (but still the maximum range of the signal generator.)
Therefore, in order to calibrate the input voltage to the frequency, I need to know finesse or FWHM frequency.
 

2. Responce of PMC transmission when the voltage of PZT on the PMC is swept

In order to measure the finesse and FWHM frequency, I also swept the PMC PZT voltage with the DC offset slider at the FSS.adl and tried to measure the finesse of PMC. (reference: elog #904)
PMC_PZT_FSR.pdftrans_fit.png(PMC-PZTcal_121203.xml in the zip file)

The result of fitting:

V_FSR (the PZT voltage difference between the 2 resonances) ~ 63 +/- 7 V (= 731MHz (given))
V_FWHM (the PZT voltage to sweep FWHM) ~  0.32 +/- 0.04 V (~ 3.7 MHz)
Finesse ~ 200 +/- 30

However, this finesse value is much smaller than the value on the Wiki, 800. (Manasa showed me.)
V_FSR is comparable to the result Rana got at the referenced elog. But I am not sure about the V_FWHM because it is hard to figure out how large the PZT voltage changed from the template file (PMC-PZTcal.xml).
Are those mode wrong? But if so, where is the correct mode resonances? I think they should be visible...
 

3. Calibration value 

When I know the FWHM frequency, I can calibrate the input on the PZT driver into laser frequency.

The results are:

if I take the finesse of 800 and FSR of 731 MHz (the values on the Wiki): ~5.0 MHz/V
if I take the finesse of 200 and FSR of 731 MHz (the measured value): ~20.0 MHz/V

Actually, the measured value is closer to the value calculated from the spec sheet.

Hmm... Does anyone find falses in my measurement?
If not, the finesse can be 4 times smaller than the value which was 5 years ago?

  7784   Tue Dec 4 18:53:50 2012 AyakaUpdateAlignmentBS chamber

BS chamber seemed to be kicked again around 10:00 am today.

I moved PZT mainly in YAW and locked both arms. I adjusted the beam to be almost on the center of both ETM by sights.

BSchamb1204.pdf

  7789   Wed Dec 5 01:06:22 2012 AyakaUpdateWienerFilteringThe microphones and the speaker on the AP table

 In order to see the acoustic coupling on arm signals, I set 6 microphones and the speaker on the AP table. The microphones are not seismically isolated for now.
I have a signal generator under the AP table.

DSC_4956.JPGDSC_4961.JPG

When I played the 43 Hz triangular wave sound, I could see some coherence between POY error signal and microphones even though there is no peak in POY.

APsig.pdf

To Do:

  • Try to subtract the acoustic signal and see with which microphone the acoustic signal can be subtracted best. But how can I find whether the signal is subtracted or not? Is coherence information enough?
  • Make circuits for microphones to come to 40m.
  • Make suspension systems for microphones. One idea is that the microphones should be suspended from bridges which is to be put around at the top of the tables since there is no space for stacks for each microphones.
  • Prepare a new ADC.
  • Perform the same measurements at the other tables, such as POX and POY.
  7799   Fri Dec 7 20:34:31 2012 AyakaUpdateSUSoplevs as acoustic and seismic noise couplers at high frequencies

I will just leave the picture of spectrum that shows the injected acoustic sound effects due to the oplevs.

 YARM_acous_oplev.pdf

red line: POY error without oplev feedback nor acoustic noise
blue line: POY error without oplev feedback but with acoustic noise
brown line: POY error with oplev feedback but without acoustic noise
green line: POY error with oplev and acoustic noise

You can see there is noise only at green line around 70 - 100 Hz. And it does not look like the acoustic signal is injected directly to the arms but the acoustic sound couples to the original noise source.

  7808   Tue Dec 11 09:31:47 2012 AyakaUpdateLSCOplev update for improving sensitivity

 Motivation

We observed that oplev servos affect the arm spectra badly (elog #7798). Some of them are fixed, but still they inject noise into the arms.
So I tried to turn the oplevs off and to see the acoustic noise effect. However, the mirrors moves so much that the signal does not seem to be linear any more, and the noise spectrum of arms changes especially around 60 - 100 Hz as you can see the spectrogram of YARM error signal below. This makes it difficult to find acoustic coupling noise. Therefore, I tried to fix the oplev servos so that the noise spectra do not get worse when the oplev servos are on.
POYspectrogram_nonoise.png

Checking oplev UGFs

I checked the oplev open loop transfer functions. The UGFs of oplevs are all around 1-3Hz and phase margin looks enough except the BS oplev.
The gain of the BS oplev OLTF has so low that the signal is not fed back. Moreover, there is much phase delay in the BS feedback loop than the others'.
The counts of BS oplev sum is not changed so much for this 4 months, so the oplev beam seems to hit the BS correctly.
I am not sure what makes difference.
ETMYoplev.pdfOL_BSoplevPIT.pdf

 BSoplev.pdf

 

Clipped oplev beam fixed

Den and I found the output beam of ETMY oplev was clipped the other day. Also I found the scattered beam of ITMY oplev was on the edge of the mirror inside the vacuum and it made more scattered lights.
ITMYoplev_before.jpg(before) -> IMG_0128.JPG(after)

  I fixed both of the clipped beam. But still the oplev feedback inject the noise into the arm. (red: oplev off, blue: oplev on)
   POYspe_oplev.pdf

  7809   Tue Dec 11 10:09:04 2012 AyakaHowToPEMcables needs care

Quote:

How NOT to:

The janitor can not clean in areas like this. He may only steps on these cables accidentally as he dust wiping our chambers.

 Sorry for the mess. I fixed it.

  7812   Tue Dec 11 21:53:37 2012 AyakaUpdateLSCOplev update for improving sensitivity

[Rana, Ayaka]

The BS oplev pitch feedback came back.

OL_BSpit.pdf

The problem was that 300^2:0 filter was off. And I turned on all the low pass filters (ELP35), then the oplev servo does not seem to inject big noise into the arms as long as I see the spectra of POY and POX. These low-pass filters will be modified tomorrow so that the acoustic coupling noise is minimized.

BSoplevservo.png

  7814   Wed Dec 12 11:49:05 2012 AyakaUpdateLSCAcoustic noise in POX and AS error signal

[Koji, Ayaka]

Last night, I injected acoustic noise at POX table and AS table with oplev controls on (LPF is on).

 

1. acoustic noise at the POX table

I set the microphones and speakers at the POX table and see the acoustic coupling.

POX_noise4.pdf

I could see slight change around 40 Hz. This can be caused by the oplev feedback loop because the speaker was on the same table as the ITMX oplev.

 

2. acoustic noise at the AS table

I controlled XARM with AS error signal and set the microphones and speaker on the AS table.

AScontXARM_acoustic.pdf

The resonance a 200 Hz seemed to be enhanced. But still we are not sure that it is caused by acoustic noise. Because this resonance is enhanced when the OL gain is high, and the gain adjustment was so critical that this resonance was easily enhanced even when the acoustic noise is not injected. And sometimes it has gone away.

  7823   Thu Dec 13 17:24:53 2012 AyakaUpdatePSLPMC calibration for MC_F calibration

 I calibrated MC_F signal into Hz/rtHz unit using the transfer function from MC_F to PMC feedback signal.

Here is the diagram:
  MC-PMCservo.jpg

n_mcf is MC_F signal we can get at dtt. I measured n_pmc/n'_mcf using SR.

TF_mcf-pmc.png

Other information I used:

G_out = 2.49/123.49 (see the document D980352-E01-C)

Fout has 1 pole at 10 Hz (see the document D980352-E01-C)

A_pzt = 371e+6/63 [Hz/V] (see elog)

F_wt has 1 pole at 100 Hz and 1 zero at 10 Hz.

Then, calibration transfer function of H is fitted as 1e+9/f [Hz/V]:

H.png

Then, the calibrated spectrum of MC_F is below:

 MCF_calib.pdf

This calibration have about 20 % error.
Compared to the spectrum in Jenne's paper (elog), above 20 Hz it seems to be laser frequency noise. But now we have extra unknown noise below 10 Hz.

Note: calibration value of laser's PZT is ~ 1MHz/V. This is reasonable compared to the data sheet of the laser. (This is calculated by combining result of H and transfer function of the circuit box1 and FSS.)

 laser.png

  7824   Thu Dec 13 18:06:59 2012 AyakaUpdateWienerFilteringNew microphone mounts

 Yesterday, I made new mounts for microphones.

IMG_0129.JPGIMG_0130.JPG

I glued a microphone on a pedestal. The cables are attached loosely so that its tension does not make any noise.
At the bottom of the mount, I attached the surgical tube forming a ring by double-side tape so that it damps the seismic vibration.

I made 6 mounts and these are all on the AS table now.
I took some data of XARM signal controlled by AS.

My plan is to find/set an upper limit on acoustic coupling noise in AS signal.
The acoustic noise can be estimated by the Wiener filter, but it is not accurate because it may see residual correlation between AS and microphone signals that should be 0 when the data is long enough.
I will find/set an upper limit by the analysis based on Neuman-Pearson criterion, that is analog of a stochastic GW background search.
If I can find the acoustic coupling noise should be below the shot noise, I am happy. If not, some improvements may be needed someday.

  7829   Fri Dec 14 03:32:51 2012 AyakaUpdateLSCHigh frequency noise in AS signal

I calibrated the AS error signal into the displacement of the YARM cavity in the same way as I did before (elog).

The open loop transfer function is:

XARM_OL.pdf


The transfer function from ITMX excitation to AS error signal is:

AS_ITMXexc.pdf

Then I have got the calibration value : 5.08e+11 [counts/m]

The calibrated spectrum in unit of m/rtHz is

ASspe_noise.pdf

REF0: arm displacement
REF1: dark noise + demodulation circuit noise + WT filter noise + ADC noise (PSL shutter on)
REF2: demodulation circuit noise + WT filter noise + ADC noise (PD input of the circuit (at 1Y2) is connected to the 50 Ohm terminator)
(The circuit and WT filter seem to be connected at back side of the rack. Actually there is a connector labelled 'I MON' but it is not related to C1:LSC-ASS55_I_ERR)

Also we changed the AS gain so that ADC noise does not affect:

ASgain.png

However, this did not make big change in sensitivity. I guess this means that circuit noise limits the sensitivity at higher frequencies than 400 Hz.
I tried to adjust the AS gain carefully but I could not do that because of the earthquake. Further investigation is needed.

 

  7830   Fri Dec 14 03:49:02 2012 AyakaUpdateGeneralEarthquake

There was an earthquake around 2:30 am. Now all the mirrors except SRM are damped.

earthquake.pngseis.pdf

ELOG V3.1.3-