40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
 40m Log, Page 323 of 339 Not logged in
ID Date Author Type Category Subject
16159   Tue May 25 10:22:16 2021 Anchal, PacoSummarySUSMC1 new input matrix calculated and uploaded

The test was succesful and brought back the IMC to lock point at the end.

We calculated new input matrix using same code in scripts/SUS/InMatCalc/sus_diagonalization.py . Attachment 1 shows the results.

The calculations are present in scripts/SUS/InMatCalc/MC1.

We uploaded the new MC1 input matrix at:

Unix Time = 1621963200

 UTC May 25, 2021 17:20:00 UTC Central May 25, 2021 12:20:00 CDT Pacific May 25, 2021 10:20:00 PDT

GPS Time = 1305998418

This was done by running python scripts/SUS/general/20210525_NewMC1Settings/uploadNewConfigIMC.py on allegra. Old IMC settings (before Paco and I started workin on 40m) can be restored by running python scripts/SUS/general/20210525_NewMC1Settings/restoreOldConfigIMC.py on allegra.

Everything looks as stable as before. We'll look into long term trends in a week to see if this helped at all.

Attachment 1: SUS_Input_Matrix_Diagonalization.pdf
16161   Tue May 25 17:42:11 2021 Anchal, PacoSummaryALSALS Single Arm Noise Budget

Here is our first attempt at a single-arm noise budget for ALS.

Attachment 1 shows the loop diagram we used to calculate the contribution of different noises.

Attachment 2 shows the measured noise at C1:ALS-BEATX_PHASE_FINE_OUT_HZ when XARM was locked to the main laser and Xend Green laser was locked to XARM.

• The brown curve shows the measured noise.
• The black curve shows total estimated noise from various noise sources (some of these sources have not been plotted as their contribution falls off the plotting y-lims.)
• The residual frequency noise of Xend green laser (AUX) is measured by measuring the PDH error monitor spectrum from C1:ALS-X_ERR_MON_OUT_DQ. This measurement was converted into units of V by multiplying it by 6.285e-4 V/cts. This factor was measured by sending a 43 Hz 100 mV sine wave at the readout point and measuring the output in the channel.
• This error signal is referred to AUX_Freq input in the loop diagram (see attachment 1) and then injected from there.
• All measurements were taken to Res_Disp port in the 'Out-of-Loop Beat Note' block (see attachment 1).
• In this measurement, we did not DAC noise that gets added when ALS loop is closed.
• We added ADC noise from Kiwamu's ALS paper after referring it to DFD input. DFD noise is also taken from Kiwamu's ALS paper data.

Inference:

• Something is wrong above 200 Hz for the inclusion of AUX residual displacement noise. It is coming off as higher than the direct measured residual noise, so something is wrong with our loop diagram. But I'm not sure what.
• There is a lot of unaccounted noise everywhere from 1 Hz to 200 Hz.
• Rana said noise budget below 1 Hz is level 9 stuff while we are at level 2, so I'll just assume the excess noise below 1 Hz is level 9 stuff.
• We did include seismic noise taken from 40m noise budget in 40m/pygwinc. But it seems to affect below the plotted ylims. I'm not sure if that is correct either.

Unrelated questions:

• There is a slow servo feeding back to Green Laser's crystal temperature by integrating PZT out signal. This is OFF right now. Should we keep it on?
• The green laser lock is very unreliable and it unlocks soon after any signal is being fed back to the ETMX position.
• This means, keeping both IR and green light locked in XARM is hard and simultaneous oscillation does not last longer than 10s of seconds. Why is it like this?
• We notice that multiple higher-order modes from the green laser reach the arm cavity. The HOMs are powerful enough that PDH locks to them as well and we toggle the shutter to come to TEM00 mode. These HOMs must be degrading the PDH error signal. Should we consider installing PMCs at end tables too?
Attachment 1: ALS_IR_b.svg
Attachment 2: ALS_Single_Arm_IR.pdf
16163   Wed May 26 11:45:57 2021 Anchal, PacoConfigurationIMCMC2 analog camera

[Anchal, Paco]

We went near the MC2 area and opened the lid to inspect the GigE and analog video monitors for MC2. Looked like whatever image is coming through the viewport is split into the GigE (for beam tracking) and the analog monitor. We hooked the monitor found on the floor nearby and tweaked the analog video camera around to get a feel for how the "ghost" image of the transmission moves around. It looks like in order to try and remove this "extra spots" we would need to tweak the beam tracking BS. We will consult the beam tracking authorities and return to this.

16164   Thu May 27 11:03:15 2021 Anchal, PacoSummaryALSALS Single Arm Noise Budget

Here's an updated X ARM ALS noise budget.

Things to remember:

• Major mistake we were making earlier was that we were missing the step of clicking  'Set Phase UGF' before taking the measurement.
• Click the clear phase history just before taking measure.
• Make sure the IR beatnotes are less than 50 MHz (or the left half of HP8591E on water crate). The DFD is designed for this much beatnote frequency (from Gautum).
• We took this measurement with old IMC settings.
• We have saved a template file in users/Templates/ALS/ALS_outOfLoop_Ref_DQ.xml . This si same as ALS_outOfLoop_Ref.xml except we changed all channels to _DQ.

Conclusions:

• Attachment 1 shows the updated noisebudget. The estimated and measured RMS noise are very close to eachother.
• However, there is significant excess noise between 4 Hz and 200 Hz. We're still thinking on what could be the source of these.
• From 200 Hz to about 3 kHz, the beatnote noise is dominated by AUX residual frequency noise. This can be verified with page 2 of Attachment 2 where coherence between AUX PDH Error signal and BEATX signal is high.
• One mystery is how the measured beatnote noise is below the residual green laser noise above 3 kHz. Could this be just because the phase tracker can't measure noise above 3kHz?
• We have used estimated open loop transfer function for AUX from poles/zeros for uPDH box used (this was done months ago by me when I was working on ALS noise budget from home). We should verify it with a fresh OLTF measurement of AUX PDH loop. That's next on our list.
Attachment 1: ALS_Single_X_Arm_IR.pdf
Attachment 2: ALS_OOL_with_Ref.pdf
16171   Tue Jun 1 16:55:32 2021 Anchal, PacoSummaryALSSingle Arm Actuation Calibration with IR ALS Beat

Rana suggested in today's meeting to put in a notch filter in the XARM IR PDH loop to avoid suppressing the excitation line. We tried this today first with just one notch at 1069 Hz and then with an additional notch at 619 Hz and sent two simultaneous excitations.

Measurement and Analysis:

• We added notch filters with Q=10, depth=50dB, freq=619 Hz and 1069 Hz using foton in SUS-ETMX_LSC filter bank at FM10.
• We sent excitation signals with amplitudes 600cts and 1000 cts for 619 Hz and 1069 Hz signals respectively.
• We measured time series data of C1:SUS-ITMX_LSC_OUT_DQ and C1:ALS-BEATX_FINE_PHASE_OUT_HZ_DQ for 60s.
• Then, spectrum of both signals is measured with Hanning window using scipy.welch function with scaling set to  'spectrum', binwidth=1Hz.
• The beatnote signal was converted into length units by multiplying it by 1064nm * 37.79m / c.
• The ratio of the two spectrums at teh excitation frequency multiplies by excitation frequency squared gives us teh calibration constant in units of nm Hz^2/cts.
• At 619 Hz, we got $\frac{5.01}{f^2}$nm/cts
• At 1069 Hz, we got $\frac{5.64}{f^2}$nm/cts.
• The calibration factor in use is from $\frac{7.32}{f^2}$ nm/cts from 13984.
• So, the calibration factor from this methos is about 23% smaller than measured using freeswinging MICH in 13984.
• One possiblity is that our notch filter is not as effective in avoiding suppresion of excitation.
• We tried increasing the notch filter depths to 100 dB but got the same result within 2%.
• We tried changing the position of notch filters. We put them in POX filter banks. Again the result did not change more than 2%.
• The open loop gain of green PDH at 619 Hz and 1069 Hz must be large enough for our assumption of green laser perfectly following length motion to be true. The UGF of green laser is near 11 kHz.
• The discrepancy could be due to outdated freeswinging MICH measurement that was done 3 years ago. Maybe we should learn how to do the ITMX calibration using this method and compare our own two measurements.
Attachment 1: SingleArmActCalwithIRALSBeat-1306624785.pdf
16174   Wed Jun 2 09:43:30 2021 Anchal, PacoSummarySUSIMC Settings characterization

Plot description:

• We picked up three 10 min times belonging to the three different configurations:
• 'Old Settings': IMC Suspension settings before Paco and I changed anything. Data taken from Apr 26, 2021, 00:30:42 PDT (GPS 1303457460).
• 'New Settings': New input matrices uploaded on April 28th, along with F2A filters and AC coil balancing gains (see 16091). Data taken from May 01, 2021, 00:30:42 PDT (GPS 1303889460).
• 'New settings with new gains' Above and new suspension damping gains uploaded on May5th, 2021 (see 16120). Data taken from May 07, 2021, 03:10:42 PDT (GPS 1304417460).
• Attachment 1  shows the RMS seismic noise along X direction between 1 Hz and 3 Hz picked from C1:PEM-RMS_BS_X_1_3 during the three time durations chosen. This plot is to establish that RMS noise levels were similar and mostly constant. Page 2 shows the mean ampltidue spectral density of seismic noise in x-direction over the 3 durations.
• Attachment 2 shows the transfer function estimate of seismic noise to MC_F during the three durations. Page 1 shows ratio of ASDs taken with median averaging while page 2 shows the same for mean averaging.
• Attachment 3 shows the transfer function estimate of seismic noise to MC_TRANS_PIT during the three durations. Page 1 shows ratio of ASDs taken with median averaging while page 2 shows the same for mean averaging.
• Attachment 4 shows the transfer function estimate of seismic noise to MC_TRANS_YAW during the three durations. Page 1 shows ratio of ASDs taken with median averaging while page 2 shows the same for mean averaging.

Inferences:

• From Attachment 2 Page 1:
• We see that 'old settings' caused the least coupling of seismic noise to MC_F signal in most of the low frequency band except between 1.5 to 3 Hz where the 'new settings' were slightly better.
• 'new settings' also show less coupling in 4 Hz to 6 Hz band, but at these frequencies, seismix noise is filtered out by suspension, so this could be just coincidental and is not really a sign of better configuration.
• There is excess noise coupling seen with 'new settings' between 0.4 Hz and 1.5 Hz. We're not sure why this coupling increased.
• 'new settings with new gains' show the most coupling in most of the frequency band. Clearly, the increased suspension damping gains did not behaved well with rest of the system.
• From Attachment 3 Page 1:
• Coupling to MC_TRANS_PIT error signal is reduced for 'new settings' in almost all of the frequency band in comparison to the 'old settings'.
• 'new settings with new gains' did even better below 1 Hz but had excess noise in 1 Hz to 6 Hz band. Again increased suspension damping gains did not help much.
• But low coupling to PIT error for 'new settings' suggest that our decoupling efforts in matrix diagonalization, F2A filters and ac coil balancing worked to some extent.
• From Attachment 4 Page 1:
• 'new settings' and 'old settings' have the same coupling of seismic noise to MC_TRANS_YAW in all of the frequency band. This is in-line witht eh fact that we found very little POS to YAW couping in our analysis before and there was little to no change for these settings.
• 'new settings with new gains' did better below 1 Hz but here too there was excess coupling between 1 Hz to 9 Hz.
• Page 1 vs Page 2:
• Mean and median should be same if the data sample was large enough and noise was stationary. A difference between the two suggests existence of outliers in the data set and median provides a better central estimate in such case.
• MC_F: Mean and median are same below 4 hz. There are high frequency outliers above 4 Hz in 'new settings with new gains' and 'old settings' data sets, maybe due to transient higher free running laser frequency noise. But since, suspension settigns affect below 1 Hz mostly, the data sets chosen are stationary enough for us.
• MC_TRANS_PIT: Mean ratio is lower for 'new settings' and 'old settings' in 0.3 hz to 0.8 Hz band. Same case above 4 Hz as listed above.
• MC_TRANS_YAW:  Same as above.
• Conclusion 1:  The 'new settings with new gains' cause more coupling to seismic noise, probably due to low phase margin in control loops. We should revert back the suspension damping gains.
• Conclusion 2: The 'new settings' work as expected and can be kept when WFS loops are optimized further.
• Conjecture: From our experience over last 2 weeks, locking the arms to the main laser with 'new settings with new gains' introduces noise in the arm length large enough that the Xend green laser does not remain locked to the arm for longer than tens of seconds. So this is definitely not a configuration in which we can carry out other measurements and experiments in the interferometer.
Attachment 1: seismicX.pdf
Attachment 2: seismicXtoMC_F_TFest.pdf
Attachment 3: seismicXtoMC_TRANS_PIT_TFest.pdf
Attachment 4: seismicXtoMC_TRANS_YAW_TFest.pdf
16175   Wed Jun 2 16:20:59 2021 Anchal, PacoSummarySUSIMC Suspension gains reverted to old values

Following the conclusion, we are reverting the suspension gains to old values, i.e.

IMC Suspension Gains
MC1 MC2 MC3
SUSPOS 120 150 200
SUSPIT 60 10 12
SUSYAW 60 10 8

While the F2A filters, AC coil gains and input matrices are changed to as mentioned in 16066 and 16072.

The changes can be reverted all the way back to old settings (before Paco and I changed anything in the IMC suspensions) by running python scripts/SUS/general/20210602_NewIMCOldGains/restoreOldConfigIMC.py on allegra. The new settings can be uploaded back by running python scripts/SUS/general/20210602_NewIMCOldGains/uploadNewConfigIMC.py on allegra.

Change time:

Unix Time = 1622676038

 UTC Jun 02, 2021 23:20:38 UTC Central Jun 02, 2021 18:20:38 CDT Pacific Jun 02, 2021 16:20:38 PDT

GPS Time = 1306711256

 Quote: Conclusion 1:  The 'new settings with new gains' cause more coupling to seismic noise, probably due to low phase margin in control loops. We should revert back the suspension damping gains. Conclusion 2: The 'new settings' work as expected and can be kept when WFS loops are optimized further. Conjecture: From our experience over last 2 weeks, locking the arms to the main laser with 'new settings with new gains' introduces noise in the arm length large enough that the Xend green laser does not remain locked to the arm for longer than tens of seconds. So this is definitely not a configuration in which we can carry out other measurements and experiments in the interferometer.

16192   Tue Jun 8 11:40:53 2021 Anchal, PacoSummaryALSSingle Arm Actuation Calibration with IR ALS Beat

We attempted to simulate "oscillator based realtime calibration noise monitoring" in offline analysis with python. This helped us in finding about a factor of sqrt(2) that we were missing earlier in 16171. we measured C1:ALS-BEATX_FINE_PHASE_OUT_HZ_DQ when X-ARM was locked to main laser and Xend green laser was locked to XARM. An excitation signal of amplitude 600 was setn at 619 hz at C1:ITMX_LSC_EXC.

Signal analysis flow:

• The C1:ALS-BEATX_FINE_PHASE_OUT_HZ_DQ is calibrated to give value of beatntoe frequency in Hz. But we are interested in the fluctuations of this value at the excitation frequency. So the beatnote signal is first high passed with 50 hz cut-off. This value can be reduced a lot more in realtime system. We only took 60s of data and had to remove first 2 seconds for removing transients so we didn't reduce this cut-off further.
• The I and Q demodulated beatntoe signal is combined to get a complex beatnote signal amplitude at excitation frequency.
• This signal is divided by cts amplitude of excitation and multiplied by square of excitation frequency to get calibration factor for ITMX in units of nm/cts/Hz^2.
• The noise spectrum of absolute value of  the calibration factor is plotted in attachment 1, along with its RMS. The calibration factor was detrended linearly so the the DC value was removed before taking the spectrum.
• So Attachment 1 is the spectrum of noise in calibration factor when measured with this method. The shaded region is 15.865% - 84.135% percentile region around the solid median curves.

We got a value of $\frac{7.3 \pm 3.9}{f^2}\, \frac{nm}{cts}$.  The calibration factor in use is from $\frac{7.32}{f^2}$ nm/cts from 13984.

Next steps could be to budget this noise while we setup some way of having this calibration factor generated in realitime using oscillators on a FE model. Calibrating actuation of a single optic in a single arm is easy, so this is a good test setup for getting a noise budget of this calibration method.

Attachment 1: ITMX_Cal_Noise_Spectrum_1307143423.pdf
16194   Wed Jun 9 11:46:01 2021 Anchal, PacoSummaryAUXXend Green Laser PDH OLTF measurement

We measured the Xend green laser PDH Open loop transfer function by following method:

• We first measured the feedback transfer function 'K' directly.
• See attachment 2 for this measurement. We measured Out2/exc here.
• Then, we closed the loop as shown in attachment 1with SR560 as a summing juntion at error point.
• We injected excitation through B channel in SR560 and measured transfer function Out1/Out2.
• This measurement should give us $G_{OL} / K$ by loop alegbra.
• Then we multiplied the two transfer function measurements to get open loop transfer function.

Result:

• Our measurement gives the same UGF of 10kHz and phase margin of 53.5 degrees as reported in 13238.
• The shape of measurement also follows 1/f above 10 Hz atleast.
• Our measurement might not be correct below 10 Hz but we did not see any saturation or loss of lock in 1Hz to 10 Hz measurement.
• This OLTF is different from the modelled OLTF here even though the UGF matches.
• The feedback gain is supposed to roll-off faster than 1/f in 30Hz to 1kHz region but it does not seem to in our measurement.
• This suggests that the actual uPDH box is shaping the loop different from what schematic suggests. This might mean that the gain is much lower in the low frequency region than we would like it to be.
• We will investigate the reason of difference between model and measurement unless someone has a better explaination for the descripancy.
Attachment 1: image-6f2923a3-01ce-4d04-bc53-d8db0238e195.jpg
Attachment 3: X_Green_ARM_PDH_OLTF.pdf
16196   Wed Jun 9 18:29:13 2021 Anchal, PacoSummaryALSCheck for saturation in ITMX SOS Driver

We did a quick check to make sure there is no saturation in the C1:SUS-ITMX_LSC_EXC analog path. For this, we looked at the SOS driver output monitors from the 1X4 chassis near MC2 on a scope. We found that even with 600 x 10 = 6000 counts of our 619 Hz excitation these outputs in particular are not saturating (highest mon signal was UL coil with 5.2 Vpp). In comparison, the calibration trials we have done before had 600 counts of amplitude, so we can safely increase our oscillator strength by that much

Things that remain to be investigated -->

• What is the actual saturation level?
• Two-tone intermodulation?
16202   Tue Jun 15 15:26:43 2021 Anchal, PacoSummaryAUXXend Green Laser PDH OLTF measurement loop algebra, excitation at control point

Attachment 1 shows the case when excitation is sent at control point i.e. the PZT output. As before, free running laser noise $\eta$ in units of Hz/rtHz is added after the actuator and I've also shown shot noise being added just before the detector.

Again, we have a access to three output points for measurement. $\alpha$ right at the output of mixer (the PDH error signal), $\beta$ the feedback signal to be applied by uPDH box (PZT Mon) and $\gamma$ the output of the summing box SR560.

Doing loop algebra as before, we get:

$\large \alpha = \frac{\eta}{K(s) A(s)} \frac{G_{OL}(s)}{1 - G_{OL}(s)} + \frac{\chi}{C(s) K(s) A(s)} \frac{G_{OL}(s)}{1 - G_{OL}(s)} - \frac{\nu_e}{K(s) } \frac{G_{OL}(s)}{1 - G_{OL}(s)}$

$\large \beta = \frac{\eta}{A(s)} \frac{G_{OL}(s)}{1 - G_{OL}(s)} + \frac{\chi}{C(s) A(s)} \frac{G_{OL}(s)}{1 - G_{OL}(s)} - \nu_e \frac{G_{OL}(s)}{1 - G_{OL}(s)}$

$\large \gamma= \frac{\eta}{A(s)} \frac{G_{OL}(s)}{1 - G_{OL}(s)} + \frac{\chi}{C(s) A(s)} \frac{G_{OL}(s)}{1 - G_{OL}(s)} - \nu_e \frac{1}{1 - G_{OL}(s)}$

So measurement of $\large G_{OL}(s)$ can be done by

$\large G_{OL}(s) \approx \frac{\beta}{\gamma}$

• For frequencies, where $\large G_{OL}(s)$ is large enough, to have an SNR of 100, we need that ratio of $\large \nu_e$ to integrated noise is 100.
• Assuming you are averaging for 'm' number of cycles in your swept sine measurement, time of integration for the noise signal would be $\large \frac{m}{f}$where f is the frequency point of the seeping sine wave.
• This means, the amplitude of integrated laser frequency noise at either $\large \beta$ or $\large \gamma$ would be $\large \sqrt{\left(\frac{\eta(f)}{A(f)}\right)^2\frac{f}{m}} = \frac{\eta(f) \sqrt{f}}{A(f)\sqrt{m}}$
• Therefore, signal to laser free running noise ratio at f would be $\large S = \frac{\nu_eA(f)\sqrt{m}}{\eta(f) \sqrt{f}}$.
• This means to keep a constant SNR of S, we need to shape the excitation amplitude as $\large \nu_e \sim S \frac{\eta(f) \sqrt{f}}{A(f)\sqrt{m}}$
• Putting in numbers for X end Green PDH loop, laser free-running frequency noise ASD is 1e4/f Hz/rtHz, laser PZT actuation is 1MHz/V, then for 10 integration cycles and SNR of 100, we get: $\large \nu_e \sim 100 \times \frac{10^4 \sqrt{f}}{f \times10^6 \sqrt{10}} = \frac{30\, mV}{\sqrt{f}}$
• Assuming you are averaging for a constant time $\large \tau$ in swept sine measurement, then the amplitude of integrated laser free noise would be $\large \sqrt{\left(\frac{\eta(f)}{A(f)}\right)^2 \frac{1}{\tau}} = \frac{\eta(f) }{A(f)\sqrt{\tau}}$
• In this case, signal to laser free-running noise ratio at f would be $\large S = \frac{\nu_eA(f)\sqrt{\tau}}{\eta(f)}$
• This means to keep a constant SNR of S, we need to shape the excitation amplitude as $\large \nu_e \sim S\frac{\eta(f)}{A(f)\sqrt{\tau}}$
• Again putting in numbers as above and integration time of 1s, we need an excitation amplitude shape $\large \nu_e \sim 100 \times \frac{10^4 }{f \times10^6 \sqrt{1}} = \frac{1\, V}{f}$

This means at 100 Hz, with 10 integration cycles, we should have needed only 3 mV of excitation signal to get an SNR of 100. However, we have been unable to get good measurements with even 25 mV of excitation. We tried increasing the cycles, that did not work either.

This post is to summarize this analysis. We need more tests to get any conclusions.

Attachment 1: AuxPDHloop.pdf
16204   Wed Jun 16 13:20:19 2021 Anchal, PacoSummaryCamerasMon 7 in Control Room Replaced

We replaced the Mon 7 with an LCD monitor from back bench. It is fed the analog signal from BNC converted into VGS with a converter box that Paco bought. We can replace this monitor with another monitor if it is required on the back bench. For now, we definitely need a monitor to show IMC camera's up there.

Attachment 1: IMG_20210616_083810.jpg
16209   Thu Jun 17 11:45:42 2021 Anchal, PacoUpdateSUSMC1 Gave trouble again

TL;DR

MC1 LL Sensor showed signs of fluctuating large offsets. We tried to find the issue in the box but couldn't find any. On power cycling, the sensor got back to normal. But in putting back the box, we bumped something and c1susaux slow channels froze. We tried to reboot it, but it didn't work and the channels do not exist anymore.

Today morning we came to find that IMC struggled to lock all night (See attachment 1). We kind of had an indication yesterday evening that MC1 LL Sensor PD had a higher variance than usual and Paco had to reset WFS offsets because they had integrated the noise from this sensor. Something similar happened last night, that a false offset and its fluctuation overwhelmed WFS and MC1 got misaligned making it impossible for IMC to get lock.

In the morning, Paco again reset the WFS offsets but not we were sure that the PD variance from MC1 LL osem was very high. See attachment 2 to see how only 1 OSEM is showing higher noise in comparison to the other 4 OSEMs. This behavior is similar to what we saw earlier in 16138 but for UL sensor. Koji and I fixed it in 16139 and we tested all other channels too.

So, Paco and I, went ahead and took out the MC1 satellite amplifier box S2100029 D1002812, opened the top, and checked all the PD channel testpoints with no input current. We didn't find anything odd. Next we checked the LED dirver circuit testpoints with LED OUT and GND shorted. We got 4.997V on all LED MON testpoints which indicate normal functioning.

We just hooked back everything on the MC1 satellit box and checked the sensor channels again on medm screens. To our surprise, it started functioning normally. So maybe, just a power cycling was required but we still don't know what caused this issue.

BUT when I (Anchal) was plugging back the power cables and D25 connectors on the back side in 1X4 after moving the box back into the rack, we found that the slow channels stopped updating. They just froze!

We got worried for some time as the negative power supply indicator LEDs on the acromag chassis (which is just below the MC1 satellite box) were not ON. We checked the power cables and had to open the side panel of the 1X4 rack to check how the power cables are connected. We found that there is no third wire in the power cables and the acromag chassis only takes in single rail supply. We confirmed this by looking at another acromag chassis on Xend. We pasted a note on the acromag chassis for future reference that it uses only positive rails and negative LED monitors are not usually ON.

Back to solving the frozen acromag issue, we conjectured that maybe the ethernet connection is broken. The DB25 cables for the satellite box are bit short and pull around other cables with it when connected. We checked all the ethernet cabling, it looked fine. On c1susaux computer, we saw that the monitor LED for ethernet port 2 which is connected to acromag chassis is solid ON while the other one (which is probably connection to the switch) is blinking.

We tried doing telnet to the computer, it didn't work. The host refused connection from pianosa workstation. We tried pinging the c1susaux computer, and that worked. So we concluded that most probably, the epics modbus server hosting the slow channels on c1susaux is unable to communicate with acromag chassis and hence the solid LED light on that ethernet port instead of a blinking one. We checked computer restart procedure page for SLOW computers on wiki and found that it said if telnet is not working, we can hard reboot the computer.

We hard reboot the computer by long pressing the power button and then presssing it back on. We did this process 3 times with the same result. The ethernet port 2 LED (Acromag chassis) would blink but the ethernet port 1 LED (connected to switch) would not turn ON. We now can not even ping the machine now, let alone telnet into it. All SUS slow monitor channels are not present now ofcourse. We also tried once pressing the reset button (which the manual said would reboot the machine), but we got the same outcome.

Now, we decided to stop poking around until someone with more experience can help us on this.

Bottomline: We don't know what caused the LL sensor issue and hence it has not been fixed. It can happen again. We lost all C1SUSAUX slow channels which are the OSEM and COIL slow monitor channels for PRM, BS, ITMX, ITMY, MC1, MC2 and MC3.

Attachment 1: SummaryScreenShot.png
16210   Thu Jun 17 16:37:23 2021 Anchal, PacoUpdateSUSc1susaux computer rebooted

Jon suggested to reboot the acromag chassis, then the computer, and we did this without success. Then, Koji suggested we try running ifup eth0, so we ran sudo /sbin/ifup eth0 and it worked to put c1susaux back in the martian network, but the modbus service was still down. We switched off the chassis and rebooted the computer and we had to do sudo /sbin/ifup eth0 again (why do we need to do this manually everytime?). Switched on the chassis but still no channels. sudo systemctl status modbusioc.service' gave us inactive (dead) status. So  we ran sudo systemctl restart modbusioc.service'.

The status became:

● modbusIOC.service - ModbusIOC Service via procServ
start condition failed at Thu 2021-06-17 16:10:42 PDT; 12min ago
ConditionPathExists=/opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/burt/autoburt/latest/c1susaux.snap was not met

After another iteration we finally got a modbusIOC.service OK status, and we then repeated Jon's reboot procedure. This time, the acromags were on but reading 0.0, so we just needed to run sudo /sbin/ifup eth1`and finally some sweet slow channels were read. As a final step we burt restored to 05:19 AM today c1susaux.snap file and managed to relock the IMC >> will keep an eye on it.... Finally, in the process of damping all the suspended optics, we noticed some OSEM channels on BS and PRM are reading 0.0 (they are red as we browse them)... We succeeded in locking both arms, but this remains an unknown for us.

16213   Fri Jun 18 10:07:23 2021 Anchal, PacoSummaryAUXXend Green Laser PDH OLTF with coherence

We did the measurement of OLTF for Xend green laser PDH loop with excitation added at control point using a SR560 as shown in attachment 1 of 16202. We also measured coherence in our measurement, see attachment 1.

Measurement details:

• We took the $\beta/\gamma$ measurement as per 16202.
• We did measurement in two pieces. First in High frequency region, from 1 kHz to 100 kHz.
• In this setup, the excitation amplitude was kept constant to 5 mV.
• In this region, the OLTF is small enough that signal to noise ratio is maintained in $\gamma$ (SR560 sum output, measured on CH1). The coherence can be seen to be constant 1 throughout for CH1 in this region.
• But for $\beta$ (PZT Mon, measured on CH2), the low OLTF actually starts damping both signal and noise and to elevate it above SR785 noise floor, we had a high pass (z:0Hz, p:100kHz, k:1000) SR560 amplifying $\beta$ before measurement (see attachment 2). This amplification has been corrected in Attachment 1. This allowed us to improve the coherence on CH2 to above 0.5 mostly.
• Second region is from 3 Hz to 1 kHz.
• In this setup, the excitation was shaped with a low pass (p: 1Hz, k:5) SR560 filter with SR785 source amplitude as 1V.
• We took 40 averaging cycles in this measurement to improve the coherence further.
• In this freqeuency region, $\beta$ is mostly coherent as we shaped the excitation as $1/f$ and due to constant cycle number averaging, the integrated noise goes as $1/\sqrt{f}$(see 16202 for math).
• We still lost coherence in $\gamma$ (CH1) for frequencyes below 100 Hz. the reason is that the excitation is suppressed by OLTF while the noise is not for this channel. So the $1/f$ shaping of excitation only helps fight against the suppression of OLTF somewhat and not against the noise.
$\gamma = \left( \frac{\eta}{A(s)} - \frac{\nu_e}{G_{OL}(s)} + \frac{\chi}{A(s) C(s)} \right)\frac{G_{OL}(s)}{1-G_{OL}(s)}$
• We need $1/f^2$ shaping for this purpose but we were loosing lock with that shaping so we shifted back to $1/f$ shaping and captured whatever we could.
• It is clear that the noise takes over below 100 Hz and coherence in CH1 is lost there.

Inferences:

• Yes, the OLTF does not look how it should look but:
• The green region in attachment 1 shows the data points where coherence on both CH1 and CH2 was higher than 0.75.  So the saturation measured below 1 kHz, particularly in 100 Hz to 500 Hz (where coherence on both channels is almost 1) is real.
• This brings the question, what is saturating. As has been suggested before, our excitation signal is probably saturating some internal stage in the uPDH box. We need to investigate this next.
• It is however very non-intuitive to why this saturation is so non-uniform (zig-zaggy) in both magnitude and phase.
• In past experiences, whenever I saw somehting saturating, it would cause a flat top response in transfer function.
• Another interesting thing to note is the reduced UGF in this measurement.
• UGF is about 40-45 kHz. This we believe is due to reduced mode matching of the green light to the XARM when temperature of the end increases too much. We took the measurement at 6 pm and Koji posted the Xend's temperature to be 30 C at 7 pm in 16206. It certainly becomes harder to lock at hot temperatures, probably due to reduced phase margin and loop gain.
Attachment 1: XEND_PDH_OLTF_with_Coherence.pdf
Attachment 2: Beta_Amp.pdf

We checked back in time to see how the BS and PRM OSEM slow channels are zero. It was clear that they became zero when we worked on this issue on June 17th, Thursday. So we simply went back and power cycled the c1susaux acromag chassis. After that, we had to log in to c1susaux computer and run

sudo /sbin/ifdown eth1
sudo /sbin/ifup eth1

This restarted the ethernet port acromag chassis is connected to. This solved this issue and we were able to see all the slow channels in BS and PRM.

But then, we noticed that the OPLEV of ITMX is unable to read the position of the beam on the QPD at all. No light was reaching the QPD. We went in, opened the ITMX table cover and confirmed that the return OPLEV beam is way off and is not even hitting one of the steering mirrors that brings it to the QPD. We switched off the OPLEV contribution to the damping.

We did burt restore to 16th June morning using
burtwb -f /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/burt/autoburt/snapshots/2021/Jun/16/06:19/c1susaux.snap -l /tmp/controls_1210622_095432_0.write.log -o /tmp/controls_1210622_095432_0.nowrite.snap -v

This did not solve the issue.

Then we noticed that the OSEM signals from ITMX were saturated in opposite directions for Left and Right OSEMs. The Left OSEM fast channels are saturated to 1.918 um for UL and 1.399 um for LL, while both right OSEM channels are bottomed to 0 um. On the other hand, the acromag slow PD monitors are showing 0 on the right channels but 1097 cts on UL PDMon and 802 cts in LL PD Mon. We actually went in and checked the DC voltages from the PD input monitor LEMO ports on the ITMX dewhitening board D000210-A1 and measured non-zero voltages across all the channels. Following is a summary:

C1-SUS-ITMX_XXSEN_OUT
C1-SUS-ITMX_xxPDMon
(Slow Acromag Monitors) (cts)
Multimeter measurements at input to Dewhitening Boards
(V)
UL 1.918 1097 0.901
LL 1.399 802 0.998
UR 0 0 0.856
LR 0 0 0.792
SD 0.035 20 0.883

We even took out the 4-pin LEMO outputs from the dewhitening boards that go to the anti-aliasing chassis and checked the voltages. They are same as the input voltages as expected. So the dewhitening board is doing its job fine and the OSEMs are doing their jobs fine.

It is weird that both the ADC and the acromags are reading these values wrong. We believe this is causing a big yaw offset in the ITMX control signal causing the ITMX to turn enough make OPLEV go out of range. We checked the CDS FE status (attachment 1). Other than c1rfm showing a yellow bar (bit 2 = GE FANUC RFM card 0) in RT Net Status, nothing else seems wrong in c1sus computer. c1sus FE model is running fine. c1x02 (the lower level model) does show a red bar in TIM which suggests some timing issue. This is present in c1x04 too.

Bottomline:

Currently, the ITMX coil outputs are disabled as we can't trust the OSEM channels. We're investigating more why any of this is happening. Any input is welcome.

Attachment 1: CDS_FE_Status.png
16445   Tue Nov 2 18:54:41 2021 Anchal, PacoUpdateBHDOptical fibres laid for BHD upgrade

We successfully laid down all required optical fibre fiber cables from 1X4-1X7 region to 1Y1-1Y3 region today. This includes following cables:

• Timing fibre fiber from Master Timing Synchornizer D050239 on 1X6 to C1SU2 I/O chassis on 1Y1.
• Timing fibre fiber from Master Timing Synchornizer D050239 on 1X6 to C1BHD I/O chassis on 1Y3.
• CX4 cable from Dolphin Card on 1X4 to C1SU2 FE on 1Y1 for IPC.
• CX4 cable from Dolphin Card on 1X4 to C1BHD FE on 1Y3 for IPC.
• DAQ Network extension fibre fiber optic cable from DAQ Network Switch on 1X7 to another switch we mounted on 1Y3 for local DAQ network distribution.
15762   Wed Jan 13 16:09:29 2021 AnchalHowToCDSAcromag wiring investigation

I'm working on a better wiring diagram that takes into account multiple power supplies, how their GND is passed forward to the circuits or sensors using those power supplies and what possible wiring configurations on Acromag would give low noise. I think I have two configurations in mind which I will test and update here with data and better diagrams.

I took some striptool images earlier yesterday. So I'm dumping them here for further comments or inferences.

Attachment 1: SimpleTestsStriptoolImages.pdf
15774   Wed Jan 20 18:07:09 2021 AnchalSummaryBHDHAM-A Coil Driver measurements before modifications

I have taken transfer functions and noise measurements of the two HAM-A coil driver boxes D1100687 #S2100027 and #S2100028. All transfer functions look as expected. I'm not sure about the noise measurements. If anyone sees flaw in my measurement method, please let me know. I'm not sure why in some channels I got 10Hz harmoni peaks in the noise. That was very strange. Also let me know if my current noise estimate is wrong.

Transfer Function Measurement details

• SR785 source out was connected to the differential amplifier input of D1900068.
• The one pair of two BNC outputs of this differential amplifier goes directly to the SR785 Input 1 A and B.
• The DB9 output of the differential amplifier goes to the Coil Input DB9 connector J3.
• Header W2 was shorted to provide ground to the incoming signal.
• Header P4 was shorted to enable all the channels manually.
• Normal operation is the Acquisition mode (Acq) while when pins of header P3 are shorted, we go into the Run mode for respective channel.
• The “To Satellite Box” DB25 port at the read side was conencted to a DB25 breakout circuit and pins 1-9, 3-11, 5-13 and 7-15 were connected to 36 Ohm resistor to simulate Coil load.
• The “Output Monitor” on the rear side is then connected to the test switch DB9 port on D1900068.
• The the pair of BNCs from the test switch is connected to SR785 Input 2 A and B.
• Measurements are taken with file D1100687_TF.yml and D1100687_TF_LF.yml.
• A measurement of just cables without the DUT is taken as well.
• Commands.txt list all the commands used.
• All data is compiled and plotted in Plotting.ipynb
• D1100117_S2100027_TF.pdf and D1100117_S2100028_TF.pdf shows all the transfer functions measured.

Spectrum Measurements

• All channels were kept in disabled mode (Not shorting P4) to ensure their inputs are grounded on the board.
• I ran two BNC cables with their centers connected to output monitors V2+ and V2- and one of their shields connected to board GND.
• in SR785, A-B differential mode always runs with grounded shields mode, so effectively the board GND got grounded to SR785 GND through internal 50 Ohm resistor. But all ground loops have been evaded.
• The two BNC cables were twisted together to minimize the area between the two center cores of the cables as that is the remaining pickoff possible in this measurement.
• Instrument noise with cables was measured first but shorting the clips of the center cores and one of the shields of the two BNC cables together.
• Measurements were taken with file D1100687_SP.yml and D1100687_SP_LF.yml.
• D1100117_S2100027_Voltage_Noise_Spectrum.pdf and D1100117_S2100028_Voltage_Noise_Spectrum.pdf shows the measured voltage noise spectrum at the output monitors when loaded with 36 Ohms.
• D1100117_S2100027_Current_Noise_Spectrum.pdf and D1100117_S2100028_Current_Noise_Spectrum.pdf shows the esitmate current noise through the coil calculated by dividing the measured voltage noise by 2436 Ohms.
Attachment 1: MeasurementData.zip
Attachment 2: D1100117_S2100027_TF.pdf
Attachment 3: D1100117_S2100028_TF.pdf
Attachment 4: D1100117_S2100027_Voltage_Noise_Spectrum.pdf
Attachment 5: D1100117_S2100028_Voltage_Noise_Spectrum.pdf
Attachment 6: D1100117_S2100027_Current_Noise_Spectrum.pdf
Attachment 7: D1100117_S2100028_Current_Noise_Spectrum.pdf
15776   Mon Jan 25 18:18:04 2021 AnchalSummaryBHDSatellite Amplifier Transfer Functions and noise

I took transfer function and noise measurement of satellite amplifier box's photodiode transimpedance circuit. For the measurement, I created a makeshift connector to convert backside DB25 into DB9 with the 4 channels for PDA input. The output was taken in differential form at the front PD Output port. To feed current to the circuit, I put in 12 kOhm resistors in series at the inputs, so the V/V transfer function measured was multiplied by 12 kOhm to get the transimpedance of the circuit.

Transfer Function Measurement details

• SR785 source out was fed into PDA input pins using a makeshift BNC-DB9-DB25 converter.
• The output from PDOut DB9 port was fed to test switch in D1900068 to separate differential signal.
• This differential signal was fed back to SR785 at input 2 in A-B configuration.
• Measurements are taken with file D1002818_TF.yml and D1002818_TF_LF.yml.
• A measurement of just cables without the DUT is taken as well.
• Commands.txt list all the commands used.
• All data is compiled and plotted in Plotting.ipynb
• D1100117_S2100029_TFandNoiseSpectrum.pdf shows all the transfer functions measured.

Spectrum Measurements

• Two pair of BNC cables were twisted together and clips were added at ends.
• One of the GND was connected to board GND. Rest were left unconnected to avoid ground loops.
• Each pair of signal was connected to PDOutP/N.
• The PDA inputs were shorted together to make zero input current to the board.
• Instrument noise with cables was measured by shorting the clips of the center cores and one of the shields of the two BNC cables together.
• Measurements were taken with file D1002818_SP.yml and D1002818_SP_LF.yml.
• Input referred current noise spectrum was calculated by dividing the output voltage noise spectrum by the measured transfer function.
• D1100117_S2100029_TFandNoiseSpectrum.pdf shows all the output votlage noise spectrum and input referred current noise spectrum measured.

Edit Wed Feb 10 15:14:13 2021 :

THE NOISE MEASUREMENT WAS WRONG HERE. SEE 40m/15799.

Attachment 1: D1002818_S2100029_TFandNoiseSpectrum.pdf
Attachment 2: D1002818_Testing.zip
15778   Tue Jan 26 12:59:51 2021 AnchalHowToCDSAcromag wiring investigation

Taking inspiration from SR785 on how it reads differential signal, I figured that acromag too always need a way to return current through RTN ports always. That must be the reason why everything goes haywire when RTN is not connected to IN-. Now for single ended signals, we can always short RTN to IN- and keep same GND but then we need to be careful in avoiding ground loops. I'm gonna post a wiring diagram in next post to show how if two signal sources connect to each other separately, a GND loop can be formed if we tie each IN- port to RTN on an acromag.
Coming to the issue of reading a differential signal, what SR785 does is that it connects 50 Ohm resistance between Earth GND and differential signal shields (which are supposed to signal GND). In a floating GND setting, SR785 connects a 1 MOhm resistor between input shield and Earth GND. This can be used to read a differential signal through a single BNC cable since the shiled can take arbitrary voltages thanks ti the 1 MOhm resistor.

We can do the same in acromag. Instead of shorting RTN to IN- ports, we can connect them through a large resistor which would let IN- float but will give a path for current to return through RTN ports. Attached here are few scenarios where I connected IN- to RTN throguh wire, 820 Ohms, 10kOhms and 1MOhms in two sub cases where RTN was left open or was shorted to Earth GND. In all cases, the signal was produced by a 9V battery outputing roughly 8.16V. It seems that 10kOhm resistor between RTN and IN- with RTN connected to Earth GND is the best scenario noise wise. I'll post more results and a wiring diagram soon.

Attachment 1: TestingDifferentialSignalWithFloatingRTNwrtIN-.pdf
15779   Tue Jan 26 15:37:25 2021 AnchalHowToCDSAcromag wiring investigation

Here I present few wiring diagrams when using Acromag to avoid noisy behavior and ground loops.

Case 1: Only single-ended sources

• Attachment 1 gives a functioning wiring diagram when all sources are single ended.
• One should always short the RTN to IN- pin if the particular GND carried by that signal has not been shorted before to RTN for some other signal.
• So care is required to mark different GNDs of different powersupply separately and follow where they inadvertently get shorted, for example when a photodiode output is connected to FSS Box.
• Acromag should serve as the node of all GNDs concerned and all these grounds must not be connected to Earth GND at power supply ends or in any of the signal sources.
• I think this is a bit complicated thing to do.

Case 2: Some single and some differential sources

• Connect all single ended sources same as above keeping care of not building any ground loops.
• The differential source can be connected to IN+ and IN- pins, but there should be a high resistance path between IN- and RTN. See Attachment 2.
• Why this is the case, I'm not sure since I could not get access to internal wiring of Acromag (no response from them). But I have empirically found this.
• This helps IN- to float with respect to RTN according to the negative signal value. I've found that 10kOhm resistance works good. See 40m/15778.
• If RTN is shorted to nearby Earth GND (assuming none of the other power supply GNDs have been shorted to Earth GND) shows a reduction in noise for differential input. So this is recommended.
• This wiring diagram carries all complexity of previous case along with the fact that RTN and anything connected to it is at Earth GND now.

Case 3: Signal agnostic wiring

• Attachment 3 gives a wiring diagram which mimics the high resistance shorting of RTN to IN- in all ports regardless of the kind of signal it is used for reading.
• In this case, instead of being the node of the star configuration for GND, acromag gets detached from any ground loops.
• All differences in various GNDs would be kept by the power supplies driving small amounts of current through the 10 kOhm resistors.
• This is a much simpler wiring diagram as it avoids shorting various signal sources or their GNDs with each other, avoiding some of the ground loops.

Edit Wed Jan 27 13:38:19 2021 :

This solution is not acceptable as well. Even if it is successfull in reading the value, connecting resistor between IN- and RTN will not break the ground loops and the issue of ground loops will persist. Further, IN- connection to RTN breaks the symmetry between IN-  and IN+, and hence reduces the common mode rejection which is the intended purpose of differential signal anyways. I'll work more on this to find a way to read differential signals without connecitng IN- and RTN. My first guess is that it would need the GND on the source end to be connected to EarthGND and RTN on acromag end to be connected to EarthGND as well.

Attachment 1: GeneralLabWiring.pdf
Attachment 2: GeneralLabWiring2.pdf
Attachment 3: GeneralLabWiring3.pdf
15780   Thu Jan 28 12:53:14 2021 AnchalSummaryBHDHAM-A Coil Driver measurements before modifications

I took some steps to reduce the coupling of 60 Hz harmonics in noise measurement. The box was transferred to the floor instead of on top of another instrument. Measurement was immediately converted into single-ended using SR560 in battery mode with a gain of 10. All of the setups was covered in aluminum foil to increase isolation.

Spectrum measurement details

Attachment 1: D1100117_S2100027_Current_Noise_Spectrum.pdf
Attachment 2: D1100117_S2100027_Voltage_Noise_Spectrum.pdf
Attachment 3: D1100117_S2100028_Current_Noise_Spectrum.pdf
Attachment 4: D1100117_S2100028_Voltage_Noise_Spectrum.pdf
Attachment 5: SpectrumMeasurement.zip
15781   Thu Jan 28 18:04:55 2021 AnchalSummaryBHDHAM-A Coil Driver measurements After modifications

I did the recommended modifications on of the boards with serial number S2100028. These included:

• R13, R27: 160 -> 75
• C11, C21: 470 nF -> 68nF
• C19: 4.7 uF -> 470 nF
• R15: 3.23 kOhm -> 1.82 kOhm

I took transfer function measurements with same method as in 40m/15774 and I'm presenting it here to ensure the modifications are correct and if I should proceed to the next board as well. I didn't have the data used to make plots in here but I think the poles and zeros have landed in the right spot. I'll wait for comments until tomorrow to proceed with changes in the other board as well. I'll do noise measurements tomorrow.

Attachment 1: D1100117_S2100027_TF.pdf
Attachment 2: AfterChanges.zip
15784   Fri Jan 29 15:39:30 2021 AnchalSummaryBHDHAM-A Coil Driver measurements After modifications TF and Noise S2100027

I fitted zeros and poles in the measured transfer function of D1100687 S2100027 and got zeros at 130 Hz and 234 Hz and poles at 10Hz and 2845 Hz. These values are different from the aimed values in this doc, particularly the 234Hz zero which was aimed at 530 Hz in the doc.

I also took the noise measurement using the same method as described in 40m/15780. The noise in Acquisition mode seems to have gone up in 10 Hz - 500 Hz region compared to the measurement in 40m/15780 before the modifications.

All channels are consistent with each other.

Edit Mon Feb 1 12:24:14 2021:
Added zero model prediction after the changes. The measurements match with the predictions.

Edit Wed Feb 3 16:46:59 2021:

Added zero modeled noise in the noise spectrum curves. The acquisition mode curves are in agreement with the model. The noise in Run mode is weirdly lower than predicted by zero.

Attachment 1: D1100687_S2100027_After_Modifications_Jan28.jpg
Attachment 2: D1100117_S2100027_TF.pdf
Attachment 3: D1100117_S2100027_Voltage_Noise_Spectrum.pdf
Attachment 4: D1100117_S2100027_Current_Noise_Spectrum.pdf
Attachment 5: AfterChanges.zip
15785   Fri Jan 29 17:57:17 2021 AnchalHowToCDSAcromag wiring investigation

I found a white paper  from Acromag which discusses how to read differential signal using Acromag units. The document categorically says that differential signals are always supposed to be transmitted in three wires. I provides the two options of either using the RTN to connect to the signal ground (as done in Attachment 3) or locally place 10k-100k resistors between return and IN+ and IN- both (Attachment 2).

I have provided possible scenarios for these.

Using two wires to carry differential signal (Attachment 1):

• I assume this is our preferential way to connect.
• We can also assume all single-ended inputs as differential and do a signal condition agnostic wiring.
• Attachment 3 show what were the results for different values of resistors when a 2Hz 0.5V amplitude signal from SR785 which as converted to differential signal using D1900068 was measured by acromag.
• The connection to RTN is symmetrical for both inputs.

Using three wires to carry differential signal (Attachment 2):

• This is recommended method by the document in which it asks to carry the GND from signal source and connect it to RTN.
• If we use this, we'll have to be very cautious on what GND has been shorted through the acromag RTN terminals.
• This would probably create a lot of opportunities for ground loops to form.

Using an acromag card without making any connection with RTN is basically not allowed as per this document.

Attachment 1: GeneralLabWiringDiffWith2Wires.pdf
Attachment 2: GeneralLabWiringDiffWith3Wires.pdf
15787   Tue Feb 2 11:57:46 2021 AnchalSummaryBHDHAM-A Coil Driver measurements After modifications TF and Noise S2100028

I have made the modifications on the other board D1100687 S2100028 as well. The measurements were taken as mentioned in 40m/15784. All conclusions remain the same as 40m/15784. The attached zip file contains all measurement data, before and after the modifications.

Edit Wed Feb 3 16:44:51 2021 :

Added zero modeled noise in the noise spectrum curves. The acquisition mode curves are in agreement with the model. The noise in Run mode is weirdly lower than predicted by zero.

Attachment 1: D1100687_S2100028_After_Modifications_Feb01_2021.jpg
Attachment 2: D1100117_S2100028_TF.pdf
Attachment 3: D1100117_S2100028_Voltage_Noise_Spectrum.pdf
Attachment 4: D1100117_S2100028_Current_Noise_Spectrum.pdf
Attachment 5: AfterChanges.zip
15793   Wed Feb 3 16:27:19 2021 AnchalSummaryBHDSatellite Amplifier Transfer Functions and noise After modifications

I have made modifications recommended in this doc. The changes made are:

• R24: 19.6k to 4.99k Ohms
• R20: 19.6k to 4.99k Ohms
• R23: 787 to 499 Ohms
• Removed C16.

I took transfer function measurements, fitted them with zeros and poles and plotted it against the zero model of the circuit. The zeros and poles we intended to shift are matching well with 3Hz zero and 30 Hz pole. The later pole at 1500 Hz is at a higher value from what is predicted by zero.

I also took noise measurements and they are in good agreement with the noise predicted by zero.

Edit Wed Feb 10 15:14:13 2021 :

THE NOISE MEASUREMENT WAS WRONG HERE. SEE 40m/15799.

Attachment 1: D1002818_S2100029_TFAfterChanges.pdf
Attachment 2: D1002818_S2100029_OutputNoiseSpecAfterChanges.pdf
Attachment 3: D1002818_S2100029_InputRefferedNoiseSpecAfterChanges.pdf
Attachment 4: D1002812_S2100029_After_Modifications_Feb3.jpg
Attachment 5: AfterChanges.zip
15797   Wed Feb 10 11:45:59 2021 AnchalSummaryBHDSatellite Amplifier Very Low frequency noise After modifications

As suggested, I wrapped the satellite amplifier box D10028128 S2100029 in blanket and foam and took very low frequency spectrum starting from 32 mHz to 3 Hz. The results are attached along with stiched high frequency measurements from 40m/15793.

Very Low Frequency Spectrum Measurement

• D1002818 S2100029 box was powered and covered in a foam blanket.
• Additionally, it was covered from all sides with foam to reduce wind and temperature effects on it.
• The rear panel DB25 connector was connected to a breakout board where pins od PDA input and GND were shorted, shorting the transimpedance circuit input.
• The output was read from PDMon DB9 output at front panel which was converted to 4 BNC channels using breakout board.
• Two channel noise was measured at once using D1002818_SP.yml parameter file.
• Instrument noise at all the used input ranges were measured separately by shorting the input of the BNC cables.

Edit Wed Feb 10 15:14:13 2021 :

THIS MEASUREMENT WAS WRONG. SEE 40m/15799.

Attachment 1: FrontsideLook.jpg
Attachment 2: BacksideLook.jpg
Attachment 3: InnerFoamBlanket.jpg
Attachment 4: D1002818_S2100029_OutputNoiseLFSpecAfterChanges.pdf
Attachment 5: D1002818_S2100029_InputRefCurrentNoiseLFSpecAfterChanges.pdf
Attachment 6: AfterChangesLFSpectrum.zip
15799   Wed Feb 10 15:07:50 2021 AnchalSummaryBHDSatellite Amplifier Output Offset measurements

I measured the output DC voltage of the satellite amplifier box at PDMon port when the PDA input was shorted and got following offsets:

CH Output Offset (mV) CH Output Offset (mV)
1 6 5 750
2 140 6 120
3 350 7 537
4 40 8 670

However, I think I'm making a mistake while measuring this offset as well as all the noise measurements of this satellite amplifier box so far. Since it is a current input, transimpedance circuit, the noise of the circuit should be measured with open input, not closed. Infact, by shorting the PDA input, I'm giving DC path to input bias current of AD833 transimpedance amplifier to create this huge DC offset. This won't be the case when a photodiode is connected at the input which is a capacitor and hence no DC path is allowed. So my issue of offset was bogus and past two noise measurements in 40m/15797 and 40m/15793 are wrong.

15803   Thu Feb 11 11:10:05 2021 AnchalSummaryBHDSatellite Amplifier Very Low frequency noise After modifications

Here is a proper measurement for PD transimpedance amplifier circuit in the Satellite amplifier box D1002818 S2100029. The input from rear DB25 connector was left open and measurement was taken with AC coupling with correction by the AC coupling transfer function (Zero at 0, pole at 160 mHz). I have calculated the input referred displacement noise by calculating the conversion factor of OSEM in A/m. From 40m/12470, old conversion factor of OSEM to output of sat amplifier was 1.6 V/mm. then, the transimpedance was 39.2 kOhm, so that must mean a conversion factor of 1.6e3/39.2 A/m. This I scaled with increased drive current by factor of 35/25 as mentioned in this document. The final conversion factor turned out to be around 57 mA / m. If someone finds error in this, please let me know.

There is excess noise in the low-frequency region below 5-6 Hz. If people think I should make a measurement of amplified noise to go further away from the instrument noise floor, let me know.

Attachment 1: AfterChangesSpectrum_AC.zip
Attachment 2: D1002818_S2100029_OutputNoiseSpecAfterChanges.pdf
Attachment 3: D1002818_S2100029_InputRefCurrentNoiseSpecAfterChanges.pdf
Attachment 4: D1002818_S2100029_InputRefDispNoiseSpecAfterChanges.pdf
15876   Sun Mar 7 19:56:27 2021 AnchalUpdateLSCSensing matrix settings messed with

I understand this mst be frustrating for you. But we did not change these settings, knowingly atleast. We have documented all the things we did there. The only thing I can think of which could possibly change any of those channels are the scripts that we ran that are mentioned and the burt restore that we did on all channels (which wasn't really necessary). We promise to be more vigilant of changes that occur when we are present in future.

 Quote: To my dismay, I found today that somebody had changed the oscillator frequencies for the sensing matrix infrastructure we have. The change happened 2 days and 2 hours ago (I write this at ~1230 on Saturday, 3/6), i.e. ~1030am on Thursday. According to the elog, this is when Anchal and Paco were working on the interferometer, but I can find no mention of these settings being changed. Not cool guys 😒 . This was relatively easy to track down but I don't know what else may have been messed with. I don't understand how anything that was documented in the elog can lead to this weird doubling of the frequencies. I have now restored the correct settings. The "sensing matrix" I posted last night is obviously useless.

15896   Wed Mar 10 15:29:58 2021 AnchalSummaryIMCIMC free swinging prep

No we didn't fix the issue. We'll post some screenshots tomorrow. From "sitemap>Shutter>PSL" we meant in Shutter medm window, we clicked on the PSL close button. As pointed later, it switches C1:AUX-PSL_ShutterRqst while the PSL shutter switch on Lock MC medm screen switches C1:PSL-PSL_ShutterRqst. We were not sure if this was intentional, so we didn't change anything.

15916   Fri Mar 12 18:10:01 2021 AnchalSummaryComputer Scripts / ProgramsInstalled cds-workstation on allegra

allegra had fresh Debian 10 installed on it already. I installed cds-workstation packages (with the help of Erik von Reis). I checked that command line caget, caput etc were working. I'll see if medm and other things are working next time we visit the lab.

15934   Wed Mar 17 16:30:46 2021 AnchalUpdateSUSNormalized Input Matrices plotted better than SURF students

Here, I present the same input matrices now normalized row by row to have same norm as current matrices rows. These now I plotted better than last time. Other comments same as 15902. Please let us know what you think.

Thu Mar 18 09:11:10 2021 :

Note: The comparison of butterfly dof in the two cases is bit bogus. The reason is that we know what the butterfly vector is in sensing matrix (N_osems x (N_dof +1)) and that is the last column being (1, -1, 1, -1, 0) corresponding to (UL, UR, LR, LL, Side). However, the matrix we multiply with the OSEM data is the inverse of this matrix (which becomes the input matrix) which has dimensions ((N_dof + 1) x N_osem) and has the last row corresponding to the butterfly dof. This row was not stored for old calculation of the input matrix (which is currently in use) and can not be recovered (mathematically not possible) with the existing 5x4 part of that input matrix. We just added (1, -1, 1, -1, 0) row in the bottom of this matrix (as was done in the matlab codes) but that is wrong and hence the butterfly vector looks so bad for the existing input matrix.

Proposal: We should store the last row of generated input matrix somewhere for such calculations. Ideally, another row in the epics channels for the input matrix would be the best place to store them but I guess that would be too destructive to implement. Other options are to store this 5 number information in wiki or just elogs. For this post, the buttefly row for the generated input matrix is present in the attached files (for future references).

Attachment 1: IMC_InputMatrixDiagonalization.pdf
Attachment 2: NewAndOldMatrices.zip
15971   Sun Mar 28 14:16:25 2021 AnchalSummarySUSMC3 new Input Matrix not providing stable loop

Rana asked us to write out here the new MC3 input matrix we have calculated along with the old one. The new matrix is not working out for us as it can't keep the suspension loops stable.

Matrices:

Old (Current) MC3 Input Matrix (C1:SUS-MC3_INMATRIX_ii_jj)
UL UR LR LL SD
POS 0.288 0.284 0.212 0.216 -0.406
PIT 2.658 0.041 -3.291 -0.674 -0.721
YAW 0.605 -2.714 0.014 3.332 0.666
SIDE 0.166 0.197 0.105 0.074 1

New MC3 Input Matrix (C1:SUS-MC3_INMATRIX_ii_jj)
UL UR LR LL SIDE
POS 0.144 0.182 0.124 0.086 0.586
PIT 2.328 0.059 -3.399 -1.13 -0.786
YAW 0.552 -2.591 0.263 3.406 0.768
SIDE -0.287 -0.304 -0.282 -0.265 0.871

Note that the new matrix has been made so that the norm of each row is the same as the norm of the corresponding row in the old (current) input matrix.

Peak finding results:

Guess Values Fittted Values
PIT Resonant Freq. (Hz) 0.771 0.771
YAW Resonant Freq. (Hz) 0.841 0.846
POS Resonant Freq. (Hz) 0.969 0.969
SIDE Resonant Freq. (Hz) 0.978 0.978
PIT Resonance Q 600 345
YAW Resonance Q 230 120
POS Resonance Q 200 436
SIDE Resonance Q 460 282
PIT Resonance Amplitude 500 750
YAW Resonance Amplitude 1500 3872
POS Resonance Amplitude 3800 363
SIDE Resonance Amplitude 170 282

Note: The highest peak on SIDE OSEM sensor free swinging data as well as the DOF basis data created using existing input matrix, comes at 0.978 Hz. Ideally, this should be 1 Hz and in MC1 and MC2, we see the resonance on SIDE DOF to show near 0.99 Hz. If you look closely, there is a small peak present near 1 Hz actually, but it is too small to be the SIDE DOF eigenfrequency. And if it is indeed that, then which of the other 4 peaks is not the DOF we are interested in?

On possiblity is that the POS eigenfrequency which is supposed to be around 0.97 Hz is split off in two peaks due to some sideways vibration and hence these peaks get strongly coupled to SIDE OSEM as well.

P.S. I think something is wrong and out limited experience is not enough to pinpoint it. I can show up more data or plots if required to understand this issue. Let us know what you all think.

Attachment 1: MC3_Input_Matrix_Diagonalization.pdf
15988   Thu Apr 1 21:13:54 2021 AnchalUpdateSUSMatrix results, new measurement set to trigger
New Input matrix used for MC2 (C1:SUS-MC2_INMATRIX_ii_jj
UL UR LR LL SIDE
POS 0.2464 0.2591 0.2676 0.2548 -0.1312
PIT 1.7342 0.7594 -2.494 -1.5192 -0.0905
YAW 1.2672 -2.0309 -0.9625 2.3356 -0.2926
SIDE 0.1243 -0.1512 -0.1691 0.1064 0.9962

New output matrix for MC2 (C1:SUS-MC2_TO_COIL_ii_jj_GAIN)
POS PIT YAW
UL 1 1.022 0.6554
UR 1 0.9776 -1.2532
LL 1 -0.9775 1.2532
LR 1 -1.0219 -0.6554

Measured Sensing Matrix (Cross Coupling) (Sensed DOF x Excited DOF)
Excited POS Excited PIT Excited YAW
Sensed POS 1 1.9750e-5 -3.5615e-6
Sensed PIT 0 1 -6.93550e-2
Sensed YAW 0 -2.4429e-4 1

A longer measurement is set to trigger at 5:00 tomorrow on April 2nd, 2021. This measurement will run for 35 iterations with an excitation duration of 120s and bandwidth for CSD measurement set to 0.1 Hz. The script is set to trigger in a tmux session named 'cB' on pianosa.

15991   Fri Apr 2 14:51:20 2021 AnchalUpdateSUSBug found, need to redo the balancing

Last run gave similar results as the quick run we did earlier. The code has been unable to strike out couplings with POS. We found the bug which is causing this. This was because the sampling rate of MC_F channel is different from the test-point channels used for PIT and YAW. Even though we were aware of it, we made an error in handling it while calculating CSD. Due to this, CSD calculation with POS data was performed by the code with zero padding which made it think that no PIT/YAW <-> POS coupling exist. Hence our code was only able to fix PIT <-> YAW couplings.

We'll need to do another run with this bug fixed. I'll update this post with details of the new measurement.

16005   Wed Apr 7 17:38:51 2021 AnchalUpdateSUSTrying to uncouple only PIT and YAW first

To test if our method is working at all, we went for the simpler case of just uncoupling PIT and YAW. This is also because the sensor used for these two degrees of freedom is similar (the MC Trans WFS).

We saw a successful decrease in cross-coupling between PIT and YAW over the first 50 iterations that we tried. Here are some results:

Final output matrix:

Output matrix for uncoupling PIT and YAW from eachother
PIT YAW COILS
1.01858 1.16820 UL
0.98107 -0.79706 UR
-0.98107 0.79706 LL
-1.01858 -1.16820 LR

Plots:

• Attachment 1 shows distance of sensing matrix from identity as iterations go.
• Attachment 2 shows the off-diagonal elements of sensing matrix as the iterations increase.
• It is worth noting that PIT -> YAW coupling was the main element that was reduced successfully while the YAW -> PIT was reducing but much more slowly.
• Most of the remaining cross coupling in the end was from YAW -> PIT.
• Attachment 3 shows first 10 oscillations in the time series data during excitation of some of the iterations.
• Attachment 4 shows the cross spectral density of the sensed data during excitation with each other. This has been normalized by reference PSD data (taken with no excitation) of the sensed DOFs involved in the CSD calculation.
• Attachment 5 shows the TF estimate made by normalizing CSD data column wise by the diagonal elements. The excitation frequency point in these plots become the Sensing matrix in the calculation.
• One can notice how the PIT -> YAW element is going down in these plots.
• Even though we are using only the real value of the sensing matrix, the imaginary values are also going down.

Next, tried uncoupling POS and PIT:

• Next, we tried to uncouple POS and PIT. We expect them to be more coupled than with YAW.
• At the time of writing this post, 15 iterations of this attempt have been completed and it is not looking good .
• The distance of the sensing matrix from identity is growing at an accelerated rate.
• The POS output matrix column seems to be trying to go towards the negative of PIT output matrix column! Why? We don't know.
• We have seen in the past that once POS transforms into PIT or YAW, it just makes the output matrix worse as no feedback actually goes into the POS column. Eventually, the IMC will cease to remain locked.
• So, I'm cancelling this attempt for now. Will consider more alternatives later.
Attachment 1: SDistanceFromIdentity.pdf
Attachment 2: SmatIterations.pdf
Attachment 3: TimeSeriesPlots.pdf
Attachment 4: CSDPlots.pdf
Attachment 5: SmatrixPlots.pdf
16017   Mon Apr 12 10:07:35 2021 AnchalUpdateSUSWhat's F2A??

I'm not sure I understand what F2A is? I couldn't find a description of this filter anywhere and don't remember if you have already explained it. Can you describe what is needed to be done again, please? We would keep SUS state space model and seismic transfer functions calculation ready meanwhile.

 Quote: Next we wanna get the F2A filters made since most of the IMC control happens at f < 3 Hz. Once you have the SUS state space model, you should be able to see how this can be done using only the free'swinging eigenfrequencies. Then you should get the closed loop model including the F2A filters and the damping filters to see what the closed loop behavior is like.

16026   Wed Apr 14 13:12:13 2021 AnchalUpdateGeneralSorry, it was me

Sorry about that. It must be me. I'll make sure it doesn't happen again. I was careless to not check back, no further explanation.

16027   Wed Apr 14 13:16:20 2021 AnchalConfigurationComputers40m Control Room Changes
• I have confirmed that the old two monitors' backlighting is not working. One can see the impression of the display without any brightness on them. Both old monitors are on the shelf behind.
• Today we got a monitor and mouse from Mike. I had to change /etc/default/grub GRUB_GFXMODE to 1920x1200@30 on allegra for it to work with the(any) monitor.
• Allegra is Debian 10 with latest cds-workstation installed on it. It is a good test station to migrate our existing scripts to start using updated cds-workstation configuration.
 Quote: Again, we have placed allegra's monitor for place holder but it is not working and we need new monitors for it in future whenever it is going to be used.

16030   Wed Apr 14 16:46:24 2021 AnchalUpdateGeneralIFO State

That makes sense. I assumed that IFO-STATE is configured as you have proposed it to be configured. This could be implemented in later.

 Quote: a better way would be to configure the EPICS record to automatically set / unset itself based on some diagnostic channels. For example, the "PMC locked" bit should be set if (i) the PMC REFL is < 0.1 AND (ii) PMC TRANS is >0.65 (the exact thresholds are up for debate). Then we are truly recording the state of the IFO and not relying on some script to write to the bit (I haven't thoguht through if there are some edge cases where we need an unreasonable number of diagnostic channels to determine if we are in a certain state or not).

16031   Wed Apr 14 17:53:38 2021 AnchalUpdateSUSPlan for calculating filter banks for output matrix aka F2A aka F2P

Plan of action

• Get the transfer functions of the suspension plant from actuated DOF to sensed DOF. We'll verify Bhavini's state-space model and get these transfer functions. Use the model TFs, not measured.
• For each of POS->POS, PIT->PIT, and YAW->YAW, we'll get the resonant frequency and Q of the resonance from these models. No, forget about the Q.
• We can correct the resonant frequencies from the measured ones in our free swinging data.
• Now, we'll repeat the following for each column of output matrix filters (inspired from scripts/SUS/F2Pcalc.py, but not fully understood how/why):
• Select col (eg. POS)
• Set f0 to the resonant frequency.
• Calculate $\large f_{UL} = f_0 * \sqrt{G_{UL}}$ where GUL is the corrected DC gain we got after output matrix optimization earlier. (Not sure how, why?). No, use the SS model.
• Calculate fUR, fLL, and fLR like above.
• Set $\large Q_{UL} = \sqrt{G_{UL}}$   (This just seems like a way of keeping some approximately low Q, ideally we should keep this same to what we got above but that might cause saturation issues like Rana mentioned in the meeting)
• Then, set the following filter in the output matrix element for UL:
$\dpi{200} G_{UL}\frac{1 + i\frac{f}{f_{UL}Q_{UL}} - \frac{f^2}{f_{UL}^2}}{1 + i\frac{f}{f_{0}} - \frac{f^2}{f_{0}^2}}$
which is in zpk form equivalent to:
$\dpi{150} z: \frac{f_0}{2 Q_{UL}} +/- i f_0 \sqrt{1 - \frac{1}{4Q_{UL}}} \quad, \quad p: \frac{f_0}{2} +/- i f_0 \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2} \quad, \quad k: G_{UL}$
• Repeat the above for UR, LL, LR.
• Note that this filter function takes values GUL at DC and at high frequencies while it would dip at the resonant frequency for POS with depth and narrowness directly proportional to QUL. No, the DC gain is different from the AC gain.
• However, the F2P filter plots we found in several places on elog look a bit different. Like here: 40m/4719. One important difference is that the filter magnitude always become 1 after the resonance at higher frequencies. Yes, this is  what we want, since you already did the balancing at high frequencies.
• A preliminary plot of the above calculation for the 1,1 output matrix filter bank (POS -> UL) is attached in Attachment 1.

Discussion:

• We can make 12 such filters for the 12 numbers we got for the optimized output matrix. Is that the aim or should we do it only for the POS column as has been done in past?
• We are not sure how the choice of Q is made in setting the above filter function. We'll think more about it to understand this.
• We are also not sure how the choice of fUL is made above. It looks like depending on the correction gain, we want to slide the zero positions with respect to the pole positions which are fixed at the resonant frequency as expected. This seems to have some complex explanation.
• Please let us know if we are planning this right before we dive into these calculations/script writing. Thanks.

Edit Thu Apr 15 08:32:58 2021 :

Corrected the plot in the attachment. It shows the correct behavior at high frequencies now.

Attachment 1: MC2propF2A_UL.pdf
16035   Thu Apr 15 11:41:43 2021 AnchalUpdateSUSProposed filters for output matrix aka F2A aka F2P

Here' s aquick update before we leave for lunch. We have managed to calculate some filter that would go on the POS column in MC2 output matrix filter banks aka F2A aka F2P filters. In the afternoon if we can come and work on the IMC, we'll try to load them on the output matrix. We have never done that so it might take some time for us to understand on how to do that. Attached is the bode plot for these proposed filters. Let us know if you have any comments.

Attachment 1: MC2propPOSfb.pdf
16055   Tue Apr 20 18:19:30 2021 AnchalUpdateSUSMC2 coil balanced at DC

Following up from morning's work, I balanced the coils at DC as well. Attachment 1 is screenshot of striptool in which blue and red traces show ASCYAW and ASCPIT outputs when C1:SUS-MC2_LSC_OFFSET was switched by 500 counts. We see very slight disturbance but no real DC offset shown on PIT and YAW due to position step. This data was taken while nominal F2A filter calculated to balance coils at DC was uploaded

I have uploaded the filters on filter banks 7-10 where FM7 is the nominal filter with Q close to 1 and 8-10 are filters with Q 3, 7 and 10 respectively. The transfer function of these filters can be seen in Attachment 2. Note, that the high frequency gain drops a lot when higher Q filters are used.

These filters are designed such that the total DC gain after the application of coil outputs gains for high frequency balancing (as done in morning 16054) balances the coils at DC.

Since I had access to the complete output matrix that balances the coils to less than 1% cross coupling at high frequencies from 16009, I also did a quick test of DC coil balancing with this kind of high frequency balancing. In this case, I uploaded another set of filters which were made at Q close to 1 and gain such that effective DC gain matrix becomes what I got by balancing in the above case. This set of filter also worked as good as the above filters. This completes the proof that we can also use complete matrix for high frequency coil balancing which can be calculated by a script in 20min and works with DC coil balancing as well. In my opinion, this method is more clear and much faster than toggling values in coil output gains where we have only 4 values to optimize 6 cross-coupling parameters. But don't worry, I'm not wasting time on this and will abandon this effort for now, to be taken up in future.

Next up:

• Tomorrow, we'll finish DC balancing for MC1 and MC3 with the method I practiced today. This should not take much time and should be completed before the meeting.
• I'll also, calculate and upload the F2A filters for MC1 and MC3.
• Next, we'll optimize gains in the suspension damping loops by doing step response test (with TRAMP = 0s). We'll look for decaying response (at MC_F, and WFS sensors) with a few oscillations for each step in POS, PIT, and YAW.

Edit Tue Apr 20 21:25:46 2021 :

Corrected the calculation of filters in case of Q different than $\large \sqrt{G_{DC}}$. There was a bug in the code which I overlooked. I'll correct the filter bank modules tomorrow.

Edit Wed Apr 21 11:06:42 2021 :

I have uploaded the corrected foton filters. Please see attachment 3 for the transfer functions calculated by foton. They match the filters we intended to upload. Only after uploading and closing the foton filter, I realized that the X=7 filter plot (bottom left in attachment 3) does not have dB units on y-axis. It is plotted in linear y-scale (this plot in foton is for phase by default to I guess I forgot to change the scaling when repurposing it for my plot).

Attachment 1: MC2_DC_Coil_Balanced_St.png
Attachment 2: IMC_F2A_Params_MC2.pdf
16068   Wed Apr 21 19:28:03 2021 AnchalUpdatePSLPSL/IFO recovery

[Anchal, Koji]

Removed the top sheet

• Opened first from the door side so that any dust would spill outside.
• Then rolled the sheet inward to meet in the middle.
• Repeated this twice for the 2 HEPA filters.

Removed the sheets on the table

• Lifted sheet up making sure the top side face outside always.
• Rolled it sideways halfway through.
• Cut down the sheet vertically.
• Slided the doors to the other side and rolled the remaining half.
• On the door side, the sheets above the ALS optics were simply lifted off.

Restarting PSL

• Turned on the HEPAs at the max speed
• Switched on laser to jsut above the threshold
• Before the 1st eom, power was 20mW
• After the EOM/AOM, 18mW. So about 90% transmission through all polarizing optics.
• We saw the resonances of the PMC but could not lock it even with highest gain available (30 dB).
• Increased the input power to PMC to 100mW
• Locked the PMC at 30dB gain
• The transmitted power was ~50-60 mW. (Had to use power meter suspended by hand only.
• The right before the IMC (after the 2nd EOM) 48mW. So none of the alignment was lost.
• Opened the PSL shutter.
• We were able to see IMC reflection signal.
• We were also able to see IMC catching lock as the servo was left ON earlier.
• Switched off the servo.
• Decided to increase the power while watching PMC Trans/Refl and IMC REFL
• Injection diode current to innolight was increased slowly to 2.10A. Saw a mod hopping region aroun 1.8A.
• We recovered the PMC Trans >0.7 V.
• PZT was near the edge, so moved by one FSR.
• The PMC refelction signal is still shown in red at around 48 mV.

Back to control room

• IMC was locked almost immediately by manually finding the lock while keeping IMC WFS off to preserve the offsets from yesterday.
• Then switch on IMC WFS. Working good.
• Then unlocked the servo and switched on IMC Autolocker. Lock was caught immediately.

Decided to start locking the arms

• The arm transmissions were flashing but at 0.2~0.3 level.
• Decided to adjust TT1 and TT2 Pitch and Yaw to align the light going into the arms.
• This made TRY ~0.6 / TRX ~0.8 at the peak of the flashing
• Locked the arms. (By switching on C1:LSC-MODE_SELECT which engages all servos).
• Used ASS to align Yarm then align Xarm. Procedure:
• Sitemap > ASC > c1ass
• Open striptool to look at progress. ! Scripts YARM > striptool.
• Switch on ASS. ! More Scripts > ON
• Wait for the TRY to reach to around 0.97.
• Freeze the outputs. ! Scripts > Freeze Outputs.
• Offload the offsets to preserve the output. ! More Scripts > OFFLOAD OFFSETS.
• Switch off ASS. ! More Scripts > OFF
• Repeted this for XARM.
• At the end, both XARM and YARM were locked with TRX ~ 0.97 and TRY ~ 0.96.
16071   Thu Apr 22 08:50:21 2021 AnchalUpdateSUSMC2 Suspension Optimization summary

Yes, during the AC balancing, POS column was set to all 1. This table shows the final values after all the steps. The first 3 columns are DC balancing results when output matrix was changed. While the last column is for AC balancing. During AC balancing, the output matrix was kept to ideal position as you suggested.

 Quote: the POS column should be all 1 for the AC balancing. Where did those non-1 numbers come from?

16077   Thu Apr 22 15:34:54 2021 AnchalUpdatePSLPMC transmission

Koji mentioned that the mode of the laser is different for lower diode currents. So that might be the reason why we got less transmission at the low input power but more afterward.

16078   Thu Apr 22 15:36:54 2021 AnchalUpdateSUSSettings restored

The mix up was my fault I think. I restored the channels manually instead of using burt restore. Your message suggests that we can set burt to start noticing channel changes at home point and create a .req file that can be used to restore later. We'll try to learn how to do that. Right now, we only know how to burt restore using the existing snapshots from the autoburt directory, but they touch more things than we work on, I think. Or can we just always burt restore it to morning time? If yes, what snapshot files should we use?

ELOG V3.1.3-