40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 323 of 326  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Authorup Type Category Subject
  6817   Thu Jun 14 04:53:39 2012 yutaSummaryGreen Lockingdesigning ALS loop for mode scan

[[Requirement]]
 Arm cavity FWHM for IR is

  FWHM = FSR / F = c/(2LF) = 8 kHz.

 In cavity length, this is

  L/f * FWHM = 40m/(c/1064nm) = 1.2 nm

 So, to do mode scan nicely, arm length fluctuation during resonant peak crossing should be much less than 1.2 nm.


[[Diagram]]
 Let's consider only ADC noise and seismic noise.
ALSloop.png

* S: conversion from Y arm length to the beat frequency

  dL/L = df/f

 So,

  S = df/dL = f/L = c/532nm/40m = 1.4e7 MHz/m


* W: whitening filter

 We set it to flat gain 50. So,

  W = 50


* D: AD conversion of voltage to counts

 D = 2^16counts/20V = 3300 counts/V


* B: frequency to voltage conversion of the beatbox.

 We measured BWD(elog #6815). When we measured this, W was 10. So, the calibration factor at 0 crossing point(~ 50 MHz) is

  B = 1400*0.048/10/D = 0.0021 V/MHz


* A: actuator transferfunction

 I didn't measure this, but this should look like a simple pendulum with ~ 1 Hz resonant frequency.


* n_ADC: ADC noise

 ADC noise is about

  n_ADC = sqrt(2*LSB^2*Ts) = sqrt(2*(20V/2^14)**2*1/64KHz) = 1.6 uV/rtHz


* n_seis: seismic noise

 We measured this by measuring C1:ALS-BEATY_COARSE_I_IN1. This is actually measuring

  D(WBSn_seis + n_ADC)

 Calibrated plot is the red spectrum below.


* F: servo filter (basically C1:ALS-YARM)

 We need to design this. Stabilized arm length fluctuation is

  x_stab = 1/(1+G)*n_seis + G/(1+G)*n_ADC/(WBS)

 where openloop transferfunction G = SBWDFA.
 Below ~ 50 Hz, n_seis is bigger than n_ADC/(WBS). We don't want to introduce ADC noise to the arm. So, UGF should be around 50 Hz. So, we need phase margin around 50 Hz.
 We also need about 10^3 DC gain to get the first term comparable to the second term.

 Considering these things, openloop transferfunction should look like the below left. Expected error signal when ALS on is the below right. I put some resonant gain to get rid of the peaks which contribute to the RMS (stack at 3.2Hz, bounce at 16.5 Hz).
 Inloop RMS we get is about 0.3 nm, which is only 4 times smaller than FWHM.
ALSopenloop.pngyarmlength.png



[[Discussion]]
 We need to reduce RMS more by factor of ~ 30 to get resolusion 1% of FWHM.
 Most contributing factor to the RMS is power line noise. We might want comb filters, but it's difficult because UGF is at around this region.

 So, I think we need more fancy whitening filters. Currently, we can't increase the gain of the whitening filter because SR560 is almost over loading. Whitening filter with zero at 1 Hz might help.

  6818   Thu Jun 14 21:37:37 2012 yutaUpdateGreen Lockingsucceeded in 1FSR mode scan

[Jenne, Yuta]

We couldn't scan the Y arm for 1FSR last night because the ALS servo breaks while sweeping.
We thought this might be from the amplitude fluctuation of the beat signal. The amplitude of the beat signal goes into the beatbox was about -5 dBm, which is not so enough for the beatbox to get good LO. So, we put an amplifier (and attenuators) and the amplitude became +1 dBm. The range beatbox can handle is about -3 dBm to +3 dBm, according to our calculation.

This increased stability of the lock, and we could scan the arm for 1FSR. Below is the plot of scanned ALS error signal (blue), Y arm IR PDH signal (green) and TRY (red).

YarmScan20120614.png

For each slope, we can see two TEM00 peaks, some higer order modes(may be 01, 02, 02) and sidebands (large 11MHz, small 55MHz?).

We couldn't scan for more. This is still a mystery.

Also, we need to reduce residual Y arm length fluctuation more because we get funny TRY peak shape.

Scan speed:
  For C1:ALS-BEATY_COARSE_I_IN1, 1 count stands for 0.21 nm(see elog #6817). We sweeped 4000 peak to peak in 50 sec. So, the scan speed is about 17 nm/sec.
  This means it takes about 0.06 sec to cross resonant peak.
  Cavity build up time is about 2LF/(pi*c) ~ 40 usec. So, the scan is quasi-static enough.
  Characteristic time scale for the Y end temperature control is about 10 sec, so Y end frequency is following the Y arm length change with temperature control.

  Currently, sampling frequency of DQ channels are 2048 Hz. This means we have 100 points in a TRY peak. I think this is enough to get a peak height.

Next step:
  - Reduce RMS. We are trying to use a whitening filter.
  - Find why we can't scan more. Why??
  - ETMY coil gains may have some unbalance. We need to check
  - Characterize Y end green frequency control. Koji and I changed them last week (see elog #6776).
  - Calculate positions of RF SBs and HOMs and compare with this result.

  6819   Fri Jun 15 00:50:54 2012 yutaUpdateGreen Lockingscanned Y arm for 5FSR

I scanned Y arm for 5FSR (below).
I could done this after I put a whitening filter.
Currently, whitening filter between the beatbox and AA filter is made of

  Ponoma blue box(passive filter with zero at 1 Hz, pole at 10 Hz) + SR560(flat gain 100)

I couldn't do more than 5FSR because SR560 overloads. I checked it by staring at the indicator during the scan.
Reason why we kept loosing lock last night was the overload of  SR560. Mystery solved!

Anyway, 5FSR is enough.
Our next step is to reduce residual arm length fluctuation.

YarmScan20120614_2.png


Also, I increased the alingnment of IR. So, the higher order modes are less than the last scan.

  6821   Fri Jun 15 13:33:39 2012 yutaUpdateGreen LockingADC noise contribution to ALS

ADC noise is not a limiting noise source in a current ALS setup.

Below is the calibrated spectrum of C1:ALS-COARSE_I_ERR when
  Y arm swinging with just damping (red; taken last night)
  terminated before AA (green)
  blocked PSL green beam (blue)

Blue and green curve tells us that noise from the beat PD to ADC is not contributing to the Y arm length sensing noise.

YarmALSnoise20120615.png

  6822   Sat Jun 16 01:03:21 2012 yutaUpdateGreen Lockingused longer delay line for mode scan

[Mengyao, Yuta]

Last night, I used 1.5 m delay line COARSE and got 5FSR mode scan. The range 5FSR was limited by the range of SR560.
So, this time, we used 6.4 m(21 feet) cable as a delay line for FINE servo. This should increase the sensitivity by factor of 4. But the range will be 4 tmes smaller, ~ 1.3FSR.

Below is the plot of the mode scan.
You can see the peak height difference between TEM00s, but it's just from the resolution of pixels.

You still can see noisiness goes up when blue plot goes down. But this time, 2000 stands for 27 MHz and -2000 stands for 15 MHz in the beat frequency because we flipped the filter gain this time.
Last night, the top of the triangle was about 40 MHz and bottom was about 60 MHz.


YarmScan20120615.png

We are going to derive mode-matching and some cavity parameters using this plot.

  6824   Sat Jun 16 13:01:17 2012 yutaUpdateGreen Lockingscanned Y arm for 5FSR

Quote:

Is that time stamp really correct?

 Yes. I used pyNDS to get data, but here's a screenshot of dataviewer playing back 300 seconds from GPS time 1023780144.


YarmScanDV.png

  6825   Sat Jun 16 18:17:00 2012 yutaUpdateGreen LockingY arm length using 5FSR scan

Calibrating error signal to beat frequency;
  I injected 0 dBm RF sine wave into the beatbox and sweeped the frequency(just like we did in elog #6815).
  This time, we have different whitening filters. I sweeped the frequency from 0 to 100 MHz in 200 sec.
  The length of the delay line is ~1.5 m for COARSE.
ALS-BEATY_COARSE_I_IN1_DQ.png

Y arm length;
  Here, I think we need some assumption. Let's assume wavelength of IR lamb_IR = 1064 nm and Y end green frequency is nu_g = 2*nu_IR.
  There is a relation
    dnu_g / nu_g = dL / L
  So,
    dnu_g / (dL/lamb_IR) = 2*nu_IR * lamb_IR / L = 2c/L
  We know that dL/lamb_IR = 1/2 for difference in beat frequency between TEM00s. Therefore, slope of the dnu_g vs dL/lamb_IR plot gives us the arm length L(figure below, middle plot).

CalibYarmScan20120614_2.png

  Error estimation is not done yet, but I think the COARSE_I_IN1 error signal to the beat frequency calibration has the largest error because it seems like the amplitude of sine wave changes ~10% day by day.

Calibrating beat frequency to Y arm length change;
  I used L = 32.36 m (figure above, bottom plot).
    dnu_g / dL = c / lamb_g / L = 1.74 MHz/m

  6827   Sat Jun 16 19:32:11 2012 yutaUpdateGreen LockingY arm length using 5FSR scan

I know!
But I think there's some error (~ 10% ?) in calibrating the beatbox. In elog #6815, slope near zero crossing point is about 68 counts/MHz, but now, its 60 counts/MHz. Also, zero crossing point in elog #6815 was 47 MHz, but now, its 45 MHz. 5FSR scan was done between these two calibration measurement.

Quote:

Quote:

Calibrating beat frequency to Y arm length change;
  I used L = 32.36 m (figure above, bottom plot).
    dnu_g / dL = c / lamb_g / L = 1.74 MHz/m

Wow. This is way too short.

You don't need to use Albertoo's arm length as his measurement was done before the upgrade.

 

  6828   Mon Jun 18 02:31:43 2012 yutaSummaryGreen Lockinganalysis of mode scan data

I analyzed mode scan data from last week.
Mode matching ratio for Y arm is 86.7 +/- 0.3 %. Assuming we can get rid of TEM01/10 by alignment, this can be improved up to ~ 90%.

Peak search, peak fitting and finnesse calculation:
  I made a python script for doing this. It currently lives in /users/yuta/scripts/modescanresults/analyzemodescan.py.
  What it does is as follows

  1. Read mode scan data(coarse5FSRscan.csv, fine1FSRscan.csv). Each column in the data file should be

[time] [some thing like C1:ALS-BEAT(Y|X)_(COARSE|FINE)_(I|Q)_IN1] [C1:LSC-POY11_I_ERR] [C1:LSC-TRY_OUT]

Each separated by comma. Currently, this script uses only TRY, but it reads all anyway

  2. Find peak in TRY data. For the peak search, it splits data in 1 sec and find local maximum. If the local maximum is higher than given threshold, it recognize it as a peak. If two peaks are very close, it uses higher one. This sometimes fails, because mode scan data we have is not so nice.

  3. Fit each peak with Lorentzian function,

TRY = a*b/(4*(t-c)^2+b^2) + d  (a>0, b>0)

  where a/b is a peak height, b is a linewidth (FWHM), c is a peak position in time, and d is a offset.
  I don't like this, but currently, a/b+c is fixed to the maximum value of TRY data used for fitting. This is because sometimes TRY data is so bad and I couldn't get the peak height correctly. Each points of TRY data doesn't have same error because cavity length is fluctuating and relation between cavity length and TRY is not linear. I think I should use some weighting for the fit, but currently, I just use least squares.

  4. Find TEM00 and calculate FSR in "seconds". I just used "seconds" assuming we did a linear sweep. This script recognize TEM00 from the given threshold.

  5. Calculate finesse using FSR and linewidth of the closest TEM00.

  Below are the result plots from this analysis. Calculated finesse looks quite high (~1000). I think this is from non-linearity in the sweep and error in "measured" line width.
coarse5FSRscan.pngfine1FSRscan.png


Higher order modes and RF sidebands:

  Assuming the curvature of ITMY/ETMY are flat/57.5 m, Y arm length is 38.6 m(FSR 3.9 MHz), positions of HOMs and RF sidebands(11/55 MHz) in frequency domain should look like the plot below.
  The script for calculating this currently lives in /users/yuta/scripts/modescanresults/HOMRFSB.py, inspired by Yoichi's script for KAGRA
HOMRFSB.png

Mode-matching ratio:
  By comparing mode scan data and HOM/RF SB positions in a sophisticated way, you can tell which peak is which.
coarse5FSRscanHOMRFSB.png


  From COARSE 5FSR measurement, peak heights are

TEM00 0.884, 0.896, 0.917, 0.905, 0.911
TEM01 0.040, 0.037, 0.051, 0.054, 0.062
TEM02 0.083, 0.078, 0.079, 0.071, 0.078
TEM03 0.018, 0.015, 0.013, 0.015, 0.014

  So the mode-matching ratio is

MMR = 86.2 %, 87.3 %, 86.5 %, 86.6 %, 85.5 %

  From FINE 1FSR measurement, peak heights and mode matching ratio is

TEM00 0.921
TEM01 0.031
TEM02 0.078
TEM03 0.014

MMR = 88.2 %

  Assuming each measurement had same error, mode-matching ratio from these 6 values is

MMR = 86.7 +/- 0.3 %  (error in 1 sigma)

  This can be improved by ~5% by alignment because we still see ~5% of TEM01/10. Study in systematic errors on going.

  6830   Mon Jun 18 17:28:03 2012 yutaSummaryComputersbugs in CDS_PARTS/simLinkParts/Fcn

Fcn module in CDS_PARTS is used to include a user defined function in a model.
We should be able to use this by entering desired function, but I found some bugs.

BUG1: Fcn doen't work without ";"

If you put ";" after the function, we can compile.

 sin(u[1]);

But if you put without ";", like

 sin(u[1])

you get the following error message when compiling.

controls@c1ioo
~ 0$ rtcds make c1gcv
### building c1gcv...
Cleaning c1gcv...
Done
Parsing the model c1gcv...
Done
Building EPICS sequencers...
Done
Building front-end Linux kernel module c1gcv...
echo >> target/c1gcvepics/README.making_changes
echo 'Built on date' `date` >> target/c1gcvepics/README.making_changes
make[1]: Leaving directory `/opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/rtbuild'

make[1]: Entering directory `/opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/rtbuild/src/fe/c1gcv'
make -C /lib/modules/2.6.34.1/build SUBDIRS=/opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/rtbuild/src/fe/c1gcv modules
make[2]: Entering directory `/usr/src/linux-2.6.34.1-cs'
  CC [M]  /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/rtbuild/src/fe/c1gcv/c1gcv.o
make[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux-2.6.34.1-cs'
make[1]: Leaving directory `/opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/rtbuild/src/fe/c1gcv'
/opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/rtbuild/src/fe/c1gcv/c1gcv.c: In function 'feCode':
/opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/rtbuild/src/fe/c1gcv/c1gcv.c:615: error: expected expression before ';' token
make[3]: *** [/opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/rtbuild/src/fe/c1gcv/c1gcv.o] Error 1
make[2]: *** [_module_/opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/rtbuild/src/fe/c1gcv] Error 2
make[1]: *** [default] Error 2
make: *** [c1gcv] Error 1


BUG2: sindeg doesn't work properly

sindeg should work as cosine with input in degrees.
I made a simple model to test this(below).
model_sindegbug.png


Output of the filter module C1:ALS-BEATY_FINE_PHASE goes to "PHASE_in"
sindeg of this goes to C1:ALS-BEATY_FINE_I_ERR
cosdeg of this goes to C1:ALS-BEATY_FINE_Q_ERR

If you sweep the phase input, you should get sin and cos, but you get the following.
cosdeg (C1:ALS-BEATY_FINE_Q_ERR) looks OK, but sindeg (C1:ALS-BEATY_FINE_I_ERR) looks funny. It looks like ~20000 is its period.

dv_sindegbug.png

  6832   Mon Jun 18 23:54:31 2012 yutaUpdateGreen Lockingphase tracker for ALS

[Koji, Jenne, Yuta]

Summary:
  We put phase tracker in FINE loop for ALS. We checked it works, and we scanned Y arm by sweeping the phase of the I-Q rotator.
  From the 8 FSR scan using FINE (30 m delay line), we derived that Y arm finesse is 421 +/- 6.

What we did:
  1. We made new phase rotator because current cdsWfsPhase in CDS_PARTS doesn't have phase input. We want to control phase. New phase rotator currently lives in /opt/rtcds/userapps/trunk/isc/c1/models/PHASEROT.mdl. I checked that this works by sweeping the phase input and monitoring the IQ outputs.

  2. We made a phase tracker (/opt/rtcds/userapps/trunk/isc/c1/models/IQLOCK.mdl) and included in c1gcv model. Unit delay is for making a feed back inside the digital system. Currently it is used only for BEATY_FINE (Simulink diagram below). We edited MEDM screens a little accordingly.
newIQLOCK.png


  3. Phase tracking loop has UGF ~ 1.2 kHz, phase margin ~50 deg. They are enough becuase ALS loop has UGF ~ 100 Hz. To control phase tracking loop, use filter module C1:ALS-BEATY_FINE_PHASE (with gain 100). Sometimes, phase tracking loop has large offset because of the integrator and freedom of 360*n in the loop. To relief this, use "CLEAR HISTORY."

  4. Locked Y arm using C1:ALS-BEATY_FINE_PHASE_OUT as an error signal. It worked perfectly and UGF was ~ 90 Hz with gain -8 in C1:ALS-YARM filter module.

  5. Swept phase input to the new phase rotator using excitation point in filter module C1:ALS-BEATY_FINE_OFFSET. Below is the result from this scan. As you can see, we are able to scan for more than the linear range of FINE_I_IN1 signal. We need this extra OFFSET module for scanning because BEATY_FINE_I_ERR stays 0 in the phase tracking loop, and also,  error signal for ALS, output of PHASE module, stays 0 in ALS loop.
YarmScan20120618.png

  6. We analyzed the data from 8FSR scan by FINE with phase tracker using analyzemodescan.py (below). We got Y arm finesse to be 421 +/- 6 (error in 1 sigma). I think the error for the finesse measurement improved because we could done more linear sweep using phase tracker.
fine8FSRscan.png


Next things to do:
  - Phase tracker works amazingly. Maybe we don't need COARSE any more.
  - Install it to X arm and do ALS for both arms.
  - From the series of mode scan we did, mode matching to the arm is OK. There must be something wrong in the PRC, not the input beam. Look into PRC mode matching using video capture and measuring beam size.

  6834   Tue Jun 19 23:36:19 2012 yutaUpdateLSCcalibrated POY error signal

[Jenne, Yuta]

We calibrated POY error signal(C1:LSC-POY11_I_ERR). It was 1.4e12 counts/m.

Modeling of Y arm lock:
  Let's say H is transfer function from Y arm length displacement to POY error signal. This is what we want to measure.
  F is the servo filter (filter module C1:LSC-YARM).
  A is the actuator TF using ITMY. According to Kiwamu's calibration using MICH (see elog #5583),

  A_ITMY  = 4.832e-09 Hz^2*counts/m / freq^2

  We used ITMY to lock Y arm because ITMY is already calibrated.

What we did:
  1. Measured openloop transfer function of Y arm lock using POY error signal using ITMY (G=HFA). We noticed some discrepancy in phase with our model. If we include 1800 usec delay, phase fits well with the measurement. I think this is too big.
LSCyarmTF_usingITMY.png


  2. Measured a transfer function between actuator to POY error signal during lock. This should give us HA/(1+G).
LSCyarm_HAover1plusG.png

  4. Calculated H using measurements above. Assuming there's no frequency dependance in H, we got

  H = 1.4e12 counts/m

POYerrorcalibration.png

 For sanity check; Peak to peak of the POY error signal when crossing the IR resonance is about 800 counts. FWHM is about 1 nm, so our measurement is not so crazy.

  6836   Wed Jun 20 00:02:16 2012 yutaUpdateGreen Lockingslower scan using phase tracking ALS

For those of you who want to see plots from slower scan.

YarmScan20120619.png

  6838   Wed Jun 20 16:37:11 2012 yutaUpdateLockingETMX 1064 trans camera

[Jenne, Yuta]

We made ETMXT camera working.
We connected the camera to video mux, placed 10% pick off mirror in front of TRX PD, lead the beam go to ETMXT camera.
Transmission to the TRY PD was 23.8 uW, but now, it's 21.3 uW (2.3 uW goes to the camera).
So, we changed C1:LSC-TRX_GAIN from -0.00181818 to -0.00203158 (=-0.00181818*23.8/21.3).

There is a channel for power normalization, C1:LSC-TRX_POW_NORM, but is 1 and it looks like we are using this gain for the normalization. Situation of TRY is the same as TRX.

  6840   Wed Jun 20 18:09:23 2012 yutaUpdateLockingboth arms aligned, ITMX oplev centered

[Jenne, Yuta]

We aligned FPMI. I also centered ITMX oplev because the light was not hitting on QPD.
Alignment procedure we took was;

1. Align Y arm to the Y end green(Y green trans to PSL is now 195 uW with Y end laser measured temperature 34.14 degC).
2. Aligned IR using PZT2 to Yarm(Now, TRY ~ 0.90).
3. Aligned ITMX monitoring AS spots.
4. Aligned X arm so that TRX maximize.
5. Fine adjusted both BS and X arm(Now, TRX ~ 0.82).

Beam spot position on ETMX looks a little too high & left (from ETMXF camera), but we will leave it until ASS scripts is fixed.

FPMIalignment2010620.png

  6841   Wed Jun 20 18:43:57 2012 yutaUpdateLSCcalibrated POX error signal

[Jenne, Yuta]

We did the same calibration for POX. It was 3.8e12 counts/m. See elog #6834 for the details of calibration we did.

According to Kiwamu's calibration, actuator response of ITMX is;

A_ITMX  = 4.913e-09 Hz^2*counts/m / freq^2

Plots below are results from our calibration measurement.

LSCxarmTF_usingITMX.pngLSCxarm_HAover1plusG.pngPOXerrorcalibration.png

  6847   Thu Jun 21 12:56:49 2012 yutaUpdateLockingETMX 1064 trans camera

Quote:

[Jenne, Yuta]

We made ETMXT camera working.

 Xarm_EndTableLayout_NewTransCamera.png

Here's the new end table layout, for the transmitted IR stuff.

  6849   Thu Jun 21 15:36:51 2012 yutaUpdateLockingX arm alignment

I aligned X arm so that the beam spot comes roughly on the center.

1. Use ITMX and ETMX (mainly ITMX) to make beam spot come on center of the optic using eyeball.

2. Use ETMX and BS to maximize TRX power (reached ~ 0.85)

3. Aligned green optics on X end. Transmission of X green measured at PSL table is now 255 uW and TEM00 has the most power.

It was not easy to increase X green transmission more because beam spot on green transmission PD is wiggly when X end table is opened. When closed, wiggliness is about the same for Y green and X green.
Turning off HEPA on the X end didin't helped, but there must be something bad in the X end table. If we couldn't figure out why, let's wait for PZTs to come for end tables.

Considering the laser power is different(X end 1 W, Y end 700 mW), X green transmission should reach ~400 uW. But I think we should go on to X beat search.

I placed green shutter for X end back for convenience. I put some spacers to adjust its height and avoid beam clipping.


[Steve, Yuta]

What causing wiggly X green transmission was the air flow from the air conditioner. When we turned it off, beam spot motion became quiet. Air flow from HEPA was not effecting much.

  6853   Fri Jun 22 10:52:18 2012 yutaUpdateGreen Locking2 arm ALS - Success!!!!

Answers to questions from Koji.

Are these correct?

1. It is a nice work.

Correct, of course!

2. This is not locking, but stabilization of the both arms by ALS.

Correct.

3. We now have the phase trackers for both arms.

Correct.

4. There is no coarse (i.e. short) delay line any more.

Correct. No coarse, only fine delay line (30m) with the phase tracker.

5. The splitters after the PDs are reducing the RF power to Beat-box.
Actually there are RF monitors on Beat-box for this purpose, but you did not notice them.

Oh, yes. But distance between beatbox and spectrum analyzer in the control room is longer than distance between BBPD on PSL table and the spectrum analyzer. We were too lazy to do cabling, but maybe we should.

6. c1ioo channel list 
https://wiki-40m.ligo.caltech.edu/CDS/C1IOO%20channel%20list
has to be updated.

Yes, we will.

7. Video can be uploaded to Youtube as Mike did at http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/6513

We didn't, but we can.

  6859   Sat Jun 23 02:29:18 2012 yutaUpdateGreen LockingX arm mode scan results

X arm finesse is 416 +/- 6, mode-matching ratio is 91.2 +/- 0.3%

I did mode scan for X arm just like we did for Y arm (see elog #6832)

Servo design:
  Servo filters are as same as Y arm.
  UGF and phase margin of X arm ALS are 100 Hz and 14 deg.
  For phase tracking loop, they are 1.5 kHz and 56 deg.

Raw data from the mode scan:
XarmScan20120623.png


Fitted peaks and finesse:

fine8FSRscanXarm.png

By taking the average,

F = 416 +/- 6 (error in 1 sigma)
(For Y arm, it was 421 +/- 6. See elog #6832)


Mode matching ratio:
 From X arm 8FSR measurement using phase tracker, peak heights are

TEM00 0.834, 0.851, 0.854, 0.852, 0.876, 0.850, 0.855, 0.878
TEM01 0.031, 0.031, 0.017, 0.017, 0.009, 0.014, 0.009, 0.011
TEM02 0.053, 0.052, 0.057, 0.058, 0.061, 0.060, 0.061, 0.059
TEM03 0.011, 0.010, 0.010, 0.007, 0.006, 0.005, 0.006, 0.005

 So, the mode-matching ratio is

MMR = 89.7%, 90.1%, 91.0%, 91.2%, 92.0%, 91.4%, 91.8%, 92.1%

 By taking the average,

MMR =  91.2 +/- 0.3 (error in 1 sigma)
(for Y arm, it was 86.7 +/- 0.3 %. See elog #6828)


Discussion:
 - Mode matching ratio for both X and Y arm is ~90%, which is not so great, but OK. It seems like there's no huge clipping or mode-mismatch from MC to ITMs. I think we should go next for PRMI investigation.

 - Measured finesse seems too low compared with the design value 450. If we believe power transmission of ITM and ETM are 0.0138 and 1.37e-5, the measured finesse tells you that there's ~0.1% loss(F = 2*pi/(T_{ITM}+T_{ETM}+T_{loss})). We need some evaluation for the linearity of the sweep, before concluding that there's 0.1% loss for each arm. Using FINE_I/Q signal for calibration, or installing frequency divider for monitoring actual beat frequency would help.


Things to do for the beat setup:

 - Amplifiers after beat PDs shouldn't be on the PSL table. Move them near the beatbox.
 - Install DC PD (and camera?) at un-used port of the beat BS for monitoring green transmission power.
 - Make nice MEDM screens for our new phase tracking ALS.
 - Make a script to sweep arm length with ALS and find IR resonance.
 - Look into X end table. Beam spot of the X green transmission is wiggly when X end table is opened and there's air flow.

  6861   Sat Jun 23 19:57:22 2012 yutaSummaryComputersc1ioo is down

I tried to restart c1ioo becuase I can't live without him.

I couldn't ssh or ping c1ioo, so I did hardware reboot.
c1ioo came back, but now ADC/DAC stats are all red.

c1ioo was OK until 3am when I left the control room last night. I don't know what happened, but StripTool from zita tells me that MC lock went off at around 4pm.

  6862   Sun Jun 24 00:10:45 2012 yutaUpdateGreen Lockingcurrent beat electronics

I moved amplifiers for beat PD at PSL table to 1X2 rack. Current beat setup from PD to ADC is shown below. Setup for X beat and Y beat are almost the same except for minor difference like cable kind for the delay line.

Currently, DC power for amplifiers ZHL-1000LN+ is supplied by Aligent E3620A.
I tried to use power supply from the side of 1X1 rack, but fuse plug(Phoenix Contact ST-SI-UK-4) showed red LED, so I couldn't use it.
Measured amplification was +25 dB for 10-100 MHz.

Measured gain from RF input to monitor output of the beat box was ~ -1 db for 10-100 MHz.

beatsetup20120623.png

  6863   Sun Jun 24 23:42:31 2012 yutaUpdateComputer Scripts / ProgramsPMC locker

I made a python script for relocking PMC.
It currently lives in /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/PSL/PMC/PMClocker.py.

I think the hardest part for this kind of locker is the scan speed. I could make the scan relatively fast by using pyNDS.
The basic algorithm is as follows.

1. Turns off the servo by C1:PSL-PMC_SW1.

2. Scans C1:PSL-PMC_RAMP using ezcastep.bin. Default settings for ezcastep is

ezcastep.bin C1:PSL-PMC_RAMP -s 0.1 0.01 10000

So, it steps by 0.01 for 10000 times with interval of 0.1 sec.

3. Get C1:PSL-PMC_PMCTRANSPD and C1:PSL-PMC_RAMP online 1 sec data using pyNDS.

4. If it finds a tall peak in C1:PSL-PMC_PMCTRANSPD, kills ezcastep.bin process, sets C1:PSL-PMC_RAMP to the value where the tall peak was found, and then turns on the servo.

5. If tall peak wasn't found, go back to 3 and get data again.

6. If C1:PSL-PMC_RAMP reaches near -7 V or 0 V, it kills previous ezcastep.bin process and turns the sign of the scan.

I tested this script several times. It sometimes passes over TEM00 (because of the dead time in online pyNDS?), but it locks PMC with in ~10 sec.
Currently, you have to run this to relock PMC because I don't know how to make this an autolocker.

I think use of pyNDS can be applied for finding IR resonance using ALS, too.
I haven't checked it yet becuase c1ioo is down, but ALS version lives in /users/yuta/scripts/findIRresonance.py. ALS may be easier in that we can use fast channels and nice filter modules.

Other scripts:
 I updated /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/general/toggler.py. It now has "lazymode". When lazymode, it toggles automatically with interval of 1 sec until you Ctrl-c.

 Also, I moved damprestore.py from my users directory to /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/SUS/damprestore.py. It restores suspension damping of a specified mirror when watchdog shuts down the damping.

  6868   Mon Jun 25 15:07:49 2012 yutaUpdateIOOMC beam spot trend

I adjusted MC WFS offsets using /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/MC/WFS/WFS_FilterBank_offsets.
Beam spot positions on MC mirrors came back to where it was past few weeks. See the trend below. Trend sometimes shows huge jump, but it's just a bad measurement caused by unlock of MC during the measurement.

I ran /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/ASS/MC/mcassMCdecenter to measure beam spot whenever I feel like it (see elog #6727).
Beam spot doesn't move so much (~0.2 mm in standard deviation), which means incident beam from PSL table is quite stable.


MCdecenter.png

  6871   Mon Jun 25 17:48:27 2012 yutaUpdateComputer Scripts / Programsscript for finding IR resonance using ALS

I made a python script for finding IR resonance using ALS. It currently lives in /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/ALS/findIRresonance.py.

The basic algorism is as follows.

1. Scan the arm by putting an offset to the phase output of the phase tracker(Step C1:ALS-BEAT(X|Y)_FINE_OFFSET_OFFSET by 10 deg with 3 sec ramp time).

2. Fetch TR(X|Y) and OFFSET online data using pyNDS during the step.

3. If it finds a tall peak, sets OFFSET to the value where the tall peak was found.

4. If tall peak wasn't found, go back to 1 and step OFFSET again.

The time series data of how he did is plotted below.
I ran the script for Y arm, but it is compatible for both X and Y arm.

findIRresonance20120625.png

  6873   Tue Jun 26 00:52:18 2012 yutaUpdateComputer Scripts / ProgramsPMC locker

Quote:

I thought we rewrite auto lockers once per year, but this time it took us only a month. I wrote it for PMC on May 24. Is it not working?

I know.
I just wanted to use pyNDS for this kind of scanning & locking situation.
c1ioo was down for the weekend and I couldn't test my script for ALS, so I used it for PMC.

But I think PMClocker.py can relock PMC faster because it can sweep C1:PSL-PMC_RAMP continuously and can get continuous data of C1:PSL-PMC_PMCTRANSPD.

  6874   Tue Jun 26 01:30:13 2012 yutaSummaryGreen Lockingsimultaneous hold and release of the arm (aka two arm ALS)

To get the feeling of the master of IFO, I;

1. Stabilized both arm length using ALS.

2. Ran findIRresonance.py for both arms and find what offset gives me IR resonances.

3. Holded X arm to IR resonance, holded Y arm to IR resonance, and released both arms.

Below is the time series data of what I did.
ALSboth20120625_2withAS.png


Issues:
 - Currently ALS is not stable enough. It only stays for about few minutes. I think it is because of the bad alignment of green from each end.
 - We can't tell end green frequency is higher or PSL green frequency is higher. So, the sign of the servo filter sometimes flips.
 - Wobbliness of X end green transmission beam spot was from the ETMX oplev. When the oplev servo is on, it got more wobbly when X end table is opened. But when the oplev servo was off, wobbliness was same even if the presence of air flow.
 - MICH contrast in plot above seems like it somehow got better when two arms are at resonance by ALS. I think this is not real because reflection from both arms at AS port was not well aligned and beam was clipped. Koji and I measured contrast of FPMI and MI(ETMs misalined), and they were 99.6 % and 99.9 % respectively. Beam clipping seems like it comes from some where between BS to AS port. We need to figure out where and fix this.

Things need to be done to make ALS more concrete:
 - Align Y end green beam!
 - Look into Y end green frequency servo
 - How do we hand-off servo using ALS to IR lock?
 - Noise budgeting for new phase tracker scheme
 - Linearity check of the beat box and phase tracker

  6875   Tue Jun 26 22:37:43 2012 yutaUpdateIOOenergized OMC stages

[Koji, Yuta]

We checked that PZTs between SRM and OMC (called OMC stage 1 and 2) is working.
Now we need them to be EPICS channels because they are not connected to digital world right now.

Background:
  For the IFO alignment, what we have been doing for last 2weeks is,

1. Align Y arm to Y end green and maximize green transmission
2. Use PZT2 to maximize TRY (PZT1 is not functioning well. PZT1 Y do a little, but X totally does nothing.)
3. Align BS and X arm to maximize TRX
4. Tune BS and ITMX so that reflection from both arms overlap at AS
5. Align X end green to that we can see bright(~250 uW) TEM00 at transmission

  However, we found that something (Y arm axis or Y end green?) has drifted horizontally and can't make Y green transmission and TRY high level at same time. Because PZT1 is not functioning well, it is hard to compensate beam translation.
  So, now what we have to do is to align Y arm to IR incident beam. That means, we either have to realign Y end green or forget about maximizing green transmission. I think I will leave green as it is for a while because calibration of the beatbox is going on and I want to proceed to PRC.
  Anyway, if we align IFO to the IR incident beam, we see clipping in the AS port. From the contrast measurement last night, we thought clipping comes from somewhere between BS and AS port. So, we need PZTs between BS and AS port working.

What we did:
  1. Turned on 24P 24N power supplies(Sorensen DCS33-33E) in AUX_OMC_SOUTH rack to supply power to AUX_OMC_NORTH rack. 18P 18N cables to OMC_NORTH was unplugged and used by the beatbox, so we reconnected them.

  2. Turned on KEPCO high voltage power supply to supply 150 V to the PZT driver, but it was not functioning well. So, we currently use Aligent HP 6209B instead. Its on the OMC_NORTH rack.

  3. PZT driver output to OMC stage 1 was unplugged. So, we plugged them.

  4. Opened PZT driver (LIGO-D060287), put some signal from Piezo_Drive_in(J4 in schematic), and checked beamspot at AS port is moving. The gain from Piezo_Drive_in to the output (hv_out) was ~20.

  5. We could avoid clipping by putting some offset to OMC stage 2 (or 1) in yaw. That means, the clipping comes from after OMC stage 2.

Conclusion:
  If we can control OMC stage 1 and 2, we can avoid clipping. So, we want them to be EPICS channels.

  6876   Wed Jun 27 03:43:52 2012 yutaSummaryIOOhow to improve mode matching to arms

From the mode scan measurements of the arms(elog #6859), ~6% of mode-mismatch comes from 2nd-order mode. That means we have longitudinal mismatch.

Suppose every mirrors are well positioned and well polished with designed RoC, except for the MMT1-MMT2 length. To get ~6% of mode-mismatch, MMT1-MMT2 length should be ~28cm longer (or ~26cm shorter) than designed value.
I don't know whether this is possible or not, but if they are actually longer(or shorter), we should fix it on the next vent.
I found some related elog on MMT (see #3088).

modematchMCtoARM_design.pngmodematchMCtoARM_MMT1MMT2longer.png


RoC and length parameters I used is below. They maybe wrong because I just guessed them. Please tell me the actual values.
Mirror thickness and effect of the incident angle is not considered yet.

== RoCs ==
MC2 19.965 m (???)
PRM 115.5 m (not used in calculation; just used to guess MC parameters)
ITM flat
ETM 57.37 m

== Lengths ==
MC round trip 27.084 m (???)
MC1 - MC3  0.18 m (???)
MC3 - MMT1 0.884+1.0442 m
MMT1 - MMT2 1.876 m
MMT2 - PRM 2.0079+0.4956 m
PRM - ITM 4.4433+2.2738 m
ITM - ETM 39 m

  6884   Wed Jun 27 16:23:12 2012 yutaUpdateIOOAS and REFL on AP table aligned

I touched steering mirrors for AS and REFL at AP table.
AS beam and REFL beam now hits cameras at center and their respective PDs.

What I did:
  1. Aligned Y arm and X arm.

  2. Locked FPMI and aligned BS + X arm by minimizing ASDC (DC output of the AS55 PD, C1:LSC-ASDC_OUT reached ~ -1.43).

  3. Put -2V offset to the OMC stage 2 in yaw to avoid AS clipping. The offset is currently given by SRS DS345 on AUX_OMC_NORTH rack.

  4. Misaligned ETMs, locked MI in the bright fringe. Maximized ASDC (C1:LSC-ASDC_OUT reached ~ 1.22) by aligning 2 mirrors right after the vacuum chamber. This also centered beam spot on the AS camera.

  5. Locked MI in the dark fringe. Maximized REFLDC (DC output of the REFL55 PD, C1:LSC-REFLDC_OUT reached ~ 2.5) by aligning 2 mirrors after the vacuum chamber. Beam spot on the REFL camera was centered, too.

  6885   Wed Jun 27 23:54:21 2012 yutaUpdateComputer Scripts / Programsimage capturing script

Mike J. came tonight and he fixed Sensoray (elog #6645). He recompiled it and fixed it.

I made a python wrapper script for Sensoray scripts. It currently lives in /users/yuta/scripts/videocapture.py.
If you run something like
  ./videocapture.py AS
it saves image capture of AS to /users/yuta/scripts/SensorayCapture/ directory with the GPS time.
Below is the example output of AS when MI is aligned. We still see some clipping in the right. This clipping is there when one arm is mis-aligned and clipping moves together with the main beam spot. So, this might be from the incident beam, probably at the Faraday.

Currently, videocapture.py runs only on pianosa, since Sensoray 2253S is connected to pianosa. Also, it can only capture MON4. My script changes MON4 automatically.

AS_1024901004.bmp

  6886   Thu Jun 28 00:50:48 2012 yutaUpdateLockingPRMI work started, commissioning plan

My goal for tonight was to lock PRMI,
 grasp the current situation by my eye,
  and capture some images using Sensoray.

They are done, but what are we going to do to solve the problem? The beam looks terrible than I had expected.


What I did:
  1. DC output of POP55 PD was plugged out from 1Y2 rack, so we plugged it in.

  2. Aligned POP beam to POP25 PD and moved POP camera position at ITMX table.
 
  3. Mis-aligned PRM and SRM, aligned both arms, aligned FPMI as usual.

  4. Mis-aligned PRM and ETMs, aligned MI and locked MI.

  5. Aligned PRM, and carrier locked PRMI. PRM alignment was not saved since June 7, so slider values which give good alignment was pretty much drifted (~0.4 in C1:LSC_PRM_(PIT|YAW)_COMM).

  6. Took some images of POP, REFL, AS during PRMI lock.

POP_1024903948.bmpREFL_1024903929.bmpAS_1024903921.bmp


PRMI commissioning plan:
  From the beam shape at POP, REFL, and AS, the problem clearly comes from the mode-matching, including clipping, longitudinal mismatch, and alignment mismatch. Koji's idea of flipped-PRM seems reasonable, so I think we should better measure something to prove this.
  To prove this,

  1. Simulate what the beam look like in POP, REFL, AS if PRM was flipped. Compare them with actual captured images. I need to study on unstable cavities.
  2. Calculate power recycling gain and compare.
  3. Misalign PRM and capture the image of primary, secondary, ... reflections like Koji did in elog #6421. Measure the beam sizes of these reflections using some image analysis(Python Imaging Library? Is there anyone good at this?) and calculate PRM curvature.
  4. Can we do come characterization by making PRM-ITMY cavity? ITMX will be mis-aligned, BS will be the loss port to PRC.
  5. Beamspot on POP, REFL, AS looks woblby when PRMI is locked. Why?
  6. Open the vaccum chamber and see PRM. Simple.

  Any other ideas? I have to lock PRFPMI, at least, by July 13!

  6889   Thu Jun 28 20:59:28 2012 yutaBureaucracyLockingvent for PRC check, TOMORROW!

Koji, Jamie and I talked together and I decided to VENT TOMORROW MORNING. Main purpose of this vent is to see if PRM is flipped or not.

Vent schedule:
June 28 (Thu)
  Prepare for the vent tonight

June 29 (Fri)
  Start vent in the morning
  Look into PRC in the evening. If PRM was flipped, we will correct them. We'll use REFL to align the PRM. If PRM was not flipped, look into PR2,PR3 and other related optics.

June 30 (Sat)
July 1 (Sun)
  Thinking time. I can work if needed.

July 2 (Mon)
  If we need something else to do, do it.
  If not, start pumping.
  July 4th is the Independence Day. So, I need IFO working before July 4th.

Check List:
 We will just open the BS chamber.
  - PRM flipping
  - PR2, PR3 flipping
  - PRC suspensions
  - Cipping check in PRC

  6891   Fri Jun 29 01:49:36 2012 yutaBureaucracyLockingvent for PRC check, TOMORROW!

Quote:

 What do you mean by PR2, PR3 flipping?  They are (supposed to be) flat mirrors, so obviously they should be installed correctly, but they won't change the mode matching in a huge way if they're backwards, right?

We see some ghost beam spots at POP. This may come from the back of PR2 and PR3. Also, they may change mode matching because of thermal lensing, mirror deformation, and other unexpected reasons. I thought we should check every mirrors in PRC, if PRM is not flipped.

We are going to check PRM just because we spent so much time for the PRC problem, and still don't have the solution or evidence.
PRM flipping is kind of the only idea for the root of all evil -- terrible beam shape, low PR gain, unstable PRMI lock.
So, I want to check with my eye during the stay.

I don't think we have to redo magnet gluing. It's okay to leave them on HR side.

  6892   Fri Jun 29 02:17:40 2012 yutaUpdateIOOprep for the vent - beam attenuating

[Koji, Jamie, Yuta]

We attenuated the incident beam (1.2 W -> 11 mW) to the vacuum chamber to be ready for the vent.
The beam spot on the MC mirrors didn't changed significantly, which means the incident beam was not shifted so much.

What we did:
 1. Installed HWP, PBS(*) and another HWP between the steering mirrors on PSL table for attenuating the beam. We didn't touched steering mirrors(**), so the incident beam to the IFO should be recovered easily, by just taking HWPs and PBS away. The power to the MC was reduced from 1.2 W to 11 mW.

(*) We stole PBSO from the AS AUX laser setup.
(**) Actually, we accidentally touched one of the steering mirrors, but we recovered them. We did the recovery tweaking the touched nob and minimizing the MC reflection. We confirmed the incident beam was recovered by measuring MC beamspot positions(below).

 2. Aligned PBS by minimizing MC reflection, adjusted first HWP so that the incident beam will be ~10 mW, and adjusted last HWP to minimize MC reflection (make the incident beam to the MC be p-polarization).

 3. To do the alignment and adjusting, we put 100% reflection mirror (instead of 10% BS) for the MC reflection PD to increase the power to the PD. That means, we don't have MC WFS right now.

 4. Tweaked MC servo gains to that we can lock MC in low power mode. It is quite stable right now. We didn't lose lock during beam spot measurement.

 5. Measured beam spot positions on the MC mirrors and convinced that the incident beam was not shifted so much (below). They look like they moved ~0.2 mm, but it is with in the error of the MC beam spot measurement.

# filename      MC1pit  MC2pit  MC3pit  MC1yaw  MC2yaw  MC3yaw  (spot positions in mm)
./dataMCdecenter/MCdecenter201206281154.dat     3.193965        4.247243        2.386126        -6.639432       -0.574460       4.815078    this noon
./dataMCdecenter/MCdecenter201206282245.dat     3.090762        4.140716        2.459465        -6.792872       -0.651146       4.868740    after recovered steering mirrors
./dataMCdecenter/MCdecenter201206290135.dat     2.914584        4.240889        2.149244        -7.117336       -1.494540       4.955329    after beam attenuation

 6. Rewrote matlab code sensemcass.m to python script sensemcass.py. This script is to calculate beam spot positions from the measurement data(see elog #6727). I think we should make senseMCdecenter script better, too, since it takes so much time and can't stop and resume the measurement if MC is unlocked.

  6893   Fri Jun 29 03:21:32 2012 yutaUpdateGeneralprep for the vent - others

1. Turned off high voltage power supplies for PZT1/2 (input PZTs) and OMC stage 1/2. They live in 1Y3 rack and AUX_OMC_NORTH rack.

2. Restored all IFO optics alignment to the position where I aligned this afternoon (for SRM, I didn't aligned it; it restored at the saved value on May 26).

3. Centered all the oplevs. They can be used for a reference for alignment change before and after the vent.

I will leave PSL mechanical shutter and green shutters closed just in case.

Some MEDM screenshots below.
MEDMscreenshotswithCOW_20120629.png

  6896   Fri Jun 29 16:41:41 2012 yutaUpdateGeneralPRM was NOT installed backwards

[Koji, Steve, Jamie, Yuta]

So, PRM was NOT flipped......

We opened the BS chamber and quickly checked the arrow on the PRM pointing HR. It turned out to be correct, the arrow was pointing towards the arm cavity. We opened the ITMX chamber, too, to check PR2 later.
BS chamber and ITMX chamber is now closed with the light door.

But it was a one step forward anyway, because we could prove PRM was innocent.

What to do next:
  We know that the mode-matching of the incident beam and both arms are pretty good. So, dirty modes come from PRC.
  We will check beam clipping, mirrors, suspensions in PRC.
  I expect the chambers to be closed on Monday(July 2) afternoon and start pumping on Tuesday(July 3) morning.

  6899   Sun Jul 1 13:20:09 2012 yutaUpdateIOOMC in low power

I modified autolocker for MC in low power mode (/opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/MC/autolockMCmain40m_low_power) to make it work with the current directory structure.
autolockMCmain40m_low_power currently runs on op340m and it is in crontab.

34 * * * *  /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/general/scripto_cron /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/MC/autolockMCmain40m_low_power >/cvs/cds/caltech/logs/scripts/mclock.cronlog 2>&1


MC intra-cavity power:
  Currently, incident beam to the MC measured at PSL table is ~15 mW. Reflected power from MC (C1:IOO-MC_RFPD_DCMON) is 0.94 when MC unlocked, and is 0.088 when locked.
  That means, considering MC1/3 power transmission is 2000ppm (calculated finnesse=1570), intra-cavity power in MC is ~7 W.

  15 mW * (0.94-0.088)/0.94 / 2000ppm = 7 W

  We can increase the power by factor of ~2, if needed.


MC beam spot positions:

  I aligned MC to maximize transmission (C1:IOO-MC_TRANS_SUM_ERR), and measured the MC beam spot posisions in atm, low power.

# filename    MC1pit    MC2pit    MC3pit    MC1yaw    MC2yaw    MC3yaw    (spot positions in mm)
./dataMCdecenter/MCdecenter201206290135.dat    2.914584    4.240889    2.149244    -7.117336    -1.494540    4.955329    before vent
./dataMCdecenter/MCdecenter201207011253.dat    3.294659    3.416584    2.620511    -6.691800    -3.164084    4.806517    after vent

  They look the same within the error of the measurement, except for the spot positions on MC2, which we don't care.


Autolocker should be refined:
  To make autolockMCmain40m_low_power, I copied autolockMCmain40m and just changed

- lockthresh from 500 to 100
- use mcdown_low_power instead of mcdown
- use mcup_low_power instead of mcup

  The difference between mcdown_low_power and mcdown should be only

- ezcawrite C1:IOO-MC_REFL_GAIN 31 for lowpower, 9 for usual
- ezcawrite C1:IOO-MC_VCO_GAIN 10 for lowpower, -5 for usual

  The difference between mcup_low_power and mcup should be only

- ezcawrite C1:IOO-MC_REFL_GAIN 31 for lowpower, 12 for usual
- ezcawrite C1:IOO-MC_VCO_GAIN 31 for lowpower, 25 for usual

  Currently, they are not like that. Somebody good at shell scripts should combine them and make it into one code with an option something like usual/low-power.

  6900   Sun Jul 1 23:48:15 2012 yutaSummaryGeneralclipping at BS, my plan

[Koji, Yuta]

We aligned PRMI and inspected BS chamber. Last inspection by Jamie and I (see elog #6897) was done when nothing is aligned, so I wanted to see the difference.
Aligning PRMI at low power was difficult for me, because I see no fringe at ASDC PD nor REFLDC PD. I just aligned them by looking at AS/REFL camera. The beam shape at AS looked as bad as when the usual power.

No significant change was found inside the vacuum. We still see clipping at the Faraday, and also, we saw clipping by BS coil holder. Using PZT1, we could make it better, but this might be causing PRC problem -- BS is inside the PRC, too.

We also took some pictures of PR3 and PRM(attached). The arrow pointing HR is correctly pointing inside the PRC. Seeing is believing.

Yuta's plan:
  We might have to avoid clipping at BS (and Faraday) by aligning input optics inside the vacuum. If we are going to align them, I think we should start from centering MC beam spot positions and the whole alignment could take more than a week. I don't want to spend too much time on the alignment. Also, we are going to install tip-tilts on the next big vent, so we have to redo the alignment anyway.
  So, my plan is as follows;

1. Take lots of photos and close the door on Monday(June 2).

2. Pump on Tuesday(June 3).

3. Restart working on ALS. For example, demonstration of FPMI using ALS.

4. We also can do some characterization of PRC, like measuring power recycling gain for PRMI/PRFPMI, mode scan for PRC using AUX laser from AS port, and so on. We need some calculation for clipping tolerance, too.

  Any objections?

Attachment 1: PR3.JPG
PR3.JPG
Attachment 2: PRM.JPG
PRM.JPG
  6903   Mon Jul 2 18:27:25 2012 yutaUpdateGeneralBS and ITMX chambers closed

[Koji, Steve, Jamie, Jenne, Yuta]

We opened BS and ITMX chambers, took lots of photos, and closed them with heavy doors.
I turned off high voltage power supplies for PZTs and blocked PSL beam. We are ready for the pumping tomorrow.

Important photos we took:
  - positions of green optics at BS chamber, which was moved on the vent on Aug 2011
  - positions of PZT mirrors and cable connectors at BS chamber, which will be replaced with tip-tilts on the next vent
  - arrow on PR2 pointing HR (it was correct)
  - tried to take photos of clipping IR beam at BS OSEM holder from ITMX chamber
 
 We also took bunch of other photos.


Beam dump needed at BS chamber:
  We also checked some un-dumped beams at BS chamber. We need dumps;
  - behind MMT1, for unwanted transmitted beam
  - behind IPPOSSM3, for unwanted transmitted beam (IPPOSSM3 is the last mirror in BS chamber for IPPOS)

  6910   Tue Jul 3 20:51:06 2012 yutaUpdateIOOMC in vacuum is back

MC came back to the state as it was before the vent.

What I did:
  1. Removed beam attenuating setup on PSL table(see elog #6892).

  2. Removed 100% reflection mirror before the MC reflection PD and put 10% BS back, so that we can have MC WFS. Also, I changed C1:IOO-MC_RFPD_DCMON.HOPR to 5.

  3. Removed autolockMCmain40m_low_power from crontab on op340m, and put autolockMCmain40m again.

  4. Aligned MC and ran /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/MC/WFS/WFS_FilterBank_offsets to adjust WFS offsets.

  5. Measured beam spot positions. They looked same as before the vent.

# filename    MC1pit    MC2pit    MC3pit    MC1yaw    MC2yaw    MC3yaw    (spot positions in mm)
./dataMCdecenter/MCdecenter201206290135.dat    2.914584    4.240889    2.149244    -7.117336    -1.494540    4.955329    before vent
./dataMCdecenter/MCdecenter201207011253.dat    3.294659    3.416584    2.620511    -6.691800    -3.164084    4.806517    after vent
./dataMCdecenter/MCdecenter201207032009.dat    3.737099    3.994597    3.087857    -6.442053    -0.992543    4.714607    after pumping (now)

  6. I also turned on high voltage power supplies for input and output PZTs

  7. Below is captured Sensoray images of the current state.
ALL_1025408289.bmp


Next:
  I will go on to check if IFO works as it was before or not, but I think we should center MC beam spot positions and see if we can avoid clipping in the near future.

  6913   Wed Jul 4 20:13:46 2012 yutaBureaucracyLockingPRC commissioning plan

Issues in PRC:
  1. Power recycling gain is too low (~ 15 instead of 40, according to Kiwamu).
  2. Mode matching to both arms are ~90%(see #6859), but PRC has terrible mode.
       Clipping/flipping in PRC?
  3. From cameras, beam spot moves so much when PRMI is locked.
       Alignment? Mirrors(especially PR2/3) moves too much?
  4. Error signals are glitchy when PRMI is locked.
       Servo design? Mirrors moves too much?

What we have learned from the vent:

  1. PRM, PR2, PR3 was not flipped.
  2. Their suspensions looked OK, too.
  3. We noticed clipping at BS and Faraday. They must be avoided when tip-tilts are installed on next vent.

  4. Took useful photos for next vent. Positions of green optics on optical layout CAD must be updated.
  5. It is not so difficult to recover the IFO state after cycling the vacuum if we use attenuator setup using PBS (see elog #6892).  But, of course, we need plans before cycling.

Commissioning Plan:
  - measure PRMI power recycling gain from POP
  - FPMI using ALS
  - measure PRFPMI power recycling gain from TRY/X
  - correlation between beam spot motion at POP camera and glitch
  - correlation between PR2/PR3 motion and glitch (how can we measure PR2/3 motion? set up oplevs?)
  - mode scan for PRC, using AS AUX laser
  - beam profile measurement at REFL,POP
  - refine servo design of MICH and PRCL

  6914   Wed Jul 4 21:11:53 2012 yutaUpdateLockingFPMI in vacuum is back

I aligned FPMI and greens. There's no recognizable difference between before and after the vent.

What I did:
  1. Aligned Y arm to maximize Y green transmission.
  2. Used PZT1/2 to maximize TRY. But since PZT1 doesn't work so much, I had to align Y arm, too (mostly ETMY). This decreases green transmission, but I will leave it.
  3. Aligned BS and X arm to maximize TRX
  4. Fine tune them to minimize ASDC during FPMI lock, without decreasing TRX
  5. Aligned X end green to get TEM00 transmission.

Now, TRY and TRX are both  ~0.89.
Green transmission from Y and X arm are ~123 uW and ~275 uW respectively. Their max we got so far was ~200 uW and ~255 uW.
I still see clipped beam at AS, which I think is from the Faraday edge, as we found in elog #6897.
Below is the Sensoray capture of some ports, and MEDM screen shots to compare with before vent(see #6893).
There are two AS captures, one is without MI lock and the other is with MI lock. Note that PRM/SRM is misalined.

ALL_1025495266.pngMEDMscreenshotswithCOW_20120704.png


Next:
 - I will check ALS
 - I keep Y end green optics untouched since elog #6776, to use it as a reference. We need to realign them if tip-tilts are installed in vacuum, or PZTs are installed in both ends.

  6915   Thu Jul 5 01:20:58 2012 yutaSummaryCDSslow computers, 0x4000 for all DAQ status

ALS looks OK. I tried to lock FPMI using ALS, but I feel like I need 6 hands to do it with current ALS stability. Now I have all computers being so slow.

It was fine for 7 hours after Jamie the Great fixed this, but fb went down couple times and DAQ status for all models now shows 0x4000. I tried restarting mx_stream and restarting fb, but they didn't help.

  6916   Thu Jul 5 01:34:11 2012 yutaUpdateLockingMI with X arm ALS

I tried to lock FPMI using ALS, but I could not take care of ALS for both arms + MI. So, I decided to try one arm + MI.
I don't know why, but I couldn't make it. We need investigation.

Procedure I took:

  1. Align FPMI.

  2. Misalign ETMY.

  3. Press CLEAR HISTORY for C1:ALS-BEATY_FINE_PHASE filter module.
    Are there any command to do this?

  4. Stabilize X arm length.
    I made a script for turning on ALS servo nicely. It currently lives in /users/yuta/scripts/easyALS.py. You have to specify the arm(X or Y) and sign of the gain. It needs to be refined.

  5. Sweep the offset and stabilize X arm lenth to IR resonance.
   (Ran /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/ALS/findIRresonance.py Xarm)

  6. Tried to lock MI. I tried to do this by feeding back the signal to BS or ITMs. Both worked fine when ALS holds X arm to IR off-resonance, but I couldn't lock MI when ALS holds X arm to IR resonance. This may come from too much phase fluctuation from X arm reflection. We should investigate this.

Handing off the servo from ALS to LSC:

  I made a script to do this. It just decreases ALS gain and increases LSC gain with 30 sec ramp time. It needs to be refined, so it currently lives in /users/yuta/scripts/handofftoLSC.py. It worked fine without loosing IR transmission.

ALS stability:
  Current stabiliy of the ALS servo is not enough. It doesn't stay for more than ~ 10min. I suspect this is from frequency servo of end lasers losing lock, or beat signals being too small for the beat box because of intensity fluctuation of green transmission. We definitely need to align end greens, but it is painful.

  6922   Thu Jul 5 13:38:05 2012 yutaSummaryLockingcavity g-factor from mode scan

Cavity g-factor for X arm is 0.3737 +/- 0.002, Y arm is 0.3765 +/- 0.003.
If ITMs are flat and arm length L = 39 +/- 1 m, this means RoC of ETMX and ETMY is 62 +/- 2 m and 63 +/- 2 m respectively.

Calculation:
  Transverse mode spacing is expressed by

nu_TMS / nu_FSR = arccos(sqrt(g1*g2)) / pi

  where g1 and g2 is g-factor

gi = 1 - L/Ri

 of ITM/ETM.

  For mode-scan, we swept laser frequency nu. Let's assume this sweep was linear and we can replace laser frequency with time. From the mode-scan result, TMS can be derived by

  t_TMS = sum((n_i-n)*(t_i-t)) / sum((n_i-n)^2)

  where n_i is the order of transverse mode, n is average of n_i's, t_i is the time i-th order mode appeared and t is average of t_i's.
  Since I could only recognize up to 3rd order mode, this can be rewritten as

  t_TMS = 1.5/5 * t_0 + 0.5/5 * t_1 - 0.5/5 * t_2 - 1.5/5 * t_3

  FSR is time between TEM00s. So, g1*g2 can be calculated by

g1*g2 = (cos(pi*t_TMS/t_FSR))^2


X arm result:

  From the 8FSR mode-scan data (see elog #6859), X arm HOM positions in sec are;

HOM 0    242.00     214.76     187.22     159.27     131.33    102.96     74.61     46.00     17.51
HOM 1    234.29     206.78     179.20     150.96     122.90     94.58     66.27     38.10
HOM 2    226.36     198.91     170.80     142.92     114.62     86.51     58.05     29.65
HOM 3    218.14     190.65     162.71     134.78     106.68     78.27     49.95     21.25


  Calculated FSR and TMS in sec are;

FSR    27.24     27.54     27.95     27.94     28.37     28.35     28.61     28.49
TMS     7.951     8.020     8.193     8.151     8.223     8.214     8.220     8.270

  Calculated cavity g-factor are;

g1*g2    0.3699     0.3720     0.3662     0.3704     0.3761     0.3765     0.3839     0.3748

  By taking average,

g1*g2 = 0.3737 +/- 0.002  (error in 1 sigma)


Y arm result:
  From 8FSR mode-scan data (see elog #6832), Y arm HOM positions in sec are;

HOM 0    246.70     218.15     190.06     161.87     133.26    104.75     76.01     47.19     18.60
HOM 1    238.83     210.55     181.88     153.47     124.93     96.08     67.51     39.01
HOM 2    230.48     202.21     173.64     144.80     116.43     86.17     59.84     31.43
HOM 3    222.15     193.47     165.33     137.13     108.60     80.04     51.17     22.25


  Calculated FSR and TMS in sec are;

FSR    28.55     28.09     28.19     28.61     28.51     28.74     28.82     28.59
TMS     8.200     8.238     8.243     8.289     8.248     8.404     8.219     8.240


  Calculated cavity g-factor are;

g1*g2    0.3841     0.3657     0.3683     0.3765     0.3778     0.3683     0.3904     0.3811

  By taking average,

g1*g2 = 0.3765 +/- 0.003  (error in 1 sigma)


Conclusion:
  If ITMs are flat and arm length L = 39 +/- 1 m, this means RoC of ETMX and ETMY is 62 +/- 2 m and 63 +/- 2 m respectively. Designed RoC is 57.35 m.
  Error of RoC is dominated by arm length error. So, we need more precise measurement of the length. This can be done when scan is calibrated and we can measure FSR in frequency.
  Also, we need evaluation of linearity of the sweep. This also can be done by calibration.

  6925   Fri Jul 6 01:39:56 2012 yutaUpdateLockingMI + Y arm ALS succeed, but not both

MI with X arm length stabilized off resonance and Y arm length stabilized at resonance using ALS succeed, but I couldn't bring X arm to IR resonance. This maybe because of too much phase fluctuation. I will calculate it later.

What I did:
  1. Brought X arm to IR resonance.
  2. Brought Y arm to IR resonance.
  3. Brought X arm to off-resonance.
  4. Brought Y arm to off-resonance. (1-4 are to play with arms)
  5. Locked MI in dark fringe using AS55_Q as error signal and BS as actuator.
  6. Brought Y arm to IR resonance. This flips sign, so MI lock will be bright fringe.
  7. Brought X arm to IR resonance. This destroys MI lock.

  Below is the plot showing what I did
FPMIALStrial20120706.png

  I also tried to lock MI after both arms are stabilized at resonance, but it failed, too.
  MI + X arm ALS fails. I think this is from too much BS motion to compensate phase fluctuation of arm reflected beam.
  MI + Y arm ALS fails when I want to lock in dark fringe. Only bright fringe works.


New compact MEDM screen for ALS:

  It has (almost) everything you need for ALS. It lives in /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/medm/c1gcv/master/C1ALS_COMPACT.adl.
  Features;

  - Button for turning on/off ALS. It even does "clear history"!
      (light brown button "ON plus", "ON minus", "OFF"; runs /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/ALS/easyALS.py; Currently, you have to guess the sign of gain. Ctrl-C if the sign was wrong. It will be nice if script can handle this. Use lockin to detemrine the sign?)

  - Button for finding IR resonance.
      (pink button "IRres"; runs /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/ALS/findIRresonance.py)

  - Button for bringing arm length to off-resonance.
      (pink button "-10", "+10"; steps +/- 10 deg offset)

  - Button for toggling green shutters.
      (green button "shutter"; runs /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/medm/c1gcv/cmd/toggle(X|Y)Shutter.py)

  - Button for switching monitors.
      (grey button "Video (X|Y)arm"; runs /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/general/Video_(X|Y)arm.csh)

  - Slider for changing temperature of end lasers. You can also open temperature servo screens from orange "(X|Y)SLOW" button.

newALSMEDMscreen.png

  6926   Fri Jul 6 02:46:03 2012 yutaUpdateLockingY arm ALS handing off to LSC

Handing off the servo from ALS to LSC for one arm is quite easy because servo filters are pretty much same for ALS and LSC. I demonstrated it Y arm during MI is locked.
We need DARM/CARM-kind of handing off in the near future.

What I did:
  1. Brought both arms to IR resonance.
  2. Brought X arm to off resonance.
  3. Locked MI in bright fringe(why can't I lock in dark fringe, when one arm is on resonance?) using AS55_Q and BS.
  4. Ran /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/ALS/handofftoLSC.py Yarm to handoff. It decreases ALS gain and increases LSC gain in 30 sec ramp time. It also turns on some filters for LSC. Make sure you turn off filter triggers for LSC.

 Below is the plot of what I did. You can see LSC feedback signal gradually increasing and TRY getting more stable.
 I was dissapointed with ALS not having any DQ channels for feedback signal. I will make them DQ channels tomorrow.

handofftoLSC20120706.png

  6931   Fri Jul 6 14:10:31 2012 yutaSummaryLSCcalculation of FPMI using ALS

From calculation, phase fluctuation of reflected beam from length stabilized arm is not disturbing MI lock.

Easy calculation:
  The phase PD at AS port sense is

phi = phi_x - phi_y = 2*l_MICH*omega/c + (phi_X - phi_Y)

  where l_MICH is the Michelson differential length change, omega is laser frequency, phi_X and phi_Y are phase of arm reflected beam. From very complicated calculation,

phi_X ~ F/2 * Phi_X

  at near resonance. Where F is arm finesse, Phi_X is the round trip phase change in X arm. So,

phi = 2*l_MICH*omega/c + F/2 * 2*L_DARM*omega/c

  Our ALS stabilizes arm length in ~ 70 pm(see elogs #6835#6858). Finesse for IR is ~450. Considering l_MICH is ~ 1 um, MICH signal at AS port should be larger than stabilized DARM signal by an order of magnitude.

Length sensing matrix of FPMI:
  Calculated length sensing matrix of 40m FPMI is below. Here, I'm just considering 11 MHz modulation. I assumed input power to be 1 W, modulation index 0.1i, Schnupp asymmetry 26.6 mm. PRM/SRM transmissivity is not taken into account.

[W/m]     DARM      CARM      MICH
REFL_I    0         1.69e8    0
REFL_Q    7.09e1    0        -3.61e3
AS_I      0         0         0
AS_Q      1.04e6    0         3.61e3


  Maybe we should use REFL_Q as MICH signal, but since IQ separation is not perfect, we see too much CARM. I tried to lock MI with REFL11_Q yesterday, but failed.

  6938   Sun Jul 8 00:27:54 2012 yutaSummaryLockingcalibrating phase tracking mode scan data

FSR for X/Y arm are 3.97 +/- 0.03 MHz and 3.96 +/- 0.02 MHz respectively. This means X/Y arm lengths are 37.6 +/- 0.3 m and 37.9 +/- 0.2 m respectively.
I calibrated the mode scan results using 11MHz sideband as frequency reference.
Calibration factor between the phase of the phase tracker and IR frequency is 9.81 +/- 0.05 kHz/deg for X arm, 9.65 +/- 0.02 kHz/deg for Y arm.

Calculation:
  For the mode scan measurements, we swept the phase of the phase tracker linearly with time. Previous calculation was done without calibrating seconds into actual IR frequency. The first order calibration can be done using modulation frequency as reference. Note that I'm still assuming our sweep was linear here.

  Relation between FSR and modulation frequency can be written in

f_mod = n * nu_FSR + nu_f

  where f_mod is the modulation frequency, n is an integer, nu_f = mod(nu_FSR,f_mod).
  nu_FSR and nu_f are measurable values (in seconds) from the mode scan. We know that f_mod = 11065910 Hz (elog #6027). We also know that nu_FSR is designed to be ~3.7 MHz(=c/2L). So, n = 2.
  We can calculate f_mod in seconds, so we can calibrate seconds into IR frequency.


Calibrating X arm mode scan:
  From the 8FSR mode-scan data (see elog #6859), positions of TEM00 and upper/lower 11 MHz sidebands in seconds are;

TEM00    242.00     214.76     187.22     159.27     131.33     102.96     74.61     46.00     17.51
upper    236.70     209.05     181.36     153.42     125.06      96.86     68.43     40.20
lower    220.35     192.96     165.03     136.98     108.92      80.65     52.25     23.90


  So, FSR and nu_f in seconds are;

FSR    27.24     27.54     27.95     27.94     28.37     28.35     28.61     28.49
nu_f   21.80     21.82     22.14     22.19     22.26     22.28     22.40     22.40


  By using formula above, modulation frequency in seconds are;

f_mod    76.28    76.90    78.04    78.07    79.00    78.98    79.62    79.38

  By taking average, FSR and f_mod in seconds are

FSR    28.1 +/- 0.2
f_mod    78.3 +/- 0.4

  We know that f_mod = 11065910 Hz, so conversion constant from seconds to frequency is

k1 = 0.1413 +/- 0.0007 MHz/sec

  We swept the phase by 3600 deg in 250 sec, so conversion constant from degree to frequency is

k2 = 9.81 +/- 0.05 kHz/deg

  Also, using k1, FSR for X arm is

FSR = 3.97 +/- 0.03 MHz

  This means, X arm length is

L = c/(2*FSR) = 37.6 +/- 0.3 m


Calibrating Y arm mode scan:
  From the 8FSR mode-scan data (see elog #6832), positions of TEM00 and upper/lower 11 MHz sidebands in seconds are;

TEM00    246.70     218.15     190.06     161.87     133.26     104.75     76.01     47.19     18.60
upper    240.86     212.78     184.32     155.73     127.23      98.48     69.78     41.26
lower    224.53     195.73     167.31     139.13     110.81      82.27     53.60     24.50


  So, FSR and nu_f in seconds are;

FSR    28.55     28.09     28.19     28.61     28.51     28.74     28.82     28.59
nu_f   22.44     22.57     22.60     22.61     22.47     22.48     22.50     22.68


  By using formula above, modulation frequency in seconds are;

f_mod    79.54    78.75    78.98    79.825    79.485    79.955    80.14    79.855


  By taking average, FSR and f_mod in seconds are

FSR    28.5 +/- 0.1
f_mod    79.6 +/- 0.2

  We know that f_mod = 11065910 Hz, so conversion constant from seconds to frequency is

k1 = 0.1390 +/- 0.0003 MHz/sec

  We swept the phase by 3600 deg in 250 sec, so conversion constant from degree to frequency is

k2 = 9.65 +/- 0.02 kHz/deg

  (k2 of X arm and Y arm is different because delay-line lengths are different)
  Using k1, FSR for X arm is

FSR = 3.96 +/- 0.02 MHz

  This means, X arm length is

L = c/(2*FSR) = 37.9 +/- 0.2 m


Summary of mode scan results:
X arm
  Mode matching    MMR = 91.2 +/- 0.3 % (elog #6859) Note that we had ~2% of 01/10 mode.
  FSR         FSR = 3.97 +/- 0.03 MHz (this elog)
  finesse    F = 416 +/- 6 (elog #6859)
  g-factor    g1*g2 = 0.3737 +/- 0.002 (elog #6922)

  length        L = 37.6 +/- 0.3 m (this elog)
  ETM RoC  R2 = 60.0 +/- 0.5 m (this elog and #6922; assuming ITM is flat)

Y arm
  Mode matching    MMR = 86.7 +/- 0.3 % (elog #6828) Note that we had ~5% of 01/10 mode.
  FSR         FSR = 3.96 +/- 0.02 MHz (this elog)
  finesse    F = 421 +/- 6 (elog #6832)
  g-factor    g1*g2 = 0.3765 +/- 0.003 (elog #6922)

  length       L = 37.9 +/- 0.2 m (this elog)
  ETM RoC R2 = 60.7 +/- 0.3 m (this elog and #6922; assuming ITM is flat)

  I think these are all the important arm parameters we can derive just from mode scan measurement.

  Every errors shown above are statistical error in 1 sigma. We need linearity check to put systematic error. Also, we need more precise calibration after that, too, if the sweep has considerably large non-linearity. To do the linearity check, I think the most straight forward way is to install frequency divider to monitor actual beat frequency during the sweep.

ELOG V3.1.3-