40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 324 of 327  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Authorup Type Category Subject
  6775   Thu Jun 7 01:46:05 2012 yutaSummaryGreen LockingY green beat - found it!!

I found the big big Y green beat. Details will be posted later.

CIMG1504.JPG

  6776   Thu Jun 7 02:25:27 2012 yutaUpdateGreen Lockingimproved Y arm green alignment - even more

[Koji, Yuta]

Summary:
  We improved the Y arm green transmission to the PSL table. It is now 197 uW.
  The improvement was done mainly by adjusting the Y arm green servo gain.

What we did:
  1. Fine-adjusted steering mirrors after the faraday on Y end table by monitoring Y arm green transmission (used Thorlabs PDA36A as a PD, C1:GCV-GREEN_TRY as a channel). We decided which way to adjust the mirrors by just pushing/pulling its mount.

  2. The output of the reflection PD on the oscilloscope seemed like the Y end frequency servo was oscillating. So, we reduced the amplitude of the frequency modulation from 2.83 V to 0.13 V.

  3. We noticed there were two TEM00, one is brighter and the other is dim. We thought this came from a mode-hopping or something. So, we changed the Y end laser temperature from 34.68 deg C to 34.13 deg C (measured). This reduced dim TEM00 and the main one got brighter. C1:GCY-SLOW_SERVO2_OFFSET was changed from 29425 to 29845.

  4. Fine-adjusted the position of the mode-matching lens by reduing LG modes.

Current green power:
  Current measured green power values are as follows.

beatygreenpower20120607.png

  Calculated value for the Y arm green transmission is ~ 600 uW, but we think we are almost at the maximum we can get. So, we have about 70% loss from the Y end table to the PSL table. There may be large loss in windows. The beam shape of the transmitted beam seems OK, but there may be some clipping.

To do:
  - Fine tune the Y end frequency servo loop. Reducing the amplitude of the frequency modulation for reducing the gain is not a very good idea.

  6777   Thu Jun 7 02:59:31 2012 yutaUpdateGreen LockingY green beat - found it!!

Summary:
  I found the big green beat note for the Y arm. The alignment of the green optics on the PSL table was crappy.

What I did:
  1. By adjusting PSL laser temperature, I found tiny beat note when

  PSL laser temperature on display: 31.35 deg C (PSL HEPA 100%)
  C1:PSL-FSS_SLOWDC = 1.75

and

  PSL laser temperature on display: 33.21 deg C (PSL HEPA 100%)
  C1:PSL-FSS_SLOWDC = -6.82

Y end laser temperature settings are fixed as follows during the measurement.

  Y end laser "T+": 34.049 deg C
  Y end laser "ADJ": 0
  Y end laser measured temperature: 34.13 deg C (*)
  C1:GCY-SLOW_SERVO2_OFFSET = 29845

Bryan's formula (swapped one; see elog #6746),  suggests the paring

  (Yend laser temp, PSL laser temp) = (34.13 deg C, 31.09 deg C).

  2. Checked that beat PD is working by swapping the beat PDs for Y arm and X arm.

  3. Checked that the mode-matching of the two beams, one from Y arm and the other from PSL, is OK by moving mode-matching lens and measuring the beam spot size at near/far field are the same.

  4. When checking the beam spot size at far field(~ 1 m from the BS), I noticed the relative beam tilt by ~ 1 mrad. We aligned them few days ago, but I think the green beam from the Y arm has shifted. Of course we align IR to the Y arm first, but we difinitely need dither servo or A2L for the arm, too.

  5. As soon as aligning the PSL green optics near the BS, I found a large beat note. The measured amplitude was ~ -26 dBm, without any amplifiers after the PD.

  Currently the measured green beam power onto the beat PD from Y end is 75 uW and from PSL is 92 uW. So the calculated beat amplitude will be ~ -10 dBm (see calculation in elog #6746). So there is about 84% loss. Anyway, I will go on to the mode scan.

  6778   Thu Jun 7 03:37:26 2012 yutaUpdateCDSmx_stream restarted on c1lsc, c1ioo

c1lsc and c1ioo computers had FB net statuses all red. So, I restarted mx_stream on each computer.

ssh controls@c1lsc
sudo /etc/init.d/mx_stream restart

  6779   Thu Jun 7 05:39:41 2012 yutaUpdateGreen Lockingcoarsely stabilized Y arm length with ALS

I coarsely stabilized Y arm length to off resonance point for IR using ALS.
Currently, ASL servo loop is unstable and oscillates so much that I can't hold the length to the resonance point.
We need more investigation on the servo loop before doing the mode scan.

Below is a snapshot of ALS medm screens and time series data of the error signal for ALS coarse loop (C1:ALS-BEATY_COARSE_I_ERR) and IR transmission for the Y arm (C1:LSC-TRY_OUT) when I turned the servo on.

MyFirstALS20120607.png

 

Note:
  I took off amplifiers right after the beat PD on PSL table.
  Also, I reverted the gain change Jenne made last night (elog #6750), because they no longer show overload lights.

  6788   Thu Jun 7 18:46:13 2012 yutaUpdateSUSPRM oplev centered

PRM oplev beam was not hitting on the QPD since Jun 1, so I centered it. I reverted the oplev servo gains and now oplev servo looks fine.

C1:SUS-PRM_OLPIT_GAIN = 1.0
C1:SUS-PRM_OLYAW_GAIN = -0.7

There's SIDE to UL/UR/LL/LR coil element in PRM TO_COIL matrix. They were 0 until Mar 31, 2012, but someone changed them to -0.160. I couldn't find elog about it.
Same thing happened to BS on Mar 13, 2012 (see elog #6409), so I think somebody did the same thing to PRM.

  6789   Fri Jun 8 15:08:27 2012 yutaUpdateGreen Lockingaligned/mode-matched Y green beat setup

Laser temperature settings for Y arm green work today are;

  PSL laser temperature on display: 31.38 deg C (PSL HEPA 100%)
  C1:PSL-FSS_SLOWDC = 1.68
  Y end laser "T+": 34.049 deg C
  Y end laser "ADJ": 0
  Y end laser measured temperature: 34.13 deg C (*)
  C1:GCY-SLOW_SERVO2_OFFSET = 29845

Green transmission from Y end and PSL green power on the beat PD are;

  P_Y = 28 uW
  P_PSL = 96 uW

P_Y decrease from its maximum we got (75 uW, see elog #6777) is because the alignment for Y arm green is decreased. I can see the decrease from the green reflection on ETMT camera, but I will leave it because we already have enough beat.

I aligned PSL optics, including the mode-matching lens to maximize the beat note. The beat note I got is about 26dBm.
The calculated value is -14 dBm, so we have about 75 % loss.
I measured the reflection from the PD window and its reflectivity was about 30%. We still have unknown 45% loss.

  6794   Mon Jun 11 21:50:08 2012 yutaUpdateGreen Lockingbeatbox looks OK

Summary:
  We need I-Q frequency deiscriminator to control the arm length fine and continuously.
  I checked the beatbox (LIGO-D1102241-v4; see elog #6302) and it was working.

What I did:
  1. Measured some transferfunctions with a network analyzer (Aligent 4395A) and checked the cabling is correct.

  2. Put 30 m/1.5 m delay line and checked I-Q outputs are actually orthogonal. I did this by sweeping the frequency of RF input to the beatbox. See attached picture. You can see nice circle on the oscilloscope.

Some measurement results:

  - Gains of the transferfunctions(@ 10-100MHz) between;

   RF in -> RF mon: -25 to -20 dB
   RF in -> fine delay out: -50 to -40 dB
   RF in -> coarse delay out: -50 to -40 dB
   RF in -> LO of mixer RMS-1: ~ +4 dB  (RMS-1 needs +7 dB LO)
 
  - 30m delay line(RG-142B/U) had -2 dB loss.

Note:
  - RF input must be larger than about -3 dBm to get enough LO to the mixer. Otherwise, you won't get I-Q outputs.
  - The comparator, whitening filter and differential DAQ outputs are not installed in the current beatbox.
  - Current beatbox only has electronics for the one arm.
  - The print on the board D1102241 says +15V and -15V, but they are actually opposite. Cabling is swapped in order to supply correct power to the ICs.

  6798   Tue Jun 12 01:58:33 2012 yutaUpdateGreen Lockingaligned Y arm to Y end green

[Jenne, Yuta]

We aligned Y arm to the Y end green incident beam.
We noticed two TEM00, bright and dim, so we decreased Y end laser temperature to 34.13 deg C.
It doubled the transmission of the green, and now the transmission to the PSL table is 178 uW, which is close to the maximum(197 uW) we got so far.

Current settings for Y end laser is;

  Y end laser "T+": 34.049 deg C
  Y end laser "ADJ": 0
  Y end laser measured temperature: 34.13 deg C
  C1:GCY-SLOW_SERVO2_OFFSET = 31025
  Y end slow servo: on (was off)

We aligned IR beam to the Y arm by mostly adjusting PZTs and got the transmission, C1:LSC-TRY_OUT ~ 0.9.

We tried to calculate the mode-matching ratio for IR by taking TRY data while ITMY and ETMY are swinging (without ALS), but it was difficult because we see too many higher order modes.

Tomorrow, we will (1) connect the beatbox to ADC, (2) edit c1gcv model, (3) scan the arm using I-Q signals.

  6808   Tue Jun 12 20:35:46 2012 yutaUpdateGreen Lockingc1gcv recompiled

[Jamie, Yuta]

We recompiled c1gcv because the order of the channels were confusing. We found some change in the phase rotation module when we did this.

I did some cabling and checked each signals are actually going to the right channel. I labeled all the cables I know, which go into the AA chasis for ADC1 of c1ioo machine.

Below is the list of the channels. If you know anything about "unknown" channels, please let me know.

Current channel assignments for ADC1 of c1ioo machine:
  Red ones were added today. Green ones existed in the past, but channel assignment were changed.

cable

# on AA chassis name in Simulink channel name

connected
but unknown

J1A    
   
not connected J1B    
   
not connected J2 adc_1_2 C1:ALS-XARM_BEAT_DC
not connected adc_1_3 C1:ALS-YARM_BEAT_DC
connected
but unknown
J3    
   
connected
but unknown
J4    
   
connected
but unknown
J5    
   
connected
but unknown
J6    
   
connected
but unknown
J7    
   
beat Y arm fine I J8A adc_1_14 C1:ALS-BEATY_FINE_I
beat Y arm fine Q adc_1_15 C1:ALS-BEATY_FINE_Q
not connected J8B    
   
connected
but unknown
J9A    
   
not connected J9B    
   
connected
but unknown
J10    
   
connected
but unknown
J11    
   
not connected J12 adc_1_22 C1:ALS-BEATX_COARSE_I
not connected adc_1_23 C1:ALS-BEATX_COARSE_Q
not connected J13 adc_1_24 C1:ALS-BEATX_FINE_I
not connected adc_1_25 C1:ALS-BEATX_FINE_Q
beat Y arm coarse I
J14 adc_1_26 C1:ALS-BEATY_COARSE_I
beat Y arm coarse Q adc_1_27 C1:ALS-BEATY_COARSE_Q
not connected J15 adc_1_28 Broken! Don't use this!!
adc_1_29 (not broken)
not connected J16A adc_1_30 (not broken)
adc_1_31 Broken? Funny signal.
not connected J16B    
   

Memorandum for me:
  Recompiling procedure;

ssh c1ioo

rtcds make c1gcv
rtcds install c1gcv
rtcds start c1gcv

  6809   Tue Jun 12 23:18:18 2012 yutaUpdateGreen LockingI-Q signals for the beat

[Mengyao, Yuta]

Yes!! We have I-Q signals for the beat!!

What we did:
  1. Aligned Y arm to the Y end green incident beam. The transmission to the PSL was about 195 uW.

  2. Aligned IR beam to the Y arm by adjusting PZTs and got the transmission, C1:LSC-TRY_OUT ~ 0.86.

  3. Aligned green optics on the PSL table to get the beat signal. The beat was found when;

  PSL laser temperature on display: 31.41 deg C
  C1:PSL-FSS_SLOWDC = 1.43
  Y end laser "T+": 34.049 deg C
  Y end laser "ADJ": 0
  Y end laser measured temperature: 34.14 deg C
  C1:GCY-SLOW_SERVO2_OFFSET = 29950
  Y end slow servo: off (was on)

  4. Connected the beat PD output to the beatbox.

  5. Kicked ETMY position to change the cavity length and while the ringdown, we run pynds to get data. We plotted C1:ALS-BEATY_FINE_I_ERR vs C1:ALS-BEATY_FINE_Q_ERR, and C1:ALS-BEATY_COARSE_I_ERR vs C1:ALS-BEATY_COARSE_Q_ERR (below). We got nice circle as expected.

FINEIQplot20120612.pngCOARSEIQplot20120612.png

Current setup:
  Only AA filers are put between the output of the beatbox and the ADC.

beatysetup20120612.png

  6810   Wed Jun 13 02:11:59 2012 yutaUpdateGreen Lockingmy first modescan (sort of)

I stabilized Y arm length by using only I phase coarse signal from the beat(C1:ALS-BEATY_COARSE_I_ERR).
I sweeped the arm length by injecting 0.05Hz sine wave from C1:ALS_OFFSETTER2_EXC.
Below is the plot of TRY and the error signal(ideally, Y arm length) while the sweep.

modescan20120612_1.png

I couldn't hold the arm length tight, so you can see multiple peaks close to each other.
We need to
  - adjust offsets
  - adjust rotation phase of I-Q mixing
  - adjust servo filters

to hold the length tighter.

Also, I couldn't sweep the Y arm length very much. I need to calibrate, but to do the modescan for many FSRs, we need to
  - introduce automatic phase optimizing system
There were sin/cos function in the CDS_PARTS, so I think we can feedback I_ERR to control rotation phase of I-Q mixing.

  6812   Wed Jun 13 03:03:38 2012 yutaUpdateGreen Lockingmy first modescan (sort of)

Linear range df of the delay line technique is about df ~ c/(2D). So, the linear range for the fine signal(delay line length D=30m) is about 5 MHz.
Arm cavity FSR = c/(2L) = 3.7 MHz.
So, I think we need phase shifting to do mode scan for more than 2 FSRs by holding the arm length finely with fine servo.
For the coarse (D=1.5m), the linear range is about 100 MHz, so if we can do mode scan using coarse servo, it is OK.

In any case, I think it is nice to have linear signal with fixed slope even if we don't adjust the phase every time.

Quote:

 That sounds goofy.

With the delay line technique, you can get a linear signal over 50 MHz with no phase shifting. What is with all this I/Q stuff?

 

  6815   Wed Jun 13 17:39:13 2012 yutaUpdateGreen Lockingcalibrating the beatbox

[Jenne, Yuta]

We put 0 dBm sine wave to the RF input of the beatbox and linear-sweeped frequency of the sine wave from 0 to 200 MHz using network analyzer (Aligent 4395A).
(We first tried to use 11 MHz EOM marconi)

Whlile the sweep, we recorded the output of the beatbox, C1:ALS-BEATY_(FINE|COARSE)_(I|Q)_IN1_DQ. We made them DQ channels today. Also, we put gain 10 after the beatbox before ADC for temporal whitening filter using SR560s.

We fitted the signals with sine wave using least squares fit(scipy.optimize.leastsq).
Transision time of the frequency from 200 MHz to 0 Hz can be seen from the discontinuity in the time series. We can convert time to frequency using this and supposing linear sweep of the network analyzer is perfect.

Plots below are time series data of each signal(top) and expansion of the fitted region with x axis calibrated in frequency (bottom).

ALS-BEATY_COARSE_I_IN1_DQ.pngALS-BEATY_COARSE_Q_IN1_DQ.png
ALS-BEATY_FINE_I_IN1_DQ.pngALS-BEATY_FINE_Q_IN1_DQ.png


We got

C1:ALS-BEATY_COARSE_I_IN1_DQ = -1400 sin(0.048 freq + 1.17pi) - 410
C1:ALS-BEATY_COARSE_Q_IN1_DQ = 1900 sin(0.045 freq + 0.80pi) - 95

C1:ALS-BEATY_FINE_I_IN1_DQ = 1400 sin(0.89 freq + 0.74pi) + 15
C1:ALS-BEATY_FINE_Q_IN1_DQ = 1400 sin(0.89 freq + 1.24pi) - 3.4

(freq in MHz)

The delay line length calculated from this fitted value (supposing speed of signal in cable is 0.7c) is;

  D_coarse = 0.7c * 0.048/(2*pi*1MHz) =  1.6 m
  D_fine = 0.7c * 0.89/(2*pi*1MHz) = 30 m

So, the measurement look quite reasonable.

FINE signals looks nice because we have similar response with 0.5pi phase difference.
For COARSE, maybe we need to do the measurement again because the frequency discontinuity may affected the shape of the signal.

  6816   Thu Jun 14 01:36:34 2012 yutaUpdateGreen Lockingcan't scan Y arm for 1FSR

[Jenne, Koji, Yuta]

We tried to scan of the Y arm but we couldn't scan for more than 1FSR.
In principle, we can do that because the error signal we are using, C1:ALS-BEATY_COARSE_I_IN1, has the range of ~ 40 MHz, which is about 10FSR (see elog http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/6815).

ALS stays for more than 10 min when we don't do the scan. If we put some offset gradually from C1ALS-OFFSETTER2, the lock breaks.
We monitored PZT output of the Y end laser, C1:GCY-SLOW_SERVO1_IN1, but it stayed in the range when scanning. So, there must be something wrong in the ALS loop.

Current in-loop arm length fluctuation is about 0.1 nm RMS (0.5 counts RMS).
Below is the spectrum of the error signal when the ALS is off(green) and on (pink,red). Below ~ 50 Hz, the measurement of the Y arm length is limited by ADC noise (~ 2uV/rtHz).
BEATY_COARSE_LoopOnOff.png

  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.

ELOG V3.1.3-