Precise arm alignment is more demanded. as the PRMI locking requires good and reliable alignment of the ITMs.
I previously added the output matrix to ASS.
Now the input and output matrix as well as the gains and filters have been updated.
The current concept is
Fast loop: align the arms by the arm mirrors with regard to the given beam.
Slow loop: move the incident beam position and angle to make the spot at the center of the mirrors
This is actually opposite to Den's implementation.
In order to realize the faster alignment of the arm, I increased the corner frequency of the lockins for the arm signals from 0.5Hz to 1Hz.
With the new configuration the arm alignment converges in 10sec and the input pointing does in ~15sec.
The actuation to the input pointing TTs are done together with the feedforward actuation to the arms.
This way we can avoid too much coupling from the input pointing servos to the arm alignment servos.
The corresponding script /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/ASS/YARM/DITHER_Arm_ON.py was also modified.
Same ASS setup for the X arm has been done.
Now Arm ASS can run simultaneously.
I reverted the number of the lockin banks from 6 to 8 for future implementation of A2L for the ITMX by coil balancing.
Since A2L for the ITMX is just barely visible for now, I am going to leave the coil balance untouched.
Yesterday we cleaned up the ASX model and screens to have more straight forward structure of the screen
and the channel names, and to correct mistakes in the model/screens.
The true motivation is that I suspect the excess LF noise of the X arm ALS can be caused by misalignment
and beam jitter coupling to the intensity noise of the beat. I wanted to see how the noise is affected by the alignment.
Currently X-end green is highly misaligned in pitch.
- Any string "XEND" was replaced by "XARM", as many components in the system is not localized at the end table.
- The name like "XARM-ITMX" was changed to "XARM-ITM". This makes easier to create the corresponding model for the other arm.
- There was some inconsistency between the MEDM screens and the ASX model. This was fixed.
- A template StripTool screen was created. It is currently saved in users/koji/template as ASX.stp.
It will be moved to the script directory once it's usefulness is confirmed.
The next step is to go to the end table and manually adjust M2 mirror while M1 is controlled by the ASX.
The test mass dithering provides the error signal for this adjustment but the range of the PZT is not enough
to make the input spot position to be controlled. In the end, we need different kind of matching optics
in order to control the spot position. (But is that what we want? That makes any PZT drift significantly moves the beam.)
As I did for YARM (elog 11779), I measured the relation between offsets added just after the demodulation of the dithering loop of XARM and beam spot shift on ETMX. Defferent from YARM, the beam spot on ITMX DOES change because only BS is used as a steering mirror (TT1&2 are used for the dithering of YARM). Instead, the beam spot on BS DOES NOT change.
This time, I measured by oplevs the angles of both ETMX and ITMX for each value of offset, and using these angles I calculated the shift of the beam spot on ETMX so that I got two independent estimations (one from ETMX oplev, and the other from ITMX oplev) as shown below. The calibration of the oplevs reported in elog 11831 is taken into account.
The difference of two estimations comes from the error of calibration of oplevs and/or imperfect alignment, I think.
What we want from the light source for the AS port light injection:
We have four possible laser sources that we can use for the injection of 1064 nm from the back:
I think for maximum flexibility it's best to fiber-couple whichever source we choose on the PSL table and then just collimate it out of a fiber on the AS table. This way if we want to add fiber-coupled modulators of any kind it's a plug-and-play modification.
Different frequency control schemes are:
Either way we'll need a few things:
I'm working on how to best set this up at the AS port and interfere with normal operation as little as possible. Ideally we use a Faraday just like for squeezed light injection, but this requires some modification of the layout, although nothing that involves mode-matching.
While Gautam is working the restoration of Yarm ASS, I worked on Xarm.
Basically, I have changed the oscillator freqs and amps so as to have linear signals to the misalignment of the mirrors.
Also reduced the complexity of the input/output matrices to avoid any confusion.
Now the ITM dither takes care of the ITM alignment, and the ETM dither takes care of the ETM alignment.
The cavity alignment servos (4dofs) are running fine although the control band widths are still low (<0.1Hz).
The ETM spot positions should be controlled by the BS alignment, but it seems that these loops have suspicion about the signal quality.
While Gautam wa stouching the input TTs, we occasionally saw anomalously high transmission of the arm cavities (~1.2).
We decided to use this beam as this could have indicated partial clipping of the beam somewhere in the input optics chain.
Then the arm cavity was aligned to have reasonably high transmission for the green beam. i.e. Use the green power mon PD as a part of the alignment reference.
This resulted very stable transmission of both the IR and green beams. We liked them. We decide to use this a reference beam at least for now.
Attachment1: GTRX image at the end of the work.
Attachment2: ASSX screen shot
Attachment3: ASSX servo screen shot
Attachment4: Green ASX servo screen shot
Attachment 5: Screen shot of the ASS X strip tool
Attachment 6: Screen shot of the ASS X input matrix
Attachment 7: Screen shot of the ASS X output matrix
I started by checking if shaking an optic in pitch really moves it in pitch - i.e. how much PIT to YAW coupling is there. The motivation being if we aren't really dithering the optics in orthogonal DoFs, the demodulated error signals carry mixed information which the dither alignment servos get confused by. First, I checked with a low frequency dither (~4Hz) and looked at the green transmission on the video monitors. The spot seemed to respond reasonably orthogonally to both pitch and yaw excitations on either ITMY or ETMY. But looking at the Oplev control signal spectra, there seems to be a significant amount of cross coupling. ITMY YAW, ETMY PIT, and ETMY YAW have the peak in the orthogonal degree of freedom at the excitation frequency roughly 20% of the height of the DoF being driven. But for ITMY PIT, the peaks in the orthogonal DoFs are almost of equal height. This remains true even when I changed the excitation frequencies to the nominal dither alignment servo frequencies.
I then tried to see if I could get parts of the ASS working. I tried to manually align the ITM, ETM and TTs as best as I could. There are many "alignment references" - prior to the coil driver board removal, I had centered all Oplevs and also checked that both X and Y green beams had nominal transmission levels (~0.4 for GTRY, ~0.5 for GTRX). Then there are the Transmon QPDs. After trying various combinations, I was able to get good IR transmission, and reasonable GTRY.
Next, I tried running the ASS loops that use error signals demodulated at the ETM dither frequencies (so actuation is on the ITM and TT1 as per the current output matrix which I did not touch for tonight). This worked reasonably well - Attachment #1 shows that the servos were able to recover good IR transmission when various optics in the Y arm were disturbed. I used the same oscillator frequencies as in the existing burt snapshot. But the amplitudes were tweaked.
Unfortunately I had no luck enabling the servos that demodulate the ITM dithers.
The plan for daytime work tomorrow is to check the linearity of the error signals in response to static misalignment of some optics, and then optimize the elements of the output matrix.
I am uploading a .zip file with Sensoray screen-grabs of all the test-masses in their best aligned state from tonight (except ITMX face, which for some reason I can't grab).
And for good measure, the Oplev spot positions - Attachment #3.
Rana suggested taking a look at the Y-arm test mass actuator TFs (measured by driving the coils one at a time, with only local damping loops on, using the Oplev to measure the response to a given drive). Attached are the results from this measurement (I used the Oplev pitch error signal for all 8 measurements). Although the magnitude response for all coils have the expected 1/f^2 shape, there seems to be some significant (~10dB) asymmetry in both the ETM and ITM coils. The phase-response is also not well understood. If we are just measuring the TF of a pendulum with 1 Hz resonant frequency, then at and above 10Hz, I would expect the phase to be either 0 or 180 deg. Looks like there is a notch at 60 Hz somewhere, but it is unclear to me where the ~90 degree phase at ~100Hz is coming from.
For the ITM, the UL OSEM was replaced during the 2016 summer vent - the coil that is in there is now of the short OSEM variety, perhaps it has a different number of turns or something. I don't recall any coil balancing being done after this OSEM swap. For the ETM, it is unclear to me how long this situation has been like this.
Yesterday night, I tried to measure the ASS output matrix by stepping the ITM, ETM and TTs in PIT and YAW, and looking at the response in the various ASS error signals. During this test, I found the ETM and ITM pitch and yaw error signals to be highly coupled (the input matrix was diagonal). As Rana suggested, I think the whole coil driver signal chain from DAC output to coil driver board output has to be checked before attempting to fix ASS. Results from this investigation to follow.
Note: The OSEM calibration hasn't been done in a while (though the HeNes have been swapped out), but as Attachment #2 shows, if we believe the shadow sensor calibration, then the relative calibrations of the ITM and ETM Oplevs agree. So we can directly compare the TFs for the ITM and ETM.
I repeated the test of driving C1:SUS-<Optic>_<coil>_EXC individually and measuring the transfer function to C1:SUS-<Optic>_OPLEV_PERROR for Optic in (ITMX, ITMY, ETMX, ETMY, BS), coil in (LLCOIL, LRCOIL, ULCOIL, URCOIL).
There seems to be a few dB imbalance in the coils in both ETMs, as well as ITMX. ITMY and the BS seem to have pretty much identical TFs for all the coils - I will cross-check using OPLEV_YERROR, but is there any reason why we shouldn't adjust the gains in the coil output (not output matrix) filter banks to correct for this observed imbalance? The Oplev calibrations for the various optics are unknown, so it may not be fair to compare the TFs between optics (I guess the same applies to comparing TF magnitudes from coil to OPLEV_PERROR and OPLEV_YERROR, perhaps we should fix the OL calibrations before fiddling with coil gains...)
The anomalous behaviour of ITMY_UL (10dB greater than the others) was traced down to a rogue x3 gain in the filter module . This has been removed, and now Y arm ASS works fine (with the original dither servo settings). X arm dither still doesn't converge - I double checked the digital filters and all seems in order, will investigate the analog part of the drive electronics now.
I investigated the analog electronics in the coil driver chain by using awggui to drive a given channel with Uniform noise between DC and 8kHz, with an overall gain of 1000 cts. This test was done for both ITMs and the BS. The Whitening/De-Whitening was off during the test. I measured the spectra in
Attachment #1 - There is good agreement between all 3 measurements. To convert the DTT spectrum to Vrms/rtHz, I multiplied the Y-axis by 10V / ( 2*sqrt(2) * 2^15 cts). Between DC and ~1kHz, the measured spectrum everywhere is flat, as expected given the test conditions. The AI filter response is also seen.
Attachment #2 - Zoomed in view of Attachment #1 (without the AI filter part).
*The DTT plots have been coarse-grained to keep the PDF file size managable. X (Y) axes are shared for all the plots in columns (rows).
Similar verification remains to be done for the ETMs, after which the test has to be repeated with the Whitening/DeWhitening engaged. But it's encouraging that things make sense so far (except perhaps the coil balancing can be better as suggested by the previous elog).
I've left both arms locked. The Y-arm dither alignment is working well again, but for the X arm, the loops that actuate on the BS are still weird. Nothing obvious in the tests so far though.
GV 6pm 8 Jun 2017: I realized the X arm transmission was being monitored by the high-gain PD and not the QPD (which is how we usually run the ASS). The ASC mini screen suggested the transmitted beam was reasonably well centered on the X end QPD, and so I switched to this after which the X end dither alignment too converged. Possibly the beam was falling off the other PD, which is why the BS loops, which control the beam spot position on the ETM, were acting weirdly.
will investigate the analog part of the drive electronics now.
Not related to this work:
I noticed the X-arm LSC servo was often hitting its limit - so I reduced the gain from 0.03 to 0.02. This reduced the control signal RMS, and re-acquiring lock at this lower gain wasn't a problem either. See attachment #3 (will be rotated later) for control signal spectra at this revised setting.
I tried playing around with the Oplev loop shape on ITMY, in order to see if I could successfully engage the Coil Driver whitening. Unfortunately, I had no success tonight.
I was trying to guess a loop shape that would work - I guess this will need some more careful thought about loop shape optimization. I was basically trying to keep all the existing filters, and modify the low-passing that minimizes control noise injection. By adding a 4th order elliptic low pass with corner at 50Hz and stopband attenuation of 60dB yielded a stable loop with upper UGF of ~6Hz and ~25deg of phase margin (which is on the low side). But I was able to successfully engage this loop, and as seen in Attachment #1, the noise performance above 50Hz is vastly improved. But it also seems that there is some injection of noise around 6Hz. In any case, as soon as I tried to engage the dewhitening, the DAC output quickly saturated. The whitening filter for the ITMs has ~40dB of gain at ~40Hz already, so it looks like the high frequency roll-off has to be more severe.
I am not even sure if the Elliptic filter is the right choice here - it does have the steepest roll off for a given filter order, but I need to look up how to achieve good roll off without compromising on the phase margin of the overall loop. I am going to try and do the optimization in a more systematic way, and perhaps play around with some of the other filters' poles and zeros as well to get a stable controller that minimizes control noise injection everywhere.
While staring at epics records all day I noticed something about the PIT/YAW offset sliders and ASS offset offloading to slow channels scripts that I'm not sure others are aware off, so I'll briefly discuss it in this post.
The PIT and YAW sliders directly control soft channels that are hosted on the slow machine. Secondary epics records disentangle them for the individual coils:
These channels are the direct input for the physical output channels that generate the control voltage.
The fast channels for PIT and YAW have a numerical correction factor built in that accounts for differences between the OSEMs, but the slow channels don't. This means that the slow PIT/YAW controls are not entirely orthogonal but have crosstalk on the order of 10 percent. This in itself is not that dramatic, however the offload offsets scripts for the dither alignment use the fast PIT/YAW values as inputs, which represent the necessary adjustments to the OSEMs only after the individual correction factors have been applied. The offloading to slow knows nothing of this calibration difference between the OSEMs. The result is that there is a ~10 percent of the offset correction error on the mirror alignment AFTER offloading. This will of course converge after a few iterations, but in any case it is recommendable to run the dither alignment again after offloading and not offload the new offsets to the fast channels.
I attached a wiring schematic from the slow DAQ to the eurocrate modules. Of these, pins 1-32 (or 1A-16C) and pins 33-64 (17A-32C) are on separate DSub connectors. Therefore the easiest solution is to splice the slow DIO channels into the existing breakouts so we can proceed with the transition. This will still remove a lot of the current cable salad. For the YEND we can start thinking about a more elegant solution (For example a connector on the front panel of the Acromag chassis for the fast DIO) now that the problem is better defined.
This splicing in of fast binary channels we discussed at yesterday's and today's meetings is getting messy with the current chassis. Cleaning up the cable mess was a key point, so I got a 4U height DEEP chassis from Rich and drew up a front panel for a modular approach that we can use at the other 40m locations as well. The front panel will have slots for smaller slot panels to which we can mount the breakout boards as before, so all the wiring that I've done can be transfered to this design. If some new connector standard is required it will be easy to draw a new slot panel from a template, for now I'll make some with two DSub37 and IDC50. Since this chassis is so huge it will have ample space for cross-connects.
I also moved the communication of c1auxex2 with the Acromag units off the martian network, connecting them with a direct cable connection out of the second ethernet port. To test if this works I configured the second ethernet port of c1auxex2 to have the IP address 192.168.114.1 and one of the acromag units to have 192.168.114.11, and initialized an IOC with some test channels. Much to my surprise this actually worked straight out of the box, and the test channels can be accessed from the control room computers without having a direct ethernet link to the acromag modules. huzzah!
Steve: it would be nice to have all plugs- connectors lockable
I don't think this is really a problem - we offload to the fast channels and not to the slow (although we really should offload to the slow channels). I think the best approach is to use the ezcaservo utility to offload the DC part of the ASS control signals to the slow channels, so as to not waste fast channel DAC counts on DC offsets. In principle, this approach should be somewhat immune to the slow channel calibration not being perfect.
We managed to realize stable ASS configuration for Yarm. The transmission of 1.06~1.07 was recovered by introducing intentional beam spot offset in the horizontal direction towards the opposite side of the elliptic reflector. The end table optics were adjusted to have the spots about the center of the mirrors, lenses, and PDs/QPDs.
- The Y arm was manually aligned with a given input axis. The transmission was ~0.8.
- Then, TT2 was moved in yaw such that it introduced the horizontal beam shift at the end. By moving the spot to the opposite side of the reflector. The transmission ~0.95 was obtained after patient alignment work.
- Went to the end table and checked the spots. The beam was not at the center of the last 1" lens for the Trans PDs. The beam steering was adjusted to have the spot nicely going through the lens and the mirrors. This made the transmission level to be ~1.05.
- The beam centering on the Trans PD was checked and adjusted.
- The beam centering on the RF BBPD for the arm scan was checked. The spot was too big for that PD. The lens was slightly moved away from the PD to make the spot on the BBPD small. Now the PD saw the plateu when the steering was scanned (i.e. the spot is small enough).
- With the Y arm locked with MC2, the servo gain needs to be 0.012 instead of nominal 0.015 with ETMY to prevent from servo oscilating.
- First of all, only the bottom 4 loops out of total 8 loops were tuned. They are the servos for the beam alignment with regard to the caivty. The linearity and the zero crossings were checked with regard to the reference alignment. All of these 4 showed offsets that causes the servo running away. Don't know the reason of this offset, but it is freq dependent. Therefore the dither freqs were tuned to make the offset zeroed, and tuned the demod phases there. This kept the transmission as high as the reference (~1.05)
- This allowed us to play with the spot position a bit by tuning the caivty alignment. In the end, the transmission of ~1.08 was obtained. Using this alignment, A2L offset for ETMY Yaw was determined to be +17 (to make the error signal -17). This offset produces almost a beam radius (5mm) shifted on the end mirror towards the opposite direction of the reflector.
- The nominal servo setting made the spot servo running away. Gautam pointed out that this could be a gain hierarchy problem (i.e. the spot servos are too fast). We ended up reducing the gain of the servo from 1.0 to 0.3 to make the spot servo stable.
- All the ASS setting was stored in a new snap file "script/ASS/ASS-DITEHR_ON.snap". The previous snap was saved to "script/ASS/ASS_DITHER_ON_preVent201807.snap". This did not save the exc gains of the oscillators. Therefore "DITHER_ASS_ON.py" was modified to have the new exc gains (CLKGAIN). The old values are stored in the comments in this script.
Overall this is not an ideal situation as we don't know what is the actually cause of the offsets in the dither error signals. We expect to correct the beam clipping and the suspension sooner or later. Therefore, we will come back to the ASS again once the other issues are corrected.
After I effected the series resistance change for ETMX, the X arm ASS didn't work (i.e. IR transmission would degrade if the servo was run). Today, we succeeded in recovering a functional ASS servo .
So both arms have working dither alignment servos now. But remember that the Y arm ASS gains have been set for locking the Y arm with MC2 as the actuator, not ETMY.
We then tried to maximize GTRX using the PZT mirrors, but were only successful in reaching a maximum of 0.41. The value I remember from before the vent was 0.5, and indeed, with the IR alignment not quite optimized before we began this work, I saw GTRX of 0.48. But the IR dither servo signals indicate that the cavity axis may have shifted (spot position on the ITM, which is uncontrolled, seems to have drifred significantly, the Pitch signal doesn't stay on the StripTool scale anymore). So we may have to double check that the transmitted beam isn't falling off the GTRX DC PD.
While working on the single arm alignment, I noticed that today, i was able to get the X arm transmission back to ~1.22, and the GTRX to 0.52. These are closer to the values I remember from prior to the vent. Running the dither alignment promptly degrades both the green and IR transmissions. Since the pianosa SL7 upgrade, I can't use the sensoray to capture images, but to me, the spot looks a little off-center in Yaw on ETMX in this configuration, I've tried to show this in the phone grab (Atm #2). Maybe indicative of clipping somewhere upstream of ITMX?
Anyways, I'm pushing onwards for now, something to check out in the daytime.
In an earlier elog, I had claimed that the suspected clipping of the cavity axis in the Y arm was not solved even after shifting the heater. I now think that it is extremely unlikely that there is still clipping due to the heater. Nevertheless, the ASS system is not working well. Some notes:
We have to systematically re-commission the ASS system to get to the bottom of this.
We were wondering yesterday if we can somehow test the ASS system in air. Though the arm cavity can be locked with the low power IMC transmission, I think the dither would render the POY lock unstable. But I wonder if we can use the green beam for a test. The steering PZTs installed by Yuki can serve the role of TT1/TT2 and we can dither the arm cavity mirrors while the green TEM00 mode is locked to the arm no problem. This would at least give us confidence that the actuation of ETMY/ITMY are okay (in addition to the other suspension tests). Then on the sensing side, after pumping down, the only thing we'd be foiled by is in-vacuum clipping or some major gunk on ETMY - everything else should be de-buggable even after pumping down?
I think most of the CDS infrastructure for this is already in place.
[Kruthi, Gautam, Rana]
Gautam installed Atom text editor on Pianosa yesterday.
MC spot position measurement scripts (these can be found in /scripts/ASS/MC directory):
Late elog: Original time of work Tue Aug 17 20:30 2021
I locked the arms yesterday remotely and tried running runASS.py scripts (generally ran by clicking Run ASS buttons on IFO OVERVIEW screen of ASC screen). We have known for few weeks that this script stopped working for some reason. It would start the dithering and would optimize the alignment but then would fail to freeze the state and save the alignment.
I found the caget('C1:LSC-TRX_OUT') or caget('C1:LSC-TRY_OUT') were not working in any of the workstations. This is weird since caget was able to acquire these fast channel values earlier and we have seen this script to work for about a month without any issue.
Anyways, to fix this, I just changed the channel name to 'C1:LSC-TRY_OUT16' when the script checks in the end if the arm has indeed been aligned. It was only this step that was failing. Now the script is working fine and I tested them on both arms. On the Y arm, I misaligned the arm by adding bias in yaw by changing C1:SUS-ITMY_YAW_OFFSET from -8 to 22. The script was able to align the arm back.
With limited proof of working for a few times (but robustly), I'm happy to report that ASS on YARM and XARM is working now.
The issue is that PR3 is not placed in correct position in the chamber. It is offset enough that to send a beam through center of ITMY to ETMY, it has to reflect off the edge of PR3 leading to some clipping. Hence our usual ASS takes us to this point and results in loss of transmission due to clipping.
Solution: We can not solve this issue without moving PR3 inside the chamber. But meanwhile, we can find new spot positions on ITMY and ETMY, off the center in YAW direction only, which would allow us to mode match properly without clipping. This would mean that there will be YAW suspension noise to Length coupling in this cavity, but thankfully, YAW degree of freedom stays relatively calm in comparison to PIT or POS for our suspensions. Similarly, we need to allow for an offset in ETMX beam spot position in YAW. We do not control beam spot position on ITMX due to lack of enough actuators to control all 8 DOFs involved in mode matching input beam with a cavity. So instead I found the right offset for ITMX transmission error signal in YAW that works well.
I found these offsets (found empirically) to be:
These offsets have been saved in the burt snap file used for running ASS.
I'll reiterate here procedure to run ASS.
I updated c1ass model today to use PR2 PR3 instead of TT1 TT2 for YARM ASS. This required changes in c1su2 too. I have split c1su2 into c1su2 (LO1., LO2, AS1, AS4) and c1su3 (SR2, PR2, PR3). Now the two models are using 31 and 21 CPU out of 60 which was earlier 55/60. All changed compiled correctly and have been uploaded. Models have been restared and medm screens have been updated.
We proceeded with the TODO items from .
We tried to update the YARM ASS output matrix to appropriately feed back the ETM and ITM T error signals (input beam pointing) to actuate on PR2 and PR3. Using the existing matrix (used for actuating on TT1 and TT2) led to diverging error signals and big drops in transmission. We iteratively tried flipping signs on the matrix elements, but exhausting all combinations of parity was not efficent, since angular sign conventions could be arbitrary across optics.
We decided to go ahead with Yuta's suggestion of dithering on PR2 and PR3 for input beam pointing, instead of ETMY and ITMY. This would simplify the output matrix greatly since dithering and actuation would now be applied to the same optics. Anchal made the necessary model changes. We tried a diagonal identity submatrix (for input pointing) to map each error signal to the corresponding DOF. With the length (L) control loops disengaged, this configuration decreased all T error signals and increased YARM transmision. We then re-engaged the L loops: the final result is that YARM transmission reached just below 1 [Attachment 1].
Although we've usually used this empirical way to run the alignment, I'd prefer if we had an analytic / numerical model for it.
Radhika, coud you look into writing down the equations for how the various dithers show up in the various error signals into a Overleaf doc? I'm thinking about this currently for the IMC, so we can zoom about it next week once you've had a chance to think about it for a few days. It would be helpful to have this worked out for the 40m alignment for future debugging. Co-located dither and actuation is not likely the best way to do things from a noise and loop x-coupling point of view.
dfmn = ----- * (m+n) * acos(sqrt(g1*g2))
I pushed the "closed loop" button on PZT2 YAW around 3:40 pm today, then roughly recentered it using the DC Offset knob on the PiezoJena controller and the IP ANG QPD readbacks. There was a large DC shift. We'll watch and see how much it drifts in this state.
Here's the trend.
The transient at ~22:40 is Rob switching to 'Open Loop' on the Piezo Jena PZTs. I don't see any qualitative change in the drift after this event.
At 05:55 UTC, I removed an iris that was blocking the IP POS beam (the sum goes up from 2 to 6.5) without disturbing the mirrors who's oplev beam are on that table. Steve has conceded one sugar Napoleon after betting against my ninja-like iris skills.
We should recenter the beam on IP POS now that its unclipped - I'll let it sit this way overnight just to get more drift data.
I wanted to see how long our IP POS beam has been badly clipped - turns out its since April 1, 2007.
Steve's April Fool's joke is chronicled then. The attached trend shows that the drop in IP POS is coincident with that event.
In trying to align IPPOS, I noticed that someone has placed a ND2.0 filter (factor of 100 attenuation) in front of it. This is kind of a waste - I have removed IPPOS to fix its resistors and avoid this bad optic. Also the beam coming onto the table is too big for the 1" diameter optics being used; we need to replace it with a 2" diamter optic (Y1-2037-45P).
IP ANG dropped by a factor of 2 back in early August of '08.
We need this guy on the investigation:
Tonight I aligned the IFO by running the scripts one by one.
SRC was far off and I had to align SRM by hand before the script could work. SPOB is still low when DRM is aligned.
I'm restoring the full IFO now that I'm taking off.
I have resurrected the MC WFS on Friday night.
I have uncommented the WFS part of the MC autolocker.
The WFS total gain was empirically set to 0.1 such that the loops have no instability.
The loops somewhat worked through the weekend although they seemed to have the drift of the operating points
in accordance with the WFS spot.
According to c1scy.mdl, OL signals should be connected to adc_0_24 to adc_0_27 but they were connected to adc_0_16 to adc_0_19 which are assigned to QPD signals.
Actually cable connections were messed up. One ribbon cable was connected from QPD driver and ADC ports assigned for OL, and another ribbon cable was connected from the board combining the signals of oplev and QPD to ADC port assigned for QPD.
Now ETMY oplev is working well and aligned to center.
I found that the ADC channels for IP_ANG had been assigned to a wrong machine.
IP_ANG is supposed to be acquired at c1auxey (east end), but actually it had been at c1auxex (south end).
This is the reason why we couldn't see any signals from IP_ANG.
So I fixed it by editing the db files (i.e. ETMXaux.db and ETMYaux.db). Now it seems working fine.
This mistake obviously came from the X-Y name swapping business. Something else might be still wrong.
It turns out there are no reasonable signal from the segment 1 on the IP_ANG QPD.
For right now I can still use it as a funny QPD, but I absolutely need somebody to check and fix it in a daytime.
Rana and I found that the QPD for the optical lever at X end are showing small signals.
At this moment each of the segments exhibits approximately 200 counts when the oplev beam is centered.
These small numbers may be due to the coating of ETMX, but we are not sure.
Probably we have to increase the gain of the QPD depending on situations.
So a set of the tomorrow's daytime task is:
1. check the trend data of the QPD outputs to see how much signals were there in the past.
2. check the whitening filters to make sure if it's on or off.
3. If it's necessary, increase the gain of the QPD to have reasonable readouts.
I am going to ask somebody to do this task.
I tried aligning the IR beam axis for the X arm to have good beam centering on ITMX and ETMX.
As a first attempt, I started translating the beam upward by steering PZT1 and PZT2, since the pitch was quite off from the center on ITMX.
As a result I could decrease the pitch off-centering down to about 0.5 mm on ITMY, but on the other hand TRX decreased a lot (by a factor of 4).
I am worrying if something in the central part of IFO might be clipping the beam.
When I was touching PZT1 and PZT2, I payed attention on IP_ANG so that I don't lose a beam spot on IP_ANG.
As long as the beam is on the IP_ANG QPD, the angle of the beam should not be so much different.
Each time after I touched the PZTs, I realigned ITMX and ETMX to maximize the transmitted light.
In this way I proceeded the alignment by changing the PZT offsets little by little while keeping the X arm locked always.
At the beginning, all the PZT offsets were zero. And at the end of this work they became:
C1:LSC-PZT1_Y = 1.880
C1:LSC-PZT2_Y = -1.699
But during this alignment work TRX gradually decreased eventually down to 0.25, which had been 1 at the beginning (TRX is calibrated by dividing it by its maximum power).
Along with this TRX reduction, I found that the optical gain also decreased by a factor of about 5.
This fact has been confirmed by intentionally increasing the filter gain such that the servo oscillates at the UGF.
The amounts of the X arm's beam off-centering have been measured by the A2L technique.
PIT = -1.61 mm
YAW = -0.918 mm
PIT = -3.76 mm
YAW = -2.24 mm
[Valery, kiwamu, Jenne, Suresh]
I first interchanged the two QPD's on the Y end table to see if the problem QPD related. Exchanging the units did not make any difference. The problem therefore had to be in the cables or the circuit boards in 1X4
We traced the signals pertaining to the IP_ANG QPD ( "Initial Pointing Beam") using Jay's wiring diagram (pages 2 and 5 of 7). We noted that while the signals were available on all Segments till the Monitors (Lemo) on 1X4-2-2A card, two of the lines did not reach the output of the cross connect 1X4-B8. We checked card to make sure that the signals were indeed reaching the back plane of the 1X4-2 chassis using a D990612 extension board. The card was found to be okay. We therefore suspected that the cable (CAB_1X4_?) going from the card to the cross connect 1X4-B8 was faulty. Indeed visual inspection showed that the crimping of the connector was poor and weight of the cable had put further strain on the crimping.
I changed the 64-pin connector on the 1X3-2-2A side of the cable.
When I connected everything back together the problems persisted. Namely the lines P1-1A (Segment 1 high) and P1-2C (Segment 2 Low) were floating They were not reaching points 2T and 3T respectively on the output of the cross connect.
I therefore replaced 1X4-B8 with a similar unit which I found in one of the shelves along the East (Y) arm.
I then checked with the StripTool to make sure that all the quadrants are showing similar response to a flashlight on the QPD. All Segments are working fine now. Currently the IR Initial Pointing beam reaches the QPD but is not centered on it.
I did not attempt to center it since the beam appeared to be clipped and may anyway require repositioning.
JD: We need to meditate on where this beam could be getting clipped. Suresh and I checked that it's not on the viewport on the beam's way out of the ETMY chamber by seeing that the beam is far away from the edges of the viewport, and also far away from the edges of the black beamtube between the viewport and the table. Suresh mentioned that the clipping nature of the IP_ANG beam sometimes goes away. I don't know if this is the same clipping that Kiwamu might be seeing with the main beam, or if this is separate clipping just with the IP beam, after it's been picked off. I suspect it's the same as what Kiwamu is seeing....maybe when we move PZT1, we clip on one of the MMT mirrors or PZT2?? If this is true, it's a total pain since we might have to vent if we can't steer around it.
[Jenne and Kiwamu]
This time we aligned the vertical angle (not the translation) of the IR beam so that the transmitted light from BS shoots the center of ETMY.
The idea is to use ETMY as a beam pointing reference instead using IP_ANG, assuming the translation is not so bad.
As a result it looks like we are wining. A quick A2L test on ITMX_PITCH showed a small off-centering at sub-milimeter level.
We are concluding that the initial beam after PZT2 had been pointing downward somehow.
Before doing this whole job, we checked the spot shape on IP_POS to see if the beam is clipped or not. It was a round shape, which means no clipping around MMT.
But on the other hand, the spot on IP_ANG had been clipped more than half of its bottom as Suresh reported on his elog (see here).
I found that this clipping is able to be fixed by moving the beam angle upward. I guess the clipping happened at one of the steering mirror in the ETMY chamber.
According to these information, we imagined that the beam was somehow pointing downward after PZT2.
So we started aligning the beam by touching only PZT2 for vertical direction. Then we found a beam spot on ETMY's suspension frame, and brought it to the center.
Then we aligned BS and X arm for this new beam axis. The it resulted a small off-centering on pitch.
Once the MC fully gets back, we will examine the TRX degradation with this configuration.
I made several scripts to handle the mcass configuration and sensing measurements:
- The scripts and data are in the scripts/ASS directory
- The mcassUp script restores the settings for the digital lockins: oscillator gains, phases, and filters. The MC mirrors are modulated in pitch at 10, 11, 12 Hz and in yaw at 10.5, 11.5, and 12.5 Hz. The attached plot shows the comb of modulation frequencies in the MCL spectrum.
- The mcassOn and mcassOff scripts turn on and off the dither lines by ramping up and down the SUS-MC1_ASCPIT etc gains
- The senseMCdecenter script measures the response of the MCL demodulated signals to the decentering of the beam on the optics by imbalancing the coil gains by 10% which corresponds to the shift of the optic rotation point relative to the beam by 2.65 mm (75mm diameter optic) and allows calibration of the demodulated signals in mm of decentering. The order of the steps was MC1,2,3 pitch and MC1,2,3 yaw. The output of the script can be redirected to the file and analyzed in matlab. The attached plot shows the results. The plot was made using the sensemcass.m script in the same directory.
- The senseMCmirror script measures the response of the MCL demodulated signals to the mirror offsets (SUS-MC1_ASCPIT etc filter banks). The result is shown below (the sensemcass.m script makes this plot as well). There is some coupling between pitch and yaw drives so the MC coils can use some balancing - currently all gains are unity.
- The senseMCdofs scripts measures the response to the DOF excitation but I have not got to it yet.
- The next step is to invert the sensing matrix and try to center the beams on the mirrors by feeding back to optics. Note that the MC1/MC3 pitch differential and yaw common dofs are expected to have much smaller response than the other two dofs due to geometry of this tree mirror cavity. We should try to build this into the inversion.