Bob replaced the tipseal in an other drypump and I swapped it in. TP3 turbo is running again, it's foreline pressure is 40 mTorr. The RGA is still off

Does anyone know if this master file is the real thing that's in use now? Are we really using a file called tpchn_C1_new.par? If anyone sees Alex, please get to the bottom of this.

allegra:daq>pwd
/cvs/cds/caltech/chans/daq
allegra:daq>more master
/cvs/cds/caltech/chans/daq/C1ADCU_PEM.ini
#/cvs/cds/caltech/chans/daq/C1ADCU_SUS.ini
/cvs/cds/caltech/chans/daq/C1LSC.ini
/cvs/cds/caltech/chans/daq/C1ASC.ini
/cvs/cds/caltech/chans/daq/C1SOS.ini
/cvs/cds/caltech/chans/daq/C1SUS_EX.ini
/cvs/cds/caltech/chans/daq/C1SUS_EY.ini
/cvs/cds/caltech/chans/daq/C1SUS1.ini
/cvs/cds/caltech/chans/daq/C1SUS2.ini
#/cvs/cds/caltech/chans/daq/C1SUS4.ini
/cvs/cds/caltech/chans/daq/C1IOOF.ini
/cvs/cds/caltech/chans/daq/C1IOO.ini
/cvs/cds/caltech/chans/daq/C0GDS.ini
/cvs/cds/caltech/chans/daq/C0EDCU.ini
/cvs/cds/caltech/chans/daq/C1OMC.ini
/cvs/cds/caltech/chans/daq/C1ASS.ini
/cvs/cds/gds/param/tpchn_C1_new.par
/cvs/cds/gds/param/tpchn_C2.par
/cvs/cds/gds/param/tpchn_C3.par

"Yes. This master file is used."

Now that both end transmission QPDs have the line filters, I aligned them.

I locked and aligned the IR using the ASS, then went to each end table and put the beam in the center of the QPD.

I have assembled the circuit and the control box for the quadrant magnetic levitation yesterday. The final setup is shown

in the figure below:

Due to my carelessness, I I connected the wrong ends of the power supply. I damaged 4 op-amp and one voltage 

regulator during this assembly. This stupid mistake spent me several hours to fix, and I got a bitter lesson;-(

Afterwards, I replaced those op-amps and reconnected the power supply . Kiwamu helped me and we measured

the transfer function of this circuit.  The transfer function agrees with  the specification in the schematics which

has a integrator below 1 Hz and a differentiator from 5 to 20 Hz. The bode plot for the measured transfer function

is the following:

Today I tested the photodetector parts and found that there is a mysterious oscillation. Whenever I connect the

photodector input A of the circuit (as indicated in the figure below),

the output of the op-amp has a 500k Hz oscillation shown up in the oscilloscope.This happens even A is disconnected from

the photodetector and connected to an open end wire. I don't know how to eliminate it, and its amplitude is so large (peak to

peak is around 2.5 V) which completely dominates the photodetector output. Does anybody has some ideas? Thanks.

1. Why do all of the BNCs have no GND connection? Each should have the individual cables to the ground. Each signal line and the corresponding ground line should be twisted together.

2. This looks the (usual) oscillation of the V-I conversion stage but I can't tell anything as I don't have the circuit diagram of the whole circuit.

3. In a certain case, putting some capacitance at the feedback may help. Read P.11 of the data sheet of LT1125. Try to put some capacitors from 20pF to some larger one whether it changes the situation or not. I suppose the bandwidth of your sensor can be ~1kHz. So putting a capacitance less than 10nF still has no effect to the servo.

 1. They are all connected to the box which has a single connection to the board ground. If I connect each of them to the ground, there would be many small loops

of ground. Of course, I should have replaced all the connectors such that the they are disconnected to the box as point out by Robert.

2. The oscillation disappears after I add 5 nF capacitor in parallel to the existing resistor. Thank you very much for pointing this out.

1. Yes. That is the bad. You should eventually replace the BNCs to the isolated ones.

2. OK. I like to emphasize again that everyone works on electronics should read data sheets more carefully and seriously because they have many important practical instructions to exploit full performance of the components. 

[Koji and Kiwamu]

 We took transfer functions (TF) from the angle excitations at ETMX and ITMX to the green beat note signal (i.e. angle to length TF).

It turned out that the coupling from ETMX_PIT is quite large.

I wonder how f2p of the ETMX changes this coupling. We'll see.

The plot above shows a set of the transfer functions from the angle excitation to the green beat note.

Note that the y-axis has not been calibrated, it is just a unit of counts/counts.

You can see that the TF from ETMX_PIT to the beat (red cruve) is larger than the others by about a factor of 10 over most of the frequency range.

This means that any PIT motions on ETMX can be coupled into the green beat signal somewhat over the wide frequency range.

It looks having a resonance at 1.5 Hz, but we don't exactly know why.

At that time the coil gains on only ITMX were tuned by applying f2p filters, but ETMX wasn't because of a technical reason coming from epics.

- - - - measurement conditions

  * PSL laser was locked to X arm by feeding back the IR PDH signal to MC2.

  * the green laser was locked to Xarm as usual.

  * took the green beat note signal (approximately 0 dBm) into Rana's MFD with the cable length of about  6 m.

  * the output from the MFD was connected to XARM_COARSE channel without a whitening filter.

  * excitation signal was injected into either ASC_PIT or ASC_YAW. The excitation was Gaussian noise with frequency band of 10 Hz and amplitude of 300 counts.

  * only ITMY had the f2p filters, which balance the coil gains all over the frequency.

I've started to create channels and an medm screen to monitor the errors that occur during the transmission through the RFM model. The screen will show the amount of lost data per second for each channel.

Not all channels are ready yet. For created channels, number of errors is 0, this is good.

I had to do a reboot + burt restore of c1psl today. It was unresponsive and I couldn't get the PMC to lock. I also had to slightly realign the PMC, and the IMC was too misaligned for the autolocker to catch lock. Adjusting it manually, it was predominantly MC1 PIT that was off. The YARM locked on a 10 mode and had to be aligned manually as well.

I left a script running on Donnatella that tilts ETMX and thus moves the beam on ITMX. I'm monitoring the transmitted power to evaluate sane thresholds for the demodulation offsets in a lossmap measurement. The script will return the IFO to normal after it is done and will take <2 hours to complete (no real clue, but there's no way it takes longer than that for ~50 datapoints).

Connecting to NDS Server fb (TCP port 8088)
Connecting.... done
T0=12-04-01-00-17-45; Length=60 (s)
60 seconds of data displayed

Connecting to NDS Server fb (TCP port 8088)
Connecting.... done
Server error 18: trend data is not available
datasrv: DataWriteTrend failed in daq_send().
T0=12-04-01-00-17-45; Length=60 (s)
No data output.

Alex told me that the "trend data is not available" message comes from the "trender" functionality not being enabled in daqd.  After re-enabling it (see #6555) minute trend data was available again.  However, there still seems to be an issue with second trends.  When I try to retrieve second trend data from dataviewer for which minute trend data *is* available I get the following error message:

Connecting to NDS Server fb (TCP port 8088)
Connecting.... done
No data found

read(); errno=9
read(); errno=9
T0=12-04-04-02-14-29; Length=3600 (s)
No data output.

Awaiting more help from Alex...

 I would like to suggest a trial run on these....Ergomates and the cleanboot!

REPLY by JCD:  Are these going to trap dirt and be impossible to clean though?  The nice thing about Crocs and the giant flip flops is that they are solid and if they get dirty you can do a quick wipedown, and they're good as new.

 The Cleanboot is washable and reusable!

(Suresh, Kiwamu, Yuta)

Summary:
  Lastnight, we locked the MC and tried angle to length(A2L) measurement using my new python script (see elog #3863).
  Although the amount of position script shows looks too big, the response seemed somewhat reasonable.
  Using the results of A2L measurement, we managed to reduce the displacement from the center of the MC optics, but we lost TEM00 mode after changing the incident beam direction and PMC lock got off .
  We restored the alignments and now it is 00, but the displacements got worse than the best we achieved last night.

  I think I have to rethink how to align MC. Even if I could somehow get exact position of the beam, how to align the beam to the center of the optics?

What we did:
  1. At first we tried to align by changing the direction of the incident beam. We found that A2L.py shows opposite direction(lower <-> upper). It was because of my misunderstanding and we agreed that the direction is opposite.

  2. Aligned MC optics without changing the direction of the incident beam. We could understand which directions decrease the displacements from the center, and managed to decrease them.

  3. There seemed to be a limit in aligning the MC optics without changing the incident beam direction. So, we started to change the incident beam direction again by steering mirrors at PSL table.

  4. During the change, PMC lock got off. We restored it, but we lost MC's 00 mode.

  5. We restored MC 00 mode, and measured the final A2L. The result was worse than we achieved by step #2.

Result:
  The final result from last night using my script was as follows;

  % is the length compared to the half of coil to coil length. Low / right are positive.
  We can see the beam position got better by looking at the monitor from MC2, and the A2L measurement result agrees with that.

  Here's some pictures from the measurement last night. Each plots are not taken at the same time.

   (It was painful using slow computers to make measurement. The StripTool graph shows straight lines when computers got frozen)

Plan:
 - Plan a strategy
 - The script needs self-estimation of the measurement. Now, the script fits the plot assuming every data has the same error.
 - When the beam is near the center, the signal gets smaller and the result will be unreliable. One thing I can do is to change TO_COIL gains radically so that the axis of rotation go far from the center.

(Rana, Koji, Kiwamu, Suresh, Yuta)

 We attempted to lock the MC and finally got flashes of the MC, but no luck. 

Tomorrow we are going to check every components one by one to make sure if everything is okay or not.

Background:
 MC suspensions are well damped now.
 We need MC locked for the alignment of the in-vac optics.

Issues:
  These are the issues which we are going to fix.
1. DC alignment of the MC2 suspension doesn't seem to be working correctly. (see here)

  We should check the satellite box and the cable connection.

  The coils look like woking fine because we can kick MC2 by using each of the coils.

2. Incomplete modematching.

The spot size of the reflected light from MC1 looked like bigger. 

3. beam axis of the injection light to MC1

[Jenne, Yuta]

Summary:
  We tried to see the Yarm length change using Yarm green beat note. The beat note is still puny, so we put an extra amplifier. We saw something, but still can't control the arm length with ALS.

What we did:
  1. Aligned Y arm and PSL green optics as usual.

  2. By changing the temperature of the PSL laser with C1:PSL-FSS_SLOWDC, we find small beat note when

  PSL laser temperature on display: 30.59 deg C (PSL HEPA 100%)
  C1:PSL-FSS_SLOWDC = 5.2100
  Y end laser "T+": 34.049 deg C
  Y end laser "ADJ": 0
  Y end laser measured temperature: 34.68 deg C (*)
  C1:GCY-SLOW_SERVO2_OFFSET = 29425

 (*) Measured using diagnostic output on the back of the laser controller(Lightwave 125/6-OPN-PS) - between pins 2(GND) and 4. Calbration factor is 10 degC/V.

  3. The peak height right after the amplifier on the Y green beat PD was ~ -48dBm, so we put another amplifier (and attenuator) because the beat note which goes into the frequency divier should be -30 dBm to +7 dBm. After we put the amplifier, the peak height was ~ -23 dBm.

  4. We could see the C1:ALS-BEATY_COARSE_I_ERR ringing down, when opening and closing the control room door, which may introduce Y arm length change(screenshot of dataviewer below). But we are still not sure if we are actually getting the Y arm length signal because closing and opening Y end green shutter doesn't make difference on C1:ALS-BEATY_COARSE_I_ERR. The ring down was seen when we turned on the unWhiten filters in C1:ALS-BEATY_COARSE filter modules.



  5. Tried to hold Y arm length with ALS, but couldn't.

Current setup:
  Red ones are the ones we added or changed.



Note:
  Dataviewer is so slow and flakey now.

I made a new medm screen for the triggering logics. Have fun.

I put a button on C1LSC.adl to invoke this screen.

We have a Trillium for several days from Vladimir. I've put seismometer inside the foam box on linolium. I was not able to level the seismometer on granite as this Trillium does not have level screws. Does anybody know where they are?  Readout box stands on the foam box as seismometer cable is short (~2 meters).

Cables go to STS1 inputs (7-9) on ADC 3.

I was asked by Koji to point out where a schematic of the triple resonant circuit is.
It seems that I had posted a schematic of what currently is installed (see elog 4562 from almost 4 yrs ago!).

(Some transfomer story)
Then I immediately noticed that it did not show two components which were wideband RF transformers. In order to get an effective turns ratio of 1:9.8 (as indicated in the schematic) from a CoilCrfat's transformer kit in the electronics table, I had put two more transformers in series to a PWB1040L which is shown in the schematic. If I am not mistaken, this PWB1040L must be followed by a PWB1015L and PWB-16-AL in the order from the input side to the EOM side. This gives an impedance ratio of 96 or an effective turns ratio of sqrt(96) = 9.8.

(An upgrade plan document)

Also, if one wants to review and/or upgrade the circuit, this document may be helpful:
https://wiki-40m.ligo.caltech.edu/Electronics/Multi_Resonant_EOM?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=design_EOM.pdf
This is a document that I wrote some time ago describing how I wanted to make the circuit better. Apparently I did not get a chance to do it.

I have measured the linearity of our triple resonant EOM (i.e. modulation depth versus applied voltage)

The attached figure is the measured modulation depth as a function of the applied voltage.

The linear behavior is shown below 4Vrms, this is good.

Then it is  slowly saturated as the applied voltage goes up above 4Vrms.

However for the resonance of 29.5MHz, it is difficult to measure below 7Vrms because of the small modulation depth.

 - - - - result from fitting - - -

11MHz: 91mrad/Vrms+2.0mrad

29.5MHz: 4.6mrad/Vrms+6.2mrad

55MHz:82mrad/Vrms+1.0mrad

Looks good. I just thought of the idea that we also can use Alberto's PLL setup to sense the modulation with more sensitivity.  ;-)

I have made a prototype circuit of the triple resonant EOM.

The attached is the measured optical response of the system.

The measured gains at the resonances are 8.6, 0.6 and 7.7 for 11MHz, 29.5MHz and 55MHz respectively.

I successfully got nice peaks at 11MHz and 55MHz. In addition resultant optical response is well matched with the predicted curve from the measured impedance.

However there is a difference from calculated response (see past entry) (i.e. more gains were expected)

Especially for the resonance of 29.5MHz, it was calculated to have gain of 10, however it's now 0.6. Therefore there must a big loss electrically around 29.5MHz.

I am going to re-analyze the impedance and model the performance in order to see what is going on.

Hey, this looks nice, but can you provide us the comparison of rad/V with the resonant EOM of New Focus?

The commercial resonant EOM of New Focus has the modulation efficiency of 50-150mrad/Vrms. ( This number is only true for those EOM made from KTP such as model4063 and model4463 )

Our triple-resonant EOM (made from KTP as well) has a 90mrad/Vrms and 80mrad/Vrms at the reosonances of 11MHz and 55MHz respectively.

Therefore our EOM is as good as those of company-made so that we can establish a new EOM company

(RF reflections)

The reflected RF power going back to the RF generation box will be :

    Power at 11MHz =  2 dBm

   Power at 29.5 MHz = 3 dBm

   Power at 55 MHz = 9dBm

Assuming the input power at 11 and 55 MHz are at 27 dBm (40m wiki page). And 15 dBm for 29.5 MHz.

Since there is an RF combiner in between the generation box and the resonant box, it reduces the reflections by an additional factor of 10 dB (#4517)

In the estimation above, the reduction due to the RF combiner was taken into account.

(Modulation depths)

Besides the reflection issue, the circuit meets a rough requirement of 200 mrad at 11 and 55 MHz.

For the 29.5 MHz modulation, the depth will be reduced approximately by a factor of 2, which I don't think it's a significant issue.

So the modulation depths should be okay.

Assuming the performance of the resonant circuit remains the same (#2586), the modulation depths will be :

      Mod. depth at 11 MHz =  280 mrad

      Mod. depth at 29.5 MHz = 4 mrad (This is about half of the current modulation depth)

      Mod. depth at 55 MHz = 250 mrad

The triple resonant box was checked again. Each resonant frequency was tuned and the box is ready to go.

Before the actual installation I want to hear opinions about RF reflections because the RF reflection at 29 MHz isn't negligible.

It might be a problem since the reflection will go back to the RF generation box and would damage the amplifiers.

(Frequency adjustment and resultant reflection coefficient)

In order to tune the resonant frequencies the RF reflection was continuously monitored while the variable inductors were tweaked.

The plot below shows the reflection coefficient of the box after the frequency adjustment. 

In the upper plot, where the amplitude of the reflection coefficient of the box is plotted, there are three notches at 11, 29.5 and 55 MHz.

A notch means an RF power, which is applied to the resonant box, is successfully absorbed and consequently the EOM obtains some voltage at this frequency.

These power absorptions take place at the resonant frequencies as we designed so.

A good thing by monitoring this reflection coefficient is that one can easily tune the resonant frequency by looking at the positions of the notches.

Note that :

If amplitude is  0dB ( =1),  it means all of the signal is reflected.

If a circuit under test is impedance matched to 50 Ohm the amplitude will be ideally zero (= -infinity dB).

Reflections :

at 11 MHz = -15 dB (3% of RF power is reflected)

at 29.5 MHz = -2 dB (63% of RF power is reflected)

at 55 MHz = -8 dB (15% of RF power is reflected)

What are the reflected RF powers for those frequencies? 
Is the 29.5MHz more problem than the 55MHz, considering the required modulation depth?

The first design of the triple resonant EOM circuit has been done.

If only EOM has a loss of 4 Ohm, the gain of the circuit is expected to be 11 at 55MHz

So far I've worked on investigation of the single resonant circuit and accumulated the knowledge about resonant circuits.

Then I started the next step, designing the triple resonant circuit.

Here I report the first design of the circuit and the expected gain.

( What I did )

At first in order to determine the parameters, such as inductors and capacitors, I have solved some equations with numerical ways (see the past entry).

In the calculation I put 6 boundary conditions as followers;

(first peak=11MHz, second peak=29.5MHz, third peak=55MHz, first valley=22MHz, second valley=33MHz, Cp=18pF)

The valley frequencies of 22MHz and 33MHz are chosen in order to eliminate the higher harmonics of 11MHz, and Cp of 18pF represents the capacitance of the EOM.

Basically the number of parameters to be determined is 6 ( L1, L2, ...,), therefore it is completely solved under 6 boundary conditions. And in this case, only one solution exists.

The point is calculation does not include losses because the loss does not change the resonant frequency.

( results )

As a result I obtained the 6 parameters for each components shown in the table below.

Then I inserted the loss into the EOM to see how the impedance looks like. The loss is 4 Ohm and inserted in series to the EOM. This number is based on the past measurement .

Let us recall that the gain of the impedance-matched circuit with a transformer is proportional to square-root of the peak impedance.

It is represented by G = sqrt(Zres/50) where Zres is the impedance at the resonance.

 As you can see in the figure, Zres = 6.4 kOhm at 55MHz, therefore the gain will be G=11 at 55MHz.

Essentially this gain is the same as that of the single resonant circuit that I've been worked with, because its performance was also limited mainly by the EOM loss.

 An interesting thing is that all three peaks are exactly on the EOM limited line (black dash line), which is represented by Zres = L/CR = 1/ (2pi f Cp)^2 R. Where R = 4 Ohm.

( next plan )

There are other solutions to create the same peaks and valleys because of the similar solution.

 It is easy to understand if you put Cp' = Cp x N, the solutions must be scaled like L1'=L1/N, C1'=C1 x N, ...,  Finally such scaling gives the same resonant frequencies.

So the next plan is to study the effect of losses in each components while changing the similar solution.

After the study of the loss I will select an optimum similar solution.

Very cool.         

The design looks very good. I have some questions.

1. As far as I remember, you've got the gain of slightly worse than 10 for a 55MHz single resonant case. Why your expectation of the gain (G=11) for the highest resonance better than this?

Supposing the loss exists only on the EOM, the other part of the LC network for the triple work as an inductor at the resonant frequency. This is just equivalent as the single resonant case. So the expected gain at 55MHz should coincides with what we already have. Probably, the resistance of 4 Ohm that is used here had too rough precision???

2. How can you adjust the resonances precisely?

Do we need any variable components for Cs and Ls, that may have worse quality than the fixed one, generally speaking.
I myself has no experience that I had to tune the commercial EOM because of a drift or whatever. I hope if you can adjust the resonance with a fixed component it should be fine.

3. Changing Cp. What does it mean?

Do you put additional cap for Cp?

4. The resonances for the lower two look very narrow. Is that fine?

This will show up in a better shape if we look at the transfer function for the gain. Is this right?

If we have BW>100kHz, it is sufficient.

5. Impedance matching for the lower two resonances.

Yep. You know this problem already.

Self-follow:

I got the answer of Q3 from the follow-up entry.

For Q4, once you get the impedance of the LC network lower than n^2*50, the EOM gain will be quite low. This means that the resonance is anyway narrow.
I did some simple calculation and it shows that the width of the resonance will be 100kHz~500kHz. So it maybe OK.

Bertine Robby, Bertin and Jerry completed the installation by pouring concrete yesterday and cleaning up today.

Atm1-2, steel bars, grouted feet and side forms are ready

Atm3,    bounding agent is applied for better bounding

Atm4,    pumping concrete

Atm5,    shaker is used to fill-all

Atm6,    late after noon the forms- sides were removed,     NOTE: actual table to concrete distance is 12.75"

Atm7,    construction people left and the tile man is on the way

The tile patching should complete today so tomorrow we can remove plastic covers.

Pete, Yoichi

Last night, we put the IFO in FP Michelson configuration.  We took transfer functions of CARM and DARM, first using CM excitations directly on the ETMs, and then using modulations of the laser frequency via MC excitation.  We found that there was basically no coupling into DARM using the MC excitation, but that there was coherence in DARM using the ETM excitation.  Therefore, I tuned the ETM common mode in the output matrix.  I did this by taking transfer functions of PD1_Q with PD2_I (see attached plot).  I changed the  drdown_bang script to set C1:LSC-BTMTRX_14 0.98 and C1:LSC-BTMTRX_24 1.02.

Gautam and Steve,

Spare Varian turbo-V 70 controller, Model 969-9505, sn 21612 was swapped in. It is running the turbo fine @ 50Krpm but it does not allow it's V4 valve to be opened............

It turns out that TP2 @ 75Krpm will allow V4 to open and close. This must be a software issue.

So Vacuum Normal is operational if TP2 is running 75,000 rpm

We want to run at 50,000 rpm on the long term.

Note: the RS232 Dsub connector on the back of this controller is mounted 180 degrees opposite than TP3  and old failed TP2 controller

PS: controller is shipping out for repair 7-28-2017

[Steve / Kiwamu]

 As a part of the video cable session, we reconnected some power cords on 1Y1 rack.

During the work we momentarily turned off c1aux, which handles DMF, Illumintators, mechanical shutters and the old video epics.

I think it automatically reverted the things, but we may need to check them.

In the lab there are lots of old posters with outdated autocad drawings, or printouts with schematics of old electronics hanging on the walls.

Can we get rid of those and start giving the lab a fresh and modern look?

[Koji, Jamie]

We tweaked up the alignment of the half PRC a bit.  Koji started by looking at the REFL and POP DC powers as a function of TT2 and PRM alignment. 
He found that the reflected beam for good PRC transmission was not well overlapped at REFL.  When the beam was well overlapped at REFL, there was clipping in the REFL path on the AS table.

We started by getting good overlap at REFL, and then went to the AS table to tweak up all the beams on the REFL pds and cameras.
This made the unlocked REFL DC about 40 count. This was about 10mV (=0.2mA) at the REFL55 PD.
This amazed Koji since we found the REFL DC (of the day) of 160 as the maximum of the day for a particular combination of the PRM Pitch and TT2 Pitch. So something wrong could be somewhere.

We then moved to the ITMX table where we cleaned up the POP path.  We noticed that the lens in the POP path is a little slow, so the beam is too big on the POP PD and on the POP camera (and on the camera pick-off mirror as well). 
We moved the currently unused POP55 and POP22/110 RFPDs out of the way so we could move the POP RF PD and camera back closer to the focus.  Things are better, but we still need to get a better focus, particularly on the POP PD.

We found two irides on the oplev path. They are too big and one of these is too close to the POP beam. Since it does not make sense too to have two irides in vicinity, we pulled out that one from the post.

Other things we noticed:

• The POP beam is definitely clipping in the vacuum, looks like on two sides.
• We can probably get better layout on the POP table, so we're not hitting mirrors at oblique angles and can get beams on grid paths.

After the alignment work on the tables, we started locking the cavity. We already saw the improvement of the POPDC power from 1000 cnt to 2500 cnt without any realignment.
Once PRM is tweaked a little (0.01ish for pitch and yaw), the maximum POPDC of 6000 was achieved. But still the POP camera shows non-gaussian shape of the beam and the Faraday camera shows bright
scattering of the beam. It seems that the scattering at the Faraday is not from the main beam but the halo leaking from the cavity (i.e. unlocking of the cavity made the scattering disappeared)

Tomorrow Jenne and I will go into BS to tweak the alignment of the TEMP PRC flat mirror, and into ITMX to see if we can clean up the POP path.

Now some pedestals, mirrors and lenses are left on the PSL table, since we are on the middle way to construct a PLL setup which employs two NPROs instead of use of PSL laser.

So Please Don't steal any of them.

 Can I please get the network analyzer back?

[Yaakov, Eric, Jenne, Yuta]

Two of our surfs, Yaakov and Eric, pulled two unused RG-405/SMA cables that had been running from 1X2 to (mysteriously) 1Y2 racks.  They left the 1X2 end where it was and pulled the 1Y2 end and rerouted it to the control room.  We labeled both ends appropriately.

The end at 1X2 is now plugged into a splitter that is combining the RF input monitor outputs for the X and Y beatbox channels, so that we can watch the beat signals with the HP8591 in the control room.

According to the measurement done by Aidan and me, there are two beat-note state.

One gave us a small beat signal and the other gave us a bigger signal by approximately 20 dB.

 A possible reason for this phenomenon is that the end laser is operating at a special temperature that somehow drives the laser with two different modes at the same time.

So that it permits the laser sometimes locked with one of the two modes and sometimes with the other mode.

For the first step we will change the temperature such that the laser can run with a single stable mode.

Then for investigating it we will put a scanning cavity on the X end table to see if it really exhibits a two modes or not.

 Quick post of plots and data; I'll fill in more detail tonight. 

TL;DR: I pulled both green PDH boxes and made LISO models, compared TFs and noise levels. 

Pictures of X and Y boards, respectively

TF comparison to LISO. (Normalized to coincide at 1Hz)

Noise comparison to LISO

To Do:

• Figure out why TFs were made differently. Check PM response curves of PZTs to see if they are fine, or need tweaking.
• Make boosts useful. Both are currently integrators with corners under 10Hz, which is already pretty suppressed. 
• I just noticed that the X board is missing C25, which should be a 1uF cap on the positive power pin of the primary TF stage opamp. This should be inserted. 

All data, EAGLE schematics, LISO source and plots in the attached zip. 

I had noticed in the past, that the digital control signal monitor for the X end would saturate well before the ADC should saturate (C1:ALS-X_SLOW_SERVO_IN1, which is from the "output mon" BNC on the box). It turns out that there is some odd saturation happening inside the box itself.

In this scope trace, the servo input is being driven with a 0.02Vpp, 0.1Hz sine wave, gain knob at 1.0. This is bad. 

Evan and I poked around the board, and discover that for some reason currently unknown to us, the variable gain amplifier (AD8336) can't reach its negative rail, despite the +-12V arriving safely at its power supply pins. 

I also realized that the LF356 in the integrator stage in this box had been replaced with a LT1792 by Kiwamu in ELOG 4373. I've updated my schematic, and will upload both boxes' schematics to the DCC page Jenne created for them. (D1400293 and D1400294)

 I've been having trouble locking the X - green for the past few hours. Has there been some configuration change down there that anyone knows about?

I'm thinking that perhaps I need to replace the SHG crystal or perhaps remove the PZT alignment mirrors perhaps. Another possibility is that the NPRO down there is going bad. I'll start swapping the Y-end NPRO for the X-end one and see if that makes things better.