40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 32 of 344  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Category Subjectup
  13772   Thu Apr 19 20:41:09 2018 KojiConfigurationGeneralAux Laser LD dying? (AS port laser injection)

I suspect that the LD of the aux laser is dying.
- The max power we obtain from this laser (700mW NPRO) is 33mW. Yes, 33mW. (See attachment 1)
- The intensity noise is likely to be relaxation oscillation and the frequency is so low as the pump power is low. When the ADJ is adjusted to 0, the peak moved even lower. (Attachment 2, compare purple and red)
- What the NE (noise eater) doing? Almost nothing. I suspect the ISS gain is too low because of the low output power. (Attachment 2, compare green and red)

Attachment 1: Aux_laser_adj_Pout.pdf
Attachment 2: Aux_laser_RIN.pdf
  13781   Tue Apr 24 08:36:47 2018 johannesConfigurationGeneralAux Laser LD dying? (AS port laser injection)

In September 2017 I measured ~150mW output power, which was already kind of low. What are the chances of getting this one repaired? Steve, can you please check the serial number? It's probably too old like the other ones.


I suspect that the LD of the aux laser is dying.
- The max power we obtain from this laser (700mW NPRO) is 33mW. Yes, 33mW. (See attachment 1)


  12106   Thu May 5 04:05:03 2016 ericqUpdateLSCAux X PDH checks

We took an OLG measurement of the green PDH loop. It seems consistent with past measurements. I've added a trace for the the post-mixer lowpass, to show its contribution to the phase loss. (EDIT: updated with measured LPF TF)

I used this measured OLG and the datasheet laser PZT conversion factor to calibrate the control signal monitor into the AUX laser frequency noise, it looks consistent with the frequency noise measured via the PSL PLL (300 Hz/rtHz @ 100Hz). Above a few tens of kHz, the control signal measurement is all analyzer noise floor, due to the fourth order 70kHz lowpass after the mixer (the peaks change height significantly depending on the analyzer input range, so I don't think they're on the laser). Gautam will follow up with more detailed measurements of both the error and control signals as he noisebudgets, this was just intended as a quick consistency check.

  8244   Wed Mar 6 18:51:07 2013 AnnalisaUpdateAlignmentAuxiliary laser installed for FSR and TMS measurement of the PRC

We want to measure the g-factor of the PRC using the beat note of the main laser with an auxiliary NPRO laser.

We are going to phase lock the NPRO to the main laser (taking it from POY) and then we will inject the NPRO  through the AS edge of the ITMY.

Today Sendhil and I installed the auxiliary laser on the ITMY table moving it from the AS table.

We also installed the beam steering optics, except the BS which will launch the beam through the AR edge of the ITMY.

To do: install the BS, take the POY beam and mix it with the auxiliary laser on a photodiode to phase lock the two lasers, do better calculations for the mode matching optics to be used for the auxiliary laser beam.

Attachment 1: IMG_3-6-13.JPG
  8313   Tue Mar 19 20:24:56 2013 AnnalisaUpdateAuxiliary lockingAuxiliary laser on PSL table

 I moved the auxiliary laser from the ITMY table to the PSL table and installed all the optics (mirrors and lenses) to steer the beam up to a PDA55 photodiode, where also the pick-off of the PSL is sent.

Tomorrow I'm going to measure the beat note between the two.

  342   Wed Feb 27 22:05:03 2008 JohnUpdateLSCAuxiliary locking
A summary of the status of the auxiliary arm locking effort.

To help with lock acquisition we are attempting to independently lock the Y arm using light injected through ETMY. At present this secondary light source is an NPRO laser situated on the SP table. The laser light is transported to the ETM using a single mode optical fibre. In the future we might pick off some PSL light and apply a frequency shift.

We have been able to successfully mode match the fibre beam into the cavity and have been attempting lock the cavity using standard PDH signals (phase modulation sidebands are added to the light before it enters the fibre).

As yet no acceptable error signals have been produced. The demodulated RF signal is showing a time varying, bipolar dc offset.

We have minimised the residual amplitude modulation of the EOM but we expect small signals due to the undercoupled nature of the system, it could be that whatever RFAM still present is varying with time and causing this behaviour. We are also able to produce similar offsets by stressing (i.e. bending, shaking) the fibre. Could it be that the fibre is somehow converting PM into AM? Are we seeing etalon effects in the fibre or elsewhere?

If we cannot make any further progress with the existing setup we shall move the NPRO to the ETM table and try again. We are also looking into purchasing some other types of fibre.

Other things to consider are injecting through POY or using some other wavelength - neither seems obviously better.

Fiber, behavior
  16341   Fri Sep 17 00:56:49 2021 KojiUpdateGeneralAwesome

The Incredible Melting Man!


  11509   Fri Aug 14 23:49:34 2015 KojiSummaryGeneralB&K Shaker fixed

I fixed a shaker that was claimed to be broken. I had to cut the rubber membrane to open the head.

Once it was opened, the cause of the trouble was obvious. The soldering joint could not put up with the motion of the head.

It is interesting to see that the spring has the damping layer between the metal sheets.

After the repair the DC resistance was measured. It was 1.9Ohm. The side of the shaker chassis said "3.5Ohm, Max 15VA". So it can take more than 4A (wow).

I gave 2A DC from the bench top supply and turn the current on and off. I could confirm the head was moving.

I'll claim the use of this shaker for the seismometer development.

Attachment 1: IMG_1947.JPG
  10009   Mon Jun 9 10:55:48 2014 NichinSummaryElectronicsBBPD D1002969-v8 transimpedence measurement

My SURF week-1 work...


To measure the transimpedence of  the Broadband photodiode (D1002969-v8), using a New focus photodiode (1611) as reference. The amplitude modulated Jenne Laser (1.2mW) was used. 

The steps involved in getting the transimpedence are as follows:

Acquiring data

  • Get 2 sets of data from Network Analyzer Agilent 4395: One set of data will be for the transfer function of Ref PD over RF out. The other set for Test PD over Ref PD.
  • The following conditions were set:

1) Frequency sweep range: 1MHz to 200 MHz.

2) Number of Points sampled in  the range: 201

3) Type of sweep: Logarithmic

  • Set the NA to give the corresponding transfer function values in dB and also Phase response in degrees.
  • Save the data into floppy disk for processing on the computer (The wireless way of acquiring data was not working when the experiment was conducted )


  • The matlab code attached (TransimpedencePlot.m) will then give plots for the absolute values of transimpedence in V/A.
  • Logic involved in the code:
    • Transimpedence = Voltage response / (Responsivity of the photodiode * Power incident) 
    • Responsivity for BBPD is taken as 0.1 A/W and for NF1611 as 0.68 A/W as given in their datasheets.
    • Voltage response of Test PD w.r.t RF output of NA (in dB) = Voltage response of Test PD w.r.t Ref PD (in dB) + Voltage response of Ref PD w.r.t RF output of NA (in dB) 


The Plots of transimpedence obtained are attached (results.pdf) . The results obtained for BBPD is consistent with the ones obtained before, but the same method and code gives a different transimpedence for 1611.

The transimpedence of NF 1611 was obtained to be around 4-5 V/A which is very much off-track compared to the one given in the datasheet (elog: 2906).


The transimpedence of  Broadband photodiode (D1002969-v8) was around 1200 - 1300 V/A for most of the range, but the value started falling as the frequency approached 100 MHz. This result is consistent with DCC document: T1100467-v2.


Attachment 1: PD_transimpedence_measurement.png
Attachment 2: results.pdf
results.pdf results.pdf
Attachment 3: code_and_data.zip
  10012   Mon Jun 9 16:55:31 2014 KojiSummaryElectronicsBBPD D1002969-v8 transimpedence measurement

How is the modulation depth assumed in the calculation?

If you don't know the modulation depth, you can't calibrate the transimpedance of each PD individually.

  10058   Wed Jun 18 15:25:06 2014 NichinUpdateElectronicsBBPD Transimepedence plot


To measure the transimpedence of  the Broadband photodiode (D1002969-v8), using a New focus photodiode (1611) as reference. The amplitude modulated Jenne Laser (1.2mW) was used @20mA

The steps involved in getting the transimpedence:

Acquiring data

  • The following conditions were set on Network Analyzer Agilent 4395:

1) Frequency sweep range: 500KHz to 300 MHz.

2) Number of Points sampled in  the range: 301

3) Type of sweep: Logarithmic

  • Set the NA to give the corresponding transfer function value (output of BBPD over output of 1611) and also Phase response in degrees.
  • Save the data into floppy disk for processing on the computer.


  • The matlab code attached (Trans_plot.m) will then give plots for the absolute values of transimpedence in V/A.
  • Logic involved in the code will be presented clearly in a separate Elog. 


The Plots of transimpedence obtained are attached. The data and matlab code used is in the zip file.

The transimpedence of  Broadband photodiode (D1002969-v8) was around 1200 - 1300 V/A for most of the range (2), but the value started falling as the frequency approached 200 MHz. 

Attachment 1: BBPD.png
Attachment 2: BBPD_readings_06-18-2014.zip
  10087   Sat Jun 21 01:46:28 2014 NichinUpdateElectronicsBBPD Transimepedence plot

Sorry for the late update Koji.

There was a bug in my code that was pointed out by koji and here is the revised plot of transimpedence. The correct code attached.

The transimpedence value is unusually high, about 50kV/A-70kV/A for most of the range. The same was observed when the transimpedence was calculated on another BBPD in Elog.

It is highly unlikely that both the BBPDs are faulty and might be because I am doing the calculations wrong. Must dig deeper into this. Maybe it is a good idea to try the shot noise method of calculating the transimpedence and see how the values turn out. Will do that ASAP.

Attachment 1: BBPD_06-18-2014.pdf
Attachment 2: BBPD_readings_06-18-2014.zip
  10059   Wed Jun 18 16:44:55 2014 ManasaUpdateElectronicsBBPD installed for BEATX detection

This BBPD is the spare that we pulled out and is installed for ALSX-PSL beat note detection.

  17319   Mon Nov 28 18:21:50 2022 PacoSummaryBHDBH44 prep

I checked the LSC rack to evaluate what we might need to generate 44 MHz rf in the hypothetical case we go from BH55 to BH44 (a.k.a. double RF demod scheme). There is an 11 MHz LO port labeled +16 dBm (measured 9 Vpp ~ 23 dBm actually) on the left hand side. Furthermore, there is an unused 55 MHz port labeled "Spare 55 LO". I checked this output to be 1.67 Vpp ~ +8.4 dBm. Anyways the 55 MHz doesn't look very nice; after checking it on the spectrum analyzer it seems like lower frequency peaks are polluting it so it may be worth checking the BH55 LO (labeled REFL 55) signal to see if it's better. Anyways we seem to have the two minimum LOs needed to synthesize 44 MHz in case we move forward with BH44.

[Paco, Yuta]

We confirmed the noisy 55 MHz is shared between AS55, BH55 and any other 55 MHz LOs. Looking more closely at the spectrum we saw the most prominent peaks at 11.06 MHz and 29.5 MHz (IMC and PMC nominal PM freqs). This 55 MHz LO is coming all the way from the RF distribution box near the IOO rack. According to this diagram, this 55 MHz LO should have gone through a bandpass filter; interestingly, checking the RF generation box spare 55 MHz the output is *cleaner* and displays ~ 17 dBm level... ??? Will continue investigating when we actually need this RF.

  17152   Thu Sep 22 19:51:58 2022 AnchalUpdateBHDBH55 LSC Model Updates - part II

I updated follwoing in teh rtcds models and medm screens:

  • c1lsc
    • Added reading of ADC0_20 and ADC0_21 as demodulated BHD output at 55 MHz, I and Q channels.
    • Connected BH55_I and BH55_Q to phase rotation and creation of output channels.
    • Replaced POP55 with BH55 in the RFPD input matrix.
    • Send BH55_I and BH55_Q over IPC to c1hpc
    • Added BH55 RFPD model in LSC screen, in RFPD input matrix, whitening box. Some work is still remaining.
  • c1hpc
    • Added recieving BH55_I and BH55_Q.
    • Added BH55_I and BH55_Q to sensing matrix through filter modules. Now these can be used to control LO phase.
    • Added BH55 signals to the medm screen.
  • c1scy
    • Updated SUS model to new sus model that takes care of data acquisition rates and also adds BIASPOS, BIASPIT and BIASYAW filter modules at alignment sliders.

Current state:

  • All models built and installed without any issue or error.
  • On restarting all models, I first noticed 0x2000 error on c1lsc, c1scy and c1hpc. But these errors went away with doing daqd restart on fb1.
  • BH55 FM buttons are not connected to antialiasing analog filter. Need to do this and update medm screen accordingly.
  • The IPC from c1lsc to c1hpc is not working. One sender side, it does not show any signal which needs to be resolved.
  17157   Fri Sep 23 19:04:12 2022 AnchalUpdateBHDBH55 LSC Model Updates - part III


I further updated LSC model today with following changes:

  • BH55 whitening switch binary output signal is now routed to correct place.
    • Switching FM1 which carries dewhitening digital filter will always switch on corresponding analog whitening before ADC input.
  • The whitening can be triggered using LSC trigger matrix as well.
  • The ADC_0 input to LSC subsystem is now a single input and channels are separated inside the subsystem.

The model built and installed with no issues.

Further, the slow epics channels for BH55 anti-aliasing switch and whitening switch were added in /cvs/cds/caltech/target/c1iscaux/C1_ISC-AUX_LSCPDs.db

IPC issue resolved

The IPC issue that we were facing earlier is resolved now. The BH55_I and BH55_Q signal after phase rotation is successfully reaching c1hpc model where it can be used to lock LO phase. To resolve this issue, I had to restart all the models. I also power cycled the LSC I/O chassis during this restart as Tega suspected that such a power cycle is required while adding new dolphin channels. But there is no way to find out if that was required or not. Good news is that with the new cds upgrade, restarting rtcds models will be much easier and modular.

ETMY Watchdog Updated

[Anchal, Tega]

Since ETMY does not use HV coil driver anymore, the watchdog on ETMY needs to be similar to other new optics. We made these updated today. Now ETMY watchdog while slowly ramps down the alignment offsets when it is tripped.

  17165   Thu Sep 29 18:01:14 2022 AnchalUpdateBHDBH55 LSC Model Updates - part IV

More model changes


  • BH55_I and BH55_Q are now being read at ADC_0_14 and ADC_0_15. The ADC_0_20 and ADC_0_21 are bad due to faulty whitening filter board.
  • The whitening switch controls were also shifted accordingly.
  • the slow epics channels for BH55 anti-aliasing switch and whitening switch were added in /cvs/cds/caltech/target/c1iscaux/C1_ISC-AUX_LSCPDs.db


  • MC1, MC2, and MC3 are running on new suspension models now.


  • DCPD_A and DCPD_B have been renamed to BHDC_A and BHDC_B following naming convention at other ports.
  • After the input summing matrix, the signals are called BHDC_SUM and BHDC_DIFF now.
  • BHDC_SUM and BHDC_DIFF can be directly using in sensing matrix bypassing the dither demodulation (to be used for DC locking)
  • BH55_I and BH55_Q are also sent for dither demodulation now (to be used in double dither method, RF and audio).
  • SHMEM channel names to c1bac were changed.


  • Conformed with new SHMEM channel names from c1hpc
  17191   Fri Oct 14 17:04:28 2022 RadhikaUpdateBHDBH55 Q abnormality + fix

[Yuta, Anchal, Radhika]

Yesterday we attempted to lock MICH and BHD using the BH55_Q_ERR signal. We adjusted the demodulation phase to send the bulk of the error signal to the Q quadrature. With the LO beam misaligned, we first locked MICH with AS55_Q_ERR. We tried handing over the feedback signal to BH55_Q_ERR, which in theory should have been equivalent to AS55_Q_ERR. But this would not reduce the error and would instead break the MICH lock. Qualitatively the BH55_Q signal looked noisier than AS55_Q.

We used the Moku:Lab to send a 55 MHz signal into the demod board, replacing the BH55 RF input [Attachment 1]. The frequency was chosen to be 10 Hz  away from the demodulation frequency (5x Marconi source frequency). However, a 10Hz peak was not visible from the spectra - instead, we observed a 60 Hz peak. Tweaking the frequency offset a few times, we realized that there must be a ~50Hz offset between the Moku:Lab and the Marconi.

We generated an X-Y plot of BH55_Q vs. AS55_DC with the MICH fringe: this did not follow a circle or ellipse, but seemed to incoherently jump around. Meanwhile the X-Y plot BH55_I vs. AS55_DC looked like a coherent ellipse. This indicated that something might have been wrong with the demod board producing the I and Q quadrature signals.

We fed the BH55 RF signal into an unused demod board (previously AS165) [Attachment 2] and updated the channel routing accordingly. This step recovered elliptical I and Q signals with Moku input signal, and their relative gain was adjusted to produce a circle X-Y plot [Attachment 3]. C1:LSC-BH55_Q_GAIN was adjusted to 155.05/102.90=1.5068, and measured diff C1:LSC-BH55_PHASE_D was adjusted to 94.42 deg.

Now BH55_Q_ERR was able to be used to lock the MICH DOF. However, BH55 still appears to be noisy in both I and Q quadratures, causing the loop to feedback a lot of noise.

Next steps:

- Amplify the BH55 RF signal before demodulation to increase the SNR. In order to power an RF amplifier, we need to use a breakout board to divert some power from the DB15 cable currently powering BH55.

Attachment 1: IMG_3805.jpeg
Attachment 2: IMG_3807.jpeg
Attachment 3: BH55_IQDemodMeasuredDiff_1349737773.png
  17195   Mon Oct 17 20:04:16 2022 AnchalUpdateBHDBH55 RF output amplified

[Radhika, Anchal]

We have added an RF amplifier to the output of BH55. See the MICH signal on BH55 outputs as compared to AS55 output on the attached screenshot.


Next steps:

- Amplify the BH55 RF signal before demodulation to increase the SNR. In order to power an RF amplifier, we need to use a breakout board to divert some power from the DB15 cable currently powering BH55.



  • Radhika first tried to use ZFL-500-HLN+ amplifier taken out from the amplifier storage along X-arm.
  • She used a DB15 breakout board to source the amplifier power from PD interface cable.
  • However, she reported no signal at the output.
  • We found that BH55 RFPD was not properly fixed tot eh optical table. We bolted it down properly and aligned the beam to the photodiode.
  • We still did not see any RF output.
  • I took over from Radhika on this issue. I tested the transfer function of the amplifier using moku:lab. I found that it was not amplifying at all.
  • I brought in a beanchtop PS and tested the amplifier by powering it directly. It drew 100 mA of current but showed no amplififcation in transfer function. The transfer function was constant at -40 dB with or without the amplifier powered.
  • I took out another RF amplifier from the same storage. This time a ZFL-1000-LN. I tested it with both benchtop PS and PD interface power source, it was wokring with 20 dB amplification.
  • I completed the installation and cable management. See photos attached.
  • I also took the opportunity to center the ITMY oplev.

Please throw away malfunctioning parts or label them malfunctioning before storing them with other parts. If we have to test each and every part before installation, it will waste too much of our time.


Attachment 1: BH55_RF_Amp_Working.png
Attachment 2: rn_image_picker_lib_temp_1b072d08-3780-4b1d-9325-5795ed099d3d.jpg
Attachment 3: rn_image_picker_lib_temp_9d7ed3c0-7ff0-4ff7-9349-0211be397dc5.jpg
Attachment 4: rn_image_picker_lib_temp_05da14e1-eae0-4a84-8761-1c42b122cb1b.jpg
  17196   Mon Oct 17 22:27:25 2022 ranaUpdateBHDBH55 RF output amplified

1) please remember to follow the loading and power up instructions to avoid destroying our low noise RF amplifiers. Its not as easy as powering up any usual device.

2) also, please use the correct decoupling capacitors at the RF amp power pins. Its going to have problems if its powered from a distant supply over a long cable.

  17200   Wed Oct 19 11:09:20 2022 RadhikaUpdateBHDBH55 RF output amplified

[Anchal, Radhika]

We selected a 102K (1 nF) ceramic capacitor and a 100 uF electrolytic capacitor for the RF amplifier power pins. I soldered the connections and reinstalled the amplifier [Attachments 1, 2].


1) please remember to follow the loading and power up instructions to avoid destroying our low noise RF amplifiers. Its not as easy as powering up any usual device.

2) also, please use the correct decoupling capacitors at the RF amp power pins. Its going to have problems if its powered from a distant supply over a long cable.


Attachment 1: IMG_3840.jpeg
Attachment 2: IMG_3847.jpeg
  17174   Thu Oct 6 11:12:14 2022 AnchalUpdateBHDBH55 RFPD installation complete

[Yuta, Paco, Anchal]

BH55 RFPD installation was still not complete until yesterday because of a peculiar issue. As soon as we would increase the whitening gain on this photodiode, we saw spikes coming in at around 10 Hz. Following events took place while debugging this issue:

  • We first thought that RFPD might be bad as we had just picked it up from what we call the graveyard table.
  • Paco fixed the bad connection issue at RF out and we confired RFPD transimpedance by testing it. See 40m/17159.
  • We tried changing the whitening filter board but that did not help.
  • We used BH55 RFPD to lock MICH by routing the demodulation board outputs to AS55 channels on WF2 board. We were able to lock MICH and increase whitening gain without the presence of any spikes. This ruled out any issue with RFPD.
  • Yuta and I tried swapping the whitening filter board but the problem persisted, which made us realize that the issue could be in the acromag that is writing the whitening gain for BH55 RFPD.
  • We combed through the /cvs/cds/caltech/target/c1iscaux/C1_ISC-AUX_LSCPDs.db file to check if the whitening gain DAC channels are written twice but that was not the case. But changing the scan rate of the whitening gain output channel did change the rate at which teh spikes were coming.
  • This proved that some other process is constantly writing zero on these outputs.
  • It tuned out that all unused channels of acromags for c1iscaux are still defined and made to write 0 through /cvs/cds/caltech/target/c1iscaux/C1_ISC-AUX_SPARE.db file. I don't think we need this spare file. If someone wants to use spare channels, they can quickly add it to dB file and restart the modbusIOC service on c1iscaux, it takes less than 2 minutes to do it. I vote to completely get rid of this file or atleast not use it in the cmd file.
  • After removing the violating channels, the problem with BH55 RFPD is resolved.

The installation of BH55 RFPD is complete now.


  17150   Wed Sep 21 17:01:59 2022 PacoUpdateBHDBH55 RFPD installed - part I

[Radhika, Paco]

Optical path setup

We realized the DCPD - B beam path was already using a 95:5 beamsplitter to steer the beam, so we are repurposing the 5% pickoff for a 55 MHz RFPD. For the RFPD we are using a gold RFPD labeled "POP55 (POY55)" which was on the large optical table near the vertex. We have decided to test this in-situ because the PD test setup is currently offline.

Radhika used a Y1-1025-45S mirror to steer the B-beam path into the RFPD, but a lens should be added next in the path to focus the beam spot into the PD sensitive area. The current path is illustrated by Attachment #1.

We removed some unused OPLEV optics to make room for the RFPD box, and these were moved to the optics cabinet along Y-arm [Attachment #2].


[Anchal, Yehonathan]

PD interfacing and connections

In parallel to setting up the optical path configuration in the ITMY table, we repurposed a DB15 cable from a PD interface board in the LSC rack to the RFPD in question. Then, an SMA cable was routed from the RFPD RF output to an "UNUSED" I&Q demod board on the LSC rack. Lucky us, we also found a terminated REFL55 LO port, so we can draw our demod LO from there. There are a couple (14,15,20,21) ADC free inputs after the WF2 and WF3 whitening filter interfaces.

Next steps

  • Finish alignment of BH55 beam to RFPD
  • Test RF output of RFPD once powered
  • Modify LSC model, rebuild and restart
Attachment 1: IMG_3760.jpeg
Attachment 2: IMG_3764.jpeg
  17155   Fri Sep 23 14:10:19 2022 RadhikaUpdateBHDBH55 RFPD installed - part I

[Radhika, Paco, Anchal]

I placed a lens in the B-beam path to focus the beam spot onto the RFPD [Attachment 1]. To align the beam spot onto the RFPD, Anchal misaligned both ETMs and ITMY so that the AS and LO beams would not interfere, and the PD output would remain at some DC level (not fringing). The RFPD response was then maximized by scanning over pitch and yaw of the final mirror in the beam path (attached to the RFPD).

Later Anchal noticed that there was no RFPD output (C1:LSC-BH55_I_ERR, C1:LSC-BH55_Q_ERR). I took out the RFPD and opened it up, and the RF OUT SMA to PCB connection wire was broken [Attachment 2]. I re-soldered the wire and closed up the box [Attachment 3]. After placing the RFPD back, we noticed spikes in C1:LSC-BH55_I_ERR and C1:LSC-BH55_Q_ERR channels on ndscope. We suspect there is still a loose connection, so I will revisit the RFPD circuit on Monday. 

Attachment 1: IMG_3766.jpeg
Attachment 2: IMG_3770.jpeg
Attachment 3: IMG_3773.jpeg
  17156   Fri Sep 23 18:31:46 2022 ranaUpdateBHDBH55 RFPD installed - part I

A design flaw in these initial LIGO RFPDs is that the SMA connector is not strain releieved by mounting to the case. Since it is only mounted to the tin can, when we attach/remove cables, it bends the connector, causing stress on the joint.

To get around this, for this gold box RFPD, connect the SMA connector to the PCB using a S shaped squiggly wire. Don't use multi-strand: this is usually good, since its more flexible, but in this case it affects the TF too much. Really, it would be best to use a coax cable, but a few-turns cork-screw, or pig-tail of single-core wire should be fine to reduce the stress on the solder joint.


Later Anchal noticed that there was no RFPD output (C1:LSC-BH55_I_ERR, C1:LSC-BH55_Q_ERR). I took out the RFPD and opened it up, and the RF OUT SMA to PCB connection wire was broken [Attachment 2]. I re-soldered the wire and closed up the box [Attachment 3]. After placing the RFPD back, we noticed spikes in C1:LSC-BH55_I_ERR and C1:LSC-BH55_Q_ERR channels on ndscope. We suspect there is still a loose connection, so I will revisit the RFPD circuit on Monday. 


  17159   Mon Sep 26 11:39:37 2022 PacoUpdateBHDBH55 RFPD installed - part II

[Paco, Anchal]

We followed rana's suggestion for stress relief on the SMA joint in the BH55 RFPD that Radhika resoldered. We used a single core, pigtailed wire segment after cleaning up the solder joint on J7 (RF Out) and also soldered the SMA shield to the RF cage (see Attachment #1). This had a really good effect on the rigidity of the connection, so we moved back to the ITMY table.

We measured the TEST in to RF Out transfer function using the Agilent network analyzer, just to see the qualitative features (resonant gain at around 55 MHz and second harmonic suppression at around 110 MHz) shown in Attachment #2. We used 10kOhm series resistance in test input path to calibrate the measured transimpedance in V/A. The RFPD has been installed in the ITMY table and connected to the PD interface box and IQ demod boards in the LSC rack as before.

Measurement files

Attachment 1: PXL_20220926_175010061.MOTION.jpg
Attachment 2: BH55_Transimpedance_Measurement.pdf
  17176   Thu Oct 6 18:50:57 2022 AnchalSummaryBHDBH55 meas diff angle estimation and LO phase lock attempts

[Yuta, Paco, Anchal]

BH55 meas diff

We estimated meas diff angle for BH55 today by following this elog post. We used moku:lab Moku01 to send a 55 MHz tone to PD input port of BH55 demodulation board. Then we looked at I_ERR and Q_ERR signals. We balanced the gain on I channel to 1.16 to get the two signals to same peak to peak heights. Then we changed the mead diff angle to 91.97 to make the "bounding box" zero. Our understanding is that we just want the ellipse to be along x-axis.

We also aligned beam input to BH55 bit better. We used the single bounce beam from aligned ITMY as the reference.

LO phase lock with single RF demodulation

We attempted to lock LO phase with just using BH55 demodulated output.


  • ITMX, ETMs were significantly misaligned.
  • At BH port, overlapping beams are single bounce back from ITMY and LO beam.

We expected that we would be able to lock to 90 degree LO phase just like DC locking. But now we understand that we can't beat the light with it's own phase modulated sidebands.

The confusion happened because it would work with Michelson at the dark port output of michelson, amplitude modulation is generated at 55 MHz. We tried to do the same thing as was done for DC locking with single bounce  and then michelson, but we should have seen this beforehand. Lesson: Always write down expectation before attempting the lock.


  17203   Fri Oct 21 10:37:36 2022 AnchalSummaryBHDBH55 phase locking efforts

After the amplifier was modified with a capacitor, we continued trying to approach locking LO phase to in quadrature with AS beam. Following is a short summary of the efforts:

  • To establish some ground, we tested locking MICH using BH55_Q instead of AS55_Q. After amplification, BH55_Q is almost the same level in signal as AS55_Q and a robust lock was possible.
  • Then we locked the LO phase using BH55_Q (single RF sideband locking), which locks the homodyne phase angle to 90 degrees. We were able to successfully do this by turning on extra boost at FM2 and FM3 along with FM4 and FM5 that were used to catch lock.
  • We also tried locking in a single ITMY bounce configuration. This is a Mach-Zehnder interferometer with PR2 acting as the first beam splitter and BHDBS as the recombination beamsplitter. Note that we failed earlier at this attempt due to the busted demodulation board. This lock worked as well with single RF demodulation using BH55_Q.
  • The UGF achieved in the above configurations was ~15 Hz.
  • In between and after the above steps, we tried using audio dither + RF sideband, and double demodulation to lock the LO phase but it did not work:
    • We could see a good Audio dither signal at 142.7 Hz on the BH55_Q signal. SNR above 20 was seen.
    • However, on demodulating this signal and transferring all signal to C1:HPC-BH55_Q_DEMOD_I_OUT, we were unable to lock the LO phase.
    • Using xyplot tool, we tried to see the relationship between C1:HPC-BHDC_DIFF_OUT and C1:HPC-BH55_Q_DEMOD_I_OUT. The two signals, according to our theory, should be 90 degrees out of phase and should form an ellipse on XY plot. But what we saw was basically no correlation between the two.
    • Later, I tried one more thing. The comb60 filter on BH55 is not required when using audio dither with it, so I switched it off.
      • I turned off comb60 filters on both BH55_I and BH55_Q filter modules.
      • I set the audio dither to 120 Hz this time to utilize the entire 120 Hz region between 60 Hz and 180 Hz power line peaks.
      • I changed the demodulation low pass filter to 60 Hz Butterworth filter. I tried using 2nd order to lose less phase due to this filter.
      • These steps did not fetch me any different results than before, but I did not get a good time to investigate this further as we moved into CDS upgrade activities.
  17205   Sat Oct 22 21:36:28 2022 ranaSummaryBHDBH55 phase locking efforts

give us an animated GIF of this cool new tool! - I'm curious what happens if you look at 2 DoF of the same suspension. Also would be cool to apply a bandpass filter before plotting XY, so that you could look for correlations at higher frequencies, not just seismic noise


Using xyplot tool, we tried to see the relationship between C1:HPC-BHDC_DIFF_OUT and C1:HPC-BH55_Q_DEMOD_I_OUT. The two signals, according to our theory, should be 90 degrees out of phase and should form an ellipse on XY plot. But what we saw was basically no correlation between the two.

  15524   Fri Aug 14 00:01:55 2020 gautamUpdateCDSBHD / OMC model channels now added to autoburt

I added the EPCIS channels for the c1omc model (gains, matrix elements etc) to the autoburt such that we have a record of these, since we expect these models to be running somewhat regularly now, and I also expect many CDS crashes.

  16954   Tue Jun 28 14:24:23 2022 yutaUpdateBHDBHD DC PD signals now also sent to c1lsc to circumvent IPC error

[JC, Yuta]

To circumvent IPC error sending BHD DC PD signals from c1sus2 to c1lsc, DB9 cable from BHD DC PD box sent to c1sus2 is now split and sent also to c1lsc.
They are now available in both

c1sus2 ADC1
C1:X07-MADC1_EPICS_CH16 (DC PD A) and CH17 (DC PD B)

c1lsc ADC1
C1:X04-MADC1_EPICS_CH4 (DC PD A) and CH5 (DC PD B)

 - Add battery powered SR560 to decouple c1sus2 and c1lsc to avoid the ground loop

Attachment 1: C1LSC.JPG
Attachment 2: C1SUS2.JPG
Attachment 3: Screenshot_2022-06-28_16-03-16_BHDDCPDcopied.png
  17265   Mon Nov 14 17:45:02 2022 yutaUpdateBHDBHD DC PD unwhitening and removing cables to c1lsc

[Paco, Yuta]

We removed splitter to route BHD DC PD signals to c1hpc and c1lsc. This was necessary to circumvent IPC error, but this is no longer necessary. Now BHD DC PD signals are ADC-ed with c1hpc, and sent to c1lsc via IPC.
We also found that BHD DC PD signals have whitening filters as described in LIGO-T2000500 (Readout board is LIGO-D1400384).
We added unwhitening filter zpk([151.9;3388],[13.81],1,"n") to C1:HPC_BHDC_A and B, based on measured whitening stage gain (see Sec 3.1 of characterization reoprt in LIGO-T2000500).
This solved the signals leaking to minus (40m/17068).

 - Modify c1hpc model to send BHD DCPD signals to c1lsc after unwhitening. (Note added on Nov 15: The same unwhitening filter is also added to C1:LSC-DCPD_A and B for now. See attached.)
 - Redo visibility measurements,

Attachment 1: Screenshot_2022-11-15_13-08-17.png
  16932   Tue Jun 21 14:17:50 2022 yutaConfigurationBHDBHD DCPDs re-routed to c1sus2

After discussing with Anchal, we decided to route BHD related PD signals directly to ADC of c1sus2, which handles our new suspensions including LO1, LO2, AS1, AS4, so that we can control them directly.
BHD related PD signals will be sent to c1lsc for DARM control.

Re-cabling was done, and now they are online at C1:X07-MADC1_EPICS_CH16 (DC PD A) and CH17 (DC PD B) with 15ft DB9 cable.
Here, DC PD A is the transmission of BHD BS for AS beam, and DC PD B is the reflection of BHD BS for AS beam (see attached photo).

Attachment 1: C1X07ADC1.JPG
Attachment 2: BHDDCPDs.JPG
  17034   Mon Jul 25 18:09:41 2022 TegaConfigurationBHDBHD Homodyne Phase control MEDM screen

[Paco, Tega, Yuta]

Today, we made a custom MEDM screen for the BHD Homodyne Phase Control, which is basically an overview of the c1hpc model. See Attachments 1 & 2 for details.

Attachment 1: Screen_Shot_2022-07-25_at_6.12.08_PM.png
Attachment 2: Screen_Shot_2022-07-25_at_6.18.09_PM.png
  17024   Wed Jul 20 18:07:52 2022 PacoUpdateBHDBHD MICH test

[Paco, Yuta, JC]

We did some easy tests on the BHD readout in preparation for BHD MICH. With the arm cavities and LO beam misaligned, but the MICH aligned, we measured the transfer function from C1:LSC-DCPD_A_OUT to C1:LSC-DCPD_B_OUT to get a rough estimate of the gain balance: 1.8 * DCPD_A = DCPD_B. We then locked MICH using REFL55_Q and looked at

  • 1.8 * A - B (which we encoded using C1:LSC-PRCL_A_IN1)
  • 1.8 * A + B (which we encoded using C1:LSC-PRCL_B_IN1)

namely the DCPD BHD signals. After turning the MICH_OSC on (2000 gain @ 311.1 Hz), we took some power spectra under the following three configurations:

  1. LO misaligned, no MICH offset.
  2. LO overlap, no MICH offset.
  3. LO overlap and MICH offset.

For 1. the expectation was that since LO is misaligned and the AS port is dark, we would get no signal. In 2., however both A and B would might see some incoherent signal, but still no MICH. Finally in 3. all signals should be able to see MICH, including A-B. Attachment #1 shows the measurements 1, 2, and 3 (offset = -5.0). Then, with increasing offset values, the BHD MICH signals increased as well; discussion to follow.

Attachment 1: BHD_MICH_OSC.pdf
  17037   Tue Jul 26 20:54:08 2022 PacoUpdateBHDBHD MICH test - LO phase control

[Yuta, Paco]

TL;DR Successfully controlled LO phase, and did BHD-MICH readout with various MICH offsets and LO phases.

Today we implemented a DCPD based LO phase control. First, we remeasured the balancing gain at 311.1 Hz (the MICH oscillator freq) and combined C1:HPC-DCPD_A_OUT with C1:HPC-DCPD_B_OUT to produce the balanced homodyne error signal (A-B). We feed this error signal to C1:HPC-LO_PHASE_IN1 and for the main loop filters we simply recycled the LSC-MICH loop filters FM2 through FM5 (we also copied FM8, but didn't end up using it much). Then, we verified the LO phase can be controlled by actuating either on LO1 or LO2. For LO2, we added an oscillator in the HPC LOCKINS at 318.75 Hz (we kept this on at 1000 counts for the measurements below).

The LO phase control was achieved with a loop gain in the range of 10-30 (we used 20), no offset, and FM4, and FM5 engaged. FM2 can be added to boost, but we usually skipped FM3. Then, we went through a set of measurements similar to the ones described in a previous elog. A key difference with respect to the measurements from before is that we locked MICH using AS55Q (as opposed to REFL55Q). This allowed us to reach higher MICH offsets without losing lock. After turning on the MICH oscillator at 3000 counts, we looked at:

  1. LO misaligned + MICH at dark fringe (offset = -21).
    • Here, we don't expect to see any MICH signal and indeed we don't, except for a small residual peak from perhaps a MICH offset or slightly imbalanced PDs.
  2. LO aligned, but uncontrolled + MICH at dark fringe (offset = -21).
    • Here we would naively expect MICH to show up in A-B, but because of the uncontrolled LO phase, we mostly see the noise baseline (mostly from LO RIN? ...see measurement 3) under which this signal is probably buried. Indeed, the LO fringe increased noise in A, B, and A-B but not in A+B. This is nice. yes
  3. LO aligned, but uncontrolled + MICH with dc readout (offset = +50).
    • Here we expected the MICH signal to show up due to the large offset, and we can indeed see it in A, B, and A+B, but not in A-B. Nevertheless we see almost exactly the same noise level even though we allow some AS light into the BHD readout, so maybe the noise observed in the A-B channel from measurements 2 and 3 is mostly from LO RIN. This needs further investigation...
  4. LO aligned, controlled at no offset + MICH with dc readout (offset = +50).
    • In general here we expected to see a noise reduction in the A-B channel since the LO fringe is stable, and a MICH signal should appear. Furthermore, since LO phase is under control, we expect the LO2 Oscillator to appear which it does for this and the following measurements. Because of the relative freedom, we tried this measurement in two cases:
      1. When feeding back to LO1
        • We actually see MICH in the A-B channel, as expected, after the noise level dropped by ~ 5. We also observed small sidebands +- 1 Hz away from the MICH peak, probably due to local damping in either LO or AS paths.
      2. When feeding back to LO2
        • We also see MICH here, with a slightly better drop in noise (relative to feeding back to LO1). Sidebands persisted here, but around at +- 2 Hz.
  5. LO aligned, controlled (offset = 10) + MICH with dc readout (offset = +50). *
    • Here, we expected the A-B MICH content to increase dramatically, and indeed it does after a little tuning of the LO phase heart. The noise level decreased slightly because LO phase noise is decreased around the optimal point.
  6. LO aligned, controlled (offset = 20) + MICH with dc readout (offset = +30). *
    • Here, we naively expected A+B MICH content to decrease, but A-B remain constant. In order to see this we tried to keep the balance between the offsets, but this was hard. We don't really see much of this effect, so this also needs further investigation. As long as we keep controlling the LO phase using the DCPDs because the offsets tend to reduce the error signal we will have a harder time.

* For these measurements we actuated on LO2 to keep the LO phase under control.

Note that the color code above corresponds to the traces shown in Attachment #1.

What's next?

  • Alignment of LO and AS might be far from optimized, so it should be tried more seriously.
  • What's the actual LO power? How does it compare with AS power at whatever MICH offsets?
  • Try audio dither LO phase control.
    • With MICH offset.
    • Without MICH offset, double demod (after dolphin fix crying)
Attachment 1: 20220726_BICHD.pdf
  15357   Tue May 26 19:19:30 2020 HangUpdateBHDBHD MM-- effects of astigmatism

Please see the attached doc. 

I think the conclusion is that if the AS1 RoC error is not significantly more than 1%, then with some adjustment of the AS1-AS3 distance (~ 1 cm), we could find a solution that simultaneously makes the AS path mode-matching better than 99% for the t- and s-planes. 

The requirement of the LO path is less strict and the current plan using LO1-LO2 actuation should work. 

Attachment 1: MM.pdf
MM.pdf MM.pdf MM.pdf MM.pdf MM.pdf MM.pdf MM.pdf MM.pdf
  15684   Mon Nov 23 12:25:14 2020 gautamUpdateBHDBHD MMT Optics delivered

Optics --> Cabinet at south end (Attachment #1)

Scanned datasheets--> wiki. It would be good if someone can check the specs against what was ordered.

Attachment 1: IMG_8965.HEIC
  15685   Mon Nov 23 14:52:10 2020 KojiUpdateBHDBHD MMT Optics delivered

Basically, they repeated our specs and showed the coating performances for HR/AR for 10deg P and PR/AR for 45deg P. There is no RoC measurement by the vendor.
Nevertheless, their RoC (paper) specs should be compared with our request.

  16198   Fri Jun 11 20:19:50 2021 KojiSummaryBHDBHD OMC invacuum wiring

Stephen and I discussed the in-vacuum OMC wiring.

- One of the OMCs has already been completed. (Blue)
- The other OMC is still being built. It means that these cables need to be built. (Pink)
- However, the cables for the former OMC should also be replaced because the cable harness needs to be replaced from the metal one to the PEEK one.
- The replacement of the harness can be done by releasing the Glenair Mighty Mouse connectors from the harness. (This probably requires a special tool)
- The link to the harness photo is here: https://photos.app.goo.gl/3XsUKaDePbxbmWdY7

- We want to combine the signals for the two OMCs into three DB25s. (Green)
- These cables are custom and need to be designed.

- The three standard aLIGO-style cables are going to be used. (Yellow)

- The cable stand here should be the aLIGO style.

Attachment 1: 40mBHD_OMC_wiring.pdf
  16318   Thu Sep 9 09:54:41 2021 StephenSummaryBHDBHD OMC invacuum wiring - cable lengths

[Koji, Stephen - updated 30 September]

Cable lengths task - in vacuum cabling for the green section (new, custom for 40m) and yellow section (per aLIGO, except likely with cheaper FEP ribbon cable material) from 40m/16198. These arethe myriad of cables extending from the in vacuum flange to the aLIGO-style on-table Cable Stand (think, for example, D1001347), then from the cable stand to the OMCs.

a) select a position for the cable stand.

 - Koji and I discussed and elected to place in the (-X, -Y) corner of the table (Northwest in the typical diagram) and near the table edge. This is adjacent to the intended exit flange for the last cable.

b) measure distances and cable routing approximations for cable bracket junctions

- Near OMC bracket to the cable stand, point to point = 17.2, routing estimate = 24.4.
- Far OMC bracket to the cable stand, point to point = 20.5, routing estimate = 32.2.

  - Recommendation = 48" for all green section cables (using one length for each OMC, with extra slack to account for routing variation).

c) (outdated - see item (b) and attachment 3) measure distances (point to point) and cable routing approximations for all items.

 +X OMC (long edge aligned with +Y beam axis) (overview image in Attachment 1)

- QPDs to the cable stand, point to point = 12, routing estimate = 20.
- DCPDs to the cable stand, point to point = 25, routing estimate = 32.
- PZTs to the cable stand, point to point = 21, routing estimate = 32.

+Y OMC (long edge aligned with +Y beam axis) (overview image in Attachment 1)

- QPDs to the cable stand, point to point = 16, routing estimate = 23.
- DCPDs to the cable stand, point to point = 26, routing estimate = 38.
- PZTs to the cable stand, point to point = 24, routing estimate = 33.

Cable stand to flange (Attachment 2) (specific image in Attachment 2)

- point to point = 35, routing estimate = 42

  - Recommendation = 120" for all yellow section cables, per Koji's preferences for zigzag cable routing on stack and coiling of slack.

Attachment 1: bhd_cable_length_check_cable_bracket_to_components.png
Attachment 2: bhd_cable_length_check_flange_to_cable_bracket.png
Attachment 3: bhd_cable_length_check_cable_bracket_to_omc_bracket.png
  16839   Mon May 9 22:19:06 2022 KojiUpdateBHDBHD Platform Progress status

[Don, Koji]

Don is working on finalizing the BHD Platform design. All the components on the BHD platform are almost populated and aligned.

Don is still working on the table legs so that we can detach the legs when we need to float the table in the future.
The BHD BS mount will have a third picomotor so that we can steer 3 dof with the mount while the remaining dof needs to be provided by the OMC.
The BHD BS position is going to be adjusted so that the incident and trans beams have sufficient clearance.
The OMC legs (kinematic mounts) need more work so that we can adjust their positions for initial setup while they can be the reference for the reproducible placement of the OMCs.
The OMCs are rigidly held with the legs. For the damping of the 1-kHz body bode, which has a relatively high Q, there will be a dissipative element touching the glass breadboard.

Attachment 1: Screenshot_2022-05-09_220220.png
Attachment 2: Screenshot_2022-05-09_222405.png
  16840   Mon May 9 23:18:44 2022 KojiUpdateBHDBHD Platform Progress status

I quickly ran the FEA model to check the resonant freqs of the BHD platform.
The boundary conditions were:

  • The platform was not loaded
  • FIxed constraints were given to the five legs

Don has optimized the cut-out size for the OMCs to increase the rigidity of the plate. Also, the ribbed grid is made at the bottom side.

The lowest mode is at 168Hz. Because there is no leg around, it seems reasonable to have this kind of mode as the fundamental mode.
The other mode lined up at 291Hz, 394Hz, 402Hz, ...
The mode freqs will be lower once the platform is loaded. But as the unloaded platform mode, these mode freqs sound pretty good numbers.

Attachment 1: Screenshot_2022-05-09_224145.png
Attachment 2: Screenshot_2022-05-09_224137.png
Attachment 3: bhd_platform_168.png
Attachment 4: bhd_platform_291.png
Attachment 5: bhd_platform_394.png
Attachment 6: bhd_platform_402.png
  15901   Thu Mar 11 02:10:06 2021 KojiSummaryBHDBHD Platform vertical dimentions

Stephen and I discussed the nominal heights of the BHD platform components.

  • The beam height from the stack is 5.5"
  • The platform height is 1.5" and the thickness of 0.4", according to the VOPO suspension, which we want to be compatible with.
  • Thus the beam height on the BHD platform is 4".
  • The VOPO platform has a minimum 0.1" gap from the installation surface when it is suspended.
  • When the BHD platform is fixed on the table, we'll use positioners that are fixed on the stack table. Then the BHD platform is fixed on the positioner rather than fixing the entire platform on the stack. This leaves us the option to suspend the platform in the future. The number of the positioners is TBD.
  • Looking at the head size for 1/4-20 socket head screws, It'd be nice to have the thickness of 0.5" for the positioners. This makes the thin part of the stiffener to be 0.6" in thickness.
  • The numbers are nominal for the initial design and subject to the change along with FEA simulations to determine the resonant frequency of the body modes.
Attachment 1: BHD_Platform_Vertical_Dimentions.pdf
  16785   Mon Apr 18 16:09:07 2022 YehonathanUpdateBHDBHD Readout simulation

I'm planning on simulating the BHD readout noise in a manner very similar to the ALS noise model using Simulink. I've made a sketch of the model for the longitudinal DOFs (attached). A model for ASC will be similar but with more measurement devices (OpLevs, QPDs, WFSs).

I'm not pretending to simulate everything in this diagram on the first go, it is just a sketch of the big picture.

Attachment 1: BHD_Simulink_Sketch.drawio.pdf
  16828   Tue May 3 21:07:17 2022 YehonathanUpdateBHDBHD Readout simulation

I feel like there is an instability in my thought process on this. Before my tendency to try to scale and generalize this problem brings me to a full stop I will make small but quick progress.

First thing is to calculate the noise budget for a simple Michelson. The involved optics are:

  • ITMX
  • ITMY
  • BS
  • LO1
  • LO2
  • AS1
  • AS4

all sensed with OSEMs and OpLevs only.

Things to fetch:

1. OSEM sensing noise. Where do I get the null stream (AKA butterfly mode)?

2. Oplev noise, look at the SUM channel (or this elog)

3. Actuation TF. Latest elog.

4. Coil driver noise. Going to take the HP supply curve from this elog.

5. Seismic noise + Seismic stack TF. Or maybe just take displacement noise from gwinc.

6. Laser noise. Still need to search.

7. DAC noise. Still need to search.




I'm planning on simulating the BHD readout noise in a manner very similar to the ALS noise model using Simulink. I've made a sketch of the model for the longitudinal DOFs (attached). A model for ASC will be similar but with more measurement devices (OpLevs, QPDs, WFSs).

I'm not pretending to simulate everything in this diagram on the first go, it is just a sketch of the big picture.


  16834   Thu May 5 17:50:48 2022 YehonathanUpdateBHDBHD Readout simulation

I have made a Simulink diagram to use in the MICH modeling (attachment) for the homodyne angle detection scheme. The model will be used for each optic separately and the noises will be combined in quadrature.

I gathered some more bits of info to fill the Simulink boxes. This is what I have so far:

Noise sources

# Displacement noises from gwinc
# OSEM sensing noise from the null stream
# OpLev noise from SUM channel + Seismic motion

freq = np.logspace(1, 4, 100)
coil_driver_noise = 1*freq/freq # pA/sqrt(Hz), elog 15846 
RIN = 1e-2*freq/freq #1/sqrt(Hz), elog 16082  
freq_noise = (1e6/freq**2) #Hz/sqrt(Hz), elog 15431
dark_noise = 1e-8 #V/sqrt(Hz) https://wiki-40m.ligo.caltech.edu/Electronics/RFPD/AS55
ADC_noise = 1e-6 #V/sqrt(Hz)
DAC_noise = 1e-6 #V/sqrt(Hz), elog 13003

TFs and gains

#POS->BHD from Finesse
#RIN->BHD from Finesse
#Frequency noise->BHD from finesse
#Control filters from MEDM
#Whitening filters from https://wiki-40m.ligo.caltech.edu/Electronics/WhiteningFilters
#Dewhitening filters from elog 12983  

DAC_gain = 6.285e-4 #V/cts, elog 16161

coil_driver_gain = 31 # elog 15534

coil_driver_TF = 0.016 #N/A per coil, elog 15846 
coil_R = 20e3 #Ohm,, elog 15846 
SUS_TF = 1/(0.25*freq**2) #m/N, single pendulum
OSEM_TF = 2*16384*1e3 #cts/m, https://wiki-40m.ligo.caltech.edu/Calibration
ADC_TF = 1638.4 #cts/V 
DCPD_responsivity = 0.8 #A/W
DCPD_transimpedance = 1e3 #V/A

Attachment 1: BHD_controls_40m_MICH.pdf
  17264   Mon Nov 14 14:52:56 2022 PacoConfigurationSUSBHD SUS Coil output balance

[JC, Paco]

We installed a steering mirror intersecting the BHD beam path and put the AS beam on the ITMY Oplev QPD (see Attachment #1 for a photo of this temporary hack) . This is done to do coil balancing of AS1/AS4, LO1/LO2. QPD sees ~ 10000 counts when the beam is centered.

[Paco, Yuta]

We follow this procedure -- but with different sensors for all BHD suspension coil output balancing.


We dither BUTT first, lock the LO-AS fringe (DC lock), and look at the residual LO_PHASE spectrum to minimize POS coupling. We then unlock, misalign LO beam and look at the hijacked Oplev (ITMY) while dithering POS to minimize PIT and YAW couplings.


We dither BUTT first, lock thChangeset summarye LO-AS fringe (DC lock), and look at the residual LO_PHASE spectrum to minimize POS coupling. We then unlock, misalign AS beam and look at the hijacked Oplev (ITMY) PIT/YAW residual noise while dithering POS to minimize PIT/YAW coupling.

Changeset summary

The new coil output gains are summarized in the table below:

Optic / Coil UL UR LR LL
AS1 -0.939 1.040 -1.026 0.995
AS4 -0.9785 0.9775 -1.0695 0.9745
LO1 -0.939 1.003 -1.074 0.984
LO2 -1.051 1.342 -0.976 0.631

Finally, I reverted the hacked QPD setup to restore the ITMY OPLEV.

Attachment 1: PXL_20221114_224829547~2.jpg
Attachment 2: Screenshot_2022-11-14_16-07-26_AS1CoilBalancing.png
Attachment 3: Screenshot_2022-11-14_16-23-17_AS4CoilBalancing.png
Attachment 4: Screenshot_2022-11-14_16-38-16_LO1CoilBalancing.png
Attachment 5: Screenshot_2022-11-14_16-54-14_LO2CoilBalancing.png
  16815   Wed Apr 27 16:28:57 2022 AnchalSummaryBHDBHD Upgrade - Retreiving arm cavity alignment

[Anchal, Paco, JC]

We had to open ITMY, ETMY chamber doors to get the cavity aligned again. Once we did that, we regained cavity flashing and were able to align the input injection and cavity alignment to get transmission flashing to 1.0 (C1:LSC-TRY_OUT_DQ). JC later centered both ITMY and ETMY oplevs. The ITMY oplev had become completely out of range.

We also opened ITMX, ETMX chamber doors to get Xarm alignment. Again, it seems that ITMX had moved a lot due to cable post installation.

To be continued

  15540   Wed Aug 26 00:52:55 2020 gautamUpdateBHDBHD activities

Listing some talking points from the last week of activity here.

  1. LO delivery fiber cable may be damaged.
    • The throughput itself doesn't suggest any problems, I get almost all the light I put in out the other end.
    • However, even when I slightly move the fiber, I see huge amplitude fluctuations in the DCPD readouts. This shouldn't be the case, particularly if the light is well matched to one of the special axes of the PM fiber. I checked with a PBS at the output that this is indeed the case, so something else must be funky?
    • In any case, I don't think it's a great idea to use this 70m long fiber for bringing the light from the PSL table to the adjacent AP table. Chub has ordered a 10m patch cable.
    • I was a bit too hasty this morning, thinking we had a patch cable in hand, and so I removed the fiber from the AP table. So right now, the LO beam doesn't make it to the BHD setup. Depending on the lead time for the new patch cable, I may or may not resurrect this old setup.
    • I have also located some foam and rigid plastic tubing which I think will help in isolating the fiber from environmental length(phase) modulation due to acoustic pickup.
  2. BHD commissioning activities
    • Basically, I've been trying to use the Single Bounce ITM reflection/ Michelson / PRMI with carrier locked to get some intuition about the BHD setup. These states are easily prepared, and much easier to understand than the full IFO for these first attempts.
    • One concern I have is the angular stability (or lack thereof). When the PRMI is locked, the DC light level on each DCPD fluctuates between ~0 (which is what it should be), up to ~30 cts (~85uW).
    • Using the empirically determined attenuation factor between the DCPDs and the dark port of the beamsplitter, I estimate the power can be as high as 20mW. This is a huge number, considering the input to the interferometer is ~800mW. I assume that all the light is at the carrier frequency, since the PRC should reject all the sideband light in this configuration. In any case, the total amount of sideband light is ~20mW, and the carrier stays resonant in the PRC even when there are these large ASDC excursions, so I think it's a reasonable assumption that the light is at the carrier frequency. Moreover, looking at the camera, one can see a clear TEM10/01 profile, indicative of imperfect destructive interference at the beamsplitter due to beam axis misalignment.
    • The effect of such excursions on the BHD readout hasn't yet been quantified (by me at least), but I think it may be hampering my attempts to dither the homodyne phase to estimate the LO phase noise.
  3. High voltage coil driver project - see thread for updates.
  4. Trek HV driver has arrived.
    • I haven't opened the box yet, but basically, what this means is that I can dither the mirror intended for homodyne phase control in a reasonable way.
    • Previously, I was using the OMC HV driver to drive the PZTs - but this dither signal path has a 2kHz high pass filter (since the OMC length dither is a kHz dither). I didn't want to futz around with the electronics, particularly since the unit was verified to be working.
    • So the plan now would be to drive the input of the Trek with a DAC output (an appropriate AI chassis has been prepared to interface with the CDS system).
    • Hopefully, there's enough DAC dynamic range to dither the PZT and also do the homodyne phase locking using a single channel. Else, we'd need to use two channels and install a summing amplifier.
    • We definitely need more high-voltage amplifiers/supplies in the lab:
      • Any Thorlabs HV drivers we can recover? 
      • Eventually, we will need HV for coil drivers, OMC PZTs, steering PZTs, homodyne phase control PZT. 
  5. PMC bases have arrived.
    • Joe Benson from the machine shop informed me today afternoon that the bases were ready for pickup.
    • We have 3 bases in hand now. The finish isn't the greatest in the world, but I think it'll work. You can see some photos here.
    • I will hold off on putting this together while I work on the basic airBHD commissioning tests. We can install the PMCs later.
  6. AS port WFS project
    • We now have in hand almost all the components for stuffing the ISC whitening and LSC demod boards.
    • Rich, Chub, Luis and I had a call on Monday. The advise from Rich/Luis was:
      • Choose an inductance that has Z~100 ohms at the frequency of interest, for the resonant transimpedance part.
      • Choose a capacitance that gives the appropriate resonant frequency.
      • Don't stuff more notches than you need - start with just a 2f notch (so 110 MHz for us), and make sure to place the highest frequency notch closest to the photodiode.
      • Rich also suggested looking at the optical signal with a non-optimized head, get an idea of what the field content is, and then tune the circuit as necessary. There are obviously going to be many issues that only become apparent once we do such a test.
    • The aLIGO modulation frequencies are only 20% different from the 40m modulation frequencies. So I thought it is best if for our first pass, we stick to the inductance values used in the aLIGO circuits (same footprint, known part etc etc). Then, we will change the capacitance so that we have a tuning range that is centered our modulation frequencies.
    • The parts have been ordered.
  7. ISS project
    • Half of the LO light on the BHD breadboard is diverted for the purpose of sensing the LO intensity noise, for eventual stabilization. Right now, it is just getting dumped.
    • A PD head has been located. It has a minimalist 1kohm transimpedance amplifier circuit integrated into the head.
    • Our AOM driver has an input range of 0-1V DC. We want to map the servo output of +/-10V DC (or +/-4V DC if we use an SR560 based servo for a first pass) to this range.
    • I wanted to do this for once in a non-hacky way so I drew up a circuit that I think will serve the purpose. It has been fabricated and will be tested on the bench in a couple of days.
    • Once I get a feel for what the signal content is, I will also draw up a interface board to the PD head that (i) supplies the reverse bias voltage and +/-15 V DC to the PD head and (ii) applies some appropriate HPF action and provides a DC monitor as well.
  8. Summary pages are dead.
  9. General lab cleanup
    • I moved all the PPE from the foyer area into the designated cabinets along the east arm.
    • Did some basic cleanup of the lab in preparation for crane inspection. Walkways are clear.
    • I de-cluttered the office area a bit, but today I received ~10 packages from Digikey/FrontPanelExpress etc. So, in fact, it got even more cluttered. Entropy will go down once we ship these off to screaming circuits for stuffing the PCBs.
ELOG V3.1.3-