40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 335 of 348  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Categorydown Subject
  15731   Thu Dec 10 22:46:57 2020 gautamUpdateASCWFS head assembled

The assembly of the head is nearly complete, I thought I'd do some characterization before packaging everything up too nicely. I noticed that the tapped holes in the base are odd-sized. According to the official aLIGO drawing, these are supposed to be 4-40 tapped, but I find that something in between 2-56 and 4-40 is required - so it's a metric hole? Maybe we used some other DCC document to manufacture these parts - does anyone know the exact drawings used? In the meantime, the circuit is placed inside the enclosure with the back panel left open to allow some tuning of the trim caps. The front panel piece for mounting the SMA feedthroughs hasn't been delivered yet so hardware-wise, that's the last missing piece (apart from the aforementioned screws).

Attachment #1 - the circuit as stuffed for the RF frequencies of relevance to the 40m.

Attachment #2 - measured TF from the "Test Input" to Quadrant #1 "RF Hi" output.

  • There is reasonable agreement, but not sure what to make of the gain mismatch at most frequencies.
  • The photodiode itself hasn't been installed yet, so there will be some additional tuning required to account for the interaction with the photodiode's junction capacitance.
  • I noticed that the Qs of the resonances in between the notches is pretty high in this config, but the SPICE model also predicts this, so I'm hopeful that they will be tamed once the photodiode is installed.
  • One thing that is worrying is the feature at ~170 MHz. Could be some oscillation of the LM opamp. All the aLIGO WFS test procedure documentation shows measurements only out to 100 MHz. Should we consider increasing the gain of the preamp from x10 to x20 by swapping the feedback resistor from 453 ohms to 1 kohm? Is this a known issue at the sites
  • Any other comments?

Update 11 Dec: For whatever reason, whoever made this box decided to tap 4-40 holes from the bottom (i.e. on the side of the base plate), and didn't thread the holes all the way through, which is why I was unable to get a 4-40 screw in there. To be fair the drawing doesn't specify the depth of the 4-40 holes to be tapped. All the taps we have in the lab have a maximum thread length of 9/16" whereas we need something with at least 0.8" thread length. I'll ask Joe Benson at the physics workshop if he has something I can use, and if not, I'll just drill a counterbore on the bottom side and use the taps we have to go all the way through and hopefully that does the job.

The front panel I designed for the SMA feedthroughs arrived today. Unfortunately, it is impossible for the D-sub shaped holes in this box to accommodate 8 insulated SMA feedthroughs (2 per quadrant for RF low and RF high) - while the actual SMA connector doesn't occupy so much space, the plastic mold around the connector and the nut to hold it are much too bulky. For the AS WFS application, we will only need 4 so that will work, but if someone wants all 8 outputs (plus an optional 9th for the "Test Input"), a custom molded feedthrough will have to be designed. 

As for the 170 MHz feature - my open loop modeling in Spice doesn't suggest a lack of phase margin at that frequency so I'm not sure what the cause is there. If this is true, just increasing the gain won't solve the issue (since there is no instability at least by the phase margin metric). Could be a problem with the "Test Input" path I guess. I confirmed it is present in all 4 quadrants.

Attachment 1: aLIGO_wfs_v5_40m.pdf
Attachment 2: TF_meas.pdf
  15736   Thu Dec 17 15:23:56 2020 gautamUpdateASCWFS head characterization


I think the WFS head performs satisfactorily.

  • The (input-referred) dark noise level at the operating frequency of 55 MHz is ~40pA/rtHz (modelled) and ~60 pA/rtHz (measured, converted to input-referred). See Attachment #1. Attachment #5 has the input referred current noise spectral densities, and a few representative shot noise levels.
  • The RF transimpedance gain at the operating frequency is ~500 ohms when driving a 50 ohm load (in good agreement with LTspice model). See Attachment #2 and Attachment #3.
  • The resonant gain to notch ratios are all > 30 dB, which is in line with numbers I can find for the WFS installed at the sites (and in good agreement with the LTspice model as well).
  • There are a few lines visible in the noise measurement. But these are small enough not to be a show-stopper I think.

Details and remarks:

  1. Attachment #4 shows a photo of the setup. 
    • The QPD used was S/N #84.
    • The heat sinks have a bunch of washers because the screw holes were not tappe at time of manufacture.
    • There isn't space to have 8 SMA feedthroughs in the D-shaped cutouts, so we can only have the 4 "RF HI" outputs without some major metalwork.
    • C9 has been remvoed in all channels (to isolate the "TEST INPUT").
  2. I found that some quadrants displayed a ~35 MHz sine-wave of a few mV pk-pk when I had the back of the enclosure off (for tuning the notches). The hypothesis is that this was due to some kind of stray capacitance effect. Anyways, once I closed everything up, for the noise measurement, this peak was no longer visible. With an HP8447A preamp, I measured an RMS voltage of ~2mV rms on an oscilloscope. After undoing the 20 dB gain of the amplifier, each quadrant has an output voltage noise of ~200 uVrms (as returned by the "measure" utility on the scope, I don't know the specifics of how it computes this). Point is, there wasn't any clear sine-wave oscillations like I saw on two channels when the lid was off. 
  3. Some of the lines are present during some measurement times but not others (e.g. Q4 blue vs red curve in Attachment #1). I was doing this work in the elec-bench area of the lab, right next to the network switches etc so not exactly the quietest environment. But anyway, I don't see anything in these measurements that suggest something is seriously wrong.
  4. In the transfer function measurements, above 150 MHz, there are all sorts of features. But I think this is a measurement artefact (stray cable capacitance etc) and not anything real in the RF signal path. Koji saw similar effects I believe, and I didn't delve further into it.
  5. The dark noise of the circuit is such that to be shot noise limited, each quadrant needs 10 mA of DC photocurrent. The light bulb we have has a max current rating of 0.25A, with which I could only get 3 mA DC per quadrant. So the 55 MHz sideband power needed to be shot noise limited is ~50 mW - we will never have such high power. But I think to have better performance will need a major re-work of the circuit design (finite Qs of inductors, capacitors etc).
  6. Regarding the transimpedance gains - in my earlier plots, I omitted the 50ohm input impedance of the AG4395A network analyzer. The numbers I report here are ~half of those earlier in this thread for this reason. In any case, I think this number is what is important, since the ADT-1-1 on the demod board RF input has an input impedance of 50ohm. 
  7. Regarding grounding - the RF ground on the head is actually isolated from the case pretty well. Two locations of concern are (i) the heat sinks for the voltage regulator ICs and (ii) the DB15 connector shield. I've placed electrically insulating (but thermally conducting) pads from TO220 mounting kits between both sets of objects and the case. However, for the Dsub connector, the shape of the pad doesn't quite fit all the way round the connector. So if I over-tighten the 4-40 mounting bolts, at some point, the case gets shorted to the RF ground, presumably because the connector deforms slightly and touches the case in a spot where I don't have the isolating pad installed. I think I've realized a tightness that is mechanically satisfying but electrically isolating.
  8. I will do the fitting at my leisure but the eye-fit is already suggesting that things are okay I think.

If the RF experts see some red flags / think there are more tests that need to be performed, please let me know. Big thanks to Chub for patiently supporting this build effort, I'm pleasantly surprised it worked.

Attachment 1: oNoise.pdf
Attachment 2: Z_Hi.pdf
Attachment 3: Z_Low.pdf
Attachment 4: IMG_9030.jpg
Attachment 5: iNoise.pdf
  15920   Mon Mar 15 20:22:01 2021 gautamUpdateASCc1rfm model restarted

On Friday, I felt that the ASC performance when the PRFPMI was locked was not as good as it used to be, so I looked into the situation a bit more. As part of my ASC model revamp in December, I made a bunch of changes to the signal routing, and my suspicion was that the control signals weren't even reaching the ETMs. My log says that I recompiled and reinstalled the c1rfm model (used to pipe the ASC control signals to the ETMs), and indeed, the file was modified on Dec 21. But for whatever reason, the C1RFM.ini (=Dolphin receiver since the ASC control signals are sent to this model over the Dolphin network from the c1ioo machine which hosts the C1:ASC- namespace, and RFM sender to the ETMs, but this path already existed) file never picked up the new channels. Today, I recompiled, re-installed, and restarted the models, and confirmed that the control signals actually make it to the ETMs. So now we can have the QPD-based ASC loops engaged once again for the PRFPMI lock. The CDS system did not crash 🎉 . See Attachments #1-3.

I checked the loop performance in the POX/POY locked config by first deliberately misaligning the ETMs, and then engagin the loops - seems to work (Attachment #4). The loop shapes have to be tweaked a bit and I didn't engage the integrators, hence the DC pointing wasn't recovered. Also, added a line to the script that turns the ASC loops on to set limits for all the loops - in the testing process, one of the loops ran away and I tripped the ETMY watchdog. It has since been recovered. I SDFed a limit of 100cts just to be on the conservative side for model reboot situations - the value in the script can be raised/lowered as deemed necessary (sorry, I don't know the cts-->urad number off the top of my head).

But the hope is this improves the power buildup, and provides stability so that I can begin to commission the AS WFS system a bit.

Attachment 1: RFM.png
Attachment 2: CDSoverview.png
Attachment 3: RFMchans.png
Attachment 4: ASCloops.png
  15953   Mon Mar 22 16:29:17 2021 gautamUpdateASCSome prep for AS WFS commissioning
  1. Added rough cts2mW calibration filters to the quadrants, see Attachment #1. The number I used is:
              0.85 A/W         *       500 V/A            *          10 V/V                              *         1638.4 cts/V
    (InGaAs responsivity)     (RF transimpedance)  (IQ demod conversion gain)      (ADC calibration)
  2. Recovered FPMI locking. Once the arms are locked on POX / POY, I lock MICH using AS55_Q as a sensor and BS as an actuator with ~80 Hz UGF.
  3. Phased the digital demod phases such that while driving a sine wave in ETMX PIT, I saw it show up only in the "I" quadrant signals, see Attachment #2.

The idea is to use the FPMI config, which is more easily accessed than the PRFPMI, to set up some tests, measure some TFs etc, before trying to commission the more complicated optomechanical system.

Attachment 1: AS_WFS_head.png
Attachment 2: WFSquads.pdf
  16267   Mon Aug 2 16:18:23 2021 PacoUpdateASCAS WFS MICH commissioning

[anchal, paco]

We picked up AS WFS comissioning for daytime work as suggested by gautam. In the end we want to comission this for the PRFPMI, but also for PRMI, and MICH for completeness. MICH is the simplest so we are starting here.

We started by restoromg the MICH configuration and aligning the AS DC QPD (on the AS table) by zeroing the C1:ASC-AS_DC_YAW_OUT and C1:ASC-AS_DC_PIT_OUT. Since the AS WFS gets the AS beam in transmission through a beamsplitter, we had to correct such a beamsplitters's aligment to recenter the AS beam onto the AS110 PD (for this we looked at the signal on a scope).

We then checked the rotation (R) C1:ASC-AS_RF55_SEGX_PHASE_R and delay (D) angles C1:ASC-AS_RF55_SEGX_PHASE_D (where X = 1, 2, 3, 4 for segment) to rotate all the signal into the I quadrature. We found that this optimized the PIT content on C1:ASC-AS_RF55_I_PIT_OUT and YAW content on C1:ASC-AS_RF55_I_YAW_OUTMON which is what we want anyways.

Finally, we set up some simple integrators for these WFS on the C1ASC-DHARD_PIT and C1ASC-DHARD_YAW filter banks with a pole at 0 Hz, a zero at 0.8 Hz, and a gain of -60 dB (similar to MC WFS). Nevertheless, when we closed the loop by actuating on the BS ASC PIT and ASC YAW inputs, it seemed like the ASC model outputs are not connected to the BS SUS model ASC inputs, so we might need to edit accordingly and restart the model.

  16909   Fri Jun 10 20:11:46 2022 yutaUpdateASCYarm ASS re-tuning in progress

[Anchal, Yuta]

We tried to re-tune Yarm ASS today. It cannot be fully closed as of now. I think we need to play with signs.

 - We want to make sure Yarm ASS work with current ITMY coil matrix (40m/16899).
 - ASS makes the beam positions on test masses to be the same every day.

What we did:
 - Adjusted A2L paths of C1:ASS-YARM_OUT_MTRX based on cavity geometry. For the paths to maximize the transmission using TT1 and TT2, we just assumed they are correctly calculated by someone in the past.
 - Adjusted OSC_CLKGAINs so that ITMY and ETMY will be shaken in the same amplitude in terms of radians. The ratio of the excitation was determined to take into account for the oscillator frequency difference between DOFs.
 - Checked the time constant of A2L paths by turning on A2L paths only, and checked that of max-transmission paths by turining on them only.
 - Adjusted DEMOD_SIG_GAINs so that their time constants will be roughly the same, with C1:ASS-YARM_SEN_MTRX fully identity matrix and all servo GAINs to be +1.
 - Re-tuned DEMOD_PHASEs to minimize Q signal. C1:ASS-YARM_ITM_PIT_L_DEMOD_PHASE and C1:ASS-YARM_ITM_YAW_T_DEMOD_PHASE were re-tuned within +/- 5 deg.
 - These changes are recorded in /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/Git/40m/scripts/ASS/ASS_DITHER_ON.snap now.

 - A2L loops seems to be working, but max-transmission paths seems to diverge at some point. I think we need to play with the signs/gains of max-transmission paths for C1:ASS-YARM_OUT_MTRX.
 - Attached is the current configuration we achieved so far.

Attachment 1: Screenshot_2022-06-10_20-10-52.png
  16911   Mon Jun 13 20:26:09 2022 yutaUpdateASCYarm ASS re-tuning in progress -part 2-

[Anchal, Yuta]

We are still in the progress of re-commissioning Yarm ASS.
Today, we tried to adjust output matrix by measuring the sensing matrix at DC.
Turning on yaw loops kind of works, but pitch does not. It seems like there is too much coupling in pitch to yaw.
We might need to adjust the coil output matrix of ITMY and ETMY to go further, and/or try measuring the sensing matrix including pitch - yaw coupling.

What we did:
 - Confirmed that turning on TT1 and TT2 loops (max-transmission loops) work fine. When we intentionally misalign TT1/2, the ASS loops correct it. So, we moved on to measure the sensing matrix of A2L paths, instead of using theoretical matrix caluclated from cavity geometry we used last week (40m/16909).
 - Instead of +/-1's, we put +/-2's in the ITMY coil output matrix to balance the actuation between ETMY and ITMY to take into account that ITMY is now using only two coils for actuating pitch and yaw (40m/16899).
 - Measured the change in C1:ASS-YARM_(E|I)TM_(PIT|YAW)_L_DEMOD_I_OUT16 error signals when offset was added to C1:SUS-(E|I)TMY_ASC(PIT|YAW)_OFFSET. We assumed pitch-yaw coupling is small enough here. Below was the result.

                            ETM PIT error  ITM PIT error
ETM PIT OFFSET of +100cnts: -3.0cnts       -2.99cnts
ITM PIT OFFSET of +100cnts
: -11.94cnts      -5.38cnts

                            ETM PIT error  ITM PIT error
ETM YAW OFFSET of +100cnts:
-3.42cnts      -16.93cnts
ITM YAW OFFSET of +10 cnts: +1.41cnts      +0.543cnts

 - Inverted the matrix to get A2L part of C1:ASS-YARM_OUT_MTRX. Attachment #1 is the current configuration so far.
 - With this, we could close all yaw loops when pitch loops were not on. But vise versa didn't work.
 - Anyway, we aligned the IFO by centering the beams on test masses by our eyes and centered all the oplevs (Attachment #2).

 - Do coil balancing to reduce pitch-yaw coupling
 - Measure sensing matrix also for pitch-yaw coupling
 - Xarm ASS is also not working now. We need to do similar steps also for Xarm

Attachment 1: Screenshot_2022-06-13_20-47-12.png
Attachment 2: Screenshot_2022-06-13_20-44-43.png
  16915   Tue Jun 14 20:57:15 2022 AnchalUpdateASCYarm ASS working now

I finally got YARM AS to work today. It is hard to describe what worked, I did a lot of monkey business and some dirty offset measurements to create the ASS output matrix that gave results. Note that I still had to leave out ITMY PIT L error signal, but transmission was maximizing without it. The beam does not center fully on ITMY in Pit direction right now, but we'll mvoe on from this problem for now. Future people are welcome to try to make it work for this last remaining error signal as well.



  16930   Mon Jun 20 19:46:04 2022 TomislavUpdateASCSimulation plots

In the attachment please find IMC ASC simulation plots. Let me know what you think, if you want some other plots, and if you need any clarification.

Attachment 1: pit_mot_cl_MCs.png
Attachment 2: loc_damp_cl_MCs.png
Attachment 3: contr_output_cl_MCs.png
Attachment 4: sens_output_cl_MCs.png
Attachment 5: BS_motion_cl_MCs.png
  16934   Tue Jun 21 18:41:46 2022 TomislavUpdateASCSimulation plot

In the attachment please find a comparison of error signals of simulation and reality. For C1:IOO-WFS1/2_PIT_IN1 excess signal ('belly') between a few Hz up to 70-80 Hz might be caused by air turbulence (which is not included in the simulation).

Attachment 1: sens_output_comparison.png
  16937   Tue Jun 21 22:22:37 2022 TomislavUpdateASCPlots

In the attachment please find a comparison of error signals of simulation and reality after including air turbulence as input noise.

Attachment 1: sens_output_comparison_with_air_turbulence.png
  16948   Sat Jun 25 22:18:41 2022 TomislavUpdateASCSimulation and reality comparisons

In the attachment please find plots comparing controller output, local damping output, and error signals.

Input noises of the simulation are seismic noise, osem noise, input power fluctuations, sensing noises of WFSs and QPD, and air turbulence noise for WFSs. There is also optical torque noise (radiation pressure effect). 

The procedure to get optical gains and sensing noises:
Having the actuator response A rad/cnts @ 3 Hz. I was shaking MC1/2/3 in pitch with B cnts @ 3 Hz and getting WFS1/2 QPD signals of C cnts @ 3 Hz, which means WFS1/2 QPD optical gain is D cnts/rad = C / (A * B) cnts/rad. So, if WFS1/2 QPD IN1 has a noise spectrum (at higher freqs) of E cnts/rtHz, that corresponds to E/D rad/rtHz of sensing noise for WFS1/2 QPD.

Actuator response [rad/cts] I was getting shaking mirrors at 3 Hz and measuring amplitudes of OSEM output (knowing the geometry of the mirror). I scaled it to DC. From here I was getting ct2tau_mc (knowing the mirror's moment of inertia, Q, and natural pitch frequencies). OSEM calibration factors [cts/rad] I was getting from the input matrix and geometry of the mirror.

The flat noise at higher frequencies from the local damping and controller output channels is presumably quantization/loss of digits/numerical precision noise which I don't include in simulations for now?!

Regarding air turbulence, in KAGRA it has been reported that air turbulence introduces phase fluctuations in laser fields that propagate in air. According to Kolmogorov’s theory, the PSD of phase fluctuations caused by air turbulence scales as ∝ L*V^(5/3)*f^(−8/3). Here, L is the optical path length and V is a constant wind speed. Since it is not obvious how can one estimate typical V in the beam paths I was taking this excess noise from the error signals data between 10 Hz and 50 Hz, extrapolated it taking into account ∝ f^(−8/3) (not for frequencies below 2 Hz, where I just put constant, since it would go too high). I expect that I won't be able to get a parameterized model that also predicts the absolute value. The slope is all I can hope to match, and this I already know. QPD chamber is much smaller (and better isolated?) and there is no this excess noise.

Regarding other things in simulations (very briefly): beam-spots are calculated from angular motions, length change is calculated from beam-spots and angular motion, cavity power depends on length change and input power, and torque on the mirrors depends on beam-spots and cavity power. From other things, local-sensor basis conversion (and vice versa) is worth noting.

Attachment 1: sens_output_comparison_23_6_new.png
Attachment 2: contr_out_comparison_23_6_new.png
Attachment 3: local_damp_out_comp_23_6_new.png
  17217   Mon Oct 31 21:04:43 2022 KojiUpdateASCWFS inspection

Inspected the lab to see what we can do about the IFO WFS:

  • WFS heads
    • 1 functional WFS head (tuned at 11/55MHz) @AS Table [40m ELOG 15736]
    • 1 WFS head case (empty) @Section Y10 below the tube, plastic box
    • 2 WFS PCBs, components stuffed, tuning freq unknown @Section Y10 below the tube, plastic box
  • Deomdulators
    • no 4ch IQ demod unit (some component possibly spare)
    • Build 4 iLIGO demods?
  • Whitening / AA
    • No permanent unit: Maybe we can borrow something from the BHD
  • ADC CHs
    • c1ioo seems to have just 8 more spare channels.
    • Borrow a card from bhd? This will require an AI. But their location would be close to the final positions.
  17255   Thu Nov 10 20:46:32 2022 ranaUpdateASCIMC WFS servo diagnosis

To check out the bandwidths and cross-coupling in the WFS loops, I made a script (attached) to step the offsets around, sleeping between steps. Its also in the scripts/MC/WFS/ dir.

You can see from the steps that there is some serious cross coupling from WFS1-PIT to MC_TRANS PIT. This cross-coupling is not a disaster because we run the MC2 centering loop with such a low gain. This gain hirearchy means that you can effectively consider the IMC with the WFS loops closed to be an "open loop" plant that the MC TRANS loop is trying to control.

I've started another run at 4:40 UTC since my previous one only paused for 30 seconds after turning each offset OFF/ON. This is clearly not long enough to grab the MC_TRANS loop; although you can tell sort of how slow it is from the slope of the error signal after the step is applied.

To make the plot, I used diaggui in the time series mode, with a 3 Hz BW. I applied a 4th order Butterworth filter at 0.3 Hz to low pass the data using the foton string in the time series tool.

Attachment 1: toggleWFSoffsets.py
#!/usr/bin/env python
# toggles the offsets on the WFS loops so that we can estimate the
# loop UGF from the step response
# requires that you have put appropriate size offsets 
# in the WFS1/WFS2/MC_TRANS filter banks.
# the offset should be just enough to see in the error signal, 
# but not so much that the transmitted power drops by more than ~10%
... 30 more lines ...
Attachment 2: imc-wfs-steps.pdf
  17272   Wed Nov 16 12:53:36 2022 ranaUpdateASCIMC WFS ongoing

In the middle of aportioning gains and signs in the IMC WFS screen, so beware. More updates soon.

  17288   Fri Nov 18 23:21:54 2022 ranaUpdateASCIMC WFS ongoing

On Wednesday, I did some rework of the MC WFS gains. I think it should still work as before as long as the overall input gain is set to 0.1 (not 1.0 as the button on the screen sets it to).

  1. The MC_TRANS P/TY signals were very small because they are normalized by the SUM. I added a '+80 dB' gain filter to the MC2_TRANS_PIT and MC2_TRANS_YAW filter banks which increase the signal gain before the digital signals are sent from the MC2 model to the MC_WFS control screen's Input Matrix. Now if you plot the MC_TRANS and WFS signals on dataviewer, the time series all have roughly the same magnitude.
  2. I put a "-80 dB" gain button into the MC2_TRANS servo filter banks. This should make it have the same overall gain as before, since the (sensor to servo) Input Matrix is diagonal.
  3. The servo gains (WFS1_PIT, WFS2_YAW, etc.) had some negative signs. To make all the servo gains positive, I moved those signs into the Output Matrix.
  4. The Output Matrix had some values with 4-5 significant digits. I think its not necessary to have more than 2 places after the decimal point since out measurements are not that accurate, so I rounded them off. We can/should change that screen to reduce the PREC field on the matrix element display.
  5. Now, if the overall INPUT_GAIN slider is increased beyond 0.1, there is some pitch oscillation. I think that is happening because the Output Matrix is not that great. In principle, if we have diagonalized the system, putting offsets into the various loops' error points won't make offsets in the other loops, but this is not the case. The pitch loops have a lot of cross coupling (my guess is that the off-diagonal elements are of order 0.1); the yaw loops are several times better. I suggest someone redo the Output Matrix diagonalization and then use the error point offset method to check that they are diagonal.

We mainly want these loops to work well at DC, so it is perhaps better if we can measure the matrix at DC. Its less automatic than at 13 Hz, but I think it could be done with a script and some iterative matrix inversion:

  1. IMC locked, IMC ASC loops all open (by setting the overall input gain slider to zero)
  2. apply an offset in the WFS1_P basis (turn off the integrators in all the servo loops, and apply a ~400 count offset in the error point)
  3. tweak the WFS1_P output matrix until the WFS2_P and MC2_TRANS_P signals go to zero.
  4. repeat for all 6 loops.

I haven't tried this procedure before, but I think it should work. You can use something like "cdsutils servo" to slowly adjust the Output Matrix values.


  17311   Thu Nov 24 15:37:45 2022 AnchalUpdateASCIMC WFS output matrix diagonalization effort

I tried following the steps and the method I was using converged to same output matrix upto 2 decimal points but there is still left over cross coupling as you can see in Attachment 1. With the new output matrix, WFS loop can be turned on with full overall gain of 1.


  • I switched off +20dB FM2 on C1IOO-WFS1_PIT and increased gain C1:IOO-WFS1_PIT_GAIN from 0.1 to 1 to be uniform with other filters.
  • Output matrix change:
    • Old matrix:
      -2.   4.8 -7.3
       3.6  3.5 -2. 
       2.   1.  -6.8
    • New Matrix:
      3.44  4.22 -7.29
      0.75  0.92 -1.59
      3.41  4.16 -7.21
  • I think the main change that allowed the WFS loop to become stable was the 0,0 element sign change.


  • I made overall gain C1:IOO-WFS_GAIN 0
  • Switched of (0:0.8) FM3 on PIT filter modules (IOO-WFS1_PIT, IOO-WFS2_PIT, IOO-MC2_TRANS_PIT)
  • Changed ramp time to 2 seconds on all these modules
  • Used offset of 10000 for WFS2 and MC2_TRANS, and 30000 for WFS1 (for some reason, response to WFS1 step was much lower than others)
  • Measured the following sensor channels
  • First I took 30s average of these channels, then applied the offsets in the three modules one by one and recorded steps in each sensor.
  • Measured step from reference value taken before, and normalized each step to the DOF that was actually stepped to get a matrix.
  • Inverted this matrix and multiplied with existing output matrix. Made sure column norm1 is same as before and column signs are same as before.
  • Repeated a few times.

Note: The standard deviation on the averages was very high even after averaging for 30s. This data should be averaged after low passing high frequencies but I couldn't find the filter module medm screens for these signals, so I just proceeded with simple averaging of full rate signal using cdsultis avg command.

Fri Nov 25 12:46:31 2022

The WFS loop are unstable again. This could be due to the matrix balancing done while vacuum was disrupted. The above matrix does not work anymore.

Attachment 1: WFS_Step_DCResponses_Offsets_Marked.png
  17320   Mon Nov 28 20:14:27 2022 AnchalUpdateASCAS WFS proposed path to IMC WFS heads

In Attachment 1, I give a plan for the proposed path of AS beam into the IMC WFS heads to use them temporarily as AS WFS. Paths shown in orange are the existing MC REFL path, red for the existing AS path, cyan for the proposed AS path, and yellow for the existing IFO refl path.  We plan to overlap AS beam to the same path by installing the following new optics on the table:

  • M1 will be a new mirror mounted on a flipper mount reflecting 100% of AS beam to SW corner of the table.
  • M2 will be a new fixed mirror for steering the new AS beam path to match with MC WFS path.
  • M3 will be the existing beamsplitter used to pick off light for MC refl camera. We'll just mount this on a flipper so that it can be removed from the path. Precaution will be required to protect the CCD from high intensity MC reflection by putting on more ND filters.
  • The AS beam would need to be made approximately 1 mm in beam width. The required lenses for this would be placed between M1 and M2.

I request people to go through this plan and find out if there are any possible issues and give suggestions.

PS: Thanks JC for the photos. I got it from foteee google photos. It would be nice if these are also put into the 40m wiki page for photos of optical tables.

RXA: Looks good. I'm not sure if ND filters can handle the 1 W MC reflection, so perhaps add another flipper there. It would be good if you can measure the power on the WFS with a power meter so we know what to put there. Ideally we would match the existing power levels there or get into the 0.1-10 mW range.

Attachment 1: F5B115E5-885F-463C-9645-BB2EB73B6144_1_201_a.jpeg
  17332   Sat Dec 3 17:42:25 2022 AnchalUpdateASCIMC WFS Fixed for now

Today I did a lot of steps to eventually reach to WFS locking stably for long times and improving and keeping the IMC transmission counts to 14400. I think the main culprit in thw WFS loop going unstable was the offset value set on MC_TRANS_PIT filter module  (C1:IOO-MC_TRANS_PIT_OFFSET). This value was roughly correct in magnitude but opposite in sign, which created a big offset in MC_TRANS PIT error signal which would integrate by the loops and misalign the mode cleaner.

WFS offsets tuning

  • I ran C1:IOO-WFS_MASTER > Actiona > Correct WFS DC offsets script while the two WFS heads were blocked.
  • Then I aligned IMC to maximize transmission. I also made PMC transmission better by walking the input beam.
  • Then, while IMC is locked and WFS loops are off, I aligned the beam spot on WFS heads to center it in DC (i.e. zeroing C1:IOO-WFS1_PIT_DC, C1:IOO-WFS1_YAW_DC, C1:IOO-WFS2_PIT_DC, C1:IOO-WFS2_YAW_DC)
  • Then I ran C1:IOO-WFS_MASTER > Actiona > Correct WFS DC offsets script while keeping IMC locked (note the script says to keep it unlocked, but I think that moves away the beam). If we all agree this is ok, I'll edit this script.
  • Then I checked the error signals of all WFS loops and still found that C1:IOO-MC_TRANS_PIT_OUTPUT and C1:IOO-MC_TRANS_YAW_OUTPUT have offsets. I relieved these offsets by averaging the input to these filter moduels for 100s and updating the offset. This is where I noticed that the PIT offset was wrong in sign.

WFS loops UGF tuning

  • Starting with only YAW loops, I measured the open loop transfer functions (OLTFs) for each loop by simultaneously injecting gaussian noise from 0.01 Hz to 0.5 Hz using diaggui at the loop filter module excitation points and taking ration of IN1/IN2 of the filter modules.
  • Then I scaled the YAW output matrix columns to get UGF of 0.1 Hz when YAW loop was along turned on.
  • Then I tried to do this for PIT as well but it failed as even with overall gain of 0.1, the PIT loops actuate a lot of YAW motion causing the IMC to loose lock eventually.
  • So I tried locking PIT loops along with YAW loops but with 0.1 overall gain. This worked for long enough that I could get a rough estimate of the OLTFs. I scaled the columns of PIT output matrix and slowly increased the overall gain while repeating this step to get about 0.1 Hz UGF for all PIT loops too.
  • Note though that the PIT loop shape did not come out as expected with a shallower slope and much worse coherence for same amount of excitation in comparison to YAW loops. See attached plots.
  • Never the less, I was able to reach to an output matric which works at overall gain of 1. I tested this configuration for atleast 15 minutes but the loop was working even with 6 excitations happening simultaneously for OLTF measurement.
  • We will need to revisit PIT loop shapes, matrix diagonalization, and sources of noise.

OLTF measurements were done using this diaggui file. The measurement file got deleted by me by mistake, so I recreated the template. Thankfully, I had saved the pdf of the measurements, but I do not have same measurement results in the git repo.


Attachment 1: IMC_WFS_OLTF.pdf
  17334   Sun Dec 4 16:44:04 2022 AnchalUpdateASCIMC WFS Fixed for now

Today, I worked on WFS loop output matrix for PIT DOFs.

  • I began with the matrix that was in place before Nov 15.
  • I followed the same method as last time to fist get all UGFs around 0.06 Hz with overall gain of 0.6 on the WFS loops.
  • This showed me that MC2_TRANS_PIT loop shape matches well with the nice working YAW loops, but the WFS1 and WFS2 loops still looked flat like before.
  • This indicated that output matrix needs to be fixed for cross coupling between WFS1 and WFS2 loops.
  • I ran this script WFSoutMatBalancing.py which injects low frequency (<0.5 Hz) oscillations when the loops are open, and measures sensing matrix using error signals. I used 1000s duration for this test.
  • The direct inverse of this sensing matrix fixed the loop shape for WFS1 indicating WFS1 PIT loop is disentangled from WFS2 now.
  • Note this is a very vague definition of diagonalization, but I am aiming to reach to a workign WFS loop asap with whatever means first. Then we can work on accurate diagonalization later.
  • I simply ran the script WFSoutMatBalancing.py again for another 1000s and this time the sensing matrix mostly looked like an identity.
  • I implemented the new output matrix found by direct inversion and took new OLTF.Again though, the WFS2_PIT loop comes out to be flat. See Attachment 1.
  • Then noting from this elog post, I reduced the gain values on MC2 TRANS loops to 0.1 I think it is better to use this place to reduce loop UGF then the output matrix as this will remind us that MC2 TRANS loops are slower than others by 10 times.
  • I retook OLTF but very unexpected results came. The overall gain of WFS1_YAW and WFS2_YAW seemed to have increased by 6. All other OLTFs remained same as expected. See attachment 2.
  • To fulfill the condition that all UGF should be less than 0.1 Hz, I reduced gains on WFS1_YAW and WFS2_YAW loops but that made the YAW loops unstable. So I reverted back to all gains 1.
  • We probably need to diagonalize Yaw matrix better than it is for letting MC2_TRANS_YAW loop to be at lower UGF.
  • I'm leaving the mode cleaner in this state and would come back in an hour to see if it remains locked at good alignment. See attachment 3 for current state.

Sun Dec 4 17:36:32 2022 AG: IMC lock is holding as strong as before. None of the control signals or error signals seem to be increasing monotonously over the last one hour. I'll continue monitoring the lock.

Mon Dec 5 11:11:08 2022 AG: IMC was locked all night for past 18 hours. See attachment 4 for the minute trend.

Attachment 1: IMC_WFS_OLTF_All_Gains_1.pdf
IMC_WFS_OLTF_All_Gains_1.pdf IMC_WFS_OLTF_All_Gains_1.pdf
Attachment 2: IMC_WFS_OLTF_Nom_Gain.pdf
IMC_WFS_OLTF_Nom_Gain.pdf IMC_WFS_OLTF_Nom_Gain.pdf
Attachment 3: WFS_Loop_Configuration.png
Attachment 4: WFS_Loop_Performance.png
  17336   Mon Dec 5 16:24:45 2022 AnchalUpdateASCIMC WFS servo diagnosis

Also reply to: 40m/17255

I ran the toggleWFSoffsets.py script to generate a step response of the WFS loops in operation. Attachment 1 shows the diaggui measured time response following the parameters mentioned in 40m/17255. There are few things to quickly note from this measurement without doing detailed analysis:

  • WFS2_PIT is heavily cross-coupled with WFS1_PIT and MC2_TRANS_PIT. This was also the inference from the previous post based on loop shape for WFS2_PIT loop. This needs to be fixed.
  • Weirdly enough, it seems that WFS2_PIT is also cross coupled with MC2_TRANS_YAW.
  • MC2_TRANS_PIT is not coupled to WFS1_PIT or WFS2_PIT. This was the major issue in last measurement in 40m/17255.
  • WFS1_PIT is coupled to MC2_TRANS_PIT by about half, but is not cross-coupled to WFS2_PIT.
  • For YAW, the DOFs are mostly disentangled except for a cross coupling of WFS1_YAW to MC2_TRANS_YAW by about 60%.

To get out the UGF of the loops from the step responses, I need to read this into python and apply the same filters and analyze time constants. I still have to do this part, but I thought I'll put out the result before spending more time on this.

GPSTIME: 1354314478


Attachment 1: IMC_WFS_Step_Response.pdf
  17337   Mon Dec 5 20:02:06 2022 AnchalUpdateASCIMC WFS heads electronic feasibility test for using for Arm ASC

I took transfer function measurement of WFS2 SEG4 photodiode between 1 MHz to 100 MHz in a linear sweep.

Measurement details:

  • The reincarnated Jenne laser head was used for this test. The laser diode is 950 nm though, which should just mean a different responsivity of the photodiode while we are mainly interested in relative response of the WFS heads at 11 MHz and 55 MHz with respect to 29.5 MHz.
  • See attachment 2 for how the laser was placed on AP table.
  • The beam was injected in between beam splitter for MC reflection camera and beam splitter for beam dump.
  • The input was aligned such that all the light of the laser was falling on Segment 4 of WFS2.
  • Using moku, I took RF transfer function from 1 MHz to 100 MHz, 512 points, linearly spaced, with excitation amplitude of 1 V and 100,000 cycles of averaging.
  • Measurement data and settings are stored here.


Relative to 29.5 MHz, teh photodiode response is:

  • At 11 MHz: -20.4 dB
  • At 55 MHz: -36.9 dB
  • At 71.28 MHz: -5.9 dB

I'm throwing in an extra number at the end as I found a peak at this frequency as well. This means to use these WFS heads for arm ASC, we need to have 10 times more light for 11 MHz and roughly 100 times more light for 55 MHz. According to Gautam's thesis Table A.1 and this elog post, the modulation depth for 11 MHz is 0.193 and for 55 MHz is 0.243 in comparison to 0.1 for 29.5 MHz., so the sideband TEM00 light available for beating against carrier TEM01/TEM10 is roughly twice as much for single arm ASC. That would mean we would have 5 times less error signal for 11 MHz and 40 times less error signal for 55 MHz. These are rough calculations ofcourse.


Attachment 1: 20221205_193105_WFS2_SEG4_RF_TF_Screenshot.png
Attachment 2: PXL_20221206_033419110.jpg
  17342   Tue Dec 6 16:52:26 2022 AnchalUpdateASCIMC WFS heads electronic feasibility test for using for Arm ASC

I tested teh WFS demod board for possibility of demodulating 11 MHz or 55 MHz signal with it. It definitely has some bandpass filter inside as the response is very bad for 11 MHz and 55 MHz. See attached the ASD curves for the excitations seens on I and Q inputs of WFS1 Segment 2 when it was demodulated with a clock of different frequencies but same amplitude of 783.5 mVpp (this was measured output of 29.5 MHz signal from RF distribution board). See attachments 2-4 for mokulab settings. Note for 29.5 MHz case, I added an additional 10 dB attenuator to output 1.

The measurement required me to change signal power level to see a signal of atleast 10 SNR. If we take signal level of 29.5 MHz as reference, following are the responses at other frequencies:

  • At 11 MHz:
    • I: -92 dB
    • Q: -97 dB
  • At 55 MHz:
    • I: -75 dB
    • Q: -72 dB

Note that I and Q outputs are unbalanced as well for the two different demodulation frequencies.

This means that if we want to use the WFS demodulation boards as is, we'll need to amplify the photodiode signal by the above amounts to get same level of outputs. I stil need to see the DCC document of these board and if the LO is also bandpassed. In which case, we can probably amplify the LO to improve the demodulation at 11 and 55 MHz. THe beatnote time series for the measured data did not show an obvious sinusoidal oscillation, so I chose to not show a plot with just noise here.


Attachment 1: WFS1_SEG2_DEMOD_Test.pdf
Attachment 2: 11MHz.png
Attachment 3: 29.5MHz.png
Attachment 4: 55MHz.png
  17344   Tue Dec 6 17:40:13 2022 KojiUpdateASCIMC WFS heads electronic feasibility test for using for Arm ASC

We have spare WFS demods in a plastic box along the Y arm. So you don't need to modify the IMC demod boards, which we want to keep in the current state.

  17348   Thu Dec 8 20:40:14 2022 AnchalUpdateASCWFS demodulation board modification attempt

Based on the previous two elog posts, Koji and I decided that we should use 11 MHz signal for arm cavity ASC and modify a spare WFS demod board to work at 11 MHz. This board LIGO-D980233, uses a PLL to lock the to LO input and generate I and Q ECL clock signals from it. For this purpose, it uses POS-XX minicircuits VCO. For IMC WFS boards the model number is POS-75 and with the board design, it can work for 18.75 MHz to 37.5 MHz modulation frequencies.

To make it work for 11 MHz, we have to swap this with POS-25 but that is not available for purchase anywhere. So Koji and I decided to use Moku:GO as a VCO and make connections to the pin holes on the board. Today, I modified a spare WFS board to make this possible. I added a right angle SMA connector to take in VCO output signal and a BNC connector to send out tuning signal. See attached photos for the details of this hack.

Then I went to 1X2 and tried on this modified board on a Euro crate empty slot. I used Moku:GO in a multi-instrument mode in which first instrument was a Waveform generator set to modulate from external input 1 at 6 MHz/V. The output RF level was checked on an oscilloscope and increased until I got about 9.5 dBm power at the output. The second instrument was just an spectrum analyzer to see if the test output from ICLK looks ok. I fed LO from a spare output port on RF distribution box for 11 MHz signal. I made sure to attenuate this signal to get 2 dBm LO signal which is the case for the WFS demod board LO input as well. 

This test however failed. I could not see any signal from ICLK or QCLK output. I then tried to use the same slot as the demod board for WFS1 is used and I still did not see any output on ICLK or QCLK. I split the VCO tuning signal coming from the board to see it on an oscilloscope and it was mostly noise of ~1 mV level. I then tried to check ICLK and QCLK on oscilloscope and saw that they had a huge offset of -1.7 V. I suspect some ground mismatch issue between Moku:GO and the demod board.

I decided to call it a day here.

I reset everything back to how it was on the rack and turned on IMC WFS again. It is working as usual keeping lock steady for atleast last 20 min that I have seen it.


Attachment 1: PXL_20221209_035720569.jpg
Attachment 2: PXL_20221209_035729233.jpg
  17349   Fri Dec 9 05:04:45 2022 ranaSummaryASCMC WFS sensing matrix measurement

I made a script to toggle the offsets in the MC SUS so that we can see the resulting error signals in the MC WFS / MC-TRANS_QPD.

I ran it just before 5 AM local time Friday morning.

It goes in order and applies a 50 count offset to the pitch filter banks. During this test the input to the IMC WFS servos is set to zero, so that the integrators hold the mirror position in the aligned state.

I will analyze this 3x3 measurement and post the resulting sensing matrix soon. It would be good if someone can post here the actuation calibration in radians, so that we can have a physical calibration of the sensing matrix in counts/radian.

Attachment 1: Screen_Shot_2022-12-10_at_12.00.46_AM.png
  17350   Fri Dec 9 10:08:54 2022 RadhikaUpdateASCYEND green alignment chronicles

Today I set out to align and lock the YEND green laser, and observe the expected PDH error signal and PZT control signal. 

- I took note of PDH servo knobs:

    - gain knob: 10.0
    - LO phase knob: 2.86
    - boost: on
    - inversion: -

- Disconnected PDH servo PZT output to break loop

- Scanned pitch and yaw of steering mirrors 1 and 2 [Attachment 1] and achieved transmission ~1.2.

- Re-engaged the loop and with TEM00 locked, and did fine adjustment of steering mirrors to maximize transmission to 1.4.

- At this point I broke the loop again to look at the PDH error signal and piezo control signal in an oscilloscope. The error signal had high frequency noise, so the SR560 was used to low pass it before sending it to the scope.

- Once I reconnected the loop and locked to TEM00, I noticed lots of noise in green transmission. Paco took spectra of GTRY and found it was line noise at multiples of 60 Hz. I checked if any BNC shields at the servo box were touching. I shifted the LO frequency from 213.12 kHz to 213.15 kHz, so that the modulation/demodulation was not an integer multiple of 60 Hz. However, these steps didn't get rid of the line noise. To be further investigated.

Next I plan to revisit the XEND AUX loop and try to reach higher lock stability. 

Attachment 1: IMG_3982.jpg
  17354   Fri Dec 9 18:32:11 2022 KojiSummaryASCMC WFS sensing matrix measurement

[Rana, Koji]

The IMC WFS pitch Output Matrix was recalculated based on a DC Sensing Matrix measurement.

The IMC and the WFS heads were realigned and the WFS offsets were reset. The WFS servo is running stably for ~1.5hrs now.

Using Rana's test with the optic offsets, the sensitivity of the sensors against the misalignment of each optic was measured.
First of all, we accessed the recorded 900s data on Dec 9 2022 12:48:00 UTC (Attached 1). This DTT XML file is stored in /users/koji/221209/221209_IMC_WFS_PIT.xml

You can see the attachment that the foton style smoothing filter was used to reduce high freq noise above 0.1Hz.

Then the averaged values were read from "Cursor" tab (Attachment 2). This gave us this following sensing matrix.

Null to {WFS1P, WFS2P, MCTransP}
-36.7 +/- 90
401   +/- 200
-19.4 +/- 5
MC1 to {WFS1P, WFS2P, MCTransP}
2870 +/- 150
 910 +/- 150
1240 +/- 7
MC2 to {WFS1P, WFS2P, MCTransP}
  3950 +/- 200
-21700 +/- 490
  1210 +/- 13
MC3 to {WFS1P, WFS2P, MCTransP}
 -988 +/- 100
-7870 +/- 350
 1010 +/- 4
The inverse of this matrix is
           To MC1    MC2    MC3
From WFS1    1.2    1.0    -2.7
From WFS2    0.5   -0.4    -0.1
From MCT     5.0   -2.2     6.1

This is transposed for the MEDM output matrix. So the actual output matrix tried was

From WFS1  WFS2   MCT
     1.2    0.5   5.0   to MC1
     1.0   -0.4  -2.2   to MC2
    -2.7   -0.1   6.2   to MC3

We then individually tested the servo stability and the response to the input offset.
This matrix seemed indeed well diagnalized w.r.t the sensors. We injected the error signal offset in the MCTrans Pitch servo. This didn't reduce the IMC Trans indicating that the WFS1/2 were still as it was while the spot position was displaced. (very nice!)

The new matrix made all the pitch loops stable with negative gains (-0.1, -0.2, -0.5) together with the input gain slider of x1.0. The servo also worked together with the presence of the Yaw loops. Good.

The WFS1 gain was a bit too low. So we wanted to give 50% boost.
We decided to multiply the matrix elements by -0.3, increasing the servo GAIN fields by  -1/0.3. The resulting servo gain settings and the output matrix screen look like Attachment 3.

Then the IMC was aligned so that the reflection is minimized while the MC2 trans goes onto the center of the QPD.

Then the WFS offset script has been run with low and stable IMC Reflection DC (Attachment 4)

RXA Update 220109: I find the text based matrix hard to understand, so I am attaching the matrix I use to simulate this. Its the same as 'Sensing Matrix' that Koji has, but this one is scaled by an overall gain to account for the 200 counts actuation we put into the suspension actuators, and a minus sign as described above. Also its written in the usual way we represent vectors and matrices.
Attachment 1: Screen_Shot_2022-12-09_at_18.35.02.png
Attachment 2: Screen_Shot_2022-12-09_at_18.38.15.png
Attachment 3: Screen_Shot_2022-12-09_at_19.15.16.png
Attachment 4: Screen_Shot_2022-12-09_at_19.24.53.png
Attachment 5: Screen_Shot_2023-01-09_at_7.11.50_PM.png
  17355   Fri Dec 9 21:54:40 2022 RadhikaUpdateASCMoku digital filter for low-frequency resonances (ALS/calibration)

[Radhika, Paco]

I modeled a digital filter for adding a resonance at a desired frequency (Q~100), with a complex-conjugate pole pair and 2 real zeros (2nd order system). Paco suggested I start with a 575 Hz resonance. I loaded the digital filter onto the Moku using the Moku python API (script at labutils/moku/mokuGoPro/mokuDigitalFilter.py). I tested the filter by feeding the Moku a 2 Vpp signal around 575 Hz and looking for some noticeable gain - however the signal passed though unchanged. There might be an additional Moku command for enabling the filter - I'll look into this.


- Debug deployment of digital filter to Moku:Go
- Test on preset low-pass filter, before custom filter
- Once successful, add multiple resonances helpful for calibration
- Deploy filters in xarm AUX-PDH loop
  17356   Fri Dec 9 23:44:14 2022 ranaSummaryASCMC WFS sensing matrix measurement

with the new output matrix, we repeated the diagonalization script that Anchal ran previously. In the attached plot you can see that as we successively apply offsets to the WFS1, WFS2, and MC_TRANS Pitch loops, there is the offset in the loop we offset, but there is no appreciable step seen in the other loops.

Maybe we could do better, but this is the best DC diagonalization I have ever seen in this system. So we should just keep it for now.

At some point, we should run this procedure for YAW as well, but not urgent.


Attachment 1: Screen_Shot_2022-12-10_at_6.43.38_PM.png
  17363   Fri Dec 16 21:55:54 2022 AnchalUpdateASCWFS demodulation board modification attempt 2 - sort of working

[Koji, Anchal]

short version: We checked signals at different points in the circuit to make sense of why it was not working. We found out that teh comparator chip AD96687BR was not working as expected and was not converting the analog signal from our VCO or LO inputs to ECL. We tested 2 other spare board with same behavior. We decided to try replacing the comparator chip with a new one, and indeed that was the issue. The new chip was working as expected and we are able to get PLL lock on the board with Moku:Lab as the VCO. However, there are some issues that need to be ironed out. The PLL does not catch lock right away and we could not figure our a systematic way of reaching to a locked state. That smells fishy to me as in my experience, when PLLs work, they work very robustly. More analysis with data and figures will follow. For now, we have some hope that this can work.

There is always the option of not closing PLL loop and injected twice the demodulation frequency at the VCO port that we have access two. For this, I'll need to create a SHG unit for 11 MHz with 21.4 MHz BLP. I'll look into this solution as well.

  17365   Sat Dec 17 16:56:19 2022 AnchalUpdateASCWFS demodulation board modification - further study

I played with the PLL bit more today to understand the issue. From what I understand, the following is the summary:

Moku as VCO in WFS demod board PLL:

  • Moku input in VCO mode is actually limited to ~ +/-21 V contrary to what it says on the app (10 Vpp)
  • Whenever the VCO tuning signal goes beyond this range, Moku just ignores the input and sends a pure sine wave at the carrier frequency.
  • I think because of this rail point behavior, the PLL goes off to a bad mode where the VCO tuning signal from demod board rails to +15 or -15V, and thus Moku does nothing to correct for it.
  • I found a deterministic way of catching lock with Moku VCO:
    • With whatever carrier frequency, set the VCO slope to at least 1 MHz/V (10 MHz/V is better).
    • The VCO tuning signal most probably would rail to +15V or -15V.
    • Reduce +/- 15V supply, this moves the railing voltage with it.
    • When the voltage rails reach +/2 V, the PLL catches the lock.
    • Now slowly ramp back the power supply back to +/- 15V.
  • This way I was able to repeatedly catch the lock (see attachment 1), but of course, this can't be done when our board is mounted in the Eurocrat.
  • So I thought if I attenuate the VCO tuning signal by 20 dB and pass it through an SR560, I can control the VCO tuning signal amplitude. This approach however did not work. It was always required to reduce the +/- 15V supply to the board to catch the lock.
  • This makes me think that the phase detector chip AD9901 needs to be turned off initially or supplied with low voltage rails. I'm not sure why.
  • With this, I think we should scrap this idea of using Moku as VCO, it will be just too unreliable.
  • So we need to move to the possibility of feeding 22 MHz signals to the WFS demod board where VCO output goes.

Basically, we make our own PLL outside the board to generate 2 times LO frequency or we create 2 times LO frequency by second harmonic generation.

Moku:Pro as a frequency multiplier

This white paper from liquid instruments describes how Moku:Pro can be used as a frequency multiplier in the phasemeter app now. This functionality however has not been extended to Moku:Lab, so in 40m, we can not do this right now. If we get access to Moku:Pro, following will be required:

  • Send 11 MHz LO signal to Moku:Pro input 1 with phasemeter app on.
  • Select frequency multiplier option of 2 at the output 1. Set voltage to 2 Vpp and feed this signal to VCO RF out port on the modified demod board.
  • Leave VCO tuning port unconnected.
  • This way we would replace the internal PLL with Moku digital PLL. Moku's PLL can be run upto 10 kHz bandwidth and would be very robust for such use.

Second harmonic generation using mixer and bandpass filter

  • Split the 14 dBm 11 Mhz output from frequency generation box (I simulated this with benchtop function generator) using a splitter.
  • Send both outputs to ZP-3+ mixer (level 7).
  • Filter the output with SBP-21.4 band pass filter. Koji has measured this filter in 2013. See elog 40m/9010.
  • Amplify the output twice, first with ZFL-500HLN+ (20dB amplification), then with ZFL-1HADX (11 dB).
  • This setup provides enought output amplitude for the comparator chip AD96687 to generate clean ECL signal at 22 MHz without slipping. With only 20dB amplification, I could see the phase slip by 180 degrees enough times that the oscilloscope shows both outputs overlapped.
  • Attachment 2 shows the ICLK and QCLK signals generated by the board with this setup.

Next steps:

  • I'll modify one more board for sending in LO like this.
  • I'll test the demodulation performance of the board with LO input from the second harmonic generation.
  • Setup the optical path for AS WFS.
Attachment 1: MokuVCOAttempt.jpg
Attachment 2: SHGmethod.jpg
  17368   Tue Dec 20 23:32:58 2022 ranaUpdateASCWFS demodulation board modification - further study

That's great - I think this solution will be best. Having the PLLs actually gives us some problems - the square wave action in these demod boards because of the ECL drives pollutes the air with all the harmonics.

In the future, it would be best to get rid of these boards and just use the new aLIGO boards with a direct LO feed.


I played with the PLL bit more today to understand the issue. From what I understand, the following is the summary:


Second harmonic generation using mixer and bandpass filter

  17391   Tue Jan 10 20:24:29 2023 AnchalUpdateASCWFS demodulation board 111B - Working as expected

I've completed the modifications on two WFS demod boards. This required replacing all 8 mixer ICs on each board. I also tuned each channel to get less than 2 mV offset on all of them.

I was able to complete testing the board SNo. 111B today. The results are attached. The test was done by feeding the board 22 MHz LO generated by frequency doubling. A signal at 11 MHz was generated using Moku:Lab at 1mVpp and then further attenuated by 10 dB to make a fair comparison with the previous testing of the IMC WFS board at 29.5 MHz. This board has the same response as the IMC WFS board at 29.5 MHz. I tested all four channels in the second plot.

I'll complete the testing of the second board SNo 112 B and then move on to setting up the optical path for AS WFS.

Attachment 1: WFS_Board_111B_Test.pdf
  17393   Wed Jan 11 17:05:55 2023 AnchalUpdateASCWFS demodulation board 112B - Working as expected

The other modified board 112B has been fixed and tested now. See the results attached. The issue was in some malfunctioning OP284 which have been replaced by AD8672.

Attachment 1: WFS_Board_112B_Test.pdf
  17406   Thu Jan 19 20:35:54 2023 AnchalUpdateASCInstalled 2 flipper mirrors for handingl MC reflection beam to camera

Today I installed two flipper mirrors M3 and M4 (see attached photo) to create alternate route for MC reflection camera beam. Both these mirrors are Y1-1037-45S. In nominal operation where IMC is using the WFS, we will keep M3 upright and M4 flipped down. When using WFS for AS, M3 will be flipper down and M4 will be upright to save the camera from the high intensity MC reflection beam.

Note that everytime M3 is flipper and put back upright, the alignment into WFS would need to be tuned as the flipper apparatus does not come back to same alignment everytime. I centered the beams on the WFS heads today and zeroed RF offsets usingC1IOO_WFS_MASTER>!Actions>Correct WFS RF Offsets script. After this, the IMC WFS loops are working as expected atleast for last 15 minutes that I have monitored them. Hopefully, this will remain consistent.

Upcoming work:

  • Change the steering mirror that steers the beam to black hole to be a flipper mirror too as AS beam strength (measured when MICH was locked to bright port) is 0.3 mW and IMC WFS heads combined power is 0.5 mW in nominal operation, so we can not afford to dump any AS beam light.
  • Put flipper mirror M1 and fixed mirror M2 mentioned in 40m/17320 for steering AS beam to IMC WFS heads.
Attachment 1: PXL_20230120_041313615.jpg
  17407   Fri Jan 20 20:13:20 2023 AnchalUpdateASCInstalled 2 flipper mirrors for handingl MC reflection beam to camera

After discussions with Yuta, I figured that a better optical layout is possible which does not interfere with the existing IMC WFS path at all. So I reset the IMC WFS path today (and zeroed RF offsets again) and changed the MC reflection camera and MC reflection beam dump (black hole) position to create space for a flipper mirror that will pop up in the IMC WFS path and steer in the AS beam. New proposed path is shown in the photo in cyan. Red is MC reflection beam, yellow is IFO reflection beam and orange is teh AS beam that we will pick up using flipper mirror M1. Note that I found an intense 6.4 mW ghost beam coming out of the interferometer in between IFO refl and MC refl beams. This beam is shown in pink which I have dumped now. This beam was earlier not dumped. We will need to investigate more on the source of this beam and correct it in the next vent.

Attachment 1: PXL_20230121_035908170.NIGHT.jpg
  17408   Sat Jan 21 15:32:40 2023 AnchalUpdateASCAS WFS path nominally set

I've completed the beam redirection path for AS beam to WFS heads in a nominal way. By that I mean that all mirrors (M1, M2, M3, and M4) are now in their final positions and we will need to install one or two lenses to collimate the beam to match the mode that the WFS path is expecting as it has it's on the focusing lens before the photodiodes. For this last part, I think the fasted way would be to profile the beam and calculate the correct lens and position rather than trial and error as the beam intensity is very low for estimating the beam size by eye.

IMC WFS state: Flip M1 and M2 down.

AS WFS state: Flip M1 and M2 up.

Attachment 1: PXL_20230121_231740878.NIGHT.jpg
  17412   Mon Jan 23 20:50:58 2023 AnchalUpdateASCAS WFS path beam profiled

I measured the expected beam profile by WFS photodiodes by measuring the beam when mode cleaner was unlocked from the point where beam is picked for WFS. See attachment 1 for beam details. z=0 is the point in the path where AS beam will merge.

For measuring the beam profile of AS beam, I had to focus it using a lens. I picked up a 360.6 mm ROC lens and placed it at z=-67 inch point. Then I profiled the beam at some comfortable section of the path and fitted it. with reverse z-axis. Using this method, I can place the lens back and obtain the original beam back. Attachment 2 shows this fitting process and identification of the original beam profiles. I plotted the AS beam profiles again in attachment 3 and saved them for seeding mode matching effort later. Note that we don't want to be super accurate here, so I did not do any error analysis, just wanted to finish this fast. Also pardon me for the bad quality plots, I did not want to learn Matlab plotting to make it beautiful.

Note: There is significant astigmatism in both IMC reflection beam and AS beam. This could be due to beam going through far off-center on lens. Something to keep in mind, again this measurement is not ideal in terms of precision but this large an astigmatism could not be due to measurement error.


  • Identify correct len(s) and their positions
  • Align the AS beam to WFS heads
  • Test the full signal chain.
Attachment 1: WFSPathBeamProfile.pdf
WFSPathBeamProfile.pdf WFSPathBeamProfile.pdf WFSPathBeamProfile.pdf
Attachment 2: ASFocPathBeamProfile.pdf
ASFocPathBeamProfile.pdf ASFocPathBeamProfile.pdf ASFocPathBeamProfile.pdf
Attachment 3: ASPathBeamProfile.pdf
ASPathBeamProfile.pdf ASPathBeamProfile.pdf ASPathBeamProfile.pdf
  17416   Tue Jan 24 21:04:59 2023 AnchalUpdateASCAS WFS path beam profiled

I completed the mode matching calculation today and found good solution with 360.6 mm ROC PLCX lens at -1.2 m from z=0 point. I placed the lens there today and aligned all mirrors to get centered beam on both WFS PDs when the flipper mirrors are flipper up. This alignment would probably require tweaking everying we flip the mirrors as the flipper mirrors do not come back to same position usually.

I mounted the modified WFS boards 111B and 112B next to the whitening filter boards of existing WFS. Now to switch over, onewould need to transfer the 8 RF lemo cables and the 2 IDE ribbon cables.

I'm working on rtcds model to read AS WFS data and handle it separately. I'll keep a WPICS binaruy switch to switch between IMC WFS or AS WFS. I need to figure out some build issues on this work still.


Attachment 1: ASBeamFocusingLens.png
  17425   Thu Jan 26 15:56:30 2023 AnchalUpdateASC1X1 -5V sorenson tripped

[Yuta, Anchal]


I mounted the modified WFS boards 111B and 112B next to the whitening filter boards of existing WFS.

The mounting of two additional WFS demodulation boards drew too much current on -5V rail which tripped the sorenson on 1X1. This was undetected until today. Because of this, the existing WFS boards were not working either. After investicgation to beam paths and PD to board signal chain, we found out this issue. We raised the current limit on -5V supply and it came back to 5V. This brought back functioning of the exisitng WFS boards as well. We increased the current limit slightly on +5V supply too as these boards take a lot of current on +/5 V rails. But we should do this more properly by knowing what current limit the supply is set to. We'll do this part in near future after reading the manuals/wiki.
IMC WFS loops are now working.

  17444   Fri Feb 3 12:50:47 2023 AnchalUpdateASCAS WFS model changes and phase calibration

Model and medm changes

After incrementally doing the model changes, I found out that the model was failing to build because of creation of a subsystem. If I just kept all divertor blocks out in the main model instead of in a single subsystem, the compilation works. Maybe the reason is because RCG can only take subsystems at base level which have top_names attribute. But I did nto test this, I just went with what works.

In summary, I added a new subsystem in c1ioo model called AWS (stands for Antisymmetric Wavefront Sensors). This subsystem and IOO subsystem receive teh WFS RF demodulated signals based on a single binary switch named C1:IOO-SEL_WFS_IMC_OR_AS. Value 0 connects the subsystem IOO to the inputs and value 1 connects AWS to the inputs. There is a switch on the left edge in the WFS screens now to select between the two.

Inside the AWS, the WFS I/Q phase rotation is done and then it goes into one of the two subsystems called AWS-XARM or AWS-YARM for using the AS for either XARM or YARM. THis is based on a single binary switch called C1:AWS-SEL_ARM_X_OR_Y. Value 0 selects output to XARM and value 1 selects output to YARM. There is a switch near top left of  C1AWS_XARM_WFS_MASTER.adl and C1AWS_YARM_WFS_MASTER.adl screens. I copied these screens from C1IOO_WFS_MASTER.adl, so they have same structure. See attachment 1. Any edits should be made to /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/medm/c1ioo/master/C1AWS_XARM_WFS_MASTER.adl and simply run python opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/medm/c1ioo/master/createYARMWFSscreensFromX.py to create teh YARM screen from it.

Along with this, models c1scy and c1scx were edited also to take in IPC directly from c1ioo instead of going through RFM. We should phase out use of RFM eventually and directly connect all IPC connections with the ends.

First tests

[Anchal, Yuta]

After the model is up and running, we flipped the WFS path to use AS beam. I switched the 8 RF outputs of the WFS from IMC WFS boads to AS WFS boards and switched the IDC connectors to WFS. Attachment 2 shows teh photo in this flipped state. Then we misaligned both ITMX and ETMX. First simple test was to check if we see the YARM PDH error signal when YARM was flashing. And indeed we saw that on all 16 channels. So next we locked YARM and injected 311 Hz line with 300 counts amplitude at ETMY. We looked for this peak in the Q channels of WFS outputs and adjusted all phases to 0.1 degrees to minimize Q signal to the noise floor. For WFS2 case, teh SNR is bit higher due to more power than WFS1 and their phase angle might be adjusted to even better degree but we did not got for it.

Then I used C1AWS_XARM_WFS_MASTER.adl>!Actions>Correct WFS RF offsets button to remove offsets in all the RF demodulated signals. I have set this button to use /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/Git/40m/scripts/RFPD/resetOffsets.py script.

At this point, we are ready to see if we have WFS sensitivity but I need to work on other projects today and Yuta and Paco took over interferometer for 60 Hz noise hunting.



Attachment 1: YARM_WFS_MASTER.png
Attachment 2: PXL_20230203_211014833.jpg
  17448   Sat Feb 4 14:55:25 2023 AnchalUpdateASCDC sensing matrix for AS WFS for YARM

Filter and scripts setup

I copied IOO_WFS1_I filter bank to AWS_WFS1/2_I/Q filter banks to copy the dewhitening and 60comb filters. Then I turned them on.

Similarly, I copied IOO_WFS1_PIT filter bank to AWS_YARM/XARM_WFS1/2_PIT/YAW filter banks. I created a generalised script to handle all WFS on/off.hold/onfromhold operations here. I also generalized toggleWFSoffsets script to be used for measuring DC sensing matrix.

DC sensing matrix measurement

This measurement folllowed the method used by Koji in 40m/17354. The measurement is pushed here. Ntoe that when using this method, while the test finishd in ~1000 seconds, it takes dtt >20 min to retrieve the timeseries data from DQ channels. Thisis weird because cdsutils.getdata does not have this lag. If anyone knows why this is the case, it would be helpful in making this method faster.

  • Locked YARM and misaligned ITMX and ETMX
  • Centered the AS beam on WFS using DC value.
  • Ran ASS on YARM to get to best aligned cavity state.
  • Unlocked YARM and ran C1AWS_YARM_WFS_MASTER>!Actions>Correct WFS RF offsets to zero teh offsets.
  • Locked YARM again and waited for >120 seconds.
  • Ran python /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/Git/40m/scripts/AWStoggleWFSoffsets.py AWS BOTH -a YARM -t 120
    • Measurement start time: 04/02/2023 22:37:00 UTC
  • The offset values required for step response test above were determined by trying out values and making sure that transmission does not go down by more than 15%.
  • I had to leave by 3:30 pm, so I couldn't complete the analysis of measured data.I'll post data here soon.


Additions Sun Feb 5 18:06:54 2023:

Data analysis

I got the step response data using cdsutils.getdata and measured the sensing matrix and took and inverse with error propagation. Attachment 1 page 1 shows the raw data measured. Then the data was segmented based on step response time data and a linear fit is used to get linear trend of each channel in null configuration. This is used to remove bias later while measuring the step heights in each sensor. Page 2 shows this data. Page 3 shows final detrended and normalized step response data that was used to measure the sensing matrix. It came out to be:

                                                             YARM WFS DC Sensing Matrix

        ITMY PIT         ETMY PIT         ITMY YAW         ETMY YAW
   1.94 +/- 0.02    0.83 +/- 0.07   -0.15 +/- 0.04      1.3 +/- 0.1  to WFS1 PIT
   5.62 +/- 0.05      8.8 +/- 0.2     -0.2 +/- 0.1      2.5 +/- 0.2  to WFS2 PIT
  -0.43 +/- 0.03   -1.13 +/- 0.07    1.51 +/- 0.04     -0.9 +/- 0.2  to WFS1 YAW
  -1.42 +/- 0.05     -7.1 +/- 0.2      3.3 +/- 0.1    -19.5 +/- 0.4  to WFS2 YAW

Taking it's inverse with uncertainties supported matrix inverse function gave following output matrix to be used:

                                                         YARM WFS Estimated Output Matrix
        WFS1 PIT         WFS2 PIT         WFS1 YAW         WFS2 YAW
   0.628+/-0.022   -0.031+/-0.007   -0.027+/-0.020    0.039+/-0.004  to ITMY PIT
  -0.431+/-0.020    0.146+/-0.007   -0.002+/-0.018 -0.0099+/-0.0030  to ETMY PIT
  -0.086+/-0.031    0.078+/-0.010    0.728+/-0.029   -0.029+/-0.008  to ITMY YAW
   0.097+/-0.009 -0.0377+/-0.0030    0.126+/-0.008 -0.0555+/-0.0020  to ETMY YAW
Attachment 1: YARM_WFS_DC_Sensing_Matrix_Step_Response_Test.pdf
YARM_WFS_DC_Sensing_Matrix_Step_Response_Test.pdf YARM_WFS_DC_Sensing_Matrix_Step_Response_Test.pdf YARM_WFS_DC_Sensing_Matrix_Step_Response_Test.pdf
  17453   Mon Feb 6 20:44:34 2023 AnchalUpdateASCYARM WFS First Attempt - Success

I uploaded this measured output matrix to the YARM WFS model:

                                                         YARM WFS Estimated Output Matrix
        WFS1 PIT         WFS2 PIT         WFS1 YAW         WFS2 YAW
   0.628+/-0.022   -0.031+/-0.007   -0.027+/-0.020    0.039+/-0.004  to ITMY PIT
  -0.431+/-0.020    0.146+/-0.007   -0.002+/-0.018 -0.0099+/-0.0030  to ETMY PIT
  -0.086+/-0.031    0.078+/-0.010    0.728+/-0.029   -0.029+/-0.008  to ITMY YAW
   0.097+/-0.009 -0.0377+/-0.0030    0.126+/-0.008 -0.0555+/-0.0020  to ETMY YAW

Then I played witht the signs of the gains and their values in the C1:AWS-YARM_WFS1/2_PIT/YAW filter banks until I saw a correct response for steps on ETMY and correction within 10-20 s.

I measured the OLTF of the loops with noise injection in each loop simultaneously. This test takes ~10 min. Except for the WFS2 YAW loop, all other loops behaved as expected with UGFs in WFS1 PIT 0.02 Hz, WFS1 YAW 0.04 Hz, and WFS2 PIT 0.035 Hz.

I left this state On for 1 hour and the YARM retained transmission. Attachment 2 shows the history.

Then I conducted another toggle test to see how the step response is. Attachment 3 shows the same results as last post for the new output matrix. Note high sensitivity of WFS2 YAW signal to PIT actuations. The worst row was for WFS2 YAW degree as expected (see page 3 attachment 3).

The new calculated output matrix (after product with the existing matrix) is:

                                                         YARM WFS Estimated Output Matrix

        WFS1 PIT         WFS2 PIT         WFS1 YAW         WFS2 YAW
     0.70+/-0.05    0.011+/-0.014   -0.203+/-0.032   -0.093+/-0.010  to ITMY PIT
    -0.42+/-0.04   -0.111+/-0.010    0.025+/-0.025    0.019+/-0.007  to ETMY PIT
    -0.00+/-0.05   -0.091+/-0.016      0.76+/-0.04    0.041+/-0.013  to ITMY YAW
   0.201+/-0.022    0.062+/-0.007    0.244+/-0.015    0.067+/-0.005  to ETMY YAW

With this matrix in, I had to change all gain signs to negative and teh loop was stable to my kick test on ITMY and ETMY on both PIT and YAW DOFs. OLTFs can be tuned further. Maybe later, I'll do another toggle testin hope of getting an identity matrix.

Attachment 1: YARM_WFS_OLTF.pdf
Attachment 2: YARM_WFS_First_Attempt_1hr_history.pdf
Attachment 3: YARM_WFS_DC_Sensing_Matrix_Step_Response_Test_1359774014.pdf
YARM_WFS_DC_Sensing_Matrix_Step_Response_Test_1359774014.pdf YARM_WFS_DC_Sensing_Matrix_Step_Response_Test_1359774014.pdf YARM_WFS_DC_Sensing_Matrix_Step_Response_Test_1359774014.pdf
  17454   Tue Feb 7 11:12:44 2023 ranaUpdateASCYARM WFS First Attempt - Success

It would be great if you could calibrate these ASC channels into physical units (e.g. urad or nrad). I am curious to see how the noise spectra compares to the IMC WFS.

Since the data is still on disk, you can probably use the oplev channels to calibrate the WFS. Also, you can calibrate either WFS or oplev by moving the SUS alignment sliders until the arm power goes down by sqrt(2) or 2.

To get data faster with DTT, I ask only for data sampled at 16 Hz. You can either just read the EPICS channels (OUT16) or ask DTT for a BW=16 Hz for the fast channels. No need for high sample rate for step response plots.


  17456   Wed Feb 8 12:25:42 2023 AnchalUpdateASCYARM WFS Loop Step Response

I did a quick step response test today with YARM WFS loops running. Steps were put in as offsets in channels C1:SUS-I/ETMY_ASCPIT/YAW_OFFSET to not let transmission go below 0.6-0.7 out of 1. I waited 30 seconds between each step by simply running sleep 30 on my terminal. Once finished, dtt still was taking a long time to get recently measured data even for 16 Hz channels. I used cdsutils getdata to get the measurement and calculate time constants for each loop. Time constant is defined by the time it took for C1;SUS-I/ETMY_ASCPIT/YAW_OUT16 channel to come to 1/e of the offsetted value. Inverse of this time constant is also printed as text on the plot. Note that I redid step on ETMY PIT as the first pass seemed not strong enough to me. See attachment 2 for settings.

The Pit loops seem to be bit faster with about 5s time constant while YAW loops have about 10s.

Attachment 1: YARM_WFS_Loop_Step_Response_1359920994.pdf
Attachment 2: Screenshot_2023-02-08_12-30-21.png
  17465   Wed Feb 15 12:07:35 2023 AnchalUpdateASCASC model updated to take inputs from IMC WFS

I have updates the ASC model inside c1ioo.mdl file to take inputs from IMC WFS when selected with AS option (on the left side of AS WFS block. I've also implemented the missing lockin option in this model. Currently the old AWS model is still in c1ioo which will be removed once we have successfully used the new ASC model for locking AS WFS loops for YARM. Now ETMX and ETMY QPD signals are also available in the input matrix for use and available outputs are ETMs, ITMs, BS, PRM, and SRM.

While changing these models, I also removed use of RFM model in ASC as this is not required anymore. The IPC from any model to any model can be done directly now. Overtime, c1rfm would be retired by removing one channel connection at a time.

Attachment 1: Screenshot_2023-02-15_12-09-10.png
  17484   Sun Feb 26 00:13:55 2023 AlexConfigurationASCIOO MC PIT/YAW gain change

The following changes were made to the WFS MASTER IMC Pitch and Yaw gains:

Gain values for the pitch and yaw on MC1, MC2, and MC3 filters on the SUS ASC inputs have been carried over to the WFS MASTER output filters.
This was done such that Tomohiro and I could take AC measurements at an oscillation freq of 77 Hz on the pitch and yaw mirrors, while being sure that the amplitude of the AC signal being applied to each mirror is the same. The filters on the WFS output will have gains changed from 1.0 to the previously mentioned calibration values described in ELOG 17481

The values calculated for each filter were inverses of the callibration constants. The filters at the SUS ASC inputs were modified to read gain values of 1.0 again.
See the table bellow for the values passed to each filter.
In summary:
originally IOO-MC1,2,3_PIT/YAW_GAIN = 1.0. Now:



IOO-MC1,2,3_PIT/YAW_GAIN >> 1.0

  13157   Tue Aug 1 19:23:06 2017 ranaUpdateALSX - arm alignment

Rana, Naomi

We dither locked the X arm and then aligned the green beam to it using the PZTs. Everything looks ready for us to do a mode scan tomorrow.

We got buildup for Red and Green, but saw no beat in the control room. Quick glance at the PSL seems OK, but needs more investigation. We did not try moving around the X-NPRO temperature.

Tomorrow: get the beat, scan the PhaseTracker, and get data using pyNDS.

  13177   Wed Aug 9 12:35:47 2017 gautamUpdateALSFiber ALS

Last week, we were talking about reviving the Fiber ALS box. Right now, it's not in great shape. Some changes to be made:

  1. Supply power to the PDs (Menlo FPD310) via a power regulator board. The datasheet says the current consumption per PD is 250 mA. So we need 500mA. We have the D1000217 power regulator board available in the lab. It uses the LM2941 and LM2991 power regulator ICs, both of which are rated for 1A output current, so this seems suitable for our purposes. Thoughts?
  2. Install power decoupling capacitors on the PDs.
  3. Clean up the fiber arrangement inside the box.
  4. Install better switches, plus LED indicators.
  5. Cover the box.
  6. Install it in a better way on the PSL table. Thoughts? e.g. can we mount the unit in some electronics rack and route the fibers to the rack? Perhaps the PSL IR and one of the arm fibers are long enough, but the other arm might be tricky.

Previous elog thread about work done on this box: elog11650

Attachment 1: IMG_3942.JPG
ELOG V3.1.3-