40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
 40m Log, Page 34 of 344 Not logged in
ID Date Author Type Category Subject
7711   Wed Nov 14 09:01:42 2012 Dumb statement catcherUpdateIOOTurn off MCL path before doing MC spot measurement

 Quote: We have discovered that the MCL loop squishes the length fluctuations that result from the MC spot measurement angular dither.  This is good, in that the MCL is doing what it ought to do.  However, we need to turn it off before doing a spot measurement.

This is totally non-sensical statement, of course.

We might also say that the DARM loop totally squishes the GW signal and so its better not to have any feedback in the interferometer.

6686   Fri May 25 19:13:10 2012 Duncan MacleodSummaryComputer Scripts / Programs40m summary webpages

# 40m summary webpages

The aLIGO-style summary webpages are now running on 40m data! They are running on megatron so can be viewed from within the martian network at:

http://192.168.113.209/~controls/summary

At the moment I have configured the 5 seismic BLRMS bands, and a random set of PSL channels taken from a strip tool.

## Technical notes

• The code is in python depending heavily on the LSCSoft PyLAL and GLUE modules.
• /home/controls/public_html/summary/bin/summary_page.py
• The HTML is supported by a CSS script and a JS script which are held locally in the run directory, and JQuery linked from the google repo.
• /home/controls/public_html/summary/summary_page.css
• /home/controls/public_html/summary/pylaldq.js
• The configuration is controlled via a single INI format file
• /home/controls/public_html/summary/share/c1_summary_page.ini

### Getting frames

Since there are no segments or triggers for C1, the only data sources are GWF frames. These are mounted from the framebuilder under /frames on megatron. There is a python script that takes in a pair of GPS times and a frame type that will locate the frames for you. This is how you use it to find T type frames (second trends) for May 25 2012:

python /home/controls/public_html/summary/bin/framecache.py --ifo C1 --gps-start-time 1021939215 --gps-end-time 1022025615 --type T -o framecache.lcf

If you don't have GPS times, you can use the tconvert tool to generate them

$tconvert May 25 1021939215 The available frame types, as far as I'm aware are R (raw), T (seconds trends), and M (minute trends). ## Running the code The code is designed to be fairly easy to use, with most of the options set in the ini file. The code has three modes - day, month, or GPS start-stop pair. The month mode is a little sketchy so don't expect too much from it. To run in day mode: python /home/controls/public_html/summary/bin/summary_page.py --ifo C1 --config-file /home/controls/public_html/summary/share/c1_summary_page.ini --output-dir . --verbose --data-cache framecache.lcf -SRQDUTAZBVCXH --day 20120525 Please forgive the large apparently arbitrary collection of letters, since the 40m doesn't use segments or triggers, these options disable processing of these elements, and there are quite a few of them. They correspond to --skip-something options in long form. To see all the options, run python /home/controls/public_html/summary/bin/summary_page.py --help There is also a convenient shell script that will run over today's data in day mode, doing everything for you. This will run framecache.py to find the frames, then run summary_page.py to generate the results in the correct output directory. To use this, run bash /home/controls/public_html/summary/bin/c1_summary_page.sh ## Configuration Different data tabs are disabled via command link --skip-this-tab style options, but the content of tabs is controlled via the ini file. I'll try to give an overview of how to use these. The only configuration required for the Seismic BLRMS 0.1-0.3 Hz tab is the following section: [data-Seismic 0.1-0.3 Hz] channels = C1:PEM-RMS_STS1X_0p1_0p3,C1:PEM-RMS_STS1Y_0p1_0p3,C1:PEM-RMS_STS1Z_0p1_0p3 labels = STS1X,STS1Y,STS1Z frame-type = R plot-dataplot1 = plot-dataplot3 = amplitude-log = True amplitude-lim = 1,500 amplitude-label = BLRMS motion ($\mu$m/s) The entries can be explained as follows: 1. '[data-Seismic 0.1-0.3 Hz] - This is the section heading. The 'data-' mark identifies this as data, and is a relic of how the code is written, the 'Seismic 0.1-0.3 Hz' part is the name of the tab to be displayed in the output. 2. 'channels = ...' - This is a comma-separated list of channels as they are named in the frames. These must be exact so the code knows how to find them. 3. 'labels = STS1X,STS1Y,STS1Z' - This is a comma-separated list of labels mapping channel names to something more readable for the plots, this is optional. 4. 'frame-type = R' - This tells the code what frame type the channels are, so it can determine from which frames to read them, this is not optional, I think. 5. 'plot-dataplotX' - This tells the code I want to run dataplotX for this tab. Each 'dataplot' is defined in it's own section, and if none of these options are given, the code tries to use all of them. In this configuration 'plot-dataplot1' tells the code I want to display the time-series of data for this tab. 6. 'amplitude-XXX = YYY' - This gives the plotter specific information about this tab that overrides the defaults defined in the dataplotX section. The options in this example tell the plotter that when plotting amplitude on any plot, that axis should be log-scale, with a limit of 1-500 and with a specific label. The possible plotting configurations for this style of option are: 'lim', 'log', 'label', I think. Other compatible options not used in this example are: • scale = X,Y,Z - a comma-separated list of scale factors to apply to the data. This can either be a single entry for all channels, or one per channel, nothing in between. • offset = X,Y,Z - another comma-separate list of DC offsets to apply to the data (before scaling, by default). DAQ noise may mean a channel that should read zero during quick times is offset by some fixed amount, so you can correct that here. Again either one for all channels, or one per channel. • transform = lambda x: f(x) - a python format lambda function. This is basically any mathematical function that can be applied to each data sample. By default the code constructs the function 'lambda d: scale * (d-offset)', i.e. it calibrates the data by removing the offset an applying the scale. • band = fmin, fmax - a low,high pair of frequencies within which to bandpass the data. Sketchy at best... • ripple_db = X - the ripple in the stopband of the bandpass filter • width = X - the width in the passband of the bandpass filter • rms_average = X - number of seconds in a single RMS average (combine with band to make BLRMS) • spectrum-segment-length = X - the length of FFT to use when calculating the spectrum, as a number of samples • spectrum-overlap = X - the overlap (samples) between neighbouring FFTs when calculating the spectrum • spectrum-time-step = X - the length (seconds) of a single median-mean average for the spectrogram At the moment a package version issue means the spectrogram doesn't work, but the spectrum should. At the time of writing, to use the spectrum simple add 'plot-dataplot2'. You can view the configuration file within the webpage via the 'About' link off any page. Please e-mail any suggestions/complaints/praise to duncan.macleod@ligo.org. 6687 Fri May 25 20:45:25 2012 Duncan MacleodSummaryComputer Scripts / Programs40m summary webpages There is now a job in the crontab that will run the shell wrapper every hour, so the pages _should_ take care of themselves. If you make adjustments to the configuration file they will get picked up on the hour, or you can just run the script by hand at any time. $ crontab -l # m h  dom mon dow   command 0 */1 * * * bash /home/controls/public_html/summary/bin/c1_summary_page.sh > /dev/null 2>&1

14822   Thu Aug 1 13:55:34 2019 DuoBureaucracyEquipment loanGpib module taken to QIL lab

vanna --> QIL.

gautam 20190804: The GPIB module + power supply were returned to me by Duo ~5pm today at the 40m.

7320   Thu Aug 30 18:01:05 2012 ElliUpdateIOOSetting up Input MC cavity scan measurement

Riju, Elli

Today tried to take our first cavity scan.  We unplugged the 55MHz sideband input from the RF combiner on the PSL table, and connected a network analyser instead.  Using the network analyzer we injected a 12dBm signal (swept from 32MHz to 45MHz) through the RF combiner into the EOM to create our swept sidebands.  We measured the  MC cavity response by looking at the signal comming out of the RF photodiode on the MC2 table.  I replaced the BNC cable connected to the RF PD with a longer BNC cable that could reach our network analyzer next to the PSL table.  Riju will post a diagram of our setup.

We didn't see the expected carrier resonances when we performed a cavity scan.  The light incident on the RF PD is around 0.7micro Watts and we are still thinking about whether this is strong enough to see our signal above the noise.  We also want to work out what the strength of our swept sidebands is.  We will attempt to do a 'real' cavity scan tomorrow.

7328   Fri Aug 31 13:22:29 2012 ElliUpdateIOOCorrecting improper termination of the 55MHz input to the EOM

Koji, Riju, Elli

This morning Koji discovered that the 55MHz input into the RF combiner that I disconnected yesterday wasn't terminated properly, so it was reflecting power back into the amplifier in the signal generation unit.    We turned off the signal generation unit and checked that the amplifier was still working properly- it was.  A 50 ohm terminator was attached to the end of the 55MHz cable so that it is now terminated properly.

When we tried to turn the signal generator box back on we discovered the switch is broken (the box will only stay on while you hold down the on switch) and will need to be replaced.  In order to create the 29.5MHz sidebands to lock the mode cleaner, we bypassed the signal generation unit which won't stay on (unplugging '29.5 MHZ out' cable from the frequency generation unit), and instead sent a 0.39V 29.5MHz signal from a function generatior into 'RF input' on the 'RF AM Stabiliser' board.

We also increased the power coming exiting the PSL table and going into the cavity from 11 microwatts to 20 microwatts by adjusting the polariser at the end of the table slightly.  The power has been set to 20 microwatts using the polariser a few days ago but had drifted down since then.

7311   Wed Aug 29 19:28:41 2012 Elli KingUpdateLSCSetup for a cavity scan or the input mode cleaner

Riju, Elli

Today we prepared our experimental setup to take a cavity scan of the input mode cleaner, which we want to measure in the next day or so.  Attached is a diagram of our setup.

What we want to do is to inject a set of sidebands into the PSL and sweep their frequency from 32-45 MHz (a range just over one fsr of the mode cleaner- vfsr=11MHz).  We will measure the power transmitted out of the MC using a photo-diode and demodulate this signal with our input signal from the Marconi.  From this we should be able to see the resonant frequencies of the carrier and the higher order modes.

One aspect we spent some time thinking about; whether we would be able to inject a signal into an EOM given the EOM and the Marconi are not perfectly impedance matched.  Based on Kiwamu’s previous e-log entries designing the EOM, we decided that injecting a signal in 32-45 MHz region at 15dBm is similar to injecting the 29.5MHz sideband (at the same power level with very similar input impedance.) Fingers crossed we don’t blow anything up first week on the job.

Attachment 1: 40m_cavity_scan_diagram.jpg
10227   Thu Jul 17 16:07:34 2014 Emily UpdateElectronicsVCO Driver

I took back he VCO driver that Reetika brought over to the 40m from the PSL lab.

566   Wed Jun 25 12:25:28 2008 EricSummaryCameras2D Gaussian Fitting Code
I initially wrote a script in MATLAB that takes pictures of the laser beam's profile and fits them to a two dimensional gaussian in order to determine the position and width of the beam. This code is now (mostly) ported to C so that it can be imbedded in the camera software package that Joe is writing. The fitting works fairly well for pictures with the beam directly incident on the camera, and less well for pictures of scatter off the end mirrors of the arms, since scatter from defects in the mirror have intensities much greater than the intensity of the beam's gaussian profile.

The next steps are to finish up porting the fitting code to C, and then modify it so it can better handle the images off the end mirror. Some thoughts on how to do this are to use a fourier transform and a low pass filter, or to simply use a center-of-mass calculation (with the defect peaks reduced in intensity), since position is more important than beam width in this calculation. The eventual goal is to include the edge of the optic in the picture and use the fit of the beam position in comparison to the optic's position to find the beam's location on the mirror.
622   Wed Jul 2 10:35:02 2008 EricSummaryCamerasGeneral Summary
I finished up the 2D Gaussian fitting code, and, along with Joe, integrated into the Snap software so that it automatically does a fit to every 100th image. While the fitting works, it is too slow for use in any feedback to the servos. I put together a center of mass calculation to use instead that is somewhat less accurate but much faster (almost instantaneous versus 5-10 seconds). This has yet to be added to the Snap software, but doing so would not be difficult.

I put together a different fitting function for fitting the multiple lorentzian resonance peaks in a power spectrum that would result from sweeping the length of any of the mode cleaners. This simply doesn't work. I tested it on some of Josh Weiner's data collected on the OMC last year, and the data fits poorly. Attempting to fit it all at once requires fitting 80000 data points with 37 free parameters (12 peaks at 3 parameters per peak and 1 offset parameter), which cannot be done in any reasonable time period. Attempting to fit to one specific peak doesn't work due to the corruption of the other nearby peaks, even though they are comparatively small. The fit places the offset incorrectly if given the opportunity (green line in attemptedSinglePeakFitWithoutOffset.tiff and attemptedSinglePeakFitWithoutOffsetZoomed.tiff). Removing this as a parameter causes the fit to do a much better job (red line in these two graphs). The fit still places the peak 0.01 to the right of the actual peak, which worse than could simply be obtained by looking at the maximum point value. Additionally, this slight shift means that attempting to subtract out the peak so that the other peaks are accessible doesn't work -- the peaks are so steep that the error of 0.01 is enough to cause significant problems (red in attemptedPeakSubtraction.tiff is the attempted subtraction). Part of the problem is that the peaks are far from perfect lorentzians, as seen by cropping to any particular peak (OMCSweepSinglePeak.tiff ). This might be corrected in part by correcting for the conversion from PZT voltage to position, which isn't perfectly linear; though I doubt it would remove all the irregularities. At the moment, the best approach seems to be simply using a center of mass calculation cropped to the particular peak, though I have yet to try this.

Changing Josh's code to work for the digital cameras and the PMC or MC shouldn't be difficult. Changing to the MC or PMC should simply involve changing the EPICs tags for the OMC photodiodes and PZTs to those of the PMC or MC. Making the code work for the digital cameras should be as simple as redirecting the call to the framegrabber software to the Snap software.
Attachment 1: attemptedSinglePeakFitWithoutOffset.tiff
Attachment 2: attemptedSinglePeakFitWithoutOffsetZoomed.tiff
Attachment 3: attemptedPeakSubtraction.tiff
Attachment 4: OMCSweepSinglePeak.tiff
660   Fri Jul 11 20:16:01 2008 EricDAQCamerasTaking data from the GC 750 Camera
Mafalda has been set up with a background process to constantly take data from the GC 750 camera (at the end of the x-arm) for the weekend. This camera will otherwise be inoperable until then.

In the small chance that this slows either Mafalda or the network to a crawl, the process to kill should have PID 26265.
671   Tue Jul 15 10:09:42 2008 EricDAQCamerasDid anyone kill the picture taking process on Mafalda?
Did anyone kill the process on Mafalda that was taking pictures of the end mirror of the x-arm last Friday? I need to know whether or not it crashed of its own accord.
678   Wed Jul 16 10:50:55 2008 EricSummaryCamerasWeekly Summary
Finished unwrapping, cleaning, baking, wrapping, wrapping again, packing, and shipping the baffles.

Attempted to set up the Snap software so that it could talk directly to EPICS channels. This is not currently working due to a series of very strange bugs in compiling and linking the channel access libraries. Alex Ivanov directed Joe and me to a script and makefile that are similar to what we're trying to do and it may solve our problem, but at the moment this still doesn't work. We're currently using a workaround that involves making unix system calls to ezca command line tools, but this is too hacky to leave in the final program.

Attempted to fit Josh's PZT voltage vs power plot of the OMC (from about a year ago) to lorentzians in order to try to develop fitting tools for more recent data. This isn't working, due to systematic error distorting the shapes of the peaks. Good fits can be obtained by cutting the number of points to a very small number around the peak of resonance, but this leads to such a small percentage of the peak being used that I don't trust these results either. (In the graph (shows the very top of the tallest peak): blue is Josh's original data, green is a fit to this peak using the top 66% of the peak and arbitrary, equal values for the error on each point, red is Josh's data averaged over bins of size 0.005, teal is a fit to these bins where the error on each point is the standard deviation of each bin, and magenta is a fit to these same bins, except cropped to the top ~10% of the peak, x-axis is voltage, y-axis is transmission power). Rana suggested that I take my own sweeps of the PMC using scripts that are already written: I'm currently figuring out where these scripts are and how to use them without accidently breaking something.

We've begun running the Snap software for long periods of time to see how stable it is. Currently, its only problem appears to be that it memory leaks somewhat: it was up 78% memory usage after a little over an hour. It doesn't put much strain on the computer, using only ~20% CPU. Stress put on the network from the constant transfer of images from the camera to the computer is not yet known.
Attachment 1: AttemptedPeakFit3.tiff
689   Thu Jul 17 12:15:21 2008 EricUpdatePSLSwept PMC PZT voltage range
I unlocked the PMC and swept over C1:PSL-PMC_RAMP's full range a couple of times this morning.  The PMC should now be relocked and returned
to normal.
722   Wed Jul 23 12:42:23 2008 EricSummaryCamerasWeekly Summary
I finally got the ezcaPut command working. The camera code can now talk directly to the EPICS channels. However, after repeated calls of the ezcaPut function, the function begins claim to time out, even though it continues to write values to the channel successfully (EPICS is successfully getting the new value for the channel, but failing to reply back to the program in time, I think). It has seg-faulted once as well, so the stability cannot yet be trusted for running long term. For now, however, it works well enough to test a servo in the short term. The current approach simply uses a terminal running ezcaservo with the pitch and yaw offset channels of the ETMX, as well as the channels that the camera code output to. This hasn't actually been tested since we haven't had enough time with the x-arm locked.

Tested various fixed zoom lens on the camera, since the one we were previously using was too heavy for its mount and likely more expensive than necessary. The 16mm lens gets a good picture of the beam and the optic together, though the beam is a little too small in the picture to reliably fit a gaussian to. The 24mm lens zooms too much to see the whole optic, but the beam profile itself is much clearer. The 24mm lens is currently on the camera.

Scanned the PZT voltage of the PMC across its full offset range to gain a plot of voltage vs intensity. I used DTT's triggered time series response system to measure the outputs of the slow PZT voltage and transmission intensity channels, and used the script triangle wave to drive the PZT ramp channel slowly over its full range (I couldn't get DTT to output to the channel). Clear resonances did appear (PMCScanWide.tif), but the number of data points per peak was far too small reliably fit a lorentzian to (PMCScanSinglePeak.tif). When I decreased the scanning range and increased the time in order to collect a large number of points on a few peaks, the resulting data was too messy to fit to a lorentzian (PMCSlowSinglePeak.tif).
Attachment 1: PMCScanSinglePeak.tif
Attachment 2: PMCScanWide.tif
Attachment 3: PMCSlowSinglePeak.tif
769   Wed Jul 30 13:52:41 2008 EricSummaryCamerasWeekly Summary
I tracked the tendency for ezcaPut to fail and sometimes seg-fault in the camera code to a conflict between the camera API and ezca, either on the
network level or the thread level.  Since neither are sophisticated enough to provide controls over how they handle these two things, I instead
separated the call to ezcaPut out into a small, separate script (a stripped down ezcawrite), which the camera code calls at the system level.  This is a
bit hacky of a solution, but its the only thing that seems to work.

I've developed a transformation based on Euler angles that should be able to take the 4 OSEMs in a picture of the end mirror and use their relative
positions to determine the angle of the camera to the optic.  This would allow the position data determined by the fitting software to be converted
from pixels to meaningful lengths, and should aid any servo-ing done on the beams position.  I've yet to actually test if the equations work, though.

The servo code needs to have slew rate limiters and maximums/minimums to protect the mirrors written in to it before it can be tested again, but I
have no idea what reasonable values for these limits are.

Joe and I recently scanned the PMC by driving C1:PSL-PMC_RAMP with the trianglewave script over a range of -3.5 to -1.25 (around 50 to 150 volts
to the PZT) and read out C1:PSL-ISS_INMONPD to measure the transmission intensity.  This included slightly under 2 FSRs.  For slow scans (covering
the range in 150 to 300 s), the peaks were very messy (even with the laser power at 1/6 its normal value), and it was difficult to place where the
actual peak center occurred.  For faster sans (covering the range in 30 seconds or so), the peaks were very clean and nearly symmetric, but were
not placed logically (the same peak showed up at two very different values for the PZT voltage in two separate runs).  I don't have time to put
together graphs of the scans at the moment; I'll have that up sometime this afternoon.
772   Wed Jul 30 16:35:56 2008 EricUpdatePSLPMC Scan Graphs
Graphs of the PMC scan data that I got earlier today.

PMCLongScanWide.tiff shows the transmission intensity and PZT voltage plotted against time for a longer scan of the PMC (~120 seconds for one sweep).

PMCLongScanPeak.tiff is the same scan zoomed in on the primary peak. This scan was done with the laser power at around 1/3 its original value. However, scans done at around 1/6 the original value have peaks that are just as messy.

PMCShortScanWide.tiff shows the intensity and voltage for a more rapid scan (~30 second for one sweep). The black lines show how the peak positions are at very different PZT voltages (a difference of ~10 volts in both cases).

PMCShortScanPeak.tiff is zoomed in on the primary peak. The peak is much cleaner than for the long scan (less time for the laser's heat to expand the mirror?), though it is likely still too messy to reliably fit to a lorentzian.
Attachment 1: PMCLongScanPeak.tiff
Attachment 2: PMCLongScanWide.tiff
Attachment 3: PMCShortScanPeak.tiff
Attachment 4: PMCShortScanWide.tiff
861   Wed Aug 20 12:39:11 2008 EricSummaryCamerasWeekly Summary
I attempted to model the noise produced by the mirror defects in the ETMX images, in order to better assure that the fit to the beam Gaussian in these images is actually accurate. My first attempt involved treating the defects as random Gaussians which were scaled by the power of the beam's Gaussian. This didn't work at all (it didn't really look like the noise on the ETMX), and resulted in very different behavior from the fitting software (it fit to one of the noise peaks, instead of the beam Gaussian). I'll try some other models another time.

I made a copy of the ezcaservo source code and added options to it that allow the addition of minimum value, maximum value, and slew rate limits. This should allow the camera code to servo on ITMX without accidently driving the mirror too far or too fast. In order to get the code to recompile, I had to strip out part of the servo that changed the step value based on the amount of time that had elapsed (it relied on some GDS libraries and header files). Since the amount of time that passes is reasonably constant (about 2-3 steps per second) and the required accuracy for this particular purpose isn't extremely high, I didn't think it would matter very much.

I put together two MATLAB functions that attempt to convert pixel position in an image to actual position in real space. The first function takes four points that have known locations in real space (with respect to some origin which the camera is pointing at) and compares them to where those 4 points fall in the image. From the distortion of the four points, it calculates the three rotational angles of the the camera, as well as a scaling factor that converts pixels to real spatial dimensions. The second function takes these 4 parameters and 'unrotates' the image, yielding the positions of other features in the image (though they must be on the same flat plane) in real space. The purpose of this is to allow the cameras to provide positions in terms of physically meaningful units. It should also decouple the x and y axes so that the two dimensions can be servo'd on independently. Some results are attached; the 'original' image is the image as it came out of the camera (units in pixels), while the 'modified' image is the result of running the two functions in succession. The four points were the corners of the 'restricted access' sign and of the TV screen, while the origin was taken as the center of the sign or the TV. The accuracy of the transformation is reasonably good, but seems to depend considerably on assuring that the origin chosen in real space matches the origin in the image. To make these the same, they will be calculated by taking the intersections of the 2 lines defined by 2 sets diagonal points in each image. The first function will remain in MATLAB, since it only needs to be run once each time the camera is moved. The second function must be ported to C since the transformation must be done in realtime during the servo.

Joe and I attempted another scan of the PMC this morning. We turned the laser power down by a factor of ~50 (reflection off of the unlocked PMC went from ~118 to ~2.2) and blocked one beam in the MZ. We scanned from 40 V to 185 V ( -1 to -4.25 on the PZT ramp channel) with periods of 60 seconds and 10 seconds. In both cases, thermal effects were still clearly visible. We turned the laser power down by another factor of 2 (~1 on the PMC reflection channel), and did a long scan of 300 seconds and a short scan of 10 seconds. The 10 second scan produced what may be clean peaks, although there was clear digitization noise, while the peaks in the 300 second scan showed thermal effects. I've yet to actually analyze the data closely, however.
Attachment 1: OriginalSignImage.png
Attachment 2: ModifiedSignImage.png
Attachment 3: OriginalTVImage.png
Attachment 4: ModifiedTVImage.png
880   Mon Aug 25 14:42:09 2008 EricConfigurationCamerasETMX Digital Camera
I changed the lens on the camera looking at the ETMX to a 16mm, 1:1.4 zoom lens. This is in preparation to measure a couple parameters that depend on the camera's position and angle, so please avoid repositioning it for a couple of days.
891   Wed Aug 27 12:09:10 2008 EricSummaryCamerasWeekly Summary
I added a configuration file parser to the Snap code. This allows all command line parameters (like exposure time, etc.) to be saved in a file and loaded automatically. It also provides a method of loading parameters to transform a point from its location on the image to its location in actual space (loading these parameters on the command line would substantially clutter it). The code is now fully set-up to test servo-ing one of the mirrors again, and I will test this as soon as the PMC board stops being broken and I can lock the X-arm.

I also took an image of the OSEMs on ETMX in order to apply the rotation transform code in order to determine the parameters to pass to Snap. The results were alpha = 2.9505, beta = 0.0800, gamma = -2.4282, c = 0.4790. These results are reasonable but far from perfect. One of the biggest causes of error was in locating the OSEMs: it is difficult to determine where in the spot of light the OSEM actually is, and in one case, the center was hidden behind another piece of equipment. Nevertheless, the parameters are good enough to use in a test of the ability to servo, though it would probably be worth trying to improve them before using them for other purposes. The original and rotated images are attached.

I've begun working on calculations to figure out how much power loss can occur due to a given cavity misalignment or change in a mirror's radius of curvature from heating. The goal is to determine how well a camera can indirectly detect these power losses, since a misalignment produces a change in beam position and a change in radius of curvature produces a change in beam waist, both of which can be measured by the camera.

Joe and I hunted down the requisite equipment to amplify the photodiode at the output of the PMC, allowing us to turn the laser power down even more during a scan of the PMC, hopefully avoiding thermal effects. This measurement can be done once the PMC works again.
Attachment 1: originalETMX.png
Attachment 2: rotatedETMX.png
914   Wed Sep 3 12:26:49 2008 EricSummaryCamerasWeekly Summary
Finished up simulating the end mirror error in order to test the whether the fitting code still provides reasonable answers despite the noise caused by the defects on the end mirror. The model I used to simulate the defects is far from perfect, but its good enough given the time I have remaining, and I have no reason to believe the differences between it and the real noise would cause any radical changes in how the fit operates. A comparison between a modeled image and a real image is attached. Average error (difference between the estimated value and the real value) for each of the parameters is

For the fit:
Max Intensity: 2767.4 (Max intensities ranged from 8000 to 11000)
X-Position: 0.9401 pixels
X Beam Waist: 1.3406 pixels (beam waists ranged from 35 to 45)
Y-Position: 0.9997 pixels
Y Beam Waist: 1.3059 pixels (beam waists ranged from 35 to 45)
Intensity Offset: 12.7705 (Offsets ranged from 1000 to 4000)

For the center of mass calculation (with a threshold that cut off everything above 13000)
X-Position: 0.0087 pixels
Y-Position: 0.0286 pixels

Thus, the fit is generally trustworthy for all parameters except for maximum intensity, for which it is very inaccurate. Additionally, this shows that the center of mass calculation actually does a much better job than the fit when this much noise is in the image. For the end mirrors, the fit is really only useful for finding beam waist, and even this is not extremely accurate (~3% error). All the parameters for the modeling is on the svn in /trunk/docs/emintun/MatLabFiles/EndMirrorErrorSimulation.txt.

Finished working on the calculations that convert a beam misalignment as measured as a change in the beam position on the two mirrors to a power loss in the cavity. Joe calculated the minimum measurable change in beam position to be around a tenth of a pixel, which corresponds to half a micron when the beam is directly incident on the camera. This gives the ability to measure fractional power losses as low as 2*10^-10 for the 40m main arm cavities. To me, this seems unusually low, though it scales with beam position squared, so if anything else limited the ability to measure changes in the beam position, it would have a large effect on the sensitivity to power losses. Additionally, it scales inversely with length, so shorter cavities provide less sensitivity.

This morning Joe and I tested the ability for the camera code to servo the ITMX in order to change the beam's position on the ETMX. Two major things have been changed since the last time we tried this. First, the calculated beam center that gets output to the EPICS channels now first goes through a transform that converts it from pixels into physical units, and should account for the oblique angle of the camera. The output to the EPICS channels should now be in the form of 'mm from the center of the optic', although this is not very precise at the moment. The second thing that was changed was that the servo was run with a modified servo script that included options to set a minimum, maximum, and slew rate in order to protect the mirrors from being swung around too much. The servo was generally successful: for a given x-position, it was capable of changing the yaw of ITMX so that the position seen on the camera moved to this new location. The biggest problem is that the x and y dimensions do not appear to be decoupled (the transform converting it to physical units should have done this), so that modifying the yaw of the mirror changed both the x and y positions (the y about half as much) as output by the camera. This could cause a problem when trying to servo in both dimensions at once, since one servo could end up opposing the other. I don't know the cause of this problem yet, since the transform that is currently in use appears to be correctly orienting the image.
Attachment 1: SimulatedErrorComparison.png
6881   Wed Jun 27 14:12:44 2012 EricSummaryGeneralSURF Week 1

I started work familiarizing myself with the ELOG and some of the control systems at the 40m. I spent a fair bit of time gaining some general knowledge of the interferometer, control systems, calibration, null instruments, etc. On Friday, June 22 Yaakov and I spent the afternoon pulling cables for the beatbox that Jamie had finished up. We were able to get the cables from the rack containing the beatbox routed to the control room.

Then I started work on calibrating the beatbox. I set up the function generator to send a sine wave into the beatbox, then sent the signal from the beatbox to the oscilloscope. I compared both the input sine wave and the output from the beatbox at many frequencies, taking peak to peak measurements. I'm working on using the data to calibrate the beatbox now.

6962   Wed Jul 11 14:22:54 2012 EricSummaryGeneralSURF Update

Here's what I accomplished since my last elog:

I continued working on the beatbox calibration. Instead of using the function generator for an input signal,
I used the network analyzer because it can generate higher frequencies that are of more interest to us. I ran
the network analyzer output into the RF in port, and took voltage measurements from the Q port using the
oscilloscope. The frequency range I focused on was 100 - 200 MHz, and I also took more closely spaced measurements
from 180 - 200 MHz. The data is recorded on the computer now, and I will analyze it more fully in the future.

I also edited the Calibration page on the LIGO 40 m wiki. Rana showed me the page on calibration, but there was
limited information there, so he recommended that I post my work there as well. Right now I haven't posted much,
but I will likely add some information on the Simulink model I'm working on and results of measurements to be
taken as the project progresses.

The majority of my work has been on developing a Simulink model in Matlab of the differential arm length sensing
and control loop
. I am using Figure 6-1 from Rana's thesis as a guide on important components to include in the
model. Some of the details on the transfer functions of components need to be worked out, but a basic framework has
been established. Right now the transfer function of the arm cavity is being approximated as a single pole, but
we may integrate the calibration model I'm working on with Sasha's work on the arm cavity. I have also begun to
implement the length response function in the model
. I believe it is giving correct results at frequencies up to
100 Hz, but is off at higher frequencies. This might be fixed after I continue to fill in the transfer functions
of the digital components; they are currently set to 1 until I find more information on them.

6990   Wed Jul 18 15:38:05 2012 EricSummarySimulationsSURF Update

Most of my work has been on continuing to develop the Simulink model of the differential arm length control loop.
I have filled in transfer functions for the digital components after looking up the configuration of filters and
gains on the control screens. Filters that were active at the time included 1:50 and 1000:10 on C1LSC_YARM and
C1LSC_POY11 with a gain of 0.1. Jamie also introduced me to foton so that I could obtain the transfer functions
for the necessary filters. I have also continued to work on obtaining the open loop gain and length response
function from the model. The majority of the work now is to refine what I've accomplished so far. Adding details
to the arm cavity and the optics is one potential area for improvement.

I have also spent some time looking at real-time calibration methods from GEO and a proposal for a similar system
on LIGO in P040057-x0 from the DCC. While the work for this project may follow a different path for a real-time
calibration, having a sense for what's been accomplished so far should be helpful in working on a new system.

7025   Wed Jul 25 11:34:31 2012 EricSummarySimulationsSURF Update

I am continuing work on simulating the DARM control loop. There is now a block for the length response
function
that allows one to recover the h(t) GW input to the model. However, in order to add this
block I had to add some artificial poles to the length response function beacuse Simulink gave me errors
when the transfer function had more zeros than poles. The artificial poles are at 10^6 Hz and higher, so
that they should not affect the response function at the lower frequencies of interest. This approach
appears a bit computationally unstable though because without changing any parameters and re-running
the simulation, a different magnitude for h(t) would be calculated sometimes. A different method may be
necessary to get this working more accurately
.

By looking through the C1LSC Simulink model and the C1LSC control screens, Jenne helped me determine
which digital filters are active while the interferometer is locked
. To do this, open the C1LSC control
screen, then open the trigger matrix. Inside the trigger matrix window there is a button titled Filter
Module Triggers which opens another window that indicates which filters are triggered for a given channel,
and what values trigger them. For the y arm servo filters FM2, 3, 6, 7, 8 are triggered while in lock and
FM4 and 5 are controlled manually; I am including all of these in the model now.

I have changed the way I manipulate the output from the model for analysis, using Rana's advice. I also
improved the plotting code, now using a custom Bode plot instead.

Attached is a screenshot of the Simulink model as it currently stands, and an older implementation of the
open loop gain
. I am in the process of updating the servo filters now, and what is shown in the plot does
not include all the filter modules for the servo filter.

Attachment 1: DARM_control_loop_hendries.PNG
Attachment 2: OLG_old_hendries2.png
7064   Wed Aug 1 10:38:11 2012 EricSummaryGeneralSURF Update

Since my last update I have modified the DARM control loop model to the extent that it resembles the
measured open loop transfer function much more closely
. The phase especially is much more accurate, with
a phase margin of about 35 degrees at the unity gain frequency of 156 Hz. Right now I'm normalizing to
the unity gain frequency still to adjust the gain properly. Using the length response function from the
model, I can calibrate the error signal as well to find the simulated h(t) output. There were a number of
computational problems in calculating the length response function, but I eventually found a work-around.
Attached is an updated plot of the open loop transfer function and the length response function of the model.

This week Jamie showed me around the real-time Simulink models as well. The one specific to my project
is c1cal.mdl
. It takes the output in the form of the error and control signals from c1lsc.mdl as its
input and produces the calibrated signal as output. In order to produce the calibrated signal we need the actuation
function and the inverse of the sensing function for the model as it stands now. We also built, installed,
and restarted the c1cal model because no data was showing up in data viewer, but the problem remained
after this attempt.

Jamie and I also started on calibrating the interferometer in the traditional way. Jamie aligned the beam
splitter and the input test masses so we could take free-swinging Michelson measurements. However, taking
the data with the nds system appears to be giving different results than what is showing up in data viewer.
The goal of this measurement is to get a value for the peak to peak amplitude of the Michelson error signal.

Attachment 1: OLG_hendries.png
Attachment 2: Length_response_hendries.png
7078   Thu Aug 2 11:09:52 2012 EricSummaryLSCFree-Swinging Michelson Measurements

To take the free swinging Michelson measurements for the interferometer calibration Jamie aligned the beam splitter with ITMX and ITMY. I recorded the GPS time (1027827100 and for several hundred seconds later) when the Michelson was aligned in order to look at the correct data. I then copied the python script nds-test.py from Jamie, and modified it to take and plot data from C1:LSC-AS55_Q_ERR_DQ offline. I used dataviewer to verify that C1:LSC-AS55_Q_ERR_DQ and C1:LSC-AS55_Q_ERR were recording the same signal, and to check that I was taking the correct data with NDS. Taking data online worked as well, but it was easier to use a time when the Michelson was known to be free-swinging and take data offline. Attached is some sample data while free-swinging, with time in GPS time.

Attachment 1: free_swing_MICH.png
7119   Wed Aug 8 13:16:58 2012 EricSummaryGeneralSURF Update

This week I spent most of my time learning about how the interferometer is calibrated and working on the calibration itself. I also looked more into the Pound-Drever-Hall technique.

Continuing work on the free-swinging Michelson measurements, I changed the signal that I was using to C1:LSC-ASDC_OUT_DQ. This is a proper power signal so that the peak-to-peak amplitude of this error signal can be directly read off the graph. The motivation to measure this amplitude is that it must be known in order to calibrate the actuation of the input and end test masses.

Next I looked into using DTT to make some measurements. I ran the Michelson restore script in the IFO Configure screen to adjust the optics to be near alignment. Then I tweaked the precise settings in the IFO Align screen of pitch and yaw for the ITMX, ITMY, and BS. The goal with this was to minimize the magnitude of the C1:LSC-ASDC_OUT_DQ signal. After it was well-aligned, back in DTT I sent in a sine wave excitation and used a Triggered Time Response measurement to see the output. As a first test I put the excitation signal in the ASDC channel and I was able to plot the resulting OUT signal in DTT. The amplitude was different than I input due to gains between the excitation and the point of measurement, but this can easily be accounted for by adjusting the amplitude in DTT accordingly.

The next step is to work on measurements of a single arm cavity, introducing excitations there and measuring the response.

7128   Thu Aug 9 00:14:02 2012 EricSummaryLockingYARM Locking and Calibration

Today I spent time locking the YARM in order to calibrate the arm cavity. Here's what I did:

1. Misalign all optics other than the beam splitter, ITMY, ETMY and PZT2

2. Restore BS, ITMY, ETMY, and PZT2

3. Open Dataviewer and run /users/Templates/JenneLockingDataviewer/Yarm.xml from the Restore Settings. This opens the signals C1:LSC-POY11_I_ERR (the Pound-Drever-Hall error signal for this measurement) and C1:LSC-TRY_OUT (the light transmitted through ETMY) in the plot window.

4. Adjust ITMY and ETMY pitch and yaw using the video screens looking at AS and ETMYT as a first, rough guide. It can be helpful at first to increase the gain on the YARM servo filter module in the C1LSC control screen to about 0.3 and decrease it back down to 0.1 as the beam becomes better aligned. You know when to decrease this gain when fuzzy, small oscillations appear on the C1:LSC-TRY_OUT signal. If the mode cleaner is locked you should see a bright spot on the AS camera.

5. Tinker with pitch and yaw while looking at the AS screen until you see a reasonably good circular spot without other fringes extending from a bright center.

6. The overall goal is to maximize C1:LSC-TRY_OUT because the power transmitted through EMTY is proportional to the power within the cavity. A decent target value is 0.85 and today I was able to get it to just over 0.80 at best. At first there will probably be small spikes in C1:LSC-TRY_OUT. You want to adjust pitch and yaw until the deviation in the signal from zero is no longer just a spike, but a sustained, flat signal above zero. By this time there should be light showing up on the ETMYT camera as well.

7. Once that happens, continue to successively adjust ITMY and ETMY doing the pitch adjustments on both first, and then the yaw adjustments, or vice versa. You can also tweak the PZT2 pitch and yaw. Once you've got C1:LSC-TRY_OUT as large as possible, you've locked the cavity.

I saved the pitch and yaw settings I ended up with for ITMY, ETMY, BS and PZT2 in the IFO_ALIGN screen. Before the end of the day I think Jenne restored the rest of the previously misaligned optics because they were restored when I got back from dinner.

I also worked on calibrating the YARM. I opened up DTT using C1:LSC-POY11_I_ERR as the measurement channel and C1:SUS-ITMY_LSC_EXC as the excitation channel. I ran a logarithmic swept sine response measurement with 100 points and an amplitude of 25. The mode cleaner kept losing its lock all day, and if this happened while making this measurement I tried to pause the sweep as quickly as possible. I analyzed the the transfer function and the coherence function that the sweep produced, and thought that some of the odd behavior was due to losing the lock and getting back to a slightly different locked state when resuming the measurement. The measured transfer function and coherence plots are attached below. Both the transfer function and the coherence look good above roughly 30 Hz, but do not look correct at low frequencies. There's also a roll-off in the measured transfer function around 200 Hz, while in the model the magnitude of the transfer function drops only after the corner frequency of the cavity, around several kHz. I have attached a plot of the roughly analogous transfer function from the DARM control loop model (the gains are very large due to the large arm cavity gain and the ADC conversion factor of 2^16/(20 V) ). The measured and the modeled transfer functions are slightly different in that the model does not include the individual mirrors, while the excitation was imposed on ITMY for the measurement.

The next steps are to figure out what's happening in DTT with the transfer function and coherence at low frequencies, and to understand the differences between the model and the measurement.

Attachment 1: cal_swept_sine3_tfmag
Attachment 2: cal_swept_sine3_tfph
Attachment 3: cal_swept_sine3_coh
Attachment 4: sensing_func_model.png
7134   Thu Aug 9 10:09:32 2012 EricSummaryLockingYARM Locking and Calibration

Quote:

 Quote: Once you've got C1:LSC-TRY_OUT as large as possible, you've locked the cavity.  Both the transfer function and the coherence look good above roughly 30 Hz, but do not look correct at low frequencies. There's also a roll-off in the measured transfer function around 200 Hz, while in the model the magnitude of the transfer function drops only after the corner frequency of the cavity, around several kHz. I have attached a plot of the roughly analogous transfer function from the DARM control loop model (the gains are very large due to the large arm cavity gain and the ADC conversion factor of 2^16/(20 V) ). The measured and the modeled transfer functions are slightly different in that the model does not include the individual mirrors, while the excitation was imposed on ITMY for the measurement.   The next steps are to figure out what's happening in DTT with the transfer function and coherence at low frequencies, and to understand the differences between the model and the measurement.

The cavity is actually "locked" as soon as the feedback loop is successfully closed.  One easy-to-spot symptom of this is that, as you mentioned elsewhere in your post, TRY is a ~constant non-zero, rather than spikey (or just zero).  Once you've maximized TRY, you've got the cavity locked, and the alignment optimized.

We didn't get to this part of "The Talk" about the birds, the bees, and the DTTs, but we'll probably need to look into increasing the amplitude of the excitation by a little bit at low frequency.  DTT has this capability, if you know where to look for it.

It would be great to see the model and your measurement overlayed on the same plot - they're easier to compare that way.  You can export the data from DTT to a text file pretty easily, then import it into Matlab and plot away.  Can you check and maybe repost your measured plots?  I think they might have gotten attached as text files rather than images.  At least I can't open them.

Here's the same plots in pdf format now. I originally posted them as jpg because I couldn't open the resulting pdf from DTT on rosalba, but I could open the jpg. I'll look into overlaying the measured and modeled curves as well.

Attachment 1: cal_swept_sine3_magnitude.pdf
Attachment 2: cal_swept_sine3_phase.pdf
Attachment 3: cal_swept_sine3_coherence.pdf
7139   Fri Aug 10 09:51:51 2012 EricSummaryLockingYARM Locking and Measurements

I forgot to post this last night, but I locked the YARM again yesterday and misaligned the other optics. I took measurements on ITMY and ETMY with DTT again as well. At the end of the day I aligned the rest of the optics before I left.

7145   Fri Aug 10 16:39:44 2012 EricSummaryLockingMichelson Locking

I'm working on locking the Michelson now in order to put an excitation on one of the input test masses and measure the resulting error signal at the anti-symmetric port. I aligned the beams from ITMX and ITMY by looking at the AS camera with the video screens, but the fringes were not destructively interfering. Jenne advised that I look at the gain on the MICH servo filter modules in the LSC screen. We flipped the sign on the gain (it was 0.120 and it is now -0.120) and the fringes destructively interfered as desired after this change.

For purposes of documentation, I locked the YARM earlier in the morning before moving on to the Michelson. The purpose of this was to put another excitation on C1:SUS-ETMY_LSC_EXC and then measure the error signal on C1:LSC-POY11_I_ERR.

7149   Fri Aug 10 19:49:11 2012 EricSummaryLockingMichelson Locking Procedure and Measurements

Today I worked on locking the Michelson. Here's what I did:

1. Open Data Viewer and Restore Settings /users/Templates/JenneLockingDataviewer/MICH.xml. This opens the C1:LSC-ASDC_OUT and C1:LSC-AS55_Q_ERR plots.

2. Check the LSC screen to verify that the path between the Servo Filter Modules and the SUS Ctrls are outlined in green. If not turn on the OUT button within the Filter Servo Modules, enable LSC mode, and turn on the SUS Ctrls for the BS.

3. Misalign all optics other than BS and one of ITMX and ITMY. The ITMY was already well-aligned from my work on locking the YARM, so I actually chose to misalign ITMY at first.

4. Restore BS and ITMX. Use the AS camera on the video screen as your guide when aligning ITMX.

5. Adjust pitch and yaw of ITMX until a bright, circular spot appears near the middle of the AS camera.

6. Now restore ITMY and adjust pitch and yaw until a second circular spot appears on the AS camera.

7. Adjust both ITMX and ITMY until both bright spots occupy the same location. If the spots remain bright when they are in the same location you are locking onto a bright fringe actually, and need to flip the sign of the gain on the MICH servo filter modules. I had to do this today in fact, as discussed in ELOG 7145.

8. If the sign is correct, the two beams should interfere destructively and the formerly bright spots will form a comparatively dark spot. The shape of the spot will likely be two bright lobes separated by a dark middle.

9. C1:LSC-ASDC_OUT should be a roughly flat signal, and the goal now is to minimize the magnitude of this signal. The smaller this signal, the darker the AS camera should look. Decent target values for C1:LSC-ASDC_OUT are around 0.10 to 0.05.

Once I did this, I made measurements by exciting C1:SUS-ITMY_LSC_EXC and measuring with C1:LSC-AS55_Q_ERR. I ran a logarithmic swept sine response from 1 to 1000 Hz again, with an envelope amplitude dependence. Again I looked at the measured transfer function and coherence. I was able to get good coherence, but it was somewhat erratic in that it dipped low at high frequency multiple times.

7211   Fri Aug 17 00:16:30 2012 EricSummaryLSCYARM Calibration

I modified my Simulink model of the YARM to match the new filter modules Rana installed on YARM. I also scaled the open loop transfer function of the model to fit the measured open loop transfer function at the unity gain frequency, as shown in the figure below. From this I produced the length response function correctly scaled, also shown below.  Then I applied the calibration factor to the YARM data measured in /users/Templates/Y-Arm_120815.xml. Both the uncalibrated and calibrated spectra are included below.

Attachment 1: olg_model_meas.png
Attachment 2: length_response_model.png
Attachment 3: yarm_uncal_power_spec.pdf
Attachment 4: yarm_cal_power_spec.pdf
8478   Tue Apr 23 16:31:13 2013 EricConfiguration PD frequency response

[Eric, Riju]

Summary: Routing Fibers on AP table for Photo Diode Frequency Response Measurement System

Objective: We are to set-up one simultaneous transfer-function measurement system for all the RF-PDs present in 40m lab. A diode laser output is to be divided by 1x16 fiber splitter and to be sent to all the PDs through single-mode fiber. The transfer function of the PDs will be measured using network analyzer. The output of the PDs will be fed to network analyzer via one RF-switch.

Work Done So Far: We routed the fibers on AP table. Fibers from RF PDS - namely  MC REFL PD, AS55, REFL11, REFL33, REFL55, REFL165, have been connected to the 1x16 fiber splitter. All the cables are lying on the table now, so they are not blocking any beam.

We will soon upload the schematic diagram of the set up.

Missing Component: Digital Fiber Power Meter, Thorlab PM20C

7195   Wed Aug 15 16:29:59 2012 Eric SummaryGeneralSURF Update

This week I took more data for the calibration of YARM. The summary of measurements taken is:

1. Peak-to-peak on Michelson
2. Michelson open loop
3. Excite ITMY and measure on AS55_Q_ERR
4. Excite ITMY and measure on POY11_I_ERR
5. Excite ETMY and measure on POY11_I_ERR
6. YARM open loop

Then I worked on comparing these measurements to the Simulink model of the interferometer control loop. The measured open loop transfer function of the YARM matched well with the model above about 20 Hz, after the gain was scaled properly to fit the data. Next is to fit the length response function of the model and the measurements, and then use DTT to calibrate the arm cavity's power spectrum.

7445   Thu Sep 27 13:05:55 2012 Eric GustafsonUpdateLSC40 meter photodiode frequency response measurement system installation

Jenne, Mike and I installed all of the post holders we could today including: REFL11, REFL33, REFL55, AS55, MCRef, POX11 and POP55.  We did not install AS110, POY or REFL165 because there are interferences that will require moving stuff around. We also did not mount POP22 because it is a peely wally ThorLabs PD that will be replaced by a strong, straight and right thinking LIGO PD in the fullness of time.  We did move it out of the way however which is no more than it deserves. Next step this afternoon Mike and I will install all of the telescopes and launching hardware.  Then with the help of Steve we will begin routing the fibers.  The splitter module will be here by next Monday, the laser by the following Friday and then we will light up the fibers.

7448   Thu Sep 27 17:00:41 2012 Eric GustafsonUpdateLSC40 meter photodiode frequency response measurement system installation

Mike and I installed all of the telescopes and launching hardware for REFL11, REFL33, REFL55, AS55, MCRef, POX11 and POP55. On Monday afternoon Steve will work with us on the fiber routing.  Steve is buying some protective covers for the fibers.

12949   Fri Apr 21 13:59:47 2017 Eric GustafsonSummary 1064 nm Semiconductor Laser Fiber Distribution System and Mirror Tomography

1064 nm Semiconductor Laser Fiber Distribution System and Mirror Tomography

Below threshold these Semiconductor Fabry-Perot lasers have an axial mode structure with a spacing of about a THz. As you turn up the current to above threshold the first mode to oscillate saturates the gain down on all the modes and only it oscillates.  The laser I have here in my office (a backup for the one you have at the 40 meter) has a wavelength of 1064.9 nm at 70 Degrees C.  We should be able to temperature tune it down to 1064.3 nm although this could be a bit tedious the first time we do it. The specifications claim a "spectrum width" of 1.097 nm which I believe is the temperature tuning range.  I don’t know what the line width is but it will be single frequency and we shouldn’t have mode hoping problems.  So we should be able to use it in the “Mirror Tomography” experiment.  You might want to use some sort of polarization diversity to avoid the problems of fiber polarization drift.

There have been 2 student projects on using the fiber distributed PD frequency response at1064 nm laser.

“Automated Photodiode Frequency Response Measurement System,” Alexander Cole - T1300618

“Final Report: Automated Photodiode Frequency Response Measurement System for Caltech 40m lab,” Nichin Sreekantaswamy - P140021

I’ll look up a few more references and add include them in the next elog.

Eric

12952   Thu Apr 27 16:41:13 2017 Eric GustafsonUpdateLSC Status of the 40 m PD Frequency Response Fiber System
There two reports in the DCC describing the state of the system as of October 2014 including: (1)  Alex Cole’s “T1300618 Automated photodiode Frequency Response Measurement System” and a Wiki  created by Alex Cole where there are some instructions on the Master Script at https://wiki.ligo.caltech.edu/ajw?AlexanderCole

And (2)  P140021 “Final Report: Automated Photodiode Frequency Response Measurement System for 40m Lab” by Nichin Sreekantaswamy and also as part of Nichin’s report by there is an archive of data at   https://wiki-40m.ligo.caltech.edu/Electronics/PDFR%20system

I made a visual inspection of the system and saw that the following fibers collimators are still mounted in alignment mounts and the fiber is attached and pointed at a photodetector but possibly not aligned.

ASP Table

Photodetector Label                             Fiber Label

REFL11                                              REFL55 Fiber on mount

REFL33                                              REFL33 Fiber on mount

REFL55                                              REFL11 Fiber on mount

REFL165                                            No Fiber

AS55                                                   AS55 Fiber on mount

MCREFPD                                         MCREFPD Fiber on mount

No PD                                                 Loose unlabeled Fiber No mount

ITMX Optics Table

Photodetector Label                             Fiber Label

POX11                                                POX11 on mount

Unlabeled PD                                      POP22/POP110 on mount

NO PD                                                 POP55 loose fiber No mount

The RF switch seems to be hooked up and there is a fiber running from the Diode Laser module to the fiber splitter module. So REFL 11 and REFL545 seem to be illuminated by the wrong fiber. I’ll try and run the software on Monday and check to see if I need to move the fibers or just relabel them.

13022   Wed May 31 12:58:30 2017 Eric GustafsonUpdateLSCRunning the 40 m PD Frequency Response Fiber System; Hardware and Software

Overall Design

A schematic of the overall subsystem diagran in attachment.

RF and Optical Connections

Starting at the top left corner is the diode laser module.  This laser has an input which allows it to be amplitude modulated.  The output of the laser is coupled into an optical fiber which is connectorized with an FC/APC connector and is connected to the input port of a 1 by 16 Optical Fiber Splitter. The Splitter produces 16 optical fiber outputs dividing the input laser power into 16 roughly equal optical optical fiber outputs.  These optical fibers are routed to the Photodiode Receivers (PD) which are the devices under test. All of the PDs are illuminated simultaneously with amplitude modulated light. The Optical Fiber outputs each have a collimating fiber telescope which is used to focus the light onto the PDs. Optical Fiber CH1 is routed to a broadband flat response reference photodiode which is used to provide a reference to the HP-4395A Network Analyzer.  The other Channel outputs are connected to an RF switch which can be programmed to select one of 16 inputs as the output.  The selected outputs can then be sent into channel A of the RF Network Analyzer.

RF Switch

The RF switch consists of two 8 by 1 Multiplexers (National Instruments PXI-254x) slotted into a PXI Chassis (National Instruments PXI-1033).  The Multiplexers have 8 RF inputs and one RF output and can be programmed through the PXI Chassis to select one and only one of the 8 inputs to be routed to the RF output.) The first 8 Channels are connected to the first 8 inputs of the first Multiplexer.  The first Multiplexer’s output is then connected to the Channel 1 input of the second Multiplexer. The remaining PD outputs are connected to the remaining inputs of the second Multiplexer. The output of the second Multiplexer is connected to the A channel of the RF Network Analyzer.  Thus it is possible to select any one of the PD RF outputs for analysis.

Software

Something on this tomorrow.

Attachment 1: Overall_schematic_D1300603-v2.pdf
7372   Tue Sep 11 17:17:51 2012 Eric Q., Mike J.ConfigurationElectronicsAS beam scan

We conducted a beam scan on the AP table of the AS beam. We used a lens to focus the beam onto a power meter, and slowly moved a razor blade across the beam using a micrometer, vertically and horizontally both in front of and behind the beam. We also had to block the beam next to the AS beam in order to do this, but is unblocked now. Mike will begin curve fitting the data to try and see if there is a different spot size given by the x-axis vs. the y-axis, and if the lens has any effect.

640   Mon Jul 7 13:58:37 2008 Eric, josephbDAQPEMUsing unused PEM channels to test camera code
Joe and I have taken control of the EPICS channels C1:PEM-Stacis_EEEX_geo and C1:PEM-Stacis_EEEY_geo since we heard that they are no longer in use.  We are currently
using them to test the ability for the Snap camera code to read and write from EPICS channels.  Thus, the information being written to these channels is completely unrelated
to their names or previous use.  This is only temporary; we'll create our own channels for the camera code shortly (probably within the next couple of days).

- Eric
7579   Fri Oct 19 01:21:42 2012 EvanUpdateLockingAligning PZTs, PRM

[Evan, Jenne]

Tonight we made an attempt at getting the PRM + ITMY aligned with correct input pointing. We steered the good PZT so that the input beam makes it through the aperture in front of ETMY. We then aligned the PRM so that the retroreflection of the input beam makes it back into the Faraday. After that we tried dithering the alignment of ITMY and the beamsplitter to see if we could see a spot flash across the AS port, but we saw nothing.

For the PRM alignment we set up a camera looking into the window at the Faraday in the IOO chamber; it's called FI_BACK. We stole a 50mm lens from the ETMY face camera.

We also tried looking for beam on IP_POS and IP_ANG. When the input beam is aligned to pass through the ETMY aperture, we can see beam on the steering mirrors preceding IP_POS, but it hits a mirror mount. When the input beam is aligned as it was on Monday, it clips on the ETMY aperture but makes it further along the IP_POS optical path.   In both cases, we weren't able to see any beam coming out for IP ANG.

7729   Mon Nov 19 23:14:31 2012 EvanUpdateCamerasETMYF focus

Adjusted focus on ETMYF camera so that the IR beam is in focus.

7978   Thu Jan 31 20:06:22 2013 EvanUpdateLockingPRM/PR2 cavity

[Jenne, Evan]

Tonight we made a non-folded cavity between the PRM and PR2 as follows. I put down two dog clamps to constrain the original position of the PR2 mount. I then loosened the dog clamps holding the mount to the table and nudged the mount until we saw a few reasonably well-aligned bounces in the cavity. I then dogged down the mount.

We played with the PRM and TT2 steering until we saw flashes of TEM00. However, the resonance is not clean so we couldn't lock.

Since we changed the PRM alignment, we had to redo the last bit of steering for the PRM oplev into the photodiode. We also put a few ND filters on the POP camera.

8118   Wed Feb 20 19:20:50 2013 EvanUpdateAlignmentAS camera alignment

[Manasa, Evan]

Manasa and I are trying to get the AS beam onto the AS camera with a focusing lens. Currently, the mirror immediately preceding the camera has been removed and the camera and lens are sitting directly behind the BS.

8185   Wed Feb 27 14:59:01 2013 EvanUpdate Altered MC demodulation phase

I took out a short (~12 cm) SMA cable from the "LO input" path into the MC demod board in an attempt to maximize the power in Q and minimize the power in I. The path might benefit from being shortened a little more, but it's hard to tell since I is noisy. (In the attached plots, channel 1 is Q and channel 2 is I.)

Should you find it necessary to restore the original path length, the cable I took out is in the "SMA ONLY" tupperware and has a printed label with "5" on it.

Attachment 1: Q_and_I_before.eps
Attachment 2: Q_and_I_after.eps
8964   Mon Aug 5 11:53:45 2013 EvanUpdateISSCTN Servo - Explicit Requirement and Proposed Servo

I goofed on the transfer function requirement by not giving you the plant transfer function, which looks to be about 0.014 V/V, independent of frequency (PSL:1278). This needs to be compensated for in the electronic transfer function.

9130   Mon Sep 16 13:11:15 2013 EvanUpdateComputer Scripts / ProgramsComsol 4.3b upgrade

Comsol 4.3b is now installed under /cvs/cds/caltech/apps/linux64/COMSOL43b. I've left the existing Comsol 4.2 installation alone; according to the Comsol installation guide [PDF], it is unaffected by the new install. On megatron I've made a symlink so that you can call comsol in bash to start Comsol 4.3b.

The first time I ran comsol server, it asked me to choose a username/password combo, so I made it the same as the combo used to log on to megatron.

Edit: I've also added a ~/.screenrc on megatron (based on this Stackoverflow answer) so that I don't constantly go nuts trying to figure out if I'm already inside a screen session.

ELOG V3.1.3-