40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 35 of 344  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Typedown Category Subject
  2870   Mon May 3 01:35:41 2010 KojiUpdateSUSLessons learned from MC spot centering

Lessons learned on the beam spot centering (so far)

Well-known fact:

The spot position on MC2 can be adjusted by the alignment of the mirror while maintaining the best overlapping between the beam and the cavity axes.

In general, there are two methods:

1) Use the cavity as a reference:
Move the MC mirrors such that the cavity eigenmode hits the centers of the mirrors.
-> Then adjust the incident beam to obtain the best overlapping to the cavity.

2) Use the beam as a reference:
Move the incident beam such that the aligned cavity has the spots at the centers of the mirrors.
-> Then adjust the incident beam to obtain the best spot position while the cavity mirrors keep tracking
the incident beam.

Found the method 1) is not practical.

This is because we can move the eigenmode of the cavity only by very tiny amount if we try to keep the cavity locked.
How much we can move by mirror alignment is smaller than the waist radius or the divergence angle.
For the MC, the waist radius is ~2mm, the divergence angle is 0.2mrad. This means the axis
translation of ~1mm is OK, but the axis rotation of ~4mrad is impractical.

Also it turned out that adjustinig steering mirror to the 10-m class cavity is quite difficult.
A single (minimum) touch of the steering mirror knob is 0.1mrad. This already change the beam position ~0.1mm.
This is not an enough resolution.

Method 2) is also not so easy: Steering mirrors have singular matrix

Indeed! (Remember the discussion for the IMMT)

What we need is the pure angle change of 4mrad at the waist which is ~2m distant from the steering mirror.
This means that the spot at the steering mirror must be moved by 8mm (= 4mrad x 2m). This is the result of the
nearly-singular matrix of the steering mirrors.

We try to avoid this problem by moving the in-vac mirror (IM1), which has somewhat independent move.
The refl beam path also has the big beam shift.
But once the vacuum manifold is evacuated we can adjust very little angle.

This can also be a good news: once the angle is set, we hardly can change it at the PSL side.

  2871   Mon May 3 15:39:39 2010 josephbUpdateCDSDaily Downs update

Talked with Jay briefly today.  Apparently there are 3 IO chassis currently on the test stand at Downs and undergoing testing (or at least they were when Alex and Rolf were around).  They are being tested to determine which slots refer to which ADC, among other things. Apparently the numbering scheme isn't as simple as 0 on the left, and going 1,2,3,4, etc.  As Rolf and Alex are away this week, it is unlikely we'll get them before their return date.

Two other chassis (which apparently is one more than the last time I talked with Jay), are still missing cards for communicating between the computer and the IO chassis, although Gary thinks I may have taken them with me in a box.  I've done a look of all the CDS stuff I know of here at the 40m and have not seen the cards.  I'll be checking in with him tomorrow to figure out when (and if) I have the the cards needed.

  2872   Mon May 3 16:53:27 2010 josephbUpdateCDSUpdated lsc.mdl and the ifo plant model with memory locations

I've updated the LSC and IFO models that Rana created with new shared memory locations.  I've used the C1:IFO- for the ifo.mdl file outputs, which in turn are read by the lsc.mdl file.  The LSC outputs being lsc control signals are using C1:LSC-.  Optics positions would presumably be coming from the associated suspension model, and am currently using SUP, SPX, and SPY for the suspension plant models (suspension vertex, suspension x end, suspension y end).

I've updated the web view of these models on nodus.  They can be viewed at: https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:30889/FE/

I've also created a C1.ipc file in /cvs/cds/caltech/chans/ipc  which assigns ipcNum to each of these new channels in shared memory.

  2877   Tue May 4 13:14:43 2010 josephbUpdateCDSlsc.mdl and ifo.mdl to build (with caveats)

I got around to actually try building the LSC and IFO models on megatron.  Turns out "ifo" can't be used as a model name and breaks when trying to build it.  Has something to do with the find and replace routines I have a feeling (ifo is used for the C1, H1, etc type replacements throughout the code).  If you change the model name to something like ifa, it builds fine though.  This does mean we need a new name for the ifo model.

Also learned the model likes to have the cdsIPCx memory locations terminated on the inputs if its being used in a input role (I.e. its bringing the channel into the model).  However when the same part is being used in an output role (i.e. its transmitting from the model to some other model), if you terminate the output side, it gives errors when you try to make.

Its using the C1.ipc file (in /cvs/cds/caltech/chans/ipc/) just fine.  If you have missing memory locations in the C1.ipc file (i.e. you forgot to define something) it gives a readable error message at compile time, which is good.  The file seems to be being parsed properly, so the era of writing "0x20fc" for block names is officially over.

  2878   Tue May 4 14:57:53 2010 josephbUpdateComputersOttavia has moved

Ottavia was moved this afternoon from the control room into the lab, adjacent to Mafalda in 1Y3 on the top shelf.  It has been connected to the camera hub, as well as the normal network.  Its cables are clearly labeled.  Note the camera hub cable should be plugged into the lower ethernet port. Brief tests indicate everything is connected and it can talk to the control room machines.

The space where Ottavia used to be is now temporarily available as a good place to setup a laptop, as there is keyboard, mouse, and an extra monitor available.  Hopefully this space may be filled in with a new workstation in the near future.

  2880   Wed May 5 01:19:05 2010 KojiUpdateIOOMC spot centering cont"d

Koji and Zach

We improved the beam axis rotaion on the MC. We still have 3mrad to be corrected.
So far we lost the MC Trans spot on CCD as the beam is now hitting the flange of the window. We need to move the steering mirror.

To do next:

- MC2 spot is too much off. Adjust it.

- Rotate axis for 3mrad more.

- MC2 spot is too much off. Adjust it.

- Adjust Vertical spot position as a final touch.


Monday

- Incident beam had 7mrad rotation.

- Tried to rotate in-vac steering mirror (IM1) in CCW

- After the long struggle the beam from PSL table started to hit north-east side of IM1 mount.

- Moved the IM1. All of the beam (input beam, MC Trans, MC Refl) got moved. Chaotic.

- Recovered TEM00 resonance. MC Trans CCD image missing. The beam axis rotation was 8.5mrad.
  Even worse. Disappointed.

Tuesday

- We made a strategic plan after some deliberation.

- We returned to the initial alignment of Saturday only for yaw.
  Not at once, such that we don't miss the resonance.

- Adjusted SM2Y and IM1Y to get reasonable resonance. Then adjusted MC2/3 to have TEM00 lock.

- Measured the spot positions. The axis rotation was 4.8mrad.

- Moved the spot on IM1 by 7mm by rotating SM2Y in CCW - ((A) in the figure)

- Compensated the misalignment by IM1Y CCW. ((B) in the figure)
  Used a large sensor card with puch holes to see the spot distribution between the MC1 and MC3.

- Fine alignment by MC2/MC3. Lock to TEM00. The beam axis rotation was 3mrad.The beam axis translation was 3mm.

- This 3mm can be Compensated by IM1Y. But this can easily let the resonance lost.
  Put the sensor card between MC1/MC3 and compensated the misalignment by MC3 and MC1.

Note: You match the returned spot from the MC2 to the incident beam by moving the spot deviation by MC3,
the spot returns to the good position on MC1. But the angle of the returned beam is totally bad.
This angle deviation can be adjusted by MC1.

Note2: This step should be done for max 2mm (2mrad) at once. As 2mrad deviation induces the spot move on the MC2 by an inch.

- After all, what we get is

MC1H = -0.15 mm
MC1V = -0.33 mm
MC3H = +0.97 mm
MC3V = -0.33 mm

This corresponds to the axis rotation of 3mrad and the beam axis translation of 0.8mm (to north).

Attachment 1: steering.png
steering.png
  2882   Wed May 5 16:32:39 2010 AlbertoUpdate40m UpgradingNew REFL55 PD, 11MHz rejection

Here's the (calibrated) transimpedance of the new REFL55 PD.

T(55.3) / T_(11.06) = 93 dB

2010-05-05_REFL55_CalibratedOpticalResponse0-60MHz.png

  2883   Wed May 5 16:58:21 2010 KojiUpdatePSL2W hooked up to the interlock service

Ben, Steve, and Koji

Ben came to the 40m and hooked up a cable to the main interlock service.
We have tested the interlock and confirmed it's working.

[Now the laser is approved to be used by persons who signed in the SOP.]

The RC, PMC, and MZ were unlocked during the interlock maneuver.
Now they are relocked.

  2884   Thu May 6 01:06:16 2010 KojiUpdateIOOMC spot centering cont'd (Triumph)

Zach and Koji,

We finally aligned the incident beam enough close to the center of the all MC mirrors! Uraaaaah!

MC1H = -0.12mm
MC1V =
-0.13mm
MC2H = -0.15mm

MC2V = +0.14mm
MC3H = -0.14mm
MC3V = -0.11mm

The aperture right before the vacuum window has been adjusted to the beam position. This will  ensure that any misalignment on the PSL table can have the correct angle to the mode cleaner as far as it does resonate to the cavity. (This is effectively true as the small angle change produces the large displacement on the PSL table.)

If we put an aperture at the reflection, it will be perfect.

Now we can remove the MZ setup and realign the beam to the mode cleaner!


 

Method:

- The beam axis rotation has been adjusted by the method that was used yesterday.

Differential: SM2Y and IM1Y

Common: SM2Y only

- We developped scripts to shift the MC2 spot without degrading the alignment.

/cvs/cds/caltech/users/zach/MCalign/MC2_spot/MC2_spot_up
/cvs/cds/caltech/users/zach/MCalign/MC2_spot/MC2_spot_down
/cvs/cds/caltech/users/zach/MCalign/MC2_spot/MC2_spot_left
/cvs/cds/caltech/users/zach/MCalign/MC2_spot/MC2_spot_right

These scripts must be upgraded to the slow servo by the SURF students.

- These are the record of the alignment and the actuator balances

C1:SUS-MC1_PIT_COMM   =  2.4005
C1:SUS-MC1_YAW_COMM   = -4.6246
C1:SUS-MC2_PIT_COMM   =  3.4603
C1:SUS-MC2_YAW_COMM   = -1.302
C1:SUS-MC3_PIT_COMM   = -0.8094
C1:SUS-MC3_YAW_COMM   = -6.7545
C1:SUS-MC1_ULPIT_GAIN =  0.989187
C1:SUS-MC1_ULYAW_GAIN =  0.987766
C1:SUS-MC2_ULPIT_GAIN =  0.985762
C1:SUS-MC2_ULYAW_GAIN =  1.01311
C1:SUS-MC3_ULPIT_GAIN =  0.986771
C1:SUS-MC3_ULYAW_GAIN =  0.990253

  2885   Thu May 6 11:34:35 2010 robUpdateCDSlsc.mdl and ifo.mdl to build (with caveats)

Quote:

I got around to actually try building the LSC and IFO models on megatron.  Turns out "ifo" can't be used as a model name and breaks when trying to build it.  Has something to do with the find and replace routines I have a feeling (ifo is used for the C1, H1, etc type replacements throughout the code).  If you change the model name to something like ifa, it builds fine though.  This does mean we need a new name for the ifo model.

Also learned the model likes to have the cdsIPCx memory locations terminated on the inputs if its being used in a input role (I.e. its bringing the channel into the model).  However when the same part is being used in an output role (i.e. its transmitting from the model to some other model), if you terminate the output side, it gives errors when you try to make.

Its using the C1.ipc file (in /cvs/cds/caltech/chans/ipc/) just fine.  If you have missing memory locations in the C1.ipc file (i.e. you forgot to define something) it gives a readable error message at compile time, which is good.  The file seems to be being parsed properly, so the era of writing "0x20fc" for block names is officially over.

 I suggest "ITF" for the model name.

  2886   Thu May 6 16:18:37 2010 AlbertoUpdate40m UpgradingNew improved design for the 11MHz photodiode

After munching analytical models, simulations, measurements of photodiodes I think I got a better grasp of what we want from them, and how to get it. For instance I now know that we need a transimpedance of about 5000 V/A if we want them to be shot noise limited for ~mW of light power.

Adding 2-omega and f1/f2 notch filters complicates the issue, forcing to make trade-offs in the choice of the components (i.e., the Q of the notches)

Here's a better improved design of the 11Mhz PD.

Attachment 1: pox11.pdf
pox11.pdf
  2889   Thu May 6 18:25:20 2010 JenneUpdatePEMAcc power supply turned on

The accelerometer power supply / preamp board has been OFF because of exciting new accelerometer measurements.  It's now on, so watch out and make sure to turn it back off before plugging / unplugging accelerometers.

  2890   Thu May 6 18:43:58 2010 ranaUpdatePEMNoise floor of the Ranger Seismometer

I added a noise model of the SR560 to the LISO opamp.lib. This assumes you're using it in G=100, low-noise mode. The voltage noise is correct, but I had to guess on the current noise because I didn't measure it before. Lame.

This can be compared with the noise that we measure when locking it down...

Attachment 1: ranger.pdf
ranger.pdf
  2892   Thu May 6 19:51:22 2010 JenneUpdatePEMNew 'Seismic Spectrum of the 40m'

For reasons unknown, the seismic spectra posted above Rosalba has been wrong since ~January when it was first posted.  The noise that we were claiming was waaaay lower than is really possible.

Rana and I checked the calibrations, and the numbers in DTT for the Ranger and the Guralp are correct (it's unknown what was being used at the time of the bad plot) - Cal for the Guralp is 3.8e-9 m/s, and for the Ranger is 1.77e-9 m/s.

Something is funny with the accelerometer calibration.  Hopefully Kevin's investigation will sort it out.  Their calibration used to be 1.2e-7 m/s^2 , but it was changed to be 7e-7 m/s^2 to match the noise level of the accelerometers with the seismometers at ~10Hz. We need to go through the calibration carefully and figure out why this is!

Posted above Rosalba for easy reference, and attached below, is the new seismic spectra.  The black trace is when the Ranger's mass is locked down, and the teal circle markers indicate the Guralp Spec-Sheet Noise Floor.

** Rana says> the y-axis in Jenne's plot is (m/s)/sqrt(Hz). The Guralp has a velocity readout bandwidth of 0.03-40 Hz, so we would have to modify the calibration to make it right in those frequencies. I believe the Ranger cal has the correct poles in it. The huge rise at low frequencies is because of the 1/f noise of the SR560.

Attachment 1: SeisRef_6May2010_AccelCalFudged.png
SeisRef_6May2010_AccelCalFudged.png
  2893   Thu May 6 19:57:26 2010 AlbertoUpdate40m UpgradingNew improved design for the 11MHz photodiode

Quote:

After munching analytical models, simulations, measurements of photodiodes I think I got a better grasp of what we want from them, and how to get it. For instance I now know that we need a transimpedance of about 5000 V/A if we want them to be shot noise limited for ~mW of light power.

Adding 2-omega and f1/f2 notch filters complicates the issue, forcing to make trade-offs in the choice of the components (i.e., the Q of the notches)

Here's a better improved design of the 11Mhz PD.

 This should be better. It should also have larger resonance width.

Attachment 1: pox11.pdf
pox11.pdf
  2894   Fri May 7 11:21:49 2010 kojiUpdate40m UpgradingNew improved design for the 11MHz photodiode

How much is the width?

Quote:

 This should be better. It should also have larger resonance width.

 

  2895   Fri May 7 14:51:04 2010 josephbUpdateCDSWorking on meta .mdl file scripts

I'm currently working on a set of scripts which will be able to parse a "template" mdl file, replacing certain key words, with other key words, and save it to a new .mdl file.

For example  you pass it the "template" file of scx.mdl file (suspension controller ETMX), and the keyword ETMX, followed by an output list of scy.mdl ETMY,  bs.mdl BS, itmx.mdl  ITMX, itmy.mdl ITMY, prm.mdl PRM, srm.mdl SRM.  It produces these new files, with the keyword replaced, and a few other minor tweaks to get the new file to work (gds_node, specific_cpu, etc).  You can then do a couple of copy paste actions to produce a combined sus.mdl file with all the BS, ITM, PRM, SRM controls (there might be a way to handle this better so it automatically merges into a single file, but I'd have to do something fancy with the positioning of the modules - something to look into).

I also have plans for a script which gets passed a mdl file, and updates the C1.ipc file, by adding any new channels and incrementing the ipcNum appropriately.  So when you make a change you want to propagate to all the suspensions, you run the two scripts, and have an already up to date copy of memory locations - no additional typing required.

Similar scripts could be written for the DAQ screens as well, so as to have all the suspension screens look the same after changing one set.

  2896   Fri May 7 18:18:02 2010 AlbertoUpdate40m UpgradingNew improved design for the 11MHz photodiode

Quote:

How much is the width?

Quote:

 This should be better. It should also have larger resonance width.

 

 The transfer function phase drops by 180 degrees in about 2MHz. Is that a good way to measure the width?

  2897   Fri May 7 19:02:27 2010 ranaUpdate40m UpgradingNew improved design for the 11MHz photodiode

To measure the width of a resonance, the standard method is to state the center frequency and the Q. Use the definition of Q from the Wikipedia.

As far as how much phase is OK, you should use the method that we discussed - think about the full closed loop system and try to write down how many things are effected by there being a phase slope around the modulation frequency. You should be able to calculate how this effects the error signal, noise, the loop shape, etc. Then consider what this RFPD will be used for and come up with some requirements.

  2898   Fri May 7 21:55:59 2010 kiwamuUpdatePSLremove Mach-Zehnder

[Koji, Kiwamu]

The Mach-Zehnder on the PSL table was removed.

A path for 166 MHz modulation in the Mach-Zehnder (MZ) was completely removed, the setup for another path remains the same as before.

Also the photo detector and the CCD for the PMC transmittion were moved to behind the PZT mirror of PMC. 

 


Before removing them, we put an aperture in front of the PD for MC REFL so that we can recover the alignment toward MC by using the aperture.

After the removal we tried to re-align the EOM which imposes the sideband of 29MHz for MC.

We eventually got good alignment of 97% transmissivity at the EOM ( the power of the incident beam is 1.193W and trans was 1.160W )

And then we aligned the beam going to MC by guiding the reflected beam to the aperture we put. This was done by using the steering mirrors on the periscope on the corner of the PSL table.

Now MC got locked and is successfully resonating with TEM00.

Attachment 1: NO_MachZehnder_s.jpg
NO_MachZehnder_s.jpg
  2900   Sat May 8 03:09:15 2010 KojiUpdateIOOSteering around MC

After the MZ-removal work:

- I found that the input steering (IM1) was right handed. This was different from the CAD layout. This was the main reason why the MC trans was kicked by the mount.
- Removed the mount from the post and converted it to a keft handed.
- Align IM1 so that we can get TEM00 lock. Align IM1 further.

- After the IM1 was optimized for the TEM00, move the periscope mirrors to have best alignment.

- Checked the beam spot positions. They looks quite good (MC2 is not the matter now).

C1:SUS-MC1_ULPIT_GAIN = 0.998053
C1:SUS-MC1_ULYAW_GAIN = 0.992942
C1:SUS-MC2_ULPIT_GAIN = 1.00856
C1:SUS-MC2_ULYAW_GAIN = 1.04443
C1:SUS-MC3_ULPIT_GAIN = 0.99868
C1:SUS-MC3_ULYAW_GAIN = 1.00041

  2902   Mon May 10 16:59:35 2010 AlbertoUpdate40m UpgradingUnexpected oscilaltionin the POY11 PD

The measured transimpedance of the latest POY11 PD matches my model very well up to 100 MHz. But at about ~216MHz I have a resonance that I can't really explain.

2010-05-10_POY11_CalibratedOpticalResponse0-500MHz.png

 

 The following is a simplified illustration of the resonant circuit:

POX11.png

 

Perhaps my model misses that resonance because it doesn't include stray capacitances.

While I was tinkering with it, i noticed a couple of things:

- the frequency of that  oscillation changes by grasping with finger the last inductor of the circuit (the 55n above); that is adding inductance

- the RF probe of the scope clearly shows me the oscillation only after the 0.1u series capacitor

- adding a small capacitor in parallel to the feedback resistor of the output amplifier increases the frequency of the oscilaltion

  2904   Mon May 10 18:56:53 2010 ranaUpdateElectronicsUnexpected oscilaltionin the POY11 PD

Where did you get the 55nH based notch from? I don't remember anything like that from the other LSC PD schematics. This is certainly a bad idea. You should remove it and put the notch back over by the other notch.

  2905   Mon May 10 19:09:45 2010 ranaUpdateElectronicsUnexpected oscilaltionin the POY11 PD

Quote:

Where did you get the 55nH based notch from? I don't remember anything like that from the other LSC PD schematics. This is certainly a bad idea. You should remove it and put the notch back over by the other notch.

 Why is it a bad idea?

You mean putting both the 2-omega and the 55MHz notches next to each other right after the photodiode?

  2907   Mon May 10 20:03:22 2010 KevinUpdateGreen LockingGreen Laser Beam Profile

Kiwamu and Kevin measured the beam profile of the green laser by the south arm ETM.

The following measurements were made with 1.984A injection current and 39.65°C laser crystal temperature.

 

Two vertical scans (one up and one down) were taken with a razor blocking light entering a photodiode with the razor 7.2cm from the center of the lens. This data was fit to

b + a*erf(sqrt(2)*(x-x0)/w) with the following results:

scan down: w = (0.908 ± 0.030)mm  chi^2 = 3.8

scan up:      w = (0.853 ± 0.025)mm   chi^2 = 2.9

giving a weighted value of w = (0.876 ± 0.019)mm at this distance.

 

The beam widths for the profile fits were measured with the beam scanner. The widths are measured as the full width at 13.5% of the maximum. Each measurement was averaged over 100 samples. The distance is measured from the back of the lens mount to the front face of the beam scanner.

distance (cm) vertical w (µm) horizontal w (µm)
3.2 ± 0.1 1231 ± 8 1186 ± 7
4.7 ± 0.1 1400 ± 4 1363 ± 6
7.4 ± 0.1 1656 ± 5 1625 ± 9
9.6 ± 0.1 1910 ± 10 1863 ± 9
12.5 ± 0.1 2197 ± 8 2176 ± 8
14.6 ± 0.1 2450 ± 12 2416 ± 10
17.5 ± 0.1 2717 ± 12 2694 ± 14
20.0 ± 0.1 2973 ± 16 2959 ± 8
22.4 ± 0.1 3234 ± 12 3193 ± 14

This data was fit to w = sqrt(w0^2+lambda^2*(x-x0)^2/(pi*w0)^2) with lambda = 532nm with the following results:

For the vertical beam profile:

reduced chi^2 = 3.29

x0 = (-87   ± 1)    mm

w0 = (16.30 ± 0.14) µm

For the horizontal beam profile:

reduced chi^2 = 2.01

x0 = (-82   ± 1)    mm

w0 = (16.12 ± 0.10) µm

Note: These fits were done with the beam diameter instead of the beam radius. The correct fits to the beam radius are here: http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/2912

Attachment 1: vbp.jpg
vbp.jpg
Attachment 2: vbp_residuals.jpg
vbp_residuals.jpg
Attachment 3: hbp.jpg
hbp.jpg
Attachment 4: hbp_residuals.jpg
hbp_residuals.jpg
  2909   Mon May 10 22:25:03 2010 KojiUpdateGreen LockingGreen Laser Beam Profile

Hey, what a quick work!

But, wait...

1) The radius of the beam was measured by the razor blade.

2) The diameter of the beam (13.5% full-width) at each point was measured by Beam Scan. The one at z=~7cm was consistent with 1)

3) The data 2) was fitted by a function w = sqrt(w0^2+lambda^2*(x-x0)^2/(pi*w0)^2). This is defined for the radius, isn't it?

So the fitting must be recalculated with correct radius.
Make sure that you always use radius and write with a explicit word "radius" in the record.

Quote:

Kiwamu and Kevin measured the beam profile of the green laser by the south arm ETM.

The following measurements were made with 1.984A injection current and 39.65°C laser crystal temperature.

 

Two vertical scans (one up and one down) were taken with a razor blocking light entering a photodiode with the razor 7.2cm from the center of the lens. This data was fit to

b + a*erf(sqrt(2)*(x-x0)/w) with the following results:

scan down: w = (0.908 ± 0.030)mm  chi^2 = 3.8

scan up:      w = (0.853 ± 0.025)mm   chi^2 = 2.9

giving a weighted value of w = (0.876 ± 0.019)mm at this distance.

 

The beam widths for the profile fits were measured with the beam scanner. The widths are measured as the full width at 13.5% of the maximum. Each measurement was averaged over 100 samples. The distance is measured from the back of the lens mount to the front face of the beam scanner.

distance (cm) vertical w (µm) horizontal w (µm)
3.2 ± 0.1 1231 ± 8 1186 ± 7
4.7 ± 0.1 1400 ± 4 1363 ± 6
7.4 ± 0.1 1656 ± 5 1625 ± 9
9.6 ± 0.1 1910 ± 10 1863 ± 9
12.5 ± 0.1 2197 ± 8 2176 ± 8
14.6 ± 0.1 2450 ± 12 2416 ± 10
17.5 ± 0.1 2717 ± 12 2694 ± 14
20.0 ± 0.1 2973 ± 16 2959 ± 8
22.4 ± 0.1 3234 ± 12 3193 ± 14

This data was fit to w = sqrt(w0^2+lambda^2*(x-x0)^2/(pi*w0)^2) with lambda = 532nm with the following results:

For the vertical beam profile:

reduced chi^2 = 3.29

x0 = (-87 ± 1)mm

w0 = (16.30 ± 0.14)µm

For the horizontal beam profile:

reduced chi^2 = 2.01

x0 = (-82 ± 1)mm

w0 = (16.12 ± 0.10)µm

 

  2910   Tue May 11 14:39:17 2010 AidanUpdateGreen LockingGreen Laser Beam Profile

 

 Here's a photo of the set-up used. The beam profile is measured relative to the f=-100mm lens.

Attachment 1: P5110057_beams.jpg
P5110057_beams.jpg
  2911   Tue May 11 16:38:16 2010 josephb,rana,rolfUpdateCDSCDS questions and thoughts

1) What is c1asc doing?  What is ascaux used for?  What are the cables labeled "C1:ASC_QPD" in the 1X2 rack really going to?

2) Put the 4600 machine (megatron) in the 1Y3 (away from the analog electronics)  This can be used as an OAF/IO machine.  We need a dolphin fiber link from this machine to the IO chassis which will presumably be in 1Y1, 1Y2 (we do not currently have this fiber at the 40m, although I think Rolf said something about having one).

3) Merge the PSL and IOOVME crates in 1Y1/1Y2 to make room for the IO chassis.

4) Put the LSC and SUS machines into 1Y4 and/or 1Y5 along with the SUS IO chassis.  The dolphin switch would also go here.

5) Figure out space in 1X3 for the LSC chassis.  Most likely option is pulling asc or ascaux stuff, assuming its not really being used.

6) Are we going to move the OMC computer out from under the beam tube and into an actual rack?  If so, where?

 

Rolf will likely be back Friday, when we aim to start working on the "New" Y end and possibly the 1X3 rack for the LSC chassis.

 

  2912   Tue May 11 17:02:43 2010 KevinUpdateGreen LockingGreen Laser Beam Profile

 

Quote:

Hey, what a quick work!

But, wait...

1) The radius of the beam was measured by the razor blade.

2) The diameter of the beam (13.5% full-width) at each point was measured by Beam Scan. The one at z=~7cm was consistent with 1)

3) The data 2) was fitted by a function w = sqrt(w0^2+lambda^2*(x-x0)^2/(pi*w0)^2). This is defined for the radius, isn't it?

So the fitting must be recalculated with correct radius.
Make sure that you always use radius and write with a explicit word "radius" in the record.

I recalculated the fits using the radius of the beam instead of the diameter of the beam at 13.5% full-width with the following results:

For the vertical beam profile:

reduced chi^2 = 3.25

x0 = (-86 ± 1)mm

w0 = (46.01 ± 0.38)µm

For the horizontal beam profile:

reduced chi^2 = 2.05

x0 = (-81 ± 1)mm

w0 = (45.50 ± 0.28)µm

Attachment 1: vbp.jpg
vbp.jpg
Attachment 2: vbp_residuals.jpg
vbp_residuals.jpg
Attachment 3: hbp.jpg
hbp.jpg
Attachment 4: hbp_residuals.jpg
hbp_residuals.jpg
  2915   Wed May 12 02:35:13 2010 Koji, Rana, KiwamuUpdateGreen LockingReflection from ETM and ITM !

We succeeded in getting the reflected green beam from both ITMY and ETMY.

After we did several things on the end table, we eventually could observe these reflections.

Now the spot size of the reflection from ITMY is still big ( more than 1 cm ), so tomorrow modematching to the 40m cavity is going to be improved by putting mode matching telescopes on right positions.

An important thing we found is that, the beam height of optics which directly guides the beam to the cavity should be 4.5 inch on the end table.

 


(what we did)

* Aidan, Kevin and Kiwamu set the beam to be linearly polarized by rotating a QWP in front of the Innolight. This was done by monitoring the power of the transmitted light from the polarizer attached on the input of the Faraday of 1064 nm. Note that the angle for QWP is 326.4 deg.

* We put some beam damps against the rejected beam from the Faraday

* To get a good isolation with the Faraday we at first rotated the polarization of the incident beam so to have a minimum transmission. And then we rotated the output polarizer until the transmission reaches a minimum. Eventually we got the transmission of less than 1mW, so now the Faraday should be working regardless of the polarization angle of the incident beam. As we predicted, the output polaerizer seems to be rotated 45 deg from that of the input.

* Rana, Koji and Kiwamu aligned the PPKTP crystal to maximize the power of 532 nm.  Now the incident power of 1064 nm is adjusted to 250mW and the output power for 532 nm is 0.77mW. Actually we can increase the laser power by rotating a HWP in front of the Faraday.

* We injected the green beam to the chamber and aligned the beam axis to the ETMY without the modematching lenses, while exciting the horizontal motion of the ETM with f=1Hz from awg. This excitation was very helpful because we could figure out which spot was the reflection from the ETM.

* Once we made the reflected beam going close to the path of the incident beam, we then put the modematching lenses and aligned the steering mirrors and lenses. At this time we could see the reflected beam was successfully kicked away by the Faraday of 532 nm.

* Koji went to ITMY chamber with a walkie-talkie and looked at the spot position. Then he told Rana and Kiwamu to go a right direction with the steering mirrors. At last we could see a green beam from ITM illuminating the ETM cage.

* We excited the ITMY with f=2Hz vertically and aligned the ITM from medm. Also we recovered a video monitor which was abandoned around ETMY chamber so that we could see the spot on the ETM via the monitor. Seeing that monitor we aligned the ITM and we obtained the reclection from the ITM at the end table.

* We also tried to match the mode by moving a lens with f=400mm, but we couldn't obtain a good spot size.

 

  2916   Wed May 12 03:42:38 2010 KojiUpdateGreen LockingGreen Laser Beam Profile

Strange. I thought the new result became twice of the first result. i.e. w0=32um or so.

Can you explain why the waist raidus is estimated to be three times of the last one?
Can you explain why the measured radius @~70mm is not 0.8mm, which you told us last time,
but is 0.6mm?

The measurements have been done at the outside of the Rayleigh range.
This means that the waist size is derived from the divergence angle

theta = lambda / (pi w0)

At the beginning you used diameter instead of radius. This means you used twice larger theta to determine w0.
So if that mistake is corrected, the result for w0 should be just twice of the previous wrong fit.

Quote:

 

I recalculated the fits using the radius of the beam instead of the diameter of the beam at 13.5% full-width with the following results:

For the vertical beam profile:

reduced chi^2 = 3.25

x0 = (-86 ± 1)mm

w0 = (46.01 ± 0.38)µm

For the horizontal beam profile:

reduced chi^2 = 2.05

x0 = (-81 ± 1)mm

w0 = (45.50 ± 0.28)µm

 

  2917   Wed May 12 03:52:54 2010 KojiUpdateGreen LockingReflection from ETM and ITM !

I could not understand this operation. Can you explain this a bit more?

It sounds different from the standard procedure to adjust the Faraday:

1) Get Max transmittion by rotating PBS_in and PBS_out.

2) Flip the Faraday 180 deg i.e. put the beam from the output port.

3) Rotate PBS_in to have the best isolation.

Quote:

* To get a good isolation with the Faraday we at first rotated the polarization of the incident beam so to have a minimum transmission. And then we rotated the output polarizer until the transmission reaches a minimum. Eventually we got the transmission of less than 1mW, so now the Faraday should be working regardless of the polarization angle of the incident beam. As we predicted, the output polaerizer seems to be rotated 45 deg from that of the input.

  2918   Wed May 12 03:56:54 2010 KojiUpdateIOOFaraday aligned

Zach and Koji

The old small MMT was removed and wrapped by Al foils.

The steering mirror IM2-IM4 were displaced and aligned.

The Faraday isolator block is moved and aligned.

The MC is realigned and resonatng TEM-00.

Now the MC has slightly miscentered beam on the mirrors owing to change of the stack leveling.
OSEMs are also in a strange state. We should check this later.

  2919   Wed May 12 09:16:29 2010 steveUpdateGreen LockingReflection from ETM and ITM !

 

 Now I know why Rana was wearing his bright green pants yesterday. It is nice to see the green beam in the 40m IFO again. It calls for celebration!

I stopped AWG 1Hz drive of ITMYs (south-arm) I still see unblocked beams at the ETMYs table. We have plenty of cleaned razor beam traps to be used. Please block Faraday rejects etc

  2920   Wed May 12 10:33:32 2010 kiwamuUpdateGreen LockingRe: Reflection from ETM and ITM !

The procedure you wrote down as a standard is right.   I explain reasons why we didn't do such way. 

For our situation, we can rotate the polarization angle of the incident beam by using a HWP in front of the Faraday.  

This means we don't have to pay attention about the PBS_in because the rotation of either PBS_in or the HWP causes the same effect (i.e. variable transmission ). This is why we didn't carefully check the PBS_in, but did carefully with the HWP.

Normally we should take a maximum transmission according to a instruction paper from OFR, but we figured out it was difficult to find a maximum point. In fact looking at the change of the power with such big incident (~1W) was too hard to track, it only can change 4th significant digit ( corresponds to 1mW accuracy for high power incident ) in the monitor of the Ophir power meter. So we decided to go to a minimum point instead a maximum point, and around a minmum point we could resolve the power with accuracy of less than 1mW.

After obtaining the minimum by rotating the HWP, we adjusted the angle of PBS_out to have a minimum transmission.

And then we was going to flip the Faraday 180 deg for fine tuning, but we didn't. We found that once we remove the Faraday from the mount, the role angle of the Faraday is going to be screwed up because the mount can not control the role angle of the Faraday. This is why we didn't flip it.

Quote:

I could not understand this operation. Can you explain this a bit more?

It sounds different from the standard procedure to adjust the Faraday:

1) Get Max transmittion by rotating PBS_in and PBS_out.

2) Flip the Faraday 180 deg i.e. put the beam from the output port.

3) Rotate PBS_in to have the best isolation.

 

 

  2921   Wed May 12 12:25:11 2010 KojiUpdateGreen LockingRe: Reflection from ETM and ITM !

??? I still don't understand. What principle are you rely on?

I could not understand why you rotated the HWP to the "minimum" transmission
and then minimized the transmission by rotating the output PBS. What is optimized by this action?

Probably there is some hidden assumption  which I still don't understand.
Something like:
Better transmission gives best isolation, PBS has some leakage transmission
of the S-pol light, and so on.

Tell me what is the principle otherwise I don't accept that this adjustment is "to get a good isolation with the Faraday".

P.S. you could flip the faraday without removing it from the V-shaped mount. This does not roll the Faraday.

Quote:

The procedure you wrote down as a standard is right.   I explain reasons why we didn't do such way. 

For our situation, we can rotate the polarization angle of the incident beam by using a HWP in front of the Faraday.  

This means we don't have to pay attention about the PBS_in because the rotation of either PBS_in or the HWP causes the same effect (i.e. variable transmission ). This is why we didn't carefully check the PBS_in, but did carefully with the HWP.

Normally we should take a maximum transmission according to a instruction paper from OFR, but we figured out it was difficult to find a maximum point. In fact looking at the change of the power with such big incident (~1W) was too hard to track, it only can change 4th significant digit ( corresponds to 1mW accuracy for high power incident ) in the monitor of the Ophir power meter. So we decided to go to a minimum point instead a maximum point, and around a minmum point we could resolve the power with accuracy of less than 1mW.

After obtaining the minimum by rotating the HWP, we adjusted the angle of PBS_out to have a minimum transmission.

And then we was going to flip the Faraday 180 deg for fine tuning, but we didn't. We found that once we remove the Faraday from the mount, the role angle of the Faraday is going to be screwed up because the mount can not control the role angle of the Faraday. This is why we didn't flip it.

Quote:

I could not understand this operation. Can you explain this a bit more?

It sounds different from the standard procedure to adjust the Faraday:

1) Get Max transmittion by rotating PBS_in and PBS_out.

2) Flip the Faraday 180 deg i.e. put the beam from the output port.

3) Rotate PBS_in to have the best isolation.

 

 

 

  2924   Wed May 12 17:10:16 2010 AlbertoUpdate40m UpgradingRF frequency generation box - step 0

I started putting together the components that are coint to go inside the frequency generation box. Here's how it looked like:

DSC_1499_small.JPG

The single component are going to be mounted on a board that is going to sit on the bottom of the box.

I'm thinking whether to mount the components on an isolating board (like they did in GEO), or on an aluminum board.

I emailed Hartmut to know more details about his motivations on making that choice.

  2925   Wed May 12 23:31:17 2010 AlbertoUpdate40m Upgrading216 MHz resonance in the POY11 PD killed
It turned out that the resonance at 216 MHz in the 11MHz PD that I showed in the elog entry 2902 was casued by an instability of the of the MAX4107 opamap' feedback loop.
As the datasheet of the opamp shows, the close-loop gain has a peak at about 200-250MHz, in presence of even small capacitive loads.
In my case, perhaps either the capacitance of the BNC cables plugged to the RF output of the PD box, or the shunt capacitance of the circuit parts after the opamap (traces and resistors) might have introduced capacitance at the output of the amplifier.
 
LISO had failed in predicting the resonance because it has only ideal transfer functions of the opamps. In particular the open-loop gain of the opamaps in the library is just a function with a simple pole.
 
At RF frequencies the output impedances of the opamp starts having a non-negligible inductance that interacts with the load capacitance, generating a typical LC-circuit resonance.
 
In cases like this, such effect can be mitigated by introducing an "isolating" resistor at the output of the opamp.
 
So I did that and modified the circuit as in this simplified schematic here:
 
POX11.png
 

The choice of 100 Ohm for the isolating resistor was mainly empirical. I started with 10, then 20 and 50 until I got a sufficient suppression of the resonance. Even just 10Ohm suppressed the resonance by several tens of dB.

2010-05-12_POY11_CalibratedOpticalResponse0-500MHz.png

 

In that way the gain of the loop didn't change. Before that, I was also able to kill the resonance by just increasing the loop gain from 10 to 17.  But, I didn't want to increase the closed-loop gain.

One thing that I tried, on Koji's suggestion, was to try to connect the RF output of the PD box to an RF amplifier to see whether shielding the output from the cable capacitance would make the resonance disappear: It did not work.

  2926   Thu May 13 05:06:43 2010 ranaUpdate40m Upgrading216 MHz resonance in the POY11 PD killed

 

 This idea was tried before by Dale in the ~1998 generation of PDs. Its OK for damping a resonance, but it has the unfortunate consequence of hurting the dynamic range of the opamp. The 100 Ohm resistor reduces the signal that can be put out to the output without saturating the 4107.

I still recommend that you move the notch away from the input of the 4107. Look at how the double notch solution has been implemented in the WFS heads.

  2927   Thu May 13 15:19:44 2010 josephbUpdateCDSTrying to get lsc.mdl and lsp.mdl working

I had a chat with Alex this morning and discovered that the dcu_ids 13,14,15,16 are reserved currently, and should not be used.  I was told 9-12 and 17-26 were fine to use.  I pointed out that we will eventually have more modules than that.  His response was he is currently working on the framebuilder code and "modernizing" it, and that those restrictions will hopefully be lifted in the future although he isn't certain at this time what the real maximum gds_id number is (he was only willing to vouch for up to 26 - although the OMC seems to be currently working and set to 30).

Alex also suggested running an iop module to provide timing (since we are using adcSlave=1 option in the models).  Apparently these are x00.mdl, x01.mdl, x11.mdl files in the /home/control/cds/advLigoRTS/src/epics/simLink/ directory.  I saved x00.mdl as io1.mdl (I didn't want to use io0 as its a pain to differentiate between a zero and 'O'.  This new IOP is using gds_node=1, dcu_id=9.  I modified the approriate files to include it.

I modified /etc/rc.d/rc.local and added io1 to shmem line.  I modified /cvs/cds/caltech/target/fb/daqdrc to use dcu_id 9 as the controller (this is the new iop model dcu_id number).  In that same directory I modifed the file master by adding /cvs/cds/caltech/chans/daq/C1IO1.ini as well as uncommenting tpchn_C1 line.  I modified testpoint.par in /cvs/cds/caltech/target/gds/param to include C-node0, and modified the prognum for lsc and lsp to 0x31001003 and 0x31001005.

So I started the 3 processes with startio1, startlsc, startlsp, then went to the fb directory and started the framebuilder.  However, the model lsc.mdl is still having issues, although lsp and io1 seem to be working.  At this point I just need to track down what fundamentally is different between lsc and lsp and correct it in the lsc model.  I'm hoping its not related to the fact that we actually had a previous lsc front end and there's some legacy stuff getting in the way.  One thing I can test is changing the name and see if that runs.

 

  2930   Fri May 14 08:18:46 2010 steveUpdateGreen LockingReflection from ETM and ITM !

I stopped AWG  1 Hz drive to ITMYs. ITMXe was also driven or oscillating. ITMXe damping was off, so I turned it on. It did not effect it's oscillation

Attachment 1: itmx1hzos.jpg
itmx1hzos.jpg
  2932   Fri May 14 12:14:26 2010 josephbUpdateCDSNeed to track down old code for lsc system and remove them

I'm currently in the process of tracking down what legacy code is interfering with the new lsc model.

It turns out if you change the name of lsc file to something else (say scx as a quick test for example), it runs fine.  In fact, the lsc and scx GDS_TP screens work in that case (since they're looking at the same channels).  As one would expect, running them both at the same time causes problems.  Note to self, make sure the other one is killed first.  It does mean the lsc code gets loaded part way, but doesn't seem to communicate on EPICs or to the other models.  However, I don't know what existing code is interfering.  Currently going trhough the target directories and so forth.

  2933   Fri May 14 16:14:37 2010 KevinUpdateGreen LockingGreen Laser Beam Profile

Quote:

Strange. I thought the new result became twice of the first result. i.e. w0=32um or so.

Can you explain why the waist raidus is estimated to be three times of the last one?
Can you explain why the measured radius @~70mm is not 0.8mm, which you told us last time,
but is 0.6mm?

The measurements have been done at the outside of the Rayleigh range.
This means that the waist size is derived from the divergence angle

theta = lambda / (pi w0)

At the beginning you used diameter instead of radius. This means you used twice larger theta to determine w0.
So if that mistake is corrected, the result for w0 should be just twice of the previous wrong fit.

 

 

I was off by a factor of sqrt(2). The correct fit parameters are

for the vertical beam profile:

reduced chi^2 = 3.28

x0 = (-87 ± 1) mm

w0 = (32.59 ± 27) µm

for the horizontal beam profile

reduced chi^2 = 2.02

x0 = (-82 ± 1) mm

w0 = (32.23 ± 20) µm

In the following plots * denotes vertical data points and + denotes horizontal data points. The blue curve is the fit to the vertical data and the purple curve is the fit to the horizontal data.

Attachment 1: profile.png
profile.png
Attachment 2: residuals.png
residuals.png
  2934   Fri May 14 16:19:22 2010 JenneUpdatePEMGuts of a Guralp

[Jenne, Rana]

We took apart and examined one of the Guralp seismometers this afternoon.  For the most part we think we understand how it works. The horizontal sensors are a little more confusing, since we didn't end up finding the moving masses.  The vertical sensor is a flat rectangle, hinged at one edge.  There are capacitive sensors above and below the rectangle.  The hinged end is connected to a leaf spring. 

The PCBs are packed full of old-school 80's components.  We probably need an actual schematic to figure out where the preamp circuit is, which is what we'd want to think about fitzing with, if we were to try to improve the noise of the seismometer.  For now, we put it all back together, and back out on the granite slab. 

There was a wee bit of confusion when putting the N/S marker-spikes back on as to where they should go.  The solution is that the handle of the seismometer is aligned with the North/South axis, so the spikes should be aligned with the handle.  The lid of the seismometer is uniquely aligned to the stuff inside by the ribbon cable connector, as well as the holes in the lid for accessing the centering potentiometers.  So, align the lid to the pots, and then align the spikes to the handle.

Photos are on Picasa.

  2936   Sun May 16 12:51:08 2010 kiwamuUpdateGreen Lockingreflected beam at PD

Mode matching to the cavity has been done.

Now the reflection from the cavity is successfully going into the PD.

However I could not see any obvious error signal.

I should compute and re-check the expected signal level.

 


(mode matching of the crystal)

On the last Wednesday, Kevin and I measured the mode profile before the PPKTP crystal,  and we found the Gaussian beam at the crystal is focused too tightly (w = 38 um).

In order to achieve the best conversion efficiency the waist size should be 50.0 um. So we moved a lens, which was located before the crystal, to 7 cm more away from the crystal. Eventually we obtained a better focus (w = 50.1 um).

Thanks, Kevin. You did a good job.

 

(mode matching of the cavity)

I put a lens with f=-50 mm after the crystal to diverge the green beam more quickly. Then the beam is going through the Faraday of 532 nm, two final modematching lenses and ETMY at last.

By shifting the positions of these lenses, I obtained the reflection from ITMY with almost the same spot size as that of the incident. This means modemathing is good enough.

I put two more steering mirrors before its injection to the ETM, this allows us to align the beam axis against the cavity.

I aligned the axis by using the steering mirrors and now the green beam are successfully hitting the center of both the ETM and the ITM.

Then the alignment of the ETM and the ITM was adjusted from medm, so that both reflection goes in the same path as that of the incident.

And then I put a PD (Thorlabs PDA36A) to see the reflection rejected by the Faraday.

Connecting a mixer and a local oscillator (Stanford func. generator) with f=200kHz, but I couldn't see any obvious PDH signal....

Since the PD is DC coupled, the signal is almost dominated by DC voltage. Even if I inserted a high pass filter to cut off the DC, the AC signal looks very tiny..

  2937   Sun May 16 19:25:45 2010 KojiUpdateGreen Lockingreflected beam at PD

Don't make a short cut. The beam size at a single place does not tell you anything.
Measure the mode of of the beam at multiple points. Calculate the mode matching ratio.

Align the mirrors precisely. Try to see the DC fringe. Predict the size of the DC fringe.

Test the demodulation system with a function generator. Find the 200kHz signal using the spectrum analyzer to find the signal and the optimal alignment.

Put the DC signal and the AC signal to the oscilloscope as X&Y.

Good luck.

 

  2940   Mon May 17 17:17:49 2010 josephb, steve, alberto, kiwamuUpdateCDSNew CDS computers now in racks.

We placed 3 new computers in the racks.  One in 1X4 (machine running SCX) and 2 in 1Y4 (LSC and SUS).  These are 1U chassis, 4 core machines for the CDS upgrade.  I will be bringing over 2 IO chassis and their rails over tomorrow, one to be placed in 1Y4, and 1 in 1X4.

We still need some more 40 pin adapter cables and will send someone over this week to make them.  However, once we have those, we should be able to get two to three machines going, one end computer/chassis and the SUS computer/chassis.

After tomorrow we are still going to be owed 1 computer, another dolphin fiber, a couple of blue boxes, and the LSC, IO, and Y end IO chassis.  We also realized we need further fiber for the timing system.  We're going to need to get and then run fiber to both ends, as well as to 1X3, where the LSC IO chassis will be.

 

  2941   Mon May 17 19:42:11 2010 JenneUpdateIOOFirst steps toward MC mode measuring

[Jenne, Kevin, Steve]

We made some progress toward getting the MC's beam profile measured.  In the end, no changes were made to anything today, but we're more prepared to go for tomorrow.

What we did:

* Grabbed the scanning slit beam scan from the PSL lab.  It's the same kind as we had here at the 40m, so Kevin was able to hook it up to the computer, and confirmed that it works.

* Opened the IOO and OMC chamber doors, and locked the MC.  Unfortunately the MC mode was awful in Yaw.  Awful like TEM(0,10+). But it still locked.  

* Confirmed that the beam went through the Faraday.  I looked at the beam before and after the Faraday on a card, and it was the same nasty beam both before and after.  So it looks like Zach did a good job aligning the Faraday and everything else.  I was going to clamp the Faraday, but I didn't yet, since I wanted to see the nice happy TEM00 mode go through without clipping before risking moving the Faraday during clamping (I don't know how heavy it is, so I'm not sure how much it might potentially move during clamping.)

* Noticed that there is a whole lot of crap on both the OMC and BS tables that's going to have to move.  In particular, one of the weights leveling the OMC table is right where I need to put MMT2.  Steve suggested putting the optic there, in its approximate place, before doing too much other stuff, since it could potentially affect the leveling of the table, and thus the input pointing to the MC.  Unfortunately, to do that I'll need to move the weight, which is definitely going to change things.  Sad face.  Moving the weight will likely be one of the first things I do tomorrow, so that all 3 profile measurements have the same configuration. 

* Before closing up, I tried to align the MC, to get back to TEM00, to no avail.  I got as far as achieving TEM11 flashing, along with a bunch of other crappy modes, but didn't get 00.  That's also on the to-do list.

What we're going to do:

* Open the chambers, and align the MC to TEM00 (using the sliders on the MC align screen).

* Check with an IR card that the beam goes through the Faraday.

* Clamp the Faraday, reconfirm.

* Remove the weight on the OMC table.

* Place MMT2 on the OMC table in it's approximate final location.

* Realign the MC, and make sure the beam goes through the Faraday.  If this doesn't happen smoothly, I may need more instruction since I've never dealt with aligning the Faraday before.  What are the appropriate mirrors to adjust? 

* Move the PZT flat steering mirror from the BS table to the IOO table.  (Thoughts on this?  This will change the table leveling, and also includes the trickiness of needing to move the connectors for the PZT.)

* Place a flat mirror on the BS table to route the MC beam out to the BS/PRM/SRM oplev table. 

* Measure the mode using the beam scan: on the BS oplev table, on the POX table, and then perhaps by shooting the beam through the beamtube on the ETMY (new convention) table.

* Place MMT1 on the BS table, use flat mirrors to get it out of the chambers, repeat measurements.

* Place MMT2 in the correct position, use flat mirrors to get it out of the chambers, repeat measurements.

All of this may require some serious cleaning-up of the BS table, which is going to be ugly, but it has to happen sometime. Hopefully I can get away with only moving a minimal number of things, in order to get these measurements done.

 

Another note: Don't trust the PSL shutter and the switch on the MEDM screens! Always use a manual block in addition!!! We discovered upon closeup that hitting the "Closed" button, while it reads back as if the shutter is closed (with the red box around the buttons), does not in fact close the shutter.  The shutter is still wide open.  This must be fixed.

  2942   Tue May 18 01:40:56 2010 KojiUpdateIOOFirst steps toward MC mode measuring

OK. Don't worry. This is just an initial confusion which we also had for the suspensions a while ago.

The faraday must be clamped. It shakes the table terribly but it is fine. The leveling may change a bit but should be small enough. Otherwise, just tweak the weights. In fact, the faraday has enough large apertures and we hope we don't need to move it again, as far as the MC incident beam is not moved. But if necessary, we don't move the mirrors but move the faraday itself.

Usually the alignment of the MC is taken by MC2/MC3 such that we don't  move the refl. But if you think what have moved is the MC1/MC3 (i.e. activity in the IMC chamber), take the alignment of the MC1/MC3.

It is just a matter of time to get TEM00. If you get TEM11, it is already close. If you align for TEM11, it is enough aligned to lock TEM10 or TEM01. Once you got better mode, align for it again. Eventually you will get TEM00.

The leveling may change by moving the optics and the weight again. But once the leveling is recovered by arranging the weights somewhere else,
the pointing must be fine again. If necessary, You can remove two optics for squeezing injection (strange motorized rotating mirror and a mount sticking out from the table to south.)

Yes, we need to move the PZT mirror. For the connection, only Steve can give us the right way to do it. If it is too much hussle, just move only the mirror and ignore the wiring for now.

I will update how the mirrors should be migrated from the table to the table.

 

  2945   Tue May 18 12:04:13 2010 robUpdateIOOFirst steps toward MC mode measuring

Quote:

Another note: Don't trust the PSL shutter and the switch on the MEDM screens! Always use a manual block in addition!!! We discovered upon closeup that hitting the "Closed" button, while it reads back as if the shutter is closed (with the red box around the buttons), does not in fact close the shutter.  The shutter is still wide open.  This must be fixed.

 Has anyone tried pushing the "reset" button on the Uniblitz driver?

ELOG V3.1.3-