40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
 40m Log, Page 37 of 344 Not logged in
ID Date Author Type Category Subject
10918   Sat Jan 17 15:07:28 2015 manasaUpdateGeneralBeat note frequency discrepancy

I was around the PSL table and the X end table today.

X end table:

I was at the X end table making some distance measurements for the telescope to the fiber coupler. I have NOT moved anything as yet.

PSL table:

I wanted to get some data to look at the beat note frequency discrepancy between the green and IR.

I tried making measurements using the spectrum analyzer at the PSL table but the MC was getting unlocked quite often with PSL enclosure open and HEPA on high.

So I switched off the power supplies to the RFPDs (3 of them) on the PSL table and disconnected the Xmon input to the adder (at the IOO rack) which brings the green beat note signals to the conrol room. I connected the fiber RFPD output to the adder and took a bunch of measurements of the green and IR beat notes from the spectrum analyzer in the control room. I have NOT undone this setup assuming there are no locking plans for tonight and I will come back tomorrow.

If anyone is planning to do some locking in the meantime, you can undo the connections keeping in mind to turn off the power to the RFPDs before you do so.

P.S. I walked in this morning to PSL FSS slow actuator at 0.89 and brought it down to zero before making measurements.
I also touched the steering mirrors that are part of the Y green beat note alignment while looking at the amplitude of the RF signal on the spectrum analyzer.

10956   Thu Jan 29 11:59:48 2015 manasaUpdateGeneralBeat note frequency discrepancy

Below is the set of plots comparing measurements for the green and IR beat notes frequencies. The measurements were made on the spectrum analyzer at the same time. So I have not taken measurement error into account.
From the plots, the discrepancy is not very large.

Attachment 1:
Shows the two sets of measurements scaterred along y=x.

Attachment 2:
Since plot 1 shows the points tightly scattered to y=x, I plotted the difference between the two measurements against their mean to blow out the deviations.

I will do the same comparison using the frequency counter readout once we have RF amplifiers installed.

Attachment 1: Freq_compare1.png
Attachment 2: Freq_compare2.png
8361   Wed Mar 27 21:53:21 2013 AnnalisaUpdateABSLBeat note of ATF auxiliary laser

After measuring the beat note, the "Alberto" NPRO auxiliary laser has been moved from the PSL table to the POY table. Its beam profile is going to be measured. It's going to be used as green laser on the END table, in place of the broken one.

The auxiliary laser borrowed form ATF lab (which will be used for the ABSL measurement) has been set on the PSL table to make a measurement of the beat note between it and the main laser.

The setup is mostly the same of the previous beat note measurement . In this case, laser input power is 326 mW, so I needed to replace one of the mirrors of the steering optics with a BS 50% reflecting in order to have less than 1 mW on the PD.

Now, the total power on the PD is less than 0.5 mW.

I didn't measure the beat note yet to leave the PSL table as quite as possible for the locking procedures.

To do:

Measure the beat note, fiber coupling the NPRO laser to bring it to the POY table.

8369   Thu Mar 28 23:00:30 2013 AnnalisaUpdateABSLBeat note of ATF auxiliary laser found

The beat note for the ATF lab laser has been found.

The measurement has been carried out in the same way as described in elog 8368.

The only difference is that in this case I started from a temperature of 35.2 degC, and I reduced it until the minimum which was 30.71 degC. No beat note in this range.

Then I rised on the temperature and I found the first beat note at 41.46 degC. It has been detected at a frequency of about 120 MHz with an RF power of -53 dBm and a frequency fluctuation of about  +/- 5 MHz.

I tried to improve the alignment to have a stronger beat, but it was the maximum I could reach. Maybe I could increase the power hitting the photodiode, which was 0.453 mW.

8333   Fri Mar 22 23:23:38 2013 AnnalisaUpdateLockingBeat note still missing

[Annalisa, Manasa, Koji]

I updated the setup for the beat note. The main reason is that I needed to keep the ADJ to 0 in way to operate at the nominal laser power.

Now the input power of the laser is increased (about 315 mW) and needs to be dumped so as not to exceed the PD threshold of 1mW.

Moreover, a lens has been added to match the two beams size.

A BS has been removed from the PSL pick-off beam path, so the PSL power hitting the BS is now about 100 uW, and the total power on the PD is 0.7mW.

I also verified that both the beams are S polarized.

To find the beat note, the laser temperature has been varied  through the laser controller and not adding a Voltage with the power supply.

A range of temperature of 30 degC has been spanned, but we suppose there should be some calibration problem with the controller, since set temperature is not the same as Laser temperature on the display.

Anyway, no beat note has been found up to now.

An external monitor has to be added to check the real temperature of the crystal.

The next possible plan is to vary the PSL temperature and try to find the beat note.

P.S.: The HEWELETT PACKARD 8591E spectrum analyzer works! The monitor only took some time to turn on!

Attachment 1: Beat_note_-_new_setup.jpg
8819   Wed Jul 10 02:28:04 2013 AnnalisaUpdateGreen LockingBeat notes lost!

[Manasa, Jenne, Annalisa]

I was going to find the beat note to start the cavity scan, but I couldn't.

These are the steps I followed:

• locked the arm with IR to reduce the arm swinging
• locked the green on the arm
• started changing the green temperature setting the offset from the slow servo2 in the ALS. The PSL slow actuator ADJ was always set approximately to zero, and the PSL temperature was checked in order to set the auxiliary laser temperature where the beat was expected (as in the plot)

After spanning the temperature by approximately 4degC, we started be suspicious that I couldn't find the beat in the range of temperature where it was supposed to be found, and we started making several trials:

• PD output disconnected from the beatbox and connected to the cable running to the Control Room
• Checked that the cable going to the Control Room was working by sending a signal with the Marconi (the cable was working)
• Put back the amplifier that had been previously removed
• PD DC output checked with the oscilloscope
• Spectrum analyzer connected to the PD output without passing trough the cable

The same trials were done also for the X arm, but we didn't succeed in finding the beat for the X neither.

13566   Mon Jan 22 12:48:48 2018 KojiSummaryGeneralBeat setup for aLIGO EOM test

I'm planning to construct a beat setup between the PSL and AUX beams. I am going to make it in the area shown in a blue square in the attached photo. This does not disturb Johannes' and PSL setups. The beams are obtained from the PBS reflection of the PSL and the dumped beam of the aux path (0th or 1st order beam of the AOM).

Attachment 1: IMG_3048.JPG
5860   Thu Nov 10 05:54:23 2011 kiwamuUpdateGreen LockingBeat-note detected : PSL vs Y arm

[Katrin / Kiwamu]
The beat-note between the PSL green laser and the Y end green laser was successfully detected.
The detection was done by the new broad-band RFPD.
The next step will be an extraction of the frequency fluctuation signal using the delay-line-mixer frequency discriminator.

Here is a picture of the RF spectrum analyzer displaying the direct output signal from the broad-band RFPD.
The beat-note was moving around 100 MHz with an RF power of -36 dBm. The frequency fluctuation was about +/- 7MHz in a time scale of 1 sec or so.

(What we did)
+ Connected a BNC cable which goes from the c1iscey's DAC to the laser slow input
=> this enables a remote control of the laser frequency via the temeperature actuation
+ Realigned the beam pointing of the Y end green laser
+ Installed all the necessary optics on the PSL table
=> currently the PSL green light is adjusted to completely S-polarization
+ readjusted the mode matching telescopes
=> the Y green beam becomes the one with a long Rayleigh range
+ Health check on the broad-band RFPD to see if it is working
+ Installed the BB-RFPD with a +/-15V power supply
+ Fine alignment of the beam combining path
+ Fine tuning of the Y end laser temperature
=> T_PSL = 31.72 deg when the slow FSS feedback is zero.
=> Based on Bryan's measurement (see #elog) the Y end laser temperature was adjusted to 34.0 deg by applying an offset to the slow input.
+ Found the beat note at 100 MHz or so.
=> optimizing the alignment of the beam combining path by maximizing the peak height of the beat-note.
=> maximum peak height observed with an RF spectrum analyzer was about -36 dBm.

11361   Mon Jun 15 22:36:40 2015 rana, kojiUpdateGreen LockingBeatBox Assay: not looking good

Because the ALS beatbox schematic is out-of-date and misleading, we pulled the box to photograph the current implementation and figure out how to proceed. The box is out on the EE bench right now. Schematic Doc added to 40m Document tree: https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-D1102241. Some notes:

1. The soldering on this board is pretty messy and there are a lot of flying wire and flying component hacks. I wouldn't trust all of the connections.
2. The GV-81 RF amps in the front end are both stuffed. The 1 dB compression point is 19 dBm, so we want to use them below 10 dBm output. They have a gain of +10.5 dB, so that means they should not be used with and input to the beatbox of more than -10 dBm. Otherwise there will be nonlinear noise generation.
3. Not stuffed: U1-Comparator, A1-attenuator, U2-splitter.
4. Why is the filter after the mixer only 2nd order?? That's not a valid filter choice in any RF world. How much do we want to cut off the 2f mixer output before sending into our low noise, audio frequency (and prone to downconversion) amplifier? The Mini-Circuits amplifiers would have given us >60 dB attenuation in the stop band. This one is only going to give us 20-30 dB when the beat frequency is low. Get rid of diplexer. The schematic claims that its just one pole?? Seems like a 2nd order LP filter to me.
5. The modified schematic (see Koji elog 8855) shows that an OP27 is used for the whitening stage. The current noise of the OP27 with the 3k resistor makes the OP27 current noise dominate below 1 Hz. And what is going on with that filter capacitor choice? We never want to use these tiny things for sensitive filter applications. (cf. Sigg doc on resistor and capacitor choice, the noise reduction book by Ott, H&H, etc.). That's why we have the larger metal-poly, paper, mylar, etc. caps sitting around.

Probably we ought to install a little daughter board to avoid having to keep hacking this dead horse. Koji has some of Haixing'g maglev filter boards. Meanwhile Koji is going to make us a new beatbox circuit in Altium and we can start fresh later this summer.

Interesting link on new SMD cap technology.

Photos of circuit as found

11363   Fri Jun 19 01:24:26 2015 rana, kojiUpdateGreen LockingBeatBox Assay: not looking good

We had decided a few days ago, to bypass the IF part of the BeatBox board and put some of the Haixing Maglev generic filter boards in there so that we could get more whitening and also have it be low noise.

Tonight we wondered if we can ditch the whole BeatBox and just use the quad aLIGO demod box (D0902745) that Rich gave us a few years ago. Seems like it can.

But, it has no whitening. Can we do the whitening part externally? Perhaps we can run the RF signals from the output of the beat RF Amps over to the LSC rack and then put the outputs into the LSC Whitening board and acquire the signals in the LSC ?

11364   Fri Jun 19 01:55:35 2015 ericqUpdateGreen LockingBeatBox Assay: not looking good
 Quote: But, it has no whitening. Can we do the whitening part externally? Perhaps we can run the RF signals from the output of the beat RF Amps over to the LSC rack and then put the outputs into the LSC Whitening board and acquire the signals in the LSC ?

I like this idea; it gives us more control over the whitening, and saves the IPC delay. We could use the currently vacant AS165 and POP55 channels.

We'd only have to move the phase trackers to c1lsc, which means 12 more FMs total. This is really the only part of the c1als model our current system uses, the rest is from before the ALS->LSC integration.

13957   Wed Jun 13 22:07:31 2018 gautamUpdateALSBeatMouth PDFR measurement

Summary:

Neither of the Menlo FPD310 fiber coupled PDs in the beat mouth have an optoelectronic response (V/W) as advertised. This possibly indicates a damaged RF amplification stage inside the PD.

Motivation:

I have never been able to make the numbers work out for the amount of DC light I put on these PDs, and how much RF beat power I get out. Today, I decided to measure the PD response directly.

Details:

In the end, I decided that slightly modifying the Jenner laser setup was the way to go, instead of futzing around with the PDFR laser. These PDs have a switchable gain setting - for this measurement, both were set to the lower gain such that the expected optoelectronic response is 409 V/W.

[Attachment #1] - Sketch of the experimental setup.

[Attachment #2] - Measured TF responses, the RF modulation was -20dBm for all curves. I varied the diode laser DC current a little to ensure I recovered identical transfer functions. Assumptions used in making these plots:

1. NF1611 and FPD310 have equal amounts of power incident on them.
2. The NF1611 transimpedance is 700V/A.

[Attachment #3] - Tarball of data + script used to make Attachment #2.

Conclusions:

• The FPD310 does not have a DC monitor port.
• So the dominant uncertainty in these plots is that I don't know how much power was incident on the PD under test.
• The NF1611 DC power level could be measured though, and seemed to scale with DC pump current linearly (I had only 3 datapoints though so this doesn't mean much).
• Neither PD has transimpedance gain as per the specs.
• The X PD shows levels ~x10 lower than expected.
• The Y PD shows levels ~x3 lower than expected.
• I will repeat the measurement tomorrow by eliminating some un-necessary patch fiber cables, and also calibrating out the cable delays.
• The setup shown in Attachment #1 was used because I didn't want to open up the BeatMouth.
• But I can pipe the port of the BS not going to the FPD310 directly to the collimator, and that should reduce the systematic uncertainty w.r.t. power distribution between FPD310 and NF1611.
Attachment 1: IMG_7056.JPG
Attachment 2: BeatMouthPDFR.pdf
Attachment 3: BeatMouth_PDFRdata.tgz
13973   Fri Jun 15 14:22:05 2018 gautamUpdateALSBeatMouth PDFR measurement

I did the measurement with the BeatMouth open today. Main changes:

• Directly pipe the RF output of the Menlo PDs to the Agilent, bypassing the 20dB coupler inside the BeatMouth.
• Directly pipe the unused port of the Fiber Beamsplitter used to send light to the Menlo PD to an in-air collimator, which then sends the beam to the NF1611 reference detector.

So neglecting asymmetry in the branching ratio of the fiber beamsplitter, the asymmetry between the test PD optical path and the reference PD optical path is a single fiber mating sleeve in the former vs a collimator in the latter. In order to recover the expected number of 409 V/W for the Menlo PDs, we have to argue that the optical loss in the test PD path (fiber mating sleeve) are ~3x higher than in the NF1611 path (free space coupler). But at least the X and Y PDs show identical responses now. The error I made in the previously attached plot was that I was using the 20dB coupled output for the X PD measurement .

Revised conclusion: The measured optoelectronic response of the Menlo PDs at 10s of MHz, of ~130 V/W, is completely consistent with the numbers I reported in this elog. So rogue polarization is no longer the culprit for the discrepancy between expected and measured RF beatnote power, it was just that the expectation, based on Menlo PD specs, were not accurate.#2 of the linked elog seems to be the most likely, although "broken" should actually be "not matching spec".

While killing time b/w measurements, I looked on the ITMY optical table and found that the NF1611 I mentioned in this elog still exists. It is fiber coupled. Could be a better substitute as a Reference PD for this particular measurement.

 Quote: I will repeat the measurement tomorrow by eliminating some un-necessary patch fiber cables, and also calibrating out the cable delays. The setup shown in Attachment #1 was used because I didn't want to open up the BeatMouth. But I can pipe the port of the BS not going to the FPD310 directly to the collimator, and that should reduce the systematic uncertainty w.r.t. power distribution between FPD310 and NF1611.
Attachment 1: BeatMouthPDFR.pdf
Attachment 2: BeatMouth_PDFRdata.tgz
14498   Thu Mar 28 19:40:02 2019 gautamUpdateALSBeatMouth with NF1611s assembled

Summary:

The parts I was waiting for arrived. I finished the beat mouth assembly, and did some characterization. Everything looks to be working as expected.

Details:

Attachment #1: Photo of the front panel. I am short of two fiber mating sleeves that are compatible with PM fibers, but those are just for monitoring, so not critical to the assembly at this stage. I'll ask Chub to procure these.

Attachment #2: Photo of the inside of the BeatMouth. I opted to use the flexible RG-316 cables for all the RF interconnects. Rana said these aren't the best option, remains to be seen if interference between cables is an issue. If so, we can replace them with RG-58. I took the opportunity to give each fiber beam splitter its own spool, and cleaned all the fiber tips.

Attachment #3: Transfer function measurement. The PDFR setup behind 1X5/1X6 was used. I set the DC current to the laser to 30.0 mA (as read off the display of the current source), which produced ~400uW of light at the fiber coupled output of the diode laser. This was injected into the "PSL" input coupler of the BeatMouth, and so gets divided down to ~100 uW by the time it reaches the PDs. From the DC monitor values (~430mV), the light hitting the PDs is actually more consistent with 60uW, which is in agreement with the insertion loss of the fiber beamsplitters, and the mating sleeves.

The two responses seem reasonably well balanced (to within 20% - do we expect this to be better?). Even though judging by the DC monitor, there was more light incident on the Y PD than on the X PD, the X response was actually stronger than the Y.

I also took the chance to do some other tests:

• Inject light into the "X(Y)-ARM" input coupler of the Beat Mouth - confirmed that only the X(Y) NF1611's DC monitor output showed any change. The DC light level was ~1V in this condition, which again is consistent with expected insertion losses as compared to the "PSL" input case, there is 1 less fiber beamsplitter and mating sleeve.
• Injected light into each of the input couplers, looked at the interior of the BeatMouth with an IR viewer for evidence of fiber damage, and saw none. Note that we are not doing anything special to dump the light at the unused leg of the fiber beamsplitter (which will eventually be a monitor port). Perhaps, nominally, this port should be dumped in some appropriate way.

Attachment #4: Dark Noise analysis. I used a ZHL-500-HLN+ to boost the PD's dark noise above the AG4395's measurement noise floor. The measured noise level seems to suggest either (i) the input-referred current noise of the PD circuitry is a little lower than the spec of 16 pA/rtHz (more like 13 pA/rtHz) or (ii) the transimpedance is lower than the spec of 700 V/A (more like 600 V/A). Probably some combination of the two. Seems reasonable to me.

Next steps:

The optical part of the ALS detection setup is now complete. The next step is to measure the ALS noise with this sysytem. I will use the X arm for this purpose (I'd like to make the minor change of switching the existing resistive power splitter at the delay line to the newly acquired splitters which have 3dB lower insertion loss).

Attachment 1: IMG_7381.JPG
Attachment 2: IMG_7382.JPG
Attachment 3: relTF_schem.pdf
Attachment 4: darkNoise.pdf
14502   Fri Mar 29 21:00:06 2019 gautamUpdateALSBeatMouth with NF1611s installed
• Newfocus 15V current limited supply was taken from bottom NE corner of the ITMY Oplev table to power the BeatMouth on the PSL table
• BeatMouth was installed on top shelf on PSL table [Attachment #1].
• Light levels in fibers were checked:
• PSL: initially, only ~200uW / 4mW was coupled in. This was improved to 2.6mW/4mW (~65% MM) which was deemed sufficient for a first test), by tweaking the alignment of, and into the collimator.
• EX: ~900uW measured at the PSL table. I remember the incident power being ~1mW. So this is pretty good.
• Fibers hooked up to BeatMouth:
• EX light only, DC mon of X PD reads -2.1V.
• With PSL light, I get -4.6 V.
• For these numbers, with the DC transimpedance of 10kohm and the RF transimpedance of 700 ohm, I expect a beat of ~0dBm
• DC light level stability is being monitored by a temporarily hijacked PSL NPRO diagnostic Acromag channel. Main motivation is to confirm that the alignment to the special axes of the PM fibers is still good and we aren't seeing large tempreature-driven waveplate effects.
• RF part of the circuit is terminated into 50ohms for now -
• there is still a quesiton as to what is the correct RF amplifier to use in sending the signal to the 1Y3 rack.
• An initial RF beat power level measurement yielded -5dBm, which is inconsistent with the DC monitor voltages, but I'm not sure what frequency the beat was at, will make a more careful measurement with a scope or the network analyzer.
• We want the RF pre-amp to be:
• Low noise, keeping this in mind
• High enough gain to boost the V/Hz discriminant of the electronic delay line
• Not too high gain that we run into compression / saturate some of the delay line electronics - specifically, the LO input of the LSC demod board has a Teledyne amp in the signal chain, and so we need to ensure the signal level there is <16dBm (nominal level is 10dBm).
• I'm evaluating options...
• At 1Y3:
• I pulled out the delay-line enclosure, and removed the (superglued) resistive power splitters with the help of some acetone
• The newly acquired power splitters (ZAPD-2-252-S+) were affixed to the front panel, in which I made some mounting holes.
• The new look setup, re-installed at 1Y3, is shown in Attachment #2.
Attachment 1: IMG_7384.JPG
Attachment 2: IMG_7385.JPG
8807   Mon Jul 8 21:46:31 2013 manasaUpdateGreen LockingBeatbox

[Koji, Manasa]

I wanted to investigate on the ALS electronics(in particular the beatbox and the phase tracker) and find out if the beatbox is showing a linear behavior
as we expect it to and as to why we have been seeing sudden jumps at the phase tracker output.

I have been using the Xarm part of the beabox.
I used Marconi as well as signal generator to do frequency sweep/modulation at the RF input of the beatbox and looked at the I_MON output of the beatbox.

We observed sudden jumps in the beatbox output from time to time while we either varied the carrier frequency or the RF amplitude.
Also the beatbox output shows high frequency oscillations at ~95MHz (source unknown). It is for sure that the beatbox is not behaving the way it should
but we could not tell more or troubleshoot with the beatbox mounted on the rack.

I am going to let Annalisa do her Y arm ALS scan tonight and pull out the beatbox tomorrow to fix it.

8855   Tue Jul 16 10:16:23 2013 KojiUpdate Beatbox XARM whitening modified

The X arm whitening filters of the beatbox were modified.
Now we have about 10 times better floor level above 100Hz and ~3 better at 1Hz.

- The previous whitening was zero@1Hz, pole@10Hz, and the DC gain of the unity.
When the Marconi signal (~30MHz -25dBm) was given to the beatbox (via ZFL-1000LN),
the DC output of the beatbox was only 140mV (lame). This corresponded to 220 counts in
the CDS.
(BTW the signals were calibrated by giving frequency deviation of 1kHz is applied at 125Hz.)

- If you compare the analog measurement of the beatbox output and what we see in the I phase signal,
you can see that we were completely dominated by the ADC noise (attachment 2, blue and red).

- The new whitening is zero@5.2Hz, pole@159Hz, and the DC gain of 10.

- This improved the sensing noise by a factor of ten above 100Hz.

- We are stil llimited by the digitizing noise between 3Hz to 100Hz.
We need steeper whitening like 2nd order from 1Hz to 100Hz. (and probably at DC too).
Now the DC amplitude is about 1.4V (and 2200 counts in the CDS).
So, it is interesting to see how the sensing limit changes by increasing
the overall gain by a factor of 3, and have (zeros@1Hz & poles@10Hz)^2.

This can be implemented on a proto-daughter board.

- By the way, the performance below 2Hz is now better than the analog one with the previous whitening.
This improvement might have come from the replacement of the thick film resistors by thin-film resistors.
(See the circuit diagram)

About the nominal power of the beatbox input.

- Marconi (-20dBm 30MHz) was directly connected to the beatbox. The RF output of -15dBm was observed at the delayline output.
- According to the beatbox schematic, the mixer LO and RF inputs were expected to be -9dBm and -19dBm.
- The nominal mixer LO level is supposed to be 7dBm. Therefore the nominal beatbox input should be -4dBm.

- Assuming 23dB gain of the preamp, the PD output is expected to be -27dBm.

- When the PD out is -27dBm, the RF mon is expected to be -5dBm. This is the level of the RF power expected to be seen in the control room.

- The output of the beatbox was measured as the function of the input to the preamp (before the beatbox input).
With the nominal gain, we should have observed amplitude of ~170. And it is now 1700 because of the whitening modification.

Attachment 1: Beatbox_mod.pdf
Attachment 2: ALS_whitening.pdf
Attachment 3: Beatbox_input_dependence.pdf
8818   Wed Jul 10 02:10:41 2013 manasaUpdateGreen LockingBeatbox gets a makeover

 Quote: [Koji, Manasa] I wanted to investigate on the ALS electronics(in particular the beatbox and the phase tracker) and find out if the beatbox is showing a linear behavior as we expect it to and as to why we have been seeing sudden jumps at the phase tracker output. I have been using the Xarm part of the beabox. I used Marconi as well as signal generator to do frequency sweep/modulation at the RF input of the beatbox and looked at the I_MON output of the beatbox. We observed sudden jumps in the beatbox output from time to time while we either varied the carrier frequency or the RF amplitude. Also the beatbox output shows high frequency oscillations at ~95MHz (source unknown). It is for sure that the beatbox is not behaving the way it should but we could not tell more or troubleshoot with the beatbox mounted on the rack. I am going to let Annalisa do her Y arm ALS scan tonight and pull out the beatbox tomorrow to fix it.

The beatbox output showed high frequency oscillations during the troubleshooting process yesterday. I removed the beatbox from the rack. With no RF inputs, just powering the beatbox showed these high frequency oscillations at the beatbox output. This confirms that these oscillations are from the op-amp AD829JR. I replaced these with low noise OP27G. Also I removed the AD829JR that were soldered to the frequency divider and comparator which are not being used. Output buffer U10 was also removed.

After replacing with OP27G, I rechecked the beatbox with and without the RF input. There were no more high frequency contaminations and beatbox seemed to behave as it is supposed to when a frequency modulated RF input is fed. I put the beatbox back on the rack and did  a quick recheck.

Before (top) and after (bottom) pictures

11355   Fri Jun 12 17:09:58 2015 ericqUpdateLSCBeatbox needs whitening gain

Short entry just to preview a new development; more detail about this investigation will soon follow.

The beatbox I and Q signals are too small at the ADC! I was able to reduce the RMS out of loop ALS sensitivity (arm locked on POX) by 300Hz with G=10 SR560s between the beatbox output and the ADC whitening chassis input. Increasing the beat note amplitude via RF amplifier had no positive effect.

There is still a reasonable gap between this and the beatbox's noise levels, as measured with a marconi. There may be additional headroom for whitening gain; the SR560 maximum output range is smaller than the ADC input range.

The high frequency noise has >0.5 coherence with the PDH error signal above a kHz or so, but not much below that.

We should probably either modify the output whitening of the beatbox, or introduce some (variable?) whitening gain in a seperate circuit.

Attachment 1: beatGain.png
11356   Sat Jun 13 18:37:46 2015 ericqUpdateLSCBeatbox needs whitening gain

Here are the promised details!

I was worried about the lack of whitening gain, as I saw that the DC phase tracker Q output (which is the magnitude of the signal in the beatbox's I-Q plane) was no more than 200 ADC counts for X (~120mV), and 800 for Y (~500mV). I.e. this is the largest DC value that either the I or Q ADC channels can see, and the RMS fluctuations are on the order of mV, meaning we're wasting our entire ADC range

However, I also had doubts about this since, even in the nominal state, the ASD of the ADC signals before dewhitening was higher than the expected ADC noise level. However, because of the non-linearity of the conversion of the BEAT_I and Q signals into the phase tracker output, evaluating the contribution of the beatbox output and ADC input voltage noises takes a few more steps.

So, I hooked up a Marconi as the signal source for the beatbox's X channel , with no modulation (presumably the phase noise of the Marconi output is significantly lower than the sensitivity of the beatbox). For all of these measurements, the beat frequency was kept around 50MHz, with an amplitude of -30dBm on the control room analyzer, which is a typical X ALS operating point.

At this point, the beatbox output noise was below the ADC noise (as measured by an SR785). Nevertheless, I found that the beat spectrum driven by the Marconi lined up to be very close to the ALS beat spectrum across a wide band, explaining much of the noise.

At this point, I inserted SR560s in between the beatbox I and Q outputs, and the AA chassis leading to the ADC. A gain of 10 reduced the resultant phase tracker noise by that same factor at nearly all frequencies. A further increase in gain did not lead to the noise changing appreciably, probably because the real beatbox noise was now contributing, as is suggested by some common peaks in the direct beatbox output phase tracker spectra.

Going back to the real green beat signal with the SR560s still at G=10, I obtained the result shown in ELOG 11355. I will soon repeat this process with the Y ALS.

As I mentioned in the previous ELOG, we may be further helped by more whitening gain than can be provided by the SR560s (and we obviously need a robust long term circuit for this gain). If it then turns out we are limited by beatbox noise to a degree we are not happy with, we could perhaps look into reintroducing some RF gain into the X beat. As Koji mentions in ELOG 8855, the beatbox operates best at an RF input of around -4dBm.

Attachment 1: ADCdiagnosis.png
11357   Sat Jun 13 23:52:14 2015 ericqUpdateLSCBeatbox needs whitening gain

Nice find!

We ought to use our noise model of the ALS signal chain to determine what the right gains are, rather than hunt and peck. More likely we'll start from the right gains.​

Once the gains and/or whitening filters make sense, maybe we'll see some effect from fixing the green PDH loops.

8245   Wed Mar 6 20:21:34 2013 JamieUpdateGeneralBeatbox pulled from rack

I pulled the beatbox from the 1X2 rack so that I could try to hack in some output whitening filters.  These are shamefully absent because of my mis-manufacturing of the power on the board.

Right now we're just using the MON output.  The MON output buffer (U10) is the only chip in the output section that's stuffed:

The power problem is that all the AD829s were drawn with their power lines reversed.  We fixed this by flipping the +15 and -15 power planes and not stuffing the differential output drivers (AD8672).

It's possible to hack in some resistors/capacitors around U10 to get us some filtering there.  It's also possible to just stuff U9, which is where the whitening is supposed to be, then just jump it's output over to the MON output jack.  That might be the cleanest solution, with the least amount of hacking on the board.

In any event, we really need to make a v2 of these boards ASAP.  Before we do that, though, we need to figure out what we're going to do with the "disco comparator" stage back near the RF input.  (There are also a bunch of other improvements that will be incorporated into v2).

8292   Thu Mar 14 11:51:14 2013 JamieUpdateGeneralBeatbox upgraded with output whitening, reinstalled

 Quote: I pulled the beatbox from the 1X2 rack so that I could try to hack in some output whitening filters.  These are shamefully absent because of my mis-manufacturing of the power on the board. Right now we're just using the MON output.  The MON output buffer (U10) is the only chip in the output section that's stuffed: The power problem is that all the AD829s were drawn with their power lines reversed.  We fixed this by flipping the +15 and -15 power planes and not stuffing the differential output drivers (AD8672). It's possible to hack in some resistors/capacitors around U10 to get us some filtering there.  It's also possible to just stuff U9, which is where the whitening is supposed to be, then just jump it's output over to the MON output jack.  That might be the cleanest solution, with the least amount of hacking on the board.

I modified the beatbox according to this plan.  I stuffed the whitening filter stage (U9) as indicated in the schematic (I left out the C26 compensation cap which, according to the AD829 datasheet, is not actually needed for our application).  I also didn't have any 301 ohm resistors so I stuffed R18 with 332 ohm, which I think should be fine.

Instead of messing with the working monitor output that we have in place, I stuffed the J5 SMA connector and wired U9 output to it in a single-ended fashion (ie. I grounded the shield pins of J5 to the board since we're not driving it differentially).  I then connected J5 to the I/Q MON outputs on the front panel.  If there's a problem we can just rewire those back to the J4 MON outputs and recover exactly where we were last week.

It all checks out: 0 dB of gain at DC, 1 Hz zero, 10 Hz pole, with 20 dB of gain at high frequencies.

I installed it back in the rack, and reconnected X/Y ARM ALS beatnote inputs and the delay lines.  The I/Q outputs are now connected directly to the DAQ without going through any SR560s (so we recover four SR560s).

13817   Fri May 4 21:17:57 2018 gautamConfigurationALSBeathMouth pulled out of PSL table

I have been puzzled about the beat note level we get out of the BeatMouth for some time.

• The beat PD used is the Menlo FPD310.
• But the version we have is an obsolete version of the product, for which a manual is hard to find.
• Hence, I don't know the transimpedance/electrical characteristics of this PD.
• The optical damage threshold of the PD is quoted as 2mW, which is a number I have been careful not to exceed.
• But I've felt that the beat amplitude level we get out of this PD is far too low considering the amount of DC optical power (as measured with a fiber power meter) incident on the PD.
• After some emailing and online hunting, I've gathered some numbers for the PD which are now on the wiki.
• The fiber beam splitters we use inside the BeatMouth don't have PM fibers. There are 3 such splitters inside the BeatMouth. So the overlap efficiency on the PD is unknown.
• But even so, the beat levels I was seeing were too low.

I have pulled the box out in order to re-characterize the DC power levels incident on the PD, and also to change the gain setting on the PD to the lower gain which is more compatible with the level of optical power we have going into the BeatMouth. The modern catalog for the FPD310 (see wiki) suggests that the maximum output voltage swing of the PD is 1Vpp driving a 50ohm load. With 50% overlapping efficiency between the PSL and AUX beams, and 400 uW of optical power from each beam, I expect an output of 0.5Vpp. Even with perfect overlap, I expect 0.8Vpp. So these numbers seem reasonable.

I also plan to check the scaling of electrical beat amplitude to optical power for a couple of levels to see that these scale as expected...

13824   Tue May 8 00:40:51 2018 gautamConfigurationALSBeathMouth pulled out of PSL table

Summary:

I did some more BeatMouth characterization. My primary objective was to do a power budget. Specifically, to measure the insertion loss of the mating sleeves and of the fiber beam splitters. All power numbers quoted in this elog are measured with the fiber power meter. Main takeaways:

• Measured insertion loss of all mating sleeves, which are ADAFCPMB2, are in agreement with the < 1dB spec. 1 dB in power is ~20%.
• But there is large variance in the above number, between different supposedly identical connectors.
• Measured insertion loss from input port to coupled ports of the fiber beamsplitters are slightly larger than spec (~3.5dB), when measured after mating the fiber beamsplitter (which has Hi1060 flex fiber) and PM980 fiber (which is what brings light to the BeatMouth).
• But measured insertion loss when mating is between Hi1060 flex fiber ends is more in line with the expected value of ~3.5dB.
• Isolation of fiber beam splitters seems to match the spec of >55dB.

Results:

• I used the fiber bringing 416uW of IR light from EY for this test.
• Insertion loss was measured by injecting the fiber light at one port and measuring the transmitted power at various other ports.
• In order to couple the fiber power meter across a single mating sleeve, I used a short (~1m) patch cable from newport (F-SY-C-1FCA). Technically, this is single mode fiber with the correct type of connector, FC/APC, but is not PM.
• See Attachment #2 for the labeling of the connectors which is how I refer to them in the table below.
• Lest there be confusion, I use the definition of insertion loss  $\mathrm{Insertion ~loss [dB] }=10\mathrm{log_{10}}(\frac{P_{in}}{P_{out}})$.
Mating Sleeve # Insertion loss [dB]
1 0.38
2 0.65
3 0.71
4 0.43
5 0.95
6 0.79
7 0.5

Remarks / Questions:

1. Is there any way to systematically reduce the insertion loss? Like getting a better mating part?
2. Question for the fiber experts: How do we deal with the unused port of the beam-splitters? Right now, they are just capped. But as you can see in Attachment #1, the caps certainly don't block all the light. What are the implications of back-scattered light into the fiber on the ALS noise? I guess the beamsplitter itself has the spec'd 55dB directivity, so do we not care about this?
Attachment 1: IMG_6986.JPG
Attachment 2: IMG_6987.JPG
13889   Thu May 24 19:41:28 2018 gautamConfigurationALSBeathMouth reinstalled on PSL table

Summary:

• DC light power incident on beat PD is ~400uW from the PSL and ~300uW from EX.
• These numbers are consistent with measured mating sleeve and fiber coupler losses.
• However, I measure an RF beatnote of 80mVpp (= -18dBm). This corresponds to a mode matching efficiency of ~15%, assuming InGaAs efficiency of 0.65A/W.

I find this hard to believe.

Details:

• I took this opportunity to clean the fiber tips on the PSL table going into the BeatMouth.
• PSL light power going into the BeatMouth is 2.6mW. Of which ~400uW reaches the Beat PD (measured using my new front panel monitor port).
• Similarly, 1mW of EX light reaches the PSL table, of which ~300uW reaches the Beat PD.
• The RF amplifier gain is 20dB, and RF transimpedance is 50 ohms.
• Using the (electrical) 20dB coupled port on the front panel, I measured a beat signal with 8mVpp. So the actual beat note signal is 80mVpp.

Discussion:

As I see it, the possibilities are:

1. My measurement technique/calculation is wrong.
2. The beat PD is broken has optoelectronic different that is significantly different from specifications.
3. The non-PM fiber lengths inside the beat box result in ~15% overlap between the PSL and EX beams. Morever, there is insignificant variation in the electrical beat amplitude as monitored on the control room analyzer. So there is negligible change in the polarization state inside the BeatMouth.

I guess #3 can be tested by varying the polarization content of one of the input beams through 90 degrees.

634   Thu Jul 3 18:48:09 2008 AlbertoUpdateGeneralBeats of the two lasers in the absolute length measurement observed
I adjusted the alignment of the flipper mirror as suggested by Koji making the two beam spots match. I also aligned all the IFO mirrors (ITMs, PRM, SRM, ETMs) to have more power for the IFO signal at the AS port. When I did that I could see the beats at the AS OSA. Then I explored the range of temperature of the NPRO from 35deg (C) to 51.2807deg and at that point I could observe a peak corresponding to the beat at about 10MHz on the network analyzer. The peak tends to drift because the laser takes probably a longer time to actually thermalize and it moves very rapidly changing the temperature of the laser.
635   Thu Jul 3 22:54:45 2008 KojiUpdateGeneralBeats of the two lasers in the absolute length measurement observed
Great! Conguraturation! I wish if I could see it! It's nice if you can put the photo or anything of the RF spectrum analyzer.

Next step:
o You can try to maximize the beat amplitude by the tuning of the Injection steering mirrors.

o At the south end of the SP table, I prepared a frequency mixer. You can put the beat signal into the RF input, and an oscillator (which you can bring from somewhere) to the LO input in order to obtain the error signal of the PLL. Put the IF output of the mixer in a SR560, and please try to lock it by a simple 6db/oct (1st order) LPF of the SR560. For the actuator you can use the fast-pzt input of the NPRO.

 Quote: Then I explored the range of temperature of the NPRO from 35deg (C) to 51.2807deg and at that point I could observe a peak corresponding to the beat at about 10MHz on the network analyzer.
637   Mon Jul 7 11:22:02 2008 AlbertoUpdateGeneralBeats of the two lasers in the absolute length measurement observed
I didn't post a screenshot from the RF SA because I had troubles with the interface with the computer (unfortunately the network SA cannot export the data either).

There is problem with the PLL circuit. The signal, beside the beat, also contains peaks at 33, 66 and 99 MHz, so we should think about filtering those out.

Quote:
Great! Conguraturation! I wish if I could see it! It's nice if you can put the photo or anything of the RF spectrum analyzer.

Next step:
o You can try to maximize the beat amplitude by the tuning of the Injection steering mirrors.

o At the south end of the SP table, I prepared a frequency mixer. You can put the beat signal into the RF input, and an oscillator (which you can bring from somewhere) to the LO input in order to obtain the error signal of the PLL. Put the IF output of the mixer in a SR560, and please try to lock it by a simple 6db/oct (1st order) LPF of the SR560. For the actuator you can use the fast-pzt input of the NPRO.

 Quote: Then I explored the range of temperature of the NPRO from 35deg (C) to 51.2807deg and at that point I could observe a peak corresponding to the beat at about 10MHz on the network analyzer.
638   Mon Jul 7 13:06:38 2008 KojiUpdateGeneralBeats of the two lasers in the absolute length measurement observed
One may need an RF filter after the mixer. I expect the SR560 does work for this purpose.
If it does not, a passive LPF can be used.

 Quote: I didn't post a screenshot from the RF SA because I had troubles with the interface with the computer (unfortunately the network SA cannot export the data). There's is problem with the PLL circuit. The signal, beside the beat, also contains peaks at 33, 66 and 99 MHz, so we should think about filtering those out, correct?
16424   Mon Oct 25 13:23:45 2021 AnchalSummaryBHDBefore photos of BSC

[Yehonathan, Anchal]

On thursday Oct 21 2021, Yehonathan and I opened the door to BSC and took some photos. We setup the HEPA stand next to the door with anti-static curtains covering all sides. We spend about 15 minutes trying to understand the current layout and taking photos and a video. Any suggestions on improvement in our technique and approach would be helpful.

Links to photos:

https://photos.app.goo.gl/fkkdu9qAvH1g5boq6

12192   Thu Jun 16 18:08:57 2016 JohannesUpdatePSLBefore the AOM installation

There was only one razor blade beam dump labeled for atmospheric use left, but that's all we need. Steve is working on restocking. I placed the modified AOM mount on the PSL table near its intended location (near the AOM where it doesn't block any beams).

Things to keep in mind:

• The laser power needs to be turned down for the installation of the AOM. Current laser settings are: Crystal Temperature: 29.41 C, Diode Current: 2.1 A.
• The AOM driver must not be left unterminated when turned on (which it currently is and will be).
• The HEPA filters are currently running at ~50%. While the PSL enclosure is open for the work we'll set them to 100% and lower them after a job well done.

The setup:

The AOM has a deflection angle of about 20 mrad, which requires about 10cm of path for a separation of 2mm of the two beams. I need to survey closer and confirm, but I hope I can fit the beam dump in before the PMC (this of course also depends on the spot size). Alternatively, the PMC hopefully isn't resonant for anything remotely relevant at 80MHz offset, in which case we can also place the beam dump in its reflection path.

So this is the plan:

• Determine coupling efficiency into PMC for reference
• Turn down laser power
• No signal on AOM driver modulation input
• Mount AOM, place in beam path, and align
• Correct alignment into PMC?
• Secondary beam detectable? Adjust modulation input and laser power until detectable.
• Find a place for beam dump
• Confirm that primary beam is not clipping with PMC
• Turn up laser power
• Determine coupling efficiency with restored power to compare

Any thoughts? Based on the AOMs resting place I assumed that it is supposed to be installed before the PMC, but I'm actually not entirely sure where it was sitting before.

4291   Mon Feb 14 18:27:39 2011 josephbUpdateCDSBegan updating to latest CDS svn, reverted to previous state

[Joe, Alex]

This morning I began the process of bringing our copy of the CDS code up to date to the version installed at Livingston. The motivation was to get fixes to various parts, among others such as the oscillator part.   This would mean cleaning up front end model .mdl files without having to pass clk, sin, cos channels for every optic through 3 layers of simulink boxes.

I also began the process of using a similar startup method, which involved creating /etc/init.d/ start and stop scripts for the various processes which get run on the front ends, including awgtpman and mx_streams.  This allows the monitor software called monit to remotely restart those processes or provide a web page with a real time status of those processes.  A cleaner rc.local file utilizing sub-scripts was also adapted.

I did some testing of the new codes on c1iscey.  This testing showed a problem with the timing part of the code, with cycles going very long.  We think it has something to do with the code not accounting for the fact that we do not have IRIG-B timing cards in the IO chassis providing GPS time, which the sites do have.  We rely on the computer clock and ntpd.

At the moment, we've reverted to svn revision 2174 of the CDS code, and I've put the previously working version of the c1scy and c1x05 (running on the c1iscey computer) back. Its from the /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/target/c1x05/c1x05_11014_163146 directory.  I've put the old rc.local file back in /diskless/root/etc/ directory on the fb machine.  Currently running code on the other front end computers was not touched.

16871   Tue May 24 11:04:53 2022 JCUpdateVACBeginning Pumpdown

[JC, Jordan, Paco, Chub]

We began with the pumpdown this morning. We started with the annulus volume and proceeded by using the following:

1. Isolate the RGA Volume by closing of valves VM3 and V7.

2. Opened valves VASE, VASV, VABSSCT, VABS, VABSSCO, VAEV, and VAEE, in that order.

3. Open VA6 to allow P3, FRG3, and PAN to equalize.

4. Turn on RP1 and RP3, rough out annulus volume, once <1 torr turn on TP3. Close V6. Open V5 to pump the annulus volume with TP3.

5. Re route pumping from RP1 and RP3 to the main volume by opening V3 and slowly opening RV1.

6. After ~3.5 hours the pressure in the arms was <500mtorr on both FRG1 and P1a. Turn on TP1 and wait to reach full speed 560 Hz

7. Open V1 with RV2 barely open. The pressure diff between P1a and P2/FRG2 needs to be below 1 torr. This took a couple attempts with the manual valve in different positions. The interlocks were tripped for this reason. Repeat step 7 until the manual gate valve was in a position that throttled pumping enough to maintain the <1 torr differential.

8. Slowly open the manual gate valve over the course of ~ 1 hour. Once the manual gate valve fully opened, pressure in the arms was <1mtorr.

9. V7 was closed, leaving only TP2 to back TP1, while TP3 was used to continue pumping the annuli. Left in that configuration overnight (see attached)

We did have to replace gauge PAN becuase it was reading a signal error. In addition, we found the cable is a bit sketchy and has a sharp bend. The signal comes in and out when the cable is fiddled with.

Attachment 1: PUMPDOWN-2022-05-24_16-57-59.png
Attachment 2: C1VAC_Screenshot_2022-05-24_16-59-27.png
16916   Wed Jun 15 07:26:35 2022 JCUpdateVACBeginning Pumpdown

[Jordan, JC]

Jordan and I went in to retore the Vacuum System back to it's original state before the power loss on June 8, 2022. The process went smoothly as we first closed V7 and opened VM3 (in that order).

The RP1/3 line did not have the KF blank installed. That was added and the RP flex line was capped off.

 Quote: [JC, Jordan, Paco, Chub] We began with the pumpdown this morning. We started with the annulus volume and proceeded by using the following: 1. Isolate the RGA Volume by closing of valves VM3 and V7. 2. Opened valves VASE, VASV, VABSSCT, VABS, VABSSCO, VAEV, and VAEE, in that order. 3. Open VA6 to allow P3, FRG3, and PAN to equalize. 4. Turn on RP1 and RP3, rough out annulus volume, once <1 torr turn on TP3. Close V6. Open V5 to pump the annulus volume with TP3. 5. Re route pumping from RP1 and RP3 to the main volume by opening V3 and slowly opening RV1. 6. After ~3.5 hours the pressure in the arms was <500mtorr on both FRG1 and P1a. Turn on TP1 and wait to reach full speed 560 Hz 7. Open V1 with RV2 barely open. The pressure diff between P1a and P2/FRG2 needs to be below 1 torr. This took a couple attempts with the manual valve in different positions. The interlocks were tripped for this reason. Repeat step 7 until the manual gate valve was in a position that throttled pumping enough to maintain the <1 torr differential. 8. Slowly open the manual gate valve over the course of ~ 1 hour. Once the manual gate valve fully opened, pressure in the arms was <1mtorr. 9. V7 was closed, leaving only TP2 to back TP1, while TP3 was used to continue pumping the annuli. Left in that configuration overnight (see attached)   We did have to replace gauge PAN becuase it was reading a signal error. In addition, we found the cable is a bit sketchy and has a sharp bend. The signal comes in and out when the cable is fiddled with.

1275   Thu Feb 5 16:21:07 2009 JenneFrogsComputersBelladonna connects to the wireless Martian network again

Symptoms:  Belladonna could not (for a while) connect to the wireless network, since there was a driver problem for the wireless card.  This (I believe) started when Yoichi was doing updates on it a while back.

The system: Belladonna is a Dell Inspirion E1505 laptop, with a Broadcom Corporation Dell Wireless 1390 WLAN Mini-PCI Card (rev 01)

Result:  Belladonna now can talk to it's wireless card, and is connected to the Martian network.  (MEDM and Dataviewer both work, so it must be on the network.)

What I did:

0.  Find a linux forum with the following method:  http://www.thelinuxpimp.com/main/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=749

The person who wrote this has the exact same laptop, with the same wireless card.

1.  Get a new(er) version of ndiswrapper, which "translates" the Windows Driver for the wireless card to Linux-ese.  Belladonna previously was using ndiswrapper-1.37.

$wget http://nchc.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/ndiswrapper/ndiswrapper-1.42.tar.gz 2. Put the ndiswrapper in /home/controls/Drivers, and installed it.$ndiswrapper -i bcmwl5.inf  3.  Get and put the Windows driver in /home/controls/Drivers/WiFi$wget http://ftp.us.dell.com/network/R140747.EXE 4. Unzip the driver$unzip -a R140747.EXE

5.  Make Fedora use ndiswrapper

$ndiswrapper -m$modprobe ndiswrapper

6. Change some files to make everything work:

/etc/sysconfig/wpa_supplicant      CHANGE FROM: DRIVERS="-Dndiswrapper"     CHANGE TO: DRIVERS="-Dwext"

/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-wlan0      CHANGE FROM: BOOTPROTO=none      CHANGE TO: BOOTPROTO=dhcp

/etc/rc.d/init.d/wpa_supplicant        CHANGE FROM: daemon $prog -c$conf $INTERFACES$DRIVERS -B        CHANGE TO: daemon $prog -c$conf $INTERFACES$DRIVERS -B

6.  Restart things

$service wpa_supplicant restart$service network restart

7.  Restart computer (since it wasn't working after 1-6, so give a restart a try)

8. Success!!!  MEDM and Dataviewer work without any wired internet connection => wireless card is all good again!

14840   Sun Aug 11 11:47:42 2019 gautamUpdateCDSBench test of c1iscaux

I bench tested the functionality of all the c1iscaux Acromag crate channels. Summary: we are not ready for a Monday install, much debugging remains.

1. DAC channels were tested using 4 ch oscilloscope and stepping the whitening gain sliders through their 15 gain settings
• Response was satisfactory - the output changes between 0 - 5 V DC in 15 steps.
• This analog voltage is converted to binary representation by an on-board ADC on the whitening boards. So we may have to tune the offset voltage and range to avoid accidental bit flipping due to the analog voltage of a particualr step falling close to the bit-flipping edge of the on-board ADC. This will require an in-situ test.
• Test passed
2. BIO output channels were tested using a DMM, and monitoring the resistance between the BIO pin and the RTN pin. In the "ON" state, the expected resistance is ~5 Mohm, and in the off state, it is ~3 ohms.
• The AA filter switches on BIO1 unit do not show the expected behavior - @ Chub, please check the wiring.
• All others (except the mbboDirect bits, see next bullet) were okay, including those for the CM board that are NOT part of the mbboDirect groups.
• Test failed
3. ADC channels were tested by driving a ~2Vpp 300mHz sine wave with a function generator, and looking at the corresponding EPICS channel with StripTool.
• I found that all the ADC channels don't function as expected.
• Part of the problem is due to incorrect formatting of the EPICS records in the db files, but I think the ADCs also need to be calibrated with the precision voltage source.
• Why only ADCs require calibration and not the DACs????
• Test failed
4. mbboDirect BIO output test - I made a little LED breadboard tester kit to simultaneously monitor the status of these groups of binary outputs.
• The LSB is toggled as expected when moving the gain slider along.
• However, the other bits in the group are not toggled correctly.
• I believe this is a problem with either (i) the way the EPICS record is configured to address the bits or (ii) the incorrect modbus datatype is used to initialize the ioc.
• It will be helpful if someone can look into this and get the mbboDirect bits working, I don't really want to spend more time on this.
• Test failed

I am leaving the crate powered (by bench supplies) in the office area so I have the option to work remotely on this.

15186   Tue Feb 4 18:13:01 2020 YehonathanUpdatePSLBench testing of PSL ai channels

{Yehonathan, Jon, Jordan}

I tested the ai channels of the new PSL Acromag by looping an already-tested ao channel (C2:PSL-FSS-INOFFSET) back to the different ai channels.

I use Jon's IFOTest with /users/jon/ifotest/PSL.yaml.

I created a spreadsheet for the testing based on the current wiring spreadsheet. I added two columns for the high and low readings for each ai channel (attached pdf).

I marked in red the failed channels. Some of them are probably calibration issues, but the ones that show the same voltage for high and low are probably disconnected wires.

I redid the test on the channel that seemed disconnected to confirm.

I created a yaml file with all the failed channels for retesting called /users/jon/ifotest/PSL_failed_channels.yaml.

Attachment 1: c1psl_wire_testing_-_By_Connector.pdf
15187   Wed Feb 5 08:57:11 2020 YehonathanUpdatePSLBench testing of PSL ai channels

I checked the failed channels against the EPICS database definitions and the yaml file inputted to IFOTest. The channels where the readings are something other than +10/0 V, but the high/low values do change, I think can be attributed to one of two things:

• An incorrect gain and/or offset conversion parameter in the yaml file
• The EPICS SMOO parameter (smoothing) is set to some long value

I fixed the channel gains/offsets in the master yaml file (PSL.yaml). I also disabled smoothing in the EPICS defintions of the new PSL channels for the purpose of testing. We can uncomment those lines after installing the new chassis if noise is a problem. Please go ahead and re-test the channels again.

 Quote: I marked in red the failed channels. Some of them are probably calibration issues, but the ones that show the same voltage for high and low are probably disconnected wires.
15189   Wed Feb 5 21:04:10 2020 YehonathanUpdatePSLBench testing of PSL ai channels

{Yehonathan, Jon}

We retested the failed ai channels. Most of them got fixed by applying the inverse calibration in the yaml file.

We still find some anomalous channels, mostly in the DB25 connector. Turns out, their limits were ill-defined in the EPICS database. Specifying the right limit fixed the issue.

We find one miswired channel (BNC4). We connected the BNC to the right channel on the Acromag unit which fixed the issue.

Overall all the ai channels were successfully bench-tested.

Quote:

I checked the failed channels against the EPICS database definitions and the yaml file inputted to IFOTest. The channels where the readings are something other than +10/0 V, but the high/low values do change, I think can be attributed to one of two things:

• An incorrect gain and/or offset conversion parameter in the yaml file
• The EPICS SMOO parameter (smoothing) is set to some long value

I fixed the channel gains/offsets in the master yaml file (PSL.yaml). I also disabled smoothing in the EPICS defintions of the new PSL channels for the purpose of testing. We can uncomment those lines after installing the new chassis if noise is a problem. Please go ahead and re-test the channels again.

 Quote: I marked in red the failed channels. Some of them are probably calibration issues, but the ones that show the same voltage for high and low are probably disconnected wires.
14561   Mon Apr 22 21:33:17 2019 JonUpdateSUSBench testing of c1susaux replacement

Today I bench-tested most of the Acromag channels in the replacement c1susaux. I connected a DB37 breakout board to each chassis feedthrough connector in turn and tested channels using a multimeter and calibrated voltage source. Today I got through all the digital output channels and analog input channels. Still remaining are the analog output channels, which I will finish tomorrow.

There have been a few wiring issues found so far, which are noted below.

Channel Type Issue
C1:SUS2-PRM_URVMon Analog input No response
C1:SUS2-PRM_LRVMon Analog input No response
C1:SUS2-BS_UL_ENABLE Digital output Crossed with LR
C1:SUS2-BS_LL_ENABLE Digital output Crossed with UR
C1:SUS2-BS_UR_ENABLE Digital output Crossed with LL
C1:SUS2-BS_LR_ENABLE Digital output Crossed with UL
C1:SUS2-ITMY_SideVMon Analog input Polarity reversed
C1:SUS2-MC2_UR_ENABLE Digital output Crossed with LR
C1:SUS2-MC2_LR_ENABLE Digital output Crossed with UR

15535   Fri Aug 21 15:27:00 2020 gautamUpdateBHDBetter BHD mode-matching

Summary:

The mode-matching between the LO and AS beams is now ~50%. This isn't probably my most average mode-matching in the lab, but I think it's sufficient to start doing some other characterization and we can try squeezing out hopefully another 20-30% by putting the lenses on translation stages, tweaking alignment etc.

Details:

The main change was to increase the optical path length of the IFO AS path, see Attachment #1. This gave me some more room to put a lens and translate it.

• The LO path uses two lenses, f=200mm and f=100mm to focus the collimator output beam, which is supposedly ~1200um diameter, to something like 400um diameter (measured using beam profiler but not very precisely).
• This beam is  fairly well collimated, and the beam size is close to what the PMC cavity will want, I opted not to tweak this too much more.
• For the AS beam, the single bounce reflection from ITMY was used for alignment work.
• There is a 2" f=600mm lens upstream (not seen in Attachment #1). This supposedly makes a beam with waist ~80um, but I couldn't numerically find a good solution numerically if this assumption is true, so I decided to do the mode-matching empirically.
• A single f=150mm lens got me a beam that seemed pretty well collimated, and roughly the same size as the LO beam, so I opted to push ahead with that. Later, I measured with the beam profiler that the beam is ~600um in diameter, so the beam isn't very well matched to the LO spot size, but I decided to push ahead nevertheless.
• Patient alignment work enabled me to see interference fringes.
• Note that the ITM reflection registers 30 cts (~80 uW). Assuming 800mW transmission through the IMC, I would have expected more like 800mW * 5.637% * 50% * 98.6% * 50% * 10% * 30% * 50% * 50% = 80uW, so this is reasonable I guess. The chain of numbers corresponds to T_PRM * T_BS * R_ITM * R_BS * T_SRM * T_vac_OMC_pickoff * R_in_air_BS * R_homodyneBS.
• The IFO AS beam appears rather elliptical to the eye (and also on the beam profiler). It already looks like this coming out of the vacuum so not much we can do about it right now I guess. By slightly rotating the f=150mm focusing lens so that the beam going through it at ~10 degrees instead of normal incidence, I was able to get a more circular beam as measured using the beam profiler.
• With the AS beam blocked, the LO beam registers 240 cts on each DCPD (~0.7 mW).
• The expected fringe should then be (sqrt(240) + sqrt(30))^2 - (sqrt(240) - sqrt(30))^2 ~ 440 cts pp.
• The best alignment I could get is ~200 cts pp, see Attachment #2.

Next steps:

Try the PRMI experiments again, now that I have some confidence that the beams are actually interfering.

See Attachment #3 for the updated spectra - the configuration is PRMI locked with carrier resonant and the homodyne phase is uncontrolled. There is now much better clearance between the electronics noise and the MICH signal as measured in the DCPDs. The "LO only" trace is measured with the PSL shutter closed, so the laser frequency isn't slaved to the IMC length. I wonder why the RIN (seen in the SUM channel) is different whether the laser is locked to the IMC or not? The LO pickoff is before the IMC.

Attachment 1: IMG_7548.JPG
Attachment 2: BHD_MM.png
Attachment 3: PRMI_DCPDs.pdf
6485   Wed Apr 4 21:43:16 2012 Mike J.UpdateComputersBetter Hysteresis Model

A better hysteresis model based on the simple harmonic oscillator equation. Useless variables have been removed and output can now be saved to workspace for plotting. The model is at "/users/mjenson/matlab/SHO_hyst.mdl".

Attachment 1: SHO_hyst.png
7957   Tue Jan 29 19:50:49 2013 JenneUpdateLockingBetter POP layout, no extra PRM motion with locked cavity

[Jenne, Jamie, Manasa]

Today's activities focused on getting the POP layout improved, so that we could get clean data for the mode scan measurement.

As Jamie and Koji pointed out yesterday, the beam was still a little too big on the POP DC PD, and was falling off the diode when the beam moved a small amount.  We have fixed things so that the PD is now at the focus of the lens, and the camera is at a place where the beam takes up most of the area on the TVs.  The beam no longer falls off the PD with cavity fluctuations.  A key point of this work was also to use an extra 2" optic to steer the beam down the length of the POP table, and then do the 50/50 beam splitting later with a 1" optic.  The 1" BS that we had been using (including with the "real" POP beam) is too small.  We could not find a 2" 50/50 BS, so we opted to do the splitting closer to the focal point.  Also, the BS that was splitting the beam between the PD and the camera was a 33% reflector, but now is a 50/50 BS. When we put back the 'real' POP path, we need to consider using larger optics, or a faster lens. The POP path is now good, hopefully for the duration of the half cavity test.

After getting the POP path taken care of, and tweaking up the cavity alignment a little bit, the transmitted power on POP DC is ~22,000 counts, with occasional fluctuations as high as 25,000 counts.

Jamie looked at the REFL path, and things look sensible there.  The unlocked REFL power is ~36 counts, and the locked power is ~20 counts.  I'm not sure what the 160 counts that Koji mentioned in his edits to elog 7949 is about.

I looked at the PRM oplev with the cavity locked and unlocked, and with today's alignment, there seems to be no difference in the amount of PRM motion when the cavity is locked vs unlocked.

It still looks like we might be seeing some clipping in the in-vac POP steering mirrors - we haven't gotten to them yet.

Jamie is currently modifying Yuta's mode scan analysis script to look at the data that we have of the cavity.

We need more 2" optics.  There are no mounted 2" spares in the various optic "graveyards" (which, PS, we should consolidate all into the cabinet with doors near the optics bench), and the options for boxes in the drawers is slim pickin's.  We have some S-pol stuff, but no Y1s or BS-50s for P-pol.  Since POP, POX, POY, IPANG, TRX and TRY all come out of the vacuum with large beams, we should have some options for these laying around for this kind occasional temporary thing.  We also need to choose, then purchase better 2" lenses for the pickoffs.

Attachment 1: HalfPRCL_PRM-flatMirror_RefsAreLocked_OthersUnlocked.pdf
9459   Thu Dec 12 21:23:15 2013 ericqUpdateGreen LockingBetter Xarm OLTF

With the newly repaired PDH board, I spent some time with the x arm green PDH loop. I found it SO MUCH EASIER to measure the OLTF by injecting before the servo, instead of after it. (i.e. I added a swept sine from the SR785 to the mixer output (error signal) before the servo input). This is likely because the error signal is much flatter. I used a 10mV excitation across the whole frequency range (30-100kHz).

Here's the OLTF. I'm working on fitting it and breaking it up into its constituent TFs, then making a rudimentary noise budget.

9461   Thu Dec 12 22:12:17 2013 KojiUpdateGreen LockingBetter Xarm OLTF

OK, the next question will be "why the loop bandwidth is so miserable?"
In other words, what is preventing us to have the bandwidth of 20~30kHz?
Your breaking down will give us the answer.

9464   Fri Dec 13 11:47:11 2013 GabrieleUpdateGreen LockingBetter Xarm OLTF

I'm not as good as a fit, but it seems that there is a loop delay of about 30 microseconds, looking at the high frequency phase. This might explain the limitation on the BW. Eric should be able to get the delay out of the fit with some care.

860   Wed Aug 20 12:04:47 2008 JenneUpdateSUSBetter diagonalization of PRM input matrix
The values here should replace those in entry #851 from yesterday.

After checking the results of the input matrix diagonalization, I have determined that Sonia's method (described in LIGO-T070168) is more effective at isolating the eigenmodes than Shihori's method (LIGO-T040054).

So, the actual new PRM input matrices are as follows:

 POS PIT YAW UL 0.9678 1.000 0.7321 UR 1.000 0.8025 -0.9993 LR 0.7235 -1.1230 -1.0129 LL 0.6648 -1.0452 1.0000

Attached are plots of the spectra of the eigenmodes, using both Shihori's and Sonia's methods. Note that there isn't a good way to get the side peak out of the eigenmodes.

I've put these into the SUS-PRM MEDM screen.
Attachment 1: PRM_Eigmodes_shihori.png
Attachment 2: PRM_Eigmodes_sonia.png
1237   Mon Jan 19 13:58:53 2009 YoichiUpdateASCBetter ditherServo.pl
Nick Smith (@LHO) tested the ditherServo.pl at Hanford.
He added options to specify exit conditions to the script. Now you can make the script exit when
a condition, such as ArmPower > 1.0, is satisfied, or let it wait until a certain condition is satisfied.

I also modified the script to use ezcastep instead of tdswrite for feedback actuation.
The script now runs ezcastep in the background while the next iteration of the tdsdmd is performed.
Instead of kicking mirrors with a big thrust each time by a single tdswrite command, ezcastep gently moves the mirrors with fine steps.
I also implemented this "background ezcastep" technique in Tobin's tdscntr.pl.

The alignment scripts run smoother now.
11502   Thu Aug 13 12:06:39 2015 Jessica SummaryIOOBetter predicted subtraction did not work as well Online

Yesterday I adjusted the preweighting of my IIR fit to the transfer function of MC2, and also managed to reduce the number of poles and zeros from 8 to 6, giving a smoother rolloff. The bode plots are pictured here:

The predicted IIR subtraction was very close to the predicted FIR subtraction, so I thought these coefficients would lead to a better online filter.

However, the actual subtraction of the MCL was not as good and noise was injected into the Y arm.

The final comparison of the subtraction factors between the online and offline data showed that the preweighting, while it improved the offline subtraction, needs more work to improve the online subtraction also.

Attachment 1: newBodeX.png
Attachment 2: newBodeY.png
Attachment 3: pred_Sub.png
Attachment 4: MCLSub.png
Attachment 5: YarmSub.png
Attachment 6: comparison.png
ELOG V3.1.3-