I finished working out the circuit and figured out where the broken connections were. This is diagrammed in my notebook (will draw up more nicely and include in future elog post). Within the QPD circuitry, it seems like there are already opamps which regulate the circuit. I need to discuss the final diagram further with Eric.

I rewired the circuit inside the QPD box, which took awhile because it was difficult to solder the wires to such small locations without having multiple wires touch. This is completed, and on Friday I will begin to make the circuit to add/subtract signals to give pitch and yaw.

[Yuta, Manasa]

We turned IFO power back to 1.25W by removing the attenuator and forgot that the Y1 mirror before the REFL PD must be replaced with BS 10% before getting to full power. The PD is dead  and now we are in the process of fixing it. Forgive us for all our sins!

On the other note, we have changed the mech shutter mode from N.O back to N.C. So the shutter now works as usual from the medm screen.

Today I tested the circuitry within the QPD to make sure I had put it back together correctly. The output was able to detect when a laser pointer was shone on different quadrants of the QPD when hooked up to the oscilloscope, so fixing the QPD worked! 

Following this, I spent awhile understanding what was going on with the circuit reading from the QPD. I concluded that the opamp on the QPD circuit acted as a low pass filter, with corner frequency of about 17 kHz, which serves our purposes (we are only interested in frequencies below 1 kHz). I diagrammed the circuit that I plan to build to give pitch and yaw (attached). It will be necessary to make small modifications to the circuitry already built (removing some resistors), which I have started on. 

Next time, I will construct the circuit that adds/subtracts signals on a breadboard and test it with the QPD circuit that is already built. 

I corrected the circuit diagram I constructed last time - it would read 0 output most of the time because I made a mistake with the op amps. This will be attached once I discuss it with Eric.

I searched the 40m lab and ended up finding a breadboard in the Bridge lab. I then spent awhile trying to remove the QPD from the circuit board it was on, which was difficult since it had 6 pins. After that, I soldered wires to the QPD legs and began constructing the circuit on the breadboard. I also spent time showing Annalisa the setup and explaining my project.

On Friday I will try and reconstruct all of the circuitry from before for the QPD.

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

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

Here is the transimpedance for the other PD used for MC REFL

How much is the exact resonant frequency?

And what's the unit of the plot? The resonant "transimpedance" in the unit of Ohm can not be ~10⁰.

 The exact resonant frequency is 29.38MHz. I ve uploaded the other plot. It was the output of Vectfit.

 Is the DC transimpedance now 10010 Ohm? I ve used 50 Ohm. Which one is correct?

Today I finished building the adding/subtracting circuit for the QPD and tested that the QPD could see a laser moving across its visual field for both pitch and yaw. It didn't seem to behave weirdly (saturate) at the edges, but I need to test this more carefully to be sure.

However, this circuit uses many op amps, which will cause problems for building the actual circuit to fit into the QPD box. I am trying to figure out how to do this with fewer op amps (both with a quad op amp for amplifying the signals from the QPD and by summing/subtracting the signals with a single op amp instead of 3).

I finally got around to asking Steve to order more breadboards! Trying to determine what would be a good QPD to order for the final circuit, since we do not have any unmounted QPDs that aren't ancient. I'll read up on things I don't know enough about (namely op amps).

I have sketched out the circuit design for the QPD. However, it seems like even when using a different opamp configuration, which I talked to Eric about on Friday, space will be a problem. It may be possible to squeeze everything onto a single circuit board to fit in the QPD box but what I think is more likely is that I will need to have 2 separate circuit boards both mounted within the box, one which integrates the signal from the QPD and the other which adds/subtracts (this involves many resistors which will take up a lot of space). I will continue to think about the best design for this.

I will try to have the circuit built in the next week or so, which may be difficult since I just started finals which will take most of my time. I spent most of this week writing up an ECDL proposal for a SURF with Tara. I'll make up for whatever work I miss since I'll be here for my spring break and doing little besides working in lab.

This is the final version of the QPD circuit I'm going to build. After playing around with the spatial arrangement, this should fit into the box that I was planning to use, although it will be a rather tight fit. The pitch, yaw, and summing circuit will be handled with a quad op amp. Planning to meet with Eric tomorrow to figure out the logistics of building things.

In the meantime, I'm reading about designing the ECDL for my summer project with Tara. He sent me several papers to read so we can talk on Wednesday.

In order to test the mount vibrations, I will likely try and make a different circuit work (with the summing/subtracting on an external breadboard) and designing an optimal circuit will be a side project. This is the circuit with the power supply Rana came up with, and the design I had in mind for the rest of the circuit. In my free time, I will try to figure out what parts to get that reduce noise and slowly work on building this, since it would be useful to have in the lab. 

 https://www.circuitlab.com/circuit/7sx995/qpd-circuit/#postsave_access_control_settings

I built the summing/subtracting circuit on the breadboard, and hooked this up with one of the other QPDs I found (image of setup attached). I wasn't able to get this to read the correct signals when testing with a laser pointer after a couple of hours of troubleshooting... I will hopefully get this working in the next day or 2...

I'm going to read up on ECDL stuff for Tara tonight and hopefully figure out what sort of laser diode we should purchase, since I'm meeting with Tara tomorrow. experimenting

Because we would like to get started on testing mount vibrations as soon as possible, I've been trying to get one of the other QPDs we found to work with the summing/subtracting circuit on a breadboard. I've been using a power supply that I think Jamie built 15 years ago... which seems to be broken as of today, since I no longer read any signal from it with an oscilloscope.

I tried using a different power supply, but I still can't read any change in signal with the QPD for any of the quadrants when using a laser pointer to shine light on it. I'll be working with Eric on this later this week. In the meantime, I'll try and come up with a shopping list for the nicer QPD circuit that'll be a longer term side project.

The voltage regulator on the QPD breadboard seems to be having problems... yesterday Eric helped me debug my circuit and discovered that the +12V regulator was overheating, so we replaced it. Today, I found that the -12V regulator was also doing the same thing, so I replaced it. However, it's still overheating. We checked all of the setup for the power regulators yesterday, so I'm not sure what's wrong.

I've also noticed that not all the connections on the breadboard that I've been using seem to work - I may search for a new breadboard in this case. Need to check I'm not doing something stupid with that.

Breadboards may not be suitable for a reliable work. Why don't you switch to any protoboard and real soldering?

[Eric, Riju]

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

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

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

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

Missing Component: Digital Fiber Power Meter, Thorlab PM20C

 Here I am attaching the first schematic diagram of the PD frequency response set-up, I will keep updating it with relevant informations with the progress of the work.

Description: Our objective is to set-up one simultaneous transfer-function measurement system for all the RF-PDs present in 40m lab. A diode laser will be used to illuminate the PDs. The diode laser output will be divided by 1x16 fiber splitter and will be sent to all the PDs through single-mode fiber. The transfer function of the PDs will be measured using network analyzer(Agilent 4395A). The output of the PDs will be fed to network analyzer via one RF-switch. The diode laser will be controlled by the controller ILX LDC 3744C. The scanning frequency signal will be fed to this controller from network analyzer through its external modulation port. The output of the controller will be splitted  into two parts: one will go to laser diode and the other will be used as reference signal for network analyzer.

 [Eric, Riju]

Today we have routed the fibers from 1x16 fiber splitter to POX table for POX11 PD and POP55 PD. Also we labeled the fibers on AP table, they have been fixed on the table. The photo of the table after work is attached here. We will do it for POX table tomorrow. 

No.... what I told was to put the roll next to the splitter, not on the table.
The table area is more precious than the rack space.

Koji> The slack of the fibers should be nicely rolled and put together at the splitter side.

 Ok, will do it on the coming week.

Annalisa and I met yesterday and fixed the voltage regulator on the breadboard so the QPD circuit is working. We will meet with Eric on Thursday to determine the course of action with measurements.

Koji spent some time earlier this evening exploring where the excess RIN that we see in the PRC is coming from. 

He did this by locking the PRMI (MICH on AS55Q, PRCL on REFL33I, Pnorm for MICH = sqrt(POP110) with 0.1, Pnorm for PRCL = sqrt(POP110) with 10, MICH gain = -30, PRCL gain = 8), and then exciting each relevant optic, one at a time, in yaw.  The excitation was always using the ASCYAW excitation point on each of the optics (BS, PRM, ITMX, ITMY), with a frequency of 4.56 Hz, and an amplitude of 30 counts.

He also took reference traces with no optics excited.

Here, I plot (for each excited optic separately) the reference traces and traces during excitation for POP110_I_ERR, POPDC, and the OPLEV_YERROR for the optic that is being excited.

What we are looking for (only in yaw, since we see on the cameras that the dominant motion is in yaw) is an increase in POPDC and POP110 at the same frequency as an optic's excitation. 

We see that neither ITM is contributing a noticeable amount to either POPDC or POP110.  BS is contributing a little bit, but PRM is clearly contributing.  No this entry should be read. (KA)

A week or two ago, I calculated in elog 8489 that the angular motion that we see does not explain the RIN that we're seeing, unless our cavity is much more unstable than Jamie calculated in elog 8316. 

I think that I need to install one of the T240's on the new granite slab, and see what kind of coherence we have between seismic and PRM yaw motion, and if FF can get rid of it.

There was an issue with running the new summary pages, because laldetchar was not included (the website I used for instructions doesn't mention that it is needed for the summary pages).  I figured out how to include it with help from Duncan.  There appear to be other needed dependencies, though.  I have emailed Duncan to ask how these are imported into the code base.  I am making a list of all the packages / dependencies that I needed that weren't included on the website, so this will be easier if/when it has to be done again.

Most dependencies are met.  The next issue is that matplotlib.basemap is not installed, because it is not available for our version of python.  We need to update python on megatron to fix this.

 I'm still seeing some problems with this - some laptops are losing and not recovering any connection. What's to be done next? New router?

 Mike and Christian brought over a Mac laptop for surf Alex. 

They power cycled the wireless router of 40Marsh and labtops are working.  Seeing 75-80% signals on all 3 Dell lab top sisters at both end of the lab

 [Alex, Koji]

We characterized Koji's BBPD MOD for REFL165 (see attachment).

First, we calibrated the Agilent 4395 Network Analyzer (NA) to account for differences in cable features between the Ref PD and Test PD connections. This was done using the 'Cal' softkey on the NA. 

Then we performed transimpedance measurements for the test PD and reference PD relative to the RF output of the NA and relative to each other (see 2nd attachment. Note that the NA's RF output is split and sent to both the IR Laser and the NA's Ref input).

Next, we made DC measurements of the outputs of the photodetectors to estimate the photocurrent distribution of the transimpedance setup (like the 2nd attachment, but with the outputs of the PDs going to a multimeter). By photocurrent distribution, we mean how the beamsplitter and respective quantum efficiencies/generalized impedance/etc. of the PDs influence how much current flows through each PD at with a DC input.

Finally, we measured the output noise as a function of photocurrent (like the 2nd attachment, but with a lightbulb instead of the IR Laser). Input voltages for the lightbulb ranged from 0mV to 6V. Data was downloaded from the NA using netgpibdata from the scripts directory. Analysis is currently in progress; graphs to come soon.

Alex and Eric

For the photodetector frequency response automation project, we plan to add modules to rack 1y1 as shown in the attached picture (Note: boxes are approximately to scale). 

The RF switch will choose which photodetector's output is sent to the Agilent 4395A Network Analyzer.

The Diode Laser Module is powered by Laser Power Supply, will be modulated by the Network Analyzer and will be output to a 1x16 optical splitter which is already mounted in another rack (not pictured). 

The Transformer Module has not been built yet.

We would like to install the power supply and the laser module tomorrow and will not begin routing fibers and cables until we post a drawing in the elog.

Also, our reference photoreceiver arrived today.

[Eric, Alex]

We mounted our Laser Module and Laser Power Source in rack 1y1. We plan to add our RF Switch and Transformer Module to the rack, as pictured. (Note: drawn-in boxes in picture are approximately to scale.) Note that the panel of knobs which the gray boxes overlap is obsolete and will soon be removed.

 Summary:

Continued with tests on the PZT driver board. I made a few changes to replace defective components and also to modify the gain of the HV amplifier stage. I believe the board has been verified to be satisfactory, and is now ready for a piezo to be connected, tested and calibrated.

Changes made:

• I tested the board with the full 100V bias voltage today, working my way up from 30V in steps of about 20V and verifying the output at each stage.
• In order to deliver 100V to the board, it was necessary to change the maximum current limit on the KEPCO supply, which is set at default at ~1.6 mA. The KEPCO power supply placed near rack 1X2 (which I believe was used to power a piezo driver board) is labelled 150V, 12 mA, though I found that the board only drew 7mA of current when the power supply output 100V. I have set the limit to 10 mA for the time being.
• The potentiometer in the third stage (R44 in the schematic) was faulty so I replaced it with another 100K potentiometer, which was verified to work satisfactorily.
• We expect the DAC output to supply a voltage to the input of the PZT driver board in the range -10V to 10V. Today, I verified this by using my temporary break-out cable. I hooked this up to the DAC at 1Y4 and output a 3 Hz sine wave with amplitude of 32000 counts (the maximum) on channel 9. The output as observed on an oscilloscope (image attached) was a 10Vpp sinusoid, confirming the above hypothesis. As mentioned in my previous elog, the gain of the high-voltage amplifier stage is ~15, which would mean the output would saturate if the input were to be >6V. I have changed the gain of all 4 stages (M1-pitch, M1-yaw, M2-pitch and M2-yaw) to ~4.85 by swapping the 158k resistors (R43, R44, R69 and R70 in the schematic) for 51k resistors. 
• It was necessary to change the value of the biasing potentiometers after the change in gain so that 0 input voltage once again provided 50V at the output, as required by the PZTs for there to be no tilt. This was done and verified. This biasing voltage now is ~10.4V in all four stages.
• Having adjusted the gain, I tested the circuit over the expected full range of the input voltage from the DAC (from -10V to 10V) from the DS345 function generator (0.05Hz sinusoid). I monitored the output using a multimeter, as the monitor channels were peaking at ~7V, which was above the limit for the oscilloscope I was using. It was verified for all four channels that the output was between 0 V and 100 V (the safe range quoted in the datasheet for the tip-tilts, for this range of input voltages. So I think we are ready to connect a PZT to the board and conduct further tests, and calibrate the PZT. 

Pending Issues:

• Koji pointed out that there has to be an anti-imaging filter stage between the DAC output and the filter stage, which I had not considered till this point.Another subtle point is that the DAC output is differential while the driver boards have a single-ended input, which means we effectively lose half the range of the PZTs. 
• A suitable candidate is the D000186-rev D. Some information about the present state of this board is detailed in this elog. This board also solves the problem of the differential vs single input as the input to the AI board is differential while the output is single-ended. Koji has given me one of the boards he had collected. 
• Some changes will have to be made to this version of the board in order to make it compatible with the existing DAC. I will first have to measure the power spectrum of the DAC output to verify that the AI boards need notches at 64k and 128k. The existing notches are at 16k and 32k, and once the DAC power spectrum has been verified, I hope to affect the necessary changes by switching out the appropriate capacitors on the existing board. 
• The AI board is an extra element which I have now added to an updated wiring diagram, attached.

Revised Wiring Diagram:

DAC Max. Output Trace on Oscilloscope

 [Eric, Alex]

We are planning to add our reference PD to the southern third of the AS Table as pictured in the attachment. The power supply will go under the table.

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.
 

 I installed 'nfs-client' on zita (the StripTool terminal). It now has mounted all the shared disks, but still can't do StripTool since its a 32-bit machine and our StripTool is 64.

The PSL HEPA stopped working while it was running at 80%. I have closed the PSL enclosure.

Steve is working to fix this.

I measured the transfer functions in the delay line cables, and then calculated the time delay from that.

The first cable had a time delay of 1272 ns and the second had a time delay of 1264 ns. 

Below are the plots I created to calculate this. There does seem to be a pattern in the residual plots however, which was not expected. 

The R-Square parameter was very close to 1 for both fits, indicating that the fit was good. 

I tried to recompile the modbusApp binary for linux-arm acrhitecture since I suspected someting wrong with it. But still the problem persists; I can connect to acromag but cannot access the channels. I have also reconfigured new acromag bus works terminal XT 1221-000 and I want to test if I could access its channels. My target is to complete this acromag setup work before sunday morning so that I can focus towards having some useful results for my presentation.
 

Gautam and I were able to get the Raspberry Pi up and running today, including being able to ssh into it from the control room.

Below are some details about the setup/procedure that might be helpful to anyone trying to establish Ethernet connection for a new RPi, or a new operating system/SD card.

Here is the physical setup:

The changes that need to be made for a new Raspbian OS in order to communicate with it over ssh are as follows, with links to tutorials on how to do them:

1. Edit dhcpcd.conf file: https://www.modmypi.com/blog/how-to-give-your-raspberry-pi-a-static-ip-address-update

2. Edit interfaces file: https://www.mathworks.com/help/supportpkg/raspberrypi/ug/getting-the-raspberry_pi-ip-address.html

3. Enable ssh server: http://www.instructables.com/id/Use-ssh-to-talk-with-your-Raspberry-Pi/

The specific addresses for the RPi we set up today are:

IP Address: 192.168.113.107

Gateway/Routers/Domain Name Servers: 192.168.113.2

Netmask: 255.255.255.0

GV: I looked through /etc/var/bind/martian.hosts on chiara and decided to recycle the IP address for Domenica.martian as no RPis are plugged in right now... I'm also removing some of the attachments that seem to have been uploaded multiple times.

1064 nm Semiconductor Laser Fiber Distribution System and Mirror Tomography

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

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

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

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

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

Eric

I am currently working on an optical arrangement consisting of a QPD that measures the fluctuations of an incoming HeNe laser beam that is reflected by a mirror. The goal is to add a second QPD to the optical arrangement to form a linear combination that effectively cancels out the (angular) fluctuations from the laser beam itself so that we can only focus on the fluctuations produced by the mirror.

In order to solve this problem, I have written a program for calculating the different contributions of the fluctuations of the HeNe laser and fluctuations from the mirror, for each QPD (program script attached). The goal of the program is to find the optimal combination of L0, L1, L2, and f2 that cancels the fluctuations from the laser beam (while retaining  solely the fluctuations from the mirror) when adding the fluctuations of QPD 1 and QPD 2 together. 

By running this program for different combinations of distances and focal lengths, I have found that the following values should work to cancel out the effects of the oscillations from the HeNe laser beam (assuming a focal length of 0.2 m for the lens in front of the original QPD):

• L0 = 1.0000 m (distance from laser tube to mirror)

• L1 = 0.8510 m (distance from mirror to lens in front of QPD 1)

• L2 = 0.9319 m (distance from beamsplitter to lens in front of QPD 2)

• f2 = 0.3011 m (focal length of lens in front of QPD 2)

Based on these calculations, I propose to try the following lens for QPD 2:

1’’ UV Fused Silica Plano-Convex Lens, AR-Coated: 350 - 700 nm (focal length 0.3011 m). https://www.thorlabs.com/newgrouppage9.cfm?objectgroup_id=6508

The cavity scan data obtained from the Finesse simulation is attached here. Fig1 indicates the cavity scan data in the absence of induced misalignment. In that case only the fundemental mode is resonating. But when a misalignment is induced, higher order modes are also present as seen in Fig2. This is in the absence of surface figure error in the mirrors. Now I am trying to provide perturbations to the mirror surface in the form of zernike polynomials and get the scan data fom the simulation. These cavity scan data can be used to develop fitting models. Once we have a model, we can use it to analyse the data from the experimental cavity scan.

Just to inform, I'm working in optimus to develop python code to train the neural network since it requires a lot of memory.

The unit mentioned in the x-axis was wrong. So I have remade the graphs. The point where frequency equals to zero is actually the frequency corresponding to the laser, which is in the range of 10¹⁴ Hz and it caliberated as zero.

finesse1.pdffinesse2.pdf

[Jon, Keerthana, Sandrina]

Yesterday we carried out preliminary proof-of-concept measurements using the new AS-port-injected AUX laser to resolve cavity mode resonances.

At the time we started, I found the beat note levels consistent with what Johannes had reported the night before post-realignment. Hence we did not change the AUX alignment.

Test 1: YARM Mode Scan

• IFO locked in YARM configuration on carrier.
• Confirmed the presence of a -80 dBm beat note on the temporary YEND broadband PD (i.e., at the cavity transmission).
• Slowly canned the RF offset of the AUX laser from 50 MHz (nominal) to 60 MHz in 10 kHz steps.
• Attachment 1 shows the measured scan in "max hold" mode. The bottom panel is the transmission spectrum and the top panel is the reflection, with the AUX/PSL carrier-carrier beat note visible to the far left. In addition to the FSR, it looks to me like the scan resolves at least two HOMs.

Test 2: PRC Mode Scan

• IFO locked in PRMI configuration on carrier.
• Moved the temporary 150 MHz PDA10CF from the YEND to an unused pickoff of the REFL33 beam (i.e., the PRC transmission of the AUX beam). There was an existing 50-50 beamsplitter just before REFL33 whose reflected beam was directed onto a beam dump. The PD is now placed in that location. The modification to the AS table is shown in Attachment 2.
• We made a similar slow scan of the AUX RF offset over ~35 MHz in 10 kHz steps.
• We resolve the 22 MHz FSR, but it is apparent that an incoherent "max-hold" analyzer measurement is inadequate. The problem is that in max-hold mode, because the 11 MHz-spaced PSL sidebands also beat with the AUX subcarrier, we measure a messy superposition of the PSLcarrier-AUXcarrier beat AND all of the PSLsideband-AUXcarrier beats. The next step is to use the AOM to make a coherent measurement at only the frequency of PSL/AUX carrier-carrier beat.

The SURFs have the data from last night's scans and will be separately posting plots of these measurements. We'll continue today with mode scans using AM sidebands rather than the AUX RF offset.

Aim: To find a model that trains the simulated data of Gaussian beam spot moving in a vertical direction by the application of a sinusoidal signal.

All the attachments are in the zip folder.

The simulated video of beam spot motion without noise (amplitude of sinusoidal signal given = 20 pixels) is given in this link https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oCqd0Ki7wUm64QeFxmF3jRQ7gDUnuAfx/view?usp=sharing

I tried several cases:

Case 1:

I added random uniform noise (ranging from 0 to 25.5 i.e. 10% of the maximum pixel value 255) using opencv to 64*64 simulated images made in the last case( https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8081/40m/13972), clipped the pixel values from 0 to 255 & trained using the same network as in the previous elog and it worked well. The variation in mean squared error with epochs is given in Attachment 1 & applied signal and output of the neural network (NN) (magnitude of the signal vs time) as well as the residual error is given in Attachment 2.

Case 2:

I simulated images 128*128 at 10 frames/sec by applying a sine wave of frequency 0.2Hz that moves the beam spot & resized it using opencv to 64*64. Then I trained 300cycles & tested with 1000 cycles with the following sequential model:

(i) Layers and number of nodes in each:

                                             4096 (dropout = 0.1) -> 1024 (dropout = 0.1) -> 512 (dropout = 0.1) -> 256  ->  64 ->  8   ->   1

           Activation :                        selu                   ->                 selu             ->         selu                -> selu ->  selu -> selu -> linear

(ii) loss function = mean squared error ( I used mean squared error to easily comprehend the result. Initially I had tried log(cosh) also but unfortunately I had stopped the run in between when test loss value had no improvement), optimizer = Nadam with default learning rate = 0.002

(iii) batch size = 32, no. of epochs = 400

I have attached the variation in loss function with epochs (Attachment 3). It was found that test loss value increases after ~50 epochs. To avoid overfitting, I added dropout to the layer of 256 nodes in the next model and removed the layer of 4096 nodes.

Case 3: 

Same simulated data as case 2 trained with the following model,

(i) Layers and number of nodes in each:

                                             1024 (dropout = 0.1) -> 512 (dropout = 0.1) -> 256 (dropout = 0.1) ->  64 ->  8   ->   1

           Activation :                              selu             ->         selu                ->              selu ->             selu -> selu -> linear

(ii) changed the learning rate from default value of 0.002 to 0.001. Rest of the hyperparameters same.

The variation in mean squared error in attachment 4  & NN output, applied signal & residual error (zoomed) in attachment 5. Here also test loss value increases after ~65 epochs but this fits better than the previous model as loss value is less.

Case 4:

Since in most of the examples in keras, training dataset was more than test dataset, I tried training 1000 cycles & testing with 300 cycles. The respective plots are attached as attachment 6 & 7. Here also, there is no significant improvement except that the test loss is increasing at a slower rate with epochs as compared to the last case.

Case 5:

Since most of the above cases were like overfitting (https://machinelearningmastery.com/diagnose-overfitting-underfitting-lstm-models/, https://github.com/keras-team/keras/issues/3755) except that test loss is less than train loss value in the beginning , I tried implementing case 4 with the initial model of 2 layers of 256 nodes each but with Nadam optimizer. Respective graphs in attachment 8, 9 & 10(zoomed). The loss value is slightly higher than the previous models as seen from the graph but test & train loss values converge after some epochs.

I have forgot to give ylabel in some of the graphs. It's the magnitude of the applied sine signal to move the beam spot. In most of the cases, the network almost correctly fits the data and test loss value is lower in the initial epochs. I think it's because of the dropout we added in the model & also we are training on the clean dataset.

(Analisa, Keerthana, Sandrine)

So far we tried four different techniques to scan the AUX laser. They are,

1. Scanning the marconi frequency to sweep the central frequency of the AUX laser.

2. Sweeping the side band frequency of the AUX laser by providing RF frequency from the spectrum analyser.

3. Double demodulation technique.

4. Single demodulation technique.

Now we are taking all the scan data with the help of Single demodulation technique.

(Gautam, Sandrine)

We calculated the expected power of the beat note for Annalisa's Y arm cavity scans. 

Beat Note Measurement

We began by calculating the transmitted power of the PSL and AUX. We assumed that the input power of the PSL was 25 mW and the input power of the AUX was 250 uW. We also assumed a loss of 25 ppm for the ITM and ETM. We used T1 = 0.0138 and T2 = 25 x 10-6. 

The transmitted power of the PSL is approximately 100 uW, and the transmitted power of the AUX is approximately 0.974 uW. 

The beat note was calculated with the following:

The  expected beat note should be approximately 20 uW. 

Kevin and I meaured the transfer function of the photodiode circuit using the Jenne laser and agilent in the 40m lab. The attached figures depict our measured transfer function over the modulation frequency ranges of 30kHz-30MHz and 1kHz-30MHz when the power of the laser was set to 69 and 95 μW. These plots indicate a clear roll off frequency around 300 kHz. In addition, the plots beginning at 1kHz display unstable behavior at frequencies below 30kHz. I am not sure why there is such a sharp change in the transfer function around 30kHz, but I suspect this to be due to an issue with the agilent or photodiode.