A new violin mode at 1303 Hz was ringing up this afternoon.  Rana and I added a notch for this.

RXA: while the mode at 1303.6 Hz was ringing down, I used the narrowband DTT technique to measure the Q (after turning on the notch in SUS-PRM_LSC). So its another frequency in the PRM (not the BS).

The time that it takes for 2 -foldings is 652 s, which implies that Q = pi*f*tau = 1.3e6. This seems too high by a factor of ~10, so my guess is that there is still some feedback path happening. The previous bandstop filter was centered around 1285 Hz and seems also weird that the PRM would have 2 violin modes with such different frequencies. Is the mirror rotated around the optic axis such that the standoffs are not at the same height?

Successful PRMIsb locking with REFL165I/Q

My previous entry suggested that somehow the REFL165 signals show reasonable separation between PRCL and MICH, contrary to our previous observation.
I don't know what is the difference now. But anyway I took this advantage and tried to lock sideband resonant PRMI.

REFL165I was adjusted so that the signal is only sensitive to PRCL. Then REFL165I and Q were mixed so that the resulting signal shows.
(Next time, we should try to optimize the Q phase to eliminate PRCL and just use the I phase for PRCL.

At first, I used AS55Q for lock acquisition and then switched the MICH input matrix to REFL165.
Later I found that I can acquire PRMI just turning on AS55Q without turning off REFL165.

The REFL165 MICH signal had an offset of 15cnt. The lock was more robust and the dark port was darker once the MICH input offset was correctly set.

MICH OFS = 0
Turn on AS55Q only / or AS55Q + REFL156I/Q
Once it is locked and all of the FMs are activated, give -15.0OFS to MICH.
Turn off AS55Q.

Input ports:
AS55       WHTN: 21dB  demod phase -5.5deg
REFL165 WHTN: 45dB demod phase -156.13deg

Input matrix:
AS55Q x1.00 MICH
REFL165I x-0.035 + REFL165Q -0.050 MICH

REL165Q x+0.14

Triggers:
MICH POP110I 100up/10down / FM Trig FM2/3/6/7/9 35up 2down 5sec delay
PRCL POP110I 100up/10down / FM Trig FM2/3/6/9 35up 2down 0.5sec delay

Servo:
MICH OFS -15.0 / Gain -10 / Limitter ON
PRCL OFS 0 / Gain -0.02 / Limitter ON

Output matrix:
MICH ITMX -1.0 / ITMY +1.0
PRCL PRM 1.0

Step by step description of transition from 2arm ALS to Common/Differential LSC for FPMI

- Step 0: Place the frequencies of the arm green beams at the opposite side of the carrier green.

- Step 1: Activate stablization loops for ALSX and ALSY simultaneously.
  (Use LSC filter modules for the control. This still requires correct handling of the servo and filter module triggers)

- Step 2: Activate stablization loops for ALS Common and Differential by actuating ETMX and ETMY

- Step 2 (advanced): Activate stabilization loops for ALS Common by actuating MC2 and ALS Differential by ETMX and ETMY

- Step 3: Transition from ALS Common to 1/SQRT(TRX)+1/SQRT(TRY). Make sure that the calibration of TRX and TRY are matched.
  The current understanding is that the offset for 1/SQRT(TRX)+1/SQRT(TRY) can't be provided at the servo filter. Figure out
  what is the correct way to give the offsets to the TR signals.

- Step 4: Lock Michelson with AS55Q and then POP55Q (PD not available yet) or any other PD, while the arms are kept off-resonant using ALS.

- Step 5: Reduce the TR offsets. Transition to RF CARM signals obtained from POP55I or REFL11I in the digital land.

- Step 5 (advanced): Same as test6 but involve the analog common mode servo too.

- Step 6: Transition from ALS Differential to AS55Q

Independent test: One arm ALS (To be done everyday)

- ALS resonance scan

- Measurement of out-of-loop displacement (or frequency) stability 

- Check openloop transer function

Independent test: Common Mode servo for one arm

- Reproduce Decmber CM servo result of transition from one arm ALS to CM servo
  Insert 1/sqrt(TRY) servo in between?

- How can we realize smooth transition from ALS to POY11?

 I have modified the script ALSchangeOffsets.py (in ..../scripts/ALS/) to also handle a "CARM" situation.  There is a new button for this on the ALS in LSC screen.  This script takes the desired offset, and puts half in the ALSX offset, and half in the ALSY offset.  Whatever offset you ask for is given the sign of the input matrix element in the ALS->CARM row of the input matrix.  For example, if you ask for a CARM offset of 1, and the matrix elements are ALSX->CARM=+1 and ALSY->CARM=-1 (because your beatnotes are on opposite sides of the PSL), you will get an offset of +0.5 in ALSX and -0.5 in ALSY, which should be a pure CARM offset. The offsets get set as expected, but I haven't had a chance to test it live while the arms are locked. 

I also want to write a script that will average the IN1 of the 1/sqrt(TR) signals, and put that number into the 1/sqrt(TR) offsets.  If this is run when we are at about half fringe, this will set the zero point of the 1/sqrt(TR) signals to the half fringe (or where ever we are).  Then, we need a script similar to the ALS CARM one, to put offsets into the CARM combination of 1/sqrt(TR)s. 

I think that putting the offsets in before the servo filters will mean that the signals coming out of the input matrices will already be at their zero points, so we won't have as much trouble shifting from ALS to IR.

You don't need to make transition from ALS X/Y to ALS C/D. Just stabilize the arms with ALS C/D from the beginning.

The ALS error (i.e. phase tracker output) is linear everywhere, but noisy.
The 1/sqrt(TR) is linear and less noisy but is not linear at around the resonance and has no sign.
The PDH signal is linear and further less noisy but the linear range is limited.

Why don't we combine all of these to produce a composite error signal that is linear everywhere and less-noisy at the redsonance?

This concept was confirmed by a simple mathematica calculation:

The following plot shows the raw signals with arbitorary normalizations

1) ALS: (Blue)
2) 1/SQRT(TR): (Purple)
3) PDH: (Yellow)
4) Transmission (Green)

The following plot shows the preprocessed signals for composition

1) ALS: no preprocess (Blue)
2) 1/SQRT(TR): multiply sign(PDH) (Purple)
3) PDH: linarization with the transmission (If TR<0.1, use 0.1 for the normalization). (Yellow)
4) Transmittion (Green)

The composite error signal

1) Use ALS at TR<0.03. Use 1/SQRT(TR)*sign(PDH)*(1-TR) + PDH*TR at TR>0.03
2) Transmittion (Purple)
 

In order to better understand how the composite signal would behave in the presence of noise, I decided to do a simple analysis of the cavity signals while sweeping through resonance.

My noise model was to just assume that a given signal has some rms uncertainty (error bars) and use linear error propagation to propagate from simple signals to more complicated ones.

I used the python package uncertainties to do the error propagation.

I assumed that the ALS signal, the cavity transmission, and the cavity PDH error signal all have some constant noise that is independent of the cavity detuning. Below is a sweep through resonance (x axis is cavity detuning in units of radians).

The shaded region represents the error on each signal.

Next I calculated the 'first order' calculated error signals. These being a raw PDH, normalized PDH, an inverse square root trans, and the normal ALS again. I tuned the gains so they match appropriately.

Here, one can see how the error in the trans signal propagates to the normalized and trans signals and becomes large are the fractional error in the trans signal becomes large.

Next I did some optimization of linear combinations of these signals. I told the code to maximize the total signal to noise ratio, while ensuring that the overall signal had positive gain. I did this again as a function of the cavity detuning.

Each curve represents the optimized weight of the corresponding signal as a function of detuning.

So this is roughly doing what we expect, it prefers ALS far from the resonance, and PDH close to the resonance, while smoothly moving into square root trans in the middle.

It's a little fake, but it gives us an idea of what the 'best' we can do is.

Finally I used these weights to recombine the signals into a composite, to get an idea of the noise of the overall signal. At the same time, I plot the weighting proposed by Koji's mathematica notebook (using trans and 1-trans, and a hard switch to ALS).

So as one can see, at least for the noise levels I chose, the koji weighting is not much worse than the 'optimal' weighting. While it is much simpler.

The code for all this is in the svn at 40mSVN/nicolas/workspace/2014-03-06_compositeerror

Using Koji's mathematica notebook, and Nic's python work, I set out to run a time domain simulation of the error signal, with band-limited white noise added in. 

Basically, I sweep the displacement of the cavity (with no noise), and pass it to the analytical formulae with the coefficients Koji used, with some noise added in. I also included some 1/0 protection for the linearized PDH signal. I ran a sweep, and then compared it to an ALS sweep that Jenne ran on Monday; reconstructing what the CESAR signal would have looked like in the sweep. 

The noise amounts were totally made up. 

They matched up very well, qualitatively! [Since the real sweep was done by a (relatively) noisy ALS, the lower noise of the real pdh signal was obscured.]

Given this good match, we were motivated to start trying to implement it on Monday. 

At this point, since we've gotten it working on the actual IFO, I don't plan on doing much more with this simulation right now, but it may come in handy in the future...

The LSC model was modified for CESAR.

A block called ALSX_COMBINE was made in the LSC block. This block receives the signals for ALS (Phase Tracker output), TRX_SQRTINV, TRX, POX11 (Unnormalized POX11I).
It spits out the composite ALS signal.

Inside of the block we have several components:

1) a group of components for sign(x) function. We use the PDH signal to produce the sign for the transmission signal.

2) Hard triggering between ALS and TR/PDH signals. An epics channel "THRESH" is used to determine how much transmission
we should have to turn on the TR/PDH signals.

3) Blending of the TR and PDH. Currently we are using a confined TR between 0 and 1 using a saturation module. When the TR is 0, we use the 1/SQRT(TR) signal for the control,
    When the TR is 1, we use the PDH signal for the control.

4) Finally the three processed signals are combined into a single signal by an adder.

It is important to make a consideration on the offsets. We want all of ALS, 1/SQRT(TR), and PDH to have zero crossing at the resonance.
ALS tends to have arbitorary offset. So we decided to use two offsets. One is before the CESAR block and in the ALS path.
The other is after the CESAR block. Right now we are using the XARM servo offset for the latter purpose.

We run the resonance search script to find the first offset. Once this is set, we never touch this offset until the lock is lost.
Then for the further scanning of the arm length, we uused the offset in the XARM servo filter module.

After making the CDS modification, CESAR was tested with ALS.

First of all, we run CESAR with threshold of 10. This means that the error signal always used ALS.
The ALS was scanned over the resonance. The plot of the scan can be found in EricQ's elog.
At each point of the scan, the arm stability is limited by the ALS.

Using this scan data, we could adjust the gains for the TR and PDH signals. Once the gains were adjusted
the threshold was lowered to 0.25. This activates dynamic signal blending.

ALS was stabilized with XARM FM1/2/3/5/6/7/9. The resonance was scanned. No glitch was observed.
This is some level of success already.

Next step was to fully hand off the control to PDH. But this was not successfull. Everytime the gain for the TR was
reduced to zero, the lock was lost. When the TR is removed from the control, the raw PDH signal is used fot the control
without normalization. Without turning on FM4, we lose 60dB of DC gain. Therefore the residual motion may have been
too big for the linear range of the PDH signal. This could be mitigated by the normalization of the PDH signal by the TR.

The nominal gain of the XARM for the POX11 error signal is 0.03 (instead of previous 0.3)

This is due to my increase of the gain in FM4 by 20dB so that we can turn of FM4 without changing the UGF when it is at 150Hz.

The YARM servo was not yet touched.

 Very nice error signal. Still, I think we need to take into account the frequency shape of the transfer function TR -> CARM. 

True. But we first want to realize this for a single arm, then move onto the two arms case.
At this point we'll need to incorporate frequency dependence.

I confirmed that we need to vent the chambers.

All of the mirrors have been aligned except for ETMX.

ETMX does not respond to the excitation by the UR and LR coils. Likely that the magnets are knocked off, or stuck in the coil.

PRM/SRM oplevs are too much off and can't be turned on. Need realignment of the beams on the QPDs.

- FB was down. FB restarted ("telnet fb 8087", then type shutdown)

- Aligned the MC mirrors.

- Aligned PRM. Look at the REFL. It was slightly mislisligned.

- AS has no beam. The Y arm was resonating with the green. So I determined that the TTs were the misaligned guys.

- Touched TT2 pitch with an increment of 0.1. Immediately the AS beam spot for ITMY was found. And the arm was resonating.

- The RM was further aligned. The bias sliders were saved and then the PRM was misaligned.

- Yarm was locked on TEM01. The ASS maximized the transmission for TEM01, and then the arm was locked on TEM00.
  The ASS aligned the arm and TTs. These values were saved.

- Yarm was aligned and I can see the AS spot. So I believe the BS is still well aligned.

- Aligned the PRM to reduce the ghost beams.

- Moved the ITMX to have Michelson fringes properly.

- Also aligned the SRM.

- Now ETMX was checked. Played with the alignment biases to see if the mirror was sticking on the coils. The mirror can rock a little, but it did not come back.

- Then, checked each magnets. 0.8Hz 1000cnt signals were injected to each coils (cf. C1:SUS-PRM_**COIL_EXC) to see how the mirror could react.
  The OSEM output and green spot on the ETMX cage were observed.

- Saw some response by actuating the UL, LL, SD coils.

- Saw no response from the UR and LR coils. They show the OSEM output of zero. Does this mean the magnets fell in the coils?

//Manasa// MC spot positions measured and they look alright with not much change from before the earthquake (attach)

I tried to take the photos of the magnets from outside. So far most suspicious was LL.
Otherwise, the magnets are OK.
(The SD magnet is the one with most reasonable response.)
Steve will try to take much more zoomed photo with Olympus. But the LL coil already showed some response in my observation in the morning.

MC spot sposition script was ran

/opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/ASS/MC/mcassMCdecenter

Found no notable beam position change before and after the earthquake

I tried to repeat Koji's PRMI lock using REFL165I/Q. I was not able to lock PRMI stably. All I could get was momentary PRMI sb locks (few seconds) using AS55Q for MICH and REFL165Q for PRMI. I tried to transition MICH locks from AS55Q to REFL165I/Q and this did not work well; I lost even the momentary locks.

The demod phases for both AS55 and REFL165 were also very different. 

Input ports:
AS55       WHTN: 21dB  demod phase -78.7deg
REFL165 WHTN: 45dB demod phase -80.7deg

Input matrix:
AS55Q x1.00 MICH

REL165Q x+0.14

Triggers:
MICH POP110I 100up/10down / FM Trig FM2/3/6/7/9 35up 2down 5sec delay
PRCL POP110I 100up/10down / FM Trig FM2/3/6/9 35up 2down 0.5sec delay

Servo:
MICH OFS 0.0 / Gain -10 / Limiter ON
PRCL OFS 0 / Gain -0.023 / Limiter ON

Output matrix:
MICH ITMX -1.0 / ITMY +1.0
PRCL PRM 1.0

Extending the previous model, I've closed a rudimentary CESAR loop in simulink. Error signals with varying noise levels are combined to bring a "cavity" to lock.  

There are many things that are flat out arbitrary at this point, but it qualitatively works. The main components of this model are:

• The "Plant": A pendulum with f0 = 2Hz, Q = 10
• Some white force noise, low passed at 1Hz before input to the plant.
• The Controller: A very rough servo design that is stable...
• ALS signal: Infinite range Linear signal, with a bunch of noise
• Transmission and PDH signals are computed with some compiled C code containing analytic functions (which can be a total pain to get working), have less noise than ALS
• Some logic for computing linearized PDH and SqrtInv signals
• A C code block for doing the CESAR mixing, and feeding to the servo

And it can lock! 

Right now, all of the functions and noise levels are similar to the previous simulation, and therefore don't tell us anything about anything real...

However, at this point, I can tune the parameters and noise levels to make it more like our interferometer, and thus maybe actually useful. 

[Manasa, Eric, Koji]

PRMIsb was locked with REFL165I&Q.

- Aligned the arms with ASS. The misaligned ETMX and ETMY

- Configured PRMIsb with IFO_Configure screen

- Immediately PRMIsb was locked with REFL55I&Q

- Checked the REFL165 phase in terms of the REFL165Q vs PRCL. It was already well adjusted at -82.5deg. We tuned the phase a bit more and got -83.5deg.

- With DTT, relative gain between REFL55I and REFL165I was measured. REFL165I is about x10 higher than REFL55I and has the same sign.

- The transition of PRCL with the input matrix was just easy.

- With DTT, relative gain between REFL55Q and REFL165Q was measured. REFL165Q is about x3 higher than REFL55Q and has the same sign.

- The transition of MICH was flakey, but after careful adjustment of the PRM alignment, ~10s lock was achieved. It seemed that the PRM alignment fluctuation
  was bug enough to unlock the interferometer.

- Eric went into the lab and aligned all of the oplevs except for the SRM's one.

- Now the lock with REFL55 and also with REFL165 became more robust. Less MICH offset and darker AS port.

Input ports:
REFL55   WHTN: 45dB demod phase +45.0deg
REFL165 WHTN: 45dB demod phase -83.5deg

Input matrix: for acquisition:
REFL55I x 1.0 -> PRCL
REFL55Q x 1.0 -> MICH

Input matrix: PRCL Transition:
REFL55I x 1.0 + REFL165I x 0.0 -> x0.5 + x0.0 -> x0.5 + x0.05 -> x0.3 + x0.05 -> x0.2 + x0.05 -> x0.1 + x0.05 -> x0.0 + x0.05

Input matrix: MICH Transition:
REFL55Q x 1.0 + REFL165Q x 0.0 -> x0.5 + x0.0 -> x0.5 + x0.3 -> x0.3 + x0.3 -> x0.2 + x0.3 -> x0.1 + x0.3 -> x0.0 + x0.3

Triggers:
MICH POP110I 100up/10down / FM Trig FM2/3/9 35up 2down 5sec delay
PRCL POP110I 100up/10down / FM Trig FM2/3/6/9 35up 2down 0.5sec delay

Servo:
MICH OFS 0 / Gain 1.3 / Limitter ON
PRCL OFS 0 / Gain -0.04 / Limitter ON

Output matrix:
MICH PRM -0.2625 / BS 0.5
PRCL PRM 1.0

Incidentally, while messing around with transfer functions and sensing matrix elements this evening, I was able to sideband lock straight onto REFL33 I&Q.  The settings were all identical to Koji's ELOG, with the following differences:

Input ports:
REFL33   WHTN: 30dB demod phase +125.5deg (tweaked from 135.5 to minimize MICH in I)

Input matrix:

REFL33I x +1.0 -> PRCL
REFL33Q x +3.0 -> MICH

Servo:
MICH OFS 0 / Gain 1/ Limitter ON (Oscillations occurred at 1.3)
PRCL OFS 0 / Gain -0.04 / Limitter ON

Output matrix:

MICH ITMX -1.0 / ITMY 1.0
PRCL PRM 1.0

While I'm looking at the PRM ASC servo model, I tried to use the current servo filters for the ASC
as Manasa aligned the POP PDs and QPD yesterday. (BTW, I don't find any elog about it)

I found no issue for locking PRMIsb with the REFL165I&Q signals if the PRM ASC is employed.
See this entry for the IFO settings.

It is just stable. The IFO is ready for the arm scanning.

=== ASC setting ===

PRCL_PITCH: FM1/3/9 x-0.004
PRCL_YAW: FM1/3/9 x-0.001

The PRM OPLEV has to be off when the PRM ASC is engaged. Actually, it turned out that we don't need OPLEV for locking.

I aligned MC2 suspension by 0.01 in pit and yaw to align the MC better to the PSL beam. Then I turned the WFS back on. The beams are not centered on the WFS heads.

Nic and Gabriele ought to send their SURF some example code (in April) for how to start redesigning the WFS telescopes so that we can order some optics in early June.

I've also turned on the MC2 TRANS path to gather some data over the weekend on how well or bad it works. Please turn it off on Monday.

 MC2_TRANS path in WFS servo turned OFF.

 Guilty!!

POP path

The POP PD was showing only ~200 counts which was very low compared to what we recollect from earlier PRMI locks (~400 counts). Also, the POP ASC QPD was also not well-aligned.
While holding PRMI lock on REFL55, I aligned POP path  to its PD (maximize POP DC counts) and QPD (centered in pitch and yaw).

X and Y green

The X green totally lost its pointing because of the misaligned PZTs from last week's power failure. This was recovered.
Y arm green alignment was also recovered.

Last week, while I had the PRMI locked on REFL33, I did some poking around with mirror excitation to RFPD quadrature transfer functions. I got some indication of weird things with sensing MICH with the 3F REFL signals, but it should be explored more before taken as a real thing. I just figured I would show what I saw. 

With that disclaimer out of the way, here's what I did:

• Locked PRMI on PRCL:REFL33_I and MICH:REFL33_Q, as detailed in my earlier ELOG
• Created PRCL and MICH excitations at two different frequencies, notched said frequencies out of the control filters
• Took transfer functions from mirror LSC output signals to 33 I, 33 Q, 165 I, 165 Q in DTT
• For each DOF, look at the measured transfer functions only at the excitation frequency. (Assuming good coherence, which was there)

The basic idea was, some PRCL motion (for instance), has a transfer function to both the I and Q quadratures at a given PD. As the PRCL excitation sine wave goes through one cycle, the REFL signals at the excitation frequency go through some coherent cycle. Thus, the excitation traces out some trajectory in the I vs. Q plane. I believe this is analogous to the typical "radar plot" that we make for sensing matrix elements. 

However, the straight line that we normally plot in the radar plots assumes a certain phase relationship between the DOF-> I and DOF->Q transfer functions that results in a straight line. Here are the trajectories I actually measured, normalized by the excitation amplitudes.

The plotted traces are (x,y) = (H_prcl->I * prcl, H_prcl->Q * prcl) and  (x,y) = (H_mich->I * mich, H_mich->Q * mich) where H_prcl->I is the measured complex transfer function from prcl to REFL I, for instance, and prcl and mich are the excitation signals, normalized to unit amplitude.

PRCL looks like a nice straight line in both of these, and pretty well phased, but not only is MICH not very orthogonal to PRCL, there is quite a bit of ellipticity present, which means we can't fully decouple the two DOFs, even if they were nominally orthogonal. 

I'm not sure what may cause this. To back up this measurement/interpretation, I tried to take measurements of these transfer functions across different excitation frequencies via swept sine DTT, but seismic activity kept me from staying locked long enough...

I guess that you get an ellipse when the transfer functions to I and Q have a different phase. One mechanism could be that when driving MICH we make some residual PRCL and this couples with a different transfer function to both I and Q. However, I would expect no phase lag in the PRMI configuration, since there is no enough optical delay in the system to give significant dephasing at few hundreds Hz. This effect might come from mechanical resonances.

It is worth measuring the optical transfer functions from both PRCL and MICH to REFL signals at all frequencies, to see if we have strange features in the TFs.

A series of measurements / calculations for the PRM ASC characterization and servo design

1) Actuator characterization

The actuator responses of the PRM in pitch and yaw were measured (attachment figure 1). I believed the calibration of the oplev QPD to be
1 count/urad. The oplev servo loops were turned off at the FM inputs, and the filter banks were turned off so that the response has the open
loop transfer function except for the servo filter.

The measured transfer functions were fitted with LISO. The LISO results (c.f. the source codes) were shown in the figure. The responses also
include the 60Hz comb filter present in the input filters. The responses are well approximated by the single pendulum with f0 of 0.6-0.8 and q of 3.5 and 6.3.

From this measurement, the actuator responses of the PRM at DC are estimated to be 2.2 urad/cnt and 1.8 urad/cnt in pitch and yaw, respectively.

2) Sensor response of the POP QPD

As we already know how the actuators respond, the QPD optical gain can be characterized by measuring the actuator response of the QPD
(attachment figure 2). The QPD signals are such noisy that the response above 1Hz can't be measured with sufficient coherence. Below 1Hz,
the response is well represented by the actuator response measured with the oplev. From this measurement, the optical gains of the QPD
with respect to the PRM motion are 650 cnt/urad and 350 cnt/urad.

3) Open loop transfer function of the current ASC servo

By combining the above information with the servo setting of the servo filters, the open loop transfer functions of the PRM QPD ASC loops
were estimated (attachment figure 3). Actually the expected suppression of the fluctuation is poor. The yaw loop seems to have
too low gain, but in fact increasing gain is not so beneficial as there is no reasonable phase margin at higher frequency.

With the estimated openloop transfer functions and the measured free-running angular fluctuation, the suppressed angular spectra can be
estimated (attachment figure 4). This tells us that the suppression of the angular noise at around 3Hz is not sufficient in both pitch and yaw.
As there is no mechanical resonance in the actuator response at the frequency, intentional placement of poles and zeros in the servo filter is necessary.

4) Newly designed ASC filter

Here is the new design of the QPD ASC servo (attachment figure 5). The target upper UGF is 10Hz with the phase margin of 50 to 60deg.
The servo is AC coupled so that we still can tweak the alignment of the mirror.

As this servo is conditionally stable, at first we should close the loops with stable filter and then some boosts should be turned on.
Estimated suppressed fluctuation is shown in the attachment figure 6. We can see that the fluctuation was made well white between 0.5Hz to 10Hz.

The filter design is shown as follows:

Pitch
FM1: zero at 0Hz, pole at 2000Hz, gain at 2000Hz = 2000

FM3: (boost)
zero: f: 0.5Hz q: 1  /  4.5Hz, q: 1 / f: 1Hz, q: 3
pole: f: 2Hz q: 3  / f: 2.7Hz, q: 2  / f: 1Hz, q: 15

FM9: (HF Roll-off)
pole: f: 40Hz q: 1.7
 
Servo gain: -0.028

Yaw
FM1: zero at 0Hz, pole at 2000Hz, gain at 2000Hz = 2000

FM3: (boost)
zero: f: 0.7Hz q: 2  /  3Hz, q: 7 / f: 2Hz, q: 6
pole: f: 1.02Hz q: 10  / f: 4.5Hz, q: 0.8  / f: 1.5Hz, q: 10

FM9: (HF Roll-off)
pole: f: 40Hz q: 1.7
 
Servo gain: -0.0132

Koji and I have the PRMI locked right now, and we hear a very strong violin mode ringing up, at 628Hz.  This is, according to Koji's elog 9634, what we expect the PRM's violin mode to be.  However, the current PRM violin mode notch is really more of a bandstop filter, between 622-670Hz.  At 628Hz, it has a suppression of about -20dB.  If I try to increase the width of this notch by making it 612-670Hz, the PRMI won't hold lock.

We're leaving this as a daytime task for tomorrow, since we're in the middle of taking data to show that Koji's new ASC filter design (slightly tuned from his elog 9769) works well.

Edit:  I have moved the PRM violin notch frequency over to 612-660 Hz, and after letting it sit for a while (while locked on PRMI), the violin mode has settled down.  Interestingly, if I compare the spectrum with and without the 1st order violin mode notch, it looks like the 2nd order mode changes from 1256Hz to 1303Hz.  I don't know what is going on here, but we already have notches for both of those frequencies.

[Koji Jenne]

New PRM ASC was implemented. [to be cnt'd]

As the designed ASC filters in this entry had too little phase margins (~10deg), I had to compromise the servo design.

The design was modified and tested again. This will be reported by a following entry.

Incidentally, I have adjusted the demodulation phases of REFL33/55/165 for PRMIsb so that the PRCL is eliminated from the Q signals.

REFL33    125.5 deg -> +136.5 deg
REFL55      45.0 deg -> +  25.0 deg
REFL165   -79.5 deg -> +  44.5 deg

This change of the demod phase for REFL165 was a bit surprising.
I did not check the sign, so it could be -135.5 deg. But still this is a bit change.

The new PRM ASC design

Pitch
FM1: zero at 0Hz, pole at 2000Hz, gain at 2000Hz = 2000

FM5: (boost)
zero: f: 0.5Hz q: 1  /  4Hz, q: 2 / f: 1Hz, q: 3
pole: f: 2Hz q: 3  / f: 2.7Hz, q: 2  / f: 1Hz, q: 15

FM9: (HF Roll-off)
pole: f: 40Hz q: 1/Sqrt(2) (2nd order butterworth)

Servo gain: -0.023

Yaw
FM1: zero at 0Hz, pole at 2000Hz, gain at 2000Hz = 2000

FM5: (boost)
zero: f: 0.5Hz q: 1  /  4Hz, q: 2 / f: 1.5Hz, q: 10
pole: f: 1.02Hz q: 10  / f: 3Hz, q: 5  / f: 2Hz, q: 6

FM9: (HF Roll-off)
pole: f: 40Hz q: 1/sqrt(2)
 
Servo gain: -0.027

The loop gains were adjusted to have the UGFs of 10Hz. The measured openloop transfer functions were compared with the model.
The transfer functions for yaw are well matched. However, the pitch ones don't. It seems that the pitch loop has extra low pass
which I can't locate. The possibility is the analog electronics of the pitch loop.

The effect of the control between 0.3Hz to 3Hz are well represented by the model. The attachment 2 shows the free running
angle fluctuation, the ones with the control engaged, and the estimated spectra. Indeed, the estimated spectra well represent
the measured angular spectra.

 The other day, Jenne and I were comparing my MIST simulation to her Optickle simulation for the CARM transfer functions I posted some days ago. She told me that the arms are not exactly where they should be for the whole "PRC length tuning to account for sideband reflection phase off resonant cavity" deal. 

Specifically, as in the wiki (but with newer modulation frequencies), I calculated the ideal arm length to be 37.795 m some time ago, when doing PRC length simulations, and Jenne has told me that the X arm is more like 37.6m, and Y is 37.9. So, I updated my simulations, and found the following:

This does weird things to the f2 sideband buildup on resonance in the PRFPMI configuration:

(POP is way huger than than the TR's, because the POP pd's are artificially "inside" the cavity, whereas TRX/Y is actually transmitted through an ETM)

This is not necessarily directly something to worry about, but I think the following may be. It looks like this arm length mismatch actually causes the PRCL demodulation phase in REFL 165 to change dramatically with the CARM offset. (REFL33 seems fine, though. 5 degrees causes less than a 1% effective gain change.) 

My simulations don't include any signal recycling yet, so I don't have anything to show if there is a similar effect for SRCL, but it wouldn't surprise me... 

In today's ISC call, Kiwamu was comparing two ways to approach resonance: 

• "C-Type": The scheme we currently think about; zero DARM offset and slowly reduce the CARM offset
• "D-Type": Start with no CARM offset, but a DARM offset and reduce that. 

D-type might be interesting to check out, since things change a little less dramatically when you reduce the DARM offset. Maybe this makes signal hopping easier? Signal recycling may complicate things, though. 

So, I've simulated CARM and DARM offset effects on CARM and DARM signals. (As with the previous plots, this is for the PRFPMI configuration.) From moving both offsets around, it looks like the resonance peak is about 5x wider in DARM than in CARM, so I simulated a 50pm offset range for CARM and a 250pm offset range for DARM. 

Here are some CARM signal transfer functions subject to CARM offsets in the top plot, and DARM offsets in the bottom plot. 

It's looks like the DARM offset changes cause much less dramatic changes in the CARM plant features. It's conceivable that this would make CARM locking easier. 

Here are some DARM plant transfer functions. 

In these plots, I did something kind of artificial: when we move the CARM offset, it changes the proper demodulation phase to get DARM in the Q of the AS 1F RFPDS. So, at each CARM offset, I re-phased the AS 1F demodulators, to show the total DARM information available at the AS RFPDs at each offset, rather than what one would actually see in them with a static demod phase. 

[From yesterday]

The MC had not been stable lately with WFS drifting constantly. I checked the servo and found that the MC_TRANS path was still running. It turned out that the autolocker script enables the TRANS path in the locking process. I have turned the MC_TRANS path servo inputs OFF and now it is no more a part of the WFS servo.

P.S. Jenne fixed the PMC alignment mostly in pitch to bring it up to 0.81 from 0.77. But the temperature fluctuations have still not got us to the sweet spot for optimum PMC trans.

To check the basolute frequency stability of the old monochrome HP 8591E RF Spectrum analyzer that we're using for the ALS beat readout, I hooked its 10 MHz reference output (from its rear panel) into the A channel of the SRS SR620 frequency counter. The SR620 is locked to the FS 720 Rubidium clock via the 10 MHz connections in their rear panels.

So, we can assume that this is a good absolute readout. It reads 9.999860.7 +/- 0.3 Hz. So its 139.1-139.4 Hz lower than 10 MHz. The +/- 0.3 is just a slow drift that I see over the course of 10 minutes.

So, let's say that the analyzer is low by 10 ppm, so the arm length estimates are short by ~0.4 mm. A negligible correction, so there's no need to use atomic clocks to measure our arm lengths.

We turned on the MC2_TRANS paths for both PIT/YAW tonight.

I turned off the BLP200 and turned on the RLP7 (RLP always are better than BLP). G_PIT = -0.111, G_YAW = 0.111. On Monday, let's let Steve look at the trends and determine if this centering servo is bad or good.

I should've included this in my Thursday night ELOG... That evening, I aligned the mode cleaner with reasonable MC1/3 spot positions, and the MC2 spots very close to centered, and recentered the WFS and MC2 Trans QPDs. The mode cleaner held up very well over the course of that evening, even when actuating CARM on MC2 with WFS engaged (which previously wasn't very stable when the WFS weren't well aligned).

The MC was showing slow but periodic alignment drifts and eventually unlocked around noon. I looked up the alignment trend (Attach: 2 day trend)

MC_TRANS_PIT_ERR and MC_TRANS_Y_ERR show that the MC_TRANS servo slowly drifted the IMC alignment causing it to lose lock from time to time (mostly in yaw).

To confirm that the drift was NOT due to off-centering in the MC2_TRANS QPD, I turned off the WFS servo, moved MC2 to recenter the trans beam on the QPD, and re-enabled WFS servo.

MC_TRANS path in WFS is still left enabled.

This is a 4-day trend. I don't see any difference here which is significant. My guess is that the MC_TRANS servo gain is so low that its not really doing anything.

I'll turn it on periodically this week and then on Monday people can look at the trend again to see if they can identify when the servo is ON and when its OFF.

During a lull in Koji vs. The Arm, I switched on the MC2_TRANSQPD feedback path to check out its UGF. In the past months, when its been on, it has had a gain of ~0.03 - 0.1.

Today, I found that with the gain turned up to 11, it has a ~1 minute step response time (as you see in the above Strip chart). So its had a UGF of ~2 hours or so during the times when we thought it might be doing bad or good or magic.

I leave it on now to see if it behaves well over the next days. Let's see if Steve thinks its good or not based on his trend monitoring.

** also touched up the PMC pointing (using the PMC REFL image / please never align the beam into the PMC without this camera image)

After Jamie fixed the third party repo issue with Ottavia, he was able to upgrade it to Ubuntu 12.04 Precise Pangolin. But its network stopped working.

I tried to fix its issues by ifconfig and GUI, but what it really wanted was for me to put the network cable back into its eth0 slot. The eth1 network card appears not be working anymore.

All seems fine now. Next I will mount the shared user disk from linux1 and put in a .bashrc.

Last night after checking cabling and turning on ISS, we tried several times to handoff to REFL_DC but it didn't work at all.

Some issues:

1. The ISS was injecting a lot of very low frequency power fluctuations because of bad AC coupling.
2. The SR560 @ LSC rack was saturating a lot with the x10 gain that Jenne and Rana put in; we turned it back to G = 1.
3. The ISS was also saturating a lot. We turned it off around 4 AM, but still no success.
4. The ALS sequence for finding the Red Resonance takes too long (~2 minutes), so we're trying a faster scheme tonight.

 We want there to be ~16000 cts of signal per quadrant on the optical levers. I think that most of the QPDs have been modified to have 100k transimpedance resistors.

From the attached 90 day trend, you can see that the ETMX, BS, PRM, and SRM are really low. We should figure out if we need to change the lasers or if the coating reflectivities are just low.

Steve, can you please measure the laser powers with a power meter and then reply to this entry?

Another possibility is that we are just picking a dim beam and a brighter one is available.

 Still no success tonight

• We took CARM OLTFs at various CARM offsets and could clearly see the peak in the optical TF (in once case ~2.5kHz), which gave us an indication of our offset (~200pm)
• REFLDC effectively sees the same plant TF as the transmission signals plus a zero at ~110 Hz, at all offsets under 1nm, from my simulations; this pushes up the optical resonance and causes a loop instability when we try to handoff. 
• We need to make the CARM OLTF steeper to suppress this instability, but also to make a good crossover with the AO path, which otherwise has too similar of a slope around the UGF, as we saw with our one arm test. 
• We're thinking of trying to turn the AO path on with REFLDC while keeping the arms on SQRTINV signals. This may be tricky, but if we can get the loop bandwidth above the optical peak, it'll be a lot easier to deal with, and transfer digital control to REFLDC as well. 

For some reason or another, I decided that we should see if the optical lever servos were injecting too much noise into the test masses. The ITMs are much worse than the ETMs and I am afeared that they might be making the main noise for our arms in the 20-40 Hz region. Jenne is checking up on these feedback loops to see what's up.

To estimate the actuator gains of the mirrors, I turned on 1 count drives from LSC/CAL oscillators into the LSC drives of each test mass at the frequencies shown in the plot with the resulting peaks showing up in in POX/Y with the single arm locks in red. I will leave these going permanently, but with 0.1 count ampltiudes; we need to make it so in the scripts.

We need to go back and have a look at all of our optical lever control filters, and make sure they make sense. 

In particular, we should have a look at the ITMs, since they have a huge amount of motion around 10Hz. 

Notes:  ETMX shouldn't have that lower notch.  The bounce mode Qs should be lowered.

 I'm in the process of filling this table

 I should replace ETMX He/Ne laser

I took loop measurements of ETMX pit and yaw, and set the upper UGF to be ~6Hz for both.  This required a pitch gain of 25, and a yaw gain of 16.

The spectra look similar to what they were before Steve did the swap.

I believe that the Xend aux laser was turned off earlier today, for Steve's work swapping out the oplev.  When I went down there, the red "off" LED was illuminated, and the LCD screen was showing something.  I pushed the green "on" button, and I immediately got green.

Also, I saw that the 24Hz roll mode was very rung up on ETMX.  I looked at the FM5 "bounce roll" filter, and it had some old values, 12Hz and 18Hz for the resonant gains.  All other optics have the proper 16Hz and 24Hz frequencies.  I copied the BS oplev bounce roll filter over to ETMX pit and yaw (both were wrong), and loaded them in.  The mode is starting to ring down.