40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 63 of 341  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Authorup Type Category Subject
  7968   Wed Jan 30 19:30:21 2013 JenneUpdateLockingPOP in-vac improved

Quote:

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

 [Jenne, Jamie]

We fixed up, as best we can, the in-vac POP alignment.  We are entirely limited in yaw by the aperture size of the 2" 45deg mirror launching the beam out of the vacuum.  The main centroid of the beam is well centered, but the inflated weird part of the beam is totally clipped.  There's nothing we can do about it except use a much larger mirror, install a fast lens inside the chamber, or just fix the damn PRC.  I vote for the third option there.

How did we work our magic? 

We put a green laser pointer where the POP DC PD was, and injected it into the vacuum, just like we normally do.  However, this time, we made sure the green laser was centered on all of the out of vacuum mirrors, so that there was no real work to do once we turned off the laser pointer. We locked the cavity, and confirmed that we are well centered on all of the in and out of vacuum mirrors, and discovered our aperture problem with the last in-vac mirror.

Here is a snapshot of the POP camera:

HalfPRCL_PRM-flatMirror_POPtrans_30Jan2013.jpg

  7969   Wed Jan 30 19:34:17 2013 JenneUpdateLockingPRM coils need diagonalizing

[Koji, Jamie, Jenne]

Koji did this, while we actuated on PRM in pos, and watched the oplev.  Empirically, he found the following values for the POS column of the output matrix:

UL = 1.020

UR = 0.990

LL = 1.000

LR = 0.970

SD = 0.000

(The nominal values are all +1, except for Side, which is 0). 

Actuation of PRM was through C1:SUS-PRM_LSC_EXC, f=0.1Hz, A=100 counts.

 

Ed by KA:
This means UL and UR are increased by 2% and UR and LR are decreased by 3%. More precisely UR should be 1.02*0.97.
This is just a quick hack which works only for the DC.

  7973   Thu Jan 31 14:30:50 2013 JenneUpdateLockingMode spacing calc

I have calculated (using Zach's sweet software) the expected mode content for the various possible PRCs that we can make. 

Also, Zach was right about the factor of 2.  I see now that I was calculating the mode spacing between a plane wave and a HOM, so the guoy phase had a factor of (n+m+1).  The right thing to do is to get the spacing between the 00 mode and HOMs, so the guoy phase just has (n+m).  Switching from n+m+1=2 to n+m=1, that fixes the factor of 2 problem.

 I attach my results as a pdf, since I'm listing out 5 configurations.  Each config has a cartoon, with a small (hard to read) HOM plot, and then at the end, each HOM plot is shown again, but larger.  Also, "TM" is the "test mirror", the flat G&H that we're using as the cavity end mirror.

Attachment 1: Half_PRC_Configs.pdf
Half_PRC_Configs.pdf Half_PRC_Configs.pdf Half_PRC_Configs.pdf Half_PRC_Configs.pdf Half_PRC_Configs.pdf Half_PRC_Configs.pdf Half_PRC_Configs.pdf Half_PRC_Configs.pdf
  7974   Thu Jan 31 14:46:05 2013 JenneUpdateRF SystemPhotodiode transimpedance

Quote:

Today I collected the data for shot noise intercept current for MC REFL PD. I didn't get many data points at higher DC voltage of the photodiode, cause the incandescent bulbs get burnt at that level; two bulbs I have burnt today. I will process the data and report.

 This work was done in-situ, so no optics on the AS table were moved.  The PSL shutter was blocked since the IR beam was not necessary, and would scatter off the bulb Riju put in front of the PD. 

  7983   Fri Feb 1 12:34:55 2013 JenneUpdatePSLToo much power injected into vacuum

I noticed (while relocking the MC after Jamie and I zeroed the LSC offsets) that the MC refl power was 4.8 V.  Usually we should be ~4.2, so I closed the PSL shutter and went in to measure the power.  We were injecting ~125mW or a little more.  I had adjusted the power the other day, and through yesterday, it looked fine, but overnight it looks like it drifted up.

  7985   Fri Feb 1 15:12:53 2013 JenneUpdateLockingPRM/PR2 cavity

 After Jamie did all the work this morning on the POP table, I was able to get the cavity to lock.  It's not very stable until I engage the boost filters in the PRCL loop.  After locking, I tuned up the alignment a bit more.  Now we're taking mode scan data.  Look for results hopefully shortly after Journal Club!

  7986   Fri Feb 1 19:55:33 2013 JenneUpdateLockingPRM/PR2 cavity

[Jamie, Koji, Jenne]

We are looking at the mode scan data, and have some preliminary results!  We have data from when the cavity was aligned, when it was slightly misaligned in pitch, and slightly misaligned in yaw.

Inverting the equation for transverse mode spacing, we infer (for pitch misalignment) a cavity g-factor of 0.99, and from there (assuming the G&H mirror is flat and so has a g-factor of 1), we infer a PRM radius of curvature of 168 meters which is ~50% longer than we expected.

 

More results to come over the weekend from Jamie.

  8007   Wed Feb 6 11:59:12 2013 JenneUpdateLockingPRC cavity gains

EDIT:  These numbers are for a perfect, non-lossy arm cavity.  So, a half real, half imaginary world.

Carrier uses arm cavity reflectivity for perfectly resonant case.

PRC carrier gain, flipped PR2, PR3 = 61

PRC carrier gain, regular PR2, PR3 = 68  (same value, within errors, for no folding at all).

Carrier gain loss = (68-61)/68 = 10%

 

SB uses arm cavity reflectivity for perfectly anti-resonant case.

PRC SB gain, flipped PR2, PR3 = 21

PRC SB gain, regular PR2, PR3 = 22 (same value, within errors, for no folding at all). <--- yes, this this "regular PR2, PR3 = 22..."

SB % gain loss = (22-21)/22 = 4.5%

 

I claim that we will be fine, recycling gain-wise, if we flip the folding mirrors.  If we do as Yuta suggests and flip only one folding mirror, we'll fall somewhere in the middle.

  8008   Wed Feb 6 14:51:25 2013 JenneUpdateElectronics1 power supply replaced!

Quote:

Currently, DC power for amplifiers ZHL-1000LN+ is supplied by Aligent E3620A.
I tried to use power supply from the side of 1X1 rack, but fuse plug(Phoenix Contact ST-SI-UK-4) showed red LED, so I couldn't use it.

 Yuta, Jenne

We fixed things so that we are now using regular fused rack power for these amplifiers.  The fuse no longer had a red LED, but it measured open when we checked the resistance.  Although, somehow (magic?) 13.73V were getting to the other side of the fuse. 

Anyhow, replacing the fuse with a new one fixed the problem right up.

  8011   Wed Feb 6 15:11:21 2013 JenneUpdateElectronics"Temporary" power supply situation

[Jenne, Yuta, Rana, Steve, Manasa]

We have taken stock of the lab "temporary" power supply situation, and things look much better.

This morning, I removed 2 unused power supplies and a function generator from the PSL table - these had been used for MC ringdown things.

I also removed the non-connected cables that had been used for the RAMMON setup, and the EOM temperature controller circuit.

This afternoon, Yuta removed the 2 HV power supplies that were used to keep PZT2 working near the end of its life.  Since we now have the active TTs, these have been turned off for a while, and just needed to be removed.

Manasa removed the power supply under the POP/POX table that was powering the amplifier for POP22.  If we are going to continue using a Thorlabs PD for POP22, then we need to make a twisted pair of wires (~20 feet) to get power from 1X1.  If we are going to (finally) install a gold RF PD, then that will not be necessary.

I removed the power supply sitting near the bottom of the LSC rack, for another amplifier for POP22 (with minicircuits filters attached).  Again, if we get a gold RF PD, we can remove the filters and amplifier.  If not, we can use the existing twisted pair of wires, and plug them into the rack rather than a power supply. 

The power supply under the NE corner of the PSL table was no longer in use.  It was most recently used for amplifiers for the green beat PDs, as Yuta mentioned in elog 6862, those were moved over to 1X2.  In elog 8008 I mentioned that Yuta and I moved those amplifiers over to rack power.

The HV supply, the function generator and the OSA controllers that were on top of the short OMC rack next to the AS table have all been removed.  We need to come up with a better place for the OSAs, since we need to re-install them.  The power supply and the function generator (which was used just for a voltage offset) were formerly used for the output steering PZTs, but lately we have just been using those mirrors as fixed mirrors, since we don't need to steer into the OMC.  Some day, we will replace those mirrors with the output steering active tip tilts, and re-commission the OMC....someday.

The power supply for the amplifier set (that goes with the set of minicircuits filters) for the RAMMON PD (which took light from the IPPOS path) has been removed.  If we determine that we need RAMMON back, we will have to make a twisted pair to power those amplifiers.

SUMMARY:

* If we don't install a gold RF PD for POP22, we need a 20ft twisted pair for +15/GND.

* Also, if we don't install a gold RF PD for POP22, we need to plug the amplifier at the LSC rack into the rack power (twisted pair already exists).

* If we need RAMMON back, we will need a twisted pair to power those amplifiers.

* All other power supplies have been removed, and put away.  We currently have 0 "temporary" power supplies in use in the lab!

  8014   Wed Feb 6 18:39:08 2013 JenneUpdateLockingPRC cavity gains

[Yuta, Jenne]

We have both calculated, and agree on the numbers for, the PRC gain for carrier and sideband.

We are using the measured arm cavity (power) loss of 150ppm....see elog 5359.

We get a PRC gain for the CARRIER (non-flipped folding) of 21, and PRC gain (flipped folding) of 20This is a 4.7% loss of carrier buildup.

We get a PRC gain for the SIDEBANDS (non-flipped folding) of 69, and PRC gain (flipped folding) of 62This is an 8.8% loss of sideband buildup.

The only difference between the "flipped" and "non-flipped" cases are the L_PR# values - for "non-flipped", I assume no loss of PR2 or PR3, but for the "flipped" case, I assume 1500ppm, as in Rana's email.  Also, all of these cases assume perfect mode matching.  We should see what the effect of poor mode matching is, once Jamie finishes up his calculation.

Why, one might ask, are we getting cavity buildup of ~20, when Kiwamu always quoted ~40?  Good question!  The answer seems, as far as Yuta and I can tell, to be that Kiwamu was always using the reflectivity of the ITM, not the reflectivity of the arm cavity.  The other alternative that makes the math work out is that he's assuming a loss of 25ppm, which we have never measured our arms to be so good.

 

For those interested in making sure we haven't done anything dumb:


ppm = 1e-6;

% ||      |      |        ||            ||
% PRM    PR2    PR3      ITM           ETM

T_PRM = 0.05637;
t_PRM = sqrt(T_PRM);
L_PRM = 0 *ppm;
R_PRM = 1 - T_PRM - L_PRM;
r_PRM = sqrt(R_PRM);

T_PR2 = 20 *ppm;
t_PR2 = sqrt(T_PR2);
L_PR2 = 1500 *ppm;
R_PR2 = 1 - T_PR2 - L_PR2;
r_PR2 = sqrt(R_PR2);

T_PR3 = 47 *ppm;
t_PR3 = sqrt(T_PR3);
L_PR3 = 1500 *ppm;
R_PR3 = 1 - T_PR3 - L_PR3;
r_PR3 = sqrt(R_PR3);

T_ITM = 0.01384;
t_ITM = sqrt(T_ITM);
L_ITM = 0;%100 *ppm;
R_ITM = 1 - T_ITM - L_ITM;
r_ITM = sqrt(R_ITM);

T_ETM = 15 *ppm;
t_ETM = sqrt(T_ETM);
L_ETM = 0 *ppm;
R_ETM = 1 - T_ETM - L_ETM;
r_ETM = sqrt(R_ETM);

rtl = 150*ppm;  % measured POWER round trip loss of arm cavities.
rtl = rtl/2;     %    because we need the sqrt of the exp() for ampl loss....see Siegman pg414.

eIkx_r = exp(-1i*2*pi);
r_cav_res = -r_ITM + (t_ITM^2 * r_ETM * eIkx_r * exp(-rtl)) / (1 - r_ITM*r_ETM * eIkx_r * exp(-rtl) );

eIkx_ar = exp(-1i*pi);
r_cav_antires = -r_ITM + (t_ITM^2 * r_ETM * eIkx_ar * exp(-rtl)) / (1 - r_ITM*r_ETM * eIkx_ar * exp(-rtl) );


%% PRC buildup gain

g_antires = t_PRM*eIkx_ar / (1-r_PRM*r_PR2*r_PR3*r_cav_antires*eIkx_ar);
G_ar = g_antires^2;
G_ar = abs(G_ar)  % Just to get rid of the imag part that matlab is keeping around.

g_res = t_PRM*eIkx_r / (1-r_PRM*r_PR2*r_PR3*r_cav_res*eIkx_r);
G_r = g_res^2;
G_r = abs(G_r)

  8024   Thu Feb 7 15:46:42 2013 JenneUpdateLockingPR2 flipped

More correctly, a different G&H mirror (which we have a phase map for) was put into the PR2 TT, backwards.

Order of operations:

* Retrieve flat test G&H from BS chamber.  Put 4th dog clamp back on BS optic's base.

* Remove flat G&H from the DLC mount, put the original BS that was in that mount back.  Notes:  That BS had been stored in the G&H's clean optic box.  The DLC mount is engraved with the info for that BS, so it makes sense to put it back.  The DLC mount with BS is now back in a clean storage box.

* Remove PR2 TT from ITMX chamber.

* Remove suspension mounting block from TT frame, lay out flat, magnets up, on lint-free cloth on top of foil.

* Remove former PR2 G&H optic.

* Put what was the flat G&H test optic into the PR2 optic holder, with AR surface at the front.

* Put PR2 suspension block back onto TT frame.

* Put PR2 assembly back in the chamber, solidly against the placement reference blocks that Evan put in last Thursday.

* Close up, clean up, put labels on all the boxes so we know what optic is where.

 

Why the switcho-changeo?  We have a phase map for the G&H that is the new PR2, and a measured RoC of -706m, surface rms of 8.7nm.  Now, we can measure the former PR2 and see how it compares to our estimate of the RoC from the cavity measurements we've taken recently.

  8030   Fri Feb 8 02:12:14 2013 JenneUpdateLockingPRMI work

[Jenne, Yuta]

Lots of work, no solid conclusions yet.  In-vac, we aligned MICH and the PRM.  Out of vac, we got beam on AS and REFL paths.  We can lock MICH, but we're not as happy with PRCL.

 

In-vac alignment: 

To get the beam centered on TT2 in yaw, Koji helped us out and moved TT1 with the sliders a little bit. Then to get the beam centered on PRM and PR2, Koji moved the TT2 sliders a little bit.

Yuta and I then moved PR2 forward a few mm, to keep the optical path length of the PRC approximately (within ~1mm, hopefully) the same as always.  After my PR2 optic swapping earlier, the pitch alignment was no longer good.  I loosened the screws holding the wire clamp to the optic holder, and tapped it back and forth until the alignment was good.  Of course, the screw-tightening / pitch-checking is a stochastic process, but eventually we got it.  A small amount of yaw adjustment by twisting the PR2 TT was also done, but not much was needed.

Beam was a little off in pitch at ITMY, so Yuta poked the top of PR3, and that one single poke was perfect, and the beam was very nicely centered on the ITMY target.  Beam was getting through BS target just fine.  We checked at ITMX, and the beam looked pretty centered, although we didn't put in a target.  We didn't do anything to BS while we were in-vac, since it was already good.

We aligned the ITMs so that their beams were retroreflecting back to the BS.  After this, we saw nice MICH fringes.

We aligned the PRM so that its beam was retroreflecting.

We checked that we were getting REFL and AS beams out of the vacuum, which we were (a small amount of adjustment was done to AS path steering mirrors).

AS table alignment:

We did a bit of tweaking of the REFL path, and lots of small stuff to the AS path. 

The AS beam was coming out of vac at a slightly different place in yaw, so we moved the first out of vac AS steering mirror so the beam hit the center, rather than ~1/3 of the way to the edge.  We then aligned the beam through the lens, to the camera, and to AS55.  Most significantly, we removed the BS that was just before AS55.  This was sending beam to a dump, but it is in place to send beam over to AS110, once we get back to real locking.  We measured ~30 microwatts of power going to the AS55 PD, while MICH fringes were fringing.

The REFL path didn't need much, although we had never been going through the center of the HWP and PBS that are used to reduce the power before going to the PDs, so we translated them a millimeter or two.

We see signal on dataviewer for all of the channels that we're interested in....AS55 I&Q, ASDC, REFL11 I&Q, REFLDC (which comes from REFL55). 

Locking:

Locking MICH was very easy, after we rotated the phase of AS55 to get all the good MICH signal in the Q phase.  Part of the criteria for this was that the AS55_Q_ERR signal should cross zero when ASDC went to 0.  This was done very coarsely, so we need to do it properly, but it was enough to get us locked.  We changed the phase from 24.5 to 90 deg.

PRCL has been more of a challenge, although we're still working on it.

On the back face of the Faraday, we see the michelson fringes, but they are not getting through the Faraday's aperture.  This implies that we have a poorly aligned michelson, in that the interference between the returning beams from the ITMs is happening at a different place than the original beam splitting.  Yuta is working on getting a better MICH right now.  EDIT, 10 minutes later....   This seems to be fixed, and the MICH fringes enter the back aperture of the FI, but there is still the PRM refl problem (next paragraph).

Also, when we get the most bright REFL beam, we see that there is some very obvious clipping in the back of the Faraday aperture, and this is matched by a clipped-looking REFL beam on the AS table.  We must understand what we have done wrong, such that when the beam is actually going through the Faraday, we see a much dimmer beam.  It's possible that there is some clipping happening at that time with the in-vac REFL path....we need to check this.  It's not a clipping problem on the AS table - I checked, and the beams are still reasonably  well centered on all of the mirrors.

We think that the MICH / REFL beam problems may be that the input pointing is close, but not perfect.  We have not confirmed today that the beam is centered on ETMY.  We should do this as part of our final alignment procedure before putting on doors.

Plans for tomorrow:

Get POP aligned, especially the camera, so we can see what our intracavity mode really looks like in the PRC.  This is probably (in part, at least) due to our having moved PR2 around, so the transmitted beams aren't in exactly the same place.

We think that it's more useful in the short term to check out the PRC, and since the clipping problem with the REFL beam is likely an imperfect input pointing, we want to use the other measured G&H mirror, and do another half-PRC test, with the test mirror in front of the BS.  This requires much less perfection in the input pointing, so it should be very quick to set up.

Confirm that PRM oplev is still aligned (turn laser back on first).

Plans for next week:

Perfect the input pointing, by checking the beam position at ETMY.  Recheck all corner alignment.

Try again locking PRMI in air.  First, confirm ITM and BS oplevs are all aligned.

  8037   Fri Feb 8 15:53:48 2013 JenneUpdateLockingPRMI work

Quote:

I completely agree with Koji.  We definitely should have locked the half PRC first.  We were all set up for that. 

 I reminded Jamie this morning that we were not, in fact, set up yesterday for a half PRC.  I had extracted what was the flat test mirror, to put in as PR2.  The test mirror was the better of the 2 G&Hs that we had measurements for, so I had used it as the flat test mirror, but then also wanted it to be the more permanent PR2.  After doing the PR2 flip, the IFO was naturally all aligned for PRMI, which is part of why we just did that.

Anyhow, Jamie used his tallness to put the other measured G&H mirror into the mount, and put that in front of the BS.  He aligned things such that he saw fringes in the half PRC. 

I then aligned POP onto the camera, and onto the PD.  Yuta is confirming that we're maximally on the REFL PDs.

We're starting locking in 5 min.

  8038   Fri Feb 8 17:15:56 2013 JenneUpdateRF SystemMC REFL Photodiode transimpedance

This measurement was done already about a week ago, in elog 7984.  Can you please describe why the numbers for the last measurement were not believable, and what was done differently this time?

  8039   Fri Feb 8 17:41:34 2013 JenneUpdateLockingPRMI work

 

 [Yuta, Jenne]

After much tweaking of the alignment using TT1, TT2 and PRM sliders, we were able to get a TEM00 mode locked with the half PRC!

PRCL gain is -0.010

FM4, 5 are always on.  FM2,3,6 (boosts and stack res-gains) are triggered to come on after the cavity is locked.

We see a little clipping of POPDC, even though there are 2 BSs in the beam path, to dump 50% and then 67% of the beam.  But it's not so much that we can't align. 

REFLDC goes from 28.5 to 24.5, so we don't have great visibility.

Please watch our awesome video of the cavity, where we demonstrate that the half cavity is stable:

The cavity is flashing for the 1st 15 sec, then locks.  Upper right is REFL, Lower right is POP, Upper left is back of the Faraday, Lower left is MC2F.   Note that we definitely see some not so beautiful modes flashing, but most of that is due to the half cavity length and thus greater degeneracy of modes.  Jamie is posting a HOM plot presently.

BEAM MOTION:

The beam is moving way more than it should be.  Right now the PRM oplev is not coming out of the vacuum, since the flat test mirror mount is obstructing it.  However, as we saw with other half-cavity tests, turning on the PRM oplev helps, but does not completely eliminate the beam motion.  We should consider putting oplevs on one of the passive TTs, at least temporarily, so we know what kind of motion is coming from where.

  8043   Fri Feb 8 20:05:15 2013 JenneUpdateLockingPRMI work

I fixed up the POP path so that there is no clipping, so that Yuta can take a cavity mode scan.

  8054   Mon Feb 11 12:49:54 2013 JenneSummaryLSCResonant freq change - why? (and passive TT mode freqs)

Quote:

  Is it because of the change in the resonant frequency of the BS-PRM stack? How much the load on BS-PRM changed?
  Or is it because of the change in the resonant frequency of PR2/PR3

I claim that neither of those things is plausible.  We took out 1 PZT, and put in 1 active TT onto the BS table.  There is no way the resonant frequency changed by an appreciable amount due to that switch.

I don't think that it is the resonant frequency of the TTs either.  Here, I collate the data that we have on the resonant frequencies of our tip tilts.  It appears that in elog 3425 I recorded results for TTs 2 and 3, but in elog 3447 I just noted that the measurements had been done, and never put them into the elog.  Ooops.

Resonant frequency and Q of modes of passive tip tilts. 

  Vertical Yaw Pos Side
TT1 f0=20, Q=18 f0=1.89, Q=3.8 f0=1.85, Q=2 f0=1.75, Q=3.2
TT2 f0=24, Q=7.8 f0=1.89, Q=2.2 f0=1.75, no Q meas f0=1.8, Q=4.5
TT3 f0=20, Q=34 f0=1.96, Q="low" f0=1.72, Q=3.3 f0=1.85, Q=6
TT4 f0=21, Q=14 f0=1.88, Q=2.3 f0=1.72, Q=1.4 f0=1.85, Q=1.9
TT5 f0=20, Q=22.7 no measurement f0=1.79, Q=1.8 f0=1.78, Q=3.5

Notes:  "Serial Number" of TTs here is based on the SN of the top suspension point block.  This does not give info about which TT is where.  Pitch modes were all too low of Q to be measured, although we tried.

Tip tilt mode measurements were taken with a HeNe and PD shadow sensor setup - the TT's optic holder ring was partially obscuring the beam.

  8058   Mon Feb 11 16:29:33 2013 JenneUpdateLockingTemp oplev for PR2; ITMX temporarily has no oplev

[Yuta, Jenne]

In an effort to see what is going on with the beam spot motion, and to investigate whether or not it might be caused by passive TT motion, Yuta and I installed some oplev mirrors in-vac, to make a PR2 oplev.

Yuta did not move either of the in-vac oplev mirrors that are for ITMX.  Instead, he took the incident red beam as it was, and put a spare in-vac oplev mirror there.  Then he used another spare oplev mirror to get the beam out, and on to the one out-of-vac steering mirror before the QPD.  I then steered the out of vac mirror to center the beam on the QPD.

This means (1) that ITMX cannot have an oplev right now, although the HeNe was off anyway, and (2) that as soon as we take these spare oplev mirrors out, we should immediately have ITMX oplev back (may need to steer out of vac mirror to get beam onto QPD).

Yuta is currently taking measurements to see if PR2 motion has high coherence with the intracavity motion.

  8071   Tue Feb 12 20:57:47 2013 JenneUpdateAlignmentIFO alignment in prep for in-air PRMI

We should check MC spot positions to see what they are. 

Also, I'm not thrilled about the idea of a clipped REFL beam.  Haven't we played that game before, and decided it's a crappy game?  Can we recenter the MC, and recover quickly with TT1? 

 

  8076   Wed Feb 13 14:21:19 2013 JenneUpdateLockingPRC cavity gains

Quote:

With 1500ppm loss on both PR2 and PR3, 150ppm arm cavity loss:

We get a PRC gain for the CARRIER (non-flipped folding) of 21, and PRC gain (flipped folding) of 20.  This is a 4.7% loss of carrier buildup.

We get a PRC gain for the SIDEBANDS (non-flipped folding) of 69, and PRC gain (flipped folding) of 62.  This is an 8.8% loss of sideband buildup.

 With a PR2 loss of 896ppm (from the plot on the wiki), but no loss from PR3 because we didn't flip it, and the same 150ppm round trip arm cavity loss, I get:

Carrier gain = 21.0

Sideband gain = 66.7

(No loss case, with an extra sig-fig, so you can see that the numbers are different:  Carrier = 21.4, Sideband = 68.8 .)

So, this is 1.6% loss of carrier buildup and 3.1% loss of sideband buildup.  Moral of the story - G&H's measured AR reflectivity is less than Rana's guess, and we didn't flip PR3, so we should have even less of a power recycling gain effect than previously calculated.

  8077   Wed Feb 13 16:31:08 2013 JenneUpdatePSLPMC pitch input tuned, MC yaw input tuned

[Jenne, Yuta]

I looked at PMCR camera on the MC1 tv, and tweaked up the beam going into the PMC - it only needed a little bit of pitch.

Yuta and I measured the MC spots, determined (consistent with my measurements this morning) that they were only off in yaw.  We touched the 2nd steering mirror in the zigzag on the PSL table in yaw a small amount (top of knob away from me), realigned the MC, and things were good.  The plot is zoomed in to show only measurements taken today.  2 in the morning, before anything in the IFO room was touched.  1 this afternoon after tweaking PMC.  1st attempt at PSL beam tweaking was successful, 2nd measurement confirms it wasn't a fluke.

MCspots_13Feb2013.png

  8081   Wed Feb 13 22:09:26 2013 JenneUpdateAlignmentREFL is not clipped

We need to calculate whether this level of astigmatism is expected from the new active TT mirrors, but I claim that the beam is not clipped.

As proof, I provide a video (PS, why did it take me so long to be converted to using video capture??).  I'm just showing the REFL camera, so the REFL beam as seen out on the AS table.  I am moving PRM only.  I can move lots in pitch before I start clipping anywhere.  I have less range in yaw, but I still have space to move around.  This is not how a clipped beam behaves.  The clipping that I see after moving a ways is coincident with clipping seen by the camera looking at the back of the Faraday.  i.e. the first clipping that happens is at the aperture of the Faraday, as the REFL beam enters the FI.  

Also, I'm no longer convinced entirely that the beam entering the Faraday is a nice circle.  I didn't check that very carefully earlier, so I'd like to re-look at the return beam coming from TT1, when the PRM is misaligned such that the return beam is not overlapped with the input beam.  If the beam was circular going into the Faraday, I should have as much range in yaw as I do in pitch.  You can see in the movie that this isn't true.  I'm voting with the "astigmatism caused by non-flat active TT mirrors" camp. 

  8086   Fri Feb 15 01:51:43 2013 JenneSummaryAlignmentIFO aligned and ready for PRMI locking

 

Yuta and Manasa, you guys are awesome!

Small, inconsequential point:  The camera image in the upper right of your video is the *back* of the Faraday in our usual nomenclature.  The camera is listed in the videoswitch script as "FI_BACK".  The camera looking at the "front" of the Faraday is just called "FI". 

  8116   Wed Feb 20 18:35:42 2013 JenneUpdateAlignmentNew in-vac alignment procedure

I have updated the vacuum checklist for in vacuum alignment.  Please take a look (https://wiki-40m.ligo.caltech.edu/vent/checklist) and see if I missed anything.  My goal was to make it incredibly step-by-step so there can be no mistakes.

  8117   Wed Feb 20 18:53:48 2013 JenneUpdateAlignmentIFO ready for doors, then pumping

[Yuta, Manasa, Sendhil, Jenne, Steve, Jamie, Koji, Evan]

The interferometer is well-aligned, and ready for pump-down.  The access connector is in place, as are the ETM heavy doors.  We will do ITM and BS doors tomorrow, then begin pumping.

Before we redid the ITM pointing, I confirmed that I could see both POX and POY on their respective tables, on a camera, unclipped.  I should check again quickly now that the ITM pointing has been finalized.

We went back to the arms, to perfect the ITM pointing.  Input beam was already centered at ETMY.  ETMY was pointing so that beam reflected to ITMY.  ITMY was adjusted a few (less than 4?) steps of 1e-3 size, to make reflected beam hit center of ETMY. 

BS was already pointing so beam hit center of ETMX.  ETMX was pointing to hit center of ITMX.  ITMX was adjusted a few (less than 4 again?) steps of 1e-3 size to make reflected beam hit center of ETMX.

Checked centering on AS path.  AS beam comes out of the vacuum a little low, but this wasn't discovered until after the access connector was in place.  We could adjust PZT3 (last AS mirror on BS table that sends beam over to OMC table), but we don't want to do this since we won't be able to re-confirm centering on the 3 mirrors on the OMC table.

Green beams (first Y, then X) were aligned using out-of-vac steering mirrors until beams were flashing in their respective arm cavities.  Green Y is a little close to the edge of the bottom periscope mirror, on the "up" periscope.  Since there is no steering between the arm and this periscope, fixing it would require moving the periscope.  We leave this to the next vent, when we finally install the BS table extension.  We were flashing a higher order yaw mode (5ish nodes) for the Y arm, and the very edge of the higher order mode on one side was a little bit clipped after reflecting off the steering mirror on the OMC table.  This is happening because that mirror is in the mount backwards (so we have access to the knobs).  We are confident that the straight-through beam is well centered on that mirror, so once we get it aligned to TEM00, there will be no clipping. We then did the X arm green, which was flashing a pitch higher order mode (again 5ish nodes).  The very edge of the higher order mode is clipping a little bit on the top mirror of the "down" periscope on the IMC table, but again the straight through beam is okay, and we're confident that the TEM00 mode will make it unclipped.  We could have touched some steering mirrors on the BS table, but since this was once upon a time well aligned, we don't want to futz with it.

Corner oplevs are all centered on their QPDs.  (The ETM oplevs were centered a few days ago).

Access connector and ETM doors are on.

The last 3 vertex doors will go on tomorrow when Steve gets in, and then we'll start pumping. 

There are no in-vac PZTs that need to be turned on (we've been using the output steering PZTs as non-energized fixed mirrors for some time), so we can lock at our leisure tomorrow afternoon.

  8126   Thu Feb 21 12:56:38 2013 JenneUpdateCDSc1iscex dead again

c1iscex is dead again.  Red lights, no "breathing" on the FE status screen.

  8127   Thu Feb 21 13:34:35 2013 JenneUpdateTreasureIR card removed

Quote:

The sensor card on the bottom of the chamber was not salvaged yet.

 Yuta retrieved the IR card that had fallen to the bottom of the IOO chamber, just before we put on the access connector yesterday.  The clean "pickle picker" long grabber tool worked wonders.

  8145   Sat Feb 23 14:52:03 2013 JenneUpdateLSCETMYT camera back to normal

Quote:

 3. Replaced Ygreen REFL camera with ETMYT camera to see transmitted beam mode.

The camera that Yuta means in his elog from last night/this morning is the scattering camera at the Yend.  The reason (I think) that he had to do this is that Manasa and Jan took the cable for the ETMYT camera, and were using it for their scattering camera.  They mention in elog 8072 that they installed a camera, but they didn't say anything about having taken the ETMYT cable.  This is the kind of thing that is useful to elog!

Anyhow, I have removed the Watec that belongs with the scattering setup, that Yuta borrowed, and put it back on the scattering table-on-a-pedestal. I then realigned the usual ETMYT camera (that Yuta moved out of the way to install the borrowed Watec), and put the ETMYT cable back to its usual place, connected to the Sony camera's box on the floor.

tl;dr: ETMYT camera is back to original state.

EDIT later:  I put the Watec back, since it is more sensitive to IR, so now we have a Watec in the regular ETMYT place.

  8149   Sat Feb 23 16:54:24 2013 JenneUpdateLSCcan't lock Y arm

I'm not sure that Yuta had found the real Yarm flashes last night.  When I came in today, the Yarm would flash.  However I found that the SRM was aligned, and if I misaligned it, the Yarm flashes would disappear.  So somehow the beam getting into the cavity was related to the reflection off of the SRM.

Later, I moved the TTs, leaving ITMY and ETMY alone, after having misaligned SRM (and ITMX) and I found flashes.  This wasn't ideal though, since the beam was much, much too high on IPANG (beam was half falling off the top of the lens, although yaw was pretty good).  That was also when I changed out the ETMYT camera the first time around.  The flashes on the new camera were visible, but much dimmer than with the Watec.

I tried locking the Yarm in this state, but I could never achieve a lock, even momentarily.  It almost seemed like I wasn't sending actuation signal out to the coils, although signal appeared all the way through the chain until the LSC signal summed with the local damping signal.  I also switched the LSC output matrix to try actuating on the ITM, but I was also not able to lock then.  I have switched it back to have Yarm actuate on ETMY.  I could see a nice PDH signal on POY, and nice flashes on TRY, but no lock at all.  The trigger was triggering, but still no catching of the lock.  I'm not really sure what's up.

After playing with a non-locking, poorly aligned Yarm, I started over by recentering the beam on IPPOS and IPANG using the TTs, but have not been able to get flashing in the cavity again.  After much fitzing around, I put the Watec back at ETMYT, in hopes that we can see flashes again at some point, since it's more sensitive than the old Sony.  Still no flashes though.

I have to leave, but Yuta and Manasa are here, and so I'm leaving the IFO in their custody.

  8163   Mon Feb 25 22:30:40 2013 JenneBureaucracyGeneralaction items for PRFPMI

 

 CDS:
    - Check out ASS and A2L working -JENNE
    - Are all whitening filters for PDs toggling correctly? -JENNE, JAMIE

PRMI locking:
    - Adjust I/Q rotation angles for error signals -JENNE, YUTA
    - Adjust filters -JENNE, YUTA
    - Coil balancing for BS (and ITMs/ETMs) -YUTA

PRC characterization in PRMI:

    - Measure PR2 loss from flipping -MANASA
    - Measure mode matching ratio -JENNE, YUTA
    - Measure finesse, PR gain -JENNE, YUTA
    - Calibrate PRM and/or ITM oplevs -MANASA, YUTA
    - Measure g-factor by tilting PRM or ITMs -JAMIE, YUTA
    - Calculate expected mode matching ratio and g-factor -JAMIE
    - Calculate expected finesse, PR gain -JENNE
    - Mode match and align aux laser into AS port -EVAN

ALS:
    - What's the end green situation? Optical layout changed? Laser temperature in CDS? -MANASA
    - What's the PSL green situation? Green trans cameras/PD? Design better layout -ANNALISA
    - Make ALS handing off to DARM/CARM LSC script -JENNE, YUTA
    - Demonstrate FPMI using ALS -JENNE, YUTA
    - Phase tracker characterization -YUTA, KOJI

PRFPMI:
    - Measure mode matching between PRC and arms -JENNE, YUTA
    - Measure PR gain -JENNE, YUTA
    - Calculate expected finesse, PR gain -JENNE

Others:
    - Update optical layout CAD after PR2 flipping -MANASA
    - IMC REFL demod phase rotation -EVAN, ANNALISA
    - Look into PMC drift -JENNE, MANASA
    - Measure RFAM contribution to error signals -YUTA

  8165   Tue Feb 26 01:49:27 2013 JenneUpdateLockingPRMI locked

[Jenne, Yuta]

We began the evening, after alignment of all optics was good (arms flashing, PRC flashing, assumed SRM last saved alignment was okay), centering all oplevs and aligning beam onto AS55, REFL11, REFL55 and REFL33 and POPDC.

After a quick check to make sure that the input pointing was still okay for Yarm (TRY was 0.88 when we began PRMI work, which we called okay), we aligned and locked the Michelson with AS55Q.  We were able to use a gain as large (abs val) as -15 before the loop started oscillating.  (ETMs, PRM, SRM all misaligned during this).  We measured the UGF of the MICH loop to be 170Hz, with phase margin of 40 degrees.

We then restored the PRM, and tweaked the pointing until the PRC beam at AS overlapped the MICH beam. 

We then started playing with locking.  We were not very successful in using REFL 11 or REFL 55 (I for both, although we also tried 11Q just for kicks).  We then switched to using REFL33I, and had success!!  We are reliably able to lock to the "sideband", and not so reliably lock to the carrier (by flipping the sign of the PRCL loop gain). I say "sideband" with quotes, since we aren't sure that it is the sideband.  We are, however, confident that it is locking, and it's certainly not locked to the carrier.  Videos are at the bottom of the entry.

A list of some values:

Camera state MICH gain PRCL gain POP DC AS DC REFL DC
AS bright, POP bright -0.045 -4.000 1000 +/- 200 4 +/- 0.5  480
AS dark, POP bright  -0.045  +4.000  300 +/- 20  0.03 +/- 0.02  552 +/- 2
AS, POP flashing  loop off  loop off  flash 25,000 or more  ~5  ~550

 

Other notes:  We changed AS55's demod phase back to 24.5, from it's atmosphere half-cavity value.  The change from the original value was recorded in elog 8030.

We changed REFL11's demod phase back to 150, which is the value that it was when we had PRMI locked on ~July 10th, 2012.  (We looked up the burt snapshot to check).

 

FI back, upper right is POP, lower left is REFL, lower right is AS.  It seems as though we may need to redo coil balancing now that we're at vacuum / with the current OSEM values.

  8171   Tue Feb 26 15:32:47 2013 JenneUpdateLockingFPMI locked

Quote:

P.S. TRX seems to be moving less on the camera because of the oplevs centered and working from last night.

 Ah, yes.  I forgot to mention in my elog last night that Yuta and I found that the ITMX oplev servo had been on, even though the oplev beam was blocked, so ITMX was noisier than it should have been.

  8175   Wed Feb 27 00:08:43 2013 JenneUpdateIOOMeditations on converting TT channels to be more SUS-like

Jamie and I have had a few back-and-forths on this, but I wanted to write down my thoughts on the parts of the SUS infrastructure that we need for the active tip tilts.

I think we want the ASC pitch and yaw filter banks.  I also think we want to change the channel names so that they are C1:SUS rather than C1:IOO, to make scripting easier.  A corollary to this is that we should make the DC bias sliders have the same naming structure as the regular suspensions (C1:SUS-TT#_{PIT/YAW}_COMM).  This makes scripts like the save/restore scripts easier.  If we keep the IOO naming, it would still be convenient to add the _COMM.

I am having trouble imagining what we might want the lockins for, so I propose we leave them out.

Do we want the output matrix (PIT/YAW -> coils) to be a filter bank matrix?  If we want f2a filters, we need to change this to a filter bank matrix.

I also think we want a master on/off switch for the AC actuation (ASC stuff).  We don't have sensors, so we won't have watchdog-ing, but it might be useful to have a 'panic' switch.  Perhaps though if we are careful to set limits on the ASC filter banks, we won't ever have a panic about actuating too hard.

I'm think I'm joining Jamie's side in the medm screen debate....I think we want a separate TT_SINGLE screen, laid out similar to the SUS_SINGLE, but without all of the irrelevant parts.

EDIT:  Yuta just pointed out to me that right now, the TT DC bias sliders are not recorded anywhere (_DQ, conlog,...).  We *must* fix this.

  8176   Wed Feb 27 00:56:01 2013 JenneUpdateASSMotivation for reactivating the ASS

I am putting a little bit of brain power into reviving the ASS, and I want to write down what the motivation is, and what the short and long-term plans are.

Why?

The IFO IR is not optimally aligned right now.  While we were at atmosphere, we should have taken the time to align the green beams to the arms until the greens were both resonating TEM00.  We were lazy, and excited to pump down, so we decided that locking on higher order modes was good enough to ensure the beams came out of vacuum.  Once we were pumped down, ITMY and ETMY were aligned to the green beam axis.  Then, the IR was aligned to this new Yarm cavity axis.  This would have been okay, and pretty close, if we had aligned the green beam all the way (used only the outside steering mirrors to resonate TEM00, after the cavity mirrors were aligned for flashing IR).  After the IR was aligned to the Ygreen axis, the rest of the IFO was aligned to this slightly-incorrect input pointing.  We want to measure the IR spot positions on ITMY and ETMY so that we can tweak the input pointing until we hit the center of both ITMY and ETMY.  Then we will align Ygreen's input pointing to this proper IR cavity axis.  The rest of the IFO alignment will also have to be redone.  This calls for a functioning A2L system, so the measurement part of the ASS.

The immediate motivation for measuring the spot positions is that the current Xarm IR axis is not at all very close to the Xgreen axis.  The other day while we were fixing up the Xend table (note in elog 8162), we found that the TRX beam to the TRX PD and the trans camera was clipped on the 2" harmonic separator (which is the first optic that the transmitted IR beam sees on the end tables).  It was clipping on the left side of the optic, if you are looking at the face of the optic.  This is the more east-erly side of the optic.  We moved that optic to the side so that we were not clipping.  Then, today when Manasa was trying to align the Xgreen beam, she found that it was clipping on the right side of the harmonic separator, the more west-erly side.  I remember seeing that the green beam was roughly centered on the harmonic separator when we were at atmosphere, so this clipping is certainly due to Yuta, Evan and my moving of the harmonic separator.  Since the end green steering optics are not very orthogonal in angle/translation, it is very difficult to translate the beam by a significant amount.  If we keep the current IR alignment, which surely isn't good anyway (you can see on the ETMXF camera that the beam isn't centered), we would probably have to move the Xgreen steering optics, which would be a total pain.  It seems that the better plan is to leave them where they are, and get the IR pointing in the correct direction, and move the harmonic separator back to where it was originally.

Short term (< few days):

Write the arm section of the existing MeasureSpotPositions.py script (in ....../scripts/ASS).  Write a wrapper script that, like ...../scripts/ASS/MC/mcassMCdecenter, calls sets up the lockins, runs MeasureSpotPositions.py, and calculates the calibrated spot positionsUse this information to hand tweak the input pointing, then realign the cavities to the new IR, and the greens to the new cavity axes.

All of the infrastructure for this is already in place in the c1ass model.   The only drawback to the current situation is the LSC output matrix only has one row for ASS, and so only one cavity can be measured at a time.  To make things faster, we could consider increasing the size of the LSC output matrix so that the 2 arms could be measured simultaneously.  This change is low priority for now.

Long term:

Make the full ASS system work. 

A major change from the current situation is that the current ASS cannot actuate on the input pointing (TT1 and TT2 for Yarm, BS for Xarm).  We want a low bandwidth servo to force the input beam to follow the cavity axis.  Implementing this will require some changes to the ASS model. 

Remeasure sensing matrix, test system.

  8178   Wed Feb 27 02:21:55 2013 JenneUpdateASSMotivation for reactivating the ASS

I have modified the MeasureSpotPositions.py script to accept the arms as valid cavities (it used to give an error "Sorry, this only works for MC right now").

There is still no wrapper script to turn on lockins and turn them off after the measurement, so I have not tested the arm A2L yet.  But I should be able to tomorrow, or whenever the IFO is next available.

To-do:

* Write the wrapper script (analog of mcassMCdecenter).

* Fix arm assOff, assDown, assOn, assUp scripts to match the current channel names (which were changed long ago to be human-readable, versus mysterious numbers).

* Test.

  8179   Wed Feb 27 02:44:39 2013 JenneUpdateLockingDRFPMI flashes

Before Yuta left, I asked him to restore all optics to last saved values, to avoid hysteresis.

Some interesting modes appear at ETMYT and ETMXT.  The cavities aren't super well aligned right now, especially since we have been seeing this input pointing drift, but it's cool to see our first DRFPMI flashes. SRM, in particular, hasn't been aligned since before pumpdown.  If I misalign SRM, the mode content at the trans cameras improves somewhat, but it still isn't all low-order modes.

 

Here is the note that I wrote on youtube describing the video:

DRFPMI Flashing

Upper left is AS, upper right is POP
lower left is Xarm Trans (ETMXT), lower right is Yarm Trans (ETMYT)

Arms were last aligned several hours ago, and we know input pointing drifts, so at least some of the higher order modes in the arm transmissions are due to poor input pointing. All optics are "restored" to their last saved values, including SRM, which has not been aligned since before pumpdown.

TRX DC PD values are flashing to as high as 10
TRY DC PD values are flashing to as high as 7

Since uploading the video, I have seen TRY flash (once) to 45.  Yes, forty five!!!  Both arms are usually flashing to ~3ish, with an occasional medium flash (5-10), and then a few rare TRY flashes above 20.

We may have officially lost the bet of having arms locked by 9am Monday, but I think Team Grad Student / Postdoc still deserves some beer from Team Faculty / Staff.

  8180   Wed Feb 27 02:52:40 2013 JenneOmnistructureSAFETYBack door unlocked

Did someone unlock the back door by the (unofficial) bike storage lately?  Out of habit, I checked the door behind me while about to leave, and it is unlocked. 

Please recall that if you leave through that door, it should automatically lock behind you (if it was locked already), however if you unlock and enter through the back door, it stays unlocked until someone locks it again.

(Obviously, I'm locking the door before I actually go).

  8202   Thu Feb 28 14:51:43 2013 JenneUpdatePEM"Rock Monster" causing low frequency noise

Manasa and I have been wondering why the low frequency seismic noise has been different in the last few days/weeks.  I went over to visit the Rock Monster, a.k.a. the Earth Surface Dynamics Laboratory next door, and the grad student turned it up for me (increased water flow significantly) for a few minutes.  Then I came back to look at the BLRMS, and you can see the low frequency increase a few minutes ago, when he turned it up on high.  He said that they run it on low almost all the time, 9am-5pm ish, and on high for an hour or so at a time periodically during the day.

RockMonsterOn_ForFewMinutes.png

  8203   Fri Mar 1 01:17:06 2013 JenneUpdateLSCXarm oscillation

There is an oscillation in the Xarm at 631Hz, which is not in the Yarm.  There is a small peak in POY11_I at this frequency, but only when the Xarm is locked.  If the Xarm unlocks, the peak disappears from POY.  The peak is 3 orders of magnitude larger in POX than in POY, and 4 orders of magnitude larger than the POY noise when this peak is not present.  In the plot, I have turned off the POY whitening, so that its situation is the same as POX (we still need to fix POX whitening switching).  Dark noise (MC unlocked) is the same for both PDs.

POX11_630Hz_osc.pdf

  8204   Fri Mar 1 02:49:34 2013 JenneUpdateASSArm A2L measurement

I haven't finished debugging the scripts so that the measurement is fully automatic, like the MC, but I did measure the arm spot positions just now. 

These numbers aren't especially precise....I just picked numbers off of a StripTool plot, but they give us a good idea of how very far off we are.  Also, I don't know yet which way the signs go...I have to think about that in terms of the direction I mis-balanced the coils.  It's the same convention as the MC though.  You can see in the attached quad camera image (quadrants match the corners of the table) that these numbers aren't unreasonable.

ETMY   ETMX  
Pit 4 mm Pit 4 mm
Yaw -1.5 mm Yaw 6 mm
ITMY   ITMX  
Pit -3 mm Pit -3 mm
Yaw 4 mm Yaw -4 mm

QUAD1_1046168242.bmp

EDIT: It occurs to me now, a little later, that it had been at least half an hour since I last realigned the cavities, so some of this apparent miscentering is due to the input pointing drift. That doesn't account for all of it though. Even when the cavities have very high transmitted power, the spots are visibly miscentered.

  8215   Sun Mar 3 22:16:46 2013 JenneUpdateLSCLSC whitening triggering started

[Jenne, Annalisa]

We have started working on writing the c-code to parse the LSC input matrix, to see which PD is used for what degree of freedom, and to output a trigger for the PD.  The code is in ..../isc/c1/src, and there is a little block in the LSC code to the left of the triggering stuff.  Right now, the output of the c-code just goes to some temporary EPICS channels, so that we can see if things are working before we actually implement it.  At this time, there is no change to how the LSC model runs.

I can't figure out a bug in my c-code though.  Right now it's all commented out, so that the LSC model would start, but if I try to sum all of the elements in an array, the model compiles fine, but it won't start running.  I'm going to ask Jamie about it tomorrow.  I have a less-tidy backup plan if we can't get this figured out.

If I have time on the IFO to check that this works tomorrow, I expect another few hours of work (2?  3?), and then we'll have whitening filter triggering.

  8229   Tue Mar 5 01:43:04 2013 JenneUpdateASSArm A2L measurement script finished

In either .../scripts/XARM or ...../scripts/YARM run either A2L_XARM or A2L_YARM.

The wrapper script will, like the MC script, open a striptool so you can monitor the lockin outputs, setup the measurement, run the measurement, including misbalancing coils on the optics for calibration, and then calculates the spot positions.  It records the measurement in a log file in /data_spotMeasurements under each arm's directory.  The wrapper script then runs the plotting script which reads the logfile, and plots all past measurements.

Here is that plot for the Yarm:

YARMdecenter.png

The first two points were measured within a few minutes of eachother, the third set of points was after input pointing adjustment during IFO alignment.  Clearly the pointing that optimized the cavity transmission (trying to leave the test mass mirrors alone, and only moving TT1 and TT2) does not also give the best spot centering.  I claim that this is a result of the arm being aligned to the green beam, which was never locked to the 00 mode when we were at air.  This is a lesson learned....take the time to deal with the green beams.

  8234   Tue Mar 5 18:36:27 2013 JenneUpdateLSCLSC whitening triggering started

More effort at debugging the LSC whitening. 

Today I tried moving things over to the c1tst model, which runs on the y-end computer, but I crashed c1iscey.  I rebuilt the TST model to a known good state, then cycled the power on c1iscey, and the computer came back up fine. 

I have now backed off and am just writing the code inside a little wrapper script, so that I can just compile and test the code completely independent from the realtime system.  Then once I get all the bugs out, I can try again installing on the actual system.

Still, there are no changes to the functionality of the c1lsc model.  There will not be until I get the c-code for matrix parsing debugged.

The logic, in non-diagram form (I'll make a diagram, but so you can read without waiting):

*** C-code

* Inputs is an array of degree of freedom triggers, the same schmidt triggers used for main LSC locking. (This means it also uses the same thresholds as main triggers.  Side note, now that the WAIT command (see below) works, I want to change the filter module triggers to use the same main trigger, and then just wait a specified time before turning on.)

* Parse the LSC input matrix (internal to the c-code).

     * This tells you which photodiode is being used to control which degree of freedom.

* Multiply rows of the LSC input matrix by the degree of freedom triggers (the same trigger as the main LSC triggers, which is a schmidt trigger).

     * This gives a matrix, where non-zero elements indicate that a photodiode is supposed to be used for a degree of freedom, AND that DoF has been triggered (is locked or has flashed).

* Sum along the columns of the matrix.

     * If a column has a non-zero element, that means that that PD quadrature is used, and has been triggered (by any DoF).

* Apply OR to I and Q quadratures of each PD. 

      * Since the phase rotation happens after whitening and dewhitening, if either I_ERR or Q_ERR is requested (used and triggered), we need to turn on the whitening for both channels.  I am hopeful that this doesn't cause problems for cases when we want to use both quadratures of a PD to control 2 degrees of freedom, but I haven't yet put much thought into it.  COMMENTS WELCOME on this point.

*  Output of c-block is array of PD triggers.  So if either AS11I or AS11Q is triggered, output a "1" for the first element, which corresponds to AS11, etc.

*** LSC model

* Give GoTo/From flag for each DoF trigger to the mux of inputs.

* Go through c-code

* Demux outputs into GoTo/From flags, one per PD (one flag for AS11, one for AS55, and one for ASDC...DC elements count separately, even though they're derived from the same physical PD).

* For each PD, trigger flag goes through WAIT c-code

   * This allows you to define a wait time, in seconds, with an EPICS variable. 

   * Starts counting the wait time as soon as it receives a "1".  Resets counter each time it receives a "0".

    * Output of wait function is ANDed with the current (non-delayed) trigger.

         * This allows for cavity to flash, but if it's not still locked after the wait time, don't actually flip any switches.

* Use delayed ANDed trigger to flip the FM1 switch on both the I and Q filterbank for that PD.

  8246   Wed Mar 6 21:58:39 2013 JenneUpdateElectronicsPOX whitening was fine all along

After my investigations this afternoon (with help from Sendhil and Shivaraj), I do not find any problems with the POX whitening switching.

Earlier this afternoon / evening I was misleading myself into thinking that either the switching component (ADG333ABR) was broken, or that the whitening op amps (LT1124CS8) were broken on the POX I&Q and POY I&Q channels.  I had not realized until Jamie mentioned the possibility, that some of the DC gain stages were on for POX and POY.  POX and POY (I&Q for both) all had +36dB of gain, so when I was injecting my 60Hz sine wave into those channels, the whitening opamps were already saturated, which is why it didn't look like I was getting any gain.  When I set them all to 0dB (which is what AS11 and REFL11, the other 2 PDs using that whitening board, were set to), all 8 channels behaved the same.

The shaped whitening (which is either bypassed or not, depending on the condition of the software "unwhite" switch) is 2 filters in series, each with a zero at 15Hz, and a pole at 150Hz, with DC gain of 0dB.  For a 60Hz sine wave, this gives a factor of ~4 from each stage.  After setting all of the whitening gains to 0dB, I was able to see on all 8 channels of the board an input sine wave, a larger (by 4-ish) sine wave, and then a larger (by 4ish again) sine.  When I looked at the output of the switch of all 8 channels, the signal was either the same as the input amplitude, or the same as after the 2nd whitening stage, depending on the "unwhite" filters.

Before looking at actual signals, Sendhil and I also had checked to see that indeed, the board was receiving the digital signal input to the switch chip, requesting switching based on the state of the "unwhite" filters.

I looked through the elogs, and the only "symptoms" I find are from an IFO check-up session that Koji, Den and I had back in May, where we declared in the elog that POX whitening may or may not be switching.  See elog 6595.  We didn't mention what the actual symptoms we saw were, so unless Koji or Den remember something that I don't, I cannot confirm that we are no longer seeing those symptoms.  However, based on the number of "?" after "POX whitening not toggling the analog whitening", I don't think that we were totally sure that something was wrong in the first place.

Anyhow, the whitening board in the LSC rack labeled "WF1", serving AS11, REFL11, POX11 and POY11 has had a thorough checkup, and I give it a clean bill of health.

  8249   Thu Mar 7 11:43:15 2013 JenneUpdateElectronicsPOX and POY whitening DC gain left low

Manasa and Jan were having trouble locking the Yarm, and asked me to take a look at it.  After a good long time of trying to figure out what was going on, it finally occurred to me that I did not turn the DC gain on POX and POY back to the nominal 36dB.  As soon as I did that, both arms acquired lock.  Ooops.

  8250   Thu Mar 7 12:39:12 2013 JenneUpdateLockingErudite discussion on PRMI locking

[Rana, Jenne, Yuta] (late last night)

After some trouble getting the PRMI to lock with REFL55 I&Q last night, we began to think about the size of signals everywhere, and the coupling of the sidebands in the different cavity configurations.  We have determined that it is possible that the Q phase signal is too small everywhere, so the PRMI will never be easy to lock. The Q phase will be smaller than iLIGO equivalents since the modulation frequencies are lower, and we have a small Schnupp asymmetry. The calculations of signals at each port were all done for the DRMI case, where sidebands get recycled more, so signals get larger.  If locking the PRMI is "hopeless" due to very small signals, we should stop trying, move on with other things, and come back to the corner when we have the DRMI ready. In order to figure out if it is reasonable to keep working on the PRMI, we must calculate the size of all of our signals at each port, and convert them into real units (if we expect a 1mVpp signal at REFL11Q, we're not going to successfully lock MICH with that).

So, we should:

* Calculate sideband signals at AS and REFL, for 11 and 55 MHz, for the PRMI case.

* Convert those signals into physical units (Watts -> Amps -> Volts).

* In parallel, work on dual arm ALS, and FPMI locking.

   * Try using ALS CARM for frequency stabilization.

   * Hand off from ALS CARM and DARM to PSL.

* To do ALS-FPMI, we should:

     * Use A2L to center the IR spots on all arm cavity mirrors.

     * Align green beams to the arms.

    * For each arm, determine which frequency (arm green or PSL green) is higher.

          * Lock the arm in green, align Beat PD. 

          * Push ETM, watch beat in the phase tracker.

          * Repeat for other arm.

     * Use ALS input matrix to construct CARM and DARM signals.

         * Check by shaking ALS-CARM, watch both X and Y beat signals - if they move in the same direction, we were right, but if they move in opposite directions we have flipped CARM and DARM.

    * Send the ALS-CARM signal to MC2, or the analog common mode board.

  8253   Thu Mar 7 18:41:03 2013 JenneUpdateElectronicsPOX whitening was fine all along

Here are the transfer functions that we took back in 2011 (see elog 4915 and replies) for POX:

POX11I.png

POX11Q.png

The table of all whitening filter zpk values is on the wiki: https://wiki-40m.ligo.caltech.edu/Electronics/WhiteningFilters

  8258   Fri Mar 8 13:42:35 2013 JenneUpdateABSLBS installed on ITMY table

Re:  POY beam reduction.

We are able to lock the Yarm with the beam / gain as it is.  I had thought we might need to increase the DC gain in the whitening board by a factor of 2, but so far it's fine.

  8260   Fri Mar 8 16:02:52 2013 JenneUpdateAlignmentGetting closer to beam centering on Yarm

I'm working on getting the input beam centered on the Yarm optics.  To do this, I measured the spot positions, move the tip tilts, realign the cavity, then measure the new spot positions.  While doing this, I am also moving the BS and Xarm optics to keep the Xarm aligned, so that I don't have to do hard beam-finding later.

Here is the plot of spot measurements today.  The last measurement was taken with no moving, or realigning, just several hours later after speaking with our Indian visitors.  I'm closer than I was, but there is more work to do.

YARMdecenter_zoom_8Mar2013.png

ELOG V3.1.3-