40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab CAML OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 77 of 355  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Typeup Category Subject
  17435   Tue Jan 31 11:02:16 2023 AnchalSummaryBHDc1cal DAQ error 0x2000 fixed

The 0x2000 error happens when the rtcds model can not acquire the requested number of channels at their data rates. Basically, there is a maximum total data acquisition that one model can do (which is unknown to me). To fix this, I removed 2048 Hz acquiring of C1:CAL-SENSMAT_<DOF>_<RFPD>_<I/Q>_DEMOD_SIG_IN1. This would not allow us to do software demodulation of calibration lines ourselves. but C1:CAL-SENSMAT_<DOF>_<RFPD>_<I/Q>_DEMOD_<I/Q>_IN1 are still acquired at 2048 Hz to do our own low pass filtering in software and C1:CAL-SENSMAT_<DOF>_<RFPD>_<I/Q>_DEMOD_<I/Q>_OUT are acquired at 256 Hz.

This removal worked, and restarting DAQD worked and now c1cal does not have any DC errors. Current total data acquisition C1:DAQ-FEC_50_TOTAL is 2521 which is less than our other heavy models like c1lsc, c1sus etc. So c1cal can probably acquire more in future, but care is required while adding new channels. This issue happened because we added BH44 to the calibration model.

  17441   Wed Feb 1 16:53:55 2023 AlexSummaryGeneralShadowing Anchal on developing a change for the c1ioo CDS computer

During my time shadowing Anchal, we discussed the need for digital control systems on the suspension systems for the 40 meter optics. The controls and diagnostics system (CDS) allows us to develop our own feedback controls and filters for the suspension systems by taking in analog signals from the shadow sensors. The feedback control system developed in the CDS then utilizes the OSEM actuators to dampen harmonic motion and noise on the suspension lines. While improving these feedback loops is an ongoing challenge, it is a problem that is likely non-linear, meaning the system must be understood on a much higher level to make further improvements. This brings us to the new addition of a wavefront sensor in the 40m lab, which will allow for constant monitoring of the active wavefront in the interferometer. The wavefront will soon be used for gathering training data for a neural net that will help further analyze the non-linear effects within the suspension and damping system. What Anchal was working on today was an update within a CDS model for clioo to allow for the integration of the wavefront sensor such that he may use a switch to change between connections in the mode cleaner and the arm cavity. The CDS models may be edited and updated using Matlab/Simulink to arrange blocks and code in a robust and visual manner. The final system designed in Simulink can then be saved and compiled using the real-time code generator (RCG), which cross-compiles the Simulink file into C code that can be read by the CDS system to assign inputs, outputs, and various logic or algorithms for filtering.

  17443   Thu Feb 2 19:41:49 2023 AnchalSummaryPowerShutdownRecovery from power outage events

[Anchal, JC, Radhika, Paco]

JC reported that power outage happened twice in 40m today at around 4:17 pm.

We followed instructions from this page mostly to recover today. Following are some highlights:

Main laser controller fan broke

Paco reported that the adhoc fan in the back of main laser controller slid down and broke. Their might be contamination on the table from broken fan parts. Paco replaced this fan with another fan which is larger. I think it is time to fix this fan on the controller for good.

Main volume valve V1 shutdown

The main volume valve shut down because c1vac turned off. We restored the vacuum state by simply opening this valve again. Everything else was same as until the final step in vacuum resetting steps.

Mode cleaner locking issues

The burt restore for mode cleaner board settings do not bring back the state of channels C1:IOO-MC_FASTSW and C1:IOO-MC_POL. This has been an issue which has puzzled us in the past too as we try to get the mode cleaner to lock after power outage recovery. I have now added these channels and their required state in autolocker settings so that autolocker scan in the correct state always. It seems like I added with Yuta's name in the commit author.


  17446   Fri Feb 3 17:39:38 2023 yutaSummaryBHD60 Hz noise investigations around IMC, part 2

[Paco, Yuta]

We estimated the frequency noise of IMC output beam at 60 Hz using different methods to see if they are consistent.
They are not inconsistent, but seems hard to explain by an easy single dominating noise source (multiple noise sources at similar noise level?).

IMC suspension damping:
 - We checked that 60 Hz comb filters are all on for all OSEM sensors of MC1, MC2, MC3 (Attachment #1), and they all have comb(60,30,-40,3), which is 60 Hz comb filter of Q=30, -40 dB, 3 harmonics.

Revisiting IMC error point calibrations:


The estimated (in loop) line noise (60 Hz) levels are 70 uV/rtHz, which using the calibration 13 kHz/Vrms (from 40m/14691) amounts to 0.9 Hz/rtHz of (supressed) frequency noise at IMC Error point.

This number (0.9 Hz/rtHz) in terms of displacement corresponds to 1.28e-15 m/rtHz. The measured DARM noise (2e-10 m/rtHz @ 60 Hz from 40m/17414) is not accounted for by this amount.

 - We revisited this calibration in 40m/17431. First, 0.9 Hz/rtHz corresponds to 1.3e-13 m/rtHz, as L/nu = 40 m / 282 THz = 1.4e-13 m/Hz.
 - Also, we need to add a loop correction. MC servo board settings when we took this data was as follows:
   - +4 dB in IN1
   - 40 Hz pole, 4000 Hz zero filter was on
   - 0 boost
  assuming 1/f around UGF of 200 kHz (40m/17009), and 1/f^2 between 40-4000 Hz, openloop gain at 60 Hz will be (4e3/60)**2*(200e3/4e3)=2e5. So, the estimated frequency noise at the output of IMC in terms of arm length is 1.3e-13 m/rtHz * (1+G) = 2.6e-8 m/rtHz (or 1.8e-8 m RMS considering 0.5 Hz bandwith).
  - Noise measured with the same condition but PSL shutter closed was 7 uV/rtHz at 60 Hz (40m/17431). This correspond to 1.3e-14 m/rtHz (or 9.2e-15 m RMS), which is an estimated dark noise.

Measuring frequency noise using arms:
 - We then proceeded to measure frequency noise using arms locked with POX11 and POY11. Attachment #2 and #3 is calibrated XARM and YARM noise using the error signals and feedback signals. For both, it is 1e-10 m/rtHz at 60 Hz (or 4.3e-11 m RMS considering 0.187493 Hz bandwidth). And this is more than x10 higher than what we have measured in August 2022 (dotted lines).
 - MC_F calibrated using 1.4e-13 m/Hz reads 7.1e-9 m/rtHz at 60 Hz (or 3.1e-9 m RMS considering 0.187493 Hz bandwidth).
 - Noise measured at DARM in FPMI locked with RF (but CARM with POX11+POY11, as 60 Hz was too much to switch to REFL55_I) was 3e-10 m/rtHz at 60 Hz (or 1.8e-10 m RMS considering 0.374994 Hz bandwidth) (Attachment #5), which is roughly the same as past measurements (40m/17414).
 - To check if MC_F is calibrated correctly, we injected a line at 57 Hz with 3000 counts in amplitude into MC2. Using MC2 actuation efficiency -14.17e-9 /f^2 m/counts in arm length (40m/16978), this should give

14.17e-9/(60**2)*3000 = 1.2e-8 m -> 0.93e-8 m RMS

 in XARM length noise. RMS value of YARM calibrated spectra reads 1.1e-8 m (Attachment #4), which is consistent within ~20%, so MC_F calibration is OK. Note that MC_F at 60 Hz are at the same level in August 2022 (green curves).

Summary of frequency noise measurements at 60 Hz:
 - 1.8e-8 m RMS as measured at IMC error point TP1A
    This gives you total of IMC length noise, error point noise, PSL free run noise, feedback noise.
    Estimated dark noise at error point TP1A is 9.2e-15 m RMS, and is small.
    Calibration might be wrong, as this rely on IMC loop gain estimate and error signal calibration of 13kHz/V a while ago in 2018 (from 40m/14691, which is from 40m/13696), which might not be true for TP1A at 60 Hz (note that there is a 40 Hz/4000 Hz filter).
 - 3.1e-9 m RMS as measured at MC_F
    This gives you total of IMC length noise, error point noise, PSL free run noise, but the noise injected at feedback point before MC_F is suppressed by ~2e5.
    As estimated dark noise is much less, it is IMC length noise, PSL free run noise or noise injected after MC_F.
    Note that typical NPRO free run noise at 60 Hz is 1e4/60 Hz/rtHz * 1.4e-13 m/Hz = 2.3e-11 m/rtHz, and is small, but we might be having large NPRO noise.
 - 4.3e-11 m RMS as measured using XARM and YARM
     This gives you total of IMC length noise, error point noise, but PSL free run noise and feedback noise are suppresed by ~2e5.
     But this also includes noise injected in XARM and YARM loops.
     If this is mainly from PSL free run noise or feedback noise, we expect 3.1e-9 m RMS/2e5 = 1.6e-14 m RMS, so it doesn't explain 4.3e-11 m RMS.
     If this is mainly from IMC length noise, this should be equal to frequency noise measured at MC_F, but MC_F is higher by nearly two orders of magnitude.

     Noise in POX11 or POY11 are smaller by a factor of more than 100 when dark (see 40m/17431), so contribution from dark noise of POX11 and POY11 at 60 Hz to XARM/YARM noise is negligible.
     These mean that the noise might be from combination of IMC and PSL. (For example, if noise injected at error point is 9.2e-15 m RMS, IMC length noise is 4.3e-11 m RMS, PSL free run noise is 3.1e-9 m RMS, and noise injected at feedback point is 1.8e-8 m RMS, it explains all the measurements so far.)
 - 1.8e-10 m RMS as measured using FPMI DARM
     Frequency noise in DARM should be suppressed by common mode rejection, but it is actually x3 higher than what we see in XARM and YARM.
     There might be extra noise from FPMI loops (note that CARM is controlled by POX11+POY11 in this measurement).

  - Check IMC error point calibration (is 13 kHz/V correct?) by driving MC2 at around 60 Hz (but not at 60 Hz) by known amount
  - Measure frequency noise at IN1 of MC servo board to avoid 40 Hz/4000 Hz filter
  - Check what exactly are we measuring at MC_F. Are there possibility of additional noise for MC_F, which is not fed back to laser frequency?
  - Drive MC2 at around 60 Hz (but not at 60 Hz) to see if MC_F and X/YARM spectra matches
  - Estimate IMC length noise from MC OSEMs
  - Touch electronics around 1X2 to see if 60 Hz at IMC error point changes (monitor the live spectrum!)

Attachment 1: Screenshot_2023-02-03_12-34-10_IMC60HzComb.png
Attachment 2: XARM_calibrated_noise_20230203.pdf
Attachment 3: YARM_calibrated_noise_20230203.pdf
Attachment 4: MC_F_57Hzline.pdf
Attachment 5: FPMI_calibrated_noise_20230203.pdf
  17447   Fri Feb 3 17:41:26 2023 PacoSummaryBHDSystematic line noise hunting around BH44

[Paco, Yuta]


We devised a plan to systematically hunt for the line noise source assuming it has something to do with BH44 and/or our recent changes in the LSC rack. Our noise estimate is the IMC_error point (TP1A) at the MC servo board. Our traces from Attachment #1 represent, in the following order:


PSL shutter open, IMC locked, C1:IOO-MC_SW1 = 1

PSL shutter closed, IMC unlocked, C1:IOO-MC_SW1 = 1

PSL shutter closed, IMC unlocked, C1:IOO-MC_SW1 = 0

PSL shutter open, IMC locked, C1:IOO-MC_SW1 = 1,  rewired the delay box on LSC rack.

Same as above, plus we connected a loose "ground" wire to the delay box supply.

Same as above, plus we removed the PD interface unit connection.

Same as above plus we disconnected the 44 MHz local oscillators and terminated their outputs at the RF distribution box.

Same as above plus we disconnected the RFPD (BH44) from the IQ demod board at the LSC rack.

Where all the measurements used +4 dB input gain, 40:4000 filter enabled, and Boost = 0 settings on the MC servo board. In between measurements 3 and 4 we had to replace the SR560 (buffer) because the starting one ran out of battery... We found a good one in the YEND, used to buffer the OLTF excitation for the YAUX loop TF measurements.

Attachment 1: 60Hzhunting.png
  17449   Sun Feb 5 10:25:49 2023 AnchalSummaryPowerShutdownMain laser tripping

Our main laser has tripped suspiciously twice since the power shutdown. The last time it happened on Thursday Feb 2 night (the day of power outage happened). Next morning Paco turned the laser back on, I'm not sure if he did anything else other than turning the diode current driver ON. Paco, please add anything else you did.

Chris reported that the laser tripped again last night on Feb 4th around 6 pm. I came today to see the same situation, laser diode turned OFF. After a discussion with a friend in the weekend, it turned out that sometimes when brief power outages happen, the TEC circuit for mainitaing laser tremperature turns OFF while the current driver keeps running. I'm not sure if that is the case for us but that can cause such tripping due to over heating. So today instead of simply turning on the current driver again, I power cycled the laser controller. Laser is back on and mode cleaner is locked with fewer counts though since PMC transmission dropped. I don't have time to realign PMC today and I think it might be the case that the transmission would increase once laser has reached a steady state. On Monday, we need to consult with people with more experience and understand why our laser is tripping. I hope it is not sick.

  17450   Sun Feb 5 18:02:46 2023 ranaSummaryBHD60 Hz noise investigations around IMC, part 2

For the loop calculation, don't you have to consider the IMC cavity pole? What about the analog filter on the output of the HV driver for the laser PZT?

  17451   Mon Feb 6 07:58:00 2023 JCSummaryPowerShutdownMain laser tripping

I came in today and it seems like the main laser tripped again yesterday around 3:00 pm.

There was a series of earthquakes in Turkey today, but all our suspension seem to be okay.

  17452   Mon Feb 6 11:50:44 2023 AnchalSummaryPowerShutdownMain laser tripping

[Anchal, JC]

During shimmer test yesterday, the man laser tripped again. This morning, JC and I went to inspect the situation closer. We figured that if we can take a look inside the controller, we can get the replacement fan part number. Attached are some photos of inside. To open the controller, all you need to do is take out the two standoffs that are at the edges in the back side, then the top or botttom cover can slide out. Inside, all heatsinks of heat generating ICs are clamped to a larged metal heat sink which is covered on all side but one at the rear end. Through two holes in the top of this cavity, two fan push air through the heat sink to the back. This prompted us to understand that if the externam cooling fan direction is wrong, it would be pshing in air rather than pulling it out. So we decided to try the configuration where the fan is pulling out air. We think the direction of the fan was wrong till now which might be causing the laser controller to shut down. Now we need to wait and watch. For now, the laser is up and running.

Bt the way, we could not get any part number from the fans inside. We are still looking around in the lab if we have the replacement fans in hand as steve said they procured some.


I came in today and it seems like the main laser tripped again yesterday around 3:00 pm.


Attachment 1: IMG_6489.JPG
Attachment 2: IMG_6483.JPG
  17455   Tue Feb 7 20:10:05 2023 yutaSummaryBHD60 Hz noise investigations around IMC, part 3

[Anchal, Yuta]

We have measured OLTF of IMC loop, and revisited IMC error point calibration again.
Also, we have tried to break the ground loop between MC servo board and TTFSS, but didn't help.

IMC OLTF measurement:
 - IMC OLTF was measured using SR785 at TP1A and TP1B. MC servo board settings are the following.
   - +4 dB in IN1
   - 40 Hz pole, 4000 Hz zero filter was on
   - 0 boost
 - Eye-ball fit of OLTF gives zeros at [30e3,30e3] Hz, poles at [40,3e3,3e3] Hz (Attachment #1). 40 Hz pole is from 40:4000 Hz fiter in MC servo board and 4kHz zero is compensated by IMC cavity pole (~ 3.79 kHz). We are not sure where two 3k:30k are from.
 - Anyway, eye-ball fit gives OLTF gain of 1.7e5 at 60 Hz, which is accidentally roughly the same as previous estimate (40m/17446).

Revisiting IMC error point calibrations:
 - We realized that error signal calibration of 13kHz/V a while ago in 2018 (from 40m/14691, which is from 40m/13696) is a calibration for IN1.
 - So, 70 uV/rtHz at 60 Hz at TP1A corresponds to 70 uV/rtHz / 4dB / (4e3/60) * 13kHz/V = 0.009 Hz/rtHz, which corresponds to 1.2e-15 m/rtHz.
 - The estimated frequency noise at the output of IMC in terms of arm length is 1.2e-15 m/Hz * (1+G) = 2.0e-10 m/rtHz (or 1.4e-10 m RMS considering 0.5 Hz bandwith).
 - Noise measured with the same condition but PSL shutter closed was 7 uV/rtHz at 60 Hz (40m/17431). This correspond to 1.2e-16 m/rtHz (or 8.5e-17 m RMS), which is an estimated dark noise.

Summary of frequency noise measurements at 60 Hz:
 - 1.4e-10 m RMS (or 1.0e3 Hz RMS) as measured at TP1A (estimate of unsuppressed noise difference between IMC and PSL)
  - This being smaller than MC_F measurement is strange, as this should be an estimate of total unsuppressed noise (if 60 Hz noise is coherently cancelling each other, this can be explained).
 - 3.1e-9 m RMS (or 2.2e4 Hz RMS) as measured at MC_F
 - 4.3e-11 m RMS (or 3.1e2 Hz RMS)  as measured using XARM and YARM
 - 1.8e-10 m RMS as measured using FPMI DARM

Buffering MC servo board output to TTFSS:
 - We have inserted a battery-powered SR560 in between MC servo board output to TTFSS, trying to break the possible ground loop between 1X2 rack and PSL.
 - To do this, we had to lower IN1 gain to -6dB, to avoid saturation of SR560.
 - This didn't make any difference in MC_F or POY during YARM lock.

Attachment 1: IMC_OLTF.png
  17458   Thu Feb 9 10:19:22 2023 yutaSummaryBHD60 Hz noise investigations around IMC, part 4, using ALS BEAT

[Anchal, Yuta]

Yesterday, we have measured the frequency noise of PSL with IMC locked/unlocked using ALS BEATX/Y to narrow down where the 60 Hz is coming from.
All the measurements so far is consistent with a hypothesis that 60 Hz noise injected after MC_F is picked-off (it could be from MC_F DAQ readout or something in the IMC loop).

 - Measured YARM noise spectra when YARM is locked with POY11 to measure the frequency noise with respect to YARM, and compared with MC_F
 - Measured ALS BEATX and BEATY spectra when PSL is free running and when IMC is locked. Here, when "PSL is free running" is done with PSL shutter closed, but all the cables remained the same and FSS loop was in "down" state. Shutters at both ends were closed, and PZT inputs to AUX lasers were terminated to avoid noise injection from PDH locking with dark noise (this was necessary to reduce noise in BEATY).

 - Attachment #1 is YARM noise calibrated into Hz, and Attachment #2 is BEATX and BEATY spectra with PSL free running (solid lines) and IMC locked (dotted lines). Below are summary of noise level at 60 Hz (RMS is calculated using a bandwidth of 0.187493 Hz)

YARM (PSL locked vs Yarm): 6.5e2 Hz/rtHz (2.8e2 Hz RMS)
MC_F (sum of noises in IMC loop): 4.9e4 Hz/rtHz (2.2e4 Hz RMS)
BEATX free (PSL free vs Xend free): 3.3e3 Hz/rtHz (1.4e3 Hz RMS)
BEATX locked (PSL locked vs Xend free): 8.8e2 Hz/rtHz (3.8e2 Hz RMS)
BEATY free (PSL free vs Yend free): 1.6e4 Hz/rtHz (6.9e3 Hz RMS)
BEATY locked (PSL locked vs Yend free): 1.5e4 Hz/rtHz (6.5e3 Hz RMS)

 - "BEATX locked" measurement suggests that PSL locked to IMC (and Xend free) has noise less than 3.8e2 Hz RMS. This is roughly consistent with YARM measurement of frequency noise, and suggests that Yarm is stable enough to measure the PSL locked frequency noise.
 - "BEATX free" measurement suggests that PSL free run (with cables connected) has noise of 1.4e3 Hz RMS (note that Xend free is less than 3.8e2 Hz RMS).
 - MC_F measurement is the sum of noises in IMC loop, including IMC length noise + noise injected at error point (3.8e2 Hz RMS), PSL free run noise (1.4e3 Hz RMS), noise injected at feedback. Therefore, this suggests that 2.2e4 Hz RMS we see in MC_F is from noise injected after MC_F pickoff point (or in the MC_F DAQ readout).
 - BEATY having large 60 Hz noise probably comes from noise in the beat measurement.

 - Use BEATX to monitor 60 Hz noise.
 - Try terminating PZT input to see if 60 Hz noise reduces. Try different gains at different point of MC servo board and TTFSS when IMC is unlocked to see where exactly 60 Hz noise is coming from.

Attachment 1: YARM_calibrated_noise_20230208_Hz.pdf
Attachment 2: BEATX_BEATY_MCF.pdf
  17460   Thu Feb 9 17:33:34 2023 yutaSummaryBHD60 Hz noise investigations around IMC, part 6, TTFSS

[Anchal, Yuta]

Measurements yesterday (40m/17458) suggested that 60 Hz noise is injected after MC_F is picked-off.
So, we terminated PSL PZT input at several points to see where 60 Hz noise is injected.
It seems like the 60 Hz frequncy noise we see in MC_F is from TTFSS box, but the 60 Hz noise we see in YARM is not limited by this.

The 60 Hz noise we see in YARM is probably limited by IMC length noise.

 - We terminated PZT input to the PSL laser at various points one by one and monitored 60 Hz frequency noise using BEATX. PSL shutter was closed and IMC was not locked.

 - Below is the result at 60 Hz (RMS is calculated using a bandwidth of 0.187493 Hz)

Reference from 40m/17458, YARM (PSL locked vs Yarm): 6.5e2 Hz/rtHz (2.8e2 Hz RMS)
Reference from 40m/17458, MC_F (sum of noises in IMC loop): 4.9e4 Hz/rtHz (2.2e4 Hz RMS)
MC_F when PSL shutter is closed but MC servo board configuration at IMC locked state: 2.7e2 Hz/rtHz (1.2e2 Hz RMS) -- this gives IMC loop gain enhanced sensing noise

BEATX free (PSL free vs Xend free): 3.5e3 Hz/rtHz (1.5e3 Hz RMS) -- consistent with previous measurements
With PZT input to NPRO terminated (Attachment #1): 8.1e2 Hz/rtHz (3.5e2 Hz RMS)
Connected a terminated small box (we see in Attachment #1) before NPRO PZT: 6.3e2 Hz/rtHz (2.7e2 Hz RMS)
Connected input terminated Thorlabs PZT driver (MDT694): 5.9e2 Hz/rtHz (2.6e2 Hz RMS)
Connected input terminated summing amp (Attachment#2): 4.4e2 Hz/rtHz (1.9e2 Hz RMS)
Connected input terminated TTFSS (C1:PSL-FSS_MGAIN=-10dB, C1:PSL-FSS_FASTGAIN=-10dB): 3.9e3 Hz/rtHz (1.7e3 Hz RMS) -- consistent with "BEATX free (PSL free vs Xend free)" measurement
Connected input terminated TTFSS (C1:PSL-FSS_MGAIN=-10dB, C1:PSL-FSS_FASTGAIN=+10dB): 7.6e3 Hz/rtHz (3.3e3 Hz RMS)
Connected input terminated TTFSS (C1:PSL-FSS_MGAIN=+4dB, C1:PSL-FSS_FASTGAIN=+19dB): 2.9e4 Hz/rtHz (1.3e4 Hz RMS) -- Nominal gains when IMC is locked; consistent with "MC_F" measurement 40m/17458
Connected input terminated TTFSS (C1:PSL-FSS_MGAIN=+19dB, C1:PSL-FSS_FASTGAIN=+4dB): 1.1e4 Hz/rtHz (4.8e3 Hz RMS)

 - Connecting TTFSS increased 60 Hz frequency noise, which suggests that TTFSS is creating this 60 Hz frequency noise.
 - Setting TTFSS gains to nominal gains to IMC locked, 60 Hz frequency noise matched with frequency noise measurement using MC_F. This quantitatively supports that TTFSS is creating this 60 Hz frequency noise.
 - Increasing C1:PSL-FSS_MGAIN and reducing C1:PSL-FSS_FASTGAIN reduced 60 Hz frequency nosie. This means that some portion of 60 Hz noise is from between these two gains.
 - Note that having 60 Hz noise in TTFSS does not necessarily mean that our YARM noise is limited by this, because IMC loop suppresses the TTFSS noise. Assuming all 1.3e4 Hz RMS is all from TTFSS noise, it is suppressed to less than 1.3e4 Hz RMS/2e5 = 6.5e-2 Hz RMS (where 2e5 is IMC loop gain without super boosts, but it is actually higher with them) as frequency noise we see in YARM. YARM noise is measured to be 6.5e2 Hz/rtHz (2.8e2 Hz RMS), so it is not limited by TTFSS noise.
 - Also dark noise measured at MC_F (1.2e2 Hz RMS) tells you that the dark noise is not limiting the frequency noise we see in YARM.

Touching various parts around TTFSS:
 - We moved on to touch various parts around TTFSS to see if 60 Hz noise reduces in MC_F. We removed unused cables around TTFSS interface, touched power cables into TTFSS (both at TTFSS interface in the rack and TTFSS box on PSL table), BNC cables into TTFSS, disconnected slow controls, tried to avoid grounding of cables going into EOM (there is a small box that sums FSS feedback signal and 33.5 MHz; Attachment #3), but 60 Hz noise we see in MC_F didn't change significantly.

 - Check grounding situation around TTFSS box.
 - Check IMC length noise and error point noise by monitoring BEATX.
 - Check coil drivers for MC1, MC2, MC3 by disconnecting drivers while IMC is locked.
 - Try feeding back IMC servo also to MC2 with 60 Hz resonant gain to cancel 60 Hz noise

Note added at 23:50 to clarify:
nIMC : IMC length noise in frequency
nPSL: PSL free run noise in frequency
ne: sensing noise in frequency
nf: feedback noise in frequency
G: IMC loop gain (estimated to be 2e5 at 60 Hz without boosts)

MC_F = G/(1+G) * (nIMC + nPSL + ne + nf) + [noises in MC_F DAQ]
 = 2.2e4 Hz RMS
 MC_F when dark, MC servo nominal gain = G * ne
 = 1.2e2 Hz RMS
PSL frequency noise after IMC lock = G/(1+G) * (nIMC + ne) + 1/(1+G) * (nPSL + nf)
YARM = [PSL frequency noise after IMC lock] + [noises from YARM loop]
 = 2.8e2 Hz RMS
BEATX when PSL is free run, TTFSS low gain connected = nPSL + [noises from Xend AUX and BEATX sensing]
 = 1.7e3 Hz RMS
BEATX when PSL is free run, TTFSS nominal gain connected = nPSL + nf + [noises from Xend AUX and BEATX sensing]
 = 2.9e4 Hz RMS
BEATX when IMC is locked = [PSL frequency noise after IMC lock] + [noises from Xend AUX and BEATX sensing]
 = 3.8e2 Hz RMS
So, our estimate is
ne ~ 1.2e2/G Hz RMS (small)
nPSL ~ 1.7e3 Hz RMS
nf ~ 2e4 Hz RMS (this dominates MC_F, but already suppressed enough in [PSL frequency noise after IMC lock])
[PSL frequency after IMC lock] ~ 3e2 Hz RMS (this dominates YARM and BEATX when IMC is locked)
nIMC ~ 3e2 Hz RMS (this dominates [PSL frequency noise after IMC lock])

Attachment 1: NPROandSmallBox.JPG
Attachment 2: TerminatingSummingBox.JPG
Attachment 3: EOMSmallBox.JPG
  17461   Mon Feb 13 11:54:54 2023 yutaSummaryBHD60 Hz frequency noise is coming from MC1 coils

[JC, Yuta]

We have found that MC1 coils are causing 60 Hz noise.
Tripping watchdogs for MC1 coils reduced 60 Hz noise seen in YARM by a factor of 100.

 - Locked YARM with POY11 and measured YARM sensitivity to use it for 60 Hz frequency noise monitor0.187493**0.5
 - Tripped MC1, MC2, MC3 coil output watchdogs to see if they are causing this 60 Hz frequency noise. IMC WFS were turned off.

 - Attachment #1 is YARM sensitivity and MC_F in Hz with MC1,2,3 untripped (dotted) and MC1 tripped (solid).

YARM (PSL locked vs Yarm), MC1,2,3 untripped: 6.0e2 Hz/rtHz (2.6e2 Hz RMS)
MC_F (sum of noises in IMC loop), MC1,2,3 untripped: 4.8e4 Hz/rtHz (2.1e4 Hz RMS)
YARM (PSL locked vs Yarm), MC1 tripped: 6.6e0 Hz/rtHz (2.9e0 Hz RMS) -- reduced by a factor of 100
MC_F (sum of noises in IMC loop), MC1 tripped: 4.7e4 Hz/rtHz (2.0e4 Hz RMS)

 - We have also tried tripping MC2 and MC3 coils, but they didn't make much difference.
 - Untripping only one of MC1 face coils created 60 Hz frequency noise, so all the face coils seem to have the same level of 60 Hz noise.

 - Inspect around MC1 coil driver

Attachment 1: YARM_calibrated_noise_20230213_Hz.pdf
Attachment 2: Screenshot_2023-02-13_12-23-23_TrippingMC1.png
  17462   Mon Feb 13 17:35:20 2023 AnchalSummaryBHD60 Hz frequency noise is coming from MC1 coils

[Anchal, Yuta]

We think we have narrowed down the source of 60 Hz noise to one fo the following possibilities:

  • Ground loop present along the MC1 suspension damping loop
  • 60 Hz DAC noise on inputs of MC1 coil driver
  • 60 Hz noise injected at dewhitening board before the dewhitening filter

The second and third cases are unlikely because we see 60 Hz noise present only in MC1 coils, not MC3 coils while they both share the same connection from DAC to SOS dewhitening filter boards as they share the SOS dewhitening board D000316-A. So it is unlikely that only the MC1 channels have this noise while the MC3 channels do not.

This inference was made from following observations:

Change Reduction in noise at C1:LSC-YARM_IN1_DQ (dB)
Turn off damping loops, keep coil output enabled 0
Turn off coil outputs (only fast actuation) 43
Turn ON Analog Coil Dewhitening Filter on one face coil only 30
Turn ON Analog Coil Dewhitening Filter on all face coils (attachment 1) 43

Note: Turning ON analog dewhitenign on MC1 coil is done by turning off FM9 switch which is the simulated digital dewhitening filter. Also note that theanalog dewhitening filter has an attenuation of 30 dB at 60 Hz.

MC1 has an unconvetional setup where the satellite amplifier is from the new generation while the coil driver and dewhitening boards are from the old generation. The new generation satellite amplifiers sen PD signal through differential ended signals but the old generation PD whitening interface expects single ended inputs, so we ahve been using PD monitor outputs from the satellite amplifier which connects the ground of the two boards to each other. Maybe this is the reason for the ground loop.

Attachment 1: YARM_calibrated_noise_20230213_Hz_MC1SimDWOnOff.pdf
  17463   Tue Feb 14 10:49:04 2023 yutaSummaryBHDMC1 electronics diagram and cable diconnection tests

Below are summary of electronics around MC1 and cable disconnection tests.
These suggest that the 60 Hz noise is probably from somewhere between DAC and the coil driver.
For now, we can work on IFO with SimDW off.

MC1 local damping electronics diagram:
Vacuum Flange
|| DB25 cable x2
Satellite Amp Chassis (LIGO-S2100029, LIGO-D1002818)
|| DB9 split cable
Suspension PD Whitening and Interface Board (LIGO-D000210)
||| 4pin LEMO x3
Anti-aliasing filter
 (SimDW is zpk([35.3553+i*35.3553;35.3553-i*35.3553;250],[4.94975+i*4.94975;4.94975-i*4.94975;2500],1,"n") gain(1.020); InvDW is the inverse)
SOS Dewhitening and Anti-Image Filter (LIGO-D000316) Shared with MC3
 (has 2ea. 800 Hz LPF & 5th order, 1 dB ripple, 50 dB atten, 28Hz elliptic LPF that can be turned on or bypassed)
||||| SMA-LEMO cable x5
 ("test in" are used; inputs can be disconnected with watchdogs)
SOS Coil Driver Module (LIGO-D010001, LIGO-D1700218)
 (HV offsets from Acromag are added at the output (independent from watchdogs))
|| DB9 split cable
Satellite Amp Chassis

Disconnecting cables:
 - Disconnecting cables between Satellite Amp Chassis and Suspension PD Whitening and Interface Board didn't help reducing 60 Hz noise.
 - Disconnecting LEMO cables between Suspension PD Whitening and Interface Board and Anti-aliasing filter didn't help reducing 60 Hz noise.
 - Turning off C1:SUS-MC1_SUSPOS/PIT/YAW/SIDE outputs didn't help reducing 60 Hz noise.
 - Turning off SimDW reduced 60 Hz noise.
 - Turning off watchdogs reduced 60 Hz noise.

Dewhitening filters:
 - When 60 Hz frequency noise was high, SimDW was on, but InvDW was off, which is in a weired state.
 - Now, all the MC suspensions have SimDW turned off and InvDW turned on (which supposed to turn on analog dewhitening filter, which is probably 28 Hz ELP which has a notch at 60 Hz)
 - Probably, when realtime model modifications for BH44 was made on Jan 17, coil dewhitening filter situation was not burt restored correctly, and we started to notice 60 Hz noise (which was already there but didn't notice because of dewhitening).
 - See 40m/17431 for the timeline, possibly related elogs 40m/17359, 40m/17361 about MC1 dewhitening switching on Dec 14-16.

 - Check if analong dewhitening filter actually has 28 Hz ELP by measuring transfer functions
 - Design SimDW and InvDW to correctly take into account of real dewhitening filters

  17466   Wed Feb 15 16:16:59 2023 AnchalSummaryBHDIMC optics Coil Output Filter corrections

Overtime the coil output filters on IMC optics have drifted into a bad configuration. Today at the meeting, Rana told us the correct configuration for these filters. I'll summarize this here and we have changes the filters on all IMC optics, MC1, MC2, and MC3 to match this configurations:

MC1 and MC3

Analog side:

Both MC1 and MC3 have a 28 Hz 5th order elliptical low pass filter as teh dewhitening filter in LIGO-D000316

Digital side:

At the coil output filters named as C1:SUS-MC1_ULCOIL, the filter module FM9 is connectd in RTCDS to the analog dewhitening filter such that only one of the two can remain ON. So For MC1 and MC3, we put a ellip("LowPass", 5, 1, 50, 28) filter on FM9 for all 5 coil output filters.

Note: We do not add a inverse dewhitening filter at FM10 like most other optics as inverting this filter will create resonant peaks at the dips of the elliptical filter which we want to avoid and we anyways do not use MC1 and MC3 optics for any kind of actuation above 20 Hz.


Analog side:

For MC2, the dewhitening filter is a 10 Hz pole, 30Hz zero like most other suspended optic.

Digital side:

At the coil output filters named as C1:SUS-MC2_ULCOIL, the filter module FM9 is connectd in RTCDS to the analog dewhitening filter such that only one of the two can remain ON. So For MC2 we put a SimDW filter which is matched to the anlog filter. We also put a InvDW filter on FM10, which is the analytical inverse of the SimDW filter. This filter does the anti-dewhitening required on the digital side and should be always ON.

To MC2 equivalent to other IMC optics in terms of overall transfer function for the local damping loops and ASC loops, we need additional 28 Hz elliptical low pass filter in these loops. But such a filter should not be in the path of LSC feedback when MC2 is used for locking CARM with a bandwidth of ~100 Hz. Thus, we put a ellip("LowPass", 5, 1, 50, 28) filter on FM6 of the following filters, which should be always ON as well:


Effect on 60 Hz Noise

With the above changes, we see that the 60 Hz noise is same as the previous levels when we use the analog dewhitening filter (28 Hz elliptical filter) for MC1. We can move forward with our science experiments with that configuration but there is still something fishy about MC1 in comparison to MC3 which does not have this behavior. So this still needs to be looked at in future.

Wiki page for filter details and configurations

Information of this kind should be stored in a wiki page in my opinion. We should have a page where we list all common filter configurations for our suspensions and other loops, that can be generally classified and is useful for understanding legacy configuration for future folks who work here. I'm starting such a wiki page here, where I'll dump more information as I collect it and get time. Everyone is encouraged to update this in there free/procrastination times.



  17481   Fri Feb 24 13:29:16 2023 AlexSummaryIMCUpdated angular actuation calibration for IMC mirrors

Also reply to: 40m/17352

Tomohiro, Anchal, and I did the following to make updates to the calibration constants for pitch and yaw on MC1, MC2 and MC3.

To acquire the data used for fitting a curve respective to the change in counts per change in mirror pitch and yaw, we utilized some code that Anchal has already developed.

The scripts used to take time averaged data points of the IMC mirrors can be found by entering the command $ s into a terminal window to enter the scripts folder. Then enter the path "SUS/angActCal"

The following scripts will be found there to be used for this experiment:

angActCal.py & parabolaFit.py

To take data we used the angActCal.py function with set values for the time averaging = 5 s, settle time = 5 s, and adjusted the offset such that we would acquire approximately 20 data points given our ASC Bias limits. We defined the limits for each plot based on where the transmission fall off from the maximum value reached an average range of 10,000 counts.

The "readChannel" for each was the "C1:IOO-MC_TRANS_SUMFILT_OUTPUT" and can be found from the site map at IOO>Lock MC> see MC2_TRANS

The adjustment channels for Pitch and yaw on each IMC mirror were entered as the offset value found in the IMC screen at ALIGNMENT OFFSETS > BIASPIT/BIASYAW > OFFSET

For the code to work, the offset switch must be turned on. parabolaFit.py 

The data from MC1, MC2, and MC3 for pitch and yaw was saved to individual text files which were then entered into the parabolaFit.py function to get the results seen in attachment 1 and 2.


The above images show the printout from the plot fitting function and one of the graphs produced.

Optic ACT

Fit curve factor for DC (1/cts^2)


2.41 +/- 0.01 e-3


4.12 +/- 0.02 e-3


5.75 +/- 0.03 e-3


8.48 +/- 0.13 e-3


1.83 +/- 0.03 e-3


4.52 +/- 0.05 e-3

From the fitted curve values we then derived the equations that will soon be described further by Tomohiro (see entry _____) to arrive at the final callibration constants.


Optic ACT

Callibration constant at DC (urad/cts)


12.66 +/- 0.03


6.64 +/- 0.02


lock6.83 +/- 0.02


4.69 +/- 0.04


11.03 +/- 0.09


6.96 +/- 0.04

Final Calibration Constants for MC1, MC2, & MC3


We then utilized our calculated calibration constants (as seen bellow) to adjust the following filter parameters in the IMC control panel.


To make the updates such that the IMC screens show the correct urad values at the output of the filter banks, we must do the following steps to MC1, MC2, and MC3:

First, to make changes to our calibration filters, we must first shut off the pitch and yaw feedback loop controls.

TO do so for the Lock Filters, we will set the pitch and yaw SUS ASC inputs to 0 but entering the sitemap > IOO > C1IOO_WFS_MASTER

Nex head to action at the top right, and we can select "MC WFS relief 60s", this will relieve the values from the pitch and yaw inputs to the 40m Mode Cleaner Alignment settings to save the overall alignment and allow us to turn off the WFS servos to make the necessary adjustments on the lock filters.

Once we have waited a sufficient amount of time for the values on the ASC inputs to hover around 0, select Turn WFS ON/OFF button and choose "Turn OFF MCWFS Servo"


Next, we will press on the "on/off" button (see attachment 3 - circled in orange) for pitch and yaw found in just the LOCK FILTERS windows.

Once these are off we will stay in the same screen and adjust the gain values (boxed in yellow) for pitch and yaw.

Next, we will take the current value and divide it by the newly found corresponding calibration constant. This is to adjust for the changes we will be making on the output end of the filter banks such that all values in the feedback controls are normalized to the same scale.

The changes made here can be seen bellow:


Damp Filter Orig

Damp Filter NEW

Lock Filter Orig

Lock Filter New
































Now that these changes have been made in the damp and lock filter banks, with the pitch and yaw feedback loops STILL OFF, we may adjust the newly made calibration filters for pitch and yaw (as seen in attachment 4).

The "P" and "Y" filters may be opened (boxed in red) and we may adjust the gain (circled in yellow). Because each of these filters have just been created, the value is set to 1. This value can be completely replaced with the calibration constant found in our table above. Thus we will now change MC1 Pitch to have a "gain" of 12.66 and so forth.

Once each of the calibration filters have been updated, you may go back into the damp filters and reinitiate the feedback loops.

Once all values have been entered,

This concludes the updating of the IMC filter calibration constants at DC.

Attachment 1: angActCal_C1-SUS-MC1_BIASPIT_OFFSET_to_C1-IOO-MC_TRANS_SUMFILT_OUT_1361152703.png
Attachment 2: Screenshot_2023-02-23_16-47-58.png
Attachment 3: InkedScreenshot_2023-02-23_17-02-13.jpg
Attachment 4: InkedScreenshot_2023-02-23_17-02-49.jpg
  17482   Fri Feb 24 13:33:22 2023 TomohiroSummaryIMCUpdated angular actuation calibration for IMC mirrors

Alex, Anchal, and I did the following to make updated angular actuation calibration for IMC mirrors. This is the revised version of Anchal's: 40m/16125.

In order to make the calibration formulas, we consider a matrix A: connecting displacements and rotations of the IMC's beam waist to PIT and YAW rotations of every mirror

\begin{pmatrix} x_\mathrm{c} \\ y_\mathrm{c} \\ \theta_\mathrm{c} \\ \phi_\mathrm{c} \end{pmatrix} = A \begin{pmatrix} \theta_1 \\ \theta_2 \\ \theta_3 \\ \phi_1 \\ \phi_2 \\ \phi_3 \end{pmatrix}.

The parameters used in the above equation are listed in the next table.

x horizontal displacement of beam waist position
y vertical displacement of beam waist position
\theta PIT of the beam axis and/or each mirror
\phi YAW of the beam axis and/or each mirror
c (subscript) parameters for the beam
i = 1, 2, 3 (subscript) parameters for \mathrm{MC}_i

\mathrm{MC}_{1, 3} are the flat mirrors and \mathrm{MC}_2 is the curved mirror in IMC. Components in A are refered from F. Kawazoe+ 2011 (doi: 10.1088/2040-8978/13/5/055504). In the paper, displacement and/or rotation of the beam parameters obtained from the PIT and YAW of each mirror are obtained not by \theta_{1, 3}, \phi_{1, 3} but by common or differential rotation of both two flat mirrors \theta_\pm \equiv \theta_1 \pm \theta_3, \phi_\pm \equiv \phi_1 \pm \phi_3. Therefore, we divide A into two parts A_1, A_2 (relation A = A_1 A_2):

  • A_1: relation between the beam parameters and the PIT and YAW rotation with \theta_\pm, \phi_\pm

\begin{pmatrix} x_\mathrm{c} \\ y_\mathrm{c} \\ \theta_\mathrm{c} \\ \phi_\mathrm{c} \end{pmatrix} = A_1 \begin{pmatrix} \theta_+ \\ \theta_- \\ \theta_2 \\ \phi_+ \\ \phi_- \\ \phi_2 \end{pmatrix}.

  • A_2: relation between \theta_\pm, \phi_\pm and \theta_{1, 3}, \phi_{1, 3}

\begin{pmatrix} \theta_+ \\ \theta_- \\ \theta_2 \\ \phi_+ \\ \phi_- \\ \phi_2 \end{pmatrix} = A_2 \begin{pmatrix} \theta_1 \\ \theta_2 \\ \theta_3 \\ \phi_1 \\ \phi_2 \\ \phi_3 \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & -1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} \theta_1 \\ \theta_2 \\ \theta_3 \\ \phi_1 \\ \phi_2 \\ \phi_3 \end{pmatrix}.

A_1 is represented by revewing F. Kawazoe+ (2011):

A_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & - \sqrt{L^2 + d^2} & 0 \\ \dfrac{R - L}{\sqrt{2}} & 0 & -R & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & \dfrac{R - L}{R - (L + d)} & 0 & - \dfrac{R}{R - (L + d)} \end{pmatrix}.

Here we use R as RoC of \mathrm{MC}_2L as height from the shorter side of the isoscele triangle, and d as half-long length of the shorter side. Intuitive discussion about the components are written in the last of the log.

Transmitted power is reduced by the small displacement and/or the small rotation of the beam axis, and can be represented by the Gaussian factor. It is described in /users/OLD/kakeru/oplev_calibration/oplev.pdf by Takahashi-san:

  • parallel displacement

\left( \mathrm{e}^{- \frac{\beta^2}{{2w_0}^2}} \right)^2 \approx 1 - \frac{\beta^2}{{w_0}^2}

where \beta is the small displacement of the beam waist. It corresponds to x_\mathrm{c},~y_\mathrm{c}w_0 is beam waist diameter inside IMC.

  • beam axis rotation

\left( \mathrm{e}^{- \frac{\alpha^2}{{2\alpha_0}^2}} \right)^2 \approx 1 - \frac{\alpha^2}{{\alpha_0}^2}

where \alpha is the small rotation of the beam axis. It corresponds to \theta_\mathrm{c}, \phi_\mathrm{c}\alpha_0 is divergence angle of the beam and is written by w_0 and wavelength of laser \lambda

\alpha_0 = \frac{\lambda}{\pi w_0}.

Total power reduction is measured by multiplied gaussian factor of the displacement and the rotation. We can obtain the calibration formulas \eta with summed reduction Gaussian factor

\begin{align} &\frac{\beta (x_c (\vec{\Theta}), y_c (\vec{\Theta}))^2}{{w_0}^2} + \frac{\alpha (\theta_c (\vec{\Theta}), \phi_c (\vec{\Theta}))^2}{{\alpha_0}^2} \notag \\ &\qquad\quad= \eta_{\cdot 1\mathrm{P}}~{\theta_1}^2 + \eta_{\cdot 2\mathrm{P}}~{\theta_2}^2 + \eta_{\cdot 3\mathrm{P}}~{\theta_3}^2 + \eta_{\cdot 1\mathrm{Y}}~{\phi_1}^2 + \eta_{\cdot 2\mathrm{Y}}~{\phi_2}^2 + \eta_{\cdot 3\mathrm{Y}}~{\phi_3}^2 \notag \end{align}

where \vec{\Theta} is the vector of the PIT and YAW rotation \vec{\Theta} \equiv \left( \theta_1, \theta_2, \theta_3, \phi_1, \phi_2, \phi_3 \right)^\mathrm{T}. \eta_{\cdot i \mathrm{P}}, \eta_{\cdot i \mathrm{Y}} are the calibration fomulas of PIT and YAW in 40m/16125 defined by Anchal, respectively, and have a unit of \mathrm{1/rad^2}. Every calibration fomula is expressed as follows:

\eta_{\cdot 1,3 \mathrm{P}} = \frac{(R - L)^2}{2 {w_0}^2} + \frac{1}{2 {\alpha_0}^2}~,~~\eta_{\cdot 2\mathrm{P}} = \frac{R^2}{{w_0}^2},

\eta_{\cdot 1,3 \mathrm{Y}} = \frac{L^2 + d^2}{{w_0}^2} + \frac{(R - L)^2}{{\alpha_0}^2 \left\{ R - (L + d) \right\}^2}~,~~\eta_{\cdot 2\mathrm{Y}} = \frac{R^2}{{\alpha_0}^2 \left\{ R - (L + d) \right\}^2}.

We intuitively describe how to obtain the components in A_1. The detail is discussed in F. Kawazoe+ (2011).

  • A_1 (1, 5): 2-flat mirrors rotate with differential YAW \phi_-

When the 2-flat mirrors rotate, the shape of the isoscele triangle is thick, that is, the beam waist does not rotate but slightly displaces from its original one. Considering that the longer side of the triangle are almost perpendicular to the shorter side and \phi_- \ll 1x_\mathrm{c} can be obtained by focusing on the right triangle shown in the following picture

x_\mathrm{c} = - \sqrt{L^2 + d^2} \tan \phi_- \approx - \sqrt{L^2 + d^2} \phi_-.

  • A_1 (4, 4): 2-flat mirrors rotate with common YAW \phi_+

From \phi_+ \ll 1, new triangle beam line is very similar to the isoscele triangle by rotating \phi_+ from original one. So \phi_c is approximated to \phi_+, but actually the new one is breaked its symmetry. The result becomes as follows

\phi_\mathrm{c} = \frac{R - L}{R - (L + d)} \phi_+.

  • A_1 (4, 6): curved mirror rotates by \phi_2

It is similar to the case of \phi_+. But the pivot to rotate the triangle is near than the case \phi_+, so \phi_\mathrm{c} has bigger factor than that of \phi_-

\phi_\mathrm{c} = - \frac{R}{R - (L + d)} \phi_2.

  • A_1 (2, 3): curved mirror rotates by \theta_2

It is completely the same as the discussion of linear cavity which has flat end mirror and curved input mirror.

y_\mathrm{c} = - R \tan \theta_2 \approx - R \theta_2.

  • A_1 (2, 1): 2-flat mirrors rotate with common PIT \theta_+

It is also the same as the linear one except that 2-flat mirrors are angled by 45 degrees. Angled 45 degrees reduce the effective rotation by factor of 1/\sqrt{2}. The detail is discussed in A. Freise (2010).

y_\mathrm{c} = (R - L) \tan \left( \frac{\theta_+}{\sqrt{2}} \right) \approx (R - L) \frac{\theta_+}{\sqrt{2}}.

  • A_1 (3,2): 2-flat mirrors rotate with differential PIT \theta_-

The differential rotation with the effect of 1/\sqrt{2} directly reflects to the PIT rotation of the beam

\theta_\mathrm{c} = \frac{\theta_-}{\sqrt{2}}.

  17491   Fri Mar 3 18:47:13 2023 PacoSummaryBHDLO phase POS noise coupling - I

I tried some LO PHASE noise coupling measurements today. With MICH locked using AS55_Q, I control the LO phase using the single RF (BH55_Q) or double RF (BH44_Q) demodulation error signals. The calibrated error and control points for single RF sideband sensing are shown in Attachment #1. In either case feedback loop is closed using FM5, FM8 first with a gain of 1.5 and then a "boost" using FM4. The actuation point is LO1 POS and the UGF was measured to be ~ 35 Hz for both.

** While doing this measurement, I noticed our LO_PHASE dark noise is significantly contributing 180 Hz, 300 Hz and other high line harmonics into the control signal rms so that may be something to look into soon.

I first thought I could use the remaining sensor to measure the noise coupling (e.g. BH44 locks LO phase and BH55 senses injected noise or viceversa), but these two sensing schemes give two different LO phase sensitivities so I decided to just use the calibrated control signals.

-- Noise coupling for BH55_Q --

After locking the LO_PHASE I inject 2 Hz wide uniform noise into three different frequency bands *within the control bandwidth* through C1:SUS-LO2_LSC_EXC, C1:SUS-AS1_LSC_EXC, and C1:SUS-AS4_LSC_EXC. The injected noise settings are captured by Attachment #2 (the screenshot of the excitation settings in diaggui).

I read back the calibrated C1:HPC-LO_PHASE_OUT_DQ representing the true LO_PHASE noise within the control bandwidth and also calibrate the injected noise spectra with the help of the actuation coefficients in [elog40m:17274]. The result is summarized in Attachment #3.

The diaggui template and data for this measurement are saved under /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/Git/40m/measurements/BHD/BH55Q_NoiseCoupling.xml

-- Noise coupling for BH44_Q -- 

I repeat the same procedure as above and the injected noise settings, and the result is summarized in Attachment #4. 

The diaggui template and data for this measurement are saved under /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/Git/40m/measurements/BHD/BH44Q_NoiseCoupling.xml

- Discussion -

It seems that noise injected along the AS beam path (AS1-AS4 dither) couples more into the control point of the LO phase. I also seem to be off in terms of calibrating the noise excitation (even though I scaled using the suspension actuation from [elog40m:17274]. General feedback on the methods used for this measurement are welcome of course. 

- Next steps - 

    - Extend this to single RF + audio dither scheme and double audio dither schemes (although it's hard because the control bandwidth is pretty low already)
    - Investigate line noise in RFPD + demod chain (present on the dark noise). 
    - Investigate other more interesting noise couplings, e.g. angular degrees of freedom, RIN, laser freq noise, etc...
    - Repeat under more relevant IFO configurations (e.g. FPMI)

Attachment 1: lophasenoise_bh55Qcontrol.png
Attachment 2: bhnoisecoupling_excscreenshot.png
Attachment 3: bh55q_noisecoupling.png
Attachment 4: bh44q_noisecoupling.png
  17517   Wed Mar 22 18:38:54 2023 PacoSummaryBHD"On why BH55 senses the LO phase, a finesse adventure of loss and residual DARM offsets"

[Paco, Yehonathan]

I took over the finesse calculations Yehonathan had set up for BHD. The notebook is here and for this post I focused on simulating what we might expect from our single RF vs dual RF sensors (55 MHz and 44 MHz respectively) in terms of LO phase control.

The configuration is simple, only MICH is included (no ETMs, no PRC, no SRC). The LO phase is changed by scanning LO1, the differential loss is changed by scanning the ITMXHR loss parameter (nominally at 25 ppm), and the microscopic DARM offset is changed by scanning the BS position by +- 6 nm.

Finesse estimates the sensor response by taking the demodulated sideband magnitude (BH55, BH44) with respect to a 1 Hz LO1 signal modulation. This can be done for a set of LO phase angles so as to get the nominal LO phase angle where the response is maximized.

I first replicated the plots from [elog17170] for the two sensors in question. This is just done as a sanity check and is shown in Attachment #1. This plot summarizes our expectation that the single RF sideband sensor should have a peak response to the LO phase around 90 deg away from the nominal BHD readout phase angle (0 deg in this plot). In contrast, the double RF demodulation scheme has a peak response around the nominal LO phase angle.

Attachment #2 looks at a family of similar plots representing differential loss changes between the two MICH arms. We tune this by changing the ITMX loss in finesse, and then repeat the calculation as described above. It seems that for the simple MICH, differential loss of ~ 10000 ppm does not impact the nominal LO phase angle where the responses are maximized for either sensor (note however that the response magnitude maybe changes for single RF sideband sensing at extremely high differential loss).

Finally, and most interestingly Attachment #3 looks at a family of similar plots representing a set of microscopic DARM offsets (+- 6 nm). This is tuned by changing the BS position ever so slightly, and the same calculation is repeated. In this case, the nominal LO phase angle does change, and it changes quite a lot for the single RF demod. It looks like this might be enough to explain how we can sense the LO phase angle with a single RF sideband, but I think the next interesting point would be to simulate the effect of contrast defect by changing the ITM RoCs (to scatter into HOMs) or the non-thermal ITM lenses (to probe the TEM00 contrast defect effect). Any comments / feedback at this point are welcome, as we move forward into other configurations where more serious thermal effects might be introduced (PRMI).

Attachment 1: LOphase_sensors.pdf
Attachment 2: LOphase_sensors_loss.pdf
Attachment 3: LOphase_sensors_darmoffset.pdf
  17518   Thu Mar 23 14:20:29 2023 KojiSummaryBHD"On why BH55 senses the LO phase, a finesse adventure of loss and residual DARM offsets"

This is interesting. With the FPMI, the DARM phase shift is enhanced by the cavity. Therefore, I suppose the effect on the BH55 is also going to be enhanced (i.e. a much smaller displacement offset causes a similar LO phase rotation).


  17521   Thu Mar 23 19:15:39 2023 yutaSummaryLSCPRMI locked using REFL55

[Paco, Yuta]

We locked PRMI in sideband using REFL55_I and REFL55_Q.
Lock is not quite stable probably due to alignment fluctuations, and power recylicing gain is breathing.

PRMI preparations:
 - We aligned PRM using PRY (PRM-ITMY) cavity. Aligning PRM to oplev QPD center or last PRM alignment values in May 2022 (! see 40m/16875) didn't work, but we were in the middle of these two, both in pitch and yaw.
 - After this, we centered PRM oplev, aligned REFL camera, POP RFPD (which provides POP22, POP110, and POPDC), and REFL11.

PRY/PRX locking:
 - PRY/X was locked using REFL55_I or REFL11_I. Locking configuration which gives UGF of ~100 Hz was as follows

REFL55_I (24 dB whitening gain, 76.02 deg demod angle) C1:LSC-PRCL_GAIN=-0.03
REFL11_I (18 dB whitening gain, 32.55 deg demod angle) C1:LSC-PRCL_GAIN=-0.8
FM4,5 used for acquisition, FM1,2,6,9 turned on triggered.

 - Attachment #1 is the measured OLTF when PRY was locked.
 - When PRY is flashing, ASDC_OUT, POPDC_OUT, POP22_I, POP11_Q flashes upto 0.33, 1000, 30, 80, respectively.

PRMI locking:
 - PRMI was locked using REFL55_I for PRCL and REFL55_Q for MICH using the following configurations to give UGF of ~100 Hz for both DoF.

  REFL55_I (24 dB whitening gain, 76.02 deg demod angle) C1:LSC-PRCL_GAIN=-0.03
  FM4,5 for acquisition, FM1,2 turned on triggered using POPDC.
  Actuating on 1 * PRM

  REFL55_Q (24 dB whitening gain, 76.02 deg demod angle) C1:LSC-MICH_GAIN=+0.9
  FM4,5 for acquisition, FM1,2 turned on triggered using POPDC.
  Actuating on 0.5 * BS - 0.275 * PRM

 - REFL55 demodulation phase was the same as FPMI and PRY. We checked this is roughly enough by measuring the sensing matrix to minimize PRCL component in Q.
 - MICH actuation of PRM/BS ratio was roughly tuned by minimizing the sensing of MICH component in REFL55_I.
 - PRCL and MICH gain was estimated by measuring the amplitude of error signals in PRY or PRM-misalgined MICH, and comparing that in PRMI.
 - Attachment #2 shows the screenshot of the configuration.
 - Attachment #3 and #4 are measured OLTF for PRCL and MICH.
 - Attachment #5 shows the time series data when PRMI is locked.

 - Tune PRM local damping
 - Tune REFL55 demodulation phase better by measuring the sensing matrix
 - Measure PRM actuation efficiency to check what is the right BS/PRM balancing
 - Estimate power recycling gain and compare with expectations
 - Lock PRMI using REFL11, AS55

Attachment 1: Screenshot_2023-03-23_15-58-25_PRY_OLTF.png
Attachment 2: Screenshot_2023-03-23_18-48-25_PRMIlocking.png
Attachment 3: Screenshot_2023-03-23_18-41-25_PRCL_PRMI.png
Attachment 4: Screenshot_2023-03-23_18-40-55_MICH_PRMI.png
Attachment 5: Screenshot_2023-03-23_18-44-12_PRMISB.png
  17522   Fri Mar 24 12:54:51 2023 yutaSummaryLSCActuator calibration of PRM using PRY

PRM actuator was calibrated using PRY by comparing the actuation ratio between ITMY.
It was measured to be

PRM : -20.10e-9 /f^2 m/counts

This is consistent with what we have measured in 2013! (40m/8255)

 - Locked PRY using REFL55_I using the configuration described in 40m/17521 (UGF of ~100 Hz)
 - Measured transfer function from C1:LSC-(ITMY|PRM)_EXC to C1:LSC-PRCL_IN1
 - Took the ratio between ITMY actuation and PRM actuation to calculate PRM actuation, as ITMY actuation is known to be 4.90e-9 /f^2 m/counts (40m/17285).

 - Attachment #1 is the measured TF, and Attachment #2 is the actuator ratio PRM/ITMY.
 - The ratio was -4.10 on average in 70-150 Hz region, and PRM actuation was estimated to be 4.90e-9 * -4.10 /f^2 m/counts.

MICH actuator for PRMI lock:
 - When BS moves in POS by 1, BS-ITMX length stays the same, but BS-ITMY length changes by sqrt(2), so MICH changes by sqrt(2) and PRCL changes by -sqrt(2)/2.
 - So PRM needs to be used to compensate for this, and the ratio will be BS + k * PRM, where

 k = 26.54e-9/sqrt(2) / -20.10e-9 * sqrt(2)/2 = -0.66

 - So, good MICH actuator will be 0.5 * BS - 0.33 * PRM, which is not quite consistent with the rough number we had yesterday (-0.275; 40m/17521), but agrees with the Gautam number (-0.34; 40m/15996).
 - PRMI sensing matrix for REFL55 needs to be checked again.

Summary of actuation calibration so far:
 They are all actuator efficiency from C1:LSC-{$OPTIC}_EXC

BS   : 26.54e-9 /f^2 m/counts in MICH (40m/17285)
ITMX :  4.93e-9 /f^2 m/counts (
ITMY :  4.90e-9 /f^2 m/counts (
LO1  : 26.34e-9 /f^2 m/counts (
LO2  :  9.81e-9 /f^2 m/counts (
AS1  : 23.35e-9 /f^2 m/counts (
AS4  : 24.07e-9 /f^2 m/counts (
ETMX : 10.91e-9 /f^2 m/counts (
40m/16977, 40m/17014)
ETMY : 10.91e-9 /f^2 m/counts (
MC2 : -14.17e-9 /f^2 m/counts in arm length (
MC2 :   5.06e-9 /f^2 m/counts in IMC length (
MC2 :  1.06e+05 /f^2 Hz/counts in IR laser frequency (
PRM : -20.10e-9 /f^2 m/counts (

Attachment 1: PRMActuatorTF.png
Attachment 2: PRMActuatorRatio.png
  17523   Fri Mar 24 15:05:41 2023 yutaSummaryLSCPRMI sensing matrix and RF demodulation phase tuning

PRMI sensing matrix was measured under PRMI locked with REFL55_I and Q.
MICH actuator is 0.5*ITMX-0.5*ITMY (to have more pure MICH, according to 40m/15996) and PRCL actuator is PRM.
RF demod phases seem to be good within a degree or so to minimize PRCL component in Q.

Sensing matrix with the following demodulation phases (counts/m)
{'AS55': 2.1, 'REFL55': 76.02, 'REFL11': 32.63833493469488}
Sensors       MICH @311.1 Hz           PRCL @313.31 Hz           
AS55_I       (+0.31+/-1.48)e+09 [90]    (+6.56+/-2.23)e+10 [0]    
AS55_Q       (-3.49+/-0.87)e+08 [90]    (+4.62+/-1.80)e+09 [0]    
REFL55_I       (-1.52+/-5.61)e+09 [90]    (+3.21+/-1.36)e+11 [0]    
REFL55_Q       (+8.77+/-0.46)e+09 [90]    (+5.01+/-3.63)e+09 [0]    
REFL11_I       (-0.23+/-1.92)e+08 [90]    (+1.13+/-0.47)e+10 [0]    
REFL11_Q       (+0.39+/-2.14)e+07 [90]    (-4.00+/-9.79)e+07 [0]    

Phase for AS55 to minimize PRCL in Q is 6.14+/-2.08 deg (4.04+/-2.08 deg from current value)
Phase for REFL55 to minimize PRCL in Q is 76.91+/-0.75 deg (0.89+/-0.75 deg from current value)
Phase for REFL11 to minimize PRCL in Q is 32.44+/-0.50 deg (-0.20+/-0.50 deg from current value)

 - Lock PRMI in carrier
 - PRG is not so stable; Measure g-factor of PRC using Kakeru-Gupta method (40m/8235)

  17524   Sun Mar 26 19:13:48 2023 yutaSummaryLSCPRMI sensing matrix and RF demodulation phase tuning

that is really a lot of high precision for the REFL_11 demod phase...

for this kind of measurement, I wish we had a python code that would plot this measurment relative to our Finesse/PyKat model so we know if this table is like "Oh, nothing to see here." or "Wow! that's a Nobel prize worthy measurement !!"


  17525   Mon Mar 27 20:28:57 2023 PacoSummaryBHD"On why BH55 senses the LO phase, a finesse adventure of loss and residual DARM offsets"

Yuta pointed out that the BH55 signal was weirdly never going to zero, so I actually tuned the demod angle and made sure I was reading the right (Q) quadrature. This doesn't affect our previous qualitative conclusion about DARM offsets, but here's an updated gif which also makes visualization easier (?).

Attachment 1: MICH_BHD_darmoffset.gif
MICH_BHD_darmoffset.gif MICH_BHD_darmoffset.gif MICH_BHD_darmoffset.gif MICH_BHD_darmoffset.gif MICH_BHD_darmoffset.gif MICH_BHD_darmoffset.gif MICH_BHD_darmoffset.gif MICH_BHD_darmoffset.gif MICH_BHD_darmoffset.gif MICH_BHD_darmoffset.gif MICH_BHD_darmoffset.gif MICH_BHD_darmoffset.gif MICH_BHD_darmoffset.gif MICH_BHD_darmoffset.gif MICH_BHD_darmoffset.gif MICH_BHD_darmoffset.gif MICH_BHD_darmoffset.gif MICH_BHD_darmoffset.gif MICH_BHD_darmoffset.gif MICH_BHD_darmoffset.gif MICH_BHD_darmoffset.gif MICH_BHD_darmoffset.gif MICH_BHD_darmoffset.gif MICH_BHD_darmoffset.gif MICH_BHD_darmoffset.gif MICH_BHD_darmoffset.gif MICH_BHD_darmoffset.gif MICH_BHD_darmoffset.gif MICH_BHD_darmoffset.gif MICH_BHD_darmoffset.gif MICH_BHD_darmoffset.gif MICH_BHD_darmoffset.gif MICH_BHD_darmoffset.gif MICH_BHD_darmoffset.gif MICH_BHD_darmoffset.gif
  17526   Tue Mar 28 10:58:03 2023 ranaSummaryBHD"On why BH55 senses the LO phase, a finesse adventure of loss and residual DARM offsets"

but what about including the DC reflectivity imbalance of the arms? there would be another BH55 term from that field maybe.


  17528   Wed Mar 29 16:36:04 2023 PacoSummaryBHD"On why BH55 senses the LO phase, a finesse adventure of loss and residual DARM offsets"

I repeated the calculations but with FPMI (last case was all MICH). The qualitative behavior is the same, the BH55 sensing is mostly affected by residual darm offset. If the darm offset is of a couple of nm, the single RF sideband may sense the LO phase at as much as > 20 deg away from the nominal phase angle. This is not too different from the MICH case; so maybe I overlooked something about how I define FPMI in the calculation.

Attachments #1-3 show the plots of the BH55 (single RF sideband) and BH44 (double RF sideband) sensitivity to LO phase fluctuations around various nominal LO phase angles. Attachment #1 looks at the effect of differential loss, Attachment #2 looks at the effect of differential dc reflectivity (of the ITMs), and Attachment #3 looks at the effect of residual darm offsets. Dashed lines show the orthogonal quadrature (I) of the demodulated RF signals (always minimized).

Attachment 1: FPMI_LOphase_sensors_loss.pdf
Attachment 2: FPMI_LOphase_sensors_dcrefl.pdf
Attachment 3: FPMI_LOphase_sensors_darmoffset.pdf
  17532   Thu Mar 30 16:45:09 2023 PacoSummaryLSCPRMI gain estimates and expected flashing at BHD and POP ports

Here are our best estimates for the optic transmission (power) coefficients.

0.05637 0.022 0.00005 0.5 0.01384 0.01384 0 0 0.09903 0.00005 0 0.1 0 0 0.5

Assuming our input power to the IFO is 0.95 Watts, and the IMC transmission is 90%, about 855 mW should be incident on the PRM. Furthermore, following our recent estimates we can estimate our PRMI gain to be ~ 13.4.

  • Using these numbers we expect a single pass AS power of 517.8 uW and LO power of 530.1 uW when the PRM is misaligned and MICH is free swinging, consistent with recent estimates. When the PRM is aligned we would then expect the max PRMI BHD single port flash to be 7.6 mW.
  • Similarly, using these numbers we expect a single pass POPDC power of 1.01 mW, which then is expected to flash at a ~ 13.5 mW level when the PRM is aligned. The POP beam is split between the position sensor, our broadband POP22 and POP110 RFPD, and a CCD camera to monitor the POP beam.

POPDC calibration

I misaligned the PRM and ITMX to get a single ITMY bounce configuration. From the numbers above, I should expect a single ITMY bounce POPDC power of 255 uW. Instead, I measure a total of 173.5 uW = 78 uW (POP QPD) + 91 uW (POP RFPD) + 4.5 uW (POP camera) which is 50% less than expected frown.  The C1:LSC-POPDC_OUT level for this measurement was 335 counts, giving a rough empirical calibration of 1.931e6 counts / W. When the PRM is aligned and the MICH is free swinging, the POPDC flashes reach levels in excess of 14,500 counts implying 7.51 mW PRMI POPDC power. When PRM is misaligned the POP MICH flashes reach 1360 counts, implying 703 uW (which falls short by ~ 50% from our expectation).

There is probably an unaccounted BS in the ITMX table that may explain our observed difference. Nevertheless, our POPDC calibration should be good from here on.

  17533   Mon Apr 3 12:01:59 2023 RadhikaSummaryLSCPRMI sensing matrix and RF demodulation phase tuning

[Paco, Radhika]

We locked PRMI in carrier.

We refereced the old IFOconfigure script (/opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/burt/c1ifoconfigure/C1configurePRM_Carr.sh) to manually configure the LSC screen for PRMI. The final MICH/PRCL gain values used to achieve lock were flipped in sign:

(.snap file ---> final value)

MICH gain: -1.2 ----> 1.2
PRCL gain: 0.021 ---> -0.07

The FM trigger levels (enable/disable) for PRCL and MICH were set to (150/50). The following filter modules were engaged:

MICH: 2, 3, 6, 8
PRCL: 1, 2, 6, 9

During PRMI lock, the POPDC level reached 13130 counts, or 6.8 mW (using calibration of 1.931e6 counts/W). The POPDC counts level was ~1330 with only MICH locked, meaning the PRC gain was ~10. Attachment 1 is an image of REFL, AS, and POP monitors during lock.

Lock was maintained for close to a minute, allowing us to estimate the UGF at around 100 Hz. We used the AA_PRCL_UGF_meas.xml template to measure the loop transfer function. The GPS time (start, end) for a lock stretch with boost on is (1680547905, 1680547933 1364583160, 1364583442).

Next steps

1. Achieve better angular alignment to keep MICH locked to dark fringe - ASS? Seismic FF?

Attachment 1: IMG_4596.JPG
  17534   Tue Apr 4 11:03:35 2023 JCSummaryElectronicsSR560: reworking
<p>I purchased some more of these from DigiKey. These parts are currently in the EE shop. These are replacements for the NDP5565 part of the SR560.</p>
Attachment 1: Screen_Shot_2023-04-04_at_11.11.10_AM.png
  17535   Tue Apr 4 11:10:19 2023 AnchalSummaryNeuralNetTesting neural network controller during day time

I ran two recently trained neural network controllers today between 10 am and Noon. Each test comprised of four segments:

  • All loops open
  • Linear loop closed
  • Neural Network working alone
  • Neural Network + Linear Loop

The latest controller unfortunately failed in both cases, working alone and working together with linear loop.

The second latest controller functioned well, keeping the arm locked throughout.

  17536   Wed Apr 5 16:44:31 2023 RadhikaSummaryLSCPRMI sensing matrix and RF demodulation phase tuning

[Paco, Radhika]

We calibrated the PRM oplev.

1. Disabled PRM damping and oplev loops
2. Injected excitation (f = 10 Hz; amplitude = 300 counts) to C1:SUS-PRM_ASCPIT_EXC
3. Measured spectra of C1:SUS-PRM_OL_PIT_IN1
     - 10 Hz spectral peak reached level of 1/rtHz (spectral counts)
4. Repeated steps 2-3 in yaw (excitation in C1:SUS-PRM_ASCYAW_EXC; spectra of C1:SUS-PRM_OL_YAW_IN1)
     - 10 Hz spectral peak also reached level of 1/rtHz (spectral counts)
4. Used PRM POS actuation calibration (-2.01e-8 m/counts/f^2) to estimate angular (PIT, YAW) actuation calibration
     - geometric calculation of angular displacement per count, given spatial displacement per count
     - PIT/YAW actuation calibration: 0.791 µrad/count/f^2
5. Estimated lever arm length of 1.5m (distance from PRM to QPD)
6. Calculated angular excitation amplitude: (300 actuation counts) x 0.791 µrad/count/f^2 = 237 µrad/f^2
7. Calculated calibration for oplev PIT/YAW spectra: spectral counts to radians
    - 1 count(m) = 1.5m * 237 µrad/f^2= 356 m*µrad/f^2.
---> For 10 Hz excitation, spectrum calibration = 3.56 µrad/count.

We took calibrated spectra of oplev PIT and YAW (Attachment 1) with the oplev loops open and closed. We see noise suppression up until a few Hz, as expected. The high-frequency floor appears to be at 1e-9 rad/rtHz with this calibration.

Next steps: improving PRMI angular control


Attachment 1: PRM_oplev_noise_calibrated.pdf
  17537   Thu Apr 6 11:49:45 2023 AnchalSummaryNeuralNetTesting neural network controller during day time

I've turned on NN controller for MC WFS PIT loops. One can disable this controller and go back to linear controller by sitemap>IOO>C1IOO_WFS_MASTER>Actions!>Stop Shimmer . One can start the controller again sitemap>IOO>C1IOO_WFS_MASTER>Actions!>Run Shimmer .

  17538   Thu Apr 6 21:09:12 2023 KojiSummaryNeuralNetTesting neural network controller during day time

I'm going to get into the PSL enclosure. Also turn on the HEPA for a while during the intrusion.
Work done.

Start of the work:
(cds) ~>gpstime 
PDT: 2023-04-06 21:09:36.670623 PDT
UTC: 2023-04-07 04:09:36.670623 UTC
GPS: 1364875794.670623

End of the work:
(cds) ~>gpstime 
PDT: 2023-04-06 21:19:37.331716 PDT
UTC: 2023-04-07 04:19:37.331716 UTC
GPS: 1364876395.331716

  17539   Fri Apr 7 16:28:34 2023 RadhikaSummaryLSCPRMI sensing matrix and RF demodulation phase tuning

[Paco, Radhika]

To determine the PRM angle-to-length coupling for PRCL, we want to inject pitch/yaw lines into PRM and find the corresponding peaks in the PRCL closed-loop control signal (below loop UGF). Below is a summary of PRMI locking efforts.

Locking PRMI carrier

- Locked arm cavities, ran YARM, XARM ASS to get PR2/PR3 alignment

- Locked MICH to dark fringe

- Aligned PRM by maximizing drop in REFLDC (reaches 2 when well aligned)

         *This was the hurdle when attempting to lock PRMI last week*

- Locked PRMI carrier using configurations in PRMI-AS55_REFL11.yml. There is now a "Lock PRMI (carr) using AS55/REFL11" action on the LSC screen that runs operateLSC.py with the aforementioned yaml file.

- Final DoF gains used: MICH --> 0.8; PRCL --> -0.07. At times BS was being kicked too hard, so we reduced the MICH gain from 1.2.

Lock stability

During PRMI lock, REFLDC was noisy with ~1 Hz fluctuations. We got PRMI to stay locked for a couple minutes at a time. Additionally it couldn't lock the AS port to dark fringe, and it stayed bright while tweaking the BS alignment.

We took spectra of ASDC during a lock stretch to quantify the DC power fluctuations at the AS port [Attachment 1]. The red trace is ASDC with PRMI locked. REF0 (black) is ASDC with MICH locked; REF1/REF2 (blue/green) are ASDC with single-bounce PRCL locked (either ITMX or ITMY misaligned). Note that the PRMI spectrum might need to be normalized by the PRCL gain / PRM transmission: ~ 10/0.057 = 175. The factor difference in ASDC fluctuations between MICH and PRMI for a single test point is ~144 --> with PRMI normalized, the ASDC fluctionations are comparable with MICH.

Attachment 1: PRMI_ASDC.pdf
  17541   Wed Apr 12 16:11:41 2023 RadhikaSummaryLSCPRMI sensing matrix and RF demodulation phase tuning

[Yuta, Radhika]

We copied the coil balancing procedure found in /scripts/SUS/coilStrengthBalancing/AS1/CoilStrengthBalancing.ipynb to a new PRM directory. After modifying channel names for PRM, we followed the coil balancing procedure:

1. Locked PRY. This was chosen since full PRCL lock was not maintainable for the duration of measurement.

2. Injected 13 Hz line into the butterfly mode and looked for a peak in the LSC PRCL control signal (C1:LSC-PRCL_OUT_DQ). It appeared like the existing coil gains for PRM are already tuned to minimize the but-pos coupling.

3. Injected 13 Hz line into the POS mode and looked for a peak in the PRM oplev pitch and yaw signals (C1:SUS-PRM_OL_PIT_IN1_DQ / C1:SUS-PRM_OL_YAW_IN1_DQ). Like above, the existing coil gains seemed to be tuned to minimize the pos-angle coupling.

The attached spectrum was taken when POS was excited at 13 Hz using LOCKIN1. As expected the PRCL control signal sees the actuation, but we do not see a 13 Hz peak in the oplev pitch/yaw signals.

Attachment 1: 2023-04-12_PRM_coil_strength_balancing.pdf
  17542   Wed Apr 12 21:32:22 2023 yutaSummaryLSCPRMI BHD power measurements

[Paco, Yuta]

We measured the power around BHD PDs to see if the numbers make sense.
Measured values are 10-20% less than expected values, which sounds good.
BHD DC PDs require slight reduction of gains to avoid saturation.

What we measured and result:
 - We measured the power with a Newport power meter (Model 840) for BHD A and B right after the viewport (A path and B path), in front of BHDC A and B, and in front of BH44 and BH55.
 - Note that BH44 is a pick-off from A path and BH55 is a pick-off from B path (see Attachment #1). A path also has a pick-off to BHD camera. So the measured numbers roughly sum up.
 - Measurement was done with LO beam only (misaligned AS4) and PRM misaligned, and PRMI carrier locked (forgot to misalign AS beam, but the most of the power is from LO beam).
 - Results are the following.

        LO beam only        PRMI carrier locked
        (PRM misalgined)    
A path  450 +/- 10 uW       110 +/- 10  mW
B path  360 +/- 10 uW       91 +/- 5 mW
BHDC A  330 +/- 10 uW       74 +/- 1 mW
BHDC B  320 +/- 10 uW       74 +/- 4 mW
BH44    100 +/- 3 uW        27 +/- 2 mW
BH55    3 +/- 1 uW          10 +/- 2 mW

                    LO beam only        PRMI carrier locked
                    (PRM misalgined)
C1:HPC-BHDC_A_OUT16 104                 saturated at ~22000
C1:HPC-BHDC_B_OUT16 103                 saturated at ~22000

Consistency check with previous measurement:
 - Power with LO beam only was measured in July 2022 (elog 40m/17046).
 - Compared with values in July 2022, it is now 10-20% less. This could be explainable by PMC transmission power drop on Dec 27, 2022 by ~10% (elog 40m/17390).

Expected values:
 - Expected values using PSL output of 890 mW (measured in elog 40m/17390) and calculated PRG of 13.4 (elog 40m/17532) are the following (see, also elog 40m/17040). Note that BHD BS has the transmission of 44% and the reflectivity is 56%.

A path, LO beam only
 890 mW * 0.9 (IMC transmission?) * 5.637%(PRM) * 2.2%(PR2) * 56%(BHDBS) = 560 uW
B path, LO beam only
 890 mW * 0.9 (IMC transmission?) * 5.637%(PRM) * 2.2%(PR2) * 44%(BHDBS) = 440 uW
A path, PRMI carrier locked
 890 mW * 0.9 (IMC transmission?) * 13.4(PRG) * 2.2%(PR2) * 56%(BHDBS) = 130 mW
B path, PRMI carrier locked
 890 mW * 0.9 (IMC transmission?) * 13.4(PRG) * 2.2%(PR2) * 44%(BHDBS) = 100 mW

  - Measured values are 10-20% less than expected values.

BHDC PD saturation:
 - Expected counts for C1:HPC-BHDC_A_OUT16 when PRMI carrier locked using LO beam only numbers are

 104 / 5.637% * 13.4 = ~25000

 - So, we are barely saturating.

 - Measure PRG using POPDC.
 - Reduce transimpedance gain of BHDC A and B by small amount to avoid saturation.

Attachment 1: AccurateBHDLayout.jpg
  17546   Tue Apr 18 17:37:58 2023 ranaSummaryASCRL controller left for overnight

Anchal and I turned on another RL policy (ninedwarfs) with Chris's help.

It looks to be performing great, with good low frequency suppression and low noise injection at higher frequencies.

Going to leave it on overnight. It seems to respond well to lockloss of IMC, me whacking the MC2 chamber, walking near the MC2 chamber, kicking the optics by step in actuators, and turning off the sensors for a few seconds. Pretty robust!


Attachment 1: wfsnoise_onoff_230418.pdf
  17550   Wed Apr 19 15:12:01 2023 yutaSummarySUSCoil dewhitening check for PRM

[Mayank, Paco, Yohanathan, Yuta]

We checked if coil dewhitening switch is working by measuring transfer function from coil outputs to oplev pitch and yaw.

 - Turned off oplev damping loops (this actually changed the result, this means that oplev loops have quite high UGFs)
 - Measured transfer functions from C1:SUS-PRM_(UL,UR,LR,LL)COIL_EXC to C1:SUS-PRM_OL_(PIT|YAW)_OUT, with SimDW and InvDW filters on/off.
 - Injected excitations are about 30000 at 100 Hz and 3000 at 10 Hz.
 - When SimDW and InvDW filters are on, analog dewhitening filter should be off, so it should give suspension mechanical response and other filter shapes in coil driver.
 - When SimDW and InvDW filters are off, analog dewhitening filter should be on, so it should give the same transfer function with analong dewhitening filter.
 - Taking the ratio between two should give analog dewhitening filter shape, which is zero at [70.7+i*70.7,70.7-i*70.7] Hz and pole at [10.61+i*10.61,10.61-i*10.61] Hz, from SimDW filter.

Notebook: /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/Git/40m/measurements/SUS/PRM/CoilDewhitening/PRMCoilDewhiteningCheck_COIL2OL.ipynb

 - Attachment #1 shows the result for each coil. 4th panel is the ratio, which should match with analog dewhitening filter shape.
 - The result looks consistent with our expected analog dewhitening filter shape.

 - Repeat this measurement for other suspensions.
 - PRM suspension response have residual frequency dependence from 1/f^2. What is this?

Attachment 1: PRM_COIL_DewhiteningCheck.pdf
PRM_COIL_DewhiteningCheck.pdf PRM_COIL_DewhiteningCheck.pdf PRM_COIL_DewhiteningCheck.pdf PRM_COIL_DewhiteningCheck.pdf
  17551   Wed Apr 19 17:02:48 2023 YehonathanSummarySUSCoil dewhitening check for BS and ITMX

[Yehonathan, Paco]

Repeated the coil dewhitening check for BS. Attachment #1 show results. Note however the DW filter shape for BS is more complicated:

zpk([86.7884+i*86.5657, 86.7884-i*86.5657,57.338+i*66.4261, 57.338-i*66.4261,68.83, 546.83],[10.4774+i*10.8736, 10.4774-i*10.8736,10.7093+i*10.5571, 10.7093-i*10.5571,8.67, 3235.8], 1.0252))

Note that YAW data here is actually PIT data and PIT data is plotted twice, as we messed up with data saving...crying


Repeated also for ITMX. See Attachment #2.



Attachment 1: BS_COIL_DQ_check.pdf
BS_COIL_DQ_check.pdf BS_COIL_DQ_check.pdf BS_COIL_DQ_check.pdf BS_COIL_DQ_check.pdf
Attachment 2: ITMX_COIL_DewhiteningCheck.pdf
ITMX_COIL_DewhiteningCheck.pdf ITMX_COIL_DewhiteningCheck.pdf ITMX_COIL_DewhiteningCheck.pdf ITMX_COIL_DewhiteningCheck.pdf
  17560   Mon Apr 24 19:11:20 2023 KojiSummaryBHDLO/MI(DARM) signal strength comparison between the configurations

Yuta and I had a discussion last week about the signal strength between the configurations. Here are some naive calculations.
=== Please check the result with a more precise simulation ===

Michelson: Homodyne (HD) phase signal @44MHz is obtained from the combination of LO11xAS55 and LO CAxAS44. SBs at AS rely on the Schnupp asymmetry, the signal is weaker than the one with a single bounce beam from an ITM.

PRMI Carrier resonant:
- Despite the non-resonant condition of the sidebands, the HD phase signal @44MHz is expected to be significantly stronger (~x300) compared with the MI due to the resonance of the carrier and the 44MHz sidebands (the 2nd-order SBs of 11 and 55) in the PRC. Thus, the LO CAxAS44 term dominates the signal.
- The MICH signal @55MHz is enhanced by the resonant carrier by a factor of ~5.5, in spite of the non-resonant 55MHz SBs.
- The MICH signal @BHD is enhanced by the resonant carrier by a factor of ~300. This is the comparable phase sensitivity to PRFPMI case.

PRMI Sideband resonant:
- Despite the non-resonant condition of the carrier, the HD phase signal @44MHz is expected to be even stronger (~x400) compared with the MI due to the resonance of the 11MHz and 55MHz sidebands in the PRC. Thus, the LO11xAS55 term dominates the signal.
- The level of the MICH signal @55MHz is expected to be comparable to the one with PRMI carrier resonant as the resonant condition for the CA and 55MHz SBs are interchanged.
- The MICH signal @BHD is expected to be negligibly small due to non-resonance of the carrier.

PRFPMI: Now the carrier and the 11 and 55MHz sidebands are resonant.
- The HD phase signal @44MHz is expected to be the same level as the SB resonant PRMI, and the LO11xAS55 term dominates the signal.
- The level of the MICH sensitivity @AS 55MHz shows x300 of the MICH signal of the MI and x50 of the MICH with PRMI.
- The MICH signal @BHD is going to be the same level as the one with PRMI Carrier resonant.
The DARM signal shows up at the dark port signal enhanced by x300 from the MICH level due to the finesse of the arms.

Simple assumptions
1) PRM has a transmission of TPRM = 0.05
2) PRG is limited by the transmission of PR2 (TPR2=0.02 per bounce).
    If the IFO is lossless, PRG is 25 (i.e. theoretical maximum). In reality, the IFO loss is 2~3% -> PRG is ~15.
    The asymmetry of 30mm has a negligible effect.
3) For the anti-resonant fields, APRG is ~TPRM/4 = 0.0125
4) Arm finesse is 450. Therefore the phase enhancement factor N is ~300.
5) Modulation depth is ~0.1. J0=1, J1=0.05, J2=0.00125
6) Sideband leakage by the asymmetry is ɑ=l_asym wm / c = 0.008 for 11MHz and 5ɑ for 55MHz.

Single Bounce

The numbers are power transmission to each port
   Carrier              11MHz                    55MHz
TPRM TPR2 = 1.0e-3   J1^2 TPRM TPR2 = 2.5e-6  J1^2 TPRM TPR2 = 2.5e-6
AS TPRM/4    = 1.3e-2   J1^2 TPRM/4    = 3.1e-5  J1^2 TPRM/4    = 3.1e-5

LO phase @44MHz: LO 11 x AS 55 = Sqrt(2.5e-6 * 3.1e-5) = 8.8e-6


   Carrier               11MHz                     55MHz                      44MHz
TPRM TPR2 = 1.0e-3    J1^2 TPRM TPR2 = 2.5e-6   J1^2 TPRM TPR2   = 2.5e-6
AS TPRM ε^2  = 0.05 ε^2  ɑ^2 J1^2 TPRM  = 8.0e-9   25 ɑ^2 J1^2 TPRM = 2.0e-7  16 ɑ^2 J1^4 TPRM = 3.2e-10

LO phase @44MHz: LO 11 x AS 55 = Sqrt(2.5e-6 * 2.0e-7)  = 7.1e-7
                 LO CA x AS 44 = Sqrt(1.0e-3 * 3.2e-10) = 5.7e-7

AS MICH  @55MHz: AS CA x AS 55 = Sqrt(0.05 * 2.0e-7) ε  = 1.0e-4 ε
AS MICH  @BHD:  LO CA x AS CA = Sqrt(1.0e-3 * 0.05) ε  = 7.1e-3 ε

PRMI (Carrier Resonant)

   Carrier              11MHz                     55MHz                      44MHz
LO PRG TPR2 = 0.3       J1^2 APRG TPR2 = 2.5e-7   J1^2 APRG TPR2   = 2.5e-7  J1^4 PRG TPR2 = 1.9e-6
AS PRG ε^2  = 15 ε^2    ɑ^2 J1^2 APRG  = 8.0e-10  25 ɑ^2 J1^2 APRG = 2.0e-8  16 ɑ^2 J1^4 PRG = 9.6e-8

LO phase @44MHz: LO 11 x AS 55 = Sqrt(2.5e-7 * 2.0e-8)  = 7.1e-8
                 LO CA x AS 44 = Sqrt(0.3 * 9.6e-8)     = 1.7e-4
AS MICH  @55MHz: AS CA x AS 55 = Sqrt(15 * 2.0e-8) ε    = 5.5e-4 ε

AS MICH  @BHD:  LO CA x AS CA = Sqrt(0.3 * 15) ε       = 2.1 ε

PRMI (Sideband Resonant)

   Carrier               11MHz                     55MHz                      44MHz
LO APRG TPR2 = 1e-4      J1^2 PRG TPR2 = 7.5e-4    J1^2 PRG TPR2   = 7.5e-4  J1^4 APRG TPR2 = 6.3e-10
AS APRG ε^2  = 5e-3 ε^2  ɑ^2 J1^2 PRG  = 2.4e-6    25 ɑ^2 J1^2 PRG = 6.0e-5  16 ɑ^2 J1^4 APRG = 3.2e-11

LO phase @44MHz: LO 11 x AS 55 = Sqrt(7.5e-4 * 6.0e-5)  = 2.1e-4
                 LO CA x AS 44 = Sqrt(1e-4 * 3.2e-11)   = 5.7e-8
AS MICH  @55MHz: AS CA x AS 55 = Sqrt(5e-3 * 6.0e-5) ε  = 5.5e-4 ε

AS MICH  @BHD:  LO CA x AS CA = Sqrt(1e-4 * 5e-3) ε    = 7.1e-4 ε


   Carrier             11MHz                     55MHz                      44MHz
LO PRG TPR2 = 0.3      J1^2 PRG TPR2 = 7.5e-4    J1^2 PRG TPR2   = 7.5e-4   J1^4 APRG TPR2 = 6.3e-10
AS PRG ε^2  = 15 ε^2   ɑ^2 J1^2 PRG  = 2.4e-6    25 ɑ^2 J1^2 PRG = 6.0e-5   16 ɑ^2 J1^4 APRG = 3.2e-11

LO phase @44MHz: LO 11 x AS 55 = Sqrt(7.5e-4 * 6.0e-5)  = 2.1e-4
                 LO CA x AS 44 = Sqrt(0.3 * 3.2e-11)    = 3.1e-6
AS MICH  @55MHz: AS CA x AS 55 = Sqrt(15 * 6.0e-5) ε    = 3.0e-2
ε  ==> DARM@55MHz 9.0 ε
AS MICH  @BHD:  LO CA x AS CA = Sqrt(0.3 * 15) ε       = 2.1 ε     ==> DARM@BHD   6.3e2 ε

  17565   Wed Apr 26 11:27:49 2023 PacoSummaryBHDLO/MI(DARM) signal strength comparison between the configurations with finesse

I'm checking Koji + Yuta's not-so-naive calculations using finesse.

  Michelson PRMI carrier PRMI sideband PRFPMI
max(BH44) [W/m] 0.61 @ 90 deg 235.76 @ 90 deg    
max(BH55) [W/m] 4.55 @ 0 deg 1539.67 @ 0 deg    
max(BHD_DIFF) [W/m] 35550 10656140    

PRMI Carrier resonant:
- The HD phase signal @44 MHz is estimated to be 386.5 times stronger.
- The MICH signal @BHD_DIFF is estimated to be enhanced by a factor of 299.75.

PRMI Sideband resonant:
- The HD phase signal @44MHz is estimated to be () stronger.
- The MICH signal @BHD_DIFF is estimated to be suppressed by a factor of

PRFPMI: Now the carrier and the 11 and 55MHz sidebands are resonant.
- The HD phase signal @44MHz is estimated to be ().
- The MICH signal @BHD_DIFF is estimated to be the same level as the one with PRMI Carrier resonant.

  17571   Fri Apr 28 20:17:37 2023 yutaSummaryASCIFO alignment in bad shape

[Mayank, Paco, Yuta]

IFO alignment is not good.
It seems like the input pointing drifted a lot during PRMI and noise measurements, and beam spot on both ITMY and ITMX are not good.
They are so off from the center (by about a beam size mainly in yaw) that ASS cannot handle.
Current situation is as attached (compare with good alignment in March 23 40m/17521).
Yarm ASS is not working, Xarm ASS is not working, POP is clipped, AS is clipped crying

Message: Always check the alignment from TTs using BHDC_A/B, and always check the arm alignment, even if you are only doing PRMI. (Follow the steps in 40m/17277)

Attachment 1: Screenshot_2023-04-28_20-16-19_Terrible.png
  17572   Fri Apr 28 20:56:06 2023 KojiSummaryASCIFO alignment in bad shape

I suppose ASS Y arm is using PR2/3 to align the beam to the arm.
Can't we have ASS PRM bring the beams to the center (or some defined places) of the PRM and PR2 by moving the TTs?


  17574   Mon May 1 14:45:48 2023 MayankSummaryLSCAttenuated BHD DC Beam

[Yuta, Mayank]

UPDATE: It turned out that the pair of 0.3 OD ND filters we used were not matched. So we replaced them with new 0.5 OD NENIR05A-C from thorlabs. Now both the photodiodes give similar count.

Counts Before OD After OD
C1:HPC-BHDC_A_OUT 114.5 counts 36.4 counts
C1:HPC-BHDC_B_OUT 111.5 counts 35.1 counts



The DC power incident on the PDs is 74 mW which may cause saturation. We attenuated the beam going to BHD_DC Photodiodes using ND filter of OD 0.3 which gives attenuation of 0.5. 

Attachment 1: 20230501_144152.jpg
  17575   Mon May 1 16:51:20 2023 PacoSummaryASCIFO alignment in bad shape

[Yuta, Mayank, JC, Paco]

We fixed the IFO nominal alignment.

  1. Yuta and Mayank had worked all morning and into the early afternoon to try and recover alignment. We noticed a few things seemed off:
    1. ASS loops still wouldn't work.
    2. ITMX oplev loops were weirdly unstable, but we suspected this had to do with the recent HeNe replacement saga.
      1. Paco revisited the setup, suspecting a lens near the QPD was wreaking havoc. This was not the case, but the setup now resembles the previous one. Furthermore, an iris was placed in the input ITMX OpLev path.
    3. Using AUX (green) beams as a reference didn't really work well.
  2. We decided to check the SUS rack electronics where some noise measurements were carried out last week.
  3. We found out that between the DW boards from ITMX and ITMY to the coil driver units for ITMX and ITMY there were two crossed wires at least (Ch4).
  4. Yuta and Paco reconnected all channels between the ITMX DW to ITMX Coil driver and ITMY DW to ITMY Coil driver units,
    1. All wires seemed to be crossed when going up the rack... suspicious...
  5. The first damping test failed, and we realized placing an offset in ITMY coils affected ITMX, so the DW board units were probably flipped because they were probably mislabeled!
  6. Yuta and JC swapped the cables again, and we ran a coil by coil test before damping. After this ITMs were successfully damped, so the labels were corrected in the AI + DW boards to prevent this confusion in the future.

  • IFO alignment was recovered by Yuta and Paco.
    • ASS now works again!
  • JC and Mayank aligned OpLevs
    • Loops were closed and remained stable in ITMs.

Attachment #1 shows the alignment state at the end of this work.

Attachment 1: alignmentScreenshot_2023-05-01_17-06-41.png
  17578   Tue May 2 17:33:53 2023 MayankSummaryLSCLocked PRMI in carrier for an hour with LO phase controlled using BH55

[Mayank, Radhika, Paco]

We locked PRMI for a solid hour devil and controlled LO phase angle using BH55_Q at higher power.

After Radhika aligned the IFO for us, and recovered the PRMI flashing (using REFLDC), we attempted a PRMI lock. After a few trials we succeeded.

Control parameters: see Attachment #1, basically REFL11_I to PRCL, and AS55_Q to MICH (error points) and actuation as previous locks with PRCL to PRMand MICH to 0.5 * BS - 0.33 * PRM.

The gains are slightly different, and in particular PRCL gain was increased from -0.07 to -0.09 after an OLTF estimated the UGF could be increased to > 120 Hz (Attachment #2 shows the measured OLTF) Do note we ended up disabling the FM1 on PRCL LSC filter bank (a boost) because we thought the loop was unstable when it got triggered ON. Finally, we took a quick noise spectrum of PRMI, and we have yet to calibrate it.

We also managed to reduce the AS_DC level from 0.4 to 0.1. We first tried to add an offset to MICH error point but the trick was to align the ITMX ITMY differential yaw.

Lock start Time: 1367107965 --> 1367111565

While PRMI was locked, we quickly locked homodyne angle using BH55_Q. For this the demod angle was optimized from -60 deg to 55.374 deg. The lock was acquired using FM5 and FM8 with a gain of -0.75. Attachment #3 shows the "calibrated" noise budget of the LO phase under this configuration. The main difference with respect to the previous  budget is in the "RIN" which we now realize is not relative... therefore the increase in this budget. We will revisit this calibration later.

- Next steps

  • Re-calibrate LO phase noise with high power
  • Investigate BH44 control
  • Calibrate PRMI noise for budget
  • Estimate LO phase sensitivities at MICH vs PRMI


Attachment 1: Screenshot_2023-05-02_17-40-06.png
Attachment 2: PRCL_OLTF_Screenshot_2023-05-02_18-10-28.png
Attachment 3: PRMI_LO_phase_BH55_Q_Screenshot_2023-05-02_18-06-59.png
  17580   Wed May 3 15:06:44 2023 yutaSummaryLSCPOP attenuation and PRMI PRG estimate

[Paco, Yuta]

Measured power recycling gain at POP is 10(2), consistent with our expectation.

We measured power at POP with ITMY single bounce and estimated power recycling gain in PRMI.
As POP RFPD (Thorlabs PDA10CF; used for POPDC, POP22, POP110) was saturating, we attenuated the input power by OD2.5 ND filter.
Power recycling gain was estimated to be 10(2), roughly consistent with our expectation of 13.2 (40m/17532).

What we did:
 - Realigned POP path in ITMX table after aligning the IFO. It turned out that when POP power measurements were done in 40m/17532, POP was not well aligned.
 - We measured the power with ITMY single bounce at POP right after the viewport and in front of POP RFPD.
 - We also measured counts in C1:LSC-POPDC_OUT under ITMY single bounce, PRMI carrier locked, and MICH locked with PRM misaligned, with different ND filters.


IFO configuration Where Measured power [mW] C1:LSC-POPDC_OUT [counts]
ITMY single bounce POP total 0.224(5) Expected 0.240 [a] N/A
  POP RFPD (no ND filter) 0.108(3) 437(2)
  POP RFPD (OD1) N/A 29.9(1), which is 7.4 uW [b]
  POP RFPD (OD2+OD0.5) N/A 2.4(5), which is 0.6 uW [b]
PRMI carrier POP RFPD (no ND filter) N/A 13160 (saturated)
  POP RFPD (OD1) N/A 12300(300) (saturated)
  POP RFPD (OD2+OD0.5) N/A 1600(300), which is 0.40 mW [b]
MICH POP RFPD (OD2+OD0.5) N/A 9.0(6), which is 2.2 uW [b]

 - Estimated power recycling gain is 1600(300) / (9.0(6) / 5.637%) = 10(2) .

Expected values:
 - Expected power using PSL output of 890 mW (measured in elog 40m/17390) under ITMY single bounce at POP is the following, and is consistent with the measurement.
[a] 890 mW * 0.9 (IMC transmission?) * 5.637%(PRM) * (1-2.2%)(PR2) * 50%(BS) * (1-1.384%)(ITMY) * 50%(BS) * 2.2%(PR2) = 0.240 mW

 - Calibration for C1:LSC-POPDC_OUT into power at POP RFPD is
[b] 437 counts / 0.108 mW = 4.0e3 counts/W.

 - Thorlabs PDA10CF has a transimpedance gain of 1e4 V/A and output range of 0-5 V. So, the saturation happens at 5 V / (1e4 V/A * 0.8 A/W) = 0.625 mW. We ended up attenuating POP RFPD with OD2.5 to make it not saturating (0.4 mW on the PD with PRMI carrier lock).

  17581   Wed May 3 16:24:07 2023 PacoSummaryLSCAttenuated BHD RFPD paths

[Yuta, Paco]

We attenuated RFPD BHD paths to prevent saturation

To prevent saturating RPFDs, we added ND filters along BH44 and BH55 paths. We calculated the optimal filters to be used by taking into account the previously measured DC levels at both RFPDs as well as their DC transimpedances.

BH55 (S/N 117, former POP55) DC transimpedance is reported to be 10010 V/A. Assuming a responsivity of 0.8 A/V, we expect 8008 V/W at DC. When PRMI is locked, we have measured 10 mW of light incident on this PD such that it gets saturated. Then we installed an OD ~ 1 filter to drop the power to 1 mW such that at most we get 8 VDC (< 15 VDC rail).

BH44 (S/N 115, former unknown) DC transimpedance is estimated to be 645 V/A. Assuming 0.8 A/V, we expect 516 V/W at DC. This RFPD gets 27 mW when PRMI is locked, giving a slightly saturated PD> Then we installed an OD ~ 0.5 filter to drop the power to ~ 8 mW such that we at most get 4 VDC (< 15 VDC rail).

ELOG V3.1.3-