40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 94 of 344  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Typeup Category Subject
  1750   Wed Jul 15 12:44:28 2009 Chris ZimmermanUpdateGeneralWeek 4/5 Update

I've spent most of the last week working on finishing up the UCSD calculations, comparing it to the EUCLID design, and thinking about getting started with a prototype and modelling in MATLAB.  Attached is something on EUCLID/UCSD sensors.

  1751   Wed Jul 15 14:42:31 2009 ZachUpdateCamerasGigE Phase Camera

Lately, I have been able to externally trigger the camera using a signal generator passing through the op-amp circuit that I built.  The op-amp circuit stabilizes the jitter in the sine wave from the signal generator and rectifies the wave.  I wrote the calculations into the code allowing me to find the phase and amplitude from the images I take.  I still need to develop code that will plot these arrays of phase and amplitude.

The mysterious dark band at the top of the ccd images continues to defy explanation.  However, I have found that it only appears for short exposure times even when the lens is completly covered.  During the next couple of days, I will try to write a routine to correct for this structure in the dark field.

Koji recommended that we use the optical setup pictured below.  This configuration would require fewer optics and we would have to rely on slight misalignments between the carrier and reference beams to test the effectiveness of the phase camera instead of a wavefront-deforming lens.

  1753   Wed Jul 15 18:22:15 2009 KojiUpdateCamerasRe: GigE Phase Camera

Quote:

Koji recommended that we use the optical setup pictured below.  Although it uses fewer optics, I can't think of a way to test the phase camera using this configuration because any modulation of the wavefront with a lens or whatever would be automatically corrected for in the PLL so I think I'll have to stick with the old configuration.

I talked with Zach. So this is just a note for the others.

The setup I suggested was totally equivalent with the setup proposed in the entry http://131.215.115.52:8080/40m/1721, except that the PLL PD sees not only 29.501MHz, but also 1kHz and 59.001MHz. These additional beating are excluded by the PD and the PLL servo. In any case the beating at 1kHz is present at the camera. So if you play with the beamsplitter alignment you will see not only the perfect Gaussian picture, but also distorted picture which is resulted by mismatching of the two wave fronts. That's the fun part!

The point is that you can get an equivalent type of the test with fewer optics and fewer efforts. Particularly, I guess the setup would not be the final goal. So, these features would be nice for you.

  1754   Wed Jul 15 18:35:11 2009 StephanieUpdateGeneralMultiply Resonant EOM Update

Using FET probes, I was able to measure a transfer function that looks a little more like what I expected. There are only two peaks, but I think this can be explained by a short between the two capacitors (and two tunable capacitors) in the LC pairs, as shown (in red) in the circuit diagram attached. The measured transfer function (black), along with the simulated transfer functions with (red) and without (blue) the short are shown in the attached plot. The measured transfer function doesn't look exactly like the simulated transfer function with the short, but I think the difference can be explained by stray impedances.

  1755   Thu Jul 16 01:00:56 2009 AlbertoUpdateLockingPD9 aligned

Quote:

Quote:

Since lately the alignment of the input beam to the interferometer has changed, I went checking the alignment of the beam on the photodiodea. They were all fine except for pd9, that is AS DD 199. Here the DC is totally null. The beam seems to go right on the diode but the scope on the PD's DC output shows no power. This is really strange and bad.

After inspecting PD9 with the viewer and the cards, the beam looks like it is aligned to the photodiode althought there is no signal at the DC output of the photodetector. So I checked the spectrum for PD9_i and Q (see attachments) and it seems that those channels are actually seeing the beam. I'm going to check the alignemtn again and see the efefct on the spectra to make sure that the beam is really hitting the PD.

 

 I aligned PD9. Here are the spectra confirming that.

p.s.
Ants, theyre everywhere, even inside the AS table. They're taking over the lab, save yourself!
  1756   Thu Jul 16 09:49:52 2009 AlanUpdateComputersfb40m

Quote:

The fb40m just went out of order with status indicator number 8

It recovered on its own five minutes later.

 Backup script restarted, backup of trend frames and /cvs/cds is up-to-date.

 

  1757   Thu Jul 16 10:52:58 2009 ClaraUpdatePEMSingle Channel TRS-RNC Cable

I made and tested a female-to-female TRS(audio)-RNC cable. It only has a single channel, so it won't work for stereo speakers or anything, but I should only need one speaker for testing the microphones. The tip of the plug is the signal, the sleeve is ground, and the ring is null.

  1758   Thu Jul 16 14:41:38 2009 robUpdateLockingMC_F channel dead

Quote:

It's railed.  This is what halted locking progess on Monday night, as this channel is used for the offloadMCF script, which slowly feeds back a CARM signal to the ETMs to prevent the VCO from saturating.

 

Attached is a 5 day trend, which shows that the channel went dead a few days ago.  All the channels shown are being collected from the same ICS110B (I think), but only some are dead.  It looks like they went dead around the time of the "All computers down" from Sunday.

 Attached are the channels being recorded from the ICS110B in 1Y2 (the IOO rack).  Channels 12, 13, 16, 17, 22, 24, 25 appear to have gone dead after the computer problems on Sunday.

  1759   Thu Jul 16 14:54:05 2009 robUpdateLockingMC_F channel dead

Quote:

Quote:

It's railed.  This is what halted locking progess on Monday night, as this channel is used for the offloadMCF script, which slowly feeds back a CARM signal to the ETMs to prevent the VCO from saturating.

 

Attached is a 5 day trend, which shows that the channel went dead a few days ago.  All the channels shown are being collected from the same ICS110B (I think), but only some are dead.  It looks like they went dead around the time of the "All computers down" from Sunday.

 Attached are the channels being recorded from the ICS110B in 1Y2 (the IOO rack).  Channels 12, 13, 16, 17, 22, 24, 25 appear to have gone dead after the computer problems on Sunday.

 This has been fixed by one of the two most powerful & useful IFO debugging techniques: rebooting.  I keyed the crate in 1Y2.

  1760   Fri Jul 17 18:04:54 2009 ClaraUpdatePEMGuralp Box Fail

I've been trying for most of the week to get noise measurements on the output of the Guralp box as well as scross the AD640 chip. The measurements haven't really been making sense, and, being at a loss as to what else I should try, I decided to redo the resistors on the N/S 2 and E/W 2 channels. (I had been comparing the VERT1 and VERT2 channels, as VERT1 has been restuffed and VERT2 has not.) I don't need all three of the second set of channels to do more measurements, so it seemed like a good use of time.

The first thing I noticed was that the VERT2 channel was missing two resistors (R24 and R25). I probably should have noticed this sooner, as they are right by the output points I had been measuring across, but it didn't occur to me that anyone did anything to the VERT2 channel at all. So, probably the measurements on VERT2 are no good.

VERT2_missing_resistors.png

Note the existence of 100 kOhm resistors on the top channel, and none on the bottom channel (VERT2).

 

Then, while I was soldering in some 100 Ohm resistors, I happened to notice that the resistors I was using had a different number (1001) on them than the corresponding ones on the already redone channels (1003). I checked the resistance, and the ones on the already redone channels turned out to be 100 kOhm resistors, rather than 100 Ohms. So, I double checked the circuit diagram to make sure that I had read it correctly, and there were a number of resistors that had been relabeled as 100 Ohms and several relabeled as 100 kOhms. On the board, however, they were ALL 100 kOhms. Clearly, one of them is wrong, and I suspect that it is the circuitboard, but I don't know for sure.

resistors_diagram.png

resistors_board.png

The diagram clearly shows that R6 should be a 100k resistor, while R5 and R8 should be 100 Ohm resistors, but they are all the same (100k) on the board. I suspect this may have something to do with larger-than-expected noise measurements. But, it's possible the diagram is wrong, not the board. In any case, I didn't really know what to do, since I wasn't sure which was right, so I just replaced all the resistors I was sure about and removed the 100k and 100 Ohm resistors without replacing them with anything. Incidentally, the box of 100kOhm resistors seems to be missing, so I wouldn't have been able to finish those anyway.

  1761   Sat Jul 18 19:49:48 2009 ranaUpdatePEMGuralp Box Fail
That's terrible: R5 & R8 should definitely be 100 Ohm and not 100kOhm. 100k would make it a noise disaster. They should also be metal film (from the expensive box, not from the standard box). This is the same for all channels so might as well stuff them.

The circuit diagram between TP3 and TP4 appears to be designed to make the whitening not work. That's why R6 & R7 should be 100k. And R2 should be metal film too.

Basically, every time we want good low frequency performance we have to use the metal film or metal foil or wirewound resistors. Everything else produces a lot of crackling noise under the influence of DC current.

I'm also attaching the voltage and current noise spectra for the AD620 from the datasheet. These should allow us to compare our measurements to a reasonable baseline.
  1763   Mon Jul 20 10:35:06 2009 steveUpdateVACUPS batteries replaced

 APC Smart-UPS (uninterruptible power supply) batteries RBC12 replaced at 1Y8 vacuum rack.

Their life span were 22 months.

  1765   Mon Jul 20 17:06:29 2009 JenneUpdatePEMGuralp Box Fail

Quote:
That's terrible: R5 & R8 should definitely be 100 Ohm and not 100kOhm. 100k would make it a noise disaster. They should also be metal film (from the expensive box, not from the standard box). This is the same for all channels so might as well stuff them.

The circuit diagram between TP3 and TP4 appears to be designed to make the whitening not work. That's why R6 & R7 should be 100k. And R2 should be metal film too.

Basically, every time we want good low frequency performance we have to use the metal film or metal foil or wirewound resistors. Everything else produces a lot of crackling noise under the influence of DC current.

I'm also attaching the voltage and current noise spectra for the AD620 from the datasheet. These should allow us to compare our measurements to a reasonable baseline.


While we're comparing things to other things, Ben Abbott just emailed me his measurement of the AD620 from back in the day. Clara's going to use this along with the specs to make sure that (a) we're not taking crazy measurements and (b) our AD620s aren't broken and in need of replacement. In this plot, we're looking at the GOLD trace, which has the AD620 set up with a gain of 10, which is how our AD620's are set up in the Guralp breakout box.

Just picking a single point to compare, it looks like at 1Hz, Ben saw ~130dBVrms/rtHz. Converting this to regular units [ 10^(#dB/20)*1Vrms = Vrms ], this is about 3*10^-7 Vrms. That means that Clara's measurements of our AD620 noise is within a factor of 2 of Ben's. Maybe the way we're connecting them up just isn't allowing us to achieve the ~50nV/rtHz that is claimed.
  1767   Tue Jul 21 13:55:08 2009 ClaraUpdatePEMGuralp Box Success!

There managed to be just enough 100 kOhm resistors to stuff all the "2" channels (VERT2, N/S2, E/W2) with the fancy low-noise resistors. The first six channels (VERT 1/2, NS 1/2, EW 1/2) are now completely done with the thin-film resistors, taking into account the changes that were made on the circuit diagram. I also replaced the C8 capacitor with the fancy Garrett ones and added capacitors on top of R4 and R13 (after painstakingly making sure that the capacitances are exactly the same for each pair) for the "2" channels. It looks like the capacitors on the "1" channels are the cheaper ones. I will compare the noise measurements later to see if there is any difference - if so, I can replace those as well (although, we're out of the 1 uF capacitors needed for C8).

Speaking of, we are now out of or very low on several types of the Garrett resistors/capacitors: 1 uF, 1kOhm, 100 Ohm, 14.0 Ohm, and 100 kOhm. I left the specifics on Steve's desk so that more can be ordered for the eventual time when the third set of channels needs to be restuffed.

  1768   Tue Jul 21 15:32:47 2009 JenneUpdateIOOMC_L flatlined

[Clara, Jenne]

While Clara was working on her Wiener filtering and optimizing the locations of the accelerometers, she discovered that MC_L and MC_L_256 are totally flatlined.  I looked at them, and it looks like they've been dead since ~9:30pm-ish on Sunday night.  Bootfest-type activities shall commence shortly.

  1770   Tue Jul 21 17:52:12 2009 JenneUpdateIOOMC_L flatlined

Quote:

[Clara, Jenne]

While Clara was working on her Wiener filtering and optimizing the locations of the accelerometers, she discovered that MC_L and MC_L_256 are totally flatlined.  I looked at them, and it looks like they've been dead since ~9:30pm-ish on Sunday night.  Bootfest-type activities shall commence shortly.

 Under Alberto's tutalage, I rebooted the whole vme set (iovme, sosvme, susvme1, susvme2), and after that MC_L was all good again.

  1774   Wed Jul 22 10:49:40 2009 AlbertoUpdatePSLMC Alignment Trend

Trying to track the MC positions back for a few days, it seems that the data hasn't been recorded properly for a while. Something happened yesterday after my boot fest and then the record got restored. Attached here are the readbacks showing the event for MC1.

Is anything wrong with the data record?

  1775   Wed Jul 22 11:08:36 2009 StephanieUpdateGeneralMultiply Resonant EOM Update

I have built a version of the circuit with flying components; the completed circuit is shown in the attached picture. I built the circuit in segments and measured the transfer function after each segment to see whether it matched the LTSpice simulation after each step. The segments are shown in the circuit diagram.

After building the first segment, the measured transfer function looked pretty much the same as the simulated transfer function; it appears shifted in the attached plot, but this is because I didn't do a careful job of tuning at this point, and I'm relatively sure that I could have tuned it to match the simulation. After adding the second segment of the circuit, the measured and simulated transfer functions were similar in shape, but I was unable to increase the frequency of the peaks (through tuning) any more than what is shown in the plot (I could move the peaks so that their frequency was lower, but they are shown as high as they will go). When I added the final segment to complete the circuit, the measured and simulated transfer functions no longer had the same shape; two of the peaks were very close together and I was barely able to differentiate one from the other.

In order to understand what was happening, I tried making modifications to the LTSpice model to recreate the transfer function that was measured. I was able to create a transfer function that closely resembles the measured transfer function in both the circuit as of the 2nd segment and the completed circuit by adding extra inductance and capacitance as shown in red in the circuit diagram. The transfer functions simulated with these parasitic components are shown in red in both plots. While I was able to recreate the response of the circuit, the inductance and capacitance needed to do this were much larger than I would expect to occur naturally within the circuit (2.2uH, 12 pF). I'm not sure what's going on with this.

  1778   Wed Jul 22 14:44:57 2009 ZachUpdateCamerasGigE Phase Camera

This past week, I have mostly been debugging my software.  I have tried to use the fluorescent lights to test the camera, but I can't tell for sure if my code is finding the correct amplitude and phase or not.  I am currently using Mathematica to double check my calculations in solving for the phase and amplitude.

Also, I have taken dark field images using a lens with a closed shutter.  I have found that the dark band across the top of the images only appears after the camera heats up.  Also, there is an average electronic noise of 14 with a maximum of 40.  However, this electronic noise as well as any consistent ambient noise will be automatically corrected for in the calculations I'm using because I'm taking the differences between the CCD images to calculate relative phases and amplitudes.

I should be able to start setting up optics and performing better tests of my software this week.

  1779   Wed Jul 22 16:15:52 2009 Chris ZimmermanUpdateGeneralWeek 5/6 Update

The last week I've started setting up the HeNe laser on the PSL table and doing some basic measurements (Beam waist, etc) with the beam scan, shown on the graph.  Today I moved a few steering mirrors that steve showed me from at table on the NW corner to the PSL table.  The goal setup is shown below, based on the UCSD setup.  Also, I found something that confused me in the EUCLID setup, a  pair of quarter wave plates in the arm of their interferometer, so I've been working out how they organized that to get the results that they did.  I also finished calculating the shot noise levels in the basic and UCSD models, and those are also shown below (at 633nm, 4mw) where the two phase-shifted elements (green/red) are the UCSD outputs, in quadrature (the legend is difficult to read).

 

 

  1781   Wed Jul 22 20:11:26 2009 peteUpdateComputersRCG front end

I compiled and ran a simple (i.e. empty) front end controller on scipe12 at wilson house.  I hooked a signal into the ADC and watched it in the auto-generated medm screens. 

There were a couple of gotchas:

1. Add an entry SYS to the file /etc/rc.local, to the /etc/setup_shmem.rtl line, where the system file is SYS.mdl.

2. If necessary, do a BURT restore.  Or in the case of a mockup set the BURT Restore bit (in SYS_GDS_TP.adl) to 1.

 

  1782   Thu Jul 23 07:34:45 2009 AidanUpdateCDSAdded C2 MEDM screens to 40m SVN.

 

See Adhikari eLOG entry: http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/AdhikariLab/194

  1783   Thu Jul 23 10:05:38 2009 AlbertoUpdatePSLSummary of the latest adventures with the alignment of the mode cleaner

Alberto, Koji,

Summary of the latest adventures with the alignment of the mode cleaner

Prior events.

  • Last week, on July 12th the RFM network crashed (elog entry 1736). I don't know for sure which one was the cause and which one the effect, but also C1DAQADW was down and it didn't want to restart. Alex fixed it the day after.
  • On the evening of Sunday July 20th I noticed that the mode cleaner was unlocked. A closer inspection showed me that MCL was frozen at -32768 counts. To fix that I rebooted C1DCUEPICS and burtrestored to snapshots from the day before.
  • On Tuesday July 21st another failure of the RFM Network made necessary a reboot of the frame builder and of all front end computers (entry 1772). As a consequence, the mode cleaner couldn't get locked anymore, even if the mirror's sliders in the MC-Align MEDM screen were in the proper positions. At that time I missed to check the MC suspension positions as a way to ensure that the MC hadn't really changed. Although later, as it turned out, that would have been useless anyway since all the data record prior to the computers crash of that day somehow had been corrupted (entry 1774). Neither the MC2 LSC control or MC ASC control could engage so I (erroneously) thought that some tune of the periscope might help. So I did but, since the Mode Cleaner was misaligned, that had the effect of spoiling the good matching of the periscope to the MC cavity.
  • Yesterday, Wednesday July 22nd, I found out about the sticky slider effect (entry 1776). At that point we didn't have anymore a way to know that the MC optics were actually in their proper original alignment state because of the lack of a reference for those in the data record (as I wrote above). I had to go back to the periscope and fix the alignment.


Chronicles of periscope and MC alignment

Yesterday morning I started aligning the periscope but it turned out to be trickier than usual. With the ASC (Alignment Sensing Control) off and only the length controls on, the Mode Cleaner didn't lock easily, although I knew I wasn't very far from the sweet spot.

In the afternoon the struggle continued and the matching of the the beam to the MC cavity became just worse. At some point I noticed that the ASC inputs somehow had got on - although the ASC still looked disabled from the MClock MEDM main screen. So I was actually working against the Wave Front Sensors and further worsening the periscope alignment.

That hurled me to the weeds. After hours of rowing across the stormy waters of a four-dimensional universe I got to have occasional TEM00 flashes at the transmission but still, surprisingly, no MC locking. Confused, I kept tuning the periscope but that just kicked me off road again.

Then at about 7pm Koji came to my rescue and suggested a more clever and systematic way to solve the problems. He suggested to keep record of the MC mirrors alignment state and re-align the cavity to the periscope. Then we would gradually bring the cavity back to the original good position changing the periscope alignment
at the same time.

 

That would have worked straight away, if we hadn't been fighting against a subtle and cruel enemy: the 40m computer network. But I (as John Connor), and Koji (as the Terminator) didn't pull back.

Here's a short list of the kinds of weapons that the computers threw to us:

  1. After a while the FSS entered a funny state. It showed transmission: we had light at the MC (and even flashes) but the MEDM readout of the FSS transmitted power after the cavity was low (~0.019). Also the spot on the monitor showed a slightly different pattern from how I remembered it. On the other side the transmission camera didn't show that typical halo as usual.
  2. MCL was frozen at 32768. I ran the MCDown and MCUp script a couple of times and that unstuck it.
  3. On op340m we found that the MC autolocker script wasn't running. So I restarted it. Still nothing changed: bright and sharp flashes appeared on the monitor (sign of a not too bad alignment) but no lock.
  4. I rebooted C1IOO. No change.
  5. I rebooted C1DCUEPICS and burtrestored the EPICS computers to Jul 19th. No change.
  6. Then I burtrestored the c1psl.snapshot and that finally did something. The FSS reflected spot changed and the halo appeared again at its transmission camera. Soon after the MC got locked.


We then proceeded with Koji's plan. In an iterative process, we aligned the MC cavity maximizing the transmission and tuned the periscope in order to match the Faraday input of the interferometer. The last thing we did it by looking at the camera pointing at the Faraday isolator.

We found that we didn't have to tune the periscope much. That means that all afternoon I didn't really go too far, but the autolocker wasn't working properly, or it wasn't working at all.

Then we ran the alignment script for the X arm but it didn't work before we aligned the steering mirrors.

Then we ran it three times but could not get more than 0.87 at TRX. That means that there we still have to work on the alignment to the Faraday. That's job for today in the trenches of the lab.

 

  1784   Thu Jul 23 20:30:23 2009 AlbertoUpdatePSLBeam aligned to the Farady

After yesterday's changes in the MC cavity state today it was necessary to optimize the alignment to the Faraday.

The way I did it was by tuning the PSL periscope in pitch and yaw trying to maximize TRX with the arm locked. After a small change in either one of the two directions I first maximized the MC transmitted power and then I ran the alignment script for the X arm.

I explored the space for both pitch and yaw and the max that I could get from TRX was 0.91. I'm not sure whether the increase in TRX is entirely due to a better alignment to the Farady rather than to a higher MC transmitted power.

Also I'm not sure I'm well interpreting the image from the camera pointing at the Farady. I guess I need someone more familiar with it to tell me if it shows any sign of clipping.

Anyway, last week, even before the MC got misaligned, TRX didn't go above 0.90. So now I wonder whether it's the MC's fault or something else's if we have that value..

  1786   Fri Jul 24 17:20:48 2009 JenneUpdateoplevsETMY oplev is iffy

ETMY oplev is currently a work in progress.  The HeNe beam is hitting the photodiode, but the spot size there is pretty much the size of the entire QPD.  Thus, the ETMY oplev isn't really useful right now.  I'm re-figuring things out (note to self: close to the laser, you have to use Gaussian optics...regular ray tracing doesn't really work), and hopefully will have the oplev back under control by the time Alberto is finished realigning the IFO, so this doesn't keep anyone from doing any exciting locking work.

  1787   Fri Jul 24 17:47:52 2009 StephanieUpdateGeneralMultiply Resonant EOM Update

After speaking with Rana and realizing that it would be better to use smaller inductances in the flying-component circuit (and after a lot of tinkering with the original), I rebuilt the circuit, removing all of the resistors (to simplify it) and making the necessary inductance and capacitance changes. A picture of the circuit is attached, as is a circuit diagram.

A plot of the measured and simulated transfer functions is also attached; the general shape matches between the two, and the resonant frequencies are roughly correct (they should be 11, 29.5, and 55 MHz). The gain at the 55 MHz peak is lower than the other two peaks (I'd like them all to be roughly the same). I currently have no idea what the impedance is doing, but I'm certain it is not 50 Ohms at the resonant peaks, because there are no resistors in the circuit to correct the impedance. Next, I'll have to add the resistors and see what happens.

  1788   Fri Jul 24 21:02:46 2009 AlbertoUpdatePSLAligning the beam to the Faraday

This afternoon I kept working on the alignment of the beam so that it matches at the same the PSL periscope, the Mode Cleaner and the Faraday isolator at the input of the IFO.

The camera looking at the Farady showed a beam quite low from the center of the Faraday's entrance. I wanted to move it up.

After working on the periscope alignment and on the MC mirrors, I think I managed to moved it up a bit. To know whether that was enough or not I wanted to evaluate the alignment to the X arm by checking the value of TRX.

In order for the MC to be finely matched to the input beam from the periscope, the WFS controls have to be on. Before turning them on, I centered the beam on their QPDs and run the WFS_zero_offset script.

When I turned them on, the control signal in Pitch from WFS2 started going up with no stop. It was like the integrator in the loop was fed with a DC bias. The effect of that was to misalign the MC cavity from the good state in which it was with the only length control on (that is, transmission ~2.7, reflection ~ 0.4).

I don't know why that is happening. To exclude that it was due to a computer problem I first burtrestored C1IOO to July the 18th, but since that did not help, I even restarted it. Also that didn't solve the problem.

 

Flashes at ETMX show at least that the beam is going through the Farady. How well, I can't tell untill the MC is under full control.

 

I have to leave the lab now, but I can be back tomorrow to keep working on that.

  1789   Sat Jul 25 13:34:58 2009 KojiUpdateGeneralWeek 5/6 Update

Quote:

The last week I've started setting up the HeNe laser on the PSL table and doing some basic measurements (Beam waist, etc) with the beam scan, shown on the graph.  Today I moved a few steering mirrors that steve showed me from at table on the NW corner to the PSL table.  The goal setup is shown below, based on the UCSD setup.  Also, I found something that confused me in the EUCLID setup, a  pair of quarter wave plates in the arm of their interferometer, so I've been working out how they organized that to get the results that they did.  I also finished calculating the shot noise levels in the basic and UCSD models, and those are also shown below (at 633nm, 4mw) where the two phase-shifted elements (green/red) are the UCSD outputs, in quadrature (the legend is difficult to read).

 

 

Chris,

Some comments:

0. Probably, you are working on the SP table, not on the PSL table.

1. The profile measurement looks very nice.

2. You can simplify the optical layout if you consider the following issues
  A. The matching lenses just after the laser:
      You can make a collimated beam only with a single lens, instead of two.
      Just put a lens of f0 with distance of f0 from the waist. (Just like Geometrical Optics to make a parallel-going beam.)

      Or even you don't need any lens. In this case, whole optical setup should be smaller so that your beam
      can be accomodated by the aperture of your optics. But that's adequately possible.

  B. The steering mirrors after the laser:
      If you have a well elevated beam from the table (3~4 inches), you can omit two steering mirrors.
      If you have a laser beam whose tilte can not be corrected by the laser mount, you can add a mirror to fix it.

  C. The steering mirrors in the arms:
      You don't need the steering mirrors in the arms as all d.o.f. of the Michelson alignment can be adjusted
      by the beamsplitter and the mirror at the reflected arm. Also The arm can be much shorter (5~6 inches?)

  D. The lenses and the mirrors after the PBS:
      You can put one of the lenses before the PBS, instead of two after the lens.
      You can omit the mirror at the reflection side of the PBS as the PBS mount should have alignment adjustment.

The simpler, the faster and the easier to work with!
Cheers.

  1790   Sat Jul 25 13:49:28 2009 KojiUpdateGeneralMultiply Resonant EOM Update

Quote:

After speaking with Rana and realizing that it would be better to use smaller inductances in the flying-component circuit (and after a lot of tinkering with the original), I rebuilt the circuit, removing all of the resistors (to simplify it) and making the necessary inductance and capacitance changes. A picture of the circuit is attached, as is a circuit diagram.

A plot of the measured and simulated transfer functions is also attached; the general shape matches between the two, and the resonant frequencies are roughly correct (they should be 11, 29.5, and 55 MHz). The gain at the 55 MHz peak is lower than the other two peaks (I'd like them all to be roughly the same). I currently have no idea what the impedance is doing, but I'm certain it is not 50 Ohms at the resonant peaks, because there are no resistors in the circuit to correct the impedance. Next, I'll have to add the resistors and see what happens.

Stephanie, 

This is a quite nice measurement. Much better than the previous one.

1) For further steps, I think now you need to connect the real EOM at the end in order to incorporate
the capacitance and the loss (=resistance) of the EOM. Then you have to measure the input impedance
of the circuit. You can measure the impedance of the device at Wilson house.
(I can come with you in order to consult with Rich, if you like)

Before that you may be able to do a preparatory measurement which can be less precise than the Wilson one,
but still useful. You can measure the transfer function of the voltage across the input of this circuit,
and can convert it to the impedance. The calibration will be needed by connecting a 50Ohm resister
on the network analyzer.

2) I wonder why the model transfer function (TF) has slow phase changes at the resonance.
Is there any implicit resistances took into account in the model?

If the circuit model is formed only by reactive devices (Cs and Ls), the whole circuit has no place to dissipate (= no loss).
This means that the impedance goes infinity and zero, at the resonance and the anti-resonance, respectively.
This leads a sharp flip of the phase at these resonances and anti-resonances.

The real circuit has small losses everywhere. So, the slow phase change is reasonable.

  1791   Sat Jul 25 16:04:32 2009 robUpdatePSLAligning the beam to the Faraday

Quote:

When I turned them on, the control signal in Pitch from WFS2 started going up with no stop. It was like the integrator in the loop was fed with a DC bias. The effect of that was to misalign the MC cavity from the good state in which it was with the only length control on (that is, transmission ~2.7, reflection ~ 0.4).

I don't know why that is happening. To exclude that it was due to a computer problem I first burtrestored C1IOO to July the 18th, but since that did not help, I even restarted it. Also that didn't solve the problem.

 

 

At least one problem is the mis-centering of the resonant spot on MC2, which can be viewed with the video monitors.  It's very far from the center of the optic, which causes length-to-angle coupling that makes the mulitple servos which actuate on MC2 (MCL, WFS, local damping) fight each other and go unstable.

  1792   Sat Jul 25 19:04:01 2009 KojiUpdatePSLAligning the beam to the Faraday

Quote:

Quote:

When I turned them on, the control signal in Pitch from WFS2 started going up with no stop. It was like the integrator in the loop was fed with a DC bias. The effect of that was to misalign the MC cavity from the good state in which it was with the only length control on (that is, transmission ~2.7, reflection ~ 0.4).

I don't know why that is happening. To exclude that it was due to a computer problem I first burtrestored C1IOO to July the 18th, but since that did not help, I even restarted it. Also that didn't solve the problem.

 

 

At least one problem is the mis-centering of the resonant spot on MC2, which can be viewed with the video monitors.  It's very far from the center of the optic, which causes length-to-angle coupling that makes the mulitple servos which actuate on MC2 (MCL, WFS, local damping) fight each other and go unstable.

I played with the MC alignment for the beam centering. After that, I restored the alignment values.



In principle, one can select the MC2 spot as one likes, while the transmitted beam axis to the IFO is not changed
as far as you are at the best alignment. This principle is almost trivial because the beam axis matches
to the input beam axis at the best alignment.
The alignment solution is not unique for a triangle cavity if we don't fix the end spot position.

In practice, this cruising of the MC2 spot is accomplished by the following procedure:
0) Assume that you are initially at the best alignment (=max transmission).
1) Slightly tilt the MC2.
2) Adjust MC1/MC3 so that the best transmission is restored.

I started from the following initial state of the alignment sliders:

BEFORE TRIAL

MC1 Pitch  +3.6242
MC1 Yaw  -0.8640
MC2 Pitch  3.6565
MC2 Yaw -1.1216
MC3 Pitch -0.6188
MC3 Yaw -3.1910
MC Trans 2.70

After many iterations, the spot was centered in some extent. (See the picture)
RESULT

    adj.
MC1 Pitch  +3.363 (-0.26)
MC1 Yaw  -1.164 (-0.3)
MC2 Pitch  3.7565 (+0.1)
MC2 Yaw -1.2800 (~ -0.16)
MC3 Pitch -0.841 (~ -0.22)
MC3 Yaw -3.482 (~ -0.29)
MC Trans 2.75  

The instability looked cured somewhat.
Further adjustment caused a high freq (10Hz at the camera) instability and the IMCR shift issue.
So I returned to the last stable setting.

Side effect:
Of course, if you move MC1, the reflected spot got shifted.
The spot has been apparently off-centered from the IMCR camera. (up and right)
At this stage, I could not determine what is the good state.
So, I restored the alignment of the MC as it was.
But now Alberto can see which mirror do we have to move in which direction and how much.

  1793   Sun Jul 26 13:19:54 2009 ranaUpdatePSLAligning the mode cleaner

I set the MC back to its good alignment (June 21st) using this procedure. The trend of the OSEM values over the last 40 days and 40 nights is attached.

Then I aligned the periscope to that beam. This took some serious periscope knob action. Without WFS, the transmission went to 2.7 V and the reflection down to 0.6V.

Then I re-aligned the MC_REFL path as usual. The beam was far enough off that I had to also re-align onto the MC LSC PD as well as the MC REFL camera (~2 beam radii).

Beams are now close to their historical positions on Faraday and MC2. I then restored the PZT sliders to their April snapshot and the X-arm locked.

Steve - please recenter the iris which is on the periscope. It has been way off for a long time.

So it looks OK now. The main point here is that we can trust the MC OSEMs.

Afterwards I rebooted c1susvme1 and c1susvme2 because they were skewed.

 

  1794   Sun Jul 26 16:05:17 2009 AlbertoUpdatePSLAligning the mode cleaner

Quote:

I set the MC back to its good alignment (June 21st) using this procedure. The trend of the OSEM values over the last 40 days and 40 nights is attached.

Then I aligned the periscope to that beam. This took some serious periscope knob action. Without WFS, the transmission went to 2.7 V and the reflection down to 0.6V.

Then I re-aligned the MC_REFL path as usual. The beam was far enough off that I had to also re-align onto the MC LSC PD as well as the MC REFL camera (~2 beam radii).

Beams are now close to their historical positions on Faraday and MC2. I then restored the PZT sliders to their April snapshot and the X-arm locked.

Steve - please recenter the iris which is on the periscope. It has been way off for a long time.

So it looks OK now. The main point here is that we can trust the MC OSEMs.

Afterwards I rebooted c1susvme1 and c1susvme2 because they were skewed.

 

 It is really surprising that we now have again the data from the MC OSEMs since up to two days ago the record looked corrupted (see the attachments in my entry 1774).

The reason I ended up severely misaligning the the MC is exactly that there wasn't anymore a reference position that I could go back to and I had to use the camera looking a the Faraday.

  1797   Mon Jul 27 14:43:34 2009 ChrisUpdate Photodetectors

I found two ThorLabs PDA55 Si photodetectors that says detect visible light from DC to 10MHz that I'm going to use from now on.  I don't know how low of a frequency they will actually be good to.

  1798   Mon Jul 27 17:48:44 2009 JenneUpdateoplevsETMY oplev is still down for the count

ETMY oplev is still out of order.  Hopefully I'll get it under control by tomorrow. 

  1800   Tue Jul 28 16:03:14 2009 ClaraUpdatePEMGuralp Seismometer cable pin diagram

I mapped out the corresponding pins on both ends of the Guralp seismometer cable. Here is the diagram:

guralp_pin_diagram.png

The circular 26-pin end of the cable (that plugs into the seismometer) is labeled as above. The other end (the 39-pin end) is not physically numbered, so I just came up with a numbering system. They are both pictured on the non-cable end of the connector. The colored circles indicate the pin pairs.

 

FROM JENNE, 30JULY2009:  the Dsub end is 37 pin, not 39.

  1801   Tue Jul 28 18:32:21 2009 KojiUpdateCDSRCG work

Peter and Koji,

We are constructing a setup for the new 40m CDS using Realtime Code Generator (RCG).
We are trying to put simulated suspensions and test suspension controllers on a different processors of megatron
in order to create a virtual control feedback loop. Those CDS processes are communicating
each other via a shared memory, not via a reflective memory for now.

After some struggles with tremendous helps of Alex, we succeeded to have the communication between the two processes.
Also we succeeded to make the ADC/DAC cards recognized by megatoron, using the PCI express extension card replaced by Jay.
(This card runs multi PCI-X cards on the I/O chasis.)

Next steps:
- Establish a firewall between the 40m network and megatron (Remember this)
- Make DTT and other tools available at megatron
- Try virtual feedback control loops and characterize the performance
- Enable reflective memory functionalities on megatron
- Construct a hybrid system by the old/new CDSs
- Controllability tests using an interferometer


Note on MATLAB/SIMULINK
o Each cdsIPC should have a correct shared memory address spaced by 8 bytes. (i.e. 0x1000, 0x1008, 0x1010, ...)

Note on MEDM
o At the initial state, garbage (e.g. NaN) can be running all around the feedback loops. They are invisible as MEDM shows them as  "0.0000".
To escape from this state, we needed to disconnect all the feedback, say, by turning off the filters.

Note on I/O chasis
o We needed to pull all of the power plugs from megatron and the I/O chasis once so that we can activate
the PCI-e - PCI-X extension card. When it is succeeded, all (~30) LEDs turn to green.

  1803   Wed Jul 29 11:58:57 2009 AlbertoUpdatePSLMC not locking

This morning I found the Mode Cleaner unlocked.

I check the sliders for the mirrors bias and they have not changed. Also the OSEMs readbacks show no change in the optics positions.

I don't understand what's wrong because in the previous days, in this state of alignmanet, it could lock.

I tried to tweak a little bit the periscope to check whether it was a problem of beam matching but that didn't help the cavity to lock.

I don't want to change the periscpe alignment to much becasue I believe it is still good and I suspect that there is something else going on.

  1804   Wed Jul 29 12:00:49 2009 StephanieUpdateGeneralMultiply Resonant EOM Update

For the past couple of days I have been trying to understand and perform Koji's method for impedance measurement using the Agilent 4395A Network Analyzer (without the impedance testing kit). I have made some headway, but I don't completely understand what's going on; here's what I've done so far.

I have made several transfer function measurements using the attached physical setup (ImpedanceTestingPhysicalSetup.png), after calibrating the setup by placing a 50 Ohm resistor in the place of the Z in the diagram. The responses of the various impedances I've measured are shown in the attached plot (ImpResponses.png). However, I'm having trouble figuring out how to convert these responses to impedances, so I tried to derive the relationship between the measured transfer function and the impedance by simplifying the diagram Koji drew on the board for me (attached, ImpedanceTestingSetup.png) to the attached circuit diagram (ImpedanceTestingCktDiagram.png), and finding the expected value of VA/VR. For the circuit diagram shown, the equation should be VA/VR = 2Z/(50+Z). 50 Ohms is good to use for calibration because the expected value of the transfer function for this impedance is 1 (0 dB).

So I used this relationship to find the expected response for the various impedances, and I also calculated the impedance from the actual measured responses. I've attached a plot of the measured (red) and expected (black) response (top) and impedance (bottom) for a 1 nF capacitor (1nF.png). The expected and measured plots don't really match up very well; if I add extra inductance (7.6 nH, plots shown in blue), the two plots match up a little better, but still don't match very well. I suspect that the difference may come from the fact that for my analysis, I treated the power splitter as if it were a simple node, and I think that's probably not very accurate.

Anyway, the point of all this is to eventually measure the impedance of the circuit I created on Friday, but I don't think I can really do that until I understand what is going on a little better.

  1805   Wed Jul 29 12:14:40 2009 peteUpdateComputersRCG work

Koji, Pete 

Yesterday, Jay brought over the IO box for megatron, and got it working.  We plan to firewall megatron this afternoon, with the help of Jay and Alex, so we can set up GDS there and play without worrying about breaking things.  In the meantime, we went to Wilson House to get some breakout boards so we can take transfer functions with the 785, for an ETMX controller.  We put in a sine wave, and all looks good on the auto-generated epics screens, with an "empty" system (no filters on). Next we'll load in filters and take transfer functions.

Unfortunately we promised to return the breakout boards by 1pm today.  This is because, according to denizens of Wilson House, Osamu "borrowed" all their breakout boards and these were the last two!  If we can't locate Osamu's cache, they expect to have more in a day or two.

Here is the transfer function of the through filter working at 16KHz sampling. It looks fine except for the fact that the dc gain is ~0.8. Koji is going to characterize the digital down sampling filter in order to try to compare with the generated code and the filter coefficients.


  1806   Wed Jul 29 13:15:35 2009 ClaraUpdatePEMDents = Bad??

I was in the lab last night accelerometerizing and noticed some dents on the tubes that stick out horizontally from the MC2 optical chamber (sorry, I don't know what they're called or what they do). One of them is pretty big... I don't know if this is a problem, but it probably isn't a good thing. Photos below:

big_dent1.png

big_dent2.png

small_dent.png

This last one is a little hard to see... I was having trouble getting a good angle on it, but it's there. Not quite as significant as the first one though. (The first two pictures are of the same dent.)

  1807   Wed Jul 29 14:22:33 2009 ZachUpdateCamerasGigE Phase Camera

This week, Joe and I have been setting up the laser and optics.  The mephisto laser is emitting a very ugly beam that we can hopefully remedy using an iris and a lens.  After scanning the beam width at a few different distances from the laser, I am currently trying to determine the appropriate lenses to use.

  1808   Wed Jul 29 14:56:44 2009 JenneUpdatePEMMiniEarthquakes due to construction

The construction people next door seem to be getting pretty excited about pounding things lately.  At my desk the floor was shaking like a mini-earthquake, and all of the accelerometers were pretty much railed. Clara has the Guralp box out right now, so the Guralp is unplugged, but the Ranger didn't seem to be railed.

This either (a) is part of the reason the MC is being wonky lately, or (b) has nothing whatsoever to do with it.  The MC watchdogs haven't been tripping all the time, so maybe this isn't a primary cause of the wonky-ness.

In looking at a many-days/months trend to see how far back this has been going, it looks like the accelerometers are hitting their rails pretty much all day every day.  This may be significantly hindering Clara's Wiener filtering work.  I think the gain on the accelerometer's controler panel is already set to 1, but if it's set to 10, we may want to reduce that.  Alternatively, we may want to put in attenuators just as the signal is entering the PEM ADCU, to help reduce the amount of rail-hitting that's going on. I don't remember this from a couple of months ago, so this may be a problem that will go away once the construction / landscaping is done next door.

  1811   Wed Jul 29 19:46:04 2009 rana, albertoUpdatePEMDents = Bad??
It looks like the MC2 chamber and/or stack has been jarred and shifted. Please be careful and use much less force and speed around the MC2 chamber.

My guess is that the work with the accelerometers around there had made the MC2 angle and
position change last night. The reason that we don't see it in the OSEMs so much is that its
a change in the actual stack position and tilt.

To recover, we changed the MC2 alignment bias to get the beam through the Faraday. This did NOT get
the beam back onto the right place on the MC TRANS QPD. For tonight we decided to not recenter that
since Rob might not like this position. We did, however, zero out the MC WFS and the PSL POS/ANG.

If the interferometer locking is OK tonight, then we (Steve and whoever else is here at 7 AM)
should recenter IP POS and IP ANG and also fix up the PSL POS and PSL ANG QPDs. You can see
in the attached picture that there are two problems to fix:
1) The knobs (circled in red and blue) are wrapped in foil. Why???
2) The handedness of the mirror mount with the orange arrow is wrong. This should be unmounted and clocked
by 90 deg. Right now the beam is nearly clipping on the mount. Also, we need to change the channel names
on the PSL POS (or maybe its ANG). It has the horizontal/vertical channels misnamed.
  1812   Thu Jul 30 03:10:18 2009 robUpdateIOOMC tweaked further

I tilted the periscope beam and aligned the MC.  Now the spot at the Faraday entrance is near the center of the aperture in up/down space.  The arm powers are only going up to ~0.8, though.  Maybe we should try a little bit of left/right. 

I looked at the IP POS spot with a viewer card, and it looked round, so no obvious egregious clipping in the Faraday.  Someone might take a picture with one of the GigE camera and get us a beam profile there.

We no longer have an MC1 and MC3 camera view.

I can see a bright scatterer that can be seen from the east viewport of the BSC, but I can't tell what it is.  It could be a ghost beam. 

It would be nice to get an image looking into the north viewport of the IOO chamber.  I can't see in there because the BS oplev table is in the way. 

  1813   Thu Jul 30 19:55:23 2009 KojiUpdateGeneralMultiply Resonant EOM Update

Quote:

For the past couple of days I have been trying to understand and perform Koji's method for impedance measurement using the Agilent 4395A Network Analyzer (without the impedance testing kit). I have made some headway, but I don't completely understand what's going on; here's what I've done so far.

I have made several transfer function measurements using the attached physical setup (ImpedanceTestingPhysicalSetup.png), after calibrating the setup by placing a 50 Ohm resistor in the place of the Z in the diagram. The responses of the various impedances I've measured are shown in the attached plot (ImpResponses.png). However, I'm having trouble figuring out how to convert these responses to impedances, so I tried to derive the relationship between the measured transfer function and the impedance by simplifying the diagram Koji drew on the board for me (attached, ImpedanceTestingSetup.png) to the attached circuit diagram (ImpedanceTestingCktDiagram.png), and finding the expected value of VA/VR. For the circuit diagram shown, the equation should be VA/VR = 2Z/(50+Z). 50 Ohms is good to use for calibration because the expected value of the transfer function for this impedance is 1 (0 dB).

So I used this relationship to find the expected response for the various impedances, and I also calculated the impedance from the actual measured responses. I've attached a plot of the measured (red) and expected (black) response (top) and impedance (bottom) for a 1 nF capacitor (1nF.png). The expected and measured plots don't really match up very well; if I add extra inductance (7.6 nH, plots shown in blue), the two plots match up a little better, but still don't match very well. I suspect that the difference may come from the fact that for my analysis, I treated the power splitter as if it were a simple node, and I think that's probably not very accurate.

Anyway, the point of all this is to eventually measure the impedance of the circuit I created on Friday, but I don't think I can really do that until I understand what is going on a little better.

 I checked the setup and found RF reflection at the load was the cause of the unreasonable response in the impedance measurement.
So, I have put a total 22dB attenuation (10+6+6 dB) between the power splitter and the load to be measured. See the picture.
This kind of attenuators, called as PADs, is generally used in order to improve the impedance matching, sacrificing the signal amplitude at the load.

Then, It looks the measurements got reasonable up to 100MHz (at least) and |Z|<1kOhm.
For the measurements, I just followed the procedure that Stephanie described.
Stephanie has measured the impedance of her resonant circuit.


As a test of the method, I measured impedances of various discrete devices. i.e. 50Ohm, 10-1000pF Cap, Inductances, circuit opened.

a) 50Ohm (marine-blue) was calibrated to be recognized as 50Ohm.

b) The mica capacitances (orange 10pF, yellow 100pF, green 1000pF) appeared as the impedances f^-1 in the low freq region. It's nice.
At high frequency, the impedances deviate from f^-1, which could be caused by the lead inductance. (Self Resonance)
So 1000pF mica is not capacitance at 50MHz already.

c) Open BNC connector (Red) looks have something like 5pF. (i.e. 300Ohm at 100MHz)

d) I could not get good measurements with the inductors as I had 200nH (and some C of ~5pF) for a Pomona clip (blue).
This is just because of my laziness such that I avoid soldering the Ls to an RF connector!

  1814   Thu Jul 30 21:26:16 2009 ranaUpdateIOOMC Drumhead mode
I used COMSOL 3.5a to do a FEA of one of the MC flat mirrors. Should be close to the same for all the mirrors.

The model is very simple- it includes just the cylindrical shape (no magnets, curvature, or coating or bevels).
This is good enough, since we don't really know all of the material properties at the 1% level.

The attached plot shows the MC drumhead mode. The color scale shows the displacement along the optic axis.
The model predicts 28.855 kHz and the measured value was 28.2 kHz.

I used COMSOL in the multiphysics mode which includes the Structural Mechanics and Heat Transfer modules at the
same time. For the material I used the built in properties of Corning 7940 (fused silica). In reality we have
7980 (I don't know all of the material differences). In any case, this model includes the temperature dependence
of the Young's modulus, so it should be possible to use this to predict the absorption numbers.

The model file (mc2.mph) has been added to our COMSOL SVN directory.
  1815   Fri Jul 31 09:52:38 2009 StephanieUpdateGeneralMultiply Resonant EOM Update

I was able to make an impedance measurement of the flying-component circuit using Koji's method for impedance measurement. I first measured the impedance of the circuit with a 10 pF capacitor in the place of the EOM (as shown in the circuit diagram). This impedance plot is attached. I then added resistance to adjust the impedance slightly, attached the circuit to a New Focus KTP 4064 EOM, and took another impedance measurement (circuit diagram and impedance plot attached). The peaks are relatively close to 50 Ohms; they are at least the same order of magnitude.

  1816   Fri Jul 31 11:04:42 2009 StephanieUpdateGeneralMultiply Resonant EOM Update

I put the flying-component circuit in a box; a photo is attached. I also measured the impedance; it looks exactly the same as it looked before I put the circuit in the box.

  1817   Mon Aug 3 01:08:20 2009 AlbertoUpdatePSLMC unlocked

Friday afternoon the mode cleaner got unlocked. Then some adjustment of the MC1 bias sliders locked it again. The driftmon showed the excursion for pitch and yaw of MC1 becasue it wasn't updated after the change.

Tonight Rana found the MC unlocked and simply touched the sliders to bring the OSEMs back to the driftmon values.

MC1 Yaw remains different from the driftmon. If brught back to htat value, the MC would get unlocked.

More investigation is needed to understand why the MC lock hasn't been stable for the last few days.

 

ELOG V3.1.3-