40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 95 of 339  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Category Subjectup
  10731   Fri Nov 21 13:58:51 2014 ericqUpdateOptical LeversHeNe RIN test

 Steve had me measure the RIN of a JDSU HeNe laser. I used a PDA520, and measured the RIN after the laser had been running for about an hour, which let the laser "settle" (I saw the low frequency RIN fall after this period).

Here's the plot and zipped data.

Steve: brand new laser with JDSU 1201 PS


  150   Fri Nov 30 20:13:57 2007 dmassSummaryGeneralHeNe UniPhase Laser
Data for the Uniphase 1.9 mW HeNe laser (labeled: "051507 From ISCT-BS") SN: 1284131 Model: 1103P

I used the Photon Beamscanner to obtain all data, then fit w(z) as shown on the plot with parameters w_0, z_R, and hidden parameter delta,
where z = delta + x, z is waist distance, x is distance from the laser.

Copies of the matlab code used to fit (/plot) are attached in .zip below.
  10517   Thu Sep 18 09:17:47 2014 SteveUpdateSUSHeNe laser test

TEST QPD sn 222 was calibrated with 1103P directly looking into it from 1 m. ND2 filter was on the qpd.


  10522   Mon Sep 22 10:14:07 2014 SteveUpdateSUSHeNe laser test


TEST QPD sn 222 was calibrated with 1103P directly looking into it from 1 m. ND2 filter was on the qpd.



  10525   Tue Sep 23 08:34:14 2014 SteveUpdateSUSHeNe laser test


 The room temp drops 1 degree C on the 4th day. The weather has changed.

  10537   Thu Sep 25 10:53:32 2014 SteveUpdateSUSHeNe laser test



  10459   Fri Sep 5 15:28:38 2014 SteveUpdateSUSHeNe laser test preparation

The SRM qpd was moved to accommodate the HeNe laser qualification test for LIGO Oplev use.

The qpd was saturating at 65,000 counts of 3 mW

ND1 filter lowering the power by 10 got rid of saturation. I epoxied an adapter ring to the qpd.

Atm3 was taken before saturation was realized with Koji's help.

Atm4 ND1 on SRM qpd. Now it is working and everything is moving.


  10475   Tue Sep 9 08:22:28 2014 SteveUpdateSUSHeNe laser test preparation


The SRM qpd was moved to accommodate the HeNe laser qualification test for LIGO Oplev use.

The qpd was saturating at 65,000 counts of 3 mW

ND1 filter lowering the power by 10 got rid of saturation. I epoxied an adapter ring to the qpd.

Atm3 was taken before saturation was realized with Koji's help.

Atm4 ND1 on SRM qpd. Now it is working and everything is moving.


 SRM as set up in Atm4  26,000 count compared with ETMY oplev servo in operation 7,500 counts for 3 days

Next steps: measure beam size at qpd,

                  place qpd on translation stage for calibration,

                  change 1103P mount to single one

  10479   Tue Sep 9 16:59:32 2014 SteveUpdateSUSHeNe laser test preparation



 SRM as set up in Atm4  26,000 count compared with ETMY oplev servo in operation 7,500 counts for 3 days

Next steps: measure beam size at qpd,

                  place qpd on translation stage for calibration,

                  change 1103P mount to single one

 SRM qpd is installed on translation stage and the shims removed from laser V mounts.

The ETMY oplev servo is on.

SRM oplev servo:  100 microrad/count is an estimate, not calibrated one.

  10489   Wed Sep 10 15:31:16 2014 SteveUpdateSUSHeNe laser test preparation




 SRM as set up in Atm4  26,000 count compared with ETMY oplev servo in operation 7,500 counts for 3 days

Next steps: measure beam size at qpd,

                  place qpd on translation stage for calibration,

                  change 1103P mount to single one

 SRM qpd is installed on translation stage and the shims removed from laser V mounts.

The ETMY oplev servo is on.

SRM oplev servo:  100 microrad/count is an estimate, not calibrated one.

 SRM qpd is back to its normal position. The mount base is still on delrin base. SRM and ITMY need centering.

Tomorrow I will set up the HeNe laser test at the SP table with Ontrack qpd

ETMY oplev servo on. SRM qpd with ND1 ------no component------- 1103P

  10504   Fri Sep 12 16:30:48 2014 SteveUpdateSUSHeNe laser test preparation


IP POS cable was swapped with old SP-QPD sn222 at the LSC rack.  So there is NO IP POS temporarily.

This QPDsn222 will be used the HeNe oplev test for aLIGO


 QPDsn222 is on translation stage with ND2 filter on SP table. The 1103P is mounted with two large V mounts 1 m away.

This qpd will be calibrated Monday. It has only slow outputs.

  506   Fri May 30 12:03:08 2008 josephb, AndreyConfigurationCamerasHead to head comparison of cameras
Andrey and myself - Joseph B. - have examined the output of the GC650 (CCD) and GC750 (CMOS) prosilica cameras. We did several live motion tests (i.e. rotate the turning mirror, move and rotate the camera, etc) and also used a microscope slide to try to eliminate back reflections and interference.

Both the GC650 and GC750 produce dark lines in the images, some of which look parallel, while others are in much stranger shapes, such as circles and arcs.

Moving the GC750 camera physically, we have the spot moving around, with the dark lines appearing to be fixed to the camera itself, and remain in the same location on the detector. I.e. coming back to the same spot keeps showing a circle. In reasonably well behaved sections, these lines are about 10% dips in power, and could in principle be subtracted out. Its possible that the camera was damaged with too much light incident in the past, although going back to the pmc_trans images that were taken, similar lines are still visible.

Moving the GC650 camera physically seems to change the position of the lines (if one also rotates the turning mirror to get to the same spot on the CCD). It seems as if a slight change in angle has a large effect on these dark bands, which can either be thin, or very large, bordering on the size of the spot size. My guess is (as the vendor suggested) the light is interacting with the electronics behind the surface layer rather than a surface defect producing these lines. Using a microscope slide in between the turning mirror and the GC650, we were able to produce new fringes, but didn't affect the underlying ones.

Placing a microscope slide in between the last turning mirror and the GC750 does not affect the dark lines (although it does seem to add some), nor does turning the final turning mirror, so it seems unlikely to be caused by back reflection in this case.

So it seems the CMOS may be more consistent, although we need to determine if the current line problems are due to exposure to too much light at some point in the past (i.e. I broke it) or they come that way from the factory.

Attached are the results of image-processing of the images from the two our cameras using Andrey's new Matlab script.
  12308   Mon Jul 18 05:05:05 2016 AakashUpdateGeneralHeater for Seismometer Enclosure | SURF 2016

I took off the silicon rubber heaters which were used by a SURF last year for heating the enclosure. The heater data sheet has mentioned the power dentsities, but I doubted the values. So I wanted to measure the actual power density by these heaters. I think the rubber heaters are broken somewhere within, the surface is not heated evenly. Although I don't have a good quantative reason to use, I was thinking to use a thermoelectric cooling module for the enclosure. 

From the data I collected few days back, I am trying to obtain a transfer function of temperature inside the enclosure to that of outside. My aim is to measure the pole frequency of temperature fluctuations inside the enclosure relative to the outside fluctuations.


  14110   Sat Jul 28 00:45:11 2018 terra, sandrineSummaryThermal CompensationHeater measurements overview

[Sandrine, Koji, Terra]

Summary: We completed multiple scans at different heating powers for the reflector set up, observing unique HOM peak shifts of tens of kHz. We also observed HOM5 shifts with the cylinder set up. Initial Lorentzian fittings of the magnitude give tens of Hz resolution. I summarize the main week's work below. 


Heater set-up is described in several previous elogs, but attachments #1 and #2 show the full heater set-up and wiring/pinouts in and out of vacuum, since we're all intimately aware of how confusing in-vacuum pinouts can be. We are not using the Sorenson power supply (as described in 14071); we just have the BKPrecision power supply 1735 sitting next to the ETMY rack and are manually going out to turn on/off. 

We've continued to use the scan setup described in elog 14086, which is run using /users/annalisa/postVent/AGfast.py. Step by step notes for setting up the scan, running the scans, and processing the scans are attached in notes.txt.

Inducing/witnessing HOMs

The aux input beam was already clipped and on wednesday (after Trans was centered, 14093) we also clipped the output aux beam with razor blade (angled vertically and horizontally, elog 14103) before PDA255; we clipped ~1/3 of the output beam. Attachment #3 shows before and after clipping output, where orange 'cold' == unclipped, black 'mean' == clipped (all in cold state). Up to HOM5 is visible. 


Below is a summary of the available scan data. We also have cold (0A) scans CAR-HOM5 and full FSR scans for most configurations. 

Elliptic Reflector
current[A] voltage[V] power[W] scans
0.4 2 0.8 CAR-HOM3(x1)
0.5 3.4 1.7 CAR-HOM3(x1)
0.6 5 3.0 CAR-HOM3(x1)
0.8 9.4(9.7) 7.5(7.8) CAR-HOM5(>x5)
0.9 12 10.8 CAR-HOM5(x4)
1.09 17 18.5 CAR-HOM3








Cylinder + Lenses
current[A] voltage[V] power[W] scans
0.9 15 13.5 CAR-HOM5(odds x4)

We tried the cylinder set-up again tonight for the first time since inital try and can see shifts of HOM5 - see attachment #5; we haven't looked in detail yet, but it looks like odd modes are more effected, suggesting the ring heat pattern is off centered from the beam axis. 

Scan data is saved in the following format: users/annalisa/postVent/scandata/{reflector,cylinder}/{parsed,unparsed}/{CAR,HOM1,HOM2,HOM3,HOM4,HOM5}{_datetime}{_parsed,_unparsed}.{txt,pdf}

Minimum heating

On 7/26 we increased the power to the elliptical reflector heater in steps to find the minimum heater power required to see frequency shifts with our measurement setup. Lowest we can resolve is a shift in HOM3 with 1.7W (0.5A/3.4V). According to Annalisa's measurements in elog 14050, this would be something like 30-60 mW radiated power hitting the test mass. We only looked at CAR - HOM3 for this investigation; data for scans at 0.4A, 0.5A, 0.6A is available as indicated above.

Lorentizian Fitting

The Lorentzian fitting was done using the equation a + b / sqrt(1+((x-c)/d*2), where a = constant background, b = peak height above background, c = peak frequency, d = full width at half max. 

The fitting is still being edited and optimized. We will crop the data to zoom in around the peak more.

The Lorentzian fit of the magnitude shows ~10Hz of resolution. (See attachment 6 for the carrier at 8A and attachment 7 for HOM 1 at 9A)

We're working on fitting the full complex data.



  14050   Tue Jul 10 23:44:23 2018 AnnalisaConfigurationThermal CompensationHeater setup assembly

[Annalisa, Koji]

Today both the heater and the reflector were delivered, and we set down the setup to make some first test.

The schematic is the usual: the rod heater (30mm long, 3.8 mm diameter) is set inside the elliptical reflector, as close as possible to the first focus. In the second focus we put the power meter in order to measure the radiated power. The broadband power meter wavelength calibration has been set at 4µm: indeed, the heater emits all over the spectrum with the Black Body radiation distribution, and the broadband power meter measures all of them, but only starting from 4µm they will be actually absorbed my the mirror, that's why that calibration was chosen.

We measured the cold resistance of the heater, and it was about 3.5 Ohm. The heater was powered with the BK precision DC power supply 1735, and we took measurements at different input current.

Current [A] Voltage [V] Measured radiated power [mW] Resistance [Ohm]
0.5 2.2 20 4.4
0.8 6 120 7.5
1 11 400 11
1.2 18 970 15

We also aimed at measuring the heater temperature at each step, but the Fluke thermal camera is sensitive up to 300°C and also the FLIR seems to have a very limited temperature range (150°C?). We thought about using a thermocouple, but we tested its response and it seems definitely too slow. 

Some pictures of the setup are shown in figures 1 and 6.

Then we put an absorbing screen in the suspension mount to see the heat pattern, in such a way to get an idea of the heat spot position and size on the ETMY. (figure 2)

The projected pattern is shown in figures 3-4-5

The optimal position of the heater which minimizes the heat beam spot seems when the heater inserted by 2/3 in the reflector (1/3 out). However, this is just a qualitative evaluation.

Finally, two more pictures showing the DB connector on the flange and the in-vacuum cables.

Some more considerations about in-vacuum cabling to come.

Steve: how are you going to protect the magnets ?

  14078   Tue Jul 17 17:37:46 2018 Annalisa, TerraConfigurationThermal CompensationHeaters installation


We installed two heaters setup on the ETMY bench in order to try inducing some radius of curvature change and therefore HOMs frequency shift.


We installed two heaters setup.

Elliptic reflector setup (H1): heater put in the focus of the elliptical reflector: this will make a heat pattern as descirbed in the elogs #14043 and #14050. 


Lenses setup (H2): heater put in a cylndrical reflector (made up with aluminum foil) 1'' diameter, and 2 ZnSe lenses telescope, composed by a 1.5'' and a 1'' diameter respectively, both 3.5'' focal length. The telescope is designed in such a way to focus the heat map on the mirror HR surface. For this latter the schematic was supposed to be the following: 

This setup will project on the mirror a heat pattern like this:

which is very convenient if we want to see a different radius of curvature for different HOMs. However, the power that we are supposed to have absorbed by the mirror with this setup is very low (order of 40-ish mW with 18V, 1.2A) which is probably not enough to see an effect. Moreover, mostly for space reasons (post base too big), the distances were not fully kept, and we ended up with the following setup:

In this configuration we won't probably have a perfect focusing of the heat pattern on the mirror.

In vacuum connections

See Koji's elog #14077 for the final pin connection details. In summary, in vacuum the pins are:

13 to 8 --> cable bunch 0

7 to 2 --> cable bunch 2

25 to 20 --> cable bunch 1

19 to 14 --> cable bunch 3

where Elliptic reflector setup (H1) is connected to cables 0 and 1, and the lenses setup is connected to cables 2 and 3.

Installed setup

This is the installed setup as seen from above:

  12571   Wed Oct 19 16:41:55 2016 gautamUpdateGeneralHeavy doors back on

[ericq, lydia, steve, gautam]

  • We aligned the arms, and centered the in-air AS beam onto the PDs and camera
  • Misaligned the ITMs in a controlled ramp, observed ASDC level, didn't see any strange features
  • We can misalign the ITMs by +/- 100urad in yaw and not see any change in the ASDC level (i.e. no clipping). We think this is reasonable and it is unlikely that we will have to deal with such large misalignments. We also scanned a much larger range of ITM misalignments (approximately +/-1mrad), and saw no strange features in the ASDC levels as was noted in this elog - we used both the signal from the AS110 PD which had better SNR and also the AS55 PD. We take this to be a good sign, and will conduct further diagnostics once we are back at high power.
  • Opened up all light doors, checked centering on all 6 OM mirrors again, these were deemed to be satisfactory 
  • To solve the green scattering issue, we installed a 1in wide glass piece (~7inches tall) mounted on the edge of the OMC table to catch the reflection off the window (see Attachment #1) - this catches most of the ghost beams on the PSL table, there is one that remains directly above the beam which originates at the periscope in the BS/PRM chamber (see Attachment #2) but we decided to deal with this ghost on the PSL table rather than fiddle around in the vacuum and possibly make something else worse
    Link to IMG_2332.JPG
    Link to IMG_2364.JPG
  • Re-aligned arms, ran the dither, and then aligned the PRM and SRM - we saw nice round DRMI flashes on the cameras
  • Took lots of pictures in the chamber, put heavy doors back on. Test mass Oplev spots looked reasonably well centered, I re-centerd PRM and SRM spots in their aligned states, and then misaligned both
  • The window from the OMC chamber to the AS table looked clean enough to not warrant a cleaning..
  • PSL shutter is closed for now. I will check beam alignment, center Oplevs, and realign the green in the evening. Plan is to pump down first thing tomorrow morning

AS beam on OM1

Link to IMG_2337.JPG

AS beam on OM2

AS beam on OM3

AS beam on OM4

AS beam on OM6

I didn't manage to get a picture of the beam on OM5 because it is difficult to hold a card in front of it and simultaneously take a photo, but I did verify the centering...

It remains to update the CAD diagram to reflect the new AS beam path - there are also a number of optics/other in-vacuum pieces I noticed in the BS/PRM and OMC chambers which are not in the drawings, but I should have enough photos handy to fix this.  

Here is the link to the Picasa album with a bunch of photos from the OMC, BS/PRM and ITMY chambers prior to putting the heavy doors back on...

SRM satellite box has been removed for diagnostics by Rana. I centered the SRM Oplev prior to removing this, and I also turned off the watchdog and set the OSEM bias voltages to 0 before pulling the box out (the PIT and YAW bias values in the save files were accurate). Other Oplevs were centered after dither-aligning the arms (see Attachment #8, ignore SRM). Green was aligned to the arms in order to maximize green transmission (GTRX ~0.45, GTRY ~0.5, but transmission isn't centered on cameras).

I don't think I have missed out on any further checks, so unless anyone thinks otherwise, I think we are ready for Steve to start the pumpdown tomorrow morning.

  14373   Thu Dec 20 10:28:43 2018 gautamUpdateVACHeavy doors back on for pumpdown 82

[Chub, Koji, Gautam]

We replaced the EY and IOO chamber heavy doors by 10:10 am PST. Torquing was done first oen round at 25 ft-lb, next at 45 ft-lb (we trust the calibration on the torque wrench, but how reliable is this? And how important are these numbers in ensuring a smooth pumpdown?). All went smooth. The interior of the IOO chamber was found to be dirty when Koji ran a wipe along some surfaces.

For this pumpdown, we aren't so concerned with having the IFO in an operating state as we will certainly vent it again early next year. So we didn't follow the full close-up checklist.

Jon and Chub and Koji are working on starting the pumpdown now... In order to not have to wear laser safety goggles while we closed doors and pumped down, I turned off all the 1064nm lasers in the lab.

  12480   Fri Sep 9 17:50:02 2016 gautamUpdateSUSHeavy doors on BS-PRM, ETMY chambers

[steve, teng, johannes, lydia, gautam]

  • we set about doing some final checks on the Y arm while Johannes and Lydia worked on the X arm alignment
  • locked IMC, turned on Oplev HeNes for ITMY, SRM, PRM, BS and ETMY
  • I first went into the BS-PRM chamber. Traced Oplev paths for PRM and BS, checked that the beam is approximately centered on all the steering mirrors, and traced the beam with a clean beam card to make sure there was no clipping. The beams make it out of the vacuum onto the PDs, but are not centered
  • I also checked the Y arm green - the beam isn't quite centered on the periscope mirrors but I guess this has always been the case and I didn't venture to make any changes
  • Checked new PRM foil hats were secure
  • Checked the main IR beam out of the IMC, and also the IPANG beam - Steve suggested we keep track of the way this moves during pumpdown. However, I didn't quite think this through and we put the heavy door on the BS-PRM chamber before checking where the IPANG beam was on ETMY table (we later found that the beam was a tad too high. Anyways, this isn't critical, wouldve been nice to have this reference though
  • Checked that there were no tools lying around inside the chamber, and proceeded to put the heavy door on
  • Moved to ETMY table, and did much of the same as above - Oplev beam makes it successfully out off the ETM, OSEM cables aren't a risk to clipping the green input beam
  • Proceeded to put the heavy door on ETMY chamber
  • I would have liked to put the heavy door on the ITMY chamber today evening too, but while freeing the SRM from its EQ stops, I noticed that the LL and LR OSEM PD readouts are approximately 60 and 75 % of their saturation values. I think this warrants fixing (I also checked against the frame files from our last DRFPMI lock in march and the PD signals are significantly different) so we should do this before putting the heavy door on. It would also be a good idea to check the table leveling
  • The Oplev beams for ITMY and SRM make it cleanly out of the chamber so all looks good on that front
  • IR and green beams are well clear of any OSEM cables

Depending on how the X arm situation is, we will finish putting back all the heavy doors on Monday and start the pumpdown

GV Edit 11.30pm: 

  • We succeeded in locking the X arm as well, although the transmission peaked at 0.1 (but this is the high gain PD and not the QPD, and also, unlike the Y arm, the 50-50 BS splitting the transmitted light between the QPD and the high gain PD is still in place, so can't really compare with the Y arm value of 0.6)
  • To get the lock going, we had to change a bunch of things like the POX DC offset, demod phase, sign of the gain etc. It is unclear whether we are locking on the TEM00 mode, but we judged it is sufficient to close doors and pump down
  • Johannes and I centered the ETMX and ITMX OL spots on their respective QPDs. Earlier today, Johannes and Lydia had checked ITMX and ETMX OL paths, everything looks decent
  • JE piggyback edit : We also tied the upper ITMX OSEM cables to the suspension cage side using copper wire since particularly UR looked like it could slip and possibly fall down into the beam path
  • JE piggyback edit: While leveling the ITMX table, Gautam and I found that some of the screws that secure the weights were not vented. None of these were put in during this vent. We replaced them all with vented screws.
  • Rana also checked PRM and SRM alignment, all looks okay on that front - the OSEM problem I had alluded to earlier isn't really a problem, once the SRM is aligned, all the OSEMs are reasonably close to 50% of their saturation value.

Looks like on Monday, we will look to put the heavy doors on ITMY, ITMX and ETMX chambers, and begin the pumpdown

  11021   Fri Feb 13 03:44:56 2015 JenneUpdateLSCHeld using ALS for a while at "0" CARM offset with PRMI

[Jenne, Rana]

We wanted to jump right in and see if we were ready to try the new "ALS fool" loop decoupling scheme, so we spent some time with CARM and DARM at "0" offset, held on ALS, with PRMI locked on REFL33I&Q (no offsets).  Spoiler alert:  we weren't ready for the jump.

The REFL11 and AS55 PDs had 0dB analog whitening, which means that we weren't well-matching our noise levels between the PD noise and the ADC noise.  The photodiodes have something of the order nanovolt level noise, while the ADC has something of the order microvolt level noise.  So, we expect to need an analog gain of 1000 somewhere, to make these match up.  Anyhow, we have set both REFL11 and AS55 to 18dB gain. 

On a related note, it seems not so great for the POX and POY ADC channels to be constantly saturated when we have some recycling gain, so we turned their analog gains down from 45dB to 0dB.  After we finished with full IFO locking, they were returned to their nominal 45dB levels. 

We also checked the REFL33 demod phase at a variety of CARM offsets, and we see that perhaps it changes by one or two degrees for optimal rotation, but it's not changing drastically.  So, we can set the REFL33 demod phase at large CARM offset, and trust it at small CARM offset.

We then had a look at the transmon QPD inputs (before the dewhitening) for each quadrant.  They are super-duper saturating, which is not so excellent. 

We think that we want to undo the permanently-on whitening situation.  We want to make the second stage of whitening back to being switchable.  This means taking out the little u-shaped wires that are pulling the logic input of the switches to ground.  We think that we should be okay with one always on, and one switchable.  After the modification, we must check to make sure that the switching behaves as expected.  Also, I need to figure out what the current situation is for the end QPDs, and make sure that the DCC document tree matches reality.  In particular, the Yend DCC leaf doesn't include the gain changes, and the Xend leaf which does show those changes has the wrong value for the gain resistor.

After this, we started re-looking at the single arm cancellation, as Rana elogged about separately.


  4618   Tue May 3 17:19:25 2011 kiwamuUpdateElectronicsHeliax connectors on 1Y2 rack : tightened

My observation wasn't accurate enough.

The looseness came from the fact that the N-SMA bulk heads were slipping on the black plate.

This is actually what Suresh pointed out (see here). So the thickness of the black plate doesn't matter in this case.

Somehow I was able to tighten the bulk heads using two wrenches and I think they are now tight enough so that the heliax's heads don't move any more.

Quote from #4601

I found that all the Heliax cables landing on the bottom of 1Y2 were too loose.

The looseness basically comes from the fact the black plate is too thick for the Heliax cable to go all the way. It permits the Heliax's heads to rotate freely.


  130   Wed Nov 28 12:43:53 2007 AndreyBureaucracy Here was the PDF-file of my presentation

I was making a report with powerpoint presentation during that Wednesday's 40-m meeting.

Here was the pdf-file, but LATER IN THE EVENING I CREATED A WIKI-40M-page describing the algorithm, and now the pdf-file is ON THAT WIKI-40M PAGE.

NOTE ADDED AFTER THE PRESENTATION: I double checked, I am indeed taking the root-mean-square of a difference, as we discussed during my talk.

My slide #17 "Calculation of differential length" was wrong, but now I corrected it.
  3421   Fri Aug 13 15:29:35 2010 AidanFrogsPhotosHere's the 40m team
  3424   Mon Aug 16 13:33:06 2010 ZachFrogsPhotosHere's the 40m team

 One day I'll get to be part of the krew

  15044   Thu Nov 21 19:08:58 2019 gautamUpdateLSCHigh BW lock of Y arm length to PSL frequency


The Y arm cavity length was locked to the PSL frequency with ~26kHz UGF, and 25 degrees phase margin. Slow actuation was done on ETMY using CM_Slow as an error signal, while fast actuation was done on the IMC error point via the IN2 input of the IMC servo board. Attachment #1 shows the comparison of the in-loop error signal spectra with only slow actuation and with the full CM loop engaged.


  1. LSC enable OFF.
  2. Configure the CM board for locking:
    • CM board IN1 gain = 25dB.
    • CM_Slow whitening gain = +18dB, make sure the offsets are correctly set. CM_Slow filter bank = -0.015.
    • CM_Slow-->YARM matrix element in LSC input matrix is -2.5.
    • YARM-->ETMY matrix element in LSC Output matrix is 1.
    • AO gain set to +5dB. IMC Servo board IN2 gain starts at -32dB, the path is disabled. The polarity is Plus.
    • Usual YARM FM triggers are set (FM1, FM2, FM3, FM6, FM8), usual YARM servo gain is used (0.01), usual triggering conditions (ON @ TRY>0.3, OFF @ TRY < 0.1), usual power normalization by TRY.
  3. Enable LSC mode, wait for the arm to acquire lock.
  4. Once the digital boosts are engaged, enable the IMC IN2 path, ramp up the gain to -2 dB. Note that this IN2 path is AC coupled, according to this elog. The corner frequency is 1/2/pi/2e3/6.8uF ~11 Hz. This was confirmed by measurement, see Attachment #3. I couldn't find a 2-pin LEMO-->BNC adaptor so I measured at the BNC connector for the IN2 input, which according to the schematic is shorted to the LEMO (which is what we use for the AO path).
  5. Enable the CM board boost.
  6. Ramp up the CM board IN1 gain to +31dB. In this config, the CM_Slow signal is ~18,000 cts pk (with the +18dB whitening gain), so not saturating the ADC.
  7. Ramp up the IMC IN2 gain to 3dB, engage 2 Super Boosts (can't turn on the third). Limiter is always ON.
  8. Use the CM board error point offset adjust to zero the POY11_I error signal average value - there seems to be some offsets when engaging the boosts. The value I used was 0.9 V (this is internally divided by 40 on the CM board).
  9. Whiten the CM_Slow signal - this doesn't seem to have any impact on the noise anywhere.

I hypothesize that the high-frequency noise (>100 Hz) is higher for POY than POX in Attachment #1 because I am using the "MON" port of the demod board - this has a gain of 2, and there could also be some flaky components in this path, hence the high frequency noise is a factor of a few greater in the POY spectrum relative to the POX spectrum (which is using the main demodulated output). For REFL11, we have a low noise preamp generating the input signal so I don't think we need to worry about this too much.

The PC Drive RMS didn't look any stranger than it usually does for the duration of the lock.

Attachment #2 shows the OLTF of the locking servo with the final gains / settings, which are in bold. The loop is maybe a bit marginal, could possibly benefit from backing off one of the super boosts. But the arm has stayed locked for >1 hour.

The purpose of this test was to verify the functionality of the CM board and also the IN2 of the IMC servo board in a low-pressure environment. Once I confirm that the modelled OLTF lines up with the measured, I will call this test a success, and move on to looking at REFL11 in the arms on ALS, PRMI on 3f config. I am returning the REFL11 signal to the input of the CM board, but the SR785 remains hooked up.

Unrelated to this work - PMC alignment was tweaked to improve input power to IMC by ~5%.

  10002   Thu May 29 02:16:02 2014 ericqUpdateLSCHigh Bandwidth power recycled Yarm.

I'll put more detail in the morning, but I was able to get the PRM/ITMY/ETMY coupled cavities locked with 32kHz bandwidth using the AO path. (However, this is a pretty low-finesse situation, since the BS is dumping so much power out of the PRC. Full buildup is only 3 or 4 times the single arm power)

Since our ALS is better than it was a month ago when I last played with this, I was able to hop straight from ALS to REFL11 I on resonance, with the PRY locked on 3f.

Here are some quick OLTF plots I took along the way.




I'm using this configuration to validate my loop modelling for the full double arm case. Right off the bat, this tells me that the "minus" polarity on the CM servo is the correct one. I didn't use REFLDC at all tonight, but I figure I can check it out by doing the transition backwards, so to speak.

  10004   Thu May 29 14:40:17 2014 KojiUpdateLSCHigh Bandwidth power recycled Yarm.

Wait. It is not so clear.

Do you mean that the IFO was locked with REFL11I for the first time?

Why is it still in the "low finesse" situation? Is it because of misalignment or the non-zero CARM offset?

  10005   Thu May 29 15:33:55 2014 ericqUpdateLSCHigh Bandwidth power recycled Yarm.


Wait. It is not so clear.

Do you mean that the IFO was locked with REFL11I for the first time?

Why is it still in the "low finesse" situation? Is it because of misalignment or the non-zero CARM offset?

Sorry, the X arm is completely misaligned. This is the configuration I first tried in ELOG 9859, that is: a PRM->ITMY recycling cavity and ITMY->ETMY arm cavity. ITMX is completely misaligned, so the BS is dumping much of the recycling cavity light out, which is why I wrote "low finesse." This is the first time I've used REFL11 to control any of our cavities, though.

  737   Thu Jul 24 21:53:00 2008 ranaSummaryTreasureHigh School Tour group and the PMC
There was a tour today of 40 high school kids. I warned them that the lasers could burn out their
, that the vacuum could suck them through the viewports like tubes of spaghetti and that the
high voltage amps would fry their hair off.

One of them was taking a picture of the SOS in the flow bench and another one was whispering what
a dumb idea it was to leave a sensitive clean optic out where people might breathe on it. I told
one them to cover his mouth. The other one asked what was the glass block behind the SOS.

It was a spare PMC! s/n 00-2677 with a 279 nF capacitance PZT. I guess that this is the one that
Go brought from MIT and then left here. So we don't have to take the one away from Bridge in the
35 W laser lab.

We can swap this one in in the morning while the FSS people work on the reference cavity
alignment. Please email me if you object to this operation.
  3610   Mon Sep 27 00:33:50 2010 ranaUpdatePSLHigh Voltage Driver added to TTFSS -> NPRO

We added the Thorlabs HV Driver in between the FSS and the NPRO today. The FSS is locking with it, but we haven't taken any loop gain measurements.

This box takes 0-10 V and puts out 0-150 V. I set up the FSS SLOW loop so that it now servos the output of FAST ot be at +5V instead of 0V. This is an OK

temporary solution. In the future, we should add an offset into the output of the FSS board so that the natural output is 0-10 V.

I am suspicious that the Thorlabs box has not got enough zip to give us a nice crossover and so we should make sure to measure its frequency response with a capacitive load.

  3640   Fri Oct 1 21:34:14 2010 rana, taraUpdatePSLHigh Voltage Driver added to TTFSS -> NPRO


We added the Thorlabs HV Driver in between the FSS and the NPRO today. The FSS is locking with it, but we haven't taken any loop gain measurements.

This box takes 0-10 V and puts out 0-150 V. I set up the FSS SLOW loop so that it now servos the output of FAST ot be at +5V instead of 0V. This is an OK

temporary solution. In the future, we should add an offset into the output of the FSS board so that the natural output is 0-10 V.

I am suspicious that the Thorlabs box has not got enough zip to give us a nice crossover and so we should make sure to measure its frequency response with a capacitive load.


 We measured the Thorlabs HV Driver's TF today. It is quite flat from 1k to 10k before going up to 25 dB at 100k,

and the response does not change with the DC offset input.


The driver is used for driving the NPRO's PZT which requires higher voltage than that of the previous setup.

We need to understand how the driver might effect the FSS loop TF, and we want to make sure that the driver

will have the same response with DC input offset.




We used SR785 to measure the TF. Source ch was split by a T, one connected to Driver's input, another one connected to the reference (ch A). See fig2.

The driver output was split by another T. One output was connected to NPRO,

another was connected to a 1nF capacitor in a Pomona box, as a high pass filer (for high voltage), then to the response (ch B)

 The source input is  DC offset by 2V which corresponds to 38 V DC offset on the driver's output.

The capacitance of the PZT on the NPRO is 2.36 nF, as measured by LC meter.


 The result shows that the driver's TF is flat from 1k to 10k, and goes up at higher frequency, see fig1.


The next step is trying to roll of the gain at high frequency for PZT. A capacitor connected to ground might be used to roll off the frequency of the driver's output.

We will inspect the TF at higher frequency (above 100 kHz) as well.


  3641   Mon Oct 4 06:47:46 2010 rana, taraUpdatePSLHigh Voltage Driver added to TTFSS -> NPRO

Inside the FSS box, the FAST path has a ~10 Hz pole made up from the 15k resistor and the 1 uF cap before the output connector.

This should be moved over to the output of the driver to make the driver happy - without yet measuring the high frequency response,

it looks like to me that its becoming unhappy with the purely capacitive load of the NPRO's PZT. This will require a little surgery inside

the FSS box, but its probably justified now that we know the Thorlabs box isn't completely horrible.


  15906   Thu Mar 11 20:18:00 2021 gautamUpdateLSCHigh bandwidth POY

I repeated the high bandwidth POY locking experiment.

  1. The "Q" demod output (SMA) was routed to the common mode board (it appears in the past I used the LEMO "MON" output instead but that shouldn't be a meaningful change).
  2. As usual, slow actuation --> ETMY, fast actuation --> IMC error point.
  3. Loop UGF measurement suggests that bandwidth ~25kHz, with ~25 degrees phase margin. Anyway the lock was pretty stable.

One thing I am not sure is - when looking at the in-loop error point spectra, the Y-arm error point did not get suppressed to the CM board's sensing noise floor - I would have thought that with the huge amount of gain at ~16 Hz, the usual structure we see in the spectra between 10-30Hz would be completely squished. Need to think about if this is signalling something wrong, because the loop TF measurements seemed as expected to me.

1020pm: plots uploaded. As I made the plot of the spectrum, I realized that I don't have the calibration for the Y-arm error point into displacement noise units, so it's in unphysical units for now. But I think the comment about the hump around 16 Hz not being crushed to some sort of flat electronics noise floor. For the TF plots, when the loop gain is high, this IN1/IN2 technique isn't the best (due to saturation issues) but I don't think there's anything controversial about getting the UGF this way, and the fact that the phase evolves as expected when the various gains are cranked up / boosts enabled makes me think that the CM board is itself just fine.

10am 12 March: i realized that the "Y-arm error point" plotted below is not the true error point - that would be the input to the CM board (before boosts etc), which we don't monitor digitally. The spectra are plotted for the CM_SLOW input which already has some transfer function applied to it. In the past, I routed the LEMO "MON" connector on the demod board to the CM board input, and hence, had the usual SMA outputs from the demod board going to the digital system. I hypothesize that plotting the spectra for that signal would have showed this expected suppression to the electronics noise floor.

In summary, on the basis of this test, I don't see any red flags with the CM board.

  7829   Fri Dec 14 03:32:51 2012 AyakaUpdateLSCHigh frequency noise in AS signal

I calibrated the AS error signal into the displacement of the YARM cavity in the same way as I did before (elog).

The open loop transfer function is:


The transfer function from ITMX excitation to AS error signal is:


Then I have got the calibration value : 5.08e+11 [counts/m]

The calibrated spectrum in unit of m/rtHz is


REF0: arm displacement
REF1: dark noise + demodulation circuit noise + WT filter noise + ADC noise (PSL shutter on)
REF2: demodulation circuit noise + WT filter noise + ADC noise (PD input of the circuit (at 1Y2) is connected to the 50 Ohm terminator)
(The circuit and WT filter seem to be connected at back side of the rack. Actually there is a connector labelled 'I MON' but it is not related to C1:LSC-ASS55_I_ERR)

Also we changed the AS gain so that ADC noise does not affect:


However, this did not make big change in sensitivity. I guess this means that circuit noise limits the sensitivity at higher frequencies than 400 Hz.
I tried to adjust the AS gain carefully but I could not do that because of the earthquake. Further investigation is needed.


  7832   Fri Dec 14 09:31:59 2012 ranaUpdateLSCHigh frequency noise in AS signal

This is NOT calibrated. Its sort of calibrated in the 500-1000 Hz area, but does not correctly use the loop TF or the cavity pole.

As for the noise, remember that the whole point of changing the AS whitening gain was to turn on the whitening filter AFTER locking. With the WF OFF, there's no way that you can surpass the ADC noise limit.


I calibrated the AS error signal into the displacement of the YARM cavity in the same way as I did before (elog).

  7833   Fri Dec 14 10:09:30 2012 AyakaUpdateLSCHigh frequency noise in AS signal


This is NOT calibrated. Its sort of calibrated in the 500-1000 Hz area, but does not correctly use the loop TF or the cavity pole.

As for the noise, remember that the whole point of changing the AS whitening gain was to turn on the whitening filter AFTER locking. With the WF OFF, there's no way that you can surpass the ADC noise limit.


I calibrated the AS error signal into the displacement of the YARM cavity in the same way as I did before (elog).

No, I did not apply open loop TF to it (actually I could not measure the open loop TF because of the earthquake last night). So I should not have said it was the displacement.

Also I changed the AS gain with whitening filter on and xarm locked. Still it does not make any change.

  7835   Fri Dec 14 16:35:38 2012 AyakaUpdateLSCHigh frequency sensitivity improved

Since I found that the the AS sensitivity seems to be limited by circuit noise, I inserted a RF amplifier just after the AS RF output.
Now, the sensitivity is improved and limited by the dark noise of the PD.


(Note: I did not apply the open loop TF on this xml file.)
REF3: dark noise + circuit noise + WT filter noise + ADC noise
REF4: circuit noise + WT filter noise + ADC

With this situation, I injected the acoustic noise:


REF5, 6, 7: with acoustic excitation
no reference: without acoustic excitation

We could see the coherence only at the same frequencies, around 200 Hz as we saw before (elog).

  9716   Tue Mar 11 15:19:45 2014 JenneUpdateElectronicsHigh gain Trans PD electronics change

As part of our CESAR testing last night, we had a look at the noise of the 1/sqrt(TR) signal. 

Looking at the time series data, while we were slowly sweeping through IR resonance (using the ALS), Rana noted that the linear range of the 1/sqrt(TR) signal was not as wide as it should be, and that this is likely because our SNR is really poor. 

When a single arm is at a normalized transmission power of 1, we are getting about 300 ADC counts.  We want this to be more like 3000 ADC counts, to be taking advantage of the full range of the ADC.

This means that we want to increase our analog gain by a factor of 10 for the low gain Thorlabs PDs. 

Looking at the photos from November when I pulled out the Xend transmission whitening board (elog 9367), we want to change "Rgain" of the AD620 on the daughter board.  While we're at it, we should also change the noisy black thick film resistors to the green thin film resistors in the signal path. 

The daughter board is D04060, S/N 101.  The main whitening board for the low gain trans QPD is D990399, RevB, S/N 104.

We should also check whether we're saturating somewhere in the whitening board by putting in a function generator signal via BNC cable into the input of the Thorlabs whitening path, and seeing where (in Dataviewer) we start to see saturation.  Is it the full 32,000 counts, or somewhere lower, like 28,000? 

Actually the gain was changed. From gain of 2 (Rgain = 49.4kOhm) to 20 (Rgain = 2.10kOhm), Corresponding calibration in CDS was also changed by locking the Xarm, running ASS, then setting the average arm power to be 1. Confirmed Xarm is locking. And now the signal is used for CESAR.  We see emperically that the noise has improved by a factor of approximately 10ish.

  9720   Tue Mar 11 19:07:24 2014 ericqUpdateElectronicsHigh gain Trans PD electronics change

Speaking of the whitening board, I had neglected to post details showing the the whitening was at least having a positive effect on the transmon QPD noise. So, here is a spectrum showing the effects that the whitening stages have on a QPD dark noise measurement like I did in ELOG 9660, at a simulated transmission level of 40 counts. 

The first whitening stages gives us a full 20dB of noise reduction, while the second stage brings us down to either the dark noise of the QPD or the noise of the whitening board. We should figure out which it is, and fix up the board if necessary. 


The DTT xml file is attached in a zip, if anyone wants it.

  9823   Thu Apr 17 16:04:40 2014 JenneUpdateElectronicsHigh gain Trans PD electronics change


 I have made the same modification to the Yarm trans PD whitening board as was done for the xend, to increase our SNR.  I put in a 2.1kOhm thin film resistor in the Rgain place.

When I was pulling the board, the ribbon cable that goes to the ADC had its connector break.  I redid the ribbon connector before putting the board back. 

I see signals coming into the digital system for both the high gain and low gain Y transmission PDs, so I think we're back.  I will re-do the normalization after Jamie is finished working on the computers for the day.

  9585   Wed Jan 29 16:36:37 2014 KojiSummaryGeneralHigh power beam blasting of the aLIGO RFPD

[Rich, Jay, Koji]

We blasted the aLIGO RF PD with a 1W IR beam. We did not find any obvious damage.
Rich and Jay brought the PD back to Downs to find any deterioration of the performance with careful tests.

The power modulation setup is at the rejection side of the PBS in front of the laser source.
I checked the beams are nicely damped.
As they may come back here tomorrow, a power supply and a scope is still at the MC side of the PSL enclosure.

  16023   Tue Apr 13 19:24:45 2021 gautamUpdatePSLHigh power operations

We (rana, yehonathan and i) briefly talked about having high power going into the IFO. I worked on some calcs a couple of years ago, that are summarized here. There is some discussion in the linked page about how much power we even need. In summary, if we can have

  • T_PMC ~85% which is what I measured it to be back in 2019
  • T_IMC * T_inputFaraday ~60% which is what I estimate it to be now
  • 98% mode matching into the IMC
  • power recycling gain of 40-45 once we improve the folding mirror situation in the recycling cavities
  • and a gain of 270-280 in the arm cavities (20-30ppm round trip loss)

then we can have an overall gain of ~2400 from laser to each arm cavity (since the BS divides the power equally between the two arms). The easiest place to get some improvement is to improve T_IMC * T_inputFaraday. If we can get that up to ~90%, then we can have an overall gain of ~4000, which is I think the limit of what is possible with what we have.

We also talked about the EOM. At the same time, I had also looked into the damage threshold as well as clipping losses associated with the finite aperture of our EOM, which is a NewFocus 4064 (KTP is the Pockel medium). The results are summarized in Attachments #1 and #2 respectively. Rana thinks the EOM can handle factor of ~3 greater power than the rated damage threshold of 20W/mm^2.

  3300   Tue Jul 27 16:33:50 2010 KojiSummaryGeneralHigh school students tour

Jenne made the 40m tour for the annual visit of 30-40 students.


Tour 2009 http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/1717

Tour 2008 http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/737


  1097   Tue Oct 28 11:10:18 2008 AlbertoUpdateLSCHigher Order Mode resonances in the X arms

Recently we had been having some trouble locking the full IFO in the spring configuration (SRC on +166).
It was thought that an accidental higher order mode resonance in the arms may have been causing problems.

I previously calculated the locations of the resonances using rough arm cavity parameters(Elog #690). Thanks to Koji
and Alberto I have been able to update this work with measured arm length and g factors for the y arm (Elog #801,#802).
I have also included the splitting of the modes caused by the astigmatic ETM. Code is attached.

I don't see any evidence of +166MHz resonances in the y arm.

In the attached plot different colours denote different frequencies +33, -33, +166, -166 & CR.
The numbers above each line are the mn of TEMmn.
Solid black line is the carrier resonance.

I plugged the measures of the length of the X arm and radius of curvature of ETMX I made in to John's code to estimate the position of the resonances of the HOM for the sidebands in the X arm. Here's the resulting plot.
  10494   Thu Sep 11 02:08:32 2014 JenneUpdateLSCHigher transmission powers

No breakthroughs tonight. 

DRMI didn't want to lock with either the recipe that we used a year ago (elog 9116) or that was used in May (elog 9968).  Being lazy and sleepy, I chickened out and went back to PRFPMI locking. 

Many attempts, I'll highlight 2 here.

(1) I had done the CARM -> sqrtInvTrans transition, and reduced the CARM offset to arm powers of about 7, and lost lock.  I don't remember now if I was trying to transition DARM to AS55, or if I was just prepping (measuring error signal ratio and relative sign).


(2) I stopped the carm_cm_up script just before it wanted to do the CARM -> sqrtInvTrans transition, and stayed with CARM and DARM both on ALS.  I got to reasonably high powers, and was measuring the error signal ratios I needed for CARM -> REFL DC and DARM -> AS55.  Things were too noisy to get good coherence for the DARM coefficient, but I thought I was in good shape to transition CARM to REFL DC (which looks like REFL11I, since REFLDC goes to the CM board, and the OUT2 of that board is used to monitor the input to the board. )  Anyhow, I set the offset such that it matched my current CARM offset value, and started the transition, but lost lock about halfway through.  CARM started ringing up here, and I think that's what caused this lockloss.  Could have been the CARM peak, which I wasn't considering / remembering at the time.


Daytime activity for Thurs:  Lock DRMI, maybe first on 1f signals, but then also on 3f signals.

  768   Wed Jul 30 13:14:03 2008 KojiSummaryIOOHistory of the MC abs length
I was notified by Rob and Rana that there were many measurements of the MC abs length (i.e. modulation 
frequencies for the IFO.) between 2002 and now.

So, I dig the new and old e-logs and collected the measured values of the MC length, as shown below. 

I checked the presence of the vent for two big steps in the MC length. Each actually has a vent. 
The elog said that the tilt of the table was changed at the OMC installation in 2006 Oct.
It is told that the MC mirrors were moved a lot during the vent in 2007 Nov.

o The current modulation freq setting is the highest ever.
o Rob commented that the Marconi may drift in a long time.
o Apparently we need another measurement as we had the big earthquake.

My curiosity is now satified so far.

Local Time	3xFSR[MHz]	5xFSR[MHz]	MC round trip[m]	Measured by
2002/09/12	33.195400 	165.977000 	27.09343		Osamu
2002/10/16	33.194871 	165.974355 	27.09387		Osamu
2003/10/10	33.194929 	165.974645 	27.09382		Osamu
2004/12/14	33.194609 	165.973045 	27.09408		Osamu
2005/02/11	33.195123 	165.975615 	27.09366		Osamu
2005/02/14	33.195152 	165.975760 	27.09364		Osamu
2006/08/08	33.194700 	165.973500 	27.09401		Sam
2006/09/07	33.194490 	165.972450 	27.09418		Sam/Rana
2006/09/08	33.194550 	165.972750 	27.09413		Sam/Rana
----2006/10 VENT OMC installation	
2006/10/26	33.192985 	165.964925 	27.09541		Kirk/Sam
2006/10/27	33.192955 	165.964775 	27.09543		Kirk/Sam
2007/01/17	33.192833 	165.964165 	27.09553		Tobin/Kirk
2007/08/29	33.192120 	165.960600 	27.09611		Keita/Andrey/Rana
----2007/11 VENT Cleaning of the MC mirrors
2007/11/06	33.195439 	165.977195 	27.09340		Rob/Tobin
2008/07/29	33.196629 	165.983145 	27.09243		Rob/Yoichi
  770   Wed Jul 30 15:12:08 2008 ranaSummaryIOOHistory of the MC abs length
> I was notified by Rob and Rana that there were many measurements of the MC abs length (i.e. modulation
> frequencies for the IFO.) between 2002 and now.

I will just add that I think that the Marconi/IFR has always been off by ~150-200 Hz
in that the frequency measured by the GPS locked frequency counter is different from
what's reported by the Marconi's front panel. We should, in the future, clearly indicate
which display is being used.
  10491   Wed Sep 10 21:05:43 2014 JenneUpdateLSCHoly sensitivity, Batman!

Koji and Manasa did some work on the PSL green situation today (Koji is still writing that log post up), but I just measured the Yarm out of loop sensitivity, and WOAH. 

The beat is -11.5dBm at 42.8 MHz.  Koji said the sweet spot is around 30 MHz.  The out of loop sensitivity is 400 Hz RMS!  Something to note is that the Y beatnote still has a 20dB amplifier before going to the beatbox, but the X does not.  We had been worried about saturation issues with the X, so we took out the amplifier.  However, I might put it back if we win big like this.

Recall from elog 10462 that I had saved a reference of the out of loop noise for both X and Y, but Y was much noisier than X.  The references below are from that elog, and the new Y is in dark blue. (Edit, 9:18pm, updated plot measuring down to 0.01Hz.  This is the new reference on the ALS_outOfLoop_Ref.xml template).


EDIT:  (Don't worry, I'm going to measure X too, but right now the beam overlap on the camera is not good, as if something drifted after Koji and Manasa closed up the PSL table)

Touched up the alignment for X on the PSL table.  Current beatnotes are:  [Y, -13.5 dBm, 74.1 MHz], [X, -22 dBm, 13.9 MHz].  Red is the current X out of loop, and I've saved it as the new X reference on the template.


  10497   Fri Sep 12 00:28:04 2014 ericqUpdateLSCHoly sensitivity, Batman!

I took a quick measurement of the ALS stability, using POX and POY as out of loop sensors, using a CARM calibration line to line POX and POY up to the calibrated PHASE_OUT channels at 503Hz. 

  • X arm RMS ~1kHz
    • Could use more low frequency suppression
  • Y arm RMS ~200Hz


  14573   Thu Apr 25 10:25:19 2019 gautamUpdateFrequency noise measurementHomodyne v Heterodyne

If I understand correctly, the Mach-Zehnder readout port power is only a function of the differential phase accumulated between the two interfering light beams. In the homodyne setup, this phase difference can come about because of either fiber length change OR laser frequency change. We cannot directly separate the two effects. Can you help me understand what advantage, if any, the heterodyne setup offers in this regard? Or is the point of going to heterodyne mainly for the feedback control, as there is presumably some easy way to combine the I and Q outputs of the heterodyne measurement to always produce an error signal that is a linear function of the differential phase, as opposed to the sin^2 in the free-running homodyne setup? What is the scheme for doing this operation in a high bandwidth way (i.e. what is supposed to happen to the demodulated outputs in Attachment #3 of your elog)? What is the advantage of the heterodyne scheme over applying temperature feedback to the NPRO with 0.5 Hz tracking bandwidth so that we always stay in the linear regime of the homodyne readout?

Also, what is the functional form of the curve labelled "Theory" in Attachment #2? How did you convert from voltage units in Attachment #1 to frequency units in Attachment #2? Does it make sense that you're apparently measuring laser frequency noise above 10 Hz? i.e. where do the "Dark Current Noise" and "Shot Noise" traces for the experiment lie relative to the blue curve in Attachment #2? Can you point to where the data is stored, and also add a photo of the setup?

ELOG V3.1.3-