40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log  Not logged in ELOG logo
Entry  Tue May 26 02:15:36 2020, gautam, Update, LSC, Lock acquisition portal entry 
    Reply  Tue May 26 02:31:00 2020, gautam, Update, LSC, Lock acquisition sequence PRFPMIlock_1274418200_1274418550.pdf
       Reply  Wed May 27 20:14:51 2020, Koji, Update, LSC, Lock acquisition sequence 
    Reply  Tue May 26 02:37:19 2020, gautam, Update, LSC, DARM loop measurement and fitting DARM_TF.pdfDARM_TF_breakdown.pdf
    Reply  Tue May 26 03:01:35 2020, gautam, Update, LSC, CARM loop  CARM_OLTF.pdf
       Reply  Wed Jun 3 01:46:14 2020, gautam, Update, LSC, CARM loop  CM_loop_topology.pdfCARM_TFs.pdfCARM_OLTF.pdfCARM_xover.pdfCARM_OLG_evolution.pdf
    Reply  Tue May 26 03:06:59 2020, gautam, Update, LSC, PRFPMI sensing matrix PRFPMI_20200524sensMat.pdfPRFPMI_20200524sensMatHistograms.pdf
    Reply  Tue May 26 03:26:58 2020, gautam, Update, LSC, Preliminary noise budget PRFPMI_NB.pdf
    Reply  Tue May 26 14:32:44 2020, gautam, Update, LSC, Arm transmission RIN armRIN.pdf
       Reply  Wed May 27 19:36:33 2020, Koji, Update, LSC, Arm transmission RIN 
          Reply  Thu May 28 18:36:45 2020, gautam, Update, LSC, Arm transmission RIN PRFPMIcorner_ASC_PIT_1274419354_1274419654.pdfPRFPMIcorner_ASC_YAW_1274419354_1274419654.pdfPRFPMIcorner_ASC_coherence_1274419354_1274419654.pdf
             Reply  Fri May 29 00:34:57 2020, rana, Update, LSC, Arm transmission RIN 
             Reply  Wed Jun 3 02:14:32 2020, gautam, Update, ASC, PRC ASC improves arm transmission RIN PRC_ASCsignals.pdfarmRIN_PRC_ASC.pdfPRFPMIcorner_ASC_PIT_1275190251_1275190551.pdfPRFPMIcorner_ASC_YAW_1275190251_1275190551.pdfPRFPMIcorner_ASC_coherence_1275190251_1275190551.pdf
                Reply  Fri Jun 19 16:30:09 2020, gautam, Update, ASC, Some thoughts about ASC sensingResponse.pdfsensingResponse_torque.pdf
                   Reply  Tue Jul 7 14:06:10 2020, gautam, Update, ASC, Some more thoughts about ASC ITM_OL_DCcoupling.png
    Reply  Tue May 26 16:00:06 2020, gautam, Update, LSC, Power buildup diagnostics PRFPMIcorner_DC_1274419354_1274419654.pdfPRFPMIcorner_SB_1274419354_1274419654.pdf
       Reply  Wed May 27 17:41:57 2020, Koji, Update, LSC, Power buildup diagnostics 
          Reply  Wed Jun 3 02:08:00 2020, gautam, Update, LSC, Power buildup diagnostics PRFPMIcorner_DC_1275190251_1275190551.pdfPRFPMIcorner_SB_1275190251_1275190551.pdf
    Reply  Wed Jun 3 01:34:53 2020, gautam, Update, LSC, Lock acquisition update portal 
       Reply  Wed Jun 3 03:29:26 2020, Koji, Update, LSC, Lock acquisition update portal 
          Reply  Wed Jun 3 11:40:56 2020, gautam, Update, LSC, Lock acquisition update portal 
             Reply  Wed Jun 3 18:49:47 2020, gautam, Update, LSC, PRG and CARM signal sign armCavReflectivities.pdfIFOreflectivities.pdfPDHerrSigs.pdfPRGvsLoss_finesse.pdf
Message ID: 15418     Entry time: Fri Jun 19 16:30:09 2020     In reply to: 15368     Reply to this: 15458
Author: gautam 
Type: Update 
Category: ASC 
Subject: Some thoughts about ASC 


In ELOG 15368, I had claimed that the POP QPD based feedback servo actuating on the PRM stabilized the lock. I now believe this scheme of sensing using the POP QPD and feeding back to the PRM is not a good topology for stabilizing the PRC angular motion.


  • I was never able to get a measurement of the OLTF of this loop that made sense 
    • the loop was initally commissioned with the PRMI locked on the carrier, and the settings hence inferred to give a ~5 Hz UGF loop were used in the PRFPMI lock.
    • In the PRFPMI configuration, however, the loop gain seemed way too low when I measured using the usual IN1/IN2 method.
    • So it is critical for the lock stability that the angular feedforward works well, which it kind of does now (not that I have changed anything, but the glitches in the seismometer have not resurfaced recently).
    • Hopefully, this becomes less of an issue once we replace the TTs with SOS and OSEM based damping.
  • To get some more insight, I did some finesse modeling
    • Attachment #1 shows the sensing response at the QPDs we have available currently (POP and TR). 
    • I included the telescopes (propagation distances, in-air lenses) to these QPDs as best as I could.
    • A simplified model (3 mirror coupled cavity) is used, so there isn't really a common/differential mode in this picture, but we still get some insight I think.
    • Specifically, once the full lock is realized, the PRC optic motion isn't sensed well with our QPDs, and so it was some fluke that turning on these PRC angular feedback loops worked. 
    • Attachment #2 shows the same info as Attachment #1, but with the pendulum transfer functions (and radiation pressure effects) included. The SOS suspensions are modelled as f0=0.7/0.8 Hz (for P/Y), Q=5, while the tip-tilts have f0~5 Hz, Q~10. The high frequency phase is 0 degrees and not 180 as expected because of the pendulum complex pole pair because of the way the quantity is computed in Finesse.
  • The current scheme I use is:
    • DC couple the ITM oplevs, using their individual Oplev QPDs.
    • Use the TR QPDs, mixed to actuate on the ETMs in a common/differential way.
    • I think the system is under-determined with the sensors we currently have - we wan't to sense the 10 angular modes - PIT and YAW for the PRC, Csoft, Chard, Dsoft and Dhard (using the terminology from Kate's thesis), but we only have 6 sensors of the same field (POP, TRX and TRY QPDs, PIT and YAW from each).
    • So we need more sensors?
  • One thing that can easily be improved I think is to make the ASS system work at high power. 
    • think this should be as simple as scaling the gain for the loops to work for the high power.
    • Then we can counteract the input pointing drift at least.
    • But the ITM Oplev DC coupling would need to be turned OFF and then ON again, I'm not sure if this will introduce some transient that will destroy the lock...

I would also like to bring up the topic of implementing some WFS for the interferometer fields again, there doesn't seem to be any mention of this in the procurement/planning for the BHD. It is not obvious to me yet that we need WFS and not just DC QPDs from a noise point of view, but at least we should discuss this.

Attachment 1: sensingResponse.pdf  117 kB  Uploaded Fri Jun 19 17:38:11 2020  | Hide | Hide all
Attachment 2: sensingResponse_torque.pdf  306 kB  Uploaded Fri Jun 19 17:38:23 2020  | Hide | Hide all
ELOG V3.1.3-