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  Wed Sep 14 01:21:17 2011, Jenne, Update, Adaptive Filtering, Modifications to LSC, RFM models, added OAF model 
    Reply  Wed Sep 14 12:01:05 2011, rana, Update, Adaptive Filtering, Modifications to LSC, RFM models, added OAF model 
       Reply  Mon Sep 26 18:59:11 2011, Jenne, Update, Adaptive Filtering, Plan for making MC_F 
          Reply  Tue Sep 27 09:47:52 2011, Suresh, Update, Adaptive Filtering, Plan for making MC_F 
             Reply  Tue Sep 27 11:52:33 2011, Jenne, Update, Adaptive Filtering, Plan for making MC_F 
    Reply  Sun Sep 18 15:34:09 2011, Koji, Update, Adaptive Filtering, Modifications to LSC, RFM models, added OAF model 
    Reply  Tue Dec 13 01:20:38 2011, Den, Update, Adaptive Filtering, Modifications to LSC, RFM models, added OAF model 
Message ID: 5557     Entry time: Tue Sep 27 11:52:33 2011     In reply to: 5555
Author: Jenne 
Type: Update 
Category: Adaptive Filtering 
Subject: Plan for making MC_F 

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

For the acquisition of the MC_F channel, I suggest taking the FAST_MON BNC output from the blue FSS interface card in the Eurocard crate in the PSL rack. This can then be piped into the 2-pin LEMO plug (Ch. 1) of the Generic Pentek DAQ card which used to acquire the MC_L signal from the MC Servo Board.

 [Jenne, Den]

Suresh tells us that he already has this channel physically plugged in.  Probably as a result of Valera's MCASS work.  Neat.  We just have to make the channel.  Right now the signal goes straight into some lockin stuff, so there is no actual "C1:IOO-MC_F" channel.

We don't want to make the new channel right now, since it is nighttime, and Kiwamu and Suresh are working on things.  So.  Tomorrow.  In the morning:

We will add a fast test point to the C1IOO model, and call it "C1:IOO-MC_F".  We will also route this signal via memory stuff over to the OAF model so that we can do adaptive filtering on the MC.  Then we will compile all the things.  Or at least all the things that we touched.  This will go hand-in-hand with the compling of Mirko's sweet new OAF model, which we were planning on compiling in the morning anyway.  Neat.

Things to compile tomorrow:  c1ioo and c1rfm, because of channel routing.  c1oaf because of all the new stuff.  That should be all.

 

Is it okay to have two names for the same signal?  We would have both MCS_MCL and MC_F referring to MC length signal.  This signal is picked up from the MC-Servo (analog) and brought into the CDS through the adc_0_0 channel in C1IOO.   Then this signal is sent from C1IOO to C1MCS model without going through the c1rfm model.  This seems to break the current protocol that signals passed between machines have to go through the c1rfm model.  It should be sufficient to send this signal to c1rfm once and from there redirect to MCS and OAF from there, with an appropriate name.

 Suresh makes a fine point.  I think the channel between c1ioo and c1mcs should always have had to go through the c1rfm model.  I don't know why it wasn't.  Anyhow, I have changed things so that there is one signal passing from c1ioo to c1rfm, and that signal is split in two, and goes to both c1oaf and c1mcs.  The naming convention I used last night is the one I kept:  C1:IOO-RFM_MCL goes from c1ioo to c1rfm, and then C1:RFM-OAF_MCL goes from c1rfm to c1oaf, and C1:RFM-MCS_MCL goes from c1rfm to c1mcs. 

We can't compile until Mirko and I figure out what to do with the OAF model though.  Mirko, Den and I were looking at the c1oaf model, to make sure it is ready to compile, and I'm not sure that it is.  And we need everything with common channel names to be compiled at the same time, so I can't compile any of the models today, until we get this figured out.

The problem is thus:  The old TOP_XFCODE that mevans wrote back in 2008 takes in a certain number of inputs, calculates the new filter coefficients, and spits out the filtered signals.  Back in those days, we only ever gave the adaptive system one control (target) signal at a time.  Now, we want to be able to do multiple, if we so desire.  I don't know exactly how to do this yet.  Either we need to modify the code to make it a super-code, or we can have one copy of the code for each control signal (MC_F, XARM, YARM, DARM, MICH, etc...).  Do we want to have one code adapt everything at once, and have a giant MIMO system, or do we want to have many SISO-like systems in parallel (SISO-like, because each one would take in one control signal, and many seismometer signals, and output many filtered seis signals, but it wouldn't be combining control signals together)? 

Either one of these options could be waaay to computationally tough for the computer.  The old computer was basically railed when we had one adaptive block, with one control signal and 7 seismometers.  7 was the max number of auxiliary channels we could use.  So, how much faster are the new computers?? Do we need to have one OAF per DoF that we want to filter? 

ELOG V3.1.3-