Not logged in
Wed Sep 3 12:26:49 2008
Finished up simulating the end mirror error in order to test the whether the fitting code still provides reasonable answers despite the noise caused by the defects on the end mirror. The model I used to simulate the defects is far from perfect, but its good enough given the time I have remaining, and I have no reason to believe the differences between it and the real noise would cause any radical changes in how the fit operates. A comparison between a modeled image and a real image is attached. Average error (difference between the estimated value and the real value) for each of the parameters is
For the fit:
Max Intensity: 2767.4 (Max intensities ranged from 8000 to 11000)
X-Position: 0.9401 pixels
X Beam Waist: 1.3406 pixels (beam waists ranged from 35 to 45)
Y-Position: 0.9997 pixels
Y Beam Waist: 1.3059 pixels (beam waists ranged from 35 to 45)
Intensity Offset: 12.7705 (Offsets ranged from 1000 to 4000)
For the center of mass calculation (with a threshold that cut off everything above 13000)
X-Position: 0.0087 pixels
Y-Position: 0.0286 pixels
Thus, the fit is generally trustworthy for all parameters except for maximum intensity, for which it is very inaccurate. Additionally, this shows that the center of mass calculation actually does a much better job than the fit when this much noise is in the image. For the end mirrors, the fit is really only useful for finding beam waist, and even this is not extremely accurate (~3% error). All the parameters for the modeling is on the svn in /trunk/docs/emintun/MatLabFiles/EndMirrorErrorSimulation.txt.
Finished working on the calculations that convert a beam misalignment as measured as a change in the beam position on the two mirrors to a power loss in the cavity. Joe calculated the minimum measurable change in beam position to be around a tenth of a pixel, which corresponds to half a micron when the beam is directly incident on the camera. This gives the ability to measure fractional power losses as low as 2*10^-10 for the 40m main arm cavities. To me, this seems unusually low, though it scales with beam position squared, so if anything else limited the ability to measure changes in the beam position, it would have a large effect on the sensitivity to power losses. Additionally, it scales inversely with length, so shorter cavities provide less sensitivity.
This morning Joe and I tested the ability for the camera code to servo the ITMX in order to change the beam's position on the ETMX. Two major things have been changed since the last time we tried this. First, the calculated beam center that gets output to the EPICS channels now first goes through a transform that converts it from pixels into physical units, and should account for the oblique angle of the camera. The output to the EPICS channels should now be in the form of 'mm from the center of the optic', although this is not very precise at the moment. The second thing that was changed was that the servo was run with a modified servo script that included options to set a minimum, maximum, and slew rate in order to protect the mirrors from being swung around too much. The servo was generally successful: for a given x-position, it was capable of changing the yaw of ITMX so that the position seen on the camera moved to this new location. The biggest problem is that the x and y dimensions do not appear to be decoupled (the transform converting it to physical units should have done this), so that modifying the yaw of the mirror changed both the x and y positions (the y about half as much) as output by the camera. This could cause a problem when trying to servo in both dimensions at once, since one servo could end up opposing the other. I don't know the cause of this problem yet, since the transform that is currently in use appears to be correctly orienting the image.