We first took data of a simple low pass filter, and attempted to perform a fit to both the magnitude and phase in order to find the Z of the components. Once we felt confident in our ability to measure tranfer functions, we took data and plotted the transfer function of the existing control loop of the AUX laser. What we found generally followed the trend of, but was lower than, 10^4/f, which is what we hoped to match, and also had a strange unexplained notch ~1.3 kHz. The magnitude and phase data both got worse after around 40-50 kHz, which we believe is because the laser came out of lock near the end of the run.
[Attachment 2 and 3] are the frequency response of the low pass filter, curves fitted using least squares in python.
[Attachment 1 and 4] is the same measurement of OLTF of the actual AUX circuit, and the control diagram pointing out the location of excitation and test point.
On Friday Cici and I set up the Mokulab to take readings of our loop. The aim is to characterise the PZT, in a similar manner as before, by exciting the circuit using our input noise (a swept sine) and recording the corresponding changes in the output. We used the MokuLab to observe the beat note created by the signals of the AUX and PSL, as well as the ASD of the output signal. The MokuLab simplifies the entire process.
Pictured : The beat note as observed by Cici
EDITED by YM on 22:11 June 27, 2022 to correct for a factor of two in the modulation index
Since we have measured optical gain in MICH to be an order of magnitude less compared with Yehonathan's FINESSE model (40m/16923), we measured the power at AS55 RF PD, and measured the modulation depths using Yarm cavity scan.
We found that 50/50 beam splitter which splits AS55 path into RF PD and RF QPD was not included in the FINESSE model. Measured modulation index were as follows:
TEM00 peak height: 0.6226 +/- 0.0237
RF11 peak height: 0.0067 +/- 0.0007
RF55 peak height: 0.0081 +/- 0.0014
RF11 modulation index: 0.208 +/- 0.012
RF55 modulation index: 0.229 +/- 0.020
RF11 modulation index: 0.104 +/- 0.006
RF55 modulation index: 0.114 +/- 0.010
Here, modulation depth m is defined in E=E_0*exp(i*(w*t+m*sin(w_m*t))), and m m/2 equals to square of the intensity ratio between sidebands and TEM00.
Power measurement at AS55 RF PD:
- ITMY and ITMX single bounce reflection was measured to be 50-60 uW at the front of AS55 RFPD.
- In the FINESSE model, it was expected to be ~110 uW with 0.8 W input to PRM (0.8 W * 5%(PRM) * 50%(BS) * 50%(BS) * 10%(SRM) * 10%(AS2) gives 100 uW)
- In AP table, AS55 beam was split into two paths with 50/50 beam splitter, one for AS55 RF PD and one for AS WFS and AS110. This will be included in the FINESSE model.
Modulation depth measurement using Yarm cavity scan:
- Aligned Yarm using ASS, and unlocked Yarm to get the 2sec scan data of C1:LSC-TRY_OUT_DQ, C1:LSC-POY11_I_ERR_DQ, C1:LSC-AS55_I_ERR_DQ.
- TRY data was used to get TEM00 peak heights
- POY11/AS55 data was used to find RF11/RF55 sideband peaks, and height was measured at TRY (see attached).
- If we define m to be E=E_0*exp(i*(w*t+m*sin(w_m*t))), the amplitude of TEM00 I_00 is proportional to J_0(m) and the amplitude of upper/lower sideband I_f1 is proportional to J_1(m), where J_n(m) is the bessel function of the first kind.
- m can be calculated using 2*sqrt(I_f1 / I_00).
- Results were shown above. Error is calculated from the standard deviation of multiple measurements with multiple peaks,
- The code for doing this lives in https://git.ligo.org/40m/measurements/-/blob/main/LSC/YARM/modulationIndex.ipynb
- Power at AS55 account for the factor of 2, In the FINESSE model, modulation index of 0.3 was used (could be m=0.3/2 or m=0.3; needs check). These combined can explain a factor of 3 at least (or 6).
- Gautam's measurement in Jan 2021 (40m/15769) gives almost double modulation index, but I'm not sure what is the definition Gautam used. It agrees with Gautam's measurement in Jan 2021.
The plan for the tools in 40m
As of right now, there are 4 tool boxes. X-end, Y-end, Vertex, and the main tool box along the X-arm. The plan is the give each toolbox a set of their own tools. The tools of X-end, Y-end, and Vertex toolboxes will be very similar containing the basic tools such as pliers, screwdrivers, allen ball drivers. Along with this, each tool box will have a tape measure, caliper, level, and other measuring tools we find convinient.
As for the new toolbox, I have done research and found a few good selections. The only problem I have ran into with this is the width of the tool box corresponding with the prices. The tool cabinet we have now is 41" wide. The issue I have is not in finding another toolbox of the same width, but for a similar price we can find a 54" wide tool cabinet. Would anyone be objected to making a bit more space for this?
How the tools will stay organized.
I the original idea I had was to use a specified color of electrical tape for each tool box. Then to wrap the corresponding tools tools with the same color tape. But it was brought to my attention that the electrical tape would become sticky over time. So, I think the using the label maker would be the best idea. with the labels being 'X' for X-end, 'Y' for Y-end, 'V' for vertex, and 'M' for main toolboxes.
An idea for the optical tables:
Anchal brought it up to me that it is a hassle to go back and forth searching for the correct sizes of Hex Keys and Allen Wrenches. The idea of a pouch on the outside of each optical table was mentioned so I brought this up to Paco. Paco also gave me the idea of a 3D printed stand we could make for allen ball drives. Does anyone have a preference or an idea of what would be the best choice and why?
A few sidenotes:
Anchal mentioned to me a while back that there are many cables that are laying on the racks that are not being used. Is there a way we could identify which ones are being used?
I noticed that when we were vented that a few of the chamber doors were leaning up against the wall and not on a wooden stand like others. Although, the seats for the chamber doors are pretty spacious and do not give us much clearance. For the future ones, could we make something more sleek and put the wider seats at the end chambers?
The cabinets along the Y-Arm are labelled, but do not correspond with all the materials inside or are too full to take in more items. Could I organize these?
To circumvent IPC error sending BHD DC PD signals from c1sus2 to c1lsc, DB9 cable from BHD DC PD box sent to c1sus2 is now split and sent also to c1lsc.
They are now available in both
C1:X07-MADC1_EPICS_CH16 (DC PD A) and CH17 (DC PD B)
C1:X04-MADC1_EPICS_CH4 (DC PD A) and CH5 (DC PD B)
We attempted to use vectfit to fit our earlier transfer function data, and were generally unsuccessful (see vectfit_firstattempt.png), but are much closer to understanding vectfit than before. Couple of problems to address - finding the right set of initial poles to start with has been very hard, and also however vectfit is plotting the phase data is unwrapping it, which makes it generally unreadable. Still working on how to mess with the vectfit automatically-generated plots. In general, our data is very messy (this is old data of the transfer function from last week), so we took more data today to see if our coherence was the problem (see TFSR785_28-06-2022_161937.pdf). As is visible from the graph, our coherence is terrible, and above 1kHz is almost entirely below 0.5 (or 0.2) on both channels. Figuring out why this is and fixing it is our first priority.
In the process of taking new data, we also found out that the optical table enclosure at the end of the X-arm does a decent job of sound isolation (see enclosure_open.mp4 and enclosure_closed.mp4). The clicking from the shutter is visible on a spectrogram at high frequencies when the enclosure is open, but not when it is closed. We also discovered that the script to toggle the shutter can run indefinitely, which can break the shutter, so we need to fix that problem!
I took ~ 7 minutes of XALS beatnote data with the XAUX laser locked to the XARM cavity, and the XARM locked to PSL to develop an allan deviation estimator. The resulting timeseries for the channel C1:ALS-BEATX_FINE_PHASE_OUT_HZ_DQ (decimated timeseries in Attachment #1) was turned into an allan variance using the "overlapped variable tau estimator":
Where represents the k-th data point in the raw timeseries, and are the variable integration intervals under which two point variances are computed (the allan variance is a special case of M-point variance, where M=2). Then, the allan deviation is just the square root of that. Attachment #2 shows the fractional deviation (normalized by the mean beat frequency) for 100 integration times spanning the full duration (~ 7 min = 420 s).
I added today demodulation of C1:LSC-BEATX/Y_FINE_I/Q in the c1cal demodulation where different degrees of freedom can be dithered. For McCal (formerly soCal), we'll dither the arm cavity for which we can use any of the DOFs (like DARM) to send the dither to ETMX/ETMY. Then with green laser locked as well, we'll get the calibration signal from the beatnotes in the demodulaed channels. We can also read right after the mixing in c1cal model and try differnt poles for integration .
I've also added medm screens in the sensing matrix part of LSC screen. These let you see demodulation of beatnote frequency signals.