We want both the X and Y phase trackers to have the same UGF, so that the X and Y ALS signals are subject to the same phase characteristics and can be nicely decoupled into CARM/DARM.
I've started implementing a simple normalization scheme that Koji suggested, namely, dividing the I output of the phase tracker by a low passed version of the Q output. (Since the I is servoed to zero, the radius of the error signal in the IQ plane is essentially equal to the Q value) I put some simulink logic into the IQLOCK library part that BEAT[XY]_FINE are instances of to switch the normalization on/off, and to protect from divide-by-zeros. I also exposed the switching and FM on the ALS screen.
I then tried using it, to mediocre results. I put a 10mHz LP in the filter module, found a Y-Arm beat, set the phase tracker gain to give me a 2kHz UGF, and then set the gain of the UGH normalization FM to turn the current average Q to unity.
I then moved the laser temperature around to get different beatnote locations/amplitudes, hoping that the phase tracker UGF would stay the same when the UGH normalization was on.
It did not.
It did, however, correct it in the right direction... more work will be done with this, to try and make it useful. There's also the unfortunate effect that locking/unlocking the green causes erratic phase tracker output, which messes with the input to the normalizing LP filter, so if one were to leave it switched on, wonky stuff would come out. I don't want to go overboard with triggering shenanigans before I even get it working in the first place, though.
Quick post of plots and data; I'll fill in more detail tonight.
TL;DR: I pulled both green PDH boxes and made LISO models, compared TFs and noise levels.
Pictures of X and Y boards, respectively
TF comparison to LISO. (Normalized to coincide at 1Hz)
Noise comparison to LISO
All data, EAGLE schematics, LISO source and plots in the attached zip.
I'm sure that the 1~3Hz motion comes from the mirror motion, but not 100% sure what is causing
the broad stochastic noise. If this is the beam jitter, this penetrates to the IFO via the WFS servos.
Is there any way to characterize this noise in order to compare it with the actual (estimated) motion of the mirrors?
I decided to see what I could do with the new WFS setup.
First, I adjusted the WFS digital demod angles. Once I ensured that the static MC alignment and DC alignment onto the WFS was good, I drove MC2 in pitch with the WFS output off. I then did the usual thing of making the Q peak at the excitation frequency go away. Here are the changes:
I then drove each MC mirror in pitch and yaw respectively, and measured the TF from excitation to the WFS signal (dB Magnitude, sign):
I looked through some old ELOG's of Suresh's and used similar logic to scripts/MC/WFS/wfsmatrix2.m to generate a new output matrix. (This involves creating a null sensing vector that is orthogonal to the measured ones, and inverting that matrix)
I had to flip a gain or two to keep things stable, then measured the WFS error signal spectra to see if this made anything better. The WFS1 spectra look better, but WFS2 not so much.
The loops would need a more thorough investigation, but for now, they're at least a little calmer. The MC is stabler than immediately after the upgrade, but there's still room for improvement.
Yesterday I measured the spectra and OLTF of the Y-Arm green PDH, after the LO touch-up and 60Hz hunt from last week. I also went to lower frequencies with the SR785, but forgot to take some of the background spectra down there, so I don't have the full breakdown plots yet. Nevertheless, here is the improvement in the PDH error signal:
I also measured the OLTF (SR785 injection at the error signal, Auto level ref 5mV at channel 2, 10mV/s source ramping, 50mV max output)
As you can see, we have tons of phase margin. Flipping the local boost switch had no visible effect on the OLTF; we should change it to something that puts this surplus of phase to good use, and squash the error signal even more. Putting an integrator at 5kHz should still leave about 45 degrees phase margin at 10k. I've started making a LISO model of the PDH board from the DCC drawing, and then I'll inspect the boards individually to make sure I catch the homegrown modifications.
Data, and code used to generate the plots is attached.
The PSL HEPA was off. It was turned on and it is running at 30VAC now.
The Napa earth quake magnitude 6 did not have any effect on the suspensions.
The Goy phase upgrade was done nicely. The IOO pointing did not change. Credit owned to Nick and Andres.
IFO is locked right on.
Nick and I upgrade the IMC. We move both WFSs and placed them facing west. When aligning the beam into the WFS, we make sure that the beam were hitting the center of the mirrors and then we placed the lenses in their corresponding position. We used the beam scanner to measure the waist and the waist in the second WFS was bigger than 1mm, and the second WFS was a little bit below than 1mm. We center the beam in the WFSs and in the PD. We did haven't measure whether we have a good Gouy Phase. Below I attached the picture of how the new setup look like.
I installed awgstream-2.16.14 in /ligo/apps/ubuntu12. As with all the ubuntu12 "packages", you need to source the ubuntu12 ligoapps environment script:
controls@pianosa|~ > . /ligo/apps/ubuntu12/ligoapps-user-env.sh
controls@pianosa|~ > which awgstream
I tested it on the SRM LSC filter bank. In one terminal I opened the following camonitor on C1:SUS-SRM_LSC_OUTMON. In another terminal I ran the following:
controls@pianosa|~ > seq 0 .1 16384 | awgstream C1:SUS-SRM_LSC_EXC 16384 -
Channel = C1:SUS-SRM_LSC_EXC
File = -
Scale = 1.000000
Start = 1092790384.000000
The camonitor output was:
controls@pianosa|~ > camonitor C1:SUS-SRM_LSC_OUTMON
C1:SUS-SRM_LSC_OUTMON 2014-08-22 17:44:50.997418 0
C1:SUS-SRM_LSC_OUTMON 2014-08-22 17:52:49.155525 218.8
C1:SUS-SRM_LSC_OUTMON 2014-08-22 17:52:49.393404 628.4
C1:SUS-SRM_LSC_OUTMON 2014-08-22 17:52:49.629822 935.6
C1:SUS-SRM_LSC_OUTMON 2014-08-22 17:52:58.210810 15066.8
C1:SUS-SRM_LSC_OUTMON 2014-08-22 17:52:58.489501 15476.4
C1:SUS-SRM_LSC_OUTMON 2014-08-22 17:52:58.747095 15886
C1:SUS-SRM_LSC_OUTMON 2014-08-22 17:52:59.011415 0
In other words, it seems to work.
1. Before doing anything, we centered the IOO QPDs.
2. With the WFS enabled, we offloaded the control signals onto the bias sliders. Then we saved the slider values. The MC LSC diode had a DC value of ~0.5
3. Turned down power with half wave plate before PMC. Power injected to vacuum ~ 100mW.
4. We did a beam scan of MC REFL, it looks smaller than what Andres predicted based on the MC eigenmode by 10-20%.
5. We made many changes on the table, pictures to be added by Andres.
6. We didn't have the 80% reflector we wanted to increase the WFS power, so it's still a 98%.
6. Beams were aligned on MC REFL PL, camera, beam dumps, WFSs.
7. Clean up
8. PSL power increased to 1.2W, MC locked right away.
9 We didn't change the IOO WFS output matrix, but we changed some signs and gains to make everything stable. MC autolocker brings it back from cold just fine.
10. All time bombs that we've left will be E.Q.'s to clean up. Sorry.\
[Rana, Jenne, EricQ]
We did several things tonight. First, a list (so I can remember them all), and then some details.
(1) Jiggled ETMY SUS cables, removed kicks.
(2) Locked X and Y ALS, looked at POX, POY as out of loop sensors.
(3) Measured stuff (?) at the Yend.
(4) Reconnected REFL DC to SR560.
(5) Attempted CARM offset reduction.
When Rana and I started locking this evening, we saw (as Q has been witnessing for a while now) the ETMY kick a lot. However, it seemed to be kicking even more than usual. Since Q had been down at the end station recabling things, we wondered if a SUS-related cable got bumped. Rana went down to the end and pushed all the cables into their receptacles. One of the last sets that he pushed was the satellite box. We didn't have walkie-talkie communication, but the DC offset of the ETMY oplevs changed just a minute or two before he returned to the control room. So, we guess that it was the satellite box cables that were loose. Unfortunately, there is no clear way to strain relieve them, which is why they can so often be troublesome. Anyhow, the ETMY hasn't kicked since.
We locked the arms with ALS. We saw that the POX signal was about 20% of the full pk-pk height of the PDH signal, so it's mostly within the linear range, but not entirely. It is what it is, however, and we took measurements assuming that it's okay. I calibrated POX by putting an excitation onto ETMX, and matching the height of the peak in POX and BEATX_FINE_PHASE_OUT_HZ.
Q and Rana had also [remembered / put in / something] a digital readback for the end green PDH error point. Q went down to the end and gave me a number of 2600 Hz/V for the err mon port of the PDH board, which is what is connected to the ADC. With that and 20/2^16 V/cts, I had a calibration of 0.8 Hz/ct.
What we see in this plot is that the green end PDH is not the limiting noise for the POX out of loop measurement of the residual arm motion. Also, in the multi-color metrology paper, Fig 7 (which is posted in the control room), we see at about a little over 1 Hz a ratio of about 4.5 between the residual motion and the AUX PDH error signal. In today's plot, I see a ratio of about 20. I infer from this that the green PDH for the Xarm is fine, and that we may want to re-look at the ALS digital loop, but we should leave the X PDH alone.
Here is the Xarm plot:
Q took the data for the Yarm plot, so hopefully he can give it to us in the morning. What we did notice was that the noise was much worse for the Yarm. This prompted Item 3, measuring the loop.
Q and Rana went down to the Yend and measured some things. They came back, and said that they hadn't changed anything in analog while they were down there. One thing that Q did note was that we have almost 90 degrees of phase margin (since it's a 1/f loop), and about 10 dB of gain margin, above the UGF. So, we're in good shape for being able to try triggering the boost on the PDH box. Q will give us more notes on this work, as well as plots, in the morning.
At some point, I remembered that Q and Gabriele had repurposed the SR560 that we had been using for the REFLDC input to the common mode board. So, Q went and put it back, so that REFL DC goes into the SR560, and so does a DAC channel so that we can remotely set the offset. The A-B output goes to the REFL11I whitening channel, since real REFL11I goes into the input of the CM board. I think that today, the SR 560 was left at a gain of 1.
We decided to carry on and try to reduce the CARM offset some. An annoyance is that the Yarm still has pretty significant low-frequency noise, but the idea is that if we can get over to the sqrtInvTrans signals, it will be fine.
So, we didn't get much farther than we had in the past, but it was nice to get there at all again. I ran the carm_cm_up script (many times). One of the times, all I wanted to do was see how much I could reduce the CARM offset. CARM was on sqrtInvTrans, DARM was on ALS diff, and I was able to get the arm powers up to about 2.5. I don't know why I lost lock. The sqrtInv signals should be good until at least arm powers of 20 or so.
I was able to see the REFL DC dip, but only a teensy tiny bit. It went down by maybe 1 count. Q suggested looking at how deep it could get while leaving CARM and DARM both on ALS, and setting both offsets to 0. We were seeing arm flashes of about 50 counts, and REFL DC went from 0 to -800. So, I wasn't seeing much of a REFL dip, but it was definitely there when I went to arm powers of 2ish.
We tried looking at different sqrtInv options for DARM, and haven't come to any real conclusion. In the plot below, we are looking at a swept sine between DARM_IN1 (ALSdiff) and either MC_IN1 0.3*(sqrtInvX - sqrtInvY) or SRCL_IN1 (TRX - TRY / sqrt(TRX + TRY) ):
We have a few things to add to the to-do list:
* Put UGF servos for LSC loops in place.
* Implement UGF "servos" (per Koji's suggested method) for phase trackers.
* Write a lockloss script that is run by the ALS watch scripts - print a PDF of error and control signals for every lockloss, and save it somewhere.
* Fix up Ygreen modematching on the PSL table. The X green spot is quite similar on the camera to the corresponding PSL green spot. However the Y green spot is not at all the same as its PSL green spot.
To help development of the data visualization project, we've assigned the .101 and .102 IP to DataVis. This is being used by the iMac in the control room via port 8 of the CDS switch near the Blue Plataeu Tournant.
We tried using one of the free ports, but Jamie realized that we had to use one of the already assigned ones due to some 'Smart' switch management software. So for the moment, please leave the iMac alone so that Bill can use it.
I found that the barrel of one the BNC to BNC connectors used for getting the output of the PDH servo box to the laser controller was touching the ETMY chamber. When I held it away, all of the 60Hz harmonics disappeared from the mixer output spectrum; this was pretty repeatable. This inspired me to replace the refl PD and PZT signal cables (which were 2 and 3 cables stitched together, respectively) with 20' long BNCs. I also cleaned up a lot of the routing of signal and power cables in the little rack, and moved the big T->DC Block->Attenuator combo off of the panel mount, because I didn't like how it was wiggling. It and the summing pomona box are sitting on top of the PDH box and function generator, instead of hanging freely.
All of the 60Hz harmonics were banished afterwards, and the green locked happily.
This required me touching the Y end table, to remove the old cable and its cable ties, and putting the new one in. I don't think I did anything immediately apparently bad; the green and IR transmissions both are within nominal ranges.
I haven't had luck measuring the CLG yet, which I wanted to do to get and set the UGF before measuring the noises. However, here is a scope trace of the in-lock error signal, which compares quite favorably to the trace posted in the previous post; the scope indicates that the signal has 1/3 of the RMS that it did before I replaced the cables.
I hope to measure up the current status after I get back from dinner.
We spent time trying to relieve the Yend green PDH of it troubles.
We realized that the mixer in the PDH setup (mini circuits ZAD-8+), wants 7dBm of LO to properly function. However, we use one function generators output, through a splitter, to give signals to the laser PZT and the mixer LO.
We don't want 7dBm of power hitting the laser PZT, though. The summing node that adds the servo output to the sideband signal was supposedly designed to do some of this attenuation. Rana measured that 10Vpp out of the function generator resulted in 20mVpp on the fast input to the NPRO, after the summing node. Hence, the 0.09V setting was only resulting in something like 0.2mV hitting the PZT. The PZT has something like 30 rad/V PM response, meaning we only had ~0.006 rad of modulation.
Now, the function generator is set to 2 Vpp, meaning 4 mVpp hitting the PZT, meaning ~0.12 radians of modulation. The mixer is now getting +7dBm on its LO, and the PDH traces look much cleaner. However, the PDH error signal is now something like 100mVpp, which is much bigger than the PDH board is designed for, so there is now a 10dB attenuator between the reflection PD DC block and the RF input to the mixer.
Here are screenshots of the Inmon channel (which has a gain of ~20) showing a sweep through some PDH signal, and the error signal while in green lock. Huge 60Hz harmonics are still observed.
Regarding these 60Hz issues, we need to make sure that we remove all situations where long BNCs are chained together with barrel connectors, or Ts are touching other ones. We also should glue or affix the pomona summing box to the shelf, so that its not just laying on the floor.
The concrete next step is to go fiddle with things, and see if we can get the 60Hz noise to go away, then measure the PDH loop and noises again. Hopefully, this should make the ALS much more reliable.
I remeasured all of the noise spectra again today, making sure the input attenuation was as low as it could safely be. I also got a snap of the y green PDH signal; it's fairly larger than I saw the other day, which is good. I used this to calibrate the error signal voltage spectra.
Here are the noise traces for each arm. During these measurements GTRX was about .6, GTRY about 1.0 The Yarm noise doesn't look so good: the error signal is just barely above the mixer+lowpass output noise, and the RMS is plauged by 60Hz lines. (Is this related to what we see in IR TRY sometimes?)
Here are the arms error signals compared directly:
I calibrated the control signal from Volts to Hz using the rough PZT calibration of 5MHz/V for the Yend NPRO.
For the error signal, Q said that the Yarm PDH peak-to-peak height was about a factor of 100 smaller than the Xarm, so I used a calibration of 1.9e7 Hz / V.
Then, from Q's Mist simulation including the high Xarm loss, and the plot that he posted in the control room, the CARM linewidth looks like it is about 2pm. This is the number that I have included on today's plot. Note though that yesterday I was using a linewidth of about 30pm, which I got from an Optical simulation about a year ago. I do not know why these numbers come out an order of magnitude different! The CARM linewidth is actually about 20 pm. Both Q and I failed at reading log-x plots yesterday. I have corrected this, and replotted.
Anyhow, here's the Yarm noise spectra calibrated plot:
I have emailed Kiwamu, but haven't heard back from him yet on what the original design considerations were, if he remembered us ever using a boost, etc. What this looks like to me is that we need to do some serious work to get the noise down. Maybe fixing the gain peaking and triggering the boost will get us most of the way there?
A MIST simulation tells me that the green pdh horn-to-horn displacement is about 1.2nm, or ~18kHz. I used this, along with the scope trace attached to the previous post, to calibrate the mixer output at 193419 Hz per V. (EDIT: I was a little too hasty here. What I'm really after is the slope of the zero crossing, which turns out to be almost exactly twice my earlier naïve estimate. See later post for correct spectra)
For the control signal, I assumed a flat Innolight PZT PM response of 1MHz/V. ( Under 10kHz, it is indeed flat, and this is the region where the control signal is above the servo output noise in yesterday's measurements)
Here are all of the same spectra from last night, with the above calibrations.
Going off Jenne's earlier plot, it looks like the in-loop error signal RMS is ten times bigger than the CARM linewidth.
Summary: After today's meeting, Gabriele and I looked into the arm loss situation, to see if we should really believe the losses that had been suggested by my previous measurements. We made some observations that we're not sure how to explain, and we're thinking about other ways to try and estimate the losses to corroborate previous findings.
We first looked to see if the ASS had some effective offset, leaving the alignment not quite right. Once ASS'd, we twiddled each arm cavity mirror in pitch and yaw to see if we could achieve higher transmission. We could not, so this suggested that ASS works properly.
We then looked at potential offsets in the Xarm loop. We found that an input offset of 25 counts increased the transmission, but only very slightly. With this offset adjusted, we confirmed the qualitative observation that locking/unlocking the xarm causes a much bigger change in ASDC than doing the same with the harm.
However, we noted that the ASDC data (which is the DC value of the AS55 RFPD) was quite noisy, hovering around 50 counts. Looking at the c1lsc model, we found that we were looking at direct ADC counts, so the signal conditioning was not so great. We went to the LSC rack and stole the SR560 that had been hooked up as a REFLDC offsetter, and used it to give ASDC a gain of 100, and a LP at 100Hz, since we only care about DC values. We then undid the gain in the input FM; and this calmed the trace down a fair bit. The effects due to each arm locking/unlocking was still consistent with previous observations.
At this point, we looked at the arm transmission and ASDC signals simultaneously. Normally, when misaligning a cavity, one would expect the reflected power to rise and the transmission to fall.
However, we saw that when misalignment the Yarm in yaw in either direction, or the Xarm in one direction, both the IR transmission and ASDC would fall. This initially made us think of clipping effects.
So, we checked out the AS beam situation on the AP table. On a card, the beam looks round as we could tell, and the beam spot on AS55 was nice and small. (We tweaked its steering a little bit in pitch to put it at the center of the "falling-off" points) The reflection and transmission falling effect remained.
At this point, we're not really sure what could be causing this effect. After the reflected beams recombine at the BS, the output path is common, so it's strange that this odd effect would be the same for both arms.
Lastly, we discussed other ways that we may be able to see if the Xarm really has ~500ppm loss. Since its transmission is ~1.4%, Gabriele estimated that we may be able to see a ~300Hz difference in the arm cavity pole frequency between the two arms, based on the modification of the cavity finesse due to loss. Since we don't currently have the AOM set up to inject intensity noise, we talked about using frequency noise injection to measure the arm cavity poles, though this would be coupled with the IMC pole, but this could hopefully be accounted for.
Reasonable amounts of time were spent bending the AG4395 to my will; i.e. figuring out the calibration things Jenne and Rana did, finding the right excitation amplitude and profile that would leave the light steadily locked, and finding the right GPIB incantation for getting spectra in PSD units instead of power units. I'm nearing completion of a newer version of AG4395 scripts that have proper units, and pseudo-log spectra (i.e. logarithmically spaced linear sweeps)
Here is too many traces on one plot showing parts of the OLTF for the x green PDH. One notable omission is the PD response (note to self:check model and bandwidth). The servo oddly seems to have a notch around 100k. My calibration for the CLG injection may not have been perfect, instead of flattening out at 0dB, I had 2dB residual. I tried to correct for it after the fact, assuming that certain regions were truly flat at 0dB, but I want to revisit it to be thorough. I found some old measurements of the Innolight PZT PM response, which claims to be in rad/V, and have included that on the plot.
In the end, the mixer and PZT response make it look like getting over 10kHz bandwidth may be tough. Even finding a good higher modulation frequency to be able to scoot the LP up would leave us with the sharp slope in the PZT phase loss, and could cause bad gain peaking. Maybe it's worth thinking about a faster way of modulating the green light?
Tomorrow morning, I'll calibrate all the noise spectra I have into real units. These include:
However, looking at the floors, it occurs to me that I may have left the attenuation on the input too high, in an effort to protect the input the PDH box, which rails all the time when not locked to a 00 mode, sometimes even with the input terminated or open. It's kind of a pain that the agilent makes it really hard to see the data when you're in V/rtHz mode, because I should've caught this while measuring :/
I used a scope to capture a pdh signal happening, which will let me transform the mixer output into cavity motion. The control signal goes to the innolight PZT with a ~1MHz/V factor. Here are the uncalibrated plots, for now.
* (JCD) Think about this box's purpose in life. What kind of gain do we need? Do we need more / less than we're currently getting? NPRO freq noise is 1/f and is 10kHz/rtHz at 1Hz (this is from a plot of an iLIGO NPRO from Rana's thesis, but it's probably similar). Talk to Kiwamu; the noise budget in the paper seems to indicate that we had some kind of boost on or something. Also, if we need much more gain than we already have, we'll definitely need a different box, maybe the PDH2 box that they have over in WBridge.
It's not so impressive yet, but here's a plot that shows (a) Rana's guess for laser frequency noise, (b) The inferred in-loop version of that noise, (c) The CARM linewidth FWHM, translated to Hz.
For (b), I take the loop that Rana and I measured last night, and I assumed that it continued on forever as 1/f toward low frequency. Then I do 1/(1+G) to get the closed loop version of the loop (which is a measurement with an artificial line tacked on the end), and multiply this with the laser freq noise, which is also totally artificial.
For (c), I do df/f = dL/L, with f = c/lambda_green, since the rest of the plot is meant to be in green frequency units.
This is my beginnings of trying to come up with a requirement for our green PDH boxes. We weren't very clear in the MultiColor paper about the nitty-gritty details (obviously), but then Kiwamu didn't expand on those details in his thesis either. He talks a lot more about the design considerations for the digital ALS loop, which isn't what I want today. I will send him an email to see if he had any notes that didn't make it into his thesis.
Here is a plot of last night's data with both the control and the error point on the same plot, in Volts. Q is still working, so I don't have a calibration number yet to get these to Hz.
Note in the control spectrum that we have very significant 60Hz lines.
EDIT: I also added a new branch to the DCC Document Tree, and 2 leafs (one for each end). Here's the ALS PDH servo branch: E1400350
IMC Calculation and Setup
I have been working in the calculation for improving the Gouy Phase separation between the WFSs. I tried different possible setup, but the three big constrains in choosing a good optical table setup are to have a Waist size that range from 1mm-2mm, the Gouy Phase between the WFSs have to be greater than 75 degrees and there has to be a steering mirror before each WFS. I will be showing the best calculation because that calculation complies with Rana request of having both WFSs facing west and having the shortest beam path. I approximate the distances by measuring with a tape the distance where the current optics are located and by looking at the picture that I took I approximated the distance where the lenses will be placed. I'm using a la mode for calculating the gouy phase different. I attached a picture of the current optical table setup that we have. Using a la mode, I found that the current gouy phase that we have is 49.6750 degrees.
Now, for the new setup, a run a la mode and found a Gouy phase of 89.3728 degrees. I have to create a two independent beam path: one for the WFS1 and another one for WFS2. The reason for this is that a la mode place everything in one dimension so and since the WFS1 will have a divergence lens in order to increase the waist size, and since that lens should not be interacting with the waist size in the WFS2. We need two beam path for each WFS. A la mode give us the following solution:
For the beam path of the WFS1
label z (m) type parameters
----- ----- ---- ----------
MC1 0 flat mirror none:
MC3 0.1753 flat mirror none:
MC2 13.4587 curved mirror ROC: 17.8700 (m)
Lens1 29.3705 lens focalLength: 1.0201 (m)
BS2 29.9475 flat mirror none:
First Mirror 30.0237 flat mirror none:
Lens3 30.2000 lens focalLength: -0.100 (m)
WFS1 30.4809 flat mirror none:
For the beam path of the WFS2
label z (m) type parameters
----- ----- ---- ----------
MC1 0 flat mirror none:
MC3 0.1753 flat mirror none:
MC2 13.4587 curved mirror ROC: 17.8700 (m)
Lens1 29.3705 lens focalLength: 1.0201 (m)
BS2 29.9475 flat mirror none:
Second Mirror 30.2650 flat mirror none:
Lens2 30.4809 lens focalLength: -0.075 (m)
Third Mirror 30.5698 flat mirror none:
WFS2 30.6968 flat mirror none:
I attached bellow how the new setup should look like in the second picture and also I include and attachment of the a la mode code.
I used Mist to be able to see the read out that we get in the WFSs that take the Mode Cleaner Reflection and the QPD that take the transmitted from MC2. In the following, plots I'm misaligned the each mirrors: MC1, MC2 and MC3. The misalignment are in Yaw and Pitch. I'm dividing the WFSs reading by the total power reflect power, and I'm dividing the QPD for the MC2 transmission by the total transmitted power. In my Mist model, I have a laser of 1W and my EOM is modulated at 30MHz instead of 29.5MHz and the modulation depth was calculating by measuring the applied voltage using and Spectrum analyzer. I using Kiwamu measurement of modulation depth efficiency vs the applied voltage, https://dcc.ligo.org/DocDB/0010/G1000297/001/G1000297-v1.pdf, I got a modulation depth of 0.6 mrad. I put this modulation depth and I got the following plots: The fourth and fifth attachment are for the current optical setup that we have. The sixth and seventh attachment is for the new optical setup. The eighth attachment is showing the mode cleaner cavity resonating. The last attachment contains the plots of WFS1 vs WFS2, MC2_QPD vs WFS1, MC2_QPD vs WFS3 for each mirror misaligned. The last two attachment are the MIST code for the calculation.
We have all the lenses that we need. I checked it last Friday and if everything is good we will be ready to do the new upgrade this coming Friday. For increasing the power, I check and we have different BS so we can just switch from the current setup the BS. Can you let me know if this setup look good or if I need to chance the setup? I would really love to do this upgrade before I leave.
Heading to dinner, going to come back for more green fun, but here's a quick update:
Xarm Peak-to-Peak of the PDH signal in the mixer output is about 70mV when GTRX was about 0.4. The sideband-generating function generator has an output of 2V (forgot to note rms or pp)
Yarm Peak-to-Peak of the PDH signal in the mixer output is about 640uV when GTRX was about 0.71. The sideband-generating function generator has an output of 0.091V (forgot to note rms or pp)
The Yarm signal thus correspondingly has a waaay noisier trace. I would've had scope plots to show here, but the scope freaked out about how large my USB drive capacity was and refused to talk to it >:|
This suggests to me that our modulation depth for the Yarm may be much too small, and may be part of our problems with it.
[ Rana, Jenne]
We remeasured the Yend PDH box.
When we first started, the green couldn't hold lock to the arm - it kept flickering between modes. Changing the gain of the PDH box (from 7.5 to 6.0) helped.
We measured a calibration, from our injection point to our measurement point.
The concept was that we'd take the mixer output, and put that into an SR560, and put the swept sine injection into the other input port of the '560, and use A-B. So, for this calibration, we left A unplugged, and just had the RF out of the 4395 going to input B of the '560. The 600 Ohm output of the '560 went to the error point input on the PDH box (during normal operation the mixer output is connected directly to the error point input). The SR560 was set to gain of 1, no filtering. I don't recall if we were using high range or low noise, but we tried both and didn't really see a difference between them.
We had the 4395 take that calibration out, and then we measured the closed loop gain up to 1 MHz. (Same measurement setup as above, but we connected the mixer out to the input of the SR560 to close the loop, and made sure we were locked on a TEM00 green mode.) Rana used an ipython notebook to infer the open loop gain from our measurement. Our conclusion is that we don't have nearly enough gain margin in our loop. We found the PDH box gain knob at 7.5, and we turned it down to 6.0, but the loop is still pretty borderline. We used the high impedance active probe to measure the error point monitor, since we aren't sure that that point can drive a 50 Ohm load.
We also measured the error point spectra and the control point spectra. Unfortunately, the saved data from the analyzer (no matter what is on the screen) comes out in spectrum, not spectral density. So, we need to check our conversion, but right now to get from Watts power to Volts, we do sqrt(50 ohm * data). We then need to get to spectral density, and right now we're just dividing by the square root of the bandwith that is reported in the .par file. This last step is the one we want to especially check, by perhaps putting some known amount of noise (from an SR785?) into the 4395, and checking that our calibration math returns the expected noise spectrum.
What still needs to be done is to calibrate this into Hz/rtHz. To do this, we were thinking that we should look at the error point on a 'scope while the cavity is flashing.
Anyhow, here is the uncalibrated error point spectrum. Purple is a measurement up to 30kHz, with 30Hz bandwidth. Blue is a measurement up to 300kHz with 300Hz bandwidth. The gain peaking schmutz above 10kHz sucks, and we'd like to get rid of it. We also see the same peak at ~150kHz that Q saw earlier today. We were using the high impedance probe here too.
We have the data for the control point (all the data files are in /users/jenne/ALS/PDHloops/Yend_18Aug2014), but we haven't plotted it yet.
Things that need doing:
* (EQ, priority 1) Measure and calibrate error point noise down to lower freq for both arms. What could we win by putting in a boost? If the residual noise is high, maybe the laser isn't good at following arm, so beatnote isn't good length info for the arm, and we can't succeed.
* (EQ, priority 2) Measure TF of PDH box, and a separate measurement of the Pomona box that is between the mixer and the error point - is that eating a bunch of phase? It's already an LC circuit which is good, but do we really want a 120kHz lowpass when our modulation frequency is roughly 200kHz? Ask ChrisW - he worked on one of these with Dmass.
* (EQ, priority 2ish) Measure TF of Xend PDH loop (unless you already have one, up to ~1MHz).
* (JCD) Make DCC tree leaf for PDH box #17. Take photos of box.
So far today, I've been working with the Y-end green PDH locking. Using a SR560 to roll off the AG4395A output to take a loop measurement at the servo output, I measured the following OLG, and inferred the CLG from it. The SR560 really helped it getting good coherence without introducing a big offset that changes the optical gain, thus distorting the loop shape, etc. etc.
You would think this loop looks pretty good, 10k UGF, and 45 degrees of phase margin, gain peaking is sane, and pretty smooth slope. But, the thing still was flipping out of lock while I measured this.
I suspect shenanigans at >100k. This is motivated by the fact that I've seen some big noise in the error signal around 150k. I don't have a good noise plot right now, because I'm trying to get a scheme going where I stitch together a bunch of 1 decade spectra from the 4395, but the noise floor isn't consistent across each patch (even though the attenuation stays the same, and I confirmed I'm in "noise" mode). I'm working on a loop measurement up there, too, but I haven't been able to get the right filter/amplitude settings yet.
So, even though this plot is not totally correct (read: wrong and bad), I include it just for the sake of showing the big honking spike of noise at ~150K.
Riju did the measurement of the MCREFL PD.
I found data files in her directory on the control machine.
I was not sure how much was the transimpedance of the DC out.
I assumed the default number from the circuit diagram which was 66.7Ohm.
This may cause the error in absolute caribration of the transimpedance but the shape does not change.
The RF preamp is gain-peeking at 250MHz.
Here is further characterization of the PD response.
As you can see in the second attachment, the 3dB cut off of the resonance is about 2.3MHz.
The game plan file in dropbox was also modified.
A few things that I have neglected to ELOG yet:
scripts/offsets/LSCoffsets is a new script that uses ezcaservo to set FM offsets of our LSC PDs. It still warns about large changes, and lets you revert. It reads the FM gain to pick the right gain for the ezcaservo call.
MC refl DC was all over the place today, and has recently been "fuzzier" on the wall StripTool than I like. I touched the MC2 pointing a little bit, and the WFS seemed to find a sweet spot where the refl got steady back at around and under 0.5. I then ran "offload WFS" to try and stay there.
Incidentally, the PMC transmission drifted up to 0.81 at some point today. This is weird, since not too long ago, we were not able to reach this level even with careful alignment. This coincided with the MC power being back up to ~17k, and arms locking at around 0.95.
Last week I quickly tried cranking up the x-end green modulation frequency to ~1.3MHz (corresponding to a notch in the PZT AM response), and using a 550k lowpass on the mixer output, instead of a 70k, to try to buy more phase and increase the UGF. It didn't work. I didn't have a way to tune the mixer phase angle, and the mixer output was super noisy, but there were instants where I could convince myself that a mode was briefly locked to the arm... I'm going to do the Right Thing and characterize the loop properly, to figure out how to get at least 10kHz of control bandwidth out of these things.
Q already did the tweak up of the PSL SHG crystal alignment. HE SHOULD ELOG ABOUT THIS. What was the final power of green that you got? Do we have any record of a previous measurement to compare to?
As Jenne mentioned, I did this.
Specifically, I first tweaked the mirror pointing the IR into the SGH in pitch and yaw to maximize the green power, and then adjusted the little set screws on the side of the SHG to maximize further. Power after the harmonic separator was of order 150uW. On the Y Green BBPD, I got ~48uW, instead of the 40uW Rana, Jenne, and myself saw the other night.
now that I look through old ELOGs, I find some posts by Kiwamu saying the power should be around 650uW, and that he was able to get 640uW out. So: I should do this again, systematically, more carefully, etc., etc. (Linked ELOG also states that optimum SHG temperature is alignment dependent...)
Earlier today Q and I somewhat resurrected my old PER measurement setup so I could run the temperature characterization experiment.
Unfortunately, when I tried to use the fiber illuminator, no light came from the other end, causing me to fail my primary goal for the summer of "don't break anything." The fiber has been re-spooled and labeled appropriately. Also sorry.
In addition to this, Q and I scavenged parts from the telescopes on the PSL and Y End tables, which were either not functional, or needed to have their mode matching adjusted, since we're using the non-PM fibers for FOL, which have a different numerical aperture, and thus slightly different output modes.
Specifically, this is involved removing the rotational mounts, and appropriate beam dumping.
My "calorimeter" still remains intact, in case anyone wants to make this measurement in the future, as this is my last day in the lab.
It's also effective at keeping drinks cold, if you'd rather use it for that.
One question answered, but another raised. The offset came from LSC-TRY switching to the ETMY-QPD signal from ETMY-TRY (Hi gain pd).
Again unknown, but about 6 hours ago (so ~8am) the offset disappeared.
Here's a 1-day trend:
The game plan graffle file is now in the 40m dropbox, so anyone can edit it. Please just make sure to keep the date in the top right corner accurate.
Not sure why, but Rana and I didn't see the super high Xarm noise with ALS that we reported last night (elog 10382).
The in-loop ALS noise seems fine. The out of loop measurement while the ALS is locked is a little tricky, since ALS hold the arms within the POX/POY linear ranges.
Here is the in-loop noise:
I have added a few things to the ASS model, and the ASC sub-block, so that we can send POP QPD information down to the ETMs for CARM angular control after we've reduced the CARM offset and gotten some carrier buildup. I did not remove our ability to actuate on PRM, so that we can still play with it in PRMIsb cases.
The input matrix has been expanded so that it can send signals to new CARM_YAW and CARM_PIT filter banks. The corresponding filter banks have been created. The output matrix was also expanded to take in the 2 new servo outputs, and so it can send signals to both ETMs, pitch and yaw. I did not include any triggering logic for this new CARM situation, since I assume we'll just turn it on and off with our scripts. (We haven't really been using the triggering capability of the PRM ASC either lately, although it's all still there). I added the inputs and outputs of the CARM servos to the list of acquired channels.
The ASC sub-block:
I also modified the top level of the ASS model. This was just a simple addition of summing nodes for the ETMs, similar to what was already in place for the PRM, so that we can send both the ASS dither alignment signals and the ASC servo control signals to the optics.
The ASS top level:
I also quickly modified the ASC screen to expose all of the new options:
The ASS model was compiled, and restarted. As usual, this temporarily removes the biases on the input pointing tip tilts, but the pointing seems to have come back without any trouble.
We used to do violin mode and test mass body mode notches in the SUS-LSC filter modules. Now we want them balanced in the LSC and triggered by the LSC, so they're in the filter modules which go from the the LSC output matrix to the SUS.
Today, we were getting ETM violin mode ringups while doing ALS hunt and so we moved the bandstops into the LSC. I also changed the bandstop from a wide one which missed the ETMX mode to a double bandstop which gets both the ETMX and the ETMY mode. See attached image of the Bode mag.
We've been having trouble tuning the ALS DIFF matrix. Trying to see if the MC2 EXC can be cancelled in ALS DARM by adjusting the relative gains in ALSX and ALSY Phase Tracker outputs.
There's a bunch of intermittent behavior. Between different ALS locks, we get more or less cancellation. We were checking this by driving MC2 at ~100-400 Hz and checking the ALS response (with the ALS loops closed). We noticed that the X and Y readbacks were different by ~5-10 degrees and that we could not cancel this MC2 signal in DARM by more than a factor of 4-5 or so. In the middle of this, we had one lock loss and it came back up with 100x cancellation?
Attached is a PDF showing a swept sine measurement of the ALSX, ALSY, and DARM signals. You can see that there is some phase shift between the two repsonses leading to imperfect cancellation. Any ideas? Whitening filters? HOM resonance? Alignment?
I don't know why, but TRY has somehow gotten a 0.3 count offset in the last hour.
Rana and I are witnesses for each other that neither of us has gone into the IFO room in the last several hours (and we're the only ones here). For some reason though, the TRY PD now has a 0.3 count offset. We have been doing some ALS locks, but we have not run the offset script in the last several hours. Closing the green shutter doesn't change things, and we still see the offset when the MC loses lock, so it's not to do with the end or the PSL laser. We haven't been in there, so there hasn't been a change in the room lights.
The instigator of this was that we were seeing ring-ups of ETMs during our ALS locks this evening. We measured the ETMY violin resonance to be 624.10 Hz, and Rana found an elog saying that the ETMX was around 631 Hz, so we made a 2 notch filter and added it to FM4 of the LSC-SUS filter banks for both ETMs.
For the ETMY resonance, we measured the frequency in the DARM spectrum, and when we looked at the FINE_PHASE_OUT channels, the resonance was only in the Yarm sensor. So, we conclude that it is coming from ETMY.
Also in the realm of filter modules, the FM3 boost for CARM, DARM, XARM and YARM was changed from zero crossing to ramp with a 1sec ramp time.
Mech Resonance Wiki
I've updated the wiki by trawling the elog for violin entries. Please keep it up to date so that we can make violin notches.
Last night, and again just now, I used the ./MC2_spot_[direction] scripts to center the MC2 spot on the trans QPD. The MCWFS handled overall alignment to correct for the fact that the ratios in the script aren't perfect. When I was finished, I ran the MC WFS relief script from the WFS screen. Last night, and again today, things had drifted until the yaw spot was more than 0.5 counts off.
When the IMC locks, we want the FAST OUT of the TTFSS box to be close to zero volts. We also want the control signal from the MC Servo board to be close to 0 V. How to set this up?
With the IMC locked, we just servo the FSS input offset to minimize the MC board output :
ezcaservo -r C1:IOO-MC_FAST_MON -g 0.1 -t 10 C1:PSL-FSS_INOFFSET
I would have used "CDSUTILS", but that seems to have some sort of ridiculous bug where we can't have prefixes on channel names, even on the command line.
Based on the game plan, I have created a slew of updated pretty plots about our signals and loops.
First: With measured arm losses, when do we start to see REFL DC dip? At what arm buildup powers?
I updated my MIST model with the arm losses I've measured (Y:130ppm, X:530ppm), and some measured transmissions from the wiki, vs. the design parameters, as I used to have. Here is the DC sweep plot which is now hanging up in the control room.
In this plot, I also calculated what MIST thinks the full arm power buildup will be as compared to our single arm locking, and I get something of order 200, rather than the 600 we've tossed around in discussions. Nothing else is very different in this plot from the old version; though the REFLDC dip is a little bit wider.
Now, here are some radiation-pressure inclusive sensing transfer functions, for the anti-spring case (which in Rob's day was easier to lock for unknown reasons):
Next: Include new AO path TFs into CM model Look at possibilities for engaging AO path
We want to characterize the sort of response the fibers have to temperature gradients along them (potentially altering indices of refraction, etc.)
I have constructed a sort of two chambered "calorimeter" (by which I mean some coolers and other assorted pieces of recycling.)
The idea is that half of the length of PM fiber resides in one chamber, and the other in the other.
One chamber will remain at an uncontrolled, stable temperature (as measured by thermocouple probe) while the other's temperature is varied using a heat gun.
Using this setup, one can measure losses in power, and effects on polarization within the fiber.
This is currently living on the electronics bench until tomorrow morning, and is a little fragile, just in case it needs to be moved.
- Oplevs for PR2, PR3 => Almost impossible.
Because of the limited table space inside? That's the main reason I can think of that this method is hard. Am I missing something?
Got the idea of ASC.
- Oplevs for PR2, PR3 => PR2 seems OK. PR3 almost impossible. well turned out not too crazy. We need outside electronics.
- RF QPD => not trivial and very technical but possible. All outside work.
- Better TT => might be a good solution.
End PDH UGF improvement / post mixer LPF investigation (with in 2 weeks)
Riju measured the MC REFL PD transimpedance. See ELOG and related.
Why do we want to see less PRM motion? I thought PRC motion was causing
LSC issue of the central part. We wanted to maximize the PRM effect, don't we?
(Or is this to supress ETM motion during full lock?)
End PDH - good point, thanks.
ASC - Yes, this is so that we can use the POP QPD to feed back to the common ETMs after the CARM offset is already quite small. We will not use POP DC QPD for PRC any more.
Also, for future PRC ASC, I keep coming back to this in my head, but maybe it is less painful to install oplevs for PR2, PR3 than it would be to make an RF QPD. Neither is going to be trivially easy. But if we had sensors of the tip tilt motions, we could feed all of that back to the PRM to stabilize the PRC.
Why do we want to see less PRM motion? I thought PRC motion was causing
LSC issue of the central part. We wanted to maximize the PRM effect, don't we?
(Or is this to supress ETM motion during full lock?)