We are supposed to have BS Oplev Beams. We don't like the shallow angle reflections (i.e. AOI>45deg).

The laser is too big but I suspect the other components are too small. So it'd be check the actual size of the components including the optical mounts that are missing on the figure so far.

Possibility to swap BS and ITMX tables:
BS table, which Tega said MC table, is 2ft x 4ft. The ITMX table is 3ft x 5ft and only the central 2ft x 4ft area is used. The area around the BS table is the narrowest for the east arm. We need at least (2+delta) ft of the hallway width so that we can move the instrument. I'm not yet sure if the ITMX table can be placed there without precise investigation.
 

I have updated the BS table using feedback from Koji and Paco and the attached pdf document is the latest iteration.

[Koji, Manasa]

We measured the wedge angle of the G&H and LaserOptik mirrors at the OMC lab using an autocollimator and rotation stage.

The wedge angles:

G&H : 18 arc seconds (rough measurement)

LaserOptik : 1.887 deg

Reflectivity of AR surface of LaserOptik (SN6)

The first step measurements of R for AR surface. I am not convinced with the data....because the power meter is a lame detector for this measurement.

I'm repeating the measurements again with PDs. But below is the log R plot for AR surface.

R percentage

6000ppm @ 42 deg
3560ppm @ 44 deg
7880ppm @ 46 deg
4690ppm @ 48 deg

 Hours of struggle and still no data 

I tried to measure the AR reflectivity and the loss due to flipping of G&H mirrors

 With almost no wedge angle, separating the AR reflected beam from the HR reflected beam seems to need more tricks.

The separation between the 2 reflected rays is expected 0.8mm. After using a lens along the incident beam, this distance was still not enough to be separable by an iris.

The first trick: I could find a prism and tried to refract the beams at the edge of the prism...but the edges weren't that sharp to separate the beams (Infact I thought an axicon would do the job better..but I think we don't have any of those).

Next from the bag of tricks: I installed a camera to see if the spots can actually be resolved.

The camera image shows the 2 sets of focal spots; bright set to the left corresponding to HR reflected beam and the other from the AR surface. I expect the ghost images to arise from the 15 arcsec wedge of the mirror. I tried to mask one of the sets using a razor blade to see if I can separate them and get some data using a PD. But, it so turns out that even the blade edge is not sharp enough to separate them.

If there are any more intelligent ideas...go ahead and suggest! 

How about to measure the AR reflectivity at larger (but small) angles the extrapolate the function to smaller angle,
or estimate an upper limit?

The spot separation is

D = 2 d Tan(\phi) Cos(\theta), where \phi = ArcSin(Sin(\theta) * n)

D = 2 d Tan(\phi) Cos(\theta), where \phi = ArcSin(Sin(\theta) / n)         (<== correction by Manasa's entry)

\theta is the angle of incidence. For a small \theta, D is propotional to \theta.

So If you double the incident angle, the beam separation will be doubled,
while the reflectivity is an even function of the incident angle (i.e. the lowest order is quadratic).

I am not sure until how much larger angle you can use the quadratic function rather than a quartic function.
But thinking about the difficulty you have, it might be worth to try.

n₁Sin(\theta₁) = n₂ Sin(\theta₂)

So it should be

\phi = ArcSin(Sin(\theta) / n 

I did check the reflected images for larger angles of incidence, about 20 deg and visibly (on the IR card) I did not see much change in the separation. But I will check it with the camera again to confirm on that.

 Use the trick I suggested:

Focus the beam so that the beam size at the detector is smaller than the beam separation. Use math to calculate the beam size and choose the lens size and position. You should be able to achieve a waist size of < 0.1 mm for the reflected beam.

I, by chance, found  that my windows partition has Vision32 installed.
So I run my usual curvature characterization for the TT phasemaps.

They are found under this link
https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:30889/40m_phasemap/40m_TT/（requires: LVC credentials)
or
/cvs/cds/caltech/users/public_html/40m_phasemap/40m_TT

asc/ (ascii files) --> .asc files are saved in Wyko ascii format.
bmp/ (screen shots of Vision32)
mat/ (Matlab scripts and results)
opd/ (Raw binary files)

Estimated radius of curvature

Mirror / RoC from Vision32 / RoC from KA's matlab code
G&H "A" 0864 / -527.5 m / -505.2 m
G&H "B" 0884 / -710.2 m / -683.6 m
LaserOptik SN1 / -688.0 m / -652.7 m
LaserOptik SN2 / -605.2 m / -572.6 m
LaserOptik SN3 / -656.7 m / -635.0 m
LaserOptik SN4 / -607.5 m / -574.6 m
LaserOptik SN5 / -624.8 m / -594.3 m
LaserOptik SN6 / -658.5 m / -630.2 m

The aperture for the RoC in Vision32 seems a bit larger than the one I have used in the code (10mm in dia.)
This could be the cause of the systematic difference of the RoCs between these, as most of our mirrors
has weaker convex curvature for larger aperture, as seen in the figure. (i.e. outer area is more concave
after the subtration of the curvature)

I did not see any structure like Newton's ring which was observed from the data converted with SXMimage. Why???

I adjusted the focal length of the focusing lens and reduced the beam size enough to mask with the razor blade edge while looking at the camera and then making measurements using PD.

I am still not satisfied with this data because the R of the HR surface measured after flipping seems totally unbelievable (at around 0.45).

G&H AR reflectivity

R percentage

11 ppm @4 deg
19.8 ppm @6 deg
20 ppm @ 8 deg
30 ppm @ 20 deg

Is it possible to calculate astigmatism with your tools?  Can we get curvature in X/Y direction, preferably aligned with some axis that we might align to in the vacuum?

 Gooch & Housego optics order specification from 03-13-2010

Side 1: HR Reflectivity >99.99 % at 1064 nm for 0-45 degrees for S & P polarization

Side 2: AR coat R <0.15

The HR coating scans uploaded to 40mwiki / Aux optics today

Below are new alamode calculations of the PRC and SRC g-factors and arm mode matchings.  These include fixes to the ABCD matrices for the flipped folding mirrors that properly (hopefully) take into account the focusing effect of passing through the optic substrates.

I've used nominal curvatures of -600 m for the G&H PR2/SR2 optics, and -700 m for the Laseroptik PR3/SR3 dichroics.

An interesting and slightly disappointing note is that it looks like it actually would have been better to flip PR3 instead of PR2, although the difference isn't too big.  We should considering flipping SR3 instead or SR2 when dealing with the SRC.  I'll take responsibility for messing up the calculation for the flipped TTs.

PRC

SRC

RXA: maybe nominal, but we don't actually have measurements of the installed optics' curvatures, so there could be ~10-15% errors in the RoC. Which translates into a 1-2% error in the g-factor.

I think we like the idea of flipping SR2 better than SR3 for the same ghost beam reasons as PR2 is better than PR3.  There isn't very much free space in the BS chamber, and if we flip PR/SR3, we have to deal with green ghosts as well as IR.

The flipping SR2 case seems okay to me - flipping either one of the SR folding mirrors gives us a slightly better g-factor than the design with infinite curvatures, and flipping SR2 gives us slightly better mode matching to the arm than the flipped SR3 case, but more importantly, there are fewer ghosts to deal with.  I vote we flip SR2, not SR3.

In case anyone is curious how I got the numbers for the effective radius of curvature of the flipped TT mirrors, I include the code below.  Now you can calculate at home!

Here's the calculation for the effective RoC of a flipped SR2 with nominal un-flipped HR RoC of -600:

>> [Mt, Ms] = TTflipped(600, 5);
>> M2Reff('t', Mt, 5)

ans =

  412.9652

>>

I've attempted to visualize the various components of the cost function in the way I've defined it for the current iteration of the Oplev optimal control loop design code. For each term in the cost function, the way the cost is computed depends on the ratio of the abscissa value to some threshold value (set by hand for now) - if this ratio is >1, the cost is the logarithm of the ratio, whereas if the ratio is <1, the cost is the square of the ratio. Continuity is enforced at the point at which this transition happens. I've plotted the cost function for some of the terms entering the code right now - indicated in dashed red lines are the approximate value of each of these costs for our current Oplev loop - the weights were chosen so that each of the costs were O(10) for the current controller, and the idea was that the optimizer could drive these down to hopefully O(1), but I've not yet gotten that to happen.

Based on the meeting yesterday, some possible ideas:

1. For minimizing the control noise injection - we know the transfer function from the Oplev control signal coupling to MICH from measurements, and we also have a model for the seismic noise. So one term could be a weighted integral of (coupling - seismic) - the weight can give more importance to f>30Hz, and even more importance to f>100Hz. Right now, I don't have any suc frequency dependant requirement on the control signal.
2. Try a simpler problem first - pendulum local damping. The position damping controller for example has fewer roots in the complex plane. Although it too has some B/R notches, which account for 16 complex roots, and hence, 32 parameters, so maybe this isn't really a simpler problem?
3. How do we pick the number of excess poles compared to zeros in the overall transfer function? The OL loop low-pass filters are elliptic filters, which achieve the fastest transition between the passband and stopband, but for the Oplev loop roll-off, perhaps its better to have a just have some poles to roll off the HF response?

I've made various changes to the optimal loop design approach, but am still not having much success. A summary of changes made:

1. Parametrization of filter - enforcing uniqueness
   • Previously, the input to the particle swarm was a vector of root frequencies and associated Q-factors.
   • This way of parametrization is not unique - permuting the order of the roots yield the same filter, but particles traversing the high (65) dimensional parameter space may have to go over very expensive regions in order to converge with the global minimum / best performing particle.
   • One way around this is to parametrize the filter by the highest pole/zero frequency, and then specifying the remaining roots by the cumulative separation from this highest root. This guarantees that a unique vector input to the particle swarm function specifies a unique filter.
   • To avoid negative frequencies, I manually set a particular element of the vector to 0 if the cumulative sum yields a negative frequency. I believe this is how MATLAB's particle swarm implements the "constraints" in the constrained optimization routines.
2. Cost function - I've reformulated this into something that makes more sense to me, but probably can be improved further.
   • Term #1 - integral of the area (evaluated with MATLAB's trapz utility) between the in-loop (i.e. suppressed) error signal and the sensing noise spectrum (for the latter, I use the orange curve from this plot). This is a signed number, so that suppression below the sensing noise is penalized. Target value is 1 urad rtHz. One problem I see with this approach is that if we believe the sensing noise measurement, then even at 10mHz, it looks like sensing noise is below the out-of-loop error signal level. So the optimizer doesn't seem to want to make the loop AC coupled.
   • Term #2 - stability margin. I'm using this number, which is the distance-of-closest-approach to the point -1 in the Nyquist plot, instead of gain and phase margins, as this yields a more conservative robustness measure. Target value is 0.65.
   • Term #3 - A2L contribution of in-loop control signal. This contribution is calculated using measurements of A2L coupling for the DRMI. The actual term that goes into the cost function is the ratio of the area under the in-loop control signal to that under the seismic noise curve above 35Hz. Further, f>100Hz is given 10x the weight of 35Hz<f<100Hz (I've not really played around with this weighting function). The goal is to be as close to the seismic curve as possible, at which point this term becomes 1.
   • Terms #4 and #5 - the maximum open loop gain evaluated in a 1Hz wide bin centered around the bounce and roll resonances. The aim is to not exceed -40dB in these bins. Perhaps this needs to be reformulated, as the optimizer seems to be giving this term too much importance - the optimized loops have extremely deep bandstops around the BR resonances.
   • To normalize each term, I divide by the "target" value mentioned above, so as to make the various terms comparable.
   • Each term in the cost function has two regimes - one where it is rapidly varying close to the desired operating point, and one far away where the cost still increases monotonically, but slower (see Attachment #2).
   • A scalar cost function is evaluated by taking a weighted sum of the above terms. The weights are chosen so as to make each term ~10 for the controller currently implemented.
   • All of the above are only applicable if the resulting loop is stable - else, a large cost is assigned (exponential of sum of real parts of poles of OLTF).

Attachment #1 shows the outcome of a typical optimization run - so while I am having some more success with this than before, where the PSO algorithm was stalling and terminating before any actual optimization was done, it seems like I need to re-think the cost function yet again...

Attachment #2 shows the current terms entering the cost function, and their "desired" values.

The current version of the code I am using is here: although I may not have inculded some of the data files required to run it, to be fixed...

When putting code into git.ligo.org, one way to have automated testing is to use the Gitlab CI. This is an automated 'checker', much like the 'Travis' system used in GitHub. Essentially, you give it a make files which it runs somewhere and your GIT repo web page gets a little 'failed/passing' badge telling you if its working. You can also browse the logs to see in detail what happened. This avoids the 'but it works on my computer!' thing that we usually hear.

Another cool feature is client side pre-commit hooks. They can be used to run checks on the local version at the time of commit and refuses to push until the pass/fail exits 0.

Can be the same as the Gitlab CI or just basic code quality checks.  I use them to prevent jupyter notebooks being commited with uncleared cells. It needs to be set up on the user's computer manually and is not automatically cloned with the directory: a script can be included in the repo to do this and run manually on first time clone.

After some more tweaking, I feel like I may be getting closer to a cost-function definition that works.

• The main change I made was to effectively separate the BR-bandstop filter poles/zeros and the rest of the poles and zeros.
• So now the input vector is still a list of highest pole frequency followed by frequency separations, but I can specify much tighter frequency bounds for the roots of the part of the transfer function corresponding to the Bounce/Roll bandstops.
• This in turn considerably reduces the swarming area - at the moment, half of the roots are for the notches, and in the (f0,Q) basis, I see no reason for the bounds on f0 to be wider than [10,30]Hz.

Some things to figure out:

1. How the "force" the loop to be AC coupled without explicitly requiring it to be so? What should the AC coupling frequency be? From the (admittedly cursory) sensing noise measurement, it would seem that the Oplev error signal is above sensing noise even at frequencies as low as 10mHz.
2. In general, the loops seem to do well in reducing sensing noise injection - but they seem to do this at the expense of the loop gain at ~1Hz, which is not what we want.
   • I am going to try and run the optimizer with an excess of poles relative to zeros
   • Currently, n(Poles) = n(Zeros), and this is the condition required for elliptic low pass filters, which achieve fast transition between the passband and stopband - but we could just as well use a less rapid, but more monotonic roll-off. So the gain at 50Hz might be higher, but at 200Hz, we could perhaps do better with this approach.
3. The loop shape between 10 and 30Hz that the optimizer outputs seems a but weird to me - it doesn't really quite converge to a bandstop. Need to figure that out.

[Anchal, Radhika, Jamie, Chris]

We conducted a test of three alternative controllers for the IMC pitch DOFs on Friday. These were loaded into a new RTS model c1sbr, which runs on the c1ioo front end as a user-space program at 256 Hz. It communicates with the c1ioo controller via shared memory IPCs to exchange error and control signals.

The IMC maintained lock during the handoffs, and we were able to take one minute of data for each (circa GPS 1349807926, 1349808426, 1349808751; spectra attached), which we can review to assess the performance vs the baseline. (On the first trial, lock was lost at the end when the script tried to switch back to the baseline controller, because we did not take care to clear the integrators. On subsequent trials we did that part by hand.)

The method of setting up this test was convoluted, but now that we see it working, we can start putting in the merge requests to get the changes better integrated into the system. First, modifications were required to the realtime code generator, to get controllers running at the new sample rate of 256 Hz. (This was done in a separate filesystem image on fb1, /diskless/root.buster256, which is only loaded by c1ioo, so as to isolate the changes from the other front end machines.) The generated code then needed hand-edits to insert additional header files and linker options, so that the alternative controllers could be loaded from .so shared libraries. Also, the kernel parameters had to be set as described here, to allow the user-space controller to have a CPU core all to itself. Finally, isolating the core was done following the recipe in this script (skipping the parts related to docker, since we didn’t use it).

WFS loops were running for past 2 hours when I made the overall gain slider zero at:

PDT: 2022-10-18 20:42:53.505256 PDT
UTC: 2022-10-19 03:42:53.505256 UTC
GPS: 1350186191.505256

The output values are fixed to a good alignment. IMC transmission is about 14100 counts right now. I'll turn on the loop tomorrow morning. Data from tonight can be used for monitoing open loop noise.

Turning WFS loops back on at:

PDT: 2022-10-19 09:48:16.956979 PDT
UTC: 2022-10-19 16:48:16.956979 UTC
GPS: 1350233314.956979

Five more mode cleaner alignment controllers were tested this morning (remotely). These were designed to run in tandem with the standard controller, instead of supplanting it. Before the test, c1ioo was burt restored back to the settings of the previous test on Oct 28, and in MC TRANS PIT/YAW filter banks the 80 dB gain filters were disengaged and outputs were enabled. Subsequently, all settings were returned to the original values. Each test consisted of five minutes with pitch alignment uncontrolled, five minutes with the standard controller only, and twenty minutes with both controllers enabled. GPS times for each phase of testing are the following:

• musgo
  • OL start 1353602764
  • CL start 1353603074
  • policy start 1353603410
• musgo_ghost
  • OL start 1353604697
  • CL start 1353605007
  • policy start 1353605355
• musgo_stumble
  • OL start 1353606574
  • CL start 1353606884
  • policy start 1353607229
• musgo_goldfish
  • OL start 1353608446
  • CL start 1353608756
  • policy start 1353609099
• musgo_late
  • OL start 1353610321
  • CL start 1353610631
  • policy start 1353610971

Another five mode cleaner alignment controllers were tested last night (remotely), running in tandem with the standard controller. As before, c1ioo was burt restored to Oct 28 and the MC TRANS PIT/YAW 80dB gain filters were disabled before the test. Each test consisted of five minutes with pitch alignment uncontrolled, five minutes with the standard controller only, and twenty minutes with both controllers enabled.

The first four tests went smoothly, but the last controller (goldfish_short) repeatedly broke the lock. Eventually I got it running with an output gain of 0.5, strong enough to see the misbehavior without unlocking the mode cleaner.

GPS times for each phase of testing were the following:

1. ichabod
   • Open loop 1354165556
   • Closed loop 1354165866
   • Policy 1354166241

1. ichabod_2
   • Open loop 1354167462
   • Closed loop 1354167772
   • Policy 1354168113

1. ichabod_3
   • Open loop 1354169357
   • Closed loop 1354169667
   • Policy 1354170006

1. goldfish_long
   • Open loop 1354171297
   • Closed loop 1354171607
   • Policy 1354172022

1. goldfish_short
   • Open loop 1354173255
   • Closed loop 1354173565
   • Policy 1354173924 (output gain 1.0, immediately unlocked the cavity)
   • Policy 1354175008 (output gain 0.1, 2 min)
   • Policy 1354175189 (output gain 0.3, 2 min)
   • Policy 1354175376 (output gain 0.5, 20 min)

Three additional mode cleaner alignment controllers were tested Sunday night (remotely). They were run in tandem with the (recently improved) standard controller. Each test consisted of five minutes with pitch alignment uncontrolled, five minutes with the standard controller only, and twenty minutes with both controllers enabled.

GPS times for each phase of testing were the following:

1. slug_functional
   • Open loop 1355466269
   • Closed loop 1355466579
   • Policy 1355466987
2. slug_hippocamp
   • Open loop 1355468210
   • Closed loop 1355468520
   • Policy 1355468849
3. slug_hippocamp_slow
   • Open loop 1355470093
   • Closed loop 1355470403
   • Policy 1355470855

1) Lock it down.
2) Turn it sideways. Use the leveling screws to center the bubble level.
3) Carefully loosen the hanger rod and release slowly the tension to allow
   the mass to recenter.
4) Look through the little viewhole next to the rod to make the white lines
   line up. This means the mass is centered.
5) Look at the output on a scope. It should be freely moving with a ~1 sec.
   period.