40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 100 of 339  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Category Subjectup
  12668   Tue Dec 6 13:37:02 2016 KojiUpdateIOOIMC WFS Demod board measurement & analysis

I have implemented the modification to the demod boards (Attachment 1).
Now, I am looking at the noise in the whitening board. Attachment 2 shows the comparison of the error signal with the input of the whitening filter shorted and with the 50ohm terminator on the demodulator board. The message is that the whitening filter dominates the noise below 3Hz.

I am looking at the schematic of the whitening board D990196-B. It has an VGA AD602 at the input. I could not find the gain setting for this chip.
If the gain input is fixed at 0V, AD602 has the gain of 10dB. The later stages are the filters. I presume they have the thick film resistors.
Then they may also cause the noise. Not sure which is the case yet.

Also it seems that 0.7Hz noise is still present. We can say that this is coming from the demod board but not on the work bench but in the eurocard crate.

Attachment 1: demod.pdf
demod.pdf
Attachment 2: WFS_error_noise.pdf
WFS_error_noise.pdf
  12748   Tue Jan 24 01:04:16 2017 gautamSummaryIOOIMC WFS RF power levels

Summary:

I got around to doing this measurement today, using a minicircuits bi-directional coupler (ZFBDC20-61-HP-S+), along with some SMA-LEMO cables.

  • With the IMC "well aligned" (MC transmission maximized, WFS control signals ~0), the RF power per quadrant into the Demod board is of the order of tens of pW up to a 100pW.
  • With MC1 misaligned such that the MC transmission dropped by ~10%, the power per quadrant into the demod board is of the order of hundreds of pW.
  • In both cases, the peak at 29.5MHz was well above the analyzer noise floor (>20dB for the smaller RF signals), which was all that was visible in the 1MHz span centered around 29.5 MHz (except for the side-lobes described later).
  • There is anomalously large reflection from Quadrant 2 input to the Demod board for both WFS
  • The LO levels are ~-12dBm, ~2dBm lower than the 10dBm that I gather is the recommended level from the AD831 datasheet
Quote:

We should insert a bi-directional coupler (if we can find some LEMO to SMA converters) and find out how much actual RF is getting into the demod board.


Details:

I first aligned the mode cleaner, and offloaded the DC offsets from the WFS servos.

The bi-directional coupler has 4 ports: Input, Output, Coupled forward RF and Coupled Reverse RF. I connected the LEMO going to the input of the Demod board to the Input, and connected the output of the coupler to the Demod board (via some SMA-LEMO adaptor cables). The two (20dB) coupled ports were connected to the Agilent spectrum analyzer, which have input impedance 50ohms and hence should be impedance matched to the coupled outputs. I set the analyzer to span 1MHz (29-30MHz), IF BW 30Hz, 0dB input attenuation. It was not necessary to turn on averaging to resolve the peaks at ~29.5MHz since the IF bandwidth was fine enough.

I took two sets of measurements, one with the IMC well aligned (I maximized the MC Trans as best as I could to ~15,000 cts), and one with a macroscopic misalignment to MC1 such that the MC Trans fell to 90% of its usual value (~13,500 cts). The peak function on the analyzer was used to read off the peak height in dBm. I then converted this to RF power, which is summarized in the table below. I did not account for the main line loss of the coupler, but according to the datasheet, the maximum value is 0.25dB so there numbers should be accurate to ~10% (so I'm really quoting more S.Fs than I should be).

WFS Quadrant Pin (pW) Preflected(pW) Pin-demod board (pW)

IMC well aligned

1 1 50.1 12.6 37.5
2 20.0 199.5 -179.6
3 28.2 10.0 18.2
4 70.8 5.0

65.8

2 5 100 19.6 80.0
6 56.2 158.5 -102.3
7 125.9 6.3 11.5
8 17.8 6.3

119.6
 

WFS Quadrant Pin (pW) Preflected(pW) Pin-demod board (pW)

MC1 Misaligned

1 1 501.2 5.0 496.2
2 630.6 208.9 422
3 871.0 5.0 866
4 407.4 16.6

190.8

2 5 407.4 28.2 379.2
6 316.2 141.3 175.0
7 199.5 15.8 183.7
8 446.7 10.0 436.7

 

For the well aligned measurement, there was ~0.4mW incident on WFS1, and ~0.3mW incident on WFS2 (measured with Ophir power meter, filter out).

I am not sure how to interpret the numbers for quadrants #2 and #6 in the first table, where the reverse coupled RF power was greater than the forward coupled RF power. But this measurement was repeatable, and even in the second table, the reverse coupled power from these quadrants are more than 10x the other quadrants. The peaks were also well above (>10dBm) the analyzer noise floor 

I haven't gone through the full misalginment -> Power coupled to TEM10 mode algebra to see if these numbers make sense, but assuming a photodetector responsivity of 0.8A/W, the product (P1P2) of the powers of the beating modes works out to ~tens of pW (for the IMC well aligned case), which seems reasonable as something like P1~10uW, P2 ~ 5uW would lead to P1P2~50pW. This discussion was based on me wrongly looking at numbers for the aLIGO WFS heads, and Koji pointed out that we have a much older generation here. I will try and find numbers for the version we have and update this discussion.

Misc:

  1. For the sake of completeness, the LO levels are ~ -12.1dBm for both WFS demod boards (reflected coupling was negligible)
  2. In the input signal coupled spectrum, there were side lobes (about 10dB lower than the central peak) at 29.44875 MHz and 29.52125 MHz (central peak at 29.485MHz) for all of the quadrants. These were not seen for the LO spectra.
  3. Attached is a plot of the OSEM sensor signals during the time I misaligned MC1 (in both pitch and yaw approximately by equal amounts). Assuming 2V/mm for the OSEM calibration, the approximate misalignment was by ~10urad in each direction.
  4. No IMC suspension glitching the whole time I was working today yes

 

Attachment 1: MC1_misalignment.png
MC1_misalignment.png
  12759   Fri Jan 27 00:14:02 2017 gautamSummaryIOOIMC WFS RF power levels

It was raised at the Wednesday meeting that I did not check the RF pickup levels while measuring the RF error signal levels into the Demod board. So I closed the PSL shutter, and re-did the measurement with the same measurement scheme. The detailed power levels (with no light incident on the WFS, so all RF pickup) is reported in the table below.

IMC WFS RF Pickup levels @ 29.5MHz
WFS Quadrant Pin (pW) Preflected
1 1 0.21 10.
2 1.41 148
3 0.71 7.1
4 0.16 3.6
2 1 0.16 10.5
2 1.48 166
3 0.81 5.1
4 0.56 0.33

These numbers can be subtracted from the corresponding columns in the previous elog to get a more accurate estimate of the true RF error signal levels. Note that the abnormal behaviour of Quadrant #2 on both WFS demod boards persists.

  14709   Sun Jun 30 19:47:09 2019 ranaUpdateIOOIMC WFS agenda

we are thinking of doing a sprucing up of the input mode cleaner WFS (sensors + electronics + feedback loops)

  1. WFS Heads
    1. it has been known since ~2002 that the RF circuits in the heads oscillate. 
    2. in the attached PDF you can see that 2 opamps (U3 & U4; MAX4106) are used to amplify the tank circuit made up of the photodiode capacitance and L6.
    3. due to poor PCB layout (the output of U4 runs close to the input of U3) the opamps oscillate if the if the Reed relay (RY2) is left open (not attenuating)
    4. we need to remove/disable the relay
    5. also remove U3 for each quadrant so that it has a fixed gain of (TBD) and a 50 Ohm output
    6. also check that all the resonances are tuned to 1f, 2f, & 3f respectively
  2. Demod boards
  3. DC quadrant readouts
  4. Whitening
  5. Noise budget of sensors, including electronics chain
  6. diagonalization of sensors / actuators
  7. Requirements -
  8. Optical Layout
  9. What does the future hold ?

  1. what is our preferred pin-for-pin replacement for the MAX4106/MAX4107? internet suggests AD9632. Anyone have any experience with it? The Rabbott uses LMH6642 in the aLIGO WFSs. It has a lower slew rate than 9632, but they both have the same distortion of ~ -60 dB for 29.5 MHz.
  2. the whole DC current readout is weird. Should have a load resistor and go into the + input of the opamp, so as to decouple it from the RF stuff. Also why such a fast part? Should have used a OP27 equivalent or LT1124.
  3. LEMO connectors for RF are bad. Wonder if we could remove them and put SMA panel mount on there.
  4. as usual, makes me feel like replacing with better heads...and downstream electronics...
Attachment 1: WFS-Head.pdf
WFS-Head.pdf
  15747   Sun Jan 3 16:26:06 2021 KojiUpdateSUSIMC WFS check (Yet another round of Sat. Box. switcharoo)

I wanted to check the functionality of the IMC WFS. I just turned on the WFS servo loops as they were. For the past two hours, they didn't run away. The servo has been left turned on. I don't think there is no reason to keep it turned off.

Attachment 1: Screen_Shot_2021-01-03_at_17.14.57.png
Screen_Shot_2021-01-03_at_17.14.57.png
  10728   Thu Nov 20 22:43:15 2014 KojiUpdateIOOIMC WFS damping gain adjustment

From the measured OLTF, the dynamics of the damped suspension was inferred by calculating H_damped = H_pend / (1+OLTF).
Here H_pend is a pendulum transfer function. For simplicity, the DC gain of the unity is used. The resonant frequency of the mode
is estimated from the OLTF measurement. Because of inprecise resonant frequency for each mode, calculated damped pendulum
has glitches at the resonant frequency. In fact measurement of the OLTF at the resonant freq was not precise (of course). We can
just ignore this glitchiness (numerically I don't know how to do it particularly when the residual Q is high).

Here is my recommended values to have the residual Q of 3~5 for each mode.

MC1 SUS POS current  75   -> x3   = 225
MC1 SUS PIT current   7.5 -> x2   =  22.5
MC1 SUS YAW current  11   -> x2   =  22
MC1 SUS SD  current 300   -> x2   = 600

MC2 SUS POS current  75   -> x3   = 225
MC2 SUS PIT current  20   -> x0.5 =  10
MC2 SUS YAW current   8   -> x1.5 =  12
MC2 SUS SD  current 300   -> x2   = 600

MC3 SUS POS current  95   -> x3   = 300
MC3 SUS PIT current   9   -> x1.5 =  13.5
MC3 SUS YAW current   6   -> x1.5 =   9
MC3 SUS SD  current 250   -> x3   = 750


This is the current setting in the end.

MC1 SUS POS 150
MC1 SUS PIT  15
MC1 SUS YAW  15
MC1 SUS SD  450

MC2 SUS POS 150
MC2 SUS PIT  10
MC2 SUS YAW  10
MC2 SUS SD  450

MC3 SUS POS 200
MC3 SUS PIT  12
MC3 SUS YAW   8
MC3 SUS SD  500

Attachment 1: MC_OLTF_CLTF.pdf
MC_OLTF_CLTF.pdf MC_OLTF_CLTF.pdf MC_OLTF_CLTF.pdf MC_OLTF_CLTF.pdf MC_OLTF_CLTF.pdf MC_OLTF_CLTF.pdf MC_OLTF_CLTF.pdf MC_OLTF_CLTF.pdf
  10561   Thu Oct 2 20:54:45 2014 KojiUpdateIOOIMC WFS measurements

[Eric Koji]

We made sensing matrix measurements for the IMC WFS and the MC2 QPD.

The data is under further analysis but here is some record of the current state to show
IMC Trans RIN and the ASC error signals with/without IMC ASC loops

The measureents were done automatically running DTT. This can be done by

/users/Templates/MC/wfsTFs/run_measurements

The analysis is in preparation so that it provides us a diagnostic report in a PDF file.

Attachment 1: IMC_RIN_141002.pdf
IMC_RIN_141002.pdf
Attachment 2: IMC_WFS_141002.pdf
IMC_WFS_141002.pdf
  10564   Fri Oct 3 13:03:05 2014 ericqUpdateIOOIMC WFS measurements

Yesterday, Koji and I measured the transfer function of pitch and yaw excitations of each MC mirror, directly to each quadrant of each WFS QPD. 

When I last touched the WFS settings, I only used MC2 excitations to set the individual quadrant demodulation phases, but Koji pointed out that this could be incomplete, since motion of the curved MC2 mirror is qualitatively different than motion of the flat 1&3. 

We set up a DTT file with twenty TFs (the excitation to I & Q of each WFS quadrant, and the MC2 trans quadrants), and then used some perl find and replace magic to create an xml file for each excitation. These are the files called by the measurement script Koji wrote. 

I then wrote a MATLAB script that uses the magical new dttData function Koji and Nic have created, to extract the TF data at the excitation frequency, and build up the sensing elements. I broke the measurements down by detector and excitation coordinate (pitch or yaw).

The amplitudes of the sensing elements in the following plots are normalized to the single largest response of any of the QPD's quadrants to an excitation in the given coordinate, the angles are unchanged. From this, we should be able to read off the proper digital demodulation angles for each segment, confirm the signs of their combinations for pitch and yaw, and construct the sensing matrix elements of the properly rotated signals. 

WFS1PIT.pdfWFS2PIT.pdf

WFS1YAW.pdfWFS2YAW.pdf

The axes of each quadrant look consistent across mirrors, which is good, as it nails down the proper demod angle. 

The xml files and matlab script used to generate these plots is attached. (It requires the dttData functions however, which are in the svn (and the dttData functions require a MATLAB newer than 2012b))

Attachment 5: analyzeWfs.zip
  10565   Sun Oct 5 10:09:49 2014 ranaUpdateIOOIMC WFS measurements

It seems clever, but I wonder why use DTT and command line perl, instead of using the FE lockins or just demod the offline data or all of the other sensing matrix scripts made for the LSC (at 40m) or ASC (at LLO) ?

  10566   Sun Oct 5 23:43:08 2014 KojiUpdateIOOIMC WFS measurements

There are several non scientific reasons.

  16108   Mon May 3 09:14:01 2021 Anchal, PacoUpdateLSCIMC WFS noise contribution in arm cavity length noise

Lock ARMs

  • Try IFO Configure ! Restore Y Arm (POY) and saw XARM lock, not YARM. Looks like YARM biases on ITMY and ETMY are not optimal, so we slide C1:SUS-ETMY_OFF from 3.0 --> -14.0 and watch Y catch its lock.
  • Run ASS scripts for both arms and get TRY/TRX ~ 0.95
    • We ran X, then Y and noted that TRX dropped to ~0.8 so we ran it again and it was well after that. From now on, we will do Y, then X.

WFS1 noise injection

  • Turn WFS limits off by running switchOffWFSlims.sh
  • Inject broadband noise (80-90 Hz band) of varying amplitudes from 100 - 100000 counts on C1:IOO-WFS1_PIT_EXC
  • After this we try to track its propagation through various channels, starting with
    • C1:LSC-XARM_IN1_DQ / C1:LSC-YARM_IN1_DQ
    • C1:SUS-ETMX_LSC_OUT_DQ / C1:SUS-ETMY_LSC_OUT_DQ
    • C1:IOO-MC_F_DQ
    • C1:SUS-MC1_**COIL_OUT / C1:SUS-MC2_**COIL_OUT / C1:SUS-MC3_**COIL_OUT
    • C1:IOO-WFS1_PIT_ERR / C1:IOO-WFS1_YAW_ERR
    • C1:IOO-WFS1_PIT_IN2

** denotes [UL, UR, LL, LR]; the output coils.

  • Attachment 1 shows the power spectra with IMC unlocked
  • Attachment 2 shows the power spectra with the ARMs (and IMC) locked
Attachment 1: WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_IMC_unlocked.pdf
WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_IMC_unlocked.pdf WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_IMC_unlocked.pdf WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_IMC_unlocked.pdf WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_IMC_unlocked.pdf WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_IMC_unlocked.pdf WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_IMC_unlocked.pdf WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_IMC_unlocked.pdf WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_IMC_unlocked.pdf WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_IMC_unlocked.pdf
Attachment 2: WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_ARM_locked.pdf
WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_ARM_locked.pdf WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_ARM_locked.pdf WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_ARM_locked.pdf WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_ARM_locked.pdf WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_ARM_locked.pdf WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_ARM_locked.pdf WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_ARM_locked.pdf WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_ARM_locked.pdf WFS1_PIT_Noise_Inj_Test_ARM_locked.pdf
  16112   Mon May 3 17:28:58 2021 Anchal, Paco, RanaUpdateLSCIMC WFS noise contribution in arm cavity length noise

Rana came and helped us figure us where to inject the noise. Following are the characteristics of the test we did:

  • Inject normal noise at C1:IOO-MC1_PIT_EXC using AWGGUI.
  • Excitation amplitude of 54321 in band 12-37Hz with Cheby1 8th order bandpass filter with same limits.
  • Look at power spectrum of C1:IOO-MC_F_DQ, C1:IOO-WFS1-PIT_OUT_DQ and the C1:IOO-MC1_PIT_EXC itself.
  • Increased the gain of the noise excitation until we see some effect in MC_F.
  • Diaggui also showed coherence plot in the bottom, which let's us have an estimate of how much we need to go further.

Attachment 1 shows a screenshot with awggui and diaggui screens displaying the signal in both angular and longitudinal channels.

Attachment 2 shows the analogous screenshot for MC2.

 

Attachment 1: excitationoftheMCanglessothatwecanseesomethingdotpng.png
excitationoftheMCanglessothatwecanseesomethingdotpng.png
Attachment 2: excitationoftheMCanglessothatwecanseesomethingdotpngbutthistimeitsMC2.png
excitationoftheMCanglessothatwecanseesomethingdotpngbutthistimeitsMC2.png
  16117   Tue May 4 11:43:09 2021 Anchal, PacoUpdateLSCIMC WFS noise contribution in arm cavity length noise

We redid the WFS noise injection test and have compiled some results on noise contribution in arm cavity noise and IMC frequency noise due to angular noise of IMC.


Attachment 1: Shows the calibrated noise contribution from MC1 ASCPIT OUT to ARM cavity length noise and IMC frequency noise.

  • For calibrating the cavity length noise signals, we sent 100 cts 100Hz sine excitation to ITMX/Y_LSC_EXC, used actuator calibration for them as 2.44 nm/cts from 13984, and measured the peak at 100 hz in time series data. We got calibration factors: ETMX-LSC_OUT: 60.93 pm/cts , and ETMY-LSC_OUT: 205.0 pm/cts.
  • For converting IMC frequency noise to length noise, we used conversion factor given by \lambda L / c where L is 37.79m and lambda is wavelength of light.
  • For converting MC1 ASCPIT OUT cts data to frequency noise contributed to IMC, we sent 100,000 amplitude bandlimited noise (see attachment 3 for awggui config) from 25 Hz to 30 Hz at C1:IOO-MC1_PIT_EXC. This noise was seen at both MC_F and ETMX/Y_LSC_OUT channels. We used the noise level at 29 Hz to get a calibration for MC1_ASCPIT_OUT to IMC Frequency in Hz/cts. See Attachment 2 for the diaggui plots.
  • Once we got the calibration above, we measured MC1_ASCPIT_OUT power spectrum without any excitaiton and multiplied it with the calibration factor.
  • However, something must be wrong because the MC_F noise in length units is coming to be higher than cavity length noise in most of the frequency band.
    • It can be due to the fact that control signal power spectrum is not exactly cavity length noise at all frequencies.  That should be only above the UGF of the control loop (we plan to measure that in afternoon).
    • Our calibration for ETMX/Y_LSC_OUT might be wrong.
Attachment 1: ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf
ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf
Attachment 2: IOO-MC1_PIT_NoiseInjTest2.pdf
IOO-MC1_PIT_NoiseInjTest2.pdf IOO-MC1_PIT_NoiseInjTest2.pdf
Attachment 3: IOO-MC1_PIT_NoiseInjTest_AWGGUI_Config.png
IOO-MC1_PIT_NoiseInjTest_AWGGUI_Config.png
  16127   Fri May 7 11:54:02 2021 Anchal, PacoUpdateLSCIMC WFS noise contribution in arm cavity length noise

We today measured the calibration factors for XARM_OUT and YARM_OUT in nm/cts and replotted our results from 16117 with the correct frequency dependence.


Calibration of XARM_OUT and YARM_OUT

  • We took transfer function measurement between ITMX/Y_LSC_OUT and X/YARM_OUT. See attachment 1 and 2
  • For ITMX/Y_LSC_OUT we took calibration factor of 3*2.44/f2 nm/cts from 13984. Note that we used the factor of 3 here as Gautum has explicitly written that the calibration cts are DAC cts at COIL outputs and there is a digital gain of 3 applied at all coil output gains in ITMX and ITMY that we confirmed.
  • This gave us callibration factors of XARM_OUT: 1.724/f2 nm/cts , and YARM_OUT: 4.901/f2 nm/cts. Note the frrequency dependence here.
  • We used the region from 70-80 Hz for calculating the calibration factor as it showed the most coherence in measurement.

Inferring noise contributions to arm cavities:

  • For converting IMC frequency noise to length noise, we used conversion factor given by \lambda L / c where L is 37.79m and lambda is wavelength of light.
  • For converting MC1 ASCPIT OUT cts data to frequency noise contributed to IMC, we sent 100,000 amplitude bandlimited noise  from 25 Hz to 30 Hz at C1:IOO-MC1_PIT_EXC. This noise was seen at both MC_F and ETMX/Y_LSC_OUT channels. We used the noise level at 29 Hz to get a calibration for MC1_ASCPIT_OUT to IMC Frequency in Hz/cts. This measurement was done in 16117.
  • Once we got the calibration above, we measured MC1_ASCPIT_OUT power spectrum without any excitaiton and multiplied it with the calibration factor.
  • Attachment 3 is our main result.
    • Page 1 shows the calculation of Angle to Length coupling by reading off noise injects in MC1_ASCPIT_OUT in MC_F. This came out to 10.906/f2 kHz/cts.
    • Page 2-3 show the injected noise in X arm cavity length units. Page 3 is the zoomed version to show the matching of the 2 different routes of calibration.
    • BUT, we needed to remove that factor of 3 we incorporated earlier to make them match.
    • Page 4 shows the noise contribution of IMC angular noise in XARM cavity.
    • Page 5-6 is similar to 2-3 but for YARM. The red note above applied here too! So the factor of 3 needed to be removed in both places.
    • Page 7 shows the noise contribution of IMC angular noise in XARM cavity.

Conclusions:

  • IMC Angular noise contribution to arm cavities is atleast 3 orders of magnitude lower then total armc cavity noise measured.

Edit Mon May 10 18:31:52 2021

See corrections in 16129.

Attachment 1: ITMX-XARM_TF.pdf
ITMX-XARM_TF.pdf ITMX-XARM_TF.pdf
Attachment 2: ITMY-YARM_TF.pdf
ITMY-YARM_TF.pdf ITMY-YARM_TF.pdf
Attachment 3: ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf
ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf
  16129   Mon May 10 18:19:12 2021 Anchal, PacoUpdateLSCIMC WFS noise contribution in arm cavity length noise, Corrections

A few corrections to last analysis:

  • The first plot was not IMC frequency noise but actually MC_F noise budget.
    • MC_F is frequency noise in the IMC FSS loop just before the error point where IMC length and laser frequency is compared.
    • So, MC_F (in high loop gain frequency region upto 10kHz) is simply the quadrature noise sum of free running laser noise and IMC length noise.
    • Between 1Hz to 100 Hz, normally MC_F is dominated by free running laser noise but when we injected enough angular noise in WFS loops, due to Angle to length coupling, it made IMC length noise large enough in 25-30 Hz band that we started seeing a bump in MC_F.
    • So this bump in MC_F is mostly the noise due to Angle to length coupling and hence can be used to calculate how much Angular noise normally goes into length noise.
  • In the remaining plots, MC_F was plotted with conversion into arm length units but this was wrong. MC_F gets suppressed by IMC FSS open loop gain before reaching to arm cavities and hence is hardly present there.
  • The IMC length noise however is not suppresed until after the error point in the loop. So the length noise (in units of Hz calculated in the first step above) travels through the arm cavity loop.
  • We already measured the transfer function from ITMX length actuation to XARM OUT, so we know how this length noise shows up at XARM OUT.
  • So in the remaining plots, we plot contribution of IMC angular noise in the arm cavities. Note that the factor of 3 business still needed to be done to match the appearance of noise in XARM_OUT and YARM_OUT signal from the IMC angular noise injection.
  • I'll post a clean loop diagram soon to make this loopology clearer.
Attachment 1: ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf
ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf ArmCavNoiseContributions.pdf
  14092   Fri Jul 20 22:51:28 2018 KojiUpdateIOOIMC WFS path alignment

IMC WFS tuning

- IMC was aligned manually to have maximum output and also spot at the center of the end QPD.
- The IMC WFS spots were aligned to be the center of the WFS QPDs.
- With the good alignment, WFS RF offset and MC2 QPD offsets were tuned via the scripts.

  10646   Tue Oct 28 14:07:28 2014 KojiUpdateIOOIMC WFS sensing matrix measurement

Last night the sensing matrix for IMC WFS&QPD were measured.

C1:IOO-MC(1, 2, 3)_(ASCPIT, ASCYAW)_EXC were excited at 5.01Hz with 100 count
The output of the WFS1/WFS2/QPD were measured. They all looked well responding
i.e. Pitch motion shows pitch error signals, Yaw motion shows yaw error signals.

The below is the transfer function from each suspension to the error signals

MC1P      MC2P     MC3P
-3.16e-4  1.14e-2  4.62e-3 -> WFS1P
 5.43e-3  8.22e-3 -2.79e-3 -> WFS2P
-4.03e-5 -3.98e-5 -3.94e-5 -> QPDP

MC1Y      MC2Y     MC3Y
-6.17e-4  6.03e-4  1.45e-4 -> WFS1Y
-2.43e-4  4.57e-3 -2.16e-3 -> WFS2Y
 7.08e-7  2.40e-6  1.32e-6 -> QPDY

Taking the inverse of these matrices, the scale was adjusted so that the dc response.

Attachment 1: 00.png
00.png
  10647   Tue Oct 28 15:27:25 2014 ericqUpdateIOOIMC WFS sensing matrix measurement

 I took some spectra of the error signals and MC2 Trans RIN with the loops off (blue) and on (red) during the current conditions of daytime seismic noise.

45.png

 

  10648   Tue Oct 28 20:47:08 2014 diegoUpdateIOOIMC WFS sensing matrix measurement

Today I started looking into the WFS problem and improvement, after being briefed by Koji and Nicholas. I started taking some measurements of open loop transfer functions for both PIT and YAW for WFS1, WFS2 and MC2_TRANS. For both WFS1 and 2 there is a peak in close proximity of the region with gain>1, and the phase margin is not very high. Tomorrow I will make measurements of the local damping open loop transfer functions, then we'll think how to improve the sensors' behaviour.

Attachment 1: 141028_MCWFS_WFS1_PIT_OL.pdf
141028_MCWFS_WFS1_PIT_OL.pdf
Attachment 2: 141028_MCWFS_WFS1_YAW_OL.pdf
141028_MCWFS_WFS1_YAW_OL.pdf
Attachment 3: 141028_MCWFS_WFS2_PIT_OL.pdf
141028_MCWFS_WFS2_PIT_OL.pdf
Attachment 4: 141028_MCWFS_WFS2_YAW_OL.pdf
141028_MCWFS_WFS2_YAW_OL.pdf
Attachment 5: 141028_MCWFS_MC2_TRANS_PIT_OL.pdf
141028_MCWFS_MC2_TRANS_PIT_OL.pdf
Attachment 6: 141028_MCWFS_MC2_TRANS_YAW_OL.pdf
141028_MCWFS_MC2_TRANS_YAW_OL.pdf
  10653   Thu Oct 30 02:12:59 2014 diegoUpdateIOOIMC WFS sensing matrix measurement

[Diego,Koji]

Today we took some measurements of transfer functions and power spectra of suspensions of the MC* mirrors (open loop), for all the DOFs (PIT, POS, SIDE, YAW); the purpose is to evaluate the Q factor of the resonances and then improve the local damping system.

Attachment 1: MC1_OL_PIT.pdf
MC1_OL_PIT.pdf
Attachment 2: MC1_OL_POS.pdf
MC1_OL_POS.pdf
Attachment 3: MC1_OL_SIDE.pdf
MC1_OL_SIDE.pdf
Attachment 4: MC1_OL_YAW.pdf
MC1_OL_YAW.pdf
Attachment 5: MC2_OL_PIT.pdf
MC2_OL_PIT.pdf
Attachment 6: MC2_OL_POS.pdf
MC2_OL_POS.pdf
Attachment 7: MC2_OL_SIDE.pdf
MC2_OL_SIDE.pdf
Attachment 8: MC2_OL_YAW.pdf
MC2_OL_YAW.pdf
Attachment 9: MC3_OL_PIT.pdf
MC3_OL_PIT.pdf
Attachment 10: MC3_OL_POS.pdf
MC3_OL_POS.pdf
Attachment 11: MC3_OL_SIDE.pdf
MC3_OL_SIDE.pdf
Attachment 12: MC3_OL_YAW.pdf
MC3_OL_YAW.pdf
  15165   Tue Jan 28 16:01:17 2020 gautamUpdateIOOIMC WFS servos stable again

With all of the shaking (man-made and divine), it was a hard to debug this problem. Summary of fixes:

  1. The beam was misaligned on the WFS 1 and 2 heads, as well as the MC2 trans QPD. I re-aligned the former with the IMC unlocked, the latter (see Attachment) with the IMC locked (but the MC2 spot centering loops disabled).
  2. I reset the WFS DC and RF offsets, as well as the QPD offsets (once I had hand-aligned the IMC mirrors to obtain good transmission).

At least the DC indicators are telling me that the IMC locking is back to a somewhat stable state. I have not yet checked the frequency noise / RIN.

Attachment 1: QPD_recenter.png
QPD_recenter.png
  15170   Tue Jan 28 20:51:37 2020 YehonathanUpdateIOOIMC WFS servos stable again

I resume my IMC ringdown activities now that the IMC is aligned again.

To avoid any accidental misalignments Gautam turned off all the inputs to the WFS servo.

I set up a PD and a lens as in attachment 1 (following Gautam's setup).

I connect the REFL, TRANS and INPut PDs to the oscilloscope.

I connect a Siglent function generator to the AOM driver. I try to shut off the light to the IMC using 1V DC waveform and pressing the output button manually. However, it produced heavily distorted step function in the PMC trans PD.

I use a square wave with a frequency of 20mHz instead with an amplitude of 0.5V offset of 0.25V and dutycycle of 1% so there will be minimal wasted time in the off state. I get nice ringdowns (attachment 2) - forgot to take pictures. The autolocker slightly misaligns the M2 every time it is acting, so I manually align it everytime the IMC gets unlocked.

Data analysis will come later.

I remove the PD and lens and reenable the WFS servo inputs. The IMC locks easily. The WFS outputs are very different than 0 now though.

  12680   Wed Dec 21 21:03:06 2016 KojiSummaryIOOIMC WFS tuning

- Updated the circuit diagrams:

IMC WFS Demodulator Board, Rev. 40m https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-D1600503

IMC WFS Whitening Board, Rev. 40m https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-D1600504

- Measured the noise levels of the whitening board, demodboard, and nominal free running WFS signals.

- IMC WFS demod phases for 8ch adjusted

Injected an IMC PDH error point offset (@1kHz, 10mV, 10dB gain) and adjusted the phase to have no signal in the Q phase signals.

- The WFS2 PITCH/YAW matrix was fixed

It was found that the WFS heads were rotated by 45 deg (->OK) in CW and CCW for WFS1 and 2, respectively (oh!), while the input matrices were identical! This made the pitch and yaw swapped for WFS2. (See attachment)

- Measured the TFs MC1/2/3 P/Y actuation to the error signals

Attachment 1: DSC_0142.JPG
DSC_0142.JPG
  12682   Thu Dec 22 18:39:09 2016 KojiSummaryIOOIMC WFS tuning

Noise analysis of the WFS error signals.

Attachment 1: All error signals compared with the noise contribution measured with the RF inputs or the whitening inputs terminated.

Attachment 2: Same plot for all the 16 channels. The first plot (WFS1 I1) shows the comparison of the current noise contributions and the original noise level measured with the RF terminated with the gain adjusted along with the circuit modification for the fair comparison. This plot is telling us that the electronics noise was really close to the error signal.

I wonder if we have the calibration of the IMC suspensions somewhere so that I can convert these plots in to rad/sqrtHz...?

Attachment 1: WFS_error_noise.pdf
WFS_error_noise.pdf
Attachment 2: WFS_error_noise_chans.pdf
WFS_error_noise_chans.pdf
  12683   Fri Dec 23 20:53:44 2016 KojiSummaryIOOIMC WFS tuning

WFS1 / WFS2 demod phases and WFS signal matrix

Attachment 1: DSC_0144.JPG
DSC_0144.JPG
Attachment 2: DSC_0145.JPG
DSC_0145.JPG
  12684   Fri Dec 23 21:05:56 2016 KojiSummaryIOOIMC WFS tuning

Signal transfer function measurements

C1:SUS-MC*_ASCPIT_EXC channels were excited for swept sine measurements.

The TFs to WFS1-I1~4, Q1~4, WFS1/2_PIT/YAW, MC2TRANS_PIT/YAW signals were recorded.

The MC1 and MC3 actuation seems to have ~30Hz elliptic LPF somewhere in the electronics chain.
This effect was compensated by subtracting the approximated time delay of 0.022sec.

The TFs were devided by freq^2 to make the response flat and averaged between 7Hz to 15Hz.
The results have been summarized in Attachment 3&4.

Attachment 4 has the signal sensing matrix. Note that this matrix was measured with the input gain of 0.1.

Input matrix for diagonalizing the actuation/sensor response

Pitch

\begin{pmatrix} -1.58983 & -0.901533 & -5592.53 \\ 0.961632 & -0.569662 & 1715.12 \\ 0.424609 & 1.60783 & -5157.38 \end{pmatrix}

e.g. To produce pure WFS1P reaction, => -1.59 MC1P + 0.962 MC2P + 0.425 MC3P

Yaw

\begin{pmatrix} 1.461 & -0.895191 & -4647.9 \\ 0.0797164 & 0.0127339 & -1684.11 \\ 0.223054 & -1.31518 & -4101.14 \end{pmatrix}

Attachment 1: IMC_WFS_segment_TF.pdf
IMC_WFS_segment_TF.pdf
Attachment 2: IMC_WFS_channels_TF.pdf
IMC_WFS_channels_TF.pdf
Attachment 3: IMC_WFS_161221_table1.pdf
IMC_WFS_161221_table1.pdf
Attachment 4: IMC_WFS_161221_table2.pdf
IMC_WFS_161221_table2.pdf
Attachment 5: IMC_WFS_161221.xlsx.zip
  12685   Sun Dec 25 14:39:59 2016 KojiSummaryIOOIMC WFS tuning

Now, the output matrices in the previous entry were implemented.
The WFS servo loops have been engaged for several hours.
So far the REFL and TRANS look straight. Let's see how it goes.

  12686   Mon Dec 26 12:45:31 2016 KojiSummaryIOOIMC WFS tuning

It didn't go crazy at least for the past 24hours.

Attachment 1: IMC_REFL_TRANS_26hrs.png
IMC_REFL_TRANS_26hrs.png
Attachment 2: IMC_TRANS_P_Y_26hrs.png
IMC_TRANS_P_Y_26hrs.png
  12688   Thu Dec 29 13:22:21 2016 ranaSummaryIOOIMC WFS tuning
  • For the rough calibration below 10 Hz, we can use the SUS OSEM cal: the SUSPIT and SUSYAW error signals are in units of micro-radians.
  • It seems from the noise plots that the demod board is now dominating over the whitening board noise.
  • If the RF signals at the demod input are low enough, we can consider either increasing the light power on the WFS or increasing the IMC mod. depth.
  • We should look at the out-of-lock light power on the WFS and re-examine what the 'safe' level is. We used to do this based on the dissipated electrical power (bias voltage x photocurrent).

At Hanford, there is this issue with laser jitter turning into an IMC error point noise injection. I wonder if we can try out taking the acoustic band WFS signal and adding it to the MC error point as a digital FF. We could then look at the single arm error signal to see if this makes any improvement. There might be too much digital delay in the WFS signals if the clock rate in the model is too low.

  12689   Thu Dec 29 16:52:51 2016 KojiSummaryIOOIMC WFS tuning

Koji responding to Rana

> For the rough calibration below 10 Hz, we can use the SUS OSEM cal: the SUSPIT and SUSYAW error signals are in units of micro-radians.

I can believe the calibration for the individual OSEMs. But the input matrix looked pretty random, and I was not sure how it was normalized.
If we accept errors by a factor of 2~3, I can just naively believe the calibration factors.

> If the RF signals at the demod input are low enough, we can consider either increasing the light power on the WFS or increasing the IMC mod. depth.

The demod chip has the conversion factor of about the unity. We increased the gains of the AF stages in the demod and whitening boards. However, we only have the RMS of 1~20 counts. This means that we have really small RF signals. We should check what's happening at the RF outputs of the WFS units. Do we have any attenuators in the RF chain? Can we skip them without making the WFS units unstable?

  12690   Thu Dec 29 21:35:30 2016 ranaSummaryIOOIMC WFS tuning

The WFS gains are supposedly maximized already. If we remotely try to increase the gain, the two MAX4106 chips in the RF path will oscillate with each other.

We should insert a bi-directional coupler (if we can find some LEMO to SMA converters) and find out how much actual RF is getting into the demod board.

Attachment 1: Screen_Shot_2017-01-03_at_5.55.13_PM.png
Screen_Shot_2017-01-03_at_5.55.13_PM.png
  12669   Tue Dec 6 16:47:40 2016 KojiUpdateIOOIMC WFS whitening filter investigation

The whitening board saids it is Rev B, but the actual component values are more like Rev. C.

The input stage (AD602) has an input resistor of 909 Ohm.
This is causing a big attenuation of the signal (x1/10) because the input impedance of AD602 is not high. And this screws up the logarithm of the gain.
I don't think this is a right approach.

Attachment 1: D990196-C.pdf
D990196-C.pdf
  12670   Tue Dec 6 17:54:08 2016 KojiUpdateIOOIMC WFS whitening filter investigation

The input resistor 909Ohm of AD602 was shorted. I've confirmed that the gain (= attenuation by voltage division) was increased by a factor of 10.
This modification was done for WFS2-I1 and WFS2-Q1. Also the thick film resistors for the WFS2-I1 channel was all replaced with thin film resistors.

Attachment 1 shows the comparison of the noise levels. The curves were all calibrated referred to the response of the original whitening filter configuration.
(i.e. measurement done after the gain change was compensated by the factor of 10.)

Now the AF chain is not limited by the noise in the whitening filter board. (Brown)
In fact, this noise level was completely identical between I1 and Q1. Therefore, I don't think we need this resistor replacement for the whitening filter board.

We can observe the improvement of the overall noise level below 10Hz. (Comparison between green and red/blue)
As the signal level goes up, the noise above 100Hz was also improved.

Now we need to take care of the n x 0.7Hz feature which is in the demod board...
 

Attachment 1: 34.png
34.png
  12671   Tue Dec 6 22:41:49 2016 KojiUpdateIOOIMC WFS whitening filter investigation

I have implemented the same modification (shorting the input resistor of AD602) to the two whitening boards.

  12676   Tue Dec 13 17:26:42 2016 KojiUpdateIOOIMC WFS whitening filter investigation

Rana pointed out that this modification (removal of 900Ohm) leave the input impedance as low as 100Ohm.
As OP284 can drive up to 10mA, the input can span only +/-1V with some nonlinearity.

Rather than reinstalling the 900Ohms, Rana will investigate the old-days fix for the whitening filter that may involve the removal of AD602s.
Until the solution is supplied, the IMC WFS project is suspended.

  12678   Thu Dec 15 03:46:19 2016 ranaUpdateIOOIMC WFS whitening filter investigation

https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-D1400414

As it turns out, its not so old as I thought. Jenne and I reworked these in 2014-2015. The QPD whitening is the same as the IMC WFS whitening so we can just repeat those fixes here for the IMC.

Quote:

Rana pointed out that this modification (removal of 900Ohm) leave the input impedance as low as 100Ohm.
As OP284 can drive up to 10mA, the input can span only +/-1V with some nonlinearity.

Rather than reinstalling the 900Ohms, Rana will investigate the old-days fix for the whitening filter that may involve the removal of AD602s.
Until the solution is supplied, the IMC WFS project is suspended.

 

  17063   Fri Aug 5 12:42:12 2022 KojiUpdateIOOIMC WFS: Overnight observation

The IMC lock survived overnight and the WFS servo loops kept it aligned. The IMC was unlocked in the morning.
The left 6 plots are the WFS servo outputs and the right most two plot show the transmission and reflection of the IMC.

If the WFS is making the lock unstable under high seismic conditions, please turn the loops off.

 

Attachment 1: Screen_Shot_2022-08-05_at_12.04.01.png
Screen_Shot_2022-08-05_at_12.04.01.png
  14310   Tue Nov 20 13:13:01 2018 gautamUpdateVACIMC alignment is okay

I checked the IMC alignment following the vent, for which the manual beam block placed on the PSL table was removed. The alignment is okay, after minor touchup, the MC Trans was ~1200 cts which is roughly what it was pre-vent. I've closed the PSL shutter again.

  15227   Wed Feb 26 22:05:06 2020 gautamUpdateIOOIMC checks

Today, I did the following tests (and so was touching electronics/cables at/around 1X2):

  • Measured the IMC OLTF.
  • Measured the TF from injection at IN2 to response at the IMC error point (T-eed the I out of the IMC demodulator as there is no longer a monitor point available).
  • Measured the IMC in loop error signal with 0.25 Hz resolution from DC-2kHz.
  • Confirmed that the IMC IN2 (a.k.a. AO path) gain slider performs as advertised. This is a useful test to run post Acromag switchover on Friday.

Results to follow.

After this work, I reverted the EPICS channels to the usual values. The IMC can be locked.

  15229   Wed Feb 26 23:50:51 2020 gautamUpdateIOOIMC checks

In the style of the KA characterization of the CM board, the AO path gain EPICS slider (IN2) of the IMC servo board was stepped by 1 dB through the full available range of -32 dB to +31 dB. For each value of the requested gain, I measured the TF from the injected signal (to IN2) to TP1A on the IMC servo board. I used the BNC connector for this test, whereas we use the LEMO connector for the AO path. The source was tee-d off at the SR785 side, with one leg going to IN2 of the IMC servo board, and the other going to CH1A of the SR785. TP1A of the IMC board was connected to CH2A of the SR785. 

Attachment #1 - Measured gain vs requested gain.

  • When debugging the CM board, it was this kind of test that revealed the faulty latch ICs.
  • -12 dB to -11 dB gain step looks anomalous, but overall the trend seems linear.
  • I was confused by why there should be a discontinuity at this stage of the gain stepping - seems like the scanning script I use changes the SR785 excitation amplitude at this point (from 300mV to 100mV). But why should the size of the excitation signal change the magnitude of the transfer function? Is this indicative of some loading issue?
  • There is an overall offset between the requested gain and measured gain of ~2-3 dB. This seems large.
  • There is nothing in the schematic which would have me expect this - there is a 1/2 divider at the positive input of the differential receiving stage, but this just cancels out the non-inverting gain of x2.

Attachment #2 - Frequency dependent transfer functions

  • There seem to be two families of curves - they correspond to <-12 dB and >-12 dB.
  • The feature at 90 kHz is strange - need to look at the schematic to see what this could be.

The motivation here is to try and figure out why I cannot engage the AO path smoothly in the CARM handoff part of lock acquisiton. I plan to use this information to do some loop modeling and project laser frequency noise coupling in various stages of the lock acquisition process.

Attachment 1: sliderCal.pdf
sliderCal.pdf
Attachment 2: AO_inputTFs.pdf
AO_inputTFs.pdf
  16782   Fri Apr 15 11:59:16 2022 YehonathanUpdateIOOIMC completely misaligned

Came this morning, opened the PSL and there was not even a beam on the MC REFL.

Looking at the big monitor it seems like the WFS signals went through the roof during the "auto-alignment" night session.

I restored the MC alignment from before the misalignment happen and wait for the SUS to damp. Once the RMS values went below 200 I enabled the watchdog and the coil outputs.

I opened the PSL shutter and the IMC locked immediately. I turned on the WFS servo and the MC REFL DC went down to 0.3. I run the WFS relief script.

  14653   Tue Jun 4 10:56:31 2019 gautamUpdateIOOIMC diagnostics

I briefly managed to lock the IMC today - it stayed locked for ~10 minutes. Attachment #1 shows spectra of a few error and control signals for today's lock, and from a stretch yesterday before the problems surfaced*. The 60 Hz lines are much bigger, and MC_F signals broadband excess noise above a few Hz. I suspect a problem somewhere in the electronics.

*I confess the comparison isn't entirely valid because I had to tweak the FSS FAST gain from its nominal value of 22 to 25 in order to get the PC drive RMS down to the ~1.5V level. At the nominal gain setting, with the laser frequency locked to the cavity length, the PC Drive RMS was ~4 V. Still, indicative of something being off in the electronics.

Attachment 1: IMCdiag.pdf
IMCdiag.pdf
  14659   Thu Jun 6 22:11:53 2019 KojiUpdateIOOIMC diagnostics

As per Gautam's request, I looked at the IMC situation.

Locking path

  • Acquisition: IMC IN1 Gain +4 (nominal), Boost 0, VCO Gain (-32), FSS Common +6 (nominal), FSS FAST +20
    This is too low gain. So oscillate VCO Gain between -32 and ~0 until TEM00 lock is acquired
  • Once lock is acquired, bring the VCO gain to +11 (new nominal), and increase the FSS FAST to +23 (new nominal). Change the IMC BOOST to 3 (nominal)

Diagnosis

  • The PMC servo gain was checked. The control signal monitor for the PMC actuation was hooked up to SR785. The nominal gain was +18dB. Increasing the gain to 20dB made the servo oscillating. So the nominal gain of +18dB seems still reasonable.
  • The status of NOISE EATER was checked. Both the PMC REFL and TRANS were looked at by AG4395A. The power spectrum of them did not change much around the kHz~MHz region. It made the PSD slightly (x2~3) improved below 1kHz. I also did not recognize the relaxation oscillation peak. So I could not figure out where to see. NOISE EATSER was on and is still on.
  • IFO Modulation Freq: I took this chance to look at the IMC absolute length using the peak at 3.6MHz. The TP1A output of the IMC servo board was hooked up to AG4395A.
    The new FSR of the IMC (and thus the modulation frequency for the IFO) is 11.066275MHz (instead of the previous 11.066209MHz).
    This corresponds to 0.16mm difference in the roundtrip length.
  • (*Still working) IMC SERVO configuration:
    • FAST 25 (nominal) sometimes invoke the oscilattion. 24 has gain peaking ~30kHz. There is a big line peak at 35kHz so wanted to avoid the servo bump (PZT-EOM cross over). So decided to use 23dB. (This is not optimal for the CM servo as we need as much as bandwidth for CM servo.)
    • IMC VCO GAIN (bad name. this is actually overall output gain for IMC) was increased from the nominal 7 to 11. Increasing this above 11 makes the servo oscillating at ~200kHz.
  • (*Still working) Measured power spectrum of the error signal. Too many line peaks.
  • (*Still working) Single trigger observation: Oscilloscope monitoring started from 35kHz going up and ~20kHz oscillation +/-6V of the IMC servo output was observed. Could not capture good data for this. Try the other day.

I'll complete the entry later.

  14670   Thu Jun 13 18:01:18 2019 aaronUpdateIOOIMC diagnostics

Continuing this investigation of the IMC, today I am getting familiar with the PMC and FSS. I'd like to measure the frequency noise of the PSL referenced to the PMC.

I checked that the PSL shutter is off, so no light reaches the IMC.

I'm not really sure what I'm looking for on the FSS boxes. I found a few documents to guide:

I ran the FSS autolock script from C1PSL_FSS, nothing obvious changes when I do so. The FSS error signal (which I think is PSL-FSS_MIXERM) is flatlined, and the RC-RF_PD has no LO (PSL-FSS_LOCALC is nan).

  14675   Fri Jun 14 13:10:00 2019 aaronUpdateIOOIMC diagnostics

The circuit diagram for the PMC servo card is D980352. From this diagram, I see that I can send an excitation from the network analyzer to FP2TEST (9.09 kOhm input impedance) where it is added to the PMC error signal before going to the loop filters.

I hook up the following

  • Agilent 4395A output to SR560 (300 Hz HP, gain of 1)
  • SR560 to FP2TEST and to Agilent's channel R
  • PMC error signal IF (mixer box mounted to rack, I noticed the IF BNC->SMA were a bit loose/stressed by a hanging LP RF filter) to SR560 (also 300 Hz HP, gain of 2)
  • SR560 to Agilent channel A

I 'Enable' Test 2 on the PSL screen, so FP2TEST gets added to the error signal.

PDH signal

  • TDS 3034B with four channels
    • 1. PMC servo box external drive (split off from the function generator)
    • 2. PMC servo box output monitor (mirrors the drive, shows when drive is saturating)
    • 3. IF signal (split off after the mixer)
    • 4. PMC Trans (long BNC from the PSL table)
  • SRS DS345 function generator (into the PMC servo box' external drive)
    • 100 Hz signal (there's a 10 Hz pole on the PZT drive, so any faster than this and I can't see both sidebands without the HV output mon clipping)
    • 3.19 Vpp amplitude (smallest amplitude at 100 Hz such that both sidebands are well resolved)
    • 1.52 V offset (center the carrier's PDH error signal at pi/2 out of phase with the drive)

I was able to see the carrier and both sidebands.

I tried to grab this data from the scope via ethernet, but was unsuccessful (timeout errors, I'm using the scripts from scripts/tektronix/tek-dump, and the GPIB box that Kruthi had been using for the GigE cam; I also tried plugging in directly scope->ethernet. Never got anything but timeout errors, so maybe I'm not specifying the port correctly. Anyway the trace is frozen on the scope for later use, or I can easily repeat this now that I know how).

Spectrum

Next, I locked the PMC (Test1 is off, tune DC output adjust until I get some transmission, turn on the loop at Test1, increase the gain to before the loop goes unstable). I'm sending the following channels to SR560 (gain = 2, no filtering, high dynamic reserve, 50 Ohm outputs), and reading spectra from the Agilent 4395A:

  • R-- PMC TRANS PD
  • A-- PDH IF
  • B-- PMC PZT HV MON

The HV mon was always saturating the preamp, so I disconnected it; I added a 50 Hz (6db) high pass to the Trans PD signal, since it has a DC component.

I got to take a look at the traces on the spectrum analyzer front panel, but too tired to do the GPIB for now. There are peaks, things look reasonable.

  14677   Mon Jun 17 12:37:16 2019 aaronUpdateIOOIMC diagnostics

Grabbed the PMC data

I went to set up the spectrum analyzer measurements through GPIB, but inadvertently deleted the contents of ~/Agilent/netgpibdata/ (made a soft link in my folder, decided I wanted it gone but rm'ed instead of unlink). I copied what I think was in that folder back (from /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/general/labutils/netgpibdata).

Again, the spectra are:

  • R-- PMC TRANS PD into SR560 with G=2 DC coupled, no filtering
  • A-- PDH IF into SR560 with G=2, DC coupled, no filtering
  • B-- PMC PZT HV MON into SR560 with G=2, AC coupled, no filtering

I recorded the three spectra with the following parameters:

  • Three separate spans:
    • 10 Hz to 150 kHz
    • 100 to 550 kHz
    • 500 kHz to 2.5 MHz
  • bwSpanRatio = 0.1 %
  • averages: 10
  • number of points: 801
  • spec type: noise (PSD units)

I then ran AGmeasure with the above parameters in the yaml, with the rest following the defaults in AgilentTemplate.yaml. I saved the data in /users/aaron/40m/data/PMC/190617/

Looks like the header contains all of the parameters, so I shouldn't have trouble distinguishing the spectra. I didn't get the instant plotting working, but the data seem to be there.

I'm still having trouble getting the data from the oscilloscope. I'm not sure why the tektronix scrips I've used before aren't working, I'm checking it now.

update: Grabbed the data, the issue was just using the wrong IP address. 

 

  14681   Tue Jun 18 20:35:07 2019 aaronUpdateIOOIMC diagnostics

I made a script (/users/aaron/40m/GPIB/tds_dump.py) that grabs data from a Tektronix scope and packages into a pickled dict with the following structure:

  1. ch1
    1. times ("ts")
    2. values ("vals")
    3. channel info ("info")
  2. ch2
    1. ""
  3. etc

I made a python notebook that does the following:

  1. Grab the data from the pickle above
  2. Fit a triangle wave to the drive signal
  3. Determine the (change in Volts) / second from the triangle wave, as well as define the times of a single sweep of the PDH error signal
  4. Trim the error signal data to contain the PDH signal from the carrier and two sidebands only (the original trace was for three periods).
  5. Fit the functional form of the PDH signal to the trimmed error signal. 
    1. The sideband frequency is fixed at 35.5 MHz, and the scaling of Volts-to-Hz is left free, so this fit gives the calibration of IF volts to Hz.
  6. Grab the spectra (already saved from the Agilent with the netgpib scripts) and apply this V-to-Hz scaling
  7. Plot the spectra

The fit in step (5) is still looking quite bad, despite the fitted values being close to the expected. Since we really just want a calibrated spectrum, I'll instead fit a line to the linear portion of the PDH error signal for the carrier and both sidebands, then determine the scaling from that.

  14683   Wed Jun 19 19:12:51 2019 aaronUpdateIOOIMC diagnostics

Here are the results from the fit. Data can be found on nodus in /users/aaron/40m/data/PMC/190617/. I've put a jupyter notebook with the analysis in /users/aaron/40m/analysis/PDH_calibrate.ipynb (might be some filename issues due to different directory structure on my laptop).

Here's a summary of the current measurement. I'll be referencing the diagram for the PMC servo card.

  1. With the PMC servo loop open, sweep the PMC PZT by sending a triangle wave in to J5 (external drive on the servo card).
    1. I used a 100Hz drive, but should use something slower so my drive isn't filtered out by the 100Hz pole on the servo card and the 10Hz pole on the PZT.
  2. Monitor the voltage at the HV drive, as well as at "mixer out" (J8 on the servo board)
    1. Note that I took this PDH error signal from FP2TEST rather than "mixer out", which means my error signal was not low pass filtered.
  3. Calibrate the HV mon in units of Hz by fitting the PDH signal. The sidebands should be 35.5Mhz away from the carrier peak.
    1. This part needs to be done differently to account for thermal locking in the PMC.
  4. You now have the PDH error signal as a function of PMC resonance in Hz, and can use that to calibrate the PDH error spectrum.
    1. The spectrum is taken when the PMC is locked, so the Hz/V scaling is the slope of the PDH error signal.

In the figures below, I obesrved that for fast (100Hz) drives, the PDH error signal had a pi/2 phase shift relative to the triangle wave, which means even though the resonance appears near the turnaround of the triangle, it is actually occuring near the center of the range.

There are several problems with this data:

  • PMC error signal spectrum is not properly calibrated, even according to the process described above
  • The drive was faster than the response of the PZT.
  • I was driving with a ~1V excitation, so I've lost a factor of 10 somewhere on the way to the external drive curve. Probably just a problem with how I've read the data dump from the scope.
Attachment 1: PMC_Error_Spectrum.pdf
PMC_Error_Spectrum.pdf
Attachment 2: PDH_signal.pdf
PDH_signal.pdf
Attachment 3: PDH_signal_full.pdf
PDH_signal_full.pdf
  14686   Fri Jun 21 19:36:26 2019 KojiUpdateIOOIMC diagnostics

The IMC REFL error signal was measured to compare it with the other spectra (if we have).

The blue curve is the in-loop IMC error and the red is the dark noise. So they are not an apple-to-apple comparison. But the red noise is going to be suppressed by the loop, and still the red is below blue. This means that the blue curve is the measured noise rather than the readout noise.

We suspect that the current issue is the PC drive saturation (as usual). Does this indicate that the laser freq noise is actually increased?

----

Another suspect was that the degradation of the LO level. We used to have the issue of slowly dying ERA-5 (ERA-5SM indeed). The RF levels on the demod board were measured using an active probe.

The LO input: 0dBm, ERA-5 input: -2.7dBm and -2.1dBm for I and Q. I found that the outputs of the ERA-5SM were +10.5dBm and +10.6dBm.
This lead me to replace the chips but the situation was not changed. Then I realized that the LO levels should have been measured with the load replaced from the mixers to a 50Ohm load. Somehow these mixers lower the apparent LO levels. So I decided to say this is OK.

Attachment 1: IMC_error.pdf
IMC_error.pdf
  14693   Mon Jun 24 15:49:05 2019 aaronUpdateIOOIMC diagnostics

aI went to repeat these measurements using the mixer out channel from the servo box, and with a slower sweep for the PDH calibration.

I had trouble getting the PDH signal, here are some notes:

  • I added a 50 Ohm terminator to BNC T on the mixer box. This had been terminated before I started, but I noticed no terminator today.
  • Noticed some distortion of my driving triangle wave if I measured it on ch3 and 4 of the tektronix scope, not present on ch 1/2
  • Initially wasn't finding a signal because I was opening the loop by turning off the Test 1 switch, but this meant the mixer mon on the servo box also did not receive the PDH signal. Instead, I cut the loop with the "BLANK" switch on the PMC screen, which instead blanks out the op amp between the mixer mon and the PMC drive conditioning (so the external drive still reaches the PZT).

attachment 1 is the configuration of the PMC screen when I was trying to get some PDH signal; I did move the DC output adjust to 0V, but found that this led to the output being railed; this makes sense, the op amp at U9 has a negative bias at GND.

Rana came by and gave me some tips.

  • I'd been using the wrong servo board diagram, it should be in D1400221
  • We removed the LP filter from the mixer output (before going to FP1TEST on the servo board), since the board itself already is filtering the IF.
  • We might have observed the thermal locking? See for yourself, the trans and refl signals while sweeping the PZT drive at 5 Hz and 30 Hz respectively are in attachments 2 and 3.
  • Rather than using an SR560, I should use an RF coupler between the mixer and FP1TEST to measure the error signal spectrum. I found a ZFDC-20-5-S+ (0.1-2000 MHz) and sent an SMA cable from the coupled port to channel R of the Agilent 4395.

We finally got the PDH signal again, and I recorded the PDH signal while driving with the following settings on the Siglent function generator.

  • 1.1 Hz triangle wave, 6Vpp, -7Vdc offset, high impedance mode

I tried getting a spectrum using the coupler, the mixer mon is seeing a DC offset though and causing the PZT to rail. Will try to understand why, but in the meantime removing the coupler (still no LP filter) lets us lock the PMC again.

RXA: Kruthi thinks all of our subsequent IMC locking problems are Aaron's fault (she was quick to give him up as soon as the thumb screws were tightened...)

Attachment 1: sweep_config_updated.png
sweep_config_updated.png
ELOG V3.1.3-