40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
 40m Log, Page 175 of 341 Not logged in
ID Date Author Type Category Subject
15109   Wed Jan 1 14:14:00 2020 YehonathanUpdatePSLPMC Linewidth measurement

Turns out the 35MHz sidebands are way too weak to resolve from the resonance when doing a PZT scan.

I connect the IFR2023B function generator on the PSL table to the EOM instead of the FSS box and set it to generate 150MHz at 13dbm.

To observe the resulting weak sideband I place a PDA55 at the peak-off path from the transmission of the PMC where there is much more light than the transmission of the PMC head mirror. Whoever is using this path there is a PD blocking it right now.

I do a PZT scan by connecting a triangular signal to the EXT DC on the PMC servo with and without the EOM (Attachment 1). A weak sideband can clearly be spotted now.

Using the above 150MHz sideband calibration I can find the roundtrip time to be 1.55ns.

I take a high-resolution scan of a resonance peak and fit it to a Lorentzian (Attachment 2) and find a roundtrip loss of 1.3%.

Using the above results the cavity decay time is 119ns.

We should investigate what's going on with the ringdown measurements.

Attachment 1: 150MHzSideBandCreation.pdf
Attachment 2: LinewidthMeasurment.pdf
15126   Wed Jan 15 15:04:31 2020 gautamUpdatePSLPMC Linewidth measurement

For the ringdowns, I suggest you replicate the setup I had - infrastructurally, this was quite robust, and the main problem I had was that I couldn't extinguish the beam completely. Now that we have the 1st order beam, it should be easy.

10167   Wed Jul 9 19:53:34 2014 ranaUpdatePSLPMC LO monitor trend (5 years)

The first step is

The second uptick (In Nov 14, 2013) is when I removed a 3 dB attenuator from the LO line. Don't know why the decay accelerates after that.

9381   Thu Nov 14 00:33:37 2013 ranaConfigurationPSLPMC LO is dying...

Back in 2009, Jenne replaced the PMC board mixer with a Level 13 one. Today I noticed that the LO level on the PMC screen was showing a LO level of ~5-10 dBm and fluctuating a lot. I think that it is related to the well known failure of the Mini-Circuits ERA-5SM amplifier which is on the D000419-A schematic (PMC Frequency Reference Card). The Hanford one was dying for 12 years and we found it in late 2008. If we don't have any in the blue bin, we should ask Steve to order 10 of them.

The attached trend shows 2000 days of hour trend of the PMC LODET channel. The big break in 2009 is when Jenne changed the mixer and then attenuated the input by 3 dB. The slow decay since then is the dying amplifier I guess.

Since the LOCALC channel was not in the trend, I added it to the C0EDCU file tonight and restarted the FB DAQD process. Its now in the dataviewer list.

I went out and took out the 3 dB attenuator between the LO card and the PMC Mixer. The LO monitor now reads 14.9 dBm (??!!). The SRA-3MH mixer data sheet claims that the mixer works fine with an LO between 10 and 16 dBm, so I'll leave it as is. After we get the ERA-5, lets fix the LODET monitor by upping its gain and recalibrating the channel.

Attachment 1: Untitled.png
11560   Wed Sep 2 23:50:00 2015 ranaUpdatePSLPMC LO dying

Let's order a pair of 35.5 MHz Wenzel for this guy and package like Rich has done for the WB low noise oscillators.

WE're only sending 6 dBm into it now and its using a 13 dBm mixer. Bad for PMC stability.

Also, if anyone has pix of the servo card, please add them to the DCC page for the PMC.

Attachment 1: PMCLO.png
11763   Fri Nov 13 22:32:54 2015 KojiSummaryPSLPMC LO degraded, usual ERA-5 replacement, LO recovered

[Yutaro, Koji]

We found that the PMC LO level was fluctuating in a strage way (it was not stable but had many clitches like an exponential decay), we suspected the infamous PMC LO level decay. In fact, in June 2014 when Rana recalibrated the LO level,  the number on the medm screen (C1:PSL-PMC_LO_CALC) was about 11dBm. However, today it was about 6dBm. So we decided to jump in to the 1X1 rack.

The LO and PC outputs of the PMC Crystal module (D980353) were measured to be 6.2dBm and 13.3dBm. Rana reported in ELOG 10160 that it was measured to be 11.5dBm. So apparently the LO level decayed. Unfortunately, there was no record of the PC output level. In any case, we decided to pull the module for the replacement of ERA-5 chips.

Once we opened the box we found that the board was covered by some greasy material. The ERA-5 chip on the LO chain seemed unreasonably brittle. It was destryed during desoldering. We also replaced the ERA-5 chip in the PC chain, just in case. The board was cleaned by the defluxing liquids.

Taking an advatage of this chance, the SMA  cables around the PMC were checked. By removing some of the heat shrinks, suspicious broken shields of the connectors were found. We provided additional solder to repair them.

After the repair, the LO and PC output levels became icreased to 17.0dBm(!) and 13.8dBm, respectively. (Victory)
This LO level is way too much compared to Rana's value. The MEDM LO power adj has little effect and the adj range was 16dBm~17dBm. Therefore we moved the slider to 10, which yields 16dBm out, and added a 5dB attenuator. The measured LO level after the attenuator was measured to be 11.2dBm.

Locking of the PMC was tried and immediately acquired the lock. However, we noticed that the nomoinal gain of 10dB cause the oscillation of the servo. As we already adjusted the LO level to recover the nominal value, we suspeced that the modulation depth could be larger than before. We left the gain at 0dB that doesn't cause the oscillation. It should be noted that the demodulation phase and the openloop gain were optimized. This should be done in the day time as soon as possible.

When the PMC LO repair was completed, the transmission of the PMC got decreased to 0.700V. The input alignment has been adjusted and the transmission level of 0.739V has been recovered.

The IMC lock stretch is not stable as before yet. Therefore, there would still be the issue somewhere else.

Attachment 1: PMC_LO.png
Attachment 2: IMG_2093.JPG
Attachment 3: IMG_2091.JPG
Attachment 4: IMG_2095.JPG
Attachment 5: IMG_2096.JPG
11765   Sun Nov 15 22:43:48 2015 KojiSummaryPSLPMC LO degraded, usual ERA-5 replacement, LO recovered

I think the IMC locking was somewhat improved. Still it is not solid as long time before.

Before the PMC fix (attachment 1)
After the PMC fix (attachment 2)

To do
- PMC loop inspection / phase check / spectral measurements
- PMC / IMC interaction
- IMC loop check

Attachment 1: C1-MULTI_E6875C_TIMESERIES-1131408017-86400.png
Attachment 2: C1-MULTI_E6875C_TIMESERIES-1131580817-86400.png
1478   Mon Apr 13 17:55:37 2009 JenneUpdatePSLPMC LO Mon Calibration

I have calibrated the PMC LO Mon (C1:PSL-PMC_LODET) on the PMC's EPICS screen, by inputting different RF LO levels into the LO input of the PMC servo board.

Since the RF output adjust slider on the PMC's Phase Shifter screen doesn't do a whole lot (see elog 1471), I used a combination of attenuators and the slider to achieve different LO levels. I measured the level of the attenuated RF out of the LO board using the 4395A in spectrum analyzer mode, with the units in dBm, with 50dB attenuation to make it stop complaining about being overloaded.  For each row in the table I measured the RF level using the 4395, then plugged the cable back into the PMC servo board to get the EPICS screen's reading.

The last 2 columns of the table below are the 'settings' I used to get the given RF LO level.

 RF LO Input to PMC Servo Board [dBm] LO Mon on EPICS Screen [no units] RF Output Adjust Slider [V] Attenuators used [dB] 16.004 +- 0.008 0.1200 +- 0.0003 0 0 15.001 +- 0.004 0.0708 +- 0.0008 0 1 14.079 +- 0.008 0.0318 +- 0.0001 8 1 13.002 +- 0.006 0.0126 +- 0.0004 0 3 11.992 +- 0.010 0.0024 +- 0.0008 0 4 10.994 +- 0.010 -0.0024 +- 0.0003 0 4+1=5 9.993 +- 0.008 -0.0047 +- 0.0007 0 3+3=6

When the new mixers that Steve ordered come in (tomorrow hopefully), I'll put in a Level 13 mixer in place of the current Level 23 mixer that we have.  Also, Rana suggested increasing the gain on the op-amp which is read out as the LO Mon so that 13dBm looks like 1V.  To do this, it looks like I'll need to increase the gain by ~80.

Attachment 1: LOmonCalibration.png
1471   Fri Apr 10 19:09:48 2009 JenneUpdatePSLPMC LO Calibration
I measured the RF LO output level from the PMC's LO board which goes directly into the LO input on the PMC Servo board. This goes hand-in-hand with Rana's thoughts
that we might be giving the PMC mixer a too-low LO value, and we might need to switch out the mixer. Steve ordered some new mixers today to try out.

The RF Output Adjust slider (on the C1:PSL_PMC_PS screen) goes from 0-10V; The nominal value (or at least the value I found it at today) is 2.014V.

To measure the RF level: I unlocked the Mode Cleaner and turned off the ISS servo per Yoichi's suggestion. I then unplugged the input to the PMC servo board's LO input,
and put that cable into a 300MHz 'scope, with 12dB attenuation. The 'scope was AC coupled, with the input set to 50Ohms.

I then changed the RF Output Adjust slider in increments of 0.5, and measured the peak-to-peak values on the scope. In the table and on the plots, I've taken into account
the 12dB attenuation. i.e I actually measured 964mV, so 964mV*10^.6 = 3838mV.

 RF Output Adjust Output measured on scope Oscillator Output Monitor [V] [Vpp] [no units given on MEDM screen] All \pm 0.0159 all of this column is NEGATIVE 0.0000 3.838 0.007 0.5000 3.854 0.007 1.0000 3.838 0.006 1.5000 3.838 0.007 2.0000 3.838 0.006 2.5000 3.838 0.007 3.0000 3.838 0.007 3.5000 3.838 0.007 4.0000 3.838 0.007 4.5000 3.822 0.007 5.0000 3.822 0.012 5.5000 3.790 0.076 6.0000 3.758 0.257 6.5000 3.694 0.555 7.0000 3.615 0.931 7.5000 3.535 1.277 8.0000 3.456 1.532 8.5000 3.392 1.709 9.0000 3.344 1.829 9.5000 3.312 1.908 10.0000 3.296 1.966

I think it's kind of funky that it's so flat for ~half the slider. Also, the third column includes the Oscillator Output Monitor value from the MEDM screen at various RF Adjust slider values. All of these should be negative (i.e. -0.007), but the TABLE function doesn't like "-" signs. I don't know if this information is degenerate with the 'scope measurements, or if it's an indicator of what (might be) wrong.

After finishing, I plugged the cable back into the PMC servo board as it was, turned back on the ISS and relocked the PMC and the MC.
1473   Sat Apr 11 00:45:41 2009 YoichiUpdatePSLPMC LO Calibration

 Quote: I then changed the RF Output Adjust slider in increments of 0.5, and measured the peak-to-peak values on the scope. In the table and on the plots, I've taken into account the 12dB attenuation. i.e I actually measured 964mV, so 964mV*10^.6 = 3838mV.

3.8Vpp is about 16dBm.
The mixer for the PMC demodulator is level 23. So 16dBm is insufficient.
What is the level of the new mixer Steve ordered ? 13 ?
1475   Sun Apr 12 19:27:20 2009 ranaUpdatePSLPMC LO Calibration

 Quote: 3.8Vpp is about 16dBm. The mixer for the PMC demodulator is level 23. So 16dBm is insufficient. What is the level of the new mixer Steve ordered ? 13 ?

Since Steve and Jenne were on it, I'm sure they ordered the optimum values...

From the table, it looks like the drive level adjuster is busted. Its not supposed to just give a
1-2 dB change over the full range. We'll have to think about what exactly to do, but we should
probably install the level 13 mixer and put in the right attenuation to make the LO be ~13.5 dBm
including the filter. Also need to calibrate the LO readback on the board like what Peter did for
the FSS.
11900   Wed Dec 23 15:43:02 2015 ranaSummaryPSLPMC FSS IMC RF summing box

The EOM upstream of the PMC is used as the phase corrector for the FSS/IMC servo. It is also used to apply the 35.5 MHz PDH RF sidebands for the PMC locking. There is a Pomona box which is used to merge the two signals onto a single cable for the EOM.

Does this circuit make sense to anyone?

Attachment 1: PMCFSSsummingBox.png
12911   Mon Mar 27 20:41:21 2017 rana, gautamUpdatePSLPMC DAQ assay for feed-forward integration

We are thinking to use the PMC signals to help us in figuring out the feedback / feedforward stuff and making it better.

Today we scoped out the PMC DAQ channels (which were never re-hooked up after the Joe/Jamie CDS upgrade 6 years ago).

There is a 4-pin LEMO connector on the front panel which gives

1. the error signal (after the 4th order, post-mixer lowpass and a OP27 buffer with a 17 kHz low pass)
2. the feedback voltage to the PZT, after a resistive divide by 50

Both of these signals are buffered by the AD620 inst amp configured with a gain of 1. In the green scope trace, you can see that there's a ~110 MHz signal strongly evident there. In the spectrum analyzer screen shot there is a instrument noise trace and then a PMC error point trace. You can see that all the peaks are ony there when I connect to the servo board instead of a Terminator. This RF noise is mainly the higher harmonics of the 35.5 MHz modulation getting there. It seems to be in both the error and control DAQ outputs, and a question is whether or not it is also in the servo electronics.

I also attach a close up of the servo board in the region of the post-mixer LC low pass filtering. I think its supposed to be 4th order cutoff at 1 MHz, but maybe the caps are busted or there's a way for the RF from the mixer to bypass the filters and get into the main servo path?

In the medium term, we probably want to use the new PDH servo that Rich is making. Need to buy/make a HV driver to use, but that should be easy.

Attachment 1: TEK00000.PNG
Attachment 2: 20170327_194931.jpg
Attachment 3: 20170327_204554.jpg
12916   Wed Mar 29 11:41:19 2017 gautamUpdatePSLPMC DAQ assay for feed-forward integration

The C1IOO frontend machine that resides in 1X1/1X2 has 2 ADCs, ADC0 and ADC1. The latter has 28 out of 32 channels unused at the moment, so I decided to use this for setting up fast channels for the PMC DAQ. On the RTCDS side of things, the PSL namespace block lives in the C1ALS model. I made the following modifications to it:

1. Added channels for the PMC DAQ
2. Added CDS filters for both the newly added PMC DAQ channels and the existing FSS DAQ channels, so that we can calibrate these into physical units
3. Changed the names of the existing FSS channels from FSS_MIXER and FSS_NPRO to FSS_ERR and FSS_CTRL. The latter is still a bit ambiguous, but I felt that FSS_CM_BOARD_CTRL was too long.
4. Added DQ channels for the new PMC channels. These are recording at 16K at the moment, but since we have the fast testpoints courtesy of the CDS filter modules for diagnostics, perhaps the DQ channels need only be recorded at 2K?

The PSL namespace block in C1ALS looks like this now:

I then tried hooking up the DAQ signals from the PMC servo board to the ADC via the 1U generic ADC interface chassis in 1X2 - this has 4pin LEMO inputs corresponding to 2 differential input channels. I used J6 (corresponding to ADC channels 10 and 11) for the PMC_ERR and PMC_CTRL respectively. I was a little confused about the status of the 4 pin LEMO output on the front panel of the PMC servo board. According to the DCC page for the modified 40m servo board, the DAQ outputs are wired to the backplane connector instead of the 4 pin LEMO. But looking at photographs on the same DCC page, there are wires soldered on the rear-side of the PCB from the 4-pin LEMO to the backplane connector. Also, I believe the measurements made by Rana in the preceeding elog were made via the front panel LEMO. In any case, I decided to use the single pin LEMO monitor points on the front panel as a preliminary test. The uncalibrated spectra with ADC terminated, IMC unlocked and IMC locked look like:

So it looks like at the very least, we want to add some gain to the AD620 instrumentation amplifiers to better match the input range of the ADC. We also want to make the PZT voltage monitor path AC coupled. My plan then is the following:

1. Figure out what is going on with the 4-pin LEMO connector on the front panel - is it connected to the DAQ monitor points or not?
2. Ground pin 5 of U15 (this has already been done by Koji for U14 according to the DCC page)
3. Add a resistor between pins 1 and 8 of U14 and U15 to get some gain. According to the datasheet, a 1k resistor will give a gain of 50, which for U15 will mean that we undo the existing 1/50 attenuation. Of course we need to AC couple this path first by adding a capacitor in series with R14.
4. Figure out where the RF harmonics are coming from and what is the best way to attenuate them.

I will update with a circuit diagram with proposed changes shortly.

Proposed changes:

1. Cut PCB trace between R14 and R13, install capacitor - what is is correct type of capacitor to use here? I figured installing a series capacitor after the resistive divider, to the input of the instrumentation amplifier avoids the need for a HV capacitor, so we can use a 1uF WIMA capacitor.
2. Add gains to U14 and U15 (error and control signal monitors respectively). Based on the uncalibrated spectra attached, I think we should go for a gain of ~50 for U15 (1kohm between pins 1 and 8), and a gain of ~200 for U14 (250ohms between pins 1 and 8).

The PCB layout is such that I think using components with leads is easier rather than SMD components.

If this sounds like a reasonable plan, I will pull out the servo card from the eurocrate and implement these changes today evening...

Attachment 2: PMCcheckout.pdf
Attachment 3: D980352-A-40m_151119.pdf
12920   Thu Mar 30 18:11:01 2017 ranaUpdatePSLPMC DAQ assay for feed-forward integration

What you have drawn looks good to me: the cut should be between TP3 and pin3 of the AD620. This should maintain the DC coupled respons for the single-pin LEMO and backplane EPICS monitors.

We want to use the PMC signal down to low frequencies, so the filter on the input of the AD620 should have a low frequency cutoff, but we should take care not to spoil the noise of the AD620 with a high impedance resistor.

It has a noise of 100 nV/rHz and 1 pA/rHz at 1 Hz. If you use 47 uF and 10 kOhm, you'll get fc = 1/2/pi/R/C ~ 0.3 Hz so that would be OK.

12926   Mon Apr 3 23:07:09 2017 gautamUpdatePSLPMC DAQ assay for feed-forward integration

I made some changes to the DAQ path on the PMC servo board, as per the plan posted earlier in this thread. Summary of changes:

1. AC coupling PMC control signal path using 2 x 47uF metal film capacitors (in parallel)
2. Grounding pin 5 of U15
3. Adding gain to U14 (gain of ~500) and U15 (gain of ~50)

Details + photos + calibration of DAQ channels to follow. The PMC and IMC both seem to remain stably locked after this work.

12214   Sun Jun 26 15:27:28 2016 ranaFrogsIOOPMC /MC lopced

Found PMC unlocked for many hours so I relocked it. IMC relocked by itself, but the input switch seems to be flickering to fast. Also the Keep Alive bit is not flashing.

6236   Mon Jan 30 08:17:06 2012 steveUpdateIOOPMC

 Quote: I have realigned the beam pointing to PMC. The transmitted light increased from 0.74 to 0.83. The misalignment was mainly in pitch.

The PMC pointing has changed, so MC is resonating in high order modes.

Attachment 1: sickPMC.png
9190   Thu Oct 3 01:24:31 2013 Jenne, RanaUpdateIOOPMC

The PMC transmission was around 0.78 all day, rather than the usual 0.83ish.  Rana went out to the PSL table and fixed up the PMC alignment.  This should not need to be done very often, so things to check before touching the alignment are FSS / PMC settings (digital stuff).  Make sure that the PC RMS (on the FSS screen) is low (at least below 2, preferably below 1), and that the FSS Fast monitor is near 5ish (not near 0 or 10).

This is a capture of PMC REFL's camera after Rana was finished. If it doesn't look this good when you finish then you are not done. Never do PMC alignment without looking at the PMC REFL camera.

The attached trend shows 80 days of PMC REFL and TRANS. The bad alignment stuff started on Sep 21-24 time period. You know who you are.

Attachment 2: pmc80.png
1666   Wed Jun 10 09:28:14 2009 steveUpdatePSLPMC

The PMC alarm was on this morning. It was relocked at lower HV

The FSS_RMTEMP jumped 0.5 C so The PZT was compensating for it.

Attachment 1: pmctemphv.jpg
6604   Sat May 5 01:24:07 2012 DenUpdatePSLPMC

I was interested what whitening filter do we have between MC servo and ADC. The shape is in the figure below, SR provided 1 V white noise. Before the whitening filter MC_F is measured in Volts with SR and ADC (for ADC the shape is calculated using the whitening filter form):

I also wondered if FSS or PZT servo can add noise to the mode cleaner length signal and what is their gain. It should be big, as the laser's calibration is ~1 MHz/V => to account for seismic noise of 10^-6 m at 1 Hz, the voltage given to the laser should be ~ 1 V. And it is indeed the case. The gain is ~1000. I measured the coherence between MC_F and the laser fast input. It is 1 in the range measured (0.05 - 100 Hz). FSS and PZT do not add significant noise.

Unfortunately, after the measurement when I unplugged BNS connector from the laser, I misaligned PMC. For several hours I adjusted the mirrors but could not significantly improve transmitted signal. I'll return to this issue tomorrow.

6605   Sat May 5 09:13:02 2012 KojiUpdatePSLPMC

I suspect that it was just unlocked when you had disconnected the cable.

There is not reflection now. It seems that it is now misaligned after the alignment work.

So what you need is "align while scanning PZT -> lock -> align".

 Quote: Unfortunately, after the measurement when I unplugged BNS connector from the laser, I misaligned PMC. For several hours I adjusted the mirrors but could not significantly improve transmitted signal. I'll return to this issue tomorrow.

6606   Sat May 5 10:20:21 2012 DenUpdatePSLPMC

Quote:

I suspect that it was just unlocked when you had disconnected the cable.

There is not reflection now. It seems that it is now misaligned after the alignment work.

So what you need is "align while scanning PZT -> lock -> align".

 Quote: Unfortunately, after the measurement when I unplugged BNS connector from the laser, I misaligned PMC. For several hours I adjusted the mirrors but could not significantly improve transmitted signal. I'll return to this issue tomorrow.

No, no, it was unlocked after I connected the cable back. The beam was even not on the PMC. I'll try PZT -> lock -> align.

6607   Sat May 5 12:23:38 2012 KojiUpdatePSLPMC

No matter how you connect/disconnect, touching the laser may cause the PMC unlocked.

At least, I don't see the PMC reflection on the PD.
This means that the beam towards the PMC is largely misaligned.

If you are not sure what is misaligned, stop touching the table.
Close the shutter of the laser on the laser housing and leave the optics as they are.

6608   Sat May 5 20:42:59 2012 DenUpdatePSLPMC

[Koji, Den]

Koji was right that I misaligned everything during the alignment work. I assumed that PMC should autolock and when I saw that it did not, I thought the laser is misaligned.

What we did:

1. Aligned mirrors to get the beam on the PD PMC REFL and PMCR camera. The PSL-PMC_RFPDDC was ~800 mV.

2. We disabled PMC servo, switching it to test position and changed "DC output adjust" by 0.01 in a loop

while true do     ezcawrite "C1:PSL-PMC_RAMP" -4.50     ezcastep "C1:PSL-PMC_RAMP" "+0.01,450" -s "0.1"     ezcawrite "C1:PSL-PMC_RAMP" 0.0     ezcastep -s "0.1" -- "C1:PSL-PMC_RAMP" "-0.01,450" done

3. While the script was running we adjusted the position of the beam on the far PMC mirror looking at an IR viewer. The goal is to align two steering mirrors to catch some resonances. We monitored them on the oscilloscope and on the PMCT camera.

4. We locked PMC and aligned steering mirrors.

11756   Thu Nov 12 09:41:02 2015 SteveUpdatePSLPMC

The PMC is not happy and the ITMX UL OSEM is moving too much

Attachment 1: PMC_ITMX.png
10180   Thu Jul 10 19:37:54 2014 ManasaUpdateGeneralPM980 fiber tested OK

[Harry, Manasa]

This is the update from yesterday that Harry missed to elog.

We pulled out the first spool of the PM980 fiber yesterday and checked it using the illuminator at the SP table. Harry will be using this for all his tests and characterisation of the fiber.

3920   Mon Nov 15 11:52:22 2010 kiwamuUpdateGreen LockingPLL with real green signal

Stabilizing the beat note frequency using Yuta's temperature servo (see this entry)

I was able to acquire the PLL of 80MHz VCO to the real green signal.

Some more details will be posted later.

3927   Mon Nov 15 17:10:59 2010 kiwamuUpdateGreen LockingPLL with real green signal

I checked the slow servo and the PLL of 80MHz VCO using the real green beat note signal.

The end laser is not locked to the cavity, so basically the beat signal represents just the frequency fluctuation of the two freely running lasers.

The PLL was happily locked to the green beat note although I haven't fedback the VCO signal to ETMX (or the temperature of the end laser).

It looks like we still need some more efforts for the frequency counter's slow servo because it increases the frequency fluctuation around 20-30mHz.

(slow servo using frequency counter)

As Yuta did before (see his entry), I plugged the output of the frequency counter to an ADC and fedback the signal to the end laser temperature via ezcaservo.

The peak height of the beat note is bigger than before due to the improvement of the PMC mode matching.

The peak height shown on the spectrum analyzer 8591E is now about -39dBm which is 9dB improvement.

The figure below is a spectra of the frequency counter's readout taken by the spectrum analyzer SR785.

When the slow temperature servo is locked, the noise around 20-30 mHz increased.

I think this is true, because I was able to see the peak slowly wobbling for a timescale of ~ 1min. when it's locked.

But this servo is still useful because it drifts by ~5MHz in ~10-20min without the servo.

Next time we will work on this slow servo using Aidan's PID control (see this entry) in order to optimize the performance.

In addition to that, I will take the same spectra by using the phase locked VCO, which provides cleaner signal.

(acquisition of the PLL)

In order to extract a frequency information more precisely than the frequency counter, we are going to employ 80MHz VCO box.

While the beat note was locked at ~ 79MHz by the slow servo, I successfully acquired the PLL to the beat signal.

However at the beginning, the PLL was easily broken by a sudden frequency step of about 5MHz/s (!!).

I turned off the low noise amplifier which currently drives the NPRO via a high-voltage amplifier, then the sudden frequency steps disappeared.

After this modification the PLL was able to keep tracking the beat signal for more than 5min.

(I was not patient enough, so I couldn't stand watching the signal more than 5min... I will hook this to an ADC)

 Quote: #3920 Some more details will be posted later.

2714   Thu Mar 25 17:29:48 2010 kiwamu, mottUpdateGreen LockingPLL two NPROs

In this afternoon, Mott and I tried to find a beat note between two NPROs which are going to be set onto each end table for green locking.

At first time we could not find any beats. However Koji found that the current of innolight NPRO was set to half of the nominal.

Then we increased the current to the nominal of 2A, finally we succeeded in finding a beat note.

Now we are trying to lock the PLL.

P.S. we also succeeded in acquiring the lock

 innolight lightwave T [deg] 39.75 37.27 current [A] 2 2 laser power [mW] 950 700

2679   Thu Mar 18 10:46:51 2010 KojiUpdateABSLPLL reconstructed

Last night (Mar 17) I checked the PLL setup as Mott have had some difficulty to get a clean lock of the PLL setting.

• I firstly found that the NPRO beam is not going through the Faraday isolator well. This was fixed by aligning the steering mirrors before the Faraday.

• The signal from the RF PD was send to the RF spectrum analyzer through a power splitter. This is a waist of the signal. It was replaced to a directional coupler.

• Tee-ing the PZT feedback to the oscilloscope was producing the noise in the laser frequency. I put the oscilloscope to the 600Ohm output of the SR560, while connectiong the PZT output to the 50Ohm output.

• In addition, 6dB+6dB attenuators have been added to the PZT feedback signal.

Now the beating signal is much cleaner and behave straight forward. I will add some numbers such as the PD DC output, RF levels, SR560 settings...

## Now I am feeling that we definitely need the development of really clean PLL system as we use PLL everywhere! (i.e. wideband PD, nice electronics, summing amplifiers, stop poking SR560, customize/specialize PDH box, ...etc)

2680   Thu Mar 18 12:27:56 2010 AlbertoUpdateABSLPLL reconstructed

Quote:

Last night (Mar 17) I checked the PLL setup as Mott had some difficulty to get a clean lock of the PLL setting.

• I firstly found that the NPRO beam is not going through the Faraday isolator well. This was fixed by aligning the steering mirrors before the Faraday.

• The signal from the RF PD was send to the RF spectrum analyzer through a power splitter. This is a waist of the signal. It was replaced to a directional coupler.
• Tee-ing the PZT feedback to the oscilloscope was producing the noise in the laser frequency. I put the oscilloscope to the 600Ohm output of the SR560, while connectiong the PZT output to the 50Ohm output.
• In addition, 6dB+6dB attenuators have been added to the PZT feedback signal.

Now the beating signal is much cleaner and behave straight forward. I will add some numbers such as the PD DC output, RF levels, SR560 settings...

## Now I am feeling that we definitely need the development of really clean PLL system as we use PLL everywhere! (i.e. wideband PD, nice electronics, summing amplifiers, stop poking SR560, customize/specialize PDH box, ...etc)

I also had noticed the progressive change of the aux NPRO alignment to the Farady.

I strongly agree about the need of a good and robust PLL.

By modifying the old PDH box (version 2008) eventually I was able to get a PLL robust enough for my purposes. At some point that wasn't good enough for me either.

I then decided to redisign it from scratch. I'm going to work on it. Also because of my other commitments, I'd need a few days/1 week for that. But I'd still like to take care of it. Is it more urgent than that?

2681   Thu Mar 18 13:40:35 2010 KojiUpdateABSLPLL reconstructed

We use the current PLL just now, but the renewal of the components are not immediate as it will take some time. Even so we need steady steps towards the better PLL. I appreciate your taking care of it.

Quote:

Quote:

Last night (Mar 17) I checked the PLL setup as Mott had some difficulty to get a clean lock of the PLL setting.

• I firstly found that the NPRO beam is not going through the Faraday isolator well. This was fixed by aligning the steering mirrors before the Faraday.

• The signal from the RF PD was send to the RF spectrum analyzer through a power splitter. This is a waist of the signal. It was replaced to a directional coupler.
• Tee-ing the PZT feedback to the oscilloscope was producing the noise in the laser frequency. I put the oscilloscope to the 600Ohm output of the SR560, while connectiong the PZT output to the 50Ohm output.
• In addition, 6dB+6dB attenuators have been added to the PZT feedback signal.

Now the beating signal is much cleaner and behave straight forward. I will add some numbers such as the PD DC output, RF levels, SR560 settings...

## Now I am feeling that we definitely need the development of really clean PLL system as we use PLL everywhere! (i.e. wideband PD, nice electronics, summing amplifiers, stop poking SR560, customize/specialize PDH box, ...etc)

I also had noticed the progressive change of the aux NPRO alignment to the Farady.

I strongly agree about the need of a good and robust PLL.

By modifying the old PDH box (version 2008) eventually I was able to get a PLL robust enough for my purposes. At some point that wasn't good enough for me either.

I then decided to redisign it from scratch. I'm going to work on it. Also because of my other commitments, I'd need a few days/1 week for that. But I'd still like to take care of it. Is it more urgent than that?

2684   Thu Mar 18 21:42:26 2010 KojiUpdateABSLPLL reconstructed

I checked the setup further more.

• I replaced the PD from NewFocus 1GHz one to Thorlabs PDA255.
• I macthed the power level of the each beam.

Now I have significant fraction of beating (30%) and have huge amplitude (~9dBm).
The PLL can be much more stable now.

Koji

2696   Mon Mar 22 22:11:26 2010 MottUpdateABSLPLL reconstructed

It looks like the PLL drifted alot over the weekend, and we couldn't get it back to 9 dBm.  We switched back to the new focus wideband PD to make it easier to find the beat signal.  I replaced all the electronics with the newly fixed UPDH box (#17) and we aligned it to the biggest beat frequency we could get, which ended up being -27 dBm with a -6.3V DC signal from the PD.

Locking was still elusive, so we calculated the loop gain and found the UGF is about 45 kHz, which is too high.  We added a 20 dB attenuator to the RF input to suppress the gain and we think we may have locked at 0 gain.  I am going to add another attenuator (~6 dB) so that we can tune the gain using the gain knob on the UPDH box.

Finally, attached is a picture of the cable that served as the smb - BNC adaptor for the DC output of the PD.  The signal was dependent on the angle of the cable into the scope or multimeter.  It has been destroyed so that it can never harm another innocent experiment again!

Attachment 1: IMG_0150.JPG
2697   Mon Mar 22 23:37:32 2010 MottUpdateABSLPLL reconstructed

We have managed to lock the PLL to reasonable stability. The RF input is attenuated by 26 dBm and the beat signal locks very close to the carrier of the marconi (the steps on the markers of the spectrum analyzer are coarse).  We can use the marconi and the local boost of the pdh box to catch the lock at 0 gain.  Once the lock is on, the gain can be increased to stabilize the lock.  The locked signals are shown in the first photo (the yellow is the output of the mixer and the blue is the output to the fast input of the laser.  If the gain is increased too high, the error signal enters an oscillatory regime, which probably indicates we are overloading the piezo.  This is shown in the second photo, the gain is being increased in time and we enter the non-constant regime around mid-way through.

Tomorrow I will use this locked system to measure the PZT response (finally!).

Attachment 1: 2010-03-22_23.14.00.jpg
Attachment 2: 2010-03-22_23.24.50.jpg
2703   Tue Mar 23 18:44:46 2010 MottUpdateABSLPLL reconstructed

After realigning and getting the lock today, I tried to add in the SR785 to measure the transfer function.  As soon as I turn on the piezo input on the PDH box, however, the lock breaks and I cannot reacquire it.  We are using an SR650 to add in the signal from the network analyzer and that has worked. We also swapped the 20 dB attenuator for a box which mimics the boost functionality (-20 dB above 100 Hz, 0 dB below 6Hz).  I took some spectra with the SR750, and will get some more with the network analyzer once Alberto has finished with it.

The SR750 spectra is posted below.  The SR750 only goes up to 100 kHz, so I will have to use the network analyzer to get the full range.

Attachment 1: NPRO_PLL_freqresp.png
13848   Wed May 16 18:52:50 2018 gautamConfigurationElectronicsPLL mysteries solved

[Koji, Gautam]

Summary:

As I suspected, when the SR560 is operated in 1 Hz, first order LPF mode, the (electronic) transfer function has a zero at ~5kHz (!!!).

Details:

This is what allowed the PLL to be locked with this setting with UGF of ~30kHz. On the evidence of Attachment #3, there is also some flattening of the electrical TF at low frequencies when the SR560 is driving the NPRO PZT. I'm pretty sure the flattening is not a data download error but since this issue needs further investigation anyway, I'm not reading too much into it. I fit the model with LISO but since we don't have low frequency (~1Hz) data, the fit isn't great, so I'm excluding it from the plots.

We also did some PLL loop characterization. We decided that the higher output range (10Vp bs 10Vpp for the SR560) of the LB1005 controller means it is a better option for the PLL. The lock state can also be triggered remotely. It was locked with UGF ~ 60kHz, PM ~45deg.

We also measured the actuation coefficient of the NPRO laser PZT to be 4.89 +/- 0.02 MHz/V. Quoted error is (1-sigma) from the fit of the linear part of the measured transfer function to a single pole at DC with unknown gain. I used the "clean" part of the measurement that extends to lower frequencies for the fit, as can be seen from the residuals plot. Good to know that even though the LDs are dying, the PZT is still going strong :D.

Remaining loop characterization (i.e. verification of correct scaling of in loop suppression with loop gain etc.) is left to Jon.

Measurement schemes:

1. OLG (Attachment #1) was measured using the usual IN1/IN2 technique.
2. PZT calibration (Attachment #2) was measured by injecting an excitation at the PLL control point.
• The ratio of the PLL error point (Volts) to Excitation (Volts) was measured using the SR785.
• The error point was calibrated by looking at the PLL open loop Vpp (corresponds to pi radians of phase shift).
• Dividing the fitted gain of the phase->Frequency conversion by the error point calibration, we get the PZT actuation coefficient.

Some other remarks:

1. In the swept-sine mode, the SR785 measures transfer functions by taking the ratio of complex FFT values of its inputs at the drive frequency. So the phase in particular is a good indicator of whether the measurement is coherent or not.
2. In all these measurements, the PLL gain is huge at low frequencies, and hence, the excitation is completely squished on propagating through the loop. E.g. a 10mV excitation is suppressed by a factor of ~60dB = 1000 to 10uV, and if the analyzer autoRange is set to UpOnly, it is easy to see how this is drowned at the IN1 input. This is why the measurements lose coherence below ~1 kHz.
3. It is easy to imagine implementing an EPICS servo that offloads the DC part of the LB box control signal to the SLOW frequency input on the Lightwave controller. This would presumably allow us to extend the lock timescales. We can also easily implement a PLL autolocker.
4. Preliminary investigation of the SR560 situation suggests that individual filter stages can only achieve a maximum stopband attenuation of 60dB relative to the passband. When we cascade two stages together, 120dB seems possible...
Attachment 1: PLLanalysis.pdf
Attachment 2: PZTcal.pdf
Attachment 3: SR560_funkiness.pdf
12076   Thu Apr 14 17:30:18 2016 ericqUpdateGeneralPLL measurement ongoing

Just a heads up that some equipment is hooked up at the PSL table for the repaired AUX laser PLL measurement, I plan to continue with it tonight.

I've taken a few spectra that, along with the PZT coefficient from the repair sheet, that suggest the noise level is ok (incoherent sum of AUX and PSL at about ~3e4 / f Hz/rtHz), but calibrated plots, etc. will follow in time.

15069   Tue Dec 3 22:41:17 2019 shrutiUpdateGeneralPLL for PM measurement

I worked on the setup up for the phase modulation measurement of the X end NPRO PZT. A previous similar measurement can be found here (12077). The setup was assembled based on the schematic in Attachment1.

Mixer used: Level 7, Mini circuits ZP-3+
LPF: up to 1.9MHz

Cables exiting the PSL table:
1. LO (Marconi -> Mixer)
2. RF (PSL+X beat note -> Mixer) The cable for this was taken from the Beat Mouth (otherwise connected to the oscilloscope)
3. Ext modulator (SR560 -> Marconi)

The long cable labled 'X Green Beat' was used to connect to the PZT (from the network analyzer).

Observations: The beat note kept floating between 0 and ~100 MHz

The PLL part of the circuit was tested coarsely with the spectrum analyzer function of the Agilent, where the loop was seen to stabilize when the carrier frequency of the Marconi was close to the instantaneous beat frequency.

Attachment 1: PM_measurement.jpeg
15074   Wed Dec 4 20:32:43 2019 gautamUpdateGeneralPLL for PM measurement

Were some cables from the ALS beat setup modified? I can't see the beat on the scope, and this elog doesn't say anything about cable connection rearrangement. At ~2311, I am reverting the setup to as it should be.

2338   Wed Nov 25 20:24:49 2009 AlbertoUpdateABSLPLL Open Loop Gain Measured

I measured the open loop gain of the PLL in the AbsL experiment.

I repeated the measurement twice: one with gain knob on the universal PDH box g=3.0; the second measurement with g=6.0

The UGF were 60 KHz and 100 KHz, respectively.

That means that one turn of the knob equals to about +10 dB.

Attachment 1: 2009-09-25_OLgain_g3png.png
Attachment 2: 2009-09-25_OLgain_g6png.png
2342   Fri Nov 27 02:25:26 2009 ranaUpdateABSLPLL Open Loop Gain Measured

 Quote: I measured the open loop gain of the PLL in the AbsL experiment.

Plots don't really make sense. The second one is inherently unstable - and what's g?

11925   Mon Jan 11 19:01:56 2016 gautamUpdateLSCPLL Marconi Investigation

EDIT 01/12/2016 6PM: I've updated the plots of the in-loop spectra such that they are calibrated throughout the entire domain now. I did so by inferring the closed-loop transfer function (G/(1-G)) from the measured open-loop transfer function (G), and then fitting the inferred TF using vectfit4 (2 poles). The spectra were calibrated by multiplying the measured spectra by the magnitude of the fitted analytic TF at the frequency of interest.

EricQ brought back one of the Marconis that was borrowed by the Cryo lab to the 40m today (it is a 2023B - the Marconi used for all previous measurements in this thread was 2023A). Koji had suggested investigating the frequency noise injected into the PLL by the Marconi, and I spent some time investigating this today. We tried to mimic the measurement setup used for the earlier measurements as closely as possible. One Marconi was used as a signal source, the other as the LO for the PLL loop. All measurements were done with the carrier on the signal Marconi set to 310MHz (since all our previous measurements were done around this value). We synced the two Marconis by means of the "Frequency Standard" BNC connector on the rear panel (having selected the appropriate In/Out configurations digitally first). Two combinations were investigated - with either Marconi as LO and signal source. For each combination, I adjusted the FM gain on the Marconi (D in the plot legends) and the overall control gain on the SR560 (G in the plot legends) such that their product remained approximately constant. I measured the PLL OLG at each pair to make sure the loop shape was the same throughout all trials. Here are the descriptions of the attached plots:

Attachment #1: 2023A as LO, 2023B as source, measured OLGs

Measured OLG for the various combinations of FM gain and SR560 gain tested. The UGF is approximately 30kHz for all combinations - the exceptions being D 1.6MHz, G=1e4 and D=3.2MHz, G=1e4. I took the latter two measurements just because these end up being the limiting values of D for different carrier frequencies on the Marconi.

Attachment #2: 2023A as LO, 2023B as source, measured spectra of control signal (uncalibrated above 30kHz)

I took the spectra down to 2Hz, in two ranges, and these are the stitched versions.

Attachment #3: 2023B as LO, 2023A as source, measured OLGs

Attachment #4: 2023B as LO, 2023A as source, measured spectra of control signal (uncalibrated above 30kHz)

So it appears that there is some difference between the two Marconis? Also, if the frequency noise ASD-frequency product is 10^4 for a healthy NPRO, these plots suggest that we should perhaps operate at a lower value of D than the 3.2MHz/V we have been using thus far?

As a quick trial, I also took quick spectra of the PLL control signals for the PSL+Aux X and PSL+Aux Y beat signals, with the 2023B as the LO (Attachment #5). The other difference is that I have plotted the spectrum down to 1 Hz (they are uncalibrated above 30Hz). The PSL+Y combination actually looks like what I would expect for an NPRO (for example, see page 2 of the datasheet of the Innolight Mephisto) particularly at lower frequencies - not sure what to make of the PSL+X combination. Also, I noticed that the amplitude of the PSL+Y beatnote was going through some large-amplitude (beat-note fluctuates between -8dBm and -20dBm) but low frequency (period ~10mins) oscillations. This has been observed before, not sure why its happening though.

More investigations to be done later tonight.

Attachment 1: 2023ALockedto2023B.pdf
Attachment 2: 2023ALockedto2023B_spectra.pdf
Attachment 3: 2023BLockedto2023A.pdf
Attachment 4: 2023BLockedto2023A_spectra.pdf
Attachment 5: TestSpectra.pdf
Attachment 6: 2016_01_AUXLaser.tar.gz
2261   Thu Nov 12 18:10:27 2009 AlbertoUpdateABSLPLL Locked

I locked the PLL and made some first measuremtns of the spectrum of the error signal. I'll post them later.

I closed the shutter of the NPRO.

2576   Mon Feb 8 14:13:03 2010 AlbertoUpdateABSLPLL Characterization

Lately I've been trying to improve the PLL for the AbsL experiment so that it could handle larger frequency steps and thus speed up the cavity scan.

The maximum frequency step that the PLL could handle withouth losing lock is given by the DC gain of the PLL. This is the product of the mixer's gain factor K [rad/V ], of the laser's calibration C [Hz/V] and of the PLL filter DC gain F(0).

I measured these quantities: K=0.226 V/rad; C=8.3e6 Hz/V and F(0)=28.7dB=21.5. The max frequency step should be Delta_f_max = 6.4MHz.

Although in reality the PLL can't handle more than a 10 KHz step. There's probably some other effect that I'm not.

I'm attaching here plots of the PLL Open Loop Gain, of the PLL filter and of a spectra of the error point measured in different circumstances.

I don't have much time to explain here how I took all those measurements. After I fix the problem, I'm going to go go through those details in an elog entry.

Does anyone have any suggestion about what, in principle, might be limiting the frequency step?

I already made sure that both cables going to the mixer (the cable with the beat signal coming from the photodiode and the cable with the LO signal coming from the Marconi) had the same length. Although ideally, for phase locking, I would still need 90 degrees of phase shift between the mixing signals, over the entire frequency range for which I do the cavity scan. By now the 90 degrees are not guaranteed.

Also, I have a boost that adds another 20 dB at DC to the PLL's filter. Although it doesn't change anything. In fact, as said above calculating the frequency step, the PLL should be able to handle 100KHz steps, as I would want the PLL to do.

Attachment 1: 2010-02-08_Old_PDH_Box_Filter_TF_gain_knob_0_Boost_OFF.png
Attachment 2: 2010-02-08_PLL_OLG_gain_knob_0_Boost_OFF.png
Attachment 3: 2010-02-08_PLL_Noise_Budget.png
2581   Tue Feb 9 09:07:06 2010 AlbertoUpdateABSLPLL Characterization

 Quote: Lately I've been trying to improve the PLL for the AbsL experiment so that it could handle larger frequency steps and thus speed up the cavity scan. The maximum frequency step that the PLL could handle withouth losing lock is given by the DC gain of the PLL. This is the product of the mixer's gain factor K [rad/V ], of the laser's calibration C [Hz/V] and of the PLL filter DC gain F(0). I measured these quantities: K=0.226 V/rad; C=8.3e6 Hz/V and F(0)=28.7dB=21.5. The max frequency step should be Delta_f_max = 6.4MHz. Although in reality the PLL can't handle more than a 10 KHz step. There's probably some other effect that I'm not. I'm attaching here plots of the PLL Open Loop Gain, of the PLL filter and of a spectra of the error point measured in different circumstances. I don't have much time to explain here how I took all those measurements. After I fix the problem, I'm going to go go through those details in an elog entry. Does anyone have any suggestion about what, in principle, might be limiting the frequency step? I already made sure that both cables going to the mixer (the cable with the beat signal coming from the photodiode and the cable with the LO signal coming from the Marconi) had the same length. Although ideally, for phase locking, I would still need 90 degrees of phase shift between the mixing signals, over the entire frequency range for which I do the cavity scan. By now the 90 degrees are not guaranteed. Also, I have a boost that adds another 20 dB at DC to the PLL's filter. Although it doesn't change anything. In fact, as said above calculating the frequency step, the PLL should be able to handle 100KHz steps, as I would want the PLL to do.

I might have found the problem with the PLL that was preventing me from scanning the frequencies by 100KHz steps. A dumb flimsy soldering in the circuit was making the PLL unstable.

After I fixed that problem and also after writing a cleverer data acquisition script in Python,  I was able to scan continuosly the range 10-200MHz in about 20min (versus the almost 1.5-2 hrs that I could do previously). I'm attaching the results to this entry.

The 'smears' on the right side of the resonance at ~33MHz, are due to the PSL's sideband. I think I know how to fix that.

As you can see, the problem is that the model for the cavity transmission still does not match very well the data. As a result, the error on the cavity length is too big (~> 10 cm - I'd like to have 1mm).

Anyway, that was only my first attempt of scanning. I'm going to repeat the measurement today too and see if I can come out better. If not, than I have to rethink the model I've been using to fit.

Attachment 1: 2010-02-08_PRCtransmissivity_EntireFreqRange_VsFit.png
2230   Tue Nov 10 19:21:53 2009 AlbertoUpdateABSLPLL Alignment

I've been trying to lock the PLL for the AbsL Experiment but I can't see the beat (between the auxiliary NPRO and the PSL).

I believe the alignment of the PLL is not good. The Farady Isolator is definitely not perfectly aligned (you can see it from the beam spot after it) but still it should be enough to see something at the PLL PD.

it's probably just that the two beams don't overlap well enough on the photodiode. I'll work on that later on.

I'm leaving the lab now. I left the auxiliary NPRO on but I closed its shutter.

All the flipping mirrors are down.

15088   Mon Dec 9 21:22:46 2019 shrutiUpdateGeneralPLL / PM measurement of Xend NPRO PZT

### In short:

Using the same setup as before with a LPF changed to have a cutoff of 5 MHz, the PLL was implemented and a TF measurement of the phase modulation was attempted. But, the beatnote drift was too high to get a prolonged phase lock (many times over 5MHz in <5 min).

### Steps undertaken:

1. Normally I would unlock the IMC (Disabling the servo between the 'Filter' and 'Polarity' on the Mode Cleaner Servo Screen), but today I did not have to since Rana had kept it unlocked.

2. Misaligned the ITMX. This is to prevent cavity resonances from returning to the laser

3. Turned up the air on the HEPA at the PSL table to 100% during the measurement

4. Cables were connected as before (diagram shown in attachment of elog 15069)

5. The X end laser NPRO was actuated for the TF measurement using a long cable connected to TO AUX_X LASER PZT

### Thoughts and observations:

- Reading out the error signal after amplification cannot distinguish between a locked loop or one out of its range. The error signal would be very small in both cases.

- Looking at the beat note on an oscilloscope, there also seemed to be an additional amplitude modulation that I had not noticed earlier. Rana suggested that it may have something to do with the pre-mode cleaner and the AOM being driven at 80 MHz

- Even though the TF was attempted, it seemed too noisy, suggesting that the PLL did not seem to work

- Rana also suggested that it may be a better idea to use the PZT of one of the lasers as the VCO for the PLL feedback instead of the Marconi.

 Quote: I worked on the setup up for the phase modulation measurement of the X end NPRO PZT. A previous similar measurement can be found here (12077). The setup was assembled based on the schematic in Attachment1. Mixer used: Level 7, Mini circuits ZP-3+ LPF: up to 1.9MHz Cables exiting the PSL table: 1. LO (Marconi -> Mixer) 2. RF (PSL+X beat note -> Mixer) The cable for this was taken from the Beat Mouth (otherwise connected to the oscilloscope) 3. Ext modulator (SR560 -> Marconi) The long cable labled 'X Green Beat' was used to connect to the PZT (from the network analyzer). Observations: The beat note kept floating between 0 and ~100 MHz The PLL part of the circuit was tested coarsely with the spectrum analyzer function of the Agilent, where the loop was seen to stabilize when the carrier frequency of the Marconi was close to the instantaneous beat frequency.

15101   Tue Dec 17 20:08:09 2019 shrutiUpdateGeneralPLL / PM measurement of Xend NPRO PZT

## 1. Some calculations

For a Unity Gain Frequency (UGF) of 1 kHz, assumed PZT response $K_{VCO}$ of 1 MHz/V, Mixer response $K_{M}$ of 25 mV/$\pi$ rad, the required gain of the amplifier is

$G = 2 \pi \times \text{UGF}/ (K_{VCO} K_M)$

G ~ 0.8

## 2. Progress

- Measured the mixer response

### Measuring mixer response:

- PSL laser temperature was adjusted so that beat frequency was roughly 25 MHz and the amplitude was found to be roughly -30dBm.

- At the RF port instead of the beat signal, a signal of 25 MHz + few kHz at -30 dBm was inputted. The LO was a 25 MHz signal was sent from the Marconi at 7 dBm.

- The mixer output was measured, with setup as in Attachment 1  Figure (A), on an oscilloscope. The slope near the small angle region of the sine curve would be the gain (in V/rad) and was found to be: $K_M \approx 25 \text{ mV}/ \pi$ rad

- Since from the above calculations it seemed like an amplifer gain of 1 should work for the PLL, I rearranged the set up as in Figure (B) of Attachment 1 to actuate the X end NPRO PZT, I adjusted the PSL temperature (slow control) to try and match the frequency to 25 MHz, but couldn't lock the loop. I was monitoring the error signal after amplification (50 ohm output of the SR 560) which showed oscillations when the beat frequency was near 25 MHz and nothing significant otherwise.

- I used a 20 dB attenuator at the amplifier output and saw the beat note oscillate for longer, but maybe because it was a 50 ohm component in a high impedance channel it did not work either (?). I tried other attenuator combinations with no better luck.

- Is there a better location to add the attenuator? Should I pursue amplifying the beat signal instead?

- Also, it seemed like the beat note drift was higher than earlier. Could it be because the PMC was unlocked?

 Quote:

Attachment 1: 20191217.png
ELOG V3.1.3-