That's true. But I thought that you measured the mode after those optics and the effect of them is already included.

So:

• We need to model the transmissive optics in order to understand the measured mode which is different from the MC mode slightly.
• We just can calculate the modes based on the measurement in order to figure out the realistic positions of the MMT1 and MMT2.

 Yes, the measured mode takes all of this into account.  But in Kevin's plot, where he compares 'measured' to 'expected', the expected doesn't take the Faraday optics into account.  So I should recalculate things to check how far off our measurement was from what we should expect, if I take the Faraday into account.  But for moving forward with things, I can just use the mode that we measured, to adjust (if necessary) the positions of MMT1 and MMT2.  All of the other transmissive optics (that I'm aware of) have already been included, such as the PRM and the BS.  This included already the air-glass curved interface on the PRM, etc.

Hm... You touched the optics between the MC and the Faraday... This will lead us to the painful work.

I am afraid that the beam is already walking off from the center of MC1/MC3 after the work on the PSL table.
This may result in the shift of the spot on those MC mirrors. So I recommend that:

- Lock the cavity
- Check the A2L for MC1/3
- Adjust it by the periscope
- If it is fine, adjust the optics after the MC (steering, Faraday, etc)

Off-centering of the MC2 spot is no problem. We can move it easily using Zach's scripts.
Tell me when the work is planed on Sunday as I might be able to join the work if it is in the evening.

The mode cleaner is locked and the air conditioning is full on. So the the air conditioning doesn't seem to be so important for the lock to hold.

  [Alberto, Kiwamu]

The MC alignment is getting better by steering the axis of the incident beam into the MC.

We found the beam spot on MC1 and MC3 were quite off-centered in the beginning of today's work. It had the coil gain ratio of 0.6:1.4 after running the A2L script.

In order to let the beam hit the center of the MC1 and MC3, we steered the bottom mirror attached on the periscope on the PSL table to the yaw direction.

And then we got better numbers for the coil gain ratio (see the numbers listed at the bottom).

For the pitch direction, there still are some rooms to improve because we didn't do anything with the pitch. It is going to be improved tomorrow or later.

Here are the amounts of off-centering on MC1 and MC3 after steering the axis. 

 C1:SUS- MC1_ULPIT_GAIN =  0.900445

C1:SUS-MC1_ULYAW_GAIN =  0.981212

C1:SUS-MC3_ULPIT_GAIN =  0.86398

C1:SUS-MC3_ULYAW_GAIN =   1.03221

Remember that you only can introduce the axis translations from the PSL table.
It is quite difficult to adjust the axis rotation.

The calibration factor from A2L results to the beam position is dx = (A2L_result - 1) *10.8mm

If I believer the result below, the spot positions on the mirrors are

MC1 Pitch      -1.1mm
MC1 Yaw        -0.20mm
MC3 Pitch      -1.5mm
MC3 Yaw        +0.35mm

This means that the beam is 1.3mm too high and 0.28mm too much in north

This corresponds to tilting SM2 by
0.33mrad in pitch (23deg in CW)
and
0.10mrad in yaw (7deg in CW).

[Alberto, Kiwamu]

0. have a coffee and then dress up the clean coat.

1. level the MC table

2. lock and align MC 

3. run A2L script to see how much off-centering of the spots

4. steer the periscope mirror <--- We are here

5. move the pick off mirror which is used for monitoring of MCT CCD

6. check the leveling and move some weights if it's necessary

7. shut down

We moved the MC-trans pick-off mirror (= the beam splitter between the input of the Faraday and the steering mirror located right after MC3). Now the beam goes through the Farady without getting clipped.

This is the list of the things that have to be done next:

1. take pictures of the beam spot just before and after the Faraday
2. lock down to the table the MCTrans pickoff mirror with its screws
3. measure the beam profile after the first MC telescope mirror (MMT1)
4. remove Jenne's extra steering mirror from the MC table
5. re-level the MC table with the bubble level
6. align the MC-trans beam to its photodiode on the PSL table
7. align the REFL beam to its photodiode on the AP table

The mode profile of the new input optics was measured.

Although the distance between each optic was not exactly the same as the design because of narrow space,

we measured the profile after the curved mirror (MMT1) that Jenne and Kevin put in the last week.

(interference from MMT1)

Below is a sketch of the current optical path inside of the chamber.

In the beginning of this measurement, the angle between the incident and the reflection on MMT1 (denoted as theta on the sketch) was relatively big (~40deg) although MMT1 was actually made for 0deg incident.

At that time we found a spatially large interference imposed on the Gaussian beam at the beam scan. This is not good for mode measurement

This bad interference can be caused by an extra reflection from the back surface of MMT1 because the interference completely vanished by removing MMT1  .

In order to reduce the interference we decreased the angle theta as small as possible. Actually we made it less than 10deg which was our best due to narrow space. 

Now the interference got less and the spot looks better.

The picture below shows an example of the beam shape taken by using the beam scan.

Top panel represents the horizontal mode and bottom panel represents the vertical mode.

You can see some bumps caused by the interference on the horizontal mode, these bumps may lead to overestimation of the horizontal spot size .

(result)

 The above plot shows the result of the mode measurement.

 Here are the parameter obtained by fitting. The data is also attached as attachment:4

Just note that MMT1 has RoC of -5m (negative!). This means that it is a lens with f=-2.5 m,

I corrected the sketch of the new IOO. 

The sketch in the last entry was also replaced by the new one. 

http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/3029 

I checked the measured data of the mode profile which was taken on the last Tuesday.

For the vertical profile,

the plot shows a good agreement between the expected radius which is computed from the past measurement, and that measured on the last Tuesday.

However for the horizontal profile,

it looks like being overestimated. This disagreement may come from the interference imposed on the Gaussian spot as we've been worried. 

So I guess we should solve this issue before restarting this mode matching work.

 - The next step we should do are;

checking the effect of MMT1 on the shape of the beam spot by using a spare of MMT1

NOTE:

The expected curve in the attached figure were computed by using the fitted parameter listed on the entry 2984 .

In the calculation the MMT1 is placed at 1911mm away from MC3 as we measured.

And the focal length of MMT1 is set to be f=-2500mm.

 When / if you use the other MMT1 mirror, make sure to take note whether or not it says "SPARE" on it in pencil.  I don't remember if it's the other MMT1, or if it's one of the MMT2's that says this.  The mirror was baked, so it's okay to use in the vacuum, however it's the one which was dropped on the floor (just prior to baking), so any discrepancies measured using that optic may not be useful.  I don't know how strong the CVI coatings are to scratches resulting in being dropped from a ~1m height.  Bob and I didn't see any obvious big scratches that day, but that doesn't necessarily give it a clean bill of health. 

The optic labeled "SPARE" should NOT be used as the final one in the IFO.

For the record, we wanted to check whether the fringes on the beam spot were caused by SM2 (see diagram above). We tried two different mirrors for SM2,

The first was one of the flat, 45 degree ones that were already on the BS table. The last, which is the one currently in place, was inside the plastic box with the clean optics that Jenne left us .

The fringes were present in both cases.

The shape of the beam spot in the new input optics got much much better 

As Alberto and Kiwamu found on the last week, the beam spot after MMT1 had not been good. So far we postponed the mode measurement due to this bad beam profile.

Today after we did several things in the vacuum chamber, the beam spot became really a good Gaussian spot. See the attachment below.

There were two problems which had caused the bad profile:

(1)  a steering mirror after MMT1 with the incident angle of non 45 deg

(2) clipping at the Faraday.

Also MCT_QPD and MCT_CCD were recovered from misalignment  

Tomorrow we are going to restart the mode matching. 

(what we did)

* We started from checking the shape of the beam going out from the BS chamber. There still were some stripes which looked like an interference on the spot. 

* We found a steering mirror after MMT1 had the incident angle of non 45 deg. In fact the mirror had a large transmission. After we made the angle roughly 45 deg, the stripes disappeared.

However the spot still didn't look a good Gaussian, it looked slightly having a bump on the horizontal profile.

* Prior to moving of some optics in the vacuum, we ran the A2L_MC scripts in order to check the beam axis. And it was okay.

* To recover the MCT, we steered one of the vacuum mirrors which was located after the pick off mirror.  And after aligning some optics on the AP table, finally we got MCT recovered.

 * We rearranged MC_refl mirrors according to the new optical layout that Koji has made. At the same time the mirrors for IFO_refl was also rearranged coarsely.

 * We leveled the optical table of the MC chamber by moving some weights. Then we locked the MC again and aligned it. We again confirmed that the beam axis was still fine by running the A2L scripts.

 * We found the beam going through Faraday was off-centered by ~5mm toward the west. So we moved it so that the beam propagates on the center of it. 

 * Then looking at the beam profile after MMT1, we found that the profile became really nicer. It showed a beautiful Gaussian. 

In the attachment below, the top panel represents the horizontal profile and the bottom one represents the vertical profile.

The blue curves overlaid on the plot are fitted Gaussian profile, showing beautiful agreements with the measured profile.

We decided not to care about the mode after MMT1.

So far Koji, Alberto and I have measured the beam profile after MMT1,

but we are going to stop this measurement and go ahead to the next step i.e. putting MMT2

There are two reasons why we don't care about the profile after MMT1:

     (1) it is difficult to fit the measured data

     (2) The position of MMT1 is not critical for the mode matching to the IFO.

The details are below.

(1) difficulty in fitting the data

The precision of each measured point looked good enough, but the fitting result varies every measurement.

The below shows the data and their fitted curves. 

In the label, "h" and "v" stand for "horizontal" and "vertical" respectively.

The solid curves represent the fitting results, varying by each measurement.

In order to increase the reliability of the fitting, we had to take some more data at further distance.

But we couldn't do it, because the beam radius already becomes 3 mm even at 2 m away from MMT1 and at this point it starts to be clipped on the aperture of the beam scan.

Thus it is difficult to increase the reliability of the fitting. 

Once if we put MMT2 the beam should have a long Rayleigh range, it means we can measure the profile at further distance, and the fitting must be more reliable.

(2) positioning of MMTs

Actually the position of MMT1 is not so critical for the mode matching. 

The most important point is the separation distance of MMT1 and MMT2.

As written in Jenne's document, if we slide the positions of MMT1 and MMT2 while keeping their appropriate separation distance, the mode match overlap still stays above 99%

This is because the beam coming from MC3 is almost collimated (ZR~8m), so the position of MMTs doesn't so matter. 

To confirm it for the real case, I also computed the mode overlap while sliding the position of MMTs by using real data. The below is the computed result.

It is computed by using the measured profile after MC3 (see the past entry).

The overlap still stay above 99% when the distance from MC to MMT is between 1300 and 3000mm.

This result suggests to us putting MMT1 as we like.  

[Jenne, Kiwamu]

We measured the mode after the Mode Matching Telescope. 

---- fitted parameters ----

       w0_h =  2.85 +/- 0.0115 mm

       w0_v =  2.835 +/- 0.00600 mm

       z0_h = 5.4 +/- 0.447  m

       z0_v  = 6.9 +/- 0.305  m

We obtained a good mode match overlap of 99.0% for the new IOO.

And if we move the position of MMT2 by another 10 cm away from MMT1, we will have 99.6% overlap. 

Yesterday Jenne and I put MMT2 on the OMC table. MMT2 was carefully put by measuring the distance between MMT1 and MMT2.

The position looked almost the same as that drawn on the CAD design.

After putting it we measured the profile after the MMT.

The attached figure shows the computed mode overlap according to the fitting result while changing the position of MMT2 in a program code.

The x-axis is the position of MMT2, the current position is set to be zero. The y-axis is the mode match overlap.

Right now the overlap is 99.0% successfully, but this is not an optimum point because the maximum overlap can be achieved at x=100 mm in the plot.

It means we can have 99.6% by moving the position of MMT2 by another 10 cm. This corresponds to an expansion of the MMT length.

If this expansion is difficult due to the narrow available space in the chamber, maybe staying of MMT2 at the current position is fine.

 That's hot stuff.

           [Joe, Kiwamu]

The better mode overlap of 99.3% was achieved by moving MMT2 by ~5 cm 

In the past measurement (elog entry #3077) we already succeeded in getting 99.0% mode overlap.

But according to the calculation there still was a room to improve it by moving MMT2 by 10 cm.

Today we moved MMT2 by ~5 cm which is a reasonable amount we could move because of the narrow space in the chamber.

Eventually it successfully got the better mode overlap.

So we eventually finished mode matching of the new IOOs 

(details)

     Actually moving of MMT2 was done by flipping the mount without moving the pedestal post as Koji suggested. 

At the same time we also flipped the mirror itself (MMT2) so that the curved surface is correctly facing toward the incident beam.

By this trick, we could move the position of MMT2 without losing precious available space for the other optics in the OMC chamber.

     The attached plot shows the result of the mode measurement after the MMT.

During the fitting I neglected the data at x=27 m and 37 m because the beam at those points were almost clipped by the aperture of the beam scan.

- - Here are the fitting results

w0_v             = 2.81183       +/- 7.793e-03  mm  (0.2772%)

w0_h             = 2.9089        +/- 1.998e-02  mm  (0.687%)

z_v             = 5.35487        +/- 0.2244     m   (4.19%)

z_h             = 1.95931        +/- 0.4151     m   (21.18%)

All the distances are calibrated from the position of MMT2 i.e. the position of MMT2 is set to be zero.

        In order to confirm our results, by using the parameters listed above I performed the same calculation of mode overlaps as that posted on the last entry (see here)

The result is shown in Attachement 2. There is an optimum point at x=62mm.

This value is consistent with what we did because we moved MMT2 by ~5 cm instead of 10 cm. 

GJ

we had to reboot the IOO VME crate right before lunch as the DAQ wasn't working correct meaning showing no real signals anymore, only strange noise. The framebuilder and everything else was working fine at that time.

• The channel used for the phase noise measurement stopped showing any useful signal right after midnight, so all the other IOO-MC signals.
  
• The data taken with those channels showed something like a 140 counts or so of steady offset with something which looked like the last bit fluctuating.
  
• Whatever signal we connected to the input it didn't change at all, floating/shorted input, sine wave etc.
• the other channels for the MC which we checked showed the same strange behaviour
  

As the other channels showed the same effect we decided to reboot the crate and everything was fine afterwards.

Kiwamu, Nancy, and I restored the power into the MC today:

1. Changed the 2" dia. mirror ahead of the MC REFL RFPD back to the old R=10% mirror.
2. Since the MC axis has changed, we had to redo the alignment of the optics in that area. Nearly all optics had to move by 1-2 cm.
3. 2 of the main mounts there had the wrong handedness (e.g. the U100-A-LH instead of RH). We rotated them to some level of reasonableness.
4. Tuned the penultimate waveplate on the PSL (ahead of the PBS) to maximize the transmission to the MC and to minimize the power in the PBS reject beam.
5. MC_REFL DC  =1.8 V.
6. Beams aligned on WFS.
7. MC mirrors alignment tweaked to maximize transmission. IN the morning we will check the whole A2L centering again. If its OK, fine. Otherwise, we'll restore the bias values and align the PSL beam to the MC via the persicope.
8. waveplates and PBS in the PSL were NOT removed.
9. MC TRANS camera and QPD have to be recentered after we are happy with the MC axis.
10. MC REFL camera has to be restored.
11. WFS measurements will commence after the SURF reports are submitted.

We found many dis-assembled Allen Key sets. Do not do this! Return tools to their proper places or else you are just wasting everyone's time!

Rana found out that a connection was bad in the shown place, due to which the MEDM screen was showing bad offset for length control.

Basically, the offset slider value would not go into the system because of that bad connection, and was locking the mode cleaner at the wrong location.

Nancy and Koji:

This is what I and Koji measured after aligning the MC in the afternoon.

MC_Trans 4.595 (avg)

MC_Refl 0.203 (avg)

MC2_trans :

power = 1.34mW

13.5% width : x=6747.8 +- 20.7 um  , y = 6699.4+- 20.7 um

Hmm. I expect that you will put more details of the work tomorrow.
i.e. motivation, method, result (the previous entry is only this),
and some discussiona with how to do next.

The WFS error signals were recorded in the order

WFS1_PIT

WFS1_YAW

WFS2_PIT

WFS2_YAW

these measurements are made in the linear region, that is the MC is nearly perfectly aligned.

This is  the average and std. dev.of 5 measurements taken of the same signals over 10 secs each. The std. dev are under 10%. And hence, I will be using 10 secs for measurements for the WFS signals after perturbations to the mirrors.

avg =

829.4408
-517.1884
297.4168
-944.7892


std_dev =

9.0506
22.9317
15.4580
8.9827

I perturbed the Pitch and Yaw of the Three mirrors (in order MC1,2,3), using ezcastep and calculated the coefficients that relate these perturbations to the WFS error signals.

The perturbation made is of -0.01 in each dof , and after measuring the WFS error for it, the system is reverted back to the previous point before making the other perturbation.

I was able to calculate the coefficients since I have assumed a linear relationship..

Following are the coefficients calculated using 10 secs measurements

coef_mat =

   1.0e+05 *

                            MC1_P   MC1_Y  MC2_P   MC2_Y    MC3_P   MC3_Y  constant
WFS1_PIT        -0.1262    0.3677   -0.4539   -0.6297   -0.1889   -0.1356   0.013664
WFS1_YAW     -0.0112   -0.7415   -0.1844    2.4509   -0.0023   -0.3531  -0.016199
WFS2_PIT         0.1251    0.4824   -0.2028   -0.6188    0.0099   -0.1490   0.006890
WFS2_YAW      0.0120   -0.7957   -0.1793    0.9962   -0.0493    0.2672 -0.013695

Also, I measured the same thing for 100s, and to my surprize, even the signs of coeficients are different.

coef_mat =

   1.0e+05 *

                           MC1_P   MC1_Y  MC2_P   MC2_Y    MC3_P   MC3_Y   constant
WFS1_PIT       -0.1981    0.3065   -0.6084   -0.9349   -0.4002   -0.3538   0.009796
WFS1_YAW     0.0607   -0.6977    0.0592    2.8753    0.3507    0.0373   -0.008194
WFS2_PIT        0.0690    0.4769   -0.2859   -0.7821   -0.1115   -0.2953  0.004150
WFS2_YAW     0.0580   -0.8153   -0.0937    1.1424    0.0650    0.4203  -0.010629

The reason I can understand is that the measurements were not made at the same time, and hence conditions might have changed.

A thing to note in all these coefficients is that they relate the error signals to the 'perturbation' around a certain point (given below). That point is assumed to lie in the linear region.

MC1_PIT      2.6129
MC1_YAW   -5.1781
MC2_PIT       3.6383
MC2_YAW    -1.2872
MC3_PIT      -1.9393
MC3_YAW    -7.518

I and Koji were trying to lock the mode cleaner for measuring the beam power at MC2 end. That is when we obtained the trans and refl values.

The beam characteristics at the MC2 were measured so that we could now use a dummy beam of similar power to test and characterize the QPD we are about to install at the MC2 end. This QPD wil provide two more signals in pitch and yaw, and hence complete 6 signals for 6 rotatioanl dof of the cavity. (4 are coming from WFS).

Once the QPD is characterised, it can be used to see the spot position at MC2. This is related to the mirror angles.

The width measurements were done using a beam scan. the beam scan was properly adjusted so that the maxima of the intensity of the sopt was at its center.

We also fitted gaussian curve to the beam profile, and it was a substantially good fit.

The whole idea is that I am trying  to look how the Wavefront sensors respond to the perturbations in the mirror angles. Once this is known, we should be able to control the mirror-movements.

the starting point would be to do just the DC measurements (which I did today). For proper analysis, AC measurements are obviously required.(will be done later).

The matrices so calculated can be inverted, and if found enough singular, the method can be used to control.

The first shot is to see teh dependency of teh error signals only on MC1 and MC3, and see if that is kind of enough to control these two mirrors.

If this works, the QPD signals could be used to control MC2 movements.

I just found the singular values and the condition number of the 4*4 matrix relating the WFS error signals and the MC1 and MC2 movements.

the condition number is ~12.5. I think its small enough to continue with the scheme. (if the measurements and all are reliable).

For yesterday - July 12th.

Yesterday, I tried understanding the MEDM and the Dataviewer screens for the WFS.

I then also decided to play around with the sensing matrix put into the WFS control system and see what happens.

I changed the sensing matrix to completely random values, and for some of the very bad values, it even lost lock :P (i wanted that to happen)

Then I put in some values near to what it already had, and saw things again.

I also put in the matrix values that I had obtained from my DC calculations, which after Rana's explanation, I understand was silly.

Later I put back the original values, but the MC lock didnot come back to what it was earlier. Probably my changing the values took it out of the linear region. THE MATRIX NOW HAS ITS OLD VALUES.

I was observing the POwer Spectrum of teh WFS signals after changing the matrix values, but it turned out to  be a flop, because  I had not removed the mean while measuring them.  I will do that again today, if we obtain the lock again (we suddenly lost MC lock badly some 20 minutes ago).

After whatever Joe/Alberto did this afternoon, the MC was not locking. Koji and I removed several of the cables in the side of the rack where they

were apparently working (I say apparently because there's no elog).

MC is now locking but the autolocker did not work at first - op340m was unable to access any channels from c1iool0. After several minutes, it mysteriously

started working - the startup.cmd yields errors seen on the terminal. I attach the screen dump/.

Sometimes I like to plot the spectrum of MC_F. Its a good diagnosis of whether something is wrong.

The red trace is noisier than the blue reference. What is the cause of this?

I tuned the gain of WFS to 0 last night at about 3am.

I turned it back on now.

To make the beam on the MC trans camera bigger, I removed the lens + ND filter that was in that path.

The camera was getting the transmission through a BS1-33 (33% reflector). The reflection went to the TRANS QPD. I changed

the R=33% into an HR mirror (Y1-45P) so now the camera has a nice beam. The QPD was now saturating so I put a ND06 into that path

so now the TRANS_SUM is ~4.5-5 V when the MC is aligned.

The MC was also misaligned and failing to lock all weekend (why??) so I aligned the MC mirrors to get it to acquire again. Since we want to

collect MC seismic data, please make sure the MC is locked and running after finishing with your various MC or PSL work (this means YOU).

Friday night myself and Koji measured the Transfer function of the QPD circuit at MC2 side using a chopper . Following was our procedure :

We connected some wires at the input and output of the filter circuit to one of the segment of teh QPD. - seg 1.

A laser light was shined on to the QPD, it was pulsed using a chopper. The frequency of rotation of the chopper was varied.

These wires were then fed to the spectum analyser , and a transfer funstion was observed, It was nearly a low pass filter

The chopper frequency was then made variable by giving the chopper a signal from the spectrum analyser. This signal just swiped a large range of the rpm of the chopper.

Now the input signal looked like a sine wave of varying frequency. the transfer function looked like a perfect LPF, with a small SNR.

Attaching the plot of the TF in the next e-log (this one is on windows and can't access /cvs/cds)

Yesterday I installed teh QPD on the table behind MC2, and observed teh signal on it.

The MC_leak is directed to it by a steering mirror.

I used the A2L_MC2 script to minimise  teh pitch and yaw gains, and estimated teh spot position on teh MC2 using that.

This spot position was aligned to the center of teh QPD.

In the night while before taking measurements, I decided to turn off the Wavefront Sensor Servos, but just after that, the MC alignment went very bad, and I could not align it in the next 2 hours.

For some reason, the MC was really mad the whole day yesterday, and was getting misaligned again and again, even when the WFS feedback was on.

The table also had another IR laser in it, which I and Koji switched off.

I will continue measuring once we pump down again.

For now, I am analysing teh QPD circuit Transfer Function.

Summary

- The vacuum chambers have been vented.

- The north heavy door of the BS chamber has been opened by Genie (not by the crane).
It was replaced by the light door. The door is currently closed.

- The MC has been locked with 20mW incident and aligned. MC REFL was left unchanged but lock was able to be achieved.

- The optics before MCT CCD and MCT QPD have been adjusted for the low power operation.

Details

- The first HWP for the variable optical attanuator (HWP/PBS/HWP pair) was set to be 86deg from the maximum transmission at 126deg.
The incident power of 19mW has been measured.

- The PSL mechanical shutter has been manually opened. Two other beam blocks has been removed.

- I found the MC was totaly misaligned with no resonance.- I tried to align it based on the previous OSEM values but in vain.

• How to align the MC mirrors from the scratch

- MC1 has been aligned so as to maximize REFL PD and DC signal of WFS QPDs.

- MC3 has been aligned by looking at the scattered light on the MC2 frames. The spot is centered on the MC2 approximately.

- MC2 has been aligned so that any resonance is seen in MC_F.

• Modification of the MCT optics

- The ND filter before the MCT was removed.

- The Y1-45S mirror before the MCT CCD, which is also used to steer the beam to the MCT QPD path, was replaced to BS1-50-45P.
The reason I used 45P is to obtain higher reflectivity. Because S has higher reflectivity than P in the each layer, I expected to have higher reflectivity for S than 50%.

- The MC REFL path has not been untouched.

• Modification of the servo

- The lock was attempted after alignment of the mirrors.  Here how to lock the MC is described below.

1. Run script/MC/mcloopson

2. Open the MC Servo screen in MEDM

3. Change the input gain from 6dB to 22dB.
Change offset from 0.78 to -0.464 (such that the length output has no offset).
Change VCO Gain from 3dB to 21dB

Change MC Length path Gain from 0.3 to 1.6

[Nancy and Koji]

We restored the full power operation of the MC.

Restoration of the suspensions

1. Found the suspension watch dogs are left turned off.
2. Found c1susvme1/2 were not running.
3. Launched the realtime processes on c1susvme1/2 and c1iscey
4. Restored the watch dogs. The suspensions looked fine.

Preparations for the high power

1. Put an ND2.0 before the MCT CCD. Confirmed the ND reflection is damped.
   MCT QPD is not necessary to be touched.

The high power operation of the MC / post lock adjustment

1. Locked the MC under the autolocker being disabled.
2. Adjusted the aperture on the MC2 face camera
3. Adjusted the spot positions on the WFS QPDs
4. Reverted the scripts to the high power ones
   (mcup / mcdown / autolockMCmain40m)
5. Logged in to op340m and restarted autolockMCmain40m

The autolocker seems working correctly.

I turned the WFS gain to 0.02 back, and the MC is locked, the data for the seismic motion might be meaningful nowforth.

Yesterday, I started twiddling with the Mode Cleaner at about 2 pm.

So the seismic data should be all good before that.

I was using it till about 3.30 am, and then left for the night with locking it and swithcing on back the WFS control

Today morning, I have started twiddling with it again, at about 10.30 am.

About my work with the mode cleaner :

I am primarily exciting the mirrors in pitch and yaw, and trying to measure the response of the WFS and the MC2 OPLEV wrt the excitation.

This thus involves switching off the WFS control while measurement.

After two more of those measurements today, I will get to finding new values for the Output Matrix of the WFS for controlling MC1 & 3, and also, try giving in control to MC2 alignment using OPLEV signals.

 TFs after the measurement -

 In the order - MC1 , MC2 , MC3 -pitch and yaw.

These plots let us know about how do the wavefront sensor signals actually respond to the mis-alignments in the mirrors.

For legibility, legend has been includded in only one plot in each pdf., its typically the same for all  3 plots.

the actual xml files for this measurement are in the directory /cvs/cds/caltech/users/nancy/Align_Matrix/highpower/spot_center

It was made sure before each measurement that the MC is best aligned, the WFS are turned off, and the spots on all 3 QPDs are centered.

I calculated the MC1&3 Vs WFS1&2 Output Matrix today from the above measurements with koji's help.

the matrix can be generated from the m file at /cvs/cds/caltech/users/nancy/Align_Matrix/matrix.m

these values were put in, and the direction of control is sort of confirmed. I tried twiddling with the gains in the loop to get a 4*4 stable control, but could not succeed.

the mode cleaner is back locked now, and WFS matrix as well as gains are reverted to the old values.  (1.30 am)

The output Matrices are

Pitch

Yaw

 I realised today morning that there was a flaw in my calculations for the yaw matrix.

Correcting the values, and also making teh tables more readable.

I will test these values once our computers are back to working condition.

Upon Nancy's request, I checked the status of the suspensions.

I found that the power strip of the 1Y4 rack was turned off.
Since it has a over current breaker, I don't know whether it happened by someone or over current.

Anyway, I restarted the sus computers, and now the suspensions are damping as usual.
The MC has been aligned, the auto locker is also working.

Incidentally, I found that the WFS servos are not working. Actually since the last night
It repeated losing lock and unlock.

Probably some values of the matrix or the gain is wrong.
I left the WFS as it is because Nancy will put new values this afternoon.
I will ask her to confirm that the old values work at the end of her work.

 Yesterday , I put in the Output Matrix, and changed the gain sliders for the 4 WFS loops.

It worked and was keeping the lock for the MC.

I then tested whether the MC1 and 3 were following any change in MC2 alignment. It was indeed workinng,

Next we stepped to putting in the gains for the MC2 oplev servo.

the signs are decided on the basis of convergence, and the magnitude is kept very low, to have a very slow control for MC2.

This complete 6 * 6 model does work, and was able to keep the transmission held.

I also tried poking each mirror in pitcg and yaw, and the cavity comes back to high resonance after some time.

This time is indeed large if the poking is made for MC2, and the transmission comes back to normal after big oscillations.

I tried to measure the Open loop TFs for all these loops yesterday, but somehow could not find a correct excitation.

I will do it today.

Plan ahead :

1.  Center the spot on MC2 and the QPD

2. Optimize the gains by looking at response to noise.

3. Measure Power Spectrum Density of each error signal.

Nancy has the Mode Cleaner for her work for the night, and is going to leave the MC happy, locked, autolocker on, WFS enabled, the works, and write down in the elog the time that she's finished. After that, I'm taking MC/seismic data all weekend long.  During the weekend, if at all possible, please don't go into the IFO room, especially near the Mode Cleaner.  If you do need to go into the IFO room, please elog the time you went in, and the time you left so I can correlate it with my data.  This is actually important, so please stick a quick elog entry in if you even think about opening the doors to the IFO room. It is much appreciated. 

From how much to how much have you chnged the gain?

I like to put the credit to Aidan for teaching Nancy how to use FOTON.

This should be in this size:

This complete 6 * 6 model does work,
and was able to keep the transmission held.
Yeeeeah!

Question:

Do you like to keep the WFS turned on?

This may change the transfer functions between the ground motion to the angle time by time,
and thus change the TF between the GND and the MCL.