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

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).

I and koji setup the measurement of the QPD response to the pitch and yaw displacements of the beam spot.

We did this using a 100mW 1064nm laser. Its power was attenuated to ~ 1.9mW, and the spot size at the QPD position was 6000-7000 um .

The QPD was put on a translation stage, using which, the center of teh QPD wrt the beam spot could be moved in pitch and yaw.

Following are the measurements :

For yaw

:

The slope of teh linear region is -8356 /inch

 For pitch

The slope of the linear region in this is 9085/inch

 The old plots looked horrible, and so here is a new plot

The slopes and other stats are

Pitch

Linear model Poly1:
     f(x) = p1*x + p2
Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):
       p1 =        8550  (7684, 9417)
       p2 =       -2148  (-2390, -1906)

Goodness of fit:
  SSE: 9944
  R-square: 0.9923
  Adjusted R-square: 0.9907
  RMSE: 44.59

Yaw

Linear model Poly1:
     f(x) = p1*x + p2
Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):
       p1 =       -8310  (-8958, -7662)
       p2 =        2084  (1916, 2252)

Goodness of fit:
  SSE: 6923
  R-square: 0.9954
  Adjusted R-square: 0.9945
  RMSE: 37.21

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).

Summary of this week's work Wednesday - Aligned the mode cleaner with Koji, and then measured the beam characteristics at MC2 end. Koji then taught me how to read the WFS signals Thursday - wrote a script to measure the signals and calculated the coefficients relating mirror movement and DC signals of WFS. To know the possibility of the control, found SVD of the coeff matrix, and condition number. Friday - Set up the measurement of QPD linear response using a laser outside the cavity. Took data. Monday - did the calculations and plotting for the above experiment. Then played around with the MEDM screens , and also tried to see what happens to the Power Spectrum of WFS signals by changing the coefficients in teh matrix. (failed) Tuesday - played around with WFS, tried seeing what it does when switched on at different points, and also what it does when I disturb the system while WFS has kept it locked.

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

I turned it back on now.

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.

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.

 E-log entry for Friday - will attach more plots to this entry on wednesday after i am back   to the 40.

Status	MC_Trans	MC_REF
New Control ON
New Control OFF
Old Control ON

 Well, the data is kind of not enough to be analysed in time domain,

But by far from what I analyse, I think that the new control is not worse than the old one.

I donot also find any better results, except for this one being theoritically stronger.

Since the laser is off, Jenne and I rasied the chiller-chiller (small AC in the Control Room) set point temperature to 73 degree F (from 68F) to save people from shivering.

 I have taken the charger for the dark gray dell laptop from its station, and have labelled the information there too.

Will keep it back tonight.

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 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.

EDIT: The script and template file have been moved to /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/general/netgpibdata/

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The NEW and IMPROVED script for remotely getting data from Agilent 4395A network analyzer is located at /users/nichin

This script is quite different from the one in Elog 10108 and fetches us both magnitude and phase. There is an added feature of setting the IF Bandwidth.

The network analyzer is located at crocetta.martian (192.168.113.108)

How to run the script:

> python NWAG4395A_data_acq.py [filename.yml]

1. The script accepts sweep parameters and output options via a .yml file that is written following a template that can be found at /users/nichin/NWAG4395A_parameters.yml
2. The data obtained is stored as a .dat file and the corresponding details regarding the acquired data is in a .par parameter file
3. Separate .dat and .par files are created for phase and magnitude of voltage data.
4. You can choose to get a plot of the data obtained by specifying it in the .yml file. The plots are automatically stored as PDF.
5. Plots, data and parameter files are all stored in a new folder that is created with a timestamp in its name.
6. NOTE: Plotting options are only available in computers running numpy versions of 1.6.0 or above.(Currently only Ottavia and Chiara)

Test Run:

I connected a simple 2MHz Low pass filter between the modulation output and signal input of the NA and ran a scan from 100KHz to 20MHz. The script was run from Ottavia.

The expected plot was obtained and is attached here.

Current work:

Setting up the RF switch in rack 1Y1 to select between required PDs and scripts to tell it which channel to choose over the Ethernet.

Yes, at 45degrees PR3 will only have a curvature of about 850m for the vertical mode of the beam, apparently not enough to stabilize the cavity.

 Also make sure you are taking into account the substrate of the ETM.

Is this reflection measured with the cavity locked or unlocked?

So what's the actual designed reflectivity of the ETM for green? No one seems to be able to give me a straight answer about this.

Looking at the reflected beam when the beam is misaligned makes it look like it's << 0.9. Is that expected given the coating spec?

You say the cavity scan goes as high as 300cts but you can only lock to 30cts, are you locked on the sideband?

I'd repeat the measurement for REFL11. The PRC arrow has some big error bar on it, and maybe the true error is even bigger.

Also, please make the placement of the plots the same for modeled and measured so it's easy to compare.

 The 785 analyzer in the 40 had a wonky hard to read screen. I was hoping that a new white CRT would fix all the problems. 

I installed a white CRT, which didn't fix the wonkyness, but I adjusted the CRT position, brightness, focus settings to make the screen somewhat more readable.

BEFORE:

AFTER:

If we want to send the thing in for service to fix the wonkyness, we should probably hold on to the old CRT because they will probably replace the whole screen assembly and we'll lose our white screen.

In order to better understand how the composite signal would behave in the presence of noise, I decided to do a simple analysis of the cavity signals while sweeping through resonance.

My noise model was to just assume that a given signal has some rms uncertainty (error bars) and use linear error propagation to propagate from simple signals to more complicated ones.

I used the python package uncertainties to do the error propagation.

I assumed that the ALS signal, the cavity transmission, and the cavity PDH error signal all have some constant noise that is independent of the cavity detuning. Below is a sweep through resonance (x axis is cavity detuning in units of radians).

The shaded region represents the error on each signal.

Next I calculated the 'first order' calculated error signals. These being a raw PDH, normalized PDH, an inverse square root trans, and the normal ALS again. I tuned the gains so they match appropriately.

Here, one can see how the error in the trans signal propagates to the normalized and trans signals and becomes large are the fractional error in the trans signal becomes large.

Next I did some optimization of linear combinations of these signals. I told the code to maximize the total signal to noise ratio, while ensuring that the overall signal had positive gain. I did this again as a function of the cavity detuning.

Each curve represents the optimized weight of the corresponding signal as a function of detuning.

So this is roughly doing what we expect, it prefers ALS far from the resonance, and PDH close to the resonance, while smoothly moving into square root trans in the middle.

It's a little fake, but it gives us an idea of what the 'best' we can do is.

Finally I used these weights to recombine the signals into a composite, to get an idea of the noise of the overall signal. At the same time, I plot the weighting proposed by Koji's mathematica notebook (using trans and 1-trans, and a hard switch to ALS).

So as one can see, at least for the noise levels I chose, the koji weighting is not much worse than the 'optimal' weighting. While it is much simpler.

The code for all this is in the svn at 40mSVN/nicolas/workspace/2014-03-06_compositeerror

#!/bin/bash   ### this is a comment  PATH=$PATH:/home/user/path    echo "How cool is this?" 

EDIT: it looks like the code highlighting is sort of broken :-(.

 Larry and Nicolas

Larry's transfer function measurements suddenly started returning 0dB 0degrees when before there was some fake filter in the C1:ALS-OFFSETTER2 filter bank.

We looked in the filter bank and his filter was gone. So I created a new filter called LARRYP in FM2. We also disabled the output so he could drive the filter bank and test his TF code.

 Nope, we did not touch any of the PDs other than AS55. I have mentioned in  my elog:10037 what we did exactly.

We just looked at all the other PDs to check if they were being illuminated by the correctly labeled fiber. Nothing other than that.

 I suspect the integrators get fed a huge wrong signal on lockloss. Clearing the history on the trans DOFs when the MC was badly aligned gets it nicely aligned again. I switched off the alignment transmission DOFs for now.

 I don't believe it had any effect, as all the calculations gave me the same target waist.

I don't know much about how the cron job runs, I'll forward this to Max.

Max says it should be fixed now. Have the emails stopped?

Great, thanks!

I could probably install the new fan if we have one.  Can you do without the laser for a while?

Disconcerting because those tip seals were just replaced [15417]. Maybe they were just defective, but if there is a more serious problem with the pump, there is a spare Varian roughing pump (the old TP2 dry pump) sitting at the X-end.

I reset the interlock error to unfreeze the vac controls (leaving V5 closed).

Yes,

For the thin optics adapter design, we want Peek 1/4-20 screw (part # 98885A131) to replace the lower back long EQ stop. On it, we will have a Peek washer (part # 93785A600) fastened between two Peek nuts (part #98886A813).

For the thick optics adapter design, we want Peek 1/4-20 screw (part # 98885A131) to replace both the upper and lower back EQ stop. On the upper stop, we need a single Peek nut (part #98886A813).

I will cure-test the Vacseal.

I handed the Peek parts we got from McMaster to Jordan for C&B.

Cron starts with only a very minimal PATH.  However, this shouldn't be an issue if you specify the full path to the commands.

The rest of the env vars should probably not be there.

Also, Zach:  using /cvs/cds is now forbidden.  We need to put this script in the right place.

There is a package that provides the mex source, but it doesn't actually provide the mex binaries.  The problem is that the binary depends on the matlab version, so you can't possibly provide binaries for every version.

The solution is to just build the binaries from the source package.  We should put together a nice script that builds the binaries from the source, and installs them in the directory of your choosing.  If we get something nice working, we can probably get them to include it with the package, to make it easier in the future.

Here's what's included in the source package:

controls@pianosa:~ 0$ sudo apt-get install nds2-client-matlab
...
controls@pianosa:~ 0$ dpkg -L nds2-client-matlab | sort
/.
/usr
/usr/share
/usr/share/doc
/usr/share/doc/nds2-client-matlab
/usr/share/doc/nds2-client-matlab/changelog.Debian.gz
/usr/share/doc/nds2-client-matlab/changelog.gz
/usr/share/doc/nds2-client-matlab/copyright
/usr/share/matlab
/usr/share/matlab/NDS2_GetChannels.m
/usr/share/matlab/NDS2_GetData.m
/usr/share/matlab/NDS_GetChannels.m
/usr/share/matlab/NDS_GetData.m
/usr/share/matlab/NDS_GetMinuteTrend.m
/usr/share/matlab/NDS_GetSecondTrend.m
/usr/share/matlab/src
/usr/share/matlab/src/NDS2_GetChannels.c
/usr/share/matlab/src/NDS2_GetData.c
/usr/share/matlab/src/NDS_GetChannels.c
/usr/share/matlab/src/NDS_GetData.c
/usr/share/matlab/src/nds_mex_utils.c
/usr/share/matlab/src/nds_mex_utils.h
controls@pianosa:~ 0$ 

  It's a very good plan to always inspect the exit code of your command.  Well done.

I restarted the LSC models in the usual way via the c1lsc reboot script. After doing this I was able to lock the YARM configuration for more noise coupling scripting.

DASWG is not what we want to use for config; we should use the K. Thorne LLO instructions, like I did for ROSSA.

I found them, thanks. After c1psl, there are 4 2GB DIMM cards and 1 SSD left. I moved them into the storage bins with all the other Acromag parts.

You're right. We had the right idea before but we got confused about this issue. I changed all the XT1121s to XT1111 and vice versa. We already know which channels are sourcing and which not. Updated the wiring spreadsheet. The chassis seems to work. It's time to pass it over to Chub.

that little PD in the black mount was never very good. The AD829 is not a good opamp for transimpedance and especially not good for low frequencies. Stefan Ballmer and I were able to get 2e-8 out of these (@100 Hz) many years ago.

I wonder if we have some of Zach's M2ISS photodetectors around, perhaps in QIL or Cryo. I doubt that any of them are in use now. Those had good performance nad BNC output.

I worked a bit on the PSL table today