40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 127 of 339  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Category Subjectup
  10322   Fri Aug 1 12:49:06 2014 KojiSummaryIOOMC servo analysis

Reasoning to choose the current parameters:

FSS Common: 18dB
FSS Fast: 20dB

Attachment 1:
Openloop transfer function of the IMC loop with the nominal gain setting. The UGF is 176kHz and the phase margin is 48 deg.
This is about 3 time more bandwidth than the previous setting. (Good)

It is visible that the TF has sharp roll off around 1MHz. I wonder if this comes from the demodboard LPF and/or the PMC cav pole.
In fact, according to Manasa, the PMC has the ringdown of 164.6ns which corresponds to the cavity pole of 967kHz. So this must
be there in the OLTF.

From the plot, the order of the low pass is about 5. Subtracting the slope by the cavity pole, the order is four. If I look at the TF of the minicircuits
LPFs (this entry), the phase delay of the filter at 1/10 of the cut off freq is ~30deg. And the order of the filters are maybe 6th elliptic?
So it's not yet clear if the LPF is causing a significant phase delay at 180kHz.

More significantly, the gain margin at ~1MHz is way too small. This is causing a big servo bump at that frequency as seen in Attachment 2.

In total, my recommendation is to move the LPF freq up by x2 or x3, and give a mild LPF above 500kHz.
This requires some modeling as well as try and error.

Attachment 2:

This figure is to explain how the common FSS gain was set. By increasing the gain, the UGF is increased and we can enjoy more supression (from red to purple).
The more gain, however, the more servo bump we observe above the UGF. The gain was chosen so that the total PC feedback does not exceed 3V.

Attachment 3/4:

This figure explains how the fast FSS gain (namely crossover frequency between fast and PC) was set. When the fast is low (red) the phase margin between two loops
are plenty and therefore the openloop TF is smooth. But the PC's frequency domain is large and has to work more (in rms). As the fast gain is increased, the actuation
by the PC is offloaded to the fast PZT (that's good). But eventually the phase margin is not enough and the dip start to show up (purple). This dip cause worse closed loop TF,
as seen in Attachment 4, or even an instability of the loop eventually. So the fast gain was set somewhere in between (green).

Attachment 1: MC_OLTF.pdf
MC_OLTF.pdf
Attachment 2: MC_Error_Common.pdf
MC_Error_Common.pdf
Attachment 3: MC_Crossover.pdf
MC_Crossover.pdf
Attachment 4: MC_CLTF_Fast.pdf
MC_CLTF_Fast.pdf
  10343   Thu Aug 7 11:57:59 2014 KojiSummaryIOOMC servo analysis

LISO Fit for the IMC open loop TF. The data and liso source for the fitting were attached in the ZIP file.

I noticed now that the open loop TF I measured has too less phase delay.
I used the closed loop TF to estimate the openloop TF.

Looking at this comparison, I'm afraid that the superboost was not on during the measurement.
I need a new measurement to design MC loop modification to give the AO path for broader bandwidth.

Attachment 1: MC_OLTF_Fit.pdf
MC_OLTF_Fit.pdf
Attachment 2: IMC_OLTF.zip
Attachment 3: MC_OLTF_estimated.pdf
MC_OLTF_estimated.pdf
  10351   Fri Aug 8 12:39:19 2014 ericqSummaryIOOMC servo analysis

I have measured the current boosted MC CLG below 100kHz with an SR785. Swept sine only could get me down to 10kHz, but I was able to get down to 5kHz with a noise-injection measurement. 

MCloopAug8.pdf

I am attaching the SR785 outputs, which are in dB and Degrees. Additionally I pruned the areas of bad coherence out of these, and merged them to provide data files for the CLG and OLG in Real,Imaginary format.

Attachment 1: mcLoopAug8.zip
  10354   Fri Aug 8 15:57:29 2014 ericqSummaryIOOMC servo analysis

 I did some further measurements, to try and see what corresponds to what. In the end I performed four measurements:

  1. Closed loop gain measurement on SR785: Source to MC exc, T'd to channel one. Test 2 to channel two.
  2. Open loop gain measurement on SR785: Source to MCexc, Test 2 to channel one, Test 1 to channel two.
  3. Closed loop gain measurement on AG4395: RF Source to MC exc, T'd to R input. Test 2 to A input.
  4. Open loop gain measurement on AG4395: RF Source to MC exc, Test 2 to R input. Test 1 to A input.

I then converted OLGs to CLG and vice-versa with CLG = 1/(1-OLG)

Here are two plots showing the measured and inferred loop TFs for both closed and open. 

OLTFs.pdfCLTFs.pdf

The best agreement seems to be between the directly measured OLGs. Maybe I did something weird with the CLG measurements, or input impedances are distorting things ... 

All data is attached, along with code used to generate the plots. 

Attachment 3: mcLoopAug8.zip
  10356   Fri Aug 8 18:08:12 2014 KojiSummaryIOOMC servo analysis

The closed gain I meant is the AO path: Use IN2 to excite the MC loop and measure IN1 using MON2(?).
In order to obtain the open loop gain from this meausrement, the gain mismatching needs to be compensated, though.

This measurement is to correctly predict the AO path response from the open loop transfer function.

Anyway, the openloop gain seems nicely measured. I'll try to predict AO path response from this.

  10359   Sat Aug 9 14:35:28 2014 KojiSummaryIOOMC servo analysis

Eric's OLTF turned out consistent with the AO path TF that has been measured by me on Jul 31 (entry 10322).

Attachment 1:
Updated empirical fit of the open loop TF by LISO.
In this fit, I gave some of the poles/zeros associated with the boost manually set so that I can use them for the servo design.
LISO itself can make better fitting if all of the variables are moved.

Atatchment 2:
The OLTF data and LISO source for the fitting.

Attachment 3:
Comparison of the AO path TFs. The red one was measured directly on Jul 31. The TF is normalized at the low frequency.
The blue was estimated from the OLTF model given above. They are well consistent now.

Attachment 4:
Now some servo design was tried. In the new design (blue), zeros of the super boost frequency was moved from 20kHz to 30kHz
with the hope of having flatter AO response. The improvement is very little while costing costing above 100kHz. Note that the vertical
axis is intentionally in a linear scale. In fact, the AO response is much improved compared to the one before the MC UGF was increased
(shown in magenta). We have a flatter response both in magnitude and phase.
Therefore I think there is no need to tweak the boost frequency for the AO path.
I'd rather recommend to inspect the high frequency LPFs to earn more gain margin at 1MHz as
explained in entry 10322.

Attachment 5:
This figure shows the comparison of the TFs for the current and new design trial, just in case someone is interested in to see.

 

Attachment 1: MC_OLTF_Fit.pdf
MC_OLTF_Fit.pdf
Attachment 2: liso.zip
Attachment 3: MC_CLTF_Fit.pdf
MC_CLTF_Fit.pdf
Attachment 4: MC_CLTF_new.pdf
MC_CLTF_new.pdf
Attachment 5: MC_OLTF_new.pdf
MC_OLTF_new.pdf
  10243   Sun Jul 20 09:26:27 2014 EvanUpdateElectronicsMC servo card modifications in DCC

Quote:

[Rana, Jenne]

We have decided to keep better track (using new-fangled digital "computers") of our modifications to electronics boards. 

The idea will be to create a new DCC document for every electronics board (when we pull a board and modify it, it should receive this treatment) that we have, and that document will become a history of the board's life.  Version 1 will be a copy of the original drawing.  Version 2 should be a modified version of that drawing with the current situation.  All future versions should be modified from the most recent version, to reflect any changes.  Notes for each updated version should include an elog reference to the work, so that we know why we did things, and have a place to find photos of the actual modifications.  Elogs should also include a link to the DCC version.  DCC titles should include the phrase "40m Revisions" for ease of searching.

Patient Zero for this new system will be the PMC servo card.  The DCC number is D1400221.  As of this moment, this just has the V1 original drawing with no modifications.

This has been included in the 40m's DCC document tree that Jamie started back in November 2012.

Patient One for this new system will be the MC servo card. The DCC number is D1400242. Currently, v1 is just the original drawing with no modifications. I've updated the DCC document tree at E1400326 accordingly.

It looks like we can use Jenne's information in 40m:9892 to deduce the modifications that have been made (alternatively, someone can just pull the board and examine it on the bench).

  10250   Tue Jul 22 08:24:42 2014 EvanUpdateElectronicsMC servo card: modified schematic

Quote:

Patient One for this new system will be the MC servo card. The DCC number is D1400242. Currently, v1 is just the original drawing with no modifications. I've updated the DCC document tree at E1400326 accordingly.

It looks like we can use Jenne's information in 40m:9892 to deduce the modifications that have been made (alternatively, someone can just pull the board and examine it on the bench).

The attached zip file has a modified schematic of the MC servo card (011/MC), as deduced from Jenne's photos. Someone should go through and verify that the schematic is correct. Then it can go on the DCC as D1400242-v2.

To modify the schematic, I used Inkscape (the svg files for each sheet are included in the zip file). Then to generate the pdf, I ran

for i in sheet*.svg; do inkscape -A "${i/svg/pdf}" "$i"; done

pdftk sheet*.pdf cat output D1400242

Attachment 1: D1400242.zip
  4360   Sat Feb 26 00:25:38 2011 KojiUpdateIOOMC servo improvement

[Rana / Koji]

The MC servo loop has been investigated as the MC servo was not an ideal state.

With the improved situation by us, the attached setting is used for the MC and the FSS.
The current UGF is 24kHz with phase margin is ~15deg, which is unbearably small.
We need to change the phase compensation in the FSS box some time in the next week.


- We found the PD has plenty of 29.5MHz signal in in-lock state. This was fixed by reducing the LO power and the modulation depth.

- The LO power for the MC demodulator was ~6dBm. As this was too high for the demodulator, we have reduced it down to 2dBm
by changing attenuator to 12dB (at 6 oclock of the dial) on the AM stabilization box.

- The RF power on the MC PD was still too high. The PD mush have been saturated. So the modulation slider for 29.5MHz was moved
from 0.0 to 5.0. This reduced the 29.5MHz component. (But eventually Koji restored the modulation depth after the servo shape has been modified.)

- The openloop gain of the loop has been measured using EXC A/TEST1/TEST2. The UGF was ~5kHz with the phase mergin of ~10deg. 

- This quite low phase margin is caused by the fact that the loop has f^-2 shape at around 4k-100kHz. The reference cavity has
the cavity pole of 40kHz or so while the IMC has the pole of ~4kHz. Basically we need phase lead at  around 10-100kHz.

- We decided to turn off (disable) 40:4000 boost of the MC servo to earn some phase. Then MC did not lock. This is because the LF gain was not enough.
So put Kevin's pomona box in the FAST PZT path (1.6:40). By this operation we obtain ~75deg (max) at 560Hz, ~35deg at 5kHz, ~20deg at 10kHz.

- In this setup the UGF is 24kHz. Still the phase margin is ~15kHz. This phase lag might be cause by 1)  the MC servo circut 2) PMC cavity pole

NEXT STEP

- Put/modify phase lead in the FSS box.
- Measure the PMC cavity pole
- Measure and put notch in the PZT path
- Increase the UGF / measure the openloop TF

Attachment 1: fss_servo.png
fss_servo.png
Attachment 2: mc_servo.png
mc_servo.png
  4366   Wed Mar 2 04:01:51 2011 KojiUpdateIOOMC servo improvement

[Koji / Rana]

- Since the MC servo had UGF up to ~20kHz and huge servo bump at 50kHz, we needed more phase between 20kHz to 100kHz.

- Today a phase compensation filter in a Pomona box has been inserted between the MC servo box and the FSS box.
  This is a passive filter with zero@14kHz and pole@140kHz. We obtain ~60deg at around 50kHz.

- After the insertion, the lock of the MC was achieved immediately. The overall gain as well as the PZT fast gain was tweaked
  such that the PC feedback is reduced down to 1~2.

- The OLTF has been measured.
  The insertion of the filter change increased the UGF to 130kHz even with "40:4kHz" and double super boost turned on.

  The phase margin is 54deg. Quite healthy.

- Rana modified the existed Auto Locker script.
  It is now continuously running on op340m!
  We made a couple of testsif it correctly relock the MC and it did. VERY COOL.

-----------------

NEXT STEPS
- Measure the PMC cavity pole
- Measure the circuit TF and try to shave off the phase lag.
- Measure the PZT resonance of the NPRO and put notch in the PZT path
- Increase the UGF / measure the openloop TF

Attachment 1: IMG_3904.jpg
IMG_3904.jpg
Attachment 2: MC_OLTF.pdf
MC_OLTF.pdf
  10320   Fri Aug 1 10:40:48 2014 KojiSummaryIOOMC servo summing amp

The summing amp is prepared to allow up to use bipolar full range of the FSS box output

This means that the FSS fast PZT output is now nominally 0V and can range +/-10V.

- FSS Box has the output range of +/-10V

- Thorlabs HV amp MDT694 accepts 0V ~ +10V

- This circuit add an offset of +5V while the main signal is attenuated by a factor of 2. The offset voltage is produced from the voltage reference IC AD586.

- In addition, a summing node and voltage monitors before and after the summing node are provided. They are useful to test the crossover frequency of the fast/PC loops.

- The output noise level at 10kHz was ~60 nV/rtHz. The transfer function of the circuit was measured and flat up to 100kHz. The phase delay is negligible at 10kHz and less than 3deg at 100kHz

- Although the schematic was drawn in Altium, the board is a universal 1U eurocard and all wires were hand soldered.

Attachment 1: Fast_PZT_IF.PDF
Fast_PZT_IF.PDF
  10722   Mon Nov 17 20:28:17 2014 ranaSummaryIOOMC servo summing amp

I modified the /cvs/cds/caltech/target/c1psl/psl.db file to adjust the records for the FSS-FAST signal (to make it go yellow / red at the correct voltages). This was needed to match 5V offset which Koji added to the output of the FSS board back in August.

I also manually adjusted the alarm levels with caput so that we don't have to reboot c1psl. Beware of potential tiimebomb / boot issues if I made a typo! psl.db update in the SVN (also, there were ~12 uncomitted changes in that directory....please be responsible and commit ALL changes you make in the scripts directory, even if its just a little thing and you are too cool for SVN)

  7742   Mon Nov 26 10:06:51 2012 ranaSummaryIOOMC slides from 2002
Attachment 1: MCtalk.pdf
MCtalk.pdf MCtalk.pdf MCtalk.pdf MCtalk.pdf MCtalk.pdf MCtalk.pdf
  2880   Wed May 5 01:19:05 2010 KojiUpdateIOOMC spot centering cont"d

Koji and Zach

We improved the beam axis rotaion on the MC. We still have 3mrad to be corrected.
So far we lost the MC Trans spot on CCD as the beam is now hitting the flange of the window. We need to move the steering mirror.

To do next:

- MC2 spot is too much off. Adjust it.

- Rotate axis for 3mrad more.

- MC2 spot is too much off. Adjust it.

- Adjust Vertical spot position as a final touch.


Monday

- Incident beam had 7mrad rotation.

- Tried to rotate in-vac steering mirror (IM1) in CCW

- After the long struggle the beam from PSL table started to hit north-east side of IM1 mount.

- Moved the IM1. All of the beam (input beam, MC Trans, MC Refl) got moved. Chaotic.

- Recovered TEM00 resonance. MC Trans CCD image missing. The beam axis rotation was 8.5mrad.
  Even worse. Disappointed.

Tuesday

- We made a strategic plan after some deliberation.

- We returned to the initial alignment of Saturday only for yaw.
  Not at once, such that we don't miss the resonance.

- Adjusted SM2Y and IM1Y to get reasonable resonance. Then adjusted MC2/3 to have TEM00 lock.

- Measured the spot positions. The axis rotation was 4.8mrad.

- Moved the spot on IM1 by 7mm by rotating SM2Y in CCW - ((A) in the figure)

- Compensated the misalignment by IM1Y CCW. ((B) in the figure)
  Used a large sensor card with puch holes to see the spot distribution between the MC1 and MC3.

- Fine alignment by MC2/MC3. Lock to TEM00. The beam axis rotation was 3mrad.The beam axis translation was 3mm.

- This 3mm can be Compensated by IM1Y. But this can easily let the resonance lost.
  Put the sensor card between MC1/MC3 and compensated the misalignment by MC3 and MC1.

Note: You match the returned spot from the MC2 to the incident beam by moving the spot deviation by MC3,
the spot returns to the good position on MC1. But the angle of the returned beam is totally bad.
This angle deviation can be adjusted by MC1.

Note2: This step should be done for max 2mm (2mrad) at once. As 2mrad deviation induces the spot move on the MC2 by an inch.

- After all, what we get is

MC1H = -0.15 mm
MC1V = -0.33 mm
MC3H = +0.97 mm
MC3V = -0.33 mm

This corresponds to the axis rotation of 3mrad and the beam axis translation of 0.8mm (to north).

Attachment 1: steering.png
steering.png
  2884   Thu May 6 01:06:16 2010 KojiUpdateIOOMC spot centering cont'd (Triumph)

Zach and Koji,

We finally aligned the incident beam enough close to the center of the all MC mirrors! Uraaaaah!

MC1H = -0.12mm
MC1V =
-0.13mm
MC2H = -0.15mm

MC2V = +0.14mm
MC3H = -0.14mm
MC3V = -0.11mm

The aperture right before the vacuum window has been adjusted to the beam position. This will  ensure that any misalignment on the PSL table can have the correct angle to the mode cleaner as far as it does resonate to the cavity. (This is effectively true as the small angle change produces the large displacement on the PSL table.)

If we put an aperture at the reflection, it will be perfect.

Now we can remove the MZ setup and realign the beam to the mode cleaner!


 

Method:

- The beam axis rotation has been adjusted by the method that was used yesterday.

Differential: SM2Y and IM1Y

Common: SM2Y only

- We developped scripts to shift the MC2 spot without degrading the alignment.

/cvs/cds/caltech/users/zach/MCalign/MC2_spot/MC2_spot_up
/cvs/cds/caltech/users/zach/MCalign/MC2_spot/MC2_spot_down
/cvs/cds/caltech/users/zach/MCalign/MC2_spot/MC2_spot_left
/cvs/cds/caltech/users/zach/MCalign/MC2_spot/MC2_spot_right

These scripts must be upgraded to the slow servo by the SURF students.

- These are the record of the alignment and the actuator balances

C1:SUS-MC1_PIT_COMM   =  2.4005
C1:SUS-MC1_YAW_COMM   = -4.6246
C1:SUS-MC2_PIT_COMM   =  3.4603
C1:SUS-MC2_YAW_COMM   = -1.302
C1:SUS-MC3_PIT_COMM   = -0.8094
C1:SUS-MC3_YAW_COMM   = -6.7545
C1:SUS-MC1_ULPIT_GAIN =  0.989187
C1:SUS-MC1_ULYAW_GAIN =  0.987766
C1:SUS-MC2_ULPIT_GAIN =  0.985762
C1:SUS-MC2_ULYAW_GAIN =  1.01311
C1:SUS-MC3_ULPIT_GAIN =  0.986771
C1:SUS-MC3_ULYAW_GAIN =  0.990253

  13762   Wed Apr 18 19:02:15 2018 gautamUpdateIOOMC spot centering scripts

I'm working on fixing these (and the associated MEDM scripts) up so that we can get some reliable readback on how well centered the spots are on the MC mirrors. Seems like a bunch of MEDM display paths were broken, and it looks like the optimal demod phases (to put most of the output in I quadrature) are not what the current iteration of the scripts set them to be. It may well be that the gains that convert demodulated counts to mm of spot offset are also not correct anymore. I ran the script ~4times in ~1 hour time span, and got wildly different answers for the spot centering each time, so I wouldn't trust any of those numbers atm...

As you can see in Attachment #1, I stepped the demod phase of one of the servos from -180 to 180 degrees in 5degree increments. The previously used value of 57degrees is actually close to the worst possible point (if you want the signal in the I quadrature, which is what the scripts assume).

I used Attachment #2 to change up the demod phases to maximize the I signal. I chose the demod phase such that it preserved the sign of the demodulated signal (relative to the old demod phases). I also made some StripTool templates for these, and they are in the MC directory. Doing the spot centering measurement with the updated demod phases yields the following output from the script:

spot positions in mm (MC1,2,3 pit MC1,2,3 yaw):
[0.72506586251144134, 7.1956908534034403, 0.54754354165324848, -0.94113388241389784, -3.5325883025464959, -2.4934027726657142]

Seems totally unbelievable still that we are so far off center on MC1 yaw. Perhaps the gains and calibration to convert from counts to mm of spot offset need to be rechecked.

Attachment 1: MCass_demodPhase.png
MCass_demodPhase.png
Attachment 2: MCass_demodPhases.png
MCass_demodPhases.png
  5813   Fri Nov 4 16:23:41 2011 SureshUpdateIOOMC spot decenter measured

After Kiwamu adjusted the MC2 PIT to accommodate the limited range of the PZT1 ( elog ),  I remeasured the spot positions today.  

  MC1P MC2P MC3P MC1Y MC2Y MC3Y
Yesterday 0.1354 -0.2522 -0.1383 -1.0893 0.7122 -1.5587
Today 4.0411 4.4994 3.5564 -1.4170 -0.2606 -1.7109

 

As expected there is a translation of the beam axis to one side (Up? Down?) .  

I wonder how a beam translation by 5mm solved the PZT1 angular range limitation problem (?!)

  5839   Tue Nov 8 10:34:42 2011 SureshUpdateIOOMC spot decenter measured

Quote:

After Kiwamu adjusted the MC2 PIT to accommodate the limited range of the PZT1 ( elog ),  I remeasured the spot positions today.  

  MC1P MC2P MC3P MC1Y MC2Y MC3Y
Yesterday 0.1354 -0.2522 -0.1383 -1.0893 0.7122 -1.5587
Today 4.0411 4.4994 3.5564 -1.4170 -0.2606 -1.7109
8Nov2011 4.7341 4.8794  4.3907 1.3542 -3.0508 -1.7167


As expected there is a translation of the beam axis to one side (Up? Down?) .  

I wonder how a beam translation by 5mm solved the PZT1 angular range limitation problem (?!)

 The MC alignment was bad and I wondered if it is because MC shifted or because the input PSL beam shifted.   So I remeasured the spot positions and find that MC2 Yaw has shifted a lot.   Todays measurements are in Cyan boxes above. The shift in MC3P is probably an associated shift due to some pit--yaw coupling.  So I am going to move MC2 and try to align the MC to the PSL.

  2827   Wed Apr 21 21:46:53 2010 KojiUpdateIOOMC spot diagnosis

Zach and Koji

We measured uncalibrated angle-to-length coupling using tdssine and tdsdmd.
We made a simple shell script to measure the a2l coupling.

Details:

- Opened the IMC/OMC light door.

- Saw the large misalignment mostly in pitch. Aligned using MC2 and MC3.

- Locked the MC in the low power mode. (script/MC/mcloopson AND MC length gain 0.3->1.0)

- Further aligned MC2/3. We got the transmission of 0.16, reflection of 0.2

- Tried to detect angle-to-length coupling so that we get the diagnosis of the spot positions.

- Tried to use ezcademod. Failed. They seems excite the mirror  but returned NaN.

- We used tdssine and tdsdmd instead. Succeeded.

- We made simple shell script to measure the a2l coupling. It is so far located users/koji/100421/MCspot

- We blocked the beam on the PSL table. We closed the chamber and left.

 

  7288   Mon Aug 27 18:32:48 2012 JenneUpdateIOOMC spot position - Jenne is stupid

Quote:

The MC REFL path was checked. ==> Some clippings were fixed. MC WFS is working now.

- MC was aligned manually

- The steering mirror for the WFS and camera was clipping the beam. => FIxed

- The WFS spots were realigned.

- There was small clipping on the MC REFL RFPD. ==> Fixed

 We have figured out that some of these measurements, those with the WFS off, were also not allowing the dither lines through, so no dither, so no actual measurement.

Jamie is fixing up the model so we can force the WFS to stay off, but allow the dither lines to go through.  He'll elog things later.

  7280   Mon Aug 27 01:05:36 2012 JenneUpdateIOOMC spot position - callin' it quits
spot positions in mm (MC1,2,3 pit MC1,2,3 yaw):
[-0.98675603448324423, -0.94064212026141558, 2.6749179375892544, -0.65896393156684185, -0.4508281650731974, -0.55109088188064204]

MC3 pitch isn't what I'd like it to be, but MC1 and MC3 pitch aren't quite acting in relation to each other how I'd expect. Sometimes they move in common, sometimes differentially, which is confusing since I have only ever been touching (on the PSL table) the last steering mirror before the beam is launched into the vacuum.

The latest few measurements have all been with the WFS off, but reflection of ~0.48 . I haven't figured out why yet, but MC1 and MC3 yaw WFS outputs start to escalate shortly after the WFS becoming engaged, and they keep knocking the MC out of lock, so I'm leaving them off for now, to be investigated in the morning.
Attachment 1: MCdecenter_26Aug2012.png
MCdecenter_26Aug2012.png
  7284   Mon Aug 27 12:03:54 2012 KojiUpdateIOOMC spot position - callin' it quits

The MC REFL path was checked. ==> Some clippings were fixed. MC WFS is working now.

- MC was aligned manually

- The steering mirror for the WFS and camera was clipping the beam. => FIxed

- The WFS spots were realigned.

- There was small clipping on the MC REFL RFPD. ==> Fixed

  7275   Fri Aug 24 22:01:15 2012 JenneUpdateIOOMC spot position - close

I am getting closer with the MC spot centering.  I had everything but MC1 really great, but then I tweaked MC1's pointing, and things all went to hell. 

I have to go home to let Butter out, but I'll be back tomorrow, and I'll try to get back to where I was in the 2nd to last measurement in the plot below.

I recenterd the WFS after moving the input beam, so that the beam was hitting the WFS at all.

Attachment 1: MCdecenter_24Aug2012.png
MCdecenter_24Aug2012.png
  7277   Sun Aug 26 12:26:44 2012 JenneUpdateIOOMC spot position - not done yet

Quote:

I am getting closer with the MC spot centering.  I had everything but MC1 really great, but then I tweaked MC1's pointing, and things all went to hell. 

I have to go home to let Butter out, but I'll be back tomorrow, and I'll try to get back to where I was in the 2nd to last measurement in the plot below.

I recenterd the WFS after moving the input beam, so that the beam was hitting the WFS at all.

 We are being riddled with earthquakes.  Brawley, CA (~150 miles from here) has had 9 earthquakes in the last hour, and they're getting bigger (the last 4 have been 4-point-somethings).  I may try to come back later, but right now the MC won't stay locked for the ~5 minutes it takes to measure spot positions.  Koji and Jamie said they were coming in today, so they can call me if they want help.

  14766   Wed Jul 17 03:05:01 2019 KruthiUpdateASSMC spot position measurement scripts

[Kruthi, Gautam, Rana]

Gautam installed Atom text editor on Pianosa yesterday.


MC spot position measurement scripts (these can be found in /scripts/ASS/MC directory)

  • Changed the power threshold for MC2 lock loss check from 15000 to 12000 (volts) in the MeasureSpotPositions.py script. This is because, the C1:I00-MC_TRANS_SUM reads a value, usually, greater than 14000 and with 15000 as the threshold, the script will always say the MC isn't locked even though it is!. Also, to account for additional variation we have a margin of 2000.
  • Issues with datetime: though MeasureSpotPositions.py was creating a .dat file, MC_spotMeasurement_history.py threw an error because the .dat file's name was not in the required format. I fixed this bug.
  • Just running the MeasureSpotPositions.py doesn't enter the results into the log file, instead ./mcassMCdecenter should be run
  • MC_spotMeasurement_history.py just plots the spot positions (in mm) vs days since 2013, using the log file. It still has some bugs
  6989   Wed Jul 18 14:25:44 2012 JenneUpdateIOOMC spot position measurements

The script ....../scripts/ASS/MC/mcassMCdecenter  takes ~17 minutes to run.  The biggest time sink is measuring a no-offset-added-to-coil-gains set, in between each measurement set with the coil gain offsets.  This is useful to confirm that the nominal place hasn't changed over the time of the measurement, but maybe we don't need it.  I'm leaving it for now, but if we want to make this faster, that's one of the first things to look at.

Today's measurement:

spot positions in mm (MC1,2,3 pit MC1,2,3 yaw):
[3.5716862287669224, 3.937869278443594, 2.9038058599576595, -6.511822708584913, -0.90364583591421999, 4.8221820002404279]

There doesn't seem to be any spot measurement stuff for any other optics, so I'm going to try to replicate the MC spot measuring script for the Michelson to start.

  5189   Thu Aug 11 12:54:06 2011 kiwamuUpdateIOOMC spot positions

The spot positions on the MC mirrors were adjusted by steering the MC mirrors, resulting in 1 mm off-centering on each optic.

DONE.

 

(Requirement cleared)

One of the requirements in aligning the MC mirrors is the differential spot positions in MC1 and MC3.

It determines the beam angle after the beam exists from MC, and if it's bigger than 3 mm then the beam will be possibly clipped by the Faraday (#4674).

The measured differential spot positions on MC1 and MC3 are : PIT = 0.17 mm and YAW = 1.9 mm, so they are fine.

 

(Measurement and Results)

 Suresh and I aligned the MC cavity's eigen axis by using MCASS and steering the MC mirrors.

Most of the alignment was done manually by changing the DC biases

because we failed to invert the output matrix and hence unable to activate the MCASS servo (#5167).

Then I ran Valera's script to measure the amount of the off-centering (#4355), but it gave me many error messages associated with EPICS.

So a new script newsensedecenter.csh, which is based on tdsavg instead of ezcaread, was made to avoid these error messages.

 

The resultant plot is attached. The y-axis is calibrated into the amount of the off-centering in mm.

In the plot each curve experiences one bump, which is due to the intentional coil imbalance to calibrate the data from cnts to mm (#4355).

The dashed lines are the estimated amount of off-centering.

For the definition of the signs, I followed Koji's coordinate (#2864) where the UL OSEM is always in minus side.

    Feb 26 2011      May 08 2011 Aug 2 2011 [NEW!!] Aug 10 2011 (in air)
MC1 pit [mm]   1.6   1.9  1.93 -0.858
MC2 pit [mm]   6.4   9.0 9.03 -0.844
MC3 pit [mm]   1.4   2.0 2.01 -1.03
MC1 yaw [mm]   -1.5   -1.7 -1.72 -0.847
MC2 yaw [mm]   1.0   0.2 0.178 0.582
MC3 yaw [mm]   -1.3   -1.9 -1.87 -1.06

 

Quote from #5182

After the beam spots on MC1 and MC3 were close to the actuation nodes (<1mm away)

Attachment 1: MCoffcenter.png
MCoffcenter.png
  8891   Mon Jul 22 17:03:25 2013 JenneUpdateGeneralMC spot positions

The results of today's MC spot position measurements:

spot positions in mm (MC1,2,3 pit MC1,2,3 yaw):
[2.3244717046516197, -0.094366247149508087, 1.6060842142158149, -0.74616561350974353, -0.67461746482832874, -1.3301448018100492]

MC1 and MC3 both have spots that are a little high in pitch, but everything else looks okay.

Actual Script:

/opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/ASS/MC/mcassMCdecenter

Plotting Script:

/opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/ASS/MC/MC_spotMeasurement_history.py

MCdecenter_22July2013.png

  8902   Tue Jul 23 04:26:54 2013 JenneUpdateGeneralMC spot positions

After Koji and I lowered the power into the PMC and saw that the MC locked nicely, I remeasured the spot positions (no alignment on the PSL table, or of the MC mirrors has been done.  Also, WFS are off, since there isn't any power going to them).

spot positions in mm (MC1,2,3 pit MC1,2,3 yaw):
[1.1999406656184595, 0.63492727550953243, 1.0769104750021909, -1.0260011922577466, -1.059439987970527, -1.2717741991488549]

MCdecenter_22July2013_lowpower.png

The spot positions seem to have actually gotten a bit better in pitch (although between 2 consecutive measurements there was ~0.5mm discrepancy), and no real change in yaw.  This means that Rana was right all along (surprise!), and that decreasing the power before the PMC reduces alignment pain significantly.

  9739   Tue Mar 18 21:19:22 2014 KojiSummaryIOOMC spot positions checked

MC spot sposition script was ran

/opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/ASS/MC/mcassMCdecenter

Found no notable beam position change before and after the earthquake

 

Attachment 1: MCASS.png
MCASS.png
  6688   Fri May 25 23:11:50 2012 SureshUpdateIOOMC spot positions measured

[Koji, Yuta, Suresh]

We measured the MC spot positions after re-aligning the MC.  The spot positions are listed below:

spot positions in mm (MC1,2,3 pit MC1,2,3 yaw):
    3.9073    6.6754    2.8591   -7.6985   -0.9492    7.0423

 

Procedure:

1) In the directory /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/ASS/MC  we have the following scripts

      a) mcassUp:    This sets up the MCASS lockins to excite each of the MC mirrors at a different frequency

      b) mcassOn:    This sets the MCASS output matrix to actually send the excitation signals to the mirrors

      c) senseMCdecenter:  This sequentially introduces a 10% offset into the coil gains of each mirror degree of freedom.   It also sends the lockin output data to the screen. 

      d) sensemcass.m :  This is a matlab file which digests the data gathered by the senseMCdecenter script to print a couple of plots and compute the spot positions.

      e) MCASS_StripTool.stp:  This is a set-up file for the StripTool which allows us to see the MCASS-lockin_outputs.  It is nice to see the action of senseMCdecenter  script  at work.

 

2) So the series of commands to use are

      a) ./StripTool  <-- MCASS_StripTool.stp

      b) ./mcassUp

      c) ./mcassOn

      d) ./senseMCdecenter | tee Output_file

       e) ./mcassOff

      f) ./mcassDown

       g) matlab <-- sensemcass.m  <---- Output_file

 

  5632   Fri Oct 7 19:06:46 2011 SureshUpdateIOOMC spot positions: checked and corrected.

Koji and Kiwamu had adjusted the MC beam axis slightly such that we can couple the MC output into the Y-arm without exceeding the current range of adjustability on PZT1.  This changed the centering of beam spots on MC mirrors.  I checked the mc-decentering make sure we have not made too big a compromise.  And since we can move MC2 spot position while maintaining the current positions on MC1 and MC3 decentering, we can atleast eliminate the A2L coupling on that mirror.  I used the scripts in $scripts$/MC/moveMC2/ to adjust the MC2 spot position.

Spot positions in mm (MC1,2,3 pit MC1,2,3 yaw) before adjustment:
    1.4674   -0.3548    1.0199   -1.5519    1.9834   -1.5971

After correcting MC2:

    1.4528    0.1431    0.9958   -1.2147    0.3823   -2.0163

After correcting MC1:

    1.3745    0.0669    0.8899   -1.5269    0.0296   -1.7314

 

The spot positions on MC1 and MC3 are very nearly (+/- 0.06 mm) same as before, while the MC2  decentering has been reduced close to zero.

A slight adjustment of the PZTs may be required to reset the beam pointing.

  8269   Mon Mar 11 15:52:46 2013 JenneUpdateIOOMC spots centered, WFS realigned

Looking more into the MC, it appears that no spot centering was done after the power attenuation optics were removed (see elog 8142).  Since Manasa had changed the zig-zag steering after putting in the attenuation optics (elog 7843) the pointing was not correct for the nominal MC.  This is (likely) why Yuta and Manasa found some significant decentering.  If Manasa's tweaks when preparing for vent were primarily in yaw, then this is most definitely what happened.  A note, this is why we should change to inserting the attenuation optics before the PMC, but even so, one should adjust the angle of the PBS, NOT the zig zag optics, to get the input pointing back to the same place.  This is also why it is useful to ensure the attenuation optics do not block the PSL pointing QPD pickoff, so it is easier to adjust the PBS to get back to the original pointing.

In any case, I touched the last zig-zag mirror in yaw today (the top of the knob was moved away from me) to recenter the spots.

MCspots_11Mar2013.png

With the MC unlocked, I centered the WFS.  Now the MC is back to its normal working condition....WFS are on, autolocker is on, reflected DC power is low, etc., etc.

  5393   Tue Sep 13 09:16:00 2011 SureshUpdateIOOMC spots recentered and input beam aligned

The shift of MC2 which Rana noted caused the beam spots on the MC mirrors to decenter. I used the mcassUp and mcassOn scripts and checked the output of the C1IOO lockins to get the spot positions.  I first tried to realign just the MC2 to recenter the spots.  But this was not sufficient.  I then worked on the pitch of all three optics since it is easier to align.   By the time this was done the offset in yaw also reduced, probably due to cross coupling between pitch and yaw in the coils.  At the end of the process I obtained all decentering around 1.5mm or less, then I went over to adjust the MC2TransQPD beam path so that we center the spot on the QPD.  This action shifted the stack,  I had to iterate this two more times before the successive corrections grew sufficiently small.  I think it may shift again if we touch the chamber (the image of MC2Face is still inverted).

The new spot positions in mm (MC1,2,3 pit MC1,2,3 yaw):
    1.3212   -0.8415    0.6795   -1.4292   -0.3574   -1.5208

 

 mcdecenter20110912_1.png    mcdecenter20110912_2.png      

 

- Further improvement of beam centering can be done but first I would like to be sure that the MC is stable.  The MC2Trans light is centered on the QPD as a reference.

 

  10303   Thu Jul 31 09:14:14 2014 ericqUpdateIOOMC stability

 Last night, I poked around to try and see if I could reproduce the sketchy MC behavior by exciting MC2 in a way that may be similar to what we do when using it as a CARM actuator. 

The short of it is that at frequencies under 1k, the MC lock didn't mind MC2 position excitations up to 8000 counts. However around 4-5k, a 1000 count excitation would induce a good deal of low frequency (2-5Hz) activity in the MC trans power, causing it to fluctuate by thousands of counts before unlocking. If I turned the excitation off before the unlock, it would eventually settle back down, but not immediately. 

I was able to reproduce this a handful of times before it decided to stop locking altogether, perhaps because of its random mood swings, or perhaps because this kind of disturbance is related to the mood swings...

  3209   Tue Jul 13 19:26:47 2010 ranaUpdateIOOMC still broken

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/.

Attachment 1: a.txt.gz
  864   Wed Aug 20 18:09:48 2008 YoichiUpdateIOOMC still unlocks
Being suspicious of FSS PC path as the culprit of the MC unlocks, I opened the FSS box and connected a probe to the TP7,
which is a test point in the PC path (before high voltage amplifier).
The signal is routed to an unused fast DAQ channel in the IOO rack. It is named C1:IOO-MC_TMP1 and recorded by the frame
builder. You can use this channel as a generic test DAQ channel later.

By looking at the attachment, the PC path (C1:IOO-MC_TMP1) goes crazy at the same time as other channels. So probably
it is not the trigger for the MC unlock.

Then I noticed the WFS signals drift away just before the unlock as shown in the attached plot. So now the WFS is the
main suspect.
Rob tweaked MC1 pitch to center the WFS QPDs while the MC is not locked. It improved the shape of the MC reflection.
However, the sudden MC unlock still happens. We then lowered the WFS gain from 0.5 to 0.3. Did not change the situation.
It looks like the MC length loop starts oscillating after the WFS signals drift away.
We will measure the WFS and MC OPLTF to see the stability of the loops tomorrow.

Attachment 1: MC-unlock.png
MC-unlock.png
  15805   Thu Feb 11 18:21:39 2021 gautamUpdateSUSMC suspension glitches

MC1 suspension is glitching again, so this is a good chance to install the new sat box and test it in the field.

  6295   Sat Feb 18 16:58:59 2012 kiwamuUpdateIOOMC suspension realigned

[ Den / Kiwamu]

 We have realigned the MC suspensions so that the WFS servos are smoothly engaged.

Now it seems working fine. The beam pointing to the interferometer also looks okay.

The WFSs control kept failing to engage the servos because of large misalignments in the MC suspensions.

When the TEM00 was locked, the transmitted light was only about 1200 counts and the reflected light was about 2.8 counts.

We tweaked MC1, MC2 and MC3.

Quote from #6294

When I came to the 40m this afternoon, the MC was unlocked. Here is the trend of MC_F for last 2 hours

  5762   Sat Oct 29 05:50:44 2011 kiwamuUpdateLSCMC suspensions misaligned to avid railing for PZTs

I have shifted the alignment of the MC suspensions such that the PZT won't rail.

Since I didn't care of the spot positions on the MC mirrors, currently they are terribly off from the centers.

After the shift, I realigned the Stochmon PD again.

The attachments below shows the alignment of MC and PZTs before shifting the just for a record

 MCalignOct282011.png 

Oct282011.png

Quote from #5754

 Tomorrow night I will intentionally introduce offsets in the MC suspensions to avoid the railing.
The goal will be a scan of the incident beam while measuring the recycling gain.

  8268   Mon Mar 11 14:10:05 2013 JenneUpdateEnvironmentMC suspensions moved by this morning's earthquakes

None of the suspensions All suspensions were tripped (edited by Manasa; see elog 8271) by this morning's earthquakes, but the MC suspensions are in a different place than they were a day ago.  The big symptom here is that the MCWFS are pulling the mode cleaner slightly out of alignment.  When it first locks, the reflected light is ~0.5, but when the WFS are engaged it goes up to ~0.8.  I'm going to put the MC optics back where they were (according to SUSpit and SUSyaw), and tweak up the MC from there. Probably other optics are affected, but I was going to work on continuing to center the beam on the Yarm optics, so I'll deal with the rest of the IFO in a minute.

Note re: lower plot - the mxstream was down on c1sus and c1ioo, so no fast channels on those computers were recorded for almost a day.  (The plot is one day 4 days long).  I was going to plot the seismic blrms along with the suspension pointing values, but there's no data saved, so there's no point.  Jamie tells me he thinks this spontaneous loss of the mxstream is fixed in the next RCG upgrade, and that we can talk about upgrading the RCG after the LSC meeting, so this data loss is no longer an issue.

EQ.png

MC-SUS-kicked-EQ.png

EDIT:  Plot with 4 days of trend, rather than just 1.  The MC alignment (as measured by MC refl) has been very bad for several days.  I'm going to move the suspensions back to their last good place.  Also, Manasa realigned the MC after the EQ, so I don't actually know where the suspensions got kicked to this morning.

  2928   Thu May 13 23:59:46 2010 ZachSummaryIOOMC table leveled

 After the recent removal of the old IMMT and the relocation of the Faraday isolator, the MC table was tilted a bit (southward and slightly westward---as of when I opened the chamber this afternoon). I re-leveled it by putting an extra two rectangular ballast blocks on the stack that was already hanging off the NNE edge of the table (there are a total of 4 in the stack now). I also screwed down the circular block that Koji and I put between the Faraday and SM1 on Tuesday, and re-mounted the two wire harness towers onto the table.

Needless to say, this threw the MC way out of alignment. I spent the rest of the afternoon reacquiring alignment and getting it to lock robustly. Here is a summary:

  • I adjusted MC3 until I got the 2nd, 3rd+ pass beams to overlap with the input beam between MC1&3, then I adjusted MC2&1 semi-methodically until I got something flashing at the transmitted end. This took some time.
  • I went back into the control room, engaged the loops and acquired lock on the TEM00 mode, whereupon I found that the beam spot was WAY off center on MC2 (due to my meddling with all the mirrors to get resonance flashes). I began using the MC2_spot_up (etc) scripts we wrote the other day to re-center it.
  • After a few iterations, the lock became weak, and eventually gave out. This is because the REFL beam was falling off the RFPD (and being clipped by the iris on the AP table), so I moved the iris and re-centered the beam on the diode.
  • With that, I was able to get the MC2 spot more or less centered, but then I noticed that---though the lock was clearly strong as evidenced both by the REFL power dip and visually via the camera on MC2---it looked like crap on the CCD. It seemed like there was some higher order mode structure sloshing around on top of the 00 spot, which didn't make any sense, until I realized that it was just a diffraction pattern from the TRANS beam getting clipped somewhere on the way out of the vacuum system.
  • I went back to the AP table, where I noticed that the TRANS beam was hitting near the edges of several of the mirrors on the way back to the PSL table, including the first one out of the viewport, so I turned IM4 to center the beam on this mirror, then proceeded to center the beam on each mirror downstream and then onto the CCD.
  • After getting a clear picture of the transmission on the CCD, centering the spot even better on MC2, then fine-tuning MC2&3 to strengthen the lock, I went back to the MC table to check that the transmitted beam was still passing through the center of the Faraday, which, by none other than an act of God, it was.
  • Having done the necessary work in the tank, I ran the A2L_MC2 script to fine-tune the centering of the spot on MC2. It needed a couple steps up and to the side, but after that the actuator gains for pitch and yaw were both balanced again to within ~2%, which is only slightly above the measurement error. We will probably need to adjust this continually, especially during the upgrade, so I didn't bother with getting it better than that.

After that, I shut off the loops, blocked the beam, and put the light doors back on the tanks. Then I went to the parking lot, then I got in my car, etc, etc, etc.

  2929   Fri May 14 03:30:45 2010 KojiSummaryIOOMC table leveled

Thanks Zach.This was a great job.

It was not mentioned but: was the Faraday clamped down on the table?

 

  2931   Fri May 14 10:33:01 2010 ZachSummaryIOOMC table leveled

Ah... no, I didn't. That explains why there were loose dogclamps on the table. I wrapped them in foil and put them on the clean cart. Can this wait until the next time we open the tank (i.e. to measure the beam profile), or should I go over there and clamp it down today?

 

  2935   Sat May 15 04:13:33 2010 KojiSummaryIOOMC table leveled

Fixing at the next time is absolutely OK.

Quote:

Ah... no, I didn't. That explains why there were loose dogclamps on the table. I wrapped them in foil and put them on the clean cart. Can this wait until the next time we open the tank (i.e. to measure the beam profile), or should I go over there and clamp it down today? 

 

  1130   Wed Nov 12 11:14:59 2008 CarynDAQPSLMC temp sensor hooked up incorrectly
MC Temperature sensor was not hooked up correctly. It turns out that for the 4 pin LEMO connections on the DAQ like J13, J14, etc. the channels correspond to horizontal pairs on the 4 pin LEMO. The connector we used for the temp sensor had vertical pairs connected to each BNC which resulted in both the differential pairs on J13 being read by the channel.
To check that a horizontal pair 4 pin LEMO2BNC connector actually worked correctly we unlocked the mode cleaner, and borrowed a connector that was hooked up to the MC servo (J8a). We applied a sine wave to each of the BNCs on the connector, checked the J13 signal and only one of the differential pairs on J13 was being read by the channel. So, horizontal pairs worked.
  1114   Tue Nov 4 17:58:42 2008 AlbertoDAQPSLMC temperature sensor
I added a channel for the temperature sensor on the MC1/MC3 chamber: C1:PSL-MC_TEMP_SEN.
To do that I had to reboot the frame builder. The slow servo of the FSS had to get restarted, the reference cavity locked and so the PMC and MZ.
  1228   Wed Jan 14 15:53:32 2009 steveDAQPSLMC temperature sensor

Quote:
I added a channel for the temperature sensor on the MC1/MC3 chamber: C1:PSL-MC_TEMP_SEN.
To do that I had to reboot the frame builder. The slow servo of the FSS had to get restarted, the reference cavity locked and so the PMC and MZ.


Where is this channel?
  1246   Thu Jan 22 14:38:41 2009 carynDAQPSLMC temperature sensor

Quote:

Quote:
I added a channel for the temperature sensor on the MC1/MC3 chamber: C1:PSL-MC_TEMP_SEN.
To do that I had to reboot the frame builder. The slow servo of the FSS had to get restarted, the reference cavity locked and so the PMC and MZ.


Where is this channel?


That's not the name of the channel anymore. The channel name is PEM-MC1_TEMPS. It's written in a later entry.
  1124   Fri Nov 7 18:38:19 2008 AlbertoDAQPSLMC temperature sensor hooked up
Alberto, Rana,
we found that the computer handling the signals from ICS-110B was C1IOVME so we restarted it. We changed the name of the channel to C1:PEM_TEMPS and the number to 16349. We tracked it up to the J14 connector of the DAQ.
We also observed the strange thing that both of the differential pairs on J13 are read by the channle. Also, if you connect a 50 Ohm terminator to one of the pairs, the signal even get amplified.

(The name of the channel is PEM-MC1_TEMPS)
ELOG V3.1.3-