Today I tested the photosensor head combination (2 Hamamatsu S5971 photodiodes and 1 Hamamatsu L9337 LED). I discovered that I had burnt out the LED and the photodiodes when I soldered them to the PCB board.
After looking up soldering information on Hamamatsu photodiodes, I learned that I need to solder at least 2 mm away from the head. I checked the pins of my burnt-out photodiodes and I had soldered 1.5 mm away from the head. To prevent this problem from happening again, Suresh suggested that I clip a lead onto photodiode/LED pin while I solder on connections to help dissipate some of the heat.
Today I was able to get a single photodiode (not attached to the PCB) to measure light emitted from an LED and I observed how voltage fluctuated as I moved the photodiode around the LED.
Suresh and Jamie also helped me to fix my photosensor head design (to make it more electrically-stable). Originally, I had planned to solder the LED and photodiodes onto a PCB and to mount that PCB to the front of a small metal Pomona Electronics box (with a whole cut out for the photodiodes and LED) using spacers, screws, and nuts. However, the PCB I am using to solder on the LED and photodiodes has metal connections that may cause problems for the LED and photodiodes lying on the surface. Now, the plan is to have the LED and photodiodes mounted to the PCB with an insulatory PCB in between. Below is an explanatory picture. I will determine the placement of the LED and photodiodes after making screws holes in the two PCBs to attach to the metal face of the box. I want to attach the screw holes first to make sure that the PCBs (and attached photosensor) are centered.
Ah! I see! Thank you!
I should put the LEDs and photodiodes closer together so that more of the reflected light falls on the photodiodes and the photodiodes have a higher response.
Also the reflectivity of the mirror will be optimized if the incident light is normal to the mirror surface. We will be setting up the photosensor and mirror so that the LEDs
emit light normal to the mirror surface. During displacement, this light may be slightly off-normal but still close to normal incidence. We want the photodiodes to be close to the LED since we want
them to detect light that is close to the path of normal incidence (small angles of reflection). [Thanks to Jenne for helping me figure this one out!]
Thank you for the suggestion ^___^
You are right Jamie! Thank you for the correction! I will now use the Teflon sheet instead of the PCB piece.
The photodiodes do have three legs, but I imagined the third one lying on a different plane, since it is spaced apart from the two I have drawn.
I should include this third leg in my drawing?
Today I learned some important circuit-building lessons while testing my photosensor circuit box (i.e. how NOT to test a circuit and, conversely, things that should be done instead).
I blew my first circuit today. The victim is in the photo below (bottom 7805 voltage regulator). The plastic covering fell off after I removed the fried regulator. After checking various components, I figured out that I blew the circuit because I had forgotten to ground the regulator. Although this was very unfortunate, I did make an important discovery. While testing the voltage output of the 7805 voltage regulator (I put a new one), I discovered that contrary to the claims of the datasheet, an input voltage of 5V will not produce a steady 5V supply. I found that at 5V, my regulator was only producing 4.117 V. I was using a 5 V supply because I wanted to use only 1 power supply (I was using a two-channel power supply that had a fixed 5V output to produce the +15, -15, ground, and 5 V I need for my photosensor circuit box). After seeing this, I got a second power supply and am now using 10V to as an input for the regulator to produce 4.961V. I found that from a voltage range of 10V to 15 V, the regulator produced a steady 4.961 V supply. I have decided to use 10V as an input. My newly-grounded voltage regulator did not smoke or get hot at 10V.
After several more debugging trials (my LED was still not lighting up, according to the infared viewer), I learned another painful lesson. I learned DO NOT USE CLIP LEADS TO TEST CIRCUITS!!!! Initally, I was powering my circuit and making all of my connections between the photosensor head (2 photodiodes and 1 LED) with clip leads. This was a BAD IDEA BECAUSE CLIP LEADS ARE UNSTABLE AND IT IS VERY EASY TO SHORT A CIRCUIT IF THEY ACCIDENTALLY TOUCH! I did not realize this important lesson until my photosensor circuit was once again burning. Confused as to why my circuit was once again burning, I foolishly touched the voltage regulator. As you can see on the top voltage regulator in the photo below, my finger left its mark on the smoldering voltage regulator. As you cannot see the wincing on my face as I try to type this long elog, I will painfully type that the voltage regulator left its own mark on my finger (an ugly sore little welt). Suresh has taught me a valuable lesson: WHEN DEALING WITH SOMETHING OF QUESTIONABLE/UNKNOWN TEMPERATURE, USE YOUR NOSE, NOT YOUR FINGER TO DETERMINE IF THAT COMPONENT IS HOT!!!!
To make my circuit-testing safer, upon the suggestion of Suresh, I have since removed the clip leads and inserted a 12 pin IDC component (pictured below). There are 12 pins for the 6 inputs I will get from each of the 2 photosensor heads. I have requested orders for a 16 pin IDC connector, 15 pin Dsub male part, 15 pin Dsub feed-thru, 9 pin Dsub male part (2), and 9 pin Dsub feed-thru (2). After receiving these components, I should be able to safely test my circuit.
In the meanwhile, I can explore SimMechanics and try to figure out how to use the accelerometer
Since last week Wednesday, I have since found a Pomona Electronics box (thanks to Jenne)
to use for my photosensor head circuit (to house the LED and 2 photodiodes). Suresh has
shown me how to use the 9-pin Dsub connector punch, and I have punched a hole in this box
to attach the Dsub connector.
Since this past entry regarding my mechanical design for the photosensor head (Photosensor Head Lessons),
I have modified the design to use a Teflon sheet instead of a copper PCB and I have moved the LED
and photodiodes closer together, upon the suggestions of Jamie and Koji. The distance between
components is now 0.112" instead of the initial 0.28". Last night, I cut the PCB board for the LED
and photodiodes and I drilled holes onto the PCB board and Teflon sheet so that the two may be
mounted to the metal plate face of the Pomona box. I still need to cut the viewer hole for and
drill screws into the face plate.
I have also been attempting to debug my photosensor circuit (box and LED/photodiode combination).
Since this last entry (Painful Votlage Regulator and Circuit Lessons), Suresh has helped me to get the parts
that I need from the Downs Electronics lab (15 wire ribbon cable, two 9 pin D-sub connectors M,
one 15 pin D-sub connector M, one 16 pin IDC connector). Upon the suggestion of Jamie, I have
also made additional safety changes to the circuit by fixing some of the soldering connections
so that all connections are done with wires (I had a few immediate lines connected with solder).
I believe the the photosensor circuit box is finally ready for testing. I may just need some help
attaching the IDC connector to the ribbon cable. After this, I would like to resume SAFELY
testing my circuit.
I have also been exploring SimMechanics. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to run the
inverted pendulum model by Sekiguchi Takanori. Everytime I attempt to run it, it says
there is an error and it shuts down Matlab. In the meanwhile, I have been watching
SimMechanics demos and trying to understand how to build a model. I'm thinking that
maybe once I figure out how SimMechanics works, I can use the image of his model
(I can see the model but it will not run) to construct a similar one that will hopefully work.
I have also been attempting to figure out the circuitry for the pre-assembled
accelerometer (made with the LIS3106AL chip). I have been trying to use a multi-meter
to figure out what the components are (beyond the accelerometer chip, which I have
printed out the datasheet for), but have been unsuccessful at that. I have figured out
that the small 5 pin chip says LAMR and is a voltage regulator. I am hoping that if I can
find the data sheet for this voltage regulator, I can figure out the circuitry. Unfortunately,
I cannot find any datasheets for a LAMR voltage regulator. There is one by LAMAR, but
the ones I have seen are all much larger. Does anyone know what the miniature voltage
regulator below is called and if "LAMR" is short for "LAMAR"?
Since last week, I've been working on building the photosensor head and have been making adjustments to my photosensor circuit box.
Changes to photosensor circuit (for box):
1) Last week, I was reading in the two signals from the two heads through a single input. Now there are two separate inputs for the two separate photosensors
2)During one of my many voltage regulator replacements, I apparently used a 7915 voltage regulator instead of a 7805 (thanks, Koji, for pointing that out! I never would have caught that mistake X___X)
3)I was powering my 5V voltage regulator with 10V...Now I'm using 15 V (now I only need 1 power supply and 3 voltage input plugs)
I have also began assembling my first photosensor head. Here is what I have so far:
Here is what needs to be done still for the photosensor head
I need to find four Teflon washers and nuts to rigidly attach the isolated PCB (PCB, Teflon sheet combination) to the box. I already have the plastic screws in (I want to use plastic and Teflon for electrical isolation purposes, so as to not short my circuit).
I need to attach the sheath of my signal cable to the box of the photosensor head for noise reduction (plan: drill screw into photosensor head box to wrap sheath wires around)
I need to attach the D-sub to the other end of my signal cable so that it can connect to the circuit box. So far, I only have the D-sub to connect the cable to my photosensor head
Yesterday, Suresh helped to walk me through the photosensor box circuit so that I now understand what voltages to expect for my circuit box trouble-shooting. After this lesson, we figured out that the problem with my photosensor box was that the two op-amps were saturated (so I fixed the feedback!). After replacing the resistor, I got the LED to light up! I still had problems reading the voltage signals from the photodiodes. I was reading 13.5V from the op amp output, but Koji explained to me that this meant that I was too close to saturation (the photodiodes were perhaps producing too much photocurrent, bringing the output close to saturation). I switched the 150 K resistor in the feedback loop to a 3.4K resistor and have thus successfully gotten displacement-dependent voltage outputs (i.e. the voltage output fluctuates as I move my hand closer and farther from the photosensor head).
Now that I have a successful circuit to power and read outputs from one photosensor, I can begin working on the other half of the circuit to power the other photosensor!
Here is the calibration curve (displacement versus voltage output) for the photosensor head that I made with the S5971 photodiodes and L9337 LEDs. This was made using a regular mirror. The linear region appears to be between 0.4 and 0.75cm. I will need to arrange the photosensor head so it measures displacements in the linear region of this plot. This plot was made using a 287 ohm resistor.
The EM shaker was broken (the input terminals (banana inputs) had snapped off. To fix this, I have mounted two banana input mounting posts to a metal mount that Steve attached to the shaker.
However, because bananas do not provide a secure connection (they easily fall out), I have made special wires to connect the banana inputs of the shaker to the mounted banana inputs of the amplifier I am using (along with the sine generating function of the HP 3563A signal analyzer). Upon Koji's suggestion, I have made C-shaped clips to attach to the banana post mounts. These clips are made from insulated ring terminals.
Today I tested the shaker and it works! WOOT! I currently have the shaker attached to the horizontal sliding platform (without the TT suspension on it).
Using a 750mHz signal from the HP 3563A with an amplitude of 500 mV amplified to 0.75V, I have gotten the shaker to displace the platform (without the TT suspension on it) 1 mm.
The TT suspension base was not able to be securely mounted to the optical table (i.e. mounted with 4 screws)
because the spacing between the screw holes in the base did not have the correct spacing for mounting on a table with a 1 inch pitch.
We have carefully removed the suspension from the problematic base. PLEASE BE VERY CAREFUL AROUND THE TABLE NEXT TO THE MC-2 CHAMBER! THE TT SUSPENSION IS RESTING THERE WITHOUT THE BASE! I will reattach it to the base tomorrow morning when I am less tired and more careful!
We measured the base to be about 4.882" x 3.774". The screw hole spacing is about 3.775" and 2.710" respectively. I have changed the diameter of the screw holes from 0.26" to 0.315" and have been able to successfully mount the suspension to the 1 inch pitch table next to the MC-2 chamber.
Now that the TT suspension can be mounted, I am going to be aligning a 670nm LED laser and balancing the mirror on the TT tomorrow morning. I will be using a beam blocker but please still be careful.
This week I have determined the linear region for my photosensor. I have determined the linear region to be -14.32 V/cm in the region 0.4cm 0.75 cm.
In order to obtain this voltage plot, I used a 287K resistor to set the max voltage output for the photodiodes. This calibration was obtained using a small rectangular standing mirror (not the TT testing mirror that Steve has ordered for me).
I have also been working on the second half of the photosensor circuit (to power the LED and read out voltages for the second photosensor head). I have assembled the constant-current section of the circuit and need to do the voltage-output section of the circuit. I also need to finish assembling the second photosensor head and cables.
I submitted my Second Progress Report on Tuesday.
I have attached the mirror to the TT suspension. We are using 0.006 diameter tungsten wire to suspend the mirror. I am currently working on balancing the mirror.
This morning, I realized that the current set-up of the horizontal shaker does not allow for the TT to be securely mounted. I was going to change the drill holes in the horizontal slider base (1 inch pitch). Jamie has suggested that it is better to make a pair of holes in the base larger. The circled holes are the ones that will be expanded to a 0.26" diameter so that I can mount the mirror securely to the horizontal slider base. There is a concern that a bit of the TT suspension base will hang over the edge of the horizontal sliding plate. We are not sure if this will cause problems with shaking the mirror evenly. Suggestions/advice are appreciated.
In order to more-securely mount the TT supsion to the horizontal sliding base, I have made a sub-mounting plate (upon Koji's suggestion) to go in between the horizontal sliding base and the TT suspension base. I made many mistakes in this once-pristine aluminum board. I learned that using a ruler is not good enough for determining where to make holes. Upon Koji's suggestion, I have completed the mounting plate by first making a full-scale diagram on Solid Works, printing it out, and then using the diagram to determine where to make my punch holes. Thank you also to Manuel for helping me drill and to Suresh for teaching me how to use the taps!
I have been able to successfully mount the plate to the horizontal sliding platform. The TT suspension base is mounted to the front of the mounting plate (there are counter-sink screws at the front connecting the platform to the slider so that the screw heads do not obstruct the TT base). I have been able to successfully mount the TT suspension base to the mounting plate. I have also reattached the TT suspension frame to its original base (the one that I modified so that the TT could be mounted to a 1 inch pitch surface). Currently, the TT suspension is mounted to the optical table I have been working on (next to the MC-2 chamber). I am working on balancing the mirror. I am going to balance the mirror using a 670nm LED laser.
Below is a picture of the laser and the laser block I am using. After I took this photo, I have mounted the laser and the block to the optical table next to the MC-2 chamber.
I have already leveled the laser and I will plan to work on balancing the mirror tomorrow morning (my hands were shaking a lot this afternoon/evening, so I think it would be best to wait until the morning when I will be more careful). I am now going to work on the second half of my photosensor circuit box and second sensor head.
Please do not touch the 670nm laser on the optical table next to the MC-2 chamber! It has been leveled. Please also be careful around the optical table, since the TT suspension is mounted to the table!
Today I balanced the mirror, finished putting together the second photosensor, and finished my photosensor circuit box!
Upon Jamie's suggestion, I have used a translation stage to obtain calibration data points (voltage outputs relative to displacement) for the new photosensor and for the first photosensor.
I will plot these tomorrow morning (too hungry now > < )
Here is a photo of the inside of my circuit box! It is finally done! It is now enclosed in a nice aluminum casing ^ ^
Here are the new calibration plots for my photosensors. These calibrations were done using a translation stage.
The linear region for the first photosensor appears to be between 15.2mm and 30 mm
The linear region for the second photosensor appears to be between 12.7mm and 22.9mm
The slope for both is -0.32 V/mm (more precisely, -0.3201 V/mm for PS 1 and -0.3195 V/mm for PS 2)
This week, I have finished assembling everything I need to begin shaking. I built an intermediary mounting stage to mount the TT suspension base to the horizontal sliding platform, finished assembling the second photodiode, finished assembling the photosensor circuit box, and calibrated the two photosensors. Today I built a platform/stage to mount the photodiodes so that they are located close enough to the mirror/suspension that they can operate in the linear range. Below is an image of the set-up.
The amplifer that Koji fixed is acting a bit strange again...It is sometimes shutting off (Apparently, it can only manage to do short runs ~ 1minute? That should be enough time?).
The set-up is ready to begin taking measurements.
Last night, I attached a metal plate to the Vout faceplate of my photosensor circuit box because the BNC connection terminals were loose. This was Jamie's suggestion to establish a more secure connection (I had originally drilled holes for the BNCs that were much too large).
I have also fixed the mechancial set-up of my shaking experiment so that the horizontal sliding platform does not interfere with the photodiode mounting stage. Koji pointed out last night that in the full range of motion, the photodiode mounting stage interferes with the movement of the sliding platform when the platform is at its full range.
I have began shaking. I am getting a problem, as my voltage outputs are just appearing a high-frequency noise.
Thanks to Koji's help, the second photosensor, which was not working, has been fixed. I have re-calibrated the photosensor after fixing a problem with the circuit. I have determined the new linear region to lie between 7.6 mm and 19.8mm. The slope defining the linear region is -0.26 V/mm (no longer the same as the first photosensor, which is -0.32 V/mm).
Here is the calibration plot.
Koji and I have finished shaking the table for the first round of measurements (horizontal shaking). We have cleaned up the lab space used.
The FFT Analyzer has been put back to its position at the back side of the rack (near the seismometers).
I will calibrate the photosensor for the suspension frame and piece together/analyze/produce graphs of the data today. If everything is fine (the measurements are fine) and if there is a chance, we hope to shake the TT suspension vertically.
I have re-calibrated the photosensor I used to measure the displacements of the TT frame (what I call "Photosensor 2").
As before, the linear region is about 15.2mm to 25.4mm. It is characterized by the slope -0.0996 V/mm (-0.1 V/mm). Recall that photosensor 1 (used to measure mirror displacements) has a calibration slope of -3.2V/mm. The ratio of the two slopes (3.2/0.1 = 32). We should thus expect the DC coupling level to be 32? This is not what we have for the DC coupling levels in our data (2.5 for flexibly-supported, fully-assembled TT (with EDC, with bar), 4.2 for EDC without bar, 3.2 for rigid EDC without bar, 3.2 for no EDC, with bar, 3.2 for no EDC without bar) . I think I may need to do my calibration plot for the photosensor at the frame?
I have redone the voltage versus displacement measurements for calibrating "Photosensor 2" (the photosensor measuring the motions of the TT frame). This time, I calibrated the photosensor in the exact position it was in during the experimental excitation ( with respect to the frame ). I have determined the linear region to be 15.2mm to 22.9mm (in my earlier post today, when I calibrated the photosensor for another location on the frame, I determined the linear region to be 15.2mm to 25.4mm). This time, the slope was -0.92 V/mm (instead of -0.1 V/mm).
This means that the calibration ratio for photosensor 1 (measuring mirror displacements) and photoensor 2 (measuring frame displacements) is 34.86.
Since this "unity" value should be 34.86 for my transfer function magnitude plots (instead of the ~3 value I have), do I need to scale my data? It is strange that it differs by an order of magnitude...
All of my plots have already taken into account the calibration of the photosensor (V/mm ratio)
Here is a bode plot generated for the transfer function measurements we obtained last night/this morning. This is a bode plot for the fully-assembled T.T. (with flexibly-supported dampers and bottom bar). I will continue to upload bode plots (editing this post) as I finish them but for now I will go to sleep and come back later on today.
Here is a bode plot comparing the no eddy-current damper case with and without the bar that we suspected to induce some non-uniform damping. We have limited data on the NO EDC, no bar measurements (sine swept data from 7 Hz to 50 Hz) and FFT data from 0 Hz to 12.5 Hz because we did not want to induce too much movement in the mirror (didn't want to break the mirror). This plot shows that there is not much difference in the transfer functions of the TT (no EDC) with and without the bar.
From FFT measurements of the no eddy-current damper case without the bar (800 data points, integrated 10 times) we can define the resonance peak of the TT mirror (although there are still damping effects from the cantilever blades).
The largest resonance peak occurs at about 1.94 Hz. The response (magnitude) is 230.
The second-largest resonance peak occurs at about 1.67 Hz. The response (magnitude) is 153. This second resonance peak may be due to pitch motion coupling (this is caused by the fact that the clamping attaching the mirror to the wires occurs above the mirror's center of mass, leading to inevitable linear and pitch coupling).
Here is a bode plot of the EDC without the bar. It seems very similar to the bode plot with the bar
Here is a bode plot of the rigidly-supported EDC, without bar. I need to do a comparison plot of the rigid and flexibly-supported EDCs (without bar)
This morning (about 10am to 11am), I have collected additional transfer function measurements for the T.T. suspension. I have finished taking my measurements. The SR785 has been returned to its place next the the seismometer racks.
The data has been backed up onto the cit40m computer
Here is my bode plot comparing the flexibly-supported and rigidly-supported EDCs (both with no bar)
It seems as if the rigidly-supported EDC has better isolation below 10 Hz (the mathematically-determined Matlab model predicted this...that for the same magnet strength, the rigid system would have a lower Q than the flexible system). Above 10 Hz (the resonance for the flexibly-supported EDCs seem to be at 9.8 Hz) , we can see that the flexibly-supported EDC has slightly better isolation? I may need to take additional measurements of the transfer function of the flexibly-supported EDC (20 Hz to 100 Hz?) to hopefully get a less-noisy transfer function at higher frequencies. The isolation does not appear to be that much better in the noisy region (above 20Hz). This may be because of the noise (possibly from the electromagnetic field from the shaker interfering with the magnets in the TT?). There is a 3rd resonance peak at about 22 Hz. I'm not sure what causes this peak...I want to confirm it with an FFT measurement of the flexibly-supported EDC (20 Hz to 40 Hz?)
Since the last post, I have found from the Characterization of TT data (from Jenne) that the resonant frequency of the cantilever springs for TT #4 (the model I am using) have a resonant frequency at 22 Hz. They are in fact inducing the 3rd resonance peak.
Here is a bode plot (CORRECTLY SCALED) comparing the rigidly-supported EDCs (model and experimental transfer functions)
Here is a bode plot comparing the flexibly-supported EDCs (model and experimental transfer functions). I have been working on this graph for FOREVER and with the set parameters, this is is close as I can get it (I've been mixing and matching parameters for well over an hour > <). I think that experimentally, the TTs have better isolation than the model because they have additional damping properties (i.e. cantilever blades that cause resonance peak at 22 Hz). Also, there may be a slight deviation because my model assumes that all four EDCs are a single EDC.
As reported in my previous entry of TT supsension bode plots, I found that my experimental data had what appears to be very noise peaks above 20 Hz (as mentioned earlier, the peak at 22 Hz is likely due to vertical coupling, as 22 Hz is the resonant frequency of the cantilever blades). This is very unusual and needs to be explored further. I would like to vertically-shake the TTs to obtain more data on possible coupling. However, I am leaving on Monday and will not return until Thursday (day of SURF talks). I am leaving campus Friday afternoon or so. I would may need some help coming up with an assembly plan/assembling set-up for vertical shaking (if it is possible to do so in such a limited time frame).
Today I wanted to see if the "noisy peaks" above 30 Hz were due to EM noise coupling. I tested this hypothesis today, seeing if EM fields generated by the coil at higher frequencies were injecting noise into my transfer function measurements. I found that the "noisy peaks" above 30 Hz are NOT DUE TO EM NOISE COUPLING. I am very curious as to what is causing the high peaks (possibly coupling from other degrees of freedom)?
Using my Matlab model of the flexibly-supported eddy current damping system, I have changed parameters to see if/how the TTs can be optimized in isolation. As I found earlier, posted in my bode plot entry, there is only a limited region where the flexibly-supported system provides better isolation than the rigidly-supported system.
Here is what I have found, where \gamma is the scale factor of the magnetic strength (proportional to magnetic strength), \beta is the scale factor of the current damper mass (estimated by attempting to fit my model to the experimental data), and \alpha is the scale factor of the current resonant frequency of the dampers.
Here are my commentaries on these plots. If you have any commentaries, it would be very helpful, as I would like to incorporate this information in my powerpoint presentation.
It seems as if the TT suspensions are already optimized?
It may be difficult to lower the resonant frequency of the dampers because that would mean changing the lengths of the EDC suspensions). Also, it appears that a rather drastic reduction (at most 0.6*current EDC resonant frequency --> reduction from about 10 Hz to 6 Hz or less) is required . Using the calculation that the resonant frequency is sqrt(g/length), for my single-suspended EDC model, this means increasing the wire length to nearly 3 x its current value. I'm not sure how this would translate to four EDCs...
The amplification at resonance caused by increasing the magnet strength almost offsets the isolation benefits of increasing magnet strength. From my modeling, it appears that the magnet strength may be very close (if not already at) isolation optimization.
Lowering the mass to 0.2 the current mass may be impractical. It seems as if the benefits of lowering the mass only occur when the mass is reduced by a factor of 0.2 (maybe 0.4)
What are the parameters you are using? As you have the drawings of the components, you can calculate the masses of the objects.
Reducing the ECD resonance from 10Hz->6Hz looks nice.
The resonant freq of the ECDs are not (fully) determined by the gravitational energy but have the contribution of the elastic energy of the wire.
Q1: How much is the res freq of the ECDs if the freq is completely determined by the grav energy? (i.e. the case of using much thinner wires)
Q2: How thin should the wires be?
The drawings do not have the masses of the objects.
For the resonant frequency:
Instead of sqrt (g/l) would the numerator in the square root be[ g + (energy stored in wire)/(mass of damper)] ?
1) Drawing has the dimensions => You can calculate the volume => You can calculate the mass
Complicated structure can be ignored. We need a rough estimation.
2) Your restoring force can have two terms:
- one comes from the spring constant k
- the other from the gravity
The wire used to suspend the EDCs is tungsten?
To verify, for my model, the EDC will be the mass of all four dampers or a single damper? The length of the wire used to suspend the EDC will be the combined length of 4 wires or length of a single wire?
Taking into account the densities for each material (specific material of each component was listed, so I looked up the densities), and trying my best to approximate the volumes of each component, I have determined
the mass of the mirror + mirror holder to be ~100 g and the mass of a single EDC to be ~19 g
1) Drawing has the dimensions => You can calculate the volume => You can calculate the mass
Complicated structure can be ignored. We need a rough estimation.
2) Your restoring force can have two terms:
- one comes from the spring constant k
- the other from the gravity
The wire used to suspend the EDCs is tungsten?
I am thinking that perhaps my mass estimations were off? The model that I have used fits the data better than the model that I have made (changing the masses to fit my estimations of the values)
I have been redoing the noise test multiple times today. Here is the best plot that I got
A copy of my summer progress report 1 has been uploaded to ligodcc 7/711 and I have just added a copy to the TTsuspension wiki
PDF copy of Summer Progress Report
Calibration of Guralp Seismometers
Procedure & Results
Sinusoidal current of known frequency and amplitude was injected to the Seismometer calibration coil using signal generator and handheld control unit & corresponding Magnitude and Phase response were recorded. For Guralp B, system response was also estimated with a FFT Spectrum Analyzer.
Frequnecy Range: 0.1 Hz to 45 Hz.
Equivalent Input Velocity was derived from the Input Voltage measurements using the relation: v = V/ (2*pi*f*R*K) , V is the peak to peak Calibration Signal voltage, f is the calibration signal frequency, R is the calibration resistor and K is the feedback coil constant. [See Appendix for R & K values]
Velocity Sensitity at the required frequency is obtained by dividing the Output Response Voltage by the Equivalent Input Velocity.
The obtained Velocity Sensitivity is used to convert the recorded Volatge PSD to Velocity PSD as shown below. The obtained results are compared to gloabl high noise model [NHNM] and USGS New Low Noise Model [NLNM,Peterson 1993] which gives the lowest observed vertical seismic noise levels across the seismic frequency band. Plot legend NLNM shows both the high & low levels.
Guralp A [X Arm] Low Velocity Output
Guralp B [Y Arm] Low Velocity Output
DTT Power Spectrum
Both the Seismometers were connected to the 40 M Control and Data Acquisition System (CDS) and Power Spectrum was estimated for the Vertical, North/South & East/West Channels using Diagnostic Test Tool (DTT) software.
CMG-40T Guralp A Calibration Sheet
Calibration Resistor: 51000
CMG-40T Guralp B Calibration Sheet
Calibration Resistor: 51000
Temporary fix for the switch: give a bit of oil to the button
Permanent fix: buy better switches.
Kiwamu and I brought 2 SUPER MICRO PCs from Willson house into 40m.
Both PCs are hooked up into Martian network. One is named as bscteststand for BSC which has been set up by Cds people and another one is named kami1 for temporary use for CLIO which is a bland new, no operating installed PC. This bland new PC will be returned Cds or 40m once another new PC which we will order within several days arrives.
IP address for each machine is 220.127.116.11 and 18.104.22.168 respectively.
We have installed CentOS5.2 into the new PC.
This morning there was a confliction of tpman running on fb40m and kami1. Alex fixed it temporary but Rana suggested it was better to move both PCs outside martian. We moved both PCs physically to the control room and connected to general network with a local router. I believe it won't conflict anymore but if you guess these PC might have trouble please feel free to shutdown.
Today's work summary:
*connected expansion chassis to bscteststand
*obtained signals on dataviewer, dtt for both realtime and past data on bscteststand with 64kHz timing signal
Excitation channels are not shown, only "other" is shown.
qts.mdl should run with 16kHz but 16kHz timing causes a slow speed on dataviewer and failing data aquisition on dtt. We are using 64kHz timing but is it really correct?
I borrowed SR785 to measure AA, AI noise and TF.
We measured Open loop TF for oplev pitch on ITMX.
All feed back filter of oplev was on as same as before. Original notch filters which notches above 10Hz resonance should be modified with some measurements of present resonant frequency. Up to 10Hz, a simple f^2 filter is used, so the notch should not affect this measurement.
Measured upper UGF is about 2Hz with gain slider 1, and lower UGF is 1.3Hz. Phase margin is 40 degree, so it is not a good idea to increase the gain drastically.
I have measured the coherence also but I could not find a way to put it on this picture. Anyway coherence below 0.6Hz was not so good like ~0.95. This can be improved if larger excitation is used next time.
During this measurement around 0.2-0.3Hz, small earthquake happened but seemed OK for the control.
We will measure the other TF, yaw, ETMX or somthing, maybe tomorrow, due to free swinging ITMX and ETMX tonight.
After Kiwamu had set the free swinging mode for ITMX and ETMX, I found a big jump of ITMX pitch and yaw. This jump is shown on oplev and OSEM plots.
I talked with Kiwamu on the phone that a shutdown of suspensions does not add a big offset, and so that it should not make a big jump.
We were not sure that this jump was due to the shutdown or drift or something else. Anyway I put ITMY oplev on center again at 0;57am.
In this morning, the same thing happened but to opposit direction when Kiwamu activated ITMX and ETMX. Then it turned out that 1000ct offset was existing on pit of ITMX. Erasing the offset fixed ITMX to normal position.
However a big drift exists in 11hours plot on ITMX 0.1->-0.25 at OLPIT, -580->-605 at SUSPIT and 0.08->0.15 at OLYAW, no significan drift at SUSYAW. On the other hand, ETMX has no big drift but has 10-30minites order fluctuations.
After 6am both the drift and the fluctuation became, roughly saying, 10 times larger, probably due to the human activity.
This plot shows ETM oplev and OSEM trend for 10 hours on day before yesterday as almost the same as plot shown this entry. I reported the 10-30minites fluctuations were seen, but I noticed it comes from not suspension but from oplev power fluctuation.
After Kiwamu fixed the ETM OSEM touch yesterday afternoon, still the same trend was seen, so we had thought what we fixed was not enough. This morning I looked at the yesterday's and day before yesterday's trend and noticed the simila trend both the pit and yaw in ETM oplev but not on the OSEM trend. Kiwamu suggested me to put the oplev sum on the same plot. It was!
So, ETMX is not bad, but in fact, still alignment fluctuation exist on the cavity. ITM?
This graph shows 5 hours data in minute trend for ITMX and ETMX from 5am to 10 am today. ITM pitch drift is 3 times lager than ETM pitch if the OSEM sensitivity is assumed to be the same.
This graph is last 1 hour data of above graph in second trend.
It is clealy seen that ITM yaw is jumping between two stages. I guess ITM is something wrong, touching magnets or earthquake stops?
According to c1scy.mdl, OL signals should be connected to adc_0_24 to adc_0_27 but they were connected to adc_0_16 to adc_0_19 which are assigned to QPD signals.
Actually cable connections were messed up. One ribbon cable was connected from QPD driver and ADC ports assigned for OL, and another ribbon cable was connected from the board combining the signals of oplev and QPD to ADC port assigned for QPD.
Now ETMY oplev is working well and aligned to center.
I got a new adapter board for expansion chassis from CDS and exchanged the existing adapter board which was laid on the floor around ETMX to new one.
Then I connected the chassis to c1lcs, c1lsc seems to be running now. I will return the old board to CDS since Rolf says he wants to return it to manufacture.
I found an interface box from ADC to D-SUB37pin and a cable to connect them.
I needed to make cables to connect the interface box to existing LSC whitening filters that has a 37 pin female D-SUB connector on one end and a 40pin female flat connector on the other end. We should use shielded cables for them, but unfortunately CDS did not have right one. Temporarily I made one cable for 1-8ch using a ribbon twist cable like Joe did.
I found a saturation at ch5 of ADC0 on c1lsc. I did not check carefully but it seemed to come from the LSC whitening board. Input of ch5 of the whitening board was not terminated and had a huge output voltage, but also ch6 was not terminated and had no big output. I guess something wrong on the LSC whitening board. Needs to be checked. Anyway I unplugged the small ribbon cable between the whitening board and the next LSC AA filter board.
Finally I realized that fiber connection of RFM did not exist. What I saw was the fiber cable of Dolphin. We need a RFM PCIe interface board, and a long fiber cable between c1lsc and RFM hub.
I'll be gone to Hanford site next week and come back to Caltech on 24th's week.
I setup a standalone RT system at the desk around circuit stock in the 40m.
Please leave this setup until I come back. I'll keep working when I come back.
I implemented a slow servo for green laser thermal control on c1scx.mdl. Ch6,7 of ADC and ch6 of DAC are assigned for this servo as below;
Ch6 of ADC: PDH error signal
CH7 of ADC: PZT feedback signal
CH6 of DAC: feedback signal to thermal of green laser
Note that old EPICS themal control cable is not hooked anymore.
I made a simple MEDM screen(...medm/c1scx/master/C1SCX_BCX_SLOW.adl) linked from GREEN medm screen (C1GCV.adl) on sitemap.
During this work, I noticed that some of the epics switch is not recovered by autoburt. What I noticed is filter switch of SUSPOS, SUSPIT, SUSYAW, SDSEN, and all coil output for ETMX.
I had no idea to fix them, probably Joe knows. I guess other suspensitons has the same problems.
I calibrated noise spectrum of green lock.
1. Measurement of conversion factor of ADC input from V to ct:
As a preparation, first I measured a conversion factor at ADC input of C1;GCX1SLOW_SERVO1.
It was measured while the output of AI ch6 as the output of C1;GCX1SLOW_SERVO2 with 1Hz, 1000ct(2000ct_pp) was directly connected into AA ch7 as the input of C1;GCX1SLOW_SERVO1. Amplitude at the output at AI ch6 was 616mVpp measured by oscilloscope, and C1;GCX1SLOW_SERVO1_IN1 read as 971.9ct_pp. So the conversion factor is calculated as 6.338e-4[V/ct].
2. Injection of a calibration signal:
When Green laser was locked to cavity with fast PZT and slow thermal, I injected 100Hz, 1000ct EXC at ETMX ASL. The signal was measured at C1:GCX1SLOW_SERVO1_IN1 as 5.314ct_rms. It can be converted into 3.368e-3Vrms using above result, and then converted into 3368Hz_rms using PZT efficiency as 1MHz/V. This efficiency was obtained from Koji's knowledge, but he says that it might have 30% or higher error. If somebody get more accurate value, put it into the conversion process from V to Hz here.
Frequency of green f=c/532nm=5.635e14[Hz] is fluctuating with above 3368Hz_rms,so the fluctuation ratio is 3368/5.635=5.977e-12, and it corresponds to length fluctuation of 37.5m. So, cavity fluctuation will be 5.977e-12*37.5=2.241e-10m_rms by 100Hz, 1000ct EXC at ETMX ASL.
Finally, we knew 5.314ct corresponds to 3368Hz and 2.241e-10m, so conversion factor from ct to Hz and ct to m are ;
633.8[Hz/ct] @ C1:GCX1SLOW_SERVO1
4.217e-11[m/ct] @ C1:GCX1SLOW_SERVO1
You can measure green noise spectrum at C1;GCX1SLOW_SERVO1_IN1 during lock, and mutiply above result to convert Hz or m.
This calibration is effective above corner frequency of slow and fast servo around 0.5Hz and UGF of fast servo around 4kHz.
I show an example of calibrated green noise.
Each color show different band-width. Of course this results of calibration cactor does not depend on band-width. Noise around 1.2Hz is 6e-8Hz/rHz. It sounds a bit too good by factor ~2. The VCO efficiency might be too small.
Note that there are several assumptions in this calibration;
1. TF from actual PZT voltage to PZT mon is assumed to be 1 in all frequency. Probably this is not a bad assumption because circuit diagram shows monitor point is extracted PZT voltage directly.
2. However above assumption is not correct if the input impedance of AI is low.
3. As I said, PZT efficiency of 1MHz/V might be wrong.
I also measured a TF from C1:SUS-ETMX_ALS_EXC to C1:GCX1SLOW_SERVO1_IN1. It is similar as calibration injection above but for wide frequency. This shows a clear line of f^-2 of suspension.
Files are located in /users/osamu/:20110127_Green_calibration.
Hi 40m people,
As Rana is saying, the bounce mode does not matter, or we cannot do anything. Generally speaking, the bounce mode cannot be damped by the setting of 40m SUS. Some tweak techniques may damp a bounce mode by res-gain or something, but it is not a proper way, I think.
This is also that Rana is already saying that the important thing is to find a good direction of OSEM to hit the LED beam to the magnet. Even if the magnet is not located at the center of OSEM hole, still you can find the optimal orientation of OSEM to hit the LED beam to the center of magnet by rotating the OSEM.
I know only an old document of T040054 that Shihori summarized how to adjust the matrix at the 40m. Too bad input/output matrix may introduce some troubles, but even roughly adjusted matrix should be still fine.
I will be at Caltech on 12-14 of September. If I can help something, I am willing to work with you!
I found the PSL table left open, and unattended again.
As far as I know, Jamie and Jenne (working on the LSC rack, so no lasers / optics work involved) have been the only ones in the IFO room for several hours now.
I'm going to start taking laser keys, or finding other suitable punishments. Like a day of lab cleanup chores or something. Seriously, don't leave the PSL table open if you're not actively working on it.
Given the similarities between the MDT694B (single channel piezo controller) and TC200 (temperature controller) serial interfaces, I added the pyserial driver here.
*Warning* this first version of the driver remains untested
We went into 40m to identify where XARM PDH loop control elements are. We didn't touch anything, but this is to note we went in there twice at 10 AM and 11:10 AM.