At the moment I'm running a measurement on the PRC and I'm planning to leave it going for the time we'll be at the 40m meeting.

Please be careful in the lab. Thank you.

I started a long measurement of the PRC's transmissivity. I'm leaving the lab and I'm going to be back at about 8 tonight. Please do not disturb the interferometer. it is important that the MC and the PRC stay locked all the time.

 That measurement is finished. I'm now going to start another one that will take another hour or so. I'm leaving it running for the night. If you want to work on the IFO, it should be definitely done by 11pm.

A measurement will be running for the next hour. Please be careful.

Yesterday, I pulled out the AI board for the PRM/BS SUSs. (After the investigation it was restored)

Contrary to our expectation, the board D000186 was not Rev. A but Rev. B.

According to Jay's note in D000186 (for Rev.D), the differences of the Revs are as follows

Rev.A: Initial Release (Analog Biquad version, 4dB 4th order elliptic with notches)
Rev.B: Filter implemented by Freq Devices chip
Rev.C: Differential input version with better RF filtering
Rev.D: 3rd order 0.5dB ripple Cheby with notches at 16K&32K, DB25 input version

I went to the WB EE shop and found bunch of AI filter modules. At least I found one Rev.A and six Rev.D.
I found at least one Rev. C.

I took Rev.A and Rev. D to see the difference of the transfer functions.
Rev.A has more ripple but steeper roll-off. Rev. D is flater at the pass band with slower roll-off.
Rev.D has more phase lag, but it will be fine once the entire frequency response is shifted to x4 high frequency.
The notch frequency of the Rev. D looked right.

I made the empirical pole/zero modeling of the transfer functions.
The LISO models are attached as the ZIP file.
I faced an unexplainable phase behavior at around one the notches for Rev.A.
This may suggest there could have been internal saturation is the stage during the sweep.

More importantly, Rev. D has differential inputs although the connector formfactor is different from the current 40pin IDC.
In fact we should not use Rev.A or Rev.B as they have single end inputs.
Currently the inputs of the AI's for the SUSs are single ended while the DACs are differential.
This means that
1) We waste a half of the DAC range.
2) The negative outputs of the DACs are short-circuited. OMG
3) The ground level fluctuation between the DAC and the SUS rack fluctuates the actual actuation voltage.

Now I am looking at the noise performance of the filters as well as the DAC output noise and range.
I hope we can use Rev.D by replacing the connector heads as this will remove many of the problems we currently have.

Measured the PZT beatnote using the setup mentioned in elog post 17031. Attached is the data taken from 10kHz to 1MHz, decadewise data was also taken that I'm not including in this post. A_R refers to the transfer function taken of channel A wrt the voltage reference (the swept sine we are inputting which has an IF of 30kHz). A and B correspond to the I and Q components of the signal taken from the DFD, respectively. I am currently working on plotting the data, and will shortly update this post with plots. Next steps - 

- quantify the uncertainty in the signal (I think)

- vectfit the data to find poles and zeroes

(and possibly find a better way to print/obtain data)

Edit: first pass of data plotted

The PSL wavelength is 1064.5068 +- 0.0015 nm

[Paco, Yehonathan]

With yehonathan's help, we borrowed a WS6-200 wavemeter and calibrated the PSL wavelength using the frequency doubled beam at the PSL table. For this we gathered a FC/APC to FC/PC fiber, cleaned both ends, and launched ~ 6 uW of power into the wavemeter (Attachment #1 shows the setup). The vacuum wavelength was measured to be 532.2534 nm, (see picture in Attachment #2) implying a PSL wavelength of 1064.5068 nm. This is not too far from my previous estimate! The wavemeter claims a "200 MHz accuracy" so we used this as a standard error to estimate the uncertainty of  2 * 0.7 pm @ 532 nm = 1.5 pm @ 1064 nm. This leaves us with 1.4 ppm of relative wavelength error in the ALS based calibration.

• It should be noted that the Nd:YAG temperature was set to 30.615(5) degrees (?) and the injection current to 2.100 Amps for this measurement.

I measured the 15 Hz zero and the 150 Hz pole for the whitening filter channels of the Generic Pentek board in the IOO rack. The table below gives these zero/pole pairs for each of the 8 channels of the board.

Here is a plot of one of the measured transfer functions,

and the measured data is attached here: Data.zip

EQ: I've added the current channels going through this board. 

More importantly, I found that the jumpers on channel one (QPD X) were set to no whitening, in contrast to all other channels. Thus, the POP QPD YAW signals we've been using for who knows how long have been distorted by dewhitening. This has now been fixed. 

Hence, the current state of this board is that the first whitening stage is disabled for all channels and the second stage is engaged, with the above parameters. 

[Cici, Deeksha]

We were able to greatly improve the quality of our readings by changing the parameters in the config file (particularly increasing the integration and settle cycles, as well as gradually increasing our excitation signals' amplitude). Attached are the readings taken from the same (the files directly printed by ssh'ing the SR785 (apologies)) - Attachment 1 depicts the graph w/ 30 data points and attachment 2 depicts the graph with 300 data points. 

Cici successfully vectfit to the data, as included in Attachment 3. (This is the vectfit of the entire control loop's OLTF). There are two main concerns that need to be looked into, firstly, the manner in which to get the poles and zeros to input into the vectfit program. Similarly, the program works best when the option to enforce stable poles is disabled, once again it may be worth looking into how the program works on a deeper level in order to understand how to proceed. 

Just as the servo's individual transfer function was taken, we also came up with a  plan to measure the PZT's individual transfer function (using the MokuLab). The connections for the same have been made and the Moku is at the Xend (disconnected). We may also have to build a highpass filter (similar to the one whose signal enters the PZT) to facilitate taking readings at high frequencies using the Moku. 

I measured the REFL 165 demod board's I/Q separation. 

Our 11MHz signal is currently 11.066092 MHz, so I put a signal to the RF input of the REFL165 demod board at 165.992380 MHz (15*11 MHz + 1kHz), with a signal of -13 dBm.

I then used the SR785 to measure the transfer function between the I and Q output channels. 

I got 82.7 degrees, at -0.64 dB. (I don't remember now if I had I/Q, or Q/I, not that it really matters). So, it seems that the REFL165 demod board has good separation, and at least isn't totally broken.

 Demod boards should be at 90 deg, not 82.7 or 12 or yellow or ****. We should re-inject the RF and then set the D Phase in the filter module to make the signals orthogonal. 165 is a challenging one to get right, but its worth it since the signals are close to degenerate already.

Today (after centering the POP QPD), I measured the PRM to POP QPD transfer functions.  I am suspicious that this was part of my problem last week.  Since most of the angular noise is coming from the folding mirrors, but I can't actuate on them, I need to know (rather, the Wiener calculator needs to know) how actuating on the PRM will affect the spot at the POP QPD.

For the plots below, I have cut out any data points that have coherence less than 0.95. I may want to go back and fill in a little bit some of the areas (particularly around 3Hz) that I had trouble getting coherence in.

Using these to prefilter my witness data, I am failing to calculate a Wiener filter.  I have tried the Levinson algorithm, as well as brute-forcing it, but I'm too close to singular for either to work.  I am able to calculate a set of Wiener filters without the prefiltering, or with a dummy very simple prefilter, so it's not inherently in the calculators.  Separately, I can plot my vectfit-ed actuator TFs, and I can convert them to a discrete fiilter with the bilinear transform, and then use sosfilt to filter some white noise data, which comes out with the shape I expect.  So.  It's not inherently the filters either.  More work to do, when it's not 4am.

Here are the measured actuator transfer functions.  They were measured as usual with DTT, but since the measurement kept getting interrupted (MC unlock, or I wanted to add more integrations or more cycles), these are several different DTT files stitched together.  In both cases I am acuating PRM's ASC[pit, yaw] EXC point, and looking at the POP QPD.

 Five day minute trend.  FAST_F doesn't appear to have gone crazy.

but the increase in both the RCtrans and the RCrefl is consistent with my theory that the power going to the RC has increased ; its not just an increase in the visibility.

We should scan the AOM/VCO to make sure the frequency is matched to the resonance to within 0.5 dB.

I checked C1:PSL-FSS_VCODETPWR. The attached is the 4 months trend of the FSS RCTRANS / RFPDDC(=FSS REFL) / VCODETPWR / VCOMODLEVEL.

Although VCO modulation level setting was mostly constnt, VCODETPWR, which presumably represents the RF level, changes time by time.
It coincides with the recent reduction of the RCTRANS/RFPDDC. Actually, my touch restored the VCO to the previous more stable state.
One can see that this is not only a single occation, but it happened before too. (In the middle of Aug.)

This could be explained by the bad contact of some cable or connector.

Nevertheless we need more careful investigation:

1. Understand what VCODETPWR is exactly.
2. Investigate relationship between VCOMODLEVEL / VCODETPWR / AOM deflection efficiency / RCTRANSPD
3. Confirm the frequency matching between the VCO and AOM.

With Koji's help, I measured the length of the Mode Cleaner.

The new modulation frequencies (as quoted on the Marconi front panels) are: 

165.980580 MHz

 33.196116 MHz

132.784464 MHz

199.176696 MHz

The Frequency Counter readback is 165980584.101 Hz (a 4Hz difference).  All of the Marconi's front-panel frequencies read ###.##### MHz Ext, and the Frequency standard has it's "locked" light illuminated, and the 1pps input light blinking, so I think everything is still nicely locked to the frequency standard, and the frequency standard is locked to the GPS.

While changing the marconi's, I accidentally touched the MC's 29.5 MHz marconi.  It is set back to the nominal value (according to Kiwamu's rack photos) of 29.485MHz.  But the phase might be sketchy, although hopefully this doesn't matter since we don't do a double demodulation with it.

I also ran the scripts in the wiki page: How To/Diagonalize DRMI Length Control to set the DD Phases.

I propose that from now on, we indicate in the elog what frequencies we're referring to. In this case, I guess its the front panel readback and not the frequency counter -- what is the frequency counter readback? And is everything still locked to the 10 MHz from the GPS locked Rubidium clock?

Plus, what FSS Box? The TTFSS servo box? Or the VCO driver? As far as I know, the RC trans PD doesn't go through the FSS boxes, and so its a real change. I guess that a bad contact in the FSS could have made a huge locking offset.

What I meant was the VCO driver, not the FSS box.

As for the frequency, all written numbers were the Marconi displays.
The number on the frequency counter was also recorded, and so will be added to the previous entry shortly... 

Locking has gone sour.  The CARM to MCL handoff, which is fairly early in the full procedure and usally robust, is failing reliably. 

As soon as the SUS-MC2_MCL gain is reduced, lock is broken.  There appears to be an instability around 10Hz.  Not sure if it's related.

 Whatever the locking problem was, the power of magical thinking has forced it to retreat for now.  The IFO is currently locked, having completed the full up script.  One more thing for which to be thankful.

I measured the ETMY oplev beam size at a couple different distances away from the HeNe by taking out the steering mirror and letting the light propagate a ways.  I put the steering mirror back, aligned the oplev, and was able to relock the Yarm, so I think it's all back as it has been the last couple of weeks.

Now I need t o do some geometry and ray-tracing matrices to decide what focal length lens to buy, then we'll have  a shiny new ETMY oplev. 

I have spent my first few days as a SURF getting experience working with the Network/Spectrum Analyzer (AG 4395A). After an introduction to the 40m by Koji, I was tasked with using the AG4395A to measure the transfer function of several filters (for example, Mini-Circuits Low Pass Filter SLP-30). I am now familiar with configuring the AG 4395A, taking a single set of data using a command from one of the control computers, and plotting the dataset as a Bode plot (separate plots for magnitude and phase) using Python.

To Do:

• Use AGmeasure to take multiple datasets with a single command.
• Plot multiple datasets for each filter on a single Bode plot and perform some statistical analysis. 

To experiment with plotting multiple datasets on a single Bode plot, I used a single dataset from the Network Analyzer using the SLP-30 filter and added random noise to create ten datasets to plot. I am attaching the resulting Bode plot, which has the ten generated sets of data plotted along with their average.

We discussed with Rana and Koji how to interpret this type of dataset from the Network Analyzer. Instead of considering the magnitude and phase as separate quantities, we should consider them together as a single complex number in the form H(f) = M exp(iπP/180), where M is the magnitude and P is the phase in degrees. We can then find the average value of the measured quantity in its complex number form (x + iy), as opposed to just taking the average of the magnitude and phase separately.  

A longer measurement is set to trigger at 5:00 tomorrow on April 2nd, 2021. This measurement will run for 35 iterations with an excitation duration of 120s and bandwidth for CSD measurement set to 0.1 Hz. The script is set to trigger in a tmux session named 'cB' on pianosa.

How should I try to understand why PIT and YAW are so different? 

I moved the old matlab directory from /cvs/cds/caltech/apps/linux64/matlab_o to /cvs/cds/caltech/apps/linux64/matlab_oo

and moved the previously current matlab dir from /cvs/cds/caltech/apps/linux64/matlab to /cvs/cds/caltech/apps/linux64/matlab_o.

And have installed the new Matlab 2013a into /cvs/cds/caltech/apps/linux64/matlab.

Since I'm not sure how well the new Matlab/Simulink plays with the CDS RCG, I've left the old one and we can easily revert by renaming directories.

It seems that the old Matlab servers went down a week or so early, so I have updated the Matlab license information in 

/cvs/cds/caltech/apps/linux64/matlab/licenses/

per the instructions on https://www.imss.caltech.edu/content/updating-matlab-license-file

EDIT: Q did this also for the control room iMac

To show why Matlab is bad in filtering at small cut-off frequencies we did the same thing in Matab, Octave and R: we've taken the low-pass chebyshev filter of the type 1, order 6, ripple 1 dB, the sampling frequency was 16384 Hz and cut-off frequency varied from 1 to 1000 Hz. Here is the plot for the gain of the zpk model versus to cut-off frequency.

We can see that Matlab's gain shows surprising gains for low cut-off frequencies through for > 100 Hz it is fine. In the next table we compare gain from Foton, Matlab, R and Octave for the same filter. So Foton is also good

Since it would be nice to have the latest version of Matlab, with all its swanky new features (?), available on the control room computers and Optimus, I downloaded Matlab R2016b and activated it with the Caltech Campus license. I installed it into /cvs/cds/caltech/apps/linux64/matlab16b. Specifically, I would like to run the coating optimization code on Optimus, where I can try giving it more stringent convergence criterion to see if it converges to a better spot.

I trust that this way, we don't interfere with any of the rtcds stuff.

If I've done something illegal license-wise or if this is likely to cause havoc, please point me to what is the correct way to do this.

GV 18 Mar 2017: Though I installed this using the campus network license key, this seems to only work on Rossa. If I run it on the other control room machines/Optimus, it throws up a licensing error. I will check with Larry W. as to how to resolve this...

I had a number of delinquent items on the sign out list from the 40m. I returned about half, and ordered replacements for most of the other half.

I put the photodiodes on the SP table, and the 560 on the electronics  bench.

I measured the dimensions of the puck we shall be using as the mass for the toy model. It has a diameter of 75 mm and a thickness of 25 mm. Assuming a density of 2.7 g/cm^3, this brings the mass to 298.2 g.

How about measuring the actual weight with a scale? There are a couple of scales on Yuta's desk.

Thanks, I was actually looking for a scale earlier but could not find it after asking a couple of people. One of the scales reads 298 g, while the other has a limit of 200g. Looks like it is indeed aluminium.

No, this is the property of the suspension assembly. The mass says 10kg

Could you do the same for the testmass assembly (only the suspended part)? The units are good, but I expect that the values will be small. I want to keep at least three significant digits.

Here are the mass properties for the only the test mass assembly (optic, 3" ring, and wire block). (Updated with g*mm^2)

Calculation for the SOS POS/PIT/YAW resonant frequencies

- Nominal height gap between the CoM and the wire clamping point is 0.9mm (cf T970135)

- To have the similar res freq for the optic with the 3" metal sleeve is 1.0~1.1mm.
As the previous elog does not specify this number for the current configuration, we need to asses this value and the make the adjustment of the CoM height.

Masayuki Nakano, a student of Seiji's from ICRR / U Tokyo, is visiting us here at the 40m lab for the next couple months.

He received 40m specific basic safety training this morning.

 [Nichin, Jenne]

The martian lookup tables are located at /etc/bind/zones/martian.db  and etc/bind/zones/rev.113.168.192.in-addr.arpa

Jenne updated these to include santuzza.martian  192.168.113.109

The method to restart named server given at  https://wiki-40m.ligo.caltech.edu/Martian_Host_Table  also does not work.

I restarted it using  >sudo /etc/init.d/bind9 restart

The named server is now updated and works fine. :)  I will update the 40m wiki now.

I have swapped our martian router's WiFi security over to WPA2 (AES) from the previous, less-secure, system. Creds are in the secrets-40-red.

I created two simple cron jobs, one running on linux1 and one running on nodus, to produce an updated copy of the martian host table linkable from the wiki every day.

The scripts live in /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/AutoUpdate/.  One is called  updateHostTable.cron and run on linux1 everyday at 4 am, and the other is called moveHostTable.cron which is run on nodus everyday at 5am.

The new link has been added to the Martian Host table wiki page  here.

The Martian wireless bridge has the ethernet cable inserted in the wrong connector.

It should be inserted to one of the four port. Not in the "INTERNET" connector.

Once the connector has been changed, the martian net as well as the internet became accessible from the laptops.