We succeeded in getting the reflected green beam from both ITMY and ETMY.
After we did several things on the end table, we eventually could observe these reflections.
Now the spot size of the reflection from ITMY is still big ( more than 1 cm ), so tomorrow modematching to the 40m cavity is going to be improved by putting mode matching telescopes on right positions.
An important thing we found is that, the beam height of optics which directly guides the beam to the cavity should be 4.5 inch on the end table.
(what we did)
* Aidan, Kevin and Kiwamu set the beam to be linearly polarized by rotating a QWP in front of the Innolight. This was done by monitoring the power of the transmitted light from the polarizer attached on the input of the Faraday of 1064 nm. Note that the angle for QWP is 326.4 deg.
* We put some beam damps against the rejected beam from the Faraday
* To get a good isolation with the Faraday we at first rotated the polarization of the incident beam so to have a minimum transmission. And then we rotated the output polarizer until the transmission reaches a minimum. Eventually we got the transmission of less than 1mW, so now the Faraday should be working regardless of the polarization angle of the incident beam. As we predicted, the output polaerizer seems to be rotated 45 deg from that of the input.
* Rana, Koji and Kiwamu aligned the PPKTP crystal to maximize the power of 532 nm. Now the incident power of 1064 nm is adjusted to 250mW and the output power for 532 nm is 0.77mW. Actually we can increase the laser power by rotating a HWP in front of the Faraday.
* We injected the green beam to the chamber and aligned the beam axis to the ETMY without the modematching lenses, while exciting the horizontal motion of the ETM with f=1Hz from awg. This excitation was very helpful because we could figure out which spot was the reflection from the ETM.
* Once we made the reflected beam going close to the path of the incident beam, we then put the modematching lenses and aligned the steering mirrors and lenses. At this time we could see the reflected beam was successfully kicked away by the Faraday of 532 nm.
* Koji went to ITMY chamber with a walkie-talkie and looked at the spot position. Then he told Rana and Kiwamu to go a right direction with the steering mirrors. At last we could see a green beam from ITM illuminating the ETM cage.
* We excited the ITMY with f=2Hz vertically and aligned the ITM from medm. Also we recovered a video monitor which was abandoned around ETMY chamber so that we could see the spot on the ETM via the monitor. Seeing that monitor we aligned the ITM and we obtained the reclection from the ITM at the end table.
* We also tried to match the mode by moving a lens with f=400mm, but we couldn't obtain a good spot size.
The shape of the beam spot in the new input optics got much much better
As Alberto and Kiwamu found on the last week, the beam spot after MMT1 had not been good. So far we postponed the mode measurement due to this bad beam profile.
Today after we did several things in the vacuum chamber, the beam spot became really a good Gaussian spot. See the attachment below.
There were two problems which had caused the bad profile:
(1) a steering mirror after MMT1 with the incident angle of non 45 deg
(2) clipping at the Faraday.
Also MCT_QPD and MCT_CCD were recovered from misalignment
Tomorrow we are going to restart the mode matching.
* We started from checking the shape of the beam going out from the BS chamber. There still were some stripes which looked like an interference on the spot.
* We found a steering mirror after MMT1 had the incident angle of non 45 deg. In fact the mirror had a large transmission. After we made the angle roughly 45 deg, the stripes disappeared.
However the spot still didn't look a good Gaussian, it looked slightly having a bump on the horizontal profile.
* Prior to moving of some optics in the vacuum, we ran the A2L_MC scripts in order to check the beam axis. And it was okay.
* To recover the MCT, we steered one of the vacuum mirrors which was located after the pick off mirror. And after aligning some optics on the AP table, finally we got MCT recovered.
* We rearranged MC_refl mirrors according to the new optical layout that Koji has made. At the same time the mirrors for IFO_refl was also rearranged coarsely.
* We leveled the optical table of the MC chamber by moving some weights. Then we locked the MC again and aligned it. We again confirmed that the beam axis was still fine by running the A2L scripts.
* We found the beam going through Faraday was off-centered by ~5mm toward the west. So we moved it so that the beam propagates on the center of it.
* Then looking at the beam profile after MMT1, we found that the profile became really nicer. It showed a beautiful Gaussian.
In the attachment below, the top panel represents the horizontal profile and the bottom one represents the vertical profile.
The blue curves overlaid on the plot are fitted Gaussian profile, showing beautiful agreements with the measured profile.
We started the test of the new CDS system at ETMY.
The plan is as follows:
We do the ETMY test from 9:30 to 15:00 at ETMY from Nov 12~17. This disables the ETMY during this period.
From 15:00 of the each day, we restore the ETMY configuration and confirm the ETMY work properly.
Today we connected megatron to the existing AA/AI modules via designated I/F boxes. The status of the test was already reported by the other entry.
During the test, c1iscey was kept running. We disabled the ETMY actuation by WatchDog. We did not touch the RFM network.
After the test we disconnected our cables and restored the connection to ICS110B and the AI/AA boards.
The WatchDog switches were released.
The lock of the ETMY was confirmed. The full interferometer was aligned one by one. Left in the full configuration with LA=off.
Since the transmission beam on ETMXT camera seemed to be clipped, we checked the optics on ETMX table.
We aligned the lens so that it is orthogonal to the beam, then the beam shape looks fine.
Also we removed some an-used optics which were used for fiber input.
As preparation for the upcoming planned power outage we turned turbos, RGA off and closed valves.
IFO chamber is not pumped now. Small leaks and out gassing will push the pressure up slowly. At 3 mTorr of P1 the PSL output shutter
will be closed by the interlock.
It is OK to use light in the IFO up to this point.
Hmm? What is the definition of the percentage error? I don't obtain these numbers from the given values.
And how was the finesse value obtained from the simulation result? Then what is the frequency resolution used in Finesse simulation?
Alberto and Koji
o We worked for the abs length measurement setup on Thursday night.
o At the last of the work Koji left the 40m lab at 2AM. "Last autoalignment" was restored. The flipper for the
inj beam was down. The shutter for the NPRO was closed.
o The alignment of the injection beam (NPRO) was re-adjusted.
o The laser crystal temp (LT) of the NPRO was scanned.
o After a long struggle the beat was found at about LT=61deg(!). I think this is almost at the maximum temp
for the NPRO. Note that this is not the diode temp, and therefore it will not damage the laser as far as the
TEC for the crystal works.
o Only the X arm was aligned.
o The alignment of the injection beam was adjusted such that the beating amplitude got maximum.
o At the faraday of the NPRO, we had 2.4V_DC and 1.8V_DC with and without the inj beam, respectively. The
beating amplitude was 200mVpp (at around 2.4V).
o With a simple calculation, the mode overlapping of tghe injection beam is only 0.0023. Ahhh. It is too weak.
In the modematching or something must be wrong.
o The position of the mode matching lens was tweaked a little. It did not help to increase the beat ampitude.
Even worse. (The lens was restored and the values above was obatined with the latest setting.)
o Then tried to build a PLL. It locks easily.
- Put the beat signal into the mixer RF input.
- Connect 10dBm @1MHz-10MHz from the marconi oscillator to the LO input. The supposed nominal LO level was
not checked so far. Just used 10dBm.
- The IF output was connected to an SR560 with 10Hz LPF (6dB/oct) with G=500 or so.We don't need to care
about the sign.
- The output of the SR560 was connected to FAST PZT input of the NPRO.
o The problem was that there was strong intermodulations because of 33MHz. No LPFwas used before the mixer.
Because of this spourious modulations, the PLL servo locks at the local zero crossings. These will be solved
o Eventually left the 40m lab at 2AM. "Last autoalignment" was restored. The flipper for the inj beam was
down. The shutter for the NPRO was closed.
Alberto and Koji,
Last Friday evening, Koji found that the power adj setting (indicated by ADJ) of the NPRO was somehow set to be
ADJ=-45 and yielded the output power of about 200mW instead of 700mW. This is not good because too small pump power
varies thermal conditions of the crystal such as thermal lensing, thermal gradient, and os on. The ADJ setting and the
crystal temperature had been restored to ADJ=0 and LT=~48deg (nominal of the controller), respectively.
Today we tried the quest of the beating again and the above power setting helped a lot! The beating was immediately
found at LT=48.55deg that is very close to the laser's nominal temp. Also the beating got significantly bigger.
After the alignment adjustment 50%-intenisity modulated signal was obtained. From the power calculation it was
estimated that the power coupling of the injected beam is to be 12%~13%. This not so good yet, but something which we
This time the modulation structure of the PSL beam was clearly observed. I could obtain the beating of the injection
beam with the carrier, the upper/lower sidebands of the 33MHz and 166MHz modulations, and the 2nd order of the
33MHz. They were beautiful as if working with an OSA. Very nice.
In reality, those additional intenisty modulations as well as the residual 33MHz signal from the main IFO are
disturbing for the PLL to be locked at the proper frequency. So, now Alberto is working on a passive LPF with
notch at 33MHz. The design was already done. This allows us to work up to 20MHz and at the same time, provides
60dB attenuation at 33MHz (in principle). Very cool.
Koji, on the other hand, continued to work with the PLL servo with some ready-made passive filters. Owing to the
fillters, the error signal was cleaner and the PLL was locked at the proper frequency. The PLL setup is as attatched.
Sideband rejection filter will be replaced to Alberto's one. The photo is the display of the RF spectrum analyzer with
beat locked at 8MHz.
So the next step, we try to find the resonances of the arm cavity with the injection beam once the IFO comes back.
At the last of the experiment "Last autoalignment" was restored, the flipper for the
inj beam was down, and the shutter for the NPRO was closed.
27.0924 27.0934 [m]
I was notified by Rob and Rana that there were many measurements of the MC abs length (i.e. modulation
frequencies for the IFO.) between 2002 and now.
So, I dig the new and old e-logs and collected the measured values of the MC length, as shown below.
I checked the presence of the vent for two big steps in the MC length. Each actually has a vent.
The elog said that the tilt of the table was changed at the OMC installation in 2006 Oct.
It is told that the MC mirrors were moved a lot during the vent in 2007 Nov.
o The current modulation freq setting is the highest ever.
o Rob commented that the Marconi may drift in a long time.
o Apparently we need another measurement as we had the big earthquake.
My curiosity is now satified so far.
Local Time 3xFSR[MHz] 5xFSR[MHz] MC round trip[m] Measured by
2002/09/12 33.195400 165.977000 27.09343 Osamu
2002/10/16 33.194871 165.974355 27.09387 Osamu
2003/10/10 33.194929 165.974645 27.09382 Osamu
2004/12/14 33.194609 165.973045 27.09408 Osamu
2005/02/11 33.195123 165.975615 27.09366 Osamu
2005/02/14 33.195152 165.975760 27.09364 Osamu
2006/08/08 33.194700 165.973500 27.09401 Sam
2006/09/07 33.194490 165.972450 27.09418 Sam/Rana
2006/09/08 33.194550 165.972750 27.09413 Sam/Rana
----2006/10 VENT OMC installation
2006/10/26 33.192985 165.964925 27.09541 Kirk/Sam
2006/10/27 33.192955 165.964775 27.09543 Kirk/Sam
2007/01/17 33.192833 165.964165 27.09553 Tobin/Kirk
2007/08/29 33.192120 165.960600 27.09611 Keita/Andrey/Rana
----2007/11 VENT Cleaning of the MC mirrors
2007/11/06 33.195439 165.977195 27.09340 Rob/Tobin
2008/07/29 33.196629 165.983145 27.09243 Rob/Yoichi
Last night, I tried to find the resonance of Yarm by sweeping the frequency of the injection beam.
A strong beat was present at LT_NPRO=48.7856[C_deg], the power coupling of the injection beam was estimated to be 35%.
(Vmax_beat = 1.060[V], Vmin_beat = 0.460[V], Vno_inject = 0.664[V])
The Yarm was locked and the alignment script was executed. The PLL between the PSL beam and the injection beam was
I tried to scan the freq offset (f_PLL) at around 3.88MHz first, then at around 15.52MHz. They are supporsed to be the
first and fourth FSR of the Yarm cavity. The Yarm transmitted power (DC) was observed to find the resonance of the
injection beam. It would have been better to use the RF power, but so far I didnot have the RF PD prepared at the end
transmission. I just used the DC power.
I think I saw the increase of the transmitted power by 10%, at f_PLL = 15.517 +/- 0.003 [MHz]. This corresponds to the
arm cavity length of 38.640 +/- 0.007 [m]. The previous measurement was not so bad!
e-log length [m]
556(2008-Jun-24) 38.70 +/- 0.08 Cavity swinging measurement
556(2008-Jun-24) 38.67 +/- 0.03 tape & photo
This 38.640 +/- 0.007
However, I had difficulties to have more precise measurement mainly because of two reasons:
o The PLL servo is too naive, and the freqency stability of the inj beam is not enough.
The injected beam should have the linewidth (=freq stability) narrower than the cavity linewidth.
o The PLL servo may experience change of the transfer function at around the resonance. The PLL works the other
frequencies. However, close to the resonance, it starts to be unstable.
So the next stuffs we should do is
o Build the PLL just using the incident beams to the ifo, not by the reflected beams.
o Build sophisticated servo to have better frequency stability.
o RF PD at the transmission.
Left the lab with Yarm locked, flipper down, shutter for the NPRO closed.
e-log length [m]
556 38.70 +/- 0.08 Cavity swinging measurement
556 38.67 +/- 0.03 tape & photo
776 38.640 +/- 0.007 Beam injection, poor PLL, Transmitted DC
this 38.6455 +/- 0.0012 Beam injection, independent PLL, Transmitted DC
e-log length [m] Measurement Conditions
556(2008-Jun-24) 38.67 +/- 0.03 Cavity swinging measurement
776(2008-Jul-31) 38.640 +/- 0.007 Beam injection, poor PLL, Transmitted DC
782(2008-Aug-02) 38.6455 +/- 0.0012 Beam injection, independent PLL, Transmitted DC
this(2008-Aug-04) 38.64575 +/- 0.00037 Beam injection, independent PLL, Transmitted RF
f_freq_count = K0 + K1 * f_IFR [Hz]
K0 = 0.00 +/- 0.02
K1 = 0.999999470 +/- 0.000000001
e-log length [m]
556(2008-Jun-24) 38.70 +/- 0.08 Cavity swinging measurement
556(2008-Jun-24) 38.67 +/- 0.03 Tape & photo
776(2008-Jul-31) 38.640 +/- 0.007 Beam injection, poor PLL, Transmitted DC
782(2008-Aug-02) 38.6455 +/- 0.0012 Beam injection, independent PLL, Transmitted DC
787(2008-Aug-04) 38.64575 +/- 0.00037 Beam injection, independent PLL, Transmitted RF
this(2008-Aug-04) 38.6462 +/- 0.0003 Beam injection, independent PLL, Transmitted RF, five FSRs, freq calibrated
FSR1: 3879251.9 Hz +/- 8.8 Hz
FSR2: 7757968.1 Hz +/- 10.8 Hz
FSR3: 11636612.9 Hz +/- 10.2 Hz
FSR4: 15515308.1 Hz +/- 8.7 Hz
FSR5: 19393968.7 Hz +/- 8.4 Hz
Alan and Alberto conducted a tour of 40 high-school students.
It may be the same tour that Rana found a spare PMC during the tour explanation as far as I remember...
Koji recommended that we use the optical setup pictured below. Although it uses fewer optics, I can't think of a way to test the phase camera using this configuration because any modulation of the wavefront with a lens or whatever would be automatically corrected for in the PLL so I think I'll have to stick with the old configuration.
I talked with Zach. So this is just a note for the others.
The setup I suggested was totally equivalent with the setup proposed in the entry http://188.8.131.52:8080/40m/1721, except that the PLL PD sees not only 29.501MHz, but also 1kHz and 59.001MHz. These additional beating are excluded by the PD and the PLL servo. In any case the beating at 1kHz is present at the camera. So if you play with the beamsplitter alignment you will see not only the perfect Gaussian picture, but also distorted picture which is resulted by mismatching of the two wave fronts. That's the fun part!
The point is that you can get an equivalent type of the test with fewer optics and fewer efforts. Particularly, I guess the setup would not be the final goal. So, these features would be nice for you.
The last week I've started setting up the HeNe laser on the PSL table and doing some basic measurements (Beam waist, etc) with the beam scan, shown on the graph. Today I moved a few steering mirrors that steve showed me from at table on the NW corner to the PSL table. The goal setup is shown below, based on the UCSD setup. Also, I found something that confused me in the EUCLID setup, a pair of quarter wave plates in the arm of their interferometer, so I've been working out how they organized that to get the results that they did. I also finished calculating the shot noise levels in the basic and UCSD models, and those are also shown below (at 633nm, 4mw) where the two phase-shifted elements (green/red) are the UCSD outputs, in quadrature (the legend is difficult to read).
0. Probably, you are working on the SP table, not on the PSL table.
1. The profile measurement looks very nice.
2. You can simplify the optical layout if you consider the following issues
A. The matching lenses just after the laser:
You can make a collimated beam only with a single lens, instead of two.
Just put a lens of f0 with distance of f0 from the waist. (Just like Geometrical Optics to make a parallel-going beam.)
Or even you don't need any lens. In this case, whole optical setup should be smaller so that your beam
can be accomodated by the aperture of your optics. But that's adequately possible.
B. The steering mirrors after the laser:
If you have a well elevated beam from the table (3~4 inches), you can omit two steering mirrors.
If you have a laser beam whose tilte can not be corrected by the laser mount, you can add a mirror to fix it.
C. The steering mirrors in the arms:
You don't need the steering mirrors in the arms as all d.o.f. of the Michelson alignment can be adjusted
by the beamsplitter and the mirror at the reflected arm. Also The arm can be much shorter (5~6 inches?)
D. The lenses and the mirrors after the PBS:
You can put one of the lenses before the PBS, instead of two after the lens.
You can omit the mirror at the reflection side of the PBS as the PBS mount should have alignment adjustment.
The simpler, the faster and the easier to work with!
After speaking with Rana and realizing that it would be better to use smaller inductances in the flying-component circuit (and after a lot of tinkering with the original), I rebuilt the circuit, removing all of the resistors (to simplify it) and making the necessary inductance and capacitance changes. A picture of the circuit is attached, as is a circuit diagram.
A plot of the measured and simulated transfer functions is also attached; the general shape matches between the two, and the resonant frequencies are roughly correct (they should be 11, 29.5, and 55 MHz). The gain at the 55 MHz peak is lower than the other two peaks (I'd like them all to be roughly the same). I currently have no idea what the impedance is doing, but I'm certain it is not 50 Ohms at the resonant peaks, because there are no resistors in the circuit to correct the impedance. Next, I'll have to add the resistors and see what happens.
This is a quite nice measurement. Much better than the previous one.
1) For further steps, I think now you need to connect the real EOM at the end in order to incorporate
the capacitance and the loss (=resistance) of the EOM. Then you have to measure the input impedance
of the circuit. You can measure the impedance of the device at Wilson house.
(I can come with you in order to consult with Rich, if you like)
Before that you may be able to do a preparatory measurement which can be less precise than the Wilson one,
but still useful. You can measure the transfer function of the voltage across the input of this circuit,
and can convert it to the impedance. The calibration will be needed by connecting a 50Ohm resister
on the network analyzer.
2) I wonder why the model transfer function (TF) has slow phase changes at the resonance.
Is there any implicit resistances took into account in the model?
If the circuit model is formed only by reactive devices (Cs and Ls), the whole circuit has no place to dissipate (= no loss).
This means that the impedance goes infinity and zero, at the resonance and the anti-resonance, respectively.
This leads a sharp flip of the phase at these resonances and anti-resonances.
The real circuit has small losses everywhere. So, the slow phase change is reasonable.
When I turned them on, the control signal in Pitch from WFS2 started going up with no stop. It was like the integrator in the loop was fed with a DC bias. The effect of that was to misalign the MC cavity from the good state in which it was with the only length control on (that is, transmission ~2.7, reflection ~ 0.4).
I don't know why that is happening. To exclude that it was due to a computer problem I first burtrestored C1IOO to July the 18th, but since that did not help, I even restarted it. Also that didn't solve the problem.
At least one problem is the mis-centering of the resonant spot on MC2, which can be viewed with the video monitors. It's very far from the center of the optic, which causes length-to-angle coupling that makes the mulitple servos which actuate on MC2 (MCL, WFS, local damping) fight each other and go unstable.
I played with the MC alignment for the beam centering. After that, I restored the alignment values.
In principle, one can select the MC2 spot as one likes, while the transmitted beam axis to the IFO is not changed
as far as you are at the best alignment. This principle is almost trivial because the beam axis matches
to the input beam axis at the best alignment.
The alignment solution is not unique for a triangle cavity if we don't fix the end spot position.
In practice, this cruising of the MC2 spot is accomplished by the following procedure:
0) Assume that you are initially at the best alignment (=max transmission).
1) Slightly tilt the MC2.
2) Adjust MC1/MC3 so that the best transmission is restored.
I started from the following initial state of the alignment sliders:
After many iterations, the spot was centered in some extent. (See the picture)
The instability looked cured somewhat.
Further adjustment caused a high freq (10Hz at the camera) instability and the IMCR shift issue.
So I returned to the last stable setting.
Of course, if you move MC1, the reflected spot got shifted.
The spot has been apparently off-centered from the IMCR camera. (up and right)
At this stage, I could not determine what is the good state.
So, I restored the alignment of the MC as it was.
But now Alberto can see which mirror do we have to move in which direction and how much.
Q. When should we use plano-convex lenses, and when should we use bi-convex?
As I had the same question from Jenne and Dmass in a month,
I just like to introduce a good summary about it.
Lens selection guide (Newport)
At a first order, they have the same function.
Abberation (= non-ideal behavior of the lens) is the matter.
Peter and Koji,
We are constructing a setup for the new 40m CDS using Realtime Code Generator (RCG).
We are trying to put simulated suspensions and test suspension controllers on a different processors of megatron
in order to create a virtual control feedback loop. Those CDS processes are communicating
each other via a shared memory, not via a reflective memory for now.
After some struggles with tremendous helps of Alex, we succeeded to have the communication between the two processes.
Also we succeeded to make the ADC/DAC cards recognized by megatoron, using the PCI express extension card replaced by Jay.
(This card runs multi PCI-X cards on the I/O chasis.)
- Establish a firewall between the 40m network and megatron (Remember this)
- Make DTT and other tools available at megatron
- Try virtual feedback control loops and characterize the performance
- Enable reflective memory functionalities on megatron
- Construct a hybrid system by the old/new CDSs
- Controllability tests using an interferometer
Note on MATLAB/SIMULINK
o Each cdsIPC should have a correct shared memory address spaced by 8 bytes. (i.e. 0x1000, 0x1008, 0x1010, ...)
Note on MEDM
o At the initial state, garbage (e.g. NaN) can be running all around the feedback loops. They are invisible as MEDM shows them as "0.0000".
To escape from this state, we needed to disconnect all the feedback, say, by turning off the filters.
Note on I/O chasis
o We needed to pull all of the power plugs from megatron and the I/O chasis once so that we can activate
the PCI-e - PCI-X extension card. When it is succeeded, all (~30) LEDs turn to green.
For the past couple of days I have been trying to understand and perform Koji's method for impedance measurement using the Agilent 4395A Network Analyzer (without the impedance testing kit). I have made some headway, but I don't completely understand what's going on; here's what I've done so far.
I have made several transfer function measurements using the attached physical setup (ImpedanceTestingPhysicalSetup.png), after calibrating the setup by placing a 50 Ohm resistor in the place of the Z in the diagram. The responses of the various impedances I've measured are shown in the attached plot (ImpResponses.png). However, I'm having trouble figuring out how to convert these responses to impedances, so I tried to derive the relationship between the measured transfer function and the impedance by simplifying the diagram Koji drew on the board for me (attached, ImpedanceTestingSetup.png) to the attached circuit diagram (ImpedanceTestingCktDiagram.png), and finding the expected value of VA/VR. For the circuit diagram shown, the equation should be VA/VR = 2Z/(50+Z). 50 Ohms is good to use for calibration because the expected value of the transfer function for this impedance is 1 (0 dB).
So I used this relationship to find the expected response for the various impedances, and I also calculated the impedance from the actual measured responses. I've attached a plot of the measured (red) and expected (black) response (top) and impedance (bottom) for a 1 nF capacitor (1nF.png). The expected and measured plots don't really match up very well; if I add extra inductance (7.6 nH, plots shown in blue), the two plots match up a little better, but still don't match very well. I suspect that the difference may come from the fact that for my analysis, I treated the power splitter as if it were a simple node, and I think that's probably not very accurate.
Anyway, the point of all this is to eventually measure the impedance of the circuit I created on Friday, but I don't think I can really do that until I understand what is going on a little better.
I checked the setup and found RF reflection at the load was the cause of the unreasonable response in the impedance measurement.
So, I have put a total 22dB attenuation (10+6+6 dB) between the power splitter and the load to be measured. See the picture.
This kind of attenuators, called as PADs, is generally used in order to improve the impedance matching, sacrificing the signal amplitude at the load.
Then, It looks the measurements got reasonable up to 100MHz (at least) and |Z|<1kOhm.
For the measurements, I just followed the procedure that Stephanie described.
Stephanie has measured the impedance of her resonant circuit.
As a test of the method, I measured impedances of various discrete devices. i.e. 50Ohm, 10-1000pF Cap, Inductances, circuit opened.
a) 50Ohm (marine-blue) was calibrated to be recognized as 50Ohm.
b) The mica capacitances (orange 10pF, yellow 100pF, green 1000pF) appeared as the impedances f^-1 in the low freq region. It's nice.
At high frequency, the impedances deviate from f^-1, which could be caused by the lead inductance. (Self Resonance)
So 1000pF mica is not capacitance at 50MHz already.
c) Open BNC connector (Red) looks have something like 5pF. (i.e. 300Ohm at 100MHz)
d) I could not get good measurements with the inductors as I had 200nH (and some C of ~5pF) for a Pomona clip (blue).
This is just because of my laziness such that I avoid soldering the Ls to an RF connector!
Stephanie and Koji
We left two carts near the PSL table.
We are using them for characterization of the tripple resonant EOM.
nodus was rebooted by Alex at Fri Aug 14 13:53. I launched elogd.
./elogd -p 8080 -c /export/elog/elog-2.7.5/elogd.cfg -D
The cause of the decrease was found and the problem was solved. We found this entry, which says
Yoich> We opened the MOPA box and installed a mirror to direct a picked off NPRO beam to the outside of the box through an unused hole.
Yoich> We set up a lens and a PD outside of the MOPA box to receive this beam. The output from the PD is connected to the 126MON cable.
We went to the PSL table and found the dc power cable for 126MOPA_AMPMON was clipping the 126MON beam.
We also made a cable stay with a pole and a cable tie.
After the work, 126MON went up to 161 which was the value we saw last night.
We also found that the cause of the AMPMON signal change by the DAQ connection, mentioned in this entry:
Jenne> 6. We teed off of the AMPMON photodiode so that we could see the DC values on a DMM.
Jenne> When we used a T to connect both the DMM and the regular DAQ cable, the DMM read
Jenne> a value a factor of 2 smaller than when the DMM was connected directly to the PD.
We found a 30dB attenuator is connected after the PD. It explains missing factor of 2.
Steve pointed this out to me today, and Koji and I just took a look at it together: The total power coming out of the MOPA box is constant, about 2.7W. However, the NPRO power (as measured by 126MOPA_126MON) has decreased from where we left it last night. It's an exponential decay, and Koji and I aren't sure what is causing it. This may be some misalignment on the PD which actually measures 126MON or something though, because 126MOPA_LMON, which measures the NPRO power inside the NPRO box (that's how it looks on the MEDM screen at least...) has stayed constant. I'm hesitant to be sure that it's a misalignment issue since the decay is gradual, rather than a jump.
Koji and I are going to keep an eye on the 126MON value. Perhaps on Monday we'll take a look at maybe aligning the beam onto this PD, and look at the impedance of both this PD, and the AMPMON PD to see why the reading on the DMM changed last night when we had the DAQ cable T-ed in, and not T-ed in.
I ran (script dir)/PSL/FSS/SLOWscan on op440m from 11:30 to 12:30 on 27th. Although Rana and later I myself set "timed bombs" for the scan, they did not work as they have probably been ran on Linux. After the scan I relocked PMC, FSS, and MZ . MC locked automatically.
1. To keep away from the mode hop, FSS_SLOWDC is to be at around 0. The values -5 ~ -6 is the place for the power, which is my preference for now. BTW, the mode hop only appears to the PSL output (=AMPMON) is this normal?
2. The PSL output looks dependent on the NPRO wavelength. The NPRO output and the PSL output tends to be high when the FSS_SLOWDC is low (= LTMP: Laser Crystal Temp is low). Also there is a step at the LTMP where we think the mode hop is present. This may cause the daily PSL output variation which induced by the daily change of the reference cavity length.
My naive speculation is that the NPRO wavelength is too long (= hot side) for the MOPA absorption as the MOPA heads are cooled to 19deg.
3. Scanning of -10 to +10 changes the LTMP from 42-49deg. This is almost 1/10 of the NPRO capability. The manual told us that we should be able to scan the crystal temperature +/-16deg (about 30deg to 60deg).
What I like to try:
a) Change the NPRO temp to more cold side.
b) Change the MOPA head temp to a bit hot side.
c) Tweak the MOPA current (is it difficult?)