I have attached the graph for the seismometer temperature fluctuations over 3 days. As we can see, there is a noticeable fluctuation in daily temperature as well as a difference between days in the maximum and minimum temperatures. I will repeat this test but take the can off to see if there's any difference between having the can on or off.

It appears that one of the wires was disconnected overnight or this morning so I wasn't able to gather data over a full 24 hour period. Perhaps someone accidentally kicked it. I placed some cones in that area so hopefully the wires won't be in the way as much and I can get the data tomorrow. From the data I do have it seems that the seismometer is at a colder temperature when the can is not on, though it is difficult to see by how many degrees the temperature fluctuates. I've included the data from 5 days back to see the comparison.

This time the test went without issue. The first attachment is the data for the past 24 hours and the second attachment is the full data over 6 days. The average temperature fluctuations (from highest point to lowest point) for the can on was 0.43 C and for the can off it came out to 0.55 C. In addition the seismometer with the can off is about 1 C cooler than with the can on. I'd like to leave the can off until the end of the week so we can get a comparable data set for both the can on and off. Eventually I'll need to figure out a way to clamp the can down to the block in order to get better insulation and hopefully get even smaller temperature fluctuations.

Rana said that it wasn't necessary to gather more data on the temperature fluctuations so I have reconnected the heater circuit and restarted the PID loop with the can on the seismometer.

We will need to order a few things for our final setup.

1. 1U box to place the heater circuit and temperature circuits in. The minimum depth that will fit all the electronics is 10 inches according to my sketch.
   • I found two possibilities online for this. I don't know exactly what our budget is, but this one is $144. According to the datasheet, the front panel is less than 19 inches wide, so if we are to order this one, I've adjusted the width of the panel I designed to match the width of the panel that comes with it I've labeled it in the attached file as 1U-panel-1.
   • The other possibility is this one. It comes with handles already which is quite nice. I wasn't able to find a price for it on the website.
2. Front panel for the 1U box and block panel. I've attached them as .fpd files below in one .zip file. Not sure if this is the correct way to attach them, though.
3. We'll also need a 16 gauge cable that has 6 wires bunched together. This is to connect up the heater circuit and AD590s. The other cables that we will need can be found in the lab.

I've updated the parts list to be an excel document and included every single part we will need. This is ony a first draft so it will probably be updated in the future. I also made a mistake in hole sizing for the front panel so I've updated it and attached it as well (second attachment).

Edit: re-attached the EX can panel fpd file so that everything is in one place

I have attached the result of running the PID script on the seismometer with the can on. The daily fluctuations are no more than 0.07 degrees off from the setpoint of 39 degrees. Not really sure what happened in the past day to cause the strange behavior. It seems to have returned back to normal today.

Got this 1U box from the Y arm that we could potentially use (attachment 1). It doesn't have handles on the front but I guess we could attach them if necessary. Attachment 2 is a switch that could be used instead of a light up switch, but now we need to add LEDs on the front panel that indicate that the switch is functional. Attachment 3 is a terminal block that we can use to attach the 16 gage wire to since it is thick and attaching it directly to the board would be difficult. If this is alright to use then I'll change up my designs for the front panel and PCB to accomodate these parts.

Since I am finishing my job at the lab, I have stored all my electronics in a box (attachment 1) and placed it under the table in the control room where some other electronics are stored. The box contains the heater circuit box, two temperature sensor boards, one temperature sensor, a short power cable and +/- 15V supply cables. In the lab I left the wires for the current setup and tied them down to the wall so that they aren't in the way (attachment 2). I left the can as is and the other temperature sensor is still attached to the inside of the can. I have labeled the wires going from the sensor as 'in' and 'out'. I've also left the wires for the heater there as well (attachment 3). I turned off the PID control and deactivated the tmux session on megatron.

Thanks to Rana and the LIGO team for giving me the opportunity to work at the 40m on this project with the seismometer.

I checked a broken QPD, which was placed for PSL angle monitor, and finally I cocluded one segment of the quadrant diode was broken.

The broken segment has a offset voltage of -0.7V after 1st I-V amplifier. It means the diode segment has a current offset without any injection of light.

Tomorrow I will check a new QPD for replacement.

Kiwamu IZUMI

The power supply of a lock-in amp, which is on the Y-arm side of PSL clean room, was pulled out by my mistake.

Then I reconnected it, but I don't know whether it is re-adjusted properly.

I'm sorry about this. If you are using that amp, it should be checked.

e-log was repeatedly hanging and several attempts to start the daemon failed.

problem was solved after clearing the (firefox) browser cache, cookie, everything!!

That's not what I'm asking.

Also additional cables are left connected to the signal path. I removed it.

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 
next time. 

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 
can work.

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.

New              OLD
--------------------------
27.0924          27.0934    [m]

New              OLD
--------------------------
165983145        165977195

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.

Note:
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 
somehow locked.

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!

Y-arm length
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.

Y-arm length
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
-----------------------------

Y-arm length
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

Y-arm length
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...

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://131.215.115.52:8080/40m/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.

Chris,

Some comments:

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!
Cheers.

Stephanie, 

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.

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:

BEFORE TRIAL

After many iterations, the spot was centered in some extent. (See the picture)
RESULT

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.

Side effect:
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)
http://www.newport.com/Lens-Selection-Guide/140908/1033/catalog.aspx

At a first order, they have the same function.
Abberation (= non-ideal behavior of the lens) is the matter.