40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 257 of 339  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Categoryup Subject
  689   Thu Jul 17 12:15:21 2008 EricUpdatePSLSwept PMC PZT voltage range
I unlocked the PMC and swept over C1:PSL-PMC_RAMP's full range a couple of times this morning.  The PMC should now be relocked and returned 
to normal.
  692   Thu Jul 17 20:13:34 2008 YoichiUpdatePSLPMC alignment/mode matching effort
I'm working to improve the mode matching of PMC.
Because I noticed that the beam was hitting the aperture of the EOM for PMC, I moved the EOM a little bit to maximize the transmission.
This did not change the alignment to the reference cavity but changed the alignment of the PMC a lot.
So I adjusted it back.
The alignment of the PMC can be easily optimized but the Hermite 02 mode still remains. This means the mode matching is bad.
Moving the lenses by a small amount (a few mm) did not change the height of 02 mode.
I'm planning to move the lenses by a large amount tomorrow. But it will destroy the alignment to the PMC.
So I installed two irises in the beam path after the lenses to remember the alignment roughly.
Right now the PMC transmission is slightly worse than before because the lens positions are not good.
  699   Fri Jul 18 19:41:09 2008 YoichiUpdatePSLPMC PZT investigation
I measured the HV coming to the PMC PZT by plugging it off from the PZT and hooking it up to a DVM.
The reading of DVM is pretty much consistent with the reading on EPICS. I got 287V on the DVM when the EPICS says 290V.

Then I used a T to monitor the same voltage while it is connected to the PZT. I attached a plot of the actual voltage measured by the DVM vs the EPICS reading.
It shows a hysteresis.
Also the actual voltage drops by more than a half when the PZT is connected. The output impedance of the HV amp is 64k (according to the schematic). If I believe this number, the impedance of the PZT should also be 64k. The current flowing the PZT is 1.6mA at 200V EPICS reading.
The impedance of the PZT directly measured by the DVM is 1.5M ohm, which is significantly different from the value expected above. I will check the actual output impedance of the HV amp later.
The capacitance of the PZT measured by the DVM is 300nF. I don't know if I can believe the DVM's ability to measure C.

I noticed that when a high voltage is applied, the actual voltage across the PZT shows a decay.
The second plot shows the step response of the actual voltage.
The voltage coming to the PZT was T-ed and reduced by a factor of 30 using a high impedance voltage divider to be recorded by an ADC.
The PMCTRANSPD channel is temporarily used to monitor this signal.
After the voltage applied to the PZT was increased abruptly (to ~230V), the actual voltage starts to exponentially decrease.
When the HV was reduced to ~30V, the actual voltage goes up. This behavior explains the weird exponential motion of the PZT feedback signal when the PMC is locked.
The cause of the actual voltage drop is not understood yet.
From the above measurements, we can almost certainly conclude that the problem of the PMC is in the PZT, not in the HV amp nor the read back.
Attachment 1: Hysteresis.png
Hysteresis.png
Attachment 2: StepResponse.png
StepResponse.png
  701   Fri Jul 18 23:24:24 2008 robUpdatePSLPMC PZT investigation

Quote:
I measured the HV coming to the PMC PZT by plugging it off from the PZT and hooking it up to a DVM.
The reading of DVM is pretty much consistent with the reading on EPICS. I got 287V on the DVM when the EPICS says 290V.

Then I used a T to monitor the same voltage while it is connected to the PZT. I attached a plot of the actual voltage measured by the DVM vs the EPICS reading.
It shows a hysteresis.
Also the actual voltage drops by more than a half when the PZT is connected. The output impedance of the HV amp is 64k (according to the schematic). If I believe this number, the impedance of the PZT should also be 64k. The current flowing the PZT is 1.6mA at 200V EPICS reading.
The impedance of the PZT directly measured by the DVM is 1.5M ohm, which is significantly different from the value expected above. I will check the actual output impedance of the HV amp later.
The capacitance of the PZT measured by the DVM is 300nF. I don't know if I can believe the DVM's ability to measure C.

I noticed that when a high voltage is applied, the actual voltage across the PZT shows a decay.
The second plot shows the step response of the actual voltage.
The voltage coming to the PZT was T-ed and reduced by a factor of 30 using a high impedance voltage divider to be recorded by an ADC.
The PMCTRANSPD channel is temporarily used to monitor this signal.
After the voltage applied to the PZT was increased abruptly (to ~230V), the actual voltage starts to exponentially decrease.
When the HV was reduced to ~30V, the actual voltage goes up. This behavior explains the weird exponential motion of the PZT feedback signal when the PMC is locked.
The cause of the actual voltage drop is not understood yet.
From the above measurements, we can almost certainly conclude that the problem of the PMC is in the PZT, not in the HV amp nor the read back.


I'd believe the Fluke's measurement of capacitance. Here's some info from PK about the PZT:


Quote:

But the PMC ones were something like
0.750 in. thick x 0.287 in. thick. 2 microns per 200 V displacement,
resonant frequency greater than 65 kHz. Typical capacitance is around 0.66
uF.


If the PZT capacitance has dropped by a factor of two, that seems like a bad sign. I don't know what to expect for a resistance value of the PZT, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's non-Ohmic. The 64k is the series resistor after the PA85, not the modeled resistance of the PZT itself.
  702   Sat Jul 19 19:39:44 2008 robUpdatePSLPMC PZT investigation

Quote:

Quote:
The 64k is the series resistor after the PA85, not the modeled resistance of the PZT itself.

Yes. What I meant was that because the measured voltage across the PZT was a half of the open voltage of the HV amp, the DC impedance of the PZT is expected to be similar to the output impedance of the HV amp. Of course, I don't think the DC impedance of a normal PZT should be such low.
I'm puzzled by the discrepancy between this expected DC impedance and the directly measured impedance by the Fluke DVM (1.5M Ohm).
One possibility is that the PZT leaks current only when a high voltage is applied.
  703   Sat Jul 19 19:41:56 2008 YoichiAoGPSLThe author of the entry 702 is Yoichi not Rob
I made a mistake.
  711   Tue Jul 22 03:03:22 2008 John, RobUpdatePSLFSS open loop transfer function
With the common gain slider maxed out the unity gain frequency is 58kHz.

The reference cavity refl diode appears to be okay. RF OUT/ TEST IN transfer function was normal.
There is a ~220mV offset in the RF out. We removed this using a coupler - no change. We also checked the
diode->FSS cable.

Tomorrow I'll take a closer look at the board.
  712   Tue Jul 22 09:24:17 2008 steveUpdatePSLlaser power
Laser power reality of 120 days
Attachment 1: power120d.jpg
power120d.jpg
  713   Tue Jul 22 11:55:22 2008 ranaUpdatePSLNote from R. Abbott re: the PMC
an email from Rich:
Your PZT is broken.

R
  714   Tue Jul 22 13:15:14 2008 robUpdatePSLNote from R. Abbott re: the PMC

Quote:
an email from Rich:
Your PZT is broken.

R


Quelle surprise

Frown
  715   Tue Jul 22 13:16:09 2008 John, RobUpdatePSLFSS open loop transfer function

Quote:
With the common gain slider maxed out the unity gain frequency is 58kHz.

The reference cavity refl diode appears to be okay. RF OUT/ TEST IN transfer function was normal.
There is a ~220mV offset in the RF out. We removed this using a coupler - no change. We also checked the
diode->FSS cable.

Tomorrow I'll take a closer look at the board.


Should note that the UGF of 58kHz was measured with the test cable (from RFPD to board), so the demod phase was presumably sub-optimal.
  719   Wed Jul 23 01:42:26 2008 ranaConfigurationPSLFSS RFPD: Examined, "repaired", and re-installed
Rob said that there might be something wrong with the FSS RFPD since the loop gain is so low.
Next time we should just use the Jenne laser on it in-situ and compare with our reference.

We had a 24.5 MHz LSC PD which Rob got from Sam. Sam got it from Rai. I gave it to Rai in Livingston
because it seemed suspicious. Seems fine now. This black box PD had a lower overall response than
the goldbox one we already had. The 2001-2005 era diodes which we got from the Canadian Perkin-Elmer
all had high capacitance and so that's not a surprise.

So the goldbox one was not broken totally.

I found that the offset came from a cracked capacitor. C25 was a yellow thru-hole ceramic 0.1 uF.
Its a surface mount board...don't know why this was like this but there's also no reason it should
have cracked unless it was soldered on with too much heat. I replaced it with a 0.47 uF ceramic
surface mount. Also R24 was a 20 Ohm resistor and L3 was not stuffed?? Removed R24 and put a 1 uH
inductor into L3. This is there so that the input to the MAX4107 is AC coupled.

However, the DC signal that Rob saw was actually because of the cracked C25. It had shorted and was
making a 25 mV signal at the input to the MAX4107 which has a gain of 10. This was producing ~165 mVdc
into a 50 Ohm load and so it could have saturated most mixers. The FSS board, however, has an overly
monstrous level 21 (I think) mixer and so this should not have been an issue. Maybe.

I was able to lock with the 24.5 MHz black box PD but it was not too hard to repair the gold box one
so I did. I tuned it so that the notch is truly at 43 MHz (2x the FSS 21.5 MHz modulation) but because
someone has done this using a hacky cap in parallel with the main PD, I am unable to get the resonant
peak to line up at 21.5 MHz. Its at 23 MHz instead. This loses us ~2 dB in signal. Since the frequency
is so low, we can increase the gain in the MAX4107 by another factor of 3 or so in the future.


So the PD is not our problem. Still worth verifying that the cable is good -- its around 10 miles long!!
And loops around in there with a bunch of other cables. We have an electronic phase shifter so this seems
totally misguided.

The other bad problem is that the mode matching is pretty horrible. Something like 1/3 of the carrier
power doesn't go into the cavity.
FSS TODO:
1) Check cable between RFPD and FSS box for quality. Replace with a good short cable.

2) Using a directional coupler, look at the RFPD output in lock on a scope with 50 Ohm term.
   I suspect its a lot of harmonics because we're overmodulating to compensate for the bad
   mode matching.

3) Purchase translation stages for the FSS mode matching lenses. Same model as the PMC lenses.
   Fix the mode matching.

4) Get the shop to build us up some more bases for the RFPDs on the PSL such as we have for the LSC.
   Right now they're on some cheesy Delrin pedestals. Too soft...

5) Dump the beam reflected off the FSS RFPD with a little piece of black glass or a razor dump.
   Anodized aluminum is no good and wiggles too much.

The attached PDF shows photos of the old and new style PDs. One page 3 there's a wire that I soldered on
as a handle so that we can remove the RF can (occasionally people claim that soldering to the lid screws
up the magnetic shielding magic of the lid. use this as a litmus test of their electronics know-how; its
a tin can - not an orgone box). Pages 4 & 5 are the circuit before I soldered, page 6 the cap after I
tried to remove it, page 7 is the circuit after I put in the new cap, and page 8 is the schematic with
the mark up of the changes.
Attachment 1: Untitled.pdf
Untitled.pdf Untitled.pdf Untitled.pdf Untitled.pdf Untitled.pdf Untitled.pdf Untitled.pdf Untitled.pdf
  726   Wed Jul 23 18:42:18 2008 JenneUpdatePSLAlignment of AOM
[Rana, Yoichi, Jenne]

Short Version: We are selecting the wrong diffracted beam on the 2nd pass through the AOM (we use the 2nd order rather than the first). This will be fixed tomorrow.

Long Version of AOM activities:

We checked the amount of power going to the AOM, through the AOM on the first pass, and then through the AOM on the second pass, and saw that we get about 50% through on the first pass, but only about 10% on the 2nd pass. Before the AOM=60mW, after the first pass=38mW, after the 2nd pass=4mW. Clearly the alignment through the AOM is really sketchy.

We translated the AOM so the beam goes through the center of the crystal while we align things. We see that we only get the first order beam, which is good. We twiddled the 4 adjust screws on the side of the AOM to maximize the power at the curved mirror for the 1st order of the first pass, which was 49.6mW. We then looked at the DC output of the Reference Cavity's Refl. PD, and saw 150mV on the 'scope. The power measured after the polarizing beam splitter and the next wave plate was still 4mW. Adjusting the curved mirror, we got up to 246mV on the 'scope for the Refl. PD, and 5.16mW after the PBS+Waveplate. We adjusted the 4 side screws of the AOM again, and the tip/tilt of the PBS, and got up to 288mV on the 'scope.

Then we looked at the beam that we keep after the 2nd pass through the AOM, and send to the reference cavity, and we find that we are keeping the SECOND order beam after the second pass. This is bad news. Yoichi and I will fix this in the morning. We checked that we were seeing a higher order beam by modulating the Offset of the MC servo board with a triangle wave, and watching the beam move on the camera. If we were chosing the correct beam, there would be no movement because of the symmetry of 2 passes through the AOM.

I took some sweet video of the beam spot moving, which I'll upload later, if I can figure out how to get the movies off my cell phone.
  735   Thu Jul 24 19:29:26 2008 YoichiConfigurationPSLC1:PSL-STAT_FSS_NOM_C_GAIN is changed from 30 to -0.7
Koji, Yoichi

Since the light power going to the ref. cavity is now significantly increased (see Janne's elog later),
C1:PSL-STAT_FSS_NOM_C_GAIN
is changed from 30 to -0.7.
Otherwise, the MC did not lock.
  736   Thu Jul 24 21:04:58 2008 ranaUpdatePSLFSS
Since Jenne and Yoichi are going to finish up their refcav/FSS work in the morning I decided to
look at the trends. I set the RF modulation level from 10.0 back down to 7.5 so that we would
have the same RF modulation depth as before. I also set the FSS common gain and its nominal to
1.0 dB since it seemed more stable this way.

With 7.5, the transmission of the refcav is ~6.9 V. It was around 0.7 V before so there's already
been a factor of 10 improvement in the power since the work started. In addition to the mode matching
work which is about to commence, we should attenuate the RC TRANS with a real mirror (not ND) so that
the camera and PD don't saturate. We should also do the same for the REFL PD and camera and make sure
to put in a steering mirror for the REFL PD and orient REFL so that it faces West (so that we can
look at its face with a viewer) and dumps its reflection.

Since the common gain is so low now, I expect that we will want less light in total. We can achieve
this by turning down the RF drive to the VCO.

I also fixed the MC down script which was putting the FSS common gain to the unstable +10 dB level
during the MC locking process.
  741   Fri Jul 25 19:57:18 2008 JenneUpdatePSLRef Cav & PMC
"PMC is in, but is still being worked on. Leave it alone." ---Rana

Ref. Cavity is locked again. Still a work in progress. I think we're ready to mode match on Monday. ---Jenne
  745   Sun Jul 27 23:06:17 2008 ranaUpdatePSLPMC, MZ, MC-MMT, etc.
With the new PMC now in I aligned the MZ to the new beam (there is sadly no steering
between the PMC and the MZ).

I also removed the pickoff that we had put before the MZ just in case we wanted to
move the FSS pickoff to there - its been 2 years now so I guess its not going to happen.


The new PMC's cavity axis seems to be a few hundred microns higher than the old one. So I
tried to move the MZ EOMs to compensate but ended up also steering all of the MZ's mirrors
to get the contrast good, the beam onto the ISS PDs, centered (sort of) onto the MMT lenses
and onto the periscope.

Along the way I also removed some of the vestigial squeezer stuff around the power control
PBS. The output of the PBS now goes directly into the high power dump with no steering. This
eliminated around a dozen clamps, bases, etc. and a couple of mirrors.


The MC is locked on the low power beam we have running through everything. I restored the
PSL launch beam just using the MC-WFS and it locked on a TEM00. So now we know that we
really don't need the PSL quads for this as long as the MC1 angle is stable.

The good news is that the PMC PZT voltage is now flat: the problem must have really been with
the PZT
and not the cabling or notch box like I had wondered about.

Todo:
-----
1) Continue mode matching into the PMC. Its transmission now is around the same as the
   old one.

2) Put a UHV foil covered lead brick onto the PMC to quiet it down.

3) Characterize the PMC loop and retune the body notch for the new body.

4) Tweak the MZ alignment to minimize the RFAM. We can use StochMon to do this as
   long as we have the MC WFS turned off or we can put in a flipper to take the
   beam before the MC and send it to the StochMon RFPD.

5) Re-align onto the ISS.

6) Install irises around the periscope for the beam. The old iris there is way off.

7) Fix PSL ANG and center both POS and ANG.
  746   Mon Jul 28 11:20:13 2008 JenneUpdatePSLWork on the FSS and Reference Cavity
[Yoichi, Jenne, Koji]

The Reference Cavity's saga continues....

Thursday, Yoichi and I worked to change the beam that we chose from the 2nd pass through the AOM, to the first order beam rather than the 2nd order beam (see elog #726). After choosing the correct beam, we get 29mW incident on the reference cavity (compared with 4mW before any work began). We adjusted the angle of the AOM in the plane of the table, and got up to 30.6mW. We adjusted the tip/tilt of the AOM and got to 30.7mW (the tip/tilt adjustment made a more significant difference in the work described in elog #726, but after that work, it was probably already pretty close to optimized). We noticed that for the above measurements, we had 2 beams through the Polarizing Beam Splitter and Waveplate (one very dim), so after excluding that beam, the power meter read 30.4mW. We adjusted the curved mirror a little, and got 30.8mW incident on the reference cavity.

We then put a triangle wave into the offset of the MC Servo Board using the "trianglewave <channel> <center> <amplitude> <period> <runtime>" command in a terminal screen. This changes the voltage to the VCO, and thus the frequency response of the AOM. We watch the diffracted spots from the second pass through the AOM, and confirm that the beam we have chosen is not moving, and all the others are. By symmetry, if we chose the first order beam after the first pass through the AOM, and then again chose the first order beam after the second pass, the resulting beam will not move with the frequency change of the AOM.

We saw 1.50V (Refl. PD, unlocked) on the 'scope after aligning the optics to make the newly chosen beam hit the input mirror of the reference cavity. Order of operations for this alignment:
  • Recenter the beam on the 2 lenses that are just after the PBS and the waveplate
  • Adjust pitch and yaw of the two steering mirrors until the beam reflected off the input mirror of the reference cavity is parallel to the incident beam
    • Use a sensor card to check the alignment of the incident and reflected beams, and adjust the steering mirrors to get the alignment close
      • Note the amplitude of the DC output of the Refl. PD with the iris completely open. Close the iris until the signal decreases by ~50%, then adjust the steering mirrors until the original amplitude is regained. Repeat until the iris can be almost completely closed but the Refl. PD signal doesn't change
    • Watch the DC output of the Refl. PD, and maximize the signal on a 'scope
    • Sweep the PZT of the laser using a function generator into the RAMP input on the FSS board (~10Vpp at ~1Hz), OR sweep the temperature of the laser using the trianglewave function on the SLOW FSS channel (amplitude~0.5, period~50)
    • Watch the modes that resonate in the cavity, and adjust pitch and yaw of the steering mirrors to get closer to the TEM00 mode
    • When the TEM00 mode appears in the sweep, stop the sweep, and lock the cavity
    • Watch the DC output of the Transmitted PD, and maximize the signal on a 'scope
  • Celebrate!

After all of this adjusting,
Refl. PD (unlocked) = 1.48V
Refl. PD (locked) = 680mV
Trans. PD (locked) = 6.28V
Power reflected (unlocked) = 26.28mW
Power transmitted (locked) = 13.89mW
Thus, 53% transmission

Next: check the amount of power transmitted by reducing the amplitude of the RF modulator. This reduces the amount of power used by the sidebands, and so should increase the transmission.
Power incident = 27mW
Power transmitted = 17.2mW
Thus, 64% transmission
We then put the RF modulator back where it was originally.

We then replaced the lens mounts for the f=802 and f=687 lenses between the AOM and the reference cavity, to the new mounts that Yoichi bought. Koji helped me realign into the reference cavity, and we got:
Refl. PD (unlocked) = 1.48V
Refl. PD (locked) = 880mV
Trans PD (locked) = 4.64V
Power incident = 26.97mW
Power transmitted = 10.39mW
39% transmission
Since more mode matching etc. is in the works, we left this for the night.

On Friday, we changed the setup of the cameras and PDs for both reflection and transmission, to avoid saturating the PDs and cameras.

On the Refl. side of the reference cavity, we put a W2-PW-1025-UV-1064-45P pickoff between the last mirror and lens before the camera and PD. We moved the camera to the pickoff side of the new optic. We then replaced teh 45UNP beam splitter that split the beam between the PD and the camera with a Y1-1037-45P highly reflective mirror, and put the PD in the old camera location.

On the Trans. side of the ref. cavity, we replaced the BSI-1064-50-1025-45S with a W2 pickoff, and replaced the Y1-1037-45-P highly reflective mirror with the 50/50 beam splitter that was replaced by the W2.

Now we have:
Refl. PD (unlocked) = 1.68V
Refl. PD (locked) = 640mV
Trans PD (locked) = 4.24V
Power incident = 25mW
Power transmitted = 14.48mW
58% transmission

Koji pointed out that when remounting, I had put the f=802 lens ~2cm away from its original position (along the z-axis), so I moved the lens back to where it should be, and realigned into the reference cavity. Since Rana was working on the PMC at the same time, the laser was turned down by about a factor of 100, so my starting measurements were:
Refl. PD (unlocked) = 23.6mV
Refl. PD (locked) = 10.2mV
Trans PD (locked) = 56mV
Power incident = 0.35mW
Power transmitted = 0.16mW
46% transmission

Since it was late on Friday by the time everything was realigned into the ref. cavity (I'm still working on my optics aligning skills), I forgot to measure the transmission after all of my work. I'll do that today (Monday) as soon as Sharon/Koji are done working with the IFO this morning. Also, I'll put up before/after pictures as soon as I find the camera...it seems to have walked off.

UPDATE:
Ref. Cav. measurements after Friday's alignment (and after turning the laser power back up to normal):
Refl. PD (unlocked) = 1.58V
Refl. PD (locked) = 304mV
Trans PD (locked) = 3.68V
Power incident = 24.96mW
Power transmitted = 16.45mW
66% transmission


To do: Start the actual mode-matching into the reference cavity.
  749   Mon Jul 28 17:44:07 2008 ranaUpdatePSLPMC PZT v. temperature
This plot shows that the PMC PZT has ~20 Vpp fluctuations on a 24 hour timescale
which is correlated to the 24 hour temperature fluctuations. By contrast, the MZ
has ~75 Vpp
.
Attachment 1: Untitled.pdf
Untitled.pdf
  751   Mon Jul 28 23:41:07 2008 robConfigurationPSLFSS/MC gains twiddled

I found the FSS and MC gain settings in a weird state. The FSS was showing excess PC drive and the MC wouldn't lock--even when it did, the boost stage would pull it off resonance. I adjusted the nominal FSS gains and edited the mcup and mcdown scripts. The FSS common gain goes to 30dB, Fast gain to 22dB, and MCL gain goes to 1 (which puts the crossover back around ~85 degrees where phase rises above 40 degrees).
  758   Tue Jul 29 19:41:38 2008 YoichiUpdatePSLFSS loop transfer functions
Last night I measured a bunch of transfer functions on the FSS loop.
All the loop gains were measured with the common gain = 30db and the fast gain = 18dB.

(1) The first attachment is the overall open loop transfer function of the FSS loop. I put a signal from the Test IN2 and observed signals from IN1 and IN2.
The UGF is about 180kHz.
By increasing the RF amplitude going to the EOM (i.e. increasing the sideband power), I can further increase the gain of the servo.
However, it made the PC drive immediately crazy. Probably it was some oscillation.

(2) Then I locked the ref. cav. with only the PZT actuator. I did so by simply unplugging the cable going to the PC.
Surprisingly, the cavity locked with the *same* gain setting as before. The second attachment shows the open loop transfer function measured in this configuration. It seems wrong, I mean, it should be unstable. But the cavity locked. A mystery.

(3) The third plot is the measured TF from the Test IN1 of the FSS board to the fast out (output to the PZT).

(4) By dividing the TF measured in (2) with the TF of (3), I got the response of the PZT times the cavity response. This is shown in the attachment 4.

(5) We can guess the open loop TF of the PC path by subtracting the TF in (2) from (1). It is shown in the attachment 5.

(6) The filter shape of the PC path is measured by injecting signal from the Test IN1 of the FSS board and observing it at the PC output. Since it is a high voltage output, I reduced the common gain to -8.5dB during the measurement. The attachment 6 is the measured filter shape. The gain is corrected to show what it should look like when the common gain = 30dB.

(7) By dividing (5) with (6), I plotted the response of the PC times the cavity response in the attachment 7. Since the 1/f cavity pole and the response of the PC, which is proportional to f, should cancel out, we expect a flat response above the cavity pole frequency (38kHz). You could say it is a sort of flat, if you have obscured eyes.

The measurement of the PZT open loop TF is very suspicious. According to this, the PC path has a very large gain even at very low frequencies (there is no cross over above 1kHz). This cannot be true. Maybe the cavity's optical gain was low when it was locked with only the PZT. I will re-measure it.
The plot (4) is also strange becaues it does not show the low pass feature expected from the cavity pole.
Attachment 1: OverallOPLTF.eps
OverallOPLTF.eps
Attachment 2: OpltfPZTOnly.eps
OpltfPZTOnly.eps
Attachment 3: PZTFilter.eps
PZTFilter.eps
Attachment 4: PZTxCavityPole.eps
PZTxCavityPole.eps
Attachment 5: OpltfPCOnly.eps
OpltfPCOnly.eps
Attachment 6: PCFilter.eps
PCFilter.eps
Attachment 7: PCxCavityPole.eps
PCxCavityPole.eps
  761   Tue Jul 29 23:04:34 2008 YoichiUpdatePSLFSS loop transfer functions

Quote:

The measurement of the PZT open loop TF is very suspicious. According to this, the PC path has a very large gain even at very low frequencies (there is no cross over above 1kHz). This cannot be true. Maybe the cavity's optical gain was low when it was locked with only the PZT. I will re-measure it.


I measured it again and found that the loop was oscillating at 13.5kHz. I think this oscillation prevented the ref. cavity from building up the power and consequently lowered the optical gain making it marginally stable. So the PZT path open loop TF posted in the previous entry is wrong.

I was able to stop the oscillation by lowering the gain down to CG=-7.6dB and FG=-8.78dB.
The first attachment shows the measured open loop transfer function.
Since the gain setting is different from when the over all open loop TF was measured, I scaled the gain (attachment 2).
However, this plot seems to have too much gain. Scaling it down by 20dB makes it overlap with the over all open loop TF.
Maybe the gain reading on the EPICS screen is wrong. I will measure the actual gain tomorrow.
Attachment 1: OpltfPZTOnlyRaw.eps
OpltfPZTOnlyRaw.eps
Attachment 2: OpltfPZTOnly.eps
OpltfPZTOnly.eps
  767   Wed Jul 30 13:09:40 2008 josephb, EricConfigurationPSLPMC scan experiment
We turned the PSL power down by a factor of 4, blocked one half of the Mach Zehnder and scanned the PMC by applying a ramp signal to PMC PZT. Eric will adding plots later today of those results.

We returned the power to close to original level and removed the block on the Mach Zehnder, and then relocked the PMC.
  772   Wed Jul 30 16:35:56 2008 EricUpdatePSLPMC Scan Graphs
Graphs of the PMC scan data that I got earlier today.

PMCLongScanWide.tiff shows the transmission intensity and PZT voltage plotted against time for a longer scan of the PMC (~120 seconds for one sweep).

PMCLongScanPeak.tiff is the same scan zoomed in on the primary peak. This scan was done with the laser power at around 1/3 its original value. However, scans done at around 1/6 the original value have peaks that are just as messy.

PMCShortScanWide.tiff shows the intensity and voltage for a more rapid scan (~30 second for one sweep). The black lines show how the peak positions are at very different PZT voltages (a difference of ~10 volts in both cases).

PMCShortScanPeak.tiff is zoomed in on the primary peak. The peak is much cleaner than for the long scan (less time for the laser's heat to expand the mirror?), though it is likely still too messy to reliably fit to a lorentzian.
Attachment 1: PMCLongScanPeak.tiff
Attachment 2: PMCLongScanWide.tiff
Attachment 3: PMCShortScanPeak.tiff
Attachment 4: PMCShortScanWide.tiff
  775   Thu Jul 31 10:27:17 2008 ranaUpdatePSLPMC Scan Graphs

Quote:
Graphs of the PMC scan data that I got earlier today.

On the UNIX computers, one can use 'convert' to change these to PNG. A DC offset should be added to the transmitted
light so that the scan can be plotted with a log y-scale. And, of course, Acrobat can be used to make it into a
single PDF file.

The PMC scan always has this distortion and so the input power has to be decreased to a few mW to reduce the
thermal expansion effect; the expansion coefficient for SiO2 is ~5 x 10^-7 / K and we're worried about nm level
expansions.
  778   Fri Aug 1 01:13:32 2008 ranaConfigurationPSLPSL Quad change and new script
Koji and I changed a few optics so that now ~60% of the beam that went to the PSL POS QPD
now goes to the west side of the table for the aux. laser locking PLL. The beam is sort of
on the QPD again but needs a centering.

After this work I wrote a script SUS/freeswing-all.csh which puts a 30000 count offset into
the UL coil of each suspension and then disables it. This is just good enough to kick it up
so that the eigenfrequency can be measured. I ran it and it worked -- it finished running at

Fri Aug 1 00:44:30 PDT 2008
  781   Fri Aug 1 16:33:52 2008 ranaConfigurationPSLPSL Quad change and new script
Here's the sensor ringdown trend from the kick.
Attachment 1: Untitled.png
Untitled.png
  791   Mon Aug 4 13:43:02 2008 YoichiSummaryPSLFSS loop calibration
As a part of the effort to repair the FSS loop bandwidth, I tried to calibrate the FSS loop.

First, I scanned the MOPA frequency by injecting a triangular wave into the ramp-in of the FSS box, which goes to the PZT of the NPRO.
The first attachment shows the transmitted light curve (pink one) along with the PDH signal (light blue).
The sweep was very slow (0.1Hz for 2Vp-p). From this measurement, the FWHM was 6.8e-3V. Then fpol = FWHM/2=3.4e-3V, where fpol is the cavity pole frequency.
So the PZT's DC response is 294*fpol/V. If we use the canonical fpol=38kHz, it is 11.172MHz/V.

Then I tried to measure the cavity pole. First I tried the cavity ring down measurement, by blocking the beam abruptly. Unfortunately, my hand was not fast enough.
The ring down shape was not an exponential decay.
I then locked the reference cavity only using the PZT with very narrow bandwidth (UGF=2kHz). I injected signal into the external modulation input of the 80MHz VCO
for the AOM. The second attachment shows the transfer function from this input to the IN2 (mixer output monitor port) of the FSS servo box.
To plot this, I corrected the measurement for the open loop TF (i.e. multiplying the measured TF with (1+G)), and other filters in the path (8MHz LPF after the ext. mod.
input of the 80MHz VCO, and an RCL network after the mixter). The gain looks like a cavity pole, but the phase decreases very rapidly.
If you look at the third attachment showing a wider band transfer function, there are notches at 1.8MHz and above. I couldn't find this kind of filter in the schematic.
Maybe this is the RFPD's bandpass filter. I will check this later. From these plots, it is difficult to tell the cavity pole frequency. From the -3dB point, fpol is around 83kHz,
but from the phase=-45deg point, fpol is around 40kHz.

Finally, I calibrated the cavity's optical gain by locking the Ref. Cavity with only PZT, and injecting a signal into the loop.
The signal was injected from Test-In2 of the FSS servo box and the transfer function from the PZT output signal (TP10) to IN1 (mixer output) was measured.
The transfer function was corrected for a 10Hz LPF after TP10.
The attachment4 shows a nice flat response up to 30kHz. Above 30kHz, the measurement is too noisy. The optical gain at DC is about 22dB from the PZT drive to the error signal (IN1).
Using fpol=38kHz, it means 887kHz/V calibration factor for the signal at IN1. There is a mixer output monitor DAQ channel in the FSS but it seems to be not working at the
moment. I will look into this later. There is a gain of 10dB between IN1 and the mixer monitor channel.
By looking at the phase response of the attachement4, there is a cavity pole like behavior around 30kHz. If we assume the PZT response is flat up to this frequency, it is
roughly consistent with fpol=38kHz.

I was not able to take a sensible spectrum of IN1 using the network analyzer. When the FSS servo was engaged, the signal was too small.
I will try to use an AF spectrum analyzer later to get a calibrated spectrum.
Attachment 1: P7310048.JPG
P7310048.JPG
Attachment 2: cavity-response.pdf
cavity-response.pdf
Attachment 3: cavity-response2.pdf
cavity-response2.pdf
Attachment 4: cavity-gain.pdf
cavity-gain.pdf
  873   Sat Aug 23 09:39:51 2008 rana, jenneUpdatePSLPMC Survey
Jenne, Rana

We scoped out the PMC situation yesterday.

Summary: Not broke. UGF ~ 500 Hz. Needs some electronics work (notches, boosts, LPFs)

Ever since we swapped out the PMC because of the broken PZT of the previous one, the UGF has been
limited to a low value. This is because the notches no longer match the mechanical resonant
frequencies of the body. The old one had a resonance at 31.3 kHz which we were notching using
the LC notch on the board as well as a dangling Pomona box in the HV line to the PZT. The one
has a resonance at ~14.5 kHz which we don't yet have a notch for. Jenne has all the real numbers and
will update this entry with them.

Todo:
  • Implement the 4th order Grote low pass after the mixer.
  • Replace the AD797 with an OP27.
  • Change servo filter to have a boost (need DC gain)
  • Make a 14.5 kHz notch for the bode mode.
  • Put a 20 lb. gold-foil wrapped lead brick on the PMC.

Here's the link about the modified PMC board which we installed at LHO:
LHO PMC elog 2006
  874   Mon Aug 25 10:07:35 2008 JenneUpdatePSLNumbers for the PMC servo board (Re: entry # 873)
Jenne, Rana

These are the numbers that go along with Rana's entry #873:

The existing notch in the PMC servo is at 31.41kHz.

The power spectrum of the PMC has a peak at 14.683kHz when it is just sitting on the PSL table (no extra mass). When we put a pile of steel and aluminum (~20lbs) on top of the PMC, the body resonance moves to 14.622kHz, but is decreased by about 40 dB!

Rana has ordered a lead brick + foil that should arrive sometime this week. To complete the mechanical part of this installation, we need to extend the earthquake mounts around the PMC so that the lead brick can't fall off of the PMC onto the rest of the table.
  876   Mon Aug 25 10:51:06 2008 steveUpdatePSLpsl headtemp is coming down
The laser water cooler was overflowing this morning.
I removed 500 cc water from the chiller.

The 4 days plot shows clearly:
that the capacity of the chiller is depending on the water level.
Overflowing water is a heat load for the chiller, so laser head temp goes up.
Attachment 1: ht4dw.jpg
ht4dw.jpg
  878   Mon Aug 25 12:13:49 2008 JenneUpdatePSLBroken PMC Servo Board
I broke the PMC servo board (on accident).

I was trying to measure the resistance of the extra resistor that someone put between the board and the HV OUT connector, since this is part of an RC filter (where C is the capacitance of the PZT on the PMC) that I need to know the values of as part of my mission to make a 14.6kHz notch for the PMC body mode. The resistance is 63.6k. I had to pull the board to get in to measure this resistance.

This resistor between the board and the center pin of the panel-mount HV OUT connector made a rigid connection between the board and the panel. When I was putting the board back in, I must have strained this connection enough that it broke. We don't have any of the same kind of resistor here at the 40m, so I'm waiting until after lunch to go to Wilson house and see if they've got any. The IFO is down until I get this sorted out.
  879   Mon Aug 25 14:18:36 2008 JenneUpdatePSLPMC servo board is fixed
The PMC servo board is back in place, all fixed up with a shiny new resistor. The PMC locks, and the MC locks (I'm not saying anything either way about how long the MC will stay locked, but it is locked for now). The resistor is connected to the connector using a short piece of wire, so this problem won't happen again, at least with this connector on this board.
  884   Tue Aug 26 09:04:59 2008 ranaConfigurationPSLPMC Servo Board: Out for Repairs
I've started modifying our PMC board to bring it up to the 21st century - leave the screen alone or else you might zap something.
  892   Wed Aug 27 13:55:43 2008 rana,jenneUpdatePSLPMC Servo Board
Board is back in. PMC is locked.

Nominal gain is now 15 dB with brick. We need to do more studies:

  • Find out why there is still 35 MHz signal at the error point. Order some low pass filters to cut off above 35 MHz.
  • Explore brick + no-brick loop shapes and error spectra.
  • Measure and set the OLG.

We've left the copper-wrapped lead brick installed to let it slowly conform to the glass better.
  893   Thu Aug 28 18:56:14 2008 ranaConfigurationPSLbeam block distorted
There was a beam block after the Mach Zender. Who or what put this there?

The going to the MC now looks distorted as if someone has left something funny in the beam or maybe the new PMC has started to degrade??

Use the ELOG people...its good for you.
  895   Fri Aug 29 02:40:43 2008 rana,jenneUpdatePSLPMC Servo Board

Quote:
Board is back in. PMC is locked.


This entry has details about the low pass filter after the PMC mixer. This filter has a few purposes:

1] Remove the beat signal (at 2*f_mod) between the PD RF signal at f_mod and the LO signal at f_mod.
2] Remove the beat signal (at f_mod) between the PD RF signal at 2*f_mod (which comes from the
beating of the upper and lower RF sidebands) and the LO signal at f_mod.
3] Remove other RF signals from non-ideal behavior of the LO drive signal and distortion in the RF PD pre-amp.


So its important to have a very good rejection at 35 MHz and higher. I used the Hartmut LC network design which is
installed on H1, H2, & L1. Since there is a high gain in the audio amps right after the mixer we have to get rid of
the RF or else we'll get slew rate limited or otherwise rectified downconversion of the RF signal into our audio band.

Of course, what everyone immediately realizes from the above 3 points, is that this filter can't protect the PMC
noise performance from homodyne mixing (e.g. 2*f_mod in the LO and 2*f_mod in the RF PD). To get around that, we're
ordering some filters from Mini-Circuits to remove the 2f from those signals by ~30 dB. As long as we install
the same filters on the RF and LO legs, there should be no significant phase shift in the demodulated signal.

The attached 2 page PDF shows the calculated before and after TFs of this filter. The 2 attached .m files
calculate the TF's and have ascii art which shows how the filter works.

Here's a comparison of the attenuation (in dB) of 2 candidate Mini-circuits filters:

f(MHz)SLP-30SLP-50
31 0.5 0.4
35 1.3 0.4
38 6.1 0.4
40 10.8 0.42
61 46.3 14.8
71 60 29
91 76.9 48
10780 60

We don't have tabulated data at the same frequencies for both filters so I just made up some of the points by eye-balling the
plots from the catalog - but you get the idea: we can get away with using the SLP-30 at 35 MHz since it only attenuates the
signals by ~1.5 dB. So if someone can find 4 of these then Steve doesn't have to order any from Mini-Circuits.
Attachment 1: pmclp-07.pdf
pmclp-07.pdf pmclp-07.pdf
Attachment 2: pmclp_40m_080824.m
% PMCLP is a TF of the IF filter after the PMC mixer
%       

% Mixer_Voltage -- Rs -- L1 --- L2 ---------Vout
%                            |      |   |
%                           C1     C2   Rl                   
%                            |      |   |
%                           GND    GND  GND
%

... 58 more lines ...
Attachment 3: pmclp.m
% PMCLP is a TF of the IF filter after the PMC mixer
%       

% Mixer_Voltage -- Rs -- L1 --- L2 ---------Vout
%                            |      |   |
%                           C1     C2   Rl                   
%                            |      |   |
%                           GND    GND  GND
%

... 57 more lines ...
  896   Fri Aug 29 10:20:32 2008 YoichiConfigurationPSLbeam block distorted

Quote:
There was a beam block after the Mach Zender. Who or what put this there?

The going to the MC now looks distorted as if someone has left something funny in the beam or maybe the new PMC has started to degrade??

Use the ELOG people...its good for you.


I put the block. I was frequently reaching to the FSS box to change the test point probes. I put the block to protect my hands/clothes from being burnt accidentally.
  901   Fri Aug 29 15:01:45 2008 steveUpdatePSLMOPA_HTEMP in increasing
The laser chiller temp is 21.9C ( it should be 20.0C )
Control room temp 73F ok, no obvious block

Ops, there is a piece of paper blocking the intake of the chiller

This is a four day plot. The paper was blocking the air flow all day.
Attachment 1: htcl.jpg
htcl.jpg
  902   Fri Aug 29 16:35:18 2008 YoichiConfigurationPSLbeam block distorted

Quote:
There was a beam block after the Mach Zender. Who or what put this there?

The going to the MC now looks distorted as if someone has left something funny in the beam or maybe the new PMC has started to degrade??

Use the ELOG people...its good for you.


The apparent distortion of the MC refl. was caused by mis-alignment of the MC mirrors.
Because the MC1 was mis-aligned, the reflected light was clipped by a steering mirror.
I restored the MC angle bias values from the conlog history and now the MC locks.
According to conlog, the MC alignment was changed at around 18:30 on Thursday PDT.
It could have been caused by the computer reboots.
  903   Fri Aug 29 17:39:25 2008 ranaConfigurationPSLPMC: ADC Channels
The attached PNG shows the PMC error and controls signals with no calibration.

There are 3 states:

DARK - RF input disabled & output blanked. This should be a measure of the ADC noise

(-10 dB) - This is with the gain slider down at 5 dB instead of the nominal 15 dB.

Looks like the Generic DAQ board whitening is good enough for these signal levels above ~1 Hz.

From the low and high gain spectra it also looks like the UGF is ~500 Hz with the gain at 15 dB.
Attachment 1: mcf.png
mcf.png
  904   Fri Aug 29 18:24:48 2008 ranaHowToPSLPMC: PZT Calibration
I calibrated the PMC PZT at DC by using 'trianglewave' to drive the DC offset slider
and reading back PMC_PZT and PMC_TRANSPD_F (both are DC coupled DAQ channels).

The attached PDF illustrates the method: look at the voltage required to span 1 FSR and then divide.
PMC_cal (m/V) = (1064 nm)/2 / V_FSR
The calibration for our PZT is therefore 10.4 nm/V.
The full scale (0-300 V) range is 3.1 microns.

From Jenne's elog entry we know that the series resistor to the PZT is 63.6 kOhms. The PZT is labeled as
having a capacitance of 279 nF. So the PMC drive's pole frequency is 1/2/pi/63.6e3/279e-9 = 9 Hz +/- 0.5 Hz.
The cable capacitance is ~20 pF/foot so its not significant for this.

The template file is Templates/PMC-PZTcal.xml.

Using the above calibrations, also plot the calibrated PMC ERR and PZT spectra.
Attachment 1: pmc-pzt-cal.pdf
pmc-pzt-cal.pdf
Attachment 2: mcf.png
mcf.png
  905   Fri Aug 29 22:57:48 2008 YoichiUpdatePSLFSS loop transfer functions
I've been measuring a bunch of transfer functions of the FSS related stuffs.
There are a lot to be analyzed yet, but here I put one mystery I'm having now.
Maybe I'm missing something stupid, so your suggestions are welcome.

Here is a conceptual diagram of the FSS control board

                                                          TP3             TP4
                                                           ^               ^
                                                           |               |
RF PD -->--[Mixer]-----[Sum Amp]------>--[Common Gain]--->----[Fast Gain]----[Filter]--> NPRO PZT
              ^     |      ^        |                  |     
              |     V      |        V                  |
LO ---->-------    TP1     IN      TP2                 -->---[Filter]--[High Volt. Amp.] --> Phase Corrector

What I did was first to measure a "normal" openloop transfer function of the FSS servo.
The FSS was operated in the normal gain settings, and a signal was injected from "IN" port.
The open loop gain was measured by TP1/TP2.
Now, I disconnected the BNC cable going to the phase corrector to disable the PC path and locked the ref. cav. 
only using the PZT. This was done by reducing the "Common Gain" and "Fast Gain" by some 80dB.
Then I measured the open loop gain of this configuration. The UGF in this case was about 10kHz.
I also measured the gain difference between the "normal" and "PZT only" configurations by injecting 
a signal from "IN" and measuring TP3/TP2 and TP4/TP3 with both configurations (The signal from the Mixer was
disconnected in this measurement). 

The first attachment shows the normal open loop gain (purple) and the PZT only open loop gain scaled by the 
gain difference (about 80dB). The scaled PZT open loop gain should represent the open loop gain of the PZT
path in the normal configuration. So I expected that, at low frequencies, the scaled PZT loop TF overlaps the normal
open loop TF.
However, it is actually much larger than the normal open loop gain.
When I scale the PZT only TF by -30dB, it looks like the attachment #2.
The PZT loop gain and the total open loop gain match nicely between 20kHz and 70kHz.
Closer look will show you that small structures (e.g. around 30kHz and 200kHz) of the two
TFs also overlap very well. I repeated measurements many times and those small structures are always there (the phase is
also consistently the same). So these are not random noise.

I don't know where this 30dB discrepancy comes from. Is it the PC path eating the PZT gain ?

I have measured many other TFs. I'm analyzing these.
Here is the TO DO list:

* Cavity response plot from AOM excitation measurements.
* Cavity optical gain plot.
* Reconstruct the open loop gain from the electric gain measurements and the optical gain above.
* Using a mixer and SR560(s), make a separate feedback circuit for the PZT lock. Then use the PC path
  to measure the PC path response.
* See the response of the FSS board to large impulse/step inputs to find the cause of the PC path craziness.
etc ...
Attachment 1: OPLTFs.pdf
OPLTFs.pdf
Attachment 2: OPLTFsScaled.pdf
OPLTFsScaled.pdf
  906   Sat Aug 30 13:28:01 2008 ranaConfigurationPSLPMC: List of changes
This is a list of changes made to the PMC board while we had it out for modifying the notch:

  • LC-LC 4th order low pass filter
  • Replace the AD797 (U2) with an OP27. AD797's are bad - do not use them anywhere for any reason. The OP27 is slower and has a 3x worse input noise but doesn't compromise the bandwidth or noise performance of the PMC by any significant amount. The rule is: use OP27 everywhere unless you have a very good reason why not.
  • There is no 'H1' jumper on board. R9 is 90.9 Ohms and R2=900 Ohms so that the U2 stage has a gain of 10.
  • Cut a trace and inserted a 500 Ohm resistor between U2-pin6 and U5A-pin2 (the AD602). The AD602 has a 100 Ohm input impedance which cannot be driven without limiting by the AD797 or the OP27. The 500 Ohm resistor makes it a driveable load for low level signals which is all that should be there since its the error point of the servo. it also becomes a 6:1 voltage divider. Since the AD602 has a fixed output voltage noise of 100 nV/rHz, this will limit the noise performance if the VGA gain is less than 20 dB, but whatever.
  • R11 7.87k -> 1.74k, R12 = 78.7k -> 700k. This increases the high frequency gain of that stage by 7.87/1.74 = 4.5 and lowers the low frequency pole from 2 to 0.2 Hz to give the PMC some more staying power at DC. The loop shape is now 1/f^2 in the 9-480 Hz band and so the phase dips enough to make it almost conditionally stable, but not quite.
  • C26 changed from ??? + a 30 pF trim cap into a fixed NNN pF cap to set the notch frequency for the 14.5 kHz body mode that we measured. Once our brick configuration is more settled we can increase the Q of this notch from small to big.
  • Grounded pin 5 of U14 & U15 (AD620). These have sometimes been used as "differential" drivers in LIGO by connecting this reference voltage pin to the remote ground of the next board. This has always lead to insidious oscillation and noise. This beauty also has an output noise of 100 nV/rHz. Just never use this chip if you can help it; we can make true differential drivers - we have the technology.

Of course, we didn't have a current version of a schematic sitting around so I printed out a Rev E schematic and marked it up with red pen. I'll post pictures later and put the schematic into the PSL schematics notebook. Would be useful to take the old schematic and update it in Acrobat so that we have something electronic.
  907   Mon Sep 1 04:34:00 2008 ranaUpdatePSLFSS loop transfer functions
I started from 6th item in Yoichi's todo list.

1) Increased the setpoint of the thermostat next to the framebuilder from 73F to 79F. Its freezing over there
in the room with the drill press. Steve's illegal mercury thermometer is reading 19 C.


2) Looked the RFPD's output spectrum using the 20 dB coupled output from the coupler that's in-line.
The first attached PDF file (n.pdf) has several plots:
page 1: 0-500 MHz anomolous peaks at 138 & 181 MHz but nothing too crazy
page 2: 0-100 MHz 80 MHz peak is RF pickup from the VCO Driver - not on the light
page 3: 10-30 MHz totally nuts
page 4: 18-25 MHz that's just wrong

The RF spectrum should only have some action around 21.5 MHz and a little peak at 2x 21.5 MHz. All that extra
junk means that something is broken!


3) To see if I could rid of any of the 80 MHz signal or any of that other trash from 18-25 MHz, I wound the RF cable
around a large toroidal ferrite core. This should have given us many uH of inductance for any signals common to
both the center and shield of the cable with no effect on the differential RF signals. There was no effect.


4) Next went to look at the 21.5 MHz Crystal Oscillator Reference card (D980353...I bet you can't figure out how
this one works). These have the Mini-Circuits SMA 30 MHz low pass (SLP-30) filters on both the LO and EOM outputs.

FSSLO.PNG shows the waveform after 20 dB attenuation going into a scope terminated with 50 Ohms.
FSSLO-Spec.png shows the spectrum of this signal - its pretty distorted. Here's the levels
   f (MHz) |  before filter (dBm) | after filter (dBm)
   ---------------------------------------------------
     21.5  |       -12.8               -13.1       
     43            -24                 -46
     64.5          -50               < -80
     86            -64               < -80

This would be OK after the filter, but the level is very low. Only 7dBm (accounting for my 20 dB att) !!
The FSS uses a JMS-1H mixer which needs, as everyone knows, a +17 dBm LO signal. Que lastima.

There seems to be something wrong already, but wait...


5) PC25.PNG shows the output signal going to the EOM from 0 - 25 MHz. The step that's visible there at
around 10 MHz is just something inherent to the analyzer (??). But see all that crap there down below
5 MHz ? That is NOT supposed to be there.

pc.pdf shows on the first page the comparison in EOM drive with 2 different slider values on the
RF AM adjust screen for the FSS. But page 2 is the punchline of this long entry: There is a bunch of
excess junk on the drive signal going to the FSS's phase modulator.
The FSS is then trying to handle
this extra frequency noise and getting into trouble.

We have to fix this board. I have also ordered a few SBP-21.4 from mini-circuits (SMA bandpass around 21.4 MHz)
just in case. Another option is to just replace this thing with a Marconi and an RF amp.






Attachment 1: n.pdf
n.pdf n.pdf n.pdf n.pdf
Attachment 2: FSSLO.PNG
FSSLO.PNG
Attachment 3: FSSLO-Spec.png
FSSLO-Spec.png
Attachment 4: PC25.png
PC25.png
Attachment 5: pc.pdf
pc.pdf pc.pdf
  908   Mon Sep 1 19:23:17 2008 YoichiConfigurationPSLFSS on an auxiliary loop
Summary: The FSS is now temporarily disabled. Naturally, the MC won't lock. I will fix it tomorrow morning.

Today, I did the 4th item of my TO DO list.
Using a mini-circuit mixer and two SR560s, I constructed an auxiliary servo loop for the reference cavity.
With this loop, I was able to lock the reference cavity without using the FSS box.
By locking the reference cavity with this auxiliary servo, I was able to measure the PC path transfer function.
I will post the analyzed results later.

I borrowed the PD RF and the LO signals from the main FSS loop by power splitters. Therefore, the gain of the main FSS loop
is now about 3dB low. I tried to compensate it by increasing the EOM modulation depth, but the PC path is still a bit noisy.
Probably the already too low LO power is now seriously low (the LO power cannot be changed from EPICS).
Because I did not want to leave the PC path with large output overnight (it will heat up the PA85, and might cause damage, though unlikely),
I disabled the FSS for now.
  909   Tue Sep 2 07:58:34 2008 ranaSummaryPSLFSS & PMC LO trends for 2 years
The attached plot is a 2 year minute trend of the EPICS readback of the PMC & FSS LO Monitors (FSS_LODET & PMC_LODET).
Clearly the FSS LO has been dying for at least 2 years. The step up from 10 months
ago is probably when Rob removed a 3dB attenuator from in front of the box.
Attachment 1: psl-lo-trend.png
psl-lo-trend.png
  910   Tue Sep 2 09:58:42 2008 YoichiConfigurationPSLFSS on an auxiliary loop

Quote:
Summary: The FSS is now temporarily disabled. Naturally, the MC won't lock. I will fix it tomorrow morning.


Now I removed the power splitters for the aux. reference cavity servo. The FSS is back and the MC locks.
I'm now returning one of the active high-impedance probes to the Wilson house. They need it today.
We are left with only one active probe. If anyone finds another active probe in the 40m lab.,
please let me know (according to Rana we should have one more).
  911   Tue Sep 2 10:09:03 2008 steveUpdatePSLhead temp is cooling down
The chiller was over flowing this morning.
800 cc of water was removed.
PSL-126MOPA_HTEMP peaked at 20.7 C (normal is 18.7 C)
  912   Tue Sep 2 14:28:41 2008 YoichiUpdatePSLFSS EOM driving signal spectra
Rich advised me to change the +10V input of the FSS crystal frequency reference board from whatever voltage supply we use now to a nice one.
This voltage is directory connected to the signal lines of both LO and RF output amps. Therefore, fluctuations in the voltage directly appear
in the outputs, though DC components are cut off by the AC coupling capacitors.

I changed the source of this voltage from the existing Sorensen one to a power supply sitting next to the rack.
The attached plots shows the difference of the RF output spectra between the two 10V sources.
The low frequency crap is almost gone in the new 10V spectrum.

I tried to increase the FSS gain with the new 10V, but still it goes crazy. I suspect it is because the LO power is too low.
Attachment 1: RFDrive1.png
RFDrive1.png
Attachment 2: RFDrive2.png
RFDrive2.png
ELOG V3.1.3-