40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 94 of 348  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Authorup Type Category Subject
  759   Tue Jul 29 19:53:19 2008 KojiUpdateSUSPRM photos from the south window
Steve and Koji

We took some photos of PRM from the south window.
You can see one of the side magnets, a wire stand-off, and the wire itself from the round hole.
So, the wire looks OK.

For the coils, we could see only one coil. The magnet is apparently too high.
Attachment 1: PRM_from_South_Window1.jpg
Attachment 2: PRM_from_South_Window2.jpg
  768   Wed Jul 30 13:14:03 2008 KojiSummaryIOOHistory of the MC abs length
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
Attachment 1: MC_length.png
  774   Thu Jul 31 10:24:32 2008 KojiUpdateGeneralIFO status
Last night I used the Y-arm for the abs length measurement. The Yarm was aligned by the script.
I left the ifo with the Yarm locked as it is the only meaningful configuration so far.
  776   Thu Jul 31 11:19:30 2008 KojiUpdateGeneralAbs. Len. Meas. ~ Resonance search trial
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.
  782   Sat Aug 2 12:53:43 2008 KojiUpdateGeneralAbs. Len. Meas. ~ New PLL at the PSL table
Report of the work last night:
The new heterodyne interferometer on the PSL table was built.
The length of the Yarm cavity was measured with better precision.

Yarm is locked. The injection beam was aligned. The beat was there at around LT=48.9 [C_deg] of the NPRO.

The new PLL setup on the PSL table has been built. The two beams from the MC incident beam and the injection beam are
mode-matched with lenses. I measured the Rayleigh ranges of the beams by a sensor card and my eyes, and then placed
appropriate lenses so that they can have 5~6 [m] Rayleigh range. They looks a bit too thick but just ok for an inch
optics. The new PLL setup shows ~70% intensity modulation which is enormous. The servo is still SR560-based so far.

Now the PLL has no singular frequency within its range. I could sweep the 4th FSR of the cavity with 500Hz interval. I
was still observing at the transmitted DC.

At each freqency from 15.51MHz to 15.52MHz, a timeseries data of the Yarm transmitted was recorded at sampling of 32Hz for 10
seconds. The figure shows the averaged values of the transmitted DC with errors. An increase of the transmitted power by
3-4% was found. If we consider the resonance is at f_PLL = 15.515 +/- 0.0005 [MHz], this indicates the
arm cavity length of 38.6455 +/- 0.0012 [m].
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

o RF detection at the transmitted
o Better PLL: PLL stability (in-loop / out-of-loop)
o Measurement for the 1st~3rd FSR
o Reproducibility of the measurement
o Higher order mode search
o Check the acuuracy and presicion of the Marconi
Attachment 1: yarm_dc.png
  783   Sat Aug 2 13:07:23 2008 KojiConfigurationGeneralThe AP table cleaned
During the construction of the independent PLL I cleaned up some of the unused optics from the AP table. Essentially this should be harmless as they had already been isolated from any beam. They were related to Go's squeezing project and Osamu's MC Transmitted beam measurement.

Nevertherless, if you find any problem on the signals at the AP table (when the ifo returns), I am the person to be blamed.

I am going to update the table layout later next week.
  787   Mon Aug 4 00:37:58 2008 KojiUpdateGeneralAbs. Len. Meas. ~ RF PD at the Y end / Manual frequency scan
Work log on August 2nd

o Just remind you:
The idea of the absolute length measurement was to detect an RF beat between the injection beam and the PSL beam by resonating both of the beams to the cavity at the same time, but on different londitudinal modes. From the frequency separation between the two beams, we get the FSR of the cavity. In order to have an injection beam with stable frequency separation, a heterodne interferometer was built at the PSL table, and the PLL servo is used to control and stabilize the frequency of the inj. beam.


o An RF PD (Tholab PDA255) and a steering mirror were placed at the Yarm END. Fortunately, I found that an unused BS was already in the optical path. There was a beam block which dump the reflection of the BS and some stray lights of the OPLEV. I moved the beam block to make the BS reflection available, as well as to block the OPLEV stray light still (Photo1). In order to have the RF signal from the PD, a long BNC cable was laid along the Yarm. I did't know any better idea than this. Don't blame me.

o To have an intuitive interpretation of the beat frequency, the injection beam was set to be at higher frequency than the PSL beam. How did I confirm this? When the crystal temp (LT) of the NPRO was tuned to be higher, the beat frequency got lower.

o Frequency of the PLL was manually swept at around 15.51MHz where the 4th FSR was expected to be found. I could see strong RF peak at that frequency! When I tuned the PLL frequency, the peak height changes dramatically! Too cool!

o The amplitude of the RF peak was measured by an RF spectrum analyzer. I did all of this scan by my hands and eyes. The center frequency of the 4th FSR was 15.5149MHz. From the eye I would say the error is +/-150Hz. It is OK so far although I am not sure statistically this is correct or not. This corresponds to the length of 38.64575 +/- 0.00037 [m].

o All of the past measurements are fairly consistent.
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
Attachment 1: YEND_LAYOUT.png
Attachment 2: 4th_FSR1.png
Attachment 3: 4th_FSR2.png
  788   Mon Aug 4 00:56:07 2008 KojiHowToGeneralAbs. Len. Meas. ~ Auto freq scanner with GPIB
Work log on August 3rd - Part1

o Yesterday I was too much tired of changing the RF frequency, reading peaks on the RF spectrum, and writing the values. Rana saw me and thought I was such poor that he gave me an USB-GPIB adapter.

o I dig into the internet for the manuals of the adapter, IFR2023A(Marconi), and HP8591E(RF spectrum analyzer) in order to learn how to use them.

o I had LabVIEW installed on my laptop. Finally I understand how to use that adapter (by Agilent) with LabVIEW. I made a small program to scan the frequency of IFR2023A, and read the peak values from HP8591E. It is unfortunate that there is no LabVIEW in the 40m lab. I think I can make an independent executable which does not need the LabVIEW itself. Give me some time to understand how to do it.
Attachment 1: freq_scan.png
  789   Mon Aug 4 05:23:57 2008 KojiUpdateGeneralAbs. Len. Meas. ~ Measurement for Y-arm completed
Finally, I have completed the abs length and g-factor measurements for Y-arm.

I will report the results later.

Some notes on the status:
o Y-arm was aligned at the end of the experiment by the script. The values were saved.

o At the AP table, the injection beam and the flipper were left aligned so that the inj. beam can be used as a reference of the SRM and the ITMs. But the shutter of the NPRO was closed.

o The experiment setup was mostly left at the side of the AP table. I tried not to disturb the walk as much as possible.

o The long cable from the Y-end was wound and placed at the Y-end. The knife-edge was left on the Y-end bench. It is not disturbing any beam.
  793   Mon Aug 4 21:48:24 2008 KojiUpdateGeneralAbs. Len. Meas. ~ Scan for TEM00/01/10
Work log on August 3rd - Part2

o I tried to measure the frequency of the FSRs using TEM00 resonances. Also search of TEM01/TEM10 resonances were tried.

Measurement for TEM00

o The frequency of the injection beam was scanned from 2MHz to 20MHz using the LabVIEW panel with GPIB. The 1st figure attached below is the result of the scan. Equispaced peaks were found as expected. The interval of the peaks are about 3.89MHz. Each peaks were measured with freq intervals of down to 50Hz. I will analyze the center frequency of the peaks precisely later in order to have a final result.

Measurements for TEM01/TEM10

o The beam injection technique is thought to be useful for measureing the frequency of the higher-order resonances. In order to measure the higher-order resonances the modifications of the experimental setup were applied as below.

1) For TEM10 (the beam like "OO" shape), a razor blade which blocked the horizontal half of the transmitted beam was placed. We needed to disturb half of the beam because the beat between the PSL TEM00 and the injection TEM01 cancels if the PD receives all of the light.

2) The injection beam is slightly misaligned in the horizontal direction in order to enhance the coupling of the injection beam to the cavity TEM01 mode.

3) For TEM01 (the beam like "8" shape), a razor blade cutting the vertical half and the misalignment of the inj beam in the vertical direction are applied.

o The frequency of the injection beam was scaned from 1st FSR of TEM00 in the upward direction. The alignment of the arm cavity was left untouched during the measurement. As shown in the 2nd figure attached below, the resonances were found about 1.19MHz away from the TEM00, but they are separated by about 19kHz(!). This could be split of the degenerated modes which corresponds to the difference of the mirror curvature in two directions! This difference is something like 56 m and 57 m. Can you believe this?

(To be continued to the next entry)
Attachment 1: TEM00.png
Attachment 2: TEM01.png
Attachment 3: knife_edge.png
  794   Mon Aug 4 22:31:10 2008 KojiUpdateGeneralAbs. Len. Meas. ~ Simple Test for TEM01/10 split
Work log on August 3rd - Part3

o The TEM01 and TEM10 of the Yarm were found to split with 19kHz separation. Is this true?
o In which direction the eigenmodes are?

o The separation of 19kHz is a kind of too big because the cavity bandwidth is several kHz.
o This means that "TEM01 and TEM10 can not resonate at the same time (by the PSL beam)".

o Imagine we are just using the PSL beam and playing with an arm cavity.
o Tilt the end mirror in pitch. Resonate the TEM01 mode (8-shaped).
o Then tilt the end mirror in yaw.
o a) If the resonances are degenerated within the bandwidth of the laser, it rotates freely.
o b) If the resonances splits, the tilt in yaw does not change the shape. Then suddenly jumps to TEM10 (by an accident).

o The shape does not change. Just jumps to the other mode. (The case above b.)
o The eigenmode looked like quite horizontal and vertical.

Conclusion: the mode really splits.
Attachment 1: TEM01_10.png
  795   Tue Aug 5 00:05:57 2008 KojiUpdateGeneralAbs. Len. Meas. ~ IFR2023A calibration
Work log on August 4th

o IFR2023A (Marconi) was calibrated by the SR620 frequency counter which is locked to the GPS signal.
o The frequency of the IFR2023A was scanned from 1MHz to 20MHz with 1MHz interval. The readout of the frequency counter was recorded.
o The linear fit was taken.
f_freq_count = K0 + K1 * f_IFR [Hz]
K0 = 0.00        +/- 0.02
K1 = 0.999999470 +/- 0.000000001

o So, the IFR seems to have -0.5ppm systematic error.
  796   Tue Aug 5 02:39:55 2008 KojiConfigurationGeneralAbs. Len. Meas. ~ Optical Layout on the AP / PSL table 2008-Aug-05
Here are the PDF and the PNG of the AP and PSL table layouts.
After this photo, the squeezing setup at the AP table was removed.
Attachment 1: optical_layout_ap_table3.png
Attachment 2: optical_layout_ap_table3.pdf
Attachment 3: optical_layout_PSL_table1.png
Attachment 4: optical_layout_PSL_table1.pdf
  801   Wed Aug 6 11:10:34 2008 KojiUpdateGeneralAbs. Len. Meas. ~ analysis of the TEM00 scan
Analysis of the data on August 3th ~ Part 1

From the measurement of the 5 FSRs, the FSR frequency for the Yarm cavity was estimated as
f_FSR = 3878678 Hz +/- 30 Hz
and the Yarm length is
L_yarm = 38.6462 m +/- 0.0003 m
This is the precision of 8ppm. In my opinion, this is a satisfactory result for our purpose.
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
o According to the entry 795, all of the scan frequency was calibrated.
o The five peaks of the scanned data for TEM00 were fitted. Each peak was fitted by the following formula:

V(f) = A / Sqrt(1 - ((f-f0)/fc)^2)

f: scan frequency

A: peak amplitude
f0: center frequency
fc: half bandwidth of the peak for -3dB

o The results are shown in the attached figure 1. They look very similar each other but they are different plot! The fittings were extremely good. The center frequencies estimated were as follows:
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
o The FSR frequencies were fitted by a line. The fitting and the residuals are shown in the attached figure 2.
The fitting results were

f_FSR(n) = 586.4 + 3878678 * n

This means that:
o FSR frequency was 3878678 [Hz].
o The lock of the carrier had detuning of 586 [Hz].

The detuning of the carrier from the resonance can be explained by the alignment drift. In deed, at the end of the measurement, decrease of the transmitted power by -15% was found. Then, the frequency of the 1st FSR was measured before and after the alignment adjustment. This changed the frequency of the FSR1 by 350Hz. This change could not be explained by the cavity length change as this is too big (~3.5mm).

Actually, the spacing of the cavity length is more stable. The residual is rather scattered with in 20-30Hz. So, I took the error of 30Hz as the whole precision of the frequency measurement that includes the fluctuation of the alignment, the cavity length itself, and so on. This yields the FSR and the cavity length of
f_FSR = 3878678 Hz +/- 30 Hz
L_yarm = 38.6462 m +/- 0.0003 m .
Attachment 1: TEM00fit.png
Attachment 2: TEM00FSRfit.png
  802   Wed Aug 6 11:43:52 2008 KojiUpdateGeneralAbs. Len. Meas. ~ analysis of the TEM01 scan
Analysis of the data on August 3th ~ Part 2

o I already have reported that the resonant freq of TEM10 and TEM01 split.

o Again, note that TEM10/01 were arranged almost in the horizontal/vertical by the observation of the video.

o The peaks of TEM10 and TEM01 were fitted with the same method as of TEM00.

o The peak freqs were:
f_TEM10: 5087040 Hz +/- 20 Hz
f_TEM01: 5068322 Hz +/- 15 Hz
The split is 18.7kHz.

o The additional parameter from the previous entry:
f_TEM00: 3879252 Hz +/- 9 Hz
L_yarm: 38.6462 m +/- 0.0003 m

o Radius of curvature
Rx = L /(1-Cos^2(Pi (f_TEM10 - f_TEM00) / (c/L/2) ))
Ry = L /(1-Cos^2(Pi (f_TEM01 - f_TEM00) / (c/L/2) ))

from these formula we get the value
Rx = 56.1620 +/- 0.0013 [m]
Ry = 57.3395 +/- 0.0011 [m]
Attachment 1: TEM01fit.png
  838   Thu Aug 14 21:52:51 2008 KojiSummaryGeneralAbs. Len. Meas. ~ summary of my Summer
I have made the summary of the absolute length measurement.
It is attached here. The file is a bit big (~8.6MB).
Attachment 1: mode_spacing_measurement_080816_v2.pdf
  1026   Sat Oct 4 07:23:42 2008 KojiMetaphysicsEnvironmentThe Gatekeeper
Hi, this is Koji from Japan.

I am afraid that this is a poisonous spider, Latrodectus hasseltii.
In Japanese word "Seaka-goke-gumo" (red-backed widow spider)

I am not an expert of insects, but this type of spider is getting famous in Japan as they were accidentally imported from South-West asia and Austraria to Japan in recent years, and they settled in certain city areas.

It is said that its neurotoxic venom causes unpleasant results such as shock, pain, and inflammation, even it is not too strong to kill human.

Be careful.


Found this lady outside the door of the 40m lab a few nights ago.
  1717   Tue Jul 7 15:08:49 2009 KojiSummaryPhotos40 high school students visited 40M

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...

Attachment 1: IMG_1848.jpg
  1753   Wed Jul 15 18:22:15 2009 KojiUpdateCamerasRe: GigE Phase Camera


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, 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.

  1789   Sat Jul 25 13:34:58 2009 KojiUpdateGeneralWeek 5/6 Update


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).




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!

  1790   Sat Jul 25 13:49:28 2009 KojiUpdateGeneralMultiply Resonant EOM Update


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.

  1792   Sat Jul 25 19:04:01 2009 KojiUpdatePSLAligning the beam to the Faraday



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:


MC1 Pitch  +3.6242
MC1 Yaw  -0.8640
MC2 Pitch  3.6565
MC2 Yaw -1.1216
MC3 Pitch -0.6188
MC3 Yaw -3.1910
MC Trans 2.70

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

MC1 Pitch  +3.363 (-0.26)
MC1 Yaw  -1.164 (-0.3)
MC2 Pitch  3.7565 (+0.1)
MC2 Yaw -1.2800 (~ -0.16)
MC3 Pitch -0.841 (~ -0.22)
MC3 Yaw -3.482 (~ -0.29)
MC Trans 2.75  

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.

Attachment 1: MC2_Cam.jpg
  1799   Mon Jul 27 19:55:19 2009 KojiHowToIOOLens selection: plano-convex? or bi-convex?

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.

  1801   Tue Jul 28 18:32:21 2009 KojiUpdateCDSRCG work

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.)

Next steps:
- 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

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.

  1813   Thu Jul 30 19:55:23 2009 KojiUpdateGeneralMultiply Resonant EOM Update


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!

Attachment 1: imepedance.png
Attachment 2: impedance_meas.jpg
  1849   Thu Aug 6 20:03:10 2009 KojiUpdateGeneralWe left two carts near PSL table.

Stephanie and Koji

We left two carts near the PSL table.
We are using them for characterization of the tripple resonant EOM.

  1902   Fri Aug 14 14:19:25 2009 KojiSummaryComputersnodus rebooted

nodus was rebooted by Alex at Fri Aug 14 13:53. I launched elogd.

cd /export/elog/elog-2.7.5/
./elogd -p 8080 -c /export/elog/elog-2.7.5/elogd.cfg -D

  2003   Fri Sep 25 17:51:51 2009 KojiUpdateMOPASolved (Re: Total MOPA power is constant, but the NPRO's power has decreased after last night's activities?)

Jenne, Koji

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.


[Koji, Jenne]

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. 


  2008   Sun Sep 27 14:45:45 2009 KojiUpdatePSLSLOWscan result

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?)

Attachment 1: SLOWscan_090927.png
Attachment 2: Pages_from_miser_126_manual.png
  2009   Sun Sep 27 15:25:58 2009 KojiUpdatePSLSLOWscan result
Oh, AMPMON dependence could be an artifact of the ND filter???
For my case, it should be real dependence on the NPRO wavelength,
as the other PDs like the PMC reflection (PMC_RFPDDC) and the RC reflection (FSS_RFPDDC) show the same dependence.
Attachment 1: power_dependence.png
  2015   Mon Sep 28 23:44:18 2009 KojiOmnistructureSAFETYCrappy power outlet

Jenne, Koji

Tonight we found that the wireless for Martian network was down.
We inspected the router and found the power was down. The power of the weather station was also down.

By touching the power outlet which they are connected, the power changes on and off.
This problematic power outlet has a label "L#17" just below the photograph of the mk I (1989).
The plug was connected to the left one.

As it was scary, we moved the power plug to the next one (L#19).
The wireless router and the weather station were powered now,
though the weather station is showing a wrong time in its clock.

  2017   Tue Sep 29 10:44:29 2009 KojiUpdateMZMZ investigation

Rana, Jenne, Koji

Last night we checked MZ. The apparent thing we found was the gain slider does not work.
The slider actually changes the voltage at the cross connection of 1Y2 (31 pin4?), the gain does not change.
The error spectrum didn't change at all even when the slider was moved.

Rana poked the flat cable at the bottom of 1Y2, we had no imporvement.

We coudn't find the VME extender board, so we just replaced AD602 (=VGA) and LT1125 (=Buffer for the ctrl voltage).
Even after the replacement, the gain slider is not working yet.

Today, I will put a lead or probe to the board to see whether the slider changes the voltage on the board or not.

Somehow the gain is sitting at a intermediate place that is not to low not to high. So I still don't know the gain slider
is the cause of the MZ instability or not.

  2018   Tue Sep 29 12:47:08 2009 KojiUpdateMZMZ unlocked

12:45 I started the work on MZ. Thus the MZ was unlocked.

Found the bad connection on the FLKM 64pin cross connection board. We need a replacement.

I went to Wilson and got the replacement, two VME extender boards, three 7815, and three 7915. Thanks, Ben!

  2020   Tue Sep 29 18:21:41 2009 KojiUpdateMZMZ work done

The MZ work completed. I replaced the bad cross connection terminal. The gain slider is working now.

I looked at the error spectrum on an FFT analyzer. I could see the lock was more tight.

Then I proceeded to the MZ epics panel.

1) C1:PSL-MZ_MZTRANSPD has no meaning (not connected). So I put  C1:PSL-ISS_INMONPD as the MZ trans monitor.

2) The EPICS setting for the MZ gain slider was totaly wrong.
    Today I learned from the circuit, the full scale of the gain slider C1:PSL-MZ_GAIN gave us +/-10V at the DAC.
    This yield +/-1V to V_ctrl of the AD602 after the internal 1/10 attenuation stage.
    This +/-1V didn't correspond to -10dB~+30dB, but does -22dB~+42dB and is beyond the spec of the chip.

    The gain of AD602 is calculated by

G [dB] = 32 V_crtl + 10,  for -0.625 [V]< V_ctrl < +0.625 [V].

    In order to fix this I used the following commands which overrode the EPICS parameters.
    The tip of EGUF/EGUL is to know how much the gain (virtually) goes for the full scale of the DAC output. 

ezcawrite C1:PSL-MZ_GAIN.EGUF 42
ezcawrite C1:PSL-MZ_GAIN.EGUL -22
ezcawrite C1:PSL-MZ_GAIN.DRVH 30
ezcawrite C1:PSL-MZ_GAIN.DRVL -10
ezcawrite C1:PSL-MZ_GAIN.HOPR 30
ezcawrite C1:PSL-MZ_GAIN.LOPR -10

   and for the permanent change I modified the db file /cvs/cds/caltech/target/c1iool0/c1iooMZservo.db
   This will be active when cliool0 is rebooted.

# This yields the output limited to -6.25V ~ +6.25V, which corresponds to -10dB ~ +30dB
# modified by Koji Arai (29-Sept-2009)
        field(DESC,"GAIN- overall pre-modecleaner servo loop gain")
        field(OUT,"#C3 S5 @")

# previous code
        field(DESC,"GAIN- overall pre-modecleaner servo loop gain")
        field(OUT,"#C3 S5 @")


12:45 I started the work on MZ. Thus the MZ was unlocked.

Fond the bad connection on the FLKM 64pin cross connection board. We need the replacement.

I went to Wilson and got the replacement, two VME extender boards, three 7815, and three 7915. Thanks, Ben!


  2022   Tue Sep 29 21:51:32 2009 KojiUpdateMZMZ work done : some noise checking

The previous "+15" was Vctrl = 0.25 [V]. Which was +18 dB.


Since we used to run with a gain slider setting of +15 dB on the MZ, I wanted to check that the new setting of +30dB was OK.


  2023   Tue Sep 29 22:51:20 2009 KojiUpdateMZPossible gain mis-calibration at other places (Re: MZ work done)

Probably there is the same mistake for the PMC gain slider. Possibly on the FSS slider, too???


2) The EPICS setting for the MZ gain slider was totaly wrong.
    Today I learned from the circuit, the full scale of the gain slider C1:PSL-MZ_GAIN gave us +/-10V at the DAC.
    This yield +/-1V to V_ctrl of the AD602 after the internal 1/10 attenuation stage.
    This +/-1V didn't correspond to -10dB~+30dB, but does -22dB~+42dB and is beyond the spec of the chip.

  2032   Thu Oct 1 09:36:09 2009 KojiUpdateMZMZ relocked (Re:suspention damping restored and MZ HV stuck)

MZ stayed unlocked. Now It was relocked.


Earthquake  of magnitude 5.0  shakes ETMY loose.

MC2 lost it's damping later.


  2035   Thu Oct 1 13:12:41 2009 KojiUpdateMZMZ Work from 13:00-

I will investigate the MZ board. I will unlock MZ (and MC).

  2038   Thu Oct 1 19:04:05 2009 KojiUpdateMZMZ work done (Re: MZ Work from 13:00-)

MZ work has been done. I did not change anything on the circuit.

Recently we observed that the MZ PZT output was sticking at a certain voltage. I found the reason.
Shortly to say "we must return the PZT Ramp offset to 0, after the lock"

I am going to write a MZ auto lock script someday, to do it automatically.

According to the resister values used in the circuit, the PZT HV output voltage is determined by the following formula:

V_PZT = 150 - 12 V_ctrl - 24 Vramp

Here the ramp voltage Vramp moves from -10V to +10V, the feedback control voltage V_ctrl moves from -13V to +13V.
The baseline offset of 150V is provided in the circuit board.

When V_ramp is 0, V_PZT runs from 0 to 300. This is just enough for the full scale of the actual V_PZT range,
that is 0V~280V.

If any Vramp offset is given, V_PZT rails at either side of the edges. This limits the actual range of the PZT out.

This is not nice, but is what happened recently.


I will investigate the MZ board. I will unlock MZ (and MC).


Attachment 1: MZ_PZT.pdf
  2039   Thu Oct 1 19:18:24 2009 KojiUpdateSUSall suspensions undamped

Ops. I restored the damping of the suspensions at around 16:30.




 The EQ did not change the input beam pointing. All back to normal, except MC2 wachdogs tripped again.

 Round 3 for the day of MC2 watchdogs tripping.

 I've watchdogged all the suspensions while I mess around with computers.  If no one else is using the IFO, we can leave them undamped for a couple of hours to check the resonant frequencies, as long as I don't interrupt data streams with my computer hatcheting.


  2050   Mon Oct 5 10:41:31 2009 KojiUpdatePSLPSL laser accidentally turned off

The PSL output looks smaller than the incident. Try to FSS Slow actuator adj of -5.6 (nominal), instead of -3.5.


Alberto, Steve,

While I was moving a cart near by the PSL table I pushed the red emergency button that turns off the PSL laser. We had to unlock the button and then power cycle the laser driver to turn the laser back on.

I relocked MZ, FSS, PMC and I'm now waiting for the power to finish ramping up back to the previous value.


  2055   Mon Oct 5 19:39:26 2009 KojiUpdatePSLPSL laser accidentally turned off

I set the FSS slow actuator adj to -5.6 at the lunch time. It gave a little help at that time. Now max of the MC Trans is comming back somehow. I hope the MC Trans level is as good as before, if the HEPA is slowed down.


The PSL output looks smaller than the incident. Try to FSS Slow actuator adj of -5.6 (nominal), instead of -3.5.


Alberto, Steve,

While I was moving a cart near by the PSL table I pushed the red emergency button that turns off the PSL laser. We had to unlock the button and then power cycle the laser driver to turn the laser back on.

I relocked MZ, FSS, PMC and I'm now waiting for the power to finish ramping up back to the previous value.



  2060   Tue Oct 6 23:39:54 2009 KojiOmnistructureEnvironmentRF area is clean!


I propose that anyone who tries to do this kind of thoroughgoing cleaning should make an e-mail to call everyone available to join just for some hours
because every member has a responsibility to keep the lab organized.

And we have the list of things to do: Electronics (now it is halfway) / Cables / Optics / Screws / Tools ...


I spent part of the afternoon cleaning up the area next to the Mode Cleaner where we keep all of our RF stuff:  Attenuators, BNC/SMA/LEMO adapters, Mini-Circuits items, and all sorts of other things which are useful while looking at our electronics/RF stuff.

We got another set of "Lyon" drawers, which aided in the organization process....Bob ordered 2, so we now have a 'spare' drawer set if anyone can think of something else to organize (unless this was premeditated for optics or something else?).

As you can see in the picture, (1) it's no longer a total disaster over there, and (2) some of the drawers have sub-divisions to make it faster and easier to find what you're looking for.  Please help out by putting things away in their proper place, and adding more labels or dividers to the drawers if there's something else which needs a 'spot'.


  2070   Thu Oct 8 20:18:56 2009 KojiSummaryGeneralArm cavity loss

Last night (Oct 07), I ran armLoss script in order to obtain the latest numbers for the arm cavity loss.
Here is the summary

<<X arm>>
Measured arm reflectivity R_cav:
0.875 +/- 0.005
Estimated round trip loss L_RT: 157ppm +/- 8ppm
Estimated finesse F: 1213+/-2
Data Points: 34

<<Y arm>>
Measured arm reflectivity R_cav:
0.869 +/- 0.006
Estimated round trip loss L_RT: 166ppm +/- 8ppm
Estimated finesse F: 1211+/-2
Data Points: 26








TE=10ppm, LE=L_RT/2, RE=1-TE-LE
tE=Sqrt(TE), rE=Sqrt(RE)

TF=0.005, LF=L_RT/2, RF=1-TF-LF
tF=Sqrt(TF), rF=Sqrt(RF)

rcav = -rF +(tF^2 rE)/(1-rF rE)
R_cav = rcav^2

F = pi Sqrt(rF rE)/(1-rF rE)


  2071   Thu Oct 8 21:32:59 2009 KojiSummaryGeneralRecycling cavity loss

I looked at the data of the day before yesterday (Oct 06) to know how much is the recycling gain.

X arm: (TRX_PRecycled) / (TRX_PRMmisaligned) * T_PRM = 83.1/0.943*0.07 = 6.17
Y arm: (TRX_PRecycled) / (TRX_PRMmisaligned) * T_PRM = 99.2/1.017*0.07 = 6.83

==> G_PR = 6.5 +/- 0.5     (oh...this estimation is so bad...)

From the recycling gain and the arm cavity reflectance, one can get the loss in the recycling cavity.

G_PR = T_PRM  / (1-Sqrt(R_PRM * (1-L_PRC)*R_cav))^2

==> loss in the recycling cavity L_PRC: 0.009+/-0.009
       (About 1% loss is likely in the recycling cavity)


<<X arm>>
Measured arm reflectivity R_cav: 0.875 +/- 0.005
Estimated round trip loss L_RT: 157ppm +/- 8ppm
Estimated finesse F: 1213+/-2

<<Y arm>>
Measured arm reflectivity R_cav:
0.869 +/- 0.006
Estimated round trip loss L_RT: 166ppm +/- 8ppm
Estimated finesse F: 1211+/-2


  2082   Mon Oct 12 17:27:20 2009 KojiConfigurationSAFETYStray beam blocking

Steve, Kiwamu, and Koji

We went through the PSL table to make sure any strong beam did not hit the wall.

We found that the reflection of Stephanie's OSA returned its path down to the beamsplitter.
This BS reflect that beam to the wall. That was fixed.

The surprising was that the relatively strong beam (~1mW?) went through the steering mirror
just before the PMC. We put thorlabs razor blades. I am still thinking what this indicates...
because the beam had been blocked if it was such from long time before.

During the work we found some stray optics such as a cube BS, a flipper mirror, and so on.
We can see them in the photo as those enclosed with yellow circles.
One of the beams was obtained from the reflection of the ND filter (...almost illeagal), and 
was even hittting a metal fixture for the BS cube.

If someone uses these components for useful purposes,
please let me(Koji) know. Otherwise, they are removed next week.

The other thing we found was the bright scatter from the EOM for the PMC.
As this scatter is so blight, I am going to align it.

Attachment 1: PSL.png
  2085   Mon Oct 12 19:53:44 2009 KojiConfigurationSAFETYStray beam blocking
I aligned the EOM and the beam to the PMC.
The beam is still hitting the bottom of the EOM aperture,
but the further lowering the EOM reduces the PMC transmission.
So I put my compromise.

The work restored the PMC transmission to over 2.4.

Finally I centered the beams on to the MC WFSs.
As a result, the MC Trans recovered 7.5.
  2087   Mon Oct 12 20:01:13 2009 KojiConfigurationSAFETYStray beam blocking

OK! I saw the optics are redundant and some of the components are not in a right place.
I will talk with you when you are back such that we can keep the usefulness of the setup.


 These components are from when Rana and I used the StochMon PD to do the RFAM tuning, documented in elog 1926.  This was a very handy measurement, but I'm not sure if whether or not we need it often enough to keep the optics there.


  2103   Fri Oct 16 12:40:59 2009 KojiConfigurationGeneralSome questions

Some questions came arise to me:

A. How the green injection system should be? How the handing off between 532 and 1064 should be?

This is not new, though. It would be worth reminding.

B. Do we still need PMC if we use 2W innolight?

Innolight has low intensity noise at the detection freq. Also the spacial mode is clean.

C. Do we still need frequency prestabilization by RC?

Is the stabilization of the laser freq by the MC not enough?
What is the relationship with the green?

  2104   Fri Oct 16 13:25:18 2009 KojiSummaryLSCfunny timing setup on the LSC

Could be this.



We should be able to diagnose timing noise between the OMC and the LSC by putting in a signal in the OMC and looking at the signal on the LSC side. Should be a matlab script that we can run whenever we are suspicious of this. This is an excellent task for a new visiting grad student to help learn how to debug the digital control system.


ELOG V3.1.3-