40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 179 of 344  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Authorup Type Category Subject
  610   Tue Jul 1 11:53:38 2008 YoichiUpdateComputersRFM network back
I took a tour of the FE machines and power cycled all of them.
After executing the software restart procedures of those computers, the RFM network got back to the normal state.
For some reason, the computers requiring startup.cmd (like c1lsc) halt after running this command. Actually the computer is running ok, but the command freezes. Basically, what it does is simply to load a kernel module. I don't know what is wrong.
Anyway, I just closed the terminal after running startup.cmd and it seems fine for now.
  611   Tue Jul 1 11:57:24 2008 YoichiConfigurationPSLMZ servo switch problem again
C1:PSL-MZ_BLANK switch (to turn on/off the servo) is not working again. The switch is always off regardless of the epics state.
I pushed the cables into the xycom card, but it did not fix the problem.
  639   Mon Jul 7 13:49:27 2008 YoichiHowToPSLMZ offset, gain tips
John, Yoichi

This morning John found that MZ servo is not working.
We were able to bring the MZ back by changing the output offset a bit. But we were not sure what was actually wrong.
So we pulled out the MZ board and checked several TPs to understand the behavior.
Here is the summary of what we learned this morning.

The MZ control board has the following stages:

[Mixer] -(error signal)-> [Sum amp for input offset] -(error + offset)-> [Variable Gain Amp] -> [Filter (x100 DC gain)] -(FB signal)-> [High Voltage Amp] -> output
(The HV amp also works as the sum amp for the output offset)

(1) We noticed that the Sum amp for the input offset has an output of -0.14V even when the offset input is 0V. This can be canceled by the input offset slider.
So for the moment, it is fine. But we might want to change the op-amp because the weird offset implies there might be something wrong with the chip.
The procedure to null the -0.14V offset is the following:
a) Enable Test 1 input on the MZ MEDM screen.
b) Move the input offset slider until the mixer monitor becomes 0V. Currently the input offset slider is at -7.5V to cancel the -0.14V offset.

(2) Because the gain of the Variable Gain Amp and the Filter combined is large, the Filter can be easily saturated if the output offset is not right.
This was the cause of the MZ problem this morning. The output offset slider was at a wrong position making the error signal slightly off centered from zero.
This residual DC error signal was amplified by the large gain chain and saturated the filter amp.
Our experience is that the output offset cannot go below -3V. We set it at 0V for now.
  641   Mon Jul 7 14:02:05 2008 YoichiUpdateComputersSVN conversion progress
So far /cvs/cds/caltech/medm, /cvs/cds/caltech/chans and /cvs/cds/caltech/scripts have been converted to svn working copies.
Now /cvs/cds/caltech/target is being converted.
  649   Tue Jul 8 21:46:38 2008 YoichiConfigurationPSLGC650M moved to the PMC transmission
I moved a GC650M, which was monitoring the light coming out of the PSL, to the transmission port of the PMC to see the transmitted mode shape.
It will stay there unless someone find other use of it.

Just FYI, you can see the picture from the control computers by the following procedure:

ssh -X mafalda
cd /cvs/cds/caltech/target/Prosilica/40mCode
./SampleViewer

Chose 02-2210A-06223 and click on the Live View icon.
  654   Thu Jul 10 13:47:12 2008 YoichiHowToComputerssvn access via https
Now you can access to the svn repository on nodus by https.
To perform a checkout, you can use the following command

svn co --username svn40m https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:30889/svn/trunk/chans

This will check out "chans" directory.
The password for svn40m is written in the usual place.
You can also access the URL by a web browser to see the repository in a very primitive way.
A nice web interface for browsing the repository is planed but not yet implemented.
  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
  700   Fri Jul 18 19:43:55 2008 YoichiDAQComputersPSL fast channels cannot be read by dataviewer
At this moment only the PSL fast channels have trouble.
Rob restarted fb40m, c1IOVME, but no effect.
  703   Sat Jul 19 19:41:56 2008 YoichiAoGPSLThe author of the entry 702 is Yoichi not Rob
I made a mistake.
  717   Tue Jul 22 22:11:58 2008 YoichiUpdateLSCX-arm g factor measurement
Alberto, Yoichi

We measured the g factor of the X-arm by slightly shifting the 166MHz sideband frequency:

We first locked the X-arm to TEM00 mode. Then misaligned the ETMX in yaw a little bit until the transmitted power is a half of the normal value.
In this way, we can expect that TEM01 mode will be resonated in the arm if a sideband with a suitable frequency is introduced.
To add such a sideband, we used the 166MHz EOM. According to John's calculation (ELog entry 690), the TEM01 mode of the 166MHz upper sideband is only about 100kHz away from the resonance. So by changing the 166MHz modulation frequency, we should be able to see the 166MHz upper sideband resonating in the X-arm.
We used the 166MHz PD at the AS to find the resonance.
When we modulated the 166MHz RF frequency by +/- 100kHz, we could see spikes in the AS166_I signal.
Then we fine tuned the RF frequency slowly by hand to find the exact resonant frequency. At that time, the X-arm PDH servo was oscillating at ~480Hz.
So the resonance was determined by maximizing this signal in the AS166_I.
The 166MHz signal was originally at 165.977195 MHz. I found the resonance around 165.985MHz. It is surprisingly close to the original modulation frequency (only 7.3kHz away). This number yields the g factor of 0.626 and the transverse mode interval of 0.285*FSR. I used the arm length of 38.5750m in this calculation. Because of the 480Hz oscillation, it was difficult to precisely determine the resonant frequency. We will try this again tomorrow after mitigating the oscillation.
Although the resonance of the 166MHz upper sideband is located at a lower frequency in John's prediction, we found a resonance at a higher frequency.
This can be interpreted as the discrepancy between the actual g-factor and the designed g-factor.

To confirm what we saw was really an arm cavity resonance, we will try to do the same thing with the arm cavities all mis-aligned.
(We expect no signal in this configuration.)

Appendix: the expected signal from AS166 port when the 166MHz upper sideband passes by a resonance of the arm cavity.
Since the carrier is resonating in the cavity and kept there by the PDH feedback using 33MHz sideband, its phase is virtually fixed at the AS166 port. The lower sideband's phase also does not change much because it is off resonance. The upper sideband get a large phase change when approaching to the resonance. This effectively rotates the modulation angle of the 166MHz sidebands, which was orthogonal to the carrier when off resonance (i.e. phase modulation), to create 166MHz amplitude modulation. Because the sideband axis is rotated, the signal should appear both in I and Q phases.
  728   Wed Jul 23 22:34:07 2008 YoichiUpdateLSCArm cavity g-factor measurement
I tried the same thing as the X-arm to the Y-arm.
I'm puzzled. I found exactly the same behavior as the X-arm in the AS166 demodulated signals, whereas I expected different resonance frequency because of the arm length difference.

Here is more detailed account of the measurement today.

I locked the Y-arm and mis-aligned the end mirror in Yaw until the transmission power gets half.
Then I injected a 30Hz sinusoid into the error point of the Y-arm servo to shake the ETMY.
I observed AS166_I and AS166_Q as I changed the 166MHz frequency.

At 165.977MHz, both AS166_I and AS166_Q showed the 30Hz signal (15cnt p-p).
At 165.981MHz, Only I phase showed the 30Hz signal (40cnt p-p). No signal in Q.
At 165.984MHz, I and Q became the same amplitude again (20cnt p-p).
At 165.987MHz, Only Q phase showed the 30Hz signal (40cnt p-p). No signal in I.

Outside the above range, the signal decreases as the frequency go away. I think this is (at least partly) because the 166MHz sidebands no longer go through the MC at those frequencies.

I then locked the X-arm to the TEM01 mode. I saw exactly the same behavior as described above. This could be the resonance of TEM02 mode. I was expecting to see the resonance of TEM00 mode at the opposite side, but nothing there.

I unlocked the arm cavities and tried the same frequency scan of the 166MHz with one of the end mirrors shaken at 30Hz. I saw no signal at the AS166 port.
I also tried locking Y-arm and shaking the ETMX. No signal.
So it has to be something to do with the cavity resonance.

Since the MC transmission curve for 166MHz is folded in the measurement, it makes the interpretation of the results harder.
  733   Thu Jul 24 08:09:26 2008 YoichiUpdateLSCArm cavity g-factor measurement

Quote:

A-ha! Do you always expect the 30Hz signal, don't you?
Because this is the PDH technique.


Yes you are right. I realized this when I was thinking about it in the bed Smile
The 30Hz signal should always be present because the carrier is phase shifted at 30Hz by the cavity length change.
I think the change in the signal ratio between I and Q happened because as the 166MHz sidebands get phase change when they move around the MC transmission peak due to the cavity pole of the MC. It changes the optimal demodulation phase for the 166MHz PDH signal at the AS port.


Quote:

We should be able to see 166MHz sideband resonances using the double demodulated photodetectors. With these, the 33MHz sidebands will be acting as LO when the 166MHz sideband (or mode) resonates. Some modeling may be necessary to determine if the SNR will be good enough to make this worthwhile, however.


I will try, but at 100kHz away from the MC FSR (the number predicted by John's calculation), the transmission of the 166MHz sidebands is very weak. I did not see any signal when I swept it +/- 500kHz. Unfortunately, the Marconi's output level is almost at its maximum. So we don't have much room for increasing the sideband power.
  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.
  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
  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
  799   Tue Aug 5 12:52:28 2008 YoichiUpdateSUSITMX, SRM OSEM spectra
Free swinging spectra of ITMX and SRM.
ITMX seems to be ok after yesterday's work, though the OSEM DC values are still a bit off from the normal value of 0.9.
(ITMX OSEM values: UL=1.12, UR=1.38, LR=0.66, LL=0.41, SIDE=0.66)
SRM is still clearly wrong.
Attachment 1: ITMX-2008_08_05-morning.pdf
ITMX-2008_08_05-morning.pdf
Attachment 2: SRM-2008_08_05-morning.pdf
SRM-2008_08_05-morning.pdf
  803   Wed Aug 6 13:15:57 2008 YoichiUpdateSUSSRM ETMX freeswing spectra
After yesterday's work on the SRM, I took free swinging spectra of SRM.
The eigen modes look ok. But there are many other peaks which were not present in vacuum.
Some of those peaks may be resonances of the air inside the chambers and the pipes.
However, the peaks around 0.2Hz are too low frequency for those air compression modes.
I took the ETMX spectra at roughly the same time. I chose ETMX because we have not touched it after the vent.
ETMX also shows some extra peaks but the frequencies are different.
Attachment 1: SRM-ETMX-freeswing.pdf
SRM-ETMX-freeswing.pdf SRM-ETMX-freeswing.pdf
  806   Wed Aug 6 22:19:07 2008 YoichiUpdateSUSBS alignment
Koji, Yoichi

We realized that we did not pay attention to the BS alignment while working on the alignment of the ITMX today. Because we were injecting the ALM laser (absolute length measurement laser) from the AS port, the ITMX alignment depends on the BS alignment.
The BS optical lever was not centered and the sum was about 2000cnt, which is low compared, for example, to the SRM oplev.
So we were not sure if the BS was in a good alignment or not.
So we decided to move the BS to center the QPD.
In doing so, we also moved the ITMX so that we do not lose the ALM laser beam coming back to the AS port.
When the BS oplev was centered, the sum of the QPD was still about 2000. So it was not far off centered.
After the tweaking, we were able to see some interference between the light reflected by the ITMY and ITMX at the AS port (actually this is the bright port for the ALM laser). By tweaking the ITMY, we were able to see Michelson fringes at the AS port.
If we believe the ALM laser alignment is still good after the vent, the ITMX, ITMY, BS and SRM should be now in a good alignment condition.
The OSEM values for the ITMX, BS, SRM seem to be ok (0.9+/-0.2). The ITMY LL is a bit low (~ 0.45).
  807   Thu Aug 7 10:07:13 2008 YoichiUpdateSUSFree swinging OSEM spectra
Looks like there are more extra peaks in the SRM than other optics.
Maybe because it is closer to the door ?
Attachment 1: FreeSwingSpectra.pdf
FreeSwingSpectra.pdf FreeSwingSpectra.pdf FreeSwingSpectra.pdf FreeSwingSpectra.pdf FreeSwingSpectra.pdf FreeSwingSpectra.pdf FreeSwingSpectra.pdf FreeSwingSpectra.pdf
  810   Thu Aug 7 12:20:52 2008 YoichiUpdateSUSPRM stand-offs and wire
We removed the side OSEM of the PRM so that we can see the stand-off on the farther side.

Attachment 1: Farther side stand-off from an angle before removing the OSEM
Attachment 2: Farther side stand-off through the empty OSEM hole.
Attachment 3: Near side stand-off

The wire is definitely in the near side stand-off groove.
Probably the wire is in the groove also on the farther side.
Attachment 1: IMG_1456.JPG
IMG_1456.JPG
Attachment 2: IMG_1478.JPG
IMG_1478.JPG
Attachment 3: IMG_1470.JPG
IMG_1470.JPG
  816   Fri Aug 8 13:29:54 2008 YoichiUpdateSUSNo groove in the stand-off ... wait, it is not even a stand-off !
Yoichi, Steve, Seiji

We took magnified pictures of the stand-offs of the PRM.
Attm1: North side stand-off.
Attm2: South side stand-off.
Attm3: Zipped file of the full pictures.

We found no groove in the south side stand-off.
After some discussion, we concluded that it is actually a guide rod. You can see it from the size difference (the magnification is the same for the two pictures).
The stand off on the south side is missing (fell off, ran away, evaporated or whatever ...).
Also we noticed that the guide rod on the north side is missing.

We have to find a stand-off and place it on the south side.
Seiji suggested that it is better to put a guide rod next to the north side stand-off, otherwise the stand-off itself is too weak to hold the load.
He also said that the PRM was installed after he left, so it was not his fault.
Attachment 1: north-standoff-preview.jpg
north-standoff-preview.jpg
Attachment 2: south-standoff-preview.jpg
south-standoff-preview.jpg
Attachment 3: No-groove.zip
  817   Fri Aug 8 15:10:35 2008 YoichiUpdateSUSNo groove in the stand-off ... wait, it is not even a stand-off !
I tried to find the missing stand-off and the guide rod in the BS chamber, but I couldn't.
  827   Tue Aug 12 12:05:36 2008 YoichiUpdateComputersHP color printer is back
I restarted the HP printer server (a little box connected to the HP color laser) so that we can use the HP LaserJet 2550.
After this treatment, the printer spat out a bunch of pages from suspended jobs, many of these were black and white.
I think people should use the black-and-white printer for these kind of jobs, because the color printer is slow and troublesome.
  832   Wed Aug 13 20:13:35 2008 YoichiUpdateSUSPRM stand-off is glued
Steve, Janne, Rob, Bob, Koji, Yoichi

We finally managed to balance the PRM and the stand-off is now glued.

The whole procedure was something like this:

(1) Measure the levelness of the optical table. It was done by a bubble level claiming that
the sensitivity is 60 arcsec (roughly 0.3 mrad).
There was no noticeable tilt along the longitudinal direction of the table.

(2) We put a He-Ne laser on one end of the table. Mounted a QPD on a X-Y-Z stage. Put the QPD very
close to the laser and centered it by moving the QPD.
Then we moved the QPD far away from the laser and centered the beam spot in vertical direction
by changing the tilt of the laser mount.
We then moved the QPD close to the laser again and adjusted the height to center it. By repeating
the centering at two locations (near and far) several times, we aligned the laser beam parallel to
the table.

(3) The PRM suspension tower was put on the other end of the optical table, i.e. far from the laser.
The QPD was moved next to the laser to form an optical lever. The height of the QPD is preserved from
the previous step.


(4) A stand-off was picked by a pair of tweezers. By gently lifting the mirror by the bottom earthquake stops,
the tension of the wire was relieved. Then the stand off was slid in below the guide rod.

(5) Using the microscope, it was confirmed that the wire is in the grooves on both sides.

(6) Without damping, it was too much pain to balance the mirror. So we put spare OSEMs in the suspension and
pulled a long cable from the suspension rack to the clean room with a satellite amp.

(7) It turned out that the pinout of the cable is flipped because of the vacuum feed through. So we asked Ben for help.
He made conversion cables. We also found UR OSEM was not responding. Ben opened the satellite box, and we found an op-amp was burnt.
Probably it was because we connected OSEMs wrongly at first and the LED current driver was shorted. We switched the satellite box
from the PRM one to the BS one. Ben will fix the PRM box.
Bob cleaned up some D-Sub converters for the interface with the clean OSEM pigtails.

(8) While waiting for Ben, we also tried to short the OSEM coils for inductive damping. We saw no noticeable change in the Q.

(9) After the OSEMs were connected to the digital control system, Rob tweaked the damping gains a bit to make it work efficiently.

(10) I pushed the stand-off back and forth to make the reflected beam spot centered on the QPD. I used the PZT buzzer to gently move the stand-off.
For fine tune, just touching it is enough. I found it useful to touch it without clamping the mirror, because if it is clamped, we can easily push
it too hard. When the mirror is freely hanging, once the tip of the buzzer touches the stand-off, the mirror escapes immediately. If the mirror
swings wildly by your touch, you pushed it too hard.

(11) After about an hour of struggle, I was able to level the mirror. We used about 1.5m optical lever arm. A rough calibration tells us that the
beam spot is within 0.6mm of the center of the QPD. So the reflected light is deflected by 0.4mrad. That means the mirror
is rotated by 0.2mrad. The OSEMs should have about 30mrad of actuation range. So this should be fine.

(12) We mixed the Vac Seal epoxy and put it under vacuum for 15min to remove bubbles. Actually 15min was not enough for removing bubbles completely. But
stopped there because we did not want the epoxy to be too stiff.
I dipped a thin copper wire into the epoxy and applied it on the top of the stand-off. I found the epoxy is already not fluid enough, so Steve made
another Vac Seal mixture. This time we put it under vacuum for only 3 min.
I also applied the epoxy to the sides of the stand-off.
While working on this, I accidentally touched the side of the PRM. Now there is a drop of epoxy sitting there (upper left of the attached picture).
We decided not to wipe it out because we did not want to screw up the levelness.

(13) We put an incandescent light about 1m away from the suspension to gently warm up the epoxy but not too much. We will leave it overnight to cure the
epoxy.
Attachment 1: img1.jpg
img1.jpg
  836   Thu Aug 14 19:08:14 2008 YoichiConfigurationSUSFree swing measurement going on
I started free swinging spectra measurement of all the suspensions now Aug 14 19:05 (PDT).
The watch dogs are all shutdown. Please do not turn them back on until tomorrow morning.
  842   Fri Aug 15 17:38:41 2008 YoichiUpdateSUSOSEM free swinging spectra before the pump down
I ran an overnight measurement of the free swinging OSEM spectra.
The attm1 shows the results. Everything look ok except for the ITMY UL OSEM.
The time series from that OSEM was very noisy and had many spikes.
We suspected the cable from the satellite box to the computer rack because we disconnected the cable
when we tested a spare cable which was used to connect the spare OSEMs to the PRM suspension in the clean room.
Janne remembered when she put the cable back, she trusted the latch on the connector and did not push it in too hard.
However, Rob suggested the latch does not work well. So she pushed the connector again. Then the signal from
the ITMY UL OSEM got back to normal.
The second attachment shows the ITMY spectra after the cable push.
We decided to pump down after confirming this.

There are still a lot of extra peaks especially in the suspensions in the BS chamber.
These may be inter modulations (by the non-linearities of the OSEMs) of the modes of the multiple
suspensions sitting on the same stack.
Attachment 1: 2008-8-15.pdf
2008-8-15.pdf 2008-8-15.pdf 2008-8-15.pdf 2008-8-15.pdf 2008-8-15.pdf 2008-8-15.pdf 2008-8-15.pdf 2008-8-15.pdf
Attachment 2: ITMY2.pdf
ITMY2.pdf
  844   Mon Aug 18 08:07:10 2008 YoichiConfigurationSUSSuspension free swinging
I've started a free swinging measurement of OSEM spectra now. Please leave the watchdogs untouched.
  846   Mon Aug 18 11:50:29 2008 YoichiUpdateSUSIn vacuum free swinging results
The first attachment is the results of the free swinging spectra measurement performed in vacuum this morning.
They are freely swinging, but the suspensions in the BS chamber got even more extra peaks.
Especially, the SRM spectrum looks like a forest.
If those extra peaks are inter-modulations of the primary suspension modes, the heights of them should be
enhanced (compared to the in-the-air case) by the increased quality factors of the primary modes (due to the less air friction).
This might explain the observed increase in the extra peaks.

While doing the free swinging, we had two big spikes in the OSEM signals of the ETMs and only in ETMs.
Those spikes screwed up the spectra of the ETMs. So the ETM spectra were calculated using the time series
after the spikes.
The second attachment shows one of those spikes. It looks like a computer glitch.
Attachment 1: 2008-8-18.pdf
2008-8-18.pdf 2008-8-18.pdf 2008-8-18.pdf 2008-8-18.pdf 2008-8-18.pdf 2008-8-18.pdf 2008-8-18.pdf 2008-8-18.pdf
Attachment 2: spike.pdf
spike.pdf
  849   Mon Aug 18 22:47:12 2008 YoichiUpdateIOOMC unlock study
As rob noted, the MC keeps unlocking in a few minutes period.
I plotted time series of several signals before unlocks.
It looks like the MC alignment goes wrong a few hundred msec before the unlock (the attached plot is only one example, but all unlocks
I've looked so far show the same behavior).
I will look for the cause of this tomorrow.

The horizontal axis of the plot is sec. The data values are scaled and offset-removed appropriately so that all curves are shown
in a single plot. Therefore, the vertical axis is in arbitrary units.
Attachment 1: MC-Unlock.png
MC-Unlock.png
  856   Tue Aug 19 18:55:41 2008 YoichiUpdateIOOMC unlock study update
In entry 849, I reported that the MC transmitted power drops before the sudden unlocks.
However, because C1:IOO-MC_TRANS_SUM is a slow channel, we were not sure if we can believe the timing.
So I wanted to use C1:IOO-MC_RFAMPDDC, which is a fast channel, to monitor the transmitted light power.
However, this channel was broken. So I fixed it. Details of the fixing work is reported in another entry.
The attached plot shows a recent unlock event. It is clear that in the fast channel (i.e. C1:IOO-MC_RFAMPDDC),
there is no delay between the drop of the MC power and the crazy behavior of control signals.
So it was concluded that the apparent precedence of the MC power drop in the slow channels (i.e. C1:IOO-MC_TRANS_SUM)
is just an artifact of timing inaccuracy/offset of the slow epics channels.

Sometime around 5PM, the MC started to be unwilling to even lock. It turned out that the PC drive of the FSS was going
crazy continuously. So I changed the normal values of the common gain and the fast gain, which the mcup script uses.
Now with this new setting, the MC locks happily, but still keeps unlocking.
Attachment 1: MC-unlock.png
MC-unlock.png
  857   Tue Aug 19 19:14:17 2008 YoichiConfigurationDAQFixed C1:IOO-MC_RFAMPDDC
Yoichi, Rob

C1:IOO-MC_RFAMPDDC, which is a PD at the transmission port of the MC, was not recording sensible values.
So I tracked down the problem starting from the centering of the beam on the PD.
The beam was hitting the PD properly. The DC output BNC on the PD provided +1.25V output when the light was
falling on the PD. The PD is fine.
The flat cable from the PD runs to the IOO rack and fed into the LSC PD interface card.
The output from the interface card is connected to a VMIC3113A DAQ card, through cross connects.
The voltages on the cross connects were ok.
The VMIC3113A was controlled by an EPICS machine (c1iool0). So it provides only a slow channel.
By looking at C1IOOF.ini and tpchn_C1.par, I figured that C1:IOO-MC_RFAMPDDC is using chnnum=13639 in the RFM
network and it is named C1:IOO-ICS_CHAN_15 in the .par file. So it is reading values from the ICS DAQ board.
Actually nothing was connected to the channel 15 of the ICS board and that was why C1:IOO-MC_RFAMPDDC was reading
nothing. So I took the PD signal from the cross connect and hooked it up to the Ch15 of the ICS DAQ through
the large black break out box with 4-pin LEMOs. Now C1:IOO-MC_RFAMPDDC reads the DC output of the PD.
I also put an ND filter in front of the RFAMPD to avoid the saturation of the ADC. The attenuation should have been done
electronically, but I was too lazy. Since the ND filter changes the Stochmon values, someone should remove it and reduce the
gain of the LSC PD interface accordingly.
  864   Wed Aug 20 18:09:48 2008 YoichiUpdateIOOMC still unlocks
Being suspicious of FSS PC path as the culprit of the MC unlocks, I opened the FSS box and connected a probe to the TP7,
which is a test point in the PC path (before high voltage amplifier).
The signal is routed to an unused fast DAQ channel in the IOO rack. It is named C1:IOO-MC_TMP1 and recorded by the frame
builder. You can use this channel as a generic test DAQ channel later.

By looking at the attachment, the PC path (C1:IOO-MC_TMP1) goes crazy at the same time as other channels. So probably
it is not the trigger for the MC unlock.

Then I noticed the WFS signals drift away just before the unlock as shown in the attached plot. So now the WFS is the
main suspect.
Rob tweaked MC1 pitch to center the WFS QPDs while the MC is not locked. It improved the shape of the MC reflection.
However, the sudden MC unlock still happens. We then lowered the WFS gain from 0.5 to 0.3. Did not change the situation.
It looks like the MC length loop starts oscillating after the WFS signals drift away.
We will measure the WFS and MC OPLTF to see the stability of the loops tomorrow.

Attachment 1: MC-unlock.png
MC-unlock.png
  872   Fri Aug 22 17:03:41 2008 YoichiUpdateIOOMC open loop TF
I measured the open loop TF of the overall MC loop using the sum-amp A of the MC board.
I used the Agilent 4395A network analyzer and saved the data into a floppy disk. However, the data was corrupted when
I read it with my computer. I had the same problem before. The floppy is not reliable. Anyway, I have to re-measure the TF.
From what I remember, the UGF was around 25kHz and the phase margin was less than 15deg.
Above this frequency, the open loop gain was almost flat and had a small bump around 100kHz.
This bump has a gain margin of less than 4dB (the phase is more than 180deg delayed here).
So the MC is marginally stable and either decreasing or increasing the gain will make it unstable easily.
Probably, the broken FSS is responsible for this. We have to fix it.

During the measurement, I also found that the input connectors (IN1 and IN2) of the MC board are freaky.
These are TNC connectors directory mounted on the board. Gently touching the cables hooked up to those connectors
caused a large offset change in the output.
When Rana pulled the board out and pushed it in firmly, the strange behavior went away. Probably, the board was
not correctly inserted into the backplane.
This could have been the reason for the MC unlocks.
  877   Mon Aug 25 11:43:55 2008 YoichiFrogsIOOMC REFL PD cable had been disconnected through out the weekend
Most of my morning was wasted by the MC REFL PD cable, which was disconnected on the generic LSC PD interface board.
I know who did this. *ME*. When I pulled out the MC board, which is sitting next to the PD interface, on Friday, I must have
disconnected the PD cable accidentally. The connector of the PD cable (D-Sub) does not have screws to tighten and easily comes off.
I wrote this entry to warn other people of this potential problem.
  889   Tue Aug 26 19:07:37 2008 YoichiHowToComputersReading data from Agilent 4395A analyzer through GPIB from *Linux* machine
I succeeded in reading data from Agilent 4395A analyzer, who's floppy is crappy, through GPIB from a Linux machine using
agilent 82357B USB-GPIB interface.
I installed the linux GPIB driver to one of the lab. laptops (the silver DELL one currently sitting on the 4395A analyzer).
I wrote an initialization script for the USB-GPIB interface and a small python script for reading data from the analyzer.

[Usage]

1. Connect the USB-GPIB interface to the laptop and the analyzer.
2. Run /usr/local/bin/initGPIB command (it takes about 10sec to complete).
3. Run /usr/local/bin/getgpibdata.py > data.txt to save data from the analyzer to a text file.

The data format is explained in the comments of getgpibdata.py
This method is way faster than the unreliable floppy. The data is transfered in a few sec.

I'm now writing a wiki page on this
http://lhocds.ligo-wa.caltech.edu:8000/40m/GPIB

I will install the same thing into the other DELL laptop soon.
Let me know if you have trouble with this.
  890   Wed Aug 27 10:55:35 2008 YoichiHowToComputersAnnoying behavior of the touch pads of the lab. laptops is fixed
I was sick of the stupid touch pad behavior of the lab. laptops, i.e. firefox goes back and forth in the history when the cursor is moved.
It was caused by firefox mis-interpreting the horizontal scroll signal as back/forward command.
I stopped it by going to about:config in firefox and set mousewheel.horizscroll.withnokey.action to 0 and
mousewheel.horizscroll.withnokey.sysnumlines to true.
  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.
  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.
  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
  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.
  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).
  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
  913   Tue Sep 2 22:43:16 2008 YoichiConfigurationPSLUpdated FSS open loop TF
Since the LO level of the FSS servo was too low, I replaced the RF oscillator board with a combination of
a Stanford signal generator and an RF amplifier.
Right now, the POY RF amplifier is used for this purpose temporarily.
Now the LO level is about 16dBm. The RF power going into the EOM is attenuated by 20dB from the LO level.
I played with the cable length to get the phase right.
Then I was able to lock the FSS with the new RF signal source.

Attached is the open loop transfer function of the current FSS. Now the UGF is a bit above 200kHz, a factor of 2 improvement.
This gain was achieved with the common gain slider at 13.5dB and the fast gain = 30dB.
With the old RF oscillator board, UGF=100kHz was achieved with the common gain =30dB. Therefore, the increase of the LO gave
us a large signal gain.

Increasing the gain further, again ,makes the PC path crazy.
Rich suggested that this craziness was caused either by the slew rate limit of the PA85 or the output voltage limit of the bypass Op-amp(A829)
is hit.

TO DO:
* Look at the error signal spectrum to see if there is any signal causing the slew rate saturation at high frequencies.
* Find out what the RF signal level for the EOM should be. 20dB attenuation is an arbitrary choice.
* Find out the cross over frequency. Determine where the fast gain slider should be.
etc ...
Attachment 1: OPLTF.png
OPLTF.png
  915   Wed Sep 3 18:43:19 2008 YoichiConfigurationElectronicsTwo more active probes
I found two active probes, an HP41800A and a Tektronix P6201.
Thanks John for telling me you saw them before.
Now we have three active probes, wow !
We have to find or make a power supply for P6201.
The manual of the probe is attached.
Attachment 1: Tektronix-P6201-active-probe.pdf
Tektronix-P6201-active-probe.pdf Tektronix-P6201-active-probe.pdf Tektronix-P6201-active-probe.pdf Tektronix-P6201-active-probe.pdf Tektronix-P6201-active-probe.pdf Tektronix-P6201-active-probe.pdf Tektronix-P6201-active-probe.pdf Tektronix-P6201-active-probe.pdf
  917   Wed Sep 3 19:09:56 2008 YoichiDAQComputersc1iovme power cycled
When I tried to measure the sideband power of the FSS using the scan of the reference cavity, I noticed that the RC trans. PD signal was not
properly recorded by the frame builder.
Joe restarted c1iovme software wise. The medm screen said c1iovme is running fine, and actually some values were recorded by the FB.
Nonetheless, I couldn't see flashes of the RC when I scanned the laser frequency.
I ended up power cycling the c1iovme and run the restart script again. Now the signals recorded by c1iovme look fine.
Probably, the DAQ boards were not properly initialized only by the software reset.
I will re-try the sideband measurement tomorrow morning.
  919   Thu Sep 4 07:29:52 2008 YoichiUpdatePSLc1iovme power cycled

Quote:
Entry 663 has a plot of this using the PSL/FSS/SLOWscan script. It shows that the SB's were ~8x smaller than the carrier.
P_carrier   J_0(Gamma)^2 
--------- = ------------
P_SB        J_1(Gamma)^2

Which I guess we have to solve numerically for large Gamma?


P_carrier/P_SB = 8 yields gamma=0.67.
  920   Thu Sep 4 07:46:10 2008 YoichiUpdateIOOMC is now happy
The MC has been locked for more than 12 hours continuously now !
Changes I made yesterday were:
(1) Removed the 20dB attenuator before the EOM.
(2) Reduced the Fast Gain from 21dB to 16dB, which made the PC to be a little bit more loaded (~0.6Vrms).

As Rana pointed out in the meeting, setting the Fast Gain a bit lower may have put the FSS in a stabler state.
Attachment 1: MC-lock.png
MC-lock.png
  923   Thu Sep 4 13:48:50 2008 YoichiUpdatePSLFSS modulation depth
I scanned the reference cavity with the NPRO temperature (see the attached plot).
The power ratio between the carrier and the sideband resonances is about 26.8.
It corresponds to gamma=0.38.
The RF power fed into the EOM is now 14.75dBm (i.e. 1.7V amplitude). The NewFocus catalog says 0.1-0.3rad/V. So
gamma=0.38 is a reasonable number.




Attachment 1: RCScan.png
RCScan.png
ELOG V3.1.3-