You don't need to make transition from ALS X/Y to ALS C/D. Just stabilize the arms with ALS C/D from the beginning.

The ALS error (i.e. phase tracker output) is linear everywhere, but noisy.
The 1/sqrt(TR) is linear and less noisy but is not linear at around the resonance and has no sign.
The PDH signal is linear and further less noisy but the linear range is limited.

Why don't we combine all of these to produce a composite error signal that is linear everywhere and less-noisy at the redsonance?

This concept was confirmed by a simple mathematica calculation:

The following plot shows the raw signals with arbitorary normalizations

1) ALS: (Blue)
2) 1/SQRT(TR): (Purple)
3) PDH: (Yellow)
4) Transmission (Green)

The following plot shows the preprocessed signals for composition

1) ALS: no preprocess (Blue)
2) 1/SQRT(TR): multiply sign(PDH) (Purple)
3) PDH: linarization with the transmission (If TR<0.1, use 0.1 for the normalization). (Yellow)
4) Transmittion (Green)

The composite error signal

1) Use ALS at TR<0.03. Use 1/SQRT(TR)*sign(PDH)*(1-TR) + PDH*TR at TR>0.03
2) Transmittion (Purple)
 

The LSC model was modified for CESAR.

A block called ALSX_COMBINE was made in the LSC block. This block receives the signals for ALS (Phase Tracker output), TRX_SQRTINV, TRX, POX11 (Unnormalized POX11I).
It spits out the composite ALS signal.

Inside of the block we have several components:

1) a group of components for sign(x) function. We use the PDH signal to produce the sign for the transmission signal.

2) Hard triggering between ALS and TR/PDH signals. An epics channel "THRESH" is used to determine how much transmission
we should have to turn on the TR/PDH signals.

3) Blending of the TR and PDH. Currently we are using a confined TR between 0 and 1 using a saturation module. When the TR is 0, we use the 1/SQRT(TR) signal for the control,
    When the TR is 1, we use the PDH signal for the control.

4) Finally the three processed signals are combined into a single signal by an adder.

It is important to make a consideration on the offsets. We want all of ALS, 1/SQRT(TR), and PDH to have zero crossing at the resonance.
ALS tends to have arbitorary offset. So we decided to use two offsets. One is before the CESAR block and in the ALS path.
The other is after the CESAR block. Right now we are using the XARM servo offset for the latter purpose.

We run the resonance search script to find the first offset. Once this is set, we never touch this offset until the lock is lost.
Then for the further scanning of the arm length, we uused the offset in the XARM servo filter module.

After making the CDS modification, CESAR was tested with ALS.

First of all, we run CESAR with threshold of 10. This means that the error signal always used ALS.
The ALS was scanned over the resonance. The plot of the scan can be found in EricQ's elog.
At each point of the scan, the arm stability is limited by the ALS.

Using this scan data, we could adjust the gains for the TR and PDH signals. Once the gains were adjusted
the threshold was lowered to 0.25. This activates dynamic signal blending.

ALS was stabilized with XARM FM1/2/3/5/6/7/9. The resonance was scanned. No glitch was observed.
This is some level of success already.

Next step was to fully hand off the control to PDH. But this was not successfull. Everytime the gain for the TR was
reduced to zero, the lock was lost. When the TR is removed from the control, the raw PDH signal is used fot the control
without normalization. Without turning on FM4, we lose 60dB of DC gain. Therefore the residual motion may have been
too big for the linear range of the PDH signal. This could be mitigated by the normalization of the PDH signal by the TR.

The nominal gain of the XARM for the POX11 error signal is 0.03 (instead of previous 0.3)

This is due to my increase of the gain in FM4 by 20dB so that we can turn of FM4 without changing the UGF when it is at 150Hz.

The YARM servo was not yet touched.

True. But we first want to realize this for a single arm, then move onto the two arms case.
At this point we'll need to incorporate frequency dependence.

Today we modified the CESAR block.

- Now the sign(X) function is in a block.

- We decided to use the linearization of the PDH.

- By adding the offset to the TR signal used for the switching between TR and PDH, we can force pure 1/sqrt(TR) or pure PDH to control the cavity.

Asymptotic cooling of the mirror motion with CESAR was tested.

With ALS and the full control bandwidth (UGF 80-100Hz), the actuator amplitude of 8000cnt_pp is required.

Varying control bandwidth depending on the noise level of the signal, the arm was brought to the final configuration with the actuator amplitude of 800cnt_pp.

I confirmed that we need to vent the chambers.

All of the mirrors have been aligned except for ETMX.

ETMX does not respond to the excitation by the UR and LR coils. Likely that the magnets are knocked off, or stuck in the coil.

PRM/SRM oplevs are too much off and can't be turned on. Need realignment of the beams on the QPDs.

- FB was down. FB restarted ("telnet fb 8087", then type shutdown)

- Aligned the MC mirrors.

- Aligned PRM. Look at the REFL. It was slightly mislisligned.

- AS has no beam. The Y arm was resonating with the green. So I determined that the TTs were the misaligned guys.

- Touched TT2 pitch with an increment of 0.1. Immediately the AS beam spot for ITMY was found. And the arm was resonating.

- The RM was further aligned. The bias sliders were saved and then the PRM was misaligned.

- Yarm was locked on TEM01. The ASS maximized the transmission for TEM01, and then the arm was locked on TEM00.
  The ASS aligned the arm and TTs. These values were saved.

- Yarm was aligned and I can see the AS spot. So I believe the BS is still well aligned.

- Aligned the PRM to reduce the ghost beams.

- Moved the ITMX to have Michelson fringes properly.

- Also aligned the SRM.

- Now ETMX was checked. Played with the alignment biases to see if the mirror was sticking on the coils. The mirror can rock a little, but it did not come back.

- Then, checked each magnets. 0.8Hz 1000cnt signals were injected to each coils (cf. C1:SUS-PRM_**COIL_EXC) to see how the mirror could react.
  The OSEM output and green spot on the ETMX cage were observed.

- Saw some response by actuating the UL, LL, SD coils.

- Saw no response from the UR and LR coils. They show the OSEM output of zero. Does this mean the magnets fell in the coils?

//Manasa// MC spot positions measured and they look alright with not much change from before the earthquake (attach)

I tried to take the photos of the magnets from outside. So far most suspicious was LL.
Otherwise, the magnets are OK.
(The SD magnet is the one with most reasonable response.)
Steve will try to take much more zoomed photo with Olympus. But the LL coil already showed some response in my observation in the morning.

It was little bit surprising to me but Rana's professorial rock'n roll excitation released its sticking on the unconfirmed thing by unconfirmed reason.

I aligned the Xarm manually and via ASS.

Now we are back in the normal state.

MC spot sposition script was ran

/opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/ASS/MC/mcassMCdecenter

Found no notable beam position change before and after the earthquake

I'm checking the status from home.

P1 is 8e-4 torr

nodus did not feel the power outage (is it APS supported?)

linux1 booted automatically

c1ioo booted automatically.

c1sus, c1lsc, c1iscex, c1iscey need manual power button push.

As far as I know the system is running as usual. I had the IMC locked and one of the arm flashing.
But the other arm had no flash and none of the arms were locked before kunch time.

This morning Steve and I went around the lab to turn on the realtime machines.

Also we took the advantage of this opportunity to shutdown linux1 and nodus
to replace the extension cables for their AC power.

I also installed a 3TB hard disk on linux1. This was to provide a local daily copy of our
working are. But I could not make the disk recognized by the OS.
It seems that there is a "2TB" barrier that the disk bigger than 2.2TB can't be recognized
by the older machines. I'll wait for the upgrade of the machine.

Rebooting the realtime machines did not help FB to talk with them. I fixed them.
Basically what I did was:

- Stop all of the realtime codes by running rtcds kill all on c1lsc, c1ioo, c1sus, c1iscex, c1iscey

- run sudo ntpdate -b -s -u pool.ntp.org on c1lsc, c1ioo, c1sus, c1iscex, c1iscey, and fb

- restart realtime codes one by one. I checked which code makes FB unhappy. But in reality
  FB was happy with all of them running.

Then slow machines except for c1vac1 and c1vac2 were burtrestored.

-------

Zach reported that svn was down. I went to the 40m wiki and searched "apache".
There is an instruction how to restart apache.

Recovery work: now arms are locking as usual

- FB is failing very frequently. Everytime I see red signals in the CDS summary, I have to run "sudo ntpdate -b -s -u pool.ntp.org"

- PMC was aligned

- The main Marconi returned to initial state. Changed the frequency and amplitude to the nominal value labeled on the unit

- The SHG oven temp controllers were disabled. I visited all three units and pushed "enable" buttons.

- Y arm was immediately locked. It was aligned using ASS.

- X arm did not show any flash. I found that the scx model was not successfully burtrestored yesterday.
  The setting was restored using Mar 22 snapshot.

- After a little tweak of the ETMX alignment, a decent flash was achieved. But still it could not be locked.

- Run s/LSC/LSCoffset.py. This immediately made the X arm locked.

- Checked the green alignment. The X arm green is beating with the PSL at  ~100MHz but is misaligned beyond the PZT range.
  The Y arm green is locked on TEM00 and is beating with the PSL at ~100MHz.

[Manasa, Eric, Koji]

PRMIsb was locked with REFL165I&Q.

- Aligned the arms with ASS. The misaligned ETMX and ETMY

- Configured PRMIsb with IFO_Configure screen

- Immediately PRMIsb was locked with REFL55I&Q

- Checked the REFL165 phase in terms of the REFL165Q vs PRCL. It was already well adjusted at -82.5deg. We tuned the phase a bit more and got -83.5deg.

- With DTT, relative gain between REFL55I and REFL165I was measured. REFL165I is about x10 higher than REFL55I and has the same sign.

- The transition of PRCL with the input matrix was just easy.

- With DTT, relative gain between REFL55Q and REFL165Q was measured. REFL165Q is about x3 higher than REFL55Q and has the same sign.

- The transition of MICH was flakey, but after careful adjustment of the PRM alignment, ~10s lock was achieved. It seemed that the PRM alignment fluctuation
  was bug enough to unlock the interferometer.

- Eric went into the lab and aligned all of the oplevs except for the SRM's one.

- Now the lock with REFL55 and also with REFL165 became more robust. Less MICH offset and darker AS port.

Input ports:
REFL55   WHTN: 45dB demod phase +45.0deg
REFL165 WHTN: 45dB demod phase -83.5deg

Input matrix: for acquisition:
REFL55I x 1.0 -> PRCL
REFL55Q x 1.0 -> MICH

Input matrix: PRCL Transition:
REFL55I x 1.0 + REFL165I x 0.0 -> x0.5 + x0.0 -> x0.5 + x0.05 -> x0.3 + x0.05 -> x0.2 + x0.05 -> x0.1 + x0.05 -> x0.0 + x0.05

Input matrix: MICH Transition:
REFL55Q x 1.0 + REFL165Q x 0.0 -> x0.5 + x0.0 -> x0.5 + x0.3 -> x0.3 + x0.3 -> x0.2 + x0.3 -> x0.1 + x0.3 -> x0.0 + x0.3

Triggers:
MICH POP110I 100up/10down / FM Trig FM2/3/9 35up 2down 5sec delay
PRCL POP110I 100up/10down / FM Trig FM2/3/6/9 35up 2down 0.5sec delay

Servo:
MICH OFS 0 / Gain 1.3 / Limitter ON
PRCL OFS 0 / Gain -0.04 / Limitter ON

Output matrix:
MICH PRM -0.2625 / BS 0.5
PRCL PRM 1.0

While I'm looking at the PRM ASC servo model, I tried to use the current servo filters for the ASC
as Manasa aligned the POP PDs and QPD yesterday. (BTW, I don't find any elog about it)

I found no issue for locking PRMIsb with the REFL165I&Q signals if the PRM ASC is employed.
See this entry for the IFO settings.

It is just stable. The IFO is ready for the arm scanning.

=== ASC setting ===

PRCL_PITCH: FM1/3/9 x-0.004
PRCL_YAW: FM1/3/9 x-0.001

The PRM OPLEV has to be off when the PRM ASC is engaged. Actually, it turned out that we don't need OPLEV for locking.

[Koji Rana]

We are looking at NTP settings. I looked at nodus.

- xntpd is running

- We decided to start over the configuration file /etc/inet/ntp.conf

    - The old configuration was moved to ntp.conf.bak

    - The server configuration file was copied from ntp.server to ntp.conf

    - Caltech NTP servers 131.215.239.14 and 131.215.220.22 were selected as the servers we are reffering

    - Commented out the lines for "fudge" and "broadcast"

- xntpd was restarted

    - sudo /etc/init.d/xntpd stop
    - sudo /etc/init.d/xntpd start

- check how the daemon is running
      tail -50 /var/adm/messages

   Mar 28 23:00:49 nodus xntpd[27800]: [ID 702911 daemon.notice] xntpd 3-5.93e Mon Sep 20 15:47:11 PDT 1999 (1)
   Mar 28 23:00:49 nodus xntpd[27800]: [ID 301315 daemon.notice] tickadj = 5, tick = 10000, tvu_maxslew = 495, est. hz = 100
   Mar 28 23:00:49 nodus xntpd[27800]: [ID 798731 daemon.notice] using kernel phase-lock loop 0041
   Mar 28 23:00:49 nodus last message repeated 1 time
   Mar 28 23:00:49 nodus xntpd[27800]: [ID 132455 daemon.error] trusted key 0 unlikely
   Mar 28 23:00:49 nodus xntpd[27800]: [ID 581490 daemon.error] 0 makes a poor request keyid

- check the syncing staus by ntpq -p

        remote           refid      st t when poll reach   delay   offset    disp
   ==============================================================================
   *ntp-02.caltech. .CDMA.           1 u   37   64  377     0.56    3.010    0.08
   +ntp-03.caltech. ntp1.symmetrico  2 u   36   64  377     0.52    2.727    0.12
      this * means nodus is synced to ntp-02. "+" means it is stand by as a valid secondary server.  "when" increases every second.
      When "when" reaches "poll" the clock is synced to the server. These marks are not set at the beginning.
      It was necessary to wait for sometime to get synced to the server.

- Once nodus became a synced server, the realtime systems starts syncing to nodus automatically.

   controls@c1sus ~ 0$ cat /var/log/ntpd
   25 Mar 01:41:00 ntpd[4443]: logging to file /var/log/ntpd
   (...)
   28 Mar 23:13:46 ntpd[4983]: synchronized to 192.168.113.200, stratum 2
   28 Mar 23:14:25 ntpd[4983]: time reset +39.298455 s
   28 Mar 23:14:25 ntpd[4983]: kernel time sync status change 2001
   28 Mar 23:25:19 ntpd[4983]: synchronized to 192.168.113.200, stratum 2
   controls@c1sus ~ 0$ ntpq -p
        remote           refid      st t when poll reach   delay   offset  jitter
   ==============================================================================
   *nodus.martian   131.215.239.14   2 u   42   64  377    0.140   42.222  11.373


FB: /etc/ntp.conf was updated as below such that it refers nodus and also caltech server when nodus is not available

server 192.168.113.200
server 131.215.239.14

ntpd was restarted and

diskless RT machines: they are booted from /diskless/root on fb.
Therefore /diskless/root/etc/ntp.conf was updated in the same way as above.
When the machines are rebooted, this setting will be active.

control machines:

now they are referring nodus and other external servers too.

A series of measurements / calculations for the PRM ASC characterization and servo design

1) Actuator characterization

The actuator responses of the PRM in pitch and yaw were measured (attachment figure 1). I believed the calibration of the oplev QPD to be
1 count/urad. The oplev servo loops were turned off at the FM inputs, and the filter banks were turned off so that the response has the open
loop transfer function except for the servo filter.

The measured transfer functions were fitted with LISO. The LISO results (c.f. the source codes) were shown in the figure. The responses also
include the 60Hz comb filter present in the input filters. The responses are well approximated by the single pendulum with f0 of 0.6-0.8 and q of 3.5 and 6.3.

From this measurement, the actuator responses of the PRM at DC are estimated to be 2.2 urad/cnt and 1.8 urad/cnt in pitch and yaw, respectively.

2) Sensor response of the POP QPD

As we already know how the actuators respond, the QPD optical gain can be characterized by measuring the actuator response of the QPD
(attachment figure 2). The QPD signals are such noisy that the response above 1Hz can't be measured with sufficient coherence. Below 1Hz,
the response is well represented by the actuator response measured with the oplev. From this measurement, the optical gains of the QPD
with respect to the PRM motion are 650 cnt/urad and 350 cnt/urad.

3) Open loop transfer function of the current ASC servo

By combining the above information with the servo setting of the servo filters, the open loop transfer functions of the PRM QPD ASC loops
were estimated (attachment figure 3). Actually the expected suppression of the fluctuation is poor. The yaw loop seems to have
too low gain, but in fact increasing gain is not so beneficial as there is no reasonable phase margin at higher frequency.

With the estimated openloop transfer functions and the measured free-running angular fluctuation, the suppressed angular spectra can be
estimated (attachment figure 4). This tells us that the suppression of the angular noise at around 3Hz is not sufficient in both pitch and yaw.
As there is no mechanical resonance in the actuator response at the frequency, intentional placement of poles and zeros in the servo filter is necessary.

4) Newly designed ASC filter

Here is the new design of the QPD ASC servo (attachment figure 5). The target upper UGF is 10Hz with the phase margin of 50 to 60deg.
The servo is AC coupled so that we still can tweak the alignment of the mirror.

As this servo is conditionally stable, at first we should close the loops with stable filter and then some boosts should be turned on.
Estimated suppressed fluctuation is shown in the attachment figure 6. We can see that the fluctuation was made well white between 0.5Hz to 10Hz.

The filter design is shown as follows:

Pitch
FM1: zero at 0Hz, pole at 2000Hz, gain at 2000Hz = 2000

FM3: (boost)
zero: f: 0.5Hz q: 1  /  4.5Hz, q: 1 / f: 1Hz, q: 3
pole: f: 2Hz q: 3  / f: 2.7Hz, q: 2  / f: 1Hz, q: 15

FM9: (HF Roll-off)
pole: f: 40Hz q: 1.7
 
Servo gain: -0.028

Yaw
FM1: zero at 0Hz, pole at 2000Hz, gain at 2000Hz = 2000

FM3: (boost)
zero: f: 0.7Hz q: 2  /  3Hz, q: 7 / f: 2Hz, q: 6
pole: f: 1.02Hz q: 10  / f: 4.5Hz, q: 0.8  / f: 1.5Hz, q: 10

FM9: (HF Roll-off)
pole: f: 40Hz q: 1.7
 
Servo gain: -0.0132

[Koji Jenne]

New PRM ASC was implemented. [to be cnt'd]

As the designed ASC filters in this entry had too little phase margins (~10deg), I had to compromise the servo design.

The design was modified and tested again. This will be reported by a following entry.

Incidentally, I have adjusted the demodulation phases of REFL33/55/165 for PRMIsb so that the PRCL is eliminated from the Q signals.

REFL33    125.5 deg -> +136.5 deg
REFL55      45.0 deg -> +  25.0 deg
REFL165   -79.5 deg -> +  44.5 deg

This change of the demod phase for REFL165 was a bit surprising.
I did not check the sign, so it could be -135.5 deg. But still this is a bit change.

The new PRM ASC design

Pitch
FM1: zero at 0Hz, pole at 2000Hz, gain at 2000Hz = 2000

FM5: (boost)
zero: f: 0.5Hz q: 1  /  4Hz, q: 2 / f: 1Hz, q: 3
pole: f: 2Hz q: 3  / f: 2.7Hz, q: 2  / f: 1Hz, q: 15

FM9: (HF Roll-off)
pole: f: 40Hz q: 1/Sqrt(2) (2nd order butterworth)

Servo gain: -0.023

Yaw
FM1: zero at 0Hz, pole at 2000Hz, gain at 2000Hz = 2000

FM5: (boost)
zero: f: 0.5Hz q: 1  /  4Hz, q: 2 / f: 1.5Hz, q: 10
pole: f: 1.02Hz q: 10  / f: 3Hz, q: 5  / f: 2Hz, q: 6

FM9: (HF Roll-off)
pole: f: 40Hz q: 1/sqrt(2)
 
Servo gain: -0.027

The loop gains were adjusted to have the UGFs of 10Hz. The measured openloop transfer functions were compared with the model.
The transfer functions for yaw are well matched. However, the pitch ones don't. It seems that the pitch loop has extra low pass
which I can't locate. The possibility is the analog electronics of the pitch loop.

The effect of the control between 0.3Hz to 3Hz are well represented by the model. The attachment 2 shows the free running
angle fluctuation, the ones with the control engaged, and the estimated spectra. Indeed, the estimated spectra well represent
the measured angular spectra.

I vaguely remember that the ALS count (Phase Tracker output) is converted to Hz@532nm by a factor  ~20kHz/cnt.
This means the calibration for the IR frequency is 10kHz/cnt.

If this is true 100cnt is 2MHz. Isn't it too big?

Assuming 38.5m for the arm length, FSR is 3.89MHz. (~389cnt)

Our sideband is at integer multiples of 11.03MHz. So...

1xf1 is 0.62MHz (62cnt) away from the carrier
2xf1 is 1.24MHz (124cnt)
3xf1 is 1.86MHz (186cnt)
5xf1=1xf2 is 0.79MHz (79cnt)
10xf1 = 2xf2 is 1.58MHz (158cnt)
15xf1 = 3xf2 is 1.52MHz (152cnt)

So we have to be well with in 62cnt to avoid resonating modulation sidebands.

There maybe some mistake in the factors.
e.g. Phase Tracker calibration is not correct, or CARM ALS OFFSET has factor 2 different calibration from the arm ALS offset.

About the ADC range,

According to the elogs, DARM = AS55Q/400. So in the current level, the error has +/-40cntpp (even if I ignore the whitening).

The arm transmission this time was 0.1-0.3. This will go up to 100~300. So we potentially increase the AS55Q optical gain by factor of 1000.

So we get +/-40000. This is already too much. If we consider the whitening, the situation is more tough.

We need to lower the whitening gain. If it is not enough, we need to lower the power on the PD.

How much was the whitening gain for AS55 this time?

It's just one of the stepping stones, but not yet a mile stone.
Keep going forward!

I have never used such a long cable for RF phase adjustment. The speed of the signal is 2e8 m/s and the frequency is ~10e6 Hz.
This means that the wavelength is only about 20m. How could you end up with ~100meters?
The convenient way to remember the cable delay is "1m, 1MHz, 2deg". This gives us ~1.5m for 11MHz and 34deg.

In fact, 1 degree of phase shift is not 1/(2 pi freq) second of delay, but f/360.

For such a precise phase adjustment, it is better to calibrate the delay with the network analyzer.

Yesterday, MC2 alignment was slipping all day. Even when the WFS was off (i.e. there wa sno actuation), I had continual misalignment caused by MC2

I was afraid that the MC2 mirror is on a bistable position somehow. So I gave -5000 offset on the MC2 LSC. We'll see how it makes the MC happier.

This seems the ever best stability at the zero offset PRFPMI.

Can you look at REFLDC in this data stream too? How was it promising?

The main problem was a panel fixing bolt that caused the short circuits between power supply layers.
This burned the PCB and secondarily caused permanent short circuit between +15V/-15V/+5V layers.

Diagnosis

- The resistances between +15V, +5V, and -15V were low. The resistance between +15V and -15V is 13 Ohm.
  The one between +5V and -15V is 7Ohm. And the one between +15 and +5 is 19Ohm. So the situation is

                o -15V
                |
+15V o-(13 Ohm)-+-(9 Ohm)-o +5V

Even after removing all of the active components from the board, they remained the same.

- The tantalum caps were removed from the board and it was confirmed that they are not the cause of the issue.

- The panel was removed from the module for the component migration to a spare board (to be described in the other entry).
I found that the screw hole and the screw have burnt marks. The screw need an insulation tube to avoid short circuit.
The other screw was also bare. The spare board has the screws with the insulation tubes.

I went to WB and found the last spare module of D990399 revB. We need to thank Frank for his foresight.

The original (=broken) board had various modifications from this revB.
I had to check the schemaric diagram and the difference between the boards and migrate some of the SMD components from left to right.

Here is the deciphered features of the QPD whitening board:
- The input stage is a VGA amp (AD602). It has the internal input impedance of 100 Ohm. The series resister
  of 909 Ohm gives us 1/10 voltage division! It is more tricky as the QPD (D990272) has the output impedances of 50Ohm
  (for the both side of the differential out) and on resistance of MAX333A. So it could have been deviated by ~10% from the nominal.

- Variable gain control: The input has 1/10 voltage division. The gain is fixed at the unity. In total the gain of the variable control stage is 1/10.
  This gives us the gain range of +42dB/-22dB for +10V/-10V. The actual range is limited to be -10~30dB.

- Whitening stages. Each channel has two sets of the whitening path and the bypass path.
  They could be switched by binary control inputs but I permanently enabled the whitening by pulling the MAX333 control inputs to the ground.
  The whitening zero and pole are at 4.02Hz and 40.6Hz.

  Each bypass path has an additional cap of 220pF in parallel to 35.7kOhm (R101 and R103 for CH1), resulting in the pole at 20.2kHz.
  Each whitening paths had a 5.6nF cap (C53 and C64). This cap was replaced with 350pF, resulting in the move of the pole freq from 800Hz to 12.7kHz.

- There are two anti-aliasing stages which were designed for 2kHz sampling rate. They are identical sallen key 2nd-order LPFs with fc=766Hz and Q=0.74 (~ butterworth).
  As all of these caps were removed, they are just voltage followers now.

- The final stage (AD620) has the gain resister of 16.5k. The gain is 1+(49.4k/16.5k) = 3.99.

- The 4pin lemo connector (J8) was removed from the board. We instead installed an isolated BNC connector on the panel for the thorlabs PD serving as the high gain PD.

- There is a daughter board for the high gain PD. This seems to be the butterworth low pass filter with fc=~30kHz.
  The differential output of the daughter board is connected to pin 17 and 18 of J10 (S5 Out and Rtn).

- The input of the daughter board is differential (AD620). Therefore the LEMO connectros next to the BNC were wrapped with Kapton tapes for isolation.

Board test at the workbench.

- The test required two dual power supply as the unit requires +/-5V and +/-15V.

- The four channels were tested with the signal injection. 1kHz input yielded 20mVpp across the AD602 input. The output of the 1st whitening stage was
  60mVpp. This makes sense as the gain of the AD620 is -10dB (1/10 and 10dB). The output of the 2nd whitening stage was 600mVpp.
  Finally the output of the output stage was confirmed to be 2400mVpp. This was confirmed for four channels.

- The daughter board output was also checked. The gain is the unity and flat upto ~10kHz.

Board installation

- Jenne installed the module. This time there was no smoke.

Gain mystery

- It was not sure how the whitening gains have been given.

- The corresponding database entry was found in /cvs/cds/caltech/target/c1auxey/ETMYaux.db as

grecord(ao,"C1:ASC-QPDY_S1WhiteGain")
grecord(ao,"C1:ASC-QPDY_S2WhiteGain")
grecord(ao,"C1:ASC-QPDY_S3WhiteGain")
grecord(ao,"C1:ASC-QPDY_S4WhiteGain")

- The gains for S2-S4 were set to be 30. However, C1:ASC-QPDY_S1WhiteGain was set to be 8.62068.
And it was not writable.

- After some investigation, it was found that the database was wrong. The DAC channel was changed from S100 to S0.
The corrected entry is shown here.

grecord(ao,"C1:ASC-QPDY_S1WhiteGain")
{
        field(DESC,"Whitening gain for QPDY Seg 1")
        field(DTYP,"VMIVME-4116")
        field(OUT,"#C0 S0 @")
        field(PREC,"1")
        field(EGUF,"42")
        field(EGUL,"-22")
        field(EGU,"dB")
        field(LINR,"LINEAR")
        field(DRVH,"30")
        field(DRVL,"-10")
        field(HOPR,"30")
        field(LOPR,"-10")
}

- Once c1auxey was rebooted, the S1 whitening gain became writable. Now all of the channels were set to be +30dB (max).

The measured open loop TF of the ALS Phase Tracker loop for each arm was characterized by an empirical model on LISO.

The model for the open loop TF has pole 1m instead of the one at DC as LISO has a difficulty to model it.
Digital time delay and the sampling effect seem to be well represented by a zero at ~8kHz and delay of  ~60us.
(cf 16kHz sampling => 61us)

The XARM phase tracker has the UGF of 1.5kHz. This is too low because
1) The phase rotation at 100Hz is visible in the plot.
2) We don't much care about the closed loop bump in the phase tracker as long as the phase tracker keeps its continuity.

So I suggest to increase the gain so that we have the UGF of 3kHz. (phase margin: 24deg)

The red curve in the plot is the closed loop response calculated by CLTF =  - OLTF / (1-OLTF).

The model results are used in the ALS servo models.

The measured openloop TF of the ALS servo for each was characterized by a ZPK model.

The openloop TF can be modeled by:

1) Filter TF obtained from foton
2) Actuator response with appropriate assumption
3) Phase tracker closed loop TF
4) Delay caused by the digital control
5) anything else

For 1) ZPK models of the servo filter was obtained from foton. It turned out that the TF of FM5 doesn't match with the ZPK model in foton.
Therefore the TF was exported and fitted with LISO. This seems to be related to the pole frequency (3kHz) which is too close to Nyquist frequency (8kHz).

FM(:,1)  = zero1(f,5).*pole1(f,0.001)*5000;
FM(:,2)  = zero1(f,1).*pole1(f,0.001)*1000;
FM(:,3)  = zero2(f,4.5,1.4619).*pole1(f,0.001).*pole1(f,0.001)*20.2501*1e6;
FM(:,4)  = zero2(f,35,2).*pole2(f,3,3).*zero1(f,3000).*pole1(f,1).*pole2(f,3000,1/sqrt(2)).*pole1(f,700).*zero1(f,10).*zero1(f,350).*136e1;
FM(:,5)  = zero1(f,1).*pole1(f,4.010e3).*pole2(f,17.3211e3,1.242).*zero2(f,18.865e3,100e3);
FM(:,6)  = zero2(f,3.2,0.966775).*pole2(f,3.2,30.572);
FM(:,7)  = zero2(f,16.5,2.48494).*pole2(f,16.5,78.5807).*zero2(f,24.0,2.22483).*pole2(f,24.0,7.03551);
FM(:,8)  = 1;
FM(:,9)  = zero2(f,7.50359,1.07194).*pole2(f,1.43429,0.717146)*27.5653;
FM(:,10) = 1;
dc_gain = 14;

FM1/2/3/5/6/7/9 are used for the control.

For 2), a resonant freq of 0.97 with Q of 5 was assumed.

The model for 3) was obtained by the previous entry.

Now the measured TF was divided by the known part of the model 1) ~ 3) and empirically fitted in LISO.

### XARM ###
pole 392.5021429051 698.1992431753m
zero 42.3128869460k 31.0954443799m
pole 589.2716424428 2.8325268375
factor 8.3430140244
delay 34.7536691023p

### YARM ###
pole 416.2463334253 743.2196174175m
zero 97.9161062704M 114.6703921876m
pole 626.0463515310 2.7671041771

factor 9.0045911761
delay 34.0945727358p

These compensation TF have weird TF. Probably the frequency response of the delay and the analog AA/AI filters without the high frequency data
led the LISO make up this. I'm requesting Masayuki to provide the AA/AI data to make the estimation more reasonable.
For the servo modeling, this is sufficient and we'll go a head.

The results of the OLTF modeling are attached.

As we now have the loop model, we can characterize the error signals.

We have the following data:

1) Free-running ALS error signals (i.e. phase tracker output) calibrated in Hz (for 532nm) (blue)
2) Controlled ALS error signals calibrated in Hz (for 532nm) (red)
3) ALS error signals measured with X and Y arm locked with the IR PDH. (black)
    This is likely to represent the sensing noise of the beatnote detection

from 2) we can derive the similar quantity as 1)
4) Estimated free-running ALS error signals from the controlled signals (green)

Remarks:

- From 1) and 4) we can see that the phase tracker is not perfectly linear. It seems that fast fringing of the phase tracker is causing upconversion.

- From 2) and 3) the servo loops don't have enough gain between 3Hz and 20Hz. On the other hand they have too much gain bekow 3Hz.

Based on the evaluation of the error signals, the new servo was designed.

Concept:
- Don't touch the locking filters. (i.e. FM5)
- Sacrifice some phase at 150Hz to increase the gain between 3-20Hz.
- As resonant gains costs the phase without increasing the LF gains, replace them with a poles for the integrators.

FM(:,1) = zero2(f,.5,.7).*pole2(f,0.001,.7)*(0.5/0.001)^2;
FM(:,2) = zero2(f,5,2).*pole2(f,3,3).*pole1(f,1).*zero1(f,5)*5*(5/3)^2;
FM(:,3) = zero2(f,25,.7).*pole2(f,3.2,10)*(25/3.2)^2; % Zero crossing
FM(:,4) = zero2(f,35,2).*pole2(f,3,3).*zero1(f,3000).*pole1(f,1).*pole2(f,3000,1/sqrt(2)).*pole1(f,700).*zero1(f,10).*zero1(f,350).*136e1;
FM(:,5) = zero1(f,1).*pole1(f,4010).*pole2(f,17.3211e3,1.242).*zero2(f,18.865e3,100e3);
FM(:,6) = zero2(f,5,2).*pole2(f,10,2).*pole2(f,16.5,30).*zero2(f,30,2);
FM(:,7) = 1;
FM(:,8) = 1;
FM(:,9) = 1;
FM(:,10) = 1;
dc_gain = 14;

FM1/2/3/5/6 are expected to be used for the control.

FM1: Boost below 0.5Hz. This does not cost the phase margin.
FM2: Increase the gain below 5Hz. This hardly cost the phase margin.
FM3: Boost below 25Hz. This is the main phase cost at UGF. This has a complex pole pair at 3Hz with Q=10 to supress the stack motion.
FM6: zero-pole-pole-zero combination to boost the gain between 5 to 30Hz. This eats the phase margin a little.

Note that the phase tracker gain for the X arm was increased by factor of 2.5.

Comparison of the new and old servo OLTF
The new servo has the same UGF, slightly less phase margin, and more gain between 1.5 and 25Hz.

The expected error signals derived from the estimated free running error signals of the ALS.

1) Previously estimated free-running noise (blue)
2) Previous in-loop ALS error signal (red)
3) Estimated error signal with the new servo (green)
4) Out-of-loop noise of the ALS with the arm controlled with the IR PDH (black)

Now the error signal (green) is expected to be very white.
The suppressed noise between 3 to 20Hz are below the sensing noise level.
There seems a little excess at 24.5Hz and 28Hz. If it is limiting the RMS, we need to take care of them.

The new ALS/LSC servo was implemented for the X arm.

I'll upload more data later but here I make quick remarks:

- We need to give the gain of 12 to have correct UGF with the ALS.

- With this servo, the Xarm PDH lock oscillates with the gain of 0.02. We need to lower the gain to 0.015.
  Also FM trigger should be changed not to trigger unused FMs (FM7/8)

Here are the MATLAB scripts and LISO codes for all of these servo analyses

New ALS servo performance

Attachment 1:

Comparison between the old (orange) and new (red). The new error signal (red) is suppressed like a white noise as expected.

Comparison between the out-of-loop evaluation (black) and the in-loop signal (red). Below 50Hz the out-of-loop is limited by the sensor-noise like something.
This out-of-loop stability was measured with the ALS stayed at the top of the resonance and calibrated the POX11 error signal.

Attachment 2:

New ALS servo with the LSC PDH signal. When the PDH signal is used for the control, FM4 is additionally used.
In this condition, the error signal was measured and calibrated into frequncy noise (Hz/sqrtHz).

By comparing the POX (with the new servo) and POY (with the old servo) signals, one can see that the new servo has better supression below 30Hz with almost no cost at ~100Hz.

I've moved the WB network analyzer to the OMC lab. The 40m network analyzer is not in service for the MC monitoring.
I setup the configuration so that the same command gives us the same spectrum measurement.

I saw big misalignment on the GTRX camera, I went to the PSL table and aligned the beat beams.

I disconnected the RF out of the X beat PD and  connect an oscilloscope.
The beat amplitude was 15mVpp at the beginning and is 60mVpp right now.
I checked the alignment on this RF PD and the DC PD as well as the spot on the CCD.

The RF cable was connected again.

Jenne and I ran the ALS and scanned the arm cavity. We had the impression that the noise level of the ALS improved,
but I don't have correctly calibrated measurement. Let's do it tomorrow in the day time.

The Yarm beat alignment look awful. We should align this too.

Please check the X&Y ALS out-of-loop stability. Use fine resolution (BW0.01). Calibrate the POX/POY in Hz.

It is actually very tricky to measure the green power at the output of the doubling crystal as the IR often leaks into the measurement.
I checked the green beam powers on the X/Y/PSL tables.

CONCLUSION: There is no green beam which exceeds 5mW anywhere in the 40m lab.

Note: The temperature of the doubling crystal at the X end was optimized to have maximum green power. It was 36.3degC and is now 36.7degC.

X END:

When the angles of the wave plates are optimized, we have 539mW input to the doubling crystal.
With the Xtal temperature of 36.7degC, where the green power is maximized, the power right after
the harmonic separator (H.S.) was 9.6mW.

Xtal temp 36.7degC   ~~~
                      |
--539mW@IR-->{Xtal}-->/-->9.6mW-->{Mirror}-->4.69mW-->{Mirror}-->4.54mW-->{Faraday}
                    (H.S.)

If we believe these 4.69mW and 4.54mW are purely from the green, we have 4.8mW right after the H.S.
This corresponds to the conversion efficiency of 1.6%/W (cf. theretical number 2%/W)

By disabling the heating of the crystal, we can reduce the green light by factor of 60. But still the reading right after the H.S. was 5.3mW

Xtal temp 29.2degC   ~~~
                      |
--539mW@IR-->{Xtal}-->/-->5.3mW-->{Mirror}-->285uW-->{Mirror}-->74.3uW-->{Faraday}
                    (H.S.)

Naively taking the difference, the green beam right after the H.S. is 4.4mW.

In either cases, the green power right after the oven is slightly less than 5mW.

Y END:

When the angles of the wave plates are optimized, we have 287mW input to the doubling crystal.
With the Xtal temperature of 36.0degC, where the green power is maximized, the power right after
the harmonic separator (H.S.) was 0.86mW.

Xtal temp 36.0degC   ~~~
                      |
--287mW@IR-->{Xtal}-->/-->0.86mW-->
                    (H.S.)

When the temperature was shifted to 39.2degC, the reading after the H.S. was 70uW. Therefore the contamination by the IR is small
in this setup and we can believe the above reading in 70uW accuracy. This 0.86mW corresponds to the conversion efficiency of 1.2%/W.

PSL

The incident IR is 80mW. We have 170uW after the H.S., which corresponds to the conversion efficiency of 2.6%/W. Maybe there is some IR contamination?
From the vacuum chamber total 1mW of green is derivered when both arms are locked and aligned.

Thus the total green power at the PSL table is less than 5mW.

And the out-of-loop level of the ALSX compared with the previous measurement is ...?

If the PD is the suspect, just pull it from the table and bring it to the PD testing setup.

The transimpedance of the PD should be ~2000 Ohm for both of the RF and DC outputs.

The test setup gives you the systematic opportunity for examination of the signal line.
Check the signal level with the active probe.

Once the broken component is found replace it. You are supposed to have the replacement
components on the blue tower.

Wait. It is not so clear.

Do you mean that the IFO was locked with REFL11I for the first time?

Why is it still in the "low finesse" situation? Is it because of misalignment or the non-zero CARM offset?

How is the modulation depth assumed in the calculation?

If you don't know the modulation depth, you can't calibrate the transimpedance of each PD individually.

[Rana Zach Koji]

We tracked down the MC locking issue to be associated with the power supply problem.
Replacing a fuse which had incomplete connection with the new one, the MC started locking.

We still have the MC autolocker not running correctly. This is solely a software problem.

We went down to the IOO electronics rack to investigate the electronics there. After spending
some time to poking around the test points of the MC servo board, we noticed that the -24V
power indicator on the MC demodulator module was not lit. In fact, Steve mentioned on Wednesday
that the -24V Sorensen supply had lower current than nominal. This actually was a good catch
but should have been written in the ELOG!!!

We traced the power supply wires for the crate and found one of the three -24V supply has no
voltage on it. Inspection of the corresponding fuse revealed that it had a peculiar failure mode.
The blown LED was not lit. The connection was not reliable and the -24V power supply was flickering.

We then replaced the fuse.This simply solved all of the issues on the MC servo board. The electronics
should be throughly inspected if it still has the nominal performance or not, as the boards were exposed
to the single supply more than a week. But we decided to try locking ability first of all.

Yes, we now can lock the MC as usual.

Now the newly revealed issue is MC autolocker. It was running on op340m but op340m does not want to run it now.
It should be closely investigated.

Also turning on WFS unlocks the MC. Currently the WFS outputs are turned off.
We need usual align MC / check spot position / adjust WFS QPD spots combo.