Sensing matrix measurements at different LO phases were performed under LO phase locked to both BH55_Q and BH55_Q+MICH dither.
We confirmed that BH55_Q+MICHdither can lock LO phase to around maximum MICH sensitivity for BHD_DIFF.
- MICH was lockied using AS55_Q feeding back to BS, at dark fringe. Notch at 311.1 Hz was turned on. C1:LSC-MICH_GAIN=-6 (lowered to reduce BS DAC saturation).
- LO PHASE was locked using BH55_Q, feeding back to LO1. FM2, FM5, FM8 on. C1:HPC-LO_PHASE_GAIN=+/-2.
- LO PHASE was also locked using BH55_Q+MICHdither. BS was dithered with C1:HPC-BS_POS_OSC_CLKGAIN=4000 at 281.768 Hz (2nd notch of ELP80 used for demodulation). Feeding back to LO1. FM5, FM8 on (no LF boost). C1:HPC-LO_PHASE_GAIN=+/-20.
-- Note that we could not increase the dither amplitude more as BS DAC starts to saturate (we are using BS for MICH loop, sensing matrix measurement, and audio dither; see 40m/17343).
Sensing martix measurements
- Lines are injected to BS @ 311.1 Hz with amplitude of 1000, LO1 @ 147.1 Hz and AS1 @ 141.79 Hz with amplitude of 5000.
Estimating LO phase
- Estimation of LO phase was done in the same way described in 40m/17287. We used measured sensitivity of BH55_Q for LO1 at BH55_Q zero crossing (-1.42e9 counts/m) to estimate LO phase offset from BH55_Q zero crossing.
- In BH55_Q+MICHdither case, LO phase was flipped using the following equation when C1:HPC-LO_PHASE_GAIN is minus (to have consistend LO phase dependence with BH55_Q locking. NEEDS CHECK).
LOphase = 180 - arcsin(BH55_Q/A)
- Attachment #1 shows the sensitivity of AS55, BH55, BHDC_DIFF/SUM to BS (upper panel), LO1 (middle) and AS1 (lower), under LO phase locked to BH55_Q. The upper plot is the same plot as 40m/17287. As we can see, "0 deg" in the x-axis is not the optimal phase for BHDC_DIFF to have maximum MICH sensitivity. "0 deg" is the optimal point in terms of BH55_Q sensitivity to LO1/AS1, as we tuned the demodulation phase to maximize it.
- Attachment #2 shows the same plot, under LO phase locked to BH55_Q+MICH dither. Sensitivity of BH55_Q to MICH crosses zero at round these measurements, as we are zero-ing it with this locking scheme. Around these LO phases, sensitivity of BHDC_DIFF to MICH is maximized as expected. Also, sensitivity of BHDC_DIFF to LO1/AS1 is minimized, as expected (assuming residual MICH offset and contrast defect are small).
- Attachment #3 is the combined data from #1 and #2. Data points from BH55_Q locking are marked with "o" and those from BH55_Q+MICH dither locking are marked with "x" (they have larger uncertainties in LO phase). Both measurements are somewhat inconsistent in some channels (BS to BHDC_DIFF and LO1/AS1 to BH55_Q). Needs further investigation.
- Dashed lines are from scipy.optimize.curve_fit using the following fitting function.
def fitfunc(x, a,b,c):
- Lock MICH with BHDC_DIFF under LO phase locked to BH55_Q+MICHdither
- Estimate LO phase noise contribution to MICH displacement sensitivity
- Improve LO phase loop
- Try audio+audio dither
- Move on to FPMI
- Move on to 44MHz
- Estimate the amount of residual MICH offset and contrast defect from these plots
Here's a plot using same dataset from yesterday, but x-axis in raw BH55_Q data, not calibrated into degrees in LO phase.
This way you are free from calibration error in BH55_Q data to LO phase.
Elliptic fit is done using least squares.
dphi is calculated using the following equation where (ap, bp) are the semi-major and semi-minor axes, phi is the rotation of the semi-major axis from the x-axis.
dphi gives you LO phase at zero-crossing.
For example, the top plot says that the sensitivity of BH55_Q to BS crosses zero at "-133.92 deg," which means BH55_Q+MICHdither can lock LO phase at -134 deg or 46 deg.
The top plot also says that the sensitivity of BHDC_DIFF to BS crosses zero at "127.45 deg," which means BHDC_DIFF sensitivity to MICH maximizes at 38 deg or 217 deg.
The middle plot says that the sensitivity of BH55_Q to LO1 crosses zero at "90.09 deg," which means BH55_Q+LO1dither can lock LO phase at 90 deg or -90 deg, and BH55_Q(no dither) can lock LO phase at 0deg or 180 deg (by definition).
- Use also BH55_Q+LO1/AS1dither to scan around 90 deg.
At 1Y2 rack, I measured offset voltage of the common mode servo (D040180-B) with the gain of it varied.
For now, all signal cables that come into or go out of the common mode servo are not plugged.
I will upload the data I took and report the result later.
I report the results of the measurement to know how offset voltage of common mode servo changes when the gain is changed.
- Motivation: If discontinuous change of the offset happens when we change the gain, it could cause saturation somewhere and so make the length control down. So, we want to estimate effect of such discontinuous change.
- Method: In 1 (or In 2) was terminated with 50 ohm, and the output voltage at Out 2 was measured with a multimeter (D040180-B).
- Results are shown below. Acquired data are attached in .zip.
The upper shows input equiv. offset. The lower shows offset measured at Out 2.
As for both In1 and In2, strange behaviors can be seen between -17 dB and -16 dB.
This is because 5 amplifiers (or attenuators) are simultaneously enabled/disabled here. Similar situation occurs every change of 8 dB gain.
I fitted the data obtained with the FSR and linewidth measurements and I've got FSR and finesse of y-arm by fitting.
The fitted data and the fitting results are attached.
FSR = 3.9704 MHz (ave. of two FSRs, 3.9727 MHz and 3.9681 MHz)
finesse = 401 +/- 11
estimated loss = 1812 (+456 / - 431) ppm
I found peaks from the data and fitted each peak by Lorentzian, automatically with Python (the sourse code I used is attached).
3 parameters of Lorentzian for each peak and their fitting errors are attached.
Then, using 3 peaks of carrier resonance, I calculated FSR, finesse, and loss.
The error of finesse came from that of linewidth.
When calculating the loss, I used the value of 1.384 % for transmission of ITMY.
Since the finesse is mostly determined by the transmission of ITM, the relative error of loss estimation is larger (about 25 % ) though the relative error of finesse is about 3 %. Therefor we have to find the reason why each estimated linewidth varies that largely, and measure finesse more accurately.
I'd like to add a few calculation results, mode matching ratio for Y arm and modulation depth.
Here I assumed peaks marked in the bottom figure shown in elog 11738 as resonances of carrier and modulated sidebands and others as resonances of HOM.
- mode matching ratio = 94.92 +/- 0.19 % WRONG
How I calculated: for each peak of carrier, you can find 6 peaks of HOM resonaces. Then I calculated the sum of the hight of 6 peaks divided by the hight of carrier resonance peak, and took average of this values for 3 resonance peaks of carrier.
- modulation depth = 0.390 +/- 0.062 WRONG
How I calculated: I took average of the hight of 6 peaks of modulated sideband resonance, and normalized it with the hight of peaks of carrier resonance. Using the relation 'normalized hight' = (J_1(m)/J_0(m))^2, I got modulation depth, m.
- modulation depth = 0.390 +/- 0.062
There are two modulation frequencies that make it to the arm cavities, at ~11MHz and ~55MHz. Each of these will have their own modulation depth indepedent of each other. Bundling them together into one number doesn't tell us what's really going on.
I'm sorry. I misunderstood two things when writing elog 11741: the number of modulation frequencies, and how to distinguish modulation peaks and HOM peaks.
Now, I report about interpretation of the peaks marked in grey in Attachment #1 in elog 11745.
The peaks marked in grey are interpreted as 3rd and 4th HOM resonance, if we assume that the radius of curvature of ETMY is slightly different from measured value. (measured: 57.6 m --> assumed: 59.3 m)
What I have done:
I plotted the differences in frequency between HOM peaks and 00 mode peaks (see Attachment #1) vs. expected orders of modes. The plot is shown in Attachement #2.
By fitting these data points, I calculated most likely value of gradient of this plot. This value corresponds: g_ITMYg_ETMY=0.3781. However, measured data of the radii of curvature suggests that g_ITMYg_ETMY=0.358. Assuming that this disagreement comes from the difference between measured and real values of ROC of ETMY (ITM is almost flat so that change of ROC of ITM doesn't have significant effect on g_ITMg_ETM), ROC of ETMY should be 59.3 m, different from measured value 57.6 m.
What I'd like to know:
-- Is such disagreement of ROC usual? Could it happen?
-- Are there any other possible explanations for this disagreement (or interpretations of the peaks marked in grey)?
What is the uncertainty of your RoC estimation?
The uncertainty came from the residual of linear fitting and based on my estimation,
ROC_ETMY = 59.3 +/- 0.1 m.
And I attach the updated figure of the fitting (with residual zoomed up).
Data points in the lower are (intentionally) slightly shifted horizontally to make it easy for us to see them.
It is hard, I think, to estimate the error of each data point, but I used 17 kHz for the errors of all data points; 17 kHz is the error of FSR estimation of this measurement, and since FSR is the distance between two carrier peaks we can consider that HOM distances, which are the distance between carrier peaks and HOM peaks, have similar order errors comared with that of FSR.
We made the beam spot on QPD for the oplev of ETMY centered by changing the orientation of the mirror just before the QPD.
Before doing this, we ran dithering for Y arm and froze the output of ASS for Y arm.
In preparation for the measurement of loss maps of arm cavities, I measured the relationship between:
the offset just after the demodulation of dithering loop (C1:ASS-YARM_ETM_PIT_L_DEMOD_I_OFFSET and C1:ASS-YARM_ETM_YAW_L_DEMOD_I_OFFSET)
the angle of ETMY measured with oplev (C1:SUS-ETMY_OL_PIT_INMONC1:SUS-ETMY_OL_PIT_INMON and C1:SUS-ETMY_OL_PIT_INMONC1:SUS-ETMY_OL_PIT_INMON)
while the dithering script is running. With the angle of ETMY, we can calculate the beam spot on the ETMY assuming that the beam spot on the ITMY is not changed thanks to the dithering. What we have to do is to check the calbration of oplev with another way to measure the angle, to see if the results are reliable or not.
I will report the results later.
I got linear relation between these. The results and method are below.
I added offset (C1:ASS-YARM_ETM_PIT_L_DEMOD_I_OFFSET and C1:ASS-YARM_ETM_YAW_L_DEMOD_I_OFFSET) to shift the beam spot on ETMY. For each data point, I measured the difference in angle of ETMY with oplev before and after adding offset. The precedure for each measurement I employed is following:
-- run dither
-- wait until error signals of dithering settle down
-- freeze dither
-- measure angle (10s avg)
-- add offset
The reason why I measured the angle without offset for each measurement is that the angle which oplev shows changed with time (~several tens of minutes or something).
At the maximum values of offsets, the arm transmission power started to degrade, so the range where I can do this measurement is limited by these values as for now. However, we have to shift the beam spot more in order to make loss maps of sufficiently broad area on the mirror (the beam width (w) on ETM; w ~ 5 mm). Then, we have to find out how to shift the beam spot more.
We made the beam spot on QPD for the oplev of ITMY centered by changing the orientation of the mirror just before the QPD.
Before doing this, we ran dithering for Y arm and froze the output of ASS for Y arm.
Based on elog 1403, I calibrated the oplevs for ITMY/ETMY.
Summary of this method is following:
We lock an arm, and slightly misalign one mirror of the arm. Then, the transmission of the arm starts to decrease quadratically as the misalign angle of the mirror changes. Here, how much the transmission decreases in terms of the misalign angle is determined by geometry of optics, so we can see how much the angle really changes from this quadratic curve.
These are the relationship between misalign angles measured by oplev (the units are based on the calibration for now) and transmission power.
(I updated following figures on Nov 19 2015. You can find the figures I attached once here in the zipped folder attached.)
According to this measurement, ratio of the calibration factor derived with this measurement (NEW) and the calibration factor for now (OLD), i.e. NEW/OLD was:
ETMY_PIT: 5.0265 --->> 5.3922 (without an outlier; the outlier I removed is shown in the figure in zipped folder attached.)
This results show that calibration of oplevs for ITMY is kind of OK, but that for ETMY is so BAD and the calibration factors should be updated.
The calibration factors of the oplevs for ETMY/ITMY are NOT UPDATED YET. I updated on Dec 11, 2015
If these results are reliable, I will update them tomorrow.
I'm sorry. I will be careful about that. And I updated the plots in elog 11785.
OMG. Please try to use larger fonts and PDF so that we can read the plots.
Based on elog 1403, I calibrated the oplevs for ITMY/ETMY.
I'm not sure that these calibration measurements are reliable. I would feel better if Steve can confirm them using our low accuracy method of moving the QPD by 1 mm and doing trigonometry.
In this morning, Steve and I looked at the ETMY table and we found that the measurement you suggested might interfere with other optics or detectors because of space constraint. So, before doing this measurement, I roughly estimated the calibration factors for ETMY oplev by using the rough value of the arm length of the optical lever and the beam width of the light just before the QPD.
How I got the arm length and the beam width:
I measured the length of the optical path between ETMY and the QPD. Then I measured the beam width with an iris to screen the beam. To get the beam width from the decrease of the power of the beam detected by QPD, I used this formula: .
Then I got: (arm length) = 1.8 +/-0.2 m, w= 0.56 +/- 0.5 mm.
How I estimated the calibration factors from these:
The calibration factors (such as C1:SUS-ETMY_OL_PIT_CALIB; (real angle) / (normalized output of QPDXorY)) can be calculated with: . Then, I got
though the calibration factors, C1:SUS-ETMY_OL_PIT_CALIB C1:SUS-ETMY_OL_YAW_CALIB, right now are 26.0 and 31.0, respectively. (If I express this in the same way as elog 11785, 5.0 and 4.2 for ETMY_PIT and ETMY_YAW, respectively. they are consistent with yesterday's results.)
I believe that the calibration factors I estimated today are not different from the true values by a factor of 2 or something, so this estimation indicates that the oplev calibration measurements I did yesterday are reliable, at least for the oplev for ETMY.
I made the beam spot on QPD for the oplev of ITMY centered by changing the orientation of the mirror just before the QPD.
Before doing this, I ran dithering for Y arm and froze the output of ASS for Y arm.
I misaligned ITMX. The oplev servo for ITMX is now turned off. You can restore ITMX alignment by running "restore".
I measured round trip loss of Y arm. The alignment of relevant mirrors was set ideal with dithering (no offset).
round trip loss of Y arm: 166.2 +/- 9.3 ppm
(In the error, only statistic error is included.)
How I measured it:
I compared the power of light reflected by Y arm (measured at AS) when the arm was locked (P_L) and when ETMY was misaligned (P_M). P_L and P_M can be described as
The reason why P_L takes this form is: (1-alpha)*4T_ITM/(T_tot)^2 is intracavity power and then product of intracavity power and loss describes the power of light that is not reflected back. Here, alpha is power ratio of light that does not resonate in the arm (power of mismatched mode and modulated sideband), and T_tot is T_ITM+T_loss. Transmissivity of ETM is included in T_loss. I assumed alpha = 7%(mode mismatch) + 2 % (modulation) (elog 11745)
After some calculation we get
Here, higher order terms of T_ITM and (T_loss/T_ITM) are ignored. Then we get
Using this formula, I calculated T_loss. P_L and P_M were measured 100 times (each measurement consisted of 1.5 sec ave.) each and I took average of them. T_ETM =13.7 ppm is used.
-- This value is not so different from the value ericq reported in July (elog 10248).
-- This method of measuring arm loss is NOT sensitive to T_ITM. In contrast, the method in which loss is obtained from finesse (for example, elog 11740) is sensitive to T_ITM.
In the method I'm now reporting,
but in the method with finesse,
In the latter case, if relative error of T_ITM is 10%, error of T_loss would be 1000 ppm.
So it would be better to use power of reflected light when you want to measure arm loss.
We disconnected the cable that was connected to CH5 of the whitening filter in 1Y2, then connected POYDC cable to there (CH5). This channel is where POYDC used to connect.
Then we turned on the whitening filter for POYDC (C1:LSC-POYDC FM1) and changed the gain of analog whitening filter for POYDC from 0 dB to 39 dB (C1:LSC-POYDC_WhiteGain).
I slightly changed the orientation of a few mirrors on AS table that are used to make the AS light get into PDs, in order to confirm that the strange behavior of ASDC (I will report later) is not caused by clipping related to these mirrors or miscentering on PDs.
Then output level of ASDC, AS55, and AS165 could have changed.
So take care of this possible change when you do something related to them. But the relative change of them would be at most several %, I think.
I noticed that ASDC level changes depending on the angle of ITMY when trying to take some data for loss map of YARM. We finally found that ASDC level behaves strangely when the angle of ITMY in yaw direction is varied, as you can see in Attachment 1. Now, AS port recieved only the reflection of ITMY.
NOTE: This behavior indicates that angular motion could couple to length signal in AS port.
Koji suggested that this behavior might be caused by interference at SR2 or SR3 between main path light and the light reflected by the AR surface. By rough estimation, we confirmed that this scenario would be possible. So it would be better to measure AR reflection of the same mirror to ones used for SR2 and SR3 in term of incident angle.
Ed by KA: This senario could be true if the AR reflection of teh G&H mirrors have several % due to large angle of incidence. But then we still need think about the overlap between the ghost beam and the main beam. It's not so trivial.
Due to the strange behavior (elog 11815) of ASDC level, we checked if it is possible to use POYDC instead of ASDC to measure the power of reflected light of YARM. Attached below is the spectrum of them when the arm is locked. This spectrum shows that it is not bad to use POYDC, in terms of noise. The spectrum of them when ETMY is misaligned looked similar.
So I am going to use POYDC instead of ASDC to measure arm loss of YARM.
Ed by KA:
The spectra of POYDC and ASDC were measured. We foudn that they have coherence at around 1Hz (good).
It told us that POYDC is about 1/50 smaller than ASDC. Therefore in the attached plot, POYDC x50 is shown.
That's the meaning of the vertical axis unit "ASDC".
Tonight I measured "loss map" of ETMY. The method to calculate round trip loss is same as written in elog 11810, except that I used POYDC instead of ASDC this time.
How I changed beam spot on ETMY is: elog 11779.
I measured round trip loss for 5 x 5 points. The result is below.
494.9 +/- 7.6 356.8 +/- 6.0 253.9 +/- 7.9 250.3 +/- 8.2 290.6 +/- 5.1
215.7 +/- 4.8 225.6 +/- 5.7 235.1 +/- 7.0 284.4 +/- 5.4 294.7 +/- 4.5
205.2 +/- 6.0 227.9 +/- 5.8 229.4 +/- 7.2 280.5 +/- 6.3 320.9 +/- 4.3
227.9 +/- 5.7 230.5 +/- 5.5 262.1 +/- 5.9 315.3 +/- 4.7 346.8 +/- 4.2
239.7 +/- 4.5 260.7 +/- 5.3 281.2 +/- 5.8 333.7 +/- 5.0 373.8 +/- 4.9
The correspondence between the loss shown above and the beam spot on ETMY is shown in the following figure. In the figure, "downward" and "left" indicate direction of shift of the beam spot when you watch it via the camera (ex. 494.9 ppm corresponds to the lowest and rightest point).
Edited below on 28th Nov.
To shift the beam spot on ETMY, I added offset in YARM dither loop. The offset was [-30,-15,0,15,30]x[-10,-5,0,5,10] for pitch and yaw, respectively. How I calibrated the beam spot is basically based on elog 11779, but I multiplied 5.3922 for vertical direction and 4.6205 for horizontal direction which I had obtained by caliblation of oplev (elog 11785).
Edited above on 28 th Nov.
I will report the detail later.
Here, I upload data I took last night, including the power of reflected power (locked/misaligned) and transmitted power for each point (attachement 1).
And I would like to write about possible reason why the loss I measured with POYDC and the loss I measured with ASDC are different by about 60 - 70 ppm (elog 11810 and 11818). The conclusion I have reached is:
It could be due to the strange bahavior of ASDC level.
This difference corresponds to the error of ~2% in the value of P_L/P_M. As reported in elog 11815, ASDC level changes when angle of the light reflected by ITMY changes, and 2% change of ASDC level corresponds to 10 urad change of the angle of the light according to my rough estimation with the figure shown in elog 11815 and attachment 2. This means that 2% error in P_L/P_M could occur if the angle of the light incident to YARM and that of resonant light in YARM differ by 10 urad. Since the waist width of the beam is ~3 mm, with the 10 urad difference, the ratio of the power of TEM10 mode is , where . This value is reasonable; in elog 11743 Gautam reported that the ratio of the power of TEM10 was ~ 0.03, from the result of cavity scan. Therefore it is possible that the angle of the light incident to YARM and that of resonant light in YARM differ by 10 urad and this difference causes the error of ~2% in P_L/P_M, which could exlain the 60 - 70 ppm difference.
I found that TRY level degraded and the beam shape seen with CCD camera at AS port was splitted when the beam spot on ETMY was not close to the center. This was because dither started not working well. I suspect so because in such a case TRY level went up when I did iteration with TT1 and TT2 after freezing dither. Splitted beam shape indicates that incident light did not match well with the cavity mode.
TRY level for each point was this:
[[ 0.6573 0.8301 0.8983 0.8684 0.6773 ]
[ 0.7555 0.8904 0.9394 0.8521 0.6779 ]
[ 0.6844 0.8438 0.9318 0.8834 0.6593 ]
[ 0.7429 0.8688 0.9254 0.8427 0.6474 ]
[ 0.7034 0.8447 0.8834 0.8147 0.6966 ]]
In the worst case, TRY level was 70 % of the maximum level. Assuming that this degrade was totally due to the mode mismatch, this corresponds to ~50 urad difference between the angle of incident light and resonant lighe in the arm (see elog 11819).
It might have, so I think I need to estimate shift of beam spot more preciely.
According to Steve's drawing, radius of the hole of the baffle is 19.8 mm.
Intensity distribution of fundamental mode in x axis direction is this (y is integrated out):
With the radius of curvature of ETMY of 60 m and the arm length of 37.78 m, the beam width on ETMY is estimated to be 5.14 mm. From this expression of the intensity, , for example. If round trip loss is considered, these values are doubled.
Although maximum shift of beam spot from the ideal spot on ETMY is estimated to be sqrt(6.0^2+(1.7+1.7)^2)=6.9 mm, this value could have error of several tens of % because I am not sure to what exten the calibration is precise, which means that the maximum shift could be ~10 mm and seperation between the baffle and the beam could be ~10 mm.
Therefore, I need to check how much the beam spot shifts with another way, maybe with captured image of the CCD camera.
On VIDEO.adl, Image Capture and Video Capture did not seem to work and gave me some errors, so I fixed following two things:
1. just put one side of a USB cable to Pianosa the other side of which was connected to Sensoray; I don't know why but this was unconnected.
2. slightly fixed /users/sensoray/sdk_2253_1.2.2_linux/imsub/display-image.py as fpllows
L52: pix[j, i] = R, G, B -> pix[j, i] = int(R), int(G), int(B)
It seems to work, at least for some cameras including ETMYF and ITMYF.
With captured images of ETMYF, I measured the shift of the beam spot on ETMY.
The conclusions are:
the baffle would have almost no effect on loss map measurement and
the calibration of beam spot shift is confirmed to be not so bad.
What I did:
I captured ETMYF images in the cases that (i)beam spot is centered on ETMY, beam spot is at the rightest and lowest point of my loss map measurement (corresponding to [0,0] component of the matrix shown in elog 11818), and beam spot is at the leftest and highest point of my loss map measurement ([4,4] component). Each captured image is attached.
Then using ImageJ, I measured the shift of the beam spot. I calibrated lengh in horizontal direction and vertical direction with the diameter of the mirror.
The amount of the beam shift was 7.2 mm and 8.0 mm for each case.
These values indicate that clapping loss due to the baffle is less than 10 ppm in a round trip.
Today's results support the previous calibration with oplev, which says the amount of the beam shift is 7.0 mm. Two values derived by different calibrations coincide within ~10 % though they are totally different methods. This also support the calibration of the oplev for ETMY (elog 11785) indirectly.
With the same method as reported in elog 11785, I calibrated oplevs for ITMX/ETMX.
According to this measurement, ratio of the calibration factor derived with this measurement (NEW) and the calibration factor for now (OLD), i.e. NEW/OLD was:
The calibration factors of the oplevs for ETMY/ITMY are NOT UPDATED YET. I updated on Dec 11, 2015
I disconnected the cable that was connected to CH6 of the whitening filter in 1Y2, then connected POXDC cable to there (CH6). This channel is where POXDC used to connect.
Then I turned on the whitening filter for POXDC and POYDC (C1:LSC-POXDC FM1, C1:LSC-POYDC FM1) and changed the gain of analog whitening filter for POXDC and POYDC from 0 dB to 45 dB and from 0 dB to 39 dB, respectively (C1:LSC-POXDC_WhiteGain, C1:LSC-POYDC_WhiteGain).
I checked how POXDC level changes when the angle of ITMX is varied. ETMX was misaligned.
Then I found that in YAW direction the POXDC level is maximized but it doesnt have plateau, and in PIT direction it is not maximized so that it is at the slope and it doesnt have plateau, as shown in attached figures. These results indicate that the beam size on POX11 is not small enough compared to the size of the diode and it is not centered well.
I updated the figures. I think it's easier to read now.
To avoid the strange kicking of ETMX, I locked XARM with ITMX actuated instead of ETMX so that I changed elements of C1LSC_OUTPUT_MTRX; before: XARM=ETMX, after: XARM=ITMX.
And I change C1:LSC-XARM_GAIN from 0.007 to 0.022.
With this setup, I ran dither but then error signals of dithering oscillated as shown in the figure below.
Then I found that if C1:ASS-XARM_ETM_PIT_L_DEMOD_SIG_GAIN / C1:ASS-XARM_ETM_YAW_L_DEMOD_SIG_GAIN in C1ASS_LOCKINS_XARM.adl are changed as 0.200 -> 0.100 and 0.200 -> 0.100, respectively, the dithering works well.
But the burt file that is loaded when you let dithering "ON" is not changed, because now I don't know how to update a burt file. So, if you let dithering "ON", the dithering will run with the condition that C1:ASS-XARM_ETM_PIT_L_DEMOD_SIG_GAIN / C1:ASS-XARM_ETM_YAW_L_DEMOD_SIG_GAIN are not 0.100 but 0.200.
As I did for YARM (elog 11779), I measured the relation between offsets added just after the demodulation of the dithering loop of XARM and beam spot shift on ETMX. Defferent from YARM, the beam spot on ITMX DOES change because only BS is used as a steering mirror (TT1&2 are used for the dithering of YARM). Instead, the beam spot on BS DOES NOT change.
This time, I measured by oplevs the angles of both ETMX and ITMX for each value of offset, and using these angles I calculated the shift of the beam spot on ETMX so that I got two independent estimations (one from ETMX oplev, and the other from ITMX oplev) as shown below. The calibration of the oplevs reported in elog 11831 is taken into account.
The difference of two estimations comes from the error of calibration of oplevs and/or imperfect alignment, I think.
To focus POX beam on POX11 PD, I added an iris and a lens before POX11 PD as you can see in Attachment 1.
It seemed that the beam is well focused, but the behavior of POXDC has not changed, as shown in Attachments 2 & 3.
Now, the beam on POX11 PD is well centered and well focused.
We found out why POXDC had behaved as reported in elog 11839. There were a few reasons: the beam was not focused enough, hight of a mirror was not matched to the beam well, path of the light reflected by misaligned SRM was occasionally close to the path of POX beam.
Then, What we did is following:
- changed orientation of SRM slightly
- changed the hight of the mirror whose hight had not matched well, by changing the pedestal (hight of which mirror was changed is shown in Attachment 1.)
- put a lens with f=250 mm (where the lens is located is shown in Attachment 1.)
- refined alignment for the POX beam to hit on the center of POX11 PD.
As a result, POX DC level behaved as shown in Attachment 2&3 when the orientation of ITMX was varied (Attachment 2: POX DC vs ITMX PIT, Attachment 3: POX DC vs ITMX YAW).
You can see broad plateau when varied in both PIT and YAW directions, and the beam is at the center of the plateau if ITMX is aligned ideally.
Today image capture did not work again, though it had worked 3 days before. I also found that red indicator light on the front pannel of SENSORAY was not turned on, which had been turned on 3 days before (you can find SENSORAY on the floor near Pianosa). Possible reason that it did not work again was I restarted Pianosa last night. Anyway, it works now. Here I report what I did to make it work.
I ran thes commands in shell, following the instruction of the manual of SENSORAY 2253 (Page 5; link or you can find the manual in /users/sensoray; I put it there).
> cd /users/sensoray/sdk_2253_1.2.2_linux
> make all
> sudo make install
> modprobe s2253
Then the red light got turned on, and image capture worked.
If you recieve an error like "No such file or directory: /dev/video0" at the beginning of the error message when you run image capture scripts from the medm screen, or if you notice that the red indicator light of SENSORAY is not on, this procedure could help you.
I don't know if just running "modprobe" will work or not, because I didn't try it... When the same problem happens again, we can try just running "modprobe" first.
I added 1 line to one of the ASS scripts, UNFREEZE_DITHER.py like this:
L29> ez.cawrite('C1:ASS-'+dof+'_GAIN', 0)
The reason why I added this is: without this line, C1:ASS-'+dof+'_GAIN become larger that 1.0, which is nomial value, if you UNFREEZE DITHER when the dither is already running or C1:ASS-'+dof+'_GAIN is not 0.0.
On the day before yesterday and in this morning, I measured loss map of ETMX. I reported the method I used to change the beam spot on ETMX below.
Round trip loss was measured for 5 x 5 points. The result is below.
455.4 +/- 21.1 437.1 +/- 21.8 482.3 +/- 21.8 461.6 +/- 22.5 507.9 +/- 20.1
448.4 +/- 20.7 457.3 +/- 21.2 495.6 +/- 20.2 483.1 +/- 20.8 472.2 +/- 19.8
436.9 +/- 19.3 444.6 +/- 19.7 483.0 +/- 19.5 474.9 +/- 20.9 498.3 +/- 18.7
454.4 +/- 18.7 474.4 +/- 20.6 487.7 +/- 21.4 482.6 +/- 20.7 487.0 +/- 19.9
443.7 +/- 18.6 469.9 +/- 20.2 482.8 +/- 18.7 480.9 +/- 19.5 486.1 +/- 19.2
The correspondence between the loss shown above and the beam spot on ETMX is shown in the attached figure. In the figure, "up" and "right" indicate direction of shift of the beam spot when you watch it via the camera (ex. 455.4 ppm corresponds to the highest and rightest point in the view via the camera).
This result is consistent withe previous result of 561.19 +/- 14.57 ppm ericq got with ASDC and reported in elog 10248 if the discussion I reported in 11819 is taken into account. Elog 11819 says in short that the strange behavior of ASDC could give us 60-70 ppm error.
The reason why the error is larger than that of the measurement for ETMY is that the noise of POX is larger than that of POY. But I am not sure to what extent the statistical error needs to be reduced.
How I shifted the beam spot on ETMX:
Basically, the method was same as one used for Y arm. Different point is: for Y arm we have two steering mirrors TT1&2, but for X arm we have only one steering mirror BS. Then in order to shift incident beam so that the beam spot on ITMX does not change, I ran the dithering of X arm as well as that of Y arm and added offsets to both dither loops that caused same amount of shift on ETMX and ETMX. Thanks to the symmetry between X arm and Y arm, the dithering of Y arm ensured that the beam spot on ITMX was unchanged as well as that of ITMY. The idea of this method is schematically shown in Attachment 2.
The calibration of how much the beam spot shifted is based on the results of elog 11846 . The offset was [-15,-7.5,0,7.5,15]x[-5,-2.5,0,2.5,5] for pitch and yaw, respectively.
I changed the snapshot file for ASS, /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/ASS_DITHER_ON.snap as follows:
L124 > C1:ASS-XARM_ETM_PIT_GAIN 1 -5.000000000000000e-02
=> C1:ASS-XARM_ETM_PIT_GAIN 1 -1.500000000000000e-02
L128> C1:ASS-XARM_ETM_YAW_GAIN 1 5.000000000000000e-02
=> C1:ASS-XARM_ETM_YAW_GAIN 1 1.500000000000000e-02
The purpose of this change is to avoid the oscillation when the dithering of X arm is running.
Here I explain usage of my scripts for loss map measurement. There are 7 script files in a same directory /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/lossmap_scripts. With these scripts, round trip loss of an arm cavity with the beam spot on one mirror shifted to 5x5 (option: 3x3) points is measured. You can choose on which cavity you measure, the beam spot on which mirror you shift, and maximum shift of the beam spot in vertical and horizontal direction.
To start measurement from the beginning
Run the following command in an arbitrary directory and you will get several text files including the result of loss map measurement:
> python /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/lossmap_scripts/lossmap.py [maximum shift in mm (PIT)] [maximum shift in mm (YAW)] [arm name (XorY)] [mirror name (E or I)]
Optionally, you can add "AUTO" at the end of the above command. Without "AUTO", you will be asked if the dithering has already settled down or not after each shift of the beam spot and you can let the scripts wait until the dithering settles down sufficiently. If you add "AUTO", it will be judged if the dithering has settled down or not according to some criteria, and the measurement will continue without your response to the terminal.
The files to be created in the current directory by the scripts are:
- lossmapETMX1-1.txt # [POX power (locked)] / [POX power (misaligned)]
- lossmapETMX1-2.txt # standard deviation of [POX power (locked)] / [POX power (misaligned)]
- lossmapETMX1-3.txt # TRX
- lossmapETMX1-1_converted.txt # round trip loss (ppm) calculated from lossmapETMX1-1.txt
- lossmapETMX1-1_converted_sigma.txt # standard deviation of round trip loss calculated from 1-1.txt and 1-2.txt
- lossmapETMX_result.txt # round trip loss and its error in a clear form.
The name of the files would be "lossmapITMY1-1.txt" etc. depending on which mirror you have chosen.
To restart measurement from a certain point
Run the following command in a directory containing "lossmap(mirror name)1-1.txt", "lossmap(mirror name)1-2.txt" and "lossmap(mirrorname)1-3.txt" which are created by previous not-completed measurement:
> python /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/lossmap_scripts/lossmap.py [maximum shift in mm (PIT)] [maximum shift in mm (YAW)] [arm name (XorY)] [mirror name (E or I)] [restart point (PIT)] [restart point (YAW)]
You can also add "AUTO".
How to designate the restart point:
Matrix elements of output of this measurement procedure are characterized by a pair of two numbers as the following shows.
(-1,-1) -> (-1,-0.5) -> (-1,0) -> (-1,0.5) -> (-1,1)
(-0.5,1) <- (-0.5,0.5) <- (-0.5,0) <- (-0.5,-0.5) <- (0.5,-1)
(0,-1) -> (0,-0.5) -> (0,0) -> (0,0.5) -> (0,1)
(0.5,1) <- (0.5,0.5) <- (0.5,0) <- (0.5,-0.5) <- (0.5,-1)
(1,-1) -> (1,-0.5) -> (1,0) -> (1,0.5) -> (1,1)
Please write the numbers that correspond to the matrix element you want to restart at. Arrows show the order of sequence of measurement. About the correspondence between the matrix elements and real position on the ETMY and ETMX, see elog 11818 and 11857, respectively.
This script will overwrite the files (~1-1.txt etc.) so it is safer to make backup of the files before you run this script.
Some notes on the scripts and measurement
- Calibration has been done only for ETMs, i.e. for ITMs unit of [maximum shift] is not mm, but the values written in [maximum shift] equal to the maximum offsets added just after demodulation of ASS loop (ex. C1:ASS-YARM_ITM_PIT_L_DEMOD_I_OFFSET).
- It should be checked before doing measurement if the following parameters are correct or not.
POXzero (L47 in lossmapx.py and L52 in lossmapx_resume.py: the value of C1:LSC-POXDC_OUTPUT when no light injects into POXPD.)
POYzero (L45 in lossmapy.py and L50 in lossmapy_resume.py: the value of C1:LSC-POYDC_OUTPUT when no light injects into POYPD.)
mmr (L11 in lossmap_convert.py: (mode matching carrier power)/(total power))
Tf (L12 in lossmap_convert.py; transmittivity of ITM)
Tetm (L13 in lossmap_convert.py: transmittivity of ETM in ppm)
- Changing n (L50 in lossmap.py) from 5 to 3, the grid points will be 3x3 changed from the default value of 5x5. If 3x3, the matrix elements are characterized by
(-1,-1) -> (-1,0) -> (-1,1)
(0,1) <- (0,0) <- (0,-1)
(1,-1) -> (1,0) -> (1,1)
similarly to the case of 5x5.
- You can copy the directory lossmap_scripts anywhere in controls and use it. These scripts will work as long as all the 7 scripts exist in a same directory.
I estimated power recycling gain with the results of arm loss measurement.
From elog 11818 and 11857, round trip losses including transmittivity of ETM of Y arm and X arm (let us call them and ) are 229+13.7=243 ppm and 483+13.7=495 ppm, respectively.
How I calculated:
I used the following formula.
Amplitude reflectivity of an arm cavity :
(see elog 11816)
Amplitude reflectivity of FPMI :
With power transmittivity of PRM and amplitude reflectivity of PRM , power recycling gain is
I assumed , , and , and then I got
PRG = 9.8.
Since both round trip losses have relative error of ~ 4 % and PRG is proportional to inverse square of up to the leading order of it, relative error of PRG can be estimated as ~ 8 %, so PRG = 9.8 +/- 0.8.
According to elog 11691, which says TRX and TRY level was ~125 when DRFPMI was locked, power recycling gain was at the last DRFPMI lock.
Measured PRG is lower than PRG estimated here, but it is natural because various causes such as mode mismatch between PRC mode and arm cavity mode, imperfect contrast of FPMI, and so on could decrease PRG, which Eric suggested to me.
Added on Dec 9
If were as small as , PRG would be 16.0. PRC would be still under coupled.
I did additional tests for the strange behavior of ASCD. ETMY, ETMX and ITMY were misaligned so that only light reflected by ITMX went into AS port. I had done similar measurement before with ITMY YAW varied.
Attachment 1 shows how ASDC level changed when ITMX PIT varied.
Attachment 2 shows how ASDC level changed when ITMX YAW varied.
Attachment 3 shows how the power of light measured by a power meter just after the AS view port varied when ITMX YAW varied.
Comparing 1 & 2, we can say that this behavior is not unique to YAW direction.
From 2 & 3, we can say something strange is happening inside the chamber.
To check if the strange behavior of ASDC is caused by SR2/SR3 or not, I did the following measurement:
ASDC measures the power of the light reflected by ITMX. POXDC measures the power of the light reflected by ITMX and SRM successively. Then I varied the angle of ITMX in YAW direction and compared the behaviors of ASDC and POXDC.
The results are shown in Attachments 1-3.
As you can see in these figures, the strange up-and-down behavior appeared ONLY in ASDC. Therefore, the cause of this behavior exists between AS table and SRM (I had confirmed that the angle of SRM did not affect ASDC).
And this behavior is fringe-like, as can be seen in the figures (there seems to be 3 "peaks" and 2 "valleys"), so the cause could be interference between main path and not good AR reflection at a mirror after SRM before AS table (I suspect a mirror is flipped mistakenly).
I took PR3 AR reflectivity and calculated PRG (PR3 is flipped and so AR surface is inside PRC).
As shown in attached figure, which shows AR specification of the LaserOptik mirror (PR3 is this mirror), AR reflectivity of PR3 is ~0.5 %. Since resonant light in PRC goes through AR surface of PR3 4 times per round trip, round trip loss due to this is ~2 %. Then I got
PRG = 7.8.
Attached is the plot of relation between the average arm round trip loss and power recycling gain. 2 % loss due to PR3 AR reflection is taken into account.
Based on calibration measurement I have done (elog 11785, 11831), I updated calibration factors of oplevs on medm screen as follows. Not to change loop gain oplev servo, I also changed oplev servo gain.
(45.1,16) => (200,3.5)
(85.6,8) => (222,3.0)
(26,-16) => (140,-3.0)
(31,-21) => (143,-4.5)
(110,8) => (122,7.2)
(81,-11) => (147,-6)
(159,15) => (239,10)
(174,-21) => (226,-16)