40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 101 of 344  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Categoryup Subject
  2523   Mon Jan 18 23:44:19 2010 kiwamuUpdateElectronicstriple resonant circuit for EOM

The first design of the triple resonant EOM circuit has been done.

If only EOM has a loss of 4 Ohm, the gain of the circuit is expected to be 11 at 55MHz

So far I've worked on investigation of the single resonant circuit and accumulated the knowledge about resonant circuits.

Then I started the next step, designing the triple resonant circuit.

Here I report the first design of the circuit and the expected gain.

 


( What I did )

At first in order to determine the parameters, such as inductors and capacitors, I have solved some equations with numerical ways (see the past entry).

In the calculation I put 6 boundary conditions as followers;

(first peak=11MHz, second peak=29.5MHz, third peak=55MHz, first valley=22MHz, second valley=33MHz, Cp=18pF)

The valley frequencies of 22MHz and 33MHz are chosen in order to eliminate the higher harmonics of 11MHz, and Cp of 18pF represents the capacitance of the EOM.

Basically the number of parameters to be determined is 6 ( L1, L2, ...,), therefore it is completely solved under 6 boundary conditions. And in this case, only one solution exists.

The point is calculation does not include losses because the loss does not change the resonant frequency.

 

whole_circuit.png

( results )

As a result I obtained the 6 parameters for each components shown in the table below.

Cp [pF] 18.1
C1 [pF]  45.5
C2 [pF] 10.0
Lp [uH] 2.33
L1 [uH] 1.15
L2 [uH] 2.33

Then I inserted the loss into the EOM to see how the impedance looks like. The loss is 4 Ohm and inserted in series to the EOM. This number is based on the past measurement .

Let us recall that the gain of the impedance-matched circuit with a transformer is proportional to square-root of the peak impedance.

It is represented by G = sqrt(Zres/50) where Zres is the impedance at the resonance.

 As you can see in the figure, Zres = 6.4 kOhm at 55MHz, therefore the gain will be G=11 at 55MHz.

Essentially this gain is the same as that of the single resonant circuit that I've been worked with, because its performance was also limited mainly by the EOM loss.

 An interesting thing is that all three peaks are exactly on the EOM limited line (black dash line), which is represented by Zres = L/CR = 1/ (2pi f Cp)^2 R. Where R = 4 Ohm.

 designed_circuit.png

( next plan )

There are other solutions to create the same peaks and valleys because of the similar solution.

 It is easy to understand if you put Cp' = Cp x N, the solutions must be scaled like L1'=L1/N, C1'=C1 x N, ...,  Finally such scaling gives the same resonant frequencies.

So the next plan is to study the effect of losses in each components while changing the similar solution.

After the study of the loss I will select an optimum similar solution.

  2524   Tue Jan 19 00:10:44 2010 ranaUpdateElectronicstriple resonant circuit for EOM

Very cool.         

  2525   Tue Jan 19 02:39:57 2010 kiwamuUpdateElectronicsdesign complete --- triple resonant circuit for EOM ---

The design of the triple resonant circuit has been fixed.

I found the optimum configuration, whose gain is still 11 at 55MHz even if there are realistic losses.

As I mentioned in the last entry, there are infinite number of the similar solutions to create the same resonant frequencies.

However owing to the effect of the losses, the resultant gain varies if the similar solution changes

The aim of this study is to select the optimum solution which has a maximum gain ( = the highest impedance at the resonance ).

In order to handle the losses in the calculation, I modeled the loss for both inductors and the capacitors.

Then I put them into the circuit, and calculated the impedance while changing the solutions.

 


 

(method)

1). put the scaling parameter as k in order to create the similar solution.

2). scale the all electrical parameters (L1, L2,...) by using k, so that C1'=C1 x k, L1'=L1/k ,...

3). Insert the losses into all the electrical components

4). Draw the impedance curve in frequency domain.

5). See how the height of the impedance at the resonance change

6). Repeat many time this procedure with another k.

7). Find and select the optimum k

scaling.png

There is a trick in the calculation.

I put a capacitor named Cpp in parallel to the EOM in order to scale the capacitance of the EOM (see the schematic).

For example if we choose k=2, this means all the capacitor has to be 2-times larger.

For the EOM, we have to put Cpp with the same capacitance as Cp (EOM). As a result these two capacitors can be dealt together as 2 x Cp.

So that Cpp should be Cpp = (k-1) Cp, and Cpp vanishes when we choose k=1.

 

The important point is that the scaling parameter k must be greater than unity, that is k > 1.

This restriction directly comes from Cp, the capacitance of the EOM, because we can not go to less than Cp.

If you want to put k < 1, it means you have to reduce the capacitance of the EOM somehow (like cutting the EO crystal ??)

 

(loss model)

I've modeled the loss for both the inductors and the capacitors in order to calculate the realistic impedance.

The model is based on the past measurements I've performed and the data sheet.

   Loss for Capacitor :  R(C) = 0.5 (C / 10pF)^{-0.3} Ohm

   Loss for Inductor :    R(L) = 0.1 ( L / 1uH) Ohm

Of course this seems to be dirty and rough treatment.

But I think it's enough to express the tendency that the loss  increase / decrease monotonically as  L / C get increased.

These losses are inserted in series to every electrical components.

( Note that: this model depends on both the company and the product model. Here I assume use of Coilcraft inductors and mica capacitors scattered around 40m )

 

( results )

The optimum configuration is found when k=1, there is no scaling. This is the same configuration listed in last entry

Therefore we don't need to insert the parallel capacitor Cpp in order to achieve the optimum gain.

The figure below shows the some examples of the calculated impedance. You can see the peak height decrease by increasing the scale factor k.

realistic.png

The black dash line represents the EOM-loss limit, which only contains the loss of the EOM.

The impedance at the resonance of 55MHz is 6.2 kOhm, which decreased by 3% from the EOM-loss limit. This corresponds to gain of G = 11.

The other two peaks, 11MHz and 29.5MHz dramatically get decreased from EOM-loss limit.

I guess this is because the structure below 50MHz is mainly composed by L1, L2, C1, C2.

In fact these components have big inductance and small capacitance, so that it makes lossy.

 

( next step )

The next step is to choose the appropriate transformer and to solder the circuit.

  2526   Tue Jan 19 02:40:38 2010 KojiUpdateElectronicstriple resonant circuit for EOM

The design looks very good. I have some questions.

1. As far as I remember, you've got the gain of slightly worse than 10 for a 55MHz single resonant case. Why your expectation of the gain (G=11) for the highest resonance better than this?

Supposing the loss exists only on the EOM, the other part of the LC network for the triple work as an inductor at the resonant frequency. This is just equivalent as the single resonant case. So the expected gain at 55MHz should coincides with what we already have. Probably, the resistance of 4 Ohm that is used here had too rough precision???

2. How can you adjust the resonances precisely?

Do we need any variable components for Cs and Ls, that may have worse quality than the fixed one, generally speaking.
I myself has no experience that I had to tune the commercial EOM because of a drift or whatever. I hope if you can adjust the resonance with a fixed component it should be fine.

3. Changing Cp. What does it mean?

Do you put additional cap for Cp?

4. The resonances for the lower two look very narrow. Is that fine?

This will show up in a better shape if we look at the transfer function for the gain. Is this right?

If we have BW>100kHz, it is sufficient.

5. Impedance matching for the lower two resonances.

Yep. You know this problem already.

 

  2527   Tue Jan 19 03:04:14 2010 KojiUpdateElectronicstriple resonant circuit for EOM

Self-follow:

I got the answer of Q3 from the follow-up entry.

For Q4, once you get the impedance of the LC network lower than n^2*50, the EOM gain will be quite low. This means that the resonance is anyway narrow.
I did some simple calculation and it shows that the width of the resonance will be 100kHz~500kHz. So it maybe OK.

Quote:

The design looks very good. I have some questions.

1. As far as I remember, you've got the gain of slightly worse than 10 for a 55MHz single resonant case. Why your expectation of the gain (G=11) for the highest resonance better than this?

Supposing the loss exists only on the EOM, the other part of the LC network for the triple work as an inductor at the resonant frequency. This is just equivalent as the single resonant case. So the expected gain at 55MHz should coincides with what we already have. Probably, the resistance of 4 Ohm that is used here had too rough precision???

2. How can you adjust the resonances precisely?

Do we need any variable components for Cs and Ls, that may have worse quality than the fixed one, generally speaking.
I myself has no experience that I had to tune the commercial EOM because of a drift or whatever. I hope if you can adjust the resonance with a fixed component it should be fine.

3. Changing Cp. What does it mean?

Do you put additional cap for Cp?

4. The resonances for the lower two look very narrow. Is that fine?

This will show up in a better shape if we look at the transfer function for the gain. Is this right?

If we have BW>100kHz, it is sufficient.

5. Impedance matching for the lower two resonances.

Yep. You know this problem already. 

 

  2528   Tue Jan 19 03:20:28 2010 KojiUpdateElectronicsdesign complete --- triple resonant circuit for EOM ---

First I was confused, but now I think I understood.

My confusion:
If the k get bigger, L get smaller, C get bigger. This makes R(L) smaller and R(C) smaller. This sounds very nice. But why smaller k is preferable in the Kiwamu's result?

Explanation:
The resultant impedance of the network at a resonance is determined by Zres = L/(R C) or something like that. Here R = R(L)+R(C). (I hope this is right.)

Here larger Zres is preferable. So smaller R is nice.

But If the speed of reduction for R is slower than that of L/C (which is proportional to k^-2), increasing k does not help us to increase of Zres. And that's the case.

This means "if we can put the LC network in the box of EOM, we can do better job!" as we can reduce Cp.

Quote:

scaling.png


   Loss for Capacitor :  R(C) = 0.5 (C / 10pF)^{-0.3} Ohm

   Loss for Inductor :    R(L) = 0.1 ( L / 1uH) Ohm

  2529   Tue Jan 19 03:27:47 2010 kiwamuUpdateElectronicsRe: triple resonant circuit for EOM

1. You are right, the gain for the single resonant circuit was about 9.3 in my measurement.

But the reason why the triple is better than the single resonant circuit comes from the transformer.

The impedance can be degraded by a loss of the transformer, because it got worse after applying the transformer in the past measurement.

Also I definitely confirmed that the circuit had the impedance of 7.2 kOhm at the resonance of 52.9MHz without the transformer.

So it shall give the gain of 12, but did not after applying the transformer.

 

2.  Yes, I think we need some variable components just in case.

 

5.  For the impedance matching, I will select a transformer so that 55MHz is matched. In contrast I will leave two lower resonances as they are.

This is because 11MHz and 29.5MHz usually tend to have higher impedance than 55MHz. In this case, even if the impedance is mismatched, the gain for these can be kept higher than 11.

I will post the detail for this mismatched case tomorrow.

 

Quote:

The design looks very good. I have some questions.

1. As far as I remember, you've got the gain of slightly worse than 10 for a 55MHz single resonant case. Why your expectation of the gain (G=11) for the highest resonance better than this?

Supposing the loss exists only on the EOM, the other part of the LC network for the triple work as an inductor at the resonant frequency. This is just equivalent as the single resonant case. So the expected gain at 55MHz should coincides with what we already have. Probably, the resistance of 4 Ohm that is used here had too rough precision???

2. How can you adjust the resonances precisely?

Do we need any variable components for Cs and Ls, that may have worse quality than the fixed one, generally speaking.
I myself has no experience that I had to tune the commercial EOM because of a drift or whatever. I hope if you can adjust the resonance with a fixed component it should be fine.

3. Changing Cp. What does it mean?

Do you put additional cap for Cp?

4. The resonances for the lower two look very narrow. Is that fine?

This will show up in a better shape if we look at the transfer function for the gain. Is this right?

If we have BW>100kHz, it is sufficient.

5. Impedance matching for the lower two resonances.

Yep. You know this problem already.

 

 

  2533   Tue Jan 19 23:26:07 2010 kiwamuUpdateElectronicsRe:Re: triple resonant circuit for EOM

Quote:

5.  For the impedance matching, I will select a transformer so that 55MHz is matched. In contrast I will leave two lower resonances as they are.

This is because 11MHz and 29.5MHz usually tend to have higher impedance than 55MHz. In this case, even if the impedance is mismatched, the gain for these can be kept higher than 11.

I will post the detail for this mismatched case tomorrow.

 

Here the technique of the impedance matching for the triple resonant circuit are explained.

In our case, the transformer should be chosen so that the impedance of the resonance at 55MHz is matched.

We are going to use the transformer to step up the voltage applied onto the EOM.

To obtain the maximum step-up-gain, it is better to think about the behavior of the transformer.

When using the transformer there are two different cases practically. And each case requires different optimization technique. This is the key point.

By considering these two cases, we can finally select the most appropriate transformer and obtain the maximum gain.

 

 


( how to maximize the gain ?)

Let us consider about the transformer. The gain of the circuit by using the transformer is represented by

eq1.png         (1)

Where ZL is the impedance of the load (i.e. impedance of the circuit without the transformer ) and n is the turn ratio.

It is apparent that G is the function of two parameters, ZL and n.  This leads to two different solutions for maximizing the gain practically. 

 

matching_edit.png

 

  - case.1 : The turn ratio n is fixed.

In this case, the tunable parameter is the impedance ZL.  The gain as a function of ZL is shown in the left figure above.

In order to maximize the gain, Z must be as high as possible.  The gain G get close to 2n when the impedance ZL goes to infinity.

There also is another important thing; If the impedance ZL is bigger than the matched impedance (i.e. ZL = 50 * n^2 ), the gain can get higher than n.

 

  - case.2 : The impedance ZL is fixed.

In contrast to case1, once the impedance ZL is fixed, the tunable parameter is n. The gain as a function of n is shown in the right figure above.

In this case the impedance matched condition is the best solution, where ZL=50*n^2. ( indicated as red arrow in the figure )

The gain can not go higher than n somehow. This is clearly different from case1.
 

 

( Application to the triple resonant circuit )

Here we can define the goal as "all three resonances have gain of more than n, while n is set to be as high as possible"

According to consideration of case1, if each resonance has an impedance of greater than 50*n^2 (matched condition) it looks fine, but not enough in fact.

For example if we choose n=2, it corresponds to the matched impedance of 50*n^2 = 200 Ohm. Typically every three resonance has several kOhm which is clearly bigger than the matched impedance successfully.

However no matter how big impedance we try to make,  the gains can not be greater than G=2n=4 for all the three resonance. This is ridiculous.

What we have to do is to choose n so that it matches the impedance of the resonance which has the smallest impedance.

In our case, usually the resonance at 55MHz tends to have the smallest impedance in those three. According to this if we choose n correctly, the other two is mismatched.

However they can still have the gain of more than n, because their impedance is bigger than the matching impedance. This can be easily understand by recalling the case1.

 

(expected optimum gain of designed circuit)

 By using the equation (1), the expected gain of the triple resonant circuit including the losses is calculated. The parameters can be found in last entry.

designed_response.png

The turn ratio is set as n=11, which matches the impedance of the resonance at 55MHz. Therefore 55MHz has the gain of 11.

The gain at 11MHz is bigger than n=11, this corresponds to the case1. Thus the impedance at 11MHz can go close to gain of 22, if we can make the impedance much big.

 

  2586   Wed Feb 10 17:28:02 2010 kiwamuUpdateElectronicstriple resonant EOM ---- preliminary result

I have made a prototype circuit of the triple resonant EOM.

The attached is the measured optical response of the system.

The measured gains at the resonances are 8.6, 0.6 and 7.7 for 11MHz, 29.5MHz and 55MHz respectively.

I successfully got nice peaks at 11MHz and 55MHz. In addition resultant optical response is well matched with the predicted curve from the measured impedance.

However there is a difference from calculated response (see past entry) (i.e. more gains were expected)

Especially for the resonance of 29.5MHz, it was calculated to have gain of 10, however it's now 0.6. Therefore there must a big loss electrically around 29.5MHz.

I am going to re-analyze the impedance and model the performance in order to see what is going on.

  2587   Wed Feb 10 23:15:37 2010 KojiUpdateElectronicstriple resonant EOM ---- preliminary result

Hey, this looks nice, but can you provide us the comparison of rad/V with the resonant EOM of New Focus?

Quote:

I have made a prototype circuit of the triple resonant EOM.

The attached is the measured optical response of the system.

The measured gains at the resonances are 8.6, 0.6 and 7.7 for 11MHz, 29.5MHz and 55MHz respectively.

I successfully got nice peaks at 11MHz and 55MHz. In addition resultant optical response is well matched with the predicted curve from the measured impedance.

However there is a difference from calculated response (see past entry) (i.e. more gains were expected)

Especially for the resonance of 29.5MHz, it was calculated to have gain of 10, however it's now 0.6. Therefore there must a big loss electrically around 29.5MHz.

I am going to re-analyze the impedance and model the performance in order to see what is going on.

 

  2590   Thu Feb 11 16:52:53 2010 kiwamuUpdateElectronicstriple resonant EOM ---- preliminary result

The commercial resonant EOM of New Focus has the modulation efficiency of 50-150mrad/Vrms. ( This number is only true for those EOM made from KTP such as model4063 and model4463 )

Our triple-resonant EOM (made from KTP as well) has a 90mrad/Vrms and 80mrad/Vrms at the reosonances of 11MHz and 55MHz respectively.

Therefore our EOM is as good as those of company-made so that we can establish a new EOM company

Quote:

Hey, this looks nice, but can you provide us the comparison of rad/V with the resonant EOM of New Focus?

Quote:

I have made a prototype circuit of the triple resonant EOM.

The attached is the measured optical response of the system.

The measured gains at the resonances are 8.6, 0.6 and 7.7 for 11MHz, 29.5MHz and 55MHz respectively.

I successfully got nice peaks at 11MHz and 55MHz. In addition resultant optical response is well matched with the predicted curve from the measured impedance.

However there is a difference from calculated response (see past entry) (i.e. more gains were expected)

Especially for the resonance of 29.5MHz, it was calculated to have gain of 10, however it's now 0.6. Therefore there must a big loss electrically around 29.5MHz.

I am going to re-analyze the impedance and model the performance in order to see what is going on.

 

 

  2596   Fri Feb 12 13:15:41 2010 kiwamuUpdateElectronicstriple resonant EOM --- liniaryity test

I have measured the linearity of our triple resonant EOM (i.e. modulation depth versus applied voltage)

The attached figure is the measured modulation depth as a function of the applied voltage.

The linear behavior is shown below 4Vrms, this is good.

Then it is  slowly saturated as the applied voltage goes up above 4Vrms.

However for the resonance of 29.5MHz, it is difficult to measure below 7Vrms because of the small modulation depth.

Our triple resonant EOM looks healthy

 - - - - result from fitting - - -

11MHz: 91mrad/Vrms+2.0mrad

29.5MHz: 4.6mrad/Vrms+6.2mrad

55MHz:82mrad/Vrms+1.0mrad

  2602   Sat Feb 13 13:21:53 2010 KojiUpdateElectronicstriple resonant EOM --- liniaryity test

Looks good. I just thought of the idea that we also can use Alberto's PLL setup to sense the modulation with more sensitivity.  ;-)

Quote:

I have measured the linearity of our triple resonant EOM (i.e. modulation depth versus applied voltage)

The attached figure is the measured modulation depth as a function of the applied voltage.

The linear behavior is shown below 4Vrms, this is good.

Then it is  slowly saturated as the applied voltage goes up above 4Vrms.

However for the resonance of 29.5MHz, it is difficult to measure below 7Vrms because of the small modulation depth.

Our triple resonant EOM looks healthy

 - - - - result from fitting - - -

11MHz: 910mrad/Vrms+20mrad

29.5MHz: 46mrad/Vrms+6.2mrad

55MHz:820mrad/Vrms+10mrad

 

  2682   Thu Mar 18 15:33:17 2010 kiwamuSummaryElectronicsadvantege of our triple resonant EOM

In this LVC meeting I discussed about triple resonant EOMs with Volker who was a main person of development of triple resonant EOMs at University of Florida.

Actually his EOM had been already installed at the sites. But the technique to make a triple resonance is different from ours.

They applied three electrodes onto a crystal instead of one as our EOM, and put three different frequencies on each electrode.

For our EOM, we put three frequencies on one electrode. You can see the difference in the attached figure. The left figure represents our EOM and the right is Volker's.

Then the question is; which can achieve better modulation efficiency ?

Volker and I talked about it and maybe found an answer,

 We believe our EOM can be potentially better because we use full length of the EO crystal.

This is based on the fact that the modulation depth is proportional to the length where a voltage is applied onto.

The people in University of Florida just used one of three separated parts of the crystal for each frequency.

  2683   Thu Mar 18 19:00:04 2010 KojiSummaryElectronicsadvantege of our triple resonant EOM

Did you find what is the merit of their impedance matching technique?

Quote:

In this LVC meeting I discussed about triple resonant EOMs with Volker who was a main person of development of triple resonant EOMs at University of Florida.

Actually his EOM had been already installed at the sites. But the technique to make a triple resonance is different from ours.

They applied three electrodes onto a crystal instead of one as our EOM, and put three different frequencies on each electrode.

For our EOM, we put three frequencies on one electrode. You can see the difference in the attached figure. The left figure represents our EOM and the right is Volker's.

Then the question is; which can achieve better modulation efficiency ?

Volker and I talked about it and maybe found an answer,

 We believe our EOM can be potentially better because we use full length of the EO crystal.

This is based on the fact that the modulation depth is proportional to the length where a voltage is applied onto.

The people in University of Florida just used one of three separated parts of the crystal for each frequency.

 

  2688   Sat Mar 20 18:34:19 2010 kiwamuSummaryElectronicsRE:advantege of our triple resonant EOM

Yes, I found it.

Their advantage is that their circuit is isolated at DC because of the input capacitor.

And it is interesting that the performance of the circuit in terms of gain is supposed to be roughly the same as our transformer configuration.

  2692   Mon Mar 22 02:03:57 2010 ranaSummaryElectronicsUPDH Box #17: Ready

It took too long to get this box ready for action. I implemented all of the changes that I made on the previous one (#1437). In addition, since this one is to be used for phase locking, I also made it have a ~flat transfer function. With the Boost ON, the TF magnitude will go up like 1/f below ~1 kHz.

The main trouble that I had was with the -12V regulator. The output noise level was ~500 nV/rHz, but there was a large oscillation at its output at ~65 kHz. This was showing up in the output noise spectrum of U1 (the first op-amp after the mixer). Since the PSRR of the OP27 is only ~40 dB at such a high frequency, it is not strange to see the power supply noise showing up (the input referred noise of the OP27 is 3.5 nV/rHz, so any PS noise above ~350 nV/rHz becomes relavent).

I was able to tame this by putting a 10 uF tantalum cap on the output of the regulator. However, when I replaced the regulator with a LM7912 from the blue box, it showed an output noise that went up like 1/f below 50 kHz !! I replaced it a couple more times with no benefit. It seems that something on the board must now be damaged. I checked another of the UPDH boxes, and it has the same high frequency oscillation but not so much excess voltage noise. I found that removing the protection diode on the output of the regulator decreased the noise by a factor of ~2. I also tried replacing all of the 1 uF caps that are around the regulator. No luck.

Both of the +12 V regulators seem fine: normal noise levels of ~200 nV/rHz and no oscillations.

Its clear that the regulator is not functioning well and my only guess is that its a layout issue on the board or else there's a busted component somewhere that I can't find. In any case, it seems to be functioning now and can be used for the phase locking and PZT response measurements.

  2693   Mon Mar 22 10:07:30 2010 KojiSummaryElectronicsUPDH Box #17: Ready

For your reference: Voltage noise of LM7815/LM7915 (with no load)

  2745   Wed Mar 31 19:29:58 2010 HartmutUpdateElectronics(1cm-) Si PD transfer functions update

Recorded transfer functions for the 1cm Si-PD as described on p. 2708

for different biases. I put the plots in there, to keep the info in one place,

where the label on the PD case (which Steve made without asking him) points

to.

I talked to some people recently about the fact that the responsivity (A/W) of the PD

changes even at DC for different biases. I tested this again and should be more precise about this:

The first time I observed this was in the transfer functions as shown on p. 2708.

With 'DC' I meant 'low frequency' there, as you can still see an effect of the bias as low as 100kHz.

Then at one point I saw the responsivity changing with bias also at true DC.

However, it turned out that this is only the case if the photocurrent is too high.

If the photocurrent is 4mA, you need 400mV bias to get the max. responsivity.

For 2mA photocurrent, the responsivity is already maximal for 0V bias.

An effect for relative low frequencies remains however.

The DC check of responsivity was done with white light from a bulb.

 

 

  2762   Sun Apr 4 00:21:42 2010 rana, kojiSummaryElectronicsCheckout of EG&G (PARC) preamp model #113, s/n 49135

We tested out the functionality of the EG&G 113 preamp that I found in one of the cabinets. This is one of the ancestors of the SR560 preamp that we are all used to.

It turns out that it works just fine (in fact, its better than the SR560). The noise is below 3nV/rHz everywhere above 30 Hz. The filter settings from the front panel all seem to work well. And the red knob on the front panel allows for continuous (i.e. not steps) gain adjustment. In the high-bandwidth mode (low pass filter at 300 kHz), there is ~35 deg of phase lag at 100 kHz. So the box is pretty fast.

IMG_0628.JPG

I would easily recommend this above the SR560 for use in all applications where you don't need to drive a 50 Ohm load. Also the battery is still working after 17 years!

There's several more of the this vintage in one of the last cabinets down the new Y-arm.

  2768   Mon Apr 5 10:33:12 2010 AlbertoOmnistructureElectronicssoldering iron broken

This morning the pencil soldering iron of our Weller WD2000M Soldering Station suddenly stopped working and got cold after I turned the station on. The unit's display is showing a message that says "TIP". i checked out the manual, but it doesn't say anything about that. I don't know what it means. Perhaps burned tip?

Before asking Steve to buy a new one, I emailed Weller about the problem.

  2770   Mon Apr 5 13:07:36 2010 JenneOmnistructureElectronicssoldering iron broken

Quote:

This morning the pencil soldering iron of our Weller WD2000M Soldering Station suddenly stopped working and got cold after I turned the station on. The unit's display is showing a message that says "TIP". i checked out the manual, but it doesn't say anything about that. I don't know what it means. Perhaps burned tip?

Before asking Steve to buy a new one, I emailed Weller about the problem.

 There should be a supply of extra tips in the Blue Spinny Cabiney (I can never remember it's French name....)  The drawer is something like the top row of one of the bottom sets of drawers.  You can pick the shape of tip you want, and stick it in.

  2771   Mon Apr 5 13:20:16 2010 KojiOmnistructureElectronicssoldering iron broken

Albeto and Koji

We took the tip replacement from the blue tower.

I am looking at http://www.cooperhandtools.com/brands/weller/ for ordering the tips.

The burnt one seems to be "0054460699: RT6 Round Sloped Tip Cartridge for WMRP Pencil" We will buy one.

The replaced one is "0054460299: RT2 Fine Point Cartridge for WMRP Pencil" We will buy two.

I like to try this: "0054460999: RT9 Chisel Tip Cartridge for WMRP Pencil" We will buy one.

Quote:

This morning the pencil soldering iron of our Weller WD2000M Soldering Station suddenly stopped working and got cold after I turned the station on. The unit's display is showing a message that says "TIP". i checked out the manual, but it doesn't say anything about that. I don't know what it means. Perhaps burned tip?

Before asking Steve to buy a new one, I emailed Weller about the problem.

 

  2779   Wed Apr 7 10:48:04 2010 AlbertoUpdateElectronicsREFL11 Noise Simulation
LISO simulations confirm the estimate of ~15nV for the noise of REFL11.
The largest contribution comes from the 50Ohm output resistor (Rs in the schematic below), the 450Ohm feedback resistor of the max4107 opamp stage; the 10KOhm resistor at the Test Input connector.
 
See attached plot.
 
(It's also all in the SVN, under https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:30889/svn/trunk/alberto/40mUpgrade/RFsystem/RFPDs/)
#
#                 gnd
#                 |
#                 Cw2
#                 |
#                 n23
#                 |
#                 Lw2
#                 |
#   gnd           n22
#   |             |
#   Rip           Rw2
#   |             |                   |\
#   nt- Rsi-n2- - - C2 - n3 -  - -  - |  \
#            |    |      |   |        |4106>-- n5 - Rs -- no                                                            
# iinput    Rd   L1     L2 R24    n6- |  /     |           |
#    |- nin- |    |      |   |    |   |/       |         Rload
#           Cd   n7     R22 gnd   |            |           |
#            |    |      |        | - - - R8 - -          gnd
#           gnd  R1     gnd      R7
#                 |               |
#                gnd             gnd
#
#
#
  2780   Wed Apr 7 10:58:15 2010 KojiUpdateElectronicsREFL11 Noise Simulation

What??? I don't see any gray trace of Rs in the plot. What are you talking about?

Anyway, if you are true, the circuit is bad as the noise should only be dominated by the thermal noise of the resonant circuit.

Quote:
LISO simulations confirm the estimate of ~15nV for the noise of REFL11.
The largest contribution comes from the output resistor (Rs in the schematic below).
See attached plot.

 

  2781   Wed Apr 7 11:11:19 2010 AlbertoUpdateElectronicsREFL11 Noise Simulation

Quote:

What??? I don't see any gray trace of Rs in the plot. What are you talking about?

Anyway, if you are true, the circuit is bad as the noise should only be dominated by the thermal noise of the resonant circuit.

Quote:
LISO simulations confirm the estimate of ~15nV for the noise of REFL11.
The largest contribution comes from the output resistor (Rs in the schematic below).
See attached plot.

 

The colors in the plot were misleading.
Here's hopefully a better plot.
The dominant sources of noise are the resonant of the photodiode (~10Ohm), the max4107, the resistor in series to ground at the - input of the max4107.
  2801   Thu Apr 15 14:47:28 2010 steveUpdateElectronics25MHZ oscillation of HP4195A

The 1979 vintage RF spectrum analyzer HP4195A  sn2904J01587 shipped out  for repair today to http://www.avalontest.com

It has a 25 MHZ oscillation when you go  below 150 MHZ in your sweep....atm1 with the larger amplitude shows this 25 MHZ

Atm2 is displaying  full sweep-sign scans from 1 to 500 MHZ.....here one can clearly see the three segment of the scan:

1, large amplitude 25 MHZ oscillation dominating the spectrum up to 150 MHZ

2, the mid section from 150 MHZ  to 300 MHZ with medium size amplitude is normal

3, from 300 MHZ to 500 MHZ the amplitude is decreasing.......showing the disadvantage of using a 300 MHZ oscilloscope

 

 

 

  2806   Mon Apr 19 07:38:07 2010 ranaHowToElectronicsRepair and Calibration of SR560: s/n 59650

Frank noticed that this particular SR560 had an offset on the output which was unzeroable by the usual method of tuning the trim pot accessible through the front panel.

I tried to zero the offset using the trimpots inside, but it became clear that the offset was due to a damaged FET, so Steve ordered ~20 of the (now obsolete*) NPD5564.

I replaced this part and adjusted the offsets and balanced the CMRR of the differential inputs mostly according to the manual (p. 17). There are a few notes that should be added to the procedure:

  1. It can sometimes be that the gain proscribed by the manual is too high and saturates the output for large offsets. If that's the case, simply lower the gain, trim the offset, then return the gain to the specified value and trim again.
  2. The limit in trimming the offset is the stick slip resolution in the trim pot. This can potentially leave the whole preamp in an acoustically sensitive state. I tapped the pots with a screwdriver after tuning to make sure it was in more of a 'sticky' rather than 'slippy' region of the knob. A better design would allow for more filtering of the pot.
  3. In the CMRR tuning procedure it says to 'null sine wave output' but it should really say 'null the sine wave component at the drive frequency'. The best CMRR tuning uses a 1 kHz drive and leaves a residual 2 kHz signal due to the distortion imbalance (of the FETs I think).
  4. The CMRR tuning upsets the DC offset trim and vice versa. The best tuning is gotten by iterating slightly (go back and forth once or twice between the offset and CMRR tuning procedures).

It looks like its working fine now. Steve's ordering some IF3602 (low-noise, balanced FET pair from Interfet) to see if we can drop the SR560's input noise to the sub-nV level.

Noise measured with the input terminated with a BNC short (not 50 Ohms) G=100, DC coupled, low-noise mode:

Input referred noise (nV/rHz)
f e_n

0.1

200
1 44
10 8
100 5
1000 5
10000 4
  2869   Mon May 3 01:16:50 2010 ranaHowToElectronicsMarconi phase noise measurement setup

 To try the 3-corner hat method on the Marconis, I started to set up the measurement into the DAQ system.

I have set the bottom 2 in the PSL rack to 11.1 MHz. I use a ZP-3MH level 13 mixer as the phase detector. The top one is the LO, it has an output of +13 dBm.

The bottom one is the test unit, it has an output of +6 dBm (should be close to the right level - the IP3 point is +9 dBm). The top one has external DC FM modulation enabled with a FM dev range of 10 Hz.

Mixer output goes through a 50 Ohm in-line termination and then a BLP-5 low pass filter (Steve, please order ~7 of the BLP-1.5 or BLP-1.9 low pass filter from Mini-Circuits) and then into

the DC coupled of a SR560. After some gain and filtering that feedback goes back to the FM input of the top-Marconi to close the PLL. I adjusted the gain to be as small as possible and still stay locked and not

saturate the ADC.

The input to the SR560 is Tee'd into another SR560 with AC coupled input, G = 1000, low-noise. Its output is going directly to the ADC channel - C1:IOO-MC_DRUM1.

I calibrated the channel by opening the loop and setting the AC coupled gain to 1. This lets the Marconis beat at several Hz. The peak-peak signal is equivalent to pi radians.

 

As usual, I was befuddled by the FM input. For some reason I always forget that since its a straight FM input, we don't need any filtering to get a plain 1/f loop. The attached plot shows how we get bad gain peaking if you forget this and use a 0.03 Hz pole in the SR560.

The grey trace is the ADC signal with everything hooked up, but the RF input set to zero (via setting Carrier = OFF in the bottom Marconi). It is the measurement noise.

The BLUE trace is very close to the true phase noise beat of the two Marconis with a calibration error of ~5%. I have not corrected for the loop gain: its right now around a 1 Hz UGF and 1/f. Next, I will measure the loop and compensate for it in the DTT calibration.

Then I'll measure the relative phase noise of 3 of the signal generators to get the individual noises.

Bottom line is that the sensitivity of this approach is good and we should do this rather that use spectrum analyzers since its easy to get very long averages and high res spectra. To get 5x better sensitivity, we can just use the Rai-FET box instead of a SR560 for the readout, but just have to contend with its batteries. Also should try using BALUNs on the RF and LO signals to get rid of the ground loops.

  2879   Tue May 4 18:40:27 2010 ranaHowToElectronicsMarconi phase noise measurement setup

To check the UGF, I increased the gain of the PLL by 10 and looked at how much the error point got suppressed. The green trace apparently has a UGF of ~50 Hz and so the BLUE nominal one has ~5 Hz.

The second attachment shows the noise now corrected for the loop gain. IF the two signal generators are equally noisy, then you can divide the purple spectrum by sqrt(2) to get the noise of a single source.

The .xml file is saved as /users/rana/dtt/MarconiPhaseNoise_100504.xml

  2904   Mon May 10 18:56:53 2010 ranaUpdateElectronicsUnexpected oscilaltionin the POY11 PD

Where did you get the 55nH based notch from? I don't remember anything like that from the other LSC PD schematics. This is certainly a bad idea. You should remove it and put the notch back over by the other notch.

  2905   Mon May 10 19:09:45 2010 ranaUpdateElectronicsUnexpected oscilaltionin the POY11 PD

Quote:

Where did you get the 55nH based notch from? I don't remember anything like that from the other LSC PD schematics. This is certainly a bad idea. You should remove it and put the notch back over by the other notch.

 Why is it a bad idea?

You mean putting both the 2-omega and the 55MHz notches next to each other right after the photodiode?

  2906   Mon May 10 19:29:33 2010 AlbertoHowToElectronicsNew Focus 1811 PD calibrated against New Focus 1611 PD
I measured the output impedance of the New Focus 1611 PD (the 1GHz one) and it is 50 Ohm for both the DC and the AC output. It turns out that the transimpedance values listed on the datasheet are the following:
T1611_dc = 1e4 V/A (1MOhm referred)
T1611_ac = 700 V/A (50 Ohm)
The listed transimpedances for the 1811 PD (the 125 MHz PD) are the following:
T_dc = 1e3 V/A (??)
T1811_ac = 4e4 V/A (50 Ohm)
I measured the output impedances of the 1811 and they are: 50 Ohm for the AC output, ~10 Ohm for the DC output.
It's not clear which input impedance the DC transimpedance should be intended referred to.
So I measured the transimpedance of the 1811 using the 1611 as a (trusted) reference. It turns out that for the AC transimpedance to match the listed value, the DC transimpedance has to be the following:
T1811_dc = 1.7e3 V/A (1MOhm)
  2913   Tue May 11 18:58:49 2010 ranaHowToElectronicsMarconi phase noise measurement setup

Just a little while ago, at 2330 UTC on 5/11, I swapped the phase noise setup to use another Marconi - this time its the 3rd one from the top beating with the 4th one from the top (2nd from the bottom).

After a little while, I swapped over to beat the 33 w/ the 199. I now have all the measurements. For the measurement of the last pair, I inserted BALUN 1:1 transformers on the outputs of both signal generators'.

This last pair appears to be the quietest of the 3 and also has less lines. The lines are mainly at high frequency and are harmonics of 120 Hz. Probably from the Sorensen switching supplies in the adjacent rack.

I double checked that the 10 MHz sync cable was NOT plugged in to any of these during this and that the front panel menu was set to use the internal frequency standard. In the closed loop case, the beat frequency between the 33/199 pair changes by less than ~0.01 Hz over minutes (as measured by calibrating the control signal).

 

  2914   Wed May 12 02:21:56 2010 ranaHowToElectronicsMarconi phase noise measurement setup

Finally got the 3-cornered-hat measurement of the IFRs done. The result is attached.

s12, s23, & s31, are the beat signals between the 3 signal generators.

s1, s2, & s3 are the phase noise of the individual generators made by the following matlab calculation:

%% Do the hat
s1 = sqrt((s12.^2  + s31.^2 - s23.^2) / 2);
s2 = sqrt((s12.^2  + s23.^2 - s31.^2) / 2);
s3 = sqrt((s31.^2  + s23.^2 - s12.^2) / 2);

As you can see, there is now an estimate of the individual noises. We can do better by doing some fitting of the residuals.

The real test will be to replace the noise one here with the good Wenzel oscillator and see how well we can estimate its noise. If the 11 MHz crystals don't show up, I can just try this with the 21.5 MHz one for the PSL.

  2975   Mon May 24 14:28:35 2010 kiwamuUpdateElectronicsbad power supply of a vme rack

In this morning I found daqawg didn't work.

After looking for the cause, I found one of the vme racks mounted on 1Y6 doesn't work correctly.

It looks like the vme rack mounting c0daqawg could not supply any power to the frontends.

 

Now Steve and I are trying to look for a spare for it.

  2978   Tue May 25 07:22:59 2010 kiwamuUpdateElectronicsbad power supply of a vme rack

Notes on May 25th

 Don't do the following things !! This causes bad cross-talking of CPUs mounted on the crate.

 


I moved c0daqawg and c1pem1 from 1Y6 vme crate to 1Y7 crate due to the bad power supply.

Another problem: c0dcu1 doesn't come back to the network. 

After moving them, I tried to get back them into the RFM network. However  c0dcu1 never came back, it still indicates red in C0DAQ_DETAIL.adl screen.

Alberto and I did even "nuclear option" (as instructed), but no luck.

  2981   Tue May 25 10:06:09 2010 kiwamuUpdateElectronicsbad power supply of a vme rack

 I got a VME crate from Peter's lab. It is already installed in 1Y6 instead of the old broken one.

I checked its power supply, and it looked fine. It successfully supplies +5, +12 and -12 V. And then I put c0daqawg and c1pem1 back from 1Y7.

Now I am trying to reboot all the front end computers with Peter's VME crate. A picture of the VME crate will be updated later.

  2982   Tue May 25 16:32:26 2010 kiwamuHowToElectronicsfront ends are back

 [Alex, Joe, Kiwamu]

Eventually all the front end computers came back !! 

There were two problems.

(1): C0DCU1 didn't want to come back to the network. After we did several things it turned the ADC board for C0DCU1 didn't work correctly.

(2): C1PEM1 and C0DAQAWG were cross-talking via the back panel of the crate.


(what we did)

* installed a VME crate with single back panel to 1Y6 and mounted C1PEM1 and C0DAQAWG on it. However it turned out this configuration was bad because the two CPUs could cross-talk via the back panel.

* removed the VME crate and then installed another VME crate which has two back panels so that we can electrically separate C1PEM1 and C0DAQAWG.  After this work, C0DAQAWG started working successfully.

 * rebooted all the front ends, fb40m and c1dcuepics.

 * reset the RFM bypath. But these things didn't bring C0DCU1 back.

 * telnet to C0DCU1 and ran "./startup.cmd" manually. In fact "./startup.cmd" should automatically be called when it boots.

 * saw the error messages from "./startup.cmd" and found it failed when initialization of the ADC board. It saids "Init Failure !! could not find ICS"

*  went to 1Y7 rack and checked the ADC. We found C0DCU1 had two ADC boards, one of two was not in used.

* disconnected all two ADCs and put back one which had not been in used. At the same time we changed the switching address of this ADC to have the same address as the other ADC. 

* powered off/on 1Y7 rack. Finally C0DCU1 got back.

* burtrestored the epics to the last Friday, May 21st 6:07am

  3052   Sun Jun 6 08:08:05 2010 rana, sanjitSummaryElectronicsCapacitor Bridge Test

To get a feel for the Capacitive Bridge problems, we setup a simple bridge using fixed (1 nF) caps on a breadboard. We used an SR830 Lock-In amplifier to drive it and readout the noise.

CapacitanceBridge.png

We measured the cap values with an LCR meter. They were all within a few % of 0.99 nF.

With a 0.5 V drive to the top of the bridge, the A-B voltage was ~2 mV as expected from the matching of the capacitors.

(** Note about the gain in the SR830: In order to find the magnitude of the input referred signal, one has to divide by G. G = (10 V)/ Sensitivity. 'Sensitivity' is the setting on the front panel.)

  1. Directly measuring from Vs to ground gives 0.5 V, as expected. This is done to verify the calibration later on.
  2. Shorting the A and B wires to ground gives ~0 V and lets us measure the noise. On the spectrum analyzer it was ~400 nV/rHz at 100 Hz and rising slowly to 4 uV/rHz at 100 mHz. In this state, the sensitivity was 10 mV, so the overall gain was 1000. That gives an input referred level of ~0.4 nV/rHz at the input.
  3. Hooking up now to A-B: the signal is ~10x larger than the 'dark' noise everywhere. 2 uV/rHz @ 100 Hz, 10 uV/rHz @ 10 Hz, 50 uV/rHz @ 1 Hz. The spectrum is very non-stationary; changing by factors of several up and down between averages. Probably a problem with the cheapo contacts in the breadboard + wind. The gain in this state was still 1000. So at 1 Hz, its 50 nV/rHz referred to the input.

To convert into units of capacitance fluctuation, we multiply by the capacitance of the capacitors (1 nF) and divide out by the peak-peak voltage (1 V). So the bridge sensitivity is 50e-9 * 1e-9 = 5 x 10^-17 F/rHz.

If we assume that we will have a capacitive displacement transducer giving 1 nF capacitance change for a 0.1 mm displacement, this bridge would have a sensitivity of 5 x 10^-12 m/rHz @ 1 Hz. We would like to do ~50-100x better than this. The next steps should be:

  1. Solder it all together on a PCB to have less air current sensitivity and decent contacts.
  2. Use a low-noise FET input. Since the impedance of the bridge is ~5 kOhms at this frequency, we are probably current noise limited.
  3. Estimate the oscillator amplitude noise sensitivity.
  3053   Mon Jun 7 07:39:38 2010 AlbertoOmnistructureElectronicsCapacitor Bridge Test

Quote:

To get a feel for the Capacitive Bridge problems, we setup a simple bridge using fixed (1 nF) caps on a breadboard. We used an SR830 Lock-In amplifier to drive it and readout the noise.

The measurement setup for the Capacitor Bridge Test is still sitting on one of the work benches.

Unless the experiment is supposed to continue today, the equipment shouldn't have been left on the bench. It should have been  taken back to the lab.

Also the cart with HP network analyzer used for the test was left in the desk area. That shouldn't have left floating around in the desk area anyway.

The people responsible for that, are kindly invited to clean up after themselves.

  3126   Mon Jun 28 11:27:08 2010 MeganUpdateElectronicsMarconi Phase Noise

Using the three Marconis in 40m at 11.1 MHz, the Three Cornered Hat technique was used to find the individual noise of each Marconi with different offset ranges and the direct/indirect frequency source of the rubidium clock.

Rana explained the TCH technique earlier - by measuring the phase noise of each pair of Marconis, the individual phase noise can be calculated by:

S1 = sqrt( (S12^2 + S13^2 - S23^2) / 2)

S2 = sqrt( (S12^2 + S23^2 - S13^2) / 2)

S3 = sqrt( (S13^2 + S23^2 - S12^2) / 2)

I measured the phase noise for offset ranges of 1Hz, 10Hz, 1kHz, and 100kHz (the maximum allowed for a frequency of 11.1Mhz) and calculated the individual phase noise for each source (using 7 averages, which gives all the spikes in the individual noise curves). The noise from each source is very similar, although not quite identical, while the noise is greater at higher frequencies for higher offset ranges, so the lowest possible offset range should be used. It appears the noise below a range of 10Hz is fairly constant, with a smoother curve at 10Hz.

The phase noise for direct vs indirect frequency source was measured with an offset range of 10Hz. While very similar at high and low frequencies for all 3 Marconis, the indirect source was consistently noisier in the middle frequencies, indicating that any Marconis connected to the rubidium clock should use the rubidium clock as a direct frequency reference.

Since I can't adjust settings of the Marconis at the moment, I have yet to finish measurements of the phase noise at 160 MHz and 80 MHz (those used in the PSL lab), but using the data I have for only the first 2 Marconis (so I can't finish the TCH technique), the phase noise appears to be lowest using the 100kHz offset except at the higher frequencies. The 160 MHz signal so far is noisier than the 11.1 MHz signal with offset ranges of 1 kHz and 10 Hz, but less noisy with a 100 kHz offset.

I still haven't measured anything at 80 MHz and have to finish taking more data to be able to use the TCH technique at 160 MHz, then the individual phase noise data will be used to measure the noise of the function generators used in the PSL lab.

  3170   Wed Jul 7 17:18:57 2010 AlbertoConfigurationElectronicsStochmon and LSC AM Stabilizer Decomissioned
Today I disconnected and removed the Stochmon box from the 1Y2 rack.
I also removed the amplifiers that were sitting on the PSL table, next to the RF AM PD, that were connected to the Stochmon. I pulled back the RG cable and the power cables that went from the PSL table to the 1Y1 and 1Y2 racks.
The power cable, all rolled up, is now sitting on the floor, inside the 1Y1 rack and one of its end is still connected to the power of the rack. We'd like to turn off the entire rack in order to safely remove it. But since the laser driver is there too, we should do it the first time we have to turn off the rack for some other reason.

I also removed two of the AM stabilizers from the 1Y2 rack. The other one, which is currently running th MC modulations, is still in the rack, and there it is going to remain together with its distribution box.

I stored both AM stabilizers and the Stochmon box inside the RF cabinet down the East arm.

  3285   Sat Jul 24 14:03:19 2010 AlbertoUpdateElectronicsFSS Oscilaltor Phase Noise Measurement

[Rana, Alberto]

Today we measured the phase noise of the oscillator used for the FSS.

The source is a Wenzel crystal at about 21.5MHz that Peter Kalmus built some time ago.

We basically used the same technique that Frank and Megan have been using lately to measure the Marconi's phase noise.

Today we just did a quick measurement but today next week we are going to repeat it more carefully.

Attached is a plot that shows the measurement calibrated for a UGF at about 60 Hz. The noise is compared to that specified by Wenzel for their crystal.

The noise is bigger than that of the MArconi alone locked to the Rubidium standard (see elog entry). We don't know the reason for sure yet.

We'll get back to this problem next week.

  3286   Sat Jul 24 14:27:36 2010 ranaUpdateElectronicsFSS Oscilaltor Phase Noise Measurement

I reconnected the RF signal to the FSS and to the FSS' EOM so that we could lock the refcav again.

I then started a 3 sec. period trianglewave on the AOM drive amplitude to see if there is a direct coupling from RIN to Frequency. Ideally we will be able to measure this by looking at the RCTRANS and the FSS-FAST.

  3361   Wed Aug 4 19:50:58 2010 ranaConfigurationElectronicsRubidium clocks too hot: hut removed

Alastair found that the foam hut that he and Jan put on top of the Rb clocks to temperature stabilize them was too good of an insulator. The Rb boxes had gotten very hot and became internally unlocked as seen on the front panel.

After we let them cool down with the box off, I turned them back on. After several minutes the 'Locked' light came back on. Some minutes after that the '1PPS Sync' light also came on, indicating that the two had become somewhat synchronized. It really means that the frequencies are kind of close: I think its roughly that f1-f2 < 2 mHz.

I put the yellow box back on and have left it with a small gap on the bottom so that the hot air can get out. Hopefully, this will protect the clocks from the wind, but not cause them to overheat.

The signal going to the DAQ right now is DC-coupled, with a gain of 1. The peak-peak beat signal in this situation is 6300 counts.

My guess is that the clocks will by synchronized by tomorrow afternoon so that we can get the measurement done. Please don't disturb the clocks or the yellow box around them. Try to minimize any activity around that area.

  3392   Tue Aug 10 15:23:35 2010 JennaUpdateElectronicsRubidium clock time constant

[Jenna & Alastair]

We changed the locking time constant on one of the Rubidium clocks using the RbMon software that came with it. We had to use the ancient Dell laptop latitudeD810 because it has a serial port built in, and we couldn't get the usb->serial adapter to work right with the clock. We tried the usb connector on more than one computer, and we had installed the right adapter and the computer seemed to recognize it fine, it just wouldn't communicate with the clock. We even tried it with the Dell latitute laptop and it still failed to work, so the only way seems to be to use the serial port directly.

The clock has a default time constant of 18.2 hours because it's designed to be locked to a GPS clock which is less stable than the Rb clock itself, so we changed it to a time constant of .57 hours. We also changed the length of the BNC cables to get the DC offset to 10mV, but then as I was typing this, we opened up data viewer to look at the real time data and saw the output suddenly leap up, and found that the offset is now -5mV mysteriously, so we went to investigate and found that the gain of the SR560 was still set to 1 from a calibration. We beat one of the clocks with a marconi for a few minutes with the gain still at this level to do another calibration, and then hooked the clocks back up together and upped the gain to 100. The DC offset is currently about 2.5mV. We're going to leave them alone for a few hours, and then check to see what the signal looks like over that period.

  3393   Tue Aug 10 16:55:38 2010 JennaUpdateElectronicsc1iovme restarted

 Alastair and I restarted the c1iovme around the time of my last elog entry (~3:20).

  3398   Wed Aug 11 12:58:56 2010 JennaUpdateElectronicsRubidium clock phase noise

I took some measurements of the clock this morning, first without the box, then with the box, then without the box again. All the noise levels look pretty much the same. When I first put the box on, it was only propped up on one side, so I think the clocks got a bit overheated and the data looks ridiculous, which is the first plot. I took it off and let them cool down a bit, and then put the box on, this time with a generous 3 inch gap at the bottom all the way around, and it seemed to be fine after that.

The calibration for the data is pi (rad) /6415 (counts) /100.

Aidan: I edited this post to change the plots from Postscripts to PDFs.

  3400   Wed Aug 11 15:27:16 2010 JennaUpdateElectronicsRubidium clock phase noise

We unsynched the clocks by unhooking the 1pps locking. I've added it to the plot of the other measurements here, and we've divided by a factor of sqrt(2) in the calibration to get the phase noise from just one clock, so the calibration is now

pi (rad) /6415 (counts) /100/sqrt(2).

I've also added the noise of the clock according to SRS to the plot.

The units of this plot are rad/rt(Hz). I've no idea why it just says magnitude.

ELOG V3.1.3-