1. The response of the IMC WFS board was measured. The LO signal with 0.3Vpp@29.5MHz on 50Ohm was supplied from DS345. I've confirmed that this signal is enough to trigger the comparator chip right next to the LO input. The RF signal with 0.1Vpp on the 50Ohm input impedance was provided from another DS345 to CH1 with a frequency offset of 20Hz~10kHz. Two DS345s were synced by the 10MHz RFreference at the rear of the units. The resulting low frequency signal from the 1st AF stage (AD797) and the 2nd AF stage (OP284) were checked.
Attachment 1 shows the measured and modelled response of the demodulator with various frequency offsets. The value shows the signal transfer (i.e. the output amplitude normalized by the input amplitude) from the input to the outputs of the 1st and 2nd stages. According to the datasheet, the demodulator chip provides a single pole cutoff of 340kHz with the 33nF caps between AP/AN and VP. The first stage is a broadband amplifier, but there is a passive LPF (fc=~1kHz). The second stage also provides the 2nd order LPF at fc~1kHz too. The measurement and the model show good agreement.
2. The output noise levels of the 1st and 2nd stages were meausred and compared with the noise model by LISO.
Attachment 2 shows the input referred noise of the demodulator circuit. The output noise is basically limited by the noise of the first stage. The noise of the 2nd stage make the significant contribution only above the cut off freq of the circuit (~1kHz). And the model supports this fact. The 6.65kOhm of the passive filter and the input current noise of AD797 cause the large (>30nV/rtHz) noise contribution below 100Hz. This completely spoils the low noiseness (~1nV/rtHz) of AD797. At lower frequency like 0.1Hz other component comes up above the modelled noise level.
3. Rana and I had a discussion about the modification of the circuit. Attachment 4 shows the possible improvement of the demod circuit and the 1st stage preamplifier. The demodulator chip can have a cut off by the attached capacitor. We will replace the 33nF caps with 1uF and the cut off will be pushed down to ~10kHz. Then the passive LPF will be removed. We don't need "rodeo horse" AD797 for this circuit, but op27 is just fine instead. The gain of the 1st stage can be increased from 9 to 21. This should give us >x10 improvement of the noise contribution from the demodualtor (Attachment 3). We also can replace some of the important resistors with the thin film low noise resistors.
Summary: The demodulator input noise level was improved by a factor of more than 2. This was not as much as we expected from the preamp noise improvement, but is something. If this looks OK, I will implement this modification to all the 16 channels.
The modification shown in Attachment 1 has actually been applied to a channel.
Attachment 2 shows the measured and expected output signal transfer of the demodulator. The actual behavior of the demodulator is as expected, and we still keep the over all LPF feature of 3rd order with fc=~1kHz.
Attachment 3 shows the improvement of the noise level with the signal reffered to the demodulator input. The improvement by a factor >2 was observed all over the frequency range. However, this noise level could not be explained by the preamp noise level. Actually this noise below 1kHz is present at the output of the demodulator. (Surprisingly, or as usual, the noise level of the previous preamp configuration was just right at the noise level of the demodulator below 100Hz.) The removal of the offset trimmer circuit contributed to the noise improvement below 0.3Hz.
more U4 gain, lesssss U5 gain
ELOG of the Wednesday work.
It turned out that the IMC WFS demod boards have the PCB board that has a different pattern for each of 8ch.
In addition, AD831 has a quite narrow leg pitch with legs that are not easily accessible.
Because of these, we (Koji and Rana) decided to leave the demodulator chip untouched.
I have plugged in the board with the WFS2-Q1 channel modified in order to check the significance of the modification.
WFS performance before the modification
Attachment 1 shows the PSD of WFS2-I1_OUT calibrated to be referred to the demodulator output. (i.e. Measured PSDs (cnt/rtHz) were divided by 8.9*2^16/20)
There are three curves: One is the output with the MC locked (WFS servos not engaged). The second is the PSD with the PSL beam blocked (i.e. dark noise). The third is the electronics noise with the RF input terminated and the nominal LO supplied.
This tells us that the measured PSD was dominated by the demodulator noise in the dark condition. And the WFS signal was also dominated by the demod noise below 0.1Hz and above 20Hz. There are annoying features at 0.7, 1.4, 2.1, ... Hz. They basically impose these noise peaks on the stabilized mirror motion.
WFS performance after the modification
Attachment 2 shows the PSD of WFS2-Q1_OUT calibrated to be referred to the demodulator output. (i.e. Measured PSDs (cnt/rtHz) were divided by 21.4*2^16/20)
There are three same curves as the other plot. In addition to these, the PSD of WFS2-I1_OUT with the MC locked is also shown as a red curve for comparison.
This figure tells us that the measured PSD below 20Hz was dominated by the demodulator noise in the dark condition. And the WFS signal is no longer dominated by the electronics noise. However, there still are the peaks at the harmonics of 0.7, 1.4, 2.1, ... Hz. I need further inspection of the FWS demod and whtening boards to track down the cause of these peaks.
ELOG of the work on Thursday
Gautam suggested looking at the preamplifier noise by shorting the input to the first stage. I thought it was a great idea.
To my surprise, the noise of the 2nd stage was really high compared to the model. I proceeded to investigate what was wrong.
It turned out that the resistors used in this sallen-key LPF were thick film resistors. I swapped them with thin film resistors and this gave the huge improvement of the preamplifier noise in the low frequency band.
Attachment 1 shows the summary of the results. Previously the input referred noise of the preamp was the curve in red. We the resistors replaced, it became the curve in magenta, which is pretty close to the expected noise level by LISO model above 3Hz (dashed curves). Unfortunately, the output of the unit with the demodulator connected showed no improvement (blue vs green), because the output is still limited by the demodulator noise. There were harmonic noise peaks at n x 10Hz before the resistor replacement. I wonder if this modification also removed the harmonic noise seen in the CDS signals. I will check this next week.
Attachment 2 shows the current schematic diagram of the demodulator board. The Q of the sallen key filter was adjusted by the gain to have 0.7 (butter worth). We can adjust the Q by the ratio of the capacitance. We can short 3.83K and remove 6.65K next to it. And use 22nF and 47nF for the capacitors at the positive input and the feedback, respectively. This reduces the number of the resistors.
I have implemented the modification to the demod boards (Attachment 1).
Now, I am looking at the noise in the whitening board. Attachment 2 shows the comparison of the error signal with the input of the whitening filter shorted and with the 50ohm terminator on the demodulator board. The message is that the whitening filter dominates the noise below 3Hz.
I am looking at the schematic of the whitening board D990196-B. It has an VGA AD602 at the input. I could not find the gain setting for this chip.
If the gain input is fixed at 0V, AD602 has the gain of 10dB. The later stages are the filters. I presume they have the thick film resistors.
Then they may also cause the noise. Not sure which is the case yet.
Also it seems that 0.7Hz noise is still present. We can say that this is coming from the demod board but not on the work bench but in the eurocard crate.
Today I did a lot of steps to eventually reach to WFS locking stably for long times and improving and keeping the IMC transmission counts to 14400. I think the main culprit in thw WFS loop going unstable was the offset value set on MC_TRANS_PIT filter module (C1:IOO-MC_TRANS_PIT_OFFSET). This value was roughly correct in magnitude but opposite in sign, which created a big offset in MC_TRANS PIT error signal which would integrate by the loops and misalign the mode cleaner.
WFS offsets tuning
WFS loops UGF tuning
OLTF measurements were done using this diaggui file. The measurement file got deleted by me by mistake, so I recreated the template. Thankfully, I had saved the pdf of the measurements, but I do not have same measurement results in the git repo.
Today, I worked on WFS loop output matrix for PIT DOFs.
Sun Dec 4 17:36:32 2022 AG: IMC lock is holding as strong as before. None of the control signals or error signals seem to be increasing monotonously over the last one hour. I'll continue monitoring the lock.
Mon Dec 5 11:11:08 2022 AG: IMC was locked all night for past 18 hours. See attachment 4 for the minute trend.
I got around to doing this measurement today, using a minicircuits bi-directional coupler (ZFBDC20-61-HP-S+), along with some SMA-LEMO cables.
We should insert a bi-directional coupler (if we can find some LEMO to SMA converters) and find out how much actual RF is getting into the demod board.
I first aligned the mode cleaner, and offloaded the DC offsets from the WFS servos.
The bi-directional coupler has 4 ports: Input, Output, Coupled forward RF and Coupled Reverse RF. I connected the LEMO going to the input of the Demod board to the Input, and connected the output of the coupler to the Demod board (via some SMA-LEMO adaptor cables). The two (20dB) coupled ports were connected to the Agilent spectrum analyzer, which have input impedance 50ohms and hence should be impedance matched to the coupled outputs. I set the analyzer to span 1MHz (29-30MHz), IF BW 30Hz, 0dB input attenuation. It was not necessary to turn on averaging to resolve the peaks at ~29.5MHz since the IF bandwidth was fine enough.
I took two sets of measurements, one with the IMC well aligned (I maximized the MC Trans as best as I could to ~15,000 cts), and one with a macroscopic misalignment to MC1 such that the MC Trans fell to 90% of its usual value (~13,500 cts). The peak function on the analyzer was used to read off the peak height in dBm. I then converted this to RF power, which is summarized in the table below. I did not account for the main line loss of the coupler, but according to the datasheet, the maximum value is 0.25dB so there numbers should be accurate to ~10% (so I'm really quoting more S.Fs than I should be).
For the well aligned measurement, there was ~0.4mW incident on WFS1, and ~0.3mW incident on WFS2 (measured with Ophir power meter, filter out).
I am not sure how to interpret the numbers for quadrants #2 and #6 in the first table, where the reverse coupled RF power was greater than the forward coupled RF power. But this measurement was repeatable, and even in the second table, the reverse coupled power from these quadrants are more than 10x the other quadrants. The peaks were also well above (>10dBm) the analyzer noise floor
I haven't gone through the full misalginment -> Power coupled to TEM10 mode algebra to see if these numbers make sense, but assuming a photodetector responsivity of 0.8A/W, the product (P1P2) of the powers of the beating modes works out to ~tens of pW (for the IMC well aligned case), which seems reasonable as something like P1~10uW, P2 ~ 5uW would lead to P1P2~50pW. This discussion was based on me wrongly looking at numbers for the aLIGO WFS heads, and Koji pointed out that we have a much older generation here. I will try and find numbers for the version we have and update this discussion.
It was raised at the Wednesday meeting that I did not check the RF pickup levels while measuring the RF error signal levels into the Demod board. So I closed the PSL shutter, and re-did the measurement with the same measurement scheme. The detailed power levels (with no light incident on the WFS, so all RF pickup) is reported in the table below.
These numbers can be subtracted from the corresponding columns in the previous elog to get a more accurate estimate of the true RF error signal levels. Note that the abnormal behaviour of Quadrant #2 on both WFS demod boards persists.
we are thinking of doing a sprucing up of the input mode cleaner WFS (sensors + electronics + feedback loops)
The WFS loops were not maximizing the IMC transmission. The transmission counts remained stuck at around 12500 counts. The reflection DCMON from IMC had reached above 0.35 while nominally it had been around 0.2. So today, I manuaaly aligned the IMC to best transmission and lowest reflection, then unlocked IMC and reset the offsets on WFS1 and WFS2 RF readouts. After the offsets were changed, the error singals were fluctuating around 0 in best algined state. Then turning on the WFS loops made the transmissions slighlty higher to 13250 counts.
I wanted to check the functionality of the IMC WFS. I just turned on the WFS servo loops as they were. For the past two hours, they didn't run away. The servo has been left turned on. I don't think there is no reason to keep it turned off.
From the measured OLTF, the dynamics of the damped suspension was inferred by calculating H_damped = H_pend / (1+OLTF).
Here H_pend is a pendulum transfer function. For simplicity, the DC gain of the unity is used. The resonant frequency of the mode
is estimated from the OLTF measurement. Because of inprecise resonant frequency for each mode, calculated damped pendulum
has glitches at the resonant frequency. In fact measurement of the OLTF at the resonant freq was not precise (of course). We can
just ignore this glitchiness (numerically I don't know how to do it particularly when the residual Q is high).
Here is my recommended values to have the residual Q of 3~5 for each mode.
MC1 SUS POS current 75 -> x3 = 225
MC1 SUS PIT current 7.5 -> x2 = 22.5
MC1 SUS YAW current 11 -> x2 = 22
MC1 SUS SD current 300 -> x2 = 600
MC2 SUS POS current 75 -> x3 = 225
MC2 SUS PIT current 20 -> x0.5 = 10
MC2 SUS YAW current 8 -> x1.5 = 12
MC2 SUS SD current 300 -> x2 = 600
MC3 SUS POS current 95 -> x3 = 300
MC3 SUS PIT current 9 -> x1.5 = 13.5
MC3 SUS YAW current 6 -> x1.5 = 9
MC3 SUS SD current 250 -> x3 = 750
This is the current setting in the end.
MC1 SUS POS 150
MC1 SUS PIT 15
MC1 SUS YAW 15
MC1 SUS SD 450
MC2 SUS POS 150
MC2 SUS PIT 10
MC2 SUS YAW 10
MC2 SUS SD 450
MC3 SUS POS 200
MC3 SUS PIT 12
MC3 SUS YAW 8
MC3 SUS SD 500
I took transfer function measurement of WFS2 SEG4 photodiode between 1 MHz to 100 MHz in a linear sweep.
Relative to 29.5 MHz, teh photodiode response is:
I'm throwing in an extra number at the end as I found a peak at this frequency as well. This means to use these WFS heads for arm ASC, we need to have 10 times more light for 11 MHz and roughly 100 times more light for 55 MHz. According to Gautam's thesis Table A.1 and this elog post, the modulation depth for 11 MHz is 0.193 and for 55 MHz is 0.243 in comparison to 0.1 for 29.5 MHz., so the sideband TEM00 light available for beating against carrier TEM01/TEM10 is roughly twice as much for single arm ASC. That would mean we would have 5 times less error signal for 11 MHz and 40 times less error signal for 55 MHz. These are rough calculations ofcourse.
I tested teh WFS demod board for possibility of demodulating 11 MHz or 55 MHz signal with it. It definitely has some bandpass filter inside as the response is very bad for 11 MHz and 55 MHz. See attached the ASD curves for the excitations seens on I and Q inputs of WFS1 Segment 2 when it was demodulated with a clock of different frequencies but same amplitude of 783.5 mVpp (this was measured output of 29.5 MHz signal from RF distribution board). See attachments 2-4 for mokulab settings. Note for 29.5 MHz case, I added an additional 10 dB attenuator to output 1.
The measurement required me to change signal power level to see a signal of atleast 10 SNR. If we take signal level of 29.5 MHz as reference, following are the responses at other frequencies:
Note that I and Q outputs are unbalanced as well for the two different demodulation frequencies.
This means that if we want to use the WFS demodulation boards as is, we'll need to amplify the photodiode signal by the above amounts to get same level of outputs. I stil need to see the DCC document of these board and if the LO is also bandpassed. In which case, we can probably amplify the LO to improve the demodulation at 11 and 55 MHz. THe beatnote time series for the measured data did not show an obvious sinusoidal oscillation, so I chose to not show a plot with just noise here.
We have spare WFS demods in a plastic box along the Y arm. So you don't need to modify the IMC demod boards, which we want to keep in the current state.
We made sensing matrix measurements for the IMC WFS and the MC2 QPD.
The data is under further analysis but here is some record of the current state to show
IMC Trans RIN and the ASC error signals with/without IMC ASC loops
The measureents were done automatically running DTT. This can be done by
The analysis is in preparation so that it provides us a diagnostic report in a PDF file.
Yesterday, Koji and I measured the transfer function of pitch and yaw excitations of each MC mirror, directly to each quadrant of each WFS QPD.
When I last touched the WFS settings, I only used MC2 excitations to set the individual quadrant demodulation phases, but Koji pointed out that this could be incomplete, since motion of the curved MC2 mirror is qualitatively different than motion of the flat 1&3.
We set up a DTT file with twenty TFs (the excitation to I & Q of each WFS quadrant, and the MC2 trans quadrants), and then used some perl find and replace magic to create an xml file for each excitation. These are the files called by the measurement script Koji wrote.
I then wrote a MATLAB script that uses the magical new dttData function Koji and Nic have created, to extract the TF data at the excitation frequency, and build up the sensing elements. I broke the measurements down by detector and excitation coordinate (pitch or yaw).
The amplitudes of the sensing elements in the following plots are normalized to the single largest response of any of the QPD's quadrants to an excitation in the given coordinate, the angles are unchanged. From this, we should be able to read off the proper digital demodulation angles for each segment, confirm the signs of their combinations for pitch and yaw, and construct the sensing matrix elements of the properly rotated signals.
The axes of each quadrant look consistent across mirrors, which is good, as it nails down the proper demod angle.
The xml files and matlab script used to generate these plots is attached. (It requires the dttData functions however, which are in the svn (and the dttData functions require a MATLAB newer than 2012b))
It seems clever, but I wonder why use DTT and command line perl, instead of using the FE lockins or just demod the offline data or all of the other sensing matrix scripts made for the LSC (at 40m) or ASC (at LLO) ?
There are several non scientific reasons.
WFS1 noise injection
C1:LSC-XARM_IN1_DQ / C1:LSC-YARM_IN1_DQ
C1:SUS-ETMX_LSC_OUT_DQ / C1:SUS-ETMY_LSC_OUT_DQ
C1:SUS-MC1_**COIL_OUT / C1:SUS-MC2_**COIL_OUT / C1:SUS-MC3_**COIL_OUT
C1:IOO-WFS1_PIT_ERR / C1:IOO-WFS1_YAW_ERR
** denotes [UL, UR, LL, LR]; the output coils.
Rana came and helped us figure us where to inject the noise. Following are the characteristics of the test we did:
Attachment 1 shows a screenshot with awggui and diaggui screens displaying the signal in both angular and longitudinal channels.
Attachment 2 shows the analogous screenshot for MC2.
We redid the WFS noise injection test and have compiled some results on noise contribution in arm cavity noise and IMC frequency noise due to angular noise of IMC.
Attachment 1: Shows the calibrated noise contribution from MC1 ASCPIT OUT to ARM cavity length noise and IMC frequency noise.
We today measured the calibration factors for XARM_OUT and YARM_OUT in nm/cts and replotted our results from 16117 with the correct frequency dependence.
Calibration of XARM_OUT and YARM_OUT
Inferring noise contributions to arm cavities:
Edit Mon May 10 18:31:52 2021
See corrections in 16129.
A few corrections to last analysis:
In the middle of aportioning gains and signs in the IMC WFS screen, so beware. More updates soon.
On Wednesday, I did some rework of the MC WFS gains. I think it should still work as before as long as the overall input gain is set to 0.1 (not 1.0 as the button on the screen sets it to).
We mainly want these loops to work well at DC, so it is perhaps better if we can measure the matrix at DC. Its less automatic than at 13 Hz, but I think it could be done with a script and some iterative matrix inversion:
I haven't tried this procedure before, but I think it should work. You can use something like "cdsutils servo" to slowly adjust the Output Matrix values.
I tried following the steps and the method I was using converged to same output matrix upto 2 decimal points but there is still left over cross coupling as you can see in Attachment 1. With the new output matrix, WFS loop can be turned on with full overall gain of 1.
-2. 4.8 -7.3
3.6 3.5 -2.
2. 1. -6.8
3.44 4.22 -7.29
0.75 0.92 -1.59
3.41 4.16 -7.21
Note: The standard deviation on the averages was very high even after averaging for 30s. This data should be averaged after low passing high frequencies but I couldn't find the filter module medm screens for these signals, so I just proceeded with simple averaging of full rate signal using cdsultis avg command.
Fri Nov 25 12:46:31 2022
The WFS loop are unstable again. This could be due to the matrix balancing done while vacuum was disrupted. The above matrix does not work anymore.
IMC WFS tuning
- IMC was aligned manually to have maximum output and also spot at the center of the end QPD.
- The IMC WFS spots were aligned to be the center of the WFS QPDs.
- With the good alignment, WFS RF offset and MC2 QPD offsets were tuned via the scripts.
Last night the sensing matrix for IMC WFS&QPD were measured.
C1:IOO-MC(1, 2, 3)_(ASCPIT, ASCYAW)_EXC were excited at 5.01Hz with 100 count
The output of the WFS1/WFS2/QPD were measured. They all looked well responding
i.e. Pitch motion shows pitch error signals, Yaw motion shows yaw error signals.
The below is the transfer function from each suspension to the error signals
MC1P MC2P MC3P
-3.16e-4 1.14e-2 4.62e-3 -> WFS1P
5.43e-3 8.22e-3 -2.79e-3 -> WFS2P
-4.03e-5 -3.98e-5 -3.94e-5 -> QPDP
MC1Y MC2Y MC3Y
-6.17e-4 6.03e-4 1.45e-4 -> WFS1Y
-2.43e-4 4.57e-3 -2.16e-3 -> WFS2Y
7.08e-7 2.40e-6 1.32e-6 -> QPDY
Taking the inverse of these matrices, the scale was adjusted so that the dc response.
I took some spectra of the error signals and MC2 Trans RIN with the loops off (blue) and on (red) during the current conditions of daytime seismic noise.
Today I started looking into the WFS problem and improvement, after being briefed by Koji and Nicholas. I started taking some measurements of open loop transfer functions for both PIT and YAW for WFS1, WFS2 and MC2_TRANS. For both WFS1 and 2 there is a peak in close proximity of the region with gain>1, and the phase margin is not very high. Tomorrow I will make measurements of the local damping open loop transfer functions, then we'll think how to improve the sensors' behaviour.
Today we took some measurements of transfer functions and power spectra of suspensions of the MC* mirrors (open loop), for all the DOFs (PIT, POS, SIDE, YAW); the purpose is to evaluate the Q factor of the resonances and then improve the local damping system.
To check out the bandwidths and cross-coupling in the WFS loops, I made a script (attached) to step the offsets around, sleeping between steps. Its also in the scripts/MC/WFS/ dir.
You can see from the steps that there is some serious cross coupling from WFS1-PIT to MC_TRANS PIT. This cross-coupling is not a disaster because we run the MC2 centering loop with such a low gain. This gain hirearchy means that you can effectively consider the IMC with the WFS loops closed to be an "open loop" plant that the MC TRANS loop is trying to control.
I've started another run at 4:40 UTC since my previous one only paused for 30 seconds after turning each offset OFF/ON. This is clearly not long enough to grab the MC_TRANS loop; although you can tell sort of how slow it is from the slope of the error signal after the step is applied.
To make the plot, I used diaggui in the time series mode, with a 3 Hz BW. I applied a 4th order Butterworth filter at 0.3 Hz to low pass the data using the foton string in the time series tool.
# toggles the offsets on the WFS loops so that we can estimate the
# loop UGF from the step response
# requires that you have put appropriate size offsets
# in the WFS1/WFS2/MC_TRANS filter banks.
# the offset should be just enough to see in the error signal,
# but not so much that the transmitted power drops by more than ~10%
Also reply to: 40m/17255
I ran the toggleWFSoffsets.py script to generate a step response of the WFS loops in operation. Attachment 1 shows the diaggui measured time response following the parameters mentioned in 40m/17255. There are few things to quickly note from this measurement without doing detailed analysis:
To get out the UGF of the loops from the step responses, I need to read this into python and apply the same filters and analyze time constants. I still have to do this part, but I thought I'll put out the result before spending more time on this.
With all of the shaking (man-made and divine), it was a hard to debug this problem. Summary of fixes:
At least the DC indicators are telling me that the IMC locking is back to a somewhat stable state. I have not yet checked the frequency noise / RIN.
I resume my IMC ringdown activities now that the IMC is aligned again.
To avoid any accidental misalignments Gautam turned off all the inputs to the WFS servo.
I set up a PD and a lens as in attachment 1 (following Gautam's setup).
I connect the REFL, TRANS and INPut PDs to the oscilloscope.
I connect a Siglent function generator to the AOM driver. I try to shut off the light to the IMC using 1V DC waveform and pressing the output button manually. However, it produced heavily distorted step function in the PMC trans PD.
I use a square wave with a frequency of 20mHz instead with an amplitude of 0.5V offset of 0.25V and dutycycle of 1% so there will be minimal wasted time in the off state. I get nice ringdowns (attachment 2) - forgot to take pictures. The autolocker slightly misaligns the M2 every time it is acting, so I manually align it everytime the IMC gets unlocked.
Data analysis will come later.
I remove the PD and lens and reenable the WFS servo inputs. The IMC locks easily. The WFS outputs are very different than 0 now though.
changed some y-scale limits on the WFS summary pages to zoom in better
- Updated the circuit diagrams:
IMC WFS Demodulator Board, Rev. 40m https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-D1600503
IMC WFS Whitening Board, Rev. 40m https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-D1600504
- Measured the noise levels of the whitening board, demodboard, and nominal free running WFS signals.
- IMC WFS demod phases for 8ch adjusted
Injected an IMC PDH error point offset (@1kHz, 10mV, 10dB gain) and adjusted the phase to have no signal in the Q phase signals.
- The WFS2 PITCH/YAW matrix was fixed
It was found that the WFS heads were rotated by 45 deg (->OK) in CW and CCW for WFS1 and 2, respectively (oh!), while the input matrices were identical! This made the pitch and yaw swapped for WFS2. (See attachment)
- Measured the TFs MC1/2/3 P/Y actuation to the error signals
Noise analysis of the WFS error signals.
Attachment 1: All error signals compared with the noise contribution measured with the RF inputs or the whitening inputs terminated.
Attachment 2: Same plot for all the 16 channels. The first plot (WFS1 I1) shows the comparison of the current noise contributions and the original noise level measured with the RF terminated with the gain adjusted along with the circuit modification for the fair comparison. This plot is telling us that the electronics noise was really close to the error signal.
I wonder if we have the calibration of the IMC suspensions somewhere so that I can convert these plots in to rad/sqrtHz...?
WFS1 / WFS2 demod phases and WFS signal matrix
Signal transfer function measurements
C1:SUS-MC*_ASCPIT_EXC channels were excited for swept sine measurements.
The TFs to WFS1-I1~4, Q1~4, WFS1/2_PIT/YAW, MC2TRANS_PIT/YAW signals were recorded.
The MC1 and MC3 actuation seems to have ~30Hz elliptic LPF somewhere in the electronics chain.
This effect was compensated by subtracting the approximated time delay of 0.022sec.
The TFs were devided by freq^2 to make the response flat and averaged between 7Hz to 15Hz.
The results have been summarized in Attachment 3&4.
Attachment 4 has the signal sensing matrix. Note that this matrix was measured with the input gain of 0.1.
Input matrix for diagonalizing the actuation/sensor response
e.g. To produce pure WFS1P reaction, => -1.59 MC1P + 0.962 MC2P + 0.425 MC3P
Now, the output matrices in the previous entry were implemented.
The WFS servo loops have been engaged for several hours.
So far the REFL and TRANS look straight. Let's see how it goes.
It didn't go crazy at least for the past 24hours.
At Hanford, there is this issue with laser jitter turning into an IMC error point noise injection. I wonder if we can try out taking the acoustic band WFS signal and adding it to the MC error point as a digital FF. We could then look at the single arm error signal to see if this makes any improvement. There might be too much digital delay in the WFS signals if the clock rate in the model is too low.
Koji responding to Rana
> For the rough calibration below 10 Hz, we can use the SUS OSEM cal: the SUSPIT and SUSYAW error signals are in units of micro-radians.
I can believe the calibration for the individual OSEMs. But the input matrix looked pretty random, and I was not sure how it was normalized.
If we accept errors by a factor of 2~3, I can just naively believe the calibration factors.
> If the RF signals at the demod input are low enough, we can consider either increasing the light power on the WFS or increasing the IMC mod. depth.
The demod chip has the conversion factor of about the unity. We increased the gains of the AF stages in the demod and whitening boards. However, we only have the RMS of 1~20 counts. This means that we have really small RF signals. We should check what's happening at the RF outputs of the WFS units. Do we have any attenuators in the RF chain? Can we skip them without making the WFS units unstable?
The WFS gains are supposedly maximized already. If we remotely try to increase the gain, the two MAX4106 chips in the RF path will oscillate with each other.
The whitening board saids it is Rev B, but the actual component values are more like Rev. C.
The input stage (AD602) has an input resistor of 909 Ohm.
This is causing a big attenuation of the signal (x1/10) because the input impedance of AD602 is not high. And this screws up the logarithm of the gain.
I don't think this is a right approach.