The misalignment wasn't as bad as I had intially feared; the spot was indeed pretty high on ETMX at first. Both transmon QPDs did need a reasonable amount of steering to center once the dither had centered the beam spots on the optics.
Arms, PRMI and DRMI have all been locked and dither aligned. All oplevs and transmon QPDs have been centered. All AS and REFL photodiodes have been centered.
Green TM00 modes are seen in each arm; I'll do ALS recovery tomorrow.
Good 8 hours
Rana came by and freed ITMX again. I think it shouldn't be a problem for me to free it if it happens again.
In hopes of getting better SNR on the free swing spectra, we kicked all optics at around 7pm. The damping should come back on a little after midnight. ITMX did not get stuck after this kick.
We moved the Acromag and its power supply to the X end, where we connected it to the diagnostic output of the NPRO controller. We renamed the channels to be descriptive of the pin outputs as described in the laser manual. We were able to recover readouts similar to those we found with a multimeter.
We should figure out how to set up the channels on the front end machines: right now they are accessed through a tmux session running on pianosa. Once we are confident in the operation, we will make a box to contain the Acromag and wire connections and move the setup to connect to the PSL controller.
Just a heads up, it looks like the damping came on at around 8:30pm. Not sure why.
PMC was terribly misaligned. The PMCR camera seems to have drifted somewhat off target too, but I didn't touch it.
Realigned ITMX for the nth time today.
Finding ALSY beatnote was easy, ALSX eludes me. I did a rough one-point realignment on the X beat PD which is usually enough, but it's probably been long enough that near/far field alignmnet is neccesary.
ALSY noise is mostly nominal, but there is a large 3Hz peak that is visible in the spot motion, and also modulates the beat amplitude by multiple dBs.
It looked to me that the ETMY oplev spot was moving too much, which led me to measure the oplev OLGs. There is some wierd inter-loop interference going on between OLPIT and OLYAW. With both on (whether OSEM damping is on or off, so input matrix shenanigans can't be to blame) there is a very shallow "notch" at around 4.5Hz, which leads to very little phase at 3Hz, and thus tons of control noise. Turning the OL loop not being measured off makes this dip go away, but the overall phase is still signfinicantly less than we should have. I'm not sure why. I'll just show the PIT plot, but things look pretty much the same for YAW.
I did some more ETMX tests. Locked arm, raised the servo output limit to 15k, then increased the gain to make the loop unstable. I saw the SUS LSC signals go up to tens of thousands of counts when the unlock happened. I did this a dozen times or so, and every time the ETM settled in the same angular position according to the oplev.
Right now, another hysteresis script is running, misaliging in pitch and yaw. Amplitude 1V in each direction. So far, everything is stable after three on/off cycles.
With the WFS and OL, we never have figured out a good way to separate pit and yaw. Need to figure out a reference for up/down and then align everything to it: quad matrix + SUS output matrix
I scripted a series of YARM DC reflectivity measurements last night alternating between locked state and unlocked state (with ETMY misaligned) for measuring the after-vent armloss. The general procedure is based on elog 11810, but I'll also give a brief summary here.
I did this back in June (but strangely never posted what I found, shame on me). What I found back then was a YARM loss of 237 ppm +/- 41 ppm and an XARM loss of 501 ppm +/- 105 ppm
Last night's data indicates a YARM loss of 143 ppm +/- 24 ppm after cleaning with first contact.
THIS IS STILL ASSUMING THAT THE MODE-MATCHING HASN'T CHANGED. We had however moved ETMY closer to ITMY during the vent by 19mm. Gautam and I had some trouble setting up the ALS to confirm the mode-matching, but we're in the process of recovering the XARM IR beat.
Some things I did last night:
I measured the X PDH OLG, and turned the gain down by ~6dB to bring the UGF back to 10kHz, ~50deg phase margin, 10dB gain margin. However, the error signal on the oscilloscope remained pretty ratty. Zooming in, it was dominated by glitches occuring at 120Hz. I went to hook up the SR785 to the control signal monitor to see what the spectrum of these glitches looked like, but weirdly enough connecting the SR785's input made the glitches go away. In fact, with one end of a BNC connector plugged into a floating SR785 input, touching the other end's shield to any of the BNC shields on the uPDH chassis made the glitches go away.
This suggested some ground loop shenanigans to me; everything in the little green PDH shelves is plugged into a power strip which is itself plugged into a power strip at the X end electronics rack, behind all of the sorensens. I tried plugging the power strip into some different places (including over by the chamber where the laser and green refl PD are powered), but nothing made the glitches go away. In fact, it often resulted in being unable to lock the PDH loop for unknown reasons. This remains unsolved.
As Gautam and Johannes observed, the X green beat was puny. By hooking up a fast scope directly to the beat PD output, I was able to fine tune the alignment to get a 80mVpp beat, which I think is substaintially bigger than what we used to have. (Is this plus the PDH gain changed really attributable to arm loss reduction? Hm)
However, the DFD I and Q outputs have intermittent glitches that are big enough to saturate the ADC when the whitening filters are on, even with 0dB whitening gain, which makes it hard to see any real ALS noise above a few tens of Hz or so. Turning off the whitening and cranking up the whitening gain still shows a reasonably elevated spectrum from the glitches. (I left a DTT instance with a spectrum on in on the desktop, but forgot to export...) The glitches are not uniformly spaced at 120Hz as in the PDH error signal. However, the transmitted green power also showed intermittant quick drops. This also remains unsolved for the time being.
I started a script on Friday night to collect some data for a reflection armloss measurement of the XARM. Unfortunately there seemed to have been a hickup in some data transfer and some errors were produced, so we couldn't really trust the numbers.
Instead, we took a series of manual measurements today and made sure the interferometer is well behaved during the averaging process. I wrote up the math behind the measurement in the attached pdf.
The numbers we used for the calculations are the following:
While we average about 50 ppm +/-15 ppm for the XARM loss with a handful of samples, in a few instances the calculations actually yielded negative numbers, so there's a flaw in the way I'm collecting the data. There seems to be a ~3% drift in the signal level on the PO port on the order of minutes that does not show in the modecleaner transmission. The signals are somewhat small so we're closing the shutter over night to see if it could be an offset and will investigate further tomorrow. I went back and checked my data for the YARM, but that doesn't seem to be affected by it.
We poked around trying to figure out the X PDH situation. In brief, the glitchiness comes and goes, not sure what causes it. Tried temp servo on/off and flow bench fan on/off. Gautam placed a PD to pick off the pre-doubler AUX X IR light to see if there is some intermittant intensity fluctuation overnight. During non-glitchy times, ALSX noise profile doesn't look too crazy, but some new peak around 80Hz and somewhat elevated noise compared to historical levels above 100Hz. It's all coherent with the PDH control up there though, and still looks like smooth frequency noise...
NB: The IR intensity monitoring PD is temporarily using the high gain Transmon PD ADC channel, and is thus the source of the signal at C1:LSC-TRY_OUT_DQ. If you want to IR lock the X arm, you must change the transmon PD triggering to use the QPD.
We let the PSL shutter closed overnight and observed the POXDC, POYDC and ASDC offsets. While POY has small fluctuations compared to the signal level, POX is worse off, and the drifts we observed live in the DC reading are in the same ballpark as the offset fluctuations. The POXDC level also unexpectedly increased suddenly without the PSL shutter being opened, which we can't explain. The data we took using POXDC cannot be trusted.
Even the ASDC occasionally shows some fluctuations, which is concerning because the change in value rivals the difference between locked and misaligned state. It turns out that the green shutters were left open, but that should not really affect the detectors in question.
We obtained loss numbers by measuring the arm reflections on the ASDC port instead. LSCoffsets was run before the data-taking run. For each arm we misaligned the respective other ITM to the point that moving it no longer had an impact on the ASDC reading. By taking a few quick data points we conclude the following numbers:
XARM: 247 ppm +/- 12 ppm
YARM: 285 ppm +/- 13 ppm
This is not in good agreement with the POYDC value. The script is currently running for the YARM for better statistics, which will take a couple hours.
ITMX is misaligned for the purpose of this measurement, with the original values saved.
GV edit 5Oct2016: Forgot to mention here that Johannes marked the spot positions on the ITMs and ETMs (as viewed on the QUAD in the control room) with a sharpie to reflect the current "well aligned" state.
There are multiple methods by which the arm loss can be measured, including, but not limited to:
We found that the second method is extremely sensitive to errors in the ITM transmissivity. The first method was not an option for a while because the AOM (which serves as a fast shutter to cut the light to the cavity and thereby allow measurement of the cavity ringdown) was not installed. Johannes and Shubham have re-installed this so we may want to consider this method.
Most of the recent efforts have relied on the 3rd method, which itself is susceptible to many problems. As Yutaro found, there is something weird going on with ASDC which makes it perhaps not so reliable a sensor for this measurement (unfortunately, no one remembered to follow up on this during the vent, something we may come to regret...). He performed some checks and found that for the Y arm, POY is a suitable alternative sensor. However, the whitening gain was at 0dB for the measurements that Johannes recently performed (Yutaro does not mention what whitening gain he used, but presumably it was not 0). As a result, the standard deviation during the 10s averaging was such that the locked and misaligned readings had their 'fuzz' overlapping significantly. The situation is worse for POX DC - today, Eric checked that the POX DC and POY DC channels are indeed reporting what they claim, but we found little to no change in the POX DC level while misaligning the ITM - even after cranking the whitening gain up to 40!
Eric then suggested deriving ASDC from the AS110 photodiode, where there is more light. This increased the SNR significantly - in a 10s averaging window, the fuzz is now about 10 ADC counts out of ~1500 (~<1%) as opposed to ~2counts out of 30 previously. We also set the gains of POX DC, POY DC and ASDC to 1 (they were 0.001,0.001 and 0.5 respectively, for reasons unknown).
I ran a quick measurement of the X arm loss with the new ASDC configuration, and got a number of 80 +/- 10 ppm (7 datapoints), which is wildly different from the ~250ppm number I got from last night's measurement with 70 datapoints. I was simultaneously recording the POX DC value, which yielded 40 +/- 10 ppm.
We also discovered another possible problem today - the spot on the AS camera has been looking rather square (clearly not round) since, I presume, closing up and realigning everything. By looking at the beam near the viewport on the AS table for various configurations of the ITM, we were able to confirm that whatever is causing this distortion is in the vacuum. By misaligning the ITM, we are able to recover a nice round spot on the AS camera. But after running the dither align script, we revert to this weirdly distorted state. While closing up, no checks were done to see how well centered we are on the OMs, and moreover, the DRMI has been locked since the vent I believe. It is not clear how much of an impact this will have on locking the IFO (we will know more after tonight). There is also the possibility of using the PZT mounted OMs to mitigate this problem, which would be ideal.
Long story short -
GV Edit 8 Oct 2016: Going through some old elogs, I came across this useful reference for loss measurement. It doesn't talk about the reflection method (Method 3 in the list at the top of this elog), but suggests that cavity ringdown with the Trans PD yields the most precise numbers, and also allows for measuring TITM
This elog is meant to review some of the important changes made during the vent this summer - please add to this if I've forgotten something important. I will be adding this to the wiki page for a more permanent record shortly.
Optics, OSEM and suspension status:
ITMX & ITMY
Summary of characterization tasks to be done:
I did a quick survey of the drive electronics for the PZT OM mirrors today. The hope is that we can correct for the clipping observed in the AS beam by using OM4 (in the BS/PRM chamber) and OM5 (in the OMC chamber).
Here is a summary of my findings.
I hope these have the correct in-vacuum connections. We also have to hope that the clipping is downstream of OM4 for us to be able to do anything about it using the PZT mirrors.
Johannes acquired a crate to contain the Acromag setup and wiring, and installed a rail along the bottom panel so that the ADC units will be oriented vertically with the ehternet ports facing up. We briefly talkes about what the layout should be, and are thinking of using 2 rails, one for ADCs and one for DACs. We want to design a generic front panel to accept 25 pin D-Sub inputs and maybe also BNCs, which we can use for all the Acromag crates.
I got the epics session for the acromag to run on c1iscex and was able to access the channel values using caget on donatella. However, I get the following warning:
cas warning: Using dynamically assigned TCP port 48154,
cas warning: but now two or more servers share the same UDP port.
cas warning: Depending on your IP kernel this server may not be
cas warning: reachable with UDP unicast (a host's IP in EPICS_CA_ADDR_LIST)
It seems like there might be a way to assign a port for each unit, if this is a problem.
Also, c1iscex doens't have tmux; what's the best way to run the modbusApp and then detach? Right now I just left an epics session running in an open terminal.
We engaged the HV driver to the output port PZTs, hoping to mitigate the AS port clipping. Basically, the range of the PZT is not enough to make the beam look clean. Also, our observation suggested there are possible multiple clipping in the chamber. We need another vent to make the things clearly right. Eric came in the lab and preparing the IFO for it.
1. Before the test, the test masses have been aligned with the dither servo.
2. We looked at the beam shape on the AS camera with a single bounce beam. We confirmed that the beam is hard-clipped at the upper and left sides of the beam on the video display. This clipping is not happening outside of the chamber.
3. We brought an HV power supply to the short OMC rack. There is a power supply cable with two spades. The red and black wires are +150V and GND respectively.
4. The voltage of +/-10V was applied on each of the four PZT drive inputs. We found that the motion of the beam on the camera is tiny and in any case, we could not improve the beam shape.
5. We wondered that if we are observing ANY improvement of the clipping. For this purpose, we aligned AS110 sensor every time we gave the misalignment with the PZTs. Basically, we are at the alignment to have the best power we can get. We thought this was weird.
6. Then we moved the AS port spot with the ITMX. We could clearly make the spot more round. However, this reduced the power at the AS port reduced by ~15%. When the beam was further clipped, the power went down again. Basically, the initial alignment gave us the max power we could get. As the max power was given with the clipped beam, we get confused and feel safer to check the situation with the chambers open.
During this investigation, we moved the AS port opitcs and the AS camera. So they are not too precise reference of the alignment. The PZT HV setup has been removed.
I have completed the following non-Steve portions of the pre-vent checklist [wiki-40m.ligo.caltech.edu]
All shutters are closed. Ready for Steve to check nuts and begin venting!
- checked all jam nuts
- checked all viewports are covered
- turned oplev servos off
- took pictures of medm screens: sus summs, aligned oplev centering, IFO& MC alignment biases and vac configuration
- checked particle counts
- checked crane operational safety
- closed V1, VM1, annuloses
- opened VV1 and vented with Airgas brand, Industrial Grade Nitrogen [ 99.99% ] to 25 Torr
- switched over to Airgas brand compressed air, Alphagas " AI UZ300 " with Total Hydro Carbon 0.1 PPM
I did the following today to prepare for taking the doors off tomorrow.
I am leaving all shutters closed overnight.
So I think we are ready to take the doors off at 8am tomorrow morning, unless anyone thinks there are any further checks to be done first.
Should we look to do anything else now? One thing that comes to mind is should we install ITM baffles? Or would this be more invasive than necessary for this vent?
Steve reported to me that he was unable to ssh into the control room machines from the laptops at the Xend and near the vacuum rack. The problem was with pianosa being frozen up. I did a manual reboot of pianosa and was able to ssh into it from both laptops just now.
We re-checked IMC locking, arm alignments (we were able to lock and dither align both arms today, and also made the michelson spot look reasonable on the camera) and made sure that the AS and REFL spots were in the camera ballpark. We then proceeded to remove the heavy doors off ITMY and BS/PRM chambers. We also quickly made sure that it is possible to remove the side door of the OMC chamber with the current crane configuration, but have left it on for now.
The hunt for clipping now begins.
In the afternoon, we took the heavy door off the OMC chamber as well, such that we could trace the AS beam all the way out to the AP table.
In summary, we determined the following today:
Attachment #5 is extracted from the 40m CAD drawing which was last updated in 2012. It shows the beam path for the output beam from the BS all the way to the table (you may need to zoom in to see some labels. The drawing may not be accurate for the OMC chamber but it does show all the relevant optics approximately in their current positions.
EQ will put up photos from the ITMY and BS/PRM chambers.
Plan for Monday: Reconfirm all the findings from today immediately after running the dither alignment so that we can be sure that the ITMs are well-aligned. Then start at OM1 and steer the beam out of the chambers, centering the beam as best as possible given other constraints on all the optics sequentially. All shutters are closed for the weekend, though I left the SOS iris in the chamber...
Here is the link to the Picasa album with a bunch of photos from the OMC chamber prior to us making any changes inside it - there are also some photos in there of the AS beam path inside the OMC chamber...
[ericq, lydia, gautam]
IMC realignment, Arm dither alignment
Lydia and I investigated the extra green beam situation. Here are our findings.
I can't think of an easy fix for this - the layout on the OMC chamber is pretty crowded, and potential places to install a beam dump are close to the AS and IMC REFL beam paths (see Attachment #1). Perhaps Steve can suggest the best, least invasive way to do this. I will also try and nail down more accurately the origin of these spots tomorrow.
Light doors are back on for the night. I re-ran the dithers, and centered the oplevs for all the test-masses + BS. I am leaving the PSL shutter closed for the night
Tilted viewports installed in horizontal position. Atm2
[ericq, lydia, steve, gautam]
AS beam on OM1
Link to IMG_2337.JPG
AS beam on OM2
AS beam on OM3
AS beam on OM4
I didn't manage to get a picture of the beam on OM5 because it is difficult to hold a card in front of it and simultaneously take a photo, but I did verify the centering...
It remains to update the CAD diagram to reflect the new AS beam path - there are also a number of optics/other in-vacuum pieces I noticed in the BS/PRM and OMC chambers which are not in the drawings, but I should have enough photos handy to fix this.
Here is the link to the Picasa album with a bunch of photos from the OMC, BS/PRM and ITMY chambers prior to putting the heavy doors back on...
SRM satellite box has been removed for diagnostics by Rana. I centered the SRM Oplev prior to removing this, and I also turned off the watchdog and set the OSEM bias voltages to 0 before pulling the box out (the PIT and YAW bias values in the save files were accurate). Other Oplevs were centered after dither-aligning the arms (see Attachment #8, ignore SRM). Green was aligned to the arms in order to maximize green transmission (GTRX ~0.45, GTRY ~0.5, but transmission isn't centered on cameras).
I don't think I have missed out on any further checks, so unless anyone thinks otherwise, I think we are ready for Steve to start the pumpdown tomorrow morning.
These old specs are not so bad. But we now want to get replacements for the TRX and TRY and PSL viewports that are R <0.1% at 532 and 1064 nm.
I don't know of any issues with keeping BK-7 as the substrate.
The pressure on the newly installed gauge on the X arm was 6E-5 torr when I came in today evening, so I decided to start the recovery process.
I worked on recovering ALS today. Alignments had drifted sufficiently that I had to to the alignment on the PSL table onto the green beat PDs for both arms. As things stand, both green (and IR) beats have been acquired, and the noise performance looks satisfactory (see Attachment #1), except that the X beat noise above 100Hz looks slightly high. I measured the OLTF of the X end green PDH loop (after having maximized the arm transmission, dither alignment etc, measurement done at error point with an excitation amplitude of 25mV), and adjusted the gain such that the UGF is ~10kHz (see Attachment #2).
Given that most of the post vent recovery tasks were done, and that the ALS noise performance looked good enough to try locking, we decided to try PRFPMI locking again last night. Here are the details:
PRM alignment, PRMI locking
Post the most recent vent, where we bypass the OMC altogether, we have a lot more light now at the AS port. It has not yet been quantified how much more, but from the changes that had to be made to the loop gain for a stable loop, we estimate we have 2-3 times more power at the AS port now.
Great to hear that we have the PRG of ~16 now!
Is this 150ppm an avg loss per mirror, or per arm?
The autolocker was acting up today, Gautam traced it to EPICS channels ( namely C1:IOO-MC_LOCK_ENABLE and C1:IOO-MC_AUTOLOCK_BEAT ) served by c1iool0 not being responsive and keyed the crate. This restored it nominal operation.
I realized that I did not have a Finesse model to reflect the current situation of flipped folding mirrors (I've been looking at 'ideal' RC cavity lengths with folding mirrors oriented with HR side inside the cavity so we didn't have to worry about the substrate/AR surface losses), and it took me a while to put together a model for the current configuration. Of course this calculation does not need a Finesse model but I thought it would be useful nevertheless.
In summary - the model with which the attached plot was generated assumes the following:
This calculation agrees well with the analytic results Yutaro computed here - the slight difference is possibly due to assuming different losses in the RC folding mirrors.
The conclusion from this study seems to be that the arm loss is now in the 100-150ppm range (so each mirror has 50-75ppm loss). But these numbers are only so reliable, we need an independent loss measurement to verify. In fact, during last night's locking efforts, the arm transmission sometimes touched 400 (=> PRG ~22), which according to these plots suggest total arm losses of ~50ppm, which would mean each mirror has only 25ppm loss, which seems a bit hard to believe.
It is also difficult to have a high arm transmission without having high PRG.
What about to plot the arm trans and the REFL DC power in a timeseries?
Or even in a correlation plot (X: Arm Trans or PRG vs Y: REFL Reflectivity)
This tells you an approximate location of the critical coupling, and allows you to calibrate the PRG, hopefully.
As Gautam mentioned, we had some success locking the PRFPMI last night. (SRM satellite box is still in surgery...)
Unsurprisingly, changing the loss/PRG/CARM finesse means we had to fiddle with the common mode servo parameters a little bit to get things to work. However, before too long, we achieved a first lock on the order of a few minutes. Not long afterwards, we had a nice half hour lock stretch where we could tune up the AO crossover and loop UGFs. The working locking script was committed to SVN. Really, no fundamentally new tactics were used, which is encouraging. (One thing I wondered about was whether a narrower CARM linewidth would still let our direct ALS->REFL11 handoff with no offset reduction work. Turns out it does)
However, the step where we increase the analog CARM gain isn't as bulletproof as it once had been. The light levels "sputter" in and out sometimes if the gain increases are too agressive, and can cause a lockloss. Maybe this is an effect of the narrower linewidth and injecting more ALS noise at high frequencies with the higher CARM bandwidth.
The spatial profiles of the light on the cameras is totally bananas. Here's AS and REFL.
As Koji suggested, here is a 2D histogram of TRY vs REFLDC. It appears that the visibility would max out at 75% or so at arm powers around 400. Indeed, we briefly saw powers that high, but as can be seen on the plot, we were usually a little under 300. Exploring the transmon QPD offset space didn't seem to have much effect here.
One thing that I hadn't looked at in previous locks is coherence with our ground seismometers. It would be cool to have more seismic feedforward, and looking at the frequency domain multiple coherence, it looks like we can win a lot between 1 and 20 Hz. I expected more of a win at 1Hz, though.
Following Koji's suggestion, I decided to investigate the relation between my Finesse model and the measured data.
For easy reference, here is the loss plot again:
Sticking with the model, I used the freedom Finesse offers me to stick in photodiodes wherever I desire, to monitor the circulating power in the PRC directly, and also REFLDC. Note that REFLDC goes to 0 because I am using Finesse's amplitude detector at the carrier frequency for the 00 mode only.
Both the above plots essentially show the same information, except the X axis is different. So my model tells me that I should expect the point of critical coupling to be when the average arm loss is ~100ppm, corresponding to a PRG of ~17 as suggested by my model.
Eric has already put up a scatter plot, but I reproduce another from a fresh lock tonight. The data shown here corresponds to the IFO initially being in the 'buzzing' state where the arms are still under ALS control and we are turning up the REFL gain - then engaging the QPD ASC really takes us to high powers. The three regimes are visible in the data. I show here data sampled at 16 Hz, but the qualitative shape of the scatter does not change even with the full data. As an aside, today I saw the transmission hit ~425!
I have plotted the scatter between TRX and REFL DC, but if I were to plot the scatter between POP DC and REFL DC, the shape looks similar - specifically, there is an 'upturn' in the REFL DC values in an area similar to that seen in the above scatter plot. POP DC is a proxy for the PRG, and I confirmed that for the above dataset, there is a monotonic, linear relationship between TRX and POPDC, so I think it is legitimate to compare the plot on the RHS in the row directly above, to the plot from the Finesse model one row further up. In the data, REFL DC seems to hit a minimum around TRX=320. Assuming a PRM transmission of 5.5%, TRX of 320 corresponds to a PRG of 17.5, which is in the ballpark of the region the model tells us to expect it to be. Based on this, I conclude the following:
In other news, I wanted to try and do the sensing matrix measurements which we neglected to do yesterday. I turned on the notches in CARM, DARM, PRCL and MICH, and then tuned the LO amplitudes until I saw a peak in the error signal for that particular DOF with peak height a factor of >10 above the noise floor. The LO amplitudes I used are
There should be about 15 minutes of good data. More impressively, the lock tonight lasted 1 hour (see Attachment #6, unfortunately FB crashed in between). Last night we lost lock while trying to transition control to 1f signals and tonight, I believe a P.C. drive excursion of the kind we are used to seeing was responsible for the lockloss, so the PRFPMI seems pretty stable.
With regards to the step in the lock acquisition sequence where the REFL gain is turned up, I found in my (4) attempts tonight that I had most success when I adjusted the CARM A slider while turning up the REFL gain to offload the load on the CARM B servo. Of course, this may mean nothing...
I don't think the loss of 25 ppm is outrageous. Its just surprisingly good. The SIS model predicted numbers more like 1 ppm / mirror taking into account just the phase map and not the coating defects.
However, we should take into account the lossed in the DRMI to be more accurate: AR coating reflectivities, scatter loss on those surfaces, as well as possible clipping around BS or some other optics.
Building: Campus Wide
Date: Thursday 11/03/16 at Approx. 6:20 a.m.
Notification: Unplanned City Wide Power Glitch Affecting Campus
*This is to notify you that the Caltech Campus experienced a campus wide power glitch at approx. 6:20 a.m. this morning.
The city was contacted and they do not expect any further interruptions related to this event.
The vacuum was not effected. ITM sus damping restored. IFO room air conditions on.
PSL Innolight and ETMY Lightwave lasers turned on
I did the following:
There was a regular beat coming from the speakers. After muting all the channels on the mixer and pulling the 3.5mm cable out, the sound persisted. It now looks like the mixer is broken
The projector failed just now with a pretty loud 'pop' sound - I've never been present when the lamp goes out, so I don't know if this is usual. I have left the power cable unplugged for now...
Replacement is ordered Nov 4
Looking back at elog 12528, the uncertainty in the armloss number from the individual quantities in the equation for can be written as:
Making some generous assumption about the individual uncertainties and filling in typical values we get in our measurements, results in the following uncertainty budget:
In my recent round of measurements I had a 2.5% uncertainty in the ASDC reading, which completely dominates the armloss assessment.
The most recent numbers are 57 ppm for the YARM and 21 ppm for the XARM, but both with an uncertainty of near 150 ppm, so while these numbers fit well with Gautam's estimate of the average armloss via PRG, it's not really a confirmation.
I set the whitening gain in ASDC to 24 dB and ran LSC offsets, and now I'm getting a relative uncertainty in measured reflected power of .22%, which would be sufficient for ~25ppm accuracy according to the above formula. I'm going to start a series of measurements tonight when I leave, should be done in ~2 hours (10 pm) the latest.
If anybody wants to do some night work: I misaligned ITMY by a lot to get its reflection off ASDC. Approximate values are saved as a restore point. Also the whitening gain on ASDC will have to be rolled back (was at 0dB) and LSC offsets adjusted.
PRM and SRM sat. boxes have been switched for some time now - but the PRM sat. box has one channel with a different transimpedance gain, and the damping loops for the PRM and SRM were not systematically adjusted to take this into account (I just tweaked the gain for the PRM and SRM side damping loops till the optic damped). Since both sat. boxes are nominally functioning now, I saw no reason to maintain this switched configuration so I swapped the boxes back, and restored the damping settings to their values from March 29 2016, well before either of this summer's vents. In addition, I want to collect some data to analyze the sat. box noise performance so I am leaving the SRM sat. box connected to the DAQ, but with the tester box connected to where the vacuum feedthroughs would normally go (so SRM has no actuation right now). I will collect a few hours of data and revert later tonight for locking activities....
I had a mistake in my script that reported the wrong error after averaging several datapoints, and because I hadn't looked at the individual numbers I didn't catch it so far. Thanks to Gautam it is no more.
The updated numbers are (with fresh, more trustworthy data):
XARM: 21 +/ 35 ppm
YARM: 69 +/- 45 ppm
This looks much better. I'm planning to take more data with the AS110 PD rather than AS55 when I get the chance, increase the averaging time, and also sigma filter the datapoints. That should get us to a good spot and cut down the uncertainty even further.
I am currently looking at the acoustic noise around both arms to see if there are any frequencies from machinery around the lab that stand out and to see what we can remove/change.
I don't like AS110 or AS55. Neither of them are designed for DC and so the DC readout chain is hokey. How about use an actual transimpedance PD with a 100-1000 Ohm resistor and a 3 mm diode? This would eliminate the alignment sensitivity and the drifts due to electronics and room lights.
Vivitek D952HD sn2160130 was send out for warranty repair. It's hard to believe that it has a 5 year warranty...... RMA - WR16004483.....expected to be back by Friday, Dec 2
The most recent power outage took out our projector and mixer. The projector was sent for repair while we ordered a new mixer. Both arrived today. Steve is working on re-installing the projector right now, and I installed the mixer which was verified to be working with our DAFI system (although the 60Hz issue still remains to be sorted out). The current channel configuration is:
Ch1: 3.5mm stereo output from pianosa
Ch2: DAFI (L)
Ch3: DAFI (R)
I've set some random gains for now, but we will have audio again when locking
Manasa pointed me to the CAD drawings in the 40m SVN and I've now uploaded them to the 40m DCC Tree so that EricG and SteveV can convert them into SolidWorks.
Caltech Facilities promissed to email the 40m facility drawings in Cad format.
I organized the old of optical , vacuum and facility layout drawings on paper in the old cabinet.
As stated in elog 12618, using an oscilloscope to average the reflected powers and thus circumventing all filtering yielded much better results than before:
XARM: 21 +/- 35 ppm
YARM: 69 +/- 45 ppm
We can probably decrease the measurement uncertainty further by using a larger photodiode that is more suited for DC measurements. It will be placed in the AS pathtemporarily. If we get below 10 ppm systematic errors will begin to matter. To get those under control I will have to re-determine the visibility in the arm cavities and the modulation indices. The numbers to match from an estimate via the power recycing gain are <= 50 ppm arm average from elog 12586. Once the measurement scheme is up and running, we can proceed to generate ETM lossmaps. ITM will still be tricky but let's see what we can do.
Following Yutaro's approach, we can move the beams on the optcs in a deterministic way by several mm on the ETMs. Moving the beam is achieved by introducing offsets into the ASS auto alignment. As an example, the Yaw dither for ETMY is shown:
Each of the 8 test mass rotational degrees of freedom is driven by a particular frequency, and 2 signals are digitally demodulated in the real-time system: The arm transmission ("T") and the LSC arm length feedback signal to the ETM (L). The T signal feeds back to the input pointing, aka Tip Tilts and BS. This maximizes the transmission for a given test mass orientation. The L feedback controls the beam position on the mirrors in the arms. It minimizes the coupling of the dither to the length feedback, which is achieved when the beam goes through the axis of the rotational motion. This is where we introduce the offset:
The signal C1:ASS-YARM_ETM_YAW_L_DEMOD_I_OFFSET (for this example) moves the locking point of the dither-to-length coupling and thus moves the beam around on the ETM. This is true for the PIT and YAW of all test masses except ITMX. In the current configuration the TTs optimize the alignment into the YARM, and for the X we only have the BS, which is why the beam spot on ITMX cannot be independently controlled as-is. We could, however, for the sake of this measurement, temporarily temporarily give TT authority to the XARM feedback to control the ITMX beam position. I imagine something like dither-aligning with ASS the normal way, and then run a customized script in which the XARM is treated as the YARM, feecback to the BS is cut, and the YAW signals are inverted due to the reflection on BS.
Knowing the angle of the offset gives us a way to calculate the beam spot displacement with the cavity geometry. For best results I want to make sure our OpLev calibration is still good (laser power decay, although last time this was done was only about a year ago), which would be analogous to elog 11831.
As for ITM beam position, this scheme only works partially, because it would require the beam to steer further off its axis than in the ETM case. This is problematic because of the spacing between tip tilts and ITMs. I summarize: