40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 146 of 344  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Authorup Type Category Subject
  3165   Wed Jul 7 11:23:08 2010 Sharmila, KatharineUpdateWIKI-40M Update 

Weekly Update:

Last Weds-Thurs, we wrote and edited our progress reports.

Tuesday (and Weds morning):  Continued circuit analysis of Haixing's circuit and plotting transfer functions (almost have one for entire circuit).  Hooked up OSEM and circuit to power supply, but the LED didn't appear to light up in IR.  Now we are going to hook the OSEM directly to the power supply, sans circuit, to see if the problem is with the circuit or OSEM.

  3214   Wed Jul 14 11:32:36 2010 Sharmila, KatharineUpdateWIKI-40M Update 

Weekly update:

We correctly connected our circuit to power source to verify that it was functional and that our LED in the shadow sensor turned on.  It did, but we also noticed a funky signal from the LED driver.  We continued to attempt 1x1 levitation, but determined that the temporary flag we were using out of convenience (a long, thin cylindrical magnet) was weakly attracted to residually magnetized OSEM components.  We then switched to an aluminum screw as our flag.

We resoldered and applied heat shrink to the wires connecting our coil to the BNC terminal, since they were falling apart.

We sat down with Rana and removed circuit components in the LED drive part by part to determine what was tripping up the circuit.  We determined a rogue capacitor to be at fault and removed it from the circuit.

We used a spectrum analyzer to measure the frequency response of our circuit (see details in last elog).  We are currently making a Simulink block diagram so we can check the stability of our setup, but are temporarily set back because our plotted calculation of the transfer function clearly doesn't match the measured one.

  3114   Thu Jun 24 11:16:32 2010 Sharmila, Rana and KiwamuHowToVACInspection of the BS (sorry, no sounds)
  3212   Wed Jul 14 01:05:27 2010 Sharmila,KatharineSummaryelogMaglev

Yesterday we hooked up the Quadrant Maglev control to the power supply to test the components in the Input/Output part of the circuit.

The output from the buffer was an unexpected high noise signal which was caused by some circuit components.

Consequently these were replaced/removed after confirming the source of noise.

The following is a story of how it was done.

To test the components of input/output, we measured the output across TP_PD3(Test Point -Photo Diode 3).
We got a high noise signal with a frequency of several kHz.

We tested the values of various electronic components. The resistances R5 and R6 did not measure as mentioned(each had a value of 50 K in the schematic). The value of R6 was 10 K and we replaced R5 with a 10 K resistor. We still got the noise signal at 5.760 kHz with a Pk-Pk voltage of 2.6 V. The resistors in R-LED measured 1.5 K instead of the marked 2.2 K.

We had three suspects in hand:

  • BUF634P : A buffer from the Sallen-Key filter to the LED.
  • C24 : A capacitor which is a part of the Sallen-Key filter.
  • C23 : A capacitor in the feedback circuit of the Sallen-Key filter.

BUF634P : The data sheet for the BUF634P instructed a short across the 1-4 terminals in the presence of capacitive load.  We followed this to overcome the effect(if any) of the extra-long BNC cables which we were using. The oscilloscope still waved 'Hi!' at a few kHz. We removed the buffer and also the feedback resistor R42 from the circuit, what we were testing boiled down to measuring the output of the Sallen-Key filter. The output still contained the funny yet properly periodic signal at a few kHz.      


C24: Removing C24 did not do any good.

C23: As a final step C23 was removed. And ... We got a stable DC at 9.86 V(almost stable DC with a low noise at a few MHz). C24 and the buffer were replaced and output seemed fine. The output was a high frequency sine wave which was riding on a DC of 9.96 V.



We rechecked if the LED was on and the infrared viewer gave a positive signal.

We went ahead obtaining the transfer function of the feedback control for which we used a spectrum analyzer.

The input for feedback system is a photo current whereas the spectrum analyzer tests the circuit with a voltage impulse.  Hence the voltage input from the spectrum analyzer needs to be converted into current of suitable amplitude(few microamps) for testing the spectrum analyzer.  Similarly the output which is a coil current needs to be changed to a voltage output through a load for feeding into the channel of the spectrum analyzer. We used a suitable resistance box with BNC receiving ends to do this. We obtained a plot for the transfer function which is shown below.


Future plans:

- Check the calculated transfer functions with the plot of the spectrum analyzer

- Model the entire(OSEM, magnet, actuators etc.) system in Simulink and calculate the overall transfer function

- Stable levitation of the 1X1 system

  3250   Tue Jul 20 11:55:15 2010 Sharmila,KatharineUpdateelogMaglev

We plotted the transfer functions for the maglev control circuit and compared them with the plots from the spectrum
analyzer. We were stuck for sometime because

1) we had wrongly entered the value of one of the resistors which was off by a factor of 2000.
2) The plots were not done in right units. So we couldn't figure out differences quite well.

The two plots are shown below. We are still off by a factor of 3 which we'll figure out soon.


  3305   Wed Jul 28 12:09:06 2010 Sharmila,KatharineUpdateWIKI-40M UpdateMaglev

We have modeled our maglev setup in simulink but we have a few corrections to make since the system goes into undamped oscillations for an impulse in the input.

We have made a stable mount for the system and started to work on the 2X2 system using this mount. We have to figure out a way to match the magnets with the gain. We have attached the simulink block.


  3112   Thu Jun 24 01:02:34 2010 Sharmilla, Rana and KiwamuUpdateGreen Lockinga channel for PPKTP temperature

We added a channel on c1psl in order to monitor the temperature of the PPKTP sitting on the PSL table.

To take continuous data of the temperature we added the channel by editing the file: target/c1psl/c1psl.db

We named the channel "C1:PSL-PPKTP_TEMP".

To reflect this change we physically rebooted c1psl by keying the crate.

  563   Wed Jun 25 09:46:45 2008 SharonUpdate Adaptive Filters
I have been learning about different methods for applying adaptive filters to improve the Mode Cleaner lock in specific, and other LIGO systems in general.
Finding the exact number of coeffs we would like to apply for our FIR adaptive filter is very important to the efficiency of the filter. Getting this number higher might improve the accuracy of the filter, but costs time we do not have. Another important number to find is the step size. The step size is the variable that controls how far back we want to look into our data for finding the new coeffs. To understand more about the step size it is necessary to learn about the standard deviation of our input and output signals. By getting the step size too big, we are considering long term behavior, but might be missing out on a short term one.
In the near future I will be learning about the meanings of these variables and their contribution to the over all accuracy of our filters.
Results will be posted.
  704   Mon Jul 21 09:52:05 2008 SharonUpdate Adaptive code changes
Thanks to Alex, we now save the coefficients of the adaptive filter every cycle. When we choose ENABLE: OFF on the MEDM screen, suppressing the signal to the MC1, we stop and save the last coefficients. When enabling it again, it starts from the last coefficients saved. I will take some measurements today to check how this contributes to the adaptation rate. If you change the number of taps or the number of AUX channels, the coefficients are again set to zero.
  709   Mon Jul 21 19:48:57 2008 SharonUpdate how tp restart C1ASS
How to restart C1ASS:

1. reboot
2. as root: caltech/target/c1ass:> ./startass
3. no need for root: burtgooey

that's it...
  720   Wed Jul 23 10:47:05 2008 SharonUpdate Weekly update
This week I spent some time with Alex who updated the adaptive code to save the filter's coeffs all the time, stop when I open the loop, and reload the latest coeffs. when I start it again.
The point was to minimize the adaptation rate. Unfortunately, seems it is making some filters go wild, so it is not in use yet.
After taking some more measurements with the adaptive filter running, I have noticed a new peak in the signal around 22-23 Hz. My first assumption was that this is caused due to internal resonance of MC1 (which is driven when the adaptive code is running, and not when it's not). Therefore, I drove MC1 without the adaptive filter looking for the same peak... which wasn't there.
This sent me back to the adaptive code... Seems there is a matrix in the simulink file of the adaptive filter which doesn't have an MEDM screen. I am now working on making this screen. Once I am done with that, and make sure there is correlation between simulink and MEDM, I'll keep on chasing the peak in the code.
  723   Wed Jul 23 13:52:26 2008 SharonUpdate MEDM changes
There is a new MEDM screen now when you go from c1ass>top>pem.
Instead of having 12 "mini filters" screens go to 8 outputs (with the wrong correlation impression from the table), we have a 24X8 matrix.
This matrix is there so you could choose which noise signals you want to send to the adaptive code. When you indicate the number of noise channels you are going to use
on the nAUX option on the screen top, you are choosing the channels 1 to nAUX. Channels 15-22 are the seismic and accelerometers we are now using. (you can see the order in Jenne's post 673).
Hope this will make things clearer.
  739   Fri Jul 25 13:30:53 2008 SharonUpdate Changes in ASS computer
I editted the simulink diagram of the ASS computer so it now has 2 more channels reading 2 sets of the FIR coefficients to match Alex's changes in the C code.
The new simulink has already been compiled and can be found in /cvs/cds/caltech/users/alex/cds/advLigo/src/epics/simLink/ass.mdl
I backed up the old file and it's also in that folder under ass_BAK_24_jul.mdl

There is also a backup of the old ASS.ini file in caltech/chans/daq/C1ASS_BAK_24_jul.ini

Will update once it's all set and running
  740   Fri Jul 25 17:32:46 2008 SharonUpdate ASS computer
So, it seems a bit too complicated getting the coefficients the way I wanted it to happen (simulink-.ini...).
I returned everything to the way it was and it's all working. The new plan is to choose the specific channel I want to find its instantanous coefficients, let the adaptive code run for a while, setting mu and tau to zero (freezing the coefficients), and exciting the noise signal channel taking the transfer function. This way I can find the filter I want to simulate with an IIR filter.
Once I have the mode cleaner to myself, I'll start posting results.
  747   Mon Jul 28 12:02:32 2008 SharonUpdate accelerometers settings
Jenne, Sharon

We looked again at the channels of the accelerometers and there are some updates. Last time when we reported, we crossed the ADAP channels and the accelerometer. Now that there is a new MEDM screen, with which you can control which channels goes to which adaptive channels, this has no meaning...
Therefore, the channels that go with the noise source channels are:

PEM 15 MC1_X
PEM 16 MC1_Y
PEM 17 MC1_Z
PEM 18 MC2_X
PEM 19 MC2_Y
PEM 20 MC2_Z

disregard the last post regarding these channels by Jenne, since I am changing the ADAP channels all the time...
  750   Mon Jul 28 17:58:05 2008 SharonUpdate TOP screen changes
I wanted to test the adaptive code with a downsampling rate of 32 instead of 16. To do this I entered a 32 Hz ((2048/32)/2 - match Nyquist Freq.) low pass filter on the ERROR EMPH, MC1 and the relevant PEM channels.
  760   Tue Jul 29 21:04:55 2008 SharonUpdate OSEM's Power Spectrum
From 16:30 this afternoon
  765   Wed Jul 30 12:36:19 2008 SharonUpdate Weekly update
This week included many computer's issues. I tested Alex's new C code (the one that saves the FIR coefficients and restores them when you start running the code again). Seems there is an improvement in the adaptation time, but not a significant one (more details on the coming report). I had to recompile simulink and the FB whenever I wanted to find a solution for taking the record of those coefficients. This is so I could simulate the adaptive filter with a regular IIR filter and compare the two.
After Rob tried to help and it seems to be an impossible to a huge hassle mission, we thought of a different method to do this. I re-compiled the old simulink file and restored the .ini file and all should be back in place. Instead of finding the FIR coefficients, I am going to use one noise source in the adaptive filter, stop the adaptation (by setting mu and tau to 0), and put excitation instead of the noise signal. The transfer function I will get between the exc. and MC1_IN1 is the filter I am looking for.

Also seems that whenever I get the MC unstable, and the adaptive code stops itself, it doesn't come back. Setting the reset flag to a different number (anything other than 0) and pressing the reset button will get it working again, but the CPU will always flip and the ASS computer needed a restart. Still haven't found a problem in the C code, but that's the plan. Moreover, I want to change Alex's code, so that instead of starting from zero like in Matt's code, or starting from the old coefficients like in Alex's, it is going to calculate a Wiener Filter as the first set of coefficients. This will hopefully reduce the adaptation time.

I have also been working on my progress report, and stood in line for the MC... Still standing...
  814   Fri Aug 8 11:04:34 2008 SharonUpdate MCL Wiener filter
I took some old data from Rana and converted the units of the Weiner filter to m/m so to make the effect of the seismometer and accelerometers more obvious.

The data is in counts, and so to convert to m this is what I did:

%%% MC_L calibration
v_per_counts = 5/32768;
v_per_v = 3;
amp_per_N = 1/0.064;

%%% Accelerometers calibration
v_per_counts_acc = 61.045e-6;
g_per_v = 9.8/100;

%%% Seismometer calibration
v_per_counts_seis = 61.045e-6;
m_per_s_per_s_per_volt = 9.8/100;
m_per_v_per_s = 1/345;

for jj=1:6
hfmatm(:,jj)=hfmat(:,jj).*(v_per_counts.*v_per_v.*amp_per_N.*f)./(v_per_counts_acc*g_per_v); %%% accelerometers' data
hfmatm(:,7)=hfmat(:,7).*(v_per_counts.*v_per_v.*amp_per_N)./(v_per_counts_seis*m_per_v_per_s); %%% Seismometer data
  841   Fri Aug 15 16:45:43 2008 SharonUpdate Converting from FIR to IIR
I have been looking into different techniques to convert from FIR to IIR. This is so we can see how effective the adaptive FIR filter is in comparison to an IIR one with fewer taps.
For now I tried 2 matlab functions: Prony and stmcb (which works on LMS method).
I used the FIR wiener code, MC1_X, (c1wino) and applied the FIR to IIR algorithm.
Seems like the stmcb one works a bit better, and that there isn't much effect for having 1000 and not 400 taps.

Will keep updating on more results I have, and hopefully have the MC in time to actually check this live.
  850   Tue Aug 19 10:36:34 2008 SharonUpdate Calibrating accelerometers
I took apart the accelerometers near MC1 and MC2.
The 2 sets of 3 accelerometers are now covered by a box on the floor. Please try not to move them... I will place it all back once I am done calibrating.
  853   Tue Aug 19 14:25:38 2008 SharonUpdatePEMAccelerometer's calibration - update
Goal - Make sure the accelerometers are calibrated among themselves (have the same power spectrum when they are all together reading the same movements).

What I did - took the accelerometers off their usual X Y Z setting and set the 3 MC2's and 3 MC1's next to each other covered by a box.
Then I brought MC2 X to MC1 X and placed them in a box so I have a referance between the 2 groups.

Result - Seems MC1 accelerometers are much alike and have the same power spectrum when placed together for all frequencies. MC2 accelerometers seem to do the same until approximately 30 Hz. (decided not to correct for that since we don't really care about the accelerometers in such high frequencies).

When comparing the 2 X's, they also seemed to be almost perfectly correlated. I chose the gain by dividing the two and finding the mean of that in the range of 2 to 30 Hz. After correcting for all the accelerometers, I matched the gains of each group to its X accelerometer.

You can see the plots, taking into consideration that the groups were never together (pretty messy getting the cables all around).

Here are the numbers, when the MC2 and MC1 gains are calculated by comparing them to their X direction.

gain MC1 X_over_MC2 X=


gain_MC2_Y =


gain_MC2_Z =


gain_MC1_Y =


gain_MC1_Z =

  854   Tue Aug 19 17:00:19 2008 SharonUpdate Wiener TF calibration - update
This is an update for post 814

I added the calibration gains I got for the accelerometers (I realize I am just calibrating the accelerometers to themselves and this is not m/m exactly since we don't really know which accelerometer is doing exactly what we want it to do. However, since we are talking on relative small numbers, this shouldn't really change much).

I also added another missing gain for the seismometer. Rana has previously installed a 4300 ohm resistor in the seismometer, which changed the gain to 4300/(4300+5000) = 0.46 (this is from the manual). Moreover, there is a gain of 100 on the SR560. This comes up to an extra gain of 46, meaning multiplying the seismometer's counts by 1/46.
  855   Tue Aug 19 17:15:34 2008 SharonUpdate MEDM
I plugged in the gains I got for the accelerometers in the accelerometers' filters in the PEM screen of the adaptive filter
  863   Wed Aug 20 17:02:01 2008 SharonUpdate More FIR to IIR
I tested another method for converting from FIR to IIR other than the 2 mentioned in post 841.
I got this one from Yoichi, called poles fitting, you can read about it more if you want at: http://www.rssd.esa.int/SP/LISAPATHFINDER/docs/Data_Analysis/DA_Six/Heinzel.pdf.

Seems it's not doing much good for us though.

I am attaching a PDF file with the plots, which have N=50,100,600,1000, respectivaly.
  870   Fri Aug 22 13:58:39 2008 SharonSummary Trend of the Wiener TF
In order to understand if we really need an adaptive filter, I used old data of MC_L and the accelerometers and seismometer to see if the Wiener (ideal) TF between MC_L and the others really changes all the time.
Two tests I made:
  • Compare the TF after different segments of time, starting from the same point. Meaning, measuring the TF after 5,10,15,20... minutes, looking when and if the TF stablizes (stops changing).
  • Compare the TF between same-length segments, from different times. Meaning, comparing for example 2 segments of 10 minutes taken from different times.

  • As you can see in the attached PDF, the changes start being minor after 200,000 data points, which correspont to 200,000/256 s, which is approximately 13 minutes.
    If you look at the PDF file, it is arranged from shorter times to longer in the order of: 3, 6, 13, 26 and 39 minutes.

  • As expected, the TF between different segmants of the same length is not completely the same. Again, you can look at the attached PDF.
    Sorry the titles are the same. Each 2 consecutive pages represent the same length of segment in different times. The order of segment's lengths is: 3, 13, 26 and 39 minutes

How do I explain what's going on?

Since the Wiener filter finds the correlation matrix between the data and the noise signals, it will maintain some kind of familiar shape when we don't add a significant amount of unusual data. I am assuming that if I had looked at longer time periods, we could see a more significant change in the TF in time. When looking at different times, the average noise is likely to be different which can explain the change in the correlation matrix and the TF.

To sum up

I think we should give adaptive filtering a go.
  4846   Tue Jun 21 00:38:21 2011 SonaliUpdateGreen Lockingrepositioned "QPDY_PD"

1.The aim is the laser frequency stabilisation of PSL and AUX.

2.As a first step we want to couple some of the AUX laser beam into a single mode optical fibre and route the fibre to the PSL table.

3.The position of the optical fibre on the ETMY table is shown by the coupler in the attached picture. The yellow lines show the new scheme we want to implement.


  • The Y-arm was locked so that we could use the transmitted IR beam as the reference.
  • We shifted the position of the "QPDY_PD" .
  • We also shifted the "ETMYT" camera to make space for the "QPDY_PD".
  • The mirror  directing the beam into the "QPDY_PD" was rotated by 90 degrees to adhere to the new position of the "QPDY_PD".
  •  The attached photo shows the table as it is right now after the repositioning.
5.We continue with the positioning of the fibre-coupling tomorrow.
  4852   Wed Jun 22 01:59:43 2011 SonaliUpdateGreen Lockingfibre-coupling of the IR beam

 What I did today.

1. Collimation of a beam.

  • I then practiced collimation of a 700 nm laser (output) beam after being coupled through a fibre.
  • I put together the set-up as shown in the attached picture where I used ....... to couple 650nm light into the PM.... fiber.
  • I kept shifting the focus of the output beam to an appreciable distance till it was approximately collimated.

2. Coupling of the IR light at the ETMY table to a fibre.

  • The fibre coupler was put in place to couple light into the fiber.
  • I put in the mirrors as planned to direct the IR beam exiting the doubling crystal towards the fiber coupler (input).
  • The mirrors were aligned such that the beam falls on the input lens of the coupler.
  • The far-end of the fibre originally would have gone to to PSL table but it has been put on this table to study the power of the IR beam transmitted through this set-up.  The output end of the fiber has been connected to another fiber optic coupler to collimate the exiting beam.
  • The picture of the current status attached.
  4862   Thu Jun 23 02:12:12 2011 SonaliUpdateGreen Lockingwork schedule.

 June 22-June 24:

1.Coupling light into fibre at the ETMY.

2.Routing of the fibre to the PSL table.

June 27-June 30:

1.PSL optical table layout sketching.

2.Combining the PSL beam with fibre output onto a BS and then superpose them on a New Focus 1611 PD.

July 5-July 8:

1.Conversion of the PD output to voltage using MFD(Mixer Frequency Discriminator).

2. Report writing.

July 7: 5:00 pm: 1st Report Due.

July 11-July 22:

1.Locking Y-arm to PSL.

2.Setting up the feedback loop using the MFD output as the error signal and acting on the AUX laser frequency.

July 25-Aug 5:

1.Y-Arm cavity characterisation.

Measurement of the transmission of IR and green light through the cavity.


To obtain FSR, Finesse,Loss of the Cavity, Visibility, Transverse Modes(g-factor, astigmatism), Reflectivity, Q-factor.

3.Report and abstract writing.

Aug 1: 5:00 pm: 2nd Report and absract due.

Aug 8-11:

Preparation for talk and seminar.

  4882   Sat Jun 25 00:00:28 2011 SonaliUpdateGreen LockingFibre Coupling.

 What I did today.

1. I tried to align the IR input beam by aligning the two mirrors, to couple input light into the fibre.

2.I was unsuccessful for a long time even though I tried a lot of tricks.

3. I also tried to use the optical fault locator to superpose the IR beam spot onto the beam spot of the other laser to facilitate effective coupling.

4.But the crucial point was to superpose the input beam path in the perfect direction of the output beam path and not just the beam spot.(the input cone and the output cone are perfectly aligned).

5.After one whole day of trial and thought, I managed to couple light into the fibre, and saw the output beam spot on the screen-camera-monitor set-up which we had arranged. Eurekka !!;)

6.I then used a power meter to measure the input beam power and the output beam power.

7.It was a disappointing 2% . I had read in project reports of many students of a 20% success.

8.After a lot of subtle tweaking of the mirrors using the knobs, I managed to increase the percentage of output beam to 12%.

9. This is a workable level.

10.A day of lot of new learning! Pictures of the setup are attached.:)


  4901   Tue Jun 28 16:52:37 2011 SonaliUpdateGreen LockingRouting of fibre to PSL complete.

1. Suresh and I completed the alignment of the fibre and the three mirrors on the ETMY table.

2. We managed to get an output beam power of around 60% using the Ophir(Orion/PD) power meter to finetune the alignment. The power of the input beam is 74.4 mW and of the output beam is 38.5 mW.

3. The coupler on the output side of the fibre which had been put there to help in the alignment has been removed.

4. The picture of the ETMY layout as of now has been attached.

5. The labels A stands for the mirror used to turn the beam direction and B and C stand for the three mirrors used in the alignment of the beam into the coupler,D.(attachment 3).

6. The fibre we used is 50m in length which was barely sufficient to reach the PSL table.

7. So, the fibre has been routed to the PSL table using the fibre tray running below the Y-arm tube as this was the shortest route possible(even though it is a rather acccident prone zone).

8. The fibre has been tied down at regular intervals so that it does not get snagged and pulled up inadvertently.

9. We will start with the preparation of the layout of the PSL table to superpose the two beams on Monday.

  4977   Fri Jul 15 17:42:21 2011 SonaliUpdateGreen LockingPSL layout for superposition of the PSL,ETMX and ETMY beams.

The fibres carrying the beams from the ETMX as well as the ETMY have been routed to the PSL table now.

A part of the PSL beam has to be superposed on the fibre-outputs to obtain a beat signal. We have located a stray beam on the PSL(which is currently being dumped) which we plan to redirect for the same. The layout of the plan is attached herewith.

  4997   Wed Jul 20 10:10:19 2011 SonaliUpdateGreen LockingWeekly summary

 I finished wih the set-up at the ETMY table. Instead of the neutral Density Filter , I put in a mirror(Y1-1037-45S)  which is reflective for IR , so that only 1% of the light is incident on the fibre  as per Rana's suggestion.

Now, the power incident on the fibre is measured to be 6 mW and the power measured out of the fibre is 2.76 mW after the necessary alignments.

On the PSL able, I have routed the beam that is coming out of the back of the PMC(instead of the dumped light from the oven to prevent any light from reflecting back into the laser), to the area where I am putting the set-up for the superposition of the PSL and the ETMX and ETMY beams.

Today I will proceed with the layout.

  5039   Wed Jul 27 01:57:28 2011 SonaliUpdateGreen LockingWeekly Summary

1. I have used the PMC  trans beam in my set-up as the required PSL beam.

2. I have superposed the ETMX-Fibre output with the PSL beam on the PSL table.

3. I have used suitable beam splitters and lens to match the power and the  sizes of the overlapping beams and have aligned them to the optimum.

4. A lens having f=7.6 cms is used to focus the beam into the PD.

5. Initially, I used the broadband 1611 NewFocus PD to find the IR beat signal by scanning the oven temperature. (using the digital sitemap controls.)

6. I checked the previous elog entries by Suresh and Koji on the green beat signal they had worked on and used their data to get an idea of the temperature range of the oven where I could obtain a beat.

7. I obtained peaks at three different temperatures as had been noted previously and set the temperature so that I am now sitting in the middle stable regime.

8. Then I switched to the 1811 100 MHz PD as it has a larger gain. It has a saturation power of 100 microWatts. The input power at the PD is measured to be 80 microWatts.

9. I was having trouble getting a clean peak due to presence of many harmonics as seen on the spectrum analyser. This happened because there was too much power incident on the PD which led to arising of non-linearity giving rise to harmonics.

10.To reduce the power entering the PD, I put in a ND 1.0 Filter just before the beam enters the PD and obtained a clean signal.

11. I will use  the frequency counter tomorrow to check the resonant frequency and try to connect the output to acquire a digital signal.

12. Otherwise I will proceed to build a Mixer Frequency Discriminator.

13. After the feed-back loop is completed, I will proceed to compare the frequency-noises of the green-beat lock and the IR-beat lock.

  5052   Thu Jul 28 13:51:00 2011 SonaliUpdateGreen LockingZHL-32A-S.

Initially I was using RFPD-1611to get the IR beat frequency. Its gain was not very high, so I was getting a very low signal of power -37 dBm.

I used ZHL-32A-S with a gain of 25 dBm to amplify it before feeding it into the spectrum analyser.

I connected the ground of the amplifier circuit to the red of the power supply, which blew the amplifier.

I learnt that there is a small tab indicating the ground side of the BNC to banana connectors which I should have noticed.

I learnt to plug in the side with th little tab on it into the ground of the power supply. (Learnt it the hard way I guess!!)



  5057   Thu Jul 28 19:49:12 2011 SonaliUpdatePSLPMC trans beam aligned.

Kiwamu and I aligned the PMC transmitted beam the incident beam going to PMC today.

I learnt how to lock the PMC using the digital controls.

  1695   Wed Jun 24 11:20:40 2009 StephanieUpdateGeneralMultiply Resonant EOM Update

I have created the attached EOM circuit with resonances at 11 MHz, 29.5 MHz, and 55 MHz (the magnitude and phase of the voltage across the EOM are shown in the attached plot). The gain is roughly the same for each resonant peak. Although I have managed to get the impedances at all of the resonant frequencies to equal each other, I am having more trouble getting the impedances to be 50 Ohms (they are currently all around 0.66 Ohms).

For the current circuit, initial calculations show that we will need around 4.7 - 14.2 A of current to drive the EOM at the desired voltage (8 - 24 V); this is much higher than the current rating of most of the available transformers (250 mA), but the necessary current will change as the impedance of the circuit is corrected, so this is probably not a cause for concern. For example, the necessary driving voltages for the current circuit are (2.8 - 8.5 V); if we assume that the 50-Ohm impedance will be purely resistive, then we get a current range of 56 - 170 mA.

  1711   Wed Jul 1 11:00:52 2009 StephanieUpdateGeneralMultiply Resonant EOM Update

Since last week, I have come up with a new circuit, which is shown in the attached figure. The magnitude (solid) and phase (dashed) of the voltage across the EOM (red), the ratio between the voltage across the EOM and the voltage across the primary nodes of the transformer (blue), and the impedance through the primary port of the transformer (red) are also shown in an attached figure. As can be seen on the plot, resonance occurs at 11 MHz, 29.5 MHz, and 55 MHz, as specified. Also, at these resonant frequencies, the impedance is about 50 Ohms (34 dB). The gain between the voltage across the EOM and the voltage across the primary nodes of the transformer (or output of the crystal oscillator) is about 12 dB; we'd like a higher gain than this, but this gain is primarily governed by the ratio between the secondary and primary inductances in the transformer, and we are using the largest available ratio (on the Coilcraft website) that has the necessary bandwidth. Because of this, we will likely have to add another component between the crystal oscillator and the EOM circuit, to get the voltage to the desired 8.5 Vp across the EOM (for an optical modulation depth of 0.1 rad).

The current and power through the primary port of the tranformer are 43-85 mA and 25-92 mW, respectively. Since the transformer ratings are 250 mA and 1/4 W for current and power; these values should be safe to use with the intended transformer. Also, the highest power dissipated by a resistor in the circuit (not including the 50 Ohm resistor that is part of the crystal oscillator setup) is around 74 mW.

  1719   Wed Jul 8 10:56:04 2009 StephanieUpdateGeneralMultiply Resonant EOM Update

This week, I've been working on adapting the last week's circuit to make it buildable. Mostly this has involved picking components that are already in the lab, adding tunable components when necessary, and planning roughly how the components should be laid out on a board. I then built the circuit and put it in a box with BNC connectors for easy connection during testing. A picture of the built circuit is attached.

For initial testing, the transformer was removed from the design; since this changed the response of the circuit, I added two resistors to correct the response. A figure showing a schematic of the built circuit is attached. The expected responce of the circuit is also shown; the magnitude (solid) and phase (dashed) of the voltage across the EOM are shown in green, and the impedance of the circuit is shown in blue. While this response has sharp peaks and 50 Ohms (34 dB) of impedance at resonances, the gain is low compared to the circuit with the transformer. This means that, as is, this circuit cannot be used to drive the EOM; it is simply for testing purposes.

  1748   Wed Jul 15 12:11:17 2009 StephanieUpdateGeneralMultiply Resonant EOM Update

This week I've been working on testing the first version of the prototype circuit. Initially, I tested the circuit that I built last week, which had resistors in the place of the transformer. The magnitude and phase of the transfer function, as measured by the Agilent 4395A, are shown in the attached plot (first plot, MeasuredTransferFunction_R.jpg). The transfer function doesn't look like the simulated transfer function (second plot, BuiltCkt_ExpectedResponse.png), but I think I see the three peaks at least (although they're at the wrong frequencies). I spent some time trying to recreate the actual transfer function using LTSpice, and I think it's reasonable that the unexpected response could be created by extra inductance, resistance, capacitance and interaction between components.

When the transformer arrived  yesterday, I replaced the resistors in the circuit with the transformer, and I have measured the following response (last plot, MeasuredTransferFunction.jpg). The gain is much lower than for the circuit with the resistors; however, I am still trying to track down loose connections, since the measured transfer function seems very sensitive to jiggled wires and connections.

Meanwhile, the parts for a flying-component prototype circuit have been ordered, and when they arrive, I'll build that to see if it works a little better.

  1754   Wed Jul 15 18:35:11 2009 StephanieUpdateGeneralMultiply Resonant EOM Update

Using FET probes, I was able to measure a transfer function that looks a little more like what I expected. There are only two peaks, but I think this can be explained by a short between the two capacitors (and two tunable capacitors) in the LC pairs, as shown (in red) in the circuit diagram attached. The measured transfer function (black), along with the simulated transfer functions with (red) and without (blue) the short are shown in the attached plot. The measured transfer function doesn't look exactly like the simulated transfer function with the short, but I think the difference can be explained by stray impedances.

  1775   Wed Jul 22 11:08:36 2009 StephanieUpdateGeneralMultiply Resonant EOM Update

I have built a version of the circuit with flying components; the completed circuit is shown in the attached picture. I built the circuit in segments and measured the transfer function after each segment to see whether it matched the LTSpice simulation after each step. The segments are shown in the circuit diagram.

After building the first segment, the measured transfer function looked pretty much the same as the simulated transfer function; it appears shifted in the attached plot, but this is because I didn't do a careful job of tuning at this point, and I'm relatively sure that I could have tuned it to match the simulation. After adding the second segment of the circuit, the measured and simulated transfer functions were similar in shape, but I was unable to increase the frequency of the peaks (through tuning) any more than what is shown in the plot (I could move the peaks so that their frequency was lower, but they are shown as high as they will go). When I added the final segment to complete the circuit, the measured and simulated transfer functions no longer had the same shape; two of the peaks were very close together and I was barely able to differentiate one from the other.

In order to understand what was happening, I tried making modifications to the LTSpice model to recreate the transfer function that was measured. I was able to create a transfer function that closely resembles the measured transfer function in both the circuit as of the 2nd segment and the completed circuit by adding extra inductance and capacitance as shown in red in the circuit diagram. The transfer functions simulated with these parasitic components are shown in red in both plots. While I was able to recreate the response of the circuit, the inductance and capacitance needed to do this were much larger than I would expect to occur naturally within the circuit (2.2uH, 12 pF). I'm not sure what's going on with this.

  1787   Fri Jul 24 17:47:52 2009 StephanieUpdateGeneralMultiply Resonant EOM Update

After speaking with Rana and realizing that it would be better to use smaller inductances in the flying-component circuit (and after a lot of tinkering with the original), I rebuilt the circuit, removing all of the resistors (to simplify it) and making the necessary inductance and capacitance changes. A picture of the circuit is attached, as is a circuit diagram.

A plot of the measured and simulated transfer functions is also attached; the general shape matches between the two, and the resonant frequencies are roughly correct (they should be 11, 29.5, and 55 MHz). The gain at the 55 MHz peak is lower than the other two peaks (I'd like them all to be roughly the same). I currently have no idea what the impedance is doing, but I'm certain it is not 50 Ohms at the resonant peaks, because there are no resistors in the circuit to correct the impedance. Next, I'll have to add the resistors and see what happens.

  1804   Wed Jul 29 12:00:49 2009 StephanieUpdateGeneralMultiply Resonant EOM Update

For the past couple of days I have been trying to understand and perform Koji's method for impedance measurement using the Agilent 4395A Network Analyzer (without the impedance testing kit). I have made some headway, but I don't completely understand what's going on; here's what I've done so far.

I have made several transfer function measurements using the attached physical setup (ImpedanceTestingPhysicalSetup.png), after calibrating the setup by placing a 50 Ohm resistor in the place of the Z in the diagram. The responses of the various impedances I've measured are shown in the attached plot (ImpResponses.png). However, I'm having trouble figuring out how to convert these responses to impedances, so I tried to derive the relationship between the measured transfer function and the impedance by simplifying the diagram Koji drew on the board for me (attached, ImpedanceTestingSetup.png) to the attached circuit diagram (ImpedanceTestingCktDiagram.png), and finding the expected value of VA/VR. For the circuit diagram shown, the equation should be VA/VR = 2Z/(50+Z). 50 Ohms is good to use for calibration because the expected value of the transfer function for this impedance is 1 (0 dB).

So I used this relationship to find the expected response for the various impedances, and I also calculated the impedance from the actual measured responses. I've attached a plot of the measured (red) and expected (black) response (top) and impedance (bottom) for a 1 nF capacitor (1nF.png). The expected and measured plots don't really match up very well; if I add extra inductance (7.6 nH, plots shown in blue), the two plots match up a little better, but still don't match very well. I suspect that the difference may come from the fact that for my analysis, I treated the power splitter as if it were a simple node, and I think that's probably not very accurate.

Anyway, the point of all this is to eventually measure the impedance of the circuit I created on Friday, but I don't think I can really do that until I understand what is going on a little better.

  1815   Fri Jul 31 09:52:38 2009 StephanieUpdateGeneralMultiply Resonant EOM Update

I was able to make an impedance measurement of the flying-component circuit using Koji's method for impedance measurement. I first measured the impedance of the circuit with a 10 pF capacitor in the place of the EOM (as shown in the circuit diagram). This impedance plot is attached. I then added resistance to adjust the impedance slightly, attached the circuit to a New Focus KTP 4064 EOM, and took another impedance measurement (circuit diagram and impedance plot attached). The peaks are relatively close to 50 Ohms; they are at least the same order of magnitude.

  1816   Fri Jul 31 11:04:42 2009 StephanieUpdateGeneralMultiply Resonant EOM Update

I put the flying-component circuit in a box; a photo is attached. I also measured the impedance; it looks exactly the same as it looked before I put the circuit in the box.

  1834   Wed Aug 5 11:49:49 2009 StephanieUpdateGeneralMultiply Resonant EOM Update

I have spent the past couple of days gathering optics and mounts so that I can observe the modulation of the EOM attached to the circuit I built using the optical spectrum analyzer (OSA). A rough diagram of the planned layout is attached.

I also built a short SMA cable so that the EOM did not have to be connected directly to the circuit box. The cable is shown attached to the EOM and circuit box in the attached photo. After checking to make sure that all of the connections in the cable were sound, I remeasured the input impedance of the circuit; the impedance measurement (black) is shown in the attached plot with the impedance before the SMA cable was added with and without the box (green and blue, respectively--these two are almost identical). The new impedance has a strange shape compared to the original measurements; I'd like to understand this a little better, since adding extra inductance in LTSpice doesn't seem to have that effect. Since I had already taken apart the setup used for the previous impedance measurements, I had to rebuild and recalibrate the setup; I guess the difference could be something about the new calibration, but I don't really think that that's the case.

  1835   Wed Aug 5 15:18:12 2009 StephanieUpdateGeneralMultiply Resonant EOM Update


I have spent the past couple of days gathering optics and mounts so that I can observe the modulation of the EOM attached to the circuit I built using the optical spectrum analyzer (OSA). A rough diagram of the planned layout is attached.

I also built a short SMA cable so that the EOM did not have to be connected directly to the circuit box. The cable is shown attached to the EOM and circuit box in the attached photo. After checking to make sure that all of the connections in the cable were sound, I remeasured the input impedance of the circuit; the impedance measurement (black) is shown in the attached plot with the impedance before the SMA cable was added with and without the box (green and blue, respectively--these two are almost identical). The new impedance has a strange shape compared to the original measurements; I'd like to understand this a little better, since adding extra inductance in LTSpice doesn't seem to have that effect. Since I had already taken apart the setup used for the previous impedance measurements, I had to rebuild and recalibrate the setup; I guess the difference could be something about the new calibration, but I don't really think that that's the case.


After investigating this a bit further, I discovered that some of the components in the circuit were pressed firmly up against the inside of the box, and when they were moved, the impedance plot changed shape dramatically. I think that originally, the components were not pressed against the box, but the box's SMA joint was rather loose; when I connected this to the SMA cable, I tightened it, and this seems to have twisted the circuit around inside the box, pushing the components up against the side. I have fixed the twisting, and since the SMA joint is now tight, the circuit should no longer have any twisting problems.

A new plot is attached, showing the impedance of the circuit with nothing attached (blue), with the SMA cable and EOM attached (green), and with the EOM attached directly to it taken last friday with the old calibration of the setup (red). All three curves look roughly the same; the center peak is shifted slightly between the three curves, but the circuit with SMA and EOM is the version we'll be using, and it's central peak is close to the correct value.

  1848   Thu Aug 6 19:54:04 2009 StephanieUpdatePSLHEPAs back to normal


Stephanie has needed the doors to the PSL open all day, and still has them open, so I just turned the HEPAs on high. 



I turned the HEPAs back down to ~50.

  1886   Tue Aug 11 14:15:28 2009 StephanieUpdateGeneralMultiply Resonant EOM Update

I was able to observe the three sets of modulation sidebands created by the EOM + triply resonant circuit yesterday. Quantitative results will be posted later.

ELOG V3.1.3-