Maybe its equivalent, but I would have assumed that the input beam is fixed and then calculate the cavity axis rotation and translation. If its small, then the modal expansion is OK. Otherwise, the overlap integral can be used.

For the ETM motion, its a purely translation effect, whereas its tilt for the ITM. For the PRM, it is also a mostly translation effect as calculated at the PRC waist position (ITM face).

I made another estimation assuming that PRCL RIN is caused by translation of the cavity axis:

• calibrated RIN to translation, beam waist = 4mm
• measured PRM yaw motion using oplev
• estimated PR3 TT yaw motion: measured BS yaw spectrum with oplev OFF, divided it by pendulum TF with f0=0.9 Hz, Q=100 (BS TF), multiplied it by pendulum TF with f0 = 1.5 Hz, Q = 2 (TT TF with eddy current damping), accounted for BS local damping that reduces Q down to 10.

PRM and TT angular motion to cavity axis translation I estimated as 0.11 mm/urad and 0.22 mm/urad assuming that TTs are flat. We can make a more detailed analysis to account for curvature.

I think beam motion is caused by PR3 and PR2 TT angular motion. I guess yaw motion is larger because horizontal g-factor is closer to unity then vertical.

I'm fixing the TRY path.

I misaligned PRM and restored ETMY; but did not see the Y arm flashing. I am going ahead and moving the optics to get Y arm flashing again.

The slider values on the medm screen before touching any of them (for the record):

       tt1        tt2      itmy        etmy

p    -1.3886    0.8443     0.9320    -3.2583

y     0.3249    1.1407    -0.2849    -0.2751

TRY path fixed and ready for normalization.

I used 2" BS at R=50 and R=98 to reflect the Y arm transmission at QPD-Y and TRY PD respectively. The residual beam transmitted by the BS is now steered by a Y1mirror to the camera. With Y arm locked, transmission currently measures 40mW against the expected 70mW. TRY shows 0.45 counts in dataviewer.

 In order to get translation to RIN, we need to know the offset of the input beam from the cavity axis...

This should be possible to calibrate by putting a pitch and yaw excitation lines into the PRM and measuring the RIN.

See secret document from Koji.

 I think it is too much. Incident power to IFO is 1.3 W. Even if we assume no losses and pick-offs on the path to the arms, we should get ~100 uW out of the cavity. I measured X and Y arms transmission to be 60 uW. Did you disable triggering during your measurement?

 We got granite bases today from the manufacturer. We plan to set them up on Wednesday, 8 am. Please note, there will be an installation mess at Xend, Yend and corner during ~4 hours. Let us know if you have any objections to do this at this particular time.

Installation locations are specified in elog 8270, scheme attached is valid except for Xend. Instrument will be installed on the place of nitrogen containers.

(  next to the wall at corner sout-east of the south end )

I decided to go see what the electrical tape looks like on the other tools.

These are the tools I felt were necessary to label with tape: (the others don't seem to be terribly important in terms of not interchanging between boxes)

On another note I'm not sure why electrical tape can't be used on the Allen Wrenches too.

I also plan on ordering smaller flash lights for each table (this one is bulky and unwieldy), and filling in the gaps of the Allen Wrench sets as soon as I get the go-ahead.

Assembly progress:

1. ETMY oplev setup has been put together. Because of the shift in the TRY path, I had to modify the oplev path on the table as well.

2. Green laser setup coming together:
    (i) Used a HWP after the NPRO to convert s-polarization to p-polarization. (Verified by introducing a PBS after the HWP and then removed later).
    (ii) Lens focuses the beam into the Faraday.
    (iii) Used steering mirrors to align the beam to the faraday. With 320mW before the Faraday, I was able to get 240mW after the output aperture. The spec sheet for the faraday specifies a 93% transmission; but what I measure is only 75%.

I modified our existing c1ass model to include alignment of input steering TT1 and TT2 for YARM and BS for XARM. Corresponding medm screens are also created.

Dithering:

ETM_PIT: frequency = 6 Hz, amplitude = 100 cnts
ETM_YAW: 8 Hz, 400 cnts
ITM_PIT: 11 Hz, 800 cnts
ITM_YAW: 14 Hz, 1200 cnts

These values were chosen by looking at cavity transmission and length signals - excitation peaks should be high enough but do not shake the optics too much.

Demodulation:

LO for each degree of freedom is mixed with cavity length and transmission signals that are first bandpassed at LO frequency. After mixing low-pass filter is applied. Phase rotation is chosen to minimize Q component

Sensing matrix:

8 * 8 matrix was measured by providing excitation at 0.03 Hz to optics and measuring the response in the demodulated signals. Excitation amplitude was different for each optics to create cavity transmission fluctuations of 25%

Though coherence was > 0.95 during the measurement for each element (except for TT -> Length signals), after inverting and putting it to control servo, loops started to fight each other. So I decided to try a simple diagonal matrix:

TT1_PIT -> ETM_PIT_TRANS, TT1_YAW -> ETM_YAW_TRANS, TT2_PIT -> ITM_PIT_TRANS, TT2_YAW -> ITM_YAW_TRANS,

ITM_PIT -> ETM_PIT_LENGTH, ITM_YAW -> ETM_YAW_LENGTH, ETM_PIT -> ITM_PIT_LENGTH, ETM_YAW -> ITM_YAW_LENGTH

And this matrix worked much better.

Control loops:

8 loops are running at the same time. UGF for input steering loops is 20 mHz, for cavity axis loops - 80 mHz. Slower loop is stronger at low frequencies so that cavity axis servo follows input steering alignment.

Results:

When I started experiment the cavity was misaligned, transmission was ~0.4. Servo was able to align the cavity in ~30 seconds. This time depends on mirrors misalignment as well as input optics and cavity axis misalignment relative to each other.

When servo converged I disturbed ETMY, ITMY, TT1 and TT2. Servo was able to compensate for this.

Excitation lines seen by transmission and length of the cavity are suppressed as shown on the attached as pdf figures.

Note:

Though the servo is able to align the cavity during my tests, this does not mean it will work perfectly any time. So please, if you lock, try to use the servo for alignment. If something goes wrong we'll fix it. This is better then to align IFO by hands every time.

Today Rana pointed out that our FSS slow servo is malfunctioning. It has been for a while that our laser temperature control voltage drifted from 0 to 10.

I looked at FSSSlowServo script that runs at op340m and controls the servo. Script disables the servo when MC transmission is less then FSS_LOCKEDLEVEL. But his value was set to 0.2 probably till reference cavity time.

This means that slow servo was not disabled when MC was unlocked. I changed this value to 7000.

Also I increased integral gain from 0.0350 to 0.215 such that fast control is always in the range 4.5 - 5.5

 The carpenter shop finished the installation of the 3 granite bases.Rapid Set Cement All high strength non-shrink grout was used.

 Compressive strength  3000 PSI at 1 hour and 9000 PSI at day 28 The janitor is still cleaning up after them at the south end.

The  soft silicon gas kits are working well with the SS can.  Den is making  the adaptor plate drawing for the feedthrough.

I have implemented automatic triggered switching of the analog whitening (and digital dewhitening). 

The trigger is the same as the degree of freedom trigger.  On the LSC RFPD screen there is a space to enter the amount of time (in seconds) you would like to wait between receiving a trigger and actually having the whitening filter switch. 

The trigger logic is as follows: 

* For each column of the LSC input matrix (e.g. AS11 I), check if there is a non-zero element.  If there is a non-zero element (indicating that we are using that PD as the error signal for a degree of freedom), check if the corresponding DoF has been triggered.  Repeat for all columns of the matrix. 

* If either the I or the Q signal from a single PD is being used, send a trigger in the direction of the PD signal conditioning / phase rotation blocks.  (Since the whitening happens before the phase rotation, we want to have the whitening state be the same for both the I and Q signals coming from the demod boards.

* Before actually changing the whitening state, wait for the amount of time indicated on the RFPD overview screen.

* Switch the digital dewhitening.  If the digital dewhitening is on, send a bit over to the binary I/O to switch the analog whitening on.

This required changing the LSC RF_PD library part so that you can send the trigger to the filter bank from outside that part..  This part is in use by all LSC models, so I'll make sure the LLO people are aware of this change before I commit it to the svn.

While I was working on the LSC model, I also put in a wait between the time that the filter module trigger is received, and when it actually switches the filter modules.  So far, this time is defined for a whole filter bank (so all filters for a given DoF still switch at the same time).  If I need to go back and make the timing individual for each filter module, I can do that.  This new EPICS variable (the WAIT) defaults to zero seconds, so the functionality will not change for anyone who uses this part.

These changes also require 2 pieces of c-code:  {userapps}/cds/common/src/wait.c and {userapps}/isc/c1/src/inmtrxparse.c

[Den, Manasa]

TRY & TRX power measurement was redone.

TRY measures 66uW and 0.8counts on dataviewer.
TRX measures 70.4uW and 0.84counts on dataviewer.

___________________________
Detector       Power
-------------------------------------------------
QPD-Y          33uW (50%)
TRY-PD         29.8uW (49%)
Y-Camera         1%
QPD-X         35.2uW (50%)
TRX-PD        25.1uW (90%)
X-Camera    10%
____________________________

Tonight PRMI was locked on REFL55 I&Q for PRCL and MICH with POP110I as a trigger and power normalizer.

I could see power fluctuations and beam motion on the POP camera very much the same as for carrier. The difference is that carrier stays for hours while sidebands for a few minutes.

POP110:

I&Q analog gains were set to 15 dB. Relative phase was set to 25 degrees by looking at I and Q components when the cavity goes through the resonance. Q should be 0.

REFL55:

Phase rotation was measured by exciting PRM at 20 Hz and minimizing this line at REFL55_Q. I stopped at 33 degrees.

 RIN:

I compared power fluctuations of PRCL when it was locked on carrier (POP_DC) and on sidebands (POP110_I).

Time series of POP110_I during one of the locks

POP camera:

I've put 4 scripts into ASS directory for YARM alignment. They should be called from !Scripts YARM button on c1ass main medm screen.

Scripts configure the servo to align the cavity and then save computed offsets. If everything goes right, no tuning of the servo is needed.

Call TRANS MON script to monitor YARM transmission, then "ON" script for aligning the cavity, then "SAVE OFFSETS" and "OFF" for turning the servo off.

ON script:

• sets demodulation gains that I used during OL measuments
• sets LO oscillator frequency and amplitude for each optic
• sets demodulation phase rotation
• sets sensing matrix
• sets servo gains for each degree of freedom
• sets up limits for servo outputs
• gently increases the common gain from 0 to 1

SAVE OFFSETS script:

• holds servo outputs
• sets servo common gain to 0 and clears outputs
• reads old optics DC offsets
• computes new DC offsets
• writes new offsets to C1:SUS-OPTIC_ANGLE_OFFSET channel
• holds off servo outputs

OFF script:

• sets LO amplitudes to 0
• blocks servo outputs

Notes:

SAVE OFFSET script writes DC offsets to C1:OPTIC_ANGLE_OFFSET channel, not to _COMM channel!

LIMITS are set to 500 for cavity axis degrees of freedom and to 0.5 for input steering. Usually servo outputs is ~30% if these numbers. But if something goes wrong, check this for saturation.

DC offsets of all 8 degrees of freedom are written one by one but the whole offset of put at the same time. This works fine so far, but we might change it to ezcastep in future.

I moved the two Trillium seismometers that Den left on the electronics bench out onto the new concrete blocks in the lab that will be their final resting places.  I moved one onto the slab at the vertex and the other to the slab at the Y end.  I left them both locked and just sitting on the concrete.

The pile of readout electronics that were sitting next to them I moved on to the yellow foam box half way down the MC tube, between the MC tube and the X arm tube.  This is obviously not a good place to store them, but I couldn't think of a better place to put them for the moment.

After Den's work with the ASS model this week, all of the channel names were changed (this wasn't pointed out in his elog....grrr), so none of the A2L scripts worked. 

They are now back, however there is still some problem with the plotting that I'm not sure I understand yet.  So, the measurement works, but I don't think we're saving the results and we certainly aren't plotting them yet. 

I wanted to check where the spots are on the mirrors, to make sure Den's stuff is doing what we think it's doing.  All of the numbers were within ~1.5mm of center, although Rossa keeps crashing (twice this afternoon?!?), so I can't copy and paste the numbers into the elog.

A near-term goal is to copy over Den's work on the Yarm to the Xarm, so that both arms will auto-align.  Also, I need to put the set of alignment scripts in a wrapper, and have that wrapper call-able from the IFO Configure screen.

Also, while thinking about the IFO Configure screen, the "save" scripts weren't working (on Rossa) today, even though I just made them work a week or so ago. Rossa, at least, was unhappy running csh, so I changed the "save" script over to bash.

When I came to the 40m, I found most of the FB signals are dead.

The suspensions were not dumped but not too much excited. Use watchdog switches to cut off the coil actuators.

Restarted mxstream from the CDS_FE_STATUS screen. The c1lsc processes got fine. But the FB indicators for c1sus, c1ioo, c1iscex/y are still red.

Sshed into c1sus/ioo, run rtcds restart all . This made them came back under control.

Same treatment for c2iscex and c1iscey. This made c1sus stall again. Also c1iscey did not come back.

At this point I decided to kill all of the rt processes on c1sus/c1ioo/c1iscex/c1iscey to avoid interference between them.
And started to restart from the end machines.

c1iscex did not come back by rtcds restart all.
Run lsmod on c1iscey and found c1x05 persisted stay on the kernel. rmmod did not remove the c1x05 module.
Run software reboot of c1iscey. => c1iscey came back online.

c1iscey did not come back by rtcds restart all.
Run software reboot of c1iscex. => c1iscex came back online.

c1ioo just came back by rtcds restart all.

c1sus did not come back by rtcds restart all.
Run software reboot of c1sus => c1sus came back online.

This series of restarting made the fb connections of some of the c1lsc processes screwed up.
Run the following restarting commands => all of the process are running with FB connection.
rtcds restart c1sup
rtcds restart c1ass
rtcds restart c1lsc

Enable damping loops by reverting the watchdog switches.

All of the FE status are green except for the c1rfm bit 2 (GE FANUC RFM CARD 0).

Еру ьс шы тщц дщслув фтв фдшптувю

Фдыщ ш кфт еру ащддщцштп ыскшзе ещ щаадщфв еру ЬС ЦАЫ ыукмщю

I blame Den for russian keyboard installation on the control machines.

ezcaservo -r 'C1:SUS-MC2_ASCPIT_OUT16' -g '0.00001' -t 60 C1:SUS-MC2_PIT_COMM&
ezcaservo -r 'C1:SUS-MC2_ASCYAW_OUT16' -g '0.00001' -t 60 C1:SUS-MC2_YAW_COMM&
ezcaservo -r 'C1:SUS-MC1_ASCPIT_OUT16' -g '0.00001' -t 60 C1:SUS-MC1_PIT_COMM&
ezcaservo -r 'C1:SUS-MC1_ASCYAW_OUT16' -g '0.00001' -t 60 C1:SUS-MC1_YAW_COMM&
ezcaservo -r 'C1:SUS-MC3_ASCPIT_OUT16' -g '0.00001' -t 60 C1:SUS-MC3_PIT_COMM&
ezcaservo -r 'C1:SUS-MC3_ASCYAW_OUT16' -g '0.00001' -t 60 C1:SUS-MC3_YAW_COMM&

PMC aligned. C1:PSL-PMC-PMCTRANSPD improved from 0.72ish to 0.835ish.

 Why use the PSL beam as a reference? Don't we want to keep the MC pointing in a good direction through the Faraday instead???

 I'm working on to improve the quality of the enclosure.

The short comings are: more cable feedthroughs needed, latches to anchor top covers air tight and posts to support bending bridges.

Red triangles are compression latches at 10 places to hold the top air tight on surgical tubing

Green lines represent 4  posts of Al 1" OD to support the covers and maximize their eigenfrequencies.

Black crosses are 4 spring loaded push-bottom quick release pins to anchor the top covers to the bridges. This connection will  not be air tight.

(quarter-turn wing head fastener have the same problem) I'm thinking of some solution to minimize the leak.    

Violet _ steel plate (1" wide, 15" long, 0.125" thick)  between the two posts will anchor the quick release pins and make bridge rigid.

Blue rectangle is an other cable feedthrough exiting on the chamber side.

Planning to substitute window with soft - air tight ( Aluminized thin wall hose )  connection to vacuum view port where white circle is representing the Al adaptor ring.

Updated after Wednesday meeting 4-24-2013

Are 4 of these spring loaded pins enough?  I'm not sure how one pin can hold 2 lids at each point.  It seems like we need 8 pins.

In my previous post here, a new servo design was discussed. Although the exact design used will depend on the particular noise requirements for the 40m and the Bridge Labs (requirements will be considered separately for each application), I still have to yet to see those formalized. Despite this, I have been simulating an example servo circuit with three switchable stages. The design can be found at: New Servo.

Essentially, this circuit consists of three unity gain buffers that can be switched into different filtering states. Attached is a plot of the transfer function of this particular circuit with successive stages turned on. The curve (0) corresponds to all of the filters being switched off, so the total behavior is that of a unity gain buffer. The curve (1) corresponds to the first stage being turned on with the 2nd and 3rd still acting as unity gain buffers. This first state has a gain of ~80 dB at DC and a pole at ~10 Hz which sets the unity gain crossing at ~100 kHz. The curves (2) and (3) correspond to the second and third stage being turned on, respectively. Each of these stages has a pole at DC (i.e. ~infinite gain) and a zero at 10^4 Hz. For f > 10^4 Hz, these stages have gain ~ 1, as we can see in the transfer function below.

I have also performed some noise analysis of this circuit. Attached are a few plots produced by LISO showing the resistor and op-amp noise separately (it was too cluttered on one plot) at the output node of the servo. Both of these plots have a "Sum Noise" trace, which is the sum for every circuit element and is thus identical between plots. The third noise spectrum included is simply the noise at the output referenced to the input with the previously computed transfer function. I'm not sure if there is a simple method embedded in LISO to reference the noise at the output node to the input, but it should be as simple as numerically dividing the noise spectrum by the transfer function between input and output. 

Next, I will be attempting time-dependent simulations of this simple circuit using delayed switches instead of manually controlled ones.

 Steve has explained to me that the pins will go in between the 2 lids, with a big washer, so that one pin holds both lids at the same time.  4 is the right number.

Duncan Macleod (original author of summary pages) has an updated version that I would like to import and work on.  The code and installation instructions are found below.

I am not sure where we want to host this.  I could put it in a new folder in /users/public_html/  on megatron, for example.  Duncan appears to have just included the summary page code in the pylal repository.  Should I reimport the whole repository?  I'm not sure if this will mess up other things on megatron that use pylal.  I am working on talking to Rana and Jamie to see what is best.

http://www.lsc-group.phys.uwm.edu/cgit/lalsuite/tree/pylal/bin/pylal_summary_page
https://www.lsc-group.phys.uwm.edu/daswg/docs/howto/lal-install.html

 To put everything in one place I add a final drawing of the base to this elog.

 Next time we continue with wiring and putting temperature and pressure sensors inside the box. Connector support plate drawing is attached. We'll have sensors inside the kit with STS-2 or Trillium as their connector is small enough (19 pin vs 26 pin for Guralps) that we can put an additional 4 pin lemo connecor (2 pins for each sensor). I think EGG.0B.304.CLL is good for this application. Temperature and pressure sensor we can by from omega.

[Eric, Riju]

Summary: Routing Fibers on AP table for Photo Diode Frequency Response Measurement System

Objective: We are to set-up one simultaneous transfer-function measurement system for all the RF-PDs present in 40m lab. A diode laser output is to be divided by 1x16 fiber splitter and to be sent to all the PDs through single-mode fiber. The transfer function of the PDs will be measured using network analyzer. The output of the PDs will be fed to network analyzer via one RF-switch.

Work Done So Far: We routed the fibers on AP table. Fibers from RF PDS - namely  MC REFL PD, AS55, REFL11, REFL33, REFL55, REFL165, have been connected to the 1x16 fiber splitter. All the cables are lying on the table now, so they are not blocking any beam.

We will soon upload the schematic diagram of the set up.

Missing Component: Digital Fiber Power Meter, Thorlab PM20C

controls@rosalba:/users/rana/docs 0$ svn resolve --accept working nancy
Resolved conflicted state of 'nancy'

Due to the recent addition of cal factors in the OL error points, the OLPIT_GAIN and OLYAW_GAIN have been reduce to tiny numbers (e.g. 0.002).

Since our MEDM only shows 3 digits past the decimal point by default, it makes more sense to have the gains around 1.

So I reduced the gains in all of the FM1 filters from 1000 to 1 and multiplied the GAIN values by 1000 (using ezcastep) to compensate.

All of the active optics seem to be behaving as before. Haven't tested ETMs or SRM yet.

Koji is working on PRMI locking, and while he was doing that I glanced at the oplevs' spectra for the ITMs and PRM.

I found that when the PRMI was locked (for only 1 second or so max lock time) on the 55MHz sideband, and the error signals show a big peak around 400Hz (definitely audible in the control room), the only OpLev that I see a similar peak in is ITMX pitch. 

In the plot below, I have grabbed a time when the PRMI was flashing as the black reference traces, and then a time when the PRMI was locked as the active traces.  You can see that there is a similar peak in both REFL55I and ITMX_OL_PIT when the cavity is locked. 

I tried to reproduce the locking situation described in this entry tonight.
The momentary lock was regularly seen but there was no stable lock.

I wonder why the actuators are always saturated. The feedback signals have the dominant component at ~400Hz.

It would also be nice if the servos have some immunity to gain fluctuation.

I didn't check how the situation of the AP table is. I'll look into some details tomorrow.

The FE web view seems not up-to-date, does it? ( maybe for a year)

https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:30889/FE/c1mcs_slwebview_files/index.html

 Here I am attaching the first schematic diagram of the PD frequency response set-up, I will keep updating it with relevant informations with the progress of the work.

Description: Our objective is to set-up one simultaneous transfer-function measurement system for all the RF-PDs present in 40m lab. A diode laser will be used to illuminate the PDs. The diode laser output will be divided by 1x16 fiber splitter and will be sent to all the PDs through single-mode fiber. The transfer function of the PDs will be measured using network analyzer(Agilent 4395A). The output of the PDs will be fed to network analyzer via one RF-switch. The diode laser will be controlled by the controller ILX LDC 3744C. The scanning frequency signal will be fed to this controller from network analyzer through its external modulation port. The output of the controller will be splitted  into two parts: one will go to laser diode and the other will be used as reference signal for network analyzer.

I think you have the splitter that splits the RF signal from the network analyzer in the wrong place. 

Usually you split the signal immediately after the RF Out, so that half of the signal goes to the A-input of the Analyzer, and the other half goes to your controller (here, the laser diode controller).  Then you would take the output of your controller and go straight to the actual laser diode, with no splitting in this path.

Layout that will be improved upon over the next few days.

Things that need to be updated:
1. Waist size at all optics
2. Beam size at detectors and choice of lenses
3. IPANG & green PD proposed positions

The fibers should be routed beneath the electrical cables.
They should be fixed on the table for strain relieving.
The slack of the fibers should be nicely rolled and put together at the splitter side.

These are expected to be done next time when the fiber team work around the table.

We also expect to have the table photo every time the work of the day is finished.

 Here our device under test is the photodiode. So for the reference I wanted to retain the response of the laser diode controller. Otherwise I have to consider the transfer function of that LDC too. I may check both the options at the time of experiment.

Thanks

Den made a nice elog about the PRMI RIN that we see a few weeks ago:  8464.  The RIN that we're seeing is typically about ~30%.  The question at hand is: what is causing this power fluctuation, and more specifically, is it the angular motion of the mirrors?

I find that no, the angular motion that we see does not explain the RIN that we see.

In the attached Mathematica notebook, I calculate the power lost due to angular misalignments of one or more mirrors.  (Math comes from Appendix A of Keita's thesis.)

From calibrated oplev spectra, our mirrors are moving about 1 microradian (RMS, which is dominated by low frequencies).  From a super sophisticated "draw on the TV, then measure" method (details below), I have estimated that the maximum static misalignment that we're seeing is about 2 microradians.

With all of this, I find that for a g-parameter of 0.94, the power lost due to misalignments should, at maximum, be 0.6%.  I need a g-parameter of 0.995 to get a power loss of 23%.  Alternatively, if I take the derivative of the power coupling function, to find the static misalignment at the steepest slope of the curve (and thus, the place where any AC misalignment would have the most effect), for 1urad of AC misalignment, I get 40% power loss. 

So, in order for the AC angular motion that we see to explain the RIN that we see, either our mirrors are very, very misaligned (so much so that we couldn't really be locking), or our cavity is much closer to unstable than expected from Jamie's calculations.  Since both of these cases (static misalignment or incorrect g-parameter calculation) have to be taken to extremes before they approximate the RIN that we see, I do not think that this power loss is due to angular fluctuations.

This means that we have to think of another potential cause for this RIN that we're seeing.

Details on the "draw on TV and measure" technique for determining static cavity misalignments:  Looking at the POP camera view, with the PRM significantly misaligned, I traced the straight-through beam spot.  I then restored the PRM, and during several momentary locks, I traced the beam spot, which I took to be the saturated area of the camera.  The idea here is that the straight-through beam represents the incident beam axis, while the locked beam represents the cavity axis.  I'm assuming that the camera image plane is at the face of PR2. I approximately found the center of each of my tracings, and found them to be ~1/4 inch apart.  I also measured the "spot size" of the sideband-locked PRMI, and found it to be ~3.5 inches.  So, very roughly, the ratio of (distance between spots)/(size of beam) is ~0.07. This corresponds to a static misalignment of either the ITM or the PRM of ~2urad, rounding up. (I use the Jamie's calculated g-parameters from elog 8316, the case of flipped PR2, tangential = 0.94 to calculate the effective RoC of the PRM). 

Koji is elogging separately of his exploration of different configurations.  The lock stretch that I'm looking at here uses the same parameters as Koji had for PRMI sb lock, using AS55Q for MICH and REFL33I for PRCL, with MICH gain of -0.8 and PRCL gain of 0.05 .

All of these plots are the same few second lock stretch, with different zooming.  Jamie's super-sweet getdata python script only accepts integers for the start time and duration parameters, so lots of this zooming happened by hand, but I tried to always keep the time axis aligned within each screenshot.  Sometimes the plot axis labels say differently, but they're lying to you.

Plot 1:  gps start time is 1050915916, duration = 6 seconds.  Overall view of the lock stretch.

Plot 2:  gps start time is 1050915921, duration = 1 second.  We're looking at the lockloss that happens at the left side of the plots.

Plot 3:  zoomed in (along the time-axis) version of plot 2, so much shorter time duration.  Some zooming on y-axes.

Plot 4:  zoomed in (along y-axes) version of plot 2.

It seems to me from these plots that maybe MICH CTRL is drifting away?  It seems like we lose the MICH lock, and that destroys the whole thing. 

Koji made some comments to me earlier, regarding his work this evening, that the MICH signal quality is poor in general, and that we should calculate/think about changing our schnupp asymmetry. 

Last night I worked on the several locking configurations:

General preparations / AS table inspection

- The AS beam looked clipped. I went to the AP table and confirmed this is a clipping in the chamber.
  This may be fixed by the invacuum PZTs.

Modulation frequency tuning

RFPD Mon of the MC demodulator was check with the RF analyzer. Minimized the 25.8MHz (=55.3-29.5MHz) peak by changing the marconi freq.
This changed the modulation freq from 11.066147MHz to 11.066134MHz. This corresponds to the change of the MC round-trip length from
27.090952m to 27.090984m (32um longer).

Michelson tests

- I wonder why I could not see good Michelson signal at REFL ports.

- I roughly aligned the Michelson. On the AP table, the RF analyzer was connected to the REFL11 RF output.
  By using "MAX HOLD" function of the analyzer, I determined that the maximum output of the 11.07MHz peak
  was -61.5dBm.

- I went to the demodboard rack. I injected -61dBm from DS345 into the RFEL11 demodboard. This produced
  clean sinusoidal wave with the amplitude of 4 count. The whitening gain was 0dB.

- The output from the PD cable was -64.0dBm. So there is ~2.5dB loss in the cable. Despite this noise, the demodulation
  system should be sufficiently low noise. i.e. the issue is optical

- The Michelson was locked with AS55Q. And the REFL11 error signals were checked.Fringe like feature was there.
  This suggested the scattering from the misaligned PRM. The PRM was further misaligned. Then some reasonable
  (yet still noisy) Michelson signal appeared. (Usual misaligned PRM is not at the right place)

  Q. How much scattering noise (spurious cavity between PRM and the input optics) do we have when the PRM is aligned?
  Q. Where should we put the glass beam dumps in the input optics?
  Q. Can we prepare "safe" misaligned place for the PRM with the beam dump?

- The Michelson was locked with REFL11Q. From the transfer function measurement, the gain difference between AS55Q (whitening gain 24dB)
  and REFL11Q was 32dB. The whitening gain was 0dB. In fact I could not lock the Michelson with the whitening gain 33dB (saturation???)
  The element in the Input matrix was 1, The gain of the servo was +100. BS was actuated.

Coupled cavity tests

- At least REFL11 is producing reasonable signals. So what about the other REFL ports? The Michelson signals in the other frequencies
  were invisible. So I decided to use three-mirror coupled cavity with the loss PRC.

- Aligned X arm, Misaligned ETMX, ITMY. Aligned PRM.

- Locked the PRM-ITMX cavity with REFL11 and REFL33.

- Aligned ETMX. If I use REFL11I for the PRC locking, I could not lock the coupled cavity. But I could with REFL33I.
  This is somewhat familiar to me as this is the usual feature of the 3f signal.

- The coupled cavity could be locked "forever". To realize this I needed to tweak the normalization factor from 1.0 to 1.6.
  Q. How does the coupled cavity change the response of the cavity? Can we compensate it by something?
  Q. Measure open loop transfer functions to check if there is any issue in the servo shapes.

- Transmission during the lock is 3.2 while the nominal TRX with PRM misaligned was 0.93.
  This corresponds to power recycling gain of 0.17.

 - X arm:

    - Source: POX11I, phase 79.5 deg, whitening gain 36dB
    - Input matrix: POX11I->1.0->XARM, Normalization TRX*1.60
    - XARM servo gain +0.8, actuation ETMX
    - XARM trigger 0.25 up, 0.05 down. XARM Filter trigger untouched.

- PRC: (sideband locking)
    - Source: REFL33I, phase -34.05 deg, whitening gain 30dB
    - Input matrix: REFL33I->1.0->PRCL, Normalization None
    - PRCL servo gain +4.0, actuation PRM
    - PRCL trigger None

- Same test for the Y arm. At the moment ETMY did not have the OPLEV.
  Same level of transmission (~3.3)

 - Y arm:

    - Source: POY11I, phase -61.00 deg, whitening gain 36dB
    - Input matrix: POY11I->1.0->YARM, Normalization TRX*2.1
    - YARM servo gain +0.25, actuation ETMX
    - YARM trigger 0.25 up, 0.05 down. YARM Filter trigger untouched.

- PRC: (sideband locking)
    - same as above

Sideband PRMI attempt

    - Now I got some kind of confidence on the REFL33 signal.
    - So I tried to get any stable setup for sb PRMI, then to find any reasonable MICH signals anywhere else than AS55Q.
    - With REFL33I(PRCL) & AS55Q(MICH), I got maximum ~10sec lock. It regularly locked. It was enough long to check
      the spectrum on DTT. But it was not enough long to find anything about the MICH signals at the REFL ports.

    - I tried REFL33Q for MICH. The lock was even shorter but could lock for 1~2 sec.

    Q. What is the cause of the lock loss? I did not see too much angluar fluctuation. The actuation was also quiet (below 10000).

- PRCL: (sideband locking)
    - Same as above except for
      - the PRCL servo gain +0.05, No limitter at the servo output.
      - Trigger POP22I (low pass filtered by LP10) 20 up, 3 down

- MICH:
    - AS55Q -24.125 24dB -> x1.0 -> MICH -0.7, No limitter -> ITMX/Y differential
    or
    - REFL33Q -34.05dB -> x2.0 -> MICH same as above
    - For both case, trigger POP22I (low pass filtered by LP10) 20 up, 3 down

At this point Jenne came back from dinner. Explained what I did and handed over the IFO.

 [Eric, Riju]

Today we have routed the fibers from 1x16 fiber splitter to POX table for POX11 PD and POP55 PD. Also we labeled the fibers on AP table, they have been fixed on the table. The photo of the table after work is attached here. We will do it for POX table tomorrow. 

No.... what I told was to put the roll next to the splitter, not on the table.
The table area is more precious than the rack space.

Koji> The slack of the fibers should be nicely rolled and put together at the splitter side.

I contacted Den about malfunctioning of the Yarm ASS.

He found the scripts were modified during the attempt to make it available for Xarm (cf. a related elog entry)
So far, he could manage to make the current scripts being modified to run.
A striptool file is still missing but this is what we can handle locally.

I thank Den for the remote caring of the issue despite the limited network bandwidth.

The ATF NPRO auxiliary laser has been moved on the PSL table. All the optics for beat note measurement are in place and alignment has been done.

The setup for this measurement is the same as described in elog 8333.

I am following the instructions here:

https://www.lsc-group.phys.uwm.edu/daswg/docs/howto/lal-install.html#test

But there as an error when I run the ./00boot command near the beginning.  I have asked Duncan Macleod about this and am waiting to hear back.

For now, I am putting things into /home/controls on allegra.  My understanding is that this is not shared, so I don't have a chance of messing up anyone else's work.  I have been moving slow and being extra cautious about what I do because I don't want to accidentally nuke anything.

 Ok, will do it on the coming week.

[Jenne, Annalisa, with guidance from Koji]

We took data to remeasure the Schnupp asymmetry, using the Valera method that Jamie described in elog 4821. 

1  First, we locked the arms each with their PO(X,Y) signals, to get the alignment of each arm. 

2.  Then, we locked the Xarm with AS55I (Yarm optics, and PRM very misaligned, more than the misalign script).  Since AS55 was saturating, I changed the analog gain from 24dB to 21dB. (After work was completed, the analog gain was put back to the nominal 24dB for both I&Q.)

3.  We set up the Lockin similar to Jamie's description, with a few differences.  We used the same f = 103.1313, but used ampl=10cts.  Sin and cos gain were each 100.  We changed the lowpass filter from 0.1Hz to 0.05Hz (so each measurement had a settling time of at least 20sec).  We were using LSC-Lockin4, so the Lockin matrix was set so Lockin4 was reading from AS55Q, and the LSC output matrix was such that we were actuating on the ETM (X, then Y when we switched arms later).

4.  By hand, we roughly found the zero crossing of the lockin-q output (which corresponded also to zero of the lockin-I, since this is the place where all of the PDH signal was in AS55I, and the lockin was reading AS55Q). 

5.  We took points separated by 0.2 degrees, plus and minus 1 degree from the zero-crossing phase we had found (i.e., for the Xarm, we roughly found the zero crossing at -14.39 deg, so took data from -15.39 to -13.39degrees).  For each phase, we took 5 measurements (using ezcaread), at least 20 seconds apart.  After moving the phase, we waited at least ~40 seconds (watching the lockin outputs on striptool, they had completely settled after 30 or 40 seconds).

6.  We then repeated steps 2, 4 and 5 for the Y arm.  The lockin setup didn't change, except that now we actuate on ETMY.

We did a quick estimate calculation, from our rough zero-crossings to get a rough measurement of the Schnupp asymmetry.  DeltaPhi = (-14.39 -   -19.79) = 5.40 . This gives us (using F_sideband = 5*11066134, the current 11MHz marconi freq) a rough Schnupp asymmetry of 4 cm. 

Analysis to follow.

EDIT, JCD:  The Xarm gain at this time was -0.160, and the Yarm gain was -0.170

I was sad to see that there wasn't a photo of the POX situation after the fiber work was done on Thursday.

Also, I was out looking at something else, and noticed that the fibers aren't in a very good/safe place from the POX table over to your splitter.  Getting to the POX table is certainly more tricky than the AP table, since the fiber splitter is right next to the AP table, but we should go back and try to make sure the fibers to the more distant tables are laid in a nice, safe way.

Is there a reason that we're not using the clear plastic tubing that Eric bought to put the fibers into?  It seems like that would help a lot in keeping the fibers safe.

I took a few photos of the things that I'm sad about:

1. We should not be keeping fibers on the floor in an area where they can be stepped on.  This will be fixed (I hope) as part of putting the extra coiled length over by the splitter.

2. Again, in an area where we semi-regularly walk, the fibers should not be a tripping hazard.  Behind the table legs (rather than under the middle of the table) is safer, and will help tuck them out of the way.

3.  It's not obvious when we're pumped down, but we remove the access connector (top right side of this photo), and need to walk in this area.  I can pretty much guarantee that within 1 day of the next time we vent, these fibers will be stepped on, tripped over, and broken if they are not moved to a different location.  I'm not yet sure what the best way to route these fibers is, but this is not it. 

Riju, since Eric will be away next week, please let one of us "40m Regulars" know when you plan to come over (at least a few hours ahead of time), and we can give you a hand in protecting these fibers a little bit better.  Thanks!