40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 171 of 341  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Category Subjectup
  11775   Tue Nov 17 16:21:10 2015 KojiSummaryPSLPMC servo circuit review, follow up measurements

I'm still analyzing the open loop TF data. Here I report some nominal settings of the PMC servo

Nominal phase setting: 5.7
Nominal gain setting: 3dB

After the tuning of the notch frequency, I thought I could increase the gain from 5dB to 9dB.
However, after several hours of the modification, the PMC servo gradually started to have oscillation.
This seemed to be mitigated by reducing the gain down to 4dB. This may mean that the notch freq got drifted away
due to themperature rise in the module. PA85 produce significant amount of heat.

(The notch frequency did not change. Just the 22kHz peak was causing the oscillation.)

  15149   Thu Jan 23 22:10:01 2020 gautamUpdatePSLPMC servo pulled out

While I have the board out, I'll try and do a thorough investigation of TFs and noise of the various stages. There is no light into the IFO until this is done.

I pulled the board out at 345pm after dialling down all the HV supplies in 1X1. I will reinstall it after running some tests.

  15152   Fri Jan 24 15:42:08 2020 gautamUpdatePSLPMC servo restored

The PMC servo was re-installed at ~345pm. HV supplies were re-energized to their nominal values. I will update the results of the investigation shortly. The new nominal PMC servo gain is +9dB.


While I have the board out, I'll try and do a thorough investigation of TFs and noise of the various stages. There is no light into the IFO until this is done.

I pulled the board out at 345pm after dialling down all the HV supplies in 1X1. I will reinstall it after running some tests.

  12170   Mon Jun 13 09:08:17 2016 SteveUpdatePSLPMC slow drift

The PMC transmission slow degration or it's input beam is not stable.


Attachment 1: PMCslowDrift.png
  4301   Tue Feb 15 11:57:06 2011 steve, valeraConfigurationPSLPMC swap

 We swapped the PMC s/n 2677 for s/n lho006.

The table below summarizes the power levels before and after the PMC swap.

  old new
Ptrans 1.32 W 1.42 W
Transmission 85 % 91.5 %
Refl PDDC locked/unlocked 5.0 %  4.3 %
Loss 7-8 % 2-3 %
Leakage out of the back 10 mW 0.3 mW


- The power into the PMC (1.67 W) was measured with Scietech bolometer before the first steering PMC mirror. The leakage through the steering mirrors was measured with Ophir power meter to be 12+8 mW. There is also a lens between the mirrors which was not measured. 

- The power through the PMC was measured after the doubler pick off (105 mW), steering mirror (4 mW), and lens (not measured).

- The estimated reflection from four lens surfaces is 1-2% hence 1% uncertainty in the losses in the table.

- The beams into the PMC and on REFL PD were realigned. The beams downstream of the PMC are blocked as we did not realigned the PMC and doubler paths.

- The trans PD ND filters were removed. The VDC=1.28 V now.

- The NPRO current is 2.102 A


Atm 1 old

Atm2  new

Attachment 1: P1070421.JPG
Attachment 2: P1070423.JPG
  672   Tue Jul 15 10:24:57 2008 steveUpdatePSLPMC temp & pzt voltage
The PMC pzt HV was happy with no HEPA temp stability.
Can we thermally insulate the pmc ?
Attachment 1: pmctemp.jpg
  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.

  681   Wed Jul 16 15:59:04 2008 josephb, EricConfigurationCamerasPMC trans camera path
In order to reduce saturation, we placed a Y1 plate (spare from the SP table) in transmission just before the GC650 camera looking at the PMC transmision. The reflection (most of the light) was dumped to a convient razor blade dump. We also removed the 0.3 and 0.5 ND filters and placed them in the 24 hour loan ND filter box.

Good exposure values to view are now around 3000 for that camera.
  978   Mon Sep 22 18:54:54 2008 JenneUpdatePSLPMC transfer functions with various brick-on-top configurations
Attached below is a graphical summary of different things that I have tried putting on the PMC to reduce the noise in the loop. The motivation behind these measurements is the current inability here at the 40m to increase the UGF of the PMC. This is part of a broader ISS loop/gain/noise problem that we are having, which is causing Rob's locking efforts to have trouble. (The ISS is next on the to-do list, after we find the best configuration for the PMC, if we are still having problems). Right now, it looks like we are being limited by the gain of the PMC (as mentioned by Rana in elog #968).

Anyhow, Rana and I had noticed that piling heavy things on top of the PMC seemed to reduce the noise. What follows are the transfer functions that I took with the different items on top of the PMC, so that we can compare their effects:
  • Nothing on the PMC (like it used to be)
  • New ~14kg lead brick wrapped in copper foil on top of the PMC
  • A stack of a piece of aluminum, a chunk of steel, and then the lead brick on top of the PMC
  • The lead brick + Rob pushing on top of the PMC

Unfortunately, I need to retake the power spectra in these configurations, but from eye-balling it, as one might expect, pushing on the PMC with a hand added more noise than the nominal nothing-on-PMC configuration.

Also unfortunately, none of these configurations seems to have significantly helped our noise reduction situation. We need a new plan. Rana is currently trying out some other configurations, including just aluminum+brick.

Attached is an open loop gain TF from 100Hz - 100kHz. Below that is a zoomed-in version from 5kHz - 30kHz. As you can see more clearly in the zoomed in version, the notch that Rana put onto the board at ~14.5kHz is working, but we need to make the notch deeper, to catch more of that 14.5kHz peak. We're going to try removing the resistor or reducing it's value in the RLC filter on the board (see elog #906). Also, we see that there is a giant peak at 18.3kHz. This is probably much more limiting to our stability at this point than the 14.5kHz peak. We need to add another filter to take care of this, or find another way to reduce this peak. Note that it is present even when there is no brick on the PMC, so it is not an artifact of the new brick.
Attachment 1: PMC_OLG_100Hz_to_100kHz.png
Attachment 2: PMC_OLG_5kHz_to_30kHz.png
  16076   Thu Apr 22 15:15:26 2021 gautamUpdatePSLPMC transmission

I was a bit surprised by these numbers suggesting the PMC transmission is only 50-60%. I went to the table today and confirmed that it is more like 85% (1.3 W in, 1.1 W transmitted, both numbers from with the FieldMate power meter), as I claimed in 2019. Even being conservative with the power meter errors, I think we can be confident T_PMC will be >80% (modulo any thermal effects with higher power degrading the MM). There isn't any reliable record of what the specs of the PMC mirrors are, but assuming the IO couplers have T=4000ppm and the end mirror has T=500ppm as per Alan's plot, this is consistent with a loss of something like 300ppm loss per mirror - seems very high given the small beam spots, but maybe these mirrors just aren't as high quality as the test masses?

It's kind of unfortunate that we will lose ~20% of the amplifier output through the first filter, but I don't see an easy way to clean these mirrors. It's also not clear to me if there is anything to be gained by attempting a cleaning - isn't the inside of the cavity supposed to be completely isolated from the outside? Maybe some epoxy vaporization events degraded the loss?


The transmitted power was ~50-60 mW. (Had to use power meter suspended by hand only.

  16077   Thu Apr 22 15:34:54 2021 AnchalUpdatePSLPMC transmission

Koji mentioned that the mode of the laser is different for lower diode currents. So that might be the reason why we got less transmission at the low input power but more afterward.

  1248   Fri Jan 23 10:00:21 2009 steveUpdatePSLPMC transmission is down
The PMC transmission is going down.
I have not relocked the PMC yet.
Attachment 1: pmc4d.jpg
  1250   Fri Jan 23 14:00:02 2009 YoichiUpdatePSLPMC transmission is down

The PMC transmission is going down.
I have not relocked the PMC yet.

I tweaked the alignment to the PMC.
The transmission got back to 2.65. But it is still not as good as it was 3 days ago (more than 3).

It is interesting that the PMC transmission is inversely proportional to the NPRO output.
My theory is that the increased NPRO power changed the heat distribution inside the power amplifier.
Thus the output mode shape changed and the coupling into the PMC got worse.
MOPA output shows a peak around Jan-21, whereas the NPRO power was still climbing up.
This could also be caused by the thermal lensing decreasing the amplification efficiency.
Attachment 1: LaserPower.png
  2565   Wed Feb 3 07:57:01 2010 steveUpdatePSLPMC transmission is low

The low PMC transmission alarm was on this morning. The PMC alignment needs a touch up.

Attachment 1: pmct40d.jpg
  526   Mon Jun 9 17:32:14 2008 YoichiConfigurationPSLPMC transmittance
I checked the current PMC transmissivity at a low power.
The input laser power to the PMC was reduced to 75mW by rotating the HWP in front of the PBS.
In this configuration, the output power from the PMC was 50mW. So the transmittance is about 66%.
The reading of C1:PSL-PMC_PMCTRANSPD is now 0.1 whereas it was 2.7 before turning the power down.

I will check the transmittance at a higher power when I get the cable for the 35W calorie meter, which is missing now.
  534   Fri Jun 13 11:17:25 2008 YoichiUpdatePSLPMC transmittance at high power
We received a new cable for the Scientech calorimeter. So I measured the transmittance of the PMC at higher power.

Input power = 2.298W
Output power = 1.364W
Transmittance = 59%

The input power to the PMC was measured between the two mode matching lenses by the calorimeter.
2.298W looks a bit too low. Actually, the calibrated monitor PD on the MEDM screen shows about 3W output from MOPA.
So we (me and Steve) measured the power right after the PBS after the periscope from MOPA with the HWP set to maximize the transmission of the PBS.
It was 2.77W. According to Steve's previous measurement, the first mirror of the periscope transmits about 200mW of the incoming light to the monitor PD. So the actual output of the MOPA is about 2.97W, which is consistent with the monitor PD reading.
The aperture of the EOM for the PMC control is glowing a lot. We suspect this is the main cause of the loss (from 2.77W to 2.298W).
We may want to re-align the EOM.

The output light from the PMC was picked off by a glass slide. The reflectance of the glass slide was measured first at a lower power (input 98mW, reflected power 1.58mW). Assuming that the reflectance is the same for the higher power, I turned up the input power to the PMC. This time, the picked off power was 22.45mW. This means the actual output power is 98/1.58*22.45=1364mW. The glass slide was kept at the same angle through out the measurement.
The measurement of the output power was done by the Ophir power meter. So calibration difference between the Ophir and the calorimeter may introduce some error.
  548   Fri Jun 20 02:20:33 2008 YoichiUpdate PMC transmittance degradation
The PMC transmitted light power has been degrading constantly for last two weeks (see the attachment 1).
I went down to 2.55V.
The output of the MOPA is constant during this period. More strangely, the reflected power from the PMC is also constant.
One possible explanation is the contamination of the PMC mirrors. But I don't know why it started two weeks ago.

I tweaked the alignment of PMC and was able to recover the transmitted power to above 2.7V (attachment 2).
I will keep eye on this issue.
Attachment 1: pmc_trans_long_trend.pdf
Attachment 2: pmc_trans_improvement.pdf
  6739   Fri Jun 1 08:17:47 2012 steveUpdateIOOPMC trends


IOO Angle & IOO Position QPDs centered.

 PMC trend of 400 and 1200 days

The Innolight 2W based PSL- IOO was implemented in the ~ summer of 2010

Attachment 1: PMC400d.png
Attachment 2: PMC1200d.png
  16400   Thu Oct 14 09:28:46 2021 YehonathanUpdatePSLPMC unlocked

PMC has been unlocked since ~ 2:30 AM. Seems like the PZT got saturated. I moved the DC output adjuster and the PMC locked immidiatly although with a low transmission of 0.62V (>0.7V is the usual case) and high REFL.

IMC locked immidiately but IFO seems to be completely misaligned. The beams on the AS monitor are moving quite alot syncronously. BS watchdog tripped. I enabled the coil outputs. Waiting for the RMS motion to relax...

Its not relaxing. RMS motion is still high. I disabled the coils again and reenabled them. This seems to have worked. Arms were locked quite easily but the ETMs oplevs were way off and the ASS couldn't get the TRX and TRY more than 0.7. I align the ETMs to center the oplev. I realign everything else and lock the arms. Maximium TR is still < 0.8.



  16401   Thu Oct 14 11:25:49 2021 YehonathanUpdatePSLPMC unlocked

{Yehonathan, Anchal}

I went to get a sandwich around 10:20 AM and when I came back BS was moving like crazy. We shutdown the watchdog.

We look at the spectra of the OSEMs (attachment 1). Clearly, the UR sensing is bad.

We took the BS sattelite box out. Anchal opened the box and nothing seemed wrong visually. We returned the box and connected it to the fake OSEM box. The sensor spectra seemed normal.

We connected the box to the vacuum chamber and the spectra is still normal (attachment 2).

We turn on the coils and the motion got damped very quickly (RMS <0.5mV).

Either the problem was solved by disconnecting and connecting the cables or it will come back to haunt us.




Attachment 1: BS_OSEM_Sensor_PSD.pdf
Attachment 2: BS_OSEM_Sensor_PSD_AfterReconnectingCables.pdf
  16016   Mon Apr 12 08:32:54 2021 Anchal, PacoSummaryPSLPMC unlocked at 2pm on Sunday; ~ Restored

PMC lost lock between 21:00 and 22:00 UTC on April 11th as seen in the summary pages:


That's between 2pm and 3pm on Sunday for us. We're not sure what caused it. We will attempt to lock it back.

Mon Apr 12 08:45:53 2021: we used milind's python script in scripts/PSL/PMC/pmc_autolocker.py. It locked the PMC in about a minute and then IMC catched lock succefully.

However, the PMC transmission PD shows voltage level of about 0.7V. On medm, it is set to turn red below 0.7 and yellow above. In Summary pages in the past, it seems like this value has typically been around 0.74V. Simil;arly, the reflection RFPD DC voltage is around 0.063 V right now while it is supposed to be around 0.04 nominally So the lock is not so healthy.

We tried running this script and the bashscript version too (scripts/PSL/PMC/PMCAutolocker) a couple of times but it was unable to acquire lock.

Then we manually tried to acquire lock by varying the C1:PSL-PMC_RAMP (with gain set to -10 dB) and resetting PZT position by toggling Blank. After a few attempts, we were able to find the lock with transmission PD value around 0.73V and reflection RFPD value around 0.043. PZT control voltage was 30V and shown in red in medm to begin with. So we adjusted the output ramp again to let it come to above 50V (or maybe it just drifted to that value by itself as we could se some slow drift too). At Mon Apr 12 09:50:12 2021 , the PZT voltage was around 58V and shown in green.

We assume this is a good enough point for PMC lock and move on.

  16019   Mon Apr 12 18:34:26 2021 YehonathanSummaryPSLPMC unlocked at 2pm on Sunday; ~ Restored

PMC lost lock again at around 16:00 April 12. I was able to lock it again but the transmission is only 0.6 now and REFL is 0.14.

Rana came in and realigned the PMC stirring mirrors. Now the transmission is 0.757V, and the REFL is 0.03V.

I noticed that the PZT was around 250V. Given that the PMC got unlocked at 16:00, which is around the peak temperature time in the lab (lagging behind the outside weather), due to the PZT voltage going down to 0V, I figured that the PZT voltage would go up during the night when the lab gets cold and therefore will likely go out of range again.

I found a different working point at 150V and relocked the PMC.


  3542   Wed Sep 8 00:01:07 2010 rana, valeraUpdatePSLPMC update

We ran the cables for the PMC: The RF cable for the 35.5 MHz drive was cheap and so we swapped the 29.5 MHz cable for it.

There now remain 1 RG-174 cable to drive the FSS PC (21.5 MHz) and 3 Heliax for the Kiwamu Tri-Mod EOM (11, 29.5, and 55 MHz).

We also changed the BLACK HV drive cable for the RED one (previously used for the MZ). All HV cables MUST be RED.

The BLACK cable is now used for the PMC_REFL DC.

The Heliax cables are routed onto the table - it remains a Alberto/Kiwamu job to strain relieve them and attach them to the TriMod box and EOM in the morning.

The PMC is locked and we did some partially bootless alignment and mode-matching. It locks easily on a TEM00 mode (with very poor visibility), but the

rest of the beam train can now be aligned while Valera does the PMC matching mambo.   


  5564   Wed Sep 28 13:30:01 2011 JenneUpdatePSLPMC was unlocked

Relocked the PMC.  MC came back immediately.

  9264   Wed Oct 23 15:46:01 2013 JenneUpdatePSLPMC was unlocked

The PMC was unlocked for a little over an hour.  I relocked it, and the MC locked itself.  Today, it looks like PMC yaw alignment is bad, and maybe pitch isn't so good either.  Transmission is 0.77

  7836   Fri Dec 14 17:12:19 2012 Evan HallUpdatePSLPMC yaw tune-up (from Wednesday night)

Wednesday night, there was ~0.4 V on the PMC transmission PD. I adjusted the steering mirrors into the PMC and got the transmission up to 0.81 V.

  12679   Mon Dec 19 22:05:09 2016 KojiSummaryIOOPMC, IMC aligned. The ringdown PD/Lens removed.

PMC and IMC were aligned on Friday (16th) and Today (19th).

The PD and lens for the ringdown experiment were removed as they were blocking the WFS.

  6702   Tue May 29 14:59:39 2012 JenneUpdateIOOPMC, MC alignment are shit

[Yuta, Jenne]

PMC and MC alignment are both shit, although with the WFS on, the MC is pretty good.  We're leaving it for now, so that (a) we don't mess up Koji's work, and (b) we can work on the Xarm.  Steve is doing Yarm oplev stuff, so we'll do Yarm later.

  6704   Tue May 29 15:48:31 2012 KojiUpdateIOOPMC, MC alignment are shit

The followings are a kind of daily check. Do this without any notice:

- Align PMC.

- Check MC spot position with the script (where is it located?). Ignore MC2 result as it can be arbitrary set.

- If the MC1/MC3 spots have moved it means that the PSL beam has moved. If the beam has moved, we should have some discussion what we should do.

- If the spot positions are about the same as before, align the MC mirrors. This should be done by nulling the WFS feedback. (Someone should make a simple script for this WFS offloading.)


Then, start locking both arms


[Yuta, Jenne]

PMC and MC alignment are both shit, although with the WFS on, the MC is pretty good.  We're leaving it for now, so that (a) we don't mess up Koji's work, and (b) we can work on the Xarm.  Steve is doing Yarm oplev stuff, so we'll do Yarm later.


  6707   Tue May 29 17:40:45 2012 JenneUpdateIOOPMC, MC alignment are shit


[Yuta, Jenne]

PMC and MC alignment are both shit, although with the WFS on, the MC is pretty good.  We're leaving it for now, so that (a) we don't mess up Koji's work, and (b) we can work on the Xarm.  Steve is doing Yarm oplev stuff, so we'll do Yarm later.

 [Yuta, Jenne, Suresh]

We pushed on the MC SUS connectors at the back of the rack, and that helped bring MC3 back to where it should be.  Then we looked at MC RFPD DC, and adjusted the optics with the WFS off, so that the refl is ~0.56.  Then when we turn the WFS on, the alignment doesn't really change, so we have offloaded the WFS. 

Now we're measuring the spot positions to check where the MC is.  Then we'll align the arms, and align the green to the arms.

  6708   Tue May 29 19:50:01 2012 JenneUpdateIOOPMC, MC alignment are shit


The followings are a kind of daily check. Do this without any notice:

- Align PMC.


[Yuta, Jenne]

PMC and MC alignment are both shit, although with the WFS on, the MC is pretty good.  We're leaving it for now, so that (a) we don't mess up Koji's work, and (b) we can work on the Xarm.  Steve is doing Yarm oplev stuff, so we'll do Yarm later.


 [Keiko, Jenne]

PMC aligned.  Suresh is fixing the measure MC spot positions script, then we'll remeasure MC spot positions.

  6709   Tue May 29 21:05:30 2012 yutaUpdateIOOPMC, MC alignment are shit


  [Keiko, Jenne]

PMC aligned.  Suresh is fixing the measure MC spot positions script, then we'll remeasure MC spot positions.

 [Suresh, Jenne, Yuta]

We measured the MC spot positions twice tonight. Procedure for measuring them is in elog #6688.
The results were;

spot positions in mm (MC1,2,3 pit MC1,2,3 yaw):
    3.3359    3.9595    2.3171   -7.7424   -0.8406    6.4884

spot positions in mm (MC1,2,3 pit MC1,2,3 yaw):
    3.2681    4.0052    2.2808   -7.3965   -0.7624    7.1302

The spot moved by about 0.5 mm since May 25, but we concluded that this displacement is negligible and difficult to be fixed by aligning PSL beam.

We'll align Y arm and X arm next.

  745   Sun Jul 27 23:06:17 2008 ranaUpdatePSLPMC, MZ, MC-MMT, etc.
With the new PMC now in I aligned the MZ to the new beam (there is sadly no steering
between the PMC and the MZ).

I also removed the pickoff that we had put before the MZ just in case we wanted to
move the FSS pickoff to there - its been 2 years now so I guess its not going to happen.

The new PMC's cavity axis seems to be a few hundred microns higher than the old one. So I
tried to move the MZ EOMs to compensate but ended up also steering all of the MZ's mirrors
to get the contrast good, the beam onto the ISS PDs, centered (sort of) onto the MMT lenses
and onto the periscope.

Along the way I also removed some of the vestigial squeezer stuff around the power control
PBS. The output of the PBS now goes directly into the high power dump with no steering. This
eliminated around a dozen clamps, bases, etc. and a couple of mirrors.

The MC is locked on the low power beam we have running through everything. I restored the
PSL launch beam just using the MC-WFS and it locked on a TEM00. So now we know that we
really don't need the PSL quads for this as long as the MC1 angle is stable.

The good news is that the PMC PZT voltage is now flat: the problem must have really been with
the PZT
and not the cabling or notch box like I had wondered about.

1) Continue mode matching into the PMC. Its transmission now is around the same as the
   old one.

2) Put a UHV foil covered lead brick onto the PMC to quiet it down.

3) Characterize the PMC loop and retune the body notch for the new body.

4) Tweak the MZ alignment to minimize the RFAM. We can use StochMon to do this as
   long as we have the MC WFS turned off or we can put in a flipper to take the
   beam before the MC and send it to the StochMon RFPD.

5) Re-align onto the ISS.

6) Install irises around the periscope for the beam. The old iris there is way off.

7) Fix PSL ANG and center both POS and ANG.
  10030   Thu Jun 12 10:41:58 2014 SteveUpdatePSLPMC-T trend of 4 years



Also, while I was working on the PSL table, I heard noise that sounded like a bearing rolling around.  I suspected the HEPAs, since the one on the north east corner of the table has a problem when it's turned up high (we've known about this for a long time), however turning off the HEPAs didn't affect the noise.  The noise is strongest near the back of the PSL controller on the shelf above the table, and the PSL controller box is vibrating.  So, I suspect that the fan on the PSL controller box is about to give out.

EDIT:  To clarify, I mean the Innolight's controller.

 The bearing is chirping in the back of the 2W Innolight laser controller. It is loud enough to hear it. I placed 4 soft  rubber feet under the controller to avoid shaking other things on self.

The HEPA filter bearing becomes noisy at 50V

 Keep it at 20V for low noise

  The aging of the laser came up when the noisy bearing showed.  ~10% down in in 4 years. That is pretty good.

Attachment 1: 4yTrend2Winno.png
  12072   Tue Apr 12 22:41:00 2016 KojiUpdateIOOPMC/IMC aligned, WFS offset adjusted

Did it again.

PMC Trans ~0.739
IMC Trans ~15000

  6262   Thu Feb 9 13:04:11 2012 KojiSummaryIOOPMC/IMC alignment

There has been no lock of input MC for more than 5days. WTF???

I have fixed a loose mirror of the PMC input and the alignment of the MC2 Yaw.

- The PSL mech-shutter was closed. It has been opened.

- Then, I checked the MC suspensions. Mainly MC2 Yaw has kept drifting. (Fig.1)
In fact, there was no WFS actions during this drift.

Anyway, now MC2 Yaw was aligned and the lock was restored.

- It was very unsatisfactory for me that the PMC alignment kept drifting.
The trend of the PMC REFL and PMC TRANS for a year suggests that:

  • Occasional drifts exist since a year ago (or probably since we built this new PMC setup in 2010 Sep)
  • The drift has got frequent for the recent four months, and got more for the recent one month.

I went into the PMC setup and tapped several optics in order to find any loose optic.
Immediately I found that the mirror before the AOM was loose. Basically any mild tapping was enough
to misalign the mirror such that the caivty loose the TEM00 mode.

I tightened the retainer set screw of the optic and aligned the PMC again. It looks OK now as I can not
misalign this optic by the tapping anymore. But if it still remains drifting, we need to replace the mount.

Attachment 1: Untitled.png
Attachment 2: Untitled2.png
  12947   Wed Apr 19 15:13:30 2017 gautamUpdatePSLPMC/MCL multicoherence

I used a one hour stretch of data from last night to look at coherence between the PMC control signal and MCL, to see if the former can be used as a witness channel in some frequency band for MCL stabilization. Here is a plot of the predicted subtraction and coherence, made using EricQs pynoisesub code. I had thought about adopting the greedy channel ranking algorithm that Eric has been developing for noise subtraction in site data, but since I am just considering 3 witness channels, I figured this straight up comparison between different sets of witness channels was adequate. Looks like we get some additional coherence with MCL by adding the PMC control signal to the list of witness channels, there is about a factor of a few improvement in in the 1-2Hz band...  

Attachment 1: PMC_MCL_multicoherence.pdf
  903   Fri Aug 29 17:39:25 2008 ranaConfigurationPSLPMC: ADC Channels
The attached PNG shows the PMC error and controls signals with no calibration.

There are 3 states:

DARK - RF input disabled & output blanked. This should be a measure of the ADC noise

(-10 dB) - This is with the gain slider down at 5 dB instead of the nominal 15 dB.

Looks like the Generic DAQ board whitening is good enough for these signal levels above ~1 Hz.

From the low and high gain spectra it also looks like the UGF is ~500 Hz with the gain at 15 dB.
Attachment 1: mcf.png
  906   Sat Aug 30 13:28:01 2008 ranaConfigurationPSLPMC: List of changes
This is a list of changes made to the PMC board while we had it out for modifying the notch:

  • LC-LC 4th order low pass filter
  • Replace the AD797 (U2) with an OP27. AD797's are bad - do not use them anywhere for any reason. The OP27 is slower and has a 3x worse input noise but doesn't compromise the bandwidth or noise performance of the PMC by any significant amount. The rule is: use OP27 everywhere unless you have a very good reason why not.
  • There is no 'H1' jumper on board. R9 is 90.9 Ohms and R2=900 Ohms so that the U2 stage has a gain of 10.
  • Cut a trace and inserted a 500 Ohm resistor between U2-pin6 and U5A-pin2 (the AD602). The AD602 has a 100 Ohm input impedance which cannot be driven without limiting by the AD797 or the OP27. The 500 Ohm resistor makes it a driveable load for low level signals which is all that should be there since its the error point of the servo. it also becomes a 6:1 voltage divider. Since the AD602 has a fixed output voltage noise of 100 nV/rHz, this will limit the noise performance if the VGA gain is less than 20 dB, but whatever.
  • R11 7.87k -> 1.74k, R12 = 78.7k -> 700k. This increases the high frequency gain of that stage by 7.87/1.74 = 4.5 and lowers the low frequency pole from 2 to 0.2 Hz to give the PMC some more staying power at DC. The loop shape is now 1/f^2 in the 9-480 Hz band and so the phase dips enough to make it almost conditionally stable, but not quite.
  • C26 changed from ??? + a 30 pF trim cap into a fixed NNN pF cap to set the notch frequency for the 14.5 kHz body mode that we measured. Once our brick configuration is more settled we can increase the Q of this notch from small to big.
  • Grounded pin 5 of U14 & U15 (AD620). These have sometimes been used as "differential" drivers in LIGO by connecting this reference voltage pin to the remote ground of the next board. This has always lead to insidious oscillation and noise. This beauty also has an output noise of 100 nV/rHz. Just never use this chip if you can help it; we can make true differential drivers - we have the technology.

Of course, we didn't have a current version of a schematic sitting around so I printed out a Rev E schematic and marked it up with red pen. I'll post pictures later and put the schematic into the PSL schematics notebook. Would be useful to take the old schematic and update it in Acrobat so that we have something electronic.
  904   Fri Aug 29 18:24:48 2008 ranaHowToPSLPMC: PZT Calibration
I calibrated the PMC PZT at DC by using 'trianglewave' to drive the DC offset slider
and reading back PMC_PZT and PMC_TRANSPD_F (both are DC coupled DAQ channels).

The attached PDF illustrates the method: look at the voltage required to span 1 FSR and then divide.
PMC_cal (m/V) = (1064 nm)/2 / V_FSR
The calibration for our PZT is therefore 10.4 nm/V.
The full scale (0-300 V) range is 3.1 microns.

From Jenne's elog entry we know that the series resistor to the PZT is 63.6 kOhms. The PZT is labeled as
having a capacitance of 279 nF. So the PMC drive's pole frequency is 1/2/pi/63.6e3/279e-9 = 9 Hz +/- 0.5 Hz.
The cable capacitance is ~20 pF/foot so its not significant for this.

The template file is Templates/PMC-PZTcal.xml.

Using the above calibrations, also plot the calibrated PMC ERR and PZT spectra.
Attachment 1: pmc-pzt-cal.pdf
Attachment 2: mcf.png
  12042   Tue Mar 22 21:30:15 2016 KojiUpdateIOOPMCIMC aligned, WFS offset adjusted

The alignment of the PMC adjusted on the PSL table: Trans 0.737->0.749

The alignment of the IMC adjusrted on the sliders: Trans 14300->15300

WFS offset has been reset by /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/MC/WFS/WFSoffsets

Attachment 1: 08.png
  15134   Mon Jan 20 15:11:20 2020 gautamUpdatePSLPMCT photodiode grounding issue

For a few days, I've noticed that the PSL overview StripTool panel shows PMC transmission and FSS RMTEMP channels with variation that is too large to be believable. Looking at these signals on an oscilloscope, there was no such fuzziness in the waveform. I ruled out flaky connections, and while these are the only two channels currently being acquired by the temporary Acromag setup underneath the PSL enclosure, the Acromags themselves are not to blame, because once I connected a function generator to the Acromag instead of the PMC transmission photodiode, both channels are well behaved. So the problem seems to be with the PMC transmission photodiode, perhaps a grouding issue? Someone please fix this.

Attachment 1: PMCT_anomaly.pdf
  15205   Mon Feb 10 15:55:46 2020 JordanUpdatePSLPMCTRANSPD

[Gautam, Jordan]

Gautam showed me how the PMCTRANSPD signal was reading zero, and he suspected it might have to do with the acromag wiring. Disconnected the acromag box underneath the PSL table and checked the ADC wiring. Side note: When benchtesting the c1psl acromag chassis there was excess noise in the AI channels, and grounding the minus pin of the ADC channel eliminates the noise.

So I grounded the (-) pins on the ADC1 (, which PMCTRANSPD is connected to and that seemed to fix the problem. As of right now PMCTRANSPD is reading ~.75 V.

See attached pictures

gautam: While this fix seems to have worked, I wonder why this became necessary only in the last month. Note that the problem was a noisy readback on the PMC transmission PD, which also made the FSS_RMTEMP channel noisy, leading me to suspect some kind of ground loop issue.

Attachment 1: ADC1.jpg
  9019   Fri Aug 16 19:36:49 2013 CharlesUpdatePSLPMC_trans Channel

Rana and I connected the PMC_trans output to the BNC connector board on the west end of the PSL table (the channel is labeled). I took a few spectra off of PMC_trans and the SR785 was connected directly to the PMC_trans output for about an hour.

Data will follow.

  5748   Fri Oct 28 00:53:39 2011 ranaUpdateElectronicsPOP 22/110 Design

The attached PDF shows a possible gain / input noise config for the POP 22/110 that we would use to detect the RF power in the DRMI. Design is in the SVN.

If Kiwamu/Jenne say that this has good enough sensing noise for the lock triggering than we will build it. This is using a 2mm diode.

If we can get away with 1 mm, we might as well use a PDA10CF for now.

Attachment 1: poy22110.pdf
poy22110.pdf poy22110.pdf
  9558   Wed Jan 15 18:42:57 2014 JenneUpdateASCPOP ASC QPD offline for a few hours this afternoon

I was in the lab, near the south end of the ITMX oplev table, looking for something, and I bumped the POP ASC QPD's power supply.  I thought that it was fine, but did not adequately check it.  When EricQ asked me just now about why the PRC is so wobbly today, I checked, and the power for the QPD wasn't properly connected (it's kind of a crappy connector, that if you nudge, contacts or loses contact).  Anyhow, I restored power to the QPD, and the PRC looks a little more stable now.  My fault for not checking more carefully, and my apologies to Q and Gabriele for their frustrations this afternoon.

  9930   Thu May 8 14:37:02 2014 JenneUpdateASCPOP ASC QPD power

I was thinking about POP today, and wanted to know if there was something to be done to allow us to use the PRCL ASC for at least a little bit farther into arm power buildup.

Anyhow, I checked, and while PRMI is locked on sidebands (ETMs misaligned), POP DC is about 80 counts, and the power measured by the Ophir power meter is 24 microWatts. 

We were on the 3rd gain setting for the QPD's power amplifier.  I turned it down to the "2" option.  (When at 4, the front panel light indicates saturation).

It's not clear to me what the gain settings mean exactly.  I think that "1" means 4*10^3 V/A, and "6" means 4*10^6 V/A (On-Trak OT301 info site), but I don't know for sure how the gain changes for the settings 2-5.  Anyhow, I have changed the digital gain for the ASC to be -0.063 from -0.023 for both pitch and yaw.

  16846   Thu May 12 13:46:59 2022 JcUpdateAlignmentPOP Beam

[Tega, JC]

Tega and I went in to adjust the POP being in the ITMX Table. The beam entered the table high, so we adjusted the this by adding mirrors (The highlighted in Turqoise are mirrors which adjust the pitch of the beam). All the mirrors are set and we are now in the process of adjusting the PD.

Attachment 1: IMG_0777.jpeg
  16847   Thu May 12 17:20:08 2022 PacoUpdateAlignmentPOP Beam on CCD


Got POP beam centered on camera and nominally on the two PDs. Attachment #1 shows "carrier" camera.

Attachment 1: PXL_20220513_002047233.jpg
  8897   Tue Jul 23 01:30:27 2013 JenneUpdateASCPOP QPD analysis

I have some data for how much motion of any PRMI-relevant optic affects the beam seen by the POP QPD. 

For this, I am using the QPD calibration from the micrometer (elog 8851) to get me from counts to mm of motion.  Note that the pitch calibration hasn't been redone (I tried locking the PRMI this afternoon, but ITMX kept drifting away from me**, so I didn't get any more data.) The pitch calibration is obviously very rough, since I only have 2 points defining my fit line. 

Anyhow, if we assume that's close enough to get us started, I now have a calibrated QPD spectrum:


As detailed in elog 8854, I took single frequency transfer functions, to determine the effect at the QPD from shaking any single PRMI optic.  These transfer functions gave me a conversion factor between the optics' oplev readings (in microradians) to the counts seen at the QPD.  I used this number, as well as the QPD calibration from the micrometer data, to convert each optics' oplev spectra to motion that one would expect to see at the QPD. 

I have not yet completely figured out how to make an estimate of the PR folding optics' affect on the POP QPD spot position, if I know their motion.  The current plan is to do as Den did in elog 8451, and infer the PR2/3 motion from the ITMX/BS motion measured by the oplevs.  My plan was to take the spectra of the oplev signals while the BS/ITMX are undamped, divide by the SOS pendulum transfer functions, then multiply by the TT transfer functions (which I finally wrote down in elog 8564).  I'm planning on using the undamped data, since the oplev signals are still within the linear range of the oplev QPDs, and I won't have to take the SUS damping into account.  Anyhow, after I do that, I'll have an idea of how much the tip tilts are moving, but not what that does to the cavity axis.

However, after looking at the plots below, it seems like the PRM is the main culprit causing the PRC axis motion, although the BS (and to a smaller extent the ITMs) are not innocent.  Since the plots get very busy very quickly, I have many plots, each plot comparing one of the above QPD spectra (either pitch or yaw) with a single optics' oplev inferred motion.

EDIT:  After talking with Koji, I realize that, since the ASC was engaged during the PRM oplev spectrum measurement, I cannot yet say whether the motion is due to PRM, or if it is from PR2 or PR3, and imprinted on the PRM via the ASC servo.  The lump where the PRM-caused motion is greater than the QPD spectra is entirely in the region where the ASC is active.  So, the QPD motion I expect without the ASC would be something like the green trace in the PRM comparison plots.  The blue trace is then the closed loop measurement.  Since the ITMs and BS are below the closed loop values, they aren't the ones causing the big lump.  I should retake all of these spectra at a time when the PRMI is locked, but the ASC is not engaged.  I'm not sure if I'll have a chance to do that tonight or not.  If I can find some GPS times when the PRMI was locked, before we had ASC, I can get the oplev data.









 I think part of the reason PRM is dominating is that it's damped motion is ~10x greater than any other optics', most noticeably the BS'.  I'll write a quick separate elog about this.  Also, note that the ~3Hz resonant gain had been turned off in the PRM oplev loop, but not in any other loops.  This is why there isn't the sharp dip in the PRM's oplev motion.  Also, since the PRM ASC was engaged for this measurement, and the ASC pushes on the PRM to minimize the QPD motion, it isn't totally crazy that the PRM's motion is greater than what we actually see at the QPD, if it is compensating for the motion of other optics.


** Re: PRMI locking this afternoon, it was almost as if ITMX were bi-stable.  I aligned both arms, to set the ITM positions.  Then, I would lock and tweak up the michelson to get the AS port nice and dark (usually touching ITMX today, since it seemed like the drifter....ITMX at this point was usually between -7 and -15 microradians in pitch from the center of the oplev QPD).  When I then brought the PRM back into alignment, ITMX was starting to drift away.  As soon as I hit the LSC Enable switch, and looked back over to the OpLev screen, ITMX was misaligned, usually around -65 urad in pitch.  I did this circus probably 3 or so times before giving up.  Koji said that he had seen this bi-stability before, but he didn't remember what fixed it.  The drifting that Koji mentioned in elog 8801 seems to have been fixed by centering all the PRMI oplevs every day, but I had already done that, and was still seeing ITMX drift.

ELOG V3.1.3-