For a comparison: OMC ELOG 238
Here's what I'm planning to do to the RF AM stabilizer box. I'm going to take out several of the components along the path to the EOM (comments in green), including the dead ERA-4 and ERA-5 amplifiers, the variable attenuator which is controlled by a switch that can't be accessed outside the box, and the feedback path from the daughter board servo. I'm arranging things so that the output of the HELA-10 does not exceed the maximum output power.
I wasn't quite as sure what to do about the path to the ASC box (comments in blue). I talked with Gautam and he said this gets split equally between several singals, one of which goes to the LO of the demod board which expects -10 dBm and currently gets -12 dBm (can go up to -8 by turning switch). So maybe we don't actually want the signal to be anywhere near +27 dBm at the output. The plans for the box are here, it looks like +27 in will end up with +10 at each output, which is way more than what's currently coming out. But maybe this needs to be increased to match the other path?
Also we haven't measured the actual response of the variable attenuator U4 for various switch positions; it's the same model as the one I'm removing from the EOM path and that one had slightly different behavior for different switch positions than what the spec sheet says. Same goes for the HELA-10 units along this path: what is their actual gain? So perhaps these should be measured and then a single attenuator should be chosen to get the right output signal level. Alternatively it could just be left alone, if it is at an OK level right now. Advice on what to do here would be appreciated.
I'll work on the EOM path tonight and wait for feedback on the rest of it.
EDIT: Gautam pointed out that there's some insertion loss from the components I'll be removing that hasn't been accounted for. Also the plans have been updated to reflect that I'm replacing AT5 with a 1dB attenuator (from 6 dB).
I think this then allows us to have the low noise OCXO signals everywhere with enough oomph.
I made some of the changes. Gautam and I will finish tomorrow.
While I was soldering the sharpest tip of the soldering iron (the one whose power supply shows the temperature) stopped working and I switched to a different one. Not sure how to fix this.
Do we want to replace all of the removed ERA's with 50 Ohm resistors, or just the one along the spare output path? I shorted one of them with a piece of wire and left all the others open.
I couldn't get one of the attenuators off (AT1, at beginning of ASC path). In trying I messed up the solder pad. Part of the connecting trace on the PCB board is exposed so we should be able to fix it.
Rana motivated me to take a step back and reframe the objectives and approach for this project, so I am collecting some thoughts here on my understanding of it. As I write this, some things still remain unclear to me, so I am leaving these as questions here for me to think about...
and come up with the best loop that meets all our rquirements? What constitutes the "best" loop? How do we weight the relative importance of our various requirements?
For the specific problem of making the MCL feedback loop better, the approach I have in mind right now is the following:
My immediate goal is to have the Simulink model updated.
Thoughts/comments on the above will be appreciated...
In working on automatic DARM loop design, we have this code:
the things in there like mkCost*, etc. have examples of the cost functions that are used. It may be useful to look at those and then make a similar cost function calculation for the MCL/MCF loop.
Since the "stablizer box" doesn't really need to stabilize, it just needs to amplify, I decided to replace it with an off the shelf amplifier we already had, ZHL-2. I worked on getting it set up today, but didn't connect anything so that people have a chance to give some feedback.
So, I think the remaining thing to do is to connect the splitter to ASC out and to the line to the EOM, the +24V supply to the amplifier, and the 29.5 MHz input to the attenuator. I wanted to wait on this to get confiration that the setup is OK. Eventually we can put all of this in a box.
Also, I noticed that in the clear cabinet with the Sorensens next to this rack, the +24 V unit is not supplying any voltage and has a red light that says "OVP."
I've edited Rana's Simulink model to reflect the current IMC servo topology (to the best of my understanding). I've tried to use Transfer Function blocks wherever possible so that we can just put in the appropriate zpk model in the script that will linearize the whole loop. I've also omitted the FSS SLOW loop for now.
I've been looking through some old elogs and it looks like there have been several modifications to both the MC servo board (D040180) and the TT FSS Box (D040105). I think it is easiest just to measure these TFs since the IMC is still down, so I will set about doing that today. There is also a Pomona Box between the broadband EOM and the output of the TT FSS box, which is meant to sum in the modulation for PMC locking, about which I have not yet found anything on the elog.
So the next steps are:
If anyone sees something wrong with this topology, please let me know so that I can make the required changes.
It is more accurate to model the physical frequency noises at various places.
cf. See also 40m ALS paper or Shigeo Nagano PDH thesis on https://wiki-40m.ligo.caltech.edu/40m_Library
- The output 4 should be "Laser frequency"
- Seismic path should be excluded from the summing node
- The output after the PMC: "Laser frequency after the PMC"
- "Laser frequency after the PMC" is compared (diffed) with the output 1 "mirror motion in Hz"
- The comparator output goes to the cav pole, the PD, and the PDH gain: This is the output named "PDH Error"
- Tap a new path from "Laser frequency after the PMC" and multiply with the cav pole (C_IMC)
- Tap a new path from "Mirror motion" and multiply with the cavity high pass (s C_IMC/omega)
- Add these two: This is the output named "Frequency noise transmitted by IMC"
A few minutes back, I glanced up at the control room StripTool and noticed that the MCREFL PD DC level had gone up from ~0 to ~0.7, even though the PSL shutter was closed. This seemed bizzare to me. Strangely, simply cycling the shutter returned the value to the expected value of 0. I wonder if this is just a CDS problem to do with c1iool0 or c1psl? (both seem to be responding to telnet though...)
Since things look to be back to normal, I am going to start with my characterization of the various TFs in the IMC FSS loop...
I tested the amplifier with the Agilent network analyzer and measured 19.5 dB of gain between 29 and 30 mHz. The phase only changed by 1 degree over this same 1 MHz span. Since everything seems to be in order I'll hook it up this afternoon, unless there are any objections.
I set everything up and connected it as shown on the block diagram attached to the previous entry, with the exception of the DC power. This is becuase there is no place open to connect to on the DIN rail where the DC power is distributed, so the +24V power will have to be shut off to the other equipment in 1X1 before we can connect the amplifier. (The amplifier is in 1X2, but the DC power distribution was more accessible in 1X1.) I also added 3 new +24 V clips with fuses despite needing only one, so next time we need to connect something new it's not such a hassle.
The RF distribution box where the 29.5 MHz signal originates should not be turned on until the amplifer has DC power. Since we may have a power interruption tomorrow, the plan is to wait until things are shut down in preparation, and then shut off anyhting else necessary before connecting the new clips on the rail to the existing ones.
Quick summary elog, details to follow. I did the following:
The measurements I have look reasonable. But I had a hard time trying to look at the schematic and determine what is the appropriate number and locations of poles/zeros with which to fit the measured transfer function. Koji and I spent some time trying to go through the MC Servo board schematic, but looks like the version uploaded on the 40m DCC tree doesn't have changes made to it reflected (we compared to pictures on the 40m google photos page and saw a number of component values were different). Since the deviation between fit and measurement only occurs above 1MHz (while using poles/zeros inferred from the schematic), we decided against pulling out the servo board and investigating further - but this should be done at the next opportunity. I've marked the changes we caught on a schematic and will upload it to the 40m DCC page, and we can update this when we get the chance.
So it remains to fit the other two measured TFs, and add them to the Simulink model. Then the only unknown will be the PDH discriminant, which we anyway want to characterize given that we will soon have much more modulation.
Data + plots + fits + updated schematics to follow...
Here are the details as promised.
Attachment #1: Updated simulink model. Since I haven't actually run this model, all the TF blocks are annotated "???", but I will post an updated version once I have run the model (and fix some of the questionable aesthetic choices)
Attachment #2: Measured and fitted transfer functions from the "IN1" input (where the demodulated MC REFL goes) to the "SERVO" output of the MC servo board (to FSS box). As mentioned in my previous elog, I had to put in a pole (fitted to be at ~2MHz, called pole 9 in the plot) in order to get good agreement between fit an measurement up to 10MHz. I didn't bother fitting all the high frequency features. Both gain sliders on the MEDM screen ("IN1 Gain" and "VCO gain") were set to 0dB for this measurement, while the super boosts were all OFF.
Attachment #3: Measured and fitted transfer function from "TEST 1 IN" to "FAST OUT" of the FSS box. Both gains on the FSS MEDM screen ("Common gain adjust" and "fast gain adjust") were set to 0dB for this measurement. I didn't need any ad-hoc poles and zeros for this fit (i.e. I can map all the fitted poles and zeros to the schematic), but the fit starts to deviate from the measurement just below 1 MHz.. perhaps I need to add a zero above 1MHz, but I can't see why from the schematic...
Attachment #4: Measured TF from "TEST 1 IN" to "PC OUT" on the FSS box. MEDM gains were once again 0dB. I can't get a good fit to this, mainly because I can't decipher the poles and zeros for this path from the schematic (there are actually deviations from the schematic posted on the 40m DCC page in terms of component values, I will try and correct whatever I notice) . I'll work on this...
Attachment #5: Data files + .fil files used to fit the data with LISO
Most of the model has come together, I am not too far from matching the modelled OLG to the measured OLG. So I will now start thinking about designing the controller for the MCL part (there are a couple of TFs that have to be measured for this path).
Lydia finished up installing the new RF amplifier, and will elog the details of the installation.
I wanted to try and measure the IMC OLG to compare against my Simulink model. So I went about performing a few checks. Summary of my findings:
TBC tomorrow, I'm leaving the PSL shutter closed and the RF source off for tonight...
To install the replacement amplifier, I did the following:
Still to be done:
To remind myself about how to put filter caps on the mini-circuits RF Amps, I looked at Koji's recent elog. Its mostly about op-amps, but the idea holds for us.
We want a big (~100 uF) electrolytic with a 50V rating for the +24V RF Amp. And then a 50V ceramic capacitor of ~0.1 uF close to the pins. Remember that the power feed through on the Mini-circuits case is itsself a capacitive feedthrough (although I guess its a ~100 pF).
Later, we should install in this box an active EMI filter (e.g. Vicor)
Rana and I spent some time looking at the IMC demod board earlier today. I will post the details shortly, but there was a label on the front panel which said that the nominal LO level to the input should be -8dBm. The new 29.5MHz routing scheme meant that the LO board was actually being driven at 0dBm (that too when the input to the RF distribution box was attenuated by 5dB).
An elog search revealed this thread, where Koji made some changes to the demod board input attenuators. Rana commented that it isn't a good idea to have the LO input be below 0dBm, so after consulting with Koji, we decided that we will
After implementing these changes, and testing the board with a Marconi on the workbench, I found that the measured power levels (measured with an active FET probe) behave as expected, up till the ERA-5SM immediately prior to the LO (U4 and U6 on the schematic). However, the power after this amplifier (i.e. the input to the on-circuit LO, Minicircuits JMS-1H, which we want to be +17dBm), is only +16dBm. The input to these ERA-5SMs, which are only ~2years old, is -2dBm, so with the typical gain of +20dB, I should have 18dBm at their output. Moreover, increasing the input power to the board from the Marconi doesn't linearly increase the output from the ERA-5SM. Just in case, I replaced one of the ERA-5SMs, but observed the same behaviour, even though the amplifier shouldn't be near saturation (the power upstream of the ERA-5SM does scale linearly).
This needs to be investigated further, so I am leaving the demod board pulled out for now...
The input impedance of the mixer is not constant. As the diode switches, it changes dynamically. Because of this, the waveform of the LO at the mixer input (i.e. the amplifier output) is not sinusoidal. Some of the power goes away to harmonic frequencies. Also, your active probe is calibrated to measure the power across the exact 50Ohm load, which is not in this case. The real confirmation can be done by swapping the mixer with a 50Ohm resistor. But it is too much. Just confirm the power BEFORE the amp is fine. +/-1dB does not change the mixer function much.
Instead, we should measure
- Gain imbalance
of the I/Q output. This can be checked by supplying an RF signal that is 100~1kHz away from the LO frequency and observe I&Q outputs.
29.5 MHz RF Modulation Source
IMC Demodulation Board
I wanted to do a quick check to see if the observed signal levels were in agreement with tests done on the workbench with the Marconi. The mixers used, JMS-1H, have an advertised conversion loss of ~7dB (may be a little higher if we are not driving the LO at +17dBm). The Lissajous ellipse above is consistent with these values. I didn't measure powers with the MC REFL PD plugged into the demod board, but the time series plot above suggest that I should have ~0dBm power in the MC REFL PD signal at 29.5MHz for the strongest flashes (~0.3Vpp IF signal for the strong flashes).
MC Servo Board
Some general remarks
I would think that we want to fix the I/Q orthog inside the demod board by trimming the splitter. Mixing the Q phase signal to the I would otherwise allow coupling of low frequency Q phase junk from HOMs into the MC lock point.
Of course this doesn't matter for the IMC locking as we only use the I phase signal, but
I was a little confused why the In1 Gain had to be as high as +10dB - before the changes to the RF chain, we were using +27dB, and we expect the changes made to have increased the modulation depth by a factor of ~25, so I would have expected the new In1 Gain to be more like 0dB.
While walking by the PSL table, I chanced upon the scope monitoring PMC transmission, and I noticed that the RIN was unusually high (see the scope screenshot below). We don't have the projector on the wall anymore, but it doesn't look like this has shown up in the SLOW monitor channel anyways. Disabling the MC autolocker / closing the PSL shutter had no effect. I walked over to the amplifier setup in 1X2, and noticed that the SMA cable connecting the output of the amplifier to the EOM drive was flaky. By touching the cable a little, I noticed that the trace on the scope appeared normal again. Turning off the 29.5MHz modulation source completely returned the trace to normal.
So I just made a new cable of similar length (with the double heat shrink prescription). The PMC transmission looks normal on the scope now. I also re-aligned the PMC for good measure. So presumably, we were not driving the EOM with the full +27dBm of available power. Now, the In1 Gain on the MC servo board is set to +2dB, and I changed the nominal FSS FAST gain to +18dB. The IMC OLTF now has a UGF of ~165kHz, though the phase margin is only ~27 degrees..
MC Servo Board
I made a tentative front panel design for the newly installed amplifier box. I used this chassis diagram to place the holes for attaching it. I just made the dimensions match the front of the chassis rather than extending out to the sides since the front panel doesn't need to screw into the rack; the chassis is mounted already with separate brackets. For the connector holes I used a caliper to measure the feedthroughs I'm planning to use and added ~.2 mm to every dimension for clearance, because the front panel designer didn't have their dimensions built in. Please let me know if I should do something else.
The input and coupled output will be SMA connectors since they are only going to the units directly above and below this one. The main output to the EOM is the larger connector with better shielded cables. I also included a hole for a power indicator LED.
EDIT: I added countersinks for 4-40 screws on all the screw clearance holes.
Johannes, if you're going to be putting a front panel order in soon, please include this one.
Also, Steve, I found a caliper in the drawer with a dead battery and the screws to access it were in bad shape- can this be fixed?
Following the discussion at the meeting today, I wanted to finish up the WFS tuning and then hand over the IFO to Johannes for his loss stuff. So I did the following:
At this point, I figured I would leave the WFS in this state and observe its behaviour overnight. But abruptly, the IMC behaviour changed dramatically. I saw first that the IMC had trouble re-acquiring lock. Moreover, the PC Drive seemed saturated at 10.0V, even when there was no error signal to the MC Servo board. Looking at the MEDM screen, I noticed that the "C1-IOO_MC_SUM_MON" channel had picked up a large (~3V) DC offset, even with In1 and In2 disabled. Moreover, this phenomenon seemed completely correlated with opening/closing the PSL shutter. Johannes and I did some debugging to make sure that this wasn't a sticky button/slider issue, by disconnecting all the cables from the front panel of the servo board - but the behaviour persisted, there seemed to be some integration of the above-mentioned channel as soon as I opened the PSL shutter.
Next, I blocked first the MC REFL PD, and then each of the WFS - turns out, if the light to WFS2 was blocked and the PSL shutter opened, there was no integrating behaviour. But still, locking the MC was impossible. So I suspected that something was wrong with the LO inputs to the WFS Demod Boards. Sure enough, when I disconnected and terminated those outputs of the RF distribution box, I was able to re-lock the MC fine.
I can't explain this bizzare behaviour - why should an internal monitor channel of the MC Servo board integrate anything when the only input to it is the backplane connector (all front panel inputs physically disconnected, In1 and In2 MEDM switches off)? Also, I am not sure how my work on the WFS could have affected any hardware - I did not mess around at the 1X1 rack in the evening, and the light has been incident on the WFS heads for the past few days. The change in modulation depth shouldn't have resulted in the RF power in this chain crossing any sort of damage threshold since the measured power before the changes was at the level of -70dBm, and so should be at most -40dBm now (at the WFS demod board input). The only thing different today was that the digital inputs of the WFS servos were turned on...
So for tonight I am leaving the two outputs of the RF distribution box that serve as the LO for the WFS demod boards terminated, and have also blocked the light to both WFS with beam blocks. The IMC seems to be holding lock steady, PC drive levels look normal...
Unrelated to this work, but I have committed to the svn the updated versions of the mcup and mcdown scripts, to reflect the new gains for the autolocker...
Turns out the "problem" with WFS2 and the apparent offset accumulation on the IMC Servo board is probably a slow machine problem.
Today, Koji and I looked at the situation a little more closely. This anomalous behaviour of the C1:IOO-MC_SUM channel picking up an offset seems correlated with light being incident on WFS2 head. Placing an ND filter in front of WFS 2 slowed down the rate of accumulation (though it was still present). But we also looked at the in-loop error signal on the IMC board (using the "Out 2" BNC on the front panel), and this didn't seem to show any offset accumulation. Anyways, the ability of the Autolocker doesn't seem to be affected by this change, so I am leaving the WFS servo turned on.
The new demod phases (old +45degrees) and gains (old gains *0.2) have been updated in the SDF table. It remains to see that the WFS loops don't drag the alignment over longer timescales. I will post a more detailed analysis here over the weekend...
Also, we thought it would be nice to have DQ channels for the WFS error signals for analysis of the servo (rather than wait for 30 mins to grab live fine resolution spectra of the error signals with the loop On/Off). So I have added 16 DQ channels [recorded at 2048 Hz] to the c1ioo model (for the I and Q demodulated signal from each quadrant for the 8 quadrants). The "DRATE" for the c1ioo model has increased from ~200 to 410. Comparing to the "DRATE" of c1lsc, which is around 3200, we think this isn't significantly stretching the DAQ abilities of the c1ioo model...
Yikes. Please change the all teh WFS DQ channels sample rates from 2048 down to 512 Hz. I doubt we ever need anything about 180 Hz.
There is sometimes an issue with this: if our digital AA filters are not strong enough, the noise about above 256 Hz can alias into the 0-256 Hz band. We ought to check this quantitatively and make some elog statement about our AA filters. This issue is also seen in DTT when requesting a low frequency spectrum: DTT uses FIR filters which are sometimes not sharp enough to prevent this issue.
Here is a comparison of the error signal spectra after increasing the IMC modulation depth, to the contribution with RF inputs / whitening inputs terminated (which I borrowed from Koji's characterization of the same in Dec 2016, these shouldn't have changed).
Some general observations:
I will update with the in-loop error signal spectra, which should give us some idea of the loop bandwidth.
I will look into lowering the sampling rate, and how much out-of-band power is aliasing into the 0-256 Hz band and update with my findings.
I installed the front panel today. While I had the box out I also replaced the fast decoupling capacitor witha 0.1 uF ceramic one. I made SMA cables to connect to the feedthroughs and amplifier, trying to keep the total lengths as close as possible to the cables that were there before to avoid destroying the demod phases Gautam had found. I didn't put in indicator lights in the interest of getting the mode cleaner operational again ASAP.
I turned the RF sources back on and opened the PSL shutter. MC REFL was dark on the camera; people were taking pictures of the PD face today so I assume it just needs to be realigned before the mode cleaner can be locked again.
I've attached a schematic for what's in the box, and labeled the box with a reference to this elog.
The alignment wasn't disturbed for the photo-taking - I just re-checked that the spot is indeed incident on the MC REFL PD. MC REFL appeared dark because I had placed a physical beam block in the path to avoid accidental PSL shutter opening to send a high power beam during the photo-taking. I removed this beam block, but MC wouldn't lock. I double checked the alignment onto the MC REFL PD, and verified that it was ok.
Walking over to the 1X1, I noticed that the +24V Sorensen that should be pushing 2.9A of current when our new 29.5MHz amplifier is running, was displaying 2.4A. This suggests the amplifier is not being powered. I toggled the power switch at the back and noticed no difference in either the MC locking behaviour or the current draw from the Sorensen.
To avoid driving a possibly un-powered RF amplifier, I turned off the Marconi and the 29.5MHz source. I can't debug this anymore tonight so I'm leaving things in this state so that Lydia can check that her box works fine...
I pulled out the box and found the problem: the +24 V input to the amplifier was soldered messily and shorted to ground. So I resoldered it and tested the box on the bench (drove with Marconi and checked that the gain was correct on scope). This also blew the fuse where the +24 power is distributed, so I replaced it. The box is reinstalled and the mode cleaner is locking again with the WFS turned on.
Since I tried to keep the cable lengths the same, the demod phases shouldn't have changed significantly since the amplifier was first installed. Gautam and I checked this on a scope and made sure the PDH signals were all in the I quadrature. In the I vs. Q plot, we did also see large loops presumably corresponding to higher order mode flashes.
I've been sitting on some data for a while now which I finally got around to plotting. Here is a quick summary:
Attachment #1: I applied a step input to the offset of each of the six WFS loops and observed the step response. The 1/e time constant for all 4 WFS loops is <10s suggesting a bandwidth a little above 0.1Hz. However, the MC2 P and Y loops have a much longer time contant of ~150s. Moreover, it looks like the DC centering of the spot on the QPD isn't great - the upper two quadrants (as per the MEDM screen) have ~3x the cts of the lower pair.
I did not (yet) try increasing the gain of this loop to see if this could be mitigated. I accidentally saved this as a png, I will put up the pdf plot
Attachment #2: This is a comparison of the WFS error signals with the loops engaged (solid lines) vs disabled (dashed lines). Though these measurements were taken at slightly different times, they are consistent with the WFS loop bandwidths being ~0.1Hz.
Attachment #3: Comparison of the spectra of the testpoint channels and their DQ counterparts at the same time which are sampled at 512Hz. It does not look like there is any dramatic aliasing going on, although it is hard to tell what exactly is the order of the digital AA filter implemented by the RCG. Further investigation remains to be done... For reference, here are some notes: T1600059, T1400719
GV 7 March 2017 6pm: It looks like we use RCG v2.9.6, so it should be the latter document that is applicable. I've been going through some directories to try and find the actual C-code where the filter coeffs are defined, but have been unsuccessful so far...
Last night, Valera and I looked into two aspects of the IMC:
I will post a more detailed elog about last night's work, but Valera also thought it might be a good idea to try and improve the mode-matching into the IMC. I couldn't find anything on the wiki/elog about the mode matching situation on the PSL table, so I quickly went over yesterday to measure some lengths. From looking at the MCREFL DC levels when the mode cleaner is locked (~0.37V) and unlocked (~5.7V), the current mode matching efficiency seems to be about 88%, so there is definitely some headroom for improvement.
Here is my cartoon of the situation on the PSL table. All lengths are measured in mm, and I would say correct to +/- 5 mm, so there could be considerable error here...
(L1 : f=+200mm. L2: f=-150mm. L3: f=+400mm)
I extracted the lengths from the edge of the PSL table to IM1 and MC1 from (what I think are) the latest CAD drawings on the DCC. I then put all this into an a la mode script [Attachment #5] - I assumed a waist of 370um at the PMC output mirror, and a waist of 1.78mm at MC1. I neglected the passage through the in-vac Faraday, EOM and BS1 (on the sketch above) and the MC1 substrate. I was able to achieve a theoretical mode-matching efficiency of 1 by just moving the positions of L2 and L3.
Given that there are probably errors of the order 0.5cm in the lengths on the PSL table, and also the in-vacuum distance to MC1, I figured it would be ideal to just move one lens and see if we can improve the efficiency. It looks like it may be more effective to move L2 than L3. The plot on the right shows that the sensitivity is approximately equal to the positioning of L2 and L3. Judging by this plot, looks like w.r.t. the coordinates in this plot, we are somewhere around (0.02,-0.02).
It looks like if we want to do this, moving L2 (f = -150mm) may be the best way to go.
%Create a beamPath object
InpPath = beamPath;
%Add components - for a first pass, ignore Faraday and HWPs, so only
%mirrors and lenses..
We implemented the plan outlined in the previous elog. The visibility (Pmax-Pmin)/(Pmax+Pmin) calculated with the MC REFL PD levels with the MC locked/unlocked is now ~96% (up from 88%). The MC REFL DC level in lock is now ~0.12V (compared to 0.4V). Assuming a modulation depth of 0.1 @ 29.5MHz, about 25% of this (i.e. 0.03V) is from sideband light.
The procedure followed was (see sketch in previous elog for various optic labels):
We could probably tweak the fine positioning of L2 and L3 and improve the efficiency a little more, but the primary objective here was to see if there was any effect on the large common mode offset on the WFS demodulated "SUM" output. Unfortunately, we saw no effect.
Here are two photos of the relevant section of the PSL table before (left) and after (right) our work there:
Motivation: see this elog
I was fiddling around for a few days trying to implement the method outlined in this paper to null this offset - I will post a separate elog about my efforts but Valera pointed out that we could try injecting an AF modulation at the IN2 input of the MC Servo Board. Last night, we hooked up an SR function generator (f = 312Hz, A = 0.01Vpp, IN2 gain = -5dB) to the unused BNC IN2 input of the MC Servo board. To avoid any additional offsets from the AO path during this measurement, I disconnected the LEMO cable (it is labelled).
We looked at the spectrum of the MC transmission around 312Hz and also 2*f = 624Hz. As a result of this modulation, we expect in the transmitted power, dP/P, a 2f term with amplitude ~(X_mod/X_0)^2 and a term at f with amplitude ~(X_offset * X_mod / X_0^2) - I may have missed out some numerical factors of order 1. So the latter should vanish if the offset at the error point is truly zero and the lock-point is the center of the resonance. Last night, we found that an offset in the range of -0.25 V to -0.19 V nulled this peak in the DTT spectrum. Today, the number was -0.05V. So the true offset seems to vary from lock to lock. Here are spectra around f=312Hz for a few different values of the offset slider (the center of the resonance seems to be -0.05V on the MEDM slider at this time).
Do these numbers make sense? Some time ago, I had pulled out the MC Servo board to find out what exactly is going on at this offset summing point. The MEDM slider goes from -10V to 10V, and by measuring the voltage at TP5 (see schematic below), I found that there is a 1/40 scaling factor between what is actually applied and the number on the MEDM slider (so for example, the numbers in the legend in the above plot have to be divided by 40). I've modified the MC Servo Board MEDM screen to reflect this. When I had pulled the board out, I noticed that in addition to the offset voltage applied via the backplane connector, there was also a potentiometer (R50 in the schematic below). I had nulled the voltage at TP5 using this potentiometer, but I guess drifts of ~5mV are possible.
Discussion on calibration of offset slider in Hz/V:
I've yet to do a rigorous calibration of this slider into Hz, but looking at the spectrum of the transmitted intensity at 2f, we estimated the coefficient (X_mod/X_0) ~ 3e-3 for an offset of 0.2V. dP/P ~1 when the applied modulation equals the linewidth of the cavity, which is 3.6kHz. So 0.2V of offset slider corresponds to ~ 10Hz frequency offset. In other words, I estimate the slider calibration to be 50Hz/V. So with the full range of +/- 10V, we should be able to scan ~1kHz of frequency offset. What does this imply about the variation of the offset slider value that removes the peak at 1f between locks? As mentioned above, this variation is ~0.2V over a day - with the calibration mentioned above, this corresponds to a change in cavity length of ~10um, which seems reasonable to me...
So how did all of this tie in with WFS SUM offsets? We did the following:
I neglected to screenshot the StripTool from the times we were doing these trials but I have the times, I will pull up some dataviewer plots and upload them here tomorrow...
I've taken a bunch of transfer function measurements from the MC ASC PIT and YAW channels to the WFS error signals using the same set of DTT templates Koji used while characterizing the WFS loops a couple of months ago, before the IMC RF changes. Analysis is underway and I will post the results here shortly...
As an aside, Rana had added 10dB and 20dB gains to all of the WFS filter banks yesterday. I tried engaging the 10dB gains on the two MC2_TRANS PD loops, and this did not seem to induce any instability. I stepped both loops and saw that as expected, the 1/e times for both of these loops is about 45 seconds now (compared to ~150 seconds at the nominal gain). These have been running all day today, and the IMC seems well behaved, so I am going to leave these on for now... Jacking up the gain on the MC2_TRANS_QPD loops by 20dB induced instability - same story for the 4 WFS loops with 10dB additional gain...
Thanks to Koji's nice MATLAB script using DttData functions, I was able to quickly analyze the TF data. Essentially, this measurement was a repetition of what was done here. The difference is that the modulation depth has been increased by ~25x compared to that measurement from December 2016. Here are the measured TFs (before accounting for the 1/f^2 normalization) for the various quadrants and the PIT/YAW channels:
The plots above are just to illustrate that the measurement was clean between the band over which the averaging will be done to compute the TF amplitude - i.e. 7-15Hz. The full summary of TF amplitudes, standard deviations, and the sensing matrix in the style of the referenced elog (the actual excel spreadsheet is Attachment #4, minus some of the graphics Koji had on his excel sheet):
Inverting those matrices, we get the matrices that diagonalize the sensor-actuator chain:
I will try implementing these matrices tomorrow and take a look at the step responses of the loops - the idea is that perhaps the system wasn't optimally diagonalized before and perhaps we can now improve the bandwidths of all the loops.
For sensing matrix, better to use single frequency sine response. We don't want to measure around the bounce or above the 28 Hz cutoff filters in the MC SUS.
I've reduced the gains of the damping on all 3 MC SUS by a factor of 3 for overnight observation as part of the ongoing feedforward noise cancellation investigations. I will return them to the nominal values tomorrow morning.
I've restored the damping loop gains to their nominal values. Analysis of the coherence between MCL and seismometer channels under this reduced gain setting is underway, results to follow.
On Wednesday at the meeting, we were discussing why we aren't able to achieve more seismic feedforward subtraction in MCL. We spent some time thinking about this yesterday, and this elog is meant to be a summary of the stuff we tried.
The seismometer spectra look similar enough to be explained by time of day variations, so perhaps the culprit is MC1. The ambient MCL spectrum is almost an order of magnitude higher above 4Hz now, with the nominal damping loop gains, as compared to back in January. I think the damping loops on MC1 need to be tweaked.
*Another issue with the IMC autolocker I've noticed in the recent past: sometimes, the mcup script doesn't get run even though the MC catches a TEM00 mode. So the IMC servo remains in acquisition state (e.g. boosts and WFS servos don't get turned on). Looking at the autolocker log doesn't shed much light - the "saw a flash" log message gets printed, but while normally the mcup script gets run at this point, in these cases, the MC just remains in this weird state.
In order to switch on the angular alignment for the IMC mirrors, we needed to center the laser onto the quad-photodiodes at the IMC and the AS Table(WFS1 and WFS2)
I and Gautam went to the IMC table and did the dc centering for the quad-photodiode by varying the beamsplitter angles. After this, we turned the WFS loops off and performed beam centering for the Quad PDs at the AS Table, the WFS1 and WFS2.
Once we had the beam approximately centered for all of the above 3 PDs, we turned on the locking for IMC, and it seems to work just fine. We are waiting for another hour for switching on the angular allignment for the mirrors to make sure the alignment holds with WFS turned off.
It happened again. MC2 UL seems to have gotten the biggest glitch. It's a rather small jump in the signal level compared to what I have seen in the recent past in connection with suspect Satellite boxes, and LL and UR sensors barely see it.
I will squish Sat box cables and check the cabling at the coil driver board end as well, given that these are two areas where there has been some work recently. WFS loops will remain off till I figure this out. At least the (newly centered) DC spot positions on the WFS and MC2 TRANS QPD should serve as some kind of reference for good MC alignment.
GV edit 9pm: I tightened up all the cables, but doesn't seem to have helped. There was another, larger glitch just now. UR and LL basically don't see it at all (see Attachment #2). It also seems to be a much slower process than the glitches seen on MC1, with the misalignment happening over a few seconds (it is also a lot slower). I have to see if this is consistent with a glitch in the bias voltage to one of the coils which gets low passed by a 4xpole@1Hz filter.
wonder if its possible that the slow glitches in MC are just glitches in MC2 trans QPD? Steve sometimes dances on top of the MC2 chamber when he adjusts the MC2 camera.
I've re-enabled the WFS at 22:25 (I think Gautam had them off as part of the MC2 glitch investigation). WFS1 spot position seems way off in pitch & yaw.
From the turn on transient, it seems that the cross-coupled loops have a time constant of ~3 minutes for the MC2 spot, so maybe that's not consistent with the ~30 second long steps seen earlier.
Happy MC after last glitch at 10:28 so the credit goes to Rana
GV edit 11:30am: I think the stuff at 10:28 is not a glitch but just the WFS servos coming on - the IMC was only hand aligned before this.
I tried unsuccessfully to relock the MC this afternoon.
I came in to find it in a trouble state with a huge amount of noise on C1:PSL-FSS_PCDRIVE visible on the projector monitor. Light was reaching the MC but it was unable to lock.
I don't know what had been wrong, but I could lock the PMC as usual.
The IMC got relocked by AutoLocker. I checked the LSC and confirmed at least Y arm could be locked just by turning on the LSC servos.
I don't know what had been wrong, but I could lock the PMC as usual.
The IMC got relocked by AutoLocker. I checked the LSC and confirmed at least Y arm could be locked just by turning on the LSC servos.
Recently we wondered at the meeting what the IMC round trip loss was. I had done several ringdowns in the winter of 2017, but because the incident light on the cavity wasn't being extinguished completely (the AOM 0th order beam is used), the full Isogaio et. al. analysis could not be applied (there were FSS induced features in the reflection ringdown signal). Nevertheless, I fitted the transmission ringdowns. They looked like clean exponentials, and judging by the reflection signals (see previous elogs in this thread), the first ~20us of data is a clean exponential, so I figured we may get some rough value of the loss by just fitting the transmission data.
The fitted storage time is .However, this number isn't commensurate with the 40m IMC spec of a critically coupled cavity with 2000ppm transmissivity for the input and output couplers.
Attachment #1: Expected storage time for a lossless cavity, with round-trip length ~27m. MC2 is assumed to be perfectly reflecting. The IMC length is known to better than 100 Hz uncertainty because the marconi RF modulation signal is set accordingly. For the 40m spec, I would expect storage times of ~40 usec, but I measure almost 30% longer, at ~60 usec.
Attachment #2: Fits and residuals from the 10 datasets I had collected. This isn't a super informative plot because there are 10 datasets and fits, but to eye, the fits are good, and the diagonal elements of the covariance matrix output by scipy's curve_fit back this up. The function used to fit the t > 0 portions of these signals (because the light was extinguished at t=0 by actuating on the AOM) is , where A and tau are the fitted parameters. In the residuals, the same artefacts visible in the reflection signal are seen.
Attachment #3: Scatter plot of the data. Width of circles are proportional to fit error on individual measurements (i just scaled the marker size arbitrarily to be able to visually see the difference in uncertainty, the width doesn't exactly indicate the error), while the dahsed lines are the global mean and +/- 1 sigma levels.
Attachment #4: Cavity pole measurement. Using this, I get an estimate of the loss that is a much more believable .
I started putting together some code to implement some ideas we discussed at the Tuesday meeting here. Pipeline isn't setup yet, but i think it's commented okay so if people want to play around with it, the code lives on the 40m gitlab.
Initial results and conclusions:
There still seems to be some data quality issues with the ringdown data I have, so I don't think we really gain anything from running this analysis on the data I have already collected - but in the future, we can do the ringdown with complete extinguishing of the input light, and repeat the analysis.
As for whether we should clean the IMC mirrors - I'm going to see how much power comes out at the REFL port (with PRM aligned) this afternoon, and compare to the input power. This technique suffers from uncertainty in the Faraday insertion loss, isolation and IMC parameters, but I am hoping we can at least set a bound on what the IMC loss is.