40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 204 of 344  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Categoryup Subject
  8519   Wed May 1 14:42:45 2013 JenneUpdateLSCPOP now has lens in front of PD

Quote:

- At the end of the session, Jenne told me that the POP PD still has a large diameter beam. (and a steering mirror with a peculiar reflection angle.)
==> THIS SHOULD BE FIXED ASAP
because the normalization factor can be too much susceptible to the misalignment of the spot.

 Koji set the IFO in a PRM-ITMY configuration for me, while I went to put a lens on the POP path.  Before putting the lens, the maximum average output that I saw from the diode (on a 'scope) was 4.40mV.  After putting in the lens and realigning the beam onto the diode, the new max DCvalue that I saw was 21.6mV.  This is a factor of 4.9. 

EDIT:  The dark value was -3.20mV, so actually the ratio is ~3.25 .

I have not yet done anything to fix the situation of the large angle of incidence on the first out-of-vac steering mirror.

  8521   Thu May 2 00:34:57 2013 KojiUpdateLSClocking

- Routine alignment

Locked the arm cavties. Ran ASS. As this was not enough precise alignment for PRMI locking, Yarm alignment was re-adjusted by sliders.
Xarm was also aligned in the same way.

- OPLEV alignment

Once the arms were aligned, OPLEV spots were adjusted. For this adjustment, PRM had to be aligned and OPLEV servos needed to be turned off.

- LSC offset nulling

While Jenne was measuring the dark output of the POP PD, LSC offset nulling script was executed.

- Compensation of the POP spot size fix

As Jenne reported the POP path now has a lens and the denominator for the normalization got bigger.
To compensate this change, PRMI(sb) was locked by the same configuration as yesterday (i.e. AS55Q for MICH, REFL33I for PRCL). 
After some try and error, configuration for stable locking was found. 

PRCL
Signal source: REFL33I / Normalization POP110I x 1.00 / Trigger POP110I 80up 10down
Servo: input matrix 1.00 -> PRCL Servo FM3/4/5/6 Always ON G=+8.00
Actuator: output matrix 1.00 -> PRM

MICH
Signal source: AS55Q / Normalization POP110I x 0.01 / Trigger POP110I 80up 10down
Servo: input matrix 1.00 -> MICH Servo FM4/5 Always On G=-30
Actuator output matrix -1.00 -> ITMX / +1.00 -> ITMY

This suggests that POP110I signal is 5~6 times more than before the lens was installed. 

- SQRTing option for POP110I was implemented

The PRMI optical gain is derived from (Carrier)x(1st order Sideband) or (2nd order SB)x(1st order SB).
Here the carrier and the 2nd order sidebands are nonresonant.
Therefore the optical gain is proportional to the amplitude power recycling gain of the 1st order sidebands.
On the other hand, POP 2f signals are derived from the product of the 1st and -1st order sidebands.
This means that we should take a sqrt of the POP signals to compensate the recycling gain fluctuation.

Screenshot.png

- Locking with SQRT(POP110I)

PRCL
Signal source: REFL33I / Normalization SQRT(POP110I) x 10 / Trigger POP110I 10up 3down
Servo: input matrix 1.00 -> PRCL Servo FM3/4/5/6 Always ON G=+8.00
Actuator: output matrix 1.00 -> PRM

MICH
Signal source: AS55Q / Normalization SQRT(POP110I) x 0.1 / Trigger POP110I 10up 3down
Servo: input matrix 1.00 -> MICH Servo FM4/5 Always On G=-30
Actuator output matrix -1.00 -> ITMX / +1.00 -> ITMY

The lock seems not so different from the ones without SQRTing.

The spot was still moving in yaw direction. If I chose a correct alignment, I could minimize the modulation of the internal power
by misalignment. As you can see in the following plot.

Screenshot2.png

When the alignment was deviated from the optimum, the misalignment induced RIN was much worse although this was the longest lock I ever had with the PRMIsb. (more than 8 min)

Screenshot3.png

- Locking with other signal sources

REF55I/Q trial:

Demodulation phase was adjusted to make the difference of the peak heights for MICH maximized.
After the lock is acquired, I tried to swap the signal source at the input matrix. PRCL swapping was successful but
MICH swapping was not successfull.

It is much more hard to lock the interferometer with REFL55I compared with REFL33I.

REFL165I/Q trial:

As REFL165 PD never produced any useful signal, I tried to swap it with the BBPD used in the green setup.

- Borrowed the PD, power supply from the green setup.

- Put REFL165PD aside. Placed the BBPD in the path. The DC output was 0.8V. This corresponds to the input power of ~5mW.

- Checked the signal but it was very litte (several counts even at the maximum whitening gain).

- Decided to use the power reduction pick off to introduce much more light on the PD.
  This PO mirror is 90% reflector. Therefore I had to be careful no to fry the diode.
  Currently there are OD1.3 (x1/20) power attenuator to reduce the input power down to 6.5V (40mW).

- The resulting signal is very wiered suggesting the saturation of the PD at the RF stages.

- Probably I need to make a new PD circuit which has the high pass filter to reject other low frequency components.

  8528   Fri May 3 17:32:59 2013 JenneUpdateLSCRemeasuring the Schnupp asymmetry

I have looked at / analyzed the Schnupp data that Annalisa and I took last week, as well as some more Yarm data that I took this week.

I only have one set of Xarm data, but 3 sets of Yarm data.  I had intended to do careful error analysis of the data, but from the 3 sets of Yarm data, the variance in the answer I get using any one of the Yarm sets is much larger than the error in a single measurement.

 Xarm_SchnuppData_April2013.png

Yarm_SchnuppData_April2013.png

Using the central Yarm zero crossing, I get a Schnupp asymmetry of 3.9cm.  The other 2 Yarm data points give Schnupp asymmetries of 3.7cm and 4.1cm, so I'm claiming a value of 3.9 +\- 0.2cm . This is within error of Jamie's measurement of 3.64 ± 0.32 cm (elog 4821).

  8537   Tue May 7 16:21:01 2013 JenneSummaryLSCError signal simulation in PRMI

I asked Gabriele why it looked like for the PRCL sweep REFL 55 I&Q were zero at zero, but for the MICH sweep only REFL55 I was zero.  He took a look at his code, and found that he was not at the correct locking point.  Here is his email back to me:

I found the reason for the not zero value. Indeed, if you could zoom into the PRCL sweep, you would see that the error signals does not cross zero exactly at PRCL=0, but instead some 50 pm away from zero. This is enough to change a lot the PRCL signal when sweeping MICH. If I put PRCL to the correct zero point, and I sweep MICH, I now get everything at zero. I'm sending again the plots.

The fact that such a small detuning is enough to change PRCL signal when sweeping MICH is due, I believe, to the fact that MICH optical gain is much smaller than PRCL one.

Here are the redone plots:

Phase not tuned:

michsweep_errsigs_phasenottuned.pngprclsweep_errsigs_phasenottuned.png

 

Phase tuned:

michsweep_errsigs_tunedphase.pngprclsweep_errsigs_tunedphase.png

POP22 resonance for MICH and PRCL:

michsweep_pop22.pngprclsweep_pop22.png

POP110 resonance for MICH and PRCL:

michsweep_pop110.pngprclsweep_pop110.png

  8553   Wed May 8 19:31:17 2013 JamieConfigurationLSCLSC: added new SQRT_SWITCH to power normalization DOF outputs

This removes the old sqrt'ing from the inputs to the POW_NORM matrix (was only on the POP110 I/Q) and moves it to the DOF outputs.  Koji wanted this so that he could use the DC signals for normalization both sqrt'd and not sqrt'd.

The POW_NORM medm screen was updated accordingly.

  8555   Thu May 9 00:05:12 2013 rana, Koji, JenneSummaryLSCAA and AI change

We would like to increase the UGF of the PRC loop so as to allow more suppression of the PRC signal and less pollution of the MICH signal (remember that the PRC/MICH optical gain ratio is huge).

We were already losing phase because of delay in the LSC - SUS digital link. In addition to that, a major source of delay is the analog anti-aliasing (on the LSC error signals before they enter the ADC) and the analog anti-imaging (between the SUS DAC and the coil driver).

 IN addition to these, the other major sources of phase lag in the system are the FM5 filter in the LSC-PRC filter bank, the digital upsampling and downsampling filters, and the DAC sample and hold.

In the near term, we want to modify these analog filters to be more appropriate for our 64 kHz ADC/DAC sample rate. Otherwise, we are getting the double phase lag whammy.

 

Staring at the schematics for the AA (D000076-01) and the AI (D000186-A), we determined a plan of action.

For the AA, we want to remove the multi-pin AA chip filter from Frequency Devices, Inc. and replace it with a passive LC low pass. Hopefully, these chips are socketed. Rana will design an appropriate LC combo and elog; we should make the change on a Wednesday afternoon so that we have enough soldering help.

For the AI, the filter is a dual bi-quad using discrete components and LT1125 opamps. Not so clear what to do with these. The resistors are all the noisy thick film kind and maybe should be replaced. Koji will find some online design tool for these or do it in LISO. Changing the TF is easy; we can just scale the capacitors. But we also want to make sure that the noise of the AI does not destroy the noise reduction action of the dewhitening board which precedes it.

Jenne should figure out how low the noise needs to be at the input to the coil driver.

 

P.S. the matlab code which defines these filters

>> [z,p,k] = ellip(4,4,60,2*pi*7570,'s');
>> misc.ai = zpk(z,p,k*10^(4/20)) * zpk([],-2*pi*13e3,2*pi*13e3);
>>
>> % Fudged Anti-Imaging Filter
>> [z,p,k] = ellip(8,0.001,80,2*pi*7570,'s');
>> misc.aa = zpk(z,p,k*10^(0.001/20)) * zpk([],-2*pi*32768,2*pi*32768);

Attachment 1: AAAI.pdf
AAAI.pdf
  8566   Mon May 13 23:05:26 2013 KojiConfigurationLSCPRMI locking

- Disabled MCL path in mcdown/mcupscript.

Nominal gain in mcdown/mcup was -50 and -100 respectively.

- Confirmed the stable lock was just because of the quiet seismic of the Friday night.

- Improvement of the PRM ASC servo
RG3.2 (3.2Hz Q=2 Height 30dB)
=>
RG3.2 (3.2Hz Q=10 Height 30dB) +  zero[f, 1, .5] pole[f, 2, 3] zero[f, 4.5, .5] pole[f, 3.5, 3]

Filter shape comparison is found in the second plot attached.

The resulting spectra (freerun vs controlled) is found in the first plot.

Nominal PRM ASC gain is +70

- Openloop TF measurement

OLTF PRCL 250Hz 30deg / MICH 200Hz 45deg

- REFL55/REFL33 phase adjustment (in lock)

REFL55 phase fine tune (95.25deg) (x1,x0.3)
REFL33 phase (-13.0deg) (x1, x2)

Attachment 1: 130513_PRC_ASC.pdf
130513_PRC_ASC.pdf
Attachment 2: 130513_PRC_ASC_servo.pdf
130513_PRC_ASC_servo.pdf
  8574   Tue May 14 20:27:19 2013 KojiConfigurationLSCOpenloop gain for PRMI lock May 13

The OLTFs for PRCL and MICH for the last night's lock were modelled using Yuta's python script.

Attachment 1: LSCPRCLOLTF.png
LSCPRCLOLTF.png
Attachment 2: LSCMICHOLTF.png
LSCMICHOLTF.png
Attachment 3: 130513.zip
  8577   Wed May 15 00:45:28 2013 ranaConfigurationLSCOpenloop gain for PRMI lock May 13

 

 Pfft. Why 500 usec delay? We should be using the known parameters for the hardware and software AA/AI.

  8589   Thu May 16 04:46:37 2013 JenneUpdateLSCKiwamu's sensing matrix measurement script revived

Kiwamu had an old set of scripts for measuring the sensing matrices, but they were hidden away in ..../scripts/general/kiwamuscripts/pyplant . I have moved them to a more useful place, and updated them.

The useful scripts (the main one is SensResp.py, and the PRMI-specific one, runPRMI_SENS.py, which calls SensResp.py) have been moved to .../scripts/LSC .  I have also created a folder within the LSC scripts folder called SensMatData for the data.

The 2 big changes to Kiwamu's scripts:  The ezca library that he was calling wasn't working.  I switched it over to using the one that Yuta wrote, in ..../scripts/pylibs.  Also, Kiwamu's script was written back during a time where we must have only had one total lockin for the whole LSC model.  Now we have one per PD in the input matrix.  This meant that several of his channel names were wrong.  I have fixed this, and also made it measure all the sensors at once using tdsread of the _OUT16 channels (the OUT16's have some AA action, other EPICS channels don't).

So, now (after you're locked), it shakes one "mirror" (the ITMs are shaken differentially at the same time, as one "mirror"), and reads out all of the RF PD lockin values.  Then it moves to the next mirror.  (For the PRMI case, there are only 2 "mirrors":  The ITM set and the PRM.)  All of the information is stored in a dictionary, which is written to a text file. 

The format of the dictionary is:

{ OPTIC_1: [Photodiode_1, Lockin_I, Lockin_Q], [Photodiode_2, Lockin_I, Lockin_Q], OPTIC_2: [Photodiode_1, Lockin_I, Lockin_Q], [Photodiode_2, Lockin_I, Lockin_Q] }

At this point, I am too tired to actually do a measurement, although next time the PRMI is locked, we should just have to run the runPRMI_SENS.py, and look at the data.  I'm also not quite sure how to extract the information from a dictionary after it has been written to a text file.  This may not be a good way to store data, and I'll ask Jamie about it tomorrow.

OTHER NOTES:

* I need to set up another iteration of the sensing matrix measurement with no drive, measuring several times, to get an estimate of the error in a single measurement.

 

* I had the PRMI locked on AS55Q/REFL33I for more than half an hour.  Then the MC started unlocking semi-regularly.  Seismic was good except for one EQ ~2 hours ago.  After the earthquake (unlocked MC, but no tripped optics), the MC has remained locked.

* The LSC Lockin Overview screen does not click-through to the _SIG individual screens.  We need to fix the path to these screens.

* All of the _SIG filters are band passes around 285 Hz, but the names of the filters all say 238Hz.  I need to fix all 27 of these.

* We can perhaps change the LSCoffsets script someday to use tdsread a few times, and average the results (since the PDs don't have lowpass filters, and we're measuring the offset of the IN1 location, not the OUT).  This way we can hopefully measure all the PDs at once and speed up the script, without having failed tdsavg runs.

  8592   Thu May 16 22:03:16 2013 KojiConfigurationLSCY Green BBPD returned to the PSL table

I borrowed the GTRY BBPD  for the REFL165 trial before.

Now the PD is back on the PSL table.

The PD is intentionally misaligned so that anyone can find it is not aligned.

  8593   Thu May 16 23:48:39 2013 JenneUpdateLSCKiwamu's sensing matrix measurement script revived

Koji locked the PRMI for me, and I took some data.  I haven't finished figuring out what to do with it / writing a processing script.

Here is the data, in a python dictionary (not for you to read, but so that it's here and you can use it later if you want).

{'AS55_Q': [['ErrorBarData0', '-1.60826e-05', '0.000154774'], ['ErrorBarData1', '-1.61949e-05', '-9.69142e-05'], ['ITMs', '-0.134432', '0.00240338'], ['PRM', '0.0525864', '0.145516']], 'REFL55_Q': [['ErrorBarData0', '-0.00088166', '-0.00294315'], ['ErrorBarData1', '0.00298076', '-0.000466507'], ['ITMs', '-0.573825', '-0.0865747'], ['PRM', '1.94537', '0.534968']], 'REFL33_Q': [['ErrorBarData0', '0.000868208', '0.000785702'], ['ErrorBarData1', '-0.00136268', '-0.000288528'], ['ITMs', '-0.0653009', '-0.0112035'], ['PRM', '0.875275', '0.419765']], 'REFL11_I': [['ErrorBarData0', '-0.147347', '0.136075'], ['ErrorBarData1', '0.351823', '0.160556'], ['ITMs', '-12.0739', '-80.1513'], ['PRM', '6991.11', '7073.74']], 'REFL33_I': [['ErrorBarData0', '-0.00100624', '0.00134366'], ['ErrorBarData1', '0.00373581', '0.000783243'], ['ITMs', '-0.399404', '-0.774793'], ['PRM', '67.4138', '68.8886']], 'REFL11_Q': [['ErrorBarData0', '-0.0173368', '0.0141987'], ['ErrorBarData1', '0.100048', '0.0882165'], ['ITMs', '6.46585', '-26.2841'], ['PRM', '1653.42', '1663.96']], 'AS55_I': [['ErrorBarData0', '-1.87626e-05', '2.24596e-05'], ['ErrorBarData1', '-5.46466e-05', '-2.96552e-07'], ['ITMs', '-0.00531763', '0.00130579'], ['PRM', '-0.100501', '-0.0706334']], 'REFL55_I': [['ErrorBarData0', '-0.000774208', '-5.32631e-05'], ['ErrorBarData1', '0.00347621', '0.0025103'], ['ITMs', '-0.115633', '-0.83847'], ['PRM', '72.8058', '74.2347']]}

The structure is that each sensor has some "error bar" measurements, when there was no drive to any optics (I, then Q of the lockin), and then response to different optics' drives (waiting 20sec after turning on the oscillator before making a measurement, since the lockin has 0.1Hz lowpasses.  ).

The amplitude that Kiwamu had of 4000 cts in the LSC lockin was fine for MICH, but made PRCL unlock, so this data was taken with an amplitude of 1000 counts, at a frequency 283.1030 Hz. 

Since this is only barely above the UGF for both MICH and PRCL loops, I also have OLTF information at 283Hz from DTT:  PRCL mag = -1.05264 dB, phase = 24.6933 deg, MICH mag = -8.50951 dB, phase = 31.3948 deg.

I have started writing a script SensMatAnalysis.py in the scripts/LSC directory to do the analysis, but after having talked to Koji, I need to do more thinking to make sure I know what I'm doing.  Stay tuned for actual analysis later.

  8600   Mon May 20 17:49:36 2013 JenneUpdateLSCPRMI sensing matrix - not high quality data

Just so we have some numbers, I did a by-hand analysis of the PRMI sensing matrix numbers I posted here in the elog the other day.  This analysis is ignoring the error bar data.

For each sensor (PD_I or PD_Q), I do loop compensation, since these measurements were taken fairly close to the UGFs of the loops, and notches were not in use at the drive frequency.  To do the loop compensation, I multiply the complex value (lockin_I + i*lockin_Q) by (1-G), where G is the (complex) open loop gain of the degree of freedom I'm shaking.

 When I'm shaking a single degree of freedom (ex. shaking the PRM to get PRCL information), for each PD_I or PD_Q, we get 2 numbers, the lockin_I and lockin_Q values.    I check the phase between the lockin_I and lockin_Q values, since that phase (after loop compensation) should be either 0 or 180, and if it is not, something is wrong. 

Of the 16 sensors I measure (where PD_I and PD_Q count as 2 sensors), 11 sensors had phases more than 20 degrees away from either 0 or 180.  This is not good, and indicates that something is wrong with my measurement.  I suspect that I may not be driving hard enough -  I was using an amplitude 4x smaller than the previous value.  Next time the PRMI is locked, I will turn on the drive oscillation, and ensure that I can see the line in all of the PD signals.

The results of my quickie analysis script:

Bad REFL11_I_MICH phase!  Phase is -82.0185 degrees!
Bad REFL11_Q_MICH phase!  Phase is -35.9697 degrees!
Bad REFL33_I_MICH phase!  Phase is -134.952 degrees!
Bad REFL55_I_MICH phase!  Phase is -79.7997 degrees!
Bad AS55_I_PRCL phase!  Phase is -142.6016 degrees!
Bad AS55_Q_PRCL phase!  Phase is 90.6194 degrees!
Bad REFL11_I_PRCL phase!  Phase is 52.471 degrees!
Bad REFL11_Q_PRCL phase!  Phase is 52.2324 degrees!
Bad REFL33_I_PRCL phase!  Phase is 52.909 degrees!
Bad REFL33_Q_PRCL phase!  Phase is 25.14 degrees!
Bad REFL55_I_PRCL phase!  Phase is 52.8113 degrees!

Sensing Matrix, calculated even though most of the measurement data isn't any good:
AS55: MICH = 0.13502, -1.6122deg.  PRCL = 0.14993, -2.245deg
REFL11: MICH = 29.6373, -2.6365deg.  PRCL = 7376.3206, -2.9098deg
REFL33: MICH = 0.35649, -2.9633deg.  PRCL = 69.5133, -3.1302deg
REFL55: MICH = 0.62084, -2.0261deg.  PRCL = 75.0214, 3.1176deg

Attachment 1: PRMIsensMatQuickAnalysis.m.gz
  8601   Mon May 20 18:47:47 2013 KojiUpdateLSCPRMI sensing matrix - not high quality data

For now forget about the demodulation phase and assume all of the ports are independent.
I want to know the numbers in the following format.

          PRCL     MICH   (unit: cnt/m)
REFL11I:  x.xxxEx x.xxxEx
REFL11Q:  x.xxxEx x.xxxEx
REFL33I:  x.xxxEx x.xxxEx
REFL33Q:  x.xxxEx x.xxxEx
REFL55I:  x.xxxEx x.xxxEx
REFL55Q:  x.xxxEx x.xxxEx
REFL165I: N/A     N/A
REFL165Q: N/A     N/A
AS55I:    x.xxxEx x.xxxEx
AS55Q:    x.xxxEx x.xxxEx

If you really want to resolve the TF phase difference between the I and Q  demod-signals,
you need to look at the transfer functions between the excitation and these ports.
We can't understand what is happening only from the single point measurement.

  8602   Mon May 20 18:50:22 2013 JenneUpdateLSCKiwamu's sensing matrix measurement script revived

So that I don't have to do loop compensation every time I measure a sensing matrix, I have put (back) in notches into FM10 of all the LSC filter banks, except MC2.  

MICH already had this notch, PRCL and CARM both had it, although it was mislabeled in the filter title as "Notch410" rather than the truth, which is "Notch628". 

The XARM and YARM filter banks were full, since we have not (in those filter banks) combined all of the resonant gains - 3.2Hz, 16Hz, 24Hz - into one module.  I took out a CLP3000 (  cheby1('LowPass",2,3,3000)gain(1.41254)  ) in each of those filter banks, and put in the notch.

I also have changed the band pass filters in the LSC-Lockin#_SIG filter banks to match this new drive frequency.

  8603   Tue May 21 14:48:08 2013 JenneUpdateLSCPRMI sensing matrix - not high quality data

The PRMI sensing matrix, as measured last Thursday, in a more readable format:

EDIT: DON'T Look at this yet!  I forgot to calibrate it!  Please hold.....

            PRCL          MICH        
AS55_I      1.228E-01     5.476E-03    
AS55_Q      1.547E-01     1.345E-01    
REFL11_I    9.946E+03     8.106E+01    
REFL11_Q    2.346E+03     2.707E+01    
REFL33_I    9.639E+01     8.717E-01    
REFL33_Q    9.707E-01     6.626E-02    
REFL55_I    1.040E+02     8.464E-01    
REFL55_Q    2.018E+00     5.803E-01

 

Okay, Calibrated, but forgot to include loop compensation (since notches didn't exist yet):

Sensing Matrix, units = cts/meter
 
            MICH          PRCL        
AS55_I      5.024E+08     9.418E+07    
AS55_Q      6.328E+08     2.313E+09    
REFL11_I    4.068E+13     1.394E+12    
REFL11_Q    9.594E+12     4.656E+11    
REFL33_I    3.942E+11     1.499E+10    
REFL33_Q    3.970E+09     1.140E+09    
REFL55_I    4.253E+11     1.456E+10    
REFL55_Q    8.252E+09     9.981E+09

 

  8609   Tue May 21 18:22:18 2013 JenneUpdateLSCSensing matrix scripts modified to include actuator calibration

The PRMI sensing matrix scripts have been modified to output a sensing matrix which is calibrated into units of counts/meter.

To run, you should just need to run .../scripts/LSC/runPRMI_SENS.py . 

If it looks like the drive amplitude is not large enough (no nice peak in the photodiode signals), you can increase the drive amplitude, which is line 21 in runPRMI_SENS.py  

  8611   Wed May 22 00:08:19 2013 KojiUpdateLSCSensing matrix scripts modified to include actuator calibration

It was too embarassing to see that the actuation frequency was set at the violin mode frequency in order to avoid designing a new filter!?

I ran Jenne's sensing matrix code and the immitated the same result by manual measurement with DTT.
I noticed that the PRM excitation was not transmitted to the mirror. I tracked down the cause and found that
Jenne is using 628Hz which is the notch frequency of the viloing filter.

There is no way we can measure the precise calibration of the error signal exactly at the violin mode frequency.

Nevertheless I waited for the ringdown of the violin mode to the floor level and ran the code again WITH the violin mode filter OFF
at PRM SUS.

The result was stored in the data file

sensematPRM_2013-05-22.12615.dat

The code spit the message at the end

Sensing Matrix, magnitude only, units = cts/meter
 
            MICH          PRCL         
AS55        5.304E+08     1.716E+09     
REFL11      1.732E+13     2.151E+11     
REFL33      1.616E+11     5.384E+09     
REFL55      1.681E+11     6.950E+09

Now I replicated the same measurement with DTT.

MICH or PRCL were excited with the lockin. In order to aviod the violin mode, I shifted the excitation freq by 1Hz. (i.e. 629.125Hz)

The peaks in REFL33I/Q and RFL55I/Q were observed with PSD and TF. The spectrum was measured with the FLATTOP window with the line resolution of 0.1Hz
DTT suggested that this corresponds to the BW of 0.471271Hz if I correctly understood what DTT plot said. We need this information to convert cnt/rtHz to cnt_pk
if we need. For the TF measurements, I needed to find the excitatin monitor but I could not. Therefore, I set the offset of LSC-LOCKIN1_SIG to be 1000,
so that C1:LSC-LOCKIN1_I_IN1 produce the same signal as the excitation.

Note that during the measurement, 628Hz nothces in the LSC servos were on. I confirmed that this provides the reduction of the feedback by a factor of 76.
As the original openloop gain at 629Hz is lower than the unity more than a factor of 2, this was sufficient attenuation to measure the optical gain with the systematic error of less than a %.

MICH excitation (ITMX -1, ITMY +1)
        PSD (cnt/rtHz)   TF Mag    Phase

REFL33I 0.098590         9.5691e-5 74.4344
REFL33Q 0.019294         1.8665e-5 71.1204
REFL55I 0.016123         1.3890e-5 77.3132
REFL55Q 0.157522         1.5285e-4 91.5594

PRCL excitation (PRM +1)
        PSD (cnt/rtHz)   TF Mag    Phase

REFL33I 15.7565          1.5298e-2 -109.727
REFL33Q  0.171648        1.6310e-4 -141.73
REFL55I 16.2834          1.5809e-2 -109.672
REFL55Q  0.634096        6.1012e-4 -143.169

These measurements are saved in the XML files (for DTT) in
/cvs/cds/caltech/users/koji/130521/
as
130521_MICH_EXC.xml and 130521_PRCL_EXC.xml

As the actuator of the PRM/ITMX/ITMY are {19.6, 4.70, 4.66}/f^2 nm/cnt, the optical gains were calculated from the TF measurements.

MICH excitation (ITMX -1, ITMY +1)
        OPTICAL GAIN
(cnt/m)
REFL33I 4.0e9
REFL33Q 7.9e8
REFL55I 5.9e8
REFL55Q 6.5e9

PRCL excitation (PRM +1)
        OPTICAL GAIN

REFL33I 3.1e11
REFL33Q 3.3e9
REFL55I 3.2e11
REFL55Q 1.2e10

These should be compared with the measurement by the script and we get more information from the script (like AS55, REFL11)

  8619   Wed May 22 18:07:36 2013 JenneUpdateLSCKiwamu's sensing matrix measurement script revived

 

 To avoid exciting at the PRM violin mode frequency, I have changed all of the filters relevant to the sensing matrix measurement from 628Hz to 580.1Hz.  This includes notches in the LSC control loops, as well as the band pass filters in the lockins.  I have not yet loaded the new filters, since arm locking is in progress.

 

  8621   Wed May 22 20:50:26 2013 JenneUpdateLSCSensing matrix scripts don't calculate correctly

I am trying to re-analyze the data that Koji took last night.  

I think that my script is just pulling out the I and Q data for each port, and each degree of freedom, calculating the magnitude from sqrt( I**2 + Q**2 ) and the phase from atan2( I / Q ).  No calibration.

If I print out the results, I get:

Sensing Matrix, units = cts/ct, phase in degrees
 
            MICH Mag   MICH Phase    PRCL Mag   PRCL Phase  
AS55_I      1.627E-02   62.063        4.189E-03   68.344       
AS55_Q      2.073E-02  -105.353        1.983E-02   66.361       
REFL11_I    8.165E+02  -112.624        2.441E+00   77.911       
REFL11_Q    2.712E+02  -112.650        7.065E-01  -127.093       
REFL33_I    8.028E+00  -112.154        6.282E-02   70.990
       

REFL33_Q    5.490E-02  -165.912        9.908E-03   61.269       

REFL55_I    8.347E+00  -112.085        2.146E-02   78.928       
REFL55_Q    3.003E-01  -151.652        7.924E-02   87.153
 

If, however, I take the raw values that are stored in the data file, for one row (say, REFL33_Q) and calculate by hand (same formulas), I get different results:

            MICH Mag   MICH Phase    PRCL Mag   PRCL Phase  
REFL33_Q    9.9E-03    28.89         5.46E-02   -103.8

Contrast that with Koji's uncalibrated transfer function result from elog 8611:

            MICH Mag    MICH Phase    PRCL Mag     PRCL Phase  
REFL33Q     1.8665e-5   71.1204      
1.6310e-4    -141.73

 

I am currently confused, and need to re-look at my script, as well as make sure I am actually measuring the things I think I am.

EDIT:  This has been fixed, in that my 2 calculations agree with one another.  I have crossed out the incorrect numbers, and put correct numbers below.  I still don't agree with Koji, but at least I agree with myself. 

The phase issue:  I needed to calculate the phase with "ATAN2(I,Q)", which I did when I calculated by hand, but the script had "atan2(Q,I)".  This has been fixed. 

The magnitude issue:  They match, but my "pretty print" script labels MICH as PRCL, and vice versa.  Doh.

Corrected values:

Sensing Matrix, units = cts/ct, phase in degrees
 
            PRCL Mag   PRCL Phase    MICH Mag   MICH Phase  
AS55_I      1.627E-02    27.937      4.189E-03    21.656     
AS55_Q      2.073E-02  -164.647      1.983E-02    23.639     
REFL11_I    8.165E+02  -157.376      2.441E+00    12.089     
REFL11_Q    2.712E+02  -157.350      7.065E-01  -142.907     
REFL33_I    8.028E+00  -157.846      6.282E-02    19.010     
REFL33_Q    5.490E-02  -104.088      9.908E-03    28.731     
REFL55_I    8.347E+00  -157.915      2.146E-02    11.072     
REFL55_Q    3.003E-01  -118.348      7.924E-02     2.847 

  8623   Thu May 23 00:49:13 2013 JenneUpdateLSCLSC filters loaded

Quote:

 To avoid exciting at the PRM violin mode frequency, I have changed all of the filters relevant to the sensing matrix measurement from 628Hz to 580.1Hz.  This includes notches in the LSC control loops, as well as the band pass filters in the lockins.  I have not yet loaded the new filters, since arm locking is in progress.

 I have loaded these new filters in.  Manasa is still using the IFO for green stuff, so I can try out the PRMI measurement in a day or so.  (Right now I have to make sure I understand my data, anyway.)

  8624   Thu May 23 01:27:11 2013 ManasaSummaryLSCXarm beat note search continues

Towards finding the x-arm beat note:

The green would not lock to a maximum GTRX this morning. In the course of aligning the green stably to the X arm, somewhere down the line, the input pointing got messed up (reasons unknown). To set this right, Koji tried to lock the Yarm with POY DC but it wouldn't work. The transmon for Y had to be set up temporarily and the Y arm was locked with TRY. This restored the input pointing and the arms locked with transmission TRX/TRY > 0.9 counts. The transmon path along the Y arm was then re-configured as mentioned in Annalisa's elog.

I still had trouble getting the X-green locked in TEM00 (similar situation mentioned by Jenne in elog). The arm cavity mirrors were tweaked to get the green to resonate in TEM00 but it wouldn't stay locked when the temperature of the x-end NPRO was changed. Koji helped recover missing links to filters for the ALS_X_SLOW servo from the archives. Enabling the filters helped keep the green locking stable for laser temperature changes (which corresponds to 'offset' change in ALS_X_SLOW servo screen).

PSL green alignment was checked once again and the X-end laser temperature was scanned trying to find the beatnote. RFMON from the beatbox was connected to the spectrum analyzer. I have scanned through the whole range of offset but have not been able to find the beat note yet.


The search will continue tomorrow

  8629   Thu May 23 13:14:34 2013 KojiSummaryLSCXarm beat note search continues

We should consider to hook up the temperature monitors of the NPROs to the ADCs.

  8630   Thu May 23 14:45:08 2013 JenneUpdateLSCSensing matrix scripts calculations make more sense now

I think I have most of the magnitude issues figured out now. 

First of all, the lockin outputs are different from the actual responses in the PDs by a factor of 2. 

If the optic is driven with amplitude D, it will have a response of Asin(wt) + Bcos(wt) + other frequency junk.  The lockin bandpasses the response to get rid of the 'other frequency junk'.  Then creates 2 new signals, one multiplied by cos(wt), the other multiplied by sin(wt).  So, now we have Asin^2(wt) + Bcos(wt)sin(wt) and Asin(wt)cos(wt) + Bcos^2(wt).   If I rewrite these, I have A/2*(1-cos(2wt))+B/2*(sin(2wt) and A/2*sin(2wt)+B/2*(1+cos(2wt)).  We lowpass to get rid of the 2w components, and are left with A/2 for the Q-phase, and B/2 for the I-phase of the lockin outputs.  Since the real amplitudes of the response were A for the Q-phase and B for the I-phase, we need to multiply the lockin outputs by 2.

The other problem was that in the 'uncalibrated' version of numbers that I was printing to compare with Koji's, I had not normalized by the drive amplitude yet.  That happens in the "calibration" part of my script.  So, if I go back to comparing the calibrated versions of our numbers, I get quite close to Koji's answers.

For the PRCL magnitudes, 3 of the 4 numbers match to ~5%.  However, the MICH magnitudes all seem to be off by a factor of 2.  I'm still stuck on this factor of 2, but I'm thinking about it. Also, the phases that Koji and I get are pretty different.

Koji's sensing matrix:

Sensing Matrix, units = cts/meter, phase in degrees
            PRCL Mag   PRCL Phase    MICH Mag   MICH Phase  
REFL33_I    3.100E+11  -109.727      4.900E+09    74.434     
REFL33_Q    3.300E+09  -141.730      7.900E+08    71.120     
REFL55_I    3.200E+11  -109.672      5.900E+08    77.313     
REFL55_Q    1.200E+10  -143.169      6.500E+09    91.559  

My sensing matrix:

Sensing Matrix, units = cts/meter, phase in degrees
            PRCL Mag   PRCL Phase    MICH Mag   MICH Phase  
REFL33_I    3.242E+11  -157.846      1.067E+10    19.010     
REFL33_Q    2.217E+09  -104.088      1.683E+09    28.731     
REFL55_I    3.371E+11  -157.915      3.645E+09    11.072     
REFL55_Q    1.213E+10  -118.348      1.346E+10     2.847

Here are the plotted versions of these matricies:

SensMat_KojiMeas_23May2013.png

SensMat_JenneMeas_23May2013.png

SOME EDITS:  Koji's measurement was 1Hz away from the violin mode, while mine (him running my script) was at the violin mode, so the sensor TFs were actually taken at slightly different frequencies. This helps explain the discrepancies.

Also, the phase in these plots isn't correct, so I need to figure that out. Corrected version of the 'koji' measurement put in place of the incorrect one.  I convert from radians to degrees for my script, but Koji had already reported his phases in degrees, so when I multiplied by 180/pi, it didn't make any sense. I now convert his numbers to radians before running them through my analysis script.

 

  8631   Thu May 23 17:51:39 2013 KojiSummaryLSCMy usual locking procedure

For purpose of the automation and my record, I summarized my locking procedure as a chart.

Attachment 1: PRMI_locking_procedure.pdf
PRMI_locking_procedure.pdf PRMI_locking_procedure.pdf
  8632   Thu May 23 19:09:15 2013 JenneUpdateLSCSensing matrix scripts modified to include actuator calibration

After fixing up my calculations in my scripts, I have calculated the final PRMI sensing matrix (as measured very close to the violin frequency, so things may not be perfect). The data is from the file that Koji mentioned in his elog when he did the measurement:  elog 8611, sensematPRM_2013-05-22.12615.dat

Sensing Matrix, units = cts/meter, phase in degrees
 
            PRCL Mag   PRCL Phase    MICH Mag   MICH Phase  
AS55        1.064E+09   141.880      3.442E+09    11.929     
REFL11      3.474E+13  -108.372      4.316E+11   106.143     
REFL33      3.242E+11   -90.392      1.080E+10    81.037     
REFL55      3.373E+11   -92.060      1.394E+10    15.153 

SensMat_21May2013.png

In the plot, the little blobs on the ends of the 'sticks' are the error blobs.  Many of them are smaller than is really visible - this is good.  These errors come from measuring the lockin outputs several times while there is no drive to any optics, then the errors are propagated to each degree of freedom.  These errors do not incorporate any information about the precision of the actuator calibration, and they assume that the shape of all the sensor transfer functions are the same. 

If you look at the REFL11 and REFL33, it kind of seems like a miracle that we've ever been able to lock the full PRMI with the I&Q signals from either PD!

  8633   Thu May 23 20:39:50 2013 JenneUpdateLSCPRMI sensing matrix measured at 580.1Hz

I locked the PRMI and remeasured the sensing matrix, this time at 580Hz.  The excellent news here is that the matrix looks quite similar to the one measured the other day, recorded in elog 8632.  Yay!  I'm not sure why the REFL11 MICH error is so much larger this time around.

Raw data:  .../scripts/LSC/SensMatData/sensematPRM_2013-05-23.202312.dat

Sensing Matrix, units = cts/meter, phase in degrees
 
            PRCL Mag   PRCL Phase    MICH Mag   MICH Phase  
AS55        5.485E+08   162.424      2.679E+09    25.608     
REFL11      1.126E+13  -122.832      1.618E+11    85.296     
REFL33      2.658E+11   -87.973      8.910E+09    79.226     
REFL55      3.012E+11   -99.534      1.210E+10    12.486 

     SensMat_23May2013.png

  8635   Thu May 23 21:45:51 2013 JenneUpdateLSCSensing matrix scripts now check for lockloss

A few more small mods to the sensing matrix script.  Now the script saves the data after each measurement, so that in case you lose lock and can't measure any more, you still have the data you already measured.  Also, the error bar measurements are last, so that the consequence of losing lock partway through the measurement is just that you get fewer error bar numbers.  Not a big deal, since the actual sensing matrix data is already saved.

Also, the old script had a lockloss checker that I had overridden since it wasn't where I wanted it.  I have now re-implemented it, so that the script will stop the oscillation and quit measuring if either the LSC enable switch is off, or the degrees of freedom you're trying to measure are not triggered.  All data saved before the lockloss is saved though (as mentioned above).

  8636   Thu May 23 22:13:12 2013 KojiUpdateLSCPRMI sensing matrix measured at 580.1Hz

Can you clarify the definition of the phase "0deg" of your plot?

Is "I" the definition of "0deg"? Or does the demod phase of "0deg" define "0deg"?

I want to know if the demod phase of REFL55 is correctly adjusted or not.

With the decent level of the separation, we should be able to keep the decent lock of PRMI with REFL55.

  8640   Fri May 24 13:41:19 2013 JenneUpdateLSCPRMI sensing matrix measured at 580.1Hz

"0 degrees" is 0 degrees of demod phase.  I have now added the PD demod phases to the plot:

SensMat_23May2013_withIQ.png

  8641   Fri May 24 14:01:59 2013 KojiUpdateLSCPRMI sensing matrix measured at 580.1Hz

It's hard to believe but is AS55Q really almost insensitive to MICH?

Well, anyway, now it is the time to use the automatic demod phase (and input matrix) adjustment.

  8642   Fri May 24 14:40:22 2013 JenneUpdateLSCPRMI sensing matrix: now what?

Quote:

It's hard to believe but is AS55Q really almost insensitive to MICH?

Well, anyway, now it is the time to use the automatic demod phase (and input matrix) adjustment.

 I am also wondering if I understand / am using the demod phase from the screen correctly.  This plot is indicating that MICH is entirely in I, and not at all in Q.

Currently, I take the demod phase, and plot that as the "I" line, then plot the "Q" line 90 degrees away from the I line.  Maybe it should be the other way around?

Re: the auto-demod phase, I was starting to wonder about that.  For each sensor, can I declare what degree of freedom I want in which quadrature to take priority (ex. MICH goes to REFL55 Q), and set the demod phase to the value that makes that true?

  8644   Fri May 24 22:18:33 2013 JenneUpdateLSCPRMI sensing matrix: Got it!

Okay, I think I am finished with the sensing matrix scripts!  

I had the syntax for atan2() wrong, so I was calculating the demod phase wrong.  Do not trust the phase in any previous elogs!!

Also, the theta=0 axis of the plots are for 0 degree demod phase, but our PDs are not at 0 deg.  The measured sensing matrix phase is relative to the current demod phase, not 0 (unless the demod phase for that PD is currently 0degrees).  So, now I take that into account.  I add the current PD demod phase to the measured sensing matrix phase, so that the plot is actually true.

For interested parties, I have made all of the sensing matrix scripts, and the data folder a subdirectory of the /scripts/LSC folder, since it was starting to get crowded in there.  I have moved the 2 data sets that have been collected (21May, 23May) into the new place.

Future thoughts: 

* Save the amplitude and modulation frequency and the current demod phases in the data file.  Right now the ampl and mod freqs are included in the title of the data file, but there is no record of what the demod phase was at the time.  I need to fix this.

 

So, really, really, the Sensing Matrix:

Sensing Matrix, units = counts/meter, phase in degrees
 
            PRCL Mag   PRCL Phase    MICH Mag   MICH Phase  
AS55         5.485E+08   -43.424      2.679E+09    93.392    
REFL11       1.126E+13    -7.168      1.618E+11   135.296    
REFL33       2.658E+11   164.973      8.910E+09    -2.226    
REFL55       3.012E+11   -75.216      1.210E+10   172.764

SensMat_23May2013_withIQ_andCorrectPhases.png

  8648   Tue May 28 14:52:56 2013 JenneUpdateLSCPRMI sensing matrix: Got it!

Just so we have it, here is the re-analysis with the correct plot and phases for the May 21st data, taken near the violin mode:

Sensing Matrix, units = counts/meter, phase in degrees
 
            PRCL Mag   PRCL Phase    MICH Mag   MICH Phase  
AS55         9.048E+11   -22.880      2.927E+12   107.071    
REFL11       2.954E+16   -21.628      3.670E+14   123.857    
REFL33       2.757E+14  -192.608      9.186E+12    -4.037    
REFL55       2.868E+14   -82.690      1.186E+13   170.097 

SensMat_21May2013_withIQ_andCorrectPhases.png

Even though this data was taken near the violin mode (oops!), it is fairly consistent with the stuff taken a few days later at 580Hz (elog 8644). 

Neither of these is at all similar to what Kiwamu had measured a year ago (elog 6283), but we have changed many, many things since then.  He also includes an Optickle simulation, which is fairly similar to the Koji simulation in the wiki, but neither his measurements nor mine are particularly close to the simulated version.  I should think about why this is.

Also, I have fixed up the measurement scripts so that they record all of the relevant current settings / information:  Current actuator calibration, current PD demod phases, drive amplitude and drive frequency.  The "Analyze Saved Data" script has been updated to read all of this info from the files.  If you want to plot / look at any old data, open up SensMatAnalyzeSavedData in /scripts/LSC/SensingMatrix/ and put in the relevant filename that you want (which should be saved in /scripts/LSC/SensingMatrix/SensMatData/)

  8650   Tue May 28 17:06:04 2013 KojiUpdateLSCPRMI sensing matrix: Got it!

- We want to add POX11/POY11 in the collection. They may indicates some abnormal asymmetry between two arms (for PRMI).

- We also want to PRCL/MICH after the input matrix. This will be useful when we want to adjust the input matrix to give the optimul
demod phase for the two signals from a single port.

  8667   Mon Jun 3 22:36:07 2013 ranaUpdateLSCALS-TRY_OUT needs anti-whitening

 After working some more on the EY table, we are getting some TEM00 flashes for the Y arm green. We have had to raise the height of one of the MM lenses to prevent clipping.

We used a function generator to apply a ~300 mV 10 Hz triangle wave to scan the laser frequency while aligning.

We tried to use the C1:ALS-TRY_OUT channel to help us in our alignment but there are a couple problems:

1) It seems that there is an uncompensated whitening filter before the ADC - Annalisa is making a compensation filter now.

2) The data delay is too much to use this for fast alignment. We might need to get a coax cable down there or mount a wired ethernet computer on the wall.

3) We need to make DQ channels for the TRY and TRX OUT. We need long term data of these, not just test points.

Attachment 1: try.pdf
try.pdf
  8671   Tue Jun 4 16:04:34 2013 AnnalisaUpdateLSCALS-TRY_OUT needs anti-whitening

Quote:

 After working some more on the EY table, we are getting some TEM00 flashes for the Y arm green. We have had to raise the height of one of the MM lenses to prevent clipping.

We used a function generator to apply a ~300 mV 10 Hz triangle wave to scan the laser frequency while aligning.

We tried to use the C1:ALS-TRY_OUT channel to help us in our alignment but there are a couple problems:

1) It seems that there is an uncompensated whitening filter before the ADC - Annalisa is making a compensation filter now.

2) The data delay is too much to use this for fast alignment. We might need to get a coax cable down there or mount a wired ethernet computer on the wall.

3) We need to make DQ channels for the TRY and TRX OUT. We need long term data of these, not just test points.

 I made the anti-whitening filter for the C1:ALS-TRY_OUT channel. But then I forgot to make an ELOG because I am bad.

  8672   Tue Jun 4 17:28:09 2013 AnnalisaUpdateLSCC1:ALS-TRY_OUT filter and green progress

 [Annalisa, Gautam, Rana]

I made the anti-whitening filter for the C1:ALS-TRY_OUT channel.

zpk [[150],[15],1] Hz

Now we can look at the picks of this signal to align the green into the cavity.

We already had some 00 flash, but a better alignment has to be done.

TO DO:

- put the shutter along the beam path

- check the polarization (we have a new PBS for visible)

 

Attachment 1: green.JPG
green.JPG
Attachment 2: QUAD1_1054358327.mp4
  8674   Tue Jun 4 21:50:23 2013 AnnalisaUpdateLSCC1:ALS-TRY_OUT filter and green progress

 

 [Annalisa, Gautam]

 The green beam alignment has been improved, so we see much more 00 bright flashing. We checked the polarization and the Ygreen shutter is back in place.

A mirror is already in place to steer the rejected beam from the green Faraday into a PD, tomorrow morning we'll put a lens and the PD to take the signal for PDH locking.

 

  8677   Wed Jun 5 14:01:37 2013 ranaUpdateLSCC1:ALS-TRY_OUT filter and green progress

The rejected beam from this Faraday comes out at a tiny, tiny angle and so its tough to pick it off without clipping the main beam.

Some care must be taken in setting this up - Steve may have some good ideas on what kind of mount can be placed so close to the beam.

Why did we ever order this terrible Faraday? Let's never get a Faraday with a tiny angle between the beams again.

  8679   Wed Jun 5 14:43:42 2013 AnnalisaUpdateLSCALS-TRY_OUT DQ channels

Quote:

 After working some more on the EY table, we are getting some TEM00 flashes for the Y arm green. We have had to raise the height of one of the MM lenses to prevent clipping.

We used a function generator to apply a ~300 mV 10 Hz triangle wave to scan the laser frequency while aligning.

We tried to use the C1:ALS-TRY_OUT channel to help us in our alignment but there are a couple problems:

1) It seems that there is an uncompensated whitening filter before the ADC - Annalisa is making a compensation filter now.

2) The data delay is too much to use this for fast alignment. We might need to get a coax cable down there or mount a wired ethernet computer on the wall.

3) We need to make DQ channels for the TRY and TRX OUT. We need long term data of these, not just test points.

 [Jenne, Annalisa]

DQ channels have been created in the C1ALS model for TRX and TRY. They are called TRX_OUT and TRY_OUT and the sampling rate is 2048 Hz.

  8680   Wed Jun 5 15:03:42 2013 AnnalisaUpdateLSCC1:ALS-TRY_OUT filter and green progress

Quote:

The rejected beam from this Faraday comes out at a tiny, tiny angle and so its tough to pick it off without clipping the main beam.

Some care must be taken in setting this up - Steve may have some good ideas on what kind of mount can be placed so close to the beam.

Why did we ever order this terrible Faraday? Let's never get a Faraday with a tiny angle between the beams again.

The rejected beam from the Faraday is steered with a mirror into the PDA32A PD  and a 75mm fl lens is used to focus the beam into it.

The main beam is a few millimeters away from the mirror mount (maybe 2mm), and I think it should be fine as long as the main beam is not supposed to move.

 

Attachment 1: faraday_rejected_beam.JPG
faraday_rejected_beam.JPG
  8700   Thu Jun 13 15:04:16 2013 JenneUpdateLSCNew modeled sensing matrix

Using all of the latest parameters that I can find, I have re-modeled the 40m sensing matrix.  Also, I have it output the data in a format that can be used by the same plotting function as the measured sensing matrix, so they are nice and easy to compare.

The newly modeled 40m sensing matrix:

SensMatModel_13June2013.png

To compare, here is the measured sensing matrix from elog 8644:

SensMatMeas_23May2013.png

Notice that (a) the units are different, so don't focus too much on the amplitudes of the lines, and (b) all of the measured and modeled matrix elements are pretty similar, except for the REFL11.  REFL11 (top right in model plot, top center in measured plot) looks like it's flipped, as well as rotated.  The new model doesn't match up too well with the Kiwamu/Koji models (which matched eachother okay), but I like that the new model matches the measurements fairly well.  The Koji sensing matrix: on the 40m wiki

EDIT: I have replaced the modelled plot with a new version.  The data and numbers are the same, but I have switched the labels on the individual radar plots, and forced them to be in the same order as they are in the measured plot.

  8702   Thu Jun 13 16:13:08 2013 nicolasUpdateLSCNew modeled sensing matrix

I'd repeat the measurement for REFL11. The PRC arrow has some big error bar on it, and maybe the true error is even bigger.

Also, please make the placement of the plots the same for modeled and measured so it's easy to compare.

  8705   Fri Jun 14 00:32:43 2013 JenneUpdateLSCNew modeled sensing matrix

I put in a new version of the modelled plot.  I figured out a different way to keep things generic so the same script can be used for other sites, but writes the names in the same format as the measured matrix, so the correct order is preserved.

The REFL11 measurement is consistent with the one in elog 8648 (data taken a few days earlier), within the error bars.  My goal for tonight is to hopefully get the POP path back in order, so that I can lock the PRMI again, and can measure again if I want.

The error bars for each sensor are only taken once (with no drive, so it's the noise in the "dark" sensor).  I take 6 "dark" measurements for each sensor, and get the stdev.  Then I use that and propagate it through for each measured sensing matrix element.  So, the PRCL and MICH error bars for REFL11 were created from the same standard deviation, and propagated in the same way, but the values plugged into the partial derivative of the function were different for PRCL and MICH. 

s_f = \sqrt{ \left(\frac{\partial f}{\partial {x} }\right)^2 s_x^2 + \left(\frac{\partial f}{\partial {y} }\right)^2 s_y^2 + \left(\frac{\partial f}{\partial {z} }\right)^2 s_z^2 + ...}(wikipedia - propagation of uncertainties)

 

Also, to answer an emailed question via the elog, the "0 degree" axis of the plots is the 0 demod phase axis, which corresponds to the I output of the demod boards (the I input to the RFPDs, before the phase rotation).  The "I" axis that I've drawn is the current demodulation phase that we have, which corresponds to the I_ERR output of the RFPDs after the phase rotation, which is the PD_I signal that goes into the LSC input matrix.  I draw this to help us see if our current demod phase is well tuned or not.

Yes, the MICH and PRCL signals are not at all orthogonal in the REFL33 sensor.  I think this is because our modulation frequency was chosen to be good in the case of the full DRFPMI IFO, not the corner IFO cavities.  As I calculated in elog 8538, the ideal frequency for the PRMI is 18kHz larger than our current modulation frequency. 

For the plots below, note that 11.066134 MHz is our current actual modulation frequency, and 11.0843 MHz is my calculated ideal modulation freq

Model, using our current modulation frequency, and the designed PRCL cavity length (same as elog earlier today):

SensMatModel_13June2013_currentPRMIfreq.png

Model, using the "ideal" PRMI modulation freq, and the PRCL cavity length used in elog 8538, where I calculated that number (a few cm different than the design PRCL length):

SensMatModel_13June2013_idealPRMIfreq.png

You can see that if we could use a better frequency, we would get much, much better signal separation.  Since our modulation frequency choice is related to our vacuum envelope constraints (we can't make the arms of a length that will have the sidebands exactly antiresonant when the arms are locked on the carrier), I hope that this will not be a significant issue in aLIGO. 

  8706   Fri Jun 14 02:38:07 2013 ranaUpdateLSCNew modeled sensing matrix

 This is nice - how about figuring out how to plot the measurement and model on the same plot? I guess we need to figure out how to go from counts to Watts.

  8711   Mon Jun 17 16:34:15 2013 JenneUpdateLSCSensing Matrix vs. Schnupp Asymmetry

I have made some plots of the sensing matrix (PRCL / MICH amplitude ratio, and relative angle) versus Schnupp asymmetry for all the configurations that involve the power recycling cavity.  I am still meditating on what they mean for us, in terms of whether or not we should be changing our Schnupp asymmetry.

The Schnupp asymmetry scan starts at 1mm, rather than 0.  Also, recall that our current Schnupp asymmetry is 3.9cm.

PRMI:

SchnuppLoop_PRMI_REFLdiodes_zoom.png

SchnuppLoop_PRMI_REFLdiodes_phase.png

DRMI:

SchnuppLoop_DRMI_REFLdiodes_zoom.png

SchnuppLoop_DRMI_REFLdiodes_phase.png

PRFPMI:

SchnuppLoop_PRFPMI_REFLdiodes.png

SchnuppLoop_PRFPMI_REFLdiodes_zoom.png

SchnuppLoop_PRFPMI_REFLdiodes_phase.png

DRFPMI:

SchnuppLoop_DRFPMI_REFLdiodes.png

SchnuppLoop_DRFPMI_REFLdiodes_zoom.png

SchnuppLoop_DRFPMI_REFLdiodes_phase.png

  8712   Mon Jun 17 17:51:43 2013 JenneUpdateLSCPOP QPD cables laid

Power not on to the POP QPD yet though.  Also, still need to reconnect POPDC.

  8713   Mon Jun 17 21:10:25 2013 JenneUpdateLSCSensing Matrix vs. Schnupp Asymmetry

The plots, with a log y axis

PRMI:

SchnuppLoop_PRMI_REFLdiodes.png

DRMI:

SchnuppLoop_DRMI_REFLdiodes.png

PRFPMI:

SchnuppLoop_PRFPMI_REFLdiodes.png

DRFPMI:

SchnuppLoop_DRFPMI_REFLdiodes.png

  8716   Tue Jun 18 07:22:20 2013 KojiUpdateLSCSensing Matrix vs. Schnupp Asymmetry

Interesting.
What's the reason why the PRMI/MICH ratio gets worse (larger) for 55MHz and 165MHz for the DRMI compared to the PRMI case?

ELOG V3.1.3-