40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 217 of 341  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Categoryup Subject
  11154   Sat Mar 21 05:19:49 2015 JenneUpdateLSCIFO awake

[Jenne, Den]

The problem with the ASS turned out to be a mode that was rung up at 1326Hz in ETMX.  It was rung up when the Xarm's overall gain was too high.  So, by turning down the digital gain we were able to prevent it ringing up, and then the ASS worked.  To circumvent this, we added a notch to the violin filter bank.  It turned out that, upon trying to check if this existed also for the Yarm by turning up the digital gain, the ETMY frequency was almost identical.  So, the same single notch is in both ETMs, and it covers the modes for both ETMs.

After that, we got back to locking.  We have made at least 9 transitions to all-RF (both CARM and DARM) tonight (I have lost track of how many Den has done while I've been writing this - maybe we're up to 10 or so.). We have changed the order of things a little bit, but they're mostly similar to last week.  There are some new notches in the CARM_B filter bank, as well as a 700Hz low pass.  We have not been using the lead filter in DARM from last week.  Script is checked in, and also zipped and attached.  At first CARM was actuating on ETMs, but the last half of the locks we've been using MC2.  The script is optimized for MC2 actuation.

While locked all RF, we phased REFL55 in preparation for transitioning PRMI over from REFL165. REFL55 phase was +125, now is +80, give or take 5 deg.  We have tried measuring the relative gain and sign between REFL55 and REFL165, but we keep losing lock, perhaps as a result of the TFs Den is taking.  He's being gentle though. 

Up next:

Transition PRMI

Measure CARM loop (why was SRmeasure not working?? is it plugged in??)

Turn on AO boosts, etc.


Attachment 1: carm_cm_up_zip.sh.gz
  11163   Tue Mar 24 05:05:09 2015 ericqUpdateLSCAO Path engaged

[J, Q]

Terse tonight, more verbose tomorrow. 

We have succesfully achieved multiple kHz bandwidth using the CARM AO path. The CM board super boosts are at too high of a frequency to use effectively, given the flattening of the AO TF. 

Jenne's totally, completely, and in all possible ways uncalibrated plot.  Calibration lines are in here (numbers in control room notebook).  I'm going to export and replot the data tomorrow, in real units.


Attachment 1: CARM_DARM_AOengaged_23March2015.pdf
Attachment 2: loops.png
  11167   Tue Mar 24 18:22:11 2015 ericqUpdateLSCAO Path engaged

For increased flatness of the AO response, and thus less gain peaking in the CARM loop, I reccomend turning down the MC servo VCO gain to 22dB, -6dB of the current setting. 

From there, we should be able to up the overall CARM gain by another 10dB, and turn on a super boost. 

I measured the IN1/IN2 response of the IMC loop with the aglient analyzer providing the IN2 excitation, to see the transfer function of the AO acutation. The hump in the TF explains the flattening out of the CARM OLTF we saw last night. Turning down the gain by 6dB flattens this bump, and more importantly, has around 10dB less gain when the phase goes through -180, meaning more gain margin for the CARM loop. 

Oddly, when I back out the MC OLG from these measurements, the loop shape is different than what Koji and Rana measured in December (ELOG 10841). Specifically, there is some new flattening of the loop shape around 300-400kHz that lowers the frequency where the phase hits -180. What could have caused this???

The -6dB that I mentioned was determined by putting the MC UGF at about 100kHz, at the peak of the phase bubble. This should allow us to safely have a CARM UGF of 40kHz since the MC loop has around +10dB loop gain there, which Rana once quoted as a rule of thumb for these loops. At that UGF, at least one CM board super boost should be fine, based on the loop shapes measured last night. 

Lastly, I also checked out whether the 3 MC super boosts were limiting the AO shape; I did not observe any diffrence of the AO TF when turning off one super boost. It's likely totally fine. 

Attachment 1: IMC_ao_Mar242015.png
Attachment 2: IMC_olgs_Mar242015.png
  11168   Tue Mar 24 18:47:10 2015 ericqUpdateLSCAO Path engaged

Jenne has more detailed notes about how things went down last night, but I figure I should write about how we got the AO path stably up. 

As the carm_cm_up script stood after Jenne and Den's work last week, the CARM loop looked like the gold trace in the loop shape plot I posted in the previous elog. The phase bubble was clearly enlarged by the AO path, but there was some bad crossover instability brewing at 400 Hz. This was evident as a large noise peak, and would lead to lock loss if we tried to increase the overall CARM gain.



As with our single arm CM board locking adventures, it was useful to have a filter that made the digital loop shape steeper around the crossover region, so that the 1/f AO+cavity pole shape played nice with the digital slope. As in the single arm trials, this effectively meant undoing the cavity pole compensating zero with a corresponding pole, letting the physical cavity pole do the steepening. This is only possible once the AO path has bestowed some phase upon you. A zero at a somewhat higher frequency (500Hz) gives the digital loop back some phase, which is neccesary to stay locked when the loop has only a few hundred Hz UGF, and the digital phase still matters. This gives us the purple trace. 

This provided us with a loop shape that could smoothly be ramped up in overall gain towards UGFs of multiple kHz (red trace). At this point we could reliably turn on the first boost, which will help in transitioning the PRMI to 1f signals (green trace). We didn't want to ramp it up too much, as we saw that the phase bubble likely ended not much higher than 100kHz, and the OLG magnitude was flattening pretty clearly around 40kHz. While we could turn on a super boost, it didn't look too nice, as we would have to stay at low phase margin to avoid bad gain peaking (blue trace).

As could be seen in the noise spectra that Jenne showed, you can see the violin notches in the CARM noise. This means we are injecting the digital loop noise all over the place. We attempted rolling off the digital loop (by undoing the zero at 500Hz), but found this made the gain at ~200Hz crash down, almost becoming unstable. We likely haven't positioned the crossover frequency in the ideal place for doing this. 

We didn't really give the interferometer any time to see how the long term stability was, since we wanted to poke around and measure as much as we could. While not every attempt would get us all the way there, the current carm_cm_up's success rate at achieving multi-kHz CARM bandwidth was pretty good (probably more than 50%) and the whole thing is still pretty snappy. 

  11169   Wed Mar 25 03:31:18 2015 JenneUpdateLSCMeh

[Jenne, Den]

Overall a "meh" night for locking I think.  The script to all-RF worked several times earlier in the evening, although it was delicate and failed at least 50% of the time.  Later in the evening, we couldn't get even ~10% of the lock attempts all the way to RF-only. 

Den looked into angular things tonight.  With the HEPA bench at the Xend on (which it was found to be), the ETMX oplevs were injecting almost a factor of 10 noise (around 10ish Hz?) into the cavity axis motion (as seen by the trans QPD) as compared to oplevs off.  Turning off the HEPA removed this noise injection.

Den retuned the QPD trans loops so that they only push on the ETMs, so that we can turn off the ETM oplevs, and leave the ITMs and their oplevs alone. 

We are worried again about REFL55.  There is much more light on REFL55 than there is on REFL11 (a 90/10 beam splitter divides the light between them), and we see this in the DC output of the PDs, but there seems to be very little actual signal in REFL55.  Den drove a line (in PRCL?) while we had the PRMI locked with the arms held off resonance, and REFL55 saw the line a factor of 1,000 less than REFL 11 or REFL165.  The analog whitening gain for REFL11 is +18dB, and for REFL55 is +21dB, so it's not that we have significantly less analog gain (that we think).  We need to look into this tomorrow.  As of now, we don't think there's much hope for transitioning PRMI to REFL55 without a health checkup. 

  11170   Wed Mar 25 08:29:31 2015 SteveUpdateLSCMeh

  I turned on the HEPA at the south end during the LSC. Sorry I ment to turn it off.


[Jenne, Den]

Overall a "meh" night for locking I think.  The script to all-RF worked several times earlier in the evening, although it was delicate and failed at least 50% of the time.  Later in the evening, we couldn't get even ~10% of the lock attempts all the way to RF-only. 

Den looked into angular things tonight.  With the HEPA bench at the Xend on (which it was found to be), the ETMX oplevs were injecting almost a factor of 10 noise (around 10ish Hz?) into the cavity axis motion (as seen by the trans QPD) as compared to oplevs off.  Turning off the HEPA removed this noise injection.

Den retuned the QPD trans loops so that they only push on the ETMs, so that we can turn off the ETM oplevs, and leave the ITMs and their oplevs alone. 

We are worried again about REFL55.  There is much more light on REFL55 than there is on REFL11 (a 90/10 beam splitter divides the light between them), and we see this in the DC output of the PDs, but there seems to be very little actual signal in REFL55.  Den drove a line (in PRCL?) while we had the PRMI locked with the arms held off resonance, and REFL55 saw the line a factor of 1,000 less than REFL 11 or REFL165.  The analog whitening gain for REFL11 is +18dB, and for REFL55 is +21dB, so it's not that we have significantly less analog gain (that we think).  We need to look into this tomorrow.  As of now, we don't think there's much hope for transitioning PRMI to REFL55 without a health checkup. 


  11172   Wed Mar 25 18:46:14 2015 JenneUpdateLSCREFL PDs get more light

After discussions during the meeting today, I removed the PBS from the REFL path, which gives much more light to REFL11, REFL33 and REFL55.  Also, the ND1.5 in front of REFL165 was replaced with ND1.1, so that REFL165 now gets 50mW of light.  REFL11 gets about 1.3mW, REFL33 gets about 13mW and REFL55 gets about 12mW. 

No locking, and importantly no re-phasing of any PDs has been done yet. 

Here is an updated diagram of the REFL branching ratios.

Attachment 1: AS_REFL_branchingRatios_25Mar2015.png
  11173   Wed Mar 25 18:48:11 2015 KojiSummaryLSC55MHz demodulators inspection

[Koji Den EricG]

We inspected the {REFL, AS, POP}55 demodulators.

Short in short, we did the following changes:

- The REFL55 PD RF signal is connected to the POP55 demodulator now.
Thus, the POP55 signals should be used at the input matrix of the LSC screens for PRMI tests.

- The POP55 PD RF signal is connected to the REFL55 demodulator now.

- We jiggled the whitening gains and the whitening triggers. Whitening gains for the AS, REFL, POP PDs are set to be 9, 21, 30dB as before.
However, the signal gain may be changed. The optimal gains should be checked through the locking with the interferometer.

- Test 1

Inject 55.3MHz signal to the demodulators. Check the amplitude in the demodulated signal with DTT.
The peak height in the spectrum was calibrated to counts (i.e. it is not counts/rtHz)
We check the amplitude at the input of the input filters (e.g. C1:LSC-REFL55_I_IN1). The whitening gains are set to 0dB.
And the whitening filters were turned off.

f_inj = 55.32961MHz -10dBm
REFL55I @999Hz  22.14 [cnt]
REFL55Q @999Hz  26.21 [cnt]

f_inj = 55.33051MHz -10dBm
REFL55I @ 99Hz  20.26 [cnt]  ~200mVpk at the analog I monitor
REFL55Q @ 99Hz  24.03 [cnt]

f_inj = 55.33060MHz -10dBm
REFL55I @8.5Hz  22.14 [cnt]
REFL55Q @8.5Hz  26.21 [cnt]

f_inj = 55.33051MHz -10dBm
AS55I   @ 99Hz 585.4 [cnt]
AS55Q   @ 99Hz 590.5 [cnt]   ~600mVpk at the analog Q monitor

f_inj = 55.33051MHz -10dBm
POP55I  @ 99Hz 613.9 [cnt]   ~600mVpk at the analog I monitor
POP55Q  @ 99Hz 602.2 [cnt]

We wondered why the REFL55 has such a small response. The other demodulators seems to have some daughter board. (Sigg amp?)
This maybe causing this difference.


- Test 2

We injected 1kHz 1Vpk AF signal into whitening board. The peak height at 1kHz was measured.
The whitening filters/gains were set to be the same condition above.

f_inj = 1kHz 1Vpk
REFL55I 2403 cnt
2374 cnt
AS55I   2374 cnt
AS55Q   2396 cnt
POP55I  2365 cnt
  2350 cnt

So, they look identical. => The difference between REFL55 and others are in the demodulator.

  11174   Wed Mar 25 21:44:20 2015 KojiUpdateLSCIFO recovery / PRFPMI locking activity

[Koji, Den]

- Aligned the arms with ASS. It had alot of offset accumulated. We offloaded it to the suspension.

- We could lock the PRMIsb with the new setup.
PRCL: REFL165I (-14deg, analog +9dB)) -0.1, Locking FM4/5, Triggered FM 2
MICH: REFL165Q (-14deg, analog +9dB) -1.5, Locking FM4/5, Triggered FM2/6/9

- Demod phases at REFL were adjusted such that PRCL in Q signals were minimized :
REFL165 -80deg => -14deg
POP55 -63deg
REFL11 +164 => +7
REFL33 +136 => +133

Note: analog gains: REFL11: +18dB,  REFL33: +30dB, POP55: +12dB, REFL165: +9dB

- Try some transition between REFL signals to check the signal quality.
Measure TFs between the REFL signals

PRCL gain
REFL11I/REFL165I = +58
REFL33I/REFL165I = +8.5
POP55I /REFL165I = -246

MICH gain
REFL11Q/REFL165Q = +11
REFL33Q/REFL165Q = -1.5
POP55Q /REFL165Q = +280

- This resulted us to figure out the relationships of the numbers in the input matrix 

REFL55I/Q -4e-3/4e-3
REFL165I/Q 1.0/1.0 (reference)
REFL11I/Q  0.02/0.1
REFL33I/Q +0.12/-0.7

Full locking trial

Arm locked -> ALS -> Arm offset locked
PRMI locking
REFL165 phase tuned -110deg
PRCL gain -0.1 / MICH gain -2

We needed script editing.
Previous script saved in: /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/PRFPMI/carm_cm_up_BACKUP.sh

- PRMI gain setting (input matrix & servo gain)
- CARM/DARM transition setting (see below)

The current CARM/DARM transition procedure:

- CM REFL1 gain is set to be -32
- CARM_B is engaged and the gain is ramped from 0 to +2.5
- Turn on FM7 (integrator)
- MC IN2 (AO path) engaged
- MC IN2 gain increased from -32 to -21

- DARM_B is engaged and the gain is ramped from 0 to +0.1
- Turn on FM7 (integrator)

- CM REFL1 Gain is increased from -32 to -18
- Ramp down CARM A gain to 0

- DARM_B gain is incrased to 0.37. At the same time DARM_A gain is reduced to 0

We succeeded to make the transition several times in the new setting.

- But later the transition got hard. We started to see big jump of the arm trans (TRX/Y 50->100) at the CARM transition.

- We tested the PRCL transition from 165MHz to 55MHz. 55MHz (i.e. POP55 which is REFL55PD) looks alot better now.

- ~1:30 The PMC was realigned. This  increased PMC_TRANS about 10%. This let the Y arm trans recover ~1.00 for the single arm locking

- Decided to end around 3:00AM

  11176   Thu Mar 26 16:32:32 2015 JenneUpdateLSCREFL PDs get more light

Some more words on yesterday's REFL path work. 

The 90/10 BS that splits the light between REFL11 and REFL55 was placed back in August 2013, to compensate for the fact that REFL11 has a much larger RF transimpedance than REFL33.  See elog 9043 for details.

We had been operating for a long time with an embarrasingly small amount of light on the REFL PDs.  REFL11 used to have 80 uW, REFL33 used to have 400 uW and REFL55 used to have 700 uW.  REFL 165 was the only sane one, with about 15 mW of light.

After yesterday's work, the situation is now:

  Power incident [mW] PD responsivity [A/W] photocurrent [mA]
shot noise intercept
current [mA]
Ratio (photocurrent) /
(shot noise intercept current)
REFL 11 1.3 mW 0.7 0.91 mA 0.12 mA 7.6
REFL 33 13 mW 0.7 9.1 mA 0.52 mA 17.5
REFL 55 12 mW 0.7 8.4 mA 1.6 mA 5.3
REFL 165 50 mW 0.15 7.5 mA 1.06 mA 7.1

As an aside, I was foiled for a while by S vs. P polarizations of light.  The light transmitted through the PBS was P-pol, so the optics directing the beams to REFL11, 33 and 55 were all P-pol.  At first I completely removed the PBS and the waveplate, but didn't think through the fact that now my light would all be S-pol.  P-pol beam splitters don't work for S-pol (the reflection ratios are different, and it's just a terrible idea), so in the end I used the PBS to set the half waveplate so that all of my light was P-pol, and then removed the PBS but left the waveplate.  This means that all of the old optics are fine for the beams going to the 3 gold-box REFL PDs.  We don't have many S-pol beamsplitter options, so it was easier to use the waveplate to rotate the polarization. 

  11177   Fri Mar 27 04:36:46 2015 denUpdateLSCals->pdh transition, prcl on 1f, alignment

Tonight I have modified transition steps from als to pdh signals. I have added 1:20 filters to CARM_A and DARM_A filter banks to make them unconditionally stable. These filters made locking more robust -- duty cycle is was ~70% tonight. I have also modified slow/ao crossover to avoid ringing up of lines above 1kHz.

Once AO is engaged with high bandwidth, REFL55 signal looks good and I transition PRCL from 165I to 55I. Optical gain compared to PRMI reduced from 55I/165I = -330 down to 55I/165I = 30 in full lock.

I worked on alignment of ETMs. Looking on the cameras I could improve arm power up to 160 and ifo visibility was 80%. POP22 fluctuated by ~50% and every few minutes we loose lock because POP22 almost touches zero.

  11179   Fri Mar 27 14:47:57 2015 KojiUpdateLSCals->pdh transition, prcl on 1f, alignment

Jenne and I interviewd Den this afternoon to make the things clear

- His "duty cycle" is not about the lengths of the lock stretch. He saids, the transition success probability is improved.

- For this improvement, the CARM transition procedure was modified to include turning on 1:20 (Z1P20) filter in CARM_A (i.e. ALS) once CARM_B (i.e. RF) dominates the loop in all frequency.

- I think this transition can be summarized like the attachment. At STEP4, the integration of the ALS is reduced. This actually does not change the stability of the servo as the servo stability is determined by the stability of the CARM_B loop. But this does further allow CARM_B to supress the noise. Or in other word, we can remove the noise coming from the CARM_A loop.

- The POP22 issue: Jenne has the trigger signal that is immune to this issue by adding some amount of POPDC for the trigger.
We can avoid the trigger issue by this technique. But if the issue is due to the true optical gain fluctuation, this may mean that the 11MHz optical gain is changing too much. This might be helped by PRC angular feedforward or RF 22MHz QPD at POP.

Attachment 1: CARM_transition.pdf
  11180   Fri Mar 27 20:32:17 2015 KojiSummaryLSCLocking activity

- Adjutsed the IMC WFS operating point. The IMC refl is 0.42-0.43.

- The arms are aligned with ASS

- The X arm green was aligned with ASX. PZT offsets slides were adjusted to offload the servo outputs.

- I tried the locking once and the transition was successfull. I even tried the 3f-1f transition but the lock was lost. I wasn't sure what was the real cause.

I need to go now. I leave the IFO at the state that it is waiting for the arms locked with IR for the full locking trial.

  11181   Sat Mar 28 03:21:49 2015 denUpdateLSCtowards angular ff

Tonight I measured seismic noise coupling to beam spot on PR2. There is coherence of 0.9 from X to PIT and Y to YAW around the stack resonances. TF was fited using vectfit and put into static matrix of oaf in the elements T240X -> PRM PIT, T240Y -> PRM YAW. I think we should actuate on the error point of the PRM OL but I decided not to go for a model change tonight. Data from seismometers and POP QPD was obtained during the UTC time 04:06:00 - 04:50:00 when PRMI was locked on sideband

Interferometer was locking rather robustly and every lock lasted on the everage of 3 minutes. During these lock periods I incresed bandwidth of optical lever servos of BS and test masses from 4Hz up to 10Hz and then closed transmission QPD loops. It seems from the camera that lock losses correspond to strong motion of the beam on pop camera. Scripts that change OPLEV bandwidth are in /users/den "increase_ol_bandwidth.sh" "decrease_ol_bandwidth.sh". Script "engage_qpd_servos" turns off ETM oplevs and turns on ETM -> trans QPD servos. These scripts can be copied to locking directrly if are useful.

Please, note that transition from 3f to 1f should still be tuned. Only PRCL was stably controlled using 1f so far

  11182   Tue Mar 31 02:51:39 2015 ericqUpdateLSCSome locks

I had a handful of ~10 minute locks tonight. I intended to work on the 1f PRMI transition, but ended just familiarizing myself with the current scheme. 

Before touching anything, I committed the locking scripts to the svn. Unfortunately, the up script as I found it never worked for me tonight. I had to reintroduce the digitial crossover helper in CM_SLOW to get past the ramping up of the overall REFL11 gain. (With this is in place, there is some bad ringing around 200Hz for a time, but it goes away... or unlocks)

I did phase the PD formally known as REFL55 with an 800Hz PRM excitation while in full lock.42 to 102 degrees, ~30dB ratio between the I and Q peaks. However, come to think of it, how much does the CARM loop interfere with this?

The locklosses I had seemed to be due to a large fluctuation in all cavities' power. Maybe this will be helped by better PRC angular control, but we could maybe be helped by normalizing the digital part of the CARM loop by the arm transmissions once lock is acquired. 

  11183   Tue Mar 31 03:02:44 2015 KojiUpdateLSCSome locks

Assuming the carrier mode in PRC is stable and the SB is the one moving, can we just use the POP DC QPD to control PRM?

Can we plot the arm power trend for multiple locks to see if it is associated with any thermal phenomenan in the IFO?
They should be able to fit with an exp + DC.

  11185   Tue Mar 31 18:27:58 2015 ericqUpdateLSCSome locks

Can we plot the arm power trend for multiple locks to see if it is associated with any thermal phenomenan in the IFO?

I'm currently more inclined to believe that the arm power trends have more to do with the arm alignments. Here's a 10 minute lock from last night, where the QPD servos were switched on about halfway through. I couldn't get Den's new servos to turn on without blowing the lock, so I reverted to my previous design, but still only actuated on the ETMs, with their oplevs still on. 

The most obvious feature is the reduction in power that seems to correspond to a ~10urad pitch deflection of ITMX when the lock begins. Is this optical spring action?

Also, it looks like the Y arm Yaw loop was badly tuned, and injecting noise. Ooops.

As of Den's QPD tuning, the QPD servos just actuate on the ETM. This next lock effectively had the QPD servos on the entire time, and we can see a similar drift in ITMX, and how ETMX then follows it to keep the QPD spot stationary. (Here, I'm plotting the QPD servo control signals, unlike above, so we can see X pitch servo output drift with the ITMX deflection)

Again, ITMX is moving in pitch by ~10urad when the interferometer starts resonating. If this is an optical spring, why does this just happen to ITMX? If it is digital shenanigans, how does it correlate with the lock, since there is nothing actuating on ITMX but oplevs and OSEM damping? Is light scattering into the ITMX OSEMs?


Attachment 1: qpdSwitch.png
Attachment 2: qpdAlways.png
  11187   Wed Apr 1 03:54:15 2015 JenneUpdateLSCPRMI to 1f twice

I got the PRMI transitioned from REFL165 over to REFL55 two times tonight.  Also, I had 2 long-ish locks, one 9 minutes, and one 6 minutes.  All the other locks were short - less than a minute or two.

I've done some shuffling around of the point in the CARM transition when the anti-boosts (1:20 filters) come on in the CARM A filter bank.  I've moved the turn-on of these filters a several gain steps earlier, but I'm not sure that they're in the best place yet.  Fiddling with the turn-on of the anti-boosts makes the big CARM oscillations last for longer or shorter - if they last too long, they blow the lock, so we don't want them to get too big.

The PRMI angular feedforward has helped a lot tonight, I think.  I've added a line to the up script to enable the output of the OAF after the PRMI is locked, and the down script turns it off again.  It's not so great when the PRM isn't aligned, since it's designed to work when the oplev is on, so it should be off unless the PRM is aligned.  I tried to get a comparison of off vs. on PRC powers with the arms resonating, but I can't hold the lock for long enough when the OAF is not on to get even one average on my 0.01Hz bandwidth spectrum. 

I've turned the arm ASC on a few times, but not every lock.  Around 12:34am, I set the offsets when CARM and DARM were on RF signals, and I had hand-aligned the ETMs to minimize the power at the AS port.  But, this wasn't a good spot for the next lock - the AS port was much darker with the ASC off for that lock.  It would be nice to think about trying some dither alignment, and then maybe resetting the setpoints every lock.  I'm using Q's original loop shapes, but as he left them yesterday, only actuating on the ETMs (with Yarm Yaw gain 0.7 rather than 0.9).

The CARM crossover might need more tuning.  There's some gain peaking around 400 Hz that goes mostly away if I turn the digital CARM gain down by 2dB.  (I'm not using any filters in the CM_SLOW filter bank).

I think that the CARM/DARM transition is more likely to be successful if the FSS slow DC is greater than 0.55ish.  So far this is pretty anecdotal, but I think I have more success when it's higher.  We should pay attention, and see if our trouble locking later in the nights correlates with smaller FSS slow DC values. 

I got the PRMI over to 1f two times, at 1:54am and at 2:25am.  I did not re-phase "POP"55 (which is the REFL55 signal), but I did check the values for the input matrix.  I needed MICH = 0.01*POP55Q and PRCL = 0.008*POP55I.  The first time I lost lock because I turned down the CARM digital gain too much.  The second time I forgot to turn down the PRCL gain (I was *actually* using 0.01*POP55I for the PRCL input matrix, but needed to lower the gain from -0.08 to -0.07, which is about the same as just using 0.008 in the input matrix).  Anyhow, I think PRCL loop oscillations were the cause of the second lockloss.

Here's a strip chart of my first lock of the night, which was the 9 minute lock.  Up until about -6 minutes, I was hand-aligning (including the dip around -7.5 minutes, where I was figuring out which direction to move the ETMs).  Around -3.5 minutes there is a significant dip down, that corrected itself.  By the time I realized that the power had gone down, and was trying to figure out why, it came back.  Maybe the same thing happened at the end of the lock, but it kept getting worse?  Self, re-look at this time (around 11:50pm) to find out why the power dips. 

My tummy feelings (without any data) make me think that this could be something with ITMX, like Q saw earlier today.  Or, maybe ETMX, like we've seen for ages.  Anyhow, my tummy feeling says this is an optic pointing problem.  I certainly think this might be the same thing we see at the end of many locks, the power going low suddenly.  So, it might give a big clue to our locklosses.  Maybe.

RXA: I've changed the above text into pink Comic Sans to lend it the appropriate level of gravitas, given its scientific justification.

Attachment 1: FirstLock_9min_arms150_1154pm.png
  11190   Wed Apr 1 16:52:02 2015 JenneUpdateLSCList of measurements

I'd like to get a concrete list of measurements written down, so that it's clear what needs to be done before I graduate.

Noise couplings:

  • Laser amplitude noise coupling to DARM
    • We don't have an AOM for ISS right now, but we should be able to just stick it back in the beam path, right?  I think Koji checked that the AOM was all okey-dokey recently.
    • AOM calibration should tell me how much the single-pass amplitude changes as a function of input signal.
  • Laser frequency noise coupling to DARM
    • Inject signal at the CM board input, which should be calibrated by looking at response to calibrated MC2 motion.
  • Marconi phase noise coupling to DARM
    • Marconi can produce internally or accept via BNC 0-10 rad of phase modulation.  Marconi spec sheet should give me rad/V for the input calibration.
  • Marconi amplitude noise coupling to DARM
    • Using external input of Marconi.  Marconi spec sheet should give me input calibration.
  • MICH err to DARM
    • Compare with Optickle model
  • PRCL err to DARM
    • Compare with Optickle model

Noise cancellation:

  • PRC angle
  • MICH noise removed from DARM (compare flat gain FF vs. Wiener FF)
  • PRCL noise removed from DARM (compare FF shape from model vs. Wiener FF)
  • MC length noise (equiv. to laser freq noise) removed from CARM & DARM

Are there things that I'm missing?  I've never had an IFO to characterize before.

  11191   Wed Apr 1 23:56:36 2015 ericqUpdateLSCX Green Power drifting

Something funky is happening with the green light locked to the X arm. The green transmitted power is drifiting around. Maybe something weird is happening with the doubler? The digital thermal feedback loop is not on. 

The green has been locked on a TM00 mode this whole time. The step in power is me closing the PSL green shutter, but I'm not doing anything during the smooth changes in power. IR power is steady, so the alignment should be ok. I can't recover full power with the end PZT alignement either. 


Attachment 1: Xgreen_drifting.png
  11192   Thu Apr 2 01:28:34 2015 JenneUpdateLSCX Green Power drifting

Have you tried a different set of laser temperatures?  I don't remember the value for the Xgreen, but whatever the value that matches PSL of 0.62ish and above seems to put the Xgreen laser at a bad temperature.  I think this is the mode-hopping region, and we sometimes lock to the wrong mode. 

So, FSS values of above 0.5ish are good, but they should be below 0.61ish. 

  11193   Thu Apr 2 01:45:44 2015 JenneUpdateLSCX Green Power drifting

Have you tried a different set of laser temperatures?

Yep, that is how I got back to stable powers. 

  11194   Thu Apr 2 04:11:20 2015 ericqUpdateLSCNot much locking, Xover measurement

A paltry two locks tonight, but not entirely useless. I had some issues keeping the PRMI locked, which some additional boosts helped with. But, my feeling was that our crossover process is not tuned well. 

At full lock, both sub-loops have high gain around the crossover region, so the usual DTT loop transfer function measurement produces a meausrement of Gdigital/G_aopath (or minus that. I.e. I'm not currently 100% which is the bad phase in this plot, though it intuitive looks like 0 ). Thus, we can directly look at the crossover frequency and the effect of the different filters there. (I've also been working on an up-to-date CARM loop model today, so this will help inform that). 

Below, the black traces are the crossover at the end of the script when using the 120:500 "helper," and purple is without it. As we turn up the AO path gain, the trace "falls" from above, which explains why we can see instabilities around the violin filter. 

Having the helper on definitely made the probability of surviving the first overall CARM gain ramp higher, but it's not currently intuitively clear to me why that is the case. Afterwards, we can turn the helper off, to keep the shallower crossover shape. This is what I've put in to the up script for now. I also added a few seconds delay for when the script wants to switch DARM to RF only; I found it was maybe speeding too fast through this point.

DTT xml attached

Attachment 1: CARMxOver_Apr3.png
Attachment 2: Apr2_Xover.xml.zip
  11195   Thu Apr 2 15:34:34 2015 ericqUpdateLSCNot much locking, Xover measurement

Here's the comparison of last night's crossover measurement to my loop model. Not stellar, but not totally off base. All of the digital filters are read directly from the foton filter file, and translated from their SOS coefficients, so they should be accurate. I may have tallied together the wrong arrangement of FMs, though. I will recheck. 

Although I don't have a measurement to compare it with yet (as I don't know where the crossover was, the filter statesolder, etc. for the older loop measurements), here's what my current CARM loop model looks like, just for kicks. Here, only the first CM board boost is on. If we turn on some super boosting, we can probably ease up on some of the digital boosts, lower the crossover frequency, and put some lowpass that suppress the violin filters' effect on the crossover and reduces digital sensing noise injection. 

Lastly, I'll just note that my current MIST model predicts that the CARM cavity pole should be at ~170Hz, and a peak arm transmission of 180 times single arm power. I saw powers of ~120 last night. 

Attachment 1: xOverModel.png
Attachment 2: loopModel.png
  11196   Thu Apr 2 17:11:28 2015 ericqUpdateLSCNot much locking, Xover measurement

Whoops, I implemented the IOP downsampling filters wrong. Once I did that, it looked like just delay mismatch, so I added two more computation cycles for a total of four 16k cycles, which is maybe not so justified... Nevertheless, model and measurement now agree much better. Here are the corrected plots. 


Attachment 1: xOverModel.png
Attachment 2: loopModel.png
  11197   Fri Apr 3 05:17:36 2015 JenneUpdateLSCPRMI to 1f twelve times

I have 12 tick marks for times I got all the way to 1f for all 4 degrees of freedom in the PRFPMI.  The CARM / DARM transitions now succeed more than they fail, which is nice. 

At Q's suggestion, I am turning off all the violin filters in the MC2 path during the CARM transition.  This also means that I don't need any of the notches that Den and I put into the CARM_A and CARM_B filter banks last week, which were right at the edges of the violin notches.  Anyhow, this seems to make the transition much more likely to succeed.  I don't ever use the CM_SLOW FM10 "crossover helper" that Q had to use last night.  The violin filters are turned back on after the CARM transition is complete.  We don't ever need those other notches.

I checked the REFL165 vs. REFL55 transfer functions for PRCL and MICH, and they are mostly flat.  REFL55 seems like it'll give us extra phase for some reason.

I tried setting offsets for PRMI, but they seem to be strongly dependent on arm alignment.  I ended up being pretty confused, and since all the REFL signals are pretty close to zero (when CARM/DARM on RF, PRMI on 3f), I have given up on that avenue for tonight. 

I think many of my locklosses tonight (lost from the all 1f state) have been fast things, faster than the ADCs can handle.  On the lockloss plots that I've looked at, the FSS PC drive is railed at 10V about 200msec before I lose lock.  So, something (presumably in the fast CARM path) is making the MC/FSS loop unhappy.  I have plugged in the Agilent to the Out2 of the CM board, so that it looks at REFL11.  Unfortunately, this is after the input gain slider, so we don't see much until we're locked, but that seems fine.  A video camera is pointed at the screen, so that I get real time spectra.  It's hard to watch the TV at the same time as everything else, so I haven't witnessed the moment of lockloss in the fast spectrum yet.  Be careful when walking down the Yarm.  The tripod is partly in the walkway.

Q, I took a few TFs of the total CARM loop, although none of them are particularly good below a few kHz.  I can't push hard enough to get coherence, without blowing the lock.  TF data is in /users/jenne/PRFPMI/CM_TFs/CM_TFs_2Apr2015/ . 

I was worried for a while that, after I transition PRMI to 1f, I hear lots of low frequency rumbling.  However, watching the spectra (relative to references taken with CARM and DARM on RF, but PRMI on 3f), the low frequency error and control signals are staying the same for all 4 DoFs, but the high frequency for PRCL and MICH goes down significantly, so it's probably just that the low frequency stuff sounds more obvious, since it's not drowning in high frequency fuzz. 


  11207   Wed Apr 8 03:44:48 2015 JenneUpdateLSCMediocre locking night

It was only a mediocre locking night.  I was foiled for a long time by 2 things, both of which are now taken care of in the scripts, so I don't waste so much time again.

  • Somehow FM4 (LP700) in the CARM_A filter bank was turned off.  It took me a long time to figure this one out. 
    • At first, I had a 2056Hz oscillation, and then if I notched that, I would have problems at the edges of my notch.
    • I turned on the LP1000 in CARM_B (which we don't usually use) to fight the 2k resonances, but then I had violin mode problems. 
    • I couldn't turn off the violin mode filters on MC2 for the transition, so the edges of these notches were causing instability.
    • Anyhow, in the end, I realized that FM4 of CARM_B wasn't on, but it usually is.
    • It is now turned on in the carm_cm_up.sh script.
  • After that fiasco, I had trouble turning on the ASC loops.
    • Turns out we had left the offsets in place from last night in the ASC loops, so that when I zeroed the outputs of the transmission QPDs, the offsets in the ASC loops didn't make any sense, and they pushed the IFO severely out of alignment.
    • Now the ASC down script (which is run by the carm down script) zeros the filter bank offset values

Scripts are checked into the svn.

I used Q's handy-dandy 2D histogram plotter (..../scripts/general/dataHist, which I have taken the liberty of adding to the svn) to set the PRCL offset when I was locked on REFL165.  Here is a version of the plot, when I had an offset of +10 in the PRCL filter bank. There was so much noise on the PRCL input that I quit bothering to try and put in an excitation or ramp the offset value.  Note that I have since moved this offset to PRCL_A's offset instead, so taking this plot again should have PRCL_IN1 centered around zero.

I had trouble doing something similar for PRCL when I was locked on REFL55.  At first, the offset was so poor that POP110 was only about half the value it was when locked on REFL165, and it had a huge amount of RIN.  I tried just doing a z avg of the PRCL_B_IN1 (REFL55I) while locked on REFL165, and that said that REFL55I had an offset of +33.8 counts, so I tried an offset of -33.8 counts to get to zero.  But, that was still terrible for POP110 power.  As I increased the offset, eventually up to +30 counts, POP110 kept getting better and better.  I lost lock at that point (while trying to get 10 sec of histogram data), so I'm not sure that +30 is the final value.  I want to also get equivalent histograms with POP22 and POPDC (and maybe arm transmissions?) as the X-axis on these plots.  There's no excitation, so all of these can be collected at once.

By babysitting the ITM alignment (looking at the rough DC values of the optical lever error siganls), and doing a little adjustment of the ASC differential offset, I was able to keep lock a few times for more than 2 or 3 minutes while all 1f.  Not a whole lot longer than that though, even if I wasn't "poking" the interferometer other than maintaining alignment.

Attachment 1: PRCL_R165_offsetplus10.png
  11208   Wed Apr 8 13:26:47 2015 ericqUpdateLSCREFL55 signal back to its normal ADC inputs

As the POP55 demod board is actually demodulating the REFL55 signal, I have connected its outputs to the REFL55 ADC inputs. Now, we can go back to using the REFL55 input matrix elements, and the data will be recorded. 

I have changed the relevant lines in the locking script to reflect this change. 

  11210   Thu Apr 9 02:58:26 2015 ericqUpdateLSCAll 1F, all whitened

blarg. Chrome ate my elog. 

112607010 is the start of five minutes on all whitened 1F PDs. REFL55 has more low frequency noise than REFL165, I think we may need more CARM supression (i.e. we need to think about the required gain). This is also supported by the difference in shape of these two histograms, taken at the same time in 3f full lock. The CARM fluctuations seem to spread REFL55 out much more.  

I made some filters and scripts to do DC coupling of the ITM oplevs. This makes maintaining stable alignment in full lock much easier. 

I had a few 15+ minute locks on 3f, that only broke because I did something to break it.  

Here's one of the few "quick" locklosses I had. I think it really is CARM/AO action, since the IMC sees it right away, but I don't see anything ringing up; just a spontaneous freakout. 

Attachment 1: quickLockLoss.png
Attachment 2: 55_1.png
Attachment 3: 55_2.png
  11212   Fri Apr 10 03:44:51 2015 JenneUpdateLSCSome small progress, may have DAC problem?

Small steps tonight, but all in the forward direction.

On one of my better locks, I saw a kind of weird phenomenon with the PRMI sideband powers versus the carrier powers:

For the last 100 seconds of this plot, I'm all 1f.  Alignment is being handled mostly by Q's DC coupled ITM oplevs, and the transmission QPD ASC loops, although I was trying to adjust the offsets in the ASC loops to improve transmission for a bit.

At the very end, the last 10 seconds or so, the POP110 power goes down, and sits at about half it's maximum value.  POP22 isn't quite as bad, in that it still touches the max, but the RIN is about 50%.  The carrier DC signals (TRX, TRY, POPDC) don't see this huge jump.  I don't think I was touching anything the last few tens of seconds.  I'm not sure yet how I can so significantly lose sideband power, without losing a similar amount of carrier power. 

The ring-ups at about -70sec in the CARM and DARM outs are the bounce mode. 

I tried looking at 2D histograms of different combinations of channels, for the time around -30 seconds where things looked pretty clean.  It looks like the offsets that Q put in last night (+1 for MICH_B and -3 for PRCL_B) are still about right.  The PRCL_IN1 and MICH_IN1 were centered around zero at the maximum power points.  CARM and DARM had small offsets, which I put into the DARM_B and CARM_B filter banks (0.0066 for DARM_B, and 0.027 for CARM_B), although these are small enough that I don't know that they really do anything.

As a break from locking for a little while, I tried to see if I could get the TT3 and TT4 DAC channels to work for me.  I had hoped it would be a quick and easy task, but I'm not seeing signal out.  Since it wasn't working, I decided to go back to locking for the night, and look into the DAC in the daytime.  I want to use one channel as the IN2 input of the CM board, and another as the external modulation input to the Marconi for transfer functions, so I need them to work. 

As a side note on the input to the Marconi situation, it occurred to me that instead of laying a new cable, I can borrow the POP55 heliax.  We don't have a POP55 diode right now, and the other end comes out across the hall from the Marconi, so it would be pretty easy to have a medium-length cable go from ITMX table to the Marconi.  Objections to this? 

Attachment 1: PRMI_sb_powers_9Apr2015.png
  11213   Fri Apr 10 12:09:19 2015 ericqUpdateLSCSome small progress, may have DAC problem?

At the very end, the last 10 seconds or so, the POP110 power goes down, and sits at about half it's maximum value.  POP22 isn't quite as bad, in that it still touches the max, but the RIN is about 50%.  The carrier DC signals (TRX, TRY, POPDC) don't see this huge jump.  I don't think I was touching anything the last few tens of seconds.  I'm not sure yet how I can so significantly lose sideband power, without losing a similar amount of carrier power. 

I saw this same kind of behavior in my locklosses on Wednesday night; we should check out the 165 data, and see if the 3f PRCL error signal shows some drift away from zero.

Also, it's odd that CARM_IN1 and REFL11_I_ERR have different low frequency behavior in the plot you posted. I guess they have some difference in demodulation phase.  REFL11_I's bump at -40sec coincides with the dip in arm power and a rise in REFLDC, but ASDC seems pretty smooth, so maybe it is a real CARM fluctuation.

I set the REFL11 analog demodulation angle (via cable length) about a year ago (ELOG 9850), with some assumption about PRCL having the same demod angle as CARM, but this was probably set with the arms misaligned. We should recheck this; maybe we're coupling some other junk into CARM. 

  11214   Fri Apr 10 17:05:45 2015 ericqUpdateLSCRelative ETM calibration (Rough MC2 calibration)

I did a quick measurement get an idea of the ETM actuator calibration, relative to the ITMs. This will still hold if/when we revisit the ITM calibration via the Michelson. 

For the test masses, I locked the arms individually using MC2 as the actuator, and took transfer functions from the SUS-[OPTIC]_LSC_EXC point to the PO[X/Y]_I_ERR error signals. There were two points with coherence less than 99% that I threw away. I then took the fraction at each point, and am using the standard deviation of those fractions as the reported random error, since the coherence was super high for all points, making the error of each point negligible relative to their spread. 

This gives:

  • ETMX/ITMX: 2.765 +- 0.046
  • ETMY/ITMY: 2.857 +- 0.029

With the data from ELOG 8242, this implies:

  • ETMX: 13.00 +- 0.22 x 10 -9 / f2 m/counts
  • ETMY: 13.31 +- 0.15x 10 -9 / f2 m/counts

MC2 data was taken with the arms locked with the ETMs. The results are not so clean, the fractions don't line up; there is some trend with excitation frequency... The ratio is around the same as the ETMs, but I'm not going to quote any sort of precision, since I don't fully understand what's happening. Kind of a bummer, because it struck me that we could get an idea of the arm length mismatch by the difference in IMC frequency / arm FSR. I'll think about this some more...

Attachment 1: quickCal.png
  11215   Fri Apr 10 18:39:39 2015 ericqUpdateLSCRelative ETM calibration (Rough MC2 calibration)

I didn't verify that the loop gain was low enough at the excitation frequencies. blush

I put a 1kHz ELP in both arm servos, and got cleaner data for both. The ETM numbers are pretty much consistent with the previously posted ones, and the MC2 data now is consistent across frequencies. However, the MC2 numbers derived from each arm are not consistent.


  • ETMX / ITMX: 2.831 +- 0.043
  • MC2 / ITMX: 3.260 +- 0.062
  • ETMY / ITMY: 2.916 +- 0.041
  • MC2 / ITMY: 3.014 +- 0.036

With the data from ELOG 8242, this implies:

  • ETMX: 13.31 +- 0.21 x 10-9 / f2 m/counts
  • ETMY: 13.59 +- 0.20 x 10-9 / f2 m/counts
  • MC2 in Xarm meters : 15.32 +- 0.30 x 10-9 / f2 m/counts
  • MC2 in Yarm meters : 14.04 +- 0.18 x 10-9 / f2 m/counts
This is, of course, pretty fishy. Each arm sees the same frequency fluctuation of the light coming out of the IMC, especially given that the MC2 to arm data was taken simultaneously for both arms. Now, one possible source of this kind of mismatch would be a mismatch of the arm lengths, but there is no way they differ by 10%, as they would have to in order to explain the above numbers. To me, it seems more likely that the ITM calibrations are off. 
Attachment 1: betterCal.png
  11219   Wed Apr 15 02:26:41 2015 ericqUpdateLSCAttempted DRMI + ALS arms

I spent some time tonight trying to revive DRMI locking, with the arms held off on ALS. Not much news, I haven't been able to get more than a few short spurts of resonance, using 1F signals.

I did use SRY to measure the BS->SRCL coupling by exciting each mirror and looking at their relative coupling to AS55Q. I found that we should use a value of +0.28 +-0.01 in the MICH->SRM element.

  11222   Wed Apr 15 21:00:56 2015 JenneUpdateLSCDAC fine

The DAC was fine.  I realized tonight that the digital filter bank outputs were off, so I wasn't actually sending signals out.  Oooops.  blush


  11254   Sun Apr 26 14:17:40 2015 JenneUpdateLSCPOXDC, POYDC unplugged for now

I have unplugged POXDC and POYDC from their whitening inputs.  They have labels on them which whitening channel they belong to (POY=5, POX=6) on the DCPD whitening board.

TT3_LR's DAC output is Tee-ed, going to the POYDC input and also to an SR560 near the Marconi.

TT4_LR's DAC output is Tee-ed, going to the POXDC input and also to the CM board's ExcB input.

  11258   Mon Apr 27 01:13:08 2015 JenneUpdateLSCPRCL angular FF not working, no locking :(

I'm sad.  And frustrated. 

The PRCL angular feed forward is not working, and without it I am having a very difficult time keeping the PRMI locked while the arms are at high power (either buzzing, or the one time I got stable high power partway through the transition).  Obviously if the PRMI unlocks once CARM and DARM are mostly relying on the REFL signals, I lose the whole IFO. 

Q and I had been noticing over the last few weeks that the angular feed forward wasn't seeming quite as awesome as it did when I first implemented it.  We speculated that this was likely because we had started DC coupling the ITM optical levers, which changes the way seismic motion is propagated to cavity axis motion (since the ITMs are reacting differently).

Anyhow, today it does not work at all.  It just pushes the PRM until the PRMI loses lock. I am worried that, even though Rana re-tuned the BS and PRM oplev servos to be very similar to how they used to be, there is enough of a difference (especially when compounded with the DC coupled ITMs) that the feed forward transfer functions just aren't valid anymore.

Since this prevents whole IFO locking, I spent some time trying to get it back under control, although it's still not working. 

I remeasured the actuator transfer function of how moving PRM affects the sideband spot at the QPD, in the PRMI-only situation.  I didn't make a comparison plot for the yaw degree of freedom, but you can see that the pitch transfer function is pretty different below ~20Hz, which is the whole region that we care about.  In the plot below, black is from January (PRMI-only, no DC-coupled ITMs) and blue is from today (PRMI-only, with DC-coupled ITMs, and somewhat different BS/PRM oplev setup):


I calculated new Wiener filters, and tried to put them in, but sometimes (and I don't understand what the pattern is yet) I get "error" in the Alternate box, rather than the zpk version of my sos filter.  It seems to go away if you use fewer and fewer poles for fitting the Wiener filters, but then the fit is so poor that you're not going to get any subtraction (according to the residual estimation plot that uses the fitted filters rather than the ideal Wiener filters). The pitch filters could only handle 6 poles, although the yaw filters were fine with 20.

The feed forward just keeps pushing the PRM away though.  I flipped the signs on the Wiener filters, I tried recalculating without the actuator pre-filtering, I don't know why it's failing.  But, I'm not able to lock the interferometer.  Which sucks, because I was hoping to finally get most of my noise coupling measurements done today.


Attachment 1: Pitch_oldVsNew.pdf
  11271   Mon May 4 12:35:49 2015 ranaUpdateLSCdrift in Y arm


I left the arms locked last night. Looks like the drift in the Y arm power is related to the Y arm control signal being much bigger than X.

Why would it be that Y > X  ?

  11275   Fri May 8 08:16:46 2015 SteveUpdateLSCdrift in Y arm

Why is the Y arm drifting so much?

The " PSL FSS Slow Actuator Adjust " was brought back to range from 1.5 to 0.3 yesterday as ususual. Nothing else was touched.

I'm not sure if the timing scale is working correctly on theses summery plots. What is the definition of today?

The y-arm became much better as I noticed it at 5pm


Attachment 1: 1goodday.png
Attachment 2: Yishappy.png
  11328   Wed May 27 17:14:08 2015 ericqUpdateLSCX Aux Laser crystal temperature changed

Rana suspects that the lack of X beatnote is related to the PSL laser temperature change (ELOG 11294). 

I used the information on the wiki and old elogs (wiki-40mELOG 6732), to deduce that the new end laser temperatures should be:

  • X end-> 38.98 C
  • Y end-> 35.80 C

I went out to the X end and found the laser crystal temperature set to 40.87, which is not what the measurements I linked to suggest would be the ideal temperature for the previous NPRO laser temperature of 30.89, which would be 37.02. I could not find any elog describing the choice of this setpoint.  

I've changed the X end laser crystal temperature to the value above. I've hooked up the X IR and green beatnotes to go the control room analzyer, and have been looking for the beatnote as I adjust the digital temperature offset, but haven't found it yet...

If this proves totally fruitless, we can just put the lasers back to their original temperatures, since it's unclear if it helped the PC drive noise levels. 

  11335   Fri May 29 02:05:08 2015 ericqUpdateLSCEnd Laser temperatures set

Both green beatnotes have been found with nominal amplitudes. (X: -30dBm Y: -20dBm), at temperatures which don't seem to be prone to mode hopping. 

X = 42.64, Y ~40.15

Both arms can lock on ALS, but as Koji mentioned in ELOG 11334, the ALS noise seems anomalously high. 


The temperatures I posted in the previous log ended up not being so useful. To find the right end laser temperatures, I looked at the IR beatnotes on the control room analyzer out to 1GHz, and swept around the SLOW_SERVO2_OFFSET channels to change the laser temperature. During this time, the end green shutters were closed, the PSL shutter was closed, the FSS slow servo was off, and the FSS_SLOWDC was set to 0.0. (The green PSL shutter had to be open, because the IR beat fiber is coupled after it.)

For each arm, I found three temperatures where an IR beat could be observed; as Koji mentioned on Wednesday, we should use the middle mode. For each of the arms, scanning around from the middle to move the beat by +-1GHz did not cause a mode hop - the beat stayed visible on the scope. Once I found a real IR beat for the X arm, I took at look at the RF output of the X BBPD, and found my alignment from the other night was actually pretty good; I made a minor touch up to maximize the green beat. 

For the AUX X innolight, I was able to find the actual temperature of the laser crystal when at the correct point, remove the digital offset, and return to the same temperature with the controller front panel dial. This temperature is 42.64 degrees Celcius. There is no diode temperature control on the unit, as far as I could tell, but the maximum green transmitted power through the X arm is about the same as it's ever been, around GTRX=0.5. 

My motivation for doing this was that I always have problems remembering the historical typical values for the digital temperature offset. It seems much cleaner to me to set things up such that a beat is visible "at the origin" (i.e. FSS_SLOWDC=0 and SLOW_SERVO2_OFFSET=0) I suppose that this will also depend on what mode of the PMC we're locked to. During my time working today, its been locked near the middle of its range, currently sitting at 145V. 

However, for the AUX Y lightwave, I was a little perplexed to find that moving the the laser crystal setpoint around does not apear to change the real laser temperature at all. Thus I could not offload the digital offset in the same way. Aditionally, the lightwave controller does not have the same temperature measuring accuracy as the innolight, even with the back panel voltage readout that is hooked up to the multimeter that lives under the optical table. The best I can tell is around 40.1-40.2 degrees C. Y_SLOW_SERVO2_OFFSET of -10690 counts gives a beat <100MHz at FSS_SLOWDC=0. This is actually very close to the previous operating point, so the same mode seems to still work. 

The arms now easily lock on ALS, albeit with higher noise. With arms locked on ALS, POX and POY show >1kHz rms noise. frown 

I gave the PRFPMI locking script a few tries, but it's having problems keeping the PRMI locked. The ALS is a few times noisier than usual, and I haven't revisited the validity of the PRC angular feedforward, so I'm not so surprised. 

  11351   Wed Jun 10 03:19:58 2015 ericqUpdateLSCAUX PDH error measured in CDS

Looking over the old noise budget in the green locking paper, it seems the main technical noise sources were the AUX PDH error and DFD noise. I'm working on quantifying the current state of these noises. 

Rather than lugging out the analyzers every time I wanted to make a measurement of the AUX PDH error signals, I set out to make the existing digitized channels (ALS-[X/Y]_ERR_MON) usable for easier, and continuous, monitoring. Sadly, up until now the signals were poorly conditioned, and drowning in ADC noise. (When locked, the Y error signal was only +-10 counts!)

Of course, given the bandwidth of the green servos (10kHz), this won't tell us the full story of the what the green PDH lock is doing, but does indicate how much residual frequency noise exists in the ALS control band. 

I'm currently using SR560s at G=20 at each end to amplify the ERR MON outputs of the uPDH boards before sending them to the ADCs; now that I've found a gain that works, I'll modify the error point monitor buffer opamps inside the uPDH boards themselves during the daytime. 

The AUX Y error signal was going into an AA board with some funky filtering going on that I didn't want to mess with. Instead, I've moved the signal to the pentek generic board whose first four channels are used for the oplev segments, and the second quartet are unused, save for the TST channel I hooked up yesterday. 

On the pentek board, I changed the 4th order 800Hz lowpass to a 4th order 8kHz lowpass on the last three channels through some resistor swapping. (At first it was just the last two, but I found I was getting weird signals in the 32nd channel; and if I recall correctly from my cymac work, the 32 ADC channel is used for some timing signal or something...). I also turned off the 1:10 whitening filters on the last four channels via PCB jumper. 

I then unhooked the PZT drive and let the PDH error signals swing around, to calibrate the ADC counts into HZ. Now, the ALS-[X/Y]_ERR_MON_OUT_DQ are calibrated in green Hz! Here are the spectra.

As we've seen in the past (ELOG 10464), the X green is limited by the dark noise of the PD from 10-100Hz. This isn't so great. The RMS noise from 300Hz downwards (which is maybe the band where the ALS control would inject noise into the mirror motion) is about Y:10Hz X:40Hz.

During this time, the test masses were not under any longnitudinal control, so I'm not sure why there is such a difference in the height of the suspension resonance peaks, unless there's some differene in the low frequency PDH TFs that I've forgotten about. 

Now, with these references, we can easily check if the PDH loops change qualitatively over longer time periods.

I'll be including the effect of these noises in the upcoming revised ALS noise budget.

Attachment 1: AUXspectra.png
  11355   Fri Jun 12 17:09:58 2015 ericqUpdateLSCBeatbox needs whitening gain

Short entry just to preview a new development; more detail about this investigation will soon follow. 

The beatbox I and Q signals are too small at the ADC! I was able to reduce the RMS out of loop ALS sensitivity (arm locked on POX) by 300Hz with G=10 SR560s between the beatbox output and the ADC whitening chassis input. Increasing the beat note amplitude via RF amplifier had no positive effect. 

There is still a reasonable gap between this and the beatbox's noise levels, as measured with a marconi. There may be additional headroom for whitening gain; the SR560 maximum output range is smaller than the ADC input range. 

The high frequency noise has >0.5 coherence with the PDH error signal above a kHz or so, but not much below that. 

We should probably either modify the output whitening of the beatbox, or introduce some (variable?) whitening gain in a seperate circuit. 

Attachment 1: beatGain.png
  11356   Sat Jun 13 18:37:46 2015 ericqUpdateLSCBeatbox needs whitening gain

Here are the promised details!

I was worried about the lack of whitening gain, as I saw that the DC phase tracker Q output (which is the magnitude of the signal in the beatbox's I-Q plane) was no more than 200 ADC counts for X (~120mV), and 800 for Y (~500mV). I.e. this is the largest DC value that either the I or Q ADC channels can see, and the RMS fluctuations are on the order of mV, meaning we're wasting our entire ADC rangeno

However, I also had doubts about this since, even in the nominal state, the ASD of the ADC signals before dewhitening was higher than the expected ADC noise level. However, because of the non-linearity of the conversion of the BEAT_I and Q signals into the phase tracker output, evaluating the contribution of the beatbox output and ADC input voltage noises takes a few more steps. 

So, I hooked up a Marconi as the signal source for the beatbox's X channel , with no modulation (presumably the phase noise of the Marconi output is significantly lower than the sensitivity of the beatbox). For all of these measurements, the beat frequency was kept around 50MHz, with an amplitude of -30dBm on the control room analyzer, which is a typical X ALS operating point. 

At this point, the beatbox output noise was below the ADC noise (as measured by an SR785). Nevertheless, I found that the beat spectrum driven by the Marconi lined up to be very close to the ALS beat spectrum across a wide band, explaining much of the noise. 

At this point, I inserted SR560s in between the beatbox I and Q outputs, and the AA chassis leading to the ADC. A gain of 10 reduced the resultant phase tracker noise by that same factor at nearly all frequencies. A further increase in gain did not lead to the noise changing appreciably, probably because the real beatbox noise was now contributing, as is suggested by some common peaks in the direct beatbox output phase tracker spectra.

Going back to the real green beat signal with the SR560s still at G=10, I obtained the result shown in ELOG 11355. I will soon repeat this process with the Y ALS. 

As I mentioned in the previous ELOG, we may be further helped by more whitening gain than can be provided by the SR560s (and we obviously need a robust long term circuit for this gain). If it then turns out we are limited by beatbox noise to a degree we are not happy with, we could perhaps look into reintroducing some RF gain into the X beat. As Koji mentions in ELOG 8855, the beatbox operates best at an RF input of around -4dBm.

Attachment 1: ADCdiagnosis.png
  11357   Sat Jun 13 23:52:14 2015 ericqUpdateLSCBeatbox needs whitening gain

Nice find!

We ought to use our noise model of the ALS signal chain to determine what the right gains are, rather than hunt and peck. More likely we'll start from the right gains.​

Once the gains and/or whitening filters make sense, maybe we'll see some effect from fixing the green PDH loops.

  11368   Mon Jun 22 12:57:09 2015 ericqSummaryLSCX/Y green beat mode overlap measurement redone

I took measurements at the green beat setup on the PSL table, and found that our power / mode overlap situation is still consistent with what Koji and Manasa measured last September [ELOG 10492]. I also measured the powers at the BBPDs with the Ophir power meter.

Both mode overlaps are around 50%, which is fine. 

The beatnote amplitudes at the BBPD outputs at a frequency of about 50MHz are -20.0 and -27.5 dBm for the X and Y beats, respectively. This is consistent with the measured optical power levels and a PD response of ~0.25 A/W at 532nm. The main reason for the disparity is that there is much more X green light than Y green light on the table (factor of ~20), and the greater amount of green PSL light on the Y BBPD (factor of ~3) does not quite make up for it. 

One way to punch up the Y beat a little might be to adjust the pickoff optics. Of 25uW of Y arm transmitted green light incident on the polarizing beamsplitter that seperates the X and Y beams, only 13uW makes it to the Y BBPD, but this would only win us a couple dBms at most. 

In any case, with the beat setup as it exists, it looks like we should design the next beatbox iteration to accept RF inputs of around -20 to -30 dBm. 

In the style of the referenced ELOG, here are today's numbers. 

            XARM   YARM 
o BBPD DC output (mV)
 V_DARK:   +  1.0  + 2.2
 V_PSL:    +  7.1  +21.3
 V_ARM:    +165.0  + 8.2

o BBPD DC photocurrent (uA)
I_DC = V_DC / R_DC ... R_DC: DC transimpedance (2kOhm)

 I_PSL:       3.6   10.7
 I_ARM:      82.5    4.1

o Expected beat note amplitude
I_beat_full = I1 + I2 + 2 sqrt(e I1 I2) cos(w t) ... e: mode overwrap (in power)

I_beat_RF = 2 sqrt(e I1 I2)

V_RF = 2 R sqrt(e I1 I2) ... R: RF transimpedance (2kOhm)

P_RF = V_RF^2/2/50 [Watt]
     = 10 log10(V_RF^2/2/50*1000) [dBm]

     = 10 log10(e I1 I2) + 82.0412 [dBm]
     = 10 log10(e) +10 log10(I1 I2) + 82.0412 [dBm]

for e=1, the expected RF power at the PDs [dBm]
 P_RF:      -13.2  -21.5

o Measured beat note power (no alignment done)     
 P_RF:      -20.0  -27.5  [dBm] (53.0MHz and 46.5MHz) 
    e:       45.7   50.1  [%]                         


  11370   Mon Jun 22 14:53:37 2015 ranaSummaryLSCX/Y green beat mode overlap measurement redone
  • Why is there a factor of 20 power difference? Some of it is the IR laser power difference, but I thought that was just a factor of 4 in green.
  • Why is the mode overlap only 50% and not more like 75%?
  • IF we have enough PSL green power, we could do the Y-beat with a 80/20 instead of a 50/50 and get better SNR.
  • The FFD-100 response is more like 0.33 A/W at 532 nm, not 0.25 A/W.

In any case, this signal difference is not big, so we should not need a different amplifier chain for the two signals. The 20 dB of amplification in the BeatBox was a fine way, but not great in circuit layout.

The BBPD has an input referred current noise of 10 pA/rHz and a transimpedance of 2 kOhm, so an output voltage noise of 20 nV/rHz (into 50 Ohms). This would be matched by an Amp with NF = 26 dB, which is way worse than anything we could bur from mini-circuits, so we should definitely NOT use anything like the low-noise, low output power amps used currently (e.g. ZFL-1000LN....never, ever use these for anything). We should use a single ZHL-3A-S (G = 25 dB, NF < 6 dB, Max Out = 30 dBm) for each channel (and nothing else) before driving the cables over to the LSC rack into the aLIGO demod board. I just ordered two of these now.

  11371   Mon Jun 22 20:59:19 2015 ericqUpdateLSCDFD Delay length

I've been thinking a bit about what the ideal cable length / delay time for the upgraded ALS beatbox should be. Here are some thoughts, but no conclusions yet. 

If you're not running your beatbox mixer in compression, there are two competing effects when you change the cable length. At first, more delay gives better sensitivity, but this does not go on to infinity, because cable attenuation eventually kills your signal. It turns out that the ideal length can be derived to be whatever length gives you 20/ln(10) = -8.7dB of attenuation. Frank found this out in PSL ELOG 825, and I found an HP document that derives this (and other useful DFD math) to the wiki, here.

In PSL ELOG 826, Frank calculated this ideal length for a 160MHz carrier in various kinds of cables. 

However, this is not the end of the story. In the case of the DFD, we actually benefit from operating the mixer in compression, as makes our sensitivity less sensitive to flucuations in the beat amplitude. In this situation, the HP doc states "For maximum sensitivity, more delay can be added until the signal level out of the delay line is 8.7dB below the phase detector (mixer) compression point." I'm not sure I really understand the logic behind this statement, though. 

Lastly, Koji mentioned the fact that the splitter in the demod board does not split at exactly 90 degrees, making the trajectory in the IQ plane an ellipse. This means that if the beat signal is moving around the ellipse a lot, or even wrapping around it, we can suffer from some nonlinear signal conversion. Also, if the raw DFD sensitivity is very high, the free swinging mirrors will cause the signal to swing around faster than the phase tracker can keep up. This should be easy to avoid, however; I doubt we will use so much cable that the beat would move by so much. 

I intend to take all of this into account when picking a cable length! Jessica is going to help us make a nice box for them, too. 

  11374   Wed Jun 24 17:30:45 2015 ericqUpdateLSCDFD Delay length

This afternoon, I had a fruitful conversation with Rich Abbott about various kinds of cables.

I've sent an email to Steve to ask him to buy 2 x 50m LMR-195 cables, with male SMA connectors. Rich highly recommends these for their polyethylene insulation, which makes them less microphonic and less susceptible to thermal expansion, low loss, and multi-ply bonded foil shielding.

50m means that the peak to peak mixer output swing corresponds to about a MHz. 1nV of mixer output noise looks like ~6mHz frequency noise, for a Level 3 mixer appropriately driven. As a comparison, the lowest our in-loop green PDH error signals get is 0.1Hz/rtHz. 

The cable attenuation should be around 4.2dB at 50MHz, and 7.3dB at 150MHz, according to the data sheet. Thus, we should not be in the regieme where we are losing sensitivity to the attenuation. 

By my rough geometric estimation, these two should fit in the 2U box I got ahold of today fine. Jessica is designing the front panel. 

We currently have ~30m of RG-408 and RG-142 as our delay lines. 

  11378   Thu Jun 25 18:20:15 2015 ericqUpdateLSCALS reconstruction in progress

I've been working on getting a working ALS up and running. Things are in a bit of a transient state right now; I'm off to softball and dinner, and will resume work tonight. There will be a more detailed ELOG then, but here are some quick notes:

  • c1als has been gutted, phase trackers are working successfully in c1lsc frontend. All channel names remain the same. 
  • BEATX is on the ADC channels where AS165 used to live, BEATY at POP55. 
  • Used a marconi to drive the aLIGO LSC demod board in the LSC rack, was able to lock digital phase tracker on two channels
  • Noise looks pretty cruddy. Lots of 60Hz harmonics on both channels, maybe from marconi drive? Pickup in the delay line?
  • BEATX whitening filter maybe has something fishy going on; excess noise at 2kHz
  • Unclear if BEATY whitening filter is actually doing anything. 
  • Whitening gain switching works fine for both, though. Haven't revisited the switching code, so its controlled in the old RFPD place for now.
  • Whitening triggering is not set up, will require some thought and model work that isn't neccesary yet. 
  • Agilent analyzer, marconi, and old delay lines are currently stashed behind the LSC rack; I will resume work with them tonight. 

The main thing left to do is to install the RF amplifiers at the PSL table and route the green beat signals over to the LSC rack. I fear that some investigation into the whitening filters will be neccesary to make the performance adequate, however. 

ELOG V3.1.3-