[Koji Suresh]

c1psl has got frozen during our ezcaread/write business.
After the target was rebooted and we lost the previous setting as there was no burt snapshot for the slow targets since Dec 13, 2010.

It seems that burtrestore is essential for the bootstrapping of the MC servo, as the auto locker script refers the locking parameters
from the PSL setting values (C1PSL_SETTINGS_SET.adl).

Jenne is working on the recovery of the snap-shotting for the slow targets.

Koji and Suresh found that there have not been any autoburt snapshots taken of slow channels since ~December 13th 2010.  Not good!

We have found an elog from Joe talking about autoburt changes from that day:  elog 4046

Joe pointed all of the autoburt stuff to the new directory system, so it now decides to take a snapshot of every system in the *new* target directory.  This means, since all of the aux things were left in the *old* target directory that none of them were getting snapshots taken.  I have added the old target path back to the autoburt cron file so that every hour it will search through both old and new target directories and take snapshots of everything in both. 

So, the systems which will now once again have autoburt snapshots taken are the following:

c1aux

c1auxex

c1auxey

c1dcuepics

c1iool0

c1iscaux

c1iscaux2

c1iscepics

c1losepics

c1omcepics

c1psl

c1susaux

c1vac1

c1vac2

I moved some old stuff (and especially things which would conflict with the new stuff) to the old target directory/oldfe/ :  c1ass, c1assepics, c1susvme1, c1susvme2, c1sosvme, c1iovme.

The following systems don't have an autoburt.req file, so don't get snapshots:  c0daqawg, c1daqctrl, c1dcu1, c1iscex, c1iscey.  If any of these need autoburts, we should create them.

All the new systems in the new target directory still have their autoburts working.

The first test of this will be in a few minutes, at 18:07:00 Pacific during the regular cron job.  Hopefully nothing crashes....

The issue on the ITMX UL sensor has been fixed. It was because of a loose connection in the sensor signal path.

After the fix, the sensor responses completely changed and the suspension became unable to be damped with the new matrix.

At the moment the ITMX suspension is damped by the default input matrix.

we should do the free swinging test once again.

(details)

 The loose connection was found on the rear side of the 1X5 rack.

There is an adapter card on the rear side, where the driver and sensor signals are combined into a single cable.

I pushed the sensor cable (bottom right in the picture) and the noise disappeared.

Note that I changed the labels on the adapter cards from the old X/Y convention to the new one.

After fixing the loose cable the ITMX suspension became unable to be damped.

So I put the input matrix back to the default and it immediately started damping happily. It means our new matrix is not valid any more.

 Here is the latest noise spectra of the ITMX sensors damped with the default input matrix.

As usual all of them are limited by the ADC noise above 20 Hz. (ADC noise is plotted in purple curve)

During the work I also pushed not only ITMX ones but also the cable for the rest of the optics in the adapter cards.

Then PRM became unable to be damped, so it implies the PRM suspension also used to be the same situation.

The input matrix of PRM has been also back to the default.

Currently the damping of the ITMX suspension is intentionally disabled for the noise investigation.

A few comments on REFL table alignment and REFL165.

Last time we realigned the table was after the PZT work by Koji/Kiwamu; we made sure that the beam was going through optics satisfactorily and that we were reading reasonable numbers. I did use primarily a viewer to align onto PD, after which we used the voltage reading to center better around that spot. As desired, I could not see the beam once it was centered on the PD. I never touched the PBS unfortunately, so I never noticed it was not fixed. Sad.

I am very surprised to hear the reading from REFL165, since I was reading around 400mV from it a few days before. Something strange happened in the mean time. I hope not when I was plugging and unplugging at the power rack for the POY work. But I would not have needed to touch REFL165. Those cables should get some strain relief at the rack, by the way.

I thought about it, and I must admit that after we centered camera on REFL (paired with an alignment), we did not check the beam path later, even after we saw that the REFL beam had moved. We only did a quick by-viewer check that the beams were not off of the PDs.

According to the spectra, all of the suspensions had been damped with the OSEMs. The peaks around 1Hz are reasonably suppressed.

However the spectra from ITMX showed a noise floor at very high level. This is because of strange jumps in the signal of the UL shadow sensor.

I will check some analog circuits for the UL sensor.

(ITMX shadow sensors)

Here is the spectra of the ITMX shadow sensors taken during the damping test (#5534)- -

The UL sensor shows a unacceptable amount of noise.

Additionally I checked the time series of the ITMX shadow sensors and found ONLY the UL sensor frequently showed strange jumps in data.

Here is an example of the time series showing a jump ONLY in the UL sensor.

It is possible that the jumps are coming from some circuits, since the rest of the sensors (including the oplevs) don't detect the same jump.

The servo for aligning the Y arm is working fine with the coarse gain coefficients.

However then I found the ASS_Xarm servo was not healthy.

So the next step is to refine the X arm servo in C1ASS.

(some notes)

  + With the ETMY oplev the Y arm became quieter after we recovered the oplev whitening filter (#5523)

  + The Y arm alignment scripts can be run from the usual C1IFO_CONFIGURE screen.

   It will servo the spot positions on ITMY and ETMY, and align the input beam pointing. It brings the Y arm power to about 1.

 + The X arm servo is doing something funny. It doesn't bring the arm power up to 1.

   I thought the X arm didn't need any modifications because the X arm servo doesn't include PZT1 and PZT2.

   So it maybe a simple bug (for example, some switches are disable and so on)

The arm's CCD cameras were reset as picture shows last week.

The height adjustment only works at ITMX. Short post holders are ordered to make this feature  available on the rest.

The 75 ohms video and power supply cables are stress relieved. Solid cover can be attached now without  miss aligning cameras.

POXDC (i.e. POY DCout)
PRM misaligned: 70cnt
CA resonant PRMI: ~8000cnt (max)

REFLDC
PRMI antiresonant = 5200cnt
PRMI resonant = ~3000cnt
==> Visivility = 0.6

PRM
Transmissivity: T_R=0.0575, t_R=sqrt(T_R)

Rough estimation of the power recycling gain (assuming perfect mode matching)

P_{PRM_mialign} = P_in t_R²
P_{PRM_resonant} = P_in [t_R/(1-r_R r_MI)]²

G = t_R² P_{PRM_resonant} / P_{PRM_mialign} = 8000/70*0.0575 = 6.5

This is way too low compared with the design (G>40)
This corresponds to r_MI²=0.885 (loss of 10%) in the power recycling cavity.
But this yields visibility of 16%, instead of 60% which we saw. This is inconsistent.

If mode matching is not perfect, effective incident power of PRMI decreases
and this discrepancy may be explained

P_in = P_junk + (P_in-P_junk)

P_{PRM_mialign} = P_in t_R²
P_{PRM_resonant} = (P_in-P_junk) [t_R/(1-r_R r_MI)]²

P_{REFL_antires} ~ P_in
P_{REFL_resonant} = P_junk+(P_in-P_junk)[-r_R+(t_R² r_MI)/(1-r_R r_MI)]²

^===>

P_{PRM_resonant} / P_{PRM_mialign} = (1-R_mm) /(1-r_R r_MI)²=8000/70
P_{REFL_resonant} /P_{REFL_antires}= R_mm+(1-R_mm)[-r_R+(t_R² r_MI)/(1-r_R r_MI)]²=0.6

here R_mm= P_junk/P_in is the mode matching ratio

Solving the last two equations, we obtain

R_mm=0.6,
r_MI²= 0.939 (loss of 4-5%)

Can we believe that the mode matching is 60% and the loss is 5%???

 Ah yes, well noticed. I think I have tracked this down to just a bug in printing of fitting results: It was just printing the pole results for the zeros too. The results for the same fit now read:

 Finished with: 

 Pole 1 frequency = 0.0497181 Hz 

 Pole 2 frequency = 2.01809 Hz 

 Zero 1 frequency = 0.0972455 Hz 

 Zero 2 frequency = 6.50126 Hz 

Overall gain = 71970.1

EDIT: sorry, I forgot that when you write a reply, the author is still by default the person you are replying to unless you change it!

[Koji Suresh]

Activity on Friday evening

- The REFL path has been thoroughly aligned
As I did not like the REFL spot misaligned on the REFL CCD, we went to the AP table.
Many optics had the spots not on the middle of the optic, including the PBS whose post was not fixed on the post holder.
We aligned the optical paths, the RF PDs, and the CCD. The alignment of the PD required the use of the IR viewer.
One should not trust the DC output as a reference of the PD alignment as it is not enough sensitive to the clipping.

We aligned the optical paths again after the reasonable alignment of PRM is established with the interferometer.
"Next time when you see REFL spot is not at the center of the camera, think what is moved!"

- The REFL165 PD is disconnected from the power supply
I found that the REFL165 PD is producing 7.5V output at the DC monitor no matter how the beam is blocked.
As I could not recover this issue by swapping the power connector at the LSC rack, I disconnected the cable
at the RFL165 PD side. I need to go through the PD power supply circuit next week.

- PRMI alignment policy of the night

Kiwamu has aligned Y-arm some time ago (Thursday evening?). I decided not to touch ITMY.
So the Michelson is aligned by ITMX, PRC is aligned by PRM.

- Michelson locking

The short Michelson was locked with AS55Q and the MICH filter. We could use the gain of +/-20 for locking,
and could increase it up to ~+/-250. At the max gain, the all three integrators and the two resonant gains
could be activated. The sign depends on which fringe you want at the AS port (bright or dark).

In this condition, the output of the POXDC channel (which is actually the POY DC out -- c.f. This entry) 
is used to determine the internal power. It was ~70cnt.

- PRMI locking

Then the PRMI was locked. There was some confusion of the gains because of the limitters at the servo filters
(which yielded the locking with 1bit outputs no matter how much the gains were....)

After all, I decided to use REFL33I for the PRCL for the test. The PRCL gain was -0.3~-1.0 for the carrier lock, but
was highly dependent on the alignment. i.e. if accidentally hit the high power recycling gain, it oscillated easily
and the lock was lost. Probably this was the first 3f locking at the 40m in the current optical config, if
Kiwamu did not do that secretly. The SB lock was also obtained by flipping the sign of the PRCL servo.

The difficulty we had was the instability when the recycling gain became big. We were monitoring the POXDC
(i.e.DCout of the POY PD). When this exceeds 5000, many glitches appears in the LSC signals and disturbs the lock.
This was not the fringes from neither the arms nor the SRC.

The observed POY DC with the carrier resonant PRMI was 5000~8000vcnt (momentary).

From the night day before yesterday (Sep 22nd, Thursday night. Sorry for my late update), there are more AM modulations than I measured in the previous post. It is changing a lot, indeed! Looking at the REFL11 I and Q signals on the dataviewer, the signal offset were huge, even after "LSCoffset" script. Probably the modulation index of AM was same order of PM at that time. The level of AM mod index is changing a lot depending on the EOM alingment which is not very stable, and also on the environment such as temperature .

To reduce AM modulations, here I note some suggestions you may want to try :

* Change the SAM connectors between RF resonator and EOM to be a soft but short connector, so that the resonator box doesn't hung from the EOM.

* Change the RF resonator base to be stable posts. Now several black plates are piled to make one base.

* Install a temperature shield

* Also probably you want to change the BNC connector on the RF resonator to be SMA.

* Be careful of the EOM yaw alignment. Pitch seemed to be less sensitive in producing AM than yaw alignment.

Good work for the oplev noise simulations. Here are some comments/questions:

 (A) The noise looks suppressed but the open-loop transfer function doesn't look so good, because it doesn't have sufficient phase margins at the UGFs (0.01 and 10 Hz).

      I guess it is better to have a phase margin detector in your code so that the code automatically rejects a bad phase margin case.

      Actually since the number of data points are finite, the rms detector in the simulation can not always find a sharp loop oscillation.

 (B) The resultant poles and zeros seem canceling each other but the filter still has a structure. Is something wrong ?

I think this is a nice start. Its clear that we don't want to use this feedback law, but the technique can be tweaked to do what we want by just tweaking our cost function.

Let's move the scripts into the SUS/ scripts area and then start putting in weights that do what we want:

1) Limit the gain peaking at the upper UGF to 6 dB.

2) Minimum phase margin of 45 deg.

3) Minimum gain margin of 10 dB.

4) Lower UGF = 0.1 Hz / Upper UGF = 10 Hz.

5) Assume a A2L coupling of 0.003 m/rad and constrain the injected noise at the test mass to be less than the seismic + thermal level.

6) Looser noise contraint above 50 Hz for the non TM loops.

[Koji / Kiwamu]

 The c1scx and c1x01 realtime processes became frozen. We restarted them around 1:30 by sshing and running the kill/start scripts.

As a suspension test I am leaving all of the suspensions restored and damped with OSEMS but without oplevs

I noticed that the beam centering on the WFS had changed over night and the MC_TRANS_SUM was about 40k counts.  When well aligned this SUM is around 50-55k counts. So PSL coupling into MC was suboptimal. It was not clear whether the MC shifted or the PSL beam shifted. So I looked at the PSL ANG and POS QPDs. 

The plots above show the gradual drift of the PSL beam in vertical direction during the last 8hrs or so. But the last bit shows the adjustments I had to make to reobtain optimal alignment.  And these adjustments are not undoing the drift!  This would indicate that the MC axis has also shifted during the same time period. 

I have made a function to optimise the overall gain, pole frequencies and zero frequencies for the oplev filter. The script will optimize any user defined number of poles and zeros in order to minimise the RMS motion below a certain cut off frequency (in this case 20Hz). The overall gain is adjusted so that each trial filter shape always has a UGF of 10 Hz.

I have a attached a plot showing the power spectrum and RMS curves for the optimization result for 2 zeros and 2 poles, optimized to give a minimal RMS below 20Hz.

I have also attached a plot showing the loop gain and the filter transfer function.

The noise spectrum shows that the optimised filter gives a better noise performance below 10Hz, but a servo oscillation at the UGF of 10 Hz means it injects a lot of motion around this frequency. Should I consider some more aggressive way to force the script to keep a decent phase margin?

The fminsearch results show that the 'optimized' solution is two resonant peaks:

 -- Optimisation completed after 571 iterations--

 Started with: 

 Pole 1 frequency = 1 Hz 

 Pole 2 frequency = 2 Hz 

 Zero 1 frequency = 0.1 Hz 

 Zero 2 frequency = 5 Hz 

Overall gain = 1 

 Finished with: 

 Pole 1 frequency = 0.0497181 Hz 

 Pole 2 frequency = 2.01809 Hz 

 Zero 1 frequency = 0.0497181 Hz 

 Zero 2 frequency = 2.01809 Hz 

Overall gain = 71970.1 

 Initial RMS below 10 Hz = 5.90134e-06

 Remaining RMS below 10 Hz = 8.42898e-07

I inserted several beam blocks and iris on the Y arm Green table. There was/is lots of stray light because a lot of the mirrors are not under an angle of incident of 45°. Some stray light is left since couldn't find an appropriate beam block/dump due to lack of space on the table.

[ Mirko, Koji, Suresh ]

Looked into the modulation frequency that should pass the input MC. With a locked MC looked at the RF output of the PD in refl of the MC. Looked at the beat between 11MHz and 29.5MHz. Minimizing it by fine-tuning the 11MHz freq. ( which means maximizing the 11MHz transmission).

SB freq. [MHz]     Beat power [dBm]

11.065650          -75

11.065770          -80 (diving into spec. analyzer instrument noise)

11.066060          -80 (surfacing out of spec. analyzer instrument noise)

Set the freq. to the middle of the last two points: 11.065910MHz at 16:26.

ToDo: How big a problem is the AM?

APC Smart -UPS 2200   model: SUA2200RM2U   batteries were replaced by compatible RBC43, 8x  12V5A

C1LSC_RFPD.adl screen was modified to have more information.

Rana advised that we put in a lockin-output matrix which will allow us to excite any combination of MC mirrors so that we can excite pure translations or rotations of the MC beam axis.  This would require us to direct a lockin output into all the three mirrors simultaneously with a +1 or -1 as needed in the matrix..

Rana noticed that the sum on WFS2 was about 10 times smaller than that on WFS1. Though the beam appeared centered on the DC QPD screens it was not really true.  When I went and checked the actual beam position it was landing on the metal enclosure of the WFS2 sensor and scattering back on to the diode. 

I also checked the power levels of light landing on the sensors  It was about 0.25mW in both cases.  This needs further investigation since the power split at the beam spitter is like 0.25mW onto WFS1 and 0.45 towards WFS2. The lost 0,20 mW has to be traced and we have to be sure that it is not scattered around on the table.

Keiko, Anamaria

We decided we needed a DC channel to sense the gain in the PRC, so we set to align POY55. It took a while because the beam was very weak, and it comes in upwards, so we used a couple of mirrors to bring to a reasonable flat level, and put it on the PD. Then we went to read the DC out and we got 1.3V stationary! Nonsense. We also realized there is no LO for this PD, or any other 55MHz PD, aside from REFL55. Oh well, we only wanted the DC for now. POY55 is aligned (decently).

Koji told me to try swapping the power cable, so I unplugged it at the rack and plugged it in another power card. And it worked! I then moved the DC out (back of rack) to follow the front, and it turns out POY55 diode is read on the POXDC channel. I plugged and unplugged it in disbelief, but it is what it is. At least we have a readout on the power level in PRC.

I attach a picture of the power cards for the LSC RFPDs, with the 3 I found to be bad, and showing current config. I had to move REFL11 and POY55 from their assigned spot.

The two on the lower left are bad in the sense that they put an offset on the PD and make the DC readout be 1.3V for no reason (when working, for example, POY55 read 60mV). The one on the lower right I had trouble with some time ago, it made the PD not read any voltage at all (when working it would read at least 100mV). Beyond that I have not investigated what is up, since I could find working plugins.

To look at the WFS servo signals I was using test points in the servo filter banks.  This is not recommended for regular operation since acquiring the testpoint data at 16k loads the fb. Instead, I ran the daqconfig script from the scripts directory and activated the IN1_DQ, IN2_DQ and OUT_DQ channels in all the six servo filter banks (at 2048 Hz sampling rate) and then restarted the fb.   However the c1ioo Sun machine stopped responding after this.  Koji and I went in to see what was going on and the machine was not reponding to a keyboard plugged directly into the machine.  The screen display showed no reponse to our key press.  So we did a hardware reboot with the tiny switch in front of the machine.  It came up okay and all the c1ioo models were back in action.

I then checked with the dataviewer to make sure that I can see the trends on the newly activated DQ channels.  They were all fine.

The whitening filters for the ETMY oplevs are back.

The whitening board had been in the rack but the ADC was connected directly to the oplev interface board without going through the whitening board.

In fact the interface board and the whitening board had been already connected. So the ADC was making a shortcut.

I disconnected the ADC from the interface board and plugged it to the output of the whitening board.

Here is an example of the new open-loop transfer function with the whitening filters.

 Note :

before the measurement I increased the control gain by an arbitrary number to obtain gain of more than 1 around 1 Hz.

As per the request of Anamaria, I have added the slider of the demodulation phase for each RF PD screens.

It turned out the oplev controls on ETMY were just bad.

It looks like the whitening filters have been OFF and because of that the resultant open-loop was not crossing the unity gain.

I will check the whitening filters.

(open-loop transfer function)

The blue dots are the measured data points and the green curve is the fit.

Apparently the open-loop doesn't go above the unity gain, so the oplev had been doing nothing.

If we try to increase the overall gain it will oscillate because of the phase delay of more than 180 deg around 3 Hz.

The red curve is the expected one with the whitening filters (WFs) properly engaged.

Note that WF are supposed to have two zeros at 1 Hz and two poles at 10 Hz.

AM modulation will add offset on SRCL signal as well as PRCL signal. About 2% of the signal amplitude with the current AM level. MICH will not be affected very much.

From #5504, as for the AM modulation I checked the MICH and SRCL signals in addition to the last post for PRCL, to see the AM modulation effect on those signals. On the last post, PRCL (REFL11I) was found to have 0.002 while the maximum signal amplitude is 0.15 we use . Here, I did the same simulation for MICH and SRCL.

As a result, MICH signals are not affected very much. The AM modulation slightly changes signal slopes, but doesn't add offsets apparently. SRCL is affected more, for REFL signals. All the REFL channels get about 0.0015 offsets while the signal ampliture varies up to 0.002. AS55I (currently used for SRCL) has 1e-7 offset for 6e-6 amplitude signal (in the last figure) - which is the same offset ratio comparing with the amplitude in the PRCL case -

(1) MICH signals at AS port with AM m=0

(2) MICH signals at AS port with AM m=0.003

(3) SRCL signals at AS/REFL port with AM m=0

(3) SRCL signals at AS/REFL port with AM m=0.003

Toyed around with the modematching some more today.

The outermost glass elements of the OSA are about 28cm apart.

With the OSA beeing a confocal cavity that should mean that the ROC of every mirror is 28cm on the cavity side. If the input surface is flat we need a 28cm focusing lens for good MM. If it's not we shouldn't need any MM.

Tried a f=250mm lens on different positions first. Got at best about 570mV (PD gain=10) in transmission of the OSA.

Then tried a f=1000mm lens. Best transmission 1.22V (7.2% transmission). SB were (PD gain =100) 11MHz: 87.2mV (m=0.17) , 55MHz: 59.2mV (m=0.14)

Lost the position while toying around. Left it then at 1.0V transmisison at 15:15 local time. Let's see how much it drifts. SBs for this were 11MHz: 52.8mV (m=0.17), 55MHz: 73.8mV (m=0.14)

[Ed by KA: If the carrier transmission was really 1.22V and 1.0V the modulation depths calculated are inconsistent with the measurement.]

Spacing between carrier 11MHz and 55MHz SBs seems consistent, and leads to a FSR measurement of 1.5GHz, also fine.

Update: After 90mins no change in carrier transmitted power. Next morning: Carrier transmission down by 10%.

The output matrix in the C1ASS servo were coarsely readjusted and the servos seemed working.

However it is difficult to say the servo is very good or so-so,

because the ETMY suspension moves a lot and hence the cavity eigen axis moves a lot too.

(to do)

(Background)

Fitting results: 

 Pitch

Both loops basically have no phase margins. i.e. unstable. How can you lock PRMI with these servos?

Found some LSC scripts didn't run on pianosa. Particularly all the scripts on the C1:IFO_CONFIGURE screen don't run.

They need to be fixed.

 I thought it might be informative before trying to optimise the filter design to see how the current one performs with different gain settings. I've plotted the power spectra for ITMY yaw with filter gains of 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4.

All of the higher gains seem to perform better than the 0 gain, so can I deduce from this that so far the oplev control loop isn't adding excess noise at these frequencies?

The scripts I wrote can be found in /users/anamaria/scripts/sensemat/

]There are two of them:

- one that sets all the switches, gains, frequencies, etc, then cycles through the various RFPDs I and Q into the LOCKIN signal, so as to see the sensing matrix.

- the second one is a matlab script that takes the crappy file tdsavg outputs and makes it into a cute mag/phase matrix.

They're quite primitive at this point, I've forgotten a lot of tcsh... may improve later. But could be useful later to someone else at least.

I don't think it's particularly the fault of the script that we can't measure the sensing matrix. We can slam on the excitation by hand, and it holds for a little while. I set a wait time for lock to adjust, and most times it just oscillates a bit for a few seconds. Also, the script turns on the excitation and it's done, the rest is just measurement, then turns it off at the end. So during the script, there's not much to deal with, except keeping the lowpass filters quiet when switching the signal to demod; but that doesn't go anywhere, so it definitely doesn't disturb the ifo. Turns out pressing the RSET clear history button needs a 2 to make it happen.

I think I might prefer to set the excitation to run, and then do the old retrieve-data-later-nds-matlab thing. I do not trust these measurements without coherence and a bit of variance study, given instabilities.

Point is... Even on carrier, the PRC lock is not stable by any means. Can barely turn on low freq boosts, every other lock. Until we fix the lock stability issue, there's not much to measure I guess.

Unfortunately, I don't know how to make that happen. Before we leave on Friday we could do a few sanity checks such as measuring the noise of the RFPDs vs ADC+whitening, which I may have said I would do; and perhaps setting up a couple OSAs, one on REFL, one on AS, to make sure we know what the sidebands are doing. Both of which Rana suggested at some point.

(There used to be a quote here from Keiko here but I got mad when it reformated my entire log to be one cluster- hence the look)

Keiko, Anamaria

Tonight we want to measure the LSC matrix for PRMI and compare the simulation posted last night (#5495).

First. we locked MICH and PRCL, and measured the OLT to see how good the locking is. The following rough swept sine plots are the OLTs for MICH and PRCL. The gain setting was -10 and 0.5 for MICH and PRCL, respectively. Integrators were off. Looking at the measured plots, MICH has about 300 Hz UGF, when the gain is -20, and PRCL has about 300 HZ UGF, too, when the gain is 0.8.

As these lokings seemed good, so we tried the LSC matrix code written by Anamaria. However it is not working well at this point. When the script add excitations to the exc channels, they kick the optics too much and the lockings are too much disturbed...

Also, we have been trying to lock PRC with the SB resonant, it doesn't work. Looking at the simulated REFL11I (PRCL) signal (you can see it in #5495 too), the CR and SB resonances have the opposite signs... But minus gain never works for PRCL. It only excites the mirror rather than locking.

[Kiwamu / Katrin]

On Wednesday, the green light was locked to the Y arm cavity.

Modulation frequency was changed from 279kHz to 178875Hz. The amplitude was changed from 10Vpp to 0.01Vpp to achieve a modulation index of 0.38. The modulation frequency was changed to minimize AM. With the new modulation frequency the laser light could still locked to the cavity.

The signal of the LO and the photodiode are multiplied by a ZAD-8 mini circuit mixer (Level 7). This mixer requires LO input is +7dBm = 1.4Vpp. Thus we put a 36dB attenuator between the LO and the PZT at the laser. PDH error signal shows lots of peaks that are most likely higher order sidebands. Thus, the next step is to work on the low-pass filter. However the SNR of the error signal has improved with the new modulation frequency. With the old mod. frequency the PDH signal was 4mVpp and the noise floor was 2mVpp.

Phase between the photodiode signal and LO is shifted by about 10 degrees. Step two is to work on a phase shifter.

Here are the results of the complex fitting. The residuals are bigger this time, but still probably small enough to be ok(?), with the possible exception of ITMY PITCH (due again I think to the data points straddling the resonance).

ITMY YAW actuator response complex fit

-- Fit completed after 282 iterations--

 I thought I had, but apparently not, and I'd made another error or two in the complex version of my fitting routine. I've fixed them now, thanks! I'll put up the new fitting results tomorrow morning.

Did you take the 180 deg shift into your account ?

Since your measurement was done when the loop was closed, there must be an additional 180 deg phase shift (in other words, minus sign).

 I used an fminsearch function to fit the SRM and ITMY actuator response magnitudes. The testfunction was just that for a single second order pole, but it gave what I consider to be good fits for the following reasons:

*for 3 of the 4 fits the residuals were less than 0.5% of the summed input data points. The worst one (ITMY pitch) was about 2.7%, which I think is due to the resonance happening to be right in the middle of two data points.

*the tolerance of 1 part in 10^9 was reached quickly from not very finely tuned starting points.

The test function was: G=abs(Gp./(1+1i.*f./fp./Qp-(f./fp).^2)), where G(f) is the actuator response magnitude, Gp is the pole gain, fp is the pole frequency, and Qp is the pole Q factor.

In the end I just fitted the response magnitude. I was initially fitting the complex response function, but ran into problems which I think were cased by overall phase offsets between the data and test function. Can I canvass for opinion if fitting the magnitude is OK, or should I try again fitting the phase too?

Anyway, here are the results of the fits, and I've attached plots of each too (each one in linear and log y axis because each on its own might be misleading for fits):

EDIT - I added more points to the otherwise sparse looking fitted curves

ITMY PITCH actuator response fit

-- Fit completed after 190 iterations--

 Started with: Gain = 3e-06,

 Q factor = 5,

 Pole frequency = 1,

 Fit results:  Gain = 1.32047e-06,

 Q factor = 4.34542,

 Pole frequency = 0.676676

 Residual (normalised against the sum of input datapoints) = 0.0268321

ITMY YAW actuator response fit

-- Fit completed after 156 iterations--

 Started with: Gain = 3e-06,

 Q factor = 5,

 Pole frequency = 1,

 Fit results:  Gain = 1.14456e-06,

 Q factor = 8.49875,

 Pole frequency = 0.730028

 Residual (normalised against the sum of input datapoints) = 0.00468077

SRM PITCH actuator response fit

 -- Fit completed after 192 iterations--

 Started with: Gain = 3e-06,

 Q factor = 5,

 Pole frequency = 1,

 Fit results:  Gain = 7.94675e-06,

 Q factor = 7.16458,

 Pole frequency = 0.57313

 Residual (normalised against the sum of input datapoints) = 0.00301265

SRM YAW actuator response fit

 -- Fit completed after 156 iterations--

 Started with: Gain = 3e-06,

 Q factor = 5,

 Pole frequency = 1,

 Fit results:  Gain = 3.34179e-06,

 Q factor = 9.57601,

 Pole frequency = 0.855322

 Residual (normalised against the sum of input datapoints) = 0.000840468

How about changing the x-axis of all these plots into meters or picometers and tell us how wide the PRC resonance is? (something similar to the arm cavity linewidth expression)

Also, there's the question of the relative AM/PM phase. I think you have to try out both I & Q in the sim. I think we expect Q to be the most effected by AM.

I found the PSL beam into the MC off in pitch by large amount.  I readusted the PSL beam for optimal coupling.

The beam had shifted on the WFS as well.  So I recentered the DC signal on the WFS with the MC unlocked.  However both the DC and RF signals on the WFS shift when we lock the MC.  This ought to indicate sub-optimal coupling of PSL into MC.  But instead, if we were to reduce these offsets on the WFS by adjusting the MC axis it leads to higher reflected power from the MC.

The current plan is to retain these RF offsets and lock the WFS with a DC offset in the servo filters.

The signal offset due to the AM modulation is estimated by a simulation for PRCL for now. Please see the result below.

Too see how bad or good the AM modulation with 1/50 modulation depths of PM, I ran a simulation. For example I looked at PRCL sweep signal for each channel. I tried the three AM modulation depths, (1) m_AM=0 & m_PM = 0.17 (2) m_AM = 0.003 & m_PM = 0.17 which is the current modulation situation (3) m_AM = 0.17 & m_PM = 0.17 in which AM is the same modulation depth as PM.  For the current status of (2), there are offsets on signals up to 0.002 while the maximum signal amplitude is 0.15. I can't tell how bad it is.... Any suggestions?

(1) m_AM=0 & m_PM = 0.17. There is no offset in the signals.

(2) m_AM = 0.003 & m_PM = 0.17. There are offsets on signals up to 0.002 while the maximum signal amplitude is 0.15.

(3) m_AM = 0.17 & m_PM = 0.17. There are offsets on signals up to 0.1 while the maximum signal amplitude is 0.2.

I will look at MICH and SRCL in the same way. 

I'd like to see some details about how to determine that the ratio of 1:50 is small enough for AM:PM.

* What have people achieved in past according to the elogs©  of the measurements?

* What do we expect the effect of 1:50 to be? How much offset does this make in the MICH/PRC/SRC loops? How much offset is too much?

Recall that we are using frontal modulation with a rather small Schnupp Asymmetry...

AM modulation depths are found to be 50 times smaller than PM modulation depths.

m(AM,f1) ~ m(AM, f2) = 0.003 while m(PM, f1)=0.17 and m(PM, f2)=0.19.

Measured values;

* DC power = 5.2V which is assumed to be 0.74mW according to the PDA255 manual.

*AM_f1 and AM_f2 power = -55.9 dBm = 2.5 * 10^(-9) W.

AM f2 power is assumed to be the similar value of f1. I can't measure f2 (55MHz) level properly because the PD (PDA255) is 50MHz bandwidth. From the (P_SB/P_CR) = (m/2) ^2 relation where P_SB and P_CR are the sideband and carrier power, respectively, I estimated the rough the AM modulation depths. Although DC power include the AM SB powers, I assumed that SB powers are enough small and the DC power can be considered as the carrier power, P_CR. The resulting modulation depth is about 0.003.

On the other hand, from the OSA, today's PM mod depths are 0.17 and 0.19 for f1 and f2, respectively. Please note that these numbers contains (small) AM sidebands components too. Comparing with the PM and AM sideband depths, AM sidebands seems to be enough small.

 I divided the open loop transfer functions by the filter response and the sensor responses (previously measured calibration factors) to leave just the actuator responses. I've attached the actuator responses plotted in radians/count and phase over frequency.

Next step: fit the actuator response with poles and zeros.

EDIT: I divided by the wrong filter function earlier - the plots there now are divided by the correct filter function

The SUS SUMMARY screen is now fully activated. You should keep it open at all times as a diagnostic of the suspensions.

No matter how cool you think you are, you are probably doing something bad when trying to lock, measure any loop gains, set matrices, etc. Use the screen.

This is the link to the automatic snapshot of the SUS SUMMARY screen. You can use it to check the Suspensions status with your jPhone.

Auto SUS SUMMARY Snapshot

When the values go yellow its near the bad level. When its red, it means the optic is misaligned or not damped or has the wrong gain, etc.

So don't ignore it Steve! If you think the thresholds are set too low then change them to the appropriate level with the scripts is SUS/