40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 285 of 344  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Authorup Type Category Subject
  2649   Mon Mar 1 22:38:12 2010 ranaUpdateComputersRC sensitivity to RIN

The overnight triangle wave I ran on the AOM drive turns out to have produced no signal in the FAST feedback to the PZT.

The input power to the cavity was ~10 mW (I'm totally guessing). The peak-peak amplitude of the triangle wave was 50% of the total power.

The spectral density of the fast signal at the fundamental frequency (~7.9 mHz) is ~0.08 V/rHz. The FAST calibration is ~5 MHz/V. So, since we

see no signal, we can place an upper limit on the amount of frequency shift = (5 MHz/V) * (0.08 V/rHz) * sqrt(0.0001 Hz) = 4 kHz.

Roughly this means that the RIN -> Hz coefficient must be less than 4 kHz / 5 mW or ~ 1 Hz/uW.

For comparison, the paper on reference cavities by the Hansch group lists a coefficient of ~50 Hz/uW. However, they have a finesse of 400000

while we only have a finesse of 8000-10000. So our null result means that our RC mirrors' absorption is perhaps less than theirs. Another possibility

is that their coating design has a higher thermo-optic coefficient. This is possible, since they probably have much lower transmission mirrors. It would be

interesting to know how the DC thermo-optic coefficient scales with transmission for the standard HR coating designs.

  2657   Thu Mar 4 22:07:21 2010 ranaUpdate40m Upgrading11MHz PD not yet designed

Use 10 Ohms for the resistance - I have never seen a diode with 25 Ohms.

p.s. PDFs can be joined together using the joinPDF command or a few command line options of 'gs'.

  2659   Fri Mar 5 18:04:56 2010 ranaUpdateSUSused OSEMs are magnetic

The OSEM LEDs and PDs from Honeywell have always had some ferromagnetic material in them. These are the same OSEMs we had since 2000.

You must be thinking of the really old 20th century plastic OSEMs.

  2660   Sun Mar 7 07:01:21 2010 ranaUpdateWienerFilteringGuralp Huddle Test software

We need to do a new huddle test of the Guralps for the Wiener filtering paper. The last test had miserable results.

I tried to use recent data to do this, but it looks like we forgot to turn the Guralp box back on after the power outage or that they're far off center.

So instead I got data from after the previous power outage recovery.

I tried to use our usual Wiener filter method to subtract Guralp1-Z from Guralp2-Z, but that didn't work so well. It was very sensitive to the pre-weighting.

Instead I used the new .m file that Dmass wrote for subtracting the phase noise from his doubling noise MZ. That worked very well. It does all of the subtraction in the frequency domain and so doesn't have to worry about making a stable or causal filter. As you can see, it beats our weighted Wiener filter at all frequencies.


The attached plot shows the Guralp spectra (red & green), the residual using time-domain Wiener filtering (black) and the Dmass f-domain code (yellow).

As soon as Jenne brings in her beer cooler, we're ready to redo the Huddle Test.


  2661   Sun Mar 7 23:05:39 2010 ranaUpdatePEMSeismic witnesses near MC1 tank moved


Since we're going to open the MC1 tank tomorrow, I've moved the MC1 accelerometers and the Guralp over to underneath MC2 for the vent.  I'll reconnect them later.

 I've put both Guralps next to the Ranger and connected them to the breakout box. The data is now good.

I found that the Ranger was not centered and so it was stuck (someone kicked it in the last 2 weeks apparently). I recentered the mass according to the procedure in the manual. Its now moving freely.

In order to do a better huddle test, I increased the gain of the Ranger's SR560 preamp to 100 from 10 and put it on the low noise setting. I also enabled a 2x lowpass at 3 kHz for no good reason.

I couldn't find what the actual value of the gain of the Guralp breakout box is, but I assume its 10. With this assumption the calibrations are this:

Guralp: 800 V/(m/s)  *  10  (V/V)   *  16384  cts/V   =>    7.63e-9  (m/s)/count           (0.03 - 40 Hz)

Ranger:  345 V/(m/s)  * 100 (V/V)  *  16384 cts/V   =>     1.77e-9  (m/s)/count          (above 1Hz)

To account for the fact that I am not damping the Ranger with an external damping resistor, I have changed the calibration poles and zeros: in DTT we now use 2 poles @ 0 Hz and a complex pair at 1 Hz:

G = 1.77e-9

Poles = 0, 0

Zeros = 0.15 0.9887

I think that the Guralp gain is too high by a factor of 2. To really do this right, we should attach a known voltage to the input pins of the Guralp breakout and then read off the amount of counts.

  2662   Mon Mar 8 18:15:27 2010 ranaUpdatePEMStyrofoam Cooler on the Seismos

I put Jenne's cooler over the seismometers. Kiwamu put the copper foil wrapped lead brick on top of the cooler to hold it down. I also put another (unwrapped) lead brick on top of the Guralp cables outside of the cooler. Frank gave me a knife with which I cut a little escape hole in the bottom of the cooler lip for the Guralp cables to sneak out of.

  2666   Wed Mar 10 15:02:58 2010 ranaUpdatePEMStyrofoam Cooler on the Seismos

This is the spectra and coherence from a quiet time last night. I've lowered the Guralp cal by a factor of 2 to account for the fact that the gain in the breakout box is actually 20 and not 10 as I previously said.

The AD620 stage in the front part has a gain of 10 and then there's a single-to-differential stage in the output which gives us a gain of 2. The DTT cal in counts is now 3.8e-9 (m/s)/count.

The second plot shows the Guralp and Ranger signals at the ADC input (converted from counts to Volts for usefulness). The thick grey line is the expected noise of the Guralp breakout box

(mainly the AD620) propagated to the ADC (via multiplication by 2). It looks like the preamp board should not be a problem as long as we can reach the AD620 limit.

So the excess noise in the Guralp is not the fault of the preamp, but more likely the mounting and insulation of the seismometers.

  2671   Sat Mar 13 21:30:22 2010 ranaUpdatePEMStyrofoam Cooler on the Seismos



  2672   Sat Mar 13 22:16:03 2010 ranaUpdateWienerFilteringGuralp Huddle Test software

I used some recent better data to try for better Z subtraction.

Dmass helped me understand that sqrt(1-Coherence) is a good estimate of the theoretical best noise subtraction residual. This should be added to DTT. For reference the Jan statistic is the inverse of this.

This should get better once Steve centers the Guralps. 

  2686   Fri Mar 19 21:15:33 2010 ranaUpdatePEMGuralp2 centered again

This trend of the last 200 days shows that GUR2 has been bad forever...until now anyways.

  2687   Fri Mar 19 23:03:41 2010 ranaUpdatePEMGuralp2 centered again

I went and double-checked and aligned the styrofoam cooler at ~5:00 UTC. It was fine, but we really need a better huddling box. Where's that granite anyway?

Here's the new Huddle Test output. This time I show the X-axis since there's some coherence now below 0.1 Hz.

You'll also notice that the Wiener filter is now beating the FD subtraction. This happened when I increased the # of taps to 8000. Looks like the noise keeps getting lower as I increase the number of taps, but this is really a kind of cheat if you think about it carefully.

  2689   Sun Mar 21 19:25:29 2010 ranaUpdatePEMGuralp2 centered again

From this morning, now in calibrated units, and with the Güralp self noise spec from the Güralp manual.

  2692   Mon Mar 22 02:03:57 2010 ranaSummaryElectronicsUPDH Box #17: Ready

It took too long to get this box ready for action. I implemented all of the changes that I made on the previous one (#1437). In addition, since this one is to be used for phase locking, I also made it have a ~flat transfer function. With the Boost ON, the TF magnitude will go up like 1/f below ~1 kHz.

The main trouble that I had was with the -12V regulator. The output noise level was ~500 nV/rHz, but there was a large oscillation at its output at ~65 kHz. This was showing up in the output noise spectrum of U1 (the first op-amp after the mixer). Since the PSRR of the OP27 is only ~40 dB at such a high frequency, it is not strange to see the power supply noise showing up (the input referred noise of the OP27 is 3.5 nV/rHz, so any PS noise above ~350 nV/rHz becomes relavent).

I was able to tame this by putting a 10 uF tantalum cap on the output of the regulator. However, when I replaced the regulator with a LM7912 from the blue box, it showed an output noise that went up like 1/f below 50 kHz !! I replaced it a couple more times with no benefit. It seems that something on the board must now be damaged. I checked another of the UPDH boxes, and it has the same high frequency oscillation but not so much excess voltage noise. I found that removing the protection diode on the output of the regulator decreased the noise by a factor of ~2. I also tried replacing all of the 1 uF caps that are around the regulator. No luck.

Both of the +12 V regulators seem fine: normal noise levels of ~200 nV/rHz and no oscillations.

Its clear that the regulator is not functioning well and my only guess is that its a layout issue on the board or else there's a busted component somewhere that I can't find. In any case, it seems to be functioning now and can be used for the phase locking and PZT response measurements.

  2719   Sun Mar 28 20:00:17 2010 ranaUpdateCamerasGigE camera no work from screen

Not that this is an urgent concern, just a data point which shows that it doesn't just not work at the sites.

  2720   Sun Mar 28 20:05:33 2010 ranaSummaryPSLFSS Work from Sunday: AOM/VCO level set wrong

Just before working on the FSS today, I noticed that the VCO RF output level was set incorrectly.

This should ALWAYS be set so as to give the maximum power in the first order diffracted sideband. One should set this by maximizing the out of lock FSS RFPD DC level to max.

The value was at 2.8 on the VCOMODLEVEL slider. In the attached plot (taken with the FSS input disabled) you can see that this puts us in the regime where the output power to the FSS is first order sensitive to the amplitude noise on the electrical signal to the AOM. This is an untenable situation.

For adjusting the power level to the FSS, we must always use the lamba/2 plate between the AOM and the RC steering mirrors. This dumps power out to the side via a PBS just before the periscope.

  2721   Sun Mar 28 20:51:31 2010 ranaSummaryPSLFSS Work from Sunday: Cavity Suspension is Ridiculously Undamped!

What is the Transfer Function of the suspension of the reference cavity? What were the design requirements? What is the Q and how well does the eddy current damping work? What did Wolfowitz know about the WMD and when? Who cooked the RTV in there and why didn't we use Viton??

To get to the bottom of these questions, today I shook the cavity and measured the response. To read out the pitch and yaw modes separately, I aligned the input beam to be misaligned to the cavity. If the beam is mis-aligned in yaw, for example, the transmitted light power becomes first order sensitive to the yaw motion of the cavity.

In the attached image (10 minute second-trend), you can see the second trends for the transmitted and relfected power. The first ringdown comes from the pitch or vertical mode. The second (shorter) one comes from the yaw misalignment and the yaw shake.

To achieve the up/down shake, I leaned onto the table and pumped it at its eigenfrequency. For the yaw shake, I put two fingers on the RC can's sweater and pushed with several pounds of force at the yaw eigenfrequency (2.6 Hz). For the vertical, I jumped up and down at half the vertical eigenfrequency (4 Hz).

I also made sure that the .SCAN field on these EPICS records were set to 9 so that there is no serious effect from a beating between the eigenfrequency and the EPICS sample rate.


f_vert   = 4 Hz

tau_vert = 90 seconds

Q_vert   = 1000            (yes, that number over there has 3 zeros)


f_hor    = 2.6 Hz

tau_hor  = 30 seconds

Q_hor    = 250


This is an absurd and probably makes us very sensitive to seismic noise - let's make sure to open up the can and put some real rubber in there to damp it. My guess is that these high Q modes

are just the modes of the last-stage steel spring / pendulum.

  2722   Sun Mar 28 23:17:46 2010 ranaSummaryPSLFSS Work from Sunday: noise spec

This is the error point spectrum - it is filled with huge multiples of ~75 kHz as Yoichi noticed a couple years ago.

I tried to use the netgpib.py package to read out the Agilent 4395, but the SVN had been corrupted by someone saving over the netgpib.py package. To get it to work on rosalba I reverted to the previous version, but whoever is busy hacking on netgpib.py needs to checkin the original package and work on some test code instead.

I also noticed that the default output format for the AG4395.py file is in units of Watts. This is kind of dumb - we need someone to develop this package a little as Yoichi did for the SRS785.

  2723   Sun Mar 28 23:47:47 2010 ranaSummaryPSLFSS Work from Sunday: Open Loop Gain

I measured the open loop gain of the FSS (as usual, I have multiplied the whole OLG by 10dB to account for the forward loop gain in the box). I used a source level of -20 dBm and made sure this was not saturating by changing the level.

Its clear that the BW is limited by the resonance at ~1.7 MHz. Does anyone know what that is?

  2724   Mon Mar 29 01:11:33 2010 ranaSummaryPSLFSS Work from Sunday: RF Out Spectrum

I measured the RF spectrum coming out the FSS RFPD to look for saturations - its close to the hairy edge. This is with the 8x power increase from my AOM drive increase. I will increase the FSS's modulation frequency which will lower the Q and gain of the PD to compensate somewhat. The lower Q will also gain us phase margin in the FSS loooop.


I put in a bi-directional 20 dB coupler (its only rated down to 30 MHz, but its only off by ~0.3 dB at 21 MHz) between the RFPD and the FSS box. I looked at the time series on the 300 MHz scope and measured the power spectrum.

The peak signal on the scope was 40 mV; that translates to 400 mV at the RFPD output. Depending on whether the series resistor in the box is 20 or 50 Ohms, it means the MAX4107 is close to saturating.

As you can see from the spectrum, its mostly likely to hit its slew rate limit (500 V/us) first. Actually its not going to hit the limit: but even getting within a factor of 10 is bad news in terms of distortion.

Besides the multiples of the modulation frequency, you can see that most of the RMS comes from the strange large peaks at 137.9 and 181.1 MHz. Anyone know what these are from?


On the middle plot above, I have enabled the 20 MHz BW limit so you can see how much the amplitude goes down when only the 21.5 MHz SB is included. You can also see from the leftmost plot that once in awhile there is some 400mV/10ns slewing. Its within a factor of 10 of the slew rate limit.

  2733   Tue Mar 30 06:37:32 2010 ranaConfigurationPSLReference Cavity PD Noise Spectrum

Some more words about the RFAM: I noticed that there was an excess RFAM by unlocking the RC and just looking at the RF out with the 50 Ohm input of the scope. It was ~100 mVp-p! In the end our method to minimize the AM was not so sensible - we aligned the waveplate before the EOM so as to minimize the p-pol light transmitted by the PBS cube just ahead of the AOM. At first, this did not minimize the RFAM. But after I got angry at the bad plastic mounting of the EOM and re-aligned it, the AM seemed to be small with the polarization aligned to the cube. It was too small to measure on the scope and on the spectrum analyzer, the peak was hopping around by ~10-20 dB on a few second timescale. Further reduction would require some kind of active temperature stabilization of the EOM housing (maybe a good SURF project!).

For the EOM mount we (meaning Steve) should replace the lame 2-post system that's in there with one of the mounts of the type that is used in the Mach-Zucker EOMs. I think we have spare in the cabinet next to one of the arms.

After the RFAM monkeying, I aligned the beam to the RC using the standard, 2-mirror, beam-walking approach. You can see from the attached plot that the transmission went up by ~20% ! And the reflection went down by ~30%. I doubt that I have developed any new alignment technique beyond what Yoichi and I already did last time. Most likely there was some beam shape corruption in the EOM, or the RFAM was causing us to lock far off the fringe. Now the reflected beam from the reference cavity is a nice donut shape and we could even make it better by doing some mode matching! This finally solves the eternal mystery of the bad REFL beam (or at least sweeps it under the rug).

At the end, I also fixed the alignment of the RFPD. It should be set so the incident angle of the beam is ~20-40 deg, but it was instead set to be near normal incidence ?! Its also on flimsy plastic legs. Steve, can you please replace this with the new brass ones?

  2741   Wed Mar 31 12:30:31 2010 ranaUpdateGreen Lockingfrequency counter for green PLL

Its a good measurement - you should adjust the input range of the 620 using the front panel 'scale' buttons to see how the noise compares to Matt's circuit when the range is reduced to 1 MHz. In any case, we would use it in the 350 MHz range mode. What about the noise of the frequency discriminator from MITEQ?

  2750   Thu Apr 1 12:07:22 2010 ranaUpdateGeneralPZT response for the innolight

The Lightwave NPRO should be around 5 MHz/V. 

The Innolight PZT coefficient is ~1.1 MHz/V.

(both are from some Rick Savage LHO elog entries)

  2751   Thu Apr 1 15:21:12 2010 ranaUpdateGreen Lockingfrequency counter for green PLL


  2759   Sat Apr 3 11:35:47 2010 ranaConfigurationPSLReference Cavity PD Noise Spectrum

The units on this plot are completely bogus - we know that the thermal noise from the resonant part of the circuit is just V = sqrt(4*k*T*Z) ~ 3nV/rHz. Then the gain of the MAX4107 stage is 10. The output resistor is 50 Ohms, which forms a divide by 2 with the input impedance of the spectrum analyzer and so the bump in the dark noise should only be 15 nV/rHz and not microVolts.


[Rana, Alberto]

This evening we measured the noise spectrum of the reference cavity PD used in the FSS loop. From that we estimated the transimpedance and found that the PD is shot-noise limited. We also found a big AM oscillation in correspondence of the FSS modulation sideband which we later attenuated at least in part.

This plot shows the spectrum noise from the RF output of the photodetector.

  2764   Mon Apr 5 01:02:07 2010 ranaUpdatePEMGuralp interface box turned off

I was checking into the Guralp situation today. I put the rubber balls underneath the granite block (the Q is too high), but found unfortunately that Jenne's styrofoam box is too short to cover the Guralps on top of the granite. If the box was skinny enough to fit on the block or taller by ~6 inches, it would be perfect. We need some new Seismo boxes.


Here's the story of the Gur2 noise so far. We need to pull out and repair the breakout box.

1) At some point we noticed that the Guralp2 X channel was behaving badly.

2) Steve tried recentering with just a +12V supply - this didn't work. Jenne then centered it using the +/- 12V supply. This was OK.

3) Around noon on March 24, the channel 'goes bad' again.

4) On the afternoon of the 25th, most of the channels go to zero, but the GUR2X channel stays bad. There's NO ENTRY in the elog about this. This is UNACCEPTABLE. Apparently, the seismometers were disconnected without shutting off the power to the box. You MUST elog everything - otherwise, go home and sit on your hands.

5) On the evening of the 31st, Steve turns off the Guralp breakout box. From the trend, you can see that the signals all go to zero at that time.

6) From then until today, there is no noise in the GUR2X channel. From these tests we can guess that the problem is in the GUR2X channel of the breakout box, but not in the AA Chassis or the ADC, since those showed no excess noise with the box turned OFF. Its hard to be sure without elog entries, but I assume that 3/25-3/31 was a 'seismometer disconnected', but 'box on' state.

  2805   Mon Apr 19 05:54:50 2010 ranaConfigurationPSLRC Temperature Servo Turned OFF temporarily

In order to measure the transfer function of the RC cavity's foam, I've turned off the servo so that the room temperature noise can excite it.

The attached plot shows a step response test from 2 weeks ago. Servo is nominally still working fine.

  2806   Mon Apr 19 07:38:07 2010 ranaHowToElectronicsRepair and Calibration of SR560: s/n 59650

Frank noticed that this particular SR560 had an offset on the output which was unzeroable by the usual method of tuning the trim pot accessible through the front panel.

I tried to zero the offset using the trimpots inside, but it became clear that the offset was due to a damaged FET, so Steve ordered ~20 of the (now obsolete*) NPD5564.

I replaced this part and adjusted the offsets and balanced the CMRR of the differential inputs mostly according to the manual (p. 17). There are a few notes that should be added to the procedure:

  1. It can sometimes be that the gain proscribed by the manual is too high and saturates the output for large offsets. If that's the case, simply lower the gain, trim the offset, then return the gain to the specified value and trim again.
  2. The limit in trimming the offset is the stick slip resolution in the trim pot. This can potentially leave the whole preamp in an acoustically sensitive state. I tapped the pots with a screwdriver after tuning to make sure it was in more of a 'sticky' rather than 'slippy' region of the knob. A better design would allow for more filtering of the pot.
  3. In the CMRR tuning procedure it says to 'null sine wave output' but it should really say 'null the sine wave component at the drive frequency'. The best CMRR tuning uses a 1 kHz drive and leaves a residual 2 kHz signal due to the distortion imbalance (of the FETs I think).
  4. The CMRR tuning upsets the DC offset trim and vice versa. The best tuning is gotten by iterating slightly (go back and forth once or twice between the offset and CMRR tuning procedures).

It looks like its working fine now. Steve's ordering some IF3602 (low-noise, balanced FET pair from Interfet) to see if we can drop the SR560's input noise to the sub-nV level.

Noise measured with the input terminated with a BNC short (not 50 Ohms) G=100, DC coupled, low-noise mode:

Input referred noise (nV/rHz)
f e_n


1 44
10 8
100 5
1000 5
10000 4
  2829   Wed Apr 21 22:11:48 2010 ranaUpdatePSLInnolight 2W Vertical Beam Profile

Back in Gainesville in 1997, I learned how to do this using the chopper wheel. We had to make the assumption that the wheel's blade was moving horizontally during the time of the chop.

One advantage is that the repetitive slices reduces the random errors by a lot - you can trigger the scope and average. Another advantage is that you can download the average scope trace using USB, floppy, or ethernet instead of pencil and paper.

But, I never analyzed it in enough detail to see if there was some kind of nasty systematic error.

  2839   Sun Apr 25 02:56:07 2010 ranaUpdateLSCStarted dev of LSC FE

LSC Plant Model. That is all.

  2865   Sun May 2 15:38:12 2010 ranaSummarySUSCoil Actuator Balancing and Spot Position


Oh, but it gets even better: in order to trust the A2L script in this regard you have to know that the coil driver - coil - magnet gain is the same for each channel. Which you can't.

But we have these handy f2pRatio scripts that Vuk and Dan Busby worked on. They use the optical levers to balance the actuators at high frequency so that the A2L gives you a true spot readout.

But wait! We have 4 coils and the optical lever only gives us 2 signal readouts...

  2869   Mon May 3 01:16:50 2010 ranaHowToElectronicsMarconi phase noise measurement setup

 To try the 3-corner hat method on the Marconis, I started to set up the measurement into the DAQ system.

I have set the bottom 2 in the PSL rack to 11.1 MHz. I use a ZP-3MH level 13 mixer as the phase detector. The top one is the LO, it has an output of +13 dBm.

The bottom one is the test unit, it has an output of +6 dBm (should be close to the right level - the IP3 point is +9 dBm). The top one has external DC FM modulation enabled with a FM dev range of 10 Hz.

Mixer output goes through a 50 Ohm in-line termination and then a BLP-5 low pass filter (Steve, please order ~7 of the BLP-1.5 or BLP-1.9 low pass filter from Mini-Circuits) and then into

the DC coupled of a SR560. After some gain and filtering that feedback goes back to the FM input of the top-Marconi to close the PLL. I adjusted the gain to be as small as possible and still stay locked and not

saturate the ADC.

The input to the SR560 is Tee'd into another SR560 with AC coupled input, G = 1000, low-noise. Its output is going directly to the ADC channel - C1:IOO-MC_DRUM1.

I calibrated the channel by opening the loop and setting the AC coupled gain to 1. This lets the Marconis beat at several Hz. The peak-peak signal is equivalent to pi radians.


As usual, I was befuddled by the FM input. For some reason I always forget that since its a straight FM input, we don't need any filtering to get a plain 1/f loop. The attached plot shows how we get bad gain peaking if you forget this and use a 0.03 Hz pole in the SR560.

The grey trace is the ADC signal with everything hooked up, but the RF input set to zero (via setting Carrier = OFF in the bottom Marconi). It is the measurement noise.

The BLUE trace is very close to the true phase noise beat of the two Marconis with a calibration error of ~5%. I have not corrected for the loop gain: its right now around a 1 Hz UGF and 1/f. Next, I will measure the loop and compensate for it in the DTT calibration.

Then I'll measure the relative phase noise of 3 of the signal generators to get the individual noises.

Bottom line is that the sensitivity of this approach is good and we should do this rather that use spectrum analyzers since its easy to get very long averages and high res spectra. To get 5x better sensitivity, we can just use the Rai-FET box instead of a SR560 for the readout, but just have to contend with its batteries. Also should try using BALUNs on the RF and LO signals to get rid of the ground loops.

  2873   Mon May 3 17:49:41 2010 ranaConfigurationPSLRC Temperature Servo Turned OFF temporarily


In order to measure the transfer function of the RC cavity's foam, I've turned off the servo so that the room temperature noise can excite it.

The attached plot shows a step response test from 2 weeks ago. Servo is nominally still working fine.

 I've just now re-enabled the temperature control of the reference cavity can. Trend of the last 8 days is attached.

  2875   Tue May 4 02:28:38 2010 ranaConfigurationPSLRC Temperature Servo Turned OFF temporarily


 My attempt to passively measure the transfer function of the foam failed fantastically.

As it turns out, the room temperature fluctuations inside the PSL box reach the 1 mK/rHz noise floor of the  AD590 (or maybe the ADC) at ~1-2 mHz. Everything at higher frequencies is noise.

So to see what the foam is doing we will have to do something smarter - we need a volunteer to disable the RC temperature servo from the EPICS screen and then cycle the PSL table lights every hour in the morning.

We'll then use our knowledge of the Laplace transform to get the TF from the step responses.

  2879   Tue May 4 18:40:27 2010 ranaHowToElectronicsMarconi phase noise measurement setup

To check the UGF, I increased the gain of the PLL by 10 and looked at how much the error point got suppressed. The green trace apparently has a UGF of ~50 Hz and so the BLUE nominal one has ~5 Hz.

The second attachment shows the noise now corrected for the loop gain. IF the two signal generators are equally noisy, then you can divide the purple spectrum by sqrt(2) to get the noise of a single source.

The .xml file is saved as /users/rana/dtt/MarconiPhaseNoise_100504.xml

  2881   Wed May 5 02:37:55 2010 ranaConfigurationPSLRC Temperature Servo Turned OFF temporarily


 more detailed instructions needed....

I showed Kiwamu and Alberto how to turn the lights on and off in the PSL. This is why Caltech is such a fine institution: most schools would have TAs delivering this kind of optics instruction.

We've turned off the RC temperature stabilization and the lights will supply the quasi-random heat input to the table and the cavity. Alberto and Kiwamu will be turning the lights on and off at random times.

The attached plot is the spectrum of temperature fluctuations of the room and the vacuum can with no stabilization from this weekend. I think the rolloff above 10 mHz is kind of fake - I had the .SMOO parameter set to 0.99 for both of these channels. I've just now set the .SMOO to 0 for both channels, so we should now see the true ADC or sensor noise level. It should be ~1 mK/rHz.

  2890   Thu May 6 18:43:58 2010 ranaUpdatePEMNoise floor of the Ranger Seismometer

I added a noise model of the SR560 to the LISO opamp.lib. This assumes you're using it in G=100, low-noise mode. The voltage noise is correct, but I had to guess on the current noise because I didn't measure it before. Lame.

This can be compared with the noise that we measure when locking it down...

  2897   Fri May 7 19:02:27 2010 ranaUpdate40m UpgradingNew improved design for the 11MHz photodiode

To measure the width of a resonance, the standard method is to state the center frequency and the Q. Use the definition of Q from the Wikipedia.

As far as how much phase is OK, you should use the method that we discussed - think about the full closed loop system and try to write down how many things are effected by there being a phase slope around the modulation frequency. You should be able to calculate how this effects the error signal, noise, the loop shape, etc. Then consider what this RFPD will be used for and come up with some requirements.

  2901   Sun May 9 20:02:23 2010 ranaConfigurationSUSSUS filters deleted again to reduce CPU load on c1susvme2 again

On Friday, I deleted a bunch of filters from the c1susvme2 optics' screens (MC1,2,3 + SRM) so as to reduce the CPU load and keep it from going bonkers.

This first plot shows the CPU trend over the last 40 days and 40 nights. As you can see the CPU_LOAD has dropped by 1 us since I did the deleting.


In the second plot (on the right) you can see the same trend but over 400 days and nights. Of course, we hope that we throw this away soon, but until then it will be nice to have the suspensions be working more often.

  2904   Mon May 10 18:56:53 2010 ranaUpdateElectronicsUnexpected oscilaltionin the POY11 PD

Where did you get the 55nH based notch from? I don't remember anything like that from the other LSC PD schematics. This is certainly a bad idea. You should remove it and put the notch back over by the other notch.

  2905   Mon May 10 19:09:45 2010 ranaUpdateElectronicsUnexpected oscilaltionin the POY11 PD


Where did you get the 55nH based notch from? I don't remember anything like that from the other LSC PD schematics. This is certainly a bad idea. You should remove it and put the notch back over by the other notch.

 Why is it a bad idea?

You mean putting both the 2-omega and the 55MHz notches next to each other right after the photodiode?

  2913   Tue May 11 18:58:49 2010 ranaHowToElectronicsMarconi phase noise measurement setup

Just a little while ago, at 2330 UTC on 5/11, I swapped the phase noise setup to use another Marconi - this time its the 3rd one from the top beating with the 4th one from the top (2nd from the bottom).

After a little while, I swapped over to beat the 33 w/ the 199. I now have all the measurements. For the measurement of the last pair, I inserted BALUN 1:1 transformers on the outputs of both signal generators'.

This last pair appears to be the quietest of the 3 and also has less lines. The lines are mainly at high frequency and are harmonics of 120 Hz. Probably from the Sorensen switching supplies in the adjacent rack.

I double checked that the 10 MHz sync cable was NOT plugged in to any of these during this and that the front panel menu was set to use the internal frequency standard. In the closed loop case, the beat frequency between the 33/199 pair changes by less than ~0.01 Hz over minutes (as measured by calibrating the control signal).


  2914   Wed May 12 02:21:56 2010 ranaHowToElectronicsMarconi phase noise measurement setup

Finally got the 3-cornered-hat measurement of the IFRs done. The result is attached.

s12, s23, & s31, are the beat signals between the 3 signal generators.

s1, s2, & s3 are the phase noise of the individual generators made by the following matlab calculation:

%% Do the hat
s1 = sqrt((s12.^2  + s31.^2 - s23.^2) / 2);
s2 = sqrt((s12.^2  + s23.^2 - s31.^2) / 2);
s3 = sqrt((s31.^2  + s23.^2 - s12.^2) / 2);

As you can see, there is now an estimate of the individual noises. We can do better by doing some fitting of the residuals.

The real test will be to replace the noise one here with the good Wenzel oscillator and see how well we can estimate its noise. If the 11 MHz crystals don't show up, I can just try this with the 21.5 MHz one for the PSL.

  2926   Thu May 13 05:06:43 2010 ranaUpdate40m Upgrading216 MHz resonance in the POY11 PD killed


 This idea was tried before by Dale in the ~1998 generation of PDs. Its OK for damping a resonance, but it has the unfortunate consequence of hurting the dynamic range of the opamp. The 100 Ohm resistor reduces the signal that can be put out to the output without saturating the 4107.

I still recommend that you move the notch away from the input of the 4107. Look at how the double notch solution has been implemented in the WFS heads.

  2973   Mon May 24 10:03:14 2010 ranaUpdateLSC40mUpgrade Field Power and RF Power Spectrum at the ports. 38m/38.55m arm length issue.


 If you have a working 40m Optickle model, put it in a common place in the SVN, not in your own folder.

I can't figure out why changing the arm length would effect the RF sidebands levels. If you are getting RF sidebands resonating in the arms, then some parameter is not set correctly.

As the RF sideband frequency gets closer to resonating in the arm, the CARM/DARM cross-coupling to the short DOFs probably gets bigger.

  2974   Mon May 24 11:32:05 2010 ranaUpdateLSC40mUpgrade Field Power and RF Power Spectrum at the ports. 38m/38.55m arm length issue.



 If you have a working 40m Optickle model, put it in a common place in the SVN, not in your own folder.

I can't figure out why changing the arm length would effect the RF sidebands levels. If you are getting RF sidebands resonating in the arms, then some parameter is not set correctly.

As the RF sideband frequency gets closer to resonating in the arm, the CARM/DARM cross-coupling to the short DOFs probably gets bigger.

I uploaded the latest iscmodeling package to the SVN under /trunk. It includes my addition of the 40m Upgrade model: /trunk/iscmodeling/looptickle/config40m/opt40mUpgrade2010.m.

I don't know the causes of this supposed resonances yet. I'm working  to try to understand that. It would be interesting also to evaluate the results of absolute length measurements.

Here is what I also found:


It seems that 44, 66 and 110 are resonating.

If that is real, than 37.5m could be a better place. Although I don't have a definition of "better" yet.  All I can say is these resonances are smaller there.

  2999   Thu May 27 09:43:50 2010 ranaUpdateGreen Lockingmore details


 RMS which is integrated down to 1Hz  is 1.6MHz.

This number is almost what I expected assuming the cavity swings with displacement of x ~< 1um.

 Its OK, but the real number comes from measuring the time series of this in the daytime (not the spectrum). What we care about is the peak-peak value of the PZT feedback signal measured on a scope for ~30 seconds. You can save the scope trace as a PNG.

  3002   Thu May 27 23:59:54 2010 ranaUpdatePEMNew Foam Box installed

Valera and I put the 2 Guralps and the Ranger onto the big granite slab and then put the new big yellow foam box on top of it.

There is a problem with the setup. I believe that the lead balls under the slab are not sitting right. We need to cut out the tile so the thing sits directly on some steel inserts.

You can see from the dataviewer trend that the horizontal directions got a lot noisier as soon as we put the things on the slab.

  3003   Fri May 28 00:40:53 2010 ranaUpdatePEMDAQ down

 Although trends are available, I am unable to get any full data from in the past (using DTT or DV). I started the FB's daqd process a few times, but no luck. 

I blame Joe's SimPlant monkeying from earlier today for lack of a better candidate. I checked and the frames are actually on the FB disk, so its something else.

  3018   Sun May 30 22:18:49 2010 ranaUpdatePEMGranite slab w/ lead balls is so far a flop

The seismometers showed an increased noise in the Y-direction when put on top of the granite slab. By tapping the slab, you can tell that its really a mechanical resonance of the lead balls + granite system at ~15-20 Hz.

I tried new balls, flipping the slab upside down, and sitting on the slab for awhile. None of this changed the qualitative behavior, although each of the actions changed the resonance frequencies by several Hz.

I have removed the granite/balls and put the seismometers back on the linoleum floor. The excess noise is gone. I have put the new big box back on top of them and we'll see how the data looks overnight.


I expect that we should remove the linoleum in a wider area and put the seismometers directly on the floor.

  3022   Mon May 31 22:52:57 2010 ranaUpdatePEMGranite slab w/ lead balls is so far a flop

This plot shows the noise with the box on, but no granite. We're still pretty far off from the Guralp data sheet.


I implemented software rotation in the huddle subtraction as Valera suggested and it works much better. The two plots below show the before and after. So far this is just 2 deg. of rotation around the z-axis. I'm assuming that aligning the seismometers vertically via bubble level is good enough for the z-axis, but I haven't calibrated the bubble yet.


The residual slope is now suspiciously smooth. I somehow suspect that our readout electronics can still be responsible. We need to hook up a 9V battery to the input terminals to check it out. Its a little steeper than 1/f and I thought that we had exonerated the Guralp breakout box in the past, but now I'm not so sure. I'll let Jenne comment on that.

I also noticed that we have not yet divided by sqrt(2) to account for the fact that we are subtracting 2 seismometers. In principle, an unbiased estimate of the single seismometer noise will be lower by sqrt(2) than the green curve.

ELOG V3.1.3-