40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
 40m Log, Page 29 of 341 Not logged in
ID Date Author Type Category Subject
6455   Tue Mar 27 17:52:08 2012 KojiUpdateIOOAnother possibility / thought

It is quite likely that we touched the Faraday in Nov 2010.

In this entry http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/3874 I wrote that I removed the MCT optics in the chamber.
This is the pickoff between the IMC and the Faraday. This causes the beam shift. Therefore, the Faraday had
to be moved.

There were intensive in-chamber activities from Nov to Dec 2010. I am sure that almost everytime we went into
the chamber, we checked the spot position on the MMT mirrors as well as the TT and PZT mirrors.

Does the miscentering of the spots on the MMT mirrors cause the mode matching significantly changed?

6132   Sun Dec 18 16:16:55 2011 kiwamuUpdateSUSAnother trial of Hysteresis test

Koji has modified the script for the hysteresis measurement.

A new test started from 16:05 PT, Dec 18th and takes a couple of hours to finish the measurement.

Do not touch the suspensions until further notice.

 Quote from #6129 The hysteresis test has been aborted. Need another trial.

6134   Sun Dec 18 19:56:00 2011 kiwamuUpdateSUSAnother trial of Hysteresis test

The measurement finished at ~ 21:50 PT.

 Quote from #6132 A new test started from 16:05 PT, Dec 18th and takes a couple of hours to finish the measurement. Do not touch the suspensions until further notice.

218   Sun Dec 30 02:36:35 2007 pkpUpdateGeneralAnother update
So I followed suggestions 1 and 3 so far and have started writing up what all needs to be done in order to compile and use the camera. I wrote a program to ping the camera and get its properties and am working on a program to get an image. The reason why I want to write my own programs to do this, is that it will be easier to reuse and also to compile/use in the first place. The programs currently rest in /cvs/cds/caltech/target/Prosilica/ . Unfortunately I will be away for the next couple of days and will have another update on the 2nd.
10003   Thu May 29 08:43:34 2014 manasaUpdatePEMAnt season already in

Ant season has set in. I spotted and killed  a few ants around the optics and the enclosure of the PSL table yesterday. TIme for our pest control crew to get busy!

12203   Mon Jun 20 16:33:09 2016 VarunUpdateElectronicsAnti-Aliasing Filter circuit schematic

Summary: The aim is to design an analog anti-aliasing (AA) filter placed before the ADC, whose function is to filter out components of the input spectrum that have frequencies higher than the Nyquist frequency. This needs to be done so that there is no contamination of aliased downconverted high-frequency signals into the ADC output. I have put down and simulated a circuit to do this, based on the spectra of a few interferometer signals that eric Provided. Attachment 1 shows such an input PSD, treated with whitening filter, before the AA. The sampling rate is 65536 Hz and hence the Nyquist freq. is 32768 Hz.

Motivation: Attachments 2 and 3 show the plot of required attenuation for various frequencies above the Nyquist. We can see a peak at 36 kHz, which will alias to about 29kHz. It will require about 70 dB attenuation here. This indicates that use of a notch filter combined with a low pass filter can be used.

Details of Schematic: Attachment 4 shows the schematic of a Boctor low pass notch filter, cascaded by a 2nd order LPF. The stopband frequency of the boctor filter can be tuned to around 36 kHz. Its main advantage for the boctor is better insensitivity to component value tolerances, use of a single op amp, and relatively independent tuning of parameters.  The various component values are calculated from here. The transfer functions for the circuit shown in attachment 4 were simulated using TINA - a spice based simulation software. The transfer function is shown in attachment 5.

A few more calculations: Attachment 6 shows the output psd after the signal has been treated with AA. Attachments 7 and 8 show the ratio of aliased downconverted signal and the unaliased signal of the output. Here, we can see that above about 13 kHz, the ratios go above -40dB, which is apparently undesirable. However, we also see from the transfer function of the filter that the gain falls to less than -20dB after about this frequency, and the aliased signals are atleast 20 dB lower than this, atleast upto about 29 kHz in attachment 7 and about 25 kHz in attachment 8. This means that the aliased signals are negligible as compared to the low frequencies even if they are not negligible as compared to the higher frequencies (above 13 kHz) into which they would get downconverted due to sampling. But these higher frequencies (above 13 kHz) themselves are small.

The filter overall, is 4th order. Considering this and the above discussion, I need to decide what changes to make in the existing schematic. For now, I could discuss with eric to finalize the opamp and start building the pcb board design.

12212   Wed Jun 22 14:03:42 2016 VarunUpdateElectronicsAnti-Aliasing Filter circuit schematic

I found an anti-aliasing circuit on the 40m wiki. It consists of A differential LPF made using THS4131 low noise differential op-amp (one of the main applications of which is preprocessing before the ADC), and a notch. I modified it to arrange for the desired bandwidth (about 8 kHz) and notch after the Nyquist frequency at 36 kHz. I simulated it to get the attached results:

Attachment 1: It shows the input PSD (same as the one posted in the previous elog), the filter transfer function, and The resulting output.

Attachment 2: The circuit schematic. The initial part using THS4131 is a differential LPF and the subsequent RC network is the notch.

Attachment 3: This shows the ratio of the aliased downconverted signal to the the in-band signal, representative of the contamination in each bin. Here too, the aliased signals are negligible as compared to the low frequencies but they are not negligible as compared to the higher frequencies (above 10 kHz) into which they would get downconverted due to sampling. However, here, the attenuation at 8kHz is less than 6 dB while in the previous circuit, it was about 12 dB. One problem with this circuit is at about 6kHz, there is aliased signal from the 65k to 98kHz band, but this can be taken care of by adding an LPF later.

12164   Thu Jun 9 19:08:58 2016 VarunUpdateElectronicsAnti-Aliasing Filter update

Eric gave me a psd plot of a signal which would be the input of a channel of the AA filter. the Nyquist freq. is about 32.8kHz.

Following are plots depicting the ratio of the aliased downconverted signal and the signal below 32.8 kHz. The first plot is for (to-be) aliased signal frequencies from 32.8 to 65.5k, and the second plot is for (to-be) aliased signals from 65.5k to 98.3k. In case of the first plot, the 36kHz peak will alias to 29kHz, and is about 30 times (29.5dB) greater than the signal there. Hence, the filter should give about 70dB attenuation there. Since this attenuation is not required by most other frequencies up to 65.5k, an option could be to use a notch filter to remove the frequency peak at 36k, and put a requirement of 45-50 dB attenuation on other frequencies.

In case of the second plot, the frequencies between 90 to 100k again need to be attenuated by more than 70 dB. However, if there is a -20dB/decade slope in stop band, we already have about 10 dB attenuation here as compared to around 32k.

The X axis of both plots is in Hz.

10732   Fri Nov 21 18:23:01 2014 diegoUpdateSUSAnti-Jitter Telescope for OpLevs

EDIT: some images look bad on the elog, and the notebook is parsed, which is is bad. Almost everything posted here is in the compressed file attachment.

As we've been discussing, we want to reduce the laser's jitter effect on the QPDs of the OpLevs, without losing sensitivity to angular motion of the mirror; the current setup is roughly described in this picture:

The idea is to place an additional lens (or lenses) between the mirror and the QPD, as shown in the proposed setup in this picture:

I did some ray tracing calculations to find out how the system would change with the addition of the lens. The step-by-step calculations are done at the several points shown in the pictures, but here I will just summarize. I chose to put the telescope at a variable relative distance x from the QPD, such that x=0 at the QPD, and x=1 at the mirror.

Here are the components that I used in the calculations:

### Telescope

I used a 3x3 matrix formalism in order to have easier calculations and reduce everything to matrix multiplications; that because the tilted mirror has an annoying addictive term, which I could get rid of:

Therefore, n the results the third line is a dummy line and has no meaning.

For the first case (first schematic), we have, for the final r and Theta seen at the QPD:

In the second case, we have a quite heavy output, which depend also on x and f:

Now, some plots to help understand the situation.

What we want if to reduce the angular effect on the laser displacement, without sacrificing the sensitivity on the mirror signal. I defined two quantities:

Beta is the laser jitter we want to reduce, while Gamma is the mirror signal we don't want to lose. I plotted both of them as a function of the position x of the new lens, for a range of focal lengths f. I used d1 = d2 = 2m, which should be a realistic value for the 40m's OpLevs.

Plot of Beta

Plot of Gamma

Even if it is a bit cluttered, it is useful to see both of the same plot:

Plot of Beta & Gamma

Apart from any kind of horrific mistakes that I may have done in my calculations, it seems that for converging lenses our signal Gamma is always reduced more than the jitter we want to suppress. For diverging lenses, the opposite happens, but we would have to put the lens very near to the mirror, which is somehow not what I would expect. Negative values of Beta and Gamma should mean that the final values at the QPD level are on the opposite side of the axis/center of symmetry of the QPD with respect to their initial position.

I will stare at the plots and calculations a bit more, and try to figure out if I missed something  obvious. The Mathematica notebook is attached.

10733   Mon Nov 24 20:24:29 2014 diegoUpdateSUSAnti-Jitter Telescope for OpLevs

I stared a bit longer at the plots and thanks to Eric's feedback I noticed I payed too much attention to the comparison between Beta and Gamma and not enough attention to the fact that Beta has some zero-crossings...

I made new plots, focusing on this fact and using some real values for the focal lengths; some of them are still a bit extreme, but I wanted to plot also the zero-crossings for high values of x, to see if they make sense.

### Plot of Beta and Gamma (zoom)

If we are not interested in the sign of our signals/noises (apart from knowing what it is), it is maybe more clear to see regions of interest by plotting Beta and Gamma in absolute value:

### Plot of Beta and Gamma (Abs)

I don't know if putting the telescope far from the QPD and near the mirror has some disadvantage, but that is the region with the most benefit, according to these plots.

The plots shown so far only consider the coefficients of the various terms; this makes sense if we want to exploit the zero-crossing of Beta's coefficient and see how things work, but the real noise and signal values also depend on the Alpha and Theta themselves. Therefore I made another kind of plot, where I put the ratio r'(Alpha)/r'(Theta) and called it Tau. This may be, in a very rough way, an estimate of our "S/N" ratio, as Alpha is the tilt of the mirror and Theta is the laser jitter; in order to plot this quantity, I had to introduce the laser parameters r and Theta (taken from the Edmund Optics 1103P datasheet), and also estimate a mean value for Alpha; I used Alpha = 200 urad. In these plots, the contribute of r'(r) is not considered because it doesn't change adding the telescope, and it is overall small.

In these plots the dashed line is the No Telescope case (as there is no variable quantity), and after the general plot I made two zoomed subplots for positive and negative focal lengths.

### Plot of Tau (negative f)

If these plot can be trusted as meaningful, they show that for negative focal lengths our tentative "S/N" ratio is always decreasing which, given the plots shown before, it does little sense: although for these negative f Gamma never crosses zero, Beta surely does, so I would expect one singular value each.

12242   Tue Jul 5 14:12:56 2016 varunUpdateElectronicsAntialiasing Filter Update

I am trying to design an antialiasing filter, which also has two switchable whitening stages. I have designed a first version of a PCB for this.

The board takes differential input through PCB mountable BNCs. It consists of an instrumentaiton amplifier made using quad opamp ADA4004, followed by two whitening blocks, also made using ADA4004, which can be bypassed if needed, depending upon a control input. The mux used for this purpose is Maxim MAX4158EUA. These two whitening blocks are followed by 2 the LPF stages. A third LPF stage could be added if needed. These use AD829 opamps. After the LPFs are two amplifiers for giving a differential output through two output BNCs. The schematic is shown in attachment 1: "AA.pdf". The top layers of the layout are shown in attachment 2 (AAtop.pdf), the bottom layers in attachment 3 (AAbottom.pdf), and the entire layout in attachment 4 (AAbrd.pdf).

The board has 6 layers (in the order from top to bottom):

1) Top signal layer;

2) Internal plane 1 (GND),

3) Internal plane 2 (+15V),

4) Internal plane 3 (-15V),

5) Internal plane 4 (GND),

6) Bottom signal layer.

Power: +15, -15 and GND is given through a 4 pin header connector.

The dimensions of the board are 1550 mil $\times$ 6115 mil (38.1mm$\times$155.3mm) and the overall dimensions including the protruding BNC edges are 1550 mil $\times$ 7675 mil (38.1mm$\times$194.9mm)

I would like to have inputs on the layout telling me if any component/trace needs to be changed/better placed, any other things about the board need to be changed, etc.

P.S.: I have also added a zipped folder "AA.zip" containing the schematic and board files, as well as the above pdfs.

12286   Sun Jul 10 18:20:39 2016 ranaUpdateElectronicsAntialiasing Filter Update

1. Only the instrumentation amp should be made up of the ADA4004. Not the whitening parts.
2. Please think about the front panel design and make a drawing of the front and back panels. Power connectors, indicators, switches, etc. Take a look at some of our existing 1U rack electronics to see what standard arrangements are. Add a front and back panel drawing to the elog.
3. The whitening and anti-aliasing opamps can all be OP27 SOIC-8 for now. Later, if we need better noise performance or speed we can use faster opamps.
4. There should be a 3rd stage of AA. Each of the exisitng stages (U5, U6) can only be second order and we want the option to have a 6th order low pass.
5. There should be 100 nF decoupling capacitors on the power pins of all the single opamps.
6. There is a low noise power daugther board made by Ben Abbott which you can use on the DCC. It should accept the direct power connector from the back panel and supply regulated power to the board.
7. Take care to update the lower right hand corner info box with updated drawing version #'s and author name.
8. The MAX4158 is 16 years old. It may be good if you can find a newer parts so it doesn't go obsolete.
9. All of the R & C on the board should be sized 1206 for the SMD.
10. For the whitening and AA filtering stages, we want the capability to use larger size parts (e.g. the red WIMA caps that are in the blue spinny box). So you will have to use larger footprints for those.
11. The resistors should all be 0.1% thin film or metal film.
2108   Sun Oct 18 15:46:08 2009 AlbertoConfigurationGeneralAntique, unused QPD removed from the AS table

Inspecting the AS table to make an inventory of the photodiodes in use around the interferometer, I found a mysterious photodetector hiding behind PD1 (AS166).

It turned out the detector was an old type of QPD from the Squeezing Experiment a few years ago.

We removed the box and the cable to which it was connected from the table. We stored it in the optics cabinet along the X arm.

10312   Thu Jul 31 21:59:25 2014 KojiBureaucracyGeneralAnts

### Also I put the souvenir chocolates in the microwave, just in case.

262   Thu Jan 24 22:52:18 2008 AndreyBureaucracyGeneralAnts around a dirty glass (David - please read!)

Dear coleagues,

there are rains outside these days, so ants tend to go inside our premises.

David was drinking some beverage from a glass earlier today (at 2PM) and left a dirty glass near the computer.

There are dozens, if not hundreds, of ants inside of that glass now.

Of course, I am washing this glass.

A.
2408   Mon Dec 14 00:37:28 2009 KojiOmnistructureEnvironmentAnts in the coffee maker

I made a short stop at the 40m on Sunday night and found that hundreds ants are in the coffee maker.
I removed ants around the sink and washed the coffee maker.

It looked the ants were everywhere in the lab tonight. They seemed to prefer warm places like in the coffee maker and below the coffee mill.
So, I recommend that Steve should confirm there is no ants in the coffee maker again before the first coffee of the week is made.

2409   Mon Dec 14 11:21:23 2009 steveOmnistructureEnvironmentAnts in the coffee maker

We still had some ants visiting the sink area this morning. These ants seem to be addicted to our our Peet's coffe

Spectracide: Bug Stop insect killer was sprayed. Please wash your eating dishes well ! and keep area clean.

11441   Thu Jul 23 20:57:15 2015 JessicaSummaryGeneralApplying Pre-filter to data before IIR Wiener Filtering

I updated my bandpass filter and have included the bode plot below in Figure 1. It is a fourth order elliptic bandpass filter with a passband ripple of 1dB and a stopband attenuation of 30 dB. It emphasizes the area between 3 and 40 Hz.

Below, I applied this filter to the huddle test data. The results from this were only slightly better in the targeted region than when no pre-filter was applied.

When I pre-filtered the mode cleaner data and then used an IIR wiener filter, I found that the results did not differ much from the data that was not pre-filtered. I'm not sure yet if I'm targeting the right region of this data with my bandpass filter, and will be looking more into choosing a better region. Also, I am only using certain regions of ff when calculating the transfer function, and need to optimize that region also. I uploaded the code I used to make these plots to github.

520   Thu Jun 5 10:46:26 2008 josephbConfigurationCamerasApproximately uniform reflected white light
In an attempt to investigate the structures seen in previous images for the GC750, I aimed it at a relatively clean section of gray table top roughly a cm or two from the surface and took images (without a lens). As I was holding this with my hand, the angle wasn't completely even with the table, and thus there's a gradient of light in the pictures. However, one should in principle be able to pick out features (such as a circular spot with less sensitivity), but these do not show up.

In my mind, these images seem to indicate the electronics are fine, and suggest that the CMOS or CCD detectors themselves are undamaged (at least in regards to white light, as opposed to 1064nm). An issue with the plastic cap (protective piece) may be the culprit, or perhaps a tiny bit of dust, which the incoherent light from all angles goes around efficiently?

Will try blowing the cameras with clean nitrogen today and see if that removes or changes the circular structure we have seen.
3619   Wed Sep 29 11:18:36 2010 josephbUpdateCDSApps code changes

After asking Alex specifically what he did yesterday after I left, he indicated he copied  a bunch of stuff from Hanford, including the latest gds, fftw, libframe, root.  We also now have the new dtt code as well.  But those apparently were for the Gentoo build   After asking Alex about the ezca tools this morning, he discovered they weren't complied in the gds code he brought over.  We are in the process of getting the source over here and compiling the ezca tools.

Alex is indicating to me that the currently compiled new gds code may not run on the Centos 5.5 since it was compiled Gentoo (which is what our new fb is running and apparently what they're using for the front ends at Hanford).  We may need to recompile the source on our local Centos 5.5 control machines to get some working gds code.  We're in the process of transferring the source code from Hanford.  Apparently this latest code is not in SVN yet, because at some point he needs to merge it with some other work other people have been doing in parallel and he hasn't had the time yet to do the work necessary for the merge.

For the moment, Alex is undoing the soft link changes he did pointing gds at the latest gds code he copied, and pointing back at the original install we had.

1586   Thu May 14 15:28:28 2009 steveSummarySUSApril 24 earthquake effect on MC2

Quote:

 Quote: The MC side problem could also be the side tramp unit problem. Set the tramp to 0 and see if that helps.

This started around April 23, around the time that TP1 failed and we switched to the cryopump, and also when there was a mag 4 earthquake in LA. My money's on the EQ. But I don't know how.

Only MC2 moved in this earth quake. Was the MC alignment touched up since than?
Have you guys swapped satellite amp of MC3 yet?
6550   Thu Apr 19 16:21:04 2012 ZachUpdateComputer Scripts / ProgramsArbcav updated, made badass

I have modified Arbcav to be way cooler than it used to be.

Main modifications:

• Can now truly model an arbitrary cavity geometry
• The previous version could only handle a few different topologies. In each case, it would unfold the cavity into the equivalent linear cavity and use the g-parameter method to calculate gouy phases, etc.
• The new model uses the closed cavity propagation matrix to find the supported mode, and then explicitly calculates the accumulated gouy phase by propagating the beam through the full cavity. This is done analytically with zR, so there is negligible slow-down.
• Now plots a diagram of the cavity geometry, both to help you and for you to verify that it is calculating the right thing (<-- this is the cool part)
• Plots the beam path and mirror locations
• Specifies whether mirrors are curved or flat
• Prints mirror parameters next to them
• Finds all intracavity waist locations and plots them
• Gives waist information (size in X, Y)

Since the information is already there, I will have the output structure include things like the input beam q parameter, which could then be fed directly to mode matching tools like ModeMatchr.

The function takes as input the same arguments as before. Example for a square cavity:

out = arbcav([200e-6 50e-6 200e-6 50e-6],[0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75],[1e10 9 1e10 9],[45 45 45 45],29.189e6,10e-6,1064e-9,1000);

i.e.,

out = arbcav(transmissivity_list, length_list, RoC_list, angle_list, modulation_freq, loss_list_or_loss_per_mirror, wavelength, num_pts_for_plot);

If you don't give it a modulation frequency, it will just plot carrier HOMs. If you don't give it RoCs and angles, it will just plot the transmission spectrum.

I'm still fine-tuning some functionality, but I should have it up on the SVN relatively soon. Comments or suggestions are welcome!

Some screenshots:

Cavity geometry plots (linear, triangular, square, bowtie):

Transmission and HOM spectra (these correspond to the square cavity at lower left, above):

8204   Fri Mar 1 02:49:34 2013 JenneUpdateASSArm A2L measurement

I haven't finished debugging the scripts so that the measurement is fully automatic, like the MC, but I did measure the arm spot positions just now.

These numbers aren't especially precise....I just picked numbers off of a StripTool plot, but they give us a good idea of how very far off we are.  Also, I don't know yet which way the signs go...I have to think about that in terms of the direction I mis-balanced the coils.  It's the same convention as the MC though.  You can see in the attached quad camera image (quadrants match the corners of the table) that these numbers aren't unreasonable.

 ETMY ETMX Pit 4 mm Pit 4 mm Yaw -1.5 mm Yaw 6 mm ITMY ITMX Pit -3 mm Pit -3 mm Yaw 4 mm Yaw -4 mm

EDIT: It occurs to me now, a little later, that it had been at least half an hour since I last realigned the cavities, so some of this apparent miscentering is due to the input pointing drift. That doesn't account for all of it though. Even when the cavities have very high transmitted power, the spots are visibly miscentered.

8229   Tue Mar 5 01:43:04 2013 JenneUpdateASSArm A2L measurement script finished

In either .../scripts/XARM or ...../scripts/YARM run either A2L_XARM or A2L_YARM.

The wrapper script will, like the MC script, open a striptool so you can monitor the lockin outputs, setup the measurement, run the measurement, including misbalancing coils on the optics for calibration, and then calculates the spot positions.  It records the measurement in a log file in /data_spotMeasurements under each arm's directory.  The wrapper script then runs the plotting script which reads the logfile, and plots all past measurements.

Here is that plot for the Yarm:

The first two points were measured within a few minutes of eachother, the third set of points was after input pointing adjustment during IFO alignment.  Clearly the pointing that optimized the cavity transmission (trying to leave the test mass mirrors alone, and only moving TT1 and TT2) does not also give the best spot centering.  I claim that this is a result of the arm being aligned to the green beam, which was never locked to the 00 mode when we were at air.  This is a lesson learned....take the time to deal with the green beams.

8467   Fri Apr 19 16:58:59 2013 JenneUpdateASCArm A2L measurement scripts 90% working again

After Den's work with the ASS model this week, all of the channel names were changed (this wasn't pointed out in his elog....grrr), so none of the A2L scripts worked.

They are now back, however there is still some problem with the plotting that I'm not sure I understand yet.  So, the measurement works, but I don't think we're saving the results and we certainly aren't plotting them yet.

I wanted to check where the spots are on the mirrors, to make sure Den's stuff is doing what we think it's doing.  All of the numbers were within ~1.5mm of center, although Rossa keeps crashing (twice this afternoon?!?), so I can't copy and paste the numbers into the elog.

A near-term goal is to copy over Den's work on the Yarm to the Xarm, so that both arms will auto-align.  Also, I need to put the set of alignment scripts in a wrapper, and have that wrapper call-able from the IFO Configure screen.

Also, while thinking about the IFO Configure screen, the "save" scripts weren't working (on Rossa) today, even though I just made them work a week or so ago. Rossa, at least, was unhappy running csh, so I changed the "save" script over to bash.

10975   Wed Feb 4 19:21:37 2015 KojiUpdateASCArm ASS servos now have triggered gain with arm lock status

We had persistent frustration by occasional unlock during ASSing.
Today, I added triggers to the servo gains in order to elliminate this annoyance.

Each ASS servo gain slider is multiplied with the corresponding LSC Trigger EPICS channel (i.e. C1:LSC-iARM_TRIG_MON, where i=X or Y).
This has been done by ezcaread modules in RCG.

The model and screen have been commited to svn.

2174   Wed Nov 4 16:49:32 2009 AlbertoUpdateLSCArm Cavity Finesse Measurement

I'm going to work on the X arm to measure the arm cavity finesse.

The idea is to measure the cavity transfer function to estimate the frequency of its cavity pole. That should be a more accurate measurement than that based on the cavity decay time.

I'm starting now and I'm going to inject a swept sine excitation on the OMC_ISS_EXC input cable laying on the floor nearby the AP table (see pic).

In orderf to do that I disconnected the cable from the OMC breakout box laying on the floor. I'm going to plug the cable back in as soon as I'm done.

2175   Wed Nov 4 18:35:19 2009 AlbertoUpdateLSCArm Cavity Finesse Measurement

 Quote: I'm going to work on the X arm to measure the arm cavity finesse. The idea is to measure the cavity transfer function to estimate the frequency of its cavity pole. That should be a more accurate measurement than that based on the cavity decay time. I'm starting now and I'm going to inject a swept sine excitation on the OMC_ISS_EXC input cable laying on the floor nearby the AP table (see pic). In orderf to do that I disconnected the cable from the OMC breakout box laying on the floor. I'm going to plug the cable back in as soon as I'm done.

Since I need to measure the transfer function between TRX and MC_TRANS_DC I picked off the beam going to RFAM PD to send it to a PDA255 photodiode (cannibalized from the AbsL's PLL) which I installed on the PSL table.

I centerd the beam on the PD and I was able to see the injected signal.

I think I'm ready to measure the transfer function.

Except for the RFAM PD everything is as before.

I'm gonna go grab dinner and I should be back to keep working on that in about one hour.

2176   Wed Nov 4 21:46:18 2009 AlbertoUpdateLSCArm Cavity Finesse Measurement

Quote:

 Quote: I'm going to work on the X arm to measure the arm cavity finesse. The idea is to measure the cavity transfer function to estimate the frequency of its cavity pole. That should be a more accurate measurement than that based on the cavity decay time. I'm starting now and I'm going to inject a swept sine excitation on the OMC_ISS_EXC input cable laying on the floor nearby the AP table (see pic). In orderf to do that I disconnected the cable from the OMC breakout box laying on the floor. I'm going to plug the cable back in as soon as I'm done.

Since I need to measure the transfer function between TRX and MC_TRANS_DC I picked off the beam going to RFAM PD to send it to a PDA255 photodiode (cannibalized from the AbsL's PLL) which I installed on the PSL table.

I centerd the beam on the PD and I was able to see the injected signal.

I think I'm ready to measure the transfer function.

Except for the RFAM PD everything is as before.

I'm gonna go grab dinner and I should be back to keep working on that in about one hour.

Back from dinner. Taking measurements.

469   Thu May 8 01:50:25 2008 ranaSummaryASCArm Cavity HOM Resonances
Nothing new, but I calculated the frequencies of the first 22 higher order transverse modes and thought I might as well list them here.

To do this I took formula (23) from page 762 of Siegmans book and put it into this form:
         f_fsr
dfmn =   ----- * (m+n) * acos(sqrt(g1*g2))
pi

and then calculated them from m+n = 1..22 (22 is not a magic number).

I also used the 'mod' function of matlab to calculate the frequency mod FSR so that we would know how far away
from a cavity resonance it is. I took as parameters: Larm = 38.55 m, Ritm = 1e6 m, Retm = 57.1 m. Kirk measured
the arm length some time ago; we need to measure the arm g-factor...maybe we'll put Tobin on this when he comes
by for a visit.

1.1936 (TEM01, TEM10)
2.3871
3.5807
0.8859 (TEM22, TEM13, TEM31)
2.0795
3.2730
0.5782
1.7718
2.9654
0.2706 (TEM55, ...)
1.4641
2.6577
3.8512
1.1564
2.3500
3.5436
0.8488
2.0423
3.2359
0.5411
1.7347
2.9282
555   Mon Jun 23 21:51:19 2008 AlbertoUpdateGeneralArm Cavity Length Measurement
We measured the arm cavity lengths sweeping the ETM mirror position and looking at the reflected demodulated output. We excited the mirror by a sine wave of 0.2 Hz and amplitude of 30000 counts. From the time series of the occurrences of the resonances of the sidebands and of the carrier we evaluated the free spectral range of the cavities and thus the lengths. The details of the procedure are explained in the attached document. As discussed in it, for each cavity we obtain two possible values of the length depending on which of the sideband resonances is that corresponding to the upper sideband and which corresponds to the lower one instead. The numbers are:
Lx=(38.30 +/- 0.08)m / (38.45 +/- 0.08)m
Ly=(38.16 +/- 0.08)m / (38.70 +/- 0.08)m

Since the difference between the two possibilities is quite large, we should be able to decide which one is correct by somehow measuring directly the cavity length. We want to try it tomorrow by a tape meter.

Alberto and Koji
2415   Mon Dec 14 19:33:04 2009 AlbertoUpdateGeneralArm Cavity Poles measured again after cleaning the optics last week

Last week we vented and we cleaned the main optics of the arm cavities.

I measured the frequency of the cavity poles for both the arm cavities to see how they changed (see previous elog entry 2226). These the results:

fp_X = 1616 +/- 14 Hz

fp_Y = 1590 +/- 4 Hz

The error is the statistical error that I got with the Matlab NonLinearLeastSquare fitting function.

I calculated the cavity pole frequencies by measuring the transfer function between a photodiode located at the end of the arms (either X or Y) and another photodiode placed after the mode cleaner. Both diodes where Thorlabs PDA255.
(Last time, I had measured that the pair of diode had a flat calibration).

With the SR785 I measured the transfer function by exciting the OMC_ISS_EXC input cable.
For both arms I set to 1V the excitation amplitude. I repeated the measurements for different excitation amplitudes without observing any changes.
I then fitted the data with the NonLinearLeastSquare function of matlab. The script I wrote to do that is attached to this entry in a compressed file.
The files also contains the PDF with the output plots and the data from both set of measurements performed before and after the cleaning.
The data is commented in a file called measurements.log.

In the end I disabled again the test switch on the ISS MEDM screen.
I disconnected the excitation cable from the OMC_ISS_EXC input cable.
I removed the photodiode that measured the Mode Cleaner transmission from the PSL clearing the way for the beam to get back to its path to the RFAM photodiode.
2418   Tue Dec 15 05:29:31 2009 AlbertoUpdateGeneralArm Cavity Poles measured again after cleaning the optics last week

The Y arm cavity pole moved down by 130 Hz, whereas the X arm moved by only 34 Hz. I wonder if that is because Kiwamu spent much more time on cleaning ITMY than on any other optic.

8741   Tue Jun 25 00:28:52 2013 rana, manasaUpdateLSCArm Cavity scan with X-ALS after ALS servo upgrade

[Rana, Manasa]

ALS noise suppressed to 1KHz/rtHz. 1kHz RMS.

Plot 1: Scan of X arm by changing offset into Phase Tracker -> Xarm loop. Filter bank ramp time set to 120 s + using a 30 mHz low pass filter. IR beam is aligned to x arm, but not well.

Plot 2: ALS error signal with loop open (BLUE), closed with old filters (PURPLE), and with new, better boost (RED).

Plot 3: Bode plot of new boost (FM10), v. old, sad boost (1:50 pole:zero). RMS is now less than 1 kHz or ~50 pm. (in your face, Kiwamu!)

Changes made to the ALS servo:

1. C1ALS-TRX

ALS-TRX has been calibrated to read from 0-1 instead of counts in 1000 s. Calibration factor = 1/4500 = 0.00022

2. C1ALS_BEATX_FINE

Old antiwhitening filter has been removed. Added LPF at 1000Hz to remove glitches at high frequencies.

3. C1ALS-BEATX_FINE_PHASE

4. C1ALS-XARM

FIlter FM5 modified. 1000:1 changed to 3000:1

5. Offset for ALS scan were given through C1ALS_OFFSETTER1 with LPF50m enabled.

The filter modules of the servo were:

Next:

Check PZT out range for ALS. Figure out what the deal is with ALS SLOW servos.

Automatic ALS up script (enable and disable phase tracker included).

8742   Tue Jun 25 10:18:34 2013 Mystery ManUpdateLSCArm Cavity scan with X-ALS after ALS servo upgrade

 Quote: RMS is now less than 1 kHz or ~50 pm. (in your face, Kiwamu!)

Isn't this still a factor of 2 away from the limit in the paper?

8744   Tue Jun 25 11:39:13 2013 KojiUpdateLSCArm Cavity scan with X-ALS after ALS servo upgrade

My understanding is that that number is an in-loop evaluation of the loop so far (as the first step of the loop evaluation).
This is not what we can directly compare with the number in the paper.

Basically the entry 8741 is telling us that the new filter suppresses the error signal better than before.
That's clearly shown in the attachment 2.

Quote:

 Quote: RMS is now less than 1 kHz or ~50 pm. (in your face, Kiwamu!)

Isn't this still a factor of 2 away from the limit in the paper?

1577   Tue May 12 15:22:09 2009 YoichiUpdateLSCArm Finesse

 Quote: It looks as if the measured DARM response is skewed by an extra low pass filter at high frequencies. I don't know why is it so.

One large uncertainty in the above estimate is the cavity pole of X-arm because I simply assumed that the ITMX reflectivity to be the designed value.
I think we can directly measure the X-arm finesse from Alberto's absolute length measurements (i.e. from the width of the resonant peaks in his scans).
By looking at Alberto and Koji's posts (elog:1244 elog:838), it looks like the FWHM of the peaks are around 3kHz. With the FSR ~ 3.8MHz, it gives a finesse of about 1300, which is reasonable.
Alberto, can you check your data and measure the FWHM more precisely ?
Note that we want to measure the FWHM of the peak in the *power* of the beat signal. The beat amplitude is proportional to the electric field *amplitude* of the transmitted auxiliary laser. What we need to get a finesse is the FWHM of the transmitted laser *power*. Thus we need to take the power of the beat signal.
11430   Mon Jul 20 11:57:17 2015 ericqUpdateGeneralArm Locking recovered

The interferometer is warming up!

I had some issues locking the IMC at first. It turned out that the MC3 side OSEM signal wasn't getting to the ADC. A satellite box sqush fixed it.

I touched up the PMC alignment; the best I could do is 0.75V, probably due to the AOM being in place.

I haven't touched the WFS offsets, but the current ones seem to be doing ok. I'll touch them up tonight when the seismic activity has calmed.

I made some changes to the state of the PZT/PC crossover gain in the mcdown script, resulting in the IMC catching lock quicker.

Thankfully, the tip tilt pointing stayed good during the upgrade. I barely had to touch the ETM alignment to lock the arms. ETMX is showing some errant motion, though...

1456   Mon Apr 6 21:50:43 2009 ranaUpdateLSCArm Locking via pushing MC2
Inspired by our 'No Refcav' scheme here, I was inspired to re-explore the idea of locking the
CARM DOF using only feedback to the MC/laser. Last week I got this to work on the single arm and
full IFO at Livingston.
I also estimate the MC noise there.

Today I found the settings to allow X-arm locking here without any feedback to the ETM or ITM:

- Set the LSC Output Matrix to feed the XARM signal to MC2.
- Turn OFF the input of the LSC-ETMX filter bank (this does not disable tickling).
- Turn OFF FM7 (0.1:10) in MC2-MCL.
- Turn ON MC2-LSC with a gain of 0.2 and FM3 FM4 FM5.

That's enough to lock the arm - its pretty stable. This also assumes that the LSC-MC2 bank has its nominal gain of -0.178.

To determine the gain of +0.2 in the MC2-LSC filter bank, I measured the TF from MC2->PD3_I and from ETMX->PD3_I. I adjusted
the gain to be equal at 150 Hz for acquisition and the sign to be opposite to account for the (-) in LSC-MC2. The TF is
attached.

After locking, I type a zero into the MC2-MCL filter bank and that shuts off the feedback from the MC servo to MC2. This is
now topologically similar to the standard CM servo configuration.

The second attachment has the trends of this locking. You can see that the MC_F goes off into the weeds, but the MCL signal
does not so much. I think maybe the MC length is drifting a lot - not the arm.

The third attachment shows the spectra.
2247   Thu Nov 12 02:02:18 2009 ranaSummaryLSCArm Locking with no feedback to the ETM or ITM

Steps:

1) Turn off feedback to ETMY (the ETMY button on the LSC screen).

2) Put a 1 into the YARM->MC2 output matrix element on the LSC screen.

3) Turn off FM6 (comb), FM7 (0.1:10) on the MC2_MCL filter bank. This is to make the IOO-MCL loop more stable and to reduce the IOO-MCL low frequency gain.

4) Set the MC2-LSC gain to 0.5, turn the output ON, turn ON FM4 & FM5 & FM6 of the MC2-LSC filter bank.

5) Turn on the input of MC2-LSC and the arm should now lock.

6) After locking, set the MC2-MCL gain to zero. Hopefully with a few second ramp time.

Voila!

(A comment by KA - c.f. this entry )

10414   Wed Aug 20 15:31:27 2014 ericqUpdateCOCArm Loss Investigations Continue

[ericq, Gabriele]

Summary: After today's meeting, Gabriele and I looked into the arm loss situation, to see if we should really believe the losses that had been suggested by my previous measurements. We made some observations that we're not sure how to explain, and we're thinking about other ways to try and estimate the losses to corroborate previous findings.

We first looked to see if the ASS had some effective offset, leaving the alignment not quite right. Once ASS'd, we twiddled each arm cavity mirror in pitch and yaw to see if we could achieve higher transmission. We could not, so this suggested that ASS works properly.

We then looked at potential offsets in the Xarm loop. We found that an input offset of 25 counts increased the transmission, but only very slightly. With this offset adjusted, we confirmed the qualitative observation that locking/unlocking the xarm causes a much bigger change in ASDC than doing the same with the harm.

However, we noted that the ASDC data (which is the DC value of the AS55 RFPD) was quite noisy, hovering around 50 counts. Looking at the c1lsc model, we found that we were looking at direct ADC counts, so the signal conditioning was not so great. We went to the LSC rack and stole the SR560 that had been hooked up as a REFLDC offsetter, and used it to give ASDC a gain of 100, and a LP at 100Hz, since we only care about DC values. We then undid the gain in the input FM; and this calmed the trace down a fair bit. The effects due to each arm locking/unlocking was still consistent with previous observations.

At this point, we looked at the arm transmission and ASDC signals simultaneously. Normally, when misaligning a cavity, one would expect the reflected power to rise and the transmission to fall.

However, we saw that when misalignment the Yarm in yaw in either direction, or the Xarm in one direction, both the IR transmission and ASDC would fall. This initially made us think of clipping effects.

So, we checked out the AS beam situation on the AP table. On a card, the beam looks round as we could tell, and the beam spot on AS55 was nice and small. (We tweaked its steering a little bit in pitch to put it at the center of the "falling-off" points) The reflection and transmission falling effect remained.

At this point, we're not really sure what could be causing this effect. After the reflected beams recombine at the BS, the output path is common, so it's strange that this odd effect would be the same for both arms.

Lastly, we discussed other ways that we may be able to see if the Xarm really has ~500ppm loss. Since its transmission is ~1.4%, Gabriele estimated that we may be able to see a ~300Hz difference in the arm cavity pole frequency between the two arms, based on the modification of the cavity finesse due to loss. Since we don't currently have the AOM set up to inject intensity noise, we talked about using frequency noise injection to measure the arm cavity poles, though this would be coupled with the IMC pole, but this could hopefully be accounted for.

5626   Thu Oct 6 15:40:57 2011 JenneUpdateLSCArm absl length data taken

[Katrin, Jenne]

We took the data for the new absolute length measurement of both arms, after the latest vent and move.  We will analyze soonly.  We had done a round of analysis,  but then Koji pointed out that our data wasn't so clean because the whitening filters were on (and saturated the ADC).  We now have the data (but not the analysis) for the better data with the WF off.

So our dirty-data preliminary number for the X arm is 37.73meters, which is 14cm different from our old length.  We were supposed to move by ~20cm, so....either this measurement is bad because the data sucked (which it did), or we are 6cm off.  Or both.

I'll do another analysis with the clean data for both arms later today/tomorrow.

5653   Tue Oct 11 21:23:51 2011 JenneUpdateLSCArm absl lengths

 Quote: [Katrin, Jenne] We took the data for the new absolute length measurement of both arms, after the latest vent and move.  We will analyze soonly.  We had done a round of analysis,  but then Koji pointed out that our data wasn't so clean because the whitening filters were on (and saturated the ADC).  We now have the data (but not the analysis) for the better data with the WF off. So our dirty-data preliminary number for the X arm is 37.73meters, which is 14cm different from our old length.  We were supposed to move by ~20cm, so....either this measurement is bad because the data sucked (which it did), or we are 6cm off.  Or both. I'll do another analysis with the clean data for both arms later today/tomorrow.

After analyzing the cleaner data, I get the following:

Y_Length_long  =  37.757 meters

X_Length_long  =  37.772 meters

As stated in the wiki, the goal arm length was  L = 37.7974 m for each arm.

So we're within 2cm for X, and within 4cm for Y.

According to Kiwamu's awesome tolerance calculation, we need to be within 2cm for each arm.  Given that we started out 20cm wrong for X and 25cm wrong for Y, we're a lot closer now, even though we aren't meeting our Yarm requirement yet.

Probably some Optickle action is in order, to see what these new lengths give us in terms of sideband phase and other stuff.

If you want more digits on my calculated numbers (which are probably meaningless, but I haven't done a careful error analysis), in my directory ...../users/jenne/Xarm and ..../users/jenne/Yarm run Xarm_find_peaks_and_length.m and Yarm_find_peaks_and_length.m  respectively.  These will output the lengths.

728   Wed Jul 23 22:34:07 2008 YoichiUpdateLSCArm cavity g-factor measurement
I tried the same thing as the X-arm to the Y-arm.
I'm puzzled. I found exactly the same behavior as the X-arm in the AS166 demodulated signals, whereas I expected different resonance frequency because of the arm length difference.

Here is more detailed account of the measurement today.

I locked the Y-arm and mis-aligned the end mirror in Yaw until the transmission power gets half.
Then I injected a 30Hz sinusoid into the error point of the Y-arm servo to shake the ETMY.
I observed AS166_I and AS166_Q as I changed the 166MHz frequency.

At 165.977MHz, both AS166_I and AS166_Q showed the 30Hz signal (15cnt p-p).
At 165.981MHz, Only I phase showed the 30Hz signal (40cnt p-p). No signal in Q.
At 165.984MHz, I and Q became the same amplitude again (20cnt p-p).
At 165.987MHz, Only Q phase showed the 30Hz signal (40cnt p-p). No signal in I.

Outside the above range, the signal decreases as the frequency go away. I think this is (at least partly) because the 166MHz sidebands no longer go through the MC at those frequencies.

I then locked the X-arm to the TEM01 mode. I saw exactly the same behavior as described above. This could be the resonance of TEM02 mode. I was expecting to see the resonance of TEM00 mode at the opposite side, but nothing there.

I unlocked the arm cavities and tried the same frequency scan of the 166MHz with one of the end mirrors shaken at 30Hz. I saw no signal at the AS166 port.
I also tried locking Y-arm and shaking the ETMX. No signal.
So it has to be something to do with the cavity resonance.

Since the MC transmission curve for 166MHz is folded in the measurement, it makes the interpretation of the results harder.
730   Thu Jul 24 01:27:00 2008 KojiUpdateLSCArm cavity g-factor measurement

 Quote: I locked the Y-arm and mis-aligned the end mirror in Yaw until the transmission power gets half. Then I injected a 30Hz sinusoid into the error point of the Y-arm servo to shake the ETMY. I observed AS166_I and AS166_Q as I changed the 166MHz frequency.

A-ha! Do you always expect the 30Hz signal, don't you?
Because this is the PDH technique.

---------------
Recipe:
You have a carrier and phase modulation sidebands at 166MHz this time.
Inject them into a cavity. Detect the reflection by a photo detector.
Demodulate the photocurrent at 166MHz.

This is the PDH technique.

A 30Hz sinusoid was injected to the error point of the cavity lock.
This means that the cavity length was fluctuated at 30Hz.

We should see the 30Hz signal at the error signal of the 166MHz demodulation, regardless of the tuning of the modulation frequency!
In other words, the 30Hz signal in the demod signal at the 166MHz is also understandable as the beating between the 30Hz sidebands and the 166MHz sidebands.

---------------

So, now I feel that the method for the TEM01 quest should be reconsidered.

If we have any unbalanced resonance for the phase modulation sidebands, the offset of the error signal is to be observed even with the carrier exactly at the resonance. We don't need to shake or move the cavity mirrors.

Presence of the MC makes the things more complicated. Changing the frequency of the modulation that should go throgh the MC is a bit tricky as the detuning produces FM-AM conversion. i.e. The beam incident on the arm cavity may be not only phase modulated but also amplitude modulated. This makes the measurement of the offset described above difficult.

The setup of the abs length measurement (FSR measurement) will be easily used for the measurement of the transverse mode spacings. But it needs some more time to be realized.
731   Thu Jul 24 02:57:26 2008 robUpdateLSCArm cavity g-factor measurement

 Quote: So, now I feel that the method for the TEM01 quest should be reconsidered. If we have any unbalanced resonance for the phase modulation sidebands, the offset of the error signal is to be observed even with the carrier exactly at the resonance. We don't need to shake or move the cavity mirrors. Presence of the MC makes the things more complicated. Changing the frequency of the modulation that should go throgh the MC is a bit tricky as the detuning produces FM-AM conversion. i.e. The beam incident on the arm cavity may be not only phase modulated but also amplitude modulated. This makes the measurement of the offset described above difficult. The setup of the abs length measurement (FSR measurement) will be easily used for the measurement of the transverse mode spacings. But it needs some more time to be realized.

We should be able to see 166MHz sideband resonances using the double demodulated photodetectors. With these, the 33MHz sidebands will be acting as LO when the 166MHz sideband (or mode) resonates. Some modeling may be necessary to determine if the SNR will be good enough to make this worthwhile, however.
733   Thu Jul 24 08:09:26 2008 YoichiUpdateLSCArm cavity g-factor measurement

 Quote: A-ha! Do you always expect the 30Hz signal, don't you? Because this is the PDH technique.

Yes you are right. I realized this when I was thinking about it in the bed
The 30Hz signal should always be present because the carrier is phase shifted at 30Hz by the cavity length change.
I think the change in the signal ratio between I and Q happened because as the 166MHz sidebands get phase change when they move around the MC transmission peak due to the cavity pole of the MC. It changes the optimal demodulation phase for the 166MHz PDH signal at the AS port.

 Quote: We should be able to see 166MHz sideband resonances using the double demodulated photodetectors. With these, the 33MHz sidebands will be acting as LO when the 166MHz sideband (or mode) resonates. Some modeling may be necessary to determine if the SNR will be good enough to make this worthwhile, however.

I will try, but at 100kHz away from the MC FSR (the number predicted by John's calculation), the transmission of the 166MHz sidebands is very weak. I did not see any signal when I swept it +/- 500kHz. Unfortunately, the Marconi's output level is almost at its maximum. So we don't have much room for increasing the sideband power.
2996   Wed May 26 22:22:03 2010 AlbertoConfiguration40m UpgradingArm cavity length

The second sideband is resonant in the arms for a cavity length of 37.9299m.

The nearest antiresonant arm lengths for f2 (55MHz) are 36.5753m and 39.2845m.

If we don't touch the ITMs, and we use the room we still have now on the end tables, we can get to 37.5m.

This is how the power spectrum at REFL would look like for perfect antiresonance:

And this is how it looks like for 37.5m:

Or, god forbid, we change the modulation frequencies...

2070   Thu Oct 8 20:18:56 2009 KojiSummaryGeneralArm cavity loss

Last night (Oct 07), I ran armLoss script in order to obtain the latest numbers for the arm cavity loss.
Here is the summary

 <> Measured arm reflectivity R_cav: 0.875 +/- 0.005 Estimated round trip loss L_RT: 157ppm +/- 8ppm Estimated finesse F: 1213+/-2 Data Points: 34 <> Measured arm reflectivity R_cav: 0.869 +/- 0.006 Estimated round trip loss L_RT: 166ppm +/- 8ppm Estimated finesse F: 1211+/-2 Data Points: 26

Parameters:

TE=10ppm, LE=L_RT/2, RE=1-TE-LE
tE=Sqrt(TE), rE=Sqrt(RE)

TF=0.005, LF=L_RT/2, RF=1-TF-LF
tF=Sqrt(TF), rF=Sqrt(RF)

rcav = -rF +(tF^2 rE)/(1-rF rE)
R_cav = rcav^2

F = pi Sqrt(rF rE)/(1-rF rE)

2416   Mon Dec 14 22:32:56 2009 KojiUpdateGeneralArm cavity loss ~ result

I like to ask someone to review the calculation on the wiki.

In the calculation, the round trip loss and the front mirror T are the unknown variables.
The end mirror T of 10ppm was assumed. (End mirror T)+(Round trip loss) is almost invariant, and T_end does not change the other results much.

### Arm cavity loss measurement (Dec. 14, 2009)

X Arm:
• Arm visibility (given): 0.897 +/- 0.005 (20 pts) (2.5%UP!!)
• Cut off freq (given): 1616 +/- 14　[Hz] (2.1%UP!!)
• Finesse (derived): 1206 +/- 10 (2.1%UP!!)
• Round Trip loss (estimated): 127 +/- 6 [ppm] (28%DOWN!!)
• Front Mirror T (estimated): 0.00506 +/- 0.00004
Y Arm:
• Arm visibility (given): 0.893 +/- 0.004 (20 pts) (2.1%UP!!)
• Cut off freq (given): 1590 +/- 4 [Hz] (8.2%UP!!)
• Finesse (derived): 1220 +/- 3 (8.2%UP!!)
• Round Trip loss (estimated): 131 +/- 6 [ppm] (37%DOWN!!)
• Front Mirror T (estimated): 0.00500 +/- 0.00001

### Previous measurement (Oct 07, 2009 & Nov 10, 2009)

X Arm:

• Arm visibility (given): 0.875 +/- 0.005 (34 pts)
• Cut off freq (given): 1650 +/- 70 [Hz]

• Finesse (derived): 1181 +/- 50
• Round Trip loss (estimated): 162 +/- 10 [ppm]
• Front Mirror T (estimated): 0.0051 +/- 0.0002

Y Arm:

• Arm visibility (given): 0.869 +/- 0.006 (26 pts)
• Cut off freq (given): 1720 +/- 70 [Hz]

• Finesse (derived): 1128 +/- 46
• Round Trip loss (estimated): 179 +/- 12 [ppm]
• Front Mirror T (estimated): 0.0054 +/- 0.0002
ELOG V3.1.3-