40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab CAML OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 2 of 349  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Datedown Author Type Category Subject
  17553   Wed Apr 19 22:46:17 2023 PacoUpdateALSDFD demod normalized by amplitude

[Anchal, Paco]

We updated the LSC model to use the amplitude as a normalization (analogous to what happens in OpLevs). For reference Attachment #1 shows the previous model detail, and Attachment #2 shows the updated one. We then built, restarted and ran the model to realize the phase tracker gain can now be set once and for all assuming we still have a simple integrator and 2 kHz of phase tracker bandwidth. Doing this results in the ALS residual noise shown in Attachment #3. Compared against the reference spectra, the improvement is modest but not as great as what the moku had.

We ran ITMY actuation calibration using this infrastructure; to do this we lock arm cavities to PSL, lock AUX lasers to arm cavities, turn on our five lines and read back the demodulated signals from the beatnote as it goes through DFD + phase tracker. The results are summarized in Attachment #4. This time we correctly accounted for all known sources of statistical and systematic uncertainties (including a recently  measurement of the AUX loop gain),

  17552   Wed Apr 19 17:32:11 2023 AlexUpdateIMCBeam offset calculation for MC1,2,3 from dither results

Today, we ran dither lines on the MC1,2,3 mirrors in YAW from 136598007 to 1365981967 and similarly on PIT from 1365982917 to 1365984618.

The following frequencies and amplitudes were recorded for each dither line:

optic freq amp YAW amp PIT
MC1 21.21 3000 6000
MC2 26.62 6000 9000
MC3 23.10 3000 6000


The urad conversions used to calculate theta DC and AC can be found at 17481


The dither lines were then demodulated in python and the steps shown in 17516 were followed to calculate the beam offset that each dither line represented in pitch and yaw. 

The following results were found:

Optic Delta Y (mm)
MC1 YAW 1.42
MC2 YAW 1.6
MC3 YAW 1.78
MC1 PIT 2.72
MC2 PIT 2.33
MC3 PIT 2.83


Attatched bellow is the power spectrums for both yaw and pitch.

  17551   Wed Apr 19 17:02:48 2023 YehonathanSummarySUSCoil dewhitening check for BS and ITMX

[Yehonathan, Paco]

Repeated the coil dewhitening check for BS. Attachment #1 show results. Note however the DW filter shape for BS is more complicated:

zpk([86.7884+i*86.5657, 86.7884-i*86.5657,57.338+i*66.4261, 57.338-i*66.4261,68.83, 546.83],[10.4774+i*10.8736, 10.4774-i*10.8736,10.7093+i*10.5571, 10.7093-i*10.5571,8.67, 3235.8], 1.0252))

Note that YAW data here is actually PIT data and PIT data is plotted twice, as we messed up with data saving...crying


Repeated also for ITMX. See Attachment #2.



  17550   Wed Apr 19 15:12:01 2023 yutaSummarySUSCoil dewhitening check for PRM

[Mayank, Paco, Yohanathan, Yuta]

We checked if coil dewhitening switch is working by measuring transfer function from coil outputs to oplev pitch and yaw.

 - Turned off oplev damping loops (this actually changed the result, this means that oplev loops have quite high UGFs)
 - Measured transfer functions from C1:SUS-PRM_(UL,UR,LR,LL)COIL_EXC to C1:SUS-PRM_OL_(PIT|YAW)_OUT, with SimDW and InvDW filters on/off.
 - Injected excitations are about 30000 at 100 Hz and 3000 at 10 Hz.
 - When SimDW and InvDW filters are on, analog dewhitening filter should be off, so it should give suspension mechanical response and other filter shapes in coil driver.
 - When SimDW and InvDW filters are off, analog dewhitening filter should be on, so it should give the same transfer function with analong dewhitening filter.
 - Taking the ratio between two should give analog dewhitening filter shape, which is zero at [70.7+i*70.7,70.7-i*70.7] Hz and pole at [10.61+i*10.61,10.61-i*10.61] Hz, from SimDW filter.

Notebook: /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/Git/40m/measurements/SUS/PRM/CoilDewhitening/PRMCoilDewhiteningCheck_COIL2OL.ipynb

 - Attachment #1 shows the result for each coil. 4th panel is the ratio, which should match with analog dewhitening filter shape.
 - The result looks consistent with our expected analog dewhitening filter shape.

 - Repeat this measurement for other suspensions.
 - PRM suspension response have residual frequency dependence from 1/f^2. What is this?

  17549   Wed Apr 19 11:35:20 2023 YehonathanUpdateBHDPRMI estimated noise budget

First, simple stuff. We estimate the noise budget with total input and output noises. Later, we will break it down (ADC, DAC, whitening, dewhitening noises etc.):

We take the dark noise of AS55, REFL11 and make sure that the whitening and "unwhitening" software filters are on (attachment 1)

To convert cts to Watts we use the values from previous MICH noise budgeting for AS55:

PD_responsivity = 1e3*0.8 #V/W
ADC_TF = 3276.8 #cts/V
demod_gain = 2 #6.77 #According to https://wiki-40m.ligo.caltech.edu/Electronics/LSC_demoddulators
whitening_gain = 10**(24/20) #24 dB

We are not sure why the demod gain was chosen to be 2 and not 6.77 as in the Wiki, maybe it was chosen to match the measurements back then. The demod gain for AS55 was actually measured to be 2.4 in elog 16961.

For now, for lack of time, we use the PD responsivity and demod gain of REFL11 from the wiki:

PD_responsivity = 4.08e3*0.8 #V/W
ADC_TF = 3276.8 #cts/V
demod_gain = 4.74 #According to https://wiki-40m.ligo.caltech.edu/Electronics/LSC_demoddulators
whitening_gain = 10**(18/20) #18 dB

Using the Finesse model for PRMI (should push to git) we calculate the sensing matrix (attachment 3). We turn off the HOMs as it gives us strange results for now.

We take the output noise that was measured at the output of the BS coil driver measured in elog 16960.

Attachment 2 shows the estimated PRMI noise budget. Notice that the dark noise contribution is an order of magnitude better than MICH (elog 16984) due to PRG.

  17548   Wed Apr 19 09:52:50 2023 RadhikaUpdateNeuralNetRayleigh spectrograms

Attached are the Rayleigh spectrograms of the error/control signal channels associated with the NN nonlinear control of IMC (pitch). The 4-hour data stretch starts at 3:45pm PDT on 4/18. The spectrograms were generated with (stride=5, fftlength=2, overlap=1). PNG images are attached for reference; the generated pdf files were too large to include here or send over email.

The Rayleigh statistic measures nongaussianity of the data.

  17547   Tue Apr 18 19:29:43 2023 yutaUpdateBHDLO phase noise measurements in ITMX single bounce, MICH and FPMI

[Anchal, Yuta]

We have repeated LO phase noise measurement done in elog 40m/17511.
Method we took was the same, but this time, we used (1+G)*[C1:HPC-LO_PHASE_IN1]/[optical gain] to estimate the free-running noise, instead of using [C1:HPC-LO_PHASE_OUT] multiplied by LO1 actuator gain.
We confirmed that both method agrees down to ~ 10 Hz (at lower frequencies, OLTF measurement is not robust; we used interpolated measured OLTF (Attachment #1) for compensation).
Below is the summary of optical gains etc measured today.
Filter gains were adjusted to have UGF of 50 Hz for all.

LO_PHASE lock in ITMX single bounce
        Demod phase  Optical gain     filter gain
BH55_Q  -102.7 deg    6.9e9 counts/m  -0.34
BH44_Q  -5.7 deg     1.3e10 counts/m  -0.17

        Demod phase  Optical gain     filter gain
BH55_Q  -72.6 deg    8.7e8 counts/m   -4.4
BH44_Q  -27.6 deg    8.8e8 counts/m   -2.2

        Demod phase  Optical gain     filter gain
BH55_Q  24.2 deg     3.7e9 counts/m   -0.67
BH44_Q  2 deg        5.3e8 counts/m   -4.4
  (An order of magnitude smaller than elog 40m/17511)

The values are consistent with elog 40m/17511, except for BH44 in FPMI.
It took sometime to robustly rock LO_PHASE with BH44_Q in FPMI today.
After some alignment, offset tuning and demod phase tuning, it finally worked.
Demod phase of BH44 was tuned to have more DC signal when LO_PHASE was locked with BH55_Q, considering that BH55 and BH44 are orthogonal.
It actually created BH44_I having more amplitude (some noise?) than BH44_Q, but BH44_Q was more coherent to LO_PHASE fringe in BH55_Q.
It might be related to why we are not dark noise limited for BH44_Q, while BH55_Q is dark noise limited in FPMI, and why we cannot lock FPMI BHD with BH44.

  17546   Tue Apr 18 17:37:58 2023 ranaSummaryASCRL controller left for overnight

Anchal and I turned on another RL policy (ninedwarfs) with Chris's help.

It looks to be performing great, with good low frequency suppression and low noise injection at higher frequencies.

Going to leave it on overnight. It seems to respond well to lockloss of IMC, me whacking the MC2 chamber, walking near the MC2 chamber, kicking the optics by step in actuators, and turning off the sensors for a few seconds. Pretty robust!


  17545   Fri Apr 14 07:31:28 2023 JCUpdateGeneralAccelerometer for Tours

I was able to get this accelerometer going for the next Lab tours. I want to get this guy up on a big screen to give people a nice "wow". I found this accelerometer on the Y end cabinet and there is 1 more available if anyone needs it at 40m. It is a Brüel & Kjær 8318. It contains a PZT so there is no need to input a signal. The accelerometer seemed to only put out roughly 2 mV max, so i had to amplify with an SR560 to get a good looking signal. 

RXA: link to Manual

  17544   Thu Apr 13 17:58:16 2023 PacoUpdateALSMoku Phasemeter calibration and ALS noise

Ditto of 40m/17543 but for XBEAT >> Calibrated to 0.3061 +/- 0.0001

An interesting thing to look at is the ALS out of loop spectra using our Moku DPLL. Attachment #1 shows the calibrated noise spectra in Hz/rtHz of both XBEAT and YBEAT as taken by the Moku phasemeter when the ARM cavities are locked to PSL using POX/POY. A great improvement is noted at lower frequencies (almost an order of magnitude for Y, over an order of magnitude for X) and some residual seismic noise (between ARMs and IMC) is noticeable! At higher frequencies, the suppressed laser frequency noises are close to their former references.

However this is only great news for our ALS calibration scheme, as the DPLL range is limited and may not be useful for the usual CARM offset reduction using ALS.

The rms fluctutations for the ALS beatnotes using the Moku Phasemeter have dropped below the 100 Hz floor! We now have 50-55 Hz (before we had 200 to 300 Hz)

Took some ITM/ETM single arm calibration data using Moku Phasemeter ALS>

  • ITM gpstimes = [1365471104 to 1365471582]
  • ETM gpstimes = [1365472286 to 1365473448]

I then took some ITM actuation calibration data using the Michelson fringe. For this I lock MICH and turn on all five lines using AS55_Q >

  • ITMX gpstimes = [1365474355 to 1365474788]
  • ITMY gpstimes = [1365474816 to 1365475268]
  • Free swing = [1365475309 to 1365475535] (to get the fringe amplitude)

The ETM actuation calibration at these frequencies can be transferred using the POX/POY error signals and the ITM calibration from the gpstimes above. This should allow us a back to back cross-calibration comparison for arm cavities. Full analysis to follow this entry.

Finally, please take note of the area around the LSC rack! The temporary Moku phase meter calibration and setup referenced above are still a bit in the way. See Attachment #2

  17543   Thu Apr 13 11:38:50 2023 AnchalUpdateALSMoku Phasemeter calibration

I calibrated the moku phasemeter setup for reading beatnote fluctuations today. The calibration is referred to the DFD output (not including the phase tracker) channels by using the measurement made by gautam in 40m/14981.

Measurement setup

  • Set marconi to 40 MHz carrier, FM1 sine deviation of amplitude 2000 kHz (we expect maximum beatnote fluctuation of ~1.8 kHz for 50 pm length modulation in the arm length) at 145 Hz.
  • The output of amrconi is splitted, one half going to DFD for BEATY, one half going to Moku Phasemeter input 1.
  • Moku phase meter is set with following settings:
    • Input1:
      • Frequency : Auto
      • Bandwidth: 1 MHz
      • Coupling: AC
      • Impedance: 50 Ohms
      • Range: 400 mVpp
    • Output1:
      • Signal Freq offset
      • Scaling: 1 mV/Hz
      • Invert: Off
      • Offset: 0
      • Range: 10 Vpp
  • Measurement taken from 1365442502 to 1365444003


  • Used np.arctan2(Q, I) to read DFD phase output. Multiplied it by 1e6/70.973 to convert it into Hz using DFd calibration by Gautam in 40m/14981. This measurement brings in 340 ppm of uncertainty in the measurement.
  • Demodulated the phase at 145 Hz to get the signal sent by Marconi. Blue trace in the attachment is this signal.
  • Demodulated Moku phase output at 145 Hz and calculated the calibration constant required to match the ampltiude with 400second averaged DFD output.
    Calibration constant came out to be: 0.2953 +/- 0.0001
  • Multiplied the calibration constant to moku phase output. This is the orange curve in the attachment.
  • With this method, we get 0.035% uncertainty on phase calibration from Moku.
  • We can now use moku phasemeter for calibration measurements as the pahse tracker gain is not high enough for calibration lines above 200 Hz.



  17542   Wed Apr 12 21:32:22 2023 yutaSummaryLSCPRMI BHD power measurements

[Paco, Yuta]

We measured the power around BHD PDs to see if the numbers make sense.
Measured values are 10-20% less than expected values, which sounds good.
BHD DC PDs require slight reduction of gains to avoid saturation.

What we measured and result:
 - We measured the power with a Newport power meter (Model 840) for BHD A and B right after the viewport (A path and B path), in front of BHDC A and B, and in front of BH44 and BH55.
 - Note that BH44 is a pick-off from A path and BH55 is a pick-off from B path (see Attachment #1). A path also has a pick-off to BHD camera. So the measured numbers roughly sum up.
 - Measurement was done with LO beam only (misaligned AS4) and PRM misaligned, and PRMI carrier locked (forgot to misalign AS beam, but the most of the power is from LO beam).
 - Results are the following.

        LO beam only        PRMI carrier locked
        (PRM misalgined)    
A path  450 +/- 10 uW       110 +/- 10  mW
B path  360 +/- 10 uW       91 +/- 5 mW
BHDC A  330 +/- 10 uW       74 +/- 1 mW
BHDC B  320 +/- 10 uW       74 +/- 4 mW
BH44    100 +/- 3 uW        27 +/- 2 mW
BH55    3 +/- 1 uW          10 +/- 2 mW

                    LO beam only        PRMI carrier locked
                    (PRM misalgined)
C1:HPC-BHDC_A_OUT16 104                 saturated at ~22000
C1:HPC-BHDC_B_OUT16 103                 saturated at ~22000

Consistency check with previous measurement:
 - Power with LO beam only was measured in July 2022 (elog 40m/17046).
 - Compared with values in July 2022, it is now 10-20% less. This could be explainable by PMC transmission power drop on Dec 27, 2022 by ~10% (elog 40m/17390).

Expected values:
 - Expected values using PSL output of 890 mW (measured in elog 40m/17390) and calculated PRG of 13.4 (elog 40m/17532) are the following (see, also elog 40m/17040). Note that BHD BS has the transmission of 44% and the reflectivity is 56%.

A path, LO beam only
 890 mW * 0.9 (IMC transmission?) * 5.637%(PRM) * 2.2%(PR2) * 56%(BHDBS) = 560 uW
B path, LO beam only
 890 mW * 0.9 (IMC transmission?) * 5.637%(PRM) * 2.2%(PR2) * 44%(BHDBS) = 440 uW
A path, PRMI carrier locked
 890 mW * 0.9 (IMC transmission?) * 13.4(PRG) * 2.2%(PR2) * 56%(BHDBS) = 130 mW
B path, PRMI carrier locked
 890 mW * 0.9 (IMC transmission?) * 13.4(PRG) * 2.2%(PR2) * 44%(BHDBS) = 100 mW

  - Measured values are 10-20% less than expected values.

BHDC PD saturation:
 - Expected counts for C1:HPC-BHDC_A_OUT16 when PRMI carrier locked using LO beam only numbers are

 104 / 5.637% * 13.4 = ~25000

 - So, we are barely saturating.

 - Measure PRG using POPDC.
 - Reduce transimpedance gain of BHDC A and B by small amount to avoid saturation.

  17541   Wed Apr 12 16:11:41 2023 RadhikaSummaryLSCPRMI sensing matrix and RF demodulation phase tuning

[Yuta, Radhika]

We copied the coil balancing procedure found in /scripts/SUS/coilStrengthBalancing/AS1/CoilStrengthBalancing.ipynb to a new PRM directory. After modifying channel names for PRM, we followed the coil balancing procedure:

1. Locked PRY. This was chosen since full PRCL lock was not maintainable for the duration of measurement.

2. Injected 13 Hz line into the butterfly mode and looked for a peak in the LSC PRCL control signal (C1:LSC-PRCL_OUT_DQ). It appeared like the existing coil gains for PRM are already tuned to minimize the but-pos coupling.

3. Injected 13 Hz line into the POS mode and looked for a peak in the PRM oplev pitch and yaw signals (C1:SUS-PRM_OL_PIT_IN1_DQ / C1:SUS-PRM_OL_YAW_IN1_DQ). Like above, the existing coil gains seemed to be tuned to minimize the pos-angle coupling.

The attached spectrum was taken when POS was excited at 13 Hz using LOCKIN1. As expected the PRCL control signal sees the actuation, but we do not see a 13 Hz peak in the oplev pitch/yaw signals.

  17540   Tue Apr 11 19:46:45 2023 RadhikaUpdateALSX end green now indefinitely locking

I measured the OLTF of the XAUX-PDH loop [Attachment 1] now that the green laser is stably locking. I injected an excitation (100mVpp) at the error point of the loop using a Moku:Go. The excitation was summed with the PDH error signal (alpha) using an SR560, and the summed signal (beta) was sent to the PDH servo. (The Moku excitation was buffered with another SR560.) The transfer function beta/alpha was measured on the Moku. 

The loop has a UGF of 26.3 kHz, and a phase margin of ~25º (using 1/1-OLG convention).

Next steps:

- Replace PDH servo demod + controller with Moku:Go lock-in amplifier (ensure loop shape is maintained)

- Deploy digital filters to further increase loop bandwidth/phase margin


  17539   Fri Apr 7 16:28:34 2023 RadhikaSummaryLSCPRMI sensing matrix and RF demodulation phase tuning

[Paco, Radhika]

To determine the PRM angle-to-length coupling for PRCL, we want to inject pitch/yaw lines into PRM and find the corresponding peaks in the PRCL closed-loop control signal (below loop UGF). Below is a summary of PRMI locking efforts.

Locking PRMI carrier

- Locked arm cavities, ran YARM, XARM ASS to get PR2/PR3 alignment

- Locked MICH to dark fringe

- Aligned PRM by maximizing drop in REFLDC (reaches 2 when well aligned)

         *This was the hurdle when attempting to lock PRMI last week*

- Locked PRMI carrier using configurations in PRMI-AS55_REFL11.yml. There is now a "Lock PRMI (carr) using AS55/REFL11" action on the LSC screen that runs operateLSC.py with the aforementioned yaml file.

- Final DoF gains used: MICH --> 0.8; PRCL --> -0.07. At times BS was being kicked too hard, so we reduced the MICH gain from 1.2.

Lock stability

During PRMI lock, REFLDC was noisy with ~1 Hz fluctuations. We got PRMI to stay locked for a couple minutes at a time. Additionally it couldn't lock the AS port to dark fringe, and it stayed bright while tweaking the BS alignment.

We took spectra of ASDC during a lock stretch to quantify the DC power fluctuations at the AS port [Attachment 1]. The red trace is ASDC with PRMI locked. REF0 (black) is ASDC with MICH locked; REF1/REF2 (blue/green) are ASDC with single-bounce PRCL locked (either ITMX or ITMY misaligned). Note that the PRMI spectrum might need to be normalized by the PRCL gain / PRM transmission: ~ 10/0.057 = 175. The factor difference in ASDC fluctuations between MICH and PRMI for a single test point is ~144 --> with PRMI normalized, the ASDC fluctionations are comparable with MICH.

  17538   Thu Apr 6 21:09:12 2023 KojiSummaryNeuralNetTesting neural network controller during day time

I'm going to get into the PSL enclosure. Also turn on the HEPA for a while during the intrusion.
Work done.

Start of the work:
(cds) ~>gpstime 
PDT: 2023-04-06 21:09:36.670623 PDT
UTC: 2023-04-07 04:09:36.670623 UTC
GPS: 1364875794.670623

End of the work:
(cds) ~>gpstime 
PDT: 2023-04-06 21:19:37.331716 PDT
UTC: 2023-04-07 04:19:37.331716 UTC
GPS: 1364876395.331716

  17537   Thu Apr 6 11:49:45 2023 AnchalSummaryNeuralNetTesting neural network controller during day time

I've turned on NN controller for MC WFS PIT loops. One can disable this controller and go back to linear controller by sitemap>IOO>C1IOO_WFS_MASTER>Actions!>Stop Shimmer . One can start the controller again sitemap>IOO>C1IOO_WFS_MASTER>Actions!>Run Shimmer .

  17536   Wed Apr 5 16:44:31 2023 RadhikaSummaryLSCPRMI sensing matrix and RF demodulation phase tuning

[Paco, Radhika]

We calibrated the PRM oplev.

1. Disabled PRM damping and oplev loops
2. Injected excitation (f = 10 Hz; amplitude = 300 counts) to C1:SUS-PRM_ASCPIT_EXC
3. Measured spectra of C1:SUS-PRM_OL_PIT_IN1
     - 10 Hz spectral peak reached level of 1/rtHz (spectral counts)
4. Repeated steps 2-3 in yaw (excitation in C1:SUS-PRM_ASCYAW_EXC; spectra of C1:SUS-PRM_OL_YAW_IN1)
     - 10 Hz spectral peak also reached level of 1/rtHz (spectral counts)
4. Used PRM POS actuation calibration (-2.01e-8 m/counts/f^2) to estimate angular (PIT, YAW) actuation calibration
     - geometric calculation of angular displacement per count, given spatial displacement per count
     - PIT/YAW actuation calibration: 0.791 µrad/count/f^2
5. Estimated lever arm length of 1.5m (distance from PRM to QPD)
6. Calculated angular excitation amplitude: (300 actuation counts) x 0.791 µrad/count/f^2 = 237 µrad/f^2
7. Calculated calibration for oplev PIT/YAW spectra: spectral counts to radians
    - 1 count(m) = 1.5m * 237 µrad/f^2= 356 m*µrad/f^2.
---> For 10 Hz excitation, spectrum calibration = 3.56 µrad/count.

We took calibrated spectra of oplev PIT and YAW (Attachment 1) with the oplev loops open and closed. We see noise suppression up until a few Hz, as expected. The high-frequency floor appears to be at 1e-9 rad/rtHz with this calibration.

Next steps: improving PRMI angular control


  17535   Tue Apr 4 11:10:19 2023 AnchalSummaryNeuralNetTesting neural network controller during day time

I ran two recently trained neural network controllers today between 10 am and Noon. Each test comprised of four segments:

  • All loops open
  • Linear loop closed
  • Neural Network working alone
  • Neural Network + Linear Loop

The latest controller unfortunately failed in both cases, working alone and working together with linear loop.

The second latest controller functioned well, keeping the arm locked throughout.

  17534   Tue Apr 4 11:03:35 2023 JCSummaryElectronicsSR560: reworking
<p>I purchased some more of these from DigiKey. These parts are currently in the EE shop. These are replacements for the NDP5565 part of the SR560.</p>
  17533   Mon Apr 3 12:01:59 2023 RadhikaSummaryLSCPRMI sensing matrix and RF demodulation phase tuning

[Paco, Radhika]

We locked PRMI in carrier.

We refereced the old IFOconfigure script (/opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/burt/c1ifoconfigure/C1configurePRM_Carr.sh) to manually configure the LSC screen for PRMI. The final MICH/PRCL gain values used to achieve lock were flipped in sign:

(.snap file ---> final value)

MICH gain: -1.2 ----> 1.2
PRCL gain: 0.021 ---> -0.07

The FM trigger levels (enable/disable) for PRCL and MICH were set to (150/50). The following filter modules were engaged:

MICH: 2, 3, 6, 8
PRCL: 1, 2, 6, 9

During PRMI lock, the POPDC level reached 13130 counts, or 6.8 mW (using calibration of 1.931e6 counts/W). The POPDC counts level was ~1330 with only MICH locked, meaning the PRC gain was ~10. Attachment 1 is an image of REFL, AS, and POP monitors during lock.

Lock was maintained for close to a minute, allowing us to estimate the UGF at around 100 Hz. We used the AA_PRCL_UGF_meas.xml template to measure the loop transfer function. The GPS time (start, end) for a lock stretch with boost on is (1680547905, 1680547933 1364583160, 1364583442).

Next steps

1. Achieve better angular alignment to keep MICH locked to dark fringe - ASS? Seismic FF?

  17532   Thu Mar 30 16:45:09 2023 PacoSummaryLSCPRMI gain estimates and expected flashing at BHD and POP ports

Here are our best estimates for the optic transmission (power) coefficients.

0.05637 0.022 0.00005 0.5 0.01384 0.01384 0 0 0.09903 0.00005 0 0.1 0 0 0.5

Assuming our input power to the IFO is 0.95 Watts, and the IMC transmission is 90%, about 855 mW should be incident on the PRM. Furthermore, following our recent estimates we can estimate our PRMI gain to be ~ 13.4.

  • Using these numbers we expect a single pass AS power of 517.8 uW and LO power of 530.1 uW when the PRM is misaligned and MICH is free swinging, consistent with recent estimates. When the PRM is aligned we would then expect the max PRMI BHD single port flash to be 7.6 mW.
  • Similarly, using these numbers we expect a single pass POPDC power of 1.01 mW, which then is expected to flash at a ~ 13.5 mW level when the PRM is aligned. The POP beam is split between the position sensor, our broadband POP22 and POP110 RFPD, and a CCD camera to monitor the POP beam.

POPDC calibration

I misaligned the PRM and ITMX to get a single ITMY bounce configuration. From the numbers above, I should expect a single ITMY bounce POPDC power of 255 uW. Instead, I measure a total of 173.5 uW = 78 uW (POP QPD) + 91 uW (POP RFPD) + 4.5 uW (POP camera) which is 50% less than expected frown.  The C1:LSC-POPDC_OUT level for this measurement was 335 counts, giving a rough empirical calibration of 1.931e6 counts / W. When the PRM is aligned and the MICH is free swinging, the POPDC flashes reach levels in excess of 14,500 counts implying 7.51 mW PRMI POPDC power. When PRM is misaligned the POP MICH flashes reach 1360 counts, implying 703 uW (which falls short by ~ 50% from our expectation).

There is probably an unaccounted BS in the ITMX table that may explain our observed difference. Nevertheless, our POPDC calibration should be good from here on.

  17531   Thu Mar 30 09:51:41 2023 PacoUpdateALSXALS / YALS power normalized and noise spectra

After the XAUX - XARM lock was recovered the C1:ALS-TRX_GAIN was set from 0.002 to 0.0006 to normalize the green transmission to 1 when the cavity is aligned. This situation was verified with YAUX as well. The green transmissions are now normalized to 1 when both arm cavities are aligned.

After this I took a reference ALS noise spectra (Attachment #1). The XALS rms noise is ~ 100 Hz (which is great compared to previous reference of > 250 Hz), while the YALS is slightly worse at high frequency but the rms is comparable to previous references (~ 250 Hz). This is somewhat encouraging for our future PRFPMI lock acquistions.

  17530   Wed Mar 29 19:19:41 2023 KojiUpdateALSX end green now indefinitely locking

Stable lock of the X End green laser was recovered.

- The biggest issue was that the laser PZT input had been terminated with a 50ohm at the laser head. (See Attachment 1: The terminator has already been removed in the photo.) Since the PZT output of the servo box (output impedance 10Ohm) goes through 680Ohm at the summing node for the modulation, the PZT output was attenuated by a factor of 15. This made the required servo gain for locking more than the box could deliver. More importantly, the PZT range (in terms of the laser frequency) was also limited. Momentary locks were still possible with the reduced range and gain. However, the actuation signal hit the rail within a few seconds because of the pendulum motion.

Once the terminator was removed from the head, the Xarm was locked with the green laser like a charm.

- On the way to the resolution, I had to go through the full scrutinization of the loop components one by one. Here is the record of the findings:

  • Inspected the green Refl PD (Thorlabs PFA36A). The gain setting of the PD was 40 dB, and the unlocked output voltage was 10.8 V. This is not only very close to saturation, but also the bandwidth drops below the modulation frequency (150 kHz according to Thorlabs' manual). The gain was changed to 20dB. This made the unlocked PD output to be 1.08V and the BW was expected to be 1MHz.
  • Checked the LO setting. The box has a label saying "LO 7dBm". The function generator setting of "0.66 Vrms" resulted in 7.0dBm at the mixer LO input. So this number is used. Exactly the same amount goes to the PZT summing node.
  • Checked the mod freq. The PDH error signal amplitude was maximized at 278.5kHz (mixer output observed with 50Ohm: 46.0mV), however, the signal looked distorted from the text-book shape of the PDF error. This means that the demod phase was not optimized.
    The mod freq of 287.5kHz made the PDH error signal look better while the response was weaker (mixer out: 31.2mV). It turned out that the cavity locking didn't like these mod freq between 280kHz~290kHz. The momentary lock stretches showed a lot of quasi-sinusoidal fluctuation ~600Hz in the error and transmission signals. Instead, the modulation of 210.5kHz was used. This made the error signal during lock stretches clean and tight. 
  • Box inspection: Checked the signal ratio between the error in and the error mon. The monitor gain seemed x20~x21. The PZT output and the PZT mon had identical gains. The transfer function of the box was measured with the gain knob changed from 0.00 to 7.00 where the transfer function started to get distorted with the given input. The gain was increased by 5dB/turn (i.e., 1 turn increases the gain by 5dB). ? It does not match with the info on the schematic and the datasheet? Anyways, the gain knob is working fine.
  • To resurrect the SLOW THERMAL servo, the monitor channels were connected to the DAQ interface. The existing slow channel servo/setting worked fine, wh
  • Usual caution: a slight touch to the satellite amp caused the UR OSEM PD completely black out. It means that just your presence at the X end can make some changes to the suspension.
  17529   Wed Mar 29 17:00:23 2023 AnchalUpdateIOOMC Length feedback is present but not visible in MEDM

I confirmed that MC Length feedback path to MC2 position is present and has been turned off in recent history. Feedback filter module can be seen in sitemap>IOO>Lock MC>MC2_LSC where the bottom fitler module is for feeding back MC Length to MC2. See attached screenshot.

This feedback signal goes and gets added to MC2 suspension longitudnal signal through ALTPOS path which is nominally not shown in any of the suspension screens (including the old ones). Note that this path is different than the LSC path that comes into each suspension screen.

Today, I tried a quick turning ON of this apth without playing around with any of the filters to see if the feedback helps. On first glance, it does not seem to help. Probably the gain values and filter modules need ot be adjusted. See attachment 2.

I'm turning this off again and in future someone should take a look at this loop.

  17528   Wed Mar 29 16:36:04 2023 PacoSummaryBHD"On why BH55 senses the LO phase, a finesse adventure of loss and residual DARM offsets"

I repeated the calculations but with FPMI (last case was all MICH). The qualitative behavior is the same, the BH55 sensing is mostly affected by residual darm offset. If the darm offset is of a couple of nm, the single RF sideband may sense the LO phase at as much as > 20 deg away from the nominal phase angle. This is not too different from the MICH case; so maybe I overlooked something about how I define FPMI in the calculation.

Attachments #1-3 show the plots of the BH55 (single RF sideband) and BH44 (double RF sideband) sensitivity to LO phase fluctuations around various nominal LO phase angles. Attachment #1 looks at the effect of differential loss, Attachment #2 looks at the effect of differential dc reflectivity (of the ITMs), and Attachment #3 looks at the effect of residual darm offsets. Dashed lines show the orthogonal quadrature (I) of the demodulated RF signals (always minimized).

  17527   Wed Mar 29 15:59:01 2023 AnchalUpdateIOOc1ioo model updated to add sensing to optic angle matrices

I've updated c1ioo model with adding WFS sensor to optic angle matrix and output filter module option. The output filter modules are named like EST_MC1_PIT to signify that that these are "estimated" angles of the optic. We can change this naming convention if we don't like it. I've also started DQ on the outputs of these filter moduels at 512 Hz sampling rate.

No medm screens have been made for these changes yet. One can still access them through:

For SENS_TO_OPT_P Matrix

medm -x /cvs/cds/rtcds/caltech/c1/medm/c1ioo/C1IOO_SENS_TO_OPT_P.adl

For SENS_TO_OPT_Y Matrix

medm -x /cvs/cds/rtcds/caltech/c1/medm/c1ioo/C1IOO_SENS_TO_OPT_Y.adl

For filter modules:

medm -x /cvs/cds/rtcds/caltech/c1/medm/c1ioo/C1IOO_EST_MC1_PIT.adl
  17526   Tue Mar 28 10:58:03 2023 ranaSummaryBHD"On why BH55 senses the LO phase, a finesse adventure of loss and residual DARM offsets"

but what about including the DC reflectivity imbalance of the arms? there would be another BH55 term from that field maybe.


  17525   Mon Mar 27 20:28:57 2023 PacoSummaryBHD"On why BH55 senses the LO phase, a finesse adventure of loss and residual DARM offsets"

Yuta pointed out that the BH55 signal was weirdly never going to zero, so I actually tuned the demod angle and made sure I was reading the right (Q) quadrature. This doesn't affect our previous qualitative conclusion about DARM offsets, but here's an updated gif which also makes visualization easier (?).

  17524   Sun Mar 26 19:13:48 2023 yutaSummaryLSCPRMI sensing matrix and RF demodulation phase tuning

that is really a lot of high precision for the REFL_11 demod phase...

for this kind of measurement, I wish we had a python code that would plot this measurment relative to our Finesse/PyKat model so we know if this table is like "Oh, nothing to see here." or "Wow! that's a Nobel prize worthy measurement !!"


  17523   Fri Mar 24 15:05:41 2023 yutaSummaryLSCPRMI sensing matrix and RF demodulation phase tuning

PRMI sensing matrix was measured under PRMI locked with REFL55_I and Q.
MICH actuator is 0.5*ITMX-0.5*ITMY (to have more pure MICH, according to 40m/15996) and PRCL actuator is PRM.
RF demod phases seem to be good within a degree or so to minimize PRCL component in Q.

Sensing matrix with the following demodulation phases (counts/m)
{'AS55': 2.1, 'REFL55': 76.02, 'REFL11': 32.63833493469488}
Sensors       MICH @311.1 Hz           PRCL @313.31 Hz           
AS55_I       (+0.31+/-1.48)e+09 [90]    (+6.56+/-2.23)e+10 [0]    
AS55_Q       (-3.49+/-0.87)e+08 [90]    (+4.62+/-1.80)e+09 [0]    
REFL55_I       (-1.52+/-5.61)e+09 [90]    (+3.21+/-1.36)e+11 [0]    
REFL55_Q       (+8.77+/-0.46)e+09 [90]    (+5.01+/-3.63)e+09 [0]    
REFL11_I       (-0.23+/-1.92)e+08 [90]    (+1.13+/-0.47)e+10 [0]    
REFL11_Q       (+0.39+/-2.14)e+07 [90]    (-4.00+/-9.79)e+07 [0]    

Phase for AS55 to minimize PRCL in Q is 6.14+/-2.08 deg (4.04+/-2.08 deg from current value)
Phase for REFL55 to minimize PRCL in Q is 76.91+/-0.75 deg (0.89+/-0.75 deg from current value)
Phase for REFL11 to minimize PRCL in Q is 32.44+/-0.50 deg (-0.20+/-0.50 deg from current value)

 - Lock PRMI in carrier
 - PRG is not so stable; Measure g-factor of PRC using Kakeru-Gupta method (40m/8235)

  17522   Fri Mar 24 12:54:51 2023 yutaSummaryLSCActuator calibration of PRM using PRY

PRM actuator was calibrated using PRY by comparing the actuation ratio between ITMY.
It was measured to be

PRM : -20.10e-9 /f^2 m/counts

This is consistent with what we have measured in 2013! (40m/8255)

 - Locked PRY using REFL55_I using the configuration described in 40m/17521 (UGF of ~100 Hz)
 - Measured transfer function from C1:LSC-(ITMY|PRM)_EXC to C1:LSC-PRCL_IN1
 - Took the ratio between ITMY actuation and PRM actuation to calculate PRM actuation, as ITMY actuation is known to be 4.90e-9 /f^2 m/counts (40m/17285).

 - Attachment #1 is the measured TF, and Attachment #2 is the actuator ratio PRM/ITMY.
 - The ratio was -4.10 on average in 70-150 Hz region, and PRM actuation was estimated to be 4.90e-9 * -4.10 /f^2 m/counts.

MICH actuator for PRMI lock:
 - When BS moves in POS by 1, BS-ITMX length stays the same, but BS-ITMY length changes by sqrt(2), so MICH changes by sqrt(2) and PRCL changes by -sqrt(2)/2.
 - So PRM needs to be used to compensate for this, and the ratio will be BS + k * PRM, where

 k = 26.54e-9/sqrt(2) / -20.10e-9 * sqrt(2)/2 = -0.66

 - So, good MICH actuator will be 0.5 * BS - 0.33 * PRM, which is not quite consistent with the rough number we had yesterday (-0.275; 40m/17521), but agrees with the Gautam number (-0.34; 40m/15996).
 - PRMI sensing matrix for REFL55 needs to be checked again.

Summary of actuation calibration so far:
 They are all actuator efficiency from C1:LSC-{$OPTIC}_EXC

BS   : 26.54e-9 /f^2 m/counts in MICH (40m/17285)
ITMX :  4.93e-9 /f^2 m/counts (
ITMY :  4.90e-9 /f^2 m/counts (
LO1  : 26.34e-9 /f^2 m/counts (
LO2  :  9.81e-9 /f^2 m/counts (
AS1  : 23.35e-9 /f^2 m/counts (
AS4  : 24.07e-9 /f^2 m/counts (
ETMX : 10.91e-9 /f^2 m/counts (
40m/16977, 40m/17014)
ETMY : 10.91e-9 /f^2 m/counts (
MC2 : -14.17e-9 /f^2 m/counts in arm length (
MC2 :   5.06e-9 /f^2 m/counts in IMC length (
MC2 :  1.06e+05 /f^2 Hz/counts in IR laser frequency (
PRM : -20.10e-9 /f^2 m/counts (

  17521   Thu Mar 23 19:15:39 2023 yutaSummaryLSCPRMI locked using REFL55

[Paco, Yuta]

We locked PRMI in sideband using REFL55_I and REFL55_Q.
Lock is not quite stable probably due to alignment fluctuations, and power recylicing gain is breathing.

PRMI preparations:
 - We aligned PRM using PRY (PRM-ITMY) cavity. Aligning PRM to oplev QPD center or last PRM alignment values in May 2022 (! see 40m/16875) didn't work, but we were in the middle of these two, both in pitch and yaw.
 - After this, we centered PRM oplev, aligned REFL camera, POP RFPD (which provides POP22, POP110, and POPDC), and REFL11.

PRY/PRX locking:
 - PRY/X was locked using REFL55_I or REFL11_I. Locking configuration which gives UGF of ~100 Hz was as follows

REFL55_I (24 dB whitening gain, 76.02 deg demod angle) C1:LSC-PRCL_GAIN=-0.03
REFL11_I (18 dB whitening gain, 32.55 deg demod angle) C1:LSC-PRCL_GAIN=-0.8
FM4,5 used for acquisition, FM1,2,6,9 turned on triggered.

 - Attachment #1 is the measured OLTF when PRY was locked.
 - When PRY is flashing, ASDC_OUT, POPDC_OUT, POP22_I, POP11_Q flashes upto 0.33, 1000, 30, 80, respectively.

PRMI locking:
 - PRMI was locked using REFL55_I for PRCL and REFL55_Q for MICH using the following configurations to give UGF of ~100 Hz for both DoF.

  REFL55_I (24 dB whitening gain, 76.02 deg demod angle) C1:LSC-PRCL_GAIN=-0.03
  FM4,5 for acquisition, FM1,2 turned on triggered using POPDC.
  Actuating on 1 * PRM

  REFL55_Q (24 dB whitening gain, 76.02 deg demod angle) C1:LSC-MICH_GAIN=+0.9
  FM4,5 for acquisition, FM1,2 turned on triggered using POPDC.
  Actuating on 0.5 * BS - 0.275 * PRM

 - REFL55 demodulation phase was the same as FPMI and PRY. We checked this is roughly enough by measuring the sensing matrix to minimize PRCL component in Q.
 - MICH actuation of PRM/BS ratio was roughly tuned by minimizing the sensing of MICH component in REFL55_I.
 - PRCL and MICH gain was estimated by measuring the amplitude of error signals in PRY or PRM-misalgined MICH, and comparing that in PRMI.
 - Attachment #2 shows the screenshot of the configuration.
 - Attachment #3 and #4 are measured OLTF for PRCL and MICH.
 - Attachment #5 shows the time series data when PRMI is locked.

 - Tune PRM local damping
 - Tune REFL55 demodulation phase better by measuring the sensing matrix
 - Measure PRM actuation efficiency to check what is the right BS/PRM balancing
 - Estimate power recycling gain and compare with expectations
 - Lock PRMI using REFL11, AS55

  17520   Thu Mar 23 17:47:53 2023 PacoUpdateNoiseBudgetLO phase noise budget (BH55_Q)

I drafted a calibrated LO Phase noise budget using diaggui whose template is saved under /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/Git/40m/measurements/BHD/LO_PHASE_cal_nb.xml which includes new estimates for laser frequency and intensity noises at the LO phase when MICH is locked (whether they couple through MICH or the LO path is to be determined with noise coupling measurements in the near future, but we expect them to couple through the LO phat mostly).

Attachment #1 shows the result.

Laser Frequency Noise

To calibrate the laser frequency noise contribution, I used the LO PHASE error point away from the control bandwidth (~ 20 Hz) and the calibrated C1:IOO-MC_F control point (in Hz) which should represent the laser frequency noise above 100 Hz. and dithered MC2 at frequencies around to 130, 215, and 325 Hz to match the LO phase error point with the MC_F signal. I was expecting to use a single 0 Hz pole + gain (to get the phase equivalent of the laser frequency noise) but in the end I managed to calibrate with a single gain of 3.6e-7 rad/Hz and no pole. Since the way the laser frequency noise couples into our BHD readout may be complicated (especially when using BH55 RF sensor) I didn't think much of this for now.

Laser Intensity Noise

For the intensity noise, I followed more or less a similar prescription as for laser frequency noise. This time, I used the AOM in the PSL table to actuate on the 0th order intensity going into the interferometer. Attachments #2-3 show the connection made to the RF driver where I added a 50 mVpp sine (at an offset of 0.1 V) excitation in the AM port to inject intensity noise calibration lines at 215 and 325 Hz and matched the LO_PHASE error point with the BHDC_SUM noise spectrum.

  17519   Thu Mar 23 16:21:10 2023 ranaUpdateIMCBeam offset calculation for MC1,2,3 from dither results

I have changed the MC SUS output matrices by a few % for some A2L decoupling - if it causes trouble, please feel free to revert.

Anchal came to me and saiddevil, "I think those beam offsets are a bunch of stinkin malarkey!", so I decided to investigate.cool

Instead of Alex's "method" of trusting the actuator calibration, I resolved to have less systematics by adjusting the SUS output matrices ot minimize the A2L and then see what's what vis a vis geometry.

The attached screenshot shows you the measurement setup:

  1. copy the DoF vector from DoF column into the LOCKIN1 column.
  2. Turn on the OSC/LOCKIN for the optics / DoF in question (in this example its MC2 PITCH)
  3. Monitor the peak in the MC_F spectrum
  4. Also monitor the mag and phase of the TF of MC_F/LOCKIN_LO
  5. use the script stepOutMat.py to step the matrix

Next I'm going to modify the script so that it can handle input arguments for optic/ DOF, etc.

FYI, the LOCKIN screens do have a TRAMP field, but its not on the screens for some reason surprise. Also the screens don't have the optic name on them.crying :


After finishing the tuning of all 3 IMC optics, I have discovered that 27.5 Hz is a bad frequency to tune at: the Mc1/MC3 dewhtiening filters have a 28 Hz cutoff, so they all have slightly different phase shifts at 27-28 Hz due to the different poles due to tolerances in the capacitors (probably).

*Also, I am not able to get a real zero coupling through this method. There always is an orthogonal phase component that can't be cancelled by adjusting gains. On MC3, this is really bad and I don't know why.

  17518   Thu Mar 23 14:20:29 2023 KojiSummaryBHD"On why BH55 senses the LO phase, a finesse adventure of loss and residual DARM offsets"

This is interesting. With the FPMI, the DARM phase shift is enhanced by the cavity. Therefore, I suppose the effect on the BH55 is also going to be enhanced (i.e. a much smaller displacement offset causes a similar LO phase rotation).


  17517   Wed Mar 22 18:38:54 2023 PacoSummaryBHD"On why BH55 senses the LO phase, a finesse adventure of loss and residual DARM offsets"

[Paco, Yehonathan]

I took over the finesse calculations Yehonathan had set up for BHD. The notebook is here and for this post I focused on simulating what we might expect from our single RF vs dual RF sensors (55 MHz and 44 MHz respectively) in terms of LO phase control.

The configuration is simple, only MICH is included (no ETMs, no PRC, no SRC). The LO phase is changed by scanning LO1, the differential loss is changed by scanning the ITMXHR loss parameter (nominally at 25 ppm), and the microscopic DARM offset is changed by scanning the BS position by +- 6 nm.

Finesse estimates the sensor response by taking the demodulated sideband magnitude (BH55, BH44) with respect to a 1 Hz LO1 signal modulation. This can be done for a set of LO phase angles so as to get the nominal LO phase angle where the response is maximized.

I first replicated the plots from [elog17170] for the two sensors in question. This is just done as a sanity check and is shown in Attachment #1. This plot summarizes our expectation that the single RF sideband sensor should have a peak response to the LO phase around 90 deg away from the nominal BHD readout phase angle (0 deg in this plot). In contrast, the double RF demodulation scheme has a peak response around the nominal LO phase angle.

Attachment #2 looks at a family of similar plots representing differential loss changes between the two MICH arms. We tune this by changing the ITMX loss in finesse, and then repeat the calculation as described above. It seems that for the simple MICH, differential loss of ~ 10000 ppm does not impact the nominal LO phase angle where the responses are maximized for either sensor (note however that the response magnitude maybe changes for single RF sideband sensing at extremely high differential loss).

Finally, and most interestingly Attachment #3 looks at a family of similar plots representing a set of microscopic DARM offsets (+- 6 nm). This is tuned by changing the BS position ever so slightly, and the same calculation is repeated. In this case, the nominal LO phase angle does change, and it changes quite a lot for the single RF demod. It looks like this might be enough to explain how we can sense the LO phase angle with a single RF sideband, but I think the next interesting point would be to simulate the effect of contrast defect by changing the ITM RoCs (to scatter into HOMs) or the non-thermal ITM lenses (to probe the TEM00 contrast defect effect). Any comments / feedback at this point are welcome, as we move forward into other configurations where more serious thermal effects might be introduced (PRMI).

  17516   Wed Mar 22 15:51:44 2023 AlexUpdateIMCBeam offset calculation for MC1,2,3 from dither results

I have organized the resulting data from running dither lines on MC1,2,3. The data has been collected from diaggui as shown in attachment 1.

Mirror f_l Avg Re (+/- 1000) Avg Im (+/- 1000) Peak Power (\delta f) Cts/urad
MC1 21.12 7000 4000 8062 12.66
MC2 25.52 13000 10000 16401 6.83
MC3 27.27 4000 -600 4044 11.03

Next using the following equations we can find \Delta Y:

\Delta L = \Delta Y \cdot \theta_{AC}

Where \Delta L is the change in length in result of the dithering and \Delta Y is the overall change in beam spot position

Delta L can be calculated by:

\Delta L = \frac{\delta f}{v_{laser}} \cdot L_{IMC}

where \delta f is the peak power of the line frequency and is found by taking the square root of the magnitude of the Real and imaginary terms, v_{laser} is frequency the laser light is traveling at (281 THz) and L_{IMC} is the lenght of the IMC (13.5 meters).

\theta_{AC} can then be calculated by:

\theta_{AC} = \theta_{DC}/f_l^2

where  \theta_{AC} is the angle at which the mirror was shaken at a given frequency. We can find \theta_{DC} by converting the amplitude of the frequency that the mirror was shaken at and converting it into radians using the conversion constants found here: 17481.

\theta_{AC} is then shown to be found by this angle diveded by the line frequency.

The final values are calculated and displayed bellow:

Mirror \theta_{DC} \theta_{AC} \Delta L \Delta Y
MC1 157.9 urad 0.35 urad 0.38 nm 1.08 mm
MC2 146.4 urad 0.23 urad 0.78 nm 3.39 mm
MC3 226.7 urad 0.31 urad 0.19 nm 0.61 mm


  17515   Tue Mar 21 18:41:12 2023 AlexUpdateIMCDither Lines set on MC1, MC2, MC3 for the night

With Anchal's help, I have setup dither lines for Rana on MC1,2,3 that will be running overnight. The oscilations were set on MC1,2,3, oscillator screens.
The following table describes the current setup:

Mirror Frequency Amplitude
MC1 21.12 Hz 2000
MC2 25.52 Hz 1000
MC3 27.27 Hz 2500

These frequencies and amplitudes were set on LOCKIN1 for each MC1,2,3. The output filters matrix for MC1,2,3 was also updated to reflect the degree of freedom being tested: PITCH.

The frequencies were picked to avoid the dewhitening frequency: 28Hz, and the Bounce/Roll frequencies: 16 Hz & 24 Hz. Furthermore, decimal value frequencies were utilized to avoid the multiples of 1 Hz.

The oscilators were originally started at 1363480200 and will be turned off at 1363535157.

See attachment 1 for the plot of the power spectrum. This test is done to find the beam offset for pitch.

  17514   Mon Mar 20 20:27:30 2023 yutaUpdateBHDLO phase noise contribution in MICH BHD

[Paco, Yuta]

MICH was locked with balanced homodyne readout with LO phase locked using BH55_Q and BH44_Q.
It turned out that BH44_Q gives better LO phase in MICH configuration (in FPMI, BH55_Q is better; see 40m/17506).
LO phase noise seems to contribute to MICH sensitivity in 30-200 Hz region in BH55 case, and 30-100 Hz in BH44 case (this was not the case in FPMI BHD, see 40m/17392).
The mechanism for this coupling needs investigation.

MICH BHD sensing matrix:
 - MICH BHD sensing matrix was measured when MICH is locked with AS55_Q and LO_PHASE is locked with BH55_Q or BH44_Q.
 - MICH UGF was at around 50 Hz, and LO_PHASE UGF was at around 10 Hz.
 - BHDC_DIFF had better sensitivity to MICH when LO_PHASE was locked with BH44_Q.
 - BH44 component was not measured well.

MICH sensing matrix with MICH locked with AS55_Q and LO_PHASE locked with BH55_Q

Sensing matrix with the following demodulation phases (counts/m)
{'AS55': 2.1, 'REFL55': 76.01784975834194, 'BH55': -63.16236453101908, 'BH44': -39.01036239539396}
Sensors       MICH @311.1 Hz           LO1 @315.17 Hz           
AS55_I       (+0.40+/-6.23)e+07 [0]    (-0.83+/-3.01)e+07 [0]    
AS55_Q       (+1.38+/-0.26)e+09 [0]    (+0.76+/-6.58)e+07 [0]   
BH55_I       (-3.22+/-0.37)e+09 [0]    (-0.81+/-8.42)e+07 [0]    
BH55_Q       (+4.03+/-0.52)e+09 [0]    (-4.01+/-1.05)e+08 [0]    
BH44_I       (-0.06+/-4.22)e+10 [0]    (+0.29+/-4.63)e+10 [0]    
BH44_Q       (-0.03+/-3.21)e+11 [0]    (+0.21+/-3.12)e+11 [0]    
BHDC_DIFF       (-1.07+/-0.39)e+09 [0]    
(-3.35+/-7.47)e+07 [0]    
BHDC_SUM       (+2.07+/-0.57)e+08 [0]    (+0.32+/-1.65)e+07 [0]

MICH sensing matrix with MICH locked with AS55_Q and LO_PHASE locked with BH44_Q

Sensing matrix with the following demodulation phases (counts/m)
{'AS55': 2.1, 'REFL55': 76.01784975834194, 'BH55': -63.16236453101908, 'BH44': -39.01036239539396}
Sensors       MICH @311.1 Hz           LO1 @315.17 Hz           
AS55_I       (+0.22+/-5.36)e+07 [0]    (+0.91+/-3.10)e+07 [0]    
AS55_Q       (+1.43+/-0.08)e+09 [0]    (-0.78+/-7.45)e+07 [0]   
BH55_I       (+4.92+/-5.18)e+08 [0]    (-5.20+/-7.93)e+07 [0]    
BH55_Q       (-1.45+/-0.75)e+09 [0]    (+1.76+/-0.59)e+08 [0]    
BH44_I       (+0.01+/-1.14)e+11 [0]    (+0.02+/-1.08)e+11 [0]    
BH44_Q       (+0.03+/-1.95)e+11 [0]    (+0.07+/-1.98)e+11 [0]    
BHDC_DIFF       (+3.05+/-0.17)e+09 [0]    
(+1.70+/-2.51)e+07 [0]    
BHDC_SUM       (-2.33+/-0.23)e+08 [0]    (+0.19+/-1.53)e+07 [0]

  - Jupyter notebook: /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/Git/40m/scripts/CAL/SensingMatrix/ReadSensMat.ipynb

MICH BHD locking:
 - MICH lock with AS55_Q was handed over to BHD_DIFF using following ratio:
C1:LSC-PD_DOF_MTRX_3_4 = 1 (AS55_Q to MICH_A)
C1:LSC-PD_DOF_MTRX_4_34 = -1.34 (BHDC_DIFF to MICH_B, when BH55_Q is used)
C1:LSC-PD_DOF_MTRX_4_34 = 0.47 (BHDC_DIFF to MICH_B, when BH44_Q is used)

MICH BHD noise budget:
 - FM2 of C1:CAL-MICH_CINV was updated to 1/1.4e9 = 7.14e-10 to use measured optical gain.
 - Dark noise was measured at C1:CAL-MICH_W_OUT with PSL shutter closed, PD DOF matrix at various settings for various readout scheme.
 - Attachment #1 shows MICH sensitivity with MICH locked using AS55_Q (green), BHD_DIFF under BH55_Q (blue), BHD_DIFF under BH44_Q (red). BH44 case gives the least noise due to larger optical gain. However, there are excess noise at around 100 Hz, when MICH is locked with BHD_DIFF. The excess noise (bump at around 50 Hz) was similar to what we saw in LO phase noise estimate (40m/17511).
 - At low frequencies below ~30 Hz, the MICH sensitivity is probably limited by seismic noise, as it alignes with FPMI DARM sensitivity (orange curve; measured in 40m/17468).
 - Attachemnt #2 and #3 show estimate of LO phase noise contribution to MICH sensitivity in BH55 case and BH44 case. The coupling was estimated by measuring a transfer fuction from BH55_Q/BH44_Q to MICH_W_OUT. As there was significant coherence in 30-200 Hz region in BH55 case, and 30-100 Hz in BH44 case, transfer function value in that regions was used to estimate the coupling.
 - The coupling was estimated to be the following

 2e-10 m/count for BH55_Q to MICH_W_OUT (0.035 m/m using BH55_Q calibration factor to LO1 motion of 1.76e8 counts/m)
 2e-11 m/count for BH44_Q to MICH_W_OUT

 - Diaggui file: /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/Git/40m/measurements/LSC/MICH/MICH_Sensitivity_Live.xml

  - Calibrate BH44_Q to LO1 motion
  - Measure transfer function from LO1 motion to BHD_DIFF under BH44 and BH55
  - Find out the cause of 50 Hz bump in LO phase noise
  - Compare LO phase noise coupling with simulations

  17513   Fri Mar 17 17:27:58 2023 Alex, TomohiroUpdateIMCArm Cavity Noise injection with WFS1/2 PIT and YAW

Tomohiro and I performed some tests under Rana's guidance to find cross corelations between WFS1 and WFS2 output signals in both pitch and yaw. We performed this test to further understand the degree to which our output matrices have been diagonolized.

Seen in attachment 1 is our base level with no injected noise source. In each figure, we also have inlcuded the coherence plot which compares each control signal to the overalll YARM power signal.

Attachments 2-5 display our results for injecting noise into each control signal individually.

We found the following corelations for each respective test:

Control Signal with Noise Corelated signals (order)
WFS1 PIT WFS1 YAW, WFS2PIT, WFS2 YAW (all equally corelated)
WFS1 YAW WFS1 PIT, WFS2 YAW, WFS2 PIT (most to least)
WFS2 PIT WFS1 PIT, WFS2 YAW, WFS1 YAW (most to least)
WFS2 YAW WFS2 PIT, WFS1 YAW (all equally corelated)

We judged our corelated signals by the peaks seen from out noise injection on the power spectrum as well as by their coherence at the same frequencies of our noise (20Hz-30Hz) compared to the overall power spectrum of YARM.


Performing this measurement was done using diaggui and awggui. The diaggui files for each test are saved at: "users/Templates/singleArmCal/ArmCavityNoise_230317_2_WFS1_PIT"

To properly fix each of the control signals to the same magnitude plotted for YARM output, we callibrated each plot using the settings seen in Attachment 7. First the units were changed on the plots to represent the true scale of each measurement:

We found that the ETMY actuation strength is 10.843e-9 / f^2 (from 17376) and used this to clibrate the plots to the nanometer scale. Next the gain was adjusted such that each plot would align over the YARM output when noise was injected onto it, setting a basis for all four measurements.

Finally, some filtering poles were added to the callibration for each plot such that it resembled that of the filters seen by the YARM ouput signal. (RXA: this is the 28 Hz ELP filter to simulate the dewhitening filters)

The measurements were taken with the settings seen in Attachment 8, and noise injected using the parameters seen in attachment 9.

RXA: Some edits/comments:

The noise was injected as band-limited random noise with a Normal distribution. We used noise rather than lines so as to capture the linear and bilinear noise contributions. In the case where the coupling is mostly bilinear, we would not expect to see much coherence.

The first attachment is a ASC noise budget for the single arm - in the high gain mode, the noise does not limit the noise as seen by the arm. Next is to see if its due to the MC dewhitening filters being on/off?

  17512   Thu Mar 16 13:31:25 2023 TomohiroUpdateIMCDiagonalizing YAW output matrix using a different method


  • To adjust the components of the WFS2 column in the YAW output matrix.
  • To check the value of the off-diagonal components of the WFS1 column.


Alex, Anchal, and I used the same method in 40m/17504 to adjust the components of the WFS2 column. And we did the same step response test to check the value of the off-diagonal components in the YAW output matrix.

Used script & file

All the scripts & files are stored in /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/Git/40m/scripts/MC/WFS/ directory.

  • DiagnoalizatingMethod.ipynb: for adjusting the components and replacing the new output matrix,
  • toggleWFSoffsets.py: for doing the step response test,
  • IOO_WFS_YAW_STEP_RESPONSE_TEST.py: for analyzing the step response result.


We changed the WFS2 column as follows

  From To
MC1 -1.3029 -1.8548
MC2 0.15206 -0.1357
MC3 0.92391 0.40158

We can successfully diagonalize the WFS2 column. The sum of the off-diagonal components is slightly reduced. However, WFS1 has worse diagonalization.

The same step response test should be performed on a different day to see if the results change. It is because the multiple causes could exist: the influence of the changed other columns, the long time drift, the day to day change, and so on.

  17511   Tue Mar 14 18:44:39 2023 yutaUpdateBHDLO phase noise measurements in ITMX single bounce, MICH and FPMI

[Anchal, Yuta]

We have measured LO phase noise in ITMX single bounce, simple MICH and FPMI configurations with LO phase locked with BH55 or BH44.
We found that BH55 and BH44 have almost exactly same noise in ITMX single bounce, but BH44 is noisier than BH55 in MICH and FPMI configurations.
In any case, LO phase can be locked within 0.1 rad RMS, so optical gain fluctuations in BHD_DIFF should be fine for BHD locking.

 - We have locked ITMX single bounce vs LO, AS beam under MICH locked with AS55_Q vs LO, and AS beam under FPMI locked with REFL55 & AS55 vs LO, using BH55_Q or BH44_Q
 - In each IFO configuration, we have minimized I phase to set RF demodulation phases for BH55 and BH44.
 - In each IFO configuration, optical gain of BH55_Q and BH44_Q was measured by elliptic fit of X-Y plot for BH55_Q vs BHDC_A or BH44_Q vs BH55_Q.
 - For each LO_PHASE lock, feedback gain was adjusted to set the UGF to around 50 Hz, and actuator used was LO1.
 - LO_PHASE_IN1 was calibrated using the measured optical gain, and LO_PHASE_OUT was calibrated using LO1 actuator gain of 26.34e-9 /f^2 m/counts measured in 40m/17285.
 - To convert meters in radians, 2*pi/lambda is used (which means dark fringe to dark fringe is pi).
 - Below summarizes the result of RF demodulation phases and optical gains (whitening gains were 45 dB for BH55 and 39 dB for BH44). RF demod phases aligns well with previous measurement, but optical gain for BH44 seems higher by an order of magnitude compared with 40m/17478 (whitening gain changed??). Optical gain for BH55_Q is consistent with previous measurement in 40m/17506 (note the demodulation phase change).

LO_PHASE lock in ITMX single bounce
        Demod phase  Optical gain     filter gain
BH55_Q  -99.8 deg    7.6e9 counts/m   -0.3
BH44_Q  -6.5 deg     1.3e10 counts/m  -0.15

        Demod phase  Optical gain     filter gain
BH55_Q  -67.7 deg    6.1e8 counts/m   -3.9
BH44_Q  -31.9 deg    8.5e8 counts/m   -3.1

        Demod phase  Optical gain     filter gain
BH55_Q  35.7 deg     3.4e9 counts/m   -0.65
BH44_Q  -9.3 deg     4.3e10 4.3e9 counts/m  -0.84  (Typo fixed on Apr 18, 2023 by YM)

 - Attached are calibrated LO phase noise spectrum in different IFO configurations.
 - In ITMX single bounce, LO phase noise estimated using BH55 and BH44 are almost equivalent, and LO phase noise in-loop is ~0.04 rad RMS.
 - In MICH, LO phase noise estimated using BH44 is noisier than BH44 at around 20-60 Hz for some reason. LO phase noise in-loop is ~0.04 rad RMS for both cases.
 - In FPMI, LO phase noise estimated using BH44 is noisier than BH44 above ~20 Hz for some reason. LO phase noise in-loop is ~0.03 rad RMS for both cases. Dark noise is not limiting the measurement at least below 1 kHz.

Jupyter notebook: /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/Git/40m/measurements/BHD/BH55_BH44_Comparison.ipynb

 - Lock MICH BHD with BH55 and BH44, and compare LO phase noise contributions to MICH sensitivity
 - Investigate why BH44 is noisier than BH55 in MICH and FPMI (offsets? contrast defect? mode-matching?)
 - Reduce 60 Hz + harmonics in BH55 and BH44

  17510   Tue Mar 14 15:46:06 2023 TomohiroUpdateIMCDiagonalizing YAW output matrix using a different method

Alex, Anchal, and I adjusted the number of the MC2-TRANS column in the YAW output matrix. We used the same method in 40m/17504 but the amplitude of oscillator for Lock In Amplifier is increased from 1 to 4.

The corrected numbers of the column in the output matrix is as follows:

MC1 -5.5196
MC2 -2.8778
MC3 -5.2232

We did the step response test for the corrected output matrix. The sum of off-diagonal terms was 0.62, which is the minimum value. Attachment 1 is the step response test result. From the figure, the reduction of the sum is because the column MC2_TRANS can diagonalize better. We can find out the property from Attachment 2.

  17509   Tue Mar 14 13:59:11 2023 AnchalUpdateIMCIMC WFS aligned and offsets reset

The WFS loops were not maximizing the IMC transmission. The transmission counts remained stuck at around 12500 counts. The reflection DCMON from IMC had reached above 0.35 while nominally it had been around 0.2. So today, I manuaaly aligned the IMC to best transmission and lowest reflection, then unlocked IMC and reset the offsets on WFS1 and WFS2 RF readouts. After the offsets were changed, the error singals were fluctuating around 0 in best algined state. Then turning on the WFS loops made the transmissions slighlty higher to 13250 counts.

  17508   Tue Mar 14 11:38:44 2023 AnchalUpdateIMCTurned on 6:3lead FM7 on WFS1 and WFS2 YAW loops

I realized that for more phase margin, rana added 6:3lead filter on WFS PIT loops. Since we have increased the UGF on YAW loops too, I turned these on the YAW loops as well. The loops remain stable unlike with the previous matrix. Attachment 1 is the repeat of teh emasurement done by rana earlier but with the new matrix and updated gains in PIT loops. The dark green traces are the references from last measurment with higher gain and HEPA off. The remainging colored traces were measured today.

  17507   Tue Mar 14 11:34:05 2023 AlexHowToComputer Scripts / ProgramsSummary Pages Restart

If the summary pages go down, it could be from a break in the script or some small error. The first remedy for fixing this can be to remove the cron jobs in the que and restart the "gw_daily_summary.sub" and "gw_daily_summary_rerun.sub" scripts. 

For more information on how to do this, follow instructions found in the wiki.


  17506   Mon Mar 13 19:53:36 2023 yutaUpdateBHDFPMI BHD sensing matrix measurement with individual lines

FPMI BHD sensing matrix was measured by an updated method with updated RF demodulation phases for REFL55 and AS55.
Now audio demodulation phase for CARM components is 90 deg to make the sign correct.
Also, oscillators are turned on one by one to reduce contamination between DoFs (especially between MICH and CARM).
These helped a lot in reducing errors.

Sensing matrix with FPMI locked in RF, LO_PHASE locked with BH55_Q using LO1

Sensing matrix with the following demodulation phases (counts/m)
{'AS55': -177.9, 'REFL55': 77.06, 'BH55': -110.0, 'BH44': -8.9}
Sensors       DARM @307.88 Hz           CARM @309.21 Hz           MICH @311.1 Hz           LO1 @315.17 Hz           
AS55_I       (+3.25+/-0.67)e+11 [90]    (-8.63+/-0.41)e+11 [90]    (-1.02+/-1.49)e+09 [0]    (+0.44+/-1.39)e+07 [0]    
AS55_Q       (-6.04+/-0.05)e+11 [90]    (+0.92+/-3.10)e+10 [90]    (+9.10+/-6.78)e+08 [0]    (+0.12+/-2.08)e+07 [0]    
REFL55_I       (+1.18+/-0.03)e+11 [90]    (+2.78+/-0.12)e+12 [90]    (-0.35+/-2.34)e+09 [0]    (-0.94+/-2.38)e+07 [0]    
REFL55_Q       (+5.85+/-0.43)e+09 [90]    (-2.34+/-0.13)e+10 [90]    (+2.39+/-0.38)e+08 [0]    (+3.56+/-7.44)e+06 [0]    
BH55_I       (-3.51+/-3.45)e+10 [90]    (-6.65+/-0.82)e+10 [90]    (-4.91+/-3.03)e+08 [0]    (-1.82+/-0.09)e+09 [0]    
BH55_Q       (+7.86+/-0.29)e+11 [90]    (+2.99+/-0.42)e+11 [90]    (-2.87+/-7.76)e+08 [0]    (+2.81+/-0.15)e+09 [0]    
BH44_I       (-0.34+/-1.99)e+12 [90]    (+0.02+/-1.49)e+12 [90]    (-0.42+/-8.53)e+10 [0]    (-0.01+/-3.08)e+10 [0]    
BH44_Q       (-0.60+/-3.95)e+13 [90]    (-0.01+/-3.00)e+13 [90]    (+0.00+/-1.68)e+12 [0]    (-0.15+/-5.77)e+11 [0]    
BHDC_DIFF       (-9.18+/-0.29)e+11 [90]    (-4.11+/-4.66)e+10 [90]    (+1.46+/-0.10)e+09 [0]    (-1.70+/-0.41)e+08 [0]    
BHDC_SUM       (+2.97+/-0.21)e+11 [90]    (+0.44+/-1.57)e+10 [90]    (-1.01+/-0.06)e+09 [0]    (+2.68+/-0.84)e+07 [0]

 - AS55_Q now has 70% more gain to DARM for some reason (see 40m/17478). Whitening gain haven't changed from 24 dB.
 - There's still some room to tune AS55 RF demodulation phase to maximize DARM response.
 - CARM to REFL55_Q is 100 times smaller than that to REFL55_I; this is good.
 - There's still some room to tune BH55 RF demodulation phase to maximize LO1 response.
 - BH44 doesn't have much response to LO1, probably because LO_PHASE is locked with orthogonal BH55.

Sensing matrix with FPMI locked in RF, LO_PHASE locked with BH44_Q using LO1

 Sensing matrix with the following demodulation phases (counts/m)
{'AS55': -177.9, 'REFL55': 77.06, 'BH55': -110.0, 'BH44': -8.9}
Sensors       DARM @307.88 Hz           CARM @309.21 Hz           MICH @311.1 Hz           LO1 @315.17 Hz           
AS55_I       (+3.94+/-0.52)e+11 [90]    (-1.00+/-0.05)e+12 [90]    (-1.61+/-1.17)e+09 [0]    (+0.45+/-1.52)e+07 [0]    
AS55_Q       (-5.52+/-0.24)e+11 [90]    (+1.19+/-2.99)e+10 [90]    (+1.10+/-0.43)e+09 [0]    (-1.06+/-2.30)e+07 [0]    
REFL55_I       (+8.97+/-0.49)e+10 [90]    (+2.71+/-0.11)e+12 [90]    (-0.38+/-2.28)e+09 [0]    (-0.97+/-2.10)e+07 [0]    
REFL55_Q       (+6.30+/-0.65)e+09 [90]    (-2.01+/-0.12)e+10 [90]    (+2.26+/-0.69)e+08 [0]    (-2.61+/-6.97)e+06 [0]    
BH55_I       (+4.46+/-0.52)e+11 [90]    (-1.52+/-0.27)e+11 [90]    (-1.82+/-0.56)e+09 [0]    (+0.68+/-1.24)e+08 [0]    
BH55_Q       (+9.59+/-0.44)e+11 [90]    (+2.79+/-0.52)e+11 [90]    (+2.75+/-2.49)e+08 [0]    (+2.45+/-1.06)e+08 [0]    
BH44_I       (-0.40+/-2.42)e+12 [90]    (-0.03+/-1.88)e+12 [90]    (-0.03+/-1.13)e+11 [0]    (+0.12+/-4.18)e+10 [0]    
BH44_Q       (-0.19+/-1.09)e+13 [90]    (+0.70+/-7.91)e+12 [90]    (-0.09+/-4.65)e+11 [0]    
(+0.11+/-1.34)e+11 [0]    
(+3.90+/-0.46)e+11 [90]    (+1.06+/-0.18)e+11 [90]    (-4.62+/-1.89)e+08 [0]    (+3.60+/-0.40)e+08 [0]    
BHDC_SUM       (+1.96+/-0.18)e+11 [90]    (-1.08+/-1.29)e+10 [90]    (-8.93+/-1.41)e+08 [0]    (-8.67+/-0.81)e+07 [0]

 - BHDC_DIFF sensitivity to DARM is less than that with LO_PHASE locked with BH55.
 - BH44 sensing matrix has too much error. Requires more averaging time and oscillator amplitude.

Jupyter notebook: /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/Git/40m/scripts/CAL/SensingMatrix/ReadSensMat.ipynb

 - Tune AS55, BH55, BH44 RF demodulation phases
 - Try measuring sensing matrix for BH44 with more averaging time, oscillator amplitude, and PD whitening gain
 - Repeat measurement in 40m/17351 with BH44 under MICH configuration.
 - Compare LO phase noise in MICH configuration when LO_PHASE is locked with BH44 and BH55.
 - Make a noise budget in MICH BHD.
 - Investigate 28 Hz noise in FPMI
 - Tune BS local damping loops

  17505   Mon Mar 13 15:37:13 2023 AlexUpdateIMCStep Response of newly diagonalizing YAW output matrix

From the work that Anchal has completed for diagnolizing the YAW ouput matrix, a step response was taken of this new matrix using our previous methodolgies and the following results:

The step response can be seen plotted in attachment 1. The off diagonal terms of this new matrix sum to 1.24, which is a large decrease from the current matrix and the matrices that were tested from our previous step responses. 

Tomohiro and I are now currently working futher to configure the UGF's for YAW given this new output matrix.


Tomohiro and I have completed testing the YAW Sensor outputs with broadband noise injection and have confirmed that gains currently set on each filter module (which is 1.0 for WFS1, WFS2, and MC Trans) provides us with adequate UGF's. As seen bellow in attachment 2-3, WFS1 and WFS2 have UGF's between 2 and 3 Hz. MC Trans can be seen in attachment 4 and has been confirmed to have a UGF around 0.1 Hz.

Finally, attachment 5 displays the off diagnolized sums and uncertainties for each of our previous step response results and the newest result (labeled "new") for Anchal's OUTPUT YAW matrix. The first graph in blue displays the overall sum and uncertainty related to each step response taken. Then in the following 3 plots, the sum's and uncertaintes for each sensor are displayed individually for each step response test.

For reference:

New: corresponds to Anchal's YAW OUPUT MATRIX

D0: refers to the previously implemented matrix, prior to any testint or updates

D1: refers to the matrix that was computed based off of the first test Tomohiro and I performed

D2: refers to the matrix computed as a secondary result from D1. This matrix was thought to provide a lower off diagonal sum, but did not.

This thoroughly displays our results such that the newly computed matrix from Anchal is much more diagnolized then that of the step response matrices Tomohiro and I have computed.


  17504   Mon Mar 13 14:48:37 2023 AnchalUpdateIMCDiagonalizing YAW output matrix using a different method

I tried a different method today to see if it works. Following are the steps:

  • Run WFS relief.
  • Turn off the WFS loops.
  • Calculate the effective current YAW matrix by transferring C1:IOO-MC#_YAW_GAIN to respective rows of the matrix read from C1:IOO-OUTMATRIX_Y. No need to change the matrix itself.
    • This step should not be required. We should move these gains to the matrices as soon as we can.
  • Put in the first column (corresponds to WFS1_YAW controller output) of this effective current YAW matrix to C1:IOO-LKIN_OUT_MTRX_4_1, C1:IOO-LKIN_OUT_MTRX_5_1, C1:IOO-LKIN_OUT_MTRX_6_1.
    • This is the output matrix of LOCKIN in WFS screens.
    • We are trying to actuate on what we think only affects WFS1_YAW and see if it is crosscoupled to WFS2_YAW or MC2_TRANS.
    • Then we can cancel coupling to the other two sensors by changing our couple vector.
  • Turn on locking at 0.5 Hz with gain 1.
  • Turn on BLP0.3 filter module. This is a 8th order 0.3 Hz butterworth filter.
  • Adjust phases to get all signal in the I quadratures.
  • Using ratio of C1:IOO-WFS_LKIN_I5_OUT16 to C1:IOO-WFS_LKIN_I4_OUTPUT, subtract or add this much factor of the WFS2_YAW column (the second column) of the effective YAW matrix to the column that is put in the LOCKIN output matrix.
    • I was able to subtract to less than 10% cross coupling with the intial matrix I started with.
  • Repeat until no cross-coupling is seen between WFS1_YAW and WFS2_YAW.
  • Repeat the above steps for WFS2_YAW column by putting that into the LOCKIN output matrix. Use the column calculated in last step for adding or subtracting WFS1 actuation.
    • I was able to make WFS2 column very clean with less than 1% measurable crosscoupling to other sensors.
  • I repeated the step for WFS1 column again to remove the cross coupling to WFS2 further to less than 1%.
  • For doing the above steps for MC2_TRANS column, the initial effective matrix column was very bad. The outputs were higher in WFS1 and WFS2 then MC2_TRANS output itself.
  • So I made the first guess by taking a cross-product between the obtained WFS1_YAW and WFS2_YAW columns estimated earleir.
  • Then I repeated the above steps to minimize coupling to WFS1 or WFS2 sensors to less than 10% of MC2_TRANS.
  • THe three column vectors obtained represent the new outpute YAW matrix. I removed the normalization that would be applied by C1:IOO-MC#_YAW filter gains from the rows of this amtrix to get the output matrix that can be put into C1:IOO-OUTMATRIX_Y

Once this matrix was in, I quickly tested it by closing the loop and making gain sign flips if required. Then I took quick swept sine transfer functions to estimate UGFs and scaled the columns of the output matrix to get UGF of 2.5 Hs for WFS1_YAW and WFS2_YAW loops and 0.1 Hz for MC2_TRANS YAW loop when all filter gains are 1 and overall gain C1:IOO-WFS_GAIN is 4. See attached plots.

Old matrix:

-4.094  ,  -3.0383 ,  34.0917
-0.1259 ,   0.27008, -16.081  
-7.1811 ,   0.74271,  28.9458

This was used with gains: 0.5 for WFS1_YAW loop, 0.6 for WFS2_YAW loop and 0.3 for MC2_TRANS_YAW loop.

New matrix:

-1.48948, -1.3029 , -4.93096
-0.05839,  0.15206, -3.66245
-2.82285,  0.92391, -4.68009

All loop gains 1.

Alex and Tomohiro are characterizing this matrix with step response and UGF measurements.

ELOG V3.1.3-