40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 30 of 341  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Category Subjectup
  8844   Sun Jul 14 18:19:00 2013 AnnalisaUpdateGreen LockingArm cavity scan

Yesterday evening Nic and me were in the lab. The Mode Cleaner was unlocked, but after many attempt we could fix it and we did many scans of the Y arm cavity.

Today I was not able to keep the MC locked. Koji helped me remotely, and eventually the MC locked back, but after half an hour of measurements I had to stop.

I made some more scan of the Y arm though. I also tried to do the same for the X arm, but the MC unlocked before the measurement was finished. I'll try to come back in the night.

  15860   Wed Mar 3 23:23:58 2021 gautamUpdateALSArm cavity scan

I see no evidence of anything radically different from my PSL table optical characterization in the IMC transmitted beam, see Attachment #1. The lines are just a quick indicator of what's what and no sophisticated peak fitting has been done yet (so the apparent offset between the transmission peaks and some of the vertical lines are just artefacts of my rough calibration I believe). The modulation depths recovered from this scan are in good agreement with what I report in the linked elog, ~0.19 for f1 and ~0.24 for f2. On the bright side, the ALS just worked and didn't require any electronics fudgery from me. So the mystery continues.

Attachment 1: armScan.pdf
  14944   Sun Oct 6 15:23:27 2019 gautamUpdateALSArm control using error signals achieved


I managed to execute the first few transitions of locking the arm lengths to the laser frequency in the CARM/DARM basis using the IR ALS system 🎉 🎊 . The performance is not quite optimized yet, but at the very least, we are back where we were in the green days.


  1. Locking laser frequency to Y arm cavity length using MC2 as a frequency actuator
    • This is the usual diagnostic done to check the single-arm ALS noise using POY as an out of loop sensor.
    • The procedure is now scripted - I had to guess the sign and optimize the gains a few times, but this works deterministically now. 
    • Script lives at /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/YARM/Lock_ALS_YARM.py.
    • Attachment #1 shows the result. If we believe the POY sensor calibration, the RMS displacement noise is ~6 pm
  2. Encouraged by the good performance of the Y arm, I decided to try the overall transition from the POX/POY basis to the CARM/DARM basis using ALS error signals.
    • The procedure starts with the arm cavities locked with POX/POY, and the respective green frequencies locked to the arm cavity length by the end PDH servos.
    • The DFD outputs serve as the ALS error signals - the PSL frequency is adjusted to the average value of DFD_X_OUT and DFD_Y_OUT.
    • I changed the LSC output matrix element for DARM-->ETMX from -1 to -5, to make it symmetric in actuation force w.r.t. ETMY (since the series resistane on ETMX is x5 that on ETMY).
    • After some guesswork, I fould the right signs for the gains. After enabling the boosts etc, I was able to keep both arms (approximately) on resonance for several minutes. See Attachment #2 for the time series of the transition process - the whole thing takes ~ 1 minute. 
    • A script to automate this procedure lives at /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/ALS/Transition_IR_ALS.py.
    • The transition isn't entirely robust when executed by script - the main problem seems to be that in the few seconds between ramping off the IR servos and enabling the CARM/DARM integrators/boosts, the DARM error-point offset can become rather large. Consequently, when the integrator is engaged, ETMX/ETMY get a large kick that misalign the cavity substantially, degrade the green lock, and destroy the CARM lock as well. The problem doesn't seem to exist for the CARM loop. 
    • Anyways, I think this is easily fixed, just need to optimize sleep times and handoff gains etc a bit. For now, I just engage the DARM boosts by hand, putting in a DARM offset if necessary to avoid any kicking of the optic.
    • Attachment #3 shows the length noise witnessed by POX/POY when the arm cavities are under ALS control. If we believe the sensor calibration, the RMS displacement noise is ~15 (20) pm for the Y (X) arm.
    • This is rather larger than I was hoping would be the case, and the RMS is dominated by the <1 Hz "mystery noise".
    • Nevertheless, for a first pass, it's good to know that we can achieve this sort of ALS performance with the new IR ALS system.

Over the week, I'll try some noise budgeting, to improve the performance. The next step in the larger scheme of things is to see if we can lock the PRMI/DRMI with CARM detuned off resonance.

Attachment 1: ALSY_20191006.pdf
Attachment 2: transitionIRALS.png
Attachment 3: arms_ALS.pdf
  5079   Mon Aug 1 04:08:24 2011 kiwamuUpdateABSLArm length measurement : cavity kick technique

I made some attempts to measure the current length of the arm cavities by using the mass-kicking technique.

However unfortunately I am running out my energy to complete the measurement,

so I will finish the measurement at some time today.

I still have to set an appropriate kick amplitude. Right now I am injecting AWG into ETMY_LSC_EXC at 0.2 Hz with amplutde of 400 cnts.

I guess it needs a little bit more amplitude to get more psuedo-constant velocity.

Volunteers are always welcome !


(some notes)

The procedure was well-described in entry #555 by Dr.Stochino.

Here is just an example of the time series that I took today showing how the time series looks like.


  5095   Tue Aug 2 16:55:21 2011 ranaUpdateABSLArm length measurement : cavity kick technique


I made some attempts to measure the current length of the arm cavities by using the mass-kicking technique.

 Why not just scan the Green laser to measure the arm lengths instead? The FSR of the arm is ~3.75 MHz and so all you have to do is lock the arm green and then sweep the PZT until the resonance is found at 3.75 MHz.


  11098   Wed Mar 4 19:03:19 2015 ericqUpdateLSCArm length remeasurement

As discussed at today's meeting, we would like to (re)measure the Arm cavity lengths to ~mm precision, and their g-factors. Any arm length mismatch affects the reflection phase of the sidebands in the PRMI, which might be one source of our woes. Also, as I mentioned in a previous elog, the g-factors influence whether our 2f sidebands are getting pulled into the interferometer or not.

These both can be done by scanning the arm on ALS and measuring the green beat frequency at each IR resonance. (Misaligning the input beam will enhance the TM10 Mode content, and let us measure its guoy phase shift)

I started working on this today, but I have measurements to do, since at the time of today's measurements, I was fooled by the limits of the ALS offset sliders that I could only scan through two FSRs. Looking back at Manasa's previous measurment (ELOG 9804), I see now that more FSRs are possible.

Ways I will try to improve the measurement:

  • Jenne claims that the main limitation on ALS scanning range is the length to pitch coupling of the ETMs. If so, I should be able to get even more FSRs by scanning with MC2, as I did today, since the IMC cavity length is shorter, meaning more arm FSRs/unit length. More FSRs mean better statistics on the FSR slope fitting.
  • FSR error:
    • I am measuring the out-of-loop PDH signal of the arm at the same time as the beat spectrum is being measured, to know the magnitude of displacement fluctuations and any overall offset from the PDH zero crossing.
  • Beat frequency error:
    • I updated the HP8591E gpib scripts to be able to set the bandwidth and averaging settings in order to really nail down observed beat frequency.
    • I've written some code to fit the spectrum to a lorentzian profile, for evaluation of the linewidth/frequency uncertainty
    • I am also considering beating the analyzer with a rubidium clock to compensate for systematic errors, since ELOG 9837 says the analyzer is off by 140Hz/10MHz, i.e. 10ppm. Since we're trying to measure 1mm/40m~25ppm, this can matter.

Just for kicks, here are scans from today.

Attachment 1: Xscan.png
Attachment 2: Yscan.png
  11107   Fri Mar 6 02:10:35 2015 ranaUpdateLSCArm length remeasurement

This has been done before:


Arm length measurements and g-factor estimates in 2012, but only with an accuracy of ~30 cm. However, Yuta was able to get many FSRs somehow.

  3001   Thu May 27 12:52:02 2010 AlbertoUpdate40m UpgradingArm lengths

For both sidebands to be antiresonant in the arms, the first modulation frequency has to be:

f1 = (n + 1/2) c / (2*L)

where L is the arm length and c the speed of light.  For L=38m, we pick to cases: n=3,  then f1a = 13.806231 MHz;  n=2, then f1b = 9.861594 MHz.

If we go for f1a, then the mode cleaner half length has to change to 10.857m.  If we go for f1b, the MC length goes to 15.200m. A 2 meter change from the current length either way.

And the mode cleaner would only be the first of a long list of things that would have to change. Then it would be the turn of the recycling cavities.

Kind of a big deal.

  11524   Sat Aug 22 15:48:32 2015 KojiSummaryLSCArm locking recovery

As per Ignacio's request, I restored the arm locking.

- MC WFS relief

- Slow DC restored to ~0V

- Turned off DARM/CARM

- XARM/YARM turned on

- XARM/YARM ASS& Offset offloading

  1576   Tue May 12 01:22:51 2009 YoichiUpdateLSCArm loss
Using the armLoss script (/cvs/cds/caltech/scripts/LSC/armLoss), I measured the round trip loss (RTL) of the arms.

The results are:
XARM: RTL= 171 (+/-2) ppm
YARM: RTL = 181 (+/-2) ppm

To get the results above, I assumed that the transmissivity of the ITMs are the same as the designed value (0.005).
This may not be true though.
  12533   Wed Oct 5 19:10:04 2016 gautamUpdateGeneralArm loss measurement review


There are multiple methods by which the arm loss can be measured, including, but not limited to:

  1. Cavity ringdown measurement
  2. Monitoring IR arm transmission using ALS to scan the arm through multiple FSRs
  3. Monitoring the reflected light from the ITM with and without a cavity (Johannes has posted the algebra here)

We found that the second method is extremely sensitive to errors in the ITM transmissivity. The first method was not an option for a while because the AOM (which serves as a fast shutter to cut the light to the cavity and thereby allow measurement of the cavity ringdown) was not installed. Johannes and Shubham have re-installed this so we may want to consider this method.

Most of the recent efforts have relied on the 3rd method, which itself is susceptible to many problems. As Yutaro found, there is something weird going on with ASDC which makes it perhaps not so reliable a sensor for this measurement (unfortunately, no one remembered to follow up on this during the vent, something we may come to regret...sad). He performed some checks and found that for the Y arm, POY is a suitable alternative sensor. However, the whitening gain was at 0dB for the measurements that Johannes recently performed (Yutaro does not mention what whitening gain he used, but presumably it was not 0). As a result, the standard deviation during the 10s averaging was such that the locked and misaligned readings had their 'fuzz' overlapping significantly. The situation is worse for POX DC - today, Eric checked that the POX DC and POY DC channels are indeed reporting what they claim, but we found little to no change in the POX DC level while misaligning the ITM - even after cranking the whitening gain up to 40!

Eric then suggested deriving ASDC from the AS110 photodiode, where there is more light. This increased the SNR significantly - in a 10s averaging window, the fuzz is now about 10 ADC counts out of ~1500 (~<1%) as opposed to ~2counts out of 30 previously. We also set the gains of POX DC, POY DC and ASDC to 1 (they were 0.001,0.001 and 0.5 respectively, for reasons unknown).

I ran a quick measurement of the X arm loss with the new ASDC configuration, and got a number of 80 +/- 10 ppm (7 datapoints), which is wildly different from the ~250ppm number I got from last night's measurement with 70 datapoints. I was simultaneously recording the POX DC value, which yielded 40 +/- 10 ppm.

We also discovered another possible problem today - the spot on the AS camera has been looking rather square (clearly not round) since, I presume, closing up and realigning everything. By looking at the beam near the viewport on the AS table for various configurations of the ITM, we were able to confirm that whatever is causing this distortion is in the vacuum. By misaligning the ITM, we are able to recover a nice round spot on the AS camera. But after running the dither align script, we revert to this weirdly distorted state. While closing up, no checks were done to see how well centered we are on the OMs, and moreover, the DRMI has been locked since the vent I believe. It is not clear how much of an impact this will have on locking the IFO (we will know more after tonight). There is also the possibility of using the PZT mounted OMs to mitigate this problem, which would be ideal.

Long story short -

  1. Some more thought needs to be put into the arm loss measurement. If we are successful in locking the IFO, the PRG would be a good indicator of the average arm loss.
  2. There is some clipping, in vacuum, of the AS beam. It may be that we can fix this without venting, to be investigated.

GV Edit 8 Oct 2016: Going through some old elogs, I came across this useful reference for loss measurement. It doesn't talk about the reflection method (Method 3 in the list at the top of this elog), but suggests that cavity ringdown with the Trans PD yields the most precise numbers, and also allows for measuring TITM

  10248   Mon Jul 21 17:32:43 2014 ericqSummaryLSCArm losses


From the last plot:

- Subtracting the offset of 0.0095, the modulation depth were estimated to be 0.20 for 11MHz, 0.25 for 55MHz

- Carrier TEM00 1.0, 1st order 0.01, 2nd order 0.05, 3rd order 0.002, 4th order 0.004

==> mode matching ~93%, dominat higher order is the 2nd order (5%).

Eric: now we have the number for the mode matching. How much did the cavity round-trip loss be using this number?

Using these numbers for both arms (Modulation takes away .2*.25 = 5% power, mode matching takes away 7% after that), I get the following from my data from March:

Xarm loss is 561.19 +/- 14.57 ppm

Yarm loss is 130.67 +/- 18.97 ppm

Obviously, the Xarm number looks very fishy, but its behavior was qualitatively very different when I took the data. ASDC would change from ~0.298 to ~0.306 when the Yarm was locked vs. misaligned, whereas the xarm numbers were .240 to .275. 

In any case, I'll do the measurement again tomorrow, being careful with offsets and alignment; it won't take too long. 

  15264   Tue Mar 10 19:59:09 2020 YehonathanUpdateLoss MeasurementArm transfer function measurement

I want to measure the transfer function of the arm cavities to extract the pole frequencies and get more insight into what is going on with the DC loss measurements.

The idea is to modulate the light using the PSL AOM. Measure the light transmitted from the arm cavities and use the light transferred from the IMC as a reference.

I tried to start measuring the X arm but the transmission PD is connected to the QPD whitening filter board with a 4 pin Lemo for which I couldn't find an adapter.

  • I switch to the Y arm where the transmission PD - Thorlabs PDA520 (250KHz Bandwidth) - is BNC all the way.
  • I lay an 82ft BNC cable from the Y Arm 1Y4 to 1Y1 where the BNC from the IMC Trans PD and an SR785 are found. 
  • I lock the Arm cavities.
  • I connect the AOM cable to the source, the TRY PD (Teed off from the QPD whitening filter) to CH1 and IMC_TRANS to CH2 and measure the transfer function using a swept sine with an offset of 300mV and amplitude of 100mV.
  • I fit it to a low pass filter function - see attachment 1 - but it seems like the fit rails off at 10KHz. 

Could this be because of the PDA520 limited BWs? I tried playing with the PD gain/bandwidth switch but it seems like it was already set to high bandwidth/low gain.

In any case, the extracted pole frequency ~ 2.9kHz implies a finesse > 600 (assuming FSR = 3.9MHz) which is way above the maximal finesse (~ 450) for the arm cavities.

I disconnected the source from the AOM. But left the other two BNCs connected to the SR785. Also, TRY PD is still teed off. Long BNC cable is still on the ground.

Attachment 1: YArmFrequencyResponse.pdf
  15269   Thu Mar 12 10:43:50 2020 ranaUpdateLoss MeasurementArm transfer function measurement

                               when doing the AM sweeps of cavities

make sure to cross-calibrate the detectors

                       else you'll make of science much frivolities

            much like the U.S. elections electors

  15277   Mon Mar 16 15:23:03 2020 YehonathanUpdateLoss MeasurementArm transfer function measurement

I measured the cross-calibration of the two PDs on the PSL table.

I used the existing flip mounted BS that routes the beam into a PDA255, the same as in the IMC transmission.

I placed a PDA520, the same as the one measuring TRY_OUT on the ETMY table,  on the transmission of the BS (Attachment 1).

I used the SR785 to measure the frequency response of PDA520 with reference to PDA255 (Attachment 2). Indeed, calibration is quite significant.

I calibrated the Y arm frequency response measurement.

However, the data seem to fit well to 1/sqrt(f^2+fp^2) - electric field response - but not to 1/(f^2+fp^2) - intensity response. (Attachment 3).

Also, the extracted fp is 3.8KHz (Finesse ~ 500) in the good fit -> too small.

When I did this measurement for the IMC in the past I fitted the response to 1/sqrt(f^2+fp^2) by mistake but I didn't notice it because I got a pole frequency that was consistent with ringdown measurements.

I also cross calibrated the PDs participating in the IMC measurement but found that the calibration amounted for distortions no bigger than 1db.

Attachment 1: Cross_calibration_setup.jpg
Attachment 2: PDA520overPDA255_Response.pdf
Attachment 3: YArmFrequencyResponse.pdf
  15307   Sat Apr 18 14:57:44 2020 YehonathanUpdateLoss MeasurementArm transfer function measurement

Ok, now I understand my foolishness. It should definitely be 1/sqrt(f^2+fp^2) .

However, the data seem to fit well to 1/sqrt(f^2+fp^2) - electric field response - but not to 1/(f^2+fp^2) - intensity response. (Attachment 3).
  15355   Tue May 26 14:32:44 2020 gautamUpdateLSCArm transmission RIN


The measured RIN of the arm cavity transmission when the PRFPMI is locked is ~10x in RMS relative to the single arm POX/POY lock. It is not yet clear to me where the excess is coming from.


Attachment #1 shows the comparison.

  • For the PRFPMI lock, the ITM Oplev Servos are DC coupled, and the ETM QPD ASC servos are also enabled.
  • Admittedly, the PD used in the POX/POY lock case is the Thorlabs PD while when the PRFPMI is locked, it is the QPD.
  • I found that there isn't really a big difference in the RIN if we normalize by the IMC transmission or not (this is what the "un-normalized" in the plot legend is referring to).  A scatter plot of TRX vs TRY and TRX/MCtrans vs TRY/MCtrans have nearly identical principal components. 
  • To convert to RIN, I divided the ocmputed spectra by the mean value of the data stream. For the POX/POY lock, the arm transmission is normalized to 1, so no further manipulation is required.
  • The spectra are truncated to 512 Hz because the IMC sum channel is DQ-ed at 1 kHz, but because of the above bullet point, in principle, I could calculate this out to higher frequencies.
Attachment 1: armRIN.pdf
  15359   Wed May 27 19:36:33 2020 KojiUpdateLSCArm transmission RIN

My speculation for the worse RIN is:

- Unoptimized alignment -> Larger linear coupling of the RIN with the misalignment
- PRC TT misalignment (~3Hz)

Don't can you check the correlation between the POP QPD and the arm RIN?

  15361   Thu May 28 18:36:45 2020 gautamUpdateLSCArm transmission RIN

I agree, I think the PRC excess angular motion, PIT in particular, is a dominant contributor to the RIN. Attachments #1-#3 support this hypothesis. In these plots, "XARM" should really read "COMM" and "YARM" should really read "DIFF", because the error signals from the two end QPDs are mixed to generate the PIT and YAW error signals for these ASC servos - this is some channel renaming that will have to be done on the ASC model. The fact that the scatter plot between these DoFs has some ellipticity probably means the basis transformation isn't exactly right, because if they were truly orthogonal, we would expect them to be uncorrelated?

  • In the corner plots, I am plotting the error signals of the ASC servos and the arm transmission. POP feedback is not engaged, but some feedback control to the ETMs based on the QPD signals is engaged.
  • In the coherence plot, I show the coherence of the ASC error signals with the POP and TR QPD based error signals, under the same conditions. The coherence is high out to ~20 Hz.

I guess what this means is that the stability of the lock could be improved by turning on some POP QPD based feedback control, I'll give it a shot.


- PRC TT misalignment (~3Hz)

Don't can you check the correlation between the POP QPD and the arm RIN

Attachment 1: PRFPMIcorner_ASC_PIT_1274419354_1274419654.pdf
Attachment 2: PRFPMIcorner_ASC_YAW_1274419354_1274419654.pdf
Attachment 3: PRFPMIcorner_ASC_coherence_1274419354_1274419654.pdf
  15362   Fri May 29 00:34:57 2020 ranaUpdateLSCArm transmission RIN

how bout corner plot with power signals and oplevs? I think that would show not just linear couplings (like your coherence), but also quadratic couplings (chesire cat grin)devil

  2611   Wed Feb 17 19:36:05 2010 KojiUpdateCOCArm visibility

I have measured the arm visibilities.
I did not see any change since the last wiping. Our vacuum is not contaminating the cavity in the time scale of 2 months.

It is very good.

Arm visibility measurement ~ latest (Feb. 17, 2010)

X Arm: 0.898 +/- 0.003
Y Arm: 0.892 +/- 0.006

Arm visibility measurement after the vent (Dec. 14, 2009)

X Arm: 0.897 +/- 0.005
Y Arm: 0.893 +/- 0.004

Arm visibility measurement before the vent (Nov 10, 2009)

X Arm: 0.875 +/- 0.005
Y Arm:
0.869 +/- 0.006

  15225   Wed Feb 26 17:17:17 2020 YehonathanUpdate Arms DC loss measurements

{Yehonathan, Gautam}

In order to measure the loss in the arm cavities in reflection, we use the DC method described in T1700117.

It was not trivial to find free channels on the LSC rack. The least intrusive way we found was to disconnect the ALS signals DSUB9 (Attachment 1) and connect a DSUB breakout board instead (Attachment 2).

The names of the channels are ALS_BEATY_FINE_I_IN1_DQ for AS reflection and ALS_BEATY_FINE_Q_IN1_DQ for MC transmission. Actually, the script that downloads the data uses these channels exactly...

We misalign the Y arm (both ITM ad ETM) and start a 30 rep measurement of the X arm loss cavity using /scripts/lossmap_scripts/armLoss/measureArmLoss.py and download the data using dlData.py.

We analyze the data. Raw data is shown in attachment 3. There is some drift in the measurement, probably due to drift of the spot on the mirror. We take the data starting from t=400s when the data seems stable (green vertical line). Attachment 5 shows the histogram of the measurement

X Arm cavity RT loss calculated to be 69.4ppm.

We repeat the same procedure for the Y Arm cavity the day after. Raw data is shown in attachment 5, the histogram in attachment 6.

Y Arm cavity RT loss calculated to be 44.8ppm. The previous measurement of Y Arm was ~ 100ppm...

Loss map measurement is in order.

Attachment 1: 20200226_171155.jpg
Attachment 2: 20200226_171539.jpg
Attachment 3: XArmLossMeasurement_RawData.pdf
Attachment 4: XArmLossMeasurement_Hist.pdf
Attachment 5: YArmLossMeasurement_RawData.pdf
Attachment 6: YArmLossMeasurement_Hist.pdf
  10558   Wed Oct 1 19:40:46 2014 ericqUpdateLSCArms IR aligned
  • Beamsplitter was put into MC refl path.
  • HWP was rotated to maximize power into PMC. 
  • MC autolocker locked, small alignment tweak led to WFS taking over
  • Light present on REFL, AS and POP!
  • After small adjustments to TTs and ETMY, locked Yarm with AS55, ran ASS. 
  • Adjusted AS camera and RFPD alignment for ASS'd AS beam. 
  • Left arm locked on AS55, aligned new POY beam onto POY11. Centered ITMY oplev while I was there. 
  • After adjusting digital POY11 demod angle with an excitation into ETMY, arms were POX/POY locked and ASS'ed.
  • PRM and SRM eyeball aligned

The IFO is ready for 3F DRMI comissioning 

  2605   Tue Feb 16 10:01:16 2010 AlbertoConfigurationLSCArms and PRC not locking

Since last Friday either the arms or the PRC can't lock.

The montors show the beam flashing on the end mirrors, but the cavity can't get locked. The error signal looks fine. I suspect a computer problem.

Also PRC can't lock. SPOB is suspiciously stuck at about -95. Although that's not a fixed number, but covering the by hand the SPOB PD on the ITMY table doesn't change the number. I check the DC output of the photodetector and it is actually seen the beam.

Suspecting computer problems started after last Thursday's IP switch, I rebooted the frame builder, c1dcuepics, c1daqctrl and all the front ends. I then burtrestored to February 1st at 1:00 am.

Before I burtrestored c1iscepics, SPOB had gone back to more typical numbers around 0, as it usually read when PRC wasn't locked.

But burtrestoring c1iscepics, return it to the -95 of earlier.

Burterestoring to other times or dates didn't solve the problems.

  2607   Tue Feb 16 14:10:06 2010 josephb, rob, kojiConfigurationLSCArms and PRC not locking


Since last Friday either the arms or the PRC can't lock.

The montors show the beam flashing on the end mirrors, but the cavity can't get locked. The error signal looks fine. I suspect a computer problem.

Also PRC can't lock. SPOB is suspiciously stuck at about -95. Although that's not a fixed number, but covering the by hand the SPOB PD on the ITMY table doesn't change the number. I check the DC output of the photodetector and it is actually seen the beam.

Suspecting computer problems started after last Thursday's IP switch, I rebooted the frame builder, c1dcuepics, c1daqctrl and all the front ends. I then burtrestored to February 1st at 1:00 am.

Before I burtrestored c1iscepics, SPOB had gone back to more typical numbers around 0, as it usually read when PRC wasn't locked.

But burtrestoring c1iscepics, return it to the -95 of earlier.

Burterestoring to other times or dates didn't solve the problems.

 Koji and I started poking around, trying to understand what was going on.  At first, we thought it might be related to a computer error, as it seemed.

Fortunately, Rob stopped by and explained that the boost stage of the filter comes under c1lsc control, and will be turned on or off depending on the power in the arms.  Although if you turn it off, it will remain off, it just if its manually selected on, it may go on or off.

Similarly, the output from the Xarm filter bank to the ETMX  filter input will be turned on or off depending on the power in the arm.

Anyways, the locking trouble turns out to be due to no RF sidebands at 33 MHz.  The output of the Marconi was unplugged.  I don't know who, or why did it, but I've plugged it in for now, so we can lock the arms.  Let us know if you need in unplugged.  Thanks.

  2608   Tue Feb 16 15:25:00 2010 AlbertoConfigurationLSCArms and PRC not locking



  9213   Mon Oct 7 13:55:26 2013 JenneUpdateLSCArms locked in IR for many hours

Someone left the arms aligned, and the LSC engaged, so the arms have been locked almost continuously for several days hours.  The trend below is for 4 days hours.  What is most impressive to me is that we don't see a big degredation in the transmitted power over this time.

EDIT: Okay, I got excited without paying attention to units.  It was only several hours, which is not too unusual.  Although the lack of transmission degredation is still unusual.  However, this may be due to improved oplevs?  I'm not sure why, but we're not seeing (at least in this plot) the degredation to ~0.7 after an hour or so.


  8974   Tue Aug 6 19:53:15 2013 JenneUpdateLSCArms locked in IR, aligned. IFO at nominal power

[Koji, Manasa, Jenne]

The Y arm was locked in IR, and we saw flashing in the Xarm (Gautam had the Xarm for green work when we began).  I checked IPANG, and the beam was beautifully unclipped, almost perfectly centered on the first out of vacuum mirror.  I aligned the beam onto the QPD.

We then swapped out the MC Y1 that we use at low power, and replace the usual 10% BS, so that we wouldn't crispy-fry MC REFL.  Manasa adjusted the half wave plate after the laser, to maximize the power going toward the PMC.  We relocked the PMC, and see transmission of ~0.84, which is at the high side of what we usually get.  The beam was aligned onto MC REFL and centered on the WFS, and the MC was locked at nominal power.  Koji tweaked up the alignment of the MC, and ran the WFS offset script.  I aligned beam onto POP QPD and POP110 coarsely (using a flashing PRC, not a locked PRM-ITMY cavity, so the alignment should be rechecked).  The arms have both been locked and aligned in IR....the green beams need to be steered to match the current cavity axis. 

The AS beam, as well as REFL and POP, are all coming out of the vacuum nicely unclipped. 

Notes:  When Koji was aligning the SRM to get the SRC cavity roughly aligned (the AS flashes all overlapping), we noticed that there is some major pitch-yaw coupling.  Serious enough that we should be concerned that perhaps some connector is loose, or an actuator isn't working properly.  This should be checked.

Moral of the story:  Coarse alignment of all mirrors is complete after pump-down and we have IR locked and aligned to both arms at nominal power.


Still to do:

* Restore PRM, align beam onto the REFL PDs. 

* Lock PRM-ITMY cavity, align beam onto POP PDs.

* Align AS beam onto AS55. 

* Recenter all oplevs.

* Recenter IPPOS and IPPANG at nominal power.

* Start locking!!

  8975   Wed Aug 7 10:09:30 2013 KojiUpdateLSCArms locked in IR, aligned. IFO at nominal power

I have a concern about the SRM suspension. The yaw alignment bias produces huge pitch coupling.

This could be a connector issue or the rubbing of the mirror on the EQ stops.

We have the photos of the magnets and they were not touching the OSEMs.

  9008   Tue Aug 13 21:09:03 2013 manasaUpdateGreen LockingArms ready for ALS

I aligned both the X and Y end green to the arms.

The transmitted green were aligned at the PSL table green optics to the beat PDs.
Beat notes were retrieved.
To do:
1. Check Y arm ALS with previous performance.
2. Troubleshoot X arm ALS.
3. Edit the automation scripts for ALS.
4. Modify ALS model to talk to LSC instead of suspension models.
  1233   Fri Jan 16 18:25:32 2009 Yoichi, Kakeru, RanaUpdateLSCArms were unstable
The single arm lock had been unstable for both arms in the past few days.

When an arm was locked by itself, the transmitted power showed a lot of fluctuations (sharp drops).
The first attachment shows the arm power fluctuations in power spectrum and time series.
References are when the boost filters are off for the arm feedback.
You can see that when the boosts are off, the power fluctuates a lot.
Also it is obvious that X-arm is a lot worse than Y.

The second attachment is the comparison of the error signal spectra between boosts on and off.
(PD3_I is the error signal of X-arm, PD4_I is Y arm). References are boost on.
Since the arm power fluctuation was suppressed by the gain increase, it was suspected that the main
reason for the power fluctuation is not alignment fluctuation. Rather, it is length or frequency fluctuation.

Then I took spectra and coherences of PD3_I, PD4_I and MC_F with both arms locked independently.
You can see broadband coherence between PD3_I (Xarm) and MC_F (frequency noise). In contrast the coherence
between PD4_I and MC_F is smaller. This means X-arm is more susceptible to the frequency noise than Y.
What can make a simple Fabry-Perot cavity more susceptible to frequency noise ? An offset ?
So I canceled the X-arm offset at the X-arm filter bank. Bingo ! The arm power fluctuation of X-arm became as small as Y-arm
in the dataviewer.
But what is making this offset ?
After watching the dataviewer screen for a while, the arm power fluctuation became larger again. I had to re-adjust the artificial offset
to minimize the fluctuation. This made me think that the source of the offset must be something to do with alignment.
In this case, clipping of the beam at the PD was very suspicious.
So I checked the centering of the POX and POY PDs. As expected, POX was terribly off-centered.
POY was also not exactly at the center of the plateau of DC output.
After centering those PDs, the large offset in the arm loops went away.
Now the arm powers are stable without artificial offset in the loop filters.
The last attachment shows the comparison of arm power fluctuation before and after the PD centering.
(references are the measurements before the centering).
Attachment 1: TRXY.pdf
Attachment 2: ErrorSignals.pdf
Attachment 3: coherenceBetweenArms.pdf
Attachment 4: ArmPowersAfterPDwasCentered.pdf
  3582   Fri Sep 17 03:32:11 2010 KojiUpdateSUSArrangement of the SUS towers

The day before yesterday, I was cleaning a flow bench in the clean room.

I found that one SOS was standing there. It is the SRM suspension.

I thought of the nice idea:

- The installed PRM is actually the SRM (SRMU04). It is 2nd best SRM but not so diiferent form the best one.
==> Use this as the final SRM

- The SRM tower at the clean room
==> Use this as the final PRM tower.
==> The mirror (SRMU03) will be stored in a cabinet.

- The two SOS towers will be baked soon
==> Use them for the ETMs

This reduces the unnecessary maneuver of the suspension towers.

  3761   Fri Oct 22 15:06:43 2010 JenneUpdateSUSArts and Crafts!

This afternoon I epoxied the guiderod and wire standoff to the new PRM.  I also epoxied the magnets that Suresh picked out to the dumbbell standoffs.  We'll let them all cure over the weekend, and then I'll glue the magnets to the optic on ~Monday.

Notes about the epoxy: 

Previously, we had been using the "AN-1" epoxy, which is gray, with a clear hardener.  Bob recommended we switch to "30-2", which is clear with clear, and has been chosen for use in aLIGO.  Both were vacuum approved, but the 30-2 has gone through ~2 months of testing at the OTF (Optics Test Facility?) over in Downs under vacuum, to check the level of outgassing (or really, non-outgassing).

The 30-2 is less viscous than the AN-1, and it takes less glue to do the same job, so we should keep that in mind when applying the epoxy.  When I put the glue next to the guiderod and standoff, it got wicked along the length of each rod, which is good.  I can't reach the whole length of the rod with my glue applicator because the fixture holding them in place blocks access, so the wicking is pretty handy.


I've also added the updated version of my Status Table for the suspensions.

Attachment 1: StatusTable.png
  16725   Tue Mar 15 10:45:31 2022 PacoUpdateGeneralAssembled small in-vac optics


This morning I assembled LO3, LO4 and AS3 (all mirrors) onto polaris K1 mounts. The mounts stand as per this elog, on 4.5" posts with 0.5" Al spacers to match the beam heigth of 5.5". I also assembled ASL by adding a 0.14" Al spacer, and finally, recycled two DLC mounts (from the XEND flowbench) and posts to mount the 2 inch diameter beamsplitters BHDBS and AS2 (T=10%). I stored the previous 2" optics in the CVI and lambda optic cases and labeled appropriately.

  3936   Tue Nov 16 23:36:29 2010 Suresh, JenneUpdateSUSAssembly of ETMs

[Jenne, Suresh]


The ETM assembly has moved forward a couple of steps.  We have completed the following:

1) Positioning the guide rod and wire stand-off on both the ETMs (5 and 7)

2) The magnets had to be cleaned with an acetone wash as they had touched the plastic Petri-dish (not cleaned for vacuum).

3) The magnets and the Al dumb-bells have been glued together and left to cure in the gluing fixture.

4) The guide-rod and wire stand-offs have also been glued to the optic and left to cure for 24 hrs.



JD:  As you can see in my nifty status table, we are nearing the end of the suspension story.  


We are going to try (but can't guarantee) to get ETMX to Bob for baking by Friday at lunchtime, that way we can re-suspend it on ~Monday, and place it in the chamber.  Then we could potentially begin Green arm locking next week.  Steve has (hopefully!!) ordered the spring plungers for ETMY.  The receiving and baking of the spring plungers is the only current delay that I can foresee, and that only is relevant for one of the optics. 

We (who is going to be in charge of this?) still need to move the SRM OSEMs & cables & connectors to the ITMY chamber from the BS chamber. 



  15111   Mon Jan 6 15:36:55 2020 JonUpdatePSLAssembly underway for c1psl upgrade

[Jon, Yehonathan]

We've begun assembling the new c1psl Acromag chassis based on Yehonathan's final pin assignments. So far, parts have been gathered and the chassis itself has been assembled.

Yehonathan is currently wiring up the chassis power and Ethernet feedthroughs, following my wiring diagram from previous assemblies. Once the Acromag units are powered, I will help configure them, assign IPs, etc. We will then turn the wiring over to Chub to complete the Acromag to breakout board wiring.

I began setting up the host server, but immediately hit a problem: We seem to have no more memory cards or solid-state drives, despite having two more SuperMicro servers. I ordered enough RAM cards and drives to finish both machines. They will hopefully arrive tomorrow.

  15112   Mon Jan 6 16:07:12 2020 gautamUpdatePSLAssembly underway for c1psl upgrade

RTFE. Where did the spares go?


I began setting up the host server, but immediately hit a problem: We seem to have no more memory cards or solid-state drives, despite having two more SuperMicro servers. I ordered enough RAM cards and drives to finish both machines. They will hopefully arrive tomorrow.

  15113   Mon Jan 6 19:05:09 2020 not gautamUpdatePSLAssembly underway for c1psl upgrade

I found them, thanks. After c1psl, there are 4 2GB DIMM cards and 1 SSD left. I moved them into the storage bins with all the other Acromag parts.


RTFE. Where did the spares go?


I began setting up the host server, but immediately hit a problem: We seem to have no more memory cards or solid-state drives, despite having two more SuperMicro servers. I ordered enough RAM cards and drives to finish both machines. They will hopefully arrive tomorrow.

  15116   Fri Jan 10 19:48:46 2020 yehonathanUpdatePSLAssembly underway for c1psl upgrade

{Yehonathan, Jon}

I finished pre-wiring the PSL chassis. I mounted the Acromags on the DIN rails and labeled them. I checked that they are powered up with the right voltage +24V and that the LEDs behave as expected.

Attachment 1: 20200110_194429.jpg
Attachment 2: 20200110_194516_HDR.jpg
  15118   Mon Jan 13 16:05:18 2020 yehonathanUpdatePSLAssembly underway for c1psl upgrade

{Yehonathan, Jon}

I configured the Acromag channels according to the Slow Controls Wiki page.

We started testing the channels. Almost at the beginning we notice that the BIO channels are inverted. High voltage when 0. 0 Voltage when 1. We checked several things:

1. We checked the configuration of the BIOs in the windows machine but nothing pointed to the problem.

2. We isolated one of the BIOs from the DIN rail but the behavior persisted.

3. We checked that the voltages that go into the Acromags are correct.

The next step is to power up an isolated Acromag directly from the power supply. This will tell us if the problem is in the chassis or the EPICs DB.

  15120   Tue Jan 14 17:16:43 2020 yehonathanUpdatePSLAssembly underway for c1psl upgrade

{Yehonathan, Jon}

I isolated a BIO Acromag completely from the chassis and powered it up. The inverted behavior persisted.

Turns out this is normal behavior for the XT1111 model.

For digital outputs, one should XT1121. XT1111 should be used for digital inputs.

Slow machines Wiki page was updated along with other pieces of information.

I replaced the XT1111 Acromags with XT1121 and did some rewiring since the XT1121 cannot get the excitation voltage from the DIN rail.

I added an XT1111 Acromag for the single digital input we have in this system.

  15124   Wed Jan 15 10:12:46 2020 gautamUpdatePSLAssembly underway for c1psl upgrade

I don't think this is an accurate statement. XT1111 modules have sinking digital outputs, while XT1121 modules have sourcing digital outputs. Depending on the requirement, the appropriate units should be used. I believe the XT1111 is the appropriate choice for most of our circuits.

For digital outputs, one should XT1121. XT1111 should be used for digital inputs.

  15127   Wed Jan 15 16:08:40 2020 not gautamUpdatePSLAssembly underway for c1psl upgrade

You're right. We had the right idea before but we got confused about this issue. I changed all the XT1121s to XT1111 and vice versa. We already know which channels are sourcing and which not. Updated the wiring spreadsheet. The chassis seems to work. It's time to pass it over to Chub.


I don't think this is an accurate statement. XT1111 modules have sinking digital outputs, while XT1121 modules have sourcing digital outputs. Depending on the requirement, the appropriate units should be used. I believe the XT1111 is the appropriate choice for most of our circuits.

For digital outputs, one should XT1121. XT1111 should be used for digital inputs.

  402   Tue Mar 25 15:56:09 2008 JohnUpdateTreasureAssorted pictures
Some pictures scavenged from the D40.
Attachment 1: D40.pdf
D40.pdf D40.pdf
  15380   Mon Jun 8 11:50:02 2020 HangUpdateBHDAstigmatism and scattering plots

We consider the astigmatism effects of the stock options. The conclusions are:

1. For the AS path, the stock should work fine for the phase-one of BHD, if we could tolerate a few percent MM loss. The window for length adjustment to achieve >99% MM for both s and t is only 1 mm for 1% RoC error (compared to ~ 1 cm in the customized case). 

2. The LO path seemed tricky. As LO3 & LO4 are both significantly curved (RoC<=0.5 m), the non-zero angle of incidence makes the astigmatism quite sever. For the t-plane the nominal MM can be 0.98, yet for the s-plane, the nominal MM is only 0.72. We could move things around to achieve a MM ~ 0.85, which is probably fine for the phase-one implementation but not long term. 


Attachments 1-3 are for the AS path; 4-6 are for the LO path. 

1 & 4. Marginalized MM distribution for the AS/LO paths. Here we assumed 5 mm positional error and 1% fractional RoC error. Due to the astigmatism, the nominal s-plane MM is only 0.72 for the LO path. 

2 & 5. Scattering plots for the AS/LO paths. We color coded the points as the following: pink: MM>0.99; olive: 0.98<MM<=0.99; grey: MM<=0.98. For the AS path, MM is mostly sensitive to the AS1 RoC and can be adjusted by changing AS1-AS3 distance. For the LO path, the LO3 RoC and LO3-LO4 distance are most critical for the MM. 

3 & 6. Assuming +- 1% AS1 (LO3) fractional RoC error, how much can we compensate for it using AS1-AS3 (LO3-LO4) distance. For the AS path, there exists a ~ 1 mm window where the MM for s and t can simultaneously > 99%. For the LO path, the best we can do is to make s and t both ~ 85%. 



For the initial phase of BHD testing, we recently discussed whether the mode-matching telescopes could be built with 100% stock optics. This would allow the optical system to be assembled more quickly and cheaply at a stage when having ultra-low loss and scattering is less important. I've looked into this possibility and conclude that, yes, we do have a good stock optics option. It in fact achieves comprable performance to our optimized custom-curvature design [ELOG 15357]. I think it is certainly sufficient for the initial phase of BHD testing.


It turns out our usual suppliers (e.g., CVI, Edmunds) do not have enough stock options to meet our requirements. This is for two reasons:

  • For sufficient LO1-LO2 (AS1-AS4) Gouy phase separation, we require a very particular ROC range for LO1 (AS1) of 5-6 m (2-3 m).
  • We also require a 2" diameter for the suspended optics, which is a larger size than most vendors stock for curved reflectors (for example, CVI has no stock 2" options).

However I found that Lambda Research Optics carries 1" and 2" super-polished mirror blanks in an impressive variety of stock curvatures. Even more, they're polished to comprable tolerances as I had specificied for the custom low-scatter optics [DCC E2000296]: irregularity < λ/10 PV, 10-5 scratch-dig, ROC tolerance ±0.5%. They can be coated in-house for 1064 nm to our specifications.

From modeling Lambda's stock curvature options, I find it still possible to achieve mode-matching of 99.9% for the AS beam and 98.6% for the LO beam, if the optics are allowed to move ±1" from their current positions. The sensitivity to the optic positions is slightly increased compared to the custom-curvature design (but by < 1.5x). I have not run the stock designs through Hang's full MC corner-plot analysis which also perturbs the ROCs [ELOG 15339]. However for the early BHD testing, the sensitivity is secondary to the goal of having a quick, cheap implementation.

Stock-Part Telescope Designs

The following tables show the best telescope designs using stock curvature options. It assumes the optics are free to move ±1" from their current positions. For comparison, the values from the custom-curvature design are also given in parentheses.

AS Path

The AS relay path is shown in Attachment 1:

  • AS1-AS4 Gouy phase separation: 71°
  • Mode-matching to OMC: 99.9%
Optic ROC (m) Distance from SRM AR (m)
AS1 2.00  (2.80) 0.727  (0.719)
AS2 Flat   (Flat) 1.260  (1.260)
AS3 0.20  (-2.00) 1.864  (1.866)
AS4 0.75  (0.60) 2.578  (2.582)

LO Path

The LO relay path is shown in Attachment 2:

  • LO1-LO2 Gouy phase separation: 67°
  • Mode-matching to OMC: 98.6%
Optic ROC (m) Distance from PR2 AR (m)
LO1 5.00  (6.00) 0.423  (0.403)
LO2 1000 (1000) 2.984  (2.984)
LO3 0.50  (0.75) 4.546  (4.596)
LO4 0.15  (-0.45) 4.912  (4.888)

Ordering Information

I've created a new tab in the BHD procurement spreadsheet ("Stock MM Optics Option") listing the part numbers for the above telescope designs, as well as their fabrication tolerances. The total cost is $2.8k + the cost of the coatings (I'm awaiting a quote from Lambda for the coatings). The good news is that all the curved substrates will receive the same HR/AR coatings, so I believe they can all be done in a single coating run.


Attachment 1: AS_MM_hist_stock.pdf
Attachment 2: AS_MM_t_scat_stock.pdf
Attachment 3: AS_MM_adj_stock.pdf
Attachment 4: LO_MM_hist_stock.pdf
Attachment 5: LO_MM_s_scat_stock.pdf
Attachment 6: LO_MM_adj_stock.pdf
  15381   Mon Jun 8 12:49:07 2020 KojiUpdateBHDAstigmatism and scattering plots

Can you describe the mode matching  in terms of the total MM? Is MM_total = sqrt(MM_vert * MM_horiz)?

  15382   Mon Jun 8 17:40:22 2020 JonUpdateBHDAstigmatism and scattering plots

MM_total = (MM_vert + MM_horiz) / 2. 

The large astigmatic MM loss in the LO case is mainly due to the strong LO4 curvature (R=0.15m) with a 10 deg AOI. I looked again at whether LO1 could be increased from R=5m to the next higher stock value of 7.5m, as this would allow weaker curvatures on LO3 and LO4. However, no, that is not possible---it reduces the LO1-LO2 Gouy phase separation to only 18 deg.

There is, however, a good stock-curvature option if we want to reconsider actuating LO4 instead of LO2 (attachment 1). It achieves 99.2% MM with the OMCs, allowing positions to vary +/-1" from the current design. The LO1-LO4 Gouy phase separation is 72 deg.

Optic ROC (m) Distance from PR2 AR (m)
LO1 10 0.378
LO2 1000 2.984
LO3 10 4.571
LO4 7.5 4.926

Alternatively, we could look at reducing the AOI on LO3 and LO4 (keeping LO1-LO2 actuation).

Attachment 1: LOpathStock2.pdf
  15384   Mon Jun 8 21:45:47 2020 JonUpdateBHDAstigmatism and scattering plots

Hmm? T1300364 suggests MM_total = Sqrt(MM_Vert * MM_Horiz)

  15387   Tue Jun 9 15:02:56 2020 eHangUpdateBHDAstigmatism and scattering plots

Using the updated AOI's for the LO path: (4.8, 47.9, 2.9, 4.5) deg for (LO1, LO2, LO3, LO4), we obtain the following results. 

First two plots are scattering plots for the t and s planes, respectively. Note that here we have changed to 0.5% fractional RoC error and 3 mm positional error. We have also changed the meaning of the colors: pink:MM>0.98; olive 0.95<MM<=0.98, and grey MM<=0.95. It seems that both planes would benefit statistically if we make the LO3-LO4 distance longer by a few mm. 

We also consider how much we could compensate for the MM error in the last plot. We have a few mm window to make both planes better than 0.95. 

Attachment 1: LO_MM_t_scat_stock.pdf
Attachment 2: LO_MM_s_scat_stock.pdf
Attachment 3: LO_MM_adj_stock.pdf
  4729   Tue May 17 01:05:56 2011 kiwamuUpdateLSCAsymmetry measurement prep : recentering works

I re-centered beams on several PDs and a camera including :



The most important one was AS55.

When I was locking each arm I found that the error signal from AS55 was very coupled to the angular motion of the arms.

I checked the beam on the AS55 RFPD and found the beam on the edge of the photo diode. This is possibly because Valera and I had been touching the input beam alignment.

At that time the DC signal from AS55 without aligning PRM and SRM was about 5 mV.

Adjusting the beam position by a steering mirror brought the DC signal up to 20 mV.

Then the lock of each arm became more stable.

ELOG V3.1.3-