We replaced the NAT router between martian and the campus net. We have the administrative web page available for the NAT router, but it is accessible from inside (=martian) as expected.
We changed the IP address registration of nodus for the internet so that the packets to nodus is directed to the NAT router. Then the NAT router forwards the packets to actual nodus only for the allowed ports. Because of this change of the IP we had a few confusions. First of all, martian net, which relies on chiara for DNS resolution. The 40m wifi router seemed to have internal DNS cache and required to reboot to make the IP change effective.
The WAN side cable of nodus was removed.
We needed to run "sudo rndc flush" to force chiara's bind9 to refresh the cache. We also needed to restart httpd ("sudo systemctl restart httpd") on nodus to make the port 8081 work properly.
So far, ssh (22), web services (30889), and elog (8081, 8080) were tested. We also need to test megatron NDS port forwarding and rsync for nodus, too.
Finally I turned off the firewall rules of shorewall on nodus as it is no longer necessary.
More details are found on the wiki page. https://wiki-40m.ligo.caltech.edu/FirewallSetting
In order to use the 0th-order deflection beam from the AOM for cavity mode scans, I've coaligned this beam to the existing mode-matching/launch optics set up for the 1st-order beam.
Instead of being dumped, the 0th-order beam is now steered by two 45-degree mirrors into the existing beam path. The second mirror is on a flip mount so that we can quickly switch between 0th-order/1st-order injections. None of the existing optics were touched, so the 1st-order beam alignment should still be undisturbed.
Currently the 0th-order beam is being injected into the IFO. After attenuating so as to not exceed 100 mW incident on the fiber, approximately 50 mW of power reaches the AS table. That coupling efficiency is similar to what we have with the 1st-order beam. With the Y-arm cavity locked and the AUX PLL locked at RF offset = 47.60 MHz (an Y-arm FSR), I observed a -50 dBm beat note at Y-end transmission.
I tried to put together a rudimentary heater setup.
As a heating element, I used the soldering iron tip heated up to ~800°C.
To make a reflector, I used the small basket which holds the cork of champains battles (see figure 1), and I covered it with alumnum foil. Of course, it cannot be really considered as a parabolic reflector, but it's something close (see figure 2).
Then, I put a ZnSe 1 inch lens, 3.5 inch FL (borrowed from TCS lab) right after the reflector, in order to collect as much as possible the radiation and focus it onto an image (figure 3). In principle, if the heat is collimated by the reflector, the lens should focus it in a pretty small image. Finally, in order to see the image, I put a screen and a small piece of packaging sponge (because it shouldn't diffuse too much), and I tried to see the projected pattern with a thermal camera (also borrowed from Aidan). However, putting the screen in the lens focal plane didn't really give a sharp image, maybe because the reflector is not exactly parabolic and the heater not in its focus. However, light is still focused on the focal plane, although the image appears still blurred. Perahps I should find a better material (with less dispersion) to project the thermal image onto. (figure 4)
Finally, I measured the transmitted power with a broadband power meter, which resulted to be around 10mW in the focal plane.
I made some simulation to study the change that the heater setup can induce on the Radius of Curvature of the ETM.
First, I used a non-sequential ray tracing software (Zemax) to calculate the heat pattern. I made a CAD of the elliptical reflector and I put a radiative element inside it (similar to the rod-heater 30mm long, 3.8mm diameter that we ordered), placing it in such a way that the heater tip is as close as possible to the ellipse first focus. (figure 1)
Then, by putting a screen at the second focus of the ellipse (where we suppose to place the mirror HR surface), I could find the projected heat pattern, as shown in figure 2 and 3 (section). Notice that the scale is in INCH, even if the label says mm. As you can see, the heat pattern is pretty broad, but still enough to induce a RoC change.
In order to compute the mirror deformation induced by this kind of pattern, I used this map produced with Zemax as absorption map in COMSOL. I considered ~1W total power absorbed by the mirror (just to have a unitary number).
The mirror temperature and deformation maps induced by this heat pattern are shown in figures 4 and 5.
RoC change evaluation
Then I had to evaluate the RoC change. In particular, I did it by fitting the Radius of Curvature over a circle of radius:
where is the waist of tha Gaussian mode on the ETMY (5mm) and n is the mode order. This is a way to approximately know which is the Radius of Curvature as "seen" by each HOM, and is shown in figure 6 (the RoC of the cold mirror is set to be 57.37m). Of course, besides being very tiny, the difference in RoC strongly depends on the heat pattern.
Gouy phase variation
Considering this absorbed power, the cavity Gouy phase variation between hot and cold state is roughly 15kHz (I leave to the SURFs the details of the calculation).
So the still unaswered questions are:
- which is the minimum variation we are able to resolve with our measurement
- how much heating power do we expect to be projected onto the mirror surface (I'll make another entry on that)
Today both the heater and the reflector were delivered, and we set down the setup to make some first test.
The schematic is the usual: the rod heater (30mm long, 3.8 mm diameter) is set inside the elliptical reflector, as close as possible to the first focus. In the second focus we put the power meter in order to measure the radiated power. The broadband power meter wavelength calibration has been set at 4µm: indeed, the heater emits all over the spectrum with the Black Body radiation distribution, and the broadband power meter measures all of them, but only starting from 4µm they will be actually absorbed my the mirror, that's why that calibration was chosen.
We measured the cold resistance of the heater, and it was about 3.5 Ohm. The heater was powered with the BK precision DC power supply 1735, and we took measurements at different input current.
We also aimed at measuring the heater temperature at each step, but the Fluke thermal camera is sensitive up to 300°C and also the FLIR seems to have a very limited temperature range (150°C?). We thought about using a thermocouple, but we tested its response and it seems definitely too slow.
Some pictures of the setup are shown in figures 1 and 6.
Then we put an absorbing screen in the suspension mount to see the heat pattern, in such a way to get an idea of the heat spot position and size on the ETMY. (figure 2)
The projected pattern is shown in figures 3-4-5
The optimal position of the heater which minimizes the heat beam spot seems when the heater inserted by 2/3 in the reflector (1/3 out). However, this is just a qualitative evaluation.
Finally, two more pictures showing the DB connector on the flange and the in-vacuum cables.
[Annalisa, Terra, Koji, Gautam]
Summary: We find a configuration for arm scans which significantly reduces phase noise. We run several arm scans and we were able to resolve several HOM peaks; analysis to come.
As first, we made a measurement with the already established setup and, as Jon already pointed out, we found lots of phase noise. We hypothesized that it could either come from the PLL or from the motion of the optics between the AUX injection point (AS port) and the Y arm.
In this configuration, we were able to do arm scans where the phase variation at each peak was pretty clear and well defined. We took several 10MHz scan, we also zoomed around some specific HOM peak, and we were able to resolve some frequency split.
We add some pictures of the setup and of the scan.
The data are saved in users/OLD/annalisa/Yscans. More analysis and plots will follow tomorrow.
In order to power the heater setup to be installed in the ETMY chamber, we took the Sorensen DSC33-33E power supply from the Xend rack which was supposed to power the heater for the seismometer setup.
We modified the J3 connector behind in such a way to allow a remote control (unsoldered pins 9 and 8).
Now pins 9 and 12 need to be connected to a BNC cable running to the EPICS.
RXA update: the Sorensen's have the capability to be controlled by an external current source, voltage source, or resistive load. We have configured it so that 0-5V moves the output from 0-33 V. There is also the possibility to make it a current source and have the output current (rather than voltage) follow the control voltage. This might be useful since out heater resistance is changing with temperature.
We installed two heaters setup on the ETMY bench in order to try inducing some radius of curvature change and therefore HOMs frequency shift.
We installed two heaters setup.
Elliptic reflector setup (H1): heater put in the focus of the elliptical reflector: this will make a heat pattern as descirbed in the elogs #14043 and #14050.
Lenses setup (H2): heater put in a cylndrical reflector (made up with aluminum foil) 1'' diameter, and 2 ZnSe lenses telescope, composed by a 1.5'' and a 1'' diameter respectively, both 3.5'' focal length. The telescope is designed in such a way to focus the heat map on the mirror HR surface. For this latter the schematic was supposed to be the following:
This setup will project on the mirror a heat pattern like this:
which is very convenient if we want to see a different radius of curvature for different HOMs. However, the power that we are supposed to have absorbed by the mirror with this setup is very low (order of 40-ish mW with 18V, 1.2A) which is probably not enough to see an effect. Moreover, mostly for space reasons (post base too big), the distances were not fully kept, and we ended up with the following setup:
In this configuration we won't probably have a perfect focusing of the heat pattern on the mirror.
See Koji's elog #14077 for the final pin connection details. In summary, in vacuum the pins are:
13 to 8 --> cable bunch 0
7 to 2 --> cable bunch 2
25 to 20 --> cable bunch 1
19 to 14 --> cable bunch 3
where Elliptic reflector setup (H1) is connected to cables 0 and 1, and the lenses setup is connected to cables 2 and 3.
This is the installed setup as seen from above:
I recently realized that the PLL is only using about 20% of the available actuation range of the AUX PZT. The +/-10 V control signal from the LB1005 is being directly inputted into the fast AUX PZT channel, which has an input range of +/-50 V.
I recommend to install a PZT driver (amplifier) between the controller and laser to use the full available actuator range. For cavity scans, this will increase the available sweep range from +/-50 MHz to +/-250MHz. This has a unique advantage even if slow temperature feedback is also implemented. To sample faster than the timescale of most of the angular noise, scans generally need to be made with a total sweep time <1 sec. This is faster than the PLL offset can be offloaded via the slow temperature control, so the only way to scan more than 100 MHz in one measurement is with a larger dynamic range.
After this work, I've been having some trouble getting data with Python NDS. Eventually, I figured out that the nds connection request has to be pointed at '126.96.36.199' (the address of the NAT router which faces the outside world), port 31200 (it used to work with 'nds40.ligo.caltech.edu' or '188.8.131.52'). So the following snippet in python allows a connection to be opened. Offline access of frame data via NDS2 now seems possible.
So far, ssh (22), web services (30889), and elog (8081, 8080) were tested. We also need to test megatron NDS port forwarding and rsync for nodus, too.Finally I turned off the firewall rules of shorewall on nodus as it is no longer necessary.
I've started putting together a list of things we'll need to buy to do BHD readout. I'm still messing around with more detailed optics layouts, but wanted to get a list started here so people can let me know if I'm missing any big, obvious categories of goods.
My current plan makes minimal changes to the signal path going to the OMC, and tries to just get the LO beam into the OMC with minimal optics. I'm not thinking of any of the optics as suspended, and it requires several reflections of the LO beam, so probably this is not an excellent configuration, but it's a start for getting the parts list:
I started making a layout of this scheme, but it's probably not going to work so I'm going to make a quick layout of this more major modification instead:
These are mostly just miscellaneous
Can we use the leakage beam from MMT2 on the OMC table as the LO beam? I can't find the spec for this optic, but the leakage beam was clearly visible on an IR card even with the IMC locked with 100 mW input power so presumably there's enough light there, and this is a cavity transmission beam which presumably has some HOM content filtered out.
My current thought is to use the MC reflection, the beam that heads from MC1 to MCR1, as the LO beam
That seems fine, I wasn't thinking of that beam. in that case could we just have a PBS directly behind MMT2 and send both beams to the same OMMT?
Alternatively we can move OM5 and the beam path OMPO-OMMTSM towards -y, then put the LO-OMMT parallel to the existing OMMT but displaced in +x... we'd have to move the existing OMC and BHD towards +x as well.
I've attached the diagram of what I mean.
There are a couple caveats and changes that would have to be made that are not included in this diagram, because they would be made on different tables.
Gautam also had some questions about the BHD/OMC timeline and plan. I feel somewhat on shaky ground with the answers, but figured I'd post them so I can be corrected once and for all.
Attachments #1 is the current setup of AUX Y Green locking and it has to be improved because:
About the above two:
One of the example for improvement is just adding a new lens (f=10cm) soon after the doubling crystal. That will make mode matching better (100%) and also make separation better (85 deg) (Attachments #4 and #5). I'm checking whether we have the lens and there is space to set it. And I will measure current power of transmitted main laser in order to confirm the improvement of alignment.
About the last:
I am considering what component is needed.
[ Yuki, Gautam ]
The setup I designed before has abrupt gouy phase shift between two steering mirrors which makes alignment much sensitive. So I designed a new one (Attached #1, #2 and #3). It improves the slope of gouy phase and the difference between steering mirrors is about 100 deg. To install this, we need new lenses: f=100mm, f=200mm, f=-250mm which have 532nm coating. If this setup is OK, I will order them.
There may be a problem: One lens should be put soon after dichroic mirror, but there is little room for fix it. (Attached #4, It will be put where the pedestal is.) Tomorrow we will check this problem again.
And another problem; one steering mirror on the corner of the box is not easy to access. (Attached #5) I have to design a new seup with considering this problem.
[ Yuki, Steve ]
With Steve's help, we checked a new lens can be set soon after dichroic mirror.
We want to remotely control steeing PZT mirrors so its driver is needed. We already have a PZT driver board (D980323-C) and the output voltage is expected to be verified to be in the range 0-100 V DC for input voltages in the range -10 to 10 V DC.
Then I checked to make sure ir perform as we expected. The input signal was supplied using voltage calibrator and the output was monitored using a multimeter.
But it didn't perform well. Some tuning of voltage bias seemed to be needed. I will calculate its transfer function by simulation and check the performance again tommorow. And I found one solder was off so it needs fixing.
diagram --> elog 8932
Plan of Action:
I fixed the input terminal that had been off, and made sure PZT driver board performs as we expect.
At first I ran a simulation of the PZT driver circuit using LTspice (Attached #1 and #2). It shows that when the bias is 30V the driver performs well only with high input volatage (bigger than 3V). Then I measured the performance as following way:
The result of this is attached #3 and #4. It is consistent with simulated one. All ports performed well.
The high voltage points (100V DC) remain to be tested.
SHEET 1 2120 2120
WIRE 1408 656 1408 624
WIRE 1552 656 1552 624
WIRE 1712 656 1712 624
WIRE 1872 656 1872 624
WIRE 2016 656 2016 624
WIRE 1408 768 1408 736
WIRE 1552 768 1552 736
WIRE 1712 768 1712 736
[ Yuki, Gautam, Steve ]
I calibrated a QPD (D1600079, V1009) and made sure it performes well. The calibration constants are as follows:
X-Axis: 584 mV/mm
Y-Axis: 588 mV/mm
The calibration of QPD is needed to calibrate steeing PZT mirrors. It was measured by moving QPD on a translation stage. The QPD was connected to its amplifier (D1700110-v1) and +-18V was supplied from DC power supplier. The amplifier has three output ports; Pitch, Yaw, and Sum. I did the calibration as follows:
The results are attached. The main signal was fitted with error function and I drawed a slope at zero crossing point, which is calibration factor. I determined the linear range of the QPD to be when the output was in range -50V to 50V, then corresponding displacement range is about 0.2 mm width. Using this result, the PZT mirrors will be calibrated in linear range of the QPD tomorrow.
previous experiment by Gautam for X-arm: elog:40m/8873, elog:40m/8884
I assume this QPD set is a D1600079/D1600273 combo.
How much was the SUM output during the measurement? Also how much were the beam radii of this beam (from the error func fittings)?
Then the calibration [V/m] is going to be the linear/inv-linear function of the incident power and the beam radus.
You mean the linear range is +/-50mV (for a given beam), I guess.
How much was the SUM output during the measurement? Also how much were the beam radii of this beam (from the error func fittings)?
Then the calibration [V/m] is going to be the linear/inv-linear function of the incident power and the beam radus.
Then the calibration factor of the QPD is
X axis: 584 * (POWER / 2.96mW) * (0.472mm / RADIUS) [mV/mm]
Y axis: 588 * (POWER / 2.96mW) * (0.472mm / RADIUS) [mV/mm].
We need to set up a copy of the c1asx model (which currently runs on c1iscex), to be named c1asy, on c1iscey for the green steering PZTs. The plan discussed at the meeting last Wednesday was to rename the existing model c1tst into c1asy, and recompile it with the relevant parts copied over from c1asx. However, I suspect this will create some problems related to the "dcuid" field in the CDS params block (I ran into this issue when I tried to use the dcuid for an old model which no longer exists, called c1imc, for the c1omc model).
From what I can gather, we should be able to circumvent this problem by deleting the .par file corresponding to the c1tst model living at /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/target/gds/param/, and rename the model to c1asy, and recompile it. But I thought I should post this here checking if anyone knows of other potential conflicts that will need to be managed before I start poking around and breaking things. Alternatively, there are plenty of cores available on c1iscey, so we could just set up a fresh c1asy model...
I calibrated PZT mirrors. The ROUGH result was attached. (Note that some errors and trivial couplings coming from inclination of QPD were not considered here. This should be revised and posted again.)
The PZT mirrors I calibrated were:
I did the calibration as follows:
The calibration factor was
CVI-pitch: 0.089 mrad/V
CVI-yaw: 0.096 mrad/V
Laseroptic-pitch: 0.062 mrad/V
Laseroptic-yaw: 0.070 mrad/V
Previous calibration of the same mirrors, elog:40/8967
Interim Procedure Report:
The current setup of AUX Y-arm Green locking has to be improved because:
What to do
I improved Anti-Imaging board (D000186-Rev.D), which will be put between DAC port and PZT driver board.
It had notches at f = 16.6 kHz and 32.7 kHz, you can see them in the plot attached. So I replaced some resistors as follows:
Then the notch moved to 65.9 kHz (> sampling frequency of DAC = 64 kHz, good!).
(The plot enlarged around the notch frequency and the plot of all channels will be posted later.)
All electronics and optics seem to be ready.
I made a cable which connects DAC port (40 pins) and AI board (25 pins). I will check if it works.
Tomorrow I will change setup for improvement of AUX Y-end green locking. Any optics for IR will not be moved in my design, so this work doesn't affect Y-arm locking with main beam.
While doing this work, I will do:
Before changing setup at Y-end table, I measured the status value of the former setup as follows. These values will be compared to those of upgraded setup.
(These numbers are shown in the attachment #2.)
The setup I designed is here. It can bring 100% mode-matching and good separation of degrees of TEM01, however I found a probrem. The picture of setup is attached #3. You can see the reflection angle at Y7 and Y8 is not appropriate. I will consider the schematic again.
The SHG crystal has the conversion efficiency of ~2%W (i.e. if you have 1W input @1064, you get 2% conversion efficiency ->20mW@532nm)
It is not possible to produce 0.58mW@532nm from 20.9mW@1064nm because this is already 2.8% efficiency.
I measured it with the wrong setting of a powermeter. The correct ones are here:
The calculated conversion efficiency of SHG crystal is 1.2%W.
What about just copying the Xend layout? I think it has good MM (per calculations), reasonable (in)sensitivity to component positions, good Gouy phase separation, and I think it is good to have the same layout at both ends. Since the green waist has the same size and location in the doubling crystal, it should be possible to adapt the X end solution to the Yend table pretty easily I think.
I designed a new layout. It has good mode-matching efficiency, reasonable sensitivity to component positions, good Gouy phase separation. I'm setting optics in the Y-end table. The layout will be optimized again after finishing (rough) installation. (The picture will be posted later)
To facilitate Yuki's alignment of the EY green beam into the Yarm cavity, I have changed the LSC triggering and PowNorm settings to use only the reflected light from the cavity to do the locking of Arm Cavity length to PSL. Running the configure script should restore the usual TRY triggering settings. Also, the X arm optics were macroscopically misaligned in order to be able to lock in this configuration.
I finished installation of optics in the Y-end and recovered green locking. Current ALS-TRY_OUTPUT is about 0.25, which is lower than before. So I still continue the alignment of the beam. The simulation code was attached. (Sorry. The optic shown as QWP2 is NOT QWP. It's HWP.)
After installation I measured these power again.
There is a little power loss. That may be because of adding one lens in the beam path. I think it is allowable margin.
While pointing Yuki to the c1asx servo system, I noticed that the filter file for c1asx is missing in the usual chans directory. Why? Backups for it exist in the filter_archive subdirectory. But there is no current file. Clearly this doesn't seems to affect the realtime code execution as the ASX model seems to run just fine. I copied the latest backup version from the archive area into the chans directory for now.
Setting up c1asy:
Now Yuki can work on copying the simulink model (copy c1asx structure) and implementing the autoalignment servo.
To align the green beam in Y-end these hardware were installed:
I made sure that DAC CH9~16 and cable to AI-board worked correctly.
When we applied +100V to PZT driver and connected DAC, AI-board and PZT drive, the output voltage of the driver was not correct. I'll check it tomorrow.
I connected DAC - AIboard - PZTdriver - PZT mirrors and made sure the PZT mirrors were moving when changing the signal from DAC. Tomorrow I will prepare alignment servo with green beam for Y-arm.
Final Procedure Report for Green Locking in YARM:
To do for Green Locking in YARM:
The auto-alignment servo should be completed. This servo requires many parameters to be optimized: demodulation frequency, demodulation phase, servo gain (for each M1/2 PIT/YAW), and matrix elements which can remove PIT-YAW coupling.
Our 4 ion pumps were closed off for a lomg time. I estmated their pressure to be around ~1 Torr. After talking with Koji we decided not to vent them.
It'd be still useful to wire their position sensors. But make sure we do not actuate the valves.
The cryo pump was regenerated to 1e-4 Torr about 2 years ago. It's pressure can be ~ 2 Torr with charcoal powder. It is a dirty system at room temperature.
Do not actuate VC1 and VC2, and keep its manual valve closed.
IF someone feels we should vent them for some reason, let us know here in the elog before Monday morning.
Wiring of the power, Ethernet, and indicator lights for the vacuum Acromag chassis is complete. Even though this crate will only use +24V DC, I wired the +/-15V connector and indicator lights as well to conform to the LIGO standard. There was no wiring diagram available, so I had to reverse-engineer the wiring from the partially complete c1susaux crate. Attached is a diagram for future use. The crate is ready to begin software developing on Monday.
Chub & Steve,
We swapped in our replacement of Varian V70D "bear-can" turbo as factory clean.
The new Agilent TwisTorr 84 FS turbo pump [ model x3502-64002, sn IT17346059 ] with intake screen, fan, vent valve. The controller [ model 3508-64001, sn IT1737C383 ] and a larger drypump IDP-7, [ model x3807-64010, sn MY17170019 ] was installed.
Next things to do:
donatella was one of our last workstations running ubuntu12. we installed SL7 on there today
Then there are ~20 errors related to gds-crtools that look like this:Error: Package: gds-crtools-2.18.12-1.el7.x86_64 (lscsoft-production) Requires: libMatrix.so.6.14()(64bit)
I'm making a controlled shutdown of the vac controls to add new ADC channels. Will advise when it's back up.
ADC work finished for the day. The vac controls are back up, with all valves CLOSED and all pumps OFF.
The schematic of the homodyne configuration is shown below.
Following are the list of components
One set of fiber is now kept along the arm of the interferometer
Fiber coupled (3 No's)
Free space ( 2 No's)
I drew out some idea of how we might use a single OMC to clean both paths of the BHD after mixing, without being susceptible to polarization-dependent effects within the OMC. Basically, can we send the two legs of the BHD into the OMC counterpropagating. I've attached a diagram.
I think one issue would be scattered light, since any backscatter directly couples into the counterpropagating mode, and thus directly to the PD. However, unless the polarization of the scattered light rotates it would not scatter back to the IFO. And, since the LO and signal mix before the OMC, this scattered light would not directly add phase noise.
Maybe more problematic would be that if the rejection at the PBS (or the polarization rotation) isn't perfect, light from the LO directly couples into the dark port. Can we get away with a Faraday isolator before the OMC?
SURFs had trouble connecting paola to martian via wireless.
Of course, it requires a fixed IP but it had not it yet. So I went to chiara and gave 192.168.113.110 as "paolawl". Note that the wired connection has .111 and it is "paola".
Followed the instruction on http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/14121
I think a Faraday rotator rotates the polarizations in a same way for both forward and backward beam, and it's not like in this figure.
And the transmission through multiple faradays will also be a big issue.