40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 337 of 341  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Authorup Type Category Subject
  6863   Sun Jun 24 23:42:31 2012 yutaUpdateComputer Scripts / ProgramsPMC locker

I made a python script for relocking PMC.
It currently lives in /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/PSL/PMC/PMClocker.py.

I think the hardest part for this kind of locker is the scan speed. I could make the scan relatively fast by using pyNDS.
The basic algorithm is as follows.

1. Turns off the servo by C1:PSL-PMC_SW1.

2. Scans C1:PSL-PMC_RAMP using ezcastep.bin. Default settings for ezcastep is

ezcastep.bin C1:PSL-PMC_RAMP -s 0.1 0.01 10000

So, it steps by 0.01 for 10000 times with interval of 0.1 sec.

3. Get C1:PSL-PMC_PMCTRANSPD and C1:PSL-PMC_RAMP online 1 sec data using pyNDS.

4. If it finds a tall peak in C1:PSL-PMC_PMCTRANSPD, kills ezcastep.bin process, sets C1:PSL-PMC_RAMP to the value where the tall peak was found, and then turns on the servo.

5. If tall peak wasn't found, go back to 3 and get data again.

6. If C1:PSL-PMC_RAMP reaches near -7 V or 0 V, it kills previous ezcastep.bin process and turns the sign of the scan.

I tested this script several times. It sometimes passes over TEM00 (because of the dead time in online pyNDS?), but it locks PMC with in ~10 sec.
Currently, you have to run this to relock PMC because I don't know how to make this an autolocker.

I think use of pyNDS can be applied for finding IR resonance using ALS, too.
I haven't checked it yet becuase c1ioo is down, but ALS version lives in /users/yuta/scripts/findIRresonance.py. ALS may be easier in that we can use fast channels and nice filter modules.

Other scripts:
 I updated /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/general/toggler.py. It now has "lazymode". When lazymode, it toggles automatically with interval of 1 sec until you Ctrl-c.

 Also, I moved damprestore.py from my users directory to /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/SUS/damprestore.py. It restores suspension damping of a specified mirror when watchdog shuts down the damping.

  6868   Mon Jun 25 15:07:49 2012 yutaUpdateIOOMC beam spot trend

I adjusted MC WFS offsets using /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/MC/WFS/WFS_FilterBank_offsets.
Beam spot positions on MC mirrors came back to where it was past few weeks. See the trend below. Trend sometimes shows huge jump, but it's just a bad measurement caused by unlock of MC during the measurement.

I ran /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/ASS/MC/mcassMCdecenter to measure beam spot whenever I feel like it (see elog #6727).
Beam spot doesn't move so much (~0.2 mm in standard deviation), which means incident beam from PSL table is quite stable.


MCdecenter.png

  6871   Mon Jun 25 17:48:27 2012 yutaUpdateComputer Scripts / Programsscript for finding IR resonance using ALS

I made a python script for finding IR resonance using ALS. It currently lives in /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/ALS/findIRresonance.py.

The basic algorism is as follows.

1. Scan the arm by putting an offset to the phase output of the phase tracker(Step C1:ALS-BEAT(X|Y)_FINE_OFFSET_OFFSET by 10 deg with 3 sec ramp time).

2. Fetch TR(X|Y) and OFFSET online data using pyNDS during the step.

3. If it finds a tall peak, sets OFFSET to the value where the tall peak was found.

4. If tall peak wasn't found, go back to 1 and step OFFSET again.

The time series data of how he did is plotted below.
I ran the script for Y arm, but it is compatible for both X and Y arm.

findIRresonance20120625.png

  6873   Tue Jun 26 00:52:18 2012 yutaUpdateComputer Scripts / ProgramsPMC locker

Quote:

I thought we rewrite auto lockers once per year, but this time it took us only a month. I wrote it for PMC on May 24. Is it not working?

I know.
I just wanted to use pyNDS for this kind of scanning & locking situation.
c1ioo was down for the weekend and I couldn't test my script for ALS, so I used it for PMC.

But I think PMClocker.py can relock PMC faster because it can sweep C1:PSL-PMC_RAMP continuously and can get continuous data of C1:PSL-PMC_PMCTRANSPD.

  6874   Tue Jun 26 01:30:13 2012 yutaSummaryGreen Lockingsimultaneous hold and release of the arm (aka two arm ALS)

To get the feeling of the master of IFO, I;

1. Stabilized both arm length using ALS.

2. Ran findIRresonance.py for both arms and find what offset gives me IR resonances.

3. Holded X arm to IR resonance, holded Y arm to IR resonance, and released both arms.

Below is the time series data of what I did.
ALSboth20120625_2withAS.png


Issues:
 - Currently ALS is not stable enough. It only stays for about few minutes. I think it is because of the bad alignment of green from each end.
 - We can't tell end green frequency is higher or PSL green frequency is higher. So, the sign of the servo filter sometimes flips.
 - Wobbliness of X end green transmission beam spot was from the ETMX oplev. When the oplev servo is on, it got more wobbly when X end table is opened. But when the oplev servo was off, wobbliness was same even if the presence of air flow.
 - MICH contrast in plot above seems like it somehow got better when two arms are at resonance by ALS. I think this is not real because reflection from both arms at AS port was not well aligned and beam was clipped. Koji and I measured contrast of FPMI and MI(ETMs misalined), and they were 99.6 % and 99.9 % respectively. Beam clipping seems like it comes from some where between BS to AS port. We need to figure out where and fix this.

Things need to be done to make ALS more concrete:
 - Align Y end green beam!
 - Look into Y end green frequency servo
 - How do we hand-off servo using ALS to IR lock?
 - Noise budgeting for new phase tracker scheme
 - Linearity check of the beat box and phase tracker

  6875   Tue Jun 26 22:37:43 2012 yutaUpdateIOOenergized OMC stages

[Koji, Yuta]

We checked that PZTs between SRM and OMC (called OMC stage 1 and 2) is working.
Now we need them to be EPICS channels because they are not connected to digital world right now.

Background:
  For the IFO alignment, what we have been doing for last 2weeks is,

1. Align Y arm to Y end green and maximize green transmission
2. Use PZT2 to maximize TRY (PZT1 is not functioning well. PZT1 Y do a little, but X totally does nothing.)
3. Align BS and X arm to maximize TRX
4. Tune BS and ITMX so that reflection from both arms overlap at AS
5. Align X end green to that we can see bright(~250 uW) TEM00 at transmission

  However, we found that something (Y arm axis or Y end green?) has drifted horizontally and can't make Y green transmission and TRY high level at same time. Because PZT1 is not functioning well, it is hard to compensate beam translation.
  So, now what we have to do is to align Y arm to IR incident beam. That means, we either have to realign Y end green or forget about maximizing green transmission. I think I will leave green as it is for a while because calibration of the beatbox is going on and I want to proceed to PRC.
  Anyway, if we align IFO to the IR incident beam, we see clipping in the AS port. From the contrast measurement last night, we thought clipping comes from somewhere between BS and AS port. So, we need PZTs between BS and AS port working.

What we did:
  1. Turned on 24P 24N power supplies(Sorensen DCS33-33E) in AUX_OMC_SOUTH rack to supply power to AUX_OMC_NORTH rack. 18P 18N cables to OMC_NORTH was unplugged and used by the beatbox, so we reconnected them.

  2. Turned on KEPCO high voltage power supply to supply 150 V to the PZT driver, but it was not functioning well. So, we currently use Aligent HP 6209B instead. Its on the OMC_NORTH rack.

  3. PZT driver output to OMC stage 1 was unplugged. So, we plugged them.

  4. Opened PZT driver (LIGO-D060287), put some signal from Piezo_Drive_in(J4 in schematic), and checked beamspot at AS port is moving. The gain from Piezo_Drive_in to the output (hv_out) was ~20.

  5. We could avoid clipping by putting some offset to OMC stage 2 (or 1) in yaw. That means, the clipping comes from after OMC stage 2.

Conclusion:
  If we can control OMC stage 1 and 2, we can avoid clipping. So, we want them to be EPICS channels.

  6876   Wed Jun 27 03:43:52 2012 yutaSummaryIOOhow to improve mode matching to arms

From the mode scan measurements of the arms(elog #6859), ~6% of mode-mismatch comes from 2nd-order mode. That means we have longitudinal mismatch.

Suppose every mirrors are well positioned and well polished with designed RoC, except for the MMT1-MMT2 length. To get ~6% of mode-mismatch, MMT1-MMT2 length should be ~28cm longer (or ~26cm shorter) than designed value.
I don't know whether this is possible or not, but if they are actually longer(or shorter), we should fix it on the next vent.
I found some related elog on MMT (see #3088).

modematchMCtoARM_design.pngmodematchMCtoARM_MMT1MMT2longer.png


RoC and length parameters I used is below. They maybe wrong because I just guessed them. Please tell me the actual values.
Mirror thickness and effect of the incident angle is not considered yet.

== RoCs ==
MC2 19.965 m (???)
PRM 115.5 m (not used in calculation; just used to guess MC parameters)
ITM flat
ETM 57.37 m

== Lengths ==
MC round trip 27.084 m (???)
MC1 - MC3  0.18 m (???)
MC3 - MMT1 0.884+1.0442 m
MMT1 - MMT2 1.876 m
MMT2 - PRM 2.0079+0.4956 m
PRM - ITM 4.4433+2.2738 m
ITM - ETM 39 m

  6884   Wed Jun 27 16:23:12 2012 yutaUpdateIOOAS and REFL on AP table aligned

I touched steering mirrors for AS and REFL at AP table.
AS beam and REFL beam now hits cameras at center and their respective PDs.

What I did:
  1. Aligned Y arm and X arm.

  2. Locked FPMI and aligned BS + X arm by minimizing ASDC (DC output of the AS55 PD, C1:LSC-ASDC_OUT reached ~ -1.43).

  3. Put -2V offset to the OMC stage 2 in yaw to avoid AS clipping. The offset is currently given by SRS DS345 on AUX_OMC_NORTH rack.

  4. Misaligned ETMs, locked MI in the bright fringe. Maximized ASDC (C1:LSC-ASDC_OUT reached ~ 1.22) by aligning 2 mirrors right after the vacuum chamber. This also centered beam spot on the AS camera.

  5. Locked MI in the dark fringe. Maximized REFLDC (DC output of the REFL55 PD, C1:LSC-REFLDC_OUT reached ~ 2.5) by aligning 2 mirrors after the vacuum chamber. Beam spot on the REFL camera was centered, too.

  6885   Wed Jun 27 23:54:21 2012 yutaUpdateComputer Scripts / Programsimage capturing script

Mike J. came tonight and he fixed Sensoray (elog #6645). He recompiled it and fixed it.

I made a python wrapper script for Sensoray scripts. It currently lives in /users/yuta/scripts/videocapture.py.
If you run something like
  ./videocapture.py AS
it saves image capture of AS to /users/yuta/scripts/SensorayCapture/ directory with the GPS time.
Below is the example output of AS when MI is aligned. We still see some clipping in the right. This clipping is there when one arm is mis-aligned and clipping moves together with the main beam spot. So, this might be from the incident beam, probably at the Faraday.

Currently, videocapture.py runs only on pianosa, since Sensoray 2253S is connected to pianosa. Also, it can only capture MON4. My script changes MON4 automatically.

AS_1024901004.bmp

  6886   Thu Jun 28 00:50:48 2012 yutaUpdateLockingPRMI work started, commissioning plan

My goal for tonight was to lock PRMI,
 grasp the current situation by my eye,
  and capture some images using Sensoray.

They are done, but what are we going to do to solve the problem? The beam looks terrible than I had expected.


What I did:
  1. DC output of POP55 PD was plugged out from 1Y2 rack, so we plugged it in.

  2. Aligned POP beam to POP25 PD and moved POP camera position at ITMX table.
 
  3. Mis-aligned PRM and SRM, aligned both arms, aligned FPMI as usual.

  4. Mis-aligned PRM and ETMs, aligned MI and locked MI.

  5. Aligned PRM, and carrier locked PRMI. PRM alignment was not saved since June 7, so slider values which give good alignment was pretty much drifted (~0.4 in C1:LSC_PRM_(PIT|YAW)_COMM).

  6. Took some images of POP, REFL, AS during PRMI lock.

POP_1024903948.bmpREFL_1024903929.bmpAS_1024903921.bmp


PRMI commissioning plan:
  From the beam shape at POP, REFL, and AS, the problem clearly comes from the mode-matching, including clipping, longitudinal mismatch, and alignment mismatch. Koji's idea of flipped-PRM seems reasonable, so I think we should better measure something to prove this.
  To prove this,

  1. Simulate what the beam look like in POP, REFL, AS if PRM was flipped. Compare them with actual captured images. I need to study on unstable cavities.
  2. Calculate power recycling gain and compare.
  3. Misalign PRM and capture the image of primary, secondary, ... reflections like Koji did in elog #6421. Measure the beam sizes of these reflections using some image analysis(Python Imaging Library? Is there anyone good at this?) and calculate PRM curvature.
  4. Can we do come characterization by making PRM-ITMY cavity? ITMX will be mis-aligned, BS will be the loss port to PRC.
  5. Beamspot on POP, REFL, AS looks woblby when PRMI is locked. Why?
  6. Open the vaccum chamber and see PRM. Simple.

  Any other ideas? I have to lock PRFPMI, at least, by July 13!

  6889   Thu Jun 28 20:59:28 2012 yutaBureaucracyLockingvent for PRC check, TOMORROW!

Koji, Jamie and I talked together and I decided to VENT TOMORROW MORNING. Main purpose of this vent is to see if PRM is flipped or not.

Vent schedule:
June 28 (Thu)
  Prepare for the vent tonight

June 29 (Fri)
  Start vent in the morning
  Look into PRC in the evening. If PRM was flipped, we will correct them. We'll use REFL to align the PRM. If PRM was not flipped, look into PR2,PR3 and other related optics.

June 30 (Sat)
July 1 (Sun)
  Thinking time. I can work if needed.

July 2 (Mon)
  If we need something else to do, do it.
  If not, start pumping.
  July 4th is the Independence Day. So, I need IFO working before July 4th.

Check List:
 We will just open the BS chamber.
  - PRM flipping
  - PR2, PR3 flipping
  - PRC suspensions
  - Cipping check in PRC

  6891   Fri Jun 29 01:49:36 2012 yutaBureaucracyLockingvent for PRC check, TOMORROW!

Quote:

 What do you mean by PR2, PR3 flipping?  They are (supposed to be) flat mirrors, so obviously they should be installed correctly, but they won't change the mode matching in a huge way if they're backwards, right?

We see some ghost beam spots at POP. This may come from the back of PR2 and PR3. Also, they may change mode matching because of thermal lensing, mirror deformation, and other unexpected reasons. I thought we should check every mirrors in PRC, if PRM is not flipped.

We are going to check PRM just because we spent so much time for the PRC problem, and still don't have the solution or evidence.
PRM flipping is kind of the only idea for the root of all evil -- terrible beam shape, low PR gain, unstable PRMI lock.
So, I want to check with my eye during the stay.

I don't think we have to redo magnet gluing. It's okay to leave them on HR side.

  6892   Fri Jun 29 02:17:40 2012 yutaUpdateIOOprep for the vent - beam attenuating

[Koji, Jamie, Yuta]

We attenuated the incident beam (1.2 W -> 11 mW) to the vacuum chamber to be ready for the vent.
The beam spot on the MC mirrors didn't changed significantly, which means the incident beam was not shifted so much.

What we did:
 1. Installed HWP, PBS(*) and another HWP between the steering mirrors on PSL table for attenuating the beam. We didn't touched steering mirrors(**), so the incident beam to the IFO should be recovered easily, by just taking HWPs and PBS away. The power to the MC was reduced from 1.2 W to 11 mW.

(*) We stole PBSO from the AS AUX laser setup.
(**) Actually, we accidentally touched one of the steering mirrors, but we recovered them. We did the recovery tweaking the touched nob and minimizing the MC reflection. We confirmed the incident beam was recovered by measuring MC beamspot positions(below).

 2. Aligned PBS by minimizing MC reflection, adjusted first HWP so that the incident beam will be ~10 mW, and adjusted last HWP to minimize MC reflection (make the incident beam to the MC be p-polarization).

 3. To do the alignment and adjusting, we put 100% reflection mirror (instead of 10% BS) for the MC reflection PD to increase the power to the PD. That means, we don't have MC WFS right now.

 4. Tweaked MC servo gains to that we can lock MC in low power mode. It is quite stable right now. We didn't lose lock during beam spot measurement.

 5. Measured beam spot positions on the MC mirrors and convinced that the incident beam was not shifted so much (below). They look like they moved ~0.2 mm, but it is with in the error of the MC beam spot measurement.

# filename      MC1pit  MC2pit  MC3pit  MC1yaw  MC2yaw  MC3yaw  (spot positions in mm)
./dataMCdecenter/MCdecenter201206281154.dat     3.193965        4.247243        2.386126        -6.639432       -0.574460       4.815078    this noon
./dataMCdecenter/MCdecenter201206282245.dat     3.090762        4.140716        2.459465        -6.792872       -0.651146       4.868740    after recovered steering mirrors
./dataMCdecenter/MCdecenter201206290135.dat     2.914584        4.240889        2.149244        -7.117336       -1.494540       4.955329    after beam attenuation

 6. Rewrote matlab code sensemcass.m to python script sensemcass.py. This script is to calculate beam spot positions from the measurement data(see elog #6727). I think we should make senseMCdecenter script better, too, since it takes so much time and can't stop and resume the measurement if MC is unlocked.

  6893   Fri Jun 29 03:21:32 2012 yutaUpdateGeneralprep for the vent - others

1. Turned off high voltage power supplies for PZT1/2 (input PZTs) and OMC stage 1/2. They live in 1Y3 rack and AUX_OMC_NORTH rack.

2. Restored all IFO optics alignment to the position where I aligned this afternoon (for SRM, I didn't aligned it; it restored at the saved value on May 26).

3. Centered all the oplevs. They can be used for a reference for alignment change before and after the vent.

I will leave PSL mechanical shutter and green shutters closed just in case.

Some MEDM screenshots below.
MEDMscreenshotswithCOW_20120629.png

  6896   Fri Jun 29 16:41:41 2012 yutaUpdateGeneralPRM was NOT installed backwards

[Koji, Steve, Jamie, Yuta]

So, PRM was NOT flipped......

We opened the BS chamber and quickly checked the arrow on the PRM pointing HR. It turned out to be correct, the arrow was pointing towards the arm cavity. We opened the ITMX chamber, too, to check PR2 later.
BS chamber and ITMX chamber is now closed with the light door.

But it was a one step forward anyway, because we could prove PRM was innocent.

What to do next:
  We know that the mode-matching of the incident beam and both arms are pretty good. So, dirty modes come from PRC.
  We will check beam clipping, mirrors, suspensions in PRC.
  I expect the chambers to be closed on Monday(July 2) afternoon and start pumping on Tuesday(July 3) morning.

  6899   Sun Jul 1 13:20:09 2012 yutaUpdateIOOMC in low power

I modified autolocker for MC in low power mode (/opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/MC/autolockMCmain40m_low_power) to make it work with the current directory structure.
autolockMCmain40m_low_power currently runs on op340m and it is in crontab.

34 * * * *  /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/general/scripto_cron /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/MC/autolockMCmain40m_low_power >/cvs/cds/caltech/logs/scripts/mclock.cronlog 2>&1


MC intra-cavity power:
  Currently, incident beam to the MC measured at PSL table is ~15 mW. Reflected power from MC (C1:IOO-MC_RFPD_DCMON) is 0.94 when MC unlocked, and is 0.088 when locked.
  That means, considering MC1/3 power transmission is 2000ppm (calculated finnesse=1570), intra-cavity power in MC is ~7 W.

  15 mW * (0.94-0.088)/0.94 / 2000ppm = 7 W

  We can increase the power by factor of ~2, if needed.


MC beam spot positions:

  I aligned MC to maximize transmission (C1:IOO-MC_TRANS_SUM_ERR), and measured the MC beam spot posisions in atm, low power.

# filename    MC1pit    MC2pit    MC3pit    MC1yaw    MC2yaw    MC3yaw    (spot positions in mm)
./dataMCdecenter/MCdecenter201206290135.dat    2.914584    4.240889    2.149244    -7.117336    -1.494540    4.955329    before vent
./dataMCdecenter/MCdecenter201207011253.dat    3.294659    3.416584    2.620511    -6.691800    -3.164084    4.806517    after vent

  They look the same within the error of the measurement, except for the spot positions on MC2, which we don't care.


Autolocker should be refined:
  To make autolockMCmain40m_low_power, I copied autolockMCmain40m and just changed

- lockthresh from 500 to 100
- use mcdown_low_power instead of mcdown
- use mcup_low_power instead of mcup

  The difference between mcdown_low_power and mcdown should be only

- ezcawrite C1:IOO-MC_REFL_GAIN 31 for lowpower, 9 for usual
- ezcawrite C1:IOO-MC_VCO_GAIN 10 for lowpower, -5 for usual

  The difference between mcup_low_power and mcup should be only

- ezcawrite C1:IOO-MC_REFL_GAIN 31 for lowpower, 12 for usual
- ezcawrite C1:IOO-MC_VCO_GAIN 31 for lowpower, 25 for usual

  Currently, they are not like that. Somebody good at shell scripts should combine them and make it into one code with an option something like usual/low-power.

  6900   Sun Jul 1 23:48:15 2012 yutaSummaryGeneralclipping at BS, my plan

[Koji, Yuta]

We aligned PRMI and inspected BS chamber. Last inspection by Jamie and I (see elog #6897) was done when nothing is aligned, so I wanted to see the difference.
Aligning PRMI at low power was difficult for me, because I see no fringe at ASDC PD nor REFLDC PD. I just aligned them by looking at AS/REFL camera. The beam shape at AS looked as bad as when the usual power.

No significant change was found inside the vacuum. We still see clipping at the Faraday, and also, we saw clipping by BS coil holder. Using PZT1, we could make it better, but this might be causing PRC problem -- BS is inside the PRC, too.

We also took some pictures of PR3 and PRM(attached). The arrow pointing HR is correctly pointing inside the PRC. Seeing is believing.

Yuta's plan:
  We might have to avoid clipping at BS (and Faraday) by aligning input optics inside the vacuum. If we are going to align them, I think we should start from centering MC beam spot positions and the whole alignment could take more than a week. I don't want to spend too much time on the alignment. Also, we are going to install tip-tilts on the next big vent, so we have to redo the alignment anyway.
  So, my plan is as follows;

1. Take lots of photos and close the door on Monday(June 2).

2. Pump on Tuesday(June 3).

3. Restart working on ALS. For example, demonstration of FPMI using ALS.

4. We also can do some characterization of PRC, like measuring power recycling gain for PRMI/PRFPMI, mode scan for PRC using AUX laser from AS port, and so on. We need some calculation for clipping tolerance, too.

  Any objections?

  6903   Mon Jul 2 18:27:25 2012 yutaUpdateGeneralBS and ITMX chambers closed

[Koji, Steve, Jamie, Jenne, Yuta]

We opened BS and ITMX chambers, took lots of photos, and closed them with heavy doors.
I turned off high voltage power supplies for PZTs and blocked PSL beam. We are ready for the pumping tomorrow.

Important photos we took:
  - positions of green optics at BS chamber, which was moved on the vent on Aug 2011
  - positions of PZT mirrors and cable connectors at BS chamber, which will be replaced with tip-tilts on the next vent
  - arrow on PR2 pointing HR (it was correct)
  - tried to take photos of clipping IR beam at BS OSEM holder from ITMX chamber
 
 We also took bunch of other photos.


Beam dump needed at BS chamber:
  We also checked some un-dumped beams at BS chamber. We need dumps;
  - behind MMT1, for unwanted transmitted beam
  - behind IPPOSSM3, for unwanted transmitted beam (IPPOSSM3 is the last mirror in BS chamber for IPPOS)

  6910   Tue Jul 3 20:51:06 2012 yutaUpdateIOOMC in vacuum is back

MC came back to the state as it was before the vent.

What I did:
  1. Removed beam attenuating setup on PSL table(see elog #6892).

  2. Removed 100% reflection mirror before the MC reflection PD and put 10% BS back, so that we can have MC WFS. Also, I changed C1:IOO-MC_RFPD_DCMON.HOPR to 5.

  3. Removed autolockMCmain40m_low_power from crontab on op340m, and put autolockMCmain40m again.

  4. Aligned MC and ran /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/MC/WFS/WFS_FilterBank_offsets to adjust WFS offsets.

  5. Measured beam spot positions. They looked same as before the vent.

# filename    MC1pit    MC2pit    MC3pit    MC1yaw    MC2yaw    MC3yaw    (spot positions in mm)
./dataMCdecenter/MCdecenter201206290135.dat    2.914584    4.240889    2.149244    -7.117336    -1.494540    4.955329    before vent
./dataMCdecenter/MCdecenter201207011253.dat    3.294659    3.416584    2.620511    -6.691800    -3.164084    4.806517    after vent
./dataMCdecenter/MCdecenter201207032009.dat    3.737099    3.994597    3.087857    -6.442053    -0.992543    4.714607    after pumping (now)

  6. I also turned on high voltage power supplies for input and output PZTs

  7. Below is captured Sensoray images of the current state.
ALL_1025408289.bmp


Next:
  I will go on to check if IFO works as it was before or not, but I think we should center MC beam spot positions and see if we can avoid clipping in the near future.

  6913   Wed Jul 4 20:13:46 2012 yutaBureaucracyLockingPRC commissioning plan

Issues in PRC:
  1. Power recycling gain is too low (~ 15 instead of 40, according to Kiwamu).
  2. Mode matching to both arms are ~90%(see #6859), but PRC has terrible mode.
       Clipping/flipping in PRC?
  3. From cameras, beam spot moves so much when PRMI is locked.
       Alignment? Mirrors(especially PR2/3) moves too much?
  4. Error signals are glitchy when PRMI is locked.
       Servo design? Mirrors moves too much?

What we have learned from the vent:

  1. PRM, PR2, PR3 was not flipped.
  2. Their suspensions looked OK, too.
  3. We noticed clipping at BS and Faraday. They must be avoided when tip-tilts are installed on next vent.

  4. Took useful photos for next vent. Positions of green optics on optical layout CAD must be updated.
  5. It is not so difficult to recover the IFO state after cycling the vacuum if we use attenuator setup using PBS (see elog #6892).  But, of course, we need plans before cycling.

Commissioning Plan:
  - measure PRMI power recycling gain from POP
  - FPMI using ALS
  - measure PRFPMI power recycling gain from TRY/X
  - correlation between beam spot motion at POP camera and glitch
  - correlation between PR2/PR3 motion and glitch (how can we measure PR2/3 motion? set up oplevs?)
  - mode scan for PRC, using AS AUX laser
  - beam profile measurement at REFL,POP
  - refine servo design of MICH and PRCL

  6914   Wed Jul 4 21:11:53 2012 yutaUpdateLockingFPMI in vacuum is back

I aligned FPMI and greens. There's no recognizable difference between before and after the vent.

What I did:
  1. Aligned Y arm to maximize Y green transmission.
  2. Used PZT1/2 to maximize TRY. But since PZT1 doesn't work so much, I had to align Y arm, too (mostly ETMY). This decreases green transmission, but I will leave it.
  3. Aligned BS and X arm to maximize TRX
  4. Fine tune them to minimize ASDC during FPMI lock, without decreasing TRX
  5. Aligned X end green to get TEM00 transmission.

Now, TRY and TRX are both  ~0.89.
Green transmission from Y and X arm are ~123 uW and ~275 uW respectively. Their max we got so far was ~200 uW and ~255 uW.
I still see clipped beam at AS, which I think is from the Faraday edge, as we found in elog #6897.
Below is the Sensoray capture of some ports, and MEDM screen shots to compare with before vent(see #6893).
There are two AS captures, one is without MI lock and the other is with MI lock. Note that PRM/SRM is misalined.

ALL_1025495266.pngMEDMscreenshotswithCOW_20120704.png


Next:
 - I will check ALS
 - I keep Y end green optics untouched since elog #6776, to use it as a reference. We need to realign them if tip-tilts are installed in vacuum, or PZTs are installed in both ends.

  6915   Thu Jul 5 01:20:58 2012 yutaSummaryCDSslow computers, 0x4000 for all DAQ status

ALS looks OK. I tried to lock FPMI using ALS, but I feel like I need 6 hands to do it with current ALS stability. Now I have all computers being so slow.

It was fine for 7 hours after Jamie the Great fixed this, but fb went down couple times and DAQ status for all models now shows 0x4000. I tried restarting mx_stream and restarting fb, but they didn't help.

  6916   Thu Jul 5 01:34:11 2012 yutaUpdateLockingMI with X arm ALS

I tried to lock FPMI using ALS, but I could not take care of ALS for both arms + MI. So, I decided to try one arm + MI.
I don't know why, but I couldn't make it. We need investigation.

Procedure I took:

  1. Align FPMI.

  2. Misalign ETMY.

  3. Press CLEAR HISTORY for C1:ALS-BEATY_FINE_PHASE filter module.
    Are there any command to do this?

  4. Stabilize X arm length.
    I made a script for turning on ALS servo nicely. It currently lives in /users/yuta/scripts/easyALS.py. You have to specify the arm(X or Y) and sign of the gain. It needs to be refined.

  5. Sweep the offset and stabilize X arm lenth to IR resonance.
   (Ran /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/ALS/findIRresonance.py Xarm)

  6. Tried to lock MI. I tried to do this by feeding back the signal to BS or ITMs. Both worked fine when ALS holds X arm to IR off-resonance, but I couldn't lock MI when ALS holds X arm to IR resonance. This may come from too much phase fluctuation from X arm reflection. We should investigate this.

Handing off the servo from ALS to LSC:

  I made a script to do this. It just decreases ALS gain and increases LSC gain with 30 sec ramp time. It needs to be refined, so it currently lives in /users/yuta/scripts/handofftoLSC.py. It worked fine without loosing IR transmission.

ALS stability:
  Current stabiliy of the ALS servo is not enough. It doesn't stay for more than ~ 10min. I suspect this is from frequency servo of end lasers losing lock, or beat signals being too small for the beat box because of intensity fluctuation of green transmission. We definitely need to align end greens, but it is painful.

  6922   Thu Jul 5 13:38:05 2012 yutaSummaryLockingcavity g-factor from mode scan

Cavity g-factor for X arm is 0.3737 +/- 0.002, Y arm is 0.3765 +/- 0.003.
If ITMs are flat and arm length L = 39 +/- 1 m, this means RoC of ETMX and ETMY is 62 +/- 2 m and 63 +/- 2 m respectively.

Calculation:
  Transverse mode spacing is expressed by

nu_TMS / nu_FSR = arccos(sqrt(g1*g2)) / pi

  where g1 and g2 is g-factor

gi = 1 - L/Ri

 of ITM/ETM.

  For mode-scan, we swept laser frequency nu. Let's assume this sweep was linear and we can replace laser frequency with time. From the mode-scan result, TMS can be derived by

  t_TMS = sum((n_i-n)*(t_i-t)) / sum((n_i-n)^2)

  where n_i is the order of transverse mode, n is average of n_i's, t_i is the time i-th order mode appeared and t is average of t_i's.
  Since I could only recognize up to 3rd order mode, this can be rewritten as

  t_TMS = 1.5/5 * t_0 + 0.5/5 * t_1 - 0.5/5 * t_2 - 1.5/5 * t_3

  FSR is time between TEM00s. So, g1*g2 can be calculated by

g1*g2 = (cos(pi*t_TMS/t_FSR))^2


X arm result:

  From the 8FSR mode-scan data (see elog #6859), X arm HOM positions in sec are;

HOM 0    242.00     214.76     187.22     159.27     131.33    102.96     74.61     46.00     17.51
HOM 1    234.29     206.78     179.20     150.96     122.90     94.58     66.27     38.10
HOM 2    226.36     198.91     170.80     142.92     114.62     86.51     58.05     29.65
HOM 3    218.14     190.65     162.71     134.78     106.68     78.27     49.95     21.25


  Calculated FSR and TMS in sec are;

FSR    27.24     27.54     27.95     27.94     28.37     28.35     28.61     28.49
TMS     7.951     8.020     8.193     8.151     8.223     8.214     8.220     8.270

  Calculated cavity g-factor are;

g1*g2    0.3699     0.3720     0.3662     0.3704     0.3761     0.3765     0.3839     0.3748

  By taking average,

g1*g2 = 0.3737 +/- 0.002  (error in 1 sigma)


Y arm result:
  From 8FSR mode-scan data (see elog #6832), Y arm HOM positions in sec are;

HOM 0    246.70     218.15     190.06     161.87     133.26    104.75     76.01     47.19     18.60
HOM 1    238.83     210.55     181.88     153.47     124.93     96.08     67.51     39.01
HOM 2    230.48     202.21     173.64     144.80     116.43     86.17     59.84     31.43
HOM 3    222.15     193.47     165.33     137.13     108.60     80.04     51.17     22.25


  Calculated FSR and TMS in sec are;

FSR    28.55     28.09     28.19     28.61     28.51     28.74     28.82     28.59
TMS     8.200     8.238     8.243     8.289     8.248     8.404     8.219     8.240


  Calculated cavity g-factor are;

g1*g2    0.3841     0.3657     0.3683     0.3765     0.3778     0.3683     0.3904     0.3811

  By taking average,

g1*g2 = 0.3765 +/- 0.003  (error in 1 sigma)


Conclusion:
  If ITMs are flat and arm length L = 39 +/- 1 m, this means RoC of ETMX and ETMY is 62 +/- 2 m and 63 +/- 2 m respectively. Designed RoC is 57.35 m.
  Error of RoC is dominated by arm length error. So, we need more precise measurement of the length. This can be done when scan is calibrated and we can measure FSR in frequency.
  Also, we need evaluation of linearity of the sweep. This also can be done by calibration.

  6925   Fri Jul 6 01:39:56 2012 yutaUpdateLockingMI + Y arm ALS succeed, but not both

MI with X arm length stabilized off resonance and Y arm length stabilized at resonance using ALS succeed, but I couldn't bring X arm to IR resonance. This maybe because of too much phase fluctuation. I will calculate it later.

What I did:
  1. Brought X arm to IR resonance.
  2. Brought Y arm to IR resonance.
  3. Brought X arm to off-resonance.
  4. Brought Y arm to off-resonance. (1-4 are to play with arms)
  5. Locked MI in dark fringe using AS55_Q as error signal and BS as actuator.
  6. Brought Y arm to IR resonance. This flips sign, so MI lock will be bright fringe.
  7. Brought X arm to IR resonance. This destroys MI lock.

  Below is the plot showing what I did
FPMIALStrial20120706.png

  I also tried to lock MI after both arms are stabilized at resonance, but it failed, too.
  MI + X arm ALS fails. I think this is from too much BS motion to compensate phase fluctuation of arm reflected beam.
  MI + Y arm ALS fails when I want to lock in dark fringe. Only bright fringe works.


New compact MEDM screen for ALS:

  It has (almost) everything you need for ALS. It lives in /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/medm/c1gcv/master/C1ALS_COMPACT.adl.
  Features;

  - Button for turning on/off ALS. It even does "clear history"!
      (light brown button "ON plus", "ON minus", "OFF"; runs /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/ALS/easyALS.py; Currently, you have to guess the sign of gain. Ctrl-C if the sign was wrong. It will be nice if script can handle this. Use lockin to detemrine the sign?)

  - Button for finding IR resonance.
      (pink button "IRres"; runs /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/ALS/findIRresonance.py)

  - Button for bringing arm length to off-resonance.
      (pink button "-10", "+10"; steps +/- 10 deg offset)

  - Button for toggling green shutters.
      (green button "shutter"; runs /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/medm/c1gcv/cmd/toggle(X|Y)Shutter.py)

  - Button for switching monitors.
      (grey button "Video (X|Y)arm"; runs /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/general/Video_(X|Y)arm.csh)

  - Slider for changing temperature of end lasers. You can also open temperature servo screens from orange "(X|Y)SLOW" button.

newALSMEDMscreen.png

  6926   Fri Jul 6 02:46:03 2012 yutaUpdateLockingY arm ALS handing off to LSC

Handing off the servo from ALS to LSC for one arm is quite easy because servo filters are pretty much same for ALS and LSC. I demonstrated it Y arm during MI is locked.
We need DARM/CARM-kind of handing off in the near future.

What I did:
  1. Brought both arms to IR resonance.
  2. Brought X arm to off resonance.
  3. Locked MI in bright fringe(why can't I lock in dark fringe, when one arm is on resonance?) using AS55_Q and BS.
  4. Ran /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/ALS/handofftoLSC.py Yarm to handoff. It decreases ALS gain and increases LSC gain in 30 sec ramp time. It also turns on some filters for LSC. Make sure you turn off filter triggers for LSC.

 Below is the plot of what I did. You can see LSC feedback signal gradually increasing and TRY getting more stable.
 I was dissapointed with ALS not having any DQ channels for feedback signal. I will make them DQ channels tomorrow.

handofftoLSC20120706.png

  6931   Fri Jul 6 14:10:31 2012 yutaSummaryLSCcalculation of FPMI using ALS

From calculation, phase fluctuation of reflected beam from length stabilized arm is not disturbing MI lock.

Easy calculation:
  The phase PD at AS port sense is

phi = phi_x - phi_y = 2*l_MICH*omega/c + (phi_X - phi_Y)

  where l_MICH is the Michelson differential length change, omega is laser frequency, phi_X and phi_Y are phase of arm reflected beam. From very complicated calculation,

phi_X ~ F/2 * Phi_X

  at near resonance. Where F is arm finesse, Phi_X is the round trip phase change in X arm. So,

phi = 2*l_MICH*omega/c + F/2 * 2*L_DARM*omega/c

  Our ALS stabilizes arm length in ~ 70 pm(see elogs #6835#6858). Finesse for IR is ~450. Considering l_MICH is ~ 1 um, MICH signal at AS port should be larger than stabilized DARM signal by an order of magnitude.

Length sensing matrix of FPMI:
  Calculated length sensing matrix of 40m FPMI is below. Here, I'm just considering 11 MHz modulation. I assumed input power to be 1 W, modulation index 0.1i, Schnupp asymmetry 26.6 mm. PRM/SRM transmissivity is not taken into account.

[W/m]     DARM      CARM      MICH
REFL_I    0         1.69e8    0
REFL_Q    7.09e1    0        -3.61e3
AS_I      0         0         0
AS_Q      1.04e6    0         3.61e3


  Maybe we should use REFL_Q as MICH signal, but since IQ separation is not perfect, we see too much CARM. I tried to lock MI with REFL11_Q yesterday, but failed.

  6938   Sun Jul 8 00:27:54 2012 yutaSummaryLockingcalibrating phase tracking mode scan data

FSR for X/Y arm are 3.97 +/- 0.03 MHz and 3.96 +/- 0.02 MHz respectively. This means X/Y arm lengths are 37.6 +/- 0.3 m and 37.9 +/- 0.2 m respectively.
I calibrated the mode scan results using 11MHz sideband as frequency reference.
Calibration factor between the phase of the phase tracker and IR frequency is 9.81 +/- 0.05 kHz/deg for X arm, 9.65 +/- 0.02 kHz/deg for Y arm.

Calculation:
  For the mode scan measurements, we swept the phase of the phase tracker linearly with time. Previous calculation was done without calibrating seconds into actual IR frequency. The first order calibration can be done using modulation frequency as reference. Note that I'm still assuming our sweep was linear here.

  Relation between FSR and modulation frequency can be written in

f_mod = n * nu_FSR + nu_f

  where f_mod is the modulation frequency, n is an integer, nu_f = mod(nu_FSR,f_mod).
  nu_FSR and nu_f are measurable values (in seconds) from the mode scan. We know that f_mod = 11065910 Hz (elog #6027). We also know that nu_FSR is designed to be ~3.7 MHz(=c/2L). So, n = 2.
  We can calculate f_mod in seconds, so we can calibrate seconds into IR frequency.


Calibrating X arm mode scan:
  From the 8FSR mode-scan data (see elog #6859), positions of TEM00 and upper/lower 11 MHz sidebands in seconds are;

TEM00    242.00     214.76     187.22     159.27     131.33     102.96     74.61     46.00     17.51
upper    236.70     209.05     181.36     153.42     125.06      96.86     68.43     40.20
lower    220.35     192.96     165.03     136.98     108.92      80.65     52.25     23.90


  So, FSR and nu_f in seconds are;

FSR    27.24     27.54     27.95     27.94     28.37     28.35     28.61     28.49
nu_f   21.80     21.82     22.14     22.19     22.26     22.28     22.40     22.40


  By using formula above, modulation frequency in seconds are;

f_mod    76.28    76.90    78.04    78.07    79.00    78.98    79.62    79.38

  By taking average, FSR and f_mod in seconds are

FSR    28.1 +/- 0.2
f_mod    78.3 +/- 0.4

  We know that f_mod = 11065910 Hz, so conversion constant from seconds to frequency is

k1 = 0.1413 +/- 0.0007 MHz/sec

  We swept the phase by 3600 deg in 250 sec, so conversion constant from degree to frequency is

k2 = 9.81 +/- 0.05 kHz/deg

  Also, using k1, FSR for X arm is

FSR = 3.97 +/- 0.03 MHz

  This means, X arm length is

L = c/(2*FSR) = 37.6 +/- 0.3 m


Calibrating Y arm mode scan:
  From the 8FSR mode-scan data (see elog #6832), positions of TEM00 and upper/lower 11 MHz sidebands in seconds are;

TEM00    246.70     218.15     190.06     161.87     133.26     104.75     76.01     47.19     18.60
upper    240.86     212.78     184.32     155.73     127.23      98.48     69.78     41.26
lower    224.53     195.73     167.31     139.13     110.81      82.27     53.60     24.50


  So, FSR and nu_f in seconds are;

FSR    28.55     28.09     28.19     28.61     28.51     28.74     28.82     28.59
nu_f   22.44     22.57     22.60     22.61     22.47     22.48     22.50     22.68


  By using formula above, modulation frequency in seconds are;

f_mod    79.54    78.75    78.98    79.825    79.485    79.955    80.14    79.855


  By taking average, FSR and f_mod in seconds are

FSR    28.5 +/- 0.1
f_mod    79.6 +/- 0.2

  We know that f_mod = 11065910 Hz, so conversion constant from seconds to frequency is

k1 = 0.1390 +/- 0.0003 MHz/sec

  We swept the phase by 3600 deg in 250 sec, so conversion constant from degree to frequency is

k2 = 9.65 +/- 0.02 kHz/deg

  (k2 of X arm and Y arm is different because delay-line lengths are different)
  Using k1, FSR for X arm is

FSR = 3.96 +/- 0.02 MHz

  This means, X arm length is

L = c/(2*FSR) = 37.9 +/- 0.2 m


Summary of mode scan results:
X arm
  Mode matching    MMR = 91.2 +/- 0.3 % (elog #6859) Note that we had ~2% of 01/10 mode.
  FSR         FSR = 3.97 +/- 0.03 MHz (this elog)
  finesse    F = 416 +/- 6 (elog #6859)
  g-factor    g1*g2 = 0.3737 +/- 0.002 (elog #6922)

  length        L = 37.6 +/- 0.3 m (this elog)
  ETM RoC  R2 = 60.0 +/- 0.5 m (this elog and #6922; assuming ITM is flat)

Y arm
  Mode matching    MMR = 86.7 +/- 0.3 % (elog #6828) Note that we had ~5% of 01/10 mode.
  FSR         FSR = 3.96 +/- 0.02 MHz (this elog)
  finesse    F = 421 +/- 6 (elog #6832)
  g-factor    g1*g2 = 0.3765 +/- 0.003 (elog #6922)

  length       L = 37.9 +/- 0.2 m (this elog)
  ETM RoC R2 = 60.7 +/- 0.3 m (this elog and #6922; assuming ITM is flat)

  I think these are all the important arm parameters we can derive just from mode scan measurement.

  Every errors shown above are statistical error in 1 sigma. We need linearity check to put systematic error. Also, we need more precise calibration after that, too, if the sweep has considerably large non-linearity. To do the linearity check, I think the most straight forward way is to install frequency divider to monitor actual beat frequency during the sweep.

  6940   Sun Jul 8 19:31:53 2012 yutaUpdateLockingcharacterizing LSC arm lock by ALS error signal

RMS of X/Y arm length using POX/POY lock is <160 pm and <120 pm respectively. RMS of free swinging X/Y arm length is both 0.17 um.

I used ALS error signal for out-of-loop evaluation of IR lock. We can even use ALS error signal when arm is free swinging because phase tracking ALS error signal is linear to arm length.
ALS error signal might not be as good as POX/POY. So, this out-of-loop estimation might be not so good.

X arm lock using POX11:
- Openloop transfer function
   I adjusted filter (C1:LSC-XARM) gain and now, UGF ~150 Hz, phase margin ~20 deg.
  570 usec delay (number in the figure is wrong) - Edited by Yuta on July 9
LSCPOXarmIRlockOLTF.png

- Arm length spectra
   Red is the free run spectrum. Measured using C1:ALS-BEATX_FINE_PHASE_OUT, calibration factor in frequency is 9.81 kHz/deg (see elog #6938), so calibration factor is 1.32 nm/deg.
   Green is the out-of-loop spectrum. Measured using C1:ALS-BEATX_FINE_PHASE_OUT.
   Blue is the in-loop spectrum. Measured using C1:LSC-POX11_I_ERR, calibration factor is 3.8e12 counts/m (see elog #6841).
   Black is the expected spectrum from openloop transfer function, such as (free run)/|1+G|.
XarmLengthspectra20120708.png


  Out-of-loop estimation of RMS during POX lock is 160 pm. But since this looks too large, ALS error signal might not see actual arm length change when arm length is locked.
  Also, it is interesting that ALS error signal sees 24 Hz peak, but POX doesn't. Roll mode coupling to green?

Y arm lock using POY11:
- Openloop transfer function
   I adjusted filter (C1:LSC-YARM) gain and now, UGF ~150 Hz, phase margin ~20 deg.
  570 usec delay (number in the figure is wrong) - Edited by Yuta on July 9
LSCPOYarmIRlockOLTF.png

- Arm length spectra
   Red is the free run spectrum. Measured using C1:ALS-BEATY_FINE_PHASE_OUT, calibration factor in frequency is 9.65 kHz/deg (see elog #6938), so calibration factor is 1.30 nm/deg.
   Green is the out-of-loop spectrum. Measured using C1:ALS-BEATY_FINE_PHASE_OUT.
   Blue is the in-loop spectrum. Measured using C1:LSC-POY11_I_ERR, calibration factor is 1.4e12 counts/m (see elog #6834).
   Black is the expected spectrum from openloop transferfunction, such as (free run)/|1+G|.
YarmLengthspectra20120708.png


  Out-of-loop estimation of RMS during POY lock is 120 pm. But since this looks too large, ALS error signal might not see actual arm length change when arm length is locked.
  Also, it is interesting that ALS error signal sees 16.5 Hz peak, but POY doesn't. Bounce mode coupling to green?

Next:
  - Noise budgeting of phase tracking ALS
  - Is it possible to lock MI when RMS of arm length during POX/POY lock increased to ~100pm?

  6941   Mon Jul 9 05:02:58 2012 yutaUpdateLockingadjusted ALS filters, current RMS

I adjusted filters of ALS to give more phase margin.
RMS of stabilized X/Y arm length is 97 pm and 65 pm respectively.

X arm ALS:
- Openloop transfer function
UGF ~160 Hz, phase margin 30 deg
1600 usec delay (LSC-XARM had 1800 usec delay)     500 usec delay (LSC-XARM had 570 usec delay) - Edited by Yuta on July 9

ALSXarmOLTF.png

- Arm length spectra
   Red is the free run spectrum. Measured using C1:ALS-BEATX_FINE_PHASE_OUT. Calibration factor is 1.32 nm/deg.
   Green is the out-of-loop spectrum. Measured using C1:LSC-POX11_I_ERR. Calibration factor is 3.8e12 counts/m.
   Blue is the in-loop spectrum. Measured using C1:ALS-BEATX_FINE_PHASE_OUT.
   Black is the expected spectrum from openloop transfer function, such as (free run)/|1+G|.
ALSXarmLengthspectra20120708.png


   Out-of-loop estimation of RMS during X ALS is 97 pm.
   RMS mostly comes from 1 Hz and 3.3 Hz peak.
   Out-of-loop and in-loop agrees at around 10-20 Hz.

Y arm ALS:
- Openloop transfer function
UGF ~130 Hz, phase margin 20 deg
2400 usec delay (LSC-XARM had 1800 usec delay)     760 usec delay (LSC-XARM had 570 usec delay) - Edited by Yuta on July 9

ALSYarmOLTF.png

- Arm length spectra
   Red is the free run spectrum. Measured using C1:ALS-BEATY_FINE_PHASE_OUT. Calibration factor is 1.30 nm/deg.
   Green is the out-of-loop spectrum. Measured using C1:LSC-POY11_I_ERR. Calibration factor is 1.4e12 counts/m.
   Blue is the in-loop spectrum. Measured using C1:ALS-BEATY_FINE_PHASE_OUT.
   Black is the expected spectrum from openloop transferfunction, such as (free run)/|1+G|.
ALSYarmLengthspectra20120708.png

   Out-of-loop estimation of RMS during X ALS is 65 pm.
   RMS mostly comes from 1 Hz and 3.3 Hz peak.
   Out-of-loop and in-loop agrees at around 3-40 Hz.

  6942   Mon Jul 9 05:15:46 2012 yutaUpdateGreen Lockinglocked MI while ALS using ASDC

I locked MI while both arm length are stabilized at IR resonance. This could be done using DC READOUT, in other words, use AS_DC as MICH error signal.
Lock using RF signals are still not successful.

FPMIALStrial20120709.png

  6947   Mon Jul 9 23:18:09 2012 yutaUpdateLSCPRMI got more stable a bit

I modified filiters for LSC_MICH and LSC_PRCL.
Although modes we can see at POP and AS look still bad, error signals are less glitchy than I see before (elog #6886).

Measured power recylcing gain for PRMI was 1.6 (??)

Openloop transfer function for LSC_MICH:
  UGF ~130Hz, phase margin ~30 deg
  550 usec delay
LSCMICHOLTF.png

APOLOGIES: I forgot "pi" in previous delay calculation. (I put notes on elogs #6940 and #6941)

Openloop transfer function for LSC_PRCL:
  UGF ~130Hz, phase margin ~30 deg
  550 usec delay
  A bump cam be seen in ~200 Hz. Coupling of DOFs?
LSCPRCLOLTF.png

Beam shape and motion:
   Below left is the Sensoray capture of AS/REFL/POP when PRMI is carrier locked.
ALL_1025928219_PRMIlocked3.pngPRMIbeammotion20120709.png

  Beam spot motion looks less bouncy than before, but it still shows motion mostly at ~3.3Hz. This might be from PRM motion. Above right is uncalibrated spectra of POPDC and REFLDC. You can see 3.3 Hz peak. This peak has some coherence with PRM motion measured by oplevs. I centered BS/PRM oplev to do this measurement.

Power recycling gain:
 - Definition and designed value
  Power recylcing gain is

G = (PRC intracavity power) / (incident power)

  When MI is perfectly symmetric, this can be written as

G  = (t_PRM/1-r_PRM*r_ITM)**2

  where t_i, r_i is amplitude transmissivity, reflectivity. Inserting the designed values;

 t_PRM = sqrt(0.0575)
 r_ITM = sqrt(1-0.014)

  designed power recycling gain for PRMI is

G = 44

 - Measurement
  POP power when PRM is misaligned and MI is locked at dark fringe is

P_mis = P_in * T_PRM * (1-T_PR3) * (1-T_ITM) * T_PR3

  POP power when PRMI is locked is

P_PR = P_intra * T_PR3

  So,

G = P_intra / P_in = (P_PR / P_mis) * T_PRM * (1-T_PR3) * (1-T_ITM) ~ (P_PR / P_mis) * 0.06

  I measured power of POP using C1:LSC-POPDC_OUT. It was 268 when PRM is misalined and MI is locked at dark fringe. Also, it was ~850 when PRMI is carrier locked. When closing PSL shutter, it was ~246. So,

G_PR = (850-246)/(268-246) * 0.06 = 1.6

  It looks too small.

  6950   Tue Jul 10 03:16:17 2012 yutaUpdateLSCPRMI got more stable a bit

I modified filiters for LSC_MICH and LSC_PRCL again to cope with power recycling gain fluctuation.
After some more alignment, power recycling gain increased (but still ~3.7). It fluctuates more than a factor of 2, and I began to see glitches again. So I needed more gain margin, as Koji pointed out.

I played around with filters, but I couldn't remove all the glitches. Gain margin now look OK in principle.
It looks like PRM motion is related. Since PRM doesn't have oplev now, I will see PRM oplev tomorrow.

New openloop transfer function:
 LSC_MICH
   UGF ~100 Hz, phase margin ~ 50 deg
   no phase flip in less than factor of ~5 gain change
   550 usec delay
 LSC_PRCL
   UGF ~100 Hz, phase margin ~ 70 deg (phase bump at UGF)
   no phase flip in less than factor of ~5 gain change
   550 usec delay
LSCMICHOLTF.pngLSCPRCLOLTF.png

Power recylcing gain:
  It is now ~3.7. It fluctuates pretty much. See time series data below when I locked PRMI. MICH and PRCL locks at the same time.

G = (1600-244)/(266-244)*0.06 = 3.7

PRMI20120709_2.png
 

  6952   Tue Jul 10 17:47:55 2012 yutaUpdateSUSPRM oplevs fixed

I centetered PRM oplev, lowered gain and PRM oplev servo is not oscillating any more.
It is OK for more than a softball practice.

C1:SUS-PRM_OLPIT_GAIN = 0.15  (was 0.5)
C1:SUS-PRM_OLYAW_GAIN = -0.3  (was 0.7)

Openloop transfer function:
  Oplev Pitch: gain ~ 12 at 0.69 Hz resonance
  Oplev Yaw: gain ~ 18 at 0.83 Hz resonance
PRMoplevpitOLTF.pngPRMoplevyawOLTF.png

  I adjusted the gain so that oplev damps resonance as much as possible, but not introduce additional noise. I did no calculation, but just measured OSEM spectra (SUSPIT and SUSYAW). Below, you can see the noise reduces at resonance when oplev servo is on, and not increasing at other frequencies. It was introducing noise before. Someone should do more systematic adjustment of oplev servos for all the optics.

PRMOplevSpectra20120710.png
 

  6953   Tue Jul 10 21:37:05 2012 yutaUpdateLSCPRMI glitch study

PRMI glitch certainly comes from power recylcing gain fluctuation.
I confirmed this by
  - Reading the value of POPDC at the time when there's glitch in error signals
      -> There was some threshold for POPDC to make a glitch
  - Look closer to the glitch
      -> It was oscillation in ~400Hz, where we have phase flip in PRCL/MICH servo

Next is to find why we have power recycling gain fluctuation. I want to see the correlation between alignment fluctuation of optics and POPDC.

Glitch analysis:
  Below is the plot of
   Red   PRCL error signal (C1:LSC-REFL33_I_ERR)
   Green MICH erorr signal (C1:LSC-AS55_Q_ERR)
   Blue  PRC intra-cavity power (C1:LSC-POPDC_OUT)
  when PRMI is carrier locked.

PRMIgilitch20120709.pngPRMIgilitch20120709_closer.png

  Time when there is a glitch in error signal is marked. Value of POPDC at that time is also marked. It looks like there's some threshold (dotted blue line).
  It sometimes doesn't show glitch even if POPDC is above the "threshold". It is maybe because of alignment fluctuation. Intra-cavity power gets high, but power at PDs get low, or vice versa.

  Right plot is closer look. Glitch is a sudden oscillation at ~400 Hz. It is the frequency where we have phase flip in PRCL/MICH openloop transfer function now(see elog #6950).

  6954   Wed Jul 11 02:25:11 2012 yutaUpdateLSCPRMI beam spot motion might be from PRM/BS motion

My hypothesis from the measurements below, to explain PRMI beam spot motion is;

  Stack motion at 3.3 Hz largely couples to BS and PRM angular motion.
  LSC for PRMI try to compensate this 3.3 Hz motion because they appear in the error signal.
  But since it's not length, failing and even adding more angular motion.

Some plots:
  1. Uncalibrated spectra of POPDC and ASDC when PRMI is locked. This tells you that beam motion seen at POP is 3.3 Hz.

  2. Uncalibrated spectra of feedback signal to BS and PRM. This tells you that LSC is actuating BS and PRM mainly at 3.3 Hz. I think this is because beam spot on PD moves at 3.3 Hz and so faking the error signal.

  3. Below left is uncalibrated spectra of BS, ITMX, ITMY, PRM (and ETMY) angular motion measured using oplevs. I centered oplevs on these optics (except ETMY, which was mis-aligned during PRMI lock). It looks like BS and PRM motion at 3.3 Hz is larger than other optics. Also, there's some coherence between POPDC and BS/PRM motion. We see some coherence with ITMs and even with ETMY, which is completely independent from PRMI. I think this is because 3.3 Hz motion is originated from the ground (stack) motion.

  left:  OLPITYAWandPOPDC4.png          right: OLPITYAWandPOPDCunlocked.png

  4. Above right is the same spectra, but when PRMI is not locked. It looks like there's no big change compared with PRMI locked. When locked, there's some excess for BS and PRM at ~1-3 Hz. I think this is from LSC feedback, which in principle, doesn't affect any angular motion.

Next:
  - Why BS and PRM has large 3.3 Hz peak compared with other optics?
  - Is 3.3 Hz peak effecting MI lock or arm lock?
  - How can we monitor PR2/3 angular motion?

  6955   Wed Jul 11 03:53:41 2012 yutaUpdateLSCBS 3.3 Hz motion on MI

It is not as dramatic as PRMI, but I could see BS 3.3 Hz motion at AS and REFL when MI is locked at dark fringe.
Below is uncalibrated spectra of REFLDC and ASDC when
  Red: MI is locked at dark fringe
  Blue: there's no light (PSL shutter closed)

We have to do something to get rid of this.

REFLDCASDCMIlocked.png

  6960   Wed Jul 11 13:36:58 2012 yutaUpdateSUSOSEM and oplev spectra of optics

Below is angular spectra of every suspended core optics.
As you can see, there's a peak at 3.3 Hz for BS and PRM angular motion. Compared with other optics, they look large.

I briefly checked suspension filters and found that BounceRoll filters and f2a filters are not turned on for BS.
I checked elog and there was no reason for them to be off, so I turned them on. It didn't change angular spectra very much, though.

I'm going to check BS suspension damping and see where 3.3 Hz peak comes from.

Note that oplev quadrant sums are different for every optics, so we can't simply compare angular motion between optics from OLPIT/OLYAW. But for OSEMs, there are "cnt2um" which calibrate sensor outputs into um. and input matrix should be normalized, so we can compare SUSPIT/SUSYAW with other optics.

I centered all oplevs to do this measurement.
Quadrant sum (C1:SUS-XXX_OLSUM) for each optic now is

ITMX   ITMY   ETMX   ETMY     BS    PRM    SRM
2456  14630   1476  14885   3650   4302   2937   (counts)


OLPITYAW.png   SUSPITYAW.png

  6964   Wed Jul 11 16:19:08 2012 yutaUpdateSUSoplev servo phiology

I heard that Steve did great work on oplev in Feb 2012.
Here's summary what happened to oplev since then.
Someone changed oplev filters and gain. I couldn't find elog about it. Does anyone know?

Quadrant sum:
  Quadrant sum (C1:SUS-XXX_OLSUM) for each optic now and in Feb 2012 is

  ITMX   ITMY   ETMX   ETMY     BS    PRM    SRM
  2456  14630   1476  14885   3650   4302   2937   counts (now)
  1300  14500    900   9000   3500   4000   2600   counts (Feb 6, 2012 elog
#6256)
 0.025  0.3    0.2    0.2    0.05   0.06   0.04    mW on QPD (Feb 6, 2012 elog
#6256)
  1350  15000   1500  15500   3500   4000   2600   counts (Feb 23, 2012 elog
#6744)

  ETMX oplev laser was replaced on May 22, 2012, and quadrant sum was 20500 counts at that time (elog #6656).


Oplev servo openloop transfer functions:
  In Feb 2012, gains were adjusted and filter settings are recorded by Steve.
  For all pitch OLTF, see elog #6309.
  For all yaw OLTF, see elog #6323.

  All the filters in Feb is listed in elog #6744.
  Filters now are messed up, as Jamie pointed out in elog #6743.
  Below is the current filter settings.

  I turned ELP and RLP filters on, which wasn't on to cut-off noises at higher frequencies.
  I left resonant gains of ETMs because I don't know what they are for.
  I put ELP35 for ITMs, BS, PRM and SRM. I put RLP80 for BS, PRM and SRM.
  I will leave ELP35 off for BS and SRM because they oscillate currently. ELP50 and ELP40 is on for a substitution. I will readjust them soon.

  I don't know who changed all gains (except for PRM, which I adjusted in elog #6952). It doen't look like it is because of change in quadrant sum.
  I also don't know who deleted 3.3 Hz resonant gain for BS.

  I put all similar filters in same place to make it organized. Now, basic fitlers are organized. We may need some resonant gains for each optics.

OPLEV SERVO 300^2:0 BR ELP RLP RES GAIN QPD counts
filter position FM1 FM5 FM9 FM4 FM3, FM4    
ETMY pit 300^2:0 BR 35 80

0.5 (off)

-0.2 (was -1.5) 14,900
ETMY yaw 300^2:0 BR 35 80 0.6 (off) -0.2 (was -1.0)  
ETMX pit 300^2:0 BR 35 80 0.5 (off) 0.5 1,500
ETMX yaw 300^2:0 BR 35 80 0.6 (off) 0.6 (was 1.0)  
ITMY pit 300^2:0 BR 35 80   2.1 (was 2.0) 14,600
ITMY yaw 300^2:0 BR 35 80   -2.0 (was -4.0)  
ITMX pit 300^2:0 BR 35 80   2.6 (was 1.0) 2,500
ITMX yaw 300^2:0 BR 35 80   -1.6 (was-2.0)  
BS pit 300^2:0 BR 50 (FM10) 80   0.6 (was 0.5) 3,700
BS yaw 300^2:0 BR 50 (FM10) 80 (3.3 is some how deleted) -0.6 (was -1.0)  
PRM pit 300^2:0 BR 35 80 3.3 (off) 0.15 (was 1.0) 4,300
PRM yaw 300^2:0 BR 35 80 3.3 (off),  4 (off) -0.2 (was 0.5)  
SRM pit 300^2:0 BR 40 (FM10) 80   -2.0 2,900
SRM yaw 300^2:0 BR 40 (FM10) 80   2.0  

  I also found Kiwamu's angular motion measurement during PRMI lock (elog #6320). They look different with my measurement yesterday (elog #6954).

  6965   Thu Jul 12 02:12:42 2012 yutaUpdateSUSBS 3.3 Hz motion

I tried to reduce BS 3.3 Hz motion with local damping. 3.3 Hz probably comes from the stack, but I want to reduce this because PRMI beam spot is moving in this frequency.
I tried it by putting some resonant gains to oplev servo and OSEM damping servo, but failed.

What I learned:
  1. BS OSEM input matrix diagonalization looks impressively good. Below is the spectra of oplev pitch/yaw and OSEM pos/pit/yaw/side comparing with and without damping (REF is without). You can see mechanical resonances are well separated. Also, damping servos don't look like they are adding noise at 3.3 Hz.
BSdam.png

  2. 3.3 Hz motion is not stationary. Amplitude is sometimes high, but sometimes low. Amplitude changes in few seconds. You can even see 3.3 Hz in the dataviewer, too.

  3. I set new oplev gains. I lowered them so that UGFs will be ~ 2.5 Hz. I turned ELP35 on.

C1:SUS-BS_OLPIT_GAIN = 0.2 (was 0.6)
C1:SUS-BS_OLPIT_GAIN = -0.2 (was -0.6)

  4. All OSEM sensors feel about the same amount of 3.3 Hz motion.

  5. OLPIT and OLYAW reduces if you put 3.3 Hz resonant gain to oplev servo, but it is maybe not true since they are in-loop error signals. You can't see the difference from OSEM sensors. Below is oplev pitch/yaw and OSEM pos/pit/yaw/side comparing with and without 3.3 Hz resonant gain (REF is without).
BSOLSUSresonantgain.png

  6967   Thu Jul 12 13:27:16 2012 yutaUpdateSUSmeasured OLTFs of PRMI optics' SUSPOS

I measured openloop transfer functions of PRM/BS/ITMX/ITMY SUSPOS servo.
They look great. They all have ~50 deg phase margin and damps only POS resonance.
PRMSUSPOSOLTF.pngBSSUSPOSOLTF.pngITMXSUSPOSOLTF.pngITMYSUSPOSOLTF.png

  6972   Thu Jul 12 23:15:34 2012 yutaUpdateLSCPRMI LSC is making PRM motion worse

It looks like PRMI LSC is making PRM motion (and BS motion) at ~3Hz worse.
I concluded this from measuring feedback signal of suspension servo and LSC servo.

Mechanism:
 1. BS and PRM moves alot at ~3 Hz.
 2. LSC senses fake signal at ~3Hz from beam spot motion on PD
 3. LSC feedback this motion to position of PRM
 4. Suspension damping servo try to cancel this because ~3 Hz motion is not actual length signal

Calculation:
x:   Orignal longitudinal motion of PRM
n_L: Sensing noise in LSC (including ITM motion, fake ~3Hz motion)
n_S: Sensing noise in suspension damping (OSEM sesor noise, fake ~3Hz motion)
G_L: Openloop transfer function of PRCL LSC
G_S: Openloop transfer function of suspension damping (PRM SUSPOS)
H:   LSC sensor transferfunction (PDH signal on REFL_33_I)
F_S: Filter for suspension damping
A:   Actuator transfer function (PRM OSEM coils)

  Since G_L >> G_S and G_L >> 1 for below 100Hz (see elogs #6950 and #6967), feedback signal of LSC and suspensiton damping can be written as

f_L = x - A*F_S*n_S - (1+G_S)/H*n_L
f_S = 1/G_L*x - A*F_S*n_S - G_S/H*n_L 

  So, basically, LSC supresses PRM motion but puts n_L to PRM. Suspension servo try to surpress n_L, which was not there when LSC is off.

Measurement:
 1. Below left is uncalibrated spectra of

Red:  suspension damping feedback to PRM/BS when PRMI is locked
Blue: LSC feeed back to PRM/BS when PRMI is locked
Pink: suspension damping feedback to PRM/BS when PRMI is not locked

  As you can see, PRM suspension damping feed back increases at ~ 1.5-3 Hz because of LSC. This is the same for BS at ~1 Hz and ~3 Hz.

PRMBSPRMIonoff.png    ITMXITMYPRMIonoff.png

 2. Above right is same spectra for ITMX/ITMY. There's no change in suspension damping feedback. This means, radiation pressure coupling or something is not related in this issue. LSC servo is not engaged for ITMs.

 3. Below is oplev spectra for PRM/BS

Red:  Oplev pitch error signal of PRM/BS when PRMI is locked
Blue: Oplev yaw error signal of PRM/BS to PRM/BS when PRMI is locked
Pink:  Oplev pitch error signal of PRM/BS when PRMI is not locked
Cyan: Oplev yaw error signal of PRM/BS to PRM/BS when PRMI is not locked

  You can see the increase in pitch/yaw motion at ~ 1.5-3 Hz for PRM, and ~1Hz/~3Hz for BS. They are consistent with measurement of feedback spectra.

OplevPRMIonoff.png



By the way:

  I adjusted oplev servo gains for ITMX. They were crazy this evening. They now have UGF ~ 2.5 Hz.

C1:SUS-ITMX_OLPIT_GAIN = 1.0 (was 2.6)
C1:SUS-ITMX_OLYAW_GAIN = -0.5 (was -1.6)


Next questions:
  - Can we notch ~3 Hz feedback so that LSC doesn't feedback this motion?
  - Why ~3 Hz motion is high for BS/PRM? Too much load on BS chamber stack?
  - Can we reduce ~3 Hz motion?
  - If BS chamber stack is bad, PR3 might have ~3 Hz motion, too. Does this make PRMI beam spot motion crazy?
  - How about PR2?

  6974   Fri Jul 13 15:49:38 2012 yutaBureaucracyGeneral40m Priority Action Items

These are all priority action items need to be done before I come back (in mid-September).
BE PREPARED FOR THE FULL LOCK!

NEXT VENT:
        - Prepare and install tip-tilts -JAMIE
        - Adjust IP-ANG -JAMIE, JENNE, KOJI
        - Make sure there's no clipping. Start from MC centering -JAMIE, JENNE, KOJI

ASS/A2L:
        - Make ASS and A2L work -JENNE, JAMIE
        - Better MC spot position measurement script(see the last sentence in elog #6892) -JENNE
        - Daily beam spot measurements for IFO, just like MC -JENNE
        - ASS for green using PZT steering mirrors on end table -JENNE
        - Modeling of phase tracking ALS -JAMIE

ALS:
        - PZT mounts for PSL and ALS beams -JENNE, KOJI
        - Add temperature sensors for end lasers to CDS slow channels -JENNE
        - Put green trans camera, GTRY PD, and GTRX PD on PSL table -JENNE
        - Better beat box; include comparators, frequency dividers, and whitening filters -JAMIE, KOJI
        - Adjust servo gain/filters of end green PDH lock (reduce frequency noise) -JENNE
        - Add on/off switch, gain adjuster, etc to CDS for end green PDH lock -JENNE, JAMIE

PRC:
        - Find why and reduce 3 Hz motion -JENNE
        - Simulation of PRMI with clipping -YUTA
        - Alignment tolerance of PRMI -YUTA

  7994   Mon Feb 4 19:33:19 2013 yutaSummaryGeneralrough analysis of aligned PRM-PR2 mode scan

[Jenne, Yuta]

We redid PRM-PR2 cavity scan because last one (elog #7990) was taken with the sampling frequency of 2 KHz. We have also done TMS measurement.

Method:
 1. Align input TTs and PRM to align PRM-PR2 cavity.
 2. Sweep cavity length using C1:SUS-PRM_LSC_EXC.
 3. Get data using Jamie's getdata and fitted peaks using /users/jrollins/modescan/prc-pr2_aligned/run.py
 4. Calculated cavity parameters

Results:
 Below is the figure containing peaks used to do the calculation.

3peakdata.png

 From 11 MHz sidebands, calibration factor is 462 +/- 22 MHz/sec (supposing linear scan around peaks)
 FWHM is 1.45 +/- 0.03 MHz.
 TMS is 2.64 +/- 0.05 MHz.
 Error bars are statistical errors of the average over 3 TEM00 peaks.

 If we believe cavity length L to be 1.91 m, FSR is 78.5 MHz.
 So, Finesse will be 54 +/- 1 and cavity g-factor will be 0.9944 +/- 0.0002. 0.9889 +/- 0.0004   (Edited by YM; see elog #8056)
 If we believe RoC of PRM is exactly +122.1 m, measured g-factor insists RoC of PR2 to be -187 +/- 4.
 If we believe RoC of PR2 is exactly -600 m, measured g-factor insists RoC of PRM to be 218 +/- 6.

Discussion:
 1. Finesse is too small (expected to be ~100). This time, data was taken 16 KHz. Cut-off frequency of the digital antialiasing filter is ~ 5 kHz (see /opt/rtcds/rtscore/release/src/fe/controller.c). FWHM is about 0.003 sec, so it should not effect much according to my simulation.

 2. I don't know why FWHM measurement from the last one is similar to this one. The last one was taken 2 KHz, this means anti-aliasing filter of 600 Hz. This should double FWHM.

 3. Oscilloscope measurement may clear anti-aliasing suspicion.

  7997   Tue Feb 5 02:04:44 2013 yutaSummaryGeneralrough analysis of aligned PRM-PR2 mode scan

I redid PRM-PR2 cavity scan using oscilloscope to avoid anti-aliasing effect.
Measured Finesse was 104 +/- 1.

Method:
 1. Splitted POP DC output into three and plugged two into oscilloscope TDS 3034B. Ch1 and Ch2 was set to 1 V/div and 20 mV/div respectively to take the whole signal and higer resolution one at the same time (Koji's suggestion). Sampling frequency was 50 kHz. Sweeping time through FWHM was about 0.001 sec, which is slow enough.
 2. Took mode scan data from the oscilloscope via network.

Preliminary results:
 Below is the plot of the data for one TEM00 peak.
PRMPR2scan.png

 The data was taken twice.
 Measured FWHM was 0.764 MHz and 0.751 MHz. By taking the average, FWHM = 0.757 +/- 0.005 MHz.
 This gives you Finesse = 104 +/- 1, which is OK compared with the expectation.

What I need:
 I need better oscilloscope so that we can take longer data (~1 sec) with higher resolution (~0.004 V/count, ~50kHz).
 TDS 3034B can take data only for 10 ksamples, one channel by one!  I prefer Yokogawa DL750 or later.

  8000   Tue Feb 5 10:09:08 2013 yutaSummaryGeneralrough analysis of aligned PRM-PR2 mode scan

stdev of [0.764, 0.751] is 0.007, but what we need is the error of the averaged number. Statistical error of the averaged number is stdev/sqrt(n).

Quote:

0.764 and 0.751 do not give us the stdev of 0.005.

  8006   Tue Feb 5 19:32:47 2013 yutaSummaryGeneralPR2/PR3 flipping and PRC stability

We are considering of flipping PR2 and/or PR3 to make PRMI stable because PR2/PR3 seems to be convex.
I calculated dependency of the PRC stability on the PR2/PR3 curvature when PR2/PR3 flipped and not flipped.
Flipping looks OK, from the stability point of view.

Assumption:
 PRM-PR2 distance = 1.91 m
 PR2-PR3 distance = 2.33 m
 PR3-ITM distance = 2.54 m
 PRM RoC = +122.1 m
 ITM RoC = Inf

 theta_inc PRM = 0 deg
 theta_inc PR2 = 1.5 deg
 theta_inc PR3 = 41 deg 
          (all numbers from elog #7989)

 Here, RoC means RoC measured from HR side. RoC measured from AR side will be -n_sub*RoC, assuming flat AR surface.
 I also assumed mirror thickness to be negligible.

Method:
  1. I used Zach's arbcav and modified it so that it only tells you your cavity is stable or not.
   (It lives in /users/yuta/scripts/mode_density_PRC/stableornot.m)

  2. Swept PR2/PR3 RoC (1/RoC from -0.005 to 0.005 1/m) to see the stability condition.

Results:
  1. Stability condition of the PRMI when PR2 and PR3 is not flipped is depicted in the graph below. Black region is the unstable region. We all know that current PRMI is unstable, so we are in the black region.
PRMI_PR2HR_PR3HR.png

  2. Stability conditions of PRMI with one of the PR2/PR3 flipped are depicted in the graphs below. If we flip one of them, PRMI will likely to be stable, but if the flipped one is close to flat and the RoC of the other one is  >~ -250 m (more convex than -250 m), PRMI will remain unstable.
PRMI_PR2AR_PR3HR.pngPRMI_PR2HR_PR3AR.png


  3. Stability condition of PRMI with both PR2 and PR3 flipped is depicted in the graph below. If we flip both, PRMI will be stable.
PRMI_PR2AR_PR3AR.png


Discussion:
  1. Flipping one of PR2/PR3 seems OK, but I cannot guarantee. TMS measurement insists RoC of PR2 to be ~ -190 m, if we believe PRM RoC = +122.1 m (elog #7997). We need more precise measurement if we need to be sure before flipping. I prefer PR2 flipping because PR3 flipping gives us longer path in the substrate and larger astigmatism. Also, PR3 RoC is phase-map-measured to be ~ -600 m and PR2 RoC seems to be more convex than -600 m from the TMS measurement.

  2. Flipping both is good from stability point of view. We need calculation of the loss in the PRC (and mode-mismatch to the arms). Are there any requirements?

  3. If we are going to flip PR3, are there any possibilities of clipping the beam at PR3? We need to check.

  4. I need to calculate whether mirror thickness and AR surface curvature are negligible or not.

Conclusion:
  I want to flip only PR2 and lock PRMI.

By the way:
 I don't like matlab plots.

  8012   Wed Feb 6 15:20:55 2013 yutaSummaryGeneralFWHM was wrong

I have to blame Jamie for putting extra 2 randomly.
Measured PRM-PR2 cavity finesse was actually 108 +/- 3 (even if you use digital system to get data).

Lorentzian fit:
  Lorentzian function is;

f(x;x0,gamma,A) = A * gamma**2/((x-x0)**2+gamma**2)

  where x0 is the location of the peak, gamma is HWHM, and A is the peak height.
  Lorentzian fitting function in my original code (/users/yuta/scripts/modescanresults/analyzemodescan.py) was

fitFunc = lambda p,x,m: (m-p[2])*p[0]**4/(4*(x-p[1])**2+p[0]**4)+p[2]

  In this function, p[0] is sqrt(FWHM), not sqrt(HWHM). I doubled gamma to make it FWHM and squared it because they should be positive.
  During Jamie's modification of my code, he doubled p[0]**2 to get FWHM, which is wrong (/users/jrollins/modescan/modescan.py).

  I should have commented that p[0] is sqrt(FWHM).

Redoing the analysis:
  1. I pulled 2 out, and modified Jamie's modescan.py so that you can name each peak with peakdistinguish=True option. I also modified fitpeak function so that it throws away "peaks" which don't look like a peak.

  2. If you run /users/yuta/PRCmodescan/run.py and name each peak, you will get peaks.csv which includes peak position, FWHM, and the type of the peak;

0.065017,0.001458,l
0.070446,0.001463,3
0.075940,0.001509,2
0.081552,0.001526,1
0.087273,0.001565,0
0.112027,0.001911,u
0.278660,0.002211,u
0.306486,0.001658,0
0.312480,0.001576,1
0.313626,2.507910,
0.318486,0.001626,2
0.319730,2.633097,
0.324801,0.001739,3
0.331848,0.001922,l
0.527509,0.001603,l
0.533231,0.001445,3
0.538648,0.001488,2
0.544081,0.001455,1
0.549517,0.001498,0
0.551725,2.422759,
0.570972,0.001346,u


  3. /users/yuta/PRCmodescan/calcmodescanresults.py reads peaks.csv and tells you the results;

Time between TEM00 and sideband  0.0239435  pm  0.00115999887452  sec
Calibration factor is  462.167602898  pm  22.3907907867  MHz/sec
FSR is  78.4797010471  MHz
FWHM is  0.729828720682  pm  0.0174145743828  MHz
TMS is  2.64718671684  pm  0.0538858477824  MHz
Finesse is  107.53166986  pm  2.5658325169
Cavity g-factor is  0.994390582331  pm  0.000228155661075
Cavity g-factor is  0.988812630228  pm  0.000453751681357   (Edited by YM; see elog #8056)
RoC of PR2 is  -187.384503001  pm  4.26100999578  m (assuming PRM RoC= 122.1  m)
RoC of PRM is  217.915890722  pm  5.65451518991  m (assuming PR2 RoC= -600  m)

  8021   Thu Feb 7 10:35:35 2013 yutaUpdateGeneralStore optics in respective cabinets

I'm not the one who opened the ITMX table yesterday, but thanks for reminding me.
I put POP DC oscilloscope and its cables back.

Also, I relocked PMC and MC. It was unlocked since last night.

  8028   Thu Feb 7 19:25:22 2013 yutaUpdateCDSC1ALS filters reloaded

Filters for C1ALS were all gone. So, I copied /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/chans/C1GCV.txt and renamed it as C1ALS.txt.

I also fixed links in the medm screens; C1ALS.adl and C1ALS_COMPACT.adl.
I'm not sure what happened to C1SC{X,Y} screens.

Quote:

I decided to rename the c1gcv model to be c1als.  This is in an ongoing effort to rename all the ALS stuff as ALS, and get rid of the various GC{V,X,Y} named stuff.

(...snip...)

The above has been done.  Still todo:

  • FIX SCRIPTS!  There are almost certainly scripts that point to GC{V,X,Y} channels.  Those will have to be fixed as we come across them.
  • Fix the c1sc{x,y}/master/C1SC{X,Y}_GC{X,Y}_SLOW.adl screens.  I need to figure out a more consistent place for those screens.
  • Fix the C1ALS_COMPACT screen
  • ???

 

 

ELOG V3.1.3-