I wonder what to do with the X arm.

The primary purpose of the ASS is to align the arm (=transmission), and the secondary purpose is to adjust the input pointing.

As the BS is the only steering actuator, we can't adjust two dof out of 8 dof.
In the old (my) topology, the spot position on ITMX was left unadjusted.

If my understanding of the latest configuration, the alignment of the cavity (=matching of the input axis with the cavity axis)
is deteriorated in order to move the cavity axis at the center of the two test masses. This is not what we want as this causes
deterioration of the power recycling gain.

We want to have some angular control of the arms during lock acquistion. 

In single arm lock, Diego and I shook the TMs and measured how the QPDs responded. (I would've liked to do a swept sine in DTT, but the user envelope function still isnt' working!)

For now, we can close simple loops with QPD sensor and ITM actuator, but, as Rana pointed out to Diego and me today, this will drive some amount of the angular cavity degree of freedom that the QPD doesn't sense. So, ideally, we want to come up with the right combination of ITM and ETM motion that lies entirely within the DoF that the QPD senses.

I created a rudimentary loop for Yarm yaw, was able to get ~20Hz for the upper UGF, a few mHz for the lower, but it was starting to leak into the length error signal. Further tweaking will be neccesary...

I've measured the sensing for each of the arms, by using our calibrated oplevs, in terms of QPD counts per micron. It is:

In the absence of a lens, the QPD would be significantly more sensitive to cavity axis translation than tilt, and thus about equally sensitive to ITM and ETM angle. However, there are lenses on the end tables. I didn't go out and look at them, but found some elogs from Annalisa that mentioned 1m focal length lenses. Back-of-the-envelope calculations convince me that this can plausibly lead to the above sensitivity ratios.

I used these quantities to come up with an actuation matrix for the ASC loops, and measured the effective plant seen by the FM, fitted it to some poles( looks like zpk([],-2*pi*[1.47+3.67i,1.47-3.67i],160); ), and designed a control servo. Here is the designed loop:

The servo works on both arms, both DoFs. A DTT measurement agrees with the designed loop shape, up to a few degrees, which are probably due to the CDS delay. The RMS of the QPD error signals goes down by about 20dB, and are currently dominated by the bounce mode, so maybe we can try to sneak in some resonant gain...?

Once we confirm that they work when locking, we can write up and down lines into the locking scripts...

Herein, I will try to paint a more thorough picture of this whole QPD ASC mess. 

Motivation for QPD ASC loops:

• We would like to use the QPDs as a DC arm pointing reference during locking attempts, or over multiple days, if possible. 
• It would be nice if the QPDs could complement the oplevs to reduce angular motion of the cavity. 
• We must not make the single arm longnitudinal noise or RIN worse, because anything observable in the single arm case will be catastrophic at full sensitivity

Actuation design:

As mentioned in a previous ELOG, in single arm lock, I measured the QPD response with respect to the calibrated oplev signals. They were:

For reference, one microradian of either ITM or ETM motion produces about 60um of ETM beam spot displacement, compared to the spot size of ~5mm. 

However, given the lenses on the end tables that are used for green mode matching, that the IR transmitted beam also passes through, the QPDs are not directly imaging the ETM spot position; if they were, they would have equal sensitivity to ITM and ETM motion due to our flat/curved arm geometry. 

From this data, I calculated the actuation coefficients for each DoF as , and similarly for the ITMs, where the d's come from the table above. However, it occurs to me that maybe this isn't the way to go... I'll mention this later. 

Loop design:

Up until now, at every turn, I had not properly been thinking about how the oplev loop plays into all of this. I went to the foton filters, and grabbed the loop and plant models for the ETMY oplev, and constructed the closed loop gain, 1/1+G, and the modified plant, P/1+G, which is what the ASC loop sees as its plant. 

Here, the purple trace explains all of the features I was confused about earlier. 

With this in hand, I set up to design a loop to satisfy our motivations. 

• Bounce/roll mode notches to avoid exciting them
• 1/f UGF crossing at a few Hz, limited by the gain margin at ~10Hz, which is where the phase will hit 180, due to the notches
• 4th order Elliptic lowpass at 100, to avoid contaminating the longnitudinal signals
• 1/f^2 at low frequencies for DC gain

To do this, I inverted the oplev closed loop plant pole around 4Hz to smooth the whole thing out. Here's a comparison of the measured OLG with what I modelled. 

There's a little bit of phase discrepency around 10Hz, but I think it looks about right overall. 

Evaluation:

So, here's the part that counts: How does this actually perform? I took spectra of the QPD error signals, the relevant OpLev signals as out of loop sensors, the PDH error signal and transmitted RIN while single arm locked, with this loop off, and on for all 4 DoFs simultaneously. 

Verdict:

• In-loop signals get small, unsurprisingly.
• Cavity signals unchanged. 
• ITM oplev signals are unchanged (and not plotted, to not clutter the plots (This isn't surprising since the loops mostly actuate on the ETMs).
• ETM oplev signals get smaller around the 3Hz peak, but are louder in other bands. 

This is what makes me think I may need to revisit the actuation matrix. If I did it wrong, I am driving the "invisible" quadrant of the cavity angular DoFs, and this could be what is injecting noise into the oplevs. 

Conclusion:

In the end, I have a better understanding of what is going on, and I don't think we're quite there yet.  

Although the QPD loops are less than ideal right now, I made changes to the ASC model to trigger the QPD loops on and off politely, depending on TRX and TRY. The settings are exposed on the ASC screen. However, I have not yet exposed the FM triggering that I also set up to make sure the integrator doesn't misbehave if the arm loses lock. We probably don't want to trigger them on at anything lower than arm powers of about 1.0. 

I've tested the triggering by randomly turning LSC mode on and off, and making sure that the optics don't recieve much of a kick as the QPD loops engage a few seconds after the LSC boosts do, or when lock is lost. This works as long as there isn't much of a DC offset befire the loops are engaged. (Under 20 counts or so is fine)

As a side note, I was going to use the TRIG_SIG signals sent via the LSC model via SHMEM blocks for the ASC triggering, but oddly, the data streams that made it over were actually the MICH and SRCL TRIG_SIGs, instead of XARM and YARM as labelled. I double checked the simulink diagrams; everything seemed fine to me. In any case, ASS was already recieving TRX and TRY directly via RFM, so I just piped those over to the ASC block. This way is probably better anyways, because it directly references the arm powers, instead of the less obvious LSC triggering matrix. 

I checked the situation of ASS. I wanted to know how much we are away from the maximum transmittion.

Conclusion:
ASS makes the X arm shifted from the maximum transmission. This causes the contrast degraded by ~3%.
We need to fix the Xarm ASS so that it can maximize the transmission and ignor the spot centering at ITMX.

Conditioning before the measurement:

- ASDC offset was removed
- X&Y arm was aligned by ASS

With ASS:

Average transmission: 0.86
Pmax = 1045 +/- 9 cnts
Pmin = 22 +/- 4 cnts

==> Contrast = (Pmax - Pmin)/(Pmax+Pmin) = 0.960+/-0.007

After manual alignment of the X arm (ignoring spot centering):

Average transmission: 0.88
Pmax = 1103 +/- 11 cnts
Pmin = 5 +/- 1 cnts

==> Contrast = (Pmax - Pmin)/(Pmax+Pmin) = 0.991+/-0.002

X-Arm ASS was fixed.
ASS_DITHER_ON.snap was updated so that the new setting can be loaded from the ASS screen.

The input and output matrices and the servo gains were adjusted as found in the attached image.
The output matrix was adjusted by looking at the static response of the error signals when a DC offset
was applied to each actuator.

The servo was tested with misalignment of the ITM, ETM, and BS. In fact, the servo restored transmission
from 0.15 to 1.

The resulting contrast after ASSing was ~99% level. (I forgot to record the measurement but the dark fringe level of ASDC was 4~5count.)

After aligning the PRC, I centered the POP QPD.

Please remember that Xarm ASS needs FM6 (Bounce filters) to be ON in order to work properly.

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

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

The model and screen have been commited to svn.

I've remeasured the QPD ASC sensing coefficients, and figured out what I did weird with the actuation coefficients. I've rearranged the controller filters to be able to turn on the boost in a triggered way, and written Up/Down scripts that I've tested numerous times, and Jenne has used as well; they are exposed on the ASC screen. 

All four loops (2 arms * pit,yaw), have their gains set for 8Hz UGF, and have 60 degrees of phase margin. The loop shape is the same as the previous ELOG post. Here is the current on/off performance. The PDH signals (not shown, but in attached xml) show no extra noise, and the low frequency RIN goes down a bit, whic is good. The oplevs error signals are a bit noisier, but I suppose that's unavoidable. The Y-arm performs a bit better than the X-arm. 

The up/down scripts don't touch the filters' trigger settings at all, just handles switching the input and output and clearing history. FM1 contains the boost which is intended to have a longer trigger delay than the filters themselves.

I have changed all of the oplevs and transmon QPDs to use the common ISC QPD library block, which differs mainly in its divide by zero protection. 

c1scx.mdl and c1scy.mdl were directly changed for the transmon QPDs. The oplevs were done by changing the sus_single_control.mdl library part, which is used for all of the SOSs. 

Then, because of the underscore introduced (i.e. OLPIT becomes OL_PIT because there is an OL block), I went on a sed safari to find and replace the new channel names into:

• The filter ini files
• various MEDM screens
• The optic misaligning scripts (which currently live in medm/MISC/ifoalign, and need to get moved to scripts/)
• A recent BURT snapshot, to restore all of the switches and settings easily. 
• scripts/activateDQ.py, which is responsible for renaming OL_PIT_IN1_DQ to OPLEV_PERROR, etc.

I've fixed everything that occured to me, and the usual ways I'm used to interacting with the oplevs all seem to work at this time, but it's entirely possible I've overlooked something.

One important note is: because we are now using an effectively immutable QPD library block, the oplev urad conversion has to take place in the DoF matrix. The EPICS records C1:SUS-[OPTIC]_OL_[DOF]_CALIB still exist, but do not multiply the fast signals. Rather, the OL_MTRX elements are multiples of the CALIB value. I thought about making a new QPD_CALIBRATED part or something, but then we're right back to using custom code, which is what we're trying to avoid. 

All of the oplev DoFs are stable, I checked a few loop TFs like ETMY pitch and PRM yaw, and they looked normal. 

Might have to also get the OL screens that go with this new code to see, but the calibrations don't go into the matrix, but rather into the OLPIT/OLYAW filter banks which follow the division, but before the servo filter banks.

I've lowered the UGFs for the transmission QPD servos to ~1-2Hz, and made it just an integrator. I left the arms locked with the QPD servos on for a few hours during the daytime today, and they succesfully prevented the Y arm from losing power from alignment drift for ~4 hours. Turning the servo off caused TRY to drop to ~0.6 or so. 

The X arm was only held for 2 hours or so, because after some unlock/drift event the power was below the servo trigger threshold. However, after gently nudging ETMX to get the transmission above the threshold, the servo kicked in, and brought it right back to TRX=1.0

Unfortunately, daqd was dead for much of the day, so I don't have much data to show; the trend was inferred from the wall striptool. 

It is not proven that there aren't further issues that prevent this from working with higher / more dynamic arm powers, but this is at least a point in favor of it working. 

EDIT: Here's a screenshot of the wall StripTool. Brown is TRY, blue is TRX. The downturn at the very end is me deactivating the servos. 

There is no scientific justifcation for the 0.9 threshold. Really, I should look at the noise/SNR again, now that there is some ND filtering on the QPDs. 

Back on Feb 20th (elog 11056) Q replaced all of our oplev parts with the aLIGO version. 

Unfortunately, after this it has seemed like there was something not quite right with the optical lever servos.

• When we would restore kicked optics, after the osem rms values come down the scripts try to engage the optical levers.  This would often kick and ring up the optics (I've seen this with ETMX and ETMY, and once or twice with the beam splitter)  Not good.
• Sometimes, if the optic wasn't kicked, it would oscillate.  I would see this in particular with ETMY, by seeing the green transmission at the PSL table oscillating.
• Q noticed that sometimes when the oplevs' outputs were turned off, the outputs were railed at the limiter values.

Since, when the models were changed which gave us an extra underscore in the oplev names, Q did a find-and-replace in the foton text files, I was worried that this might have broken things.  I'm not entirely sure how it would have broken them (I didn't see any difference in a diff), but I've heard enough horror stories about the delicacy of the foton text files.

Anyhow, I opened the last archived foton files from just before Q made the change, and copy-and-pasted the design strings from the old filter banks to the new ones.  Hopefully this fixes things.

[J, Q]

Alignment is making it tough for locks to last more than 10 minutes. Many (but not all) locklosses correlate with some optic drifting away, and taking all of the light with it. The other locklosses are the quick ones that seem to pop up out of nowhere; we haven't made any headway on these. We wanted to get to a state where we could just let the interferometer sit for some minutes, to explore the data, but got caught up with alignment and PRMI things.

We're finding that both ITMs experience some DC force when entering full PRFPMI lock. I will calculate the torque expected from radiation pressure + offset beam spot, especially for ITMX, where we choose the spot position to be uncontrolled by ASS. 

I set up the QPD ASC servos to act in a common/differential way on the ETMs. The C1:ASC-XARM_[PIT/YAW] filter modules act on the common alignment, whereas the C1:ASC-YARM_[PIT/YAW] filter modules act on the differential alignment. This can soon be cleaned up with some model renaming to reduce confusion. 

Using DC oplev values as a guide, we are hand tuning ITM alignment once the AO path is engaged and we see the DC drift occurring. Then, we set the QPD servo offsets and engage them. 

In this manner, we were able to lock the interferometer at:

• Arm transmission 150 x single arm power
• POPDC indicated a recycling gain of ~5.5
• ASDC/POPDC indicated a contrast of 99.8%
• REFLDC indicated a visibility of 80%

We made the PRMI transition to 1f numerous times, but found that the sideband power fluctuations would get significantly worse after the transition. 

We found that the gains that were previously used were too small by a factor of a few. There is a DC change visible in REFL165 before and after the transition (Also POP55, aka REFL55, is not DQ'd ). Really, it isn't certain that we've zero'd the offset in the CARM board either, so REFL55's zero crossing isn't necessarily more trustworthy that REFL165's. We can go back in the data and do some 2D histograming to see where in the error signal space the sideband power is maximized. 

Jenne reports:

• The all RF transition succeeded 13/29 times. 
• PRMI 1f transision succeeded 10/10 times. 

I ran the "off" script for the Xarm ASS, followed by the "on" script, and now the Xarm ASS doesn't work.  Usually we just run the freeze/unfreeze, but I ran the off/on scripts one time. 

Koji, if you have some time tomorrow, can you please look at it?  I am sorry to ask, but it would be very helpful if I could keep working on other things while the ASS is taken care of.

Steve, can you please find a cable that goes from the LSC rack to the IOO rack (1Y2 to 1X2), or lay a new one?  It must be one single long cable, without barrels sticking it together.  This will help me actuate on the Marconi using the LSC rack's DAC. 

Thank you!!

I spent a day to fix the XARM ASS, but no real result. If the input of the 6th DOF servo is turned off, the other error signals are happy
to be squished to around their zeros. So this gives us some sort of alignment control. But obviously a particular combination of the
misalignment is left uncontrolled.

This 6th DOF uses BS to minimize the dither in ITMX yaw. I tired to use the other actuators but failed to have linear coupling between
the actuator and the sensor.

During the investigation, I compared TRX/TRY power spectra. TRX had a bump at 30Hz. Further investigation revealed that the POX/POY
had a big bump in the error signals. The POX/POY error signals between 10-100Hz were coherent. This means that this is coming from
the frequency noise stabilized with the MC. (Is this frequency noise level reasonable?)

The mysterious discovery was that the bump in the transmission exist only in TRX. How did the residual frequency noise cause
the intensity noise of the transmission? One way is the PDH offset.

Anyway, Rana pointed out that IMC WFS QPDs had large spot offsets. Rana went to the AS table and fixed the WFS spot centering.
This actually removed the bump in TRX although we still don't know the mechanism of this coupling.

The bump at 30Hz was removed. However, the ASS issue still remains.

Today I tried some things, but basically, lowering the input gain by 10 made the thing stable. In the attached screenshotstrip, you can see what happens with the gain at 1. After a few cycles of oscillation, I turned the gain back to 0.1.

There still is an uncontrolled DoF, but I that's just the way it is since we only have one mirror (the BS) to steer into the x arm once the yarm pointing is fixed.

Along the way, I also changed the phase for POX, just in case that was an issue. I changed it from +86 to +101 deg. The attached spectra shows how that lowered the POX_Q noise.

I also changed the frequencies for ETM_P/Y dither from ~14/18 Hz to 11.31/14.13 Hz. This seemed to make no difference, but since the TR and PO signals were quieter there I left it like that.

This is probably OK for now and we can tune up the matrix by measuring some sensing matrix stuff again later.

Thank you both.

I have updated the .snap file, so that it'll use these parameters, as Rana left them.  Also, so that the "unfreeze" script works without changes (since it wants to make the overall gain 1), I have changed the Xarm input matrix elements from 1 to 0.1, for all of them.  This should be equivalent to the overall gain being 0.1.

X arm was far out in yaw, so I reran the ASS for Y and then X. Ran OK; the offload from ASS outputs to SUS bias is still pretty violent - needs smoother ramping.

After this I recentered the ITMX OL- it was off by 50 microradians in pitch. Just like the BS/PRM OLs, this one has a few badly assembled & flimsly mounts. Steve, please prepare for replacing the ITMX OL mirror mounts with the proper base/post/Polaris combo. I think we need ~3 of them. Pit/yaw loop measurements attached.

Based on the PEM-SEIS summary page, it looked like GUR1 was oscillating (and thereby saturating and suppressing the Z channel). So I power cycled both Guralps by turning off the interface box for ~30 seconds and the powering back on. Still not fixed; looks like the oscillations at 110 and 520 Hz have moved but GUR2_X/Y are suppressed above 1 Hz, and GUR1_Z is suppressed below 1 Hz. We need Jenne or Zach to come and use the Gur Paddle on these things to make them OK.

From the SUS-WatchDog summary page, it looked like the PRM tripped during the little 3.8 EQ at 4AM, so I un-tripped it.

Caryn's temperature sensors look like they're still plugged in. Does anyone know where they're connected?

Looking at the summary page trends from today, you can see that the MC transmission is pretty flat after I zeroed the MCWFS offsets. In addition, the transmission from both arms is also flat, indicating that our previous observation of long term drift in the Y arm transmission probably had more to do with bad Y-arm initial alignment than unbalanced ETMY coil-magnets.

Much like checking the N2 pressure, amount of coffee beans, frames backups, etc. we should put MC WFS offset adjustment into our periodic checklist. Would be good to have a reminder system that pings us to check these items and wait for confirmation that we have done so.

Tonight, I've taken a bunch of data where the PRC is carrier locked and the ITM oplevs have the DC coupling FM turned on, as we use during locking. This is to inform new feedforward filters to stabilize the PRC angular motion, by using Wiener filtering with the POP QPD as the target, and local seismometers/accelerometers as witnesses. So far I've looked at the 1800 seconds leading up to GPS time 1122885600, but there has been plenty of locked time tonight if I need to retrieve more. 

I've also measured the PRM ASC output torque -> POP QPD spot motion with high (>0.95) coherence from 0.1Hz to 10Hz. 

Prefiltering so far consists of a 4th order elliptic LP at 5 Hz, with the target subtraction band being the 1-3Hz range. 

With offline FIR filtering, the RMS pitch motion is reduced by a factor of 3 just with the STS1_X data. IIR fitting remains to be done. 

The PRC yaw motion, which is marginally noisier, is a little more tangled up across X and Y. 

Plots / filters forthcoming pending more analysis. 

PRC Angular FF is back in action!

Short and sweet of it:

• Took witness (T240 channels) and target (POP QPD) with DC coupled oplevs on. About 25 minutes of nice stationary data.
• Downsampled everything to 32Hz, since coherence suggests subtraction only really possible from 1-5Hz. 
• Prefiltering done by detrending and ellip(3,3,40,5Hz)
• 4 second FIR impulse time was enough
• Filtered target by inverse actuator TF before sending to wiener code. The only difference between this and filtering the witnesses with the actuator TF directly is an effective RMS cost function, i.e. prefiltering. 
• Spending time tweaking IIR fitting pays off. Divided out zpk(0, [p3, p3*],1), where p3 is some well fit stack/suspension resonance, so that vectfit fits remaining portion with equal numbers of poles and zeros, guaranteeing AC coupling and 1/f rolloff to prevent noise injection
• Quack->foton->OAF all worked fine

• All in all, seems to work well. POPDC RMS goes down by a factor of 2 

• Code used lives in /users/ericq/2015-08-PRCFF and the NoiseCancellation github repo

Fit example:

Subtraction spectra

Subtraction prediction vs. reality (positive dB is good)

ran the ON script several times and it kept pulling it away from good alignment, even when TRX was > 0.9.

Also, for what reason was this model run at 16 kHz?? Makes no sense to me to have a low frequency servo system run so high. Only makes for more digital precision noise, more CPU time, etc. Of course, running it at 2k would mean having to think about all of the AA filtering needed to go up/down from 2k to 16k.

I've installed new filters for the T240 -> PRM static online angular feedforward that were trained after some of the recent changes to the signal chain of the relevant signals (i.e. the counts->velocity calibration that Rana did for the seismometers, and fixing the improper dewhitening of the POP QPD channels used as the Wiener target.)

Quickly trying them out now shows about the same level of performance as the previous ones, but the real performance I care about is during after-hours locking-time, so I'll take more measurements tonight to be posted here. 

In preparation for the measurement of loss maps of arm cavities, I measured the relationship between:

the offset just after the demodulation of dithering loop (C1:ASS-YARM_ETM_PIT_L_DEMOD_I_OFFSET and C1:ASS-YARM_ETM_YAW_L_DEMOD_I_OFFSET)

and

the angle of ETMY measured with oplev (C1:SUS-ETMY_OL_PIT_INMONC1:SUS-ETMY_OL_PIT_INMON and C1:SUS-ETMY_OL_PIT_INMONC1:SUS-ETMY_OL_PIT_INMON)

while the dithering script is running. With the angle of ETMY, we can calculate the beam spot on the ETMY assuming that the beam spot on the ITMY is not changed thanks to the dithering. What we have to do is to check the calbration of oplev with another way to measure the angle, to see if the results are reliable or not.

I will report the results later.

I got linear relation between these. The results and method are below.

RESULTS

METHOD

I added offset (C1:ASS-YARM_ETM_PIT_L_DEMOD_I_OFFSET and C1:ASS-YARM_ETM_YAW_L_DEMOD_I_OFFSET) to shift the beam spot on ETMY. For each data point, I measured the difference in angle of ETMY with oplev before and after adding offset. The precedure for each measurement I employed is following:

-- run dither

-- wait until error signals of dithering settle down

-- freeze dither

-- measure angle (10s avg)

-- add offset

-- wait until error signals of dithering settle down

-- freeze dither

-- measure angle (10s avg)

The reason why I measured the angle without offset for each measurement is that the angle which oplev shows changed with time (~several tens of minutes or something). 

DISCUSSION

At the maximum values of offsets, the arm transmission power started to degrade, so the range where I can do this measurement is limited by these values as for now. However, we have to shift the beam spot more in order to make loss maps of sufficiently broad area on the mirror (the beam width (w) on ETM; w ~ 5 mm). Then, we have to find out how to shift the beam spot more.  

In preparation for the armloss map I checked the calibration of the Y-Arm ITM and ETM OpLevs with the method originally described in https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8081/40m/1247. I was getting a little confused about the math though, so I attached a document at the end of this post in which I work it out for myself and posteriority. Stepping through an introduced offset in the control filter for the corresponding degree of freedom, I recorded the change in transmitted power and the reading of the OpLev channel with the current calibration. One thing I noticed is that the calibration for ITM PIT is inverted with respect to the others. This can of course be compensated at any point in any readout/feedback chain, but it might be nice to establish some sort of convention where positive feedback to the mirror will increase the OpLev reading.

The calibration factors I get are within ~10% of the currently stored values. The table (still incomplete, need to relate to the current values) summarizes the results:

The individual graphs:

ETM PIT

ETM YAW

ITM PIT

ITM YAW

The math:

I poked around a bit thinking about what we need for a single AS WFS. 

New things that we would need:

• The WFS head itself: aLIGO ASC RF Photodetector (WFS) - E1400103 (Which will need some modification for 55MHz)
• Interface board for DC power and DC signals: aLIGO WFS Interface Chassis - D1101906
• Quad Demod chassis: Quad IQ Demodulator Chassis -  D0902796 [Variant B (WFS)] (Needs LO, but we have unused outputs in the LSC LO distributor)

Things we have:

• Many Eurocard-style Whitening chassis, such as we use for all of the LSC PDs. 
• Enough ADC (c1ioo has two ADCs, but doesn't even use 32 channels, so we can steal one, and throw it into c1lsc)

We'd have 12 new signals to acquire: 4 quadrants x DC, I, Q. In principle the DC part could go into a slow channel, but we have the ADC space to do it fast, and it'll be easier than mucking around with c1iscaux or whatever.

Open question: What to do about AA? A quick search didn't turn up any eurocard AA chassis like the ones we use for the LSC PDs. However, given the digital AA that happens from 64kHz->16kHz in the IOP, we've talked about disabling/bypassing the analog AA for the LSC signals. Maybe we can do the same for the QPD signals? Or, modify the post-demod audioband amplifer in the demod chassis to have some simple, not too agressive lowpass.

Motivation:

1. I want to use the QPD at POP, calibrate it into physical units, and quantify the amount of angular jitter in the PRC (which I claim is what limits DRMI stability atm).
2. I want to revive the PRC angular feedforward to try and mitigate this a bit. But is feedforward even the best approach? Can we use feedback using the POP QPD?

POP QPD checkout:

• The POP QPD sits on the ITMX optical table. 
• It is interfaced to the CDS system via an OT301 and then a Pentek whitening stage (z:p = 15:150). 
• The OT301 claims to have a switchable offset nulling capability - but despite my best efforts tonight, I couldn't use the knobs on the front to null the offset (even with the PRC locked on carrier and a strong POP beam on the QPD).
  • We don't have readbacks of the individual quadrants available.
  •  
• So I moved the QPD with the PRC locked, to center the CDS readback of the spot position at (0,0).
• Next step is to calibrate the POP QPD readback into physical units.
  • I'm thinking of using the EricG diode laser for this purpose.
  • I can calibrate counts to mm of displacement on the QPD active area.
  • After which I can use the estimated position to PR2 (from which POP is extracted) to convert this to angular motion.
• I guess I should check for coherence between the POP QPD signal and all angular sensors of PRM/BS/MC1/MC2/MC3 to try and confirm the hypothesis that the folding mirrors are dominating the angular noise of the cavity. Unfortunately we don't have readbacks of the angular positions of TT1 and TT2.
• I moved the POP camera a bit in YAW so that the POP spot is now better centered on the CCD monitor.
• I also wanted to check the centering on the other POP QPD (POP22/POP110/POPDC?) but I think the POPDC signal, used for triggering the PRCL LSC servo, is derived from that PD, so everytime I blocked it, the lock was lost. Need to think of another strategy.
• MC3 has been rather glitchy tonight.
  • So I will wait for a quieter time when I can collect some data to train the WF for angular FF.

[Yuki, Gautam]

Attachments #1 is the current setup of AUX Y Green locking and it has to be improved because:

• current efficiency of mode matching is about 50%
• current setup doesn't separate the degrees of freedom of TEM01 with PZT mirrors (the difference of gouy phase between PZT mirrors should be around 90 deg) 
• we want to remotely control PZT mirrors for alignment
  (Attachments #2 and #3)

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. 

Reference:

• current setup of Y: elog:40m/11897

[ Yuki, Koji, Gautam ]

An alignment of AUX Y end green beam was bad. With Koji and Gautam's advice, it was recovered on Friday. The maximum value of TRY was about 0.5.

[ 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.

[ Yuki, Gautam ]

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.  

Reference:
diagram --> elog 8932
 

Plan of Action:

• Check PZT driver performs as we expected
• Also check cable, high voltage, PZT mirrors, anti-imaging board
• Obtain calibration factor of PZT mirrors using QPD
• Measure some status value before changing setup (such as tranmitted power of green laser)
• Revise setup after a new lens arrives
• Align the setup and check mode-matching
• Measure status value again and confirm it improves
• (write programming code of making alignment control automatically)

[ Yuki, Gautam ]

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:

1. Applied +-15V to the board with an expansion card and 31.8V to the high voltage port which is the maximum voltage of PS280 DC power supplier C10013.
2. Terminated input and connectd input bias to GND, then set offset to -10.4V. This value is refered as elog:40m/8832.
3. Injected DC signal into input port using a function generator.
4. Measured voltage at the OUT port and MON port.

The result of this is attached #3 and #4. It is consistent with simulated one. All ports performed well.

• V(M1_PIT_OUT) = -4.86 *Vin +49.3 [V]
• V(M1_YAW_OUT) = -4.86 *Vin +49.2 [V]
• V(M2_PIT_OUT) = -4.85 *Vin +49.4 [V]
• V(M2_YAW_OUT) = -4.86 *Vin +49.1 [V]
• V(M1_PIT_MON) = -0.333 *Vin +3.40 [V]
• V(M1_YAW_MON) = -0.333 *Vin +3.40 [V]
• V(M2_PIT_MON) = -0.333 *Vin +3.40 [V]
• V(M2_YAW_MON) = -0.333 *Vin +3.40 [V]

The high voltage points (100V DC) remain to be tested.

[ Yuki, Gautam, Steve ]

Results:
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

Details:
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:

• Center beam spot on QPD using steering mirror, which was confirmed by monitored Pitch and Yaw signals that were around zero.  
• Kept Y-axis micrometer fixed, moved X-axis micrometer and measured the outputs. 
• Repeated the procedure for the Y-axis. 

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. 

Comments:

• Some X-Y coupling existed. When one axis micrometer was moved, a little signal of the other direction was also generated.
• As Gautam proposed in the previous study, there is some hysteresis. That process would bring some errors to this result.
• A scale of micrometer is expressed in INCH!
• The micrometer I used was made to have 1/2 inch range, but it didn't work well and the range of X-axis was much narrower. 

Reference:
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.

• The SUM output was from -174 to -127 mV.
• The beam radii calculated from the error func fittings was 0.47 mm.
• Total optical path length measured by a ruler= 36 cm.
• Beam power measured at QPD was 2.96 mW. (There are some loss mechanism in the setup.)

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...

[ Yuki, Gautam ]

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:

• A 2-inch CVI mirror (45 degree, HR and AR for 532nm)
• A 1-inch Laseroptik mirror (45 degree, HR and AR for 532nm)

I did the calibration as follows:

• +-15V was supplied to PZT driver circuit, +100V to PZT driver bias, and +-18V to QPD amplifier.
• Optical path length was set to be same as that when I calibrated QPD, which is 36cm.
• The full range of CVI mirror is 3.5mrad according to its datasheet and linear range of QPD is 0.2mm, so I set the distance between PZT mirrors and QPD to be about 6cm. (I realized it was wrong. When mirror tilts 1 deg, the angle of beam changes 2 deg. So the distance should be the half.)
• After applying 0V to PZT driver input (at that time 50V was applied to PZT mirror), then centered beam spot on QPD using steering mirror, which was confirmed by monitored Pitch and Yaw signals of QPD that were around zero.  
• In order to avoid hysteresis effect, I stared with an input signal of -10V. I then increased the input voltage in steps of 1V through the full range from -10V to +10V DC. The other input was kept 0V.
• Both the X and Y coordinates were noted in the plot in order to investigate pitch-yaw coupling.

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

Comments:

• I made sure that PZT mirrors move linearly in full input range (+-10V).
• PZT CH1 input: Yaw, CH2: Pitch, CH3: +100V bias
• The calibration factor of PZT mirrors [mrad/V] are not consistent with previous calibration (elog:40m/8967). I will check it again.
• I measured the beam power in order to calibrate QPD responce with a powermeter, but it didn't have high precision. So I used SUM output of QPD to the calibration.
• Full range of PZT mirrors looks 2 times smaller.

Reference:
Previous calibration of the same mirrors, elog:40/8967

Interim Procedure Report:

Purpose

The current setup of AUX Y-arm Green locking has to be improved because:

• current efficiency of mode matching is about 50%
• current setup doesn't separate the degrees of freedom of TEM01 with PZT mirrors (the difference of gouy phase between PZT mirrors should be around 90 deg) 
• we want to remotely control PZT mirrors for alignment

What to do

• Design the new setup and order optices needed (finished!)
    - As the new setup I designed, adding a new lens and slightly changing the position of optics are only needed. The new lens was arrived here.
• Check electronics (PZT, PZT driver, high voltage, cable, anti-imaging board) (finished!)
    - All electronics were made sure performing well.
    - The left thing to do is making a cable. (Today's tasks)
• Calibrate PZT mirror [mrad/V] (finished!)
    - The result was posted here --> elog:40m/14224.
• Measure the status value of the current setup (power of transmitted light ...etc) (Tomorrow, --> finished!)
• Install them in the Y-end table and align the beam (Will start from Tomorrow) (The setup has a probrem I found on 10/04)
• Measure the status value of the new setup
    - I want to finish above during my stay.
• Prepare the code of making alignment automaticaly

[ Yuki, Gautam ]

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:

• R6 and R7 replaced with 511 ohm (1206 thin film resistor)
• R8 replaced with 255 ohm (1206 thin film resistor)
• R14 and R15 replaced with 549 ohm (1206 thin film resistor)
• R16 replaced with 274 ohm (1206 thin film resistor)

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. 

Reference, elog:40m/8857
Diagram, D000186-D.pdf

[ Yuki, Gautam ]

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:

• check if the cable works
• make another cable which connects AI board (10 pins) and PZT driver (10 pins).
• check if eurocate in Y-rack (IY4?) applies +/-5V, +/-15V and +/-24V. It will be done using an expansion card.
• improve alignment servo for X-end.
• setup alignment servo for Y-end.
• about optical loss measurement.  

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.

• beam power going into doubling crystal (red12): 20.9 mW with filter, 1064nm
• beam power going out from doubling crystal (red12): 26.7 mW with filter, 532nm
• beam power going into faraday isolator (green5): 0.58 mW without filter, 532nm
• beam power going out from faraday isolator (green5): 0.54 mW without filter, 532nm
• beam power going to ETMY: 0.37 mW without filter, 532nm
• beam power of transmitted green light of Y-arm, which was measured by C1:ALS-TRY_OUT: 0.5 (see attachment #1)

(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:

• beam power going into doubling crystal (red12): 240 mW, 1064nm
• beam power transmitted dichroic mirror (Y5): 0.70 mW, 532nm
• beam power going into faraday isolator (green5): 0.58 mW, 532nm
• beam power going out from faraday isolator (green5): 0.54 mW, 532nm
• beam power going to ETMY: 0.37 mW, 532nm
• beam power of transmitted green light of Y-arm, which was measured by C1:ALS-TRY_OUT: 0.5 (see attachment #1)

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)