I aligned today using this scheme. I couldn't seem to get C1:IOO-MC_TRANS_SUM above 13400 by using WFS or manually aligning. The original state before was the following:
C1:SUS-MC1: -0.4672 -0.7714
C1:SUS-MC2: 4.0446 -1.3558
C1:SUS-MC3: -2.0006 1.6001
C1:SUS-MC2: 4.0446 -1.3558
C1:SUS-MC3: -2.0006 1.6001
[Anchal, Yehonathan, Yuta]
We did the constrast measurement with the method same as 40m/17020.
Contrast between ITM single bounce and LO beam increased to 74% (we had 43% before unclipping LO beam in 40m/17056).
From equations in 40m/17041 and measured ITM sigle bounce power (93 or 138 counts @ BHD DCPD) and LO power (130 or 124 counts @ BHD DCPD) from 40m/17056, expected visibility for perfectly mode-matched case is 99%.
Measured constrast of 74% indicate mode-matching of 56%.
Both arms locked, MICH fringe (20% percentile)
Contrast measured by C1:LSC-ASDC_OUT is 80.66 +/- 0.20 %
Contrast measured by C1:LSC-POPDC_OUT is 92.27 +/- 0.66 %
Contrast measured by C1:LSC-REFLDC_OUT is 89.59 +/- 0.84 %
Contrast measured by all is 87.51 +/- 1.69 %
Both arms misaligned, MICH fringe (20% percentile)
Contrast measured by C1:LSC-ASDC_OUT is 82.50 +/- 0.61 %
Contrast measured by C1:LSC-POPDC_OUT is 94.18 +/- 0.26 %
Contrast measured by C1:LSC-REFLDC_OUT is 92.78 +/- 0.19 %
Contrast measured by all is 89.82 +/- 1.75 %
ITMX-LO fringe (40% percentile)
Contrast measured by C1:HPC-DCPD_A_OUT is 73.93 +/- 1.52 %
Contrast measured by C1:HPC-DCPD_B_OUT is 73.56 +/- 1.22 %
Contrast measured by all is 73.74 +/- 0.98 %
ITMY-LO fringe (40% percentile)
Contrast measured by C1:HPC-DCPD_A_OUT is 73.45 +/- 0.61 %
Contrast measured by C1:HPC-DCPD_B_OUT is 75.27 +/- 0.50 %
Contrast measured by all is 74.36 +/- 0.54 %
For both 40m/17020 and 40m/17024, what does the contrast mean if the numbers are leaking out to ~-100cnt?
Also how much is it if you convert this contrast into the mode matching?
BHD fringe visibility was measured again with unwhitening filters on on BHDC_A and B, which removed signal leakage to zero (40m/17265).
The result didn't change much from previous measurement (40m/17067) thanks to using the 'mode' of signal to calculate visibility.
Measured constrast of 74% indicate mode-matching AS beam to LO beam of 56%.
ITMX-LO fringe (10% percentile)
Contrast measured by C1:HPC-BHDC_A_OUT is 74.46 +/- 0.07 %
Contrast measured by C1:HPC-BHDC_B_OUT is 74.25 +/- 0.07 %
Contrast measured by all is 74.35 +/- 0.07 %
ITMY-LO fringe (10% percentile)
Contrast measured by C1:HPC-BHDC_A_OUT is 74.01 +/- 0.10 %
Contrast measured by C1:HPC-BHDC_B_OUT is 73.85 +/- 0.09 %
Contrast measured by all is 73.93 +/- 0.08 %
Errors are from standard deviation of 3 measurements.
The notebook lives in /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/Git/40m/scripts/CAL/BHD/measureContrast.ipynb
I wanted to pass along a complication pointed out by K. Thorne re: our plan to use Gen1 (old) Dolphin IPC cards in the new real-time machines: c1bhd, c1sus2. The implication is that we may be forced to install a very old OS (e.g., Debian 8) for compatibility with the IPC card driver, which could lead to other complications like an incompatibility with the modern network interface.
I have a query out to Dolphin asking:
I'll add more info if I hear back from them.
Answers from Dolphin:
Since upgrading every front end is out of the question, our only option is to install an old OS (Linux kernel < 3.x) on the two new machines. Based on Keith's advice, I think we should go with Debian 8. (Link to Keith's Debian 8 instructions.)
I went through the optics list (in the BHD procurement google spreadsheet) and summarized how to build them.
The red ones are what we need to purchase. Because of the strange height of the LMR mounts, the post needs to have none half-integer inch heights.
They need to be designed as the usual SS posts are not designed to be vac compatible (not because of the material but the design like screw hole venting).
We also need to check how many clean forks we have.
-> The components were ordered except for the custom posts.
[Jon, Tega, Hang]
We proposed a few BHD mode-matching telescope designs and then preformed a few monte-carlo experiments to see how the imperfections would change the story. We assumed a 2 mm (1-sigma) error on the location of the components and 1% (1-sigma) fractional error on the RoC of the curved mirrors. The angle of incidence has not yet been taken into account (no astigmatism at the moment but will be included in the follow-up study.)
For the LO path things are mostly fine. We can use LO1 and LO2 as the actuators (Sec. 2.2 of the note), and when errors are taken into account more than 90% of times we can still achieve 98% mode matching. The gouy phase separation between LO1 and LO2 > 34 deg for 90% of the time, which corresponds to a condition number of the sensing matrix of ~ 3.
The situation is more tricky for the AS path. While the telescopes are usually robust against 2 or 3 mm of positional error, the 1% RoC does affect the performance quite significantly. In the note we choose two best-performing ones but still only 50% of the time they can maintain a power-overlap of > 99%. In fact, the 1% RoC error assumed should be quite optimistic... Not sure if we could achieve this in reality.
One potential way out is to ignore the MM for the first round of BHD. Here anyway we only need to test the ISC schemes. Then in the second round when we have the whole BHD board suspended, we can then use AS1 and the BHD board as the actuators. This might be able to make things more forgiving if we don't need to shrink the AS beam very fast so that it could be separated from AS4 in gouy phase.
It would be good to have a corner plot with all the distances/ RoCs. Also perhaps a Jacobian like done in this breathtaking and seminal work.
As Rana suggested, we present the scattering plot of the AS path mode matching for various variables. The plot is for the AS path, Plan 2 (whose params we summarize at the end of this entry).
In the corner plot, we color-coded each realization according to the mode matching. We use (purple, olive, grey) for (MM>0.99, 0.98<MM<=0.99, MM<=0.98), respectively. From the plot, we can see that it is most sensitive to the RoC of AS1. The plot also shows that we can compensate for some of the MM errors if we adjust the distance between AS1-AS3 (note that AS2 is a flat mirror). The telescope is quite robust to other errors.
The compensation requirement is further shown in the second plot. To correct for the 1% RoC error of AS1, we typically need to adjust AS1-AS3 distance by ~ 1 cm (if we want to go back to MM=1; the window for >0.99 MM spans also about 1 cm). This should be doable because the nominal distance between AS1-AS3 is 115 cm.
The story for plan1 is similar and thus not shown here.
AS path plan2 nominal params:
label z (m) type parameters
----- ----- ---- ----------
SRMAR 0 flat mirror none:
AS1 0.7192 curved mirror ROC: 2.5000
AS2 1.2597 flat mirror none:
AS3 1.8658 curved mirror ROC: -0.5000
AS4 2.5822 curved mirror ROC: 0.6000
OMCBS1 3.3271 flat mirror none:
label z (m) type parameters
----- ----- ---- ----------
SRMAR 0 flat mirror none:
AS1 0.7192 curved mirror ROC: 2.5000
AS2 1.2597 flat mirror none:
AS3 1.8658 curved mirror ROC: -0.5000
AS4 2.5822 curved mirror ROC: 0.6000
OMCBS1 3.3271 flat mirror none:
I've started a spreadsheet for the BHD optics specifications and populated it with my best initial guesses. There are a few open questions we still need to resolve, mostly related to mode-matching:
The spreadsheet is editable by anyone. If you can contribute any information, please do!
I've generated specifications for the new BHD optics. This includes the suspended relay mirrors as well as the breadboard optics (but not the OMCs).
To design the mode-matching telescopes, I updated the BHD mode-matching scripts to reflect Koji's draft layout (Dec. 2019) and used A La Mode to optimize ROCs and positions. Of the relay optics, only a few have an AOI small enough for curvature (astigmatism) and most of those do not have much room to move. This reduced the optimization considerably.
These ROCs should be viewed as a first approximation. Many of the distances I had to eyeball from Koji's drawings. I also used the Gaussian PRC/SRC modes from the current IFO, even though the recycling cavities will both slightly change. I set up a running list of items like these that we still need to resolve in the BHD README.
At a glance, all the specifications can be seen in the optics summary spreadsheet.
The LO beam originates from the PR2 transmission (POP), near ITMX. It is relayed to the BHD beamsplitter (and mode-matched to the OMCs) via the following optical sequence:
The resulting beam profile is shown in Attachment 1.
The AS beam is relayed from the SRM to the BHD beamsplitter (and mode-matched to the OMCs) via the following sequence:
A lens is used because there is not enough room on the BHD breadboard for a pair of (low-AOI) telescope mirrors, like there is in the LO path. The resulting beam profile is shown in Attachment 2.
Hang and I have reanalyzed the BHD telescope designs, with the goal of identifying sufficiently non-degenerate locations for ASC actuation. Given the limited room to reposition optics and the requirement to remain insensitive to small positioning errors, we conclude it is not possible put sufficient Gouy phase separation between the AS1/AS2 and LO1/LO2 locations. However, we can make the current layout work if we instead actuate AS1/AS4 and LO1/LO4. This would require actuating one optic on the breadboard for each relay path. If possible, we believe this offers the simplest solution (i.e., least modification to the current layout).
Radius of curvatures:
I successfully steered out the two output beams from BHD BS to ITMY table today. This required significant changes on the table, but I was able to bring back the table to balance coarsely and then recover YARM flashing with fine tuning of ITMY.
[Yuta, Paco, Anchal]
(a) BHDC_DIFF sensitivity to BS dither for a set of MICH offsets.
The analysis was done with the '/cvs/cds/rtcds/caltech/c1/Git/40m/scripts/CAL/BHD/BHD_DIFFSensitivity.ipynb' notebook.
Attachment #1 shows the main result showing the sensitivity of various demodulated error signals at 311.1 Hz for a set of 21 MICH offsets. We noted that if we didn't randomize the MICH offset scan, we observed a nonzero "zero crossing" for the offset.
Note that, although LO_PHASE loop was always on to control the LO phase to have zero crossing of BH55_Q, actual LO phase is not constant over the measurement, as MICH offset changes BH55_Q zero crossing.
When MICH offset is zero, LO_PHASE loop will control the LO phase to 0 deg (90 deg away from optimal phase), and BHDC_DIFF will not be sensitive to MICH, but when MICH offset is added, BHDC_DIFF start to have MICH sensitivity (measurement is as expected).
For BHDC_SUM, MICH sensitivity is linear to MICH offset, as it should be the same as ASDC, and does not depend on LO phase (measurement is as expected).
For BH55_Q, MICH sensitivity is maximized at zero MICH offset, but reduces with MICH offset, probably because LO phase is also being changed.
[Anchal, Paco, Yuta]
Attachment #1 is the same plot as 40m/17303 but with MICH sensitivity for ASDC and AS55 also included (in this measurement, BH55 demodulation phase was set to 140.07 deg to minimize I fringe).
Y-axis is now calibrated in to counts/m using BS actuation efficiency 26.54e-9 /f^2 m/counts (40m/17285) at 311.1 Hz.
2nd X-axis is calibrated into MICH offset using the measured AS55_Q value and it's MICH sensitivity, 8.81e8 counts/m (this is somehow ~10% less than our usual value 40m/17294).
ASDC have similar dependence with BHDC_SUM on MICH offset, as expected.
AS55_Q have little dependence with MICH offset on MICH offset, as expected.
This plot tells you that even a small MICH offset at nm level can create MICH sensitivity for BHDC_DIFF, even if we control LO phase to have BH55_Q to be zero, as MICH offset shifts zero crossing of BH55_Q for LO phase.
Attachment #2 is the same plot, but BH55 demodulation phase was tuned to 227.569 deg to have no MICH signal in BH55_Q (a.k.a measurement (c)).
In this case, LO phase will be always controlled at 0 deg (90 deg away from optimal), even if we change the MICH offset, as BH55_Q will not be sensitive to MICH.
In this plot, BHD_DIFF have little sensitivity to MICH, irrelevant of MICH offset, as expected.
MICH sensitivity for BH55_I is also constant, which indicate that LO phase is constant over this measurement, as expected.
Attachment #3 is the same plot, but BH55 demodulation phase was tuned to 70 deg.
This demodulation phase was tuned within 5 deg to maximize MICH signal in BHD_DIFF with large MICH offset (20).
In this case, LO phase will be always controlled at 90 deg (optimal), even if we change the MICH offset, as BH55_Q will not be sensitve to LO carrier x AS sideband component of the LO phase signal.
In this plot, BHD_DIFF have high sensitivity to MICH, irrelevant of MICH offset (at around zero MICH offset it is hard to see because LO_PHASE lock cannot hold lock, as there will be little LO phase signal in BH55_Q, and measurement error is high for BHD_DIFF and BH55 signals).
MICH sensitivity for BH55_I and BH55_Q is roughly constant, which indicate that LO phase is constant over this measurement, as expected.
These plots indicate that BH55 demodulated at MICH dither frequency can be used to control LO phase robustly at 90 deg, under unknown or zero MICH offset.
LO phase delay:
From these measurements of demodulation phases, I guess we can say that phase delay for 55 MHz in LO path with respect to MICH path (length difference in PR2->LO->BHDBS and PR2->ITMs->AS->BHDBS) is
2*(227.569-70(5)-90)-90 = 45(10) deg
This means that the length difference is (omegam=5*2*pi*11.066195 MHz)
c * np.deg2rad(45(10)+360) / omegam = 6.1(2) m (360 deg is added to make it close to the design)
Is this consistent with our design? (According to Yehonathan, it is 12.02 m - 5.23 m = 6.79 m)
Attachment #4 illustrates signals in BH55.
- Lock LO PHASE with BH55 demodulated at MICH dither frequency (RF+audio double demodulation), and repeat the same measurement
- Finer measurement at small MICH offsets (~1nm) to see how much MICH offset we have
- Repeat the same measurement with BH55_Q demodulation phase tuned everytime we change the MICH offset to maximize LO phase sensitivity in BH55_Q (a.k.a measurement (b)).
- What is the best way to tune BH55 demodulation phase?
There is still an open issue with the BI channels not read by EPICS. They can still be read by the Windows machine though.
I looked into the issue that Yehonathan reported with the BI channels. I found the problem was with the .cmd file which sets up the Modbus interfacing of the Acromags to EPICS (/cvs/cds/caltech/target/c1auxey1/ETMYaux.cmd).
The problem is that all the channels on the XT1111 unit are being configured in Modbus as output channels. While it is possible to break up the address space of a single unit, so that some subset of channels are configured as inputs and another as outputs, I think this is likely to lead to mass confusion if the setup ever has to be modified. A simpler solution (and the convention we adopted for previous systems) is just to use separate Acromag units for BI and BO signals.
Accordingly, I updated the wiring plan to include the following changes:
So, one more Acromag XT1111 needs to be added to the c1auxey chassis, with the wiring changes as noted above. I have already updated the .cmd and EPICS database files in /cvs/cds/caltech/target/c1auxey1 to reflect these changes.
I added a new XT1111 Acromag module to the c1auxey chassis. I sanitized and configured it according to the slow machines wiki instructions.
Since all the spare BIOs fit one DB37 connector I didn't add another feedthrough and combined them all on one and the same DB37 connector. This was possible because all the RTNs of the BIOs are tied to the chassis ground and therefore need only one connection. I changed the wiring spreadsheet accordingly.
I did a lot of rewirings and also cut short several long wires that were protruding from the chassis. I tested all the wires from the feedthroughs to the Acromag channels and fixed some wiring mistakes.
Tomorrow I will test the BIs using EPICs.
I tested the digital inputs the following way: I connected a DB9 breakout to DB9M-5 and DB9M-6 where digital inputs are hosted. I shorted the channel under test to GND to turn it on.
I observed the channels turn from Disabled to Enabled using caget when I shorted the channel to GND and from Enabled to Disabled when I disconnected them.
I did this for all the digital inputs and they all passed the test.
I am still waiting for the other isolator to wire the rest of the digital outputs.
Next, I believe we should take some noise spectra of the Y end before we do the installation.
There was some work done on the Acro crate this morning. Unclear if this is independent, but I found that the IMC servo board IN1 slider doesn't respond anymore, even though I had tested it and verified it to be working. Patient debugging showed that BIO1 (and only that acromag unit with the static IP 192.168.114.61) doesn't show up on the subnet in c1psl. Hopefully it's just a loose network cable, if not we will switch out the unit in the afternoon.
Jon is going to make a python script which iteratively pings all devices on the subnet and we will put this info on an MEDM screen to catch this kind of silent failure.
Created 5-band BLRMS for seismometer data (Gur1, Gur2 and STS1 each in x,y,z respectively) and accelerometer 1 through 6.
each with a fitting 4th order butterworth bandpass.
Data is recorded at 256Hz as e.g. C1:PEM-ACC1_RMS_RMS_0p3_1_OUT_DQ. For the 75 channels we have that corresponds to the data rate of just 1.2 16kHz channels.
c1pem execution time increased fom 6-7us to 15-16us out of 480us available.
I fixed up the seismic.stp file for the StripTool display:
The BLRMS are totally crazy today! I'm not sure what the story is, since it's been this way all day (so it's not an earthquake, because things eventually settle down after EQs). It doesn't seem like anything is up with the seismometer, since the regular raw seismic time series and spectrum don't look particularly different from normal. I'm not sure what's going on, but it's only in the mid-frequency BLRMS (30mHz to 1Hz).
Here are some 2 day plots:
Its an increase in the microseismic peak. Don't know what its due to though.
I got two seismometers and one microphone back from Tara.
They are now near the Gurlap under the MC.
I have finally plugged GUR1 back in....it is down at ETMY for now, since that's where the cable was. BLRMS are back up on the projector.
BLRMS filters have been set up for the coil outputs and shadow sensor signals. The signals are sent to the C1PEM model from C1MCS, where I use the library block mentioned in the previous elog to put the filters in place. Some preliminary observations:
Unrelated to this work: we cleaned up the correspondence between the accelerometer numbers and channels in the C1PEM model. Also, the 3 unused ADC blocks in C1PEM (ADC0, ADC1 and ADC2) are required and cannot be removed as the ADC blocks have to be numbered sequentially and the signals needed in C1PEM come from ADC3 (as we found out when we tried recompiling the model after deleting these blocks).
In order to be consistent with the naming conventions for the new BLRMS filters, I made a library block that takes all the input signals of interest (i.e. for a generic optic, the coil signals, the local damping shadow sensors, and the Oplev Pitch and Yaw signals - so a total of 12 signals, unused ones can be grounded). The block is called "sus_single_BLRMS". Inside the block, I've put in 12 BLRMS library blocks, with each input signal going to one of them. All the 7 outputs of the BLRMS block are terminated (I got a compiling error if I did not do this). The idea is to identify the optic using this block, e.g. MC2_BLRMS. The BLRMS filters inside are called UL_COIL, UR_COIL etc, so the BLRMS channels will end up being called C1:SUS-MC2_BLRMS_UL_COIL_0p01_0p03 and so on. I tried implementing this in C1PEM, but immediately after compiling and restarting the model, I noticed some strange behaviour in the seismic rainbow STS strip in the control room - this was right after the model was restarted, before I attempted to make any changes to the C1PEM.txt file and add filters. I then manually opened up the filter bank screens for the RMS_STS1Z bandpass and lowpass filters, and saw that the filter switches were OFF - I wonder if this has something to do with these settings not being updated in the SDF tables? So I manually turned them on and cleared the filter hitsory for all 7 low pass and band pass filter banks, but the traces on the seismic striptool did not return to their nominal levels. I manually checked the filter shapes with Foton and they seem alright. Anyways, for now, I've reverted to the C1PEM model before I made any changes, and the seismic strip looks to be back at its normal level - when I recompiled and restarted the model with the changes I made removed, the STS1Z BLRMS bandpass and lowpass filters were ON by default again! I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong here, I will investigate this further.
As discussed in a Wednesday meeting some time ago, we don't need to be writing channels from BLRMS filter modules to frames at 16k (we suspect this is leading to the frequent daqd crashes which were seen the last time we tried setting BLRMS up for all the suspensions). EricQ pointed out to me that there conveniently exists a library block that is much better suited to our purposes, called BLRMS_2k. I've replaced all the BLRMS library blocks in the sus_single_BLRMS library block that I made with there BLRMS_2k blocks. I need to check that the filters used by the BLRMS_2k block (which reside in /opt/rtcds/userapps/release/cds/common/src/BLRMSFILTER.c) are appropriate, after which we can give setting up BLRMS for all the suspensions a second try...
We should make screens like this for the LSC signals, errors, ALS, etc.
I copied Mirko's PEM BLRMS block, and made it a library part. I don't know where such things should live, so I just left it in isc/c1/models. Probably it should move to cds/common/models. To make the oaf compile, you have to put a link in /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/core/branches/branch-2.1/src/epics/simLink , and point to wherever the model is living.
I then put BLRMSs on the control signals coming into the OAF, and after the Correction filter bank in the Adapt blocks, so we can check out what we're sending to the optics.
Today I worked with the BLRMS channels, re-triangulated the seismometers (the STS is now on the very end of the Y-arm, while the GUR2 is on the X-arm - this GUR2 cable will need to be either extended or replaced - Jenne and I will look at parts tomorrow), and added 0.01 - 0.03 Hz and 0.03 - 0.1 Hz RMS channels (However, the MEDM files for these are not yet complete - I will finish these tomorrow) in order to be able to better see earthquakes. I also did some things for the neural network project, including beginning Simulink tutorials so that I can run my code by applying a force on a damped harmonic oscillator + white noise until it stops.
I will explain the methodology behind the new RMS filters tomorrow morning, when the seismometers have settled down and I can make coherence plots.
I'll post a better E-log tomorrow when it's not 2 in the morning.
I laid down the floor a BNC cable from the Y End table to the BNC Chamber. The cable runs next to the east wall.
I'm leaving the cable because it can turn useful in the future.
I'm tying the end of the cable to a big threaded steel rod on the side of the BS chamber.
I've also labeled as TRY
[Yuta, Steve, Manasa]
There are cables piled up around the access connector area which have been victims of stampedes all the time. I have heard these cables were somehow Den's responsibility.
Now that he is not around here:
I found piled up bnc's open at one end and with no labels lying on the floor near the access connector and PSL area. Yuta, Steve and I tried to trace them and found them connected to data channels. We could not totally get rid of the pile even after almost an hour of struggle, but we tied them together and put them away on the other side of the arm where we rarely walk.
There are more piles around the access connector...we should have a next cleanup session and get rid of these orphaned cables or atleast move them to where they will not be walked on.
I've checked that the 2pin lemo connector that was run some time ago from the LSC rack to the MC board does indeed transmit signals. To try and evaluate its suitability I did the following:
No real difference was seen between the two cases. The signal peak was the same height, width. 60Hz and harmonics were of the same amplitude. Here are the spectra out to 200k, they are very similar.
Mode cleaner was locked during this whole thing. This may interfere with the measurement, but is similar to the use case for the AO path. If ground loop / spurious noise issues keep occurring, it will be worthwhile to examine the noise of the CM and MC servo paths, inputs and outputs more carefully.
This evening, Gautam helped me with setting up the apparatus for calibrating the GigE for BRDF measurements.
The SP table was chosen to set up the experiment and for this reason a few things including a laser and power meter (presumably set up by Steve) had to be moved around.
We initially started by setting up the Crysta laser with its power source (Crysta #2, 150-190 mW 1064 laser) on the SP table. The Ophir power meter was used to measure the laser power. We discovered that the laser was highly unstable as its output on the power meter fluctuated (kind of periodically) between 40 and 150 mW. The beam spot on the beam card also appeared to validate this change in intensity. So we decided to use another 1064 nm laser instead.
Gautam got the LightWave NPro laser from the PSL table and set it up on the SP table and with this laser the output as measured by the same power meter was quite stable.
We manually adjusted the power to around 150 mW. This was followed by setting up the half wave plate(HWP) with the polarizing beam splitter (PBS), which was very gently and precisely done by Gautam, while explaining how to handle the optics to me.
On first installing the PBS, we found that the beam was already quite strongly polarized as there seemed to be zero transmission but a strong reflection.
With the HWP in place, we get a control over the transmitted intensity. The reflected beam is directed to a beam dump.
I have taken down the GigE(+mount) at ETMX and wired a spare PoE injector.
We tried to interface with the camera wirelessly through the wireless network extenders but that seems to render an unstable connection to the GigE so while a single shot works okay, a continuous shot on the GigE didn’t succeed.
The GigE was connected to the Martian via Ethernet cable and images were observed using a continuous shot on the Pylon Viewer App on Paola.
We deliberated over the need of a beam expander, but it has been omitted presently. White printer paper is currently being used to model the Lambertian scatterer. So light scattered off the paper was observed at a distance of about 40 cm from the sample.
While proceeding with the calibrations further tonight, we realized a few challenges.
While the CCD is able to observe the beam spot perfectly well, measuring the actual power with the power meter seems to be tricky. As the scattered power is quite low, we can’t actually see any spot using a beam card and hence can’t really ensure if we are capturing the entire beam spot on the active region of the power meter (placed at a distance of ~40cm from the paper) or if we are losing out on some light, all the while ensuring that the power meter and the CCD are in the same plane.
We tried to think of some ways around that, the description of which will follow. Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks a ton for all your patience and help Gautam! :)
More to follow..
Power meter only needed to measure power going into the paper not out. We use the BRDF of paper to estimate the power going out given the power going in.
From what I understood froom my reading, [Large-angle scattered light measurements for quantum-noise filter cavity design studies(Refer https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2528)], we do the white paper test in order to calibrate for the radiometric response, i.e. the response of the CCD sensor to radiance.‘We convert the image counts measured by the CCD camera into a calibrated measure of scatter. To do this we measure the scattered light from a diffusing sample twice, once with the CCD camera and once with a calibrated power meter. We then compare their readings.’
But thinking about this further, if we assume that the BRDF remains unscaled and estimate the scattered power from the images, we get a calibration factor for the scattered power and the angle dependence of the scattered power!
With this idea in mind, we can now actually take images of the illuminated paper at different scattering angles, assume BRDF is the constant value of (1/pi per steradian),
then scattered power Ps= BRDF * Pi cosθ * Ω, where Pi is the incident power, Ω is the solid angle of the camera and θ is the scattering angle at which measurement is taken. This must also equal the sum of pixel counts divided by the exposure time multiplied by some calibration factor.
From these two equations we can obtain the calibration factor of the CCD. And for further BRDF measurements, scale the pixel count/ exposure by this calibration factor.
NOTE: The potentiometers on the bread board circuit box (the one I have been using with the signal generator, DC power, LED displays, and pulse switches) is BROKEN!
The potential across terminals 1 and 2 (also 2&3) fluctuates wildly and there dial does not affect the potential for the second potentiometer (the one with terminals 4, 5, and 6).
This has been confirmed by Koji and Jaimie. PS I didn't break it! >____<
NEVERTHELESS, using individual resistors and the 500 ohm trim resistor, I have managed to get the current versus forward voltage plot for the Hamamatsu L9337 Infared LED
I labeled all the newly installed flanges and connected the in-air cables (40m/16530) to appropriate ports. These cables are connected to the CDS system on 1Y1/1Y0 racks through the satellite amplifiers. So all new optics now can be damped as soon as they are placed. We need to make more DB9 plugs for setting "Acquire" mode on the HAM-A coil drivers since our Binary input system is not ready yet. Right now, we only have 2 such plugs which means only one optic and be damped at a time.
We manually realigned the BS and PRM optical levers on the optical table.
I have restored the damping of BS and PRM. Today is janitor day. He is shaking things around the lab.
BS & PRM oplev is restored. Note: the F -150 lens was removed right after the first turning mirror from the laser. This helped Rana to get small spot on the qpd.
It also means that the oplev paths are somewhat different now.
Using PRX, I remeasured the relative actuation strengths of the BS and PRM to see if the PRM correction coefficient we're using is good.
My result is that we should be using MICH -> -0.2655 x PRM + 0.5*BS.
This is very close to our current value of -0.2625 x PRM, so I don't think it will really change anything.
The reason that the BS needs to be compensated is that it really just changes the PRM->ITMX distance, lx, while leaving the PRM-ITMY distance, ly, alone. I confirmed this by locking PRY and seeing no effect on the error signal, no matter how hard I drove the BS.
I then locked PRX, and drove an 804Hz oscillation on the BS and PRM in turn, and averaged the resultant peak heights. I then tried to cancel the signal by sending the excitation with opposite signs to each mirror, according to their relative meaured strength.
In this way, I was able to get 23dB of cancellation by driving 1.0 x PRM - 0.9416 * BS.
Now, in the PRMI case, we don't want to fully decouple like this, because this kind of cancellation just leaves lx invarient, when really, we want MICH to move (lx-ly) and PRCL to move (lx+ly). So, we use half of the PRM cancellation to cancel half of the lx motion, and introduce that half motion to ly, making a good MICH signal. Thus, the right ratio is 0.5*(1.0/0.9416) = 0.531. Then, since we use BS x 0.5, we divide by two again to get 0.2655. Et voila.
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.
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).
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.
[Anchal, Paco, Yuta]
I calibrated the BS oplev PIT and YAW error signals as follows:
The numbers are:
BS Pitch 15 / 130 (old/new) urad/counts
BS Yaw 14 / 170 (old/new) urad/counts
I bet the calibration is out of date; probably we replaced the OL laser for the BS and didn't fix the cal numbers. You can use the fringe contrast of the simple Michelson to calibrate the OLs for the ITMs and BS.