40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab CAML OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 33 of 355  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Category Subjectup
  13772   Thu Apr 19 20:41:09 2018 KojiConfigurationGeneralAux Laser LD dying? (AS port laser injection)

I suspect that the LD of the aux laser is dying.
- The max power we obtain from this laser (700mW NPRO) is 33mW. Yes, 33mW. (See attachment 1)
- The intensity noise is likely to be relaxation oscillation and the frequency is so low as the pump power is low. When the ADJ is adjusted to 0, the peak moved even lower. (Attachment 2, compare purple and red)
- What the NE (noise eater) doing? Almost nothing. I suspect the ISS gain is too low because of the low output power. (Attachment 2, compare green and red)

  13781   Tue Apr 24 08:36:47 2018 johannesConfigurationGeneralAux Laser LD dying? (AS port laser injection)

In September 2017 I measured ~150mW output power, which was already kind of low. What are the chances of getting this one repaired? Steve, can you please check the serial number? It's probably too old like the other ones.


I suspect that the LD of the aux laser is dying.
- The max power we obtain from this laser (700mW NPRO) is 33mW. Yes, 33mW. (See attachment 1)


  12106   Thu May 5 04:05:03 2016 ericqUpdateLSCAux X PDH checks

We took an OLG measurement of the green PDH loop. It seems consistent with past measurements. I've added a trace for the the post-mixer lowpass, to show its contribution to the phase loss. (EDIT: updated with measured LPF TF)

I used this measured OLG and the datasheet laser PZT conversion factor to calibrate the control signal monitor into the AUX laser frequency noise, it looks consistent with the frequency noise measured via the PSL PLL (300 Hz/rtHz @ 100Hz). Above a few tens of kHz, the control signal measurement is all analyzer noise floor, due to the fourth order 70kHz lowpass after the mixer (the peaks change height significantly depending on the analyzer input range, so I don't think they're on the laser). Gautam will follow up with more detailed measurements of both the error and control signals as he noisebudgets, this was just intended as a quick consistency check.

  8244   Wed Mar 6 18:51:07 2013 AnnalisaUpdateAlignmentAuxiliary laser installed for FSR and TMS measurement of the PRC

We want to measure the g-factor of the PRC using the beat note of the main laser with an auxiliary NPRO laser.

We are going to phase lock the NPRO to the main laser (taking it from POY) and then we will inject the NPRO  through the AS edge of the ITMY.

Today Sendhil and I installed the auxiliary laser on the ITMY table moving it from the AS table.

We also installed the beam steering optics, except the BS which will launch the beam through the AR edge of the ITMY.

To do: install the BS, take the POY beam and mix it with the auxiliary laser on a photodiode to phase lock the two lasers, do better calculations for the mode matching optics to be used for the auxiliary laser beam.

  8313   Tue Mar 19 20:24:56 2013 AnnalisaUpdateAuxiliary lockingAuxiliary laser on PSL table

 I moved the auxiliary laser from the ITMY table to the PSL table and installed all the optics (mirrors and lenses) to steer the beam up to a PDA55 photodiode, where also the pick-off of the PSL is sent.

Tomorrow I'm going to measure the beat note between the two.

  342   Wed Feb 27 22:05:03 2008 JohnUpdateLSCAuxiliary locking
A summary of the status of the auxiliary arm locking effort.

To help with lock acquisition we are attempting to independently lock the Y arm using light injected through ETMY. At present this secondary light source is an NPRO laser situated on the SP table. The laser light is transported to the ETM using a single mode optical fibre. In the future we might pick off some PSL light and apply a frequency shift.

We have been able to successfully mode match the fibre beam into the cavity and have been attempting lock the cavity using standard PDH signals (phase modulation sidebands are added to the light before it enters the fibre).

As yet no acceptable error signals have been produced. The demodulated RF signal is showing a time varying, bipolar dc offset.

We have minimised the residual amplitude modulation of the EOM but we expect small signals due to the undercoupled nature of the system, it could be that whatever RFAM still present is varying with time and causing this behaviour. We are also able to produce similar offsets by stressing (i.e. bending, shaking) the fibre. Could it be that the fibre is somehow converting PM into AM? Are we seeing etalon effects in the fibre or elsewhere?

If we cannot make any further progress with the existing setup we shall move the NPRO to the ETM table and try again. We are also looking into purchasing some other types of fibre.

Other things to consider are injecting through POY or using some other wavelength - neither seems obviously better.

Fiber, behavior
  16341   Fri Sep 17 00:56:49 2021 KojiUpdateGeneralAwesome

The Incredible Melting Man!


  11509   Fri Aug 14 23:49:34 2015 KojiSummaryGeneralB&K Shaker fixed

I fixed a shaker that was claimed to be broken. I had to cut the rubber membrane to open the head.

Once it was opened, the cause of the trouble was obvious. The soldering joint could not put up with the motion of the head.

It is interesting to see that the spring has the damping layer between the metal sheets.

After the repair the DC resistance was measured. It was 1.9Ohm. The side of the shaker chassis said "3.5Ohm, Max 15VA". So it can take more than 4A (wow).

I gave 2A DC from the bench top supply and turn the current on and off. I could confirm the head was moving.

I'll claim the use of this shaker for the seismometer development.

  10009   Mon Jun 9 10:55:48 2014 NichinSummaryElectronicsBBPD D1002969-v8 transimpedence measurement

My SURF week-1 work...


To measure the transimpedence of  the Broadband photodiode (D1002969-v8), using a New focus photodiode (1611) as reference. The amplitude modulated Jenne Laser (1.2mW) was used. 

The steps involved in getting the transimpedence are as follows:

Acquiring data

  • Get 2 sets of data from Network Analyzer Agilent 4395: One set of data will be for the transfer function of Ref PD over RF out. The other set for Test PD over Ref PD.
  • The following conditions were set:

1) Frequency sweep range: 1MHz to 200 MHz.

2) Number of Points sampled in  the range: 201

3) Type of sweep: Logarithmic

  • Set the NA to give the corresponding transfer function values in dB and also Phase response in degrees.
  • Save the data into floppy disk for processing on the computer (The wireless way of acquiring data was not working when the experiment was conducted )


  • The matlab code attached (TransimpedencePlot.m) will then give plots for the absolute values of transimpedence in V/A.
  • Logic involved in the code:
    • Transimpedence = Voltage response / (Responsivity of the photodiode * Power incident) 
    • Responsivity for BBPD is taken as 0.1 A/W and for NF1611 as 0.68 A/W as given in their datasheets.
    • Voltage response of Test PD w.r.t RF output of NA (in dB) = Voltage response of Test PD w.r.t Ref PD (in dB) + Voltage response of Ref PD w.r.t RF output of NA (in dB) 


The Plots of transimpedence obtained are attached (results.pdf) . The results obtained for BBPD is consistent with the ones obtained before, but the same method and code gives a different transimpedence for 1611.

The transimpedence of NF 1611 was obtained to be around 4-5 V/A which is very much off-track compared to the one given in the datasheet (elog: 2906).


The transimpedence of  Broadband photodiode (D1002969-v8) was around 1200 - 1300 V/A for most of the range, but the value started falling as the frequency approached 100 MHz. This result is consistent with DCC document: T1100467-v2.


  10012   Mon Jun 9 16:55:31 2014 KojiSummaryElectronicsBBPD D1002969-v8 transimpedence measurement

How is the modulation depth assumed in the calculation?

If you don't know the modulation depth, you can't calibrate the transimpedance of each PD individually.

  10058   Wed Jun 18 15:25:06 2014 NichinUpdateElectronicsBBPD Transimepedence plot


To measure the transimpedence of  the Broadband photodiode (D1002969-v8), using a New focus photodiode (1611) as reference. The amplitude modulated Jenne Laser (1.2mW) was used @20mA

The steps involved in getting the transimpedence:

Acquiring data

  • The following conditions were set on Network Analyzer Agilent 4395:

1) Frequency sweep range: 500KHz to 300 MHz.

2) Number of Points sampled in  the range: 301

3) Type of sweep: Logarithmic

  • Set the NA to give the corresponding transfer function value (output of BBPD over output of 1611) and also Phase response in degrees.
  • Save the data into floppy disk for processing on the computer.


  • The matlab code attached (Trans_plot.m) will then give plots for the absolute values of transimpedence in V/A.
  • Logic involved in the code will be presented clearly in a separate Elog. 


The Plots of transimpedence obtained are attached. The data and matlab code used is in the zip file.

The transimpedence of  Broadband photodiode (D1002969-v8) was around 1200 - 1300 V/A for most of the range (2), but the value started falling as the frequency approached 200 MHz. 

  10087   Sat Jun 21 01:46:28 2014 NichinUpdateElectronicsBBPD Transimepedence plot

Sorry for the late update Koji.

There was a bug in my code that was pointed out by koji and here is the revised plot of transimpedence. The correct code attached.

The transimpedence value is unusually high, about 50kV/A-70kV/A for most of the range. The same was observed when the transimpedence was calculated on another BBPD in Elog.

It is highly unlikely that both the BBPDs are faulty and might be because I am doing the calculations wrong. Must dig deeper into this. Maybe it is a good idea to try the shot noise method of calculating the transimpedence and see how the values turn out. Will do that ASAP.

  10059   Wed Jun 18 16:44:55 2014 ManasaUpdateElectronicsBBPD installed for BEATX detection

This BBPD is the spare that we pulled out and is installed for ALSX-PSL beat note detection.

  17405   Thu Jan 19 18:15:48 2023 yutaSummaryBHDBH44 RFPD optical path and LO/AS camera

[JC, Paco, Anchal, Yuta]

- We installed the new BH44 beam path and RFPD.

- JC installed the new beam path for the LO/AS camera.

- We succeeded in locking LO Phase with BH44_Q_ERR, but didn't attempt FPMI BH44 because we noted large 60 Hz harmonics in most of our RF error signals.

BH44 RPFD/Camera installation:

- We picked off LO/AS beam path previously going to the camera, and installed a Y1 (45 deg, s-pol) mirror, a f=150mm lens and the RFPD (Attachment #1). We initially tested it using the incandescent light from a flashlight and then aligned the beam, we also made sure it's not saturating.

- Using the spurious transmission from the mirror mentioned above, we steered a new beam path for the camera and realigned it using another short focal length lens (f ~ 100 mm).

LO Phase control:

- We increased the whitening gain from 0 dB to 42 dB for both C1:LSC-BH44_I and C1:LSC-BH44_Q, and zeroed the offsets. Even before this step we could see a fringe from BH44, which is quite promising!

- After alignment was recovered on the LO/AS path, we succeeded in locking the single bounce (ITMX) LO phase using BH44_Q. Here the configuration was FM4, FM5 and a gain of ~ 5 * 0.5 = 2.5 (to match the typical BH55_Q error point).

- While BH44_Q was used to control the LO phase, we saw the BH55_Q was not zero but actually almost at max fringe value (see Attachment #2). This implies the BH44_Q is indeed orthogonal to BH55_Q with respect to the LO Phase!

FPMI lock:

- We locked electronic FPMI but noted a  large 60 Hz + harmonics component in the RF error signals including AS55, BH55, REFL55, and BH44 (see Attachment #3). We could hand off to FPMI and even locked the LO phase with BH44_Q, but we were not sure the BHD_DIFF error signal was fit for handoff to FPMI BHD. Therefore we stopped here.

60 Hz + harmonics:

- We did a quick investigation around the areas we have been working in the lab to see if we had introduced this noise in any obvious way. First we checked the new amplifier for the 44 MHz LO, we briefly removed its power but the 60 Hz noise remained. Then we checked the AP table, but nothing had really changed there. We also disconnected and removed the rolling cart with the marconi and other instruments from the LSC rack. Finally, we turned all the lights down. None of these quick fixes changed the amount of noise.

- We also tried looking at these error signals under different IFO alignment and feedback configurations. We always see the noise in the AS55 and REFL55 quadratures, but not in BH44, BH55 or BHD_DIFF unless MICH is locked.

Next steps:

- Investigate more into 60 Hz noise, why? where?

- Measure sensing matrix with LO Phase locked with BH44 and BH55 to make comparison.


  17410   Mon Jan 23 11:20:44 2023 JCSummaryBHDBH44 RFPD optical path and LO/AS camera

Here's the beam path of BH44.

  17600   Wed May 24 13:19:28 2023 PacoUpdateBHDBH44 and BH55 dc transimpedance modified

We lowered the BH44 and BH55 DC transimpedances to ~ 50 V/A

[Paco, Yuta]


When locking the homodyne phase angle using BH44_Q or BH55_Q error signals, we notice the orthogonal quadrature (BH44_I, BH55_I) sometimes appears too noisy. The origin of this useless signal is not known, but we have recently attenuated these beams by placing ND filters before the two RFPDs to avoid saturation effects which become obvious when we lock PRMI. We decided to investigate further by the following tests:

  • Remove ND filters and lower the DC transimpedances to ~ 50 V/A
  • Check for scattering from suspended optics, e.g. by injecting a line at ITM PIT/YAW and look at the BH44/BH55 demodulated spectra
  • Check for PRCL sensing by BH44/BH55, e.g. by measuring the transfer function and/or running a simulation in finesse.
  • Check the RF spectra for the signals entering the IQ demod boards (including the 44 and 55 MHz LOs).

DC transimpedance modifications

The first thing we did was change the DC transimpedances of both RFPDs. After removing them from the table, we checked the schematics for 40m RFPDs on the wiki. The DC transimpedance for these gold RFPDs (D980454-v1-C) is estimated as (R22*(1+R13/R23), where these resistors are located around the follower and non-inverting amplifier stages along the DC output traces. After opening the two RFPDs and taking photos of the circuits before any changes (Attachment #1-2), we estimated the DC transimpedances from the measured values for R22, R23 and R13 and summarized them below:

Before R13 R22 R23 Est. DC transimpedance
BH44 8.2 kOhm 10.4 Ohm 99.9 Ohm ~ 864.05 V/A
BH55 99.9 kOhm 12.6 Ohm 102.7 Ohm ~ 12.26 kV/A

The changes were made on R13 (photos in Attachments #2-3) and the final values summarized below:

Before R13 R22 R23 Est. DC transimpedance
BH44 402.4 Ohm 10.4 Ohm 99.9 Ohm ~ 52.29 V/A
BH55 309.5 Ohm 12.6 Ohm 102.7 Ohm

~ 50.57 V/A

All changes have been summarized and recorded in the wiki. The ND filters were set to 0.04 (minimum attenuation) and RFPDs reinstalled.

Next steps:

Continue investigating these items:

  • Remove ND filters and lower the DC transimpedances to ~ 50 V/A
  • Check for scattering from suspended optics, e.g. by injecting a line at ITM PIT/YAW and look at the BH44/BH55 demodulated spectra
  • Check for PRCL sensing by BH44/BH55, e.g. by measuring the transfer function and/or running a simulation in finesse.
  • Check the RF spectra for the signals entering the IQ demod boards (including the 44 and 55 MHz LOs).
  17401   Tue Jan 17 20:03:19 2023 yutaSummaryBHDBH44 installations: IQ demodulator is not orthogonal

[Anchal, Paco, JC, Yuta]

We have started hardware installations for BH44 RF PD. 44 MHz LO generation and signal chain from IQ demodulator was checked successfully, but found that IQ demodulator is not orthogonal.

RF PD Interface:
 - We have unplugged Ch2 of the RFPD Interface (labeled "Special") to re-use it for BH44. Ch2 was used for "UNIDENTIFIED" RFPD. DB15 cable was routed to ITMY table and connected to BH44 RF PD (40m/17398) now sitting on the cover of ITMY table. See Attachment #1.
 - Finding a DB15 RF PD interface cable was easy because of the organization work!

44 MHz LO generation:
 - LO for BH44 was generate following the scheme proposed in 40m/17319.
 - 11 MHz LO from RF distributor labeled "+16 dBm" (measured to be 16.5 dBm) and 55 MHz LO labeled "SPARE 55" (measured to be 2.26 dBm) was mixed with a mixer ZFM-1H-S+ (using 11 MHz as LO, and 55 MHz highpass filtered with SHP-50+ as RF). The mixer output was lowpass filtered with SLP-50+, and amplified with ZFL-500LN+, which gave 8.07 dBm at 44 MHz. The second heighest peak was -11.53 dBm at 22 MHz, which seems low enough. See Attachment #2 for the photo of the setup.

IQ demodulation:
 - We have used unused IQ demodulator labeled "AS165" to use it for BH44. See Attachment #3.
 - We have quickly checked if the IQ demodulator is working or not with LO from BH55, PD input of 55 MHz generated using Moku to see I and Q outputs. The outputs are sine waves at frequency consistent with the difference between LO frequency and "PD input" frequency, and the phase was off as expected. Q output was ~4 dBm higher than I output.

Measured diff of BH44:
 - After CDS modifications where done, BH44 IQ demodulator was tested by using 44 MHz LO generated in a method mentioned above, and injecting 11.066195 * 4 MHz signal from Moku as PD input. This gave ~75 Hz signal in C1:LSC-BH44_I and C1:LSC-BH44_Q.
 - With 0dB whitening gain and whitening/unwhitening filters off, gain imbalance was measured to be Q/I=137.04/62.49=2.19, and measured phase difference to be PHASE_D=27.21 deg (see Attachment #4; gpstime=1358051213).
 - With 0dB whitening gain and whitening/unwhitening filters on, gain imbalance was measured to be Q/I=138.44/63.21=2.19, and measured phase difference to be PHASE_D=26.95 deg (see Attachment #5; gpstime=1358051325138). This is consistent with whitening/unwhitening off, and noise is smaller, which mean whitening/unwhitening filters are probably working fine.
 - IQ demodulator board might be not working properly, as I and Q signals are not quite orthogonal.

Model changes:

  • We modified c1lsc, c1hpc and c1cal model for BH44.
  • BH44 ADC pins were identified and connected for RFPD phase rotator.
  • The signals are sent to c1hpc through IPC where BH44 is now available for feedback loops in single and dual demodulation.
  • The whitening filter controls and anti-aliasing filter enable buttons were created in c1iscaux slow machine db files.
  • MEDM screens are updated accordingly (see Attachment #6).

  - Use different IQ demodulator board that has better IQ orthogonality.
  - Connect BH44 RF PD and use 44 MHz test input to check the signal chain.
  - Install BH44 RF PD optical path.
  - Try locking LO_PHASE with BH44.

  17319   Mon Nov 28 18:21:50 2022 PacoSummaryBHDBH44 prep

I checked the LSC rack to evaluate what we might need to generate 44 MHz rf in the hypothetical case we go from BH55 to BH44 (a.k.a. double RF demod scheme). There is an 11 MHz LO port labeled +16 dBm (measured 9 Vpp ~ 23 dBm actually) on the left hand side. Furthermore, there is an unused 55 MHz port labeled "Spare 55 LO". I checked this output to be 1.67 Vpp ~ +8.4 dBm. Anyways the 55 MHz doesn't look very nice; after checking it on the spectrum analyzer it seems like lower frequency peaks are polluting it so it may be worth checking the BH55 LO (labeled REFL 55) signal to see if it's better. Anyways we seem to have the two minimum LOs needed to synthesize 44 MHz in case we move forward with BH44.

[Paco, Yuta]

We confirmed the noisy 55 MHz is shared between AS55, BH55 and any other 55 MHz LOs. Looking more closely at the spectrum we saw the most prominent peaks at 11.06 MHz and 29.5 MHz (IMC and PMC nominal PM freqs). This 55 MHz LO is coming all the way from the RF distribution box near the IOO rack. According to this diagram, this 55 MHz LO should have gone through a bandpass filter; interestingly, checking the RF generation box spare 55 MHz the output is *cleaner* and displays ~ 17 dBm level... ??? Will continue investigating when we actually need this RF.

  17423   Wed Jan 25 18:01:21 2023 yutaSummaryBHDBH44 setup isolated, but 60 Hz noise stays the same

[Paco, Anchal, Yuta]

Isolating BH44 setup from the rest didn't help reducing the 60 Hz noise.crying
Frequency noise from IMC also seems unchanged before and after BH44 installation.

Isolating BH44:
  - To see if BH44 setup installed is causing the 60 Hz issue, we compared the spectra of FPMI sensors with BH44 setup and with BH44 setup disconnected.
  - In the latter configuration, BH44 setup was isolated from the rest by disconnecting the SMA cables and the RFPD power cable, as shown in Attachment #1.
  - There was no significant difference in the spectra with BH44 and with BH44 isolated.
We have even put the old AS156 IQ demodulator board we have pulled out to insert BH44 IQ demodulator board back, but didn't change.
  - We have also disconnected the 22 MHz generation setup around 40m Frequency Generation Unit at 1X2 for switchable IMC/AS WFS, but it also didn't help.
  - Attachment #2 is the orignal spectra with both arms locked with POX and POY, feeding back to respective ETMs (MICH is not locked), and Attachment #3 is those with BH44 setup isolated, AS156 IQ demod back, and 1X2 22MHz generation isolated. Both look basically the same.
  - BH44 setup was reverted after the comparison.

IMC frequency noise:
  - As adding a resonant gain at 60 Hz helped reducing the 60 Hz noise (40m/17419), the noise might be from frequency noise. It also explains why it is not present in MICH when ETMs are mis-aligned, and only present when one of the arms is involved (40m/17413).
  - To see if the frequeny noise at 60 Hz increased after BH44 installation, I compared the spectrum of C1:IOO-MC_F_DQ on January 11 (same Wednesday) with that measured today at almost the same time.
  - Attachment #4 is the result. 60 Hz noise and its harmonics seems almost the same in MC_F. It is rather noisy today in other frequencies, but not at 60 Hz.

  - Read the book.

  17398   Fri Jan 13 13:34:12 2023 AnchalSummaryBHDBH44 tuned and transimpedance measured

I've tuned one gold box RFPD to be resonant at 44.26 MHz and I left the notch to be near 66 MHz, however, it is only effective by 10 dB. Attached is the measured transimpedance using the test port. This measurement should be updated with PD testbed measurement.

This photodiode is ready to be installed for the dual RF lO phase locking scheme.

Thu Jan 19 15:06:43 2023 Updating the measurement with Moku:Pro calibration TF

  17601   Wed May 24 17:36:25 2023 PacoUpdateBHDBH44_I content and PRC alignment

BH44 is sensitive to PRC alignment noise

[Paco, Yuta]

We investigated the content of BH44 demodulated signals under PRMI configuration. We had a few ideas of what was being sensed by BH44_I but we wanted to test this. Attachment #1 shows a timeseries screenshot of the DCPDs and BH44 error signals during PRMI lock stretch. It is pretty clear how BH44_I is sensing the same as REFLDC. To understand what REFLDC is sensitive to, we locked PRY (this is like having a lossy PRC) and looked at REFLDC, and BH44 error signals again. When PRY is aligned nicely, BH44 error signals show clean LO fringes and we could lock LO_PHASE stably (Attachment #2). Dithering the PRM YAW at 0.5 Hz (amplitude of 150 counts) is sensed by the REFLDC output, so we can attribute its fluctuations to the PRC misalignment (Attachment #3). Now we saw that the zero crossing of the homodyne phase angle changes following REFLDC, and LO_PHASE could not be locked stably. These suggest that alignment of PRC is sensed by BH44, and we might need alignment control to stably lock LO_PHASE in PRMI.
To get the idea of what is causing alignment fluctuations of PRC, we checked the spectrum of SUSPIT/YAW of PRM, PR2, PR3, BS, ITMX, and ITMY. It was not clear what is causing REFLDC fluctuations. (But we found that ITMX and ITMY has huge bounce mode at 16.2 Hz; see Attachment #4).

 - Check FINESSE to see what BH44 sees. PRCL? PRG?
 - Commission REFL WFS for alignment control of PRC?
 - Commission dither loops (add option to demodulate PRCL, modulate PR2 and PR3) for alignment control of PRC?
 - Check RF spectrum of BH44 and RF LO for 44 MHz (sidebands other than 44 MHz might be contaminating the signal).
 - Check ITMY scattering. Dither ITMY in YAW and check BH44.
 - Move on to PRMI sideband BHD

  17152   Thu Sep 22 19:51:58 2022 AnchalUpdateBHDBH55 LSC Model Updates - part II

I updated follwoing in teh rtcds models and medm screens:

  • c1lsc
    • Added reading of ADC0_20 and ADC0_21 as demodulated BHD output at 55 MHz, I and Q channels.
    • Connected BH55_I and BH55_Q to phase rotation and creation of output channels.
    • Replaced POP55 with BH55 in the RFPD input matrix.
    • Send BH55_I and BH55_Q over IPC to c1hpc
    • Added BH55 RFPD model in LSC screen, in RFPD input matrix, whitening box. Some work is still remaining.
  • c1hpc
    • Added recieving BH55_I and BH55_Q.
    • Added BH55_I and BH55_Q to sensing matrix through filter modules. Now these can be used to control LO phase.
    • Added BH55 signals to the medm screen.
  • c1scy
    • Updated SUS model to new sus model that takes care of data acquisition rates and also adds BIASPOS, BIASPIT and BIASYAW filter modules at alignment sliders.

Current state:

  • All models built and installed without any issue or error.
  • On restarting all models, I first noticed 0x2000 error on c1lsc, c1scy and c1hpc. But these errors went away with doing daqd restart on fb1.
  • BH55 FM buttons are not connected to antialiasing analog filter. Need to do this and update medm screen accordingly.
  • The IPC from c1lsc to c1hpc is not working. One sender side, it does not show any signal which needs to be resolved.
  17157   Fri Sep 23 19:04:12 2022 AnchalUpdateBHDBH55 LSC Model Updates - part III


I further updated LSC model today with following changes:

  • BH55 whitening switch binary output signal is now routed to correct place.
    • Switching FM1 which carries dewhitening digital filter will always switch on corresponding analog whitening before ADC input.
  • The whitening can be triggered using LSC trigger matrix as well.
  • The ADC_0 input to LSC subsystem is now a single input and channels are separated inside the subsystem.

The model built and installed with no issues.

Further, the slow epics channels for BH55 anti-aliasing switch and whitening switch were added in /cvs/cds/caltech/target/c1iscaux/C1_ISC-AUX_LSCPDs.db

IPC issue resolved

The IPC issue that we were facing earlier is resolved now. The BH55_I and BH55_Q signal after phase rotation is successfully reaching c1hpc model where it can be used to lock LO phase. To resolve this issue, I had to restart all the models. I also power cycled the LSC I/O chassis during this restart as Tega suspected that such a power cycle is required while adding new dolphin channels. But there is no way to find out if that was required or not. Good news is that with the new cds upgrade, restarting rtcds models will be much easier and modular.

ETMY Watchdog Updated

[Anchal, Tega]

Since ETMY does not use HV coil driver anymore, the watchdog on ETMY needs to be similar to other new optics. We made these updated today. Now ETMY watchdog while slowly ramps down the alignment offsets when it is tripped.

  17165   Thu Sep 29 18:01:14 2022 AnchalUpdateBHDBH55 LSC Model Updates - part IV

More model changes


  • BH55_I and BH55_Q are now being read at ADC_0_14 and ADC_0_15. The ADC_0_20 and ADC_0_21 are bad due to faulty whitening filter board.
  • The whitening switch controls were also shifted accordingly.
  • the slow epics channels for BH55 anti-aliasing switch and whitening switch were added in /cvs/cds/caltech/target/c1iscaux/C1_ISC-AUX_LSCPDs.db


  • MC1, MC2, and MC3 are running on new suspension models now.


  • DCPD_A and DCPD_B have been renamed to BHDC_A and BHDC_B following naming convention at other ports.
  • After the input summing matrix, the signals are called BHDC_SUM and BHDC_DIFF now.
  • BHDC_SUM and BHDC_DIFF can be directly using in sensing matrix bypassing the dither demodulation (to be used for DC locking)
  • BH55_I and BH55_Q are also sent for dither demodulation now (to be used in double dither method, RF and audio).
  • SHMEM channel names to c1bac were changed.


  • Conformed with new SHMEM channel names from c1hpc
  17191   Fri Oct 14 17:04:28 2022 RadhikaUpdateBHDBH55 Q abnormality + fix

[Yuta, Anchal, Radhika]

Yesterday we attempted to lock MICH and BHD using the BH55_Q_ERR signal. We adjusted the demodulation phase to send the bulk of the error signal to the Q quadrature. With the LO beam misaligned, we first locked MICH with AS55_Q_ERR. We tried handing over the feedback signal to BH55_Q_ERR, which in theory should have been equivalent to AS55_Q_ERR. But this would not reduce the error and would instead break the MICH lock. Qualitatively the BH55_Q signal looked noisier than AS55_Q.

We used the Moku:Lab to send a 55 MHz signal into the demod board, replacing the BH55 RF input [Attachment 1]. The frequency was chosen to be 10 Hz  away from the demodulation frequency (5x Marconi source frequency). However, a 10Hz peak was not visible from the spectra - instead, we observed a 60 Hz peak. Tweaking the frequency offset a few times, we realized that there must be a ~50Hz offset between the Moku:Lab and the Marconi.

We generated an X-Y plot of BH55_Q vs. AS55_DC with the MICH fringe: this did not follow a circle or ellipse, but seemed to incoherently jump around. Meanwhile the X-Y plot BH55_I vs. AS55_DC looked like a coherent ellipse. This indicated that something might have been wrong with the demod board producing the I and Q quadrature signals.

We fed the BH55 RF signal into an unused demod board (previously AS165) [Attachment 2] and updated the channel routing accordingly. This step recovered elliptical I and Q signals with Moku input signal, and their relative gain was adjusted to produce a circle X-Y plot [Attachment 3]. C1:LSC-BH55_Q_GAIN was adjusted to 155.05/102.90=1.5068, and measured diff C1:LSC-BH55_PHASE_D was adjusted to 94.42 deg.

Now BH55_Q_ERR was able to be used to lock the MICH DOF. However, BH55 still appears to be noisy in both I and Q quadratures, causing the loop to feedback a lot of noise.

Next steps:

- Amplify the BH55 RF signal before demodulation to increase the SNR. In order to power an RF amplifier, we need to use a breakout board to divert some power from the DB15 cable currently powering BH55.

  17195   Mon Oct 17 20:04:16 2022 AnchalUpdateBHDBH55 RF output amplified

[Radhika, Anchal]

We have added an RF amplifier to the output of BH55. See the MICH signal on BH55 outputs as compared to AS55 output on the attached screenshot.


Next steps:

- Amplify the BH55 RF signal before demodulation to increase the SNR. In order to power an RF amplifier, we need to use a breakout board to divert some power from the DB15 cable currently powering BH55.



  • Radhika first tried to use ZFL-500-HLN+ amplifier taken out from the amplifier storage along X-arm.
  • She used a DB15 breakout board to source the amplifier power from PD interface cable.
  • However, she reported no signal at the output.
  • We found that BH55 RFPD was not properly fixed tot eh optical table. We bolted it down properly and aligned the beam to the photodiode.
  • We still did not see any RF output.
  • I took over from Radhika on this issue. I tested the transfer function of the amplifier using moku:lab. I found that it was not amplifying at all.
  • I brought in a beanchtop PS and tested the amplifier by powering it directly. It drew 100 mA of current but showed no amplififcation in transfer function. The transfer function was constant at -40 dB with or without the amplifier powered.
  • I took out another RF amplifier from the same storage. This time a ZFL-1000-LN. I tested it with both benchtop PS and PD interface power source, it was wokring with 20 dB amplification.
  • I completed the installation and cable management. See photos attached.
  • I also took the opportunity to center the ITMY oplev.

Please throw away malfunctioning parts or label them malfunctioning before storing them with other parts. If we have to test each and every part before installation, it will waste too much of our time.


  17196   Mon Oct 17 22:27:25 2022 ranaUpdateBHDBH55 RF output amplified

1) please remember to follow the loading and power up instructions to avoid destroying our low noise RF amplifiers. Its not as easy as powering up any usual device.

2) also, please use the correct decoupling capacitors at the RF amp power pins. Its going to have problems if its powered from a distant supply over a long cable.

  17200   Wed Oct 19 11:09:20 2022 RadhikaUpdateBHDBH55 RF output amplified

[Anchal, Radhika]

We selected a 102K (1 nF) ceramic capacitor and a 100 uF electrolytic capacitor for the RF amplifier power pins. I soldered the connections and reinstalled the amplifier [Attachments 1, 2].


1) please remember to follow the loading and power up instructions to avoid destroying our low noise RF amplifiers. Its not as easy as powering up any usual device.

2) also, please use the correct decoupling capacitors at the RF amp power pins. Its going to have problems if its powered from a distant supply over a long cable.


  17174   Thu Oct 6 11:12:14 2022 AnchalUpdateBHDBH55 RFPD installation complete

[Yuta, Paco, Anchal]

BH55 RFPD installation was still not complete until yesterday because of a peculiar issue. As soon as we would increase the whitening gain on this photodiode, we saw spikes coming in at around 10 Hz. Following events took place while debugging this issue:

  • We first thought that RFPD might be bad as we had just picked it up from what we call the graveyard table.
  • Paco fixed the bad connection issue at RF out and we confired RFPD transimpedance by testing it. See 40m/17159.
  • We tried changing the whitening filter board but that did not help.
  • We used BH55 RFPD to lock MICH by routing the demodulation board outputs to AS55 channels on WF2 board. We were able to lock MICH and increase whitening gain without the presence of any spikes. This ruled out any issue with RFPD.
  • Yuta and I tried swapping the whitening filter board but the problem persisted, which made us realize that the issue could be in the acromag that is writing the whitening gain for BH55 RFPD.
  • We combed through the /cvs/cds/caltech/target/c1iscaux/C1_ISC-AUX_LSCPDs.db file to check if the whitening gain DAC channels are written twice but that was not the case. But changing the scan rate of the whitening gain output channel did change the rate at which teh spikes were coming.
  • This proved that some other process is constantly writing zero on these outputs.
  • It tuned out that all unused channels of acromags for c1iscaux are still defined and made to write 0 through /cvs/cds/caltech/target/c1iscaux/C1_ISC-AUX_SPARE.db file. I don't think we need this spare file. If someone wants to use spare channels, they can quickly add it to dB file and restart the modbusIOC service on c1iscaux, it takes less than 2 minutes to do it. I vote to completely get rid of this file or atleast not use it in the cmd file.
  • After removing the violating channels, the problem with BH55 RFPD is resolved.

The installation of BH55 RFPD is complete now.


  17150   Wed Sep 21 17:01:59 2022 PacoUpdateBHDBH55 RFPD installed - part I

[Radhika, Paco]

Optical path setup

We realized the DCPD - B beam path was already using a 95:5 beamsplitter to steer the beam, so we are repurposing the 5% pickoff for a 55 MHz RFPD. For the RFPD we are using a gold RFPD labeled "POP55 (POY55)" which was on the large optical table near the vertex. We have decided to test this in-situ because the PD test setup is currently offline.

Radhika used a Y1-1025-45S mirror to steer the B-beam path into the RFPD, but a lens should be added next in the path to focus the beam spot into the PD sensitive area. The current path is illustrated by Attachment #1.

We removed some unused OPLEV optics to make room for the RFPD box, and these were moved to the optics cabinet along Y-arm [Attachment #2].


[Anchal, Yehonathan]

PD interfacing and connections

In parallel to setting up the optical path configuration in the ITMY table, we repurposed a DB15 cable from a PD interface board in the LSC rack to the RFPD in question. Then, an SMA cable was routed from the RFPD RF output to an "UNUSED" I&Q demod board on the LSC rack. Lucky us, we also found a terminated REFL55 LO port, so we can draw our demod LO from there. There are a couple (14,15,20,21) ADC free inputs after the WF2 and WF3 whitening filter interfaces.

Next steps

  • Finish alignment of BH55 beam to RFPD
  • Test RF output of RFPD once powered
  • Modify LSC model, rebuild and restart
  17155   Fri Sep 23 14:10:19 2022 RadhikaUpdateBHDBH55 RFPD installed - part I

[Radhika, Paco, Anchal]

I placed a lens in the B-beam path to focus the beam spot onto the RFPD [Attachment 1]. To align the beam spot onto the RFPD, Anchal misaligned both ETMs and ITMY so that the AS and LO beams would not interfere, and the PD output would remain at some DC level (not fringing). The RFPD response was then maximized by scanning over pitch and yaw of the final mirror in the beam path (attached to the RFPD).

Later Anchal noticed that there was no RFPD output (C1:LSC-BH55_I_ERR, C1:LSC-BH55_Q_ERR). I took out the RFPD and opened it up, and the RF OUT SMA to PCB connection wire was broken [Attachment 2]. I re-soldered the wire and closed up the box [Attachment 3]. After placing the RFPD back, we noticed spikes in C1:LSC-BH55_I_ERR and C1:LSC-BH55_Q_ERR channels on ndscope. We suspect there is still a loose connection, so I will revisit the RFPD circuit on Monday. 

  17156   Fri Sep 23 18:31:46 2022 ranaUpdateBHDBH55 RFPD installed - part I

A design flaw in these initial LIGO RFPDs is that the SMA connector is not strain releieved by mounting to the case. Since it is only mounted to the tin can, when we attach/remove cables, it bends the connector, causing stress on the joint.

To get around this, for this gold box RFPD, connect the SMA connector to the PCB using a S shaped squiggly wire. Don't use multi-strand: this is usually good, since its more flexible, but in this case it affects the TF too much. Really, it would be best to use a coax cable, but a few-turns cork-screw, or pig-tail of single-core wire should be fine to reduce the stress on the solder joint.


Later Anchal noticed that there was no RFPD output (C1:LSC-BH55_I_ERR, C1:LSC-BH55_Q_ERR). I took out the RFPD and opened it up, and the RF OUT SMA to PCB connection wire was broken [Attachment 2]. I re-soldered the wire and closed up the box [Attachment 3]. After placing the RFPD back, we noticed spikes in C1:LSC-BH55_I_ERR and C1:LSC-BH55_Q_ERR channels on ndscope. We suspect there is still a loose connection, so I will revisit the RFPD circuit on Monday. 


  17159   Mon Sep 26 11:39:37 2022 PacoUpdateBHDBH55 RFPD installed - part II

[Paco, Anchal]

We followed rana's suggestion for stress relief on the SMA joint in the BH55 RFPD that Radhika resoldered. We used a single core, pigtailed wire segment after cleaning up the solder joint on J7 (RF Out) and also soldered the SMA shield to the RF cage (see Attachment #1). This had a really good effect on the rigidity of the connection, so we moved back to the ITMY table.

We measured the TEST in to RF Out transfer function using the Agilent network analyzer, just to see the qualitative features (resonant gain at around 55 MHz and second harmonic suppression at around 110 MHz) shown in Attachment #2. We used 10kOhm series resistance in test input path to calibrate the measured transimpedance in V/A. The RFPD has been installed in the ITMY table and connected to the PD interface box and IQ demod boards in the LSC rack as before.

Measurement files

  17476   Wed Feb 22 17:32:16 2023 yutaUpdateBHDBH55 and BH44 both amplified

Since we need more signal for both BH55 and BH44 to compare LO phase locking scheme, BH55 and BH44 RF outputs are now amplified with ZFL-1000LN+ and ZFL-500HLN+ respectively (see Attachment #1).
The amplifiers each draw ~0.1 A current of 15V DC power supply, and Sorensen power supply now reads 6.9 A (see Attachment #2).
With ITMX single bounce and LO beam fringing, BH55_Q (45 dB whitening gain, C1:LSC-BH55_PHASE_R=-110 deg) gives ~500 counts in amplitude, and BH44_Q (24 dB whitening gain, C1:LSC-BH44_PHASE_R=4.387 deg) gives ~100 counts in amplitude (and they are orthogonal) (see Attachment #3).

  17478   Thu Feb 23 14:55:49 2023 yutaUpdateBHDBH55 and BH44 orthogonality checks

Ideally, BH55 and BH44 should give orthogonal signals to lock LO phase (40m/17302).
This was checked with various interferometer configurations.
BH55 and BH44 are indeed orthogonal in ITM single bounce and MICH, but was not measurable in FPMI.
Maybe we should investigate BH44 in MICH BHD configuration first to see why BH44 is very noisy in FPMI.

 - X-Y plotted BH55_Q and BH44_Q and fitted with an ellipse to derive amplitude of each signal and phase difference between them.
 - Amplitude and phase differences are calculated using the following equations, where (ap, bp) are the semi-major and semi-minor axes, respectively, and phi is the rotation of the semi-major axis from the x-axis. (Thanks to Tomohiro for checking the calculations!)

 xAmp = np.sqrt((ap * np.cos(phi))**2 + (bp * np.sin(phi))**2)
 yAmp = np.sqrt((ap * np.sin(phi))**2 + (bp * np.cos(phi))**2)
 phaseDiff = np.arctan(bp/ap*np.tan(phi)) + np.arctan(bp/ap/np.tan(phi))

Jupyter notebook: /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/Git/40m/scripts/CAL/BHD/MeasurePhaseDiff.ipynb

 - This was done un following 4 configurations.
  - ITMX single bounce vs LO
  - ITMY single bounce vs LO
  - AS beam in MICH locked with AS55_Q vs LO
  - AS beam in FPMI locked with REFL55/AS455 vs LO
 - For each configuration, RF demodulation phases were tuned to minimize I.
 - Statistical error was estimated by calculating the standard deviation of 3 measurements.

 - Also, FPMI BHD sensing matrix was measured when FPMI is locked with REFL55/AS55, and LO_PHASE is locked with BH55_Q or BH44_Q.

Jupyter notebook: /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/Git/40m/scripts/CAL/SensingMatrix/ReadSensMat.ipynb

Result of BH55/BH44 orthogonality check:
 - ITMX single bounce vs LO
            Demod phase         Amplitude       Phase Diff
    BH55_Q  -94.4 +/- 0.2 deg   600.4 +/- 0.6   
    BH44_Q  -9.0 +/- 0.2 deg    124.3 +/- 0.2   -86.7 +/- 0.1 deg

 - ITMY single bounce vs LO
            Demod phase         Amplitude       Phase Diff
    BH55_Q  -92.9 +/- 0.3 deg   588.0 +/- 0.3   
    BH44_Q  -8.9 +/- 0.3 deg    123.0 +/- 0.1   -87.2 +/- 0.1 deg

 - AS beam in MICH locked with AS55_Q vs LO
            Demod phase         Amplitude       Phase Diff
    BH55_Q  -68.7 +/- 0.8 deg   44 +/- 1   
    BH44_Q  -28.5 +/- 1.7 deg   10.3 +/- 0.1   -84 +/- 2 deg

 - AS beam in FPMI locked with REFL55/AS455 vs LO
            Demod phase         Amplitude       Phase Diff
    BH55_Q  35 +/- 3 deg        257 +/- 4   
    BH44_Q  -16 +/- 3 deg       44 +/- 1        -77 +/- 3 deg

 - Attachmented pdf contain example X-Y plots from each configuration. For ITM single bounce and MICH, BH55 and BH44 seems to be orthogonal, but for FPMI, ellipse fit does not go well.
 - Difference in the BH55 demodulation phase for ITMX single bounce and ITMY single bounce (1.5 +/- 0.4 deg) agrees with past measurement and agree marginally with Schnupp asymmetry (40m/17274).
 - Maybe we can derive some length differences using these demodulation phases.

Result of FPMI sensing matrix measurements:
 - Below is the sensing matrix when FPMI is locked with REFL55/AS55, and LO_PHASE is locked with BH55_Q. BH44 is noisier than BH55, and the response to LO1 is consistent with zero. This is also consistent with BH44 being orthogonal to BH55, but the error bar is too large to say.

Sensing matrix with the following demodulation phases (counts/m)
{'AS55': -168.5, 'REFL55': 92.32, 'BH55': -110.0, 'BH44': -8.93097234187195}
Sensors       DARM @307.88 Hz           CARM @309.21 Hz           MICH @311.1 Hz           LO1 @315.17 Hz           
AS55_I       (-2.49+/-8.35)e+10 [90]    (+2.36+/-0.85)e+11 [0]    (-0.64+/-3.99)e+10 [0]    (+0.57+/-4.07)e+09 [0]    
AS55_Q       (-3.50+/-0.08)e+11 [90]    (+0.09+/-1.20)e+11 [0]    (-0.79+/-8.66)e+09 [0]    (-0.70+/-5.96)e+08 [0]    
REFL55_I       (+0.72+/-8.09)e+11 [90]    (-1.42+/-2.75)e+12 [0]    (+0.00+/-1.37)e+11 [0]    (-0.38+/-2.78)e+09 [0]    
REFL55_Q       (+0.19+/-1.93)e+11 [90]    (-2.14+/-6.92)e+11 [0]    (+0.00+/-3.16)e+10 [0]    (+0.17+/-1.19)e+09 [0]    
BH55_I       (-1.41+/-0.55)e+11 [90]    (+1.46+/-2.28)e+11 [0]    (-1.60+/-3.72)e+10 [0]    (-0.07+/-3.05)e+09 [0]    
BH55_Q       (+2.05+/-3.10)e+10 [90]    (-1.72+/-4.86)e+10 [0]    (-0.31+/-2.19)e+10 [0]    (-3.06+/-0.87)e+09 [0]    
BH44_I       (-0.41+/-2.03)e+11 [90]    (+0.10+/-2.39)e+11 [0]    (+0.06+/-1.31)e+11 [0]    (-0.01+/-2.71)e+10 [0]    
BH44_Q       (+0.14+/-3.23)e+12 [90]    (+0.02+/-3.67)e+12 [0]    (+0.07+/-2.03)e+12 [0]    
(-0.02+/-4.22)e+11 [0]    
BHDC_DIFF       (+8.49+/-0.47)e+11 [90]    (-0.06+/-2.93)e+11 [0]    (-0.16+/-1.01)e+10 [0]    (-0.27+/-2.04)e+09 [0]    
BHDC_SUM       (-2.30+/-0.11)e+11 [90]    (+0.68+/-7.92)e+10 [0]    (-0.44+/-3.33)e+09 [0]    (-0.63+/-5.63)e+08 [0]  

 - Below is the sensing matrix when FPMI is locked with REFL55/AS55, and LO_PHASE is locked with BH44_Q. BH44 response to LO1 is again consistent with zero. Locking LO_PHASE with BH44 is not robust. Also, BHDC_DIFF response to DARM is less, compared with LO_PHASE locked with BH55_Q. This means that BH55 is somehow better than BH44 in our FPMI BHD, which contradicts with simulations (with no contrast defect and DARM offset).

Sensing matrix with the following demodulation phases (counts/m)
{'AS55': -168.5, 'REFL55': 92.32, 'BH55': -110.0, 'BH44': -8.93097234187195}
Sensors       DARM @307.88 Hz           CARM @309.21 Hz           MICH @311.1 Hz           LO1 @315.17 Hz           
AS55_I       (-7.56+/-4.89)e+10 [90]    (+1.61+/-1.05)e+11 [0]    (+0.51+/-2.48)e+10 [0]    (+0.88+/-8.02)e+08 [0]    
AS55_Q       (-3.62+/-0.05)e+11 [90]    (+0.02+/-1.23)e+11 [0]    (+0.67+/-3.73)e+09 [0]    (+0.02+/-1.28)e+08 [0]    
REFL55_I       (+1.09+/-8.12)e+11 [90]    (-1.47+/-2.82)e+12 [0]    (+0.01+/-1.34)e+11 [0]    (+2.20+/-5.29)e+08 [0]    
REFL55_Q       (+0.22+/-1.93)e+11 [90]    (-1.83+/-7.23)e+11 [0]    (+0.02+/-3.18)e+10 [0]    (+0.56+/-1.17)e+08 [0]    
BH55_I       (-1.21+/-0.08)e+12 [90]    (+0.17+/-4.31)e+11 [0]    (-1.24+/-3.02)e+10 [0]    (-0.30+/-3.55)e+09 [0]    
BH55_Q       (-3.83+/-0.30)e+11 [90]    (-0.12+/-1.42)e+11 [0]    (-0.61+/-1.96)e+10 [0]    (-0.21+/-1.49)e+09 [0]    
BH44_I       (-0.22+/-2.01)e+11 [90]    (-0.07+/-2.30)e+11 [0]    (-0.02+/-1.27)e+11 [0]    (+0.08+/-2.62)e+10 [0]    
BH44_Q       (-0.77+/-8.27)e+11 [90]    (-0.13+/-9.51)e+11 [0]    (-0.04+/-5.23)e+11 [0]    (+0.02+/-1.08)e+11 [0]    
(+1.94+/-0.81)e+11 [90]    (-0.58+/-1.84)e+11 [0]    (+0.18+/-3.53)e+10 [0]    (-0.49+/-3.84)e+09 [0]    
BHDC_SUM       (-2.22+/-0.12)e+11 [90]    (+0.66+/-7.70)e+10 [0]    (-1.04+/-3.97)e+09 [0]    (+0.31+/-6.10)e+08 [0]

Other notes:
 - TRX and TRY are noisier at ~28 Hz when locked with REFL55/AS55 than when locked with POX/POY. DARM signal seems to be contaminated with broad 28 Hz noise. Needs investigation of the cause.
 - BS oplev loops seem to be close to unstable. When FPMI is unlocked, BS is kicked significantly.

 - Repeat measurement in 40m/17351 with BH44.
 - Compare LO phase noise in MICH configuration when LO_PHASE is locked with BH44 and BH55.
 - Investigate 28 Hz noise in FPMI
 - Tune BS local damping loops

  17176   Thu Oct 6 18:50:57 2022 AnchalSummaryBHDBH55 meas diff angle estimation and LO phase lock attempts

[Yuta, Paco, Anchal]

BH55 meas diff

We estimated meas diff angle for BH55 today by following this elog post. We used moku:lab Moku01 to send a 55 MHz tone to PD input port of BH55 demodulation board. Then we looked at I_ERR and Q_ERR signals. We balanced the gain on I channel to 1.16 to get the two signals to same peak to peak heights. Then we changed the mead diff angle to 91.97 to make the "bounding box" zero. Our understanding is that we just want the ellipse to be along x-axis.

We also aligned beam input to BH55 bit better. We used the single bounce beam from aligned ITMY as the reference.

LO phase lock with single RF demodulation

We attempted to lock LO phase with just using BH55 demodulated output.


  • ITMX, ETMs were significantly misaligned.
  • At BH port, overlapping beams are single bounce back from ITMY and LO beam.

We expected that we would be able to lock to 90 degree LO phase just like DC locking. But now we understand that we can't beat the light with it's own phase modulated sidebands.

The confusion happened because it would work with Michelson at the dark port output of michelson, amplitude modulation is generated at 55 MHz. We tried to do the same thing as was done for DC locking with single bounce  and then michelson, but we should have seen this beforehand. Lesson: Always write down expectation before attempting the lock.


  17203   Fri Oct 21 10:37:36 2022 AnchalSummaryBHDBH55 phase locking efforts

After the amplifier was modified with a capacitor, we continued trying to approach locking LO phase to in quadrature with AS beam. Following is a short summary of the efforts:

  • To establish some ground, we tested locking MICH using BH55_Q instead of AS55_Q. After amplification, BH55_Q is almost the same level in signal as AS55_Q and a robust lock was possible.
  • Then we locked the LO phase using BH55_Q (single RF sideband locking), which locks the homodyne phase angle to 90 degrees. We were able to successfully do this by turning on extra boost at FM2 and FM3 along with FM4 and FM5 that were used to catch lock.
  • We also tried locking in a single ITMY bounce configuration. This is a Mach-Zehnder interferometer with PR2 acting as the first beam splitter and BHDBS as the recombination beamsplitter. Note that we failed earlier at this attempt due to the busted demodulation board. This lock worked as well with single RF demodulation using BH55_Q.
  • The UGF achieved in the above configurations was ~15 Hz.
  • In between and after the above steps, we tried using audio dither + RF sideband, and double demodulation to lock the LO phase but it did not work:
    • We could see a good Audio dither signal at 142.7 Hz on the BH55_Q signal. SNR above 20 was seen.
    • However, on demodulating this signal and transferring all signal to C1:HPC-BH55_Q_DEMOD_I_OUT, we were unable to lock the LO phase.
    • Using xyplot tool, we tried to see the relationship between C1:HPC-BHDC_DIFF_OUT and C1:HPC-BH55_Q_DEMOD_I_OUT. The two signals, according to our theory, should be 90 degrees out of phase and should form an ellipse on XY plot. But what we saw was basically no correlation between the two.
    • Later, I tried one more thing. The comb60 filter on BH55 is not required when using audio dither with it, so I switched it off.
      • I turned off comb60 filters on both BH55_I and BH55_Q filter modules.
      • I set the audio dither to 120 Hz this time to utilize the entire 120 Hz region between 60 Hz and 180 Hz power line peaks.
      • I changed the demodulation low pass filter to 60 Hz Butterworth filter. I tried using 2nd order to lose less phase due to this filter.
      • These steps did not fetch me any different results than before, but I did not get a good time to investigate this further as we moved into CDS upgrade activities.
  17205   Sat Oct 22 21:36:28 2022 ranaSummaryBHDBH55 phase locking efforts

give us an animated GIF of this cool new tool! - I'm curious what happens if you look at 2 DoF of the same suspension. Also would be cool to apply a bandpass filter before plotting XY, so that you could look for correlations at higher frequencies, not just seismic noise


Using xyplot tool, we tried to see the relationship between C1:HPC-BHDC_DIFF_OUT and C1:HPC-BH55_Q_DEMOD_I_OUT. The two signals, according to our theory, should be 90 degrees out of phase and should form an ellipse on XY plot. But what we saw was basically no correlation between the two.

  17790   Wed Aug 16 17:16:13 2023 KojiUpdateGeneralBHD / Misc Inventory

== BHD Components ==

We still have a spare BHD BS @South end optics cabinet. (Attachment 1)

18bit DAC AI:
We have 4x D1000305 aLIGO 18-bit AI Chassis Top Assembly Drawing (4xDB9 Version) @1X3B Rack (Attachment 2)
This version has two DB25M connectors to be connected to DAC. (Attachment 3)

16bit DAC AI kit: To turn the above 18bit AI to D1101521 aLIGO AI 16-Bit DAC Chassis Top Assembly (4xDB9 Dsub config) @Y10 section beneath the tube
- We have 5x rear panels in "Front Panel" box. They are labeled "ADC" rather than "DAC" but work with DACs. (Attachment 4)
- We hacve 4x D0700101 16 bit DAC AI Rear Interface Board in "16bit DAC AI Rear PCB" box. They have already been assembled. (Attachments 5/6)

== Misc discovery ==

Many Eurocard Anti Imaging Boards (Rev C) D000186-C @Y10 section beneath the tube (Attachment 7)
Whaaat! It's the differential version of the iLIGO AI boards... orz

Hidden NPRO set marked broken @Y9 section beneath the tube (Attachments 8-10)
It's the broken NPRO from an end, but we should try to determine which head and controller are broken.
Related ELOG in 2017

  17802   Tue Aug 22 15:56:53 2023 KojiUpdateGeneralBHD / Misc Inventory

Photodiode inventory: [OMC ELOG 615]

  17813   Tue Aug 29 01:39:47 2023 KojiUpdateGeneralBHD / Misc Inventory

40m BHD OFI Inventory

  • OFI HWP 1
    • Motorized Rotary Stage Thorlabs PDR1V Qty 1
    • 0.5inch HWP: QWPO-1064-05-2 IDEX Optical Tech aka CVI Qty 1
    • Stainless SM5 retainer ring POLARIS-SM05RR (Qty 1 + spare 1)
    • Thorlabs KIM001
    • Power Supply KPS201
    • Post D2300286 (86.69mm = 3.413"), Newport Type https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-D2300286
    • Fork, Newport Type
  • OFI TFP 1/2
    • Thorlabs LMR1V Qty2
    • Post (84.455mm = 3.325), Newport Type Qty2
    • Fork, Newport Type Qty2
    • 1" TFP obtained from LHO
  • OFI FR
    • Already in hand
  • OFI HWP2
  15524   Fri Aug 14 00:01:55 2020 gautamUpdateCDSBHD / OMC model channels now added to autoburt

I added the EPCIS channels for the c1omc model (gains, matrix elements etc) to the autoburt such that we have a record of these, since we expect these models to be running somewhat regularly now, and I also expect many CDS crashes.

  16954   Tue Jun 28 14:24:23 2022 yutaUpdateBHDBHD DC PD signals now also sent to c1lsc to circumvent IPC error

[JC, Yuta]

To circumvent IPC error sending BHD DC PD signals from c1sus2 to c1lsc, DB9 cable from BHD DC PD box sent to c1sus2 is now split and sent also to c1lsc.
They are now available in both

c1sus2 ADC1
C1:X07-MADC1_EPICS_CH16 (DC PD A) and CH17 (DC PD B)

c1lsc ADC1
C1:X04-MADC1_EPICS_CH4 (DC PD A) and CH5 (DC PD B)

 - Add battery powered SR560 to decouple c1sus2 and c1lsc to avoid the ground loop

  17265   Mon Nov 14 17:45:02 2022 yutaUpdateBHDBHD DC PD unwhitening and removing cables to c1lsc

[Paco, Yuta]

We removed splitter to route BHD DC PD signals to c1hpc and c1lsc. This was necessary to circumvent IPC error, but this is no longer necessary. Now BHD DC PD signals are ADC-ed with c1hpc, and sent to c1lsc via IPC.
We also found that BHD DC PD signals have whitening filters as described in LIGO-T2000500 (Readout board is LIGO-D1400384).
We added unwhitening filter zpk([151.9;3388],[13.81],1,"n") to C1:HPC_BHDC_A and B, based on measured whitening stage gain (see Sec 3.1 of characterization reoprt in LIGO-T2000500).
This solved the signals leaking to minus (40m/17068).

 - Modify c1hpc model to send BHD DCPD signals to c1lsc after unwhitening. (Note added on Nov 15: The same unwhitening filter is also added to C1:LSC-DCPD_A and B for now. See attached.)
 - Redo visibility measurements,

  16932   Tue Jun 21 14:17:50 2022 yutaConfigurationBHDBHD DCPDs re-routed to c1sus2

After discussing with Anchal, we decided to route BHD related PD signals directly to ADC of c1sus2, which handles our new suspensions including LO1, LO2, AS1, AS4, so that we can control them directly.
BHD related PD signals will be sent to c1lsc for DARM control.

Re-cabling was done, and now they are online at C1:X07-MADC1_EPICS_CH16 (DC PD A) and CH17 (DC PD B) with 15ft DB9 cable.
Here, DC PD A is the transmission of BHD BS for AS beam, and DC PD B is the reflection of BHD BS for AS beam (see attached photo).

  17034   Mon Jul 25 18:09:41 2022 TegaConfigurationBHDBHD Homodyne Phase control MEDM screen

[Paco, Tega, Yuta]

Today, we made a custom MEDM screen for the BHD Homodyne Phase Control, which is basically an overview of the c1hpc model. See Attachments 1 & 2 for details.

  17024   Wed Jul 20 18:07:52 2022 PacoUpdateBHDBHD MICH test

[Paco, Yuta, JC]

We did some easy tests on the BHD readout in preparation for BHD MICH. With the arm cavities and LO beam misaligned, but the MICH aligned, we measured the transfer function from C1:LSC-DCPD_A_OUT to C1:LSC-DCPD_B_OUT to get a rough estimate of the gain balance: 1.8 * DCPD_A = DCPD_B. We then locked MICH using REFL55_Q and looked at

  • 1.8 * A - B (which we encoded using C1:LSC-PRCL_A_IN1)
  • 1.8 * A + B (which we encoded using C1:LSC-PRCL_B_IN1)

namely the DCPD BHD signals. After turning the MICH_OSC on (2000 gain @ 311.1 Hz), we took some power spectra under the following three configurations:

  1. LO misaligned, no MICH offset.
  2. LO overlap, no MICH offset.
  3. LO overlap and MICH offset.

For 1. the expectation was that since LO is misaligned and the AS port is dark, we would get no signal. In 2., however both A and B would might see some incoherent signal, but still no MICH. Finally in 3. all signals should be able to see MICH, including A-B. Attachment #1 shows the measurements 1, 2, and 3 (offset = -5.0). Then, with increasing offset values, the BHD MICH signals increased as well; discussion to follow.

  17037   Tue Jul 26 20:54:08 2022 PacoUpdateBHDBHD MICH test - LO phase control

[Yuta, Paco]

TL;DR Successfully controlled LO phase, and did BHD-MICH readout with various MICH offsets and LO phases.

Today we implemented a DCPD based LO phase control. First, we remeasured the balancing gain at 311.1 Hz (the MICH oscillator freq) and combined C1:HPC-DCPD_A_OUT with C1:HPC-DCPD_B_OUT to produce the balanced homodyne error signal (A-B). We feed this error signal to C1:HPC-LO_PHASE_IN1 and for the main loop filters we simply recycled the LSC-MICH loop filters FM2 through FM5 (we also copied FM8, but didn't end up using it much). Then, we verified the LO phase can be controlled by actuating either on LO1 or LO2. For LO2, we added an oscillator in the HPC LOCKINS at 318.75 Hz (we kept this on at 1000 counts for the measurements below).

The LO phase control was achieved with a loop gain in the range of 10-30 (we used 20), no offset, and FM4, and FM5 engaged. FM2 can be added to boost, but we usually skipped FM3. Then, we went through a set of measurements similar to the ones described in a previous elog. A key difference with respect to the measurements from before is that we locked MICH using AS55Q (as opposed to REFL55Q). This allowed us to reach higher MICH offsets without losing lock. After turning on the MICH oscillator at 3000 counts, we looked at:

  1. LO misaligned + MICH at dark fringe (offset = -21).
    • Here, we don't expect to see any MICH signal and indeed we don't, except for a small residual peak from perhaps a MICH offset or slightly imbalanced PDs.
  2. LO aligned, but uncontrolled + MICH at dark fringe (offset = -21).
    • Here we would naively expect MICH to show up in A-B, but because of the uncontrolled LO phase, we mostly see the noise baseline (mostly from LO RIN? ...see measurement 3) under which this signal is probably buried. Indeed, the LO fringe increased noise in A, B, and A-B but not in A+B. This is nice. yes
  3. LO aligned, but uncontrolled + MICH with dc readout (offset = +50).
    • Here we expected the MICH signal to show up due to the large offset, and we can indeed see it in A, B, and A+B, but not in A-B. Nevertheless we see almost exactly the same noise level even though we allow some AS light into the BHD readout, so maybe the noise observed in the A-B channel from measurements 2 and 3 is mostly from LO RIN. This needs further investigation...
  4. LO aligned, controlled at no offset + MICH with dc readout (offset = +50).
    • In general here we expected to see a noise reduction in the A-B channel since the LO fringe is stable, and a MICH signal should appear. Furthermore, since LO phase is under control, we expect the LO2 Oscillator to appear which it does for this and the following measurements. Because of the relative freedom, we tried this measurement in two cases:
      1. When feeding back to LO1
        • We actually see MICH in the A-B channel, as expected, after the noise level dropped by ~ 5. We also observed small sidebands +- 1 Hz away from the MICH peak, probably due to local damping in either LO or AS paths.
      2. When feeding back to LO2
        • We also see MICH here, with a slightly better drop in noise (relative to feeding back to LO1). Sidebands persisted here, but around at +- 2 Hz.
  5. LO aligned, controlled (offset = 10) + MICH with dc readout (offset = +50). *
    • Here, we expected the A-B MICH content to increase dramatically, and indeed it does after a little tuning of the LO phase heart. The noise level decreased slightly because LO phase noise is decreased around the optimal point.
  6. LO aligned, controlled (offset = 20) + MICH with dc readout (offset = +30). *
    • Here, we naively expected A+B MICH content to decrease, but A-B remain constant. In order to see this we tried to keep the balance between the offsets, but this was hard. We don't really see much of this effect, so this also needs further investigation. As long as we keep controlling the LO phase using the DCPDs because the offsets tend to reduce the error signal we will have a harder time.

* For these measurements we actuated on LO2 to keep the LO phase under control.

Note that the color code above corresponds to the traces shown in Attachment #1.

What's next?

  • Alignment of LO and AS might be far from optimized, so it should be tried more seriously.
  • What's the actual LO power? How does it compare with AS power at whatever MICH offsets?
  • Try audio dither LO phase control.
    • With MICH offset.
    • Without MICH offset, double demod (after dolphin fix crying)
  15357   Tue May 26 19:19:30 2020 HangUpdateBHDBHD MM-- effects of astigmatism

Please see the attached doc. 

I think the conclusion is that if the AS1 RoC error is not significantly more than 1%, then with some adjustment of the AS1-AS3 distance (~ 1 cm), we could find a solution that simultaneously makes the AS path mode-matching better than 99% for the t- and s-planes. 

The requirement of the LO path is less strict and the current plan using LO1-LO2 actuation should work. 

  15684   Mon Nov 23 12:25:14 2020 gautamUpdateBHDBHD MMT Optics delivered

Optics --> Cabinet at south end (Attachment #1)

Scanned datasheets--> wiki. It would be good if someone can check the specs against what was ordered.

ELOG V3.1.3-