40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 33 of 344  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Category Subjectup
  17208   Tue Oct 25 08:25:00 2022 JCUpdateBHDBHD fringe aligned with reduced LO and AS beam clipping

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:
                  Pitch       Yaw     
    -0.4672     -0.7714
C1:SUS-MC2:      4.0446     -1.3558
C1:SUS-MC3:     -2.0006      1.6001


  17067   Tue Aug 9 15:33:12 2022 yutaUpdateBHDBHD fringe contrast improved from 43% to 74%

[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 %

  17068   Tue Aug 9 15:50:22 2022 KojiUpdateBHDBHD fringe contrast improved from 43% to 74%

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?

  17273   Wed Nov 16 15:09:08 2022 yutaUpdateBHDBHD fringe contrast measured with unwhitening filters

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

  15295   Fri Apr 3 13:40:07 2020 JonUpdateBHDBHD front-end complication

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.

Hardware is easy - you will also need a DX switch and the cables

As for the driver - the last update (version 4.4.5) was in 2016.  The notes on it say valid for Linux kernel 2.6 to 3.x.  This implies that it will not work with Linux kernel 4.x and greater

So - Gentoo with 3.0 kernel OK, SL7 (kernel 3.10)  - OK,   Debian 8 (kernel 3.16) - OK   

But Debian 9 (kernel 4.9),Debian 10 (kernel 4.19) - NOT OK

We have Gentoo with kernel 3.0  boot server, etc. [used in L1,H1 production right now, but not much longer] The hard part here will be making sure we have network drivers for the SuperMicro 5018-MR.

CDS was never able to get real-time builds to work well on Linux kernels from 3.2 on up until we got to Debian 9. This is not to say that the tricks and stripped-down RCG we found worked for real-time on Debian 9 and 10 won’t work on, say, Debian 8.  But we have not tried.

I have a query out to Dolphin asking:

  1. Have they done any testing of these old drivers on Linux kernel 4.x (e.g., Debian 9/10)?
  2. Is there any way to buy modern IPC cards for the two new machines and interface them with our existing Gen1 network?

I'll add more info if I hear back from them.

  15299   Tue Apr 7 10:56:39 2020 JonUpdateBHDBHD front-end complication

I have a query out to Dolphin asking:

  1. Have they done any testing of these old drivers on Linux kernel 4.x (e.g., Debian 9/10)?
  2. Is there any way to buy modern IPC cards for the two new machines and interface them with our existing Gen1 network?

Answers from Dolphin:

  1. No, and kernel 4.x (modern Linux) definitely will not work with the Gen1 cards.
  2. No, cards using different PCIe chipsets cannot be mixed.

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.)

  16475   Thu Nov 18 14:29:01 2021 KojiSummaryBHDBHD invac optics / opto-mechanics

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.

ssome partssss
Name Optic Mount Mount OH Post Post OH Fork / Base Base OH Total Height Notes
POP_SM5  Previous POYM1 / 2" Y1-2037-0 LMR2V Thorlabs 1.36 Custom Post 4.14 SS Fork 0 5.5  
POP_SM4 New CM254-750-E03 Thorlabs LMR1V Thorlabs 0.87 Newport 9953+PLS-T238 3.88 BA1V / BA2V 0.75 5.5  
BSOL1 New 2" VIS BB2-E02 LMR2V Thorlabs 1.36 Custom Post 4.14 SS Fork 0 5.5  
ITMYOL1 New 2" VIS BB2-E02 LMR2V Thorlabs 1.36 Custom Post 4.14 SS Fork 0 5.5  
ITMYOL2 New 2" VIS BB2-E02 LMR2V Thorlabs 1.36 Custom Post 4.14 SS Fork 0 5.5  
SRMOL1 New 2" VIS BB2-E02 LMR2V Thorlabs 1.36 Custom Post 4.14 SS Fork 0 5.5  
ASL LA1779-C Thorlabs or KPX217AR.33 Newport LMR2V Thorlabs 1.36 Custom Post 4.14 SS Fork 0 5.5  
GRY_SM1 Y2-2037-0 (in hand) DLC   DLC Post   DLC Fork   5.5  
BHDBS CVI (In hand) DLC 2 DLC Post   DLC Fork   5.5 (3" post for BHD)
LO3 Lambda (in hand) POLARIS-K1-2AH Thorlabs 1 Custom Post 4.5 SS Fork 0 5.5 (3" post for BHD)
LO4 Lambda (in hand) POLARIS-K1-2AH Thorlabs 1 Custom Post 4.5 SS Fork 0 5.5 (3" post for BHD)
AS3 Lambda (in hand) POLARIS-K1-2AH Thorlabs 1 Custom Post 4.5 SS Fork 0 5.5 (3" post for BHD)
OMC1R3 Y1-1025-45P (in hand) POLARIS-K1-2AH Thorlabs 1 Custom Post 4.5 SS Fork 0 5.5 (3" post for BHD)
OMC1R4 Y1-1025-45P (in hand) POLARIS-K1-2AH Thorlabs 1 Custom Post 4.5 SS Fork 0 5.5 (3" post for BHD)
OMC2R3 Y1-1025-45P (in hand) POLARIS-K1-2AH Thorlabs 1 Custom Post 4.5 SS Fork 0 5.5 (3" post for BHD)
OMC2R4 Y1-1025-45P (in hand) POLARIS-K1-2AH Thorlabs 1 Custom Post 4.5 SS Fork 0 5.5 (3" post for BHD)
OMC1R1 Y1-1025-45P (in hand) LMR1V Thorlabs 0.87 Custom Post 4.63 SS Fork 0 5.5 (3.13" post for BHD)
OMC2R1 NB1-K14 Thorlabs LMR1V Thorlabs 0.87 Custom Post 4.63 SS Fork 0 5.5 (3.13" post for BHD)


  15336   Mon May 18 18:00:16 2020 HangUpdateBHDBHD mode-matching study

[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.

  15337   Tue May 19 15:24:06 2020 ranaUpdateBHDBHD mode-matching study

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.

  15339   Wed May 20 18:45:22 2020 HangUpdateBHDBHD mode-matching study--corner plot & adjustment requirement

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:   
  15151   Fri Jan 24 13:56:21 2020 JonUpdateBHDBHD optics specifications

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:

  • PR2 replacement: What transmission do we need for a ~100 mW pickoff? Also, do we want to keep the current curvature of -700 m?
  • LO mode-matching telescope: What are the curvatures of the two mirrors?
  • Lenses: We have six of them in the current layout. What FLs do we need?

The spreadsheet is editable by anyone. If you can contribute any information, please do!

  15305   Thu Apr 16 21:13:20 2020 JonUpdateBHDBHD optics specifications


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.

Optics Specifications

At a glance, all the specifications can be seen in the optics summary spreadsheet.

LO Telescope Design

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:

  • LM1 (ROC = +10 m, AOI 3°)
  • LM2 (Flat, AOI  45°)
  • MMT1 (Flat, AOI  5°)
  • MMT2 (ROC = +3.5 m, AOI  5°)

The resulting beam profile is shown in Attachment 1.

AS Telescope Design

The AS beam is relayed from the SRM to the BHD beamsplitter (and mode-matched to the OMCs) via the following sequence:

  • AS1 (ROC = +1.5 m, AOI  3°)
  • AS2 (Flat, AOI  45°)
  • Lens (FL = -125 mm)

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.

  15334   Fri May 15 09:18:04 2020 JonUpdateBHDBHD telescope designs accounting for ASC

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).

LO Telescope Design (Attachment 1)

Radius of curvatures:

  • LO1: +10 m
  • LO2: flat
  • LO3: +15 m
  • LO4: flat

AS Telescope Design (Attachment 2)

Radius of curvatures:

  • AS1: +3 m
  • AS2: flat
  • AS3: -1 m
  • AS4: flat
  16849   Thu May 12 20:11:18 2022 AnchalUpdateBHDBHDBS Output beams steered out to ITMY table

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.

  • The counterweights were kept at the North end of the table which was in way of one of the output beams of BHD.
  • So I saved the level meter positions in my head and removed those counterweights.
  • I also needed to remove the cable post for ITMY and SRM that was in the center of the table.
  • I installed a new cable post which is just for SRM and is behind AS2. ITMY's cable post is next to it on the other edge of the table. This is to ensure that BHD board can come in later without disturbing existing layout.
  • I got 3 Y1-45P and 1 Y1-0 mirror. The Y1-0 mirror was not installed on a mount, so I removed an older optic which was unlabeled and put this on it's mount.
  • Note that I noticed that some light (significant enough to be visible on my card) is leaking out of the 45P mirrors. We need to make sure we aren't loosing too much power due to this.
  • Both beams are steered through the center of the window, they are separating outside and not clipping on any of the existing optics outside. (See attachment 1, the red beam in the center is the ITMY oplev input beam and the two IR beams are the outputs from BHD BS).
  • Also note that I didn't find any LO beam while doing this work. I only used AS beam to align the path.
  • I centered the ITMY oplev at the end.

Next steps:

  • LO path needs to be tuned up and cleared off again. We need to match the beams on BHD BS as well.
  • Setup steering mirrors and photodiodes on the outside table on ITMY.
  17303   Wed Nov 23 14:59:11 2022 PacoSummaryBHDBHD_DIFF sensitivity to BS dither with MICH Offset

[Yuta, Paco, Anchal]

We measured

(a) BHDC_DIFF sensitivity to BS dither for a set of MICH offsets.


  • MICH locked with AS55_Q
    • The MICH offset was varied below
  • LO_PHASE locked with BH55_Q
    • Balanced DCPD_A and DCPD_B by applying a digital gain of 1.00 to DCPD_A
    • Changed the BH55 demod angle to 140.07 deg to minimize BH55_I
  • BS dither at 311.1 Hz
    • Use newly added HPC_BS Lockins to readback the demodulated signals

Results & Discussion

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.

  17309   Wed Nov 23 20:58:23 2022 yutaSummaryBHDBHD_DIFF sensitivity to BS dither with MICH Offset with different BH55 demodulation phases

[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.

Notebook: /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/Git/40m/scripts/CAL/BHD/BH_DIFFSens_pydemod.ipynb

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.

Notebook: /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/Git/40m/scripts/CAL/BHD/BH_DIFFSens_pydemod.ipynb

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.

Notebook: /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/Git/40m/scripts/CAL/BHD/BH_DIFFSens_pydemod.ipynb

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?

  16188   Sun Jun 6 16:33:47 2021 JonUpdateCDSBI channels on c1auxey

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:

  • The five EnableMon BI channels are moved to a new Acromag XT1111 unit (BIO01), whose channels are configured in Modbus as inputs.
  • One new DB37M connector is added for the 11 spare BI channels on BIO01.
  • The five channels freed up on the existing XT1111 (BIO00) are wired to the existing connector for spare BO channels.

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.

  16189   Mon Jun 7 13:14:20 2021 YehonathanUpdateCDSBI channels on c1auxey

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.

  16193   Tue Jun 8 11:54:39 2021 YehonathanUpdateCDSBI channels on c1auxey

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.


Tomorrow I will test the BIs using EPICs.


  15248   Wed Mar 4 12:25:11 2020 gautamUpdateCDSBIO1 on c1psl is dead

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 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.

  5567   Wed Sep 28 18:39:50 2011 MirkoUpdatePEMBLRM seismic channels in c1pem


Created 5-band BLRMS for seismometer data (Gur1, Gur2 and STS1 each in x,y,z respectively) and accelerometer 1 through 6.

Bands are:
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.

  6523   Wed Apr 11 22:48:39 2012 ranaUpdateEnvironmentBLRMS


  7183   Tue Aug 14 21:01:51 2012 ranaUpdatePEMBLRMS


I fixed up the seismic.stp file for the StripTool display:

  1. All BLRMS channels now have a y-axis range of 3 decades. So they all are displaying the same relative changes.
  2. So the 0.01-0.1 Hz band which is all over the place is real, sort of. Masha says that it is due to the seismometer signal being dominated by noise below 0.1 Hz. She is going to fix this somehow.
  3. I changed the samping time from 1 sec. to 10 sec. to make the traces less fuzzy.
  4. We (Masha / Liz) should harmonize the colors of this file with what's on the summary pages.
  8764   Thu Jun 27 15:50:03 2013 JenneUpdatePEMBLRMS are going crazy

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:





  8773   Thu Jun 27 21:45:48 2013 ranaUpdatePEMBLRMS are going crazy

Its an increase in the microseismic peak. Don't know what its due to though.

  7745   Mon Nov 26 18:36:17 2012 JenneUpdatePEMBLRMS back


 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.

  11849   Fri Dec 4 18:20:36 2015 gautamUpdateCDSBLRMS for IMC setup

[ericq, gautam]

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:

  1. The entire operation seems to be computationally quite expensive - just for the 3 IMC mirrors, the average CPU time for C1PEM increased from ~50 usec (before any changes were made to C1PEM) to ~105 usec just as a result of installing 420 filter modules with no filter coefficients loaded (3 optics x 10 channels x 14 filter banks) to ~120 usec when all the BP and LP filters for the BLRMS blocks have been loaded and turned on (Attachment #1). Eric suggested that it may be computationally more efficient to do this without using the BLRMS library part - i.e. rather than having so many filter modules, do the RMS-ing using a piece of C code that essentially just implements the same SOS filters that FOTON generates, I will work on setting this up and checking if it makes a difference. The fact that just having empty filter modules in the model almost doubled the computation time suggests that this approach may help, but I have to think about how to implement some of the automatic checks that having a filter bank in place gives us, or if these are strictly necessary at all...
  2. While restarting the C1PEM model, we noticed that some of the optics were shaking - looking at the CPU timing signals for all the models on C1SUS revealed that both the C1SUS model and the C1MCS model were geting overclocked when C1PEM was killed (see the sharp spikes in the red and green traces in Attachment #2 - the Y scale in this plot is poor and doesnt put numbers to the overclocking, I will upload a better screenshot that Eric took once I find it). The cause is unknown.
  3. Yesterday, I noticed that when C1PEM was restarted, the states of the filter bank switches were not reverted to their states in the SDF tables. They are showing up as changes, but it is unclear why we have to manually revert them. I have also not yet added the states of the newly installed filters (BPs and LPs for the MC BLRMS blocks) to the SDF tables. 

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).

  11844   Thu Dec 3 18:18:48 2015 gautamUpdateCDSBLRMS for optics suspensions - library block

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. 

  12064   Tue Apr 5 14:16:34 2016 gautamUpdateCDSBLRMS for optics suspensions - library block UPDATED

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...

  9744   Sun Mar 23 14:20:07 2014 ranaHowToLSCBLRMS screens

 We should make screens like this for the LSC signals, errors, ALS, etc.

  5835   Mon Nov 7 16:42:56 2011 JenneUpdateAdaptive FilteringBLRMS's to monitor OAF channels

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.

  7016   Tue Jul 24 02:12:14 2012 MashaUpdatePEMBLRMS, MEDM, Triangulation

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.

  2210   Mon Nov 9 12:09:10 2009 AlbertoOmnistructureEnvironmentBNC Cable Laid Down from South End to East VErtex

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

  8016   Wed Feb 6 20:00:06 2013 ManasaUpdateElectronicsBNC cables piled up at every corner

 [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.





  9927   Thu May 8 00:40:39 2014 ericqUpdateLSCBNC vs. 2pin LEMO for AO

 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:

  • Generated a 5mVpp 1.3kHz signal with an SR785 and fed that into CM board In1, all boosts off, 0dB AO gain. 
  • Both BNC and LEMO connected to CM servo out
  • One of BNC or LEMO connected to IN2 of MC servo, input gain of 30dB but disabled, OUT2 switched to AO and fed to Agilent spectrum analyzer. 
  • Terminated MC IN2 for comparison. 

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. 

  13118   Sat Jul 15 01:28:53 2017 jigyasaUpdateCamerasBRDF Calibrations

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.. 

  13119   Sat Jul 15 13:40:59 2017 ranaUpdateCamerasBRDF Calibrations

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.

  13121   Sun Jul 16 11:58:36 2017 jigyasaUpdateCamerasBRDF Calibrations


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!


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.


  13122   Sun Jul 16 12:09:47 2017 jigyasaUpdateCamerasBRDF Calibrations

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.  



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!


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.



  4858   Wed Jun 22 18:41:23 2011 NicoleSummarySUSBROKEN bread board circuit box and L9337 LED Current Versus Voltage Curve

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


  12054   Wed Mar 30 11:35:24 2016 steveUpdatesafetyBS visitor's viewport is protected with lexan

The four horizontal viewports of arms are protected
by 3/8" thick, 8.5" OD Lexan disk of MR10 Polycarbonate.

ITMX, ETMX, ITMY and ETMY ccd cameras are not focused now.

BS visitor's viewport glass is now covered with Lexan MR10

this Lexan cover is in vertical orientation so becomes lose when the black anodized cover is removed.
It needs to be held in place

while it's housing is taken off.
  16586   Fri Jan 14 12:01:21 2022 AnchalUpdateElectronicsBS & ITMY feedthroughs labeled and connected to Sat Amps

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.


  10802   Tue Dec 16 00:20:06 2014 diegoUpdateOptical LeversBS & PRM OL realignment

[Rana, Diego]

We manually realigned the BS and PRM optical levers on the optical table.

  5322   Tue Aug 30 10:49:29 2011 steveUpdateSUSBS & PRM damping restored

I have restored the damping of BS and PRM. Today is janitor day. He is shaking things around the lab.

  11233   Wed Apr 22 11:21:51 2015 SteveUpdateOptical LeversBS & PRM oplevs are back to normal

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.




  11087   Mon Mar 2 17:02:01 2015 ericqUpdateLSCBS - PRM decoupling

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.

Measurement details:

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.

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

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

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

  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).

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

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

We have to do something to get rid of this.


  16866   Thu May 19 19:05:59 2022 AnchalUpdateBHDBS Chamber all work finished, BHD path setup

[Anchal, Paco, Yuta]

BS Oplev Path

  • The changed position of PRM (40m/16863) meant that BS oplev path is getting clipped by the PRM SOS tower.
  • We had to move BSOL ~ 16 cm North and ~ 1.7 cm East.
  • This means that the BS Oplev input beam is now coming behind TT2 instead of infront of it.
  • We also had to align the beam such that input and returning beam are colinear.
  • This meant we, had to change the mount of the upstream beamsplitter in the in-air table so that we can use that for separating the return beam.
  • Again, we should order 2 inc visible BS for this path.
  • Half of the return beam is making its way all the way back to the laser head. I'm not sure if that can be an issue for our oplev loops.
  • We kept the SRM Oplev path same using irises on the table.

PRM Oplev

  • Again, due to changed position of PRM and BS Oplev, it became very hard to setup oplev for PRM.
  • We found a special position which allows us to catch returning beam through the center of the window.
    • But this returning beam is not prompt reflection from PRM, it is reflection of the HR surface.
    • We are hitting about ~5 mm from the edge of PRMOL mirror (because we cannot move the mirror anymore south to avoid clipping BS and SRM input oplev beams)
    • We put in a 1.1m focal length lens in the input beam to narrow the beam on PRMOL so that it doesn't clip
  • We did not put any lens for the return beam. The sensitivity of this oplev might be low due to slighlty bigger beam on the QPD than others (SRM, BS). We can revisit and insert a lens later if required.

Interferometer alignment and PRM alignment

  • The work on BS table did not change the table balance much. We got back the alignment pretty much instantly.
  • We were able to maximize the arm transmissions.
  • Then we used a beam card with hole to check for reflection from PRM and used PRM (mostly pitch correction) to get the return beam back in same way.
  • This recovered REFL beam on the camera. We used REFLDC signal to align PRM better and maximized it.
  • We centered BS, SRM and PRM oplevs after this point.

LO beam mode correction and spatial overlap

  • We tried changing the distance between LO3 and LO4 to get a better output LO beam.
  • We also tried to swap the LO4 mirror with the spare mirror but we had the same result.
  • Eventually, we decided to move LO3 back to East and LO4 to the west edge of the table. This made the beam sizes comparable.
    • Future exercise: We think that LO1 or LO2 might be significantly off-spec in their ROCs which might cause this issue.
    • We should rerun the calculations with the ROC values of LO1 and LO2 written in the datasheets and figure out the correct LO3-LO4 length required.
    • We can make this change in the next vent if required.
  • After the beam sizes were looking approximately similar but more iterations of changing length and realigning are required.

Remaining tasks before pumpdown

  • Push/pull too bright/dark OSEMs in the SOSs (40m/16865).
  • Finish LO beam mode correction and spatial overlap.
  • Center all oplevs, note all beam positions on camera, and note down all DC PD values at proper alignment.
  13437   Tue Nov 21 11:37:29 2017 gautamUpdateOptical LeversBS OL calibration updated

I calibrated the BS oplev PIT and YAW error signals as follows:

  1. Locked X-arm, ran dither alignment servos to maximize transmission.
  2. Applied an offset to the ASC PIT/YAW filter banks. Set the ramp time to something long, I used 60 seconds.
  3. Monitored the X arm transmission while the offset was being ramped, and also the oplev error signal with its current calibration factor.
  4. Fit the data, oplev error signal vs arm transmission, with a gaussian, and extracted the scaling factor (i.e. the number which the current Oplev error signals have to be multiplied by for the error signal to correspond to urad of angular misalignment as per the overlap of the beam axis to the cavity axis.
  5. Fits are shown in Attachment #1 and #2.
  6. I haven't done any error analysis yet, but the open loop OL spectra for the BS now line up better with the other optics, see Attachment #3 (although their calibration factors may need to be updated as well...). Need to double check against OSEM readout during the sweep.
  7. New numbers have been SDF-ed.

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.


ELOG V3.1.3-