I found this interesting entry by Rana in the old (deprecated) elog : here

I wonder if Rolf has ever written the mentioned GUI that explained the rationale behind the test point number mapping.

I'm just trying to add the StochMon calibrated channels to the frames. Now I remember why I kept forgetting of doing it...

At ITMX, on the CES side, 5 Ft  from the wall the jackhammer is on. The susses are holding well.

We are celebrating Rob's promotion to thesis poetry.  These pictures were taken on December 9, 2009

Rob has finished all his measurements in the lab and is officially well prepared to graduate.

 It turns out that we perfecly timed the big one

In the process of finding the signal of the big chilean earthquake I just realized that we were all off

 Hold on, did the arms get re-baptized?

John Miller has arrived from Australia with 3 bags of  Wagonga Coffee. Trade bargaining has started on

250 mgs of Sumatran Mandehling, Timur and Papua New Guine.

I'm cleaning out to make room for our new optical cabinet. Are we keeping these? There are  ~20  pieces of 10" od 1" wide tapes and large number of cassettes.

AJW,  Zucker,  Stuart A and Koji were notified in this matter.

Alan suggested to save data of Bruce Allen paper of observation of binary neutron stars in the 40m on 1994 November 14-20 and save back up tapes of his period in the 40m.

Mike: reels are not readable any more, it is time to let go

 After Kiwamu set the REFL11 phases in the PRMI configuration (maximized PRM->REFL11I reesponse) I tried to measure the MC length and the 11 MHz frequency missmatch by modulating the 11 MHz frequency and measuring the PM to AM conversion after the MC using the REFL11Q signal. The modulation appears in the REFL11Q with a good snr but the amplitude does not seem to go through a clear minimum as the 11 MHz goes through the MC resonance.

We could not relock the PRMI during the day so I resorted to a weaker method - measuring the amplitude of the 11 MHz sideband in the MC reflection (RF PD mon output on the demod board) with a RF spectrum analyzer. The minimum frequency on the IFR is 11.065650 MHz while the nominal setting was 11.065000 MHz. The sensitivity of this method is about 50 Hz.

Elog crashed a couple times, restarted it a couple times.

Just a reminder that a film crew will be here Monday morning, filming Christian Ott for some Discovery channel show.

They are slated to be here from 8am to 12:30pm or so.  They will take a couple of shots inside the lab, and the rest of the filming should be of Christian in the control room (which they will "clean up" and fit with "sexy lighting").  I will try to be here the whole time to oversee everything.

Also, according to Steve, there will be some crane guys for fixing the Y end crane issue (#5124) Monday morning.

Konecrane Fred was early this morning. He diagnosed the ETMY crane horizontal drive gear box dead and left just before the film crew showed up.

New gear box should be here by the end of this week for installation.

The lab air quality is high ~20,000 counts of particles of 0.5 micron.  Keep an eye on this before you open the chamber.

Elog did not respond despite running the /cvs/cds/caltech/elog/start-elog.csh  script two times.  

It worked the after the third restart. 
 

It seems like there is some confusion---or disagreement---amongst the lab about how to proceed with the RAM work (as Rana mentioned at the TAC meeting, we will henceforth refer to it only as "RAM" and never as "RFAM"; those who refuse to follow this protocol will be taken out back and shot).

I would like to provide a rough outline and then request that people reply with comments, so that we can get a collective picture of how this should work. I have divided this into two sections: 1) Methodology, which is concerned with the overall goal of the testing and the procedure for meeting them, and 2) General Issues, which are broadly important regardless of the chosen methodology.

1. Methodology

There are two broad goals:

• Characterization of extant RAM
  • Measuring the RAM levels existing in an aLIGO-type interferometer without any suppression systems
  • Modeling to estimate the effect on IFO control and corroboration with measurements where possible
    • DC RAM levels contributing offsets to IFO operating point
    • Quasi-DC RAM levels affecting long term detector tuning (e.g., sensing matrix, MICH -> DARM feedforward, etc.)
    • Audio-frequency RAM contributing noise directly via error point modulation
  • Modeling to scale/adapt results from 40m -> aLIGO
• Mitigation
  • Developing and assessing systems for suppressing RAM
    • Passive: thermal shielding and isolation
    • Active: EOM temperature control
      • Simple temperature stabilization
      • RAM error signal

The question is: which is our goal? The first, the second, or both? If both, what priority is given to which and can/should they be done in parallel? Also, task distribution.

2. General Issues

These are loosely related, so they are in random order:

• Sensing
  • Temperature
    • What is the priority/urgency of a precision AC-bridge-readout temperature sensor?
    • If priority/urgency is low, what is the priority/urgency of upgrading breadboard controller to protoboard version? The common answer will be "make the protoboard version now", but if the urgency of the final AC sensing is high, it may make sense to focus on finalizing that design (after all, other experiments are waiting on a precision temperature controller, and it is not cost-effective to make many temporary controllers as I have done for the 40m).
    • Sensor noise issues
      • What is the sensor-noise-limited temperature stabilization level?
      • What is our willingness to tolerate the thermal low-passing of the EOM can itself (i.e., what is our sensitivity to gradients)?
      • To answer the above questions, we need to perform stabilization tests with several sensors on the same can, with some in loop (averaged) and some out of loop.
      • If we determine that gradients are a problem, we may need to:
        • Design a casing for outside the EOM (inside the foam box) to make the heating uniform, or
        • We may be able to get away with a more customized heater (instead of heating the can from one side as we do now).
  • Optical RAM
    • Stochmon is a nice diagnostic tool, but do we want something better? In particular, we want to have linear signals about a zero-DC-RAM point, which requires phase
      • Where will this sensor be located?
      • What kind of PD will it be? Broadband? Multi-resonant?
      • What sort of electronics will we need? If we are going to use this as an error signal for controlling the EOM temperature, it is just as important as any other IFO readout, since it may couple into all of them.
        • RF pickup is a BIG ISSUE HERE
        • How will the demodulation phases be selected? It should be possible to take TF measurements in certain misaligned (i.e., non-resonant) conditions and adjust the relative phase between the RAM readouts and standard IFO RF readouts such that they are in phase, but this will require some thinking.
        • Lots more, I'm sure
• Control
  • Method (overlaps some with methodology portion)
    • What is better, simple temperature stabilization or RAM feeback? (More likely, "how much better is RAM feedback?")
    • If RAM feedback is difficult or impossible to implement effectively (see below), is temperature stabilization good enough?
  • Regime
    
    • Depending on extant RAM levels and on achievable sensing noise, it will be unwise and/or unnecessary to have a RAM control bandwidth above some relatively low frequency (~sub Hz)
      • Gain where RAM suppression is not needed only injects noise into the system
      • This cutoff frequency is largely determined by the thermal response of the system, but additional filtering will likely be necessary to reduce higher-frequency noise coupling (e.g., nonlinear downconversion of high-frequency signals into heater dissipation, etc.)
  • Efficacy
    • If we do RAM feedback, which signal (i.e. which frequency and quadrature) do we minimize?
      • Do we achieve large common-mode reduction across all RF signals, or is there some differential component?
      • In particular, do we make some or all other control signals noisier by stabilizing/minimizing RAM in one channel?
      • If the answer is yes, can we derive an effective control signal from a linear combination of some or all individual RAM signals?

There are probably many other issues I have neglected, so please comment on this rough draft as you see fit!

Since no one has made any comments, I will assume that everyone is either 100% satisfied with the outline or they have no interest in the project. Under this assumption, I will make decisions on my own and begin planning the individual steps in more detail.

In particular, I will assume that our goal comprises BOTH characterization of RAM levels and mitigation, and I will try to find the best way that both can be achieved as simultaneously as possible. 

I know it's really hard to remember, but our future selves will thank us dearly if we remember to commit all of our code changes to the svn with nice log messages.  At the moment there's a LOT of modified stuff in the userapps working directory that needs to be committed:

controls@pianosa:/opt/rtcds/userapps/release 0$ svn status | grep '^M'
M       cds/c1/models/c1rfm.mdl
M       sus/c1/medm/templates/SUS_SINGLE.adl
M       sus/c1/models/c1mcs.mdl
M       sus/c1/models/c1sus.mdl
M       sus/c1/models/c1scx.mdl
M       sus/c1/models/c1scy.mdl
M       isc/c1/models/c1pem.mdl
M       isc/c1/models/c1ioo.mdl
M       isc/c1/models/ADAPT_XFCODE_MCL.c
M       isc/c1/models/c1oaf.mdl
M       isc/c1/models/c1gcv.mdl
M       isc/common/medm/OAF_OVERVIEW.adl
M       isc/common/medm/OAF_DOF_BLRMS.adl
M       isc/common/medm/OAF_OVERVIEW_BAK.adl
M       isc/common/medm/OAF_ADAPTATION_MICH.adl
controls@pianosa:/opt/rtcds/userapps/release 0$ 

This doesn't even include things that haven't even been added yet.  It doesn't take much time.  Just copy and paste what you elog about the changes.

Let's see if the ripples observed in the MC ringdown can be due to tilt motion of the mirrors.

The time it takes to produce a phase shift corresponding to N multiples of 2*pi is given by:

t = sqrt(2*N*lambda/(L*omega_T^2*(alpha_1+alpha_2)))

L is the length of the MC (something like 13m), and alpha_1, alpha_2 are the DC tilt angles of the two mirrors "shooting into the long arms of the MC" produced by the MC control with respect to the mechanical equilibrium position. omega_T is the tilt eigenfrequency of the three mirrors (assumed to be identical). lambda = 1.064e-6m;

The time it takes from N=1 to N=2 (the first observable ripple) is given by: tau1 = 0.6/omega_T*sqrt(lambda/L/(alpha_1+alpha_2))

The time it takes from N=2 to N=3 is given by: tau2 = 0.77*tau1

etc

First, we also see in the measurement that later ripples are shorter than early ripples consistent with some accelerated effect. The predicted ripple durations tau seem to be a bit too high though. The measurements show something like a first 14us and a late 8us ripple. It depends somewhat on the initial tilt angles that I don't know really.

In any case, the short ripple times could also be explained if the tilt motions start a little earlier than the ringdown, or the tilt motion starts with some small initial velocity. The next step will be to program a little ringdown simulation that includes mirror tilts and see what kind of tilt motion would produce the ripples exactly as we observe them (or maybe tilt motion cannot produce ripples as observed).

Isn't it just a ringing of the intracavity power as you shifted the laser frequency abruptly?

Hmm. I don't know what ringing really is. Ok, let's assume it has to do with the pump... I don't see how the pump laser could produce these ripples. They have large amplitudes and so I always suspected something happening to the intracavity field. Therefore I was looking for effects that would change resonance conditions of the intracavity field during ringdown. Tilt motion seemed to be one explanation to me, but it may be a bit too slow (not sure yet). Longitudinal mirror motion is certainly too slow. What else could there be?

Laser frequency shift = longitudinal motion of the mirrors

Ringing: http://www.opticsinfobase.org/ol/abstract.cfm?uri=ol-20-24-2463

Ok, so the whole idea that mirror motion can explain the ripples is nonsense. At least, when you think off the ringdown with "pump off". The phase shifts that I tried to estimate from longitudinal and tilt mirror motion are defined against a non-existing reference. So I guess that I have to click on the link that Koji posted...

Just to mention, for the tilt phase shift (yes, there is one, but the exact expression has two more factors in the equation I posted), it does not matter, which mirror tilts. So even for a lower bound on the ripple time, my equation was incorrect. It should have the sum over all three initial tilt angles not only the two "shooting into the long arms" of the MC.

With a curvature radius of about 57m for the ETMs, flat ITMs at the beam waist, and using 39m for the arm lengths, one finds that the beam radius at the ETMs is about 5.3mm. The clipping power loss of a 5.3mm beam through a 20mm radius baffle hole would be less than a ppm of a ppm if the beam was perfectly centered. If the baffle hole had 15mm radius, the clipping loss would be 0.01ppm. If the baffle hole had 10mm radius, the loss would be 810ppm. The loss values are calculated using the formula of the  "Gaussian beam" Wikipedia article, "Power through an aperture" section. So I did not check if that one is ok.

I finally managed to get long stretches of PRMI lock, up to many minutes. The lock is not yest very stable, it seems to me that we are limited by some yaw oscillation that I could not trace down. The oscillation is very well visible on POP.

Presently, PRCL is controlled with REFL55_I, while MICH is controlled with AS55_Q. This configuration is maybe not optimal from the point of view of phase noise couplings, but at least it works quite well. I believe that the limit on the length of locks is given by the angular oscillation. I attach to this entry few plots showing some of the lock stretches. The alignment is not optimal, as visible from a quite large TEM01 mode at the dark port.

Here are the parameters I used:

MICH gain -10   PRCL gain -0.1

Normalization of both error signal on POP22_I with factor 0.004

Triggering on POP22: in at 100, out at 20 for both MICH and PRCL.

POP55 demodulation phase -9

MICH and PRCL control signal limits at 2000 counts

There is a high frequency (628 Hz) oscillation going on when locked (very annoying on the speakers...), but reducing the gain made the lock less stable. I could go down to MICH=-1.5 and PRCL=-0.02, still being able to acquire the lock. But the oscillation was still there. I suspect that it is not due to the loops, but maybe some resonance of the suspension or payload (violin mode?). There is still some room for fine tuning...

Lock is acquired without problems and maintained for minutes.

Have a nice week-end!

[Gabriele, Jenne]

I put a notch in FM10 for both MICH and PRCL at 628Hz, to try to prevent us from exciting the mode that Gabriele saw on Friday.  Since those filter banks were all full, I have removed an ELP50 (ellip("LowPass",4,1,40,50)).  I write it down here, so we can put it back if so desired.

 Koji asked me to perform a simulation of the response of POP QPD DC signal to mirror motions, as a function of the CARM offset. Later than promised, here are the first round of results.

I simulated a double cavity, and the PRC is folded with parameters close to the 40m configuration. POP is extracted in transmission of PR2 (1ppm, forward beam). For the moment I just placed the QPD one meter from PR2, if needed we can adjust the Gouy phase. There are two QPDs in the simulation: one senses all the field coming out in POP, the other one is filtered to sense only the contribution from the carrier field. The difference can be used to compute what a POP_2F_QPD would sense. All mirrors are moved at 1 Hz and the QPD signals are simulated:

This shows the signal on the POP QPD when all fields (carrier and 55 MHz sidebands) are sensed. This is what a real DC QPD will see. As expected at low offset ETM is dominant, while at large offset the PRC mirrors are dominant. It's interesting to note that for any mirror, there is one offset where the signal disappears.

This is the contribution coming only from the carrier. This is what an ideal QPD with an optical low pass will sense. The contribution from the carrier increases with decreasing offset, as expected since there is more power.

Finally, this is what a 2F QPD will sense. The contribution is always dominated by the PRC mirrors, and the ETM is negligible.

The zeros in the real QPD signal is clearly coming from a  cancellation of the contributions from carrier and sidebands.

The code is attached.

 When I got back to the lab, there was enough water that it was seeping under the wall, and visible outside. Physical plant says it will take an hour before they can come, so I'm getting dinner, then will let them in.

 The guy from physical plant came, and turned off the water to the kitchen sink.  He is putting in a work order to have the plumbers come look at it on Monday morning.  It looks like something is wrong with the water heater, and we're getting water out of the safety overpressure valve / pipe.

The wet things from under the sink are stacked (a little haphazardly) next to the cupboards.

Last supper before departing at  "Grazie" El Portal. All the best on your journey!

While tightening the bolts on the ETMX wire clamp, the wire broke. All four face magnets broke off. 

Fortunately, no pieces were lost.

For the rest of this vent, at least, we need to start using the EQ stops more frequently. Whenever the suspension is being worked on clamp the optic. When you need it to be free back off the stops, but only by a few hundred microns - never more than a millimeter.

Best to take our time and use the stops often. With all the magnets being broken off, its not clear now how many partially cracked glue joints we have on dumbells which didn't completely fall off.

"Why does the word wrapping not work in our browsers with ELOG?" I sometimes wonder. Some of the elogs are fine, but often the 40m one has the text run off the page.

I found that this is due to people uploading HUGE images. If you need to do this, just use the shrink feature in the elog compose window so that we only have to see the thumbnail at first. Otherwise your 12 MP images will make it hard to read everyone else's entries.

A novice was learning at the feet of Master Daqd. At the end of the lesson he looked through his notes and said, “Master, I have a few questions. May I ask them?”

Master Daqd nodded.

"Do we record minute trends of our data?"

"Yes, we record raw minute trends in /frames/trend/minute_raw"

"I see. Do we back up minute trends?"

"Yes, we back up all frames present in /frames/trend/minute"

"Wait, this means we are not recording our current trends! What is the reason for the existence of seperate minute and minute_raw trends?

“The knowledge you seek can be answered only by the gods.”

"Can we resume recording the minute trends?"

Master Daqd nodded, turned, and threw himself off the railing, falling to his death on the rocks below.

Upon seeing this, the novice was enlightened. He proceeded to investigate how to convert raw minute trends to minute trends so that historical records could be preserved, and precisely when Master Daqd started throwing himself off the mountain when asked to record minute trends.

     It took at least ten years to rust away.

We have no coffee machine.

We are dreaming about it

We still do not have it.

New all organic machine.

The toilet tank in the big bathroom stopped refilling. I contacted PPService@caltech.edu and put up an "Out of Order sign".

a plumber came in yesterday and fixed the issue.