40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 55 of 335  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Typeup Category Subject
  8035   Fri Feb 8 12:42:45 2013 nicolasSummaryGeneralPRC/arm mode matching calculations


  The main issue is that flipping PR3 induces considerable astigmatism.

Yes, at 45degrees PR3 will only have a curvature of about 850m for the vertical mode of the beam, apparently not enough to stabilize the cavity.

  8040   Fri Feb 8 18:23:32 2013 JamieSummaryGeneralarbcav of half PRC with flipped PR2

Arbcav with half PRC (flat temporary mirror in front of BS), PR2 RoC = 600m, PR3 RoC = -600m:


NOTE: this does NOT include the affect of the PR2 substrate in the cavity.  Arbcav does not handle that.  It would have to be modified to accept arbitrary ABCD matrices.

NOTE: I added to the mode plot the frequency separation of the first HOMs from the carrier (\omega_{10/01}), in units of carrier FSR.

  8041   Fri Feb 8 19:29:44 2013 yutaSummaryGeneralarbcav of half PRC with flipped PR2

We need expected finesse and g-factor to compare with mode-scan measurement. Can you give us the g-factor of the half-PRC and what losses did you assumed to calculate the finesse?

Also, flipped PR2 should have RoC of - R_HR * n_sub (minus measured RoC of HR surface multiplied by the substrate refractive index) because of the flipping.
According to Jenne dictionary, HR curvature measured from HR side is;

PRM: -122.1 m
PR2: -706 m
PR3: - 700 m
TM in front of BS: -581 m

Please use these values to calculate expected g-factor so that we don't get confused.


Arbcav with half PRC (flat temporary mirror in front of BS), PR2 RoC = 600m, PR3 RoC = -600m:

  8048   Fri Feb 8 23:22:48 2013 DenSummaryModern Controlprogress report

 I wrote a small document on the application of LQG method to a Fabry-Perot cavity control.

Attachment 1: LQG.pdf
LQG.pdf LQG.pdf LQG.pdf LQG.pdf LQG.pdf LQG.pdf LQG.pdf
  8053   Sun Feb 10 18:00:13 2013 yutaSummaryLSCPR2-flipped half-PRC spectra/OLTF

To compare with future PRMI locking, I measured spectra of POPDC and feedback signal. I also measured openloop transfer function of half-PRC locking.
Beam spot motion was at ~ 2.4 Hz, not 3.3 Hz.

  Below is uncalibrated spectra of POPDC and LSC feedback signal (C1:LSC-PRM_OUT).

  Below is openloop transfer function of the half-PRC locking loop. UGF is ~ 120 Hz and phase margin is ~ 45 deg. This agrees with the expected curve.

  Data was taken when half-PRC was locked using REFL11_I as error signal and actuating on PRM.


  For comparison, POPDC when PRMI was locked in July 2012: elog #6954 and PRCL openloop transfer function: elog #6950.

  Peak in the spectra of POPDC and feedback signal was at ~ 3.3 Hz in July 2012 PRMI, but it is now at ~ 2.4 Hz in half-PRC. The peak also got broader.
  Is it because of the change in the resonant frequency of the BS-PRM stack? How much the load on BS-PRM changed?
  Or is it because of the change in the resonant frequency of PR2/PR3?

  Phase margin is less now because of gain boost ~ 5 Hz and resonant gain at 24 Hz.

  8054   Mon Feb 11 12:49:54 2013 JenneSummaryLSCResonant freq change - why? (and passive TT mode freqs)


  Is it because of the change in the resonant frequency of the BS-PRM stack? How much the load on BS-PRM changed?
  Or is it because of the change in the resonant frequency of PR2/PR3

I claim that neither of those things is plausible.  We took out 1 PZT, and put in 1 active TT onto the BS table.  There is no way the resonant frequency changed by an appreciable amount due to that switch.

I don't think that it is the resonant frequency of the TTs either.  Here, I collate the data that we have on the resonant frequencies of our tip tilts.  It appears that in elog 3425 I recorded results for TTs 2 and 3, but in elog 3447 I just noted that the measurements had been done, and never put them into the elog.  Ooops.

Resonant frequency and Q of modes of passive tip tilts. 

  Vertical Yaw Pos Side
TT1 f0=20, Q=18 f0=1.89, Q=3.8 f0=1.85, Q=2 f0=1.75, Q=3.2
TT2 f0=24, Q=7.8 f0=1.89, Q=2.2 f0=1.75, no Q meas f0=1.8, Q=4.5
TT3 f0=20, Q=34 f0=1.96, Q="low" f0=1.72, Q=3.3 f0=1.85, Q=6
TT4 f0=21, Q=14 f0=1.88, Q=2.3 f0=1.72, Q=1.4 f0=1.85, Q=1.9
TT5 f0=20, Q=22.7 no measurement f0=1.79, Q=1.8 f0=1.78, Q=3.5

Notes:  "Serial Number" of TTs here is based on the SN of the top suspension point block.  This does not give info about which TT is where.  Pitch modes were all too low of Q to be measured, although we tried.

Tip tilt mode measurements were taken with a HeNe and PD shadow sensor setup - the TT's optic holder ring was partially obscuring the beam.

  8059   Mon Feb 11 17:17:30 2013 JamieSummaryGeneralmore analysis of half PRC with flipped PR2


We need expected finesse and g-factor to compare with mode-scan measurement. Can you give us the g-factor of the half-PRC and what losses did you assumed to calculate the finesse?

This is exactly why I added the higher order mode spacing, so you could calculate the g parameter.  For TEM order N = n + m with spacing f_N, the overall cavity g parameter should be:

g = (cos( (f_N/f_FSR) * (\pi/N) ))^2

The label on the previous plat should really be f_N/FSR, not \omega_{10,01}

BUT, arbcav does not currently handle arbitrary ABCD matrices for the mirrors, so it's going to be slightly less accurate for our more complex flipped mirrors.  The affect would be bigger for a flipped PR3 than for a flipped PR2, because of the larger incidence angle, so arbcav will be a little more correct for our flipped PR2 only case (see below).


Also, flipped PR2 should have RoC of - R_HR * n_sub (minus measured RoC of HR surface multiplied by the substrate refractive index) because of the flipping.

This is not correct.  Multiplying the RoC by -N would be a very large change.  For an arbitrary ABCD matrix:

R_eff = -2 / C

When the incident angle in non-zero:

tangential: R_eff = R_eff / cos(\theta)
sagittal:   R_eff = R_eff * cos(\theta)

For flipped PR2, with small 1.5 degree incident angle and RoC of -706 at HR:

M_t = M_s = [1.0000, 0.0131; -0.0028, 1.0000]
R_eff = 705.9

For flipped PR3, with large 41 degree incident angle and RoC of -700 at HR:

M_t = [1.0000, 0; 0.0038, 1.0000]
M_s = [1.0000, 0; 0.0022, 1.0000]
R_eff = 592.4

The affect of the substrate is negligible for flipped PR2 but significant for flipped PR3.

The current half-PRC setup

OK, I have now completely reconciled my alamode and arbcav calculations.  I found a small bug in how I was calculating the ABCD matrix for non-flipped TTs that made a small difference.  I now get the exact same g parameter values with both with identical input parameters.


According to Jenne dictionary, HR curvature measured from HR side is;

PRM: -122.1 m
PR2: -706 m
PR3: - 700 m
TM in front of BS: -581 m

Sooooo, I have redone my alamode and arbcav calculations with these updated values.  Here are the resulting g parameters

  arbcav a la mode measurement
g tangential 0.9754 0.9753 0.986 +/- 0.001
g sagital 0.9686 0.9685 0.968 +/- 0.001

So the sagittal values all agree pretty well, but the tangential measurement does not.  Maybe there is an actual astigmatism in one of the optics, not due to angle of incidence?

arbcav HOM plot:


  8060   Mon Feb 11 17:54:02 2013 KojiSummaryOpticsCurvature radii of the G&H/LaserOptik mirrors

I, by chance, found  that my windows partition has Vision32 installed.
So I run my usual curvature characterization for the TT phasemaps.

They are found under this link
https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:30889/40m_phasemap/40m_TT/(requires: LVC credentials)

asc/ (ascii files) --> .asc files are saved in Wyko ascii format.
bmp/ (screen shots of Vision32)
mat/ (Matlab scripts and results)
opd/ (Raw binary files)

Estimated radius of curvature

Mirror / RoC from Vision32 / RoC from KA's matlab code
G&H "A" 0864 / -527.5 m / -505.2 m
G&H "B" 0884 / -710.2 m / -683.6 m
LaserOptik SN1 / -688.0 m / -652.7 m
LaserOptik SN2 / -605.2 m / -572.6 m
LaserOptik SN3 / -656.7 m / -635.0 m
LaserOptik SN4 / -607.5 m / -574.6 m
LaserOptik SN5 / -624.8 m / -594.3 m
LaserOptik SN6 / -658.5 m / -630.2 m

The aperture for the RoC in Vision32 seems a bit larger than the one I have used in the code (10mm in dia.)
This could be the cause of the systematic difference of the RoCs between these, as most of our mirrors
has weaker convex curvature for larger aperture, as seen in the figure. (i.e. outer area is more concave
after the subtration of the curvature)

I did not see any structure like Newton's ring which was observed from the data converted with SXMimage. Why???

Attachment 1: TT_Mirrors_RoC.pdf
TT_Mirrors_RoC.pdf TT_Mirrors_RoC.pdf TT_Mirrors_RoC.pdf TT_Mirrors_RoC.pdf TT_Mirrors_RoC.pdf TT_Mirrors_RoC.pdf TT_Mirrors_RoC.pdf TT_Mirrors_RoC.pdf
  8068   Tue Feb 12 18:25:43 2013 JamieSummaryGeneralhalf PRC with astigmatic PR2/3

  arbcav a la mode measurement
g tangential 0.9754 0.9753 0.986 +/- 0.001
g sagital 0.9686 0.9685 0.968 +/- 0.001

Given that we're measuring different g parameters in the tangential and sagittal planes, I went back to alamode to see what astigmatism I could put into PR2 and/or PR3 to match what we're measuring.  I looked at three cases: only PR2 is astigmatic, only PR3 is, or where we split the difference.  Since the sagittal measurement matches, I left all the sagittal curvatures the same in

case 1: PR3 only

  PR2 RoC (m) PR3 RoC (m) g (half PRC)
tangential 706 -420 0.986
sagittal 706 -700 0.969

case 2: PR3 only

  PR2 RoC (m) PR3 RoC (m) g (half PRC)
tangential 5000 -700 0.986
sagittal 706 -700 0.969

case 3: PR2 and PR3

  PR2 RoC (m) PR3 RoC (m) g parameter
tangential 2000 -600 0.986
sagittal 706 -700 0.969

From Koji's post about the scans of the G&H mirrors, it looks entirely reasonable that we could have these levels of astigmatism in the optics.

What this means for full PRC

These all make the same full PRC situation:

     g (tangential):  0.966

     g (sagittal):  0.939

     ARM mode matching:  0.988


  8069   Tue Feb 12 18:28:46 2013 JamieSummaryOpticsCurvature radii of the G&H/LaserOptik mirrors


I, by chance, found  that my windows partition has Vision32 installed.
So I run my usual curvature characterization for the TT phasemaps.

Is it possible to calculate astigmatism with your tools?  Can we get curvature in X/Y direction, preferably aligned with some axis that we might align to in the vacuum?

  8074   Wed Feb 13 01:26:08 2013 yutaSummaryGeneralrough analysis of aligned PRM-PR2 mode scan

Koji was correct.

When you estimate the variance of the population, you have to use unbiased variance (not sample variance). So, the estimate to dx in the equations Koji wrote is

dx = sqrt(sum(xi-xavg)/(n-1))
   = stdev*sqrt(n/(n-1))

It is interesting because when n=2, statistical error of the averaged value will be the same as the standard deviation.

dXavg = dx/sqrt(n) = stdev/sqrt(n-1)

In most cases, I think you don't need 10 % precision for statistical error estimation (you should better do correlation analysis if you want to go further). You can simply use dx = stdev if n is sufficiently large (n > 6 from plot below).


Makes sense. I mixed up n and n-1

Probability function: X = (x1 + x2 + ... + xn)/n, where xi = xavg +/- dx

Xavg = xavg*n/n = xavg

dXavg^2 = n*dx^2/n^2
=> dXavg = dx/sqrt(n)

Xavg +/- dXavg = xavg +/- dx/sqrt(n)


  8078   Wed Feb 13 19:09:32 2013 yutaSummaryGeneralpossible explanations to oval REFL beam

[Jenne, Manasa, Jamie, Yuta]

The shape of the REFL beam reflected from PRM is oval after the Faraday.
We tried to fix it by MC spot position centering and by tweaking input TT1/TT2/PRM. But REFL still looks bad (below).


What has changed since:
  REFL looks OK in mid-Dec 2012. Possibly related things changed are;

  1. New active input TTs with new mirrors installed
  2. Leveling of IMC stack changed a little (although leveling was done after installing TTs)

Possible explanations to oval REFL:
  A. Angled input beam:
    Input beam is angled compared with the Faraday apertures. So, beam coming back from PRM is angled, and clipped by the Faraday aperture at the rejection port.

  B. Mode mis-match to PRM:
    New input TTs have different curvatures compared with before. Input mode matching to PRM is not good and beam reflected from PRM is expanding. So, there's clipping at the Faraday.

  C. Not clipping, but astigmatism:
    New input TTs are not flat. Incident angle to TT2 is ~ 45 deg. So, it is natural to have different tangential/sagittal waist sizes at REFL.

How to check:
  A. Angled input beam:
    Look beam position at the Faraday apertures. If it doesn't look centered, the incident beam may be angled.
   (But MC centering didn't help much......)

  B. Mode mis-match to PRM:
    Calculate how much the beam size will be at the Faraday when the beam is reflected back from PRM. Put some real numbers to curvatures of input TTs for calculation.

  C. Not clipping, but astigmatism:
    Same calculation as B. Let's see if REFL is with in our expectation or not by calculating the ratio of tangential/sagittal waist sizes at REFL.

  8079   Wed Feb 13 19:30:45 2013 KojiSummaryGeneralpossible explanations to oval REFL beam

>> "What has changed since:"

Recently the REFL path has been rearranged after I touched it just before Thanksgiving.
(This entry)

If the lenses on the optical table is way too much tilted, this astigmatism happens.
This is frequently observed as you can find it on the POP path right now.

Also the beam could be off-centered on the lens.

I am not sure the astigmatism is added on the in-air table, but just in case
you should check the table before you put much effort to the in-vacuum work.

  8080   Wed Feb 13 19:41:07 2013 yutaSummaryGeneralpossible explanations to oval REFL beam

We checked that REFL beam is already oval in the vacuum. We also centered in-air optics, including lens, in the REFL path, but REFL still looks bad.

By using IR card in vacuum, PRM reflected beam looks OK at MMTs and at the back face of the Faraday. But the beam looks bad after the output aperture of the Faraday.

  8082   Thu Feb 14 00:10:12 2013 yutaSummaryAlignmentREFL is not clipped

Let's wait for astigmatism calculation.
In either case(clipping or astigmatism), it takes time to fix it. And we don't need to fix it because we can still get LSC signal from REFL.
So why don't we start aligning input TTs and PRMI tomorrow morning.

Take the same alignment procedure we did yesterday, but we should better check REFL more carefully during the alingment. Also, use X arm (ETMX camera) to align BS. We also have to fix AS steering mirrors in vacuum. I don't think it is a good idea to touch PR2 this time, because we don't want to destroy sensitive PR2 posture.

Calculations need to be done in in-air PRMI work:
  1. Explanation for REFL astigmatism by input TTs (Do we have TT RoCs?).
  2. Expected g-factor of PRC (DONE - elog #8068)
  3. What's the g-factor requirement(upper limit)?
    Can we make intra-cavity power fluctuation requirement and then use PRM/2/3 angular motion to break down it into g-factor requirement?
    But I think if we can lock PRMI for 2 hours, it's ok, maybe.
  4. How to measure the g-factor?
    To use tilt-and-measure-power-reduction method, we need to know RoC of the mirror you tilted. If we can prove that measured g-factor is smaller than the requirement, it's nice. We can calculate required error for the g-factor measurement.

  8084   Thu Feb 14 10:42:41 2013 JamieSummaryAlignmentMMT, curved TTs does not explain beam ellipticity at Faraday

After using alamode to calculate the round-trip mode of the beam at the Faraday exit after retro-reflection form the PRM, I'm not able to blame the MMT and TT curvature for the beam ellipticity.

I assume an input waist at the mode cleaner of [0.00159, 0.00151] (in [T, S]).  Propagating this through the MMT to PRM, then retro-reflecting back with flat TTs I get

w_t/w_s = 0.9955,  e = 0.0045

If I give the TTs a -600 m curvature, I get:

w_t/w_s = 1.0419,  e = 0.0402

That's just a 4% ellipticity, which is certainly less than we see.  I would have to crank up the TT curvature to -100m or so to see an ellipticity of 20%.  We're seeing something that looks bigger than 50% to me.

Below are beam size through MMT + PRM retro-reflection, TT RoC = -600m:



  8085   Fri Feb 15 01:41:02 2013 Manasa, YutaSummaryAlignmentIFO aligned and ready for PRMI locking

[Yuta, Manasa, Jenne, Jamie, Steve]

IFO aligned and ready for PRMI locking

Alignment procedure

0. Measured MC centering (off by 5mrad) before getting the doors off.

1. Got the TTs to 0.0 in pitch and yaw.

2. Using the MMTs, the beam was centered on the TTs.

3. TT1 was adjusted such that the incident beam was centered at PRM (with target).

4. TT2 was adjusted such that the beam passed through the center of BS (with target).

5. Centered the beam on PR2 by sliding it on the table.

6. Moved PR2 and tweaked TT2 to center the beam on ITMY and BS respectively.

7. Using TTs, we got the beam centered on ETMY while still checking the centering on ITMY.

8. ITMY was adjusted such that it retro-reflected at the BS.

9. ETMY was aligned to get a few bounces in the arm cavity.

10. Centered on ITMX by adjusting BS and then tweaked ITMX such that we retro-reflected at BS.

11. At this point we were able to see the MI fringes at the AS port.

12. Tweaked ITMX to obtain reflected MI fringes in front of MMT2.

13. By fine adjustments of the ITMs, we were able to get the reflected MI to go through the faraday  while still checking that we were retro-reflecting at the BS.

14. Tweaked the PRM, such that the PRM reflected beam which was already visible on the 'front face back face of faraday' camera went through the faraday and made fine adjustments to see it fringing with the reflected MI that was already aligned.

15. At this point we saw the REFL (flashing PRMI) coming out of vacuum unclipped and on the camera.

16. Started with alignment to get the AS beam out of vacuum. We tweaked OM1 and OM2 (steering mirrors in the ITMY chamber) to center the beams on OM4 and OM3 (steering mirrors in the BSC) respectively.

17. We then adjusted steering mirrors OM5 and OM6 (in the OMC chamber) such that the beam went unclipped out of vacuum.

18. Note that we took out the last steering mirror (on the AS table) in front of the AS camera, so that we can find the AS beam easily. This can be fixed after we pump down.




  0. REFL still looks like an egg, but leave it .

  1. Align PRMI (no more in-vac!) .

  2. Align POP/REFL/AS cameras and PDs.

  3. Setup PRM/BS/ITMX/ITMY oplevs.

  4. Balance the coils on these mirrors.

  5. Lock PRMI.

  8086   Fri Feb 15 01:51:43 2013 JenneSummaryAlignmentIFO aligned and ready for PRMI locking


Yuta and Manasa, you guys are awesome!

Small, inconsequential point:  The camera image in the upper right of your video is the *back* of the Faraday in our usual nomenclature.  The camera is listed in the videoswitch script as "FI_BACK".  The camera looking at the "front" of the Faraday is just called "FI". 

  8094   Sat Feb 16 18:32:01 2013 yutaSummaryRF Systemphase tracker: OLTF

I measured openloop transfer function of the phase tracking loop for the first characterization of phase tracker.

What is phase tracker:

  See elog #6832.
  For ALS, we use delay-line frequency discriminator, but it has trade-off between sensitivity and linear range. We solved this trade-off by tacking the phase of I/Q signals.
  Figure below is the current diagram of the frequency discriminator using phase tracker.

OLTF of phase tracking loop:
  Below. UGF at 1.2 kHz, phase margin 63 deg for both BEATX and BEATY. Phase delay can be clearly explained by 61 usec delay. This delay is 1 step in 16 KHz system.
  Note that UGF depends on the amplitude of the RF input. I think this should be fixed by calculating the amplitude from I/Q signals.
  BEAT(X|Y)_PHASE_GAIN were set to 300, and I put -3dBm 100 MHz RF signal to the beatbox during the measurement.

Other measurements needed:

 - Linear range: By sweeping the RF input frequency and see sensitivity dependence.
 - Bandwidth: By measuring transfer function from the modulation frequency of the RF input to phase tracker output.
 - Maximum sensitivity: Sensitivity dependence on delay-line length (see PSL_Lab #825).
 - Noise: Lock oscillator frequency with phase tracker and measure out-of-loop frequency noise with phase tracker.
 - Sensitivity to amplitude fluctuation: Modulate RF input amplitude and measure the sensitivity.

  8125   Wed Feb 20 23:25:50 2013 ZachSummaryElectronicsReplacement for the AD743: OPA140 and OPA827

I have found two great FET input chips that rival the storied, discontinued AD743. In some ways, they are even better. These parts are the OPA140 and the OPA827.

Below is a plot of the input-referred voltage noise of the two op amps with Rsource = 0, along with several others for comparison. The smooth traces are LISO models. The LT1128 and AD797 are BJT-input parts, so their voltage noise is naturally better. However, the performance you see here for the FET parts is the same you would expect for very large source impedances, due to their extremely low current noise by comparison. I have included the BJTs so that you can see what their performance is like in an absolute sense. I have also included a "measured" trace of the LT1128, since in practice their low-frequency noise can be quite higher than the spec (see, for example, Rana's evaluation of the Busby Box). The ADA4627 is another part I was looking into before, the LT1012 is a less-than-great FET chip, and the AD797 a less-than-great BJT.

As you can see, the OPA140 actually outperforms the AD743 at low frequencies, though it is ~2x worse at high frequencies. The OPA827 comes close to the AD743 at high frequencies, but is a bit worse at low ones. Both the OPA140 and OPA827 have the same low-frequency RMS spec, so I was hoping it would be a better all-around part, but, unfortunately, it seems not to be.

The TI chips also have a few more things on the AD743:

  • Input current noise @ 1kHz
    • AD743: 6.9 fA/rtHz
    • OPA827: 2.2 fA/rtHz
    • OPA140: 0.8 fA/rtHz (!)
  • Input bias (offset) current, typ
    • AD743: 30 pA (40 pA) --- only for Vsupply = ±5 V
    • OPA827: ±3 pA (±3 pA) --- up to ±18V
    • OPA140: ±0.5 pA (±0.5 pA) (!) --- up to ±18V
  • Supply
    • Both OPA140 and OPA827 can be fed single supplies up to 36V absolute maximum
    • The OPA140 is a rail-to-rail op amp

These characteristics make both parts exceptionally well suited for very-high source impedance applications, such as very-low-frequency AC-coupling preamplifiers or ultra-low-noise current sources.


(Apologies---the SR785 I was using had some annoying non-stationary peaks coming in. I verified that they did not affect the broadband floor).

R.I.P., AD743

  8142   Sat Feb 23 00:36:52 2013 ManasaSummaryLockingMC locked

[Yuta, Manasa, Sendhil, Rana]

With MC REFL PD fixed, we aligned MC in high power enabling a fully functional MC autolocker.
We then unlocked MC and aligned the PD and WFS QPDs. Also we checked the MC demodulator and found a ~20% leakage between the Q-phase and I-phase. This must be fixed later by changing the cable length.

We adjusted MC offsets using /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/MC/WFS/WFS_FilterBank_offsets.
We then measured the MC spot positions using  /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/ASS/MC/mcassMCdecenter
Spot positions seem to have shifted by 2mm in yaw.

We will proceed with aligning the arms now.

Attachment 1: MCdecenter_23Feb2013.png
  8151   Sat Feb 23 18:01:38 2013 ZachSummaryElectronicsReplacement for the AD743: OPA140 and OPA827

Rana suggested that I measure the OPA827 and OPA140 noise with high source impedance so as to see if we could find the low-frequency current noise corner. Below is a plot of both parts with Rs = 0, 10k, and 100k.

As you can see, both parts are thermal noise limited down to 0.1 Hz for up to Rs = 100k or greater. Given that the broadband current noise level for each part is ~0.5-1 fA/rtHz, this puts an upper limit to the 1/f corner of <100 Hz. This is where the AD743 corner is, so that sounds reasonable. Perhaps I will check with even higher impedance to see if I can find it. I am not sure yet what to make of the ~10-20 kHz instability with high source impedance.


EDIT: The datasheets claim that they are Johnson noise limited up to 1 Mohm, but this is only for the broadband floor, I'd guess, so it doesn't really say anything about the low frequency corner.

Screen_Shot_2013-02-24_at_12.12.23_PM.png Screen_Shot_2013-02-24_at_12.12.43_PM.png


I have found two great FET input chips that rival the storied, discontinued AD743. In some ways, they are even better. These parts are the OPA140 and the OPA827.


  8153   Sun Feb 24 16:49:00 2013 ranaSummaryElectronicsReplacement for the AD743: OPA140 and OPA827

  This looks pretty good already. Not sure if we can even measure anything reasonable below 0.1 Hz without a lot of thermal shielding.

The 10-20 kHz oscillation may just be the loop shape of the opamp. I think you saw similar effects when using the AD743 with high impedance for the OSEM testing.

  8156   Mon Feb 25 13:01:39 2013 KojiSummaryGeneralQuick, compact, and independent tasks

- IMC PDH demodulation phase adjustment

- Permanent setup for green transmission DC PDs  on the PSL table

  8164   Mon Feb 25 22:42:32 2013 yutaSummaryAlignmentcurrent IFO situation


Both arms are aligned starting from Y green.
We have all beams unclipped except for IPANG. I think we should ignore IPANG and go on to PRMI locking and FPMI locking using ALS.
IPANG/IPPOS and oplev steering mirrors are kept un-touched after pumping until now.

Current alignment situation:
 - Yarm aligned to green (Y green transmission ~240 uW)
 - TT1/TT2 aligned to Yarm (TRY ~0.86)
 - BS and Xarm alined to each other (TRX ~ with MI fringe in AS)
 - X green is not aligned yet
 - PRMI aligned

Current output beam situation:
 IPPOS - Coming out clear but off in yaw. Not on QPD.
 IPANG - Coming out but too high in pitch and clipped half of the beam. Not on QPD.
 TRY   - On PD/camera.
 POY   - On PD.
 TRX   - On PD/camera.
 POX   - On PD.
 REFL  - Coming out clear, on camera (centered without touching steering mirrors).
 AS    - Coming out clear, on camera (centered without touching steering mirrors).
 POP   - Coming out clear, on camera (upper left on camera).

Oplev values:

Optic    Pre-pump(pit/yaw)    PRFPMI aligned(pit/yaw)
ITMX    -0.26 /  0.60         0.25 /  0.95
ITMY    -0.12 /  0.08         0.50 /  0.39
ETMX    -0.03 / -0.02        -0.47 /  0.19
ETMY     0.37 / -0.62        -0.08 /  0.80
BS      -0.01 / -0.18        -1    /  1 (almost off)
PRM     -0.34 /  0.03        -1    /  1 (almost off)

 All values +/- ~0.01. So, oplevs are not useful for alignment reference.

OSEM values:
Optic    Pre-pump(pit/yaw)    PRFPMI aligned(pit/yaw)
ITMX    -1660 / -1680        -1650 / -1680
ITMY    -1110 /   490        -1070 /   440
ETMX     -330 / -5380         -380 / -5420
ETMY    -1890 /   490        -1850 /   430
BS        370 /   840          360 /   800
PRM      -220 /  -110         -310 /  -110

  All values +/- ~10.
  We checked that if there's ~1200 difference, we still see flash in Watec TR camera. So, OSEM values are quite good reference for optic alignment.

IPANG drift:
  On Saturday, when Rana, Manasa, and I are trying to get Y arm flash, we noticed IPANG was drifting quite a lot in pitch. No calibration is done yet, but it went off the IPANG QPD within ~1 hour (attached).
  When I was aligning Yarm and Xarm at the same time, TRY drifted within ~1 hour. I had to tweak TT1/TT2 mainly in yaw to keep TRY. I also had to keep Yarm alignment to Y green. I'm not sure what is drifting so much. Suspects are TT2, PR2/PR3, Y arm and Y green.

  I made a simple script(/opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/Alignment/ipkeeper) for keeping input pointing by centering the beam on IPPOS/IPANG using TT1/TT2. I used this for keeping input pointing while scanning Y arm alignment to search for Y arm flash this weekend (/opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/Alignment/scanArmAlignment.py). But now we have clipped IPANG.

So, what's useful for alignment after pumping?:

  Optic alignment can be close by restoring OSEM values. For input pointing, IPPOS/IPANG are not so useful. Centering the beam on REFL/AS (POP) camera is a good start. But green works better.

Attachment 1: IPANGdrift.png
  8211   Sat Mar 2 00:23:19 2013 ranaSummaryCOCPhase Maps measured of the ATF flat mirrors

I took the two 'flat' 2" mirrors over to Downs and Garilynn showed me how to measure them with the old Wyko machine.

The files are now loaded onto our Dropbox folder - analysis in process. From eyeball, it seems as if the RoCs are in the neighborhood of ~5 km, with the local perturbations giving ~10-15 km of curvature depending upon position (few nm of sage over ~1 cm scales)

Koji's matlab code should be able to give somewhat more quantitative answers...

Ed: Here you are. "0966" looks good. It has RoC of ~4km. "0997" has a big structure at the middle. The bump is 10nmPV (KA)


Attachment 1: 0966_0997_phasemap.pdf
0966_0997_phasemap.pdf 0966_0997_phasemap.pdf 0966_0997_phasemap.pdf 0966_0997_phasemap.pdf 0966_0997_phasemap.pdf 0966_0997_phasemap.pdf 0966_0997_phasemap.pdf 0966_0997_phasemap.pdf
  8242   Wed Mar 6 18:14:33 2013 ManasaSummaryLSCCalibration of BS, ITMX and ITMY actuators

[Yuta, Manasa]

Measured actuator response between 50Hz and 200 Hz in (m/counts).

BS     = (20.7 +/- 0.1)    x 10 -9 / f2

ITMX = (4.70 +/- 0.02) 
x 10 -9/ f2

ITMY = (4.66 +/- 0.02)
x 10 -9/ f2

Actuator response differs by 30% for all the 3 mirrors from the previous measurements made by Kiwamu in 2011.

Calibration of BS, ITMX and ITMY actuators

We calibrated the actuators using the same technique as in Kiwamu's elog.

A) Measure MICH error

1. Locked Y-arm and X-arm looking at TRY and TRX.
2. Misaligned ETMs
3. Measured  MICH error using ASDC and AS55_Q err (MICH_OFFSET = 20 - to compensate for offset in AS_Qerr which exists even after resetting LSC offsets)


B) Open loop transfer function for MICH control

1. Measured the transfer function between C1:LSC-MICH_IN1 and C1:LSC-MICH_IN2 by exciting on  C1:LSC-MICH_EXC.
MICH filter modules used for measurements(0:1 , 2000:1, ELP50). ELP50 used so that actuation signals above 50 Hz are not suppressed.


C) Calibration of BS/ ITMX/ ITMY actuators

1. Measured transfer function between actuation channels on BS/ ITMX/ ITMY and C1:LSC-AS55_Q_ERR.


  8266   Mon Mar 11 10:20:36 2013 Max HortonSummaryComputersAttempted Smart UPS 2200 Battery Replacement

Attempted Battery Replacement on Backup Power Supply in the Control Room:

I tried to replace the batteries in the Smart UPS 2200 with new batteries purchased by Steve.  However, the power port wasn't compatible with the batteries.  The battery cable's plug was too tall to fit properly into the Smart UPS port.  New batteries must be acquired.  Steve has pictures of the original battery (gray) and the new battery (blue) plugs, which look quite different (even though the company said the battery would fit).

The Correct battery connector is GRAY : APC RBC55

Attachment 1: upsB.jpg
Attachment 2: upsBa.jpg
  8332   Fri Mar 22 19:46:29 2013 KojiSummaryLSCDiode impedance test result

I've tested Perkin-Elmer InGaAs PDs at OMC Lab.

- The diode impedances were measured with the impedance measurement kit. Reverse bias of 5V was used.

- Diode characteristics were measured between 10MHz and 100MHz.

- 4-digit numbers are SN marked on the can

- Ls and Rs are the series inductance and resistance

- Cd is the junction capacitance.

- i.e. Series LCR circuit o--[Cd]--[Ls]--[Rs]--o

C30665GH, Ls ~ 1nH

0782 Perkin-Elmer, Rs=8.3Ohm, Cd=219.9pF
1139 Perkin-Elmer, Rs=9.9Ohm, Cd=214.3pF
0793 Perkin-Elmer, Rs=8.5Ohm, Cd=212.8pF

C30642G, Ls ~ 12nH

2484 EG&G, Rs=12.0Ohm, Cd=99.1pF
2487 EG&G, Rs=14.2Ohm, Cd=109.1pF
2475 EG&G glass crack, Rs=13.5Ohm, Cd=91.6pF
6367 ?, Rs=9.99Ohm, Cd=134.7pF
1559 Perkin-Elmer, Rs=8.37Ohm, Cd=94.5pF
1564 Perkin-Elmer, Rs=7.73Ohm, Cd=94.5pF
1565 Perkin-Elmer, Rs=8.22Ohm, Cd=95.6pF
1566 Perkin-Elmer, Rs=8.25Ohm, Cd=94.9pF
1568 Perkin-Elmer, Rs=7.83Ohm, Cd=94.9pF
1575 Perkin-Elmer, Rs=8.32Ohm, Cd=100.5pF

C30641GH, Perkin Elmer, Ls ~ 12nH

8983 Perkin-Elmer, Rs=8.19Ohm, Cd=25.8pF
8984 Perkin-Elmer, Rs=8.39Ohm, Cd=25.7pF
8985 Perkin-Elmer, Rs=8.60Ohm, Cd=25.2pF
8996 Perkin-Elmer, Rs=8.02Ohm, Cd=25.7pF
8997 Perkin-Elmer, Rs=8.35Ohm, Cd=25.8pF
8998 Perkin-Elmer, Rs=7.89Ohm, Cd=25.5pF
9000 Perkin-Elmer, Rs=8.17Ohm, Cd=25.7pF


Note:  Calculated Ls&Rs of straight wires
  1mm Au wire with dia. 10um -> 1nH, 0.3 Ohm
20mm BeCu wire with dia. 460um -> 18nH, 0.01 Ohm

  8343   Mon Mar 25 23:17:11 2013 ranaSummaryIOOMC

I measured the dark noise and regular intensity noise in MC trans tonight to get some estimate for the free running spectrum that the Chas ISS must overcome. PDF is attached.

XML file is /users/rana/dtt/MC-trans_130325.xml

The RIN normalization was done by using the mean of the SUM time series. The dark noise was measured by misaligning MC2 and making the same measurement with the bright normalization.

Attachment 1: MC-trans.pdf
  8345   Mon Mar 25 23:20:57 2013 AnnalisaSummaryAuxiliary lockingBeat note found!

[Annalisa, Manasa]

The beat note between the main PSL and the auxiliarly NPRO has been found!

The setup didn't change with respect to the one described on the previous note on the elog. A multimeter has been connected to the laser controller diagnostic pin to read out the voltage that indicated the laser crystal temperature.

The connector has been taken from the Yend table laser controller.

The voltage on the multimeter gave the same temperature shown by "Laser temperature" on the display of the controller, while "set temperature" was wrong.

The temperature has been varied using the laser controller with reference to the voltage read on the multimeter display.

Starting from 35.2 °C, the temperature has been first lowered until 20 °C and no beat note has been found, then temperature has been increased up to 35.2 °C and the first beat note has been found at 38.0 °C.

It has been detected at a frequency of about 80 MHz with an RF power of -27 dBm and a frequency fluctuation of about  +/- 4 MHz.

To do:

I made more measurements slowly varying the laser temperature, to see how the beat note frequency changes with it. I'll make the plot and post it as soon.

  8368   Thu Mar 28 19:32:22 2013 AnnalisaSummaryAuxiliary lockingBeat note found!


 I plot the variation of the beat note frequency as a function of "Alberto" NPRO laser's temperature.

After some discussion, now I'm going to vary the PSL temperature and find the auxiliary NPRO temperature matching to have the beat note between the two.

Attachment 1: BeatFreq.jpg
  8401   Wed Apr 3 14:46:17 2013 GabrieleSummaryLSCError signal simulation in PRMI

Here is a summary of a simulation of the error signal behavior in the PRMI configuration. The main parameters are:
L_PRC = 6.7538 m
Schnup = 0.0342 m
fmod1 = 11.065399e6 Hz
fmod2 = 5 * fmod1


These two plots shows the response of the POP22 and POP110 signals (in almost arbitrary units) to a PRCL sweep around the resonance. The splitting of the 55 sideband peaks is well visible in the second plot. It is due to the fact that the 55MHz sidebands are not perfectly matched to the PRC length


The same thing when sweeping MICH. The peaks are wider and it is not possible to see the splitting.


These are the error signals (REFL11_I/Q and REFL_55_I/Q) as a function of the PRCL (left) and MICH (right) sweep. Here the demodulation phases are not properly tuned. This is just to show that when the phase is wrong, you can get multiple zero crossings (in this case only in the Q signals, but in general also in I) close to resonance.


If the phases are tuned in order to maximize the slope of the I signals with respect to PRCL, one gets these "optimized phase" responses. It is that the phase does not correspond to the one that makes the PRCL peak to peak signal small in Q. The Q signals are indeed flat around resonance for a PRCL motion, but they deviate quite a lot from zero when moving more far from resonance. Moreover, both the REFL_55 error signals (I for PRCL and Q for MICH) are crossing again zero at two additional positions, but those are quite far from the resonance point.


These plots just show the PRCL and MICH error signals together with the POP22 and POP110 signals, to give an idea of the level of triggering that might be needed to be inside the linear range. It seems that if we trigger on POP22 when using the REFL55 signal we loose a bit of linear range, but not that much.


If you reached this point it means you're really interested in this topic, or maybe you have nothing better to do... However, this plot shows the effect of linearization of the error signal, obtained dividing them by the proper POP22/110 signal. The linear range is increased, but unfortunately for the 55 signals, the additional zero crossing I was mentioning before creates two sharp features. Those are however quite outside the triggering region, so they should not be harmful.

Attachment 1: prmi_michsweep_pop22.png
Attachment 2: prmi_michsweep_pop110.png
  8402   Wed Apr 3 15:00:24 2013 JamieSummaryElectronicsSorensen supplies in LSC rack (1Y2)

I investigated the situation of the two Sorensen supplies in the LSC rack (1Y2).  They are there solely to supply power to the LSC LO RF distribution box.  One is +18 V and the other is +28 V.  All we need to do is make a new longer cable with the appropriate plug on one end (see below), long enough to go from the bottom of the 1Y3 rack to the top of 1Y2, and we could move them over quickly.  Some sort of non-standard circular socket connector is used on the distribution box:


It could probably use thicker conduction wire as well.

If someone else makes the cable I'll move everything over.

  8411   Thu Apr 4 10:12:55 2013 GabrieleSummaryLSCPOP22 and POP110

I had a look at the POP110 signal, with the PRMI flashing.

1) The LSCoffset script does not zero any more POP22_I_ERR offset. I did it by hand

2) The gain of POP22 is changed a lot, as well as the sign: now sidebands are resonant when POP22_I is negative

3) POP110 seems to deliver good signals. The plot attached shows that when we cross the sideband resonance, there is a clear splitting of the peak. If we rely on the simulations I posted in entry 8401, the full width at half height of the POP_22 peak is of the order of 5 nm. Using this as a calibration, we find a splitting of the order of 7 nm, which is not far from the simulated one (5 nm)

Attachment 1: pop110_2.pdf
  8412   Thu Apr 4 10:32:42 2013 GabrieleSummaryLSCREFL55 error signals

The attached plot shows that also the behaviour of the REFL11 and 55 signals is qualitatively equal to the simulation outcome.

Attachment 1: prmi_refl_signals.pdf
  8413   Thu Apr 4 10:46:54 2013 KojiSummaryLSCREFL55 error signals

Beautiful double peaks. I don't see the triple zero-crossings. Is this because you adjusted the phase correctly (as predicted)?

Don't you want to have a positive number for POP22? Should we set the demod phase in the configuration script for the positive POP22, shouldn't we?

  8448   Fri Apr 12 10:33:42 2013 CharlesSummaryISSDC-Coupled ISS Servo Design

General ISS Design

Signals through the ISS are directed as follows:  an error signal is obtained by summing the ~5 V signal from the PD with a -5 V signal from a high precision voltage regulator (which is first filtered with an ~ 30 mHz low-pass Sallen-Key filter).  It is this signal that is processed/amplified by the servo. The output from the servo is then used to drive an AOM (it is not known exactly how this is done and whether or not any preamplifier/extra circuitry is necessary). The resulting modulation, hopefully, reduces fluctuations in the laser intensity incident on the PD, lowering the relative intensity noise.

Servo Design

Almost the entirety of my focus has been directed toward designing the servo portion of the ISS. Speaking in general terms, the currently proposed design consists of stages of active op-amp filters, but now the stages will have internal switches that allow them to switch between ‘flat’ gain buffers and more complicated filters with our desired behavior. Consider some Example Filter Stages where I have demonstrated a typical switching filter with the switch open and closed. When the switch is closed, the capacitor is shorted and we simply have a variable gain buffer (variable in the sense that its gain can be tuned by proper choice of the resistances) with no frequency dependence. When the switch is open, the capacitor introduces a pole at ~100 Hz and a zero at ~1 kHz.

CircuitLab has decent analysis capabilities and attached are plots generated by CircuitLab. The first plot corresponds to a frequency analysis of the voltage gain of op-amp U1 and the ‘flat’ ~20 dBV gain filter with the switch closed and the capacitor shorted. The second plot is the same frequency analysis, but now with op-amp U2 and the filter with the switch open and the capacitor introduced into signal processing. This particular combination of resistors and capacitors produce a DC gain of 60 dBV, a pole at ~100 Hz, a zero at ~10 kHz and high frequency behavior of ~constant gain of 20 dBV. In this simulation, the gain-bandwidth product of the simulated op-amp (the standard op-amp CircuitLab uses) was artificially increased in order to see more ideal behavior in the higher frequency domain.

Switches like the above can be used to add boosts to some initial filter state (which could be like the above or possibly a simple integrator to achieve high DC gain) and change it into a more complex and more useful filter state advantageous for desired noise suppression. Cascades of these switching filters could be used to create very complicated transfer function behavior. No general servo has yet been designed as the exact details of the intensity noise requirements are still being determined.

With regards to the implementation of the switches, some ‘smart’ signal will be used to trigger a switch opening and the boost being introduced to the signal processing. The switches will be opened (open corresponds to adding the boost) in a manner that maintains stability of the servo circuit. Essentially, some sort of time delay or power monitor induced signal (power from the PD output) will be used to modify the servo's behavior.


How exactly the signal will drive the AOM for correct noise suppression is unknown currently.


Attachment 1: Example_Switching_Filter_Transfer_Function_-_Switch_Closed.png
Attachment 2: Example_Switching_Filter_Transfer_Function_-_Switch_Open.png
  8469   Mon Apr 22 11:46:09 2013 KojiSummaryIOOMC locked/aligned. MC WFS offloading by ezcaservo

Еру ьс шы тщц дщслув фтв фдшптувю

Фдыщ ш кфт еру ащддщцштп ыскшзе ещ щаадщфв еру ЬС ЦАЫ ыукмщю

I blame Den for russian keyboard installation on the control machines.

ezcaservo -r 'C1:SUS-MC2_ASCPIT_OUT16' -g '0.00001' -t 60 C1:SUS-MC2_PIT_COMM&
ezcaservo -r 'C1:SUS-MC2_ASCYAW_OUT16' -g '0.00001' -t 60 C1:SUS-MC2_YAW_COMM&
ezcaservo -r 'C1:SUS-MC1_ASCPIT_OUT16' -g '0.00001' -t 60 C1:SUS-MC1_PIT_COMM&
ezcaservo -r 'C1:SUS-MC1_ASCYAW_OUT16' -g '0.00001' -t 60 C1:SUS-MC1_YAW_COMM&
ezcaservo -r 'C1:SUS-MC3_ASCPIT_OUT16' -g '0.00001' -t 60 C1:SUS-MC3_PIT_COMM&
ezcaservo -r 'C1:SUS-MC3_ASCYAW_OUT16' -g '0.00001' -t 60 C1:SUS-MC3_YAW_COMM&

  8471   Mon Apr 22 17:06:42 2013 ranaSummaryIOOMC locked/aligned. MC WFS offloading by ezcaservo


 Why use the PSL beam as a reference? Don't we want to keep the MC pointing in a good direction through the Faraday instead???

  8491   Thu Apr 25 10:19:10 2013 KojiSummaryLSCLocking activity on Apr 24th

Last night I worked on the several locking configurations:

General preparations / AS table inspection

- The AS beam looked clipped. I went to the AP table and confirmed this is a clipping in the chamber.
  This may be fixed by the invacuum PZTs.

Modulation frequency tuning

RFPD Mon of the MC demodulator was check with the RF analyzer. Minimized the 25.8MHz (=55.3-29.5MHz) peak by changing the marconi freq.
This changed the modulation freq from 11.066147MHz to 11.066134MHz. This corresponds to the change of the MC round-trip length from
27.090952m to 27.090984m (32um longer).

Michelson tests

- I wonder why I could not see good Michelson signal at REFL ports.

- I roughly aligned the Michelson. On the AP table, the RF analyzer was connected to the REFL11 RF output.
  By using "MAX HOLD" function of the analyzer, I determined that the maximum output of the 11.07MHz peak
  was -61.5dBm.

- I went to the demodboard rack. I injected -61dBm from DS345 into the RFEL11 demodboard. This produced
  clean sinusoidal wave with the amplitude of 4 count. The whitening gain was 0dB.

- The output from the PD cable was -64.0dBm. So there is ~2.5dB loss in the cable. Despite this noise, the demodulation
  system should be sufficiently low noise. i.e. the issue is optical

- The Michelson was locked with AS55Q. And the REFL11 error signals were checked.Fringe like feature was there.
  This suggested the scattering from the misaligned PRM. The PRM was further misaligned. Then some reasonable
  (yet still noisy) Michelson signal appeared. (Usual misaligned PRM is not at the right place)

  Q. How much scattering noise (spurious cavity between PRM and the input optics) do we have when the PRM is aligned?
  Q. Where should we put the glass beam dumps in the input optics?
  Q. Can we prepare "safe" misaligned place for the PRM with the beam dump?

- The Michelson was locked with REFL11Q. From the transfer function measurement, the gain difference between AS55Q (whitening gain 24dB)
  and REFL11Q was 32dB. The whitening gain was 0dB. In fact I could not lock the Michelson with the whitening gain 33dB (saturation???)
  The element in the Input matrix was 1, The gain of the servo was +100. BS was actuated.

Coupled cavity tests

- At least REFL11 is producing reasonable signals. So what about the other REFL ports? The Michelson signals in the other frequencies
  were invisible. So I decided to use three-mirror coupled cavity with the loss PRC.

- Aligned X arm, Misaligned ETMX, ITMY. Aligned PRM.

- Locked the PRM-ITMX cavity with REFL11 and REFL33.

- Aligned ETMX. If I use REFL11I for the PRC locking, I could not lock the coupled cavity. But I could with REFL33I.
  This is somewhat familiar to me as this is the usual feature of the 3f signal.

- The coupled cavity could be locked "forever". To realize this I needed to tweak the normalization factor from 1.0 to 1.6.
  Q. How does the coupled cavity change the response of the cavity? Can we compensate it by something?
  Q. Measure open loop transfer functions to check if there is any issue in the servo shapes.

- Transmission during the lock is 3.2 while the nominal TRX with PRM misaligned was 0.93.
  This corresponds to power recycling gain of 0.17.

 - X arm:

    - Source: POX11I, phase 79.5 deg, whitening gain 36dB
    - Input matrix: POX11I->1.0->XARM, Normalization TRX*1.60
    - XARM servo gain +0.8, actuation ETMX
    - XARM trigger 0.25 up, 0.05 down. XARM Filter trigger untouched.

- PRC: (sideband locking)
    - Source: REFL33I, phase -34.05 deg, whitening gain 30dB
    - Input matrix: REFL33I->1.0->PRCL, Normalization None
    - PRCL servo gain +4.0, actuation PRM
    - PRCL trigger None

- Same test for the Y arm. At the moment ETMY did not have the OPLEV.
  Same level of transmission (~3.3)

 - Y arm:

    - Source: POY11I, phase -61.00 deg, whitening gain 36dB
    - Input matrix: POY11I->1.0->YARM, Normalization TRX*2.1
    - YARM servo gain +0.25, actuation ETMX
    - YARM trigger 0.25 up, 0.05 down. YARM Filter trigger untouched.

- PRC: (sideband locking)
    - same as above

Sideband PRMI attempt

    - Now I got some kind of confidence on the REFL33 signal.
    - So I tried to get any stable setup for sb PRMI, then to find any reasonable MICH signals anywhere else than AS55Q.
    - With REFL33I(PRCL) & AS55Q(MICH), I got maximum ~10sec lock. It regularly locked. It was enough long to check
      the spectrum on DTT. But it was not enough long to find anything about the MICH signals at the REFL ports.

    - I tried REFL33Q for MICH. The lock was even shorter but could lock for 1~2 sec.

    Q. What is the cause of the lock loss? I did not see too much angluar fluctuation. The actuation was also quiet (below 10000).

- PRCL: (sideband locking)
    - Same as above except for
      - the PRCL servo gain +0.05, No limitter at the servo output.
      - Trigger POP22I (low pass filtered by LP10) 20 up, 3 down

    - AS55Q -24.125 24dB -> x1.0 -> MICH -0.7, No limitter -> ITMX/Y differential
    - REFL33Q -34.05dB -> x2.0 -> MICH same as above
    - For both case, trigger POP22I (low pass filtered by LP10) 20 up, 3 down


At this point Jenne came back from dinner. Explained what I did and handed over the IFO.

  8537   Tue May 7 16:21:01 2013 JenneSummaryLSCError signal simulation in PRMI

I asked Gabriele why it looked like for the PRCL sweep REFL 55 I&Q were zero at zero, but for the MICH sweep only REFL55 I was zero.  He took a look at his code, and found that he was not at the correct locking point.  Here is his email back to me:

I found the reason for the not zero value. Indeed, if you could zoom into the PRCL sweep, you would see that the error signals does not cross zero exactly at PRCL=0, but instead some 50 pm away from zero. This is enough to change a lot the PRCL signal when sweeping MICH. If I put PRCL to the correct zero point, and I sweep MICH, I now get everything at zero. I'm sending again the plots.

The fact that such a small detuning is enough to change PRCL signal when sweeping MICH is due, I believe, to the fact that MICH optical gain is much smaller than PRCL one.

Here are the redone plots:

Phase not tuned:



Phase tuned:


POP22 resonance for MICH and PRCL:


POP110 resonance for MICH and PRCL:


  8555   Thu May 9 00:05:12 2013 rana, Koji, JenneSummaryLSCAA and AI change

We would like to increase the UGF of the PRC loop so as to allow more suppression of the PRC signal and less pollution of the MICH signal (remember that the PRC/MICH optical gain ratio is huge).

We were already losing phase because of delay in the LSC - SUS digital link. In addition to that, a major source of delay is the analog anti-aliasing (on the LSC error signals before they enter the ADC) and the analog anti-imaging (between the SUS DAC and the coil driver).

 IN addition to these, the other major sources of phase lag in the system are the FM5 filter in the LSC-PRC filter bank, the digital upsampling and downsampling filters, and the DAC sample and hold.

In the near term, we want to modify these analog filters to be more appropriate for our 64 kHz ADC/DAC sample rate. Otherwise, we are getting the double phase lag whammy.


Staring at the schematics for the AA (D000076-01) and the AI (D000186-A), we determined a plan of action.

For the AA, we want to remove the multi-pin AA chip filter from Frequency Devices, Inc. and replace it with a passive LC low pass. Hopefully, these chips are socketed. Rana will design an appropriate LC combo and elog; we should make the change on a Wednesday afternoon so that we have enough soldering help.

For the AI, the filter is a dual bi-quad using discrete components and LT1125 opamps. Not so clear what to do with these. The resistors are all the noisy thick film kind and maybe should be replaced. Koji will find some online design tool for these or do it in LISO. Changing the TF is easy; we can just scale the capacitors. But we also want to make sure that the noise of the AI does not destroy the noise reduction action of the dewhitening board which precedes it.

Jenne should figure out how low the noise needs to be at the input to the coil driver.


P.S. the matlab code which defines these filters

>> [z,p,k] = ellip(4,4,60,2*pi*7570,'s');
>> misc.ai = zpk(z,p,k*10^(4/20)) * zpk([],-2*pi*13e3,2*pi*13e3);
>> % Fudged Anti-Imaging Filter
>> [z,p,k] = ellip(8,0.001,80,2*pi*7570,'s');
>> misc.aa = zpk(z,p,k*10^(0.001/20)) * zpk([],-2*pi*32768,2*pi*32768);

Attachment 1: AAAI.pdf
  8575   Tue May 14 20:30:29 2013 JamieSummaryIOOMC error spectrum at various FSS gain settings.

I used the Agilent 4395A and the GPIB network bridge to measure the MC error spectrum at the MC servo board.

I looked at various settings of the FSS Common and FAST gains.

Here is the spectrum of various Common gain settings, with a fixed FAST setting of 23.5:


The peak at 34k is smallest at the largest Common gain setting of 13.0 (probably expected).  The other higher frequency peaks are higher, though, such as the ones at 24.7k, 29.6k, 34.5k, etc.:


Here's a blow up of the peak at 1.06M, which peaks at about 9dB of common gain:


 Here's the spectrum with a fixed Common gain of 10.5, and various FAST gains:


and here's a zoom around that 1.06 MHz peak, which is smallest at a FAST gain of 23.5 dB:


I'm not sure yet what this points to as the best gain settings.  We can of course explore more of the space.  I'm going to leave it at 13/23.5, which leaves the PC RMS at ~1.5 and the FAST Monitor at ~6.0.

If this does turn out to be a good setting we'll need to adjust some of the alarm levels.

Various settings:

  in1 gain: 15
  offset: 1.174
  boost enabled
  super boost: 2
  VCO gain: 25

  input offset: -0.8537
  slow actuator: 0.6304

I include the python scripts I used to remotely control the AG4395 to take the measurements, and make the plots.

PS: I made some changes/improvements to the netgpib stuff that I'll cleanup and commit tomorrow.


Attachment 6: getdata
#!/usr/bin/env python

import os
import sys
import time
import numpy as np
import pyezcalib as ca
import netgpib
... 64 more lines ...
Attachment 7: plot
#!/usr/bin/env python

import os
#import numpy as np
from pylab import *

#name = sys.argv[1]

#atten = 10 # 10dB

... 31 more lines ...
  8580   Wed May 15 17:17:05 2013 JamieSummaryCDSAccounting of ADC/DAC channel availability

We need ADC and DAC channels for a couple of things:

  • POP QPD: 3x ADC
  • ALS PZTs: 3x 2x 2x DAC (three pairs of PZTs, at ends and vertex, each with two channels for pitch and yaw)
  • Fibox: 1x DAC

What's being used:

  • c1iscex/c1iscey:
    • DAC_0:   7/16 = 9 free
    • ADC_0: 17/32 = 15 free
  • c1sus:
    • DAC: ?
    • ADC: ?
  • c1ioo
    • DAC_0:   0/16 = 16 free ?? This one is weird. DAC in IO chassis, half it's channels connected to cross connect (going ???), but no model links to it
    • ADC_0: 23/32 = 9 free
    • ADC_1:  8/32 = 24 free
  • c1lsc
    • DAC_0: 16/26 = 0 free
    • ADC_0: 32/32 = 0 free

What this means:

  • We definitely have enough DACs for the ALS PZTs.  The free channels are also in the right places: at the end stations and in the c1ioo FE, which is close to the PSL and hosts the c1als controller.
  • We appear to have enough ADCs for the QPD in c1ioo.
  • We don't have any available DAC outputs in c1lsc for the Fibox.  If we can move the Fibox to the IOO racks (1X1, 1X2) then we could send LSC channels to c1ioo and use c1ioo's extra DAC channels.

Of course we'll have to investigate the AA/AI situation as well.  I'll try to asses that in a follow up post.

PS: this helps to identify used ADC channels in models:

grep adc_ sus/c1/models/c1scx.mdl | grep Name | awk '{print $2}' | sort | uniq


  8581   Wed May 15 17:38:49 2013 JamieSummaryCDSAA/AI requirements


What this means:

  • We definitely have enough DACs for the ALS PZTs.  The free channels are also in the right places: at the end stations and in the c1ioo FE, which is close to the PSL and hosts the c1als controller.
  • We appear to have enough ADCs for the QPD in c1ioo.
  • We don't have any available DAC outputs in c1lsc for the Fibox.  If we can move the Fibox to the IOO racks (1X1, 1X2) then we could send LSC channels to c1ioo and use c1ioo's extra DAC channels.

Of course we'll have to investigate the AA/AI situation as well.  I'll try to asses that in a follow up post.

It looks like we have spare channels in the AA chassis for the existing c1ioo ADC inputs to accommodate the POP QPD. 

We need AI interfaces for the ALS PZTs.  What we ideally need is 3x D000186, which are the eurocard AI boards that have the flat IDC input connects that can come straight from the DAC break-out interfaces.  I'm not finding any in the spares in the spare electronics shelves, though.   If we can't find any we'll have to make our own AI interfaces.

  8583   Wed May 15 19:32:04 2013 ranaSummaryCDSAccounting of ADC/DAC channel availability
  1. What are we using 16 DAC channels for in the LSC?
  2. What are the functions of those IOO DAC channels which go to cross-connects? If they're not properly sending, then we may have malfunctioning MC or MCWFS.
  3. Can we just use the SLOW DAC (4116) for the ALS PZTs? We used this for a long time for the input steering and it was OK (but not perfect).
  8585   Wed May 15 22:47:11 2013 JamieSummaryCDSAccounting of ADC/DAC channel availability

  1. What are we using 16 DAC channels for in the LSC?

For the new input and output tip-tilts.  Two input, two output, each requires four channels.

  1. What are the functions of those IOO DAC channels which go to cross-connects? If they're not properly sending, then we may have malfunctioning MC or MCWFS.

I have no idea.  I don't know what the hardware is, or is supposed to be, connected to.  DAC for WFS??  Was there at some point supposed to be fast output channels in the PSL?

  1. Can we just use the SLOW DAC (4116) for the ALS PZTs? We used this for a long time for the input steering and it was OK (but not perfect).

 Probably. I'm not as familiar with that system.  I don't know what the availability of hardware channels is there.  I'll investigate tomorrow.

  8587   Thu May 16 01:41:31 2013 JenneSummaryIOOFSS gain settings set


I'm not sure yet what this points to as the best gain settings.  We can of course explore more of the space.  I'm going to leave it at 13/23.5, which leaves the PC RMS at ~1.5 and the FAST Monitor at ~6.0.

 I changed the value of the nominal FSS common gain in the PSL Settings screen (It's called the 'FSS global gain' there).  To get to this screen:  sitemap -> PSL_main -> PSL_settings.  The MC autolocker reads these settings from the screen and uses those values.  Now the FSS returns to this value of 13 that Jamie has chosen.  For the past few days, it's been going back to the old value of 10.1 .  The FAST gain was already set to this 23.5 value.

  8598   Fri May 17 18:58:58 2013 Jamie, KojiSummaryCDSWeird DAC bit flipping at half integer output values

While looking at the DAC anti-imaging filters, Koji noticed an odd feature of the DAC output:


What you see here is 16kHz double data from a model right before the DAC part ('C1:SUS-PRM_ULCOIL_OUT', blue), and the full 64kHz int data sent to the physical DAC as reported by the IOP ('C1:X02-MDAC0_TP_CH0', green).  The balls are the actual sample values (as expected there are four green balls for every blue).  The output data is being ramped continuously between 0 and 1.

As the output data crosses the half-count level, the integer DAC output oscillates continuously at every 64kHz sample between the bounding integer values (in this case 0 and 1).

Here's the data as we hold the output continuously at the half-count level; the integer DAC output just oscillates continuously:


After some probing I found that the oscillation happens between [-0.003 +0.004] of the half-count level.

The result of this is a fairly strong 32 kHz line in the DAC analog output.

We looked in the controller.c and couldn't identify anything that would be doing this.  This is the output procedure as I can see it (controller.c lines): 

  1. The double from the model is passed to the IOP
  2. The IOP applies a sample-and-hold or zero-pad if the model is running at a slower speed than the IOP (1799)
  3. The data is then anti-image filtered (1801)
  4. A half-integer is added/subtracted before casting such that the cast is a round instead of a floor (1817)
  5. The data double is cast to an int (1819)
  6. The data is written to the DAC (1873)

There's nothing there that would indicate this sort of bit flipping.

ELOG V3.1.3-