40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 58 of 344  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Typeup Category Subject
  9440   Wed Dec 4 15:43:13 2013 JenneSummaryLSCPut LSC DAQ channels back

Last week, Koji cleaned up the LSC model to make it much more readable, while he was working on piping the ALS signals to the LSC model.  However, somehow the DAQ Channels block got deleted before the model was committed to the svn.  Since there were 2 months between svn checkins for c1lsc.mdl, it's possible that someone had the model open just to look at, and the block got deleted, and that's the version that Koji started with. 

Anyhow, thankfully we have the svn, so Koji and I found that the DAQ Channels block was (as expected) in the previously checked-in version of the LSC model.  I put a copy of the old model onto my desktop, opened it up, copied the DAQ Channels block, and then pasted it into the new cleaned-up version of the model.  (Jamie - is there a way to conveniently download a previous version through the web interface?)

I have checked it in, compiled and restarted the lsc model.  The _DQ channels are back now.

  9476   Sun Dec 15 20:37:41 2013 ranaSummaryTreasureThere is a Wagonga in the container that Steve does not believe in

From Linda and Bram:

  9490   Wed Dec 18 17:28:50 2013 GabrieleSummaryLSCEstimate of the PRC length error

Measurement 

Looking back at what I did in april (see log #8411) I realized that it is possible to get an estimate of how much the PRC length is wrong looking at the splitting of the sideband resonant peak as visible in the POP_110_I signal. With the help of Jenne the PRMI was aligned and left swinging. The first plot shows a typical example of the peak splitting of 55MHz sidebands. This is much larger than what was observed in April.

When the sidebands resonate inside the PRC they get a differential dephasing given by 

dPhi = 4*pi*f_mod/c * dL

where dL is the cavity length error with respect to the one that makes the sidebands perfectly resonant when the arms are not there. This is not exactly the error we are interested in, since we should take into account the shift from anti-resonance of the SBs in the arm cavities.

Nevertheless, I can measure the splitting of the peak in units of the peaks full width at half maximum (FWHM). I did this fitting few peaks with the sum of two Airy peaks. Here is an example of the result

data_fit2.png

The average splitting is 1.8 times the FWHM. Knowing the PRC finesse, one can determine the length error:

dL = c / (4 * f_mod * Finesse) * (dPhi / FWHM)

Assuming a finesse of 60, I get a length error of 4 cm.

To get another estimate, we kicked the PRM in order to get some almost linear sweeps of the PRC length. Here is one of the best results:

data_kick.png

The distance between consecutive peaks is the free spectral range (FSR) of the PRC cavity. Again, I can measure the peak splitting in units of the FSR and determine the length error:

dL = c / (4 * f_mod) * (dPhi / FSR)

The result is again a length error of 4 cm.

Simulation

An error of 4 cm seems pretty big. Therefore I set up a quick simulation with MIST to check if this makes sense. Indeed, if I simulate a PRMI with the 40m parameters and move the PRC length from the optimal one, I get the following result for POP_110_I, which is consistent with the measurement.

pop110_vs_dL.png

 

 Therefore, we can quite confidently assume that the PRC is off by 4 cm with respect to the position that would make the 55 MHz sideband resonant without arms. Unfortunately, it is not possible with this technique to infere the direction of the error.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  9493   Thu Dec 19 12:51:57 2013 JenneSummaryLSCEstimate of the sign of the PRC length error

My hunch is that the PRC is SHORT by a few cm, not long. 

In my Optickle simulation, the sidebands are not perfectly co-resonating in the PRMI when the arms are not locked.  See Fig 1, which is the fields in the PRMI using the design PRC length.  If I add 5cm to the PRC length, I get Fig 2, where the peaks are about the same separation, but the upper and lower sidebands have swapped sides of the 0 mark.  However, if I remove 5cm from the PRC length, I get Fig 3, where the peaks are much farther apart than in Fig 1.  This case looks more similar to the data that Gabriele plotted in his elog entry, where the peaks are separated by at least a linewidth.  This is not at all conclusive, but it's a guess for which direction we need to move.  Obviously doing an actual measurement will be better. 

My tummy feelings also agree with this simulation:  When we flipped PR3 (the only optic change in the PRC since Gabriele and I measured the 55MHz peak separation in April), since the HR side of the optic is now at the back, we had to push the whole suspension cage forward to get the beam aligned to the Yarm.  Conversely, however, transmitting through the glass substrate adds to the optical path length.  So, my tummy feelings may be wrong.

Figure 1, PRC at design length, PRMI sweep:

DesignLength.png

Figure 2, PRC 5cm longer than design length:

Plus5cm.png

Figure 3, PRC 5cm shorter than design length:

Minus5cm.png

 

  9495   Thu Dec 19 18:33:25 2013 GabrieleSummaryLSCEstimate of the sign of the PRC length error

Maybe I'm getting confused, but I still believe there is no way to decide the direction from yesterday's measurement.

Let's say for example that the arm sideband detuning from antiresonance is equivalent to a PRC length change of +1cm away from the position of ideal resonance of the sidebands without arms. Then we can get a measured separation of the sidebands, without arms, corresponding to 5cm both if the PRC is off by +4cm or by -6cm...

  9498   Fri Dec 20 00:16:39 2013 KojiSummaryCDSRCG parsing bug?

A while ago, I noticed that the most significant bits of the LSC whitening DOs are not toggling.
I track this issue down and found what is happening. I need experts' help.


To illuminate the issue, terminators are connected to Bit15 of the Bit2Word blocks in the LSC model (attached screen shots).

The corresponding source file is found in c1lsc.c at the following location.
The last channels of the Bit2Word are connected to lsc_cm_slow (the filter module).
This is the source of the issue. This wrong assignment of the connections
can't be changed by connecting Go-From tags to the chennels.

/opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/rtbuild/src/fe/c1lsc/c1lsc.c

3881// Bit2Word:  LSC_cdsBit2Word1                                                                                                              
3882{
3883double ins[16] = {
3884        lsc_as110_logicaloperator4,
3885        lsc_as110_logicaloperator1,
3886        lsc_refl11_logicaloperator4,
3887        lsc_refl11_logicaloperator1,
3888        lsc_pox11_logicaloperator4,
3889        lsc_pox11_logicaloperator1,
3890        lsc_poy11_logicaloperator4,
3891        lsc_poy11_logicaloperator1,
3892        lsc_refl33_logicaloperator4,
3893        lsc_refl33_logicaloperator1,
3894        lsc_pop22_logicaloperator4,
3895        lsc_pop22_logicaloperator1,
3896        lsc_pop110_logicaloperator4,
3897        lsc_pop110_logicaloperator1,
3898        lsc_as165_logicaloperator4,
3899        lsc_cm_slow
3900};
3901lsc_cdsbit2word1 = 0;
3902for (ii = 0; ii < 16; ii++)
3903{
3904if (ins[ii]) {
3905lsc_cdsbit2word1 += powers_of_2[ii];
3906}
3907}
3908}

3946// Bit2Word:  LSC_cdsBit2Word2                                                                                                              
3947{                                                                                                                                           
3948double ins[16] = {                                                                                                                          
3949        lsc_as55_logicaloperator4,                                                                                                          
3950        lsc_as55_logicaloperator1,                                                                                                          
3951        lsc_refl55_logicaloperator4,                                                                                                        
3952        lsc_refl55_logicaloperator1,                                                                                                        
3953        lsc_pop55_logicaloperator4,                                                                                                         
3954        lsc_pop55_logicaloperator1,                                                                                                         
3955        lsc_refl165_logicaloperator4,                                                                                                       
3956        lsc_refl165_logicaloperator1,                                                                                                       
3957        lsc_logicaloperator_cm_ctrl,                                                                                                        
3958        ground,                                                                                                                             
3959        ground,                                                                                                                             
3960        lsc_logicaloperator_popdc,                                                                                                          
3961        lsc_logicaloperator_poydc,                                                                                                          
3962        lsc_logicaloperator_poxdc,                                                                                                          
3963        lsc_logicaloperator_refldc,                                                                                                         
3964        lsc_cm_slow                                                                                                                         
3965};                                                                                                                                          
3966lsc_cdsbit2word2 = 0;                                                                                                                       
3967for (ii = 0; ii < 16; ii++)                                                                                                                 
3968{                                                                                                                                           
3969if (ins[ii]) {                                                                                                                              
3970lsc_cdsbit2word2 += powers_of_2[ii];
3971}
3972}
3973}

 

  9503   Fri Dec 20 11:40:13 2013 JamieSummaryCDSRCG parsing bug?

I submitted a bug report for this:

https://bugzilla.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=553

However, given how old our RCG version is (2.5 vs. 2.8 current deployed at the sites) I don't think we're going to see any traction on this.  Even if this is still a bug in 2.8, they'll only fix it in 2.8.  There's no way they're going to make a bug fix release for 2.5.

We need to upgrade.

  9505   Fri Dec 20 18:00:02 2013 KojiSummaryCDSRCG parsing bug?

The bug is still there but the incorrect bits are now overridden.

  9511   Tue Dec 31 23:19:58 2013 KojiSummaryGenerallinux1 RAID crash & recovery

Dec 22 between 6AM and 7AM, physical or logical failure has occure on the 4th disk in the RAID array on linux1.
This caused the RAID disk fell into the readonly mode. All of the hosts dependent on linux1 via NFS were affected by the incident.

Today the system has been recovered. The failed filesystem was restored by copying all of the files (1.3TB total) on the RAID to a 2TB SATA disk.
The depending hosts were restarted and we recovered elog/wiki access as well as the interferometer control system.


Recovery process

o Recover the access to linux1

- Connect an LCD display on the host. The keyboard is already connected and on the machine.
- One can login to linux1 from one of the virtual consoles, which can be switched by Alt+1/2/3 ...etc
- The device file of the RAID is /dev/sda1
- The boot didn't go straightforward as mounting of the disks accoding to /dev/fstab doesn't go well.
- The 40m root password was used to login with the filesystem recovery mode.
- Use the following command to make the editing of /etc/fstab available

# mount -o rw, remount /

- In order to make the normal reboot successfull, the line for the RAID in /etc/fstab needed to be commented out.

o Connect the external disk on linux1

- Brought a spare 2TB SATA disk from rossa.
- Connect the disk via an USB-SATA enclosure (dev/sdd1)
- Mount the 2TB disk on /tmpdisk
- Run the following command for the duplication

# rsync -aHuv --progress /home/ /tmpdisk/ >/rsync_KA_20131229_0230.log

- Because of the slow SCSI I/F, the copy rate was limited to ~6MB/s. The copy started on 27th and finished 31st.

o Restart linux1

- It was found that linux1 couldn't boot if the USB drive is connected.
- The machine has two SATA ports. These two are used for another RAID array that is not actually used. (/oldhome)
- linux1 was pulled out from the shelf in order to remove the two SATA disks.
- The 2TB disk was installed on the SATA port0.
- Restart linux1 but didn't start as the new disk is recognized as the boot disk.
- The BIOS setting was changed so that the 80GB PATA disk is recognized as the boot disk.
- The boot process fell into the filesystem recovery mode again. /etc/fstab was modified as follows.

/dev/VolGroup00/LogVol00 /                ext3    defaults        1 1
LABEL=/boot              /boot            ext3    defaults        1 2
devpts                   /dev/pts         devpts  gid=5,mode=620  0 0
tmpfs                    /dev/shm         tmpfs   defaults        0 0
proc                     /proc            proc    defaults        0 0
sysfs                    /sys             sysfs   defaults        0 0
/dev/VolGroup00/LogVol01 swap             swap    defaults        0 0
#/dev/md0                 /oldhome         ext3    defaults        0 1
/dev/sda1                /home            ext3    defaults        0 1
#/dev/sdb1                /tmpraid         ext3    defaults        0 1

- Another reboot make the operating system launched as usual.

o What's happen to the RAID?

- Hot removal of the disk #4.
- Hot plug of the disk #4.
- Disk #4 started to get rebuilt -> ~3hours rebuilding done
- This made the system marked as "clean". Now the raid (/dev/sdb1) can be mounted as usual.


o Nodus

- Root password of nodus is not known.
- Connect an LCD monitor and a Sun keyboard on nodus.
- Type Stop-A. This leads the nodus transition to the monitor mode.
- Type sync.
- This leads the system rebooted.

  9512   Wed Jan 1 15:01:29 2014 KojiSummaryGeneralIFO recovery

IFO restart after the recovery of linux1

Machine recovery in the following order
- Start fb
- Start the following machines: mafalda, megatron, op340m
- Start c1ioo, c1lsc, c1sus, c1iscex, c1iscey

CDS recovery / burtrestore

- Confirm all of the RT systems are running in "green". If not, restart corresponding model.
- c1iscaux, ciscaux2 didn't have response (white boxes). Went to the LCS digital rack and power cycled these targets
- burtrestore: The snapshots at Dec 19 05:07 were used. For c1iscaux and c1iscaux2 the snapshots at Dec 22 05:07 were used.

fast machines
c1alsepics.snap
c1assepics.snap
c1asxepics.snap
c1calepics.snap
c1iooepics.snap
c1lscepics.snap
c1lspepics.snap
c1mcsepics.snap
c1oafepics.snap
c1pemepics.snap
c1rfmepics.snap
c1scxepics.snap
c1scyepics.snap
c1spxepics.snap
c1supepics.snap
c1susepics.snap
c1tstepics.snap

slow machines
c1auxex.snap
c1auxey.snap
c1aux.snap
c1iool0.snap
c1iscaux2.snap
c1iscaux.snap
c1psl.snap
c1susaux.snap

 

IFO recovery

- Reload watchdogs => restore sus damping
- MC misaligned but TEM00 was locked
- Gave a small touch on MC2 yaw => IMC almost aligned
- Autolocker wasn't running => Manually launched rather than wait for an hour for cron to launch it
- PMC was largely misaligned. => Aligned on the PSL table (PSLTRANS 0.640->0.753)
- MC WFS ON
- IFO X/Y arm locked and aligned with ASS.
- PRMI mode: manually aligned PRM. The PRMIsb momentally locked.

  9513   Thu Jan 2 10:15:20 2014 JamieSummaryGenerallinux1 RAID crash & recovery

Well done Koji!  I'm very impressed with the sysadmin skillz.

  9516   Fri Jan 3 11:18:41 2014 SteveSummaryVACpower supply replaced with a short vent

Quote:

Quote:

 

 The temperature went down to room temp with temporary fan in the back. Voltage and current are stable.

Regardless, it will be replaced early next week.

Koji, Steve

 It was a bad experience again with our vacuum system.  The valves went crazy as we rebooted the computer. This was required for the swap in of a good 24V power supply.

The IFO was vented to 27 Torr through the annuloses, VA6, V7, Maglev,VM2 and VM1 (VC2 was open too)

I just opened the PSL shutter after a 4 hours pumpdown.

Condition: annuloses are not pumped, the IFO and the RGA are pumped as Atm2 shows

I will be here tomorrow morning to switch over to vacuum normal. 

More details later

 

 

 Events of the power supply swap:

1, Tested 24V DC ps from Todd

2, Closed V1, VM1 and all annulos valves to create safety net for the reboot. Turbo pumps left on running.

3, Turned computer off

4, Swap power supplies and turned it on

5, Turning the power on of c1vac2 created caos switching of valves. This resulted in a air vent as shown below.

6, VM1 was jammed and it was unable to close. The IOO beam shutter closed and the IFO was venting with air for a few minutes. Maglev did an emergency shut down. TP2's V4 and TP3' V5 closed. RP1 and RP3                           roughing         pumps turned on, their hose was not connected as usual. The RGA shut down to protect itself.

7, Closed annulos valves, stoped the vent at P1 27 torr as the vacuum control was  manually recovered

8, The Maglev and the annuloses were roughed out 500 mtorr . The Maglev was restarted.

9, The IFO pump down followed std procedure from 27 torr. VM1 was moving again as the pressure differential was removed from it.

 

 Remember: next time at atm .....rough down the cryo volume from 27 torr !

  9517   Fri Jan 3 15:19:39 2014 ranaSummaryPSLPSL pointing monitoring

 This is a 10-minute trend of the last 60 days of the pointing of the PSL beam.

The main fluctuation seems to be at the ~30 day time scale (not 24 hour) and its all in the vertical direction; the horizontal drift is ~10x less (as long as we believe there is no calibration error).

So what's causing all of this vertical shift? And why is there not just as much horizontal??

  9518   Fri Jan 3 18:21:45 2014 ranaSummaryPSLPSL pointing monitoring

 

 I went to the PSL table to re-align the input pointing to the IMC. After trying to optimize the pointing into the PMC and not succeeding I also then touched the wrong mirror and messed up our IOO QPD reference pointing.

The IMC is locking again, but I'll have to fix the pointing on Monday.

  9519   Mon Jan 6 16:30:31 2014 JenneSummaryPSLPSL pointing monitoring

I'm not sure which pointing Rana wanted to fix today, but here's a measurement of the MC spots.  They actually look pretty good.  There is some room for improvement, but not a lot, so I'm leaving it alone for now, while I play with other things in the IFO.

spot positions in mm (MC1,2,3 pit MC1,2,3 yaw):
[0.63368182839757914, 1.3004245778952557, 0.33621668795755993, -1.5585578137597658, -3.1344594013487286, -1.0533063060089816]

MCspots_6Jan2014.png

  9520   Mon Jan 6 16:32:40 2014 KojiSummaryGenerallinux1 RAID crash & recovery

Since this configuration change, the daily backup was speeded up by factor of more than two.
It was really limited by the bandwidth of the RAID array.

/cvs/cds/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/backup/rsync.backup.cumlog:

...
rsync.backup start: 2013-12-20-05:00:00, end: 2013-12-20-07:04:28, errcode 0
...
rsync.backup start: 2014-01-05-05:00:00, end: 2014-01-05-05:55:04, errcode 0

(The daily backup starts from 5:00)

  9537   Wed Jan 8 13:01:48 2014 GabrieleSummaryLSCEffect of PRC length mismatch on error signals

I ran a simulation of a double cavity with a PRC length mismatched w.r.t. the modulation frequency. I summarized the results in the attached PDF. I think it would be important to have a cross check of the results.

In brief:

A mismatch between PRC length and modulation frequency do have an effect on error signals

Multiple zeros appear in REFL_3f/PRCL that can be removed by careful tuning of the demodulation phase (however, the shape of the signal makes difficult to understand which phase is good…)

No visible effect on REFL_1f/CARM

But a large PRCL signal appears in REFL_1f_I, which is used to control CARM. This is not good.

A mismatch of the order of 0.5 cm has a small effect.

 

 

 

 

 

  9539   Wed Jan 8 16:08:52 2014 ericqSummaryLSCEffect of PRC length mismatch on error signals

 [ericq,Gabriele]

So, we want an relatively quick measurement of the PRC length error (with sign!) at the order of .5 centimeter or so. Rana suggested the "demodulation phase method," i.e. lock the simple Michelson, measure what demodulation phase brings the 1F signal entirely within the phase quadrature, then lock the PRMI and measure the demodulation phase again. This tells you something about the length of the PRC. 

Gabriele and I worked through a simulation using MIST to determine how to actually do this. We simulated the case of injecting a line at 1kHz in the laser frequency via the laser's PZT and looking at the transfer function of the 1kHz signal to the I and Q at the 1F AS demodulated signal when locked. (Michelson locked on the dark fringe, PRC locked on 11MHz sideband) With the I and Q in hand, we can measure some demodulation phase angle that would bring everything into I. 

When the PRC length is in the ideal location, the demodulation phases in the two cases are the just about the same. Sweeping the length of the PRC around the ideal length gives us a monotonic function in the difference in the demodulation phases:

phaseVlength.pdf

So, with this simulation, we should be able to calibrate a measured difference in demod phase into the length error of the cavity! We will proceed and report...

  9541   Wed Jan 8 19:05:30 2014 GabrieleSummaryLSCEffect of PRC length mismatch on error signals

 [Gabriele, EricQ]


Actually it is difficult to see any laser frequency line in the dark fringe signal, since the Schnupp asymmetry is small. It is much better to use a differential MICH excitation which gives a better signal at the dark port.

We repeated the simulation explained before. We can use both the AS55 or the AS11 signals, bout the first one has a limited linear range and the expected 4cm value is very close to saturation.

as11.pngas55.png

  9544   Thu Jan 9 17:58:31 2014 ericqSummaryLSCEffect of PRC length mismatch on error signals

[ericq, Gabriele, Manasa]

 We wanted to perform the PRC length measurement today with an AS11 signal, but such a signal didn't exist. So, we have temporarily connected the AS110 PD signal (which is some Thorlabs PD, and not a resonant one) into the REFL11 demod board. 

We then proceeded with the goal of locking the PRC with REFL165. A few parameters that were changed along the way as we aligned and locked things:

  • the XARM gain was increased from 0.4 to 0.5 to help it acquire lock
  • the MICH gain was decreased from -10 to -5 since there was some gain peaking in its servo output
  • the REFL165 demodulation phase was changed from 155 to 122, to place a PRCL excitation entirely within I (we did this while locked on the carrier)

Sadly, in the end, we couldn't lock the PRC on a sideband in a stable manner. The alignment would drift faster than we could optimize the alignment and gains for the PRC. I.e. we would lock the PRC on the carrier, align PRM (and maybe touch ITMX) to maximize POPDC, switch to sideband locking, try to lock, and things would start looking misaligned. Switching back to carrier locking, the beam spots on REFL (for example) would have moved.

Manasa noted the MC_TRANS_Y has been substantially drifting along with small drift in MC_TRANS_P as well. So we need to fix the source of the mode cleaner beam drifting if we want to make this measurement. 

  9546   Fri Jan 10 15:31:07 2014 ranaSummaryLSCEffect of PRC length mismatch on error signals

 

 Its very doubtful that the MC yaw drift matters for the IFO. That's just a qualitative correlation; the numbers don't hang together.

  9548   Sun Jan 12 09:57:24 2014 GabrieleSummaryLSCEffect of PRC length mismatch on error signals

Quote:

 

 Its very doubtful that the MC yaw drift matters for the IFO. That's just a qualitative correlation; the numbers don't hang together.

 Then there must be something else slowly drifting. It was very clear that the good alignment of the IFO was every time lost after few minutes...

  9551   Mon Jan 13 19:31:04 2014 GabrieleSummaryLSCPRMI locking

[Gabriele, EricQ]

We wanted to try the PRC length measurement,but we ended up spending all the afternoon to lock the PRMI on sidebands. Here are some results

  • Lock of PRM on carrier is easy with MICH on AS55_Q and PRCL on REFL55_I. The optimal gains to avoid correction gain peaking are MICH=-5 and PRCL=0.012. The alignment today was must more stable over time than on Friday
  • We wanted to move MICH on REFL55_Q. After a few trials we discovered that REFL55_Q is not seeing any MICH signal at all. This is quite strange and we don't understand this.
  • Locking PRMI on carrier using REFL165_I and Q was difficult. We thought that was due to a RF amplifier installed in December. We tried to remove it, but since this did not help, we put it back
  • We could lock PRMI on carrier and sidebands using REFL11 signals. The optimal demodulation phase is 155. Lock on carrier was achieved with gains MICH=5, PRCL=0.7. Lock on sidebands with MICH gain=-10 and PRCL gain=-0.3. The MICH correction is very high and exciting a tone at few hundreds Hz. Maybe a violin mode of the ITMs?
  • Finally we could tune the REFL165 phase to 118.5 and lock on carrier. The lock was not very stable. Gain are: lock on carrier MICH=-0.5, PRCL=0.05. The error signal has a very big offset: to get a dark fringe we had to add a MICH offset of 500 counts. We also had to engage the CLP400 filter to avoid saturating ITMs corrections with MICH.
  9554   Tue Jan 14 19:05:48 2014 GabrieleSummaryLSCPRMI locked on sideband

[Gabriele, EricQ] 

Finally, we managed to lock PRMI on sidebands:

  • MICH locked on AS55_Q with gain -10. Demod phase of AS55=18
  • PRCL locked on REFL55_I with gain -0.04. Demod phase of REFL55=88
  • Triggering on POP110_I at 50/10
  • Filter "1:5" of MICH engaged, this improved a lot the stability

 

  9555   Tue Jan 14 19:10:51 2014 GabrieleSummaryLSCPRC length measurement

 [EricQ, Gabriele]

We could carry out the measurement of PRC length. The AS110 photodiode was plugged into REFL11. So REFL11 is giving us the AS11 signal. Here is the procedure.

  1. Lock MICH.
  2. Add a line in MICH (amplitude 20000 counts)
  3. Tune AS11 demod phase to have the line in I.
  4. Change the demod phase by steps of 1 degree around the rough optimum, taking one minute of data at each point
  5. Lock PRMI on sidebands
  6. Add a line in MICH (amplitude 500 counts)
  7. Tune AS11 demod phase to have the line in I.
  8. Change the demod phase by steps of 1 degree around the rough optimum, taking one minute of data at each point

We repeated the same measurement also using AS55, with the same procedure.

Roughly, the phase difference for AS11 was 11 degrees and for AS55 it was 23 degrees. A more detailed analysis and a calibration in terms of PRC length will follow.

  9557   Wed Jan 15 18:18:15 2014 GabrieleSummaryLSCPRC length measurement analysis

 I analyzed the data we took yesterday, both using AS11 and AS55. For each value of the phase I estimated the Q/P ratio using a demodulation code. Then I used a linear regression fit to estimate the zero crossing point.

Here are the plots of the data points with the fits:

experimental_data_as11.pdfexperimental_data_as55.pdf

The measurements a re more noisy in the PRMI configuration, as expected since we had a lot of angular motion. Also, the AS11 data is more noisy. However, the estimated phase differences between PRMI and MICH configurations are:

  • AS11 = -10.9 +- 1.0 degrees
  • AS55 = -21.1 +- 0.4 degrees

The simulation already described in slogs 9539 and 9541 provides the calibration in terms of PRC length. Here are the curves

simulation_phase_difference.pdf

The corresponding length errors are

  • AS11 = 1.44 +- 0.13 cm
  • AS55 = 0.59 +- 0.01 cm

The two results are not consistent one with the other and they are both not consistent with the previous estimate of 4 cm based on the 55MHz sideband peak splitting.

I don't know the reason for this incongruence. I checked the simulation, repeating it with Optickle and I got the same results. So I'm confident that the simulation is not completely wrong.

I also tried to understand which parameters of the IFO can affect the result. The following ones have no impact

  • Beam matching
  • ITM curvatures
  • Schnupp asymmetry
  • Distance PR-BS
  • ITM and PRM misalignments

The only parameters that could affect the curves are offsets in MICH and PRCL locking point. We should check if this is happening. A first quick look (with EricQ) seems to indicate that we indeed have an offset in PRCL. However, tonight the PRMI is not locking stably on the sidebands. 

If possibile, we will repeat the measurement later on tonight, checking first the PRCL offset.

 

  9561   Fri Jan 17 11:44:25 2014 GabrieleSummaryLSCMore length measurements, more confusion

 I analyzed the data taken yesterday. 

The AS11 data in PRMI configuration is very bad, while the AS55 seems good enough:

results_as11.pdfresults_as55.pdf

The phase differences are 

AS11 = 21 +- 18 degrees (almost useless due to the large error)

AS55 = 11.0 +- 0.4 degrees

The AS55 phase difference is not the same measured in the last trial, but about half of it. The new length estimates are:

AS11 = 3.2 +- 2.8 cm

AS55 = 0.47 +- 0.01 cm

We can probably forget about the AS11 measurement, but the AS55 result is different from the previous estimate... Maybe this is due to the fact that Eric adjusted the PRCL offset, but then we're going in the wrong direction....

  9562   Tue Jan 21 17:26:59 2014 JenneSummaryVACRebooted RGA computer and reset RGA settings

[Jenne, Steve]

Steve noticed that the RGA was not logging data and that not all the correct connection lights were on, and he wasn't able to run the "RGAset.py" script (in ...../scripts/RGA/) that sets up the proper parameters. 

I looked, and the computer was not mounting the file system.  I did a remote shutdown, then Steve went in and pushed the power button to turn the machine back on.  After it booted up, it was able to talk to the file system, so I started ..../scripts/RGA/RGAset.py .  The first 2 times I ran the script, it reported errors, but the 3rd time, it reported no communication errors.  So, now that the computer can again talk to the file system, it should be able to run the cronjob, which is set to take data at 4am every day.  Steve will check in the morning to confirm that the data is there.  (The last data that's logged is 22Dec2013, 4am, which is right around when Koji reported and then fixed the file system).

 

 

  9565   Wed Jan 22 15:24:11 2014 SteveSummaryVACRga scan after reboot

Quote:

[Jenne, Steve]

Steve noticed that the RGA was not logging data and that not all the correct connection lights were on, and he wasn't able to run the "RGAset.py" script (in ...../scripts/RGA/) that sets up the proper parameters. 

I looked, and the computer was not mounting the file system.  I did a remote shutdown, then Steve went in and pushed the power button to turn the machine back on.  After it booted up, it was able to talk to the file system, so I started ..../scripts/RGA/RGAset.py .  The first 2 times I ran the script, it reported errors, but the 3rd time, it reported no communication errors.  So, now that the computer can again talk to the file system, it should be able to run the cronjob, which is set to take data at 4am every day.  Steve will check in the morning to confirm that the data is there.  (The last data that's logged is 22Dec2013, 4am, which is right around when Koji reported and then fixed the file system).

 

 

 We are venting tomorrow. This give us an opportunity to fix sick vacuum controller computer. Jamie volunteered.

Remember to rough down cryo and ion pump volumes. Their pressure can be at 1 Torr range after years of accumulated outgassing.  Without total valve controls it is dangerous to have these air pockets. Some of their  gate valves can be leaking and that would explane the slower pumpdown speed. 

 

  9585   Wed Jan 29 16:36:37 2014 KojiSummaryGeneralHigh power beam blasting of the aLIGO RFPD

[Rich, Jay, Koji]

We blasted the aLIGO RF PD with a 1W IR beam. We did not find any obvious damage.
Rich and Jay brought the PD back to Downs to find any deterioration of the performance with careful tests.

The power modulation setup is at the rejection side of the PBS in front of the laser source.
I checked the beams are nicely damped.
As they may come back here tomorrow, a power supply and a scope is still at the MC side of the PSL enclosure.

  9586   Wed Jan 29 21:01:03 2014 GabrieleSummaryLSCPRC length measurement analysis

 [Manasa, EricQ, Gabriele]

We managed to measure the PRC length using a procedure close to the one described in slog 9573.

We had to modify a bit the reference points, since some of them were not accessible. The distances between points into the BS chamber were measured using a ruler. The distances between points on different chambers were measured using the Leica measurement tool. In total we measured five distances, shown in green in the attached map.

We also measured three additional distances that we used to cross check the results. These are shown in the map in magenta.

The values of the optical lengths we measured are:

LX    = 6828.96 mm
LY    = 6791.74 mm
LPRC  = 6810.35 mm
LX-LY = 37.2196 mm  

The three reference distances are computed by the script and they match well the measured one, within half centimeter:

M32_MP1  = 117.929 mm   (measured = 119 mm)
MP2_MB3  = 242.221 mm   (measured = 249 mm)
M23_MX1p = 220.442 mm   (measured = 226 mm)

See the attached map to see what the names correspond to.

The nominal PRC length (the one that makes SB resonant without arms) can be computed from the IMC length and it is 6777 mm. So, the power recycling cavity is 33 mm too long w.r.t. the nominal length. This is in good agreement with the estimate we got with the SB splitting method (4cm).

According to the simulation in the wiki page the length we want to have the SB resonate when the arms are there is 6753 mm. So the cavity is 57 mm too long.

Attached the new version of the script used for the computation.

  9588   Thu Jan 30 19:00:25 2014 GabrieleSummaryLSCPRC length changed

 [Manasa, EricQ, Gabriele]

Today we changed the PRC length translating PR2 by 27 mm in the direction of the corner. After this movement we had to realign the PRC cavity to get the beam centered on PRM, PR2, PR3, BS (with apertures) and ITMY (with aperture). To realign we had to move a bit both PR2 and PR3. We could also see some flashes back from the ETMY . //Edit by Manasa : We could see the ETMY reflection close to the center of the ITMY but the arm is not aligned or flashing as yet//. 

After the realignment we measured again the PRC length with the same method of yesterday. We only had to change one of the length to measure, because it was no more accessible today. The new map is attached as well as the new script (the script contains also the SRC length estimation, with random numbers in it).

The new PRC length is 6753 mm, which is exactly our target!

 

The consistency checks are within 5 mm, which is not bad.

We also measured some distances to estimate the SRC length, but right now I'm a bit confused looking at the notes and it seems there is one missing distance (number 1 in the notes). We'll have to check it again tomorrow.

 

 

 

  9590   Fri Jan 31 19:29:36 2014 GabrieleSummaryLSCPRC and SRC lengths

 Today we measured the missing distance to reconstruct SRC length.

I also changed the way the mirror positions are reconstructed. In total for PRC and SRC we took 13 measurements between different points. The script runs a global fit to these distances based on eight distances and four incidence angles on PR2, PR2, SR2 and SR3. The optimal values are those that minimize the maximum error of the 13 measurements with respect to the ones reconstructed on the base of the parameters. The new script is attached (sorry, the code is not the cleanest one I ever wrote...)

The reconstructed distances are:

Reconstructed lengths [mm]:
LX    = 6771
LY    = 6734
LPRC  = 6752
LX-LY = 37
LSX   = 5493
LSY   = 5456
LSRC  = 5474

The angles of incidence of the beam on the mirrors are very close to those coming from the CAD drawing (within 0.15 degrees):

Reconstructed angles [deg]:
aoi PR3 = 41.11 (CAD 41)
aoi PR2 = 1.48  (CAD 1.5)
aoi SR3 = 43.90 (CAD 44)
aoi SR2 = 5.64  (CAD 5.5)

The errors in the measured distances w.r.t. the reconstructed one are all smaller than 1.5 mm. This seems a good check of the global consistency of the measurement and of the reconstruction method.

NOTES: in the reconstruction, the BS is assumed to be exactly at 45 degrees; wedges are not considered.

 

 

  9613   Fri Feb 7 17:52:41 2014 KojiSummaryGeneralSome cleaning up
  • Adjusted the PMC alignment
  • Adjusted the IMC length offsets for the MC servo and the FSS servo
  • Adjusted the MC alignment. Ran /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/MC/WFS/WFS_FilterBank_offsets
     
  • The Yarm servo was oscillating. Reduced the servo gain from 0.2 to 0.08.
     
  • AS Camera & AS port alignment was adjusted. Now the spot is at the center of the AS camera.
  • Cleaned up the ASC offsets on the suspensions (i.e. C1:SUS-***_(PIT|YAW)_OFFSET) by replacing them by the BIAS adjustment.
  • Saved the alignment values
  • Locked the PRMI with SB with REFL55I for PRCL and AS55Q for MICH
  • Aligned the PRM, then checked the alignment of the REFL PDs
  • The best POP110I was 500cnt.
  • Found REFL165 output was disconnected. It is now restored.
     
  • Used the LSC lockins to figure out the demod phases and the signal amplitudes (relative)

PRCL: 100cnt -> PRM 567.01Hz

Signal in demod Q ch were minimized

REFL11I -19.2deg demod I, Lockin I out (C1:CAL-SENSMAT_PRCL_REFL11_I_I_OUTPUT) 12.6 cnt
REFL33I +130.4deg 1.70cnt
REFL55I +17.0deg 2.30cnt
REFL165I -160.5deg 27.8cnt

MICH: 1000cnt -> ITMX(-1) & (ITMY +1.015 => Minimized the signal in REFL11I to obtain pure MICH)

REFL11I   +0.0     REFL11Q   +0.119
REFL33I   +0.023 REFL33Q   -0.012
REFL55I   +0.023 REFL55Q   -0.113
REFL165I +0.68   REFL165Q +0.038

It seems that REFL165 has almost completely degenerated PRCL and MICH.

  • Try to replace ITMX/Y with BS (+0.16) / PRM (-0.084)

 ITMX(-1)/ITMY(+1.015) actuation was cancelled by BS (+0.16). This introduces PRCL in REFL11I. This was cancelled by PRM (-0.084)

 

REFL11I   +0.0     REFL11Q   +0.13
REFL33I   -0.012  REFL33Q   0.025
REFL55I   +0.041 REFL55Q   -0.45
REFL165I +0.69   REFL165Q +/-0.02

Again, It seems that REFL165 has almost completely degenerated PRCL and MICH.


Locking info:

PRCL:
[Signal source] REFL11I (-19.2deg) x 0.16, OR REFL33I (+130.4deg) x 2.0, OR REFL55I (+17.0deg) x1.0, OR REFL165I (-160.5deg) x0.05
[Trigger] POP110I(-81deg) 100/10, FM trigger 35/2, delay 0.5sec FM2/3/6/9
[Servo] FM4/5 always on. G=-0.02, Limitter ON
[Output] PRM x+1.00

MICH:
[Signal source] AS55Q (-5.5deg) x 1, OR REFL11Q x 0.25, OR REFL55Q x-0.06
[Trigger] POP110I 100/10, FM trigger 35/2, delay 5sec FM2/3/9
[Servo] FM4/5 always on. G=-10, Limitter ON
[Output] ITMX -1.0 / ITMY +1.0 (or +1.015), OR PRM -0.084 / BS +0.16


 

 

  9634   Thu Feb 13 19:36:36 2014 KojiSummaryLSCPRM 2nd/4th violin filter added

Jenne and I noticed high pitch sound from our acoustic interferometer noise diagnostic system.
The frequency of this narrow band noise was 1256Hz, which is enough close to twice of the PRM violin mode freq.
After putting notch filter at 1256+/-25Hz at the violin filters, the noise is gone. Just in case I copied the same filters to all of the test masses.

Later, I found that the 4th violin modes are excited. Additional notch filters were added to "vio3" filter bank to mitigate the oscillation.

  9667   Mon Feb 24 23:43:10 2014 ranaSummaryGeneralToDo

1) Fixup REFL165: remove ND filters, get box for PD, dump diode reflections, put less light on diode, change DC transimpedance (?), max power dissipation on BBPD < 0.5 W w/ 25 V bias. Perhaps replace OP27 with TLE2027.

2) Make plan for fixing fiber layout up and down the arms. Need tubing for the whole run. Don't make it cheesy. Two fibers per arm.

3) Fix LSC model to allow user switching of whitening. Get back to working on AutoLock scripts (not Guardian).

4) Manasa, Q, Jenne, tune Oplev servos Tuesday morning/afternoon.

5) Reconnect the other seismometers (Steve, Jenne). For real.

6) Balance PRMI coils at high frequency.

  9674   Tue Feb 25 18:16:22 2014 JenneSummaryLSCEven more violin filters

A new violin mode at 1303 Hz was ringing up this afternoon.  Rana and I added a notch for this.

RXA: while the mode at 1303.6 Hz was ringing down, I used the narrowband DTT technique to measure the Q (after turning on the notch in SUS-PRM_LSC). So its another frequency in the PRM (not the BS).

The time that it takes for 2 -foldings is 652 s, which implies that Q = pi*f*tau = 1.3e6. This seems too high by a factor of ~10, so my guess is that there is still some feedback path happening. The previous bandstop filter was centered around 1285 Hz and seems also weird that the PRM would have 2 violin modes with such different frequencies. Is the mirror rotated around the optic axis such that the standoffs are not at the same height?

  9687   Mon Mar 3 22:21:43 2014 KojiSummaryLSCPRMIsb locked with REFL165I&Q

Successful PRMIsb locking with REFL165I/Q

My previous entry suggested that somehow the REFL165 signals show reasonable separation between PRCL and MICH, contrary to our previous observation.
I don't know what is the difference now. But anyway I took this advantage and tried to lock sideband resonant PRMI.

REFL165I was adjusted so that the signal is only sensitive to PRCL. Then REFL165I and Q were mixed so that the resulting signal shows.
(Next time, we should try to optimize the Q phase to eliminate PRCL and just use the I phase for PRCL.

At first, I used AS55Q for lock acquisition and then switched the MICH input matrix to REFL165.
Later I found that I can acquire PRMI just turning on AS55Q without turning off REFL165.

The REFL165 MICH signal had an offset of 15cnt. The lock was more robust and the dark port was darker once the MICH input offset was correctly set.


MICH OFS = 0
Turn on AS55Q only / or AS55Q + REFL156I/Q
Once it is locked and all of the FMs are activated, give -15.0OFS to MICH.
Turn off AS55Q.

Input ports:
AS55       WHTN: 21dB  demod phase -5.5deg
REFL165 WHTN: 45dB demod phase -156.13deg

Input matrix:
AS55Q x1.00 MICH
REFL165I x-0.035 + REFL165Q -0.050 MICH

REL165Q x+0.14

Triggers:
MICH POP110I 100up/10down / FM Trig FM2/3/6/7/9 35up 2down 5sec delay
PRCL POP110I 100up/10down / FM Trig FM2/3/6/9 35up 2down 0.5sec delay

Servo:
MICH OFS -15.0 / Gain -10 / Limitter ON
PRCL OFS 0 / Gain -0.02 / Limitter ON

Output matrix:
MICH ITMX -1.0 / ITMY +1.0
PRCL PRM 1.0

 

  9691   Wed Mar 5 11:33:10 2014 KojiSummaryLSC2 arm ALS->LSC transition - road map

Step by step description of transition from 2arm ALS to Common/Differential LSC for FPMI

- Step 0: Place the frequencies of the arm green beams at the opposite side of the carrier green.

- Step 1: Activate stablization loops for ALSX and ALSY simultaneously.
  (Use LSC filter modules for the control. This still requires correct handling of the servo and filter module triggers)

- Step 2: Activate stablization loops for ALS Common and Differential by actuating ETMX and ETMY

- Step 2 (advanced): Activate stabilization loops for ALS Common by actuating MC2 and ALS Differential by ETMX and ETMY

- Step 3: Transition from ALS Common to 1/SQRT(TRX)+1/SQRT(TRY). Make sure that the calibration of TRX and TRY are matched.
  The current understanding is that the offset for 1/SQRT(TRX)+1/SQRT(TRY) can't be provided at the servo filter. Figure out
  what is the correct way to give the offsets to the TR signals.

- Step 4: Lock Michelson with AS55Q and then POP55Q (PD not available yet) or any other PD, while the arms are kept off-resonant using ALS.

- Step 5: Reduce the TR offsets. Transition to RF CARM signals obtained from POP55I or REFL11I in the digital land.

- Step 5 (advanced): Same as test6 but involve the analog common mode servo too.

- Step 6: Transition from ALS Differential to AS55Q


Independent test: One arm ALS (To be done everyday)

- ALS resonance scan

- Measurement of out-of-loop displacement (or frequency) stability 

- Check openloop transer function


Independent test: Common Mode servo for one arm

- Reproduce Decmber CM servo result of transition from one arm ALS to CM servo
  Insert 1/sqrt(TRY) servo in between?

- How can we realize smooth transition from ALS to POY11?

  9694   Wed Mar 5 19:15:39 2014 JenneSummaryLSCALS offset moving script modified

Quote:

- Step 3: Transition from ALS Common to 1/SQRT(TRX)+1/SQRT(TRY). Make sure that the calibration of TRX and TRY are matched.
  The current understanding is that the offset for 1/SQRT(TRX)+1/SQRT(TRY) can't be provided at the servo filter. Figure out
  what is the correct way to give the offsets to the TR signals.

 I have modified the script ALSchangeOffsets.py (in ..../scripts/ALS/) to also handle a "CARM" situation.  There is a new button for this on the ALS in LSC screen.  This script takes the desired offset, and puts half in the ALSX offset, and half in the ALSY offset.  Whatever offset you ask for is given the sign of the input matrix element in the ALS->CARM row of the input matrix.  For example, if you ask for a CARM offset of 1, and the matrix elements are ALSX->CARM=+1 and ALSY->CARM=-1 (because your beatnotes are on opposite sides of the PSL), you will get an offset of +0.5 in ALSX and -0.5 in ALSY, which should be a pure CARM offset. The offsets get set as expected, but I haven't had a chance to test it live while the arms are locked. 

I also want to write a script that will average the IN1 of the 1/sqrt(TR) signals, and put that number into the 1/sqrt(TR) offsets.  If this is run when we are at about half fringe, this will set the zero point of the 1/sqrt(TR) signals to the half fringe (or where ever we are).  Then, we need a script similar to the ALS CARM one, to put offsets into the CARM combination of 1/sqrt(TR)s. 

I think that putting the offsets in before the servo filters will mean that the signals coming out of the input matrices will already be at their zero points, so we won't have as much trouble shifting from ALS to IR.

  9698   Thu Mar 6 11:15:32 2014 KojiSummaryLSCStuck at step 2

You don't need to make transition from ALS X/Y to ALS C/D. Just stabilize the arms with ALS C/D from the beginning.

  9708   Mon Mar 10 21:12:30 2014 KojiSummaryLSCComposite Error Signal for ARms (1)

The ALS error (i.e. phase tracker output) is linear everywhere, but noisy.
The 1/sqrt(TR) is linear and less noisy but is not linear at around the resonance and has no sign.
The PDH signal is linear and further less noisy but the linear range is limited.

Why don't we combine all of these to produce a composite error signal that is linear everywhere and less-noisy at the redsonance?

This concept was confirmed by a simple mathematica calculation:

The following plot shows the raw signals with arbitorary normalizations

1) ALS: (Blue)
2) 1/SQRT(TR): (Purple)
3) PDH: (Yellow)
4) Transmission (Green)

The following plot shows the preprocessed signals for composition

1) ALS: no preprocess (Blue)
2) 1/SQRT(TR): multiply sign(PDH) (Purple)
3) PDH: linarization with the transmission (If TR<0.1, use 0.1 for the normalization). (Yellow)
4) Transmittion (Green)

The composite error signal

1) Use ALS at TR<0.03. Use 1/SQRT(TR)*sign(PDH)*(1-TR) + PDH*TR at TR>0.03
2) Transmittion (Purple)
 

  9709   Mon Mar 10 21:13:43 2014 nicolasSummaryLSC Composite Error Signal for ARms (2)

In order to better understand how the composite signal would behave in the presence of noise, I decided to do a simple analysis of the cavity signals while sweeping through resonance.

My noise model was to just assume that a given signal has some rms uncertainty (error bars) and use linear error propagation to propagate from simple signals to more complicated ones.

I used the python package uncertainties to do the error propagation.

I assumed that the ALS signal, the cavity transmission, and the cavity PDH error signal all have some constant noise that is independent of the cavity detuning. Below is a sweep through resonance (x axis is cavity detuning in units of radians).

rawsigs.png

The shaded region represents the error on each signal.

Next I calculated the 'first order' calculated error signals. These being a raw PDH, normalized PDH, an inverse square root trans, and the normal ALS again. I tuned the gains so they match appropriately.

Here, one can see how the error in the trans signal propagates to the normalized and trans signals and becomes large are the fractional error in the trans signal becomes large.

errorsigs.png

Next I did some optimization of linear combinations of these signals. I told the code to maximize the total signal to noise ratio, while ensuring that the overall signal had positive gain. I did this again as a function of the cavity detuning.

Each curve represents the optimized weight of the corresponding signal as a function of detuning.

optimalweights.png

So this is roughly doing what we expect, it prefers ALS far from the resonance, and PDH close to the resonance, while smoothly moving into square root trans in the middle.

It's a little fake, but it gives us an idea of what the 'best' we can do is.

Finally I used these weights to recombine the signals into a composite, to get an idea of the noise of the overall signal. At the same time, I plot the weighting proposed by Koji's mathematica notebook (using trans and 1-trans, and a hard switch to ALS).

compositenoise.png

So as one can see, at least for the noise levels I chose, the koji weighting is not much worse than the 'optimal' weighting. While it is much simpler.

The code for all this is in the svn at 40mSVN/nicolas/workspace/2014-03-06_compositeerror

  9710   Mon Mar 10 21:14:58 2014 ericqSummaryLSCComposite Error Signal for ARms (3)

Using Koji's mathematica notebook, and Nic's python work, I set out to run a time domain simulation of the error signal, with band-limited white noise added in. 

model.png

Basically, I sweep the displacement of the cavity (with no noise), and pass it to the analytical formulae with the coefficients Koji used, with some noise added in. I also included some 1/0 protection for the linearized PDH signal. I ran a sweep, and then compared it to an ALS sweep that Jenne ran on Monday; reconstructing what the CESAR signal would have looked like in the sweep. 

The noise amounts were totally made up. 

They matched up very well, qualitatively! [Since the real sweep was done by a (relatively) noisy ALS, the lower noise of the real pdh signal was obscured.]

simSweep.pdfalsSweep.pdf

Given this good match, we were motivated to start trying to implement it on Monday. 

At this point, since we've gotten it working on the actual IFO, I don't plan on doing much more with this simulation right now, but it may come in handy in the future...

  9711   Mon Mar 10 21:16:13 2014 KojiSummaryLSCComposite Error Signal for ARms (4)

The LSC model was modified for CESAR.

A block called ALSX_COMBINE was made in the LSC block. This block receives the signals for ALS (Phase Tracker output), TRX_SQRTINV, TRX, POX11 (Unnormalized POX11I).
It spits out the composite ALS signal.

Inside of the block we have several components:

1) a group of components for sign(x) function. We use the PDH signal to produce the sign for the transmission signal.

2) Hard triggering between ALS and TR/PDH signals. An epics channel "THRESH" is used to determine how much transmission
we should have to turn on the TR/PDH signals.

3) Blending of the TR and PDH. Currently we are using a confined TR between 0 and 1 using a saturation module. When the TR is 0, we use the 1/SQRT(TR) signal for the control,
    When the TR is 1, we use the PDH signal for the control.

4) Finally the three processed signals are combined into a single signal by an adder.


It is important to make a consideration on the offsets. We want all of ALS, 1/SQRT(TR), and PDH to have zero crossing at the resonance.
ALS tends to have arbitorary offset. So we decided to use two offsets. One is before the CESAR block and in the ALS path.
The other is after the CESAR block.
Right now we are using the XARM servo offset for the latter purpose.

We run the resonance search script to find the first offset. Once this is set, we never touch this offset until the lock is lost.
Then for the further scanning of the arm length, we uused the offset in the XARM servo filter module.

  9712   Mon Mar 10 21:16:56 2014 KojiSummaryLSCComposite Error Signal for ARms (5)

After making the CDS modification, CESAR was tested with ALS.

First of all, we run CESAR with threshold of 10. This means that the error signal always used ALS.
The ALS was scanned over the resonance. The plot of the scan can be found in EricQ's elog.
At each point of the scan, the arm stability is limited by the ALS.

Using this scan data, we could adjust the gains for the TR and PDH signals. Once the gains were adjusted
the threshold was lowered to 0.25. This activates dynamic signal blending.

ALS was stabilized with XARM FM1/2/3/5/6/7/9. The resonance was scanned. No glitch was observed.
This is some level of success already.

Next step was to fully hand off the control to PDH. But this was not successfull. Everytime the gain for the TR was
reduced to zero, the lock was lost. When the TR is removed from the control, the raw PDH signal is used fot the control
without normalization. Without turning on FM4, we lose 60dB of DC gain. Therefore the residual motion may have been
too big for the linear range of the PDH signal. This could be mitigated by the normalization of the PDH signal by the TR.

  9713   Tue Mar 11 14:49:01 2014 KojiSummaryLSCImportant notice on the XARM servo

The nominal gain of the XARM for the POX11 error signal is 0.03 (instead of previous 0.3)

This is due to my increase of the gain in FM4 by 20dB so that we can turn of FM4 without changing the UGF when it is at 150Hz.

The YARM servo was not yet touched.

  9715   Tue Mar 11 15:14:34 2014 denSummaryLSCComposite Error Signal for ARms (1)

Quote:

The composite error signal


 

 Very nice error signal. Still, I think we need to take into account the frequency shape of the transfer function TR -> CARM. 

  9717   Tue Mar 11 15:21:08 2014 KojiSummaryLSCComposite Error Signal for ARms (1)

True. But we first want to realize this for a single arm, then move onto the two arms case.
At this point we'll need to incorporate frequency dependence.

  9731   Mon Mar 17 12:02:55 2014 KojiSummaryGeneralIFO recovery / confirmed ETMX in trouble

I confirmed that we need to vent the chambers.

All of the mirrors have been aligned except for ETMX.

ETMX does not respond to the excitation by the UR and LR coils. Likely that the magnets are knocked off, or stuck in the coil.

PRM/SRM oplevs are too much off and can't be turned on. Need realignment of the beams on the QPDs.


- FB was down. FB restarted ("telnet fb 8087", then type shutdown)

- Aligned the MC mirrors.

- Aligned PRM. Look at the REFL. It was slightly mislisligned.

- AS has no beam. The Y arm was resonating with the green. So I determined that the TTs were the misaligned guys.

- Touched TT2 pitch with an increment of 0.1. Immediately the AS beam spot for ITMY was found. And the arm was resonating.

- The RM was further aligned. The bias sliders were saved and then the PRM was misaligned.

- Yarm was locked on TEM01. The ASS maximized the transmission for TEM01, and then the arm was locked on TEM00.
  The ASS aligned the arm and TTs. These values were saved.

- Yarm was aligned and I can see the AS spot. So I believe the BS is still well aligned.

- Aligned the PRM to reduce the ghost beams.

- Moved the ITMX to have Michelson fringes properly.

- Also aligned the SRM.

- Now ETMX was checked. Played with the alignment biases to see if the mirror was sticking on the coils. The mirror can rock a little, but it did not come back.

- Then, checked each magnets. 0.8Hz 1000cnt signals were injected to each coils (cf. C1:SUS-PRM_**COIL_EXC) to see how the mirror could react.
  The OSEM output and green spot on the ETMX cage were observed.

- Saw some response by actuating the UL, LL, SD coils.

- Saw no response from the UR and LR coils. They show the OSEM output of zero. Does this mean the magnets fell in the coils?

//Manasa// MC spot positions measured and they look alright with not much change from before the earthquake (attach)

ELOG V3.1.3-