Bulb replaced at day 110  We have now spare now.

Final Summary of changes to mirror holder in Tip-Tilt holder.

Determining minimum range for Side Clamp:

1. The initial distance b/w wire-release point and mirror assembly COM = 0.265 mm

2. But this distance is assuming that wire-release point is at mid-point of clamp. So I'm settling on a range of +/- 1mm. The screenshots below confirm range of ~1mm between (1) side screw & protrusion and (2) clamp screw and clamp.

Determining length of tilt-weight assembly rod at the bottom to get 20mRad range

The tilt-weight assembly is made from following Mcmaster parts:
Rod   - 95412A864 18-8 SS  #2-56 Threaded Rod
Nuts  - 91855A103 18-8 SS #2-56 Acorn Cap Nut

Since the weights are fixed, only rod length can be changed to get the angle range.

So a range of 1 mm between nut's inner face and mirror-holder face should be enough. Since holder is 12 mm thick, rod length = 12mm + 2 x 1mm + 2 x (nut length) = 12 + 2 + 9.6 = 23.6 mm = 0.93 inch. So a 1" rod from Mcmaster will be fine.

Projector light bulb blown out today.

(Analisa, Keerthana, Sandrine)

So far we tried four different techniques to scan the AUX laser. They are,

1. Scanning the marconi frequency to sweep the central frequency of the AUX laser.

2. Sweeping the side band frequency of the AUX laser by providing RF frequency from the spectrum analyser.

3. Double demodulation technique.

4. Single demodulation technique.

Now we are taking all the scan data with the help of Single demodulation technique.

This note reports analysis of cavity scans made by directly sweeping the AUX laser carrier frequency (no sidebands). The measurement is made by sweeping the RF offset of the AUX-PSL phase-locked loop and demodulating the cavity reflection/transmission signal at the offset frequency.

Y-Arm Scan

Due to the simplicity of its expected response, the Y-arm cavity was scanned first as a test of the AUX hardware and the sensitivity of the technique. Attachment 1 shows the measured cavity transmission with respect to RF drive signal.

The AUX laser launch setup is capable of injecting up to 9.3 mW into the AS port. This high-power measurement is shown by the black trace. The same measurement is repeated for a realistic SQZ injection power, 70 uW, indicated by the red curve. At low power, the technique still clearly resolves the FSR and six HOM resonances. From the identified mode resonance frequencies the following cavity parameters are directly extracted.

PRC Scan

An analogous scan was performed for the PRC, with the IFO locked on PSL carrier in PRMI. Attachment 2 shows the measurement of PRC transmission with respect to drive signal.

The scan resolves HOM resonances to at least ~13th order, whose frequencies yield the following cavity parameters.

SRC Scan

Ideally (and at the sites) the SRC mode resonances will be measured in SRMI configuration. Because every other cavity is misaligned, this configuration provides an easily-interpretable spectrum whose resonances can all be attributed to the SRC.

Due to time constraints at the 40m, the IFO could not be restored to lockability in SRMI. It has been more than two years since this configuration was last run. For this reason the scan was made instead with the IFO locked in DRMI, as shown in Attachment 3. The quantity measured is the AUX reflection with respect to drive signal.

This result requires far more interpretation because resonances of both the SRC and PRC are superposed. However, the resonances of the PRC are known a priori from the independent PRMI scan. The SRC mode resonances identified below do not conincide with any of the first five PRC mode resonances.

Based on the identified mode resonance frequencies, the SRC parameters are measured as follows.

Lessons Learned

From experience with the 40m, the main challenges to repeating this measurement at the sites will be the following.

• Pointing jitter of the input AUX beam. This causes the PSL-AUX beam overlap to vary at transmission (or reflection), causing variation in the amplitude of the AUX-PSL beat note. As far as we can tell, the frequency of the resonances (the only object of this measurement) is not changing in time, only the relative amplitudes of the diferent mode peaks. I believe the SQZ alignment loops will mitigate this problem at the sites.
• Stabilization of the network analyzer time base. We found the intrinsic frequency stability of the network analyzer (Agilent 4395A) to be unacceptably large. We solved this problem by phase-locking the Agilent to an external reference, a 10-MHz signal provided by an atomic clock.

I made some simulation to study the change that the heater setup can induce on the Radius of Curvature of the ETM.

Heat pattern

First, I used a non-sequential ray tracing software (Zemax) to calculate the heat pattern. I made a CAD of the elliptical reflector and I put a radiative element inside it (similar to the rod-heater 30mm long, 3.8mm diameter that we ordered), placing it in such a way that the heater tip is as close as possible to the ellipse first focus. (figure 1)

Then, by putting a screen at the second focus of the ellipse (where we suppose to place the mirror HR surface), I could find the projected heat pattern, as shown in figure 2 and 3 (section). Notice that the scale is in INCH, even if the label says mm. As you can see, the heat pattern is pretty broad, but still enough to induce a RoC change. 

Mirror deformation

In order to compute the mirror deformation induced by this kind of pattern, I used this map produced with Zemax as absorption map in COMSOL. I considered ~1W total power absorbed by the mirror (just to have a unitary number).

The mirror temperature and deformation maps induced by this heat pattern are shown in figures 4 and 5. 

RoC change evaluation

Then I had to evaluate the RoC change. In particular, I did it by fitting the Radius of Curvature over a circle of radius:

where  is the waist of tha Gaussian mode on the ETMY (5mm) and n is the mode order. This is a way to approximately know which is the Radius of Curvature as "seen" by each HOM, and is shown in figure 6 (the RoC of the cold mirror is set to be 57.37m). Of course, besides being very tiny, the difference in RoC strongly depends on the heat pattern.

Gouy phase variation

Considering this absorbed power, the cavity Gouy phase variation between hot and cold state is roughly 15kHz (I leave to the SURFs the details of the calculation).

Unanswered points

So the still unaswered questions are:

- which is the minimum variation we are able to resolve with our measurement

- how much heating power do we expect to be projected onto the mirror surface (I'll make another entry on that)

Request to Koji to acquire the drawings or 3D CAD of the cantilever suspensions of the Tip-Tilt Assembly!

I tried to put together a rudimentary heater setup. 

As a heating element, I used the soldering iron tip heated up to ~800°C.

To make a reflector, I used the small basket which holds the cork of champains battles (see figure 1), and I covered it with alumnum foil. Of course, it cannot be really considered as a parabolic reflector, but it's something close (see figure 2).

Then, I put a ZnSe 1 inch lens, 3.5 inch FL (borrowed from TCS lab) right after the reflector, in order to collect as much as possible the radiation and focus it onto an image (figure 3). In principle, if the heat is collimated by the reflector, the lens should focus it in a pretty small image. Finally, in order to see the image, I put a screen and a small piece of packaging sponge (because it shouldn't diffuse too much), and I tried to see the projected pattern with a thermal camera (also borrowed from Aidan). However, putting the screen in the lens focal plane didn't really give a sharp image, maybe because the reflector is not exactly parabolic and the heater not in its focus. However, light is still focused on the focal plane, although the image appears still blurred. Perahps I should find a better material (with less dispersion) to project the thermal image onto. (figure 4)

Finally, I measured the transmitted power with a broadband power meter, which resulted to be around 10mW in the focal plane. 

(Analisa, Sandrine, Keerthana)

Today Annalisa helped us to understand the new set up used to make the frequency scans of the AUX laser. While tracking the cables it seemed that there were quite a lot of cables near the mixer. So we have reconnected one of the splitter which was splitting the RF out put signal from the Agilent and have placed it just near the Agilent itself. A picture of the changed setup is provided below. The splitter divides the signal into two components. One goes to the LO port of the mixer and the other goes to the R port of the Agilent. We have tried locking the PLL after the change and it works fine. We are trying to make a diagram of the setup now, which we will upload shortly.

• N/S ARM FL.
• N/S ARM INC.

These two lights inside the 40m-lab are not working.

PRM watchdog was tripped around 7:15am PT today morning. I restored it.

(Gautam, Pooja)

Aim: To develop medm screen for GigE.

Gautam helped me set up the medm screen through which we can interact with the GigE camera. The steps adopted are as follows:

(i) Copied CUST_CAMERA.adl file from the location /opt/rtcds/userapps/release/cds/common/medm/ to /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/medm/MISC/.

(ii) Made the following changes by opening CUST_CAMERA.adl in text editor.  

• Changed the name of file to "/cvs/cds/rtcds/caltech/c1/medm/MISC/CUST_CAMERA.adl"
• Replaced all occurences of "/ligo/apps/linux-x86_64/camera/bin/" to "/opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/GigE/SnapPy_pypylon/" & "/ligo/cds/$(site)/$(ifo)/camera/" to "/opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/GigE/SnapPy_pypylon/"

(iii) Added this .adl file as drop-out menu 'GigE' to VIDEO/LIGHTS section of sitemap (circled in Attachment 1) i.e opened Resource Palette of VIDEO/LIGHTS, clicked on Label/Name/Args & defined macros as CAMERA=C1:CAM-ETMX,CONFIG=C1-CAM-ETMX in Arguments box of Related Display Data dialog box (circled in Attachment 2) that appears. In Related Display Data dialog box, Display label is given as GigE and Display File as ./MISC/CUST_CAMERA.adl

(iv) All the channel names can be found in Jigyasa's elog https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8081/40m/13023

(v) Since the slider (circled in Attachment 3) for pixel sum was not moving, changed the high limit value to 10000000 in PV Limits dialog box. This value is set such that the slider reaches the other end on setting the exposure time to maximum.

(vii) Set the Snapshot channel C1:CAM-ETMX_SNAP to off (very important!). Otherwise we cannot interact with the camera.

(vii) GigE camera gstreamer client is run in tmux session.

Now we can change the exposure time and record a video by specifying the filename and its location using medm screen. However, while recording the video, gstream video laucher of GigE stops or is stuck.

More progress on the AUX-laser cavity scans.

Changes to the Setup

• For scans, the Agilent is now being used as a standalone source of the LO signal provided to the AUX PLL (instead of the Marconi), which sets the RF offset. We discovered that when the sweep is "held" in network analyzer mode, it does not turn off the RF drive signal, but rather continues outputting a constant signal at the hold frequency. This eliminates the need to use the more complicated double-deomdulation previously in use. The procedure is to start and immediately hold the sweep, then lock the PLL, then restart the sweep. The PLL is able to reliably remain locked for frequency steps of up to ~30 kHz. The SURFs are preparing schematics of both the double- and single-demodulation techniques.
• Both the Marconi and Agilent are now phase-locked to the 10 MHz time reference provided by the rabidium clock. This did noticeably shift the measured resonance frequencies.
• I raised the PI controller gain setting to 4.5, which seems to better suppress the extra noise being injected.
• I've procured a set of surgical needles for occluding the beam to produce HOMs. However, I have not needed to use them so far, as the TEM00 purity of the AUX beam appears to already be low. The below scans show only the intrinisic mode content.

New Results

• YARM scan at 70 uW injection power (Attachment #1). The previously reported YARM scan was measured with 9 mW of injected AUX power, 100x larger than the power available from the SQZ laser at the sites. This scan repeats the measurement with the AUX power attenuated to uW. It still resolves the FSR and at least three HOMs.
• PRC scan (Attachment #2) at 9 mW injection power. It appears to resolve the FSR and at least three HOMs. Angular injection noise was found to cause large fluctuations in the measured signal power. This dominates the error bars shown below, but affects only the overall signal amplitude (not the peak frequency locations). The SQZ angular alignment loops should mitigate this issue at the sites.

Both data sets are attached.

I made the first successful AUX laser scan of a 40m cavity last night.

Attachment #1 shows the measured Y-end transmission signal w.r.t. the Agilent drive signal, which was used to sweep the AUX carrier frequency. This is a distinct approach from before, where the carrier was locked at a fixed offset from the PSL carrier and the frequency of AM sidebands was swept instead. This AUX carrier-only technique appears to be advantageous.

This 6-15 MHz scan resolves three FSR peaks (TEM00 resonances) and at least six other higher-order modes. The raw data are also enclosed (attachment #2). I'll leave it as an excercise for the SURFs to compute the Y-arm cavity Gouy phase.

This bad connection is coming back

In order to use the 0th-order deflection beam from the AOM for cavity mode scans, I've coaligned this beam to the existing mode-matching/launch optics set up for the 1st-order beam.

Instead of being dumped, the 0th-order beam is now steered by two 45-degree mirrors into the existing beam path. The second mirror is on a flip mount so that we can quickly switch between 0th-order/1st-order injections. None of the existing optics were touched, so the 1st-order beam alignment should still be undisturbed.

Currently the 0th-order beam is being injected into the IFO. After attenuating so as to not exceed 100 mW incident on the fiber, approximately 50 mW of power reaches the AS table. That coupling efficiency is similar to what we have with the 1st-order beam. With the Y-arm cavity locked and the AUX PLL locked at RF offset = 47.60 MHz (an Y-arm FSR), I observed a -50 dBm beat note at Y-end transmission.

For the upcoming vent, we'd like to rotate the SOS towers to correct for the large YAW bias voltages used for DC alignment of the ITMs and ETMs. We could then use a larger series resistance in the DC bias path, and hence, reduce the actuation noise on the TMs. 

Today, I used the calibrated Oplev error signals to estimate what angular correction is needed. I disabled the Oplev loops, and drove a ~0.1 Hz sine wave to the EPICS channel for the DC yaw bias. Then I looked at the peak-to-peak Oplev error signal, which should be in urad, and calibrated the slider counts to urad of yaw alignment, since I know the pk-to-pk counts of the sine wave I was driving. With this calibration, I know how much DC Yaw actuation (in mrad) is being supplied by the DC bias. I also know the directions the ETMs need to be rotated, I want to double check the ITMs because of the multiple steering mirrors in vacuum for the Oplev path. I will post a marked up diagram later. 

Steve is going to come up with a strategy to realize this rotation - we would like to rotate the tower through an axis passing through the CoM of the suspended optic in the vertical direction. I want to test out whatever approach we come up with on the spare cage before touching the actual towers.

Here are the numbers. I've not posted any error analysis, but the way I'm thinking about it, we'd do some in air locking so that we have the cavity axis as a reference and we'd use some fine alignment adjust (with the DC bias voltages at 0) until we are happy with the DC alignment. Then hopefully things change by so little during the pumpdown that we only need small corrections with the bias voltages.

Some remarks:

1. Why the apparent difference between ITMs and ETMs? I think it's because the bias path resistors are 400 ohms on the ETMs, but 100 ohms on the ITMs. 
2. If we want the series resistance for the bias path to be 10 kohm, we'd only have ~800 urad actuation (for +10V DC), so this would be an ambitious level of accuracy. 

Shruti and Sandrine received 40m specific basic safety training this morning.

Earlier today I cleared up most of the equipment at the X end near the seismometer to make the area walkable. 

In the process, I removed the connections to the temperature sensor and placed the wires on top of the can.

we disabled logging the N2 Pressure to a text file, since it was filling up disk space. Now it just sends an email to our 40m mailing list, so we'll all get a warning.

The crontab uses the 'bash' version of output redirection '2>&1', which redirects stdout and stderr, but probably we just want stderr, since stdout contains messages without issues and will just fill up again.

The fardest I can go back on channel C1: Vac_N2pres is  320 days

C1:Vac-CC1_Hornet Presuure gauge started logging Feb. 23, 2018

Did you update the " low N2 message"  email addresses?

I moved the N2 check script and the disk usage checking script from the (sudo) crontab of nodus to the controls user crontab on megatron .

[Larry, Koji]

We replaced the NAT router between martian and the campus net. We have the administrative web page available for the NAT router, but it is accessible from inside (=martian) as expected.

We changed the IP address registration of nodus for the internet so that the packets to nodus is directed to the NAT router. Then the NAT router forwards the packets to actual nodus only for the allowed ports. Because of this change of the IP we had a few confusions. First of all, martian net, which relies on chiara for DNS resolution. The 40m wifi router seemed to have internal DNS cache and required to reboot to make the IP change effective.

The WAN side cable of nodus was removed.

We needed to run "sudo rndc flush" to force chiara's bind9 to refresh the cache. We also needed to restart httpd ("sudo systemctl restart httpd") on nodus to make the port 8081 work properly. 

So far, ssh (22), web services (30889), and elog (8081, 8080) were tested. We also need to test megatron NDS port forwarding and rsync for nodus, too.

Finally I turned off the firewall rules of shorewall on nodus as it is no longer necessary.

More details are found on the wiki page. https://wiki-40m.ligo.caltech.edu/FirewallSetting

UNELOGGED: someone has changed Pianosa from Ubuntu/Dumbian into SL7. Might be hackers.

Donatella is now the only Ubuntu machine in the control room. I propose we keep it this way for another month and then go fully SL7 if we find no bugs with Pianosa/Rossa.

Summary:

I've been thinking about what we need to do to the de-whitening boards for the ITMs and ETMs, in order to have low noise actuators. Noting down what I have so far, so that people can comment / point out things I've overlooked. 

Attachment #1: Block diagram schematic of the de-whitened signal path on D000183 as it currently exists. I've omitted the unity gain buffer stage at the output, though this is important for noise considerations. 

Some considerations, in rough order of priority:

1. Why do we need de-whitening?
   • Because we want the Johnson noise of the series resistor (4.5 kohm) in the coil driver path to dominate the current noise to the coils at ~200 Hz where we want to measure the squeezing.
2. What should the shape of this de-whitening filter be?
   • The DAC noise was measured to be ~1 uV/rtHz at 200 Hz. 
   • The Johnson noise spectral density of 4.5 kohm at 300 K is ~9 nV/rtHz. 
   • So we need ~60dB of attenuation at 200 Hz relative to DC. Currently, they have ~80dB of attenuation at 200 Hz.
   • However, we also need to consider the control signal multiplied by the inverse of this shape in the digital domain (required for overall flat shape). This should not saturate the DAC range.
   • Furthermore, we'd like for the shape to be such that we don't have a large transient when transitioning between high range and low noise modes. We should use the DARM control signal estimate to inform this choice.
3. What about the electronics noise of the de-whitening filter itself?
   • This shows up at the input of the coil driver stage, and gets transmitted to the coil with unity gain. 
   • So we should aim for < 3nV/rtHz at 200 Hz, such that we are dominated by the Johnson noise of the 4.5 kohm series resistance [the excess will be 5%]. 
   • This can be realized by using the passive network which is the final stage in the de-whitening (there is a unity gain output buffer stage implemented with LT1128, which we also have to account for).   

I will experiment with a few different shapes and investigate noise and de-whitened digital signal levels based on these considerations. At the very least, I guess we should remove the x3 gain on the ETM boards, they have already been bypassed for the ITMs. 

I used the following commands to get diaggui to run on rossa/SL7:

controls@rossa|lib64> ls -lrt libsasl*
-rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 121296 Feb 16  2016 libsasl2.so.3.0.0
lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root     17 Dec 18  2017 libsasl2.so -> libsasl2.so.3.0.0
lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root     17 Dec 18  2017 libsasl2.so.3 -> libsasl2.so.3.0.0
controls@rossa|lib64> sudo ln -s libsasl2.so.3.0.0 libsasl2.so.2
controls@rossa|lib64> ls -lrt libsasl*
-rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 121296 Feb 16  2016 libsasl2.so.3.0.0
lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root     17 Dec 18  2017 libsasl2.so -> libsasl2.so.3.0.0
lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root     17 Dec 18  2017 libsasl2.so.3 -> libsasl2.so.3.0.0
lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root     17 Jun 26 22:02 libsasl2.so.2 -> libsasl2.so.3.0.0
 

Basically, I have set up a symbolic link to point sasl2.so.2 to sasl2.so.3.0.0. I've asked LLO again for some guidance on whether or not to find some backport in a non-standard SL7 repo. IF they reply, we may later replace this link with a regular file.

For the nonce, diaggui runs and is able to show us the spectra. We also got swept sine to work. But the FOTON launched from inside of AWGGUI doesn't inherit the sample frequency of the excitation channel so we can't filter noise injections from awggui yet.

I checked out the elog from the vent in October 2016 when the OMC was removed from the path. In the vent in a couple weeks, we'd like to get the beam going through the OMC again. I wasn't really there for this last vent and don't have a great sense for how things go at the 40m, but this is how I think the procedure for this work should approximately go. The main points are that we'll need to slightly translate and rotate OM5, rotate OM6, replace one mirror that was removed last time, and add some beam dumps. Please let me know what I've got wrong or am missing.

[side note, I want to make some markup on the optics layouts that I see as pdfs elsewhere in the log and wiki, but haven't done it and didn't much want to dig around random drawing software, if there's a canonical way this is done please let me know.]

Steps to return the OMC to the IFO output:

1. Complete non-Steve portions of the pre-vent checklist (https://wiki-40m.ligo.caltech.edu/vent/checklist)
2. Steve needs to complete his portions of the checklist (as in https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8081/40m/12557)
3. Need to lock some things before making changes I think—but I’m not really sure about these, just going from what I can glean from the elogs around the last vent
   1. ​Lock the IMC at low power
   2. Align the arms to green
   3. Lock the arms
   4. Center op lev spots on QPDs
   5. Is there a separate checklist for these things? Seems this locking process happens every time there is a realignment or we start any work, which makes sense, so I expect it is standardized.
4. Turn/add optics in the reverse order that Gautam did
   1. ​Check table leveling first?
   2. Rotate OM5 to send the beam to the partially transmissive mirror that goes to the OMC; currently OM5 is sent directly to OM6. OM5 also likely needs to be translated forward slightly; Gautam tried to maintain 45 deg AOI on OM5/6.
   3. A razor beam dump was also removed, which should be replaced (see attachment 1 on https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8081/40m/12568)
   4. May need to rotate OM6 to extract AS beam again, since it was rotated last time
   5. Replace the mirror just prior to the window on the AP table, mentioned here in attachment 3: https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8081/40m/12566
      1. ​There is currently a rectangular weight on the table where the mirror was, for leveling
5. Since Gautam had initially made this change to avoid some backscattered beams and get a little extra power, we may need to add some beam dumps to kill ghosts
   1. This is also mentioned in 12566 linked above, the dumps are for back-reflection off the windows of the OMC
6. Center beam in new path
7. Check OMC table leveling
8. AS beam should be round on the camera, with no evidence of clipping on any optics in the path (especially check downstream of any changes)

Aim:  To find a model that trains the simulated data of Gaussian beam spot moving in a vertical direction by the application of a sinusoidal signal. The data also includes random uniform noise ranging from 0 to 10.

All the attachments are in the zip folder.

I simulated images 128*128 at 10 frames/sec by applying a sine wave of frequency 0.2Hz that moves the beam spot, added random uniform noise ranging from 0 to 10 & resized the image frame using opencv to 64*64. 1000 cycles of this data is taken as train & 300 cycles as test data for the following cases. Optimizer = Nadam (learning rate = 0.001), loss function used = mean squared error, batch size = 32,

Case 1:

Model topology:

                         256 (dropout = 0.1)  ->           256 (dropout = 0.1)   ->       1

Activation :             selu                                         selu

Number of epochs = 240.

Variation in loss value of train & test datasets is given in Attachment 1 of the attached zip folder & the applied signal as well as the output of neural network given in Attachments 2 & 3 (zoomed version of 2).

The model fits well but there is no training since test loss is lower than train loss value. I found in several sites that dropout of some of the nodes during training but retaining them during test could be the probable reason for this (https://stackoverflow.com/questions/48393438/validation-loss-when-using-dropout , http://forums.fast.ai/t/validation-loss-lower-than-training-loss/4581 ). So I removed dropout while training next time.

Case 2:

Model topology:

                         256 (dropout = 0.1)  ->           256 (dropout = 0.1)   ->       1

Activation :             selu                                         selu                          linear

Number of epochs = 200.

Variation in loss value of train & test datasets is given in Attachment 4 of the attached zip folder & the applied signal as well as the output of neural network given in Attachments 5 & 6 (zoomed version of 2).

But still no improvement.

Case 3:

I changed the optimizer to Adam and tried with the same model topology & hyperparameters as case 2 with no success (Attachments 7,8 & 9).

Finally I think this is because I'm training & testing on the same data. So I'm now training with the simulated video but moving it by a maximum of 2 pixels only and testing with a video of ETMY that we had captured earlier.

Thanks to a discussion yesterday with Joe Betzweiser, I was able to identify and fix the remaining problem with the LLO GigE camera software. It is working now, currently only on rossa, but can be set up on all the machines. I've started a wiki page with documentation and usage instructions here:

https://wiki-40m.ligo.caltech.edu/Electronics/GigE_Cameras

This page is also linked from the main 40m wiki page under "Electronics."

This software has the ability to both stream live camera feeds and to record feeds as .avi files. It is described more on the wiki page.

I wanted to investigate my coil driver noise measurement technique under more controlled circumstances, so I spent yesterday setting up various configurations on a breadboard in the control room. The overall topology was as sketched in Attachment #1 of the previous elog, except for #4 below. Summary of configurations tried (series resistance was 4.5k ohm in all cases):

1. Op 27 with 1kohm input and feedback resistors.
2. LT1128 with 1kohm input and feedback resistors.
3. LT1128 with 400 ohm input and feedback resistors.
4. LT1128 with 400 ohm input and feedback resistors, and also the current buffer IC LM6321 implemented.

Attachments:

Attachment #1: Picture of the breadboard setup.

Attachment #2: Noise measurements (input shorted to ground) with 1 Hz linewidth from DC to 4 kHz.

Attachment #3: Noise measurements for full SR785 span. 

Attachment #4: Apparent coupling due to PSRR.

Attachment #5: Comparison of low frequency noise with and without the LM6321 part of the fast DAC path implemented.

All SR785 measurements were made with input range fixed at -42dBVpk, input AC coupled and "Floating", with a Hanning window. 

Conclusions:

• I get much better agreement between LISO and measurement at a few hundred Hz and below with this proto setup. So it would seem like the excess noise I measure at ~200 Hz in the Eurocrate card version of the coil driver could be real and not simply a measurement artefact.
• I am puzzled about the 10 Hz comb in all these measurements:
  • I have seen this a few times before - e.g. elog13655.
  • It is not due to the infamous GPIB issue - the lines persist even though I disconnect both power adaptor and GPIB prologix box from the SR785.
  • It does not seem to be correlated with the position of the analyzer w.r.t. the DC power supply (Tektronix PS280) used to power the circuit (I moved the SR785 around 1m away from the supply).
  • It persists with either of the two LN preamp boxes available. 
  • It persists with either "Float" or "Ground" input setting on the SR785.
  • All this pointed to some other form of coupling - perhaps conductive EMI.
  • The only clue I have is the apparent difference between the level of the coupling for Op27 and LT1128 - it is significantly lower for the latter compared to the former. 
  • I ruled out position on the breadboard: simply interchanging the Op27 and LT1128 positions on the breadboard, I saw higher 10 Hz harmonics for the Op27 compared to the LT1128. In fact, the coupling was higher for the DIP Op27 compared to an SOIC one I attached to the breadboard via an SOIC to DIP adapter (both were Op27-Gs, with spec'ed PSRR of 120 dB typ).
  • To test the hypothesis, I compared the noise for the Op27 config, on the one hand with regulated (via D1000217) DC supply, and on the other, directly powered by the Tektronix supply. The latter configuration shows much higher coupling.
  • I did have 0.1uF decoupling capacitors (I guess I should've used ceramic and not tantala) near the OpAmp power pins, and in fact, removing them had no effect on the level of this coupling 
  • As a quick check, I measured the spectrum of the DC power used to run the breadboard - it is supplied via D1000217. I used an RC network to block out the DC, but the measurement doesn't suggest a level of noise in the supply that could explain these peaks.
  • The regulators are LM2941 and LM2991. They specify something like 0.03% of the output voltage as AC RMS, though I am not sure over what range of frequencies this is integrated over.
  • But perhaps the effect is more subtle, some kind of downconversion of higher frequency noise, but isn't the decoupling cap supposed to protect against this?
• The 19.5 kHz harmonics seem to originate from the CRT display of the SR785 (SVGA).
  • The manual doesn't specify the refresh rate, but from a bit of googling, it seems like this is a plausible number.
  • The coupling seems to be radiative. The box housing the Busby preamp provides ~60dB attentuation of this signal, and the amplitude of the peaks is directly correlated to where I position the Busby box relative to the CRT screen.
  • This problem can be avoided by placing the DUT and preamp sufficiently far from the SR785.

Punchlines:

1. The actual coildriver used, D010001, doesn't have a regulated power supply, it just draws the +/- 15V directly from Sorensens. I don't think this is good for low noise. 
2. The LM6321 part of the circuit doesn't add any excess noise to the circuit, consistent with it being inside the unity gain feedback loop. In any case, with 4.5 kohm series resistance with the coil driver, we would be driving <2.5 mA of current, so perhaps we don't even need this?

Aim: To track the motion of beam spot in simulated video.

I simulated a video that moves the beam spot at the centre of the image initially by applying a sinusoidal signal of frequency 0.2Hz and amplitude 1 i.e. it moves maximum by 1 pixel. It can be found in this shared google drive link (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GYxPbsi3o9W0VXybPfPSigZtWnVn7656/view?usp=sharing). I found a program that uses Kernelized Correlation Filter (KCF) to track object motion from the video. In the program we can initially define the bounding box (rectangle) that encloses the object we want to track in the video or select the bounding box by dragging in GUI platform. Then I saved the bounding box parameters in the program (x & y coordinates of the left corner point, width & height) and plotted the variation in the y coordinates. I have yet to figure out how this tracker works since the program reads 64*64 image frames in video as 480*640 frames with 3 colour channels and frame rate also randomly changes. The plot of the output of this tracking program & the applied signal has been attached below. The output is not exactly sinusoidal because it may not be able to track very slight movement especially at the peaks where the slope = 0.

(Jon, Keerthana, Sandrine)

I am attaching the plots of the Reflected and transmitted AUX beam. In the transmission graph, we are getting peak corresponding to the resonance frequencies, as at that frequency maximum power goes to the cavity. But in the Reflection graph, we are obtaining dips corresponding to the resonance frequency because maximum power goes to the cavity and the reflected beam intensity becomes very less at those points.

After removing all the clamping screws from the heater circuit board, I soldered the wire connecting IRF630 to the output of OP27, which had come off earlier. This can only be a temporary fix as the wire was not long enough to be able to make a proper solder joint. I also tried fixing two other connections which were also almost breaking.

After re-assembling everything I found out that one of the LEDs was not working. The most likely cause seems to be an issue with LM791, LM 781 or the LED itself. Due to the positioning of the wires, I was unable to test them today but will try again possibly tomorrow.

Equipment used for this is still lying at the X end.

3.
- Do we need this much of extended range of the clamp location? How much range will we need if we use either 3/8 or 1/4 inch mirrors?
- This slot on the mirror holder ring is not machinable.

About the CoM height
- Include the angle adjustment screw and adjust the wire releasing point to have comparable pitch resonant freq to the SOS suspension.

2. Weighted screw rod at the bottom for tilting the mirror-holder:

The screw length selected here (2") is not interfering with any part of the assembly.

The 'weights' I have here are just thumb nuts from Mcmaster, so their weight is fixed (1.65g each, btw).

Problem I'd like to solve: Find an assortment of weighted, symmetric nuts with caps on one end to fix position on shaft. 

3. Set-screws on both side of wire clamp to adjust its horizontal position:

Thanks for pointing out the mismatch in travel distance of protrusion and clamp screws. To match them, the clamp screw slot now sticks out of the profile (by 1.5mm). The range of the clamp motion is +/- 3 mm.

Also, here's a screenshot of the slot in the mirror holder:

--

- Excluding the weighted screw rod assembly, the height gap between assembly COM and wire release point is 3.1 mm.

At some point we want to change the AUX injection on the AS table to interfere less with the normal interferometer path, and avoid 10/90 beamsplitters which produce a fair amount of ghosting. The plan is to replace the 99/1 BS whose reflection goes to AS110 and AS55, while the transmission goes to the AS camera, with a 90/10 BS as shown in the attachment. This results in ~10% less light on the PDs compared to the pre-AUX era. Between this BS and the AS camera there will be a second 90/10 BS that sends the AUX light into the IFO, so we end up with marginally less AUX power into the IFO and the same PSL power on the AS cam. We're short optics, so this has to wait until two new beamsplitters arrive from CVI.

Summary:

For a series resistance of 4.5 kohm, we are suffering from the noise-gain amplified voltage noise of the Op27 (2*3.2nV/rtHz), and the Johnson noise of the two 1 kohm input and feedback resistances. As a result, the current noise is ~2.7 pA/rtHz, instead of the 1.9 pA/rtHz we expect from just the Johnson noise of the series resistance. For the present EX coil driver configuration of 2.25 kohm, the Op27 voltage noise is actually the dominant noise source. Since we are modeling small amounts (<1dB) of measurable squeezing, such factors are important I think. 

Details:

[Attachment #1] --- Sketch of the fast signal path in the coil driver board, with resistors labelled as in the following LISO model plots. Note that as long as the resistance of the coil itself << the series resistance of the coil driver fast and slow paths, we can just add their individual current noise contributions, hence why I have chosen to model only this section of the overall network.

[Attachment #2] --- Noise breakdown per LISO model with top 5 noises for choice of Rseries = 2.25 kohm. The Johnson noise contributions of Rin and Rf exactly overlap, making the color of the resulting line a bit confusing, due to the unfortunate order of the matplotlib default color cycler. I don't want to make a custom plot, so I am leaving it like this.

[Attachment #3] --- Noise breakdown per LISO model with top 5 noises for choice of Rseries = 4.5 kohm. Same comments about color of trace representing Johnson noise of Rin and Rf. 

Possible mitigation strategies:

1. Use an OpAmp with lower voltage noise. I will look up some candidates. LT1028/LT1128? LISO library warns of a 400 kHz noise peak though...
2. Use lower Rin and Rf. The values of these are set by the current driving capability of the immediately preceeding stage, which is the output OpAmp of the De-Whitening board, which I believe is a TLE2027. These can source/sink 50 mA according to the datasheet . So for +/-10V, we could go to 400 ohm Ri and Rf, source/sink a maximum of 25mA, and reduce the Johnson noise contribution by 40%.

Other comments/remarks:

I've chosen to ignore the noise contribution of the high current buffer IC that is inside the feedback loop. Actually, it may be interesting to compare the noise measurements (on the electronics bench) of the circuit as drawn in Attachment #1, without and with the high current buffer, to see if there is any difference.

This study also informs about what level of electronics noise is tolerable from the De-Whitening stage (aim for ~factor of 5 below the Rseries Johnson noise).

Finally, in doing this model, I understand that the observation the voltage noise of the coil driver apparently decreased after increasing the series resistance, as reported in my previous elog. This is due to the network formed by the fast and slow paths (during the measurement, the series resistance in the slow path makes a voltage divider to ground), and is consistent with LISO modeling. If we really want to measure the noise of the fast path alone, we will have to isolate it by removing the series resistance of the slow bias path.

Comment about LISO breakdown plots: for the OpAmp noises, the index "0" corresponds to the Voltage noise, "1" and "2" correspond to the current noise from the "+" and "-" inputs of the OpAmp respectively. In future plots, I'll re-parse these...

How much was the osc freq of the marconi? And then how much was the resulting freq offset between PSL and AUX?

Are we supposed to see two dips with the separation of an FSR? Or four dips (you have two sidebands)?

And the distance between the dips (28MHz-ish?) seems too large to be the FSR (22MHz-ish).
cf https://wiki-40m.ligo.caltech.edu/IFO_Modeling/RC_lengths

[Jon, Keerthana, Sandrine]

Thu.-Fri. we continued with PRC scans using the AUX laser, but now the "scanned" parameter is the frequency of AM sidebands, rather than the frequency of the AUX carrier itself. The switch to AM (or PM) allows us to coherently measure the cavity transfer as a function of modulation frequency.

In order to make a sentinel measurement, I installed a broadband PDA255 at an unused pickoff behind the first AUX steering mirror on the AS table. The sentinel PD measures the AM actually imprinted on the light going into the IFO, making our measurement independent of the AOM response. This technique removes not only the (non-flat) AOM transfer function, but also any non-linearities from, e.g., overdriving the AOM. The below photo shows the new PD (center) on the AS table.

With the sentinel PD installed, we proceeded as follows.

• Locked IFO in PRMI on carrier.
• Locked AUX PLL to PSL.
• Tuned the frequency of the AUX laser (via the RF offset) to bring the carrier onto resonance with the PRC.
• Swept the AOM modulation frequency 0-60 MHz while measuring the AUX reflection and injection signals.

The below photo shows the measured transfer function [AUX Reflection / AUX Injection]. The measurement coherence is high to ~55 MHz (the AOM bandwidth is 60 MHz). We clearly resolve two FSRs, visible as Lorentzian dips at which more AUX power couples into the cavity. The SURFs have these data and will be separately posting figures for the measurements.

With the basic system working, we attempted to produce HOMs, first by partially occluding the injected AUX beam with a razor blade, then by placing a thin two-prong fork in the beam path. We also experimented with using a razor blade on the output to partially occlude the reflection beam just before the sensor. We were able to observe an apparent secondary dip indicative of an HOM a few times, as shown below, but could not repeat this deterministically. Besides not having fine control over the occlusion of the beams, there is also large few-Hz angular noise shaking the AS beam position. I suspect from moment to moment the HOM content is varying considerably due to the movement of the AS beam relative to the occluding object. I'm now thinking about more systematic ways to approach this.

I think if the magnet fell off, we would see high DC signal, and not 0 as we do now. I suspect satellite box or PD readout board/cabling. I am looking into this, tester box is connected to ITMY sat. box for now. I will restore the suspension later in the evening.

Suspension has now been restored. With combination of multimeter, octopus cable and tester box, the problem is consistent with being in the readout board in 1X5/1X6 or the cable routing the signals there from the sat. box.

• Tester box hooked up to sat box ---> UL coil still shows 0 in CDS.
• Tester box hooked up to sat box ---> Mon D-sub on sat box shows expected voltages on DMM. So tester box LEDs are being powered and seem to work.
• Sat box re-connected to test mass ---> Mon D-sub on sat box shows expected voltages on DMM. So OSEM LEDs are being powered and seem to work.
• Sat box remains connected to TM ---> Front panel LEMO monitor points on readout board shows 0 for UL channel, other channels are okay.

DON"T RUN DIAGGUI AS ROOT

Seems like DTT also works now. The trick seems to be to run sudo /usr/bin/diaggui instead of just diaggui. So this is indicative of some conflict between the yum installed gds and the relic gds from our shared drive. I also have to manually change the NDS settings each time, probably there's a way to set all of this up in a more smooth way but I don't know what it is. awggui still doesn't get the correct channels, not sure where I can change the settings to fix that.

4  std cataloge item fused silica  BS1-1064-95-2025-45UNP 

ordered today. They will arrive no later than July 13, 2018

Aim: To find a model that trains the simulated data of Gaussian beam spot moving in a vertical direction by the application of a sinusoidal signal.

All the attachments are in the zip folder.

The simulated video of beam spot motion without noise (amplitude of sinusoidal signal given = 20 pixels) is given in this link https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oCqd0Ki7wUm64QeFxmF3jRQ7gDUnuAfx/view?usp=sharing

I tried several cases:

Case 1:

I added random uniform noise (ranging from 0 to 25.5 i.e. 10% of the maximum pixel value 255) using opencv to 64*64 simulated images made in the last case( https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8081/40m/13972), clipped the pixel values from 0 to 255 & trained using the same network as in the previous elog and it worked well. The variation in mean squared error with epochs is given in Attachment 1 & applied signal and output of the neural network (NN) (magnitude of the signal vs time) as well as the residual error is given in Attachment 2.

Case 2:

I simulated images 128*128 at 10 frames/sec by applying a sine wave of frequency 0.2Hz that moves the beam spot & resized it using opencv to 64*64. Then I trained 300cycles & tested with 1000 cycles with the following sequential model:

(i) Layers and number of nodes in each:

                                             4096 (dropout = 0.1) -> 1024 (dropout = 0.1) -> 512 (dropout = 0.1) -> 256  ->  64 ->  8   ->   1

           Activation :                        selu                   ->                 selu             ->         selu                -> selu ->  selu -> selu -> linear

(ii) loss function = mean squared error ( I used mean squared error to easily comprehend the result. Initially I had tried log(cosh) also but unfortunately I had stopped the run in between when test loss value had no improvement), optimizer = Nadam with default learning rate = 0.002

(iii) batch size = 32, no. of epochs = 400

I have attached the variation in loss function with epochs (Attachment 3). It was found that test loss value increases after ~50 epochs. To avoid overfitting, I added dropout to the layer of 256 nodes in the next model and removed the layer of 4096 nodes.

Case 3: 

Same simulated data as case 2 trained with the following model,

(i) Layers and number of nodes in each:

                                             1024 (dropout = 0.1) -> 512 (dropout = 0.1) -> 256 (dropout = 0.1) ->  64 ->  8   ->   1

           Activation :                              selu             ->         selu                ->              selu ->             selu -> selu -> linear

(ii) changed the learning rate from default value of 0.002 to 0.001. Rest of the hyperparameters same.

The variation in mean squared error in attachment 4  & NN output, applied signal & residual error (zoomed) in attachment 5. Here also test loss value increases after ~65 epochs but this fits better than the previous model as loss value is less.

Case 4:

Since in most of the examples in keras, training dataset was more than test dataset, I tried training 1000 cycles & testing with 300 cycles. The respective plots are attached as attachment 6 & 7. Here also, there is no significant improvement except that the test loss is increasing at a slower rate with epochs as compared to the last case.

Case 5:

Since most of the above cases were like overfitting (https://machinelearningmastery.com/diagnose-overfitting-underfitting-lstm-models/, https://github.com/keras-team/keras/issues/3755) except that test loss is less than train loss value in the beginning , I tried implementing case 4 with the initial model of 2 layers of 256 nodes each but with Nadam optimizer. Respective graphs in attachment 8, 9 & 10(zoomed). The loss value is slightly higher than the previous models as seen from the graph but test & train loss values converge after some epochs.

I have forgot to give ylabel in some of the graphs. It's the magnitude of the applied sine signal to move the beam spot. In most of the cases, the network almost correctly fits the data and test loss value is lower in the initial epochs. I think it's because of the dropout we added in the model & also we are training on the clean dataset.

We may lost the UL magnet or LED

MEDM, EPICS and dataviewer seem to work, but diaggui still doesn't work (it doesn't work on Rossa either, same problem as reported here, does a fix exist?). So looks like only donatella can run diaggui for now. I had to disable the systemd firewall per the instructions page in order to get EPICS to work. Also, there is no MATLAB installed on this machine yet. sshd has been enabled.

Two out of the four over-head fluorescent lights in the X end of the interferometer were flickering today.

We (Rana and I) are re-assembling the temperature controls on the seismometer to attempt PID control and then improve it using reinforcement learning.

We tried to re-assemble the connections for the heater and in-loop temperature sensor on the can that covers the seismometer.

We fixed (soldered) two of the connections from the heater circuit to the heater, but did not manage to get the PID working as one of the wires attached to the MOSFET had come off. Re-soldering the wire would be attempted tomorrow.

Equipment for undertaking all this is still left at the X-end of the interferometer and will be cleared soon.

pianosa has been upgraded to SL7. I've made a controls user account, added it to sudoers, did the network config, and mounted /cvs/cds using /etc/fstab. Other capabilities are being slowly added, but it may be a while before this workstation has all the kinks ironed out. For now, I'm going to follow the instructions on this wiki to try and get the usual LSC stuff working.

Initial tests look promising. Local damping works and I even locked the X arm using POX, although I did it in a fake way by simply inserting a x5.625 (=2.25 kohm / 400 ohm) gain in the coil driver filter banks. I will now tune the individual loop gains to account for the reduced actuation range.

Now I have changed the loop gains for local damping loops, Oplev loops, and POX locking loop to account for the reduced actuation range. The dither alignment servo (X arm ASS) has not been re-commissioned yet...