40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 74 of 344  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Typeup Category Subject
  16815   Wed Apr 27 16:28:57 2022 AnchalSummaryBHDBHD Upgrade - Retreiving arm cavity alignment

[Anchal, Paco, JC]

We had to open ITMY, ETMY chamber doors to get the cavity aligned again. Once we did that, we regained cavity flashing and were able to align the input injection and cavity alignment to get transmission flashing to 1.0 (C1:LSC-TRY_OUT_DQ). JC later centered both ITMY and ETMY oplevs. The ITMY oplev had become completely out of range.

We also opened ITMX, ETMX chamber doors to get Xarm alignment. Again, it seems that ITMX had moved a lot due to cable post installation.

To be continued

  16817   Thu Apr 28 11:53:10 2022 AnchalSummaryBHDPOP_SM4 and POP_SM5 Assembly

POP_SM4

I tried out this stack today and found some change of plans.

  • The attachment in elog 40m/16640 says to use 1/4-20 silver coated non-vented screws for joining BA2V to PLS-T238, however PLS-T238's bottom hole is a blind hole and is not vented. So we actually required <1 in long silver plated vented 1/4-20 cap screw for this purpose. Jordan and I were only able to find the correct length silver plated screw but it is not vented. So we decided to make a venting hole on the post from the side.
  • I had to use a 0.14" spacer as washer between PLS-T238 and BA1V. The 1" post shim that Koji got for this purpose had too small a hole in the center to let the 8-32 screw pass (I know, weird). but I think we had 3 spare 0.14" ad we bought 10 when we required 7, so we should be good.
  • The attachment in elog 40m/16640 also says to use 8-32 silver coated vented setscrew for joining TR-1.5 to LMR1V mount. I found one vented silver coated set screw nearby in the clean room but it turned out to be too long. Worse, I overtightened the setscrew when trying this connection which damaged the inner threads of one of the LMR1V. So we need to buy one more LMR1V (maybe an additional spare too) for future installation of OMC1R1/OMC2R1.
    • Then Jordan and I searched for a smaller silver coated and vented 8-32 setscrew but didn't find any. Jordan also noted that LMR1V is an aluminium mount and we should not use silver coated setscrew with it. Since the TR-1.5 mount is ok to be sacrificed if a cold weld happens, we'll just use an uncoated SS 8-32 setscrew to join TR-1.5 and LMR1V. We could not such vented setscrews, but we have plenty of non-vented once. So Jordan is going to make a venthole in TR1.5 top end as well. LMR1V already has a vent hole on its side.

tl,dr; Jordan is preparing PLS-T238 and TR-1.5 with venting holes and C&B and they would be ready by tomorrow. I have collected all other parts for assembly, still looking for the mirror but I know other lab members know where it is, so no big issue there.


POP_SM5

The assemly of this mirror is complete. A slight change here as well, we were supposed to use the former POYM1 (Y1-2037-0) mirror for POP_SM5 but I could not find it. It was stored on the right most edge of the table (see 40m/16450), but it is not there anymore. I found another undocumented mirror on the flow bench on the left edge marked (2010 July: Y1-LW1-2037-UV-0-AR) which means this mirror has a wedge of 1 degree and an AR coating as well. We do not need or care about the wedge or AR coating, so we can use this mirror for POP_SM5. Please let me know if someone was saving this mirror for some other purpose.


I'll finish assembly of POP_SM4 tomorrow and install them in ITMX chamber and resurrect POP path.

Quote:

Here is more detail of the POP_SM4 mount assembly.

It's a combination of BA2V + PLS-T238 + BA1V + TR-1.5 + LMR1V + Mirror: CM254-750-E03
Between BA1V and PLS-T238, we have to do a washer action to fix the post (8-32) with a 1/4-20 slot. Maybe we can use a 1" post shim from thorlabs/newport.
Otherwise, we should be able to fasten the other joints with silver-plated screws we already have/ordered.

I think TR-1.5 (and a shim) has not been given to Jordan for C&B. I'll take a look at these.

 

  16826   Tue May 3 14:02:09 2022 AnchalSummaryBHDInstalled POP path in ITMX Chamber

[Anchal, JC]

I installed POP_SM4 and POP_SM5 in the ITMX chamber in the nominal positions. This must have affected the ITMX Oplev because I could see that one of the ITMX oplev beam was going through POP_SM5. It needs to be changed in order to follow the original plan. However, since POP_SM5 is a 1064 line mirror, it is transparent to the opleve beam, so maybe we can just use the ITMX oplev in the current fashion.

Next steps:

  • Get flashing back on the XARM.
  • Try to get the correct phase angle in POX11 so that we can lock XARM with IR too.
  • Inspect ITMX Oplev. The quadrant sum is low so maybe it needs adjustment in the in-ar table.
  • Check if ITMX oplev path needs to be adjusted inside the chamber.
  16836   Mon May 9 15:32:14 2022 Ian MacMillanSummaryComputersQuantization Noise Calculation Summary

I made the first pass at a tool to measure the quantization noise of specific filters in the 40m system. The code for which can be found here. It takes the input to the filter bank and the filter coefficients for all of the filters in the filter bank. it then runs the input through all the filters and measures the quantization noise at each instance. It does this by subtracting the 64-bit output from the 32-bit output. Note: the actual system is 64 bit so I need to update it to subtract the 64-bit output from the 128-bit output using the long double format. This means that it must be run on a computer that supports the long double format. which I checked and Rossa does. The code outputs a number of plots that look like the one in Attachment 1. Koji suggested formatting a page for each of the filters that is automatically generated that shows the filter and the results as well as an SNR for the noise source. The code is formatted as a class so that it can be easily added to the IFOtest repo when it is ready.

I tracked down a filter that I thought may have lower thermal noise than the one that is currently used. The specifics of this will be in the DCC document version 2 that I am updating but a diagram of it is found in attachment 2. Preliminary calculations seemed to show that it had lower quantization noise than the current filter realization. I added this filter realization to the c code and ran a simple comparison between all of them. The results in Attachment 3 are not as good as I had hoped. The input was a two-toned sin wave. The low-level broadband signal between 10Hz and 4kHz is the quantization noise. The blue shows the current filter realization and there shows the generic and most basic direct form 2. The orange one is the new filter, which I personally call the Aircraft Biquad because I found it in this paper by the Hughes Aircraft Company. See fig 2 in paper. They call it the "modified canonic form realization" but there are about 20 filters in the paper that also share that name. in the DCC doc I have just given them numbers because it is easier. 

Whats next:

1) I need to make the review the qnoisetool code to make it compute the correct 64-bit noise. 

        a) I also want to add the new filter to the simulation to see how it does

2) Make the output into a summary page the way Koji suggested. 

3) complete the updated DCC document. I need to reconcile the differences between the calculation I made and the actual result of the simulation.

  16881   Fri May 27 17:46:48 2022 PacoSummaryComputersCDS upgrade visit, downfall and rise of c1lsc models

[Paco, Anchal-remote, Yuta, JC]

Sometime around noon today, right after cds upgrade planning tour, c1lsc FE fell. We though this was ok because anyways c1sus was still up, but somehow the IFO alignment was compromised (this is in fact how we first noticed this loss). Yuta couldn't see REFL on the camera, and neither on the AP table (!!) so somehow either/all of TT1, TT2, PRM got affected by this model stopping. We even tried kicking PRM slightly to try and see if the beam was nearby with no success.

We decided to restart the models. To do this we first ssh into c1lsc, c1ioo and c1sus and stop all models. During this step, c1ioo and c1sus dropped their connection and so we had to physically restart them. We then noticed DC 0x4000 error in c1x04 (c1lsc iop) and after checking the gpstimes were different by 1 second. We then did stopped the model again, and from fb1 restart all daqd_* services and modprobe -r gpstime, modprobe gpstime, restart c1lsc and start the c1x04 model. This fixed the issue, so we finished restarting all FE models and burt restore all the relevant snap files to today 02:19 AM PDT.

This made the IFO recover its nominal alignment, minus the usual drift.

* The OAF model failed to start but we left it like so for now.

  16885   Wed Jun 1 12:56:44 2022 PacoSummaryElectronicsSTEMlab 125 handout

[Paco, Deeksha]

Yesterday I handed Deeksha a red pitaya (stemlab 125 - 10) to begin her summer work in the lab. The short term goal (~1 week) is to get it to work as a network analyzer and perhaps characterize its ADC/DAC noise spectra.

  16921   Wed Jun 15 17:12:39 2022 CiciSummaryGeneralPreparation for AUX Loop Characterization

[Deeksha, Cici]

We went to the end Xarm station and looked at the green laser setup and electronics. We fiddled with the SR-785 and experimented with low-pass filters, and will be exploring the Python script tomorrow.

  16933   Tue Jun 21 14:59:22 2022 CiciSummaryGeneralAUX Transfer Function Loop Exploration

[Deeksha, Cici]

We learned about the auxillary laser control loop, and then went into the lab to identify the components and cables represented by our transfer functions. We connected to the SR785 inside the lab so that we can use it to insert noise next time, and measure the output in various parts of the control loop.

  16939   Wed Jun 22 17:04:06 2022 DeekshaSummaryElectronicsCharacterising the AUX control loop

[Cici, Deekha]

Setup loop to measure transfer function of control loop - the aim is to find the open loop gain of the system using the SR785 to inject noise (a swept sine) into the system and taking observations using the scope. We tried to calculate the gain algaebraically, in order to understand what our readings meant and what we can determine from them. Need to figure out how to run python script for the SR785, but took readings from cmd today.

Included - changes/additions made to circuit; frequency reponse obtained (need to check the frequency response as it does not look like the expected result, need to correct the loop itself, or increase the magnitude of the inserted noise as its possible that the noise is currently being suppressed by the system).

To do - circuit needs to be checked + laser lock improved - laser keeps leaving resonance while trying to take readings.

 

  16955   Tue Jun 28 16:26:58 2022 CiciSummaryGeneralVector fitting open loop transfer function/Audio cancellation of optical table enclosure

[Deeksha, Cici]

We attempted to use vectfit to fit our earlier transfer function data, and were generally unsuccessful (see vectfit_firstattempt.png), but are much closer to understanding vectfit than before. Couple of problems to address - finding the right set of initial poles to start with has been very hard, and also however vectfit is plotting the phase data is unwrapping it, which makes it generally unreadable. Still working on how to mess with the vectfit automatically-generated plots. In general, our data is very messy (this is old data of the transfer function from last week), so we took more data today to see if our coherence was the problem (see TFSR785_28-06-2022_161937.pdf). As is visible from the graph, our coherence is terrible, and above 1kHz is almost entirely below 0.5 (or 0.2) on both channels. Figuring out why this is and fixing it is our first priority.

In the process of taking new data, we also found out that the optical table enclosure at the end of the X-arm does a decent job of sound isolation (see enclosure_open.mp4 and enclosure_closed.mp4). The clicking from the shutter is visible on a spectrogram at high frequencies when the enclosure is open, but not when it is closed. We also discovered that the script to toggle the shutter can run indefinitely, which can break the shutter, so we need to fix that problem!

  16956   Tue Jun 28 16:59:35 2022 PacoSummaryALSALS beat allan deviation (XARM)

[Paco]

I took ~ 7 minutes of XALS beatnote data with the XAUX laser locked to the XARM cavity, and the XARM locked to PSL to develop an allan deviation estimator. The resulting timeseries for the channel C1:ALS-BEATX_FINE_PHASE_OUT_HZ_DQ (decimated timeseries in Attachment #1) was turned into an allan variance using the "overlapped variable tau estimator":

\sigma_y^2(n\tau_0, N) = \frac{1}{2n^2\tau_0^2(N - 2n)} \sum_{i=0}^{N-2n-1} (x_{i+2n} - 2x_{i+n} + x_i)^2

Where x_k represents the k-th data point in the raw timeseries, and n\tau_0 are the variable integration intervals under which two point variances are computed (the allan variance is a special case of M-point variance, where M=2). Then, the allan deviation is just the square root of that. Attachment #2 shows the fractional deviation (normalized by the mean beat frequency ~ 3 MHz for this measurement) for 100 integration times spanning the full duration (~ 7 min = 420 s).

The code used for this lives in Git/40m/labutils/measuremens/ALS/


If this estimate is any good, wherever the fractional beatnote deviation reaches a minimum value can be used as a proxy for the longest averaging time that give a statistical increase in SNR. After this timescale, the frequency comparison is usually taken over by "environmental instabilities" which I don't think I can comment further on. In our particular estimate, the 100 second integration gives a fractional deviation of ~ 0.44 %, or absolute deviation of 12.925 kHz.

  16959   Tue Jun 28 18:53:16 2022 ranaSummaryALSALS beat allan deviation (XARM)

what's the reasoning behind using df/f_beat instead of df/f_laser ?

Quote:

[Paco]

I took ~ 7 minutes of XALS beatnote data with the XAUX laser locked to the XARM cavity, and the XARM locked to PSL to develop an allan deviation estimator.

 

  16962   Wed Jun 29 14:28:06 2022 PacoSummaryALSALS beat allan deviation (XARM)

I guess it didn't make sense since f_beat can be arbitrarily moved, but the beat is taken around the PSL freq ~ 281.73 THz. Attachment #1 shows the overlapping tau allan deviation for the exact same dataset but using the python package allantools, where this time I used the PSL freq as the base frequency. This time, I can see the minimum fractional deviation of 1.33e-13 happening at ~ 20 seconds.

Quote:

what's the reasoning behind using df/f_beat instead of df/f_laser ?


Another, more familiar interpretation

The allan variance is related to the beatnote spectral density as a mean-square integral (the deviation is then like the rms) with a sinc window.

\sigma^2_\nu = 2 \int_0^{\infty} S_\nu(f) \lvert \frac{\sin({\pi f \tau})}{\pi f \tau} \lvert ^2 df

  16964   Thu Jun 30 17:19:55 2022 DeekshaSummaryElectronicsMeasured Transfer Functions of the Control Loop, Servo (OLTF); got Vectfit working

[Cici, Deeksha]

We were able to greatly improve the quality of our readings by changing the parameters in the config file (particularly increasing the integration and settle cycles, as well as gradually increasing our excitation signals' amplitude). Attached are the readings taken from the same (the files directly printed by ssh'ing the SR785 (apologies)) - Attachment 1 depicts the graph w/ 30 data points and attachment 2 depicts the graph with 300 data points. 

Cici successfully vectfit to the data, as included in Attachment 3. (This is the vectfit of the entire control loop's OLTF). There are two main concerns that need to be looked into, firstly, the manner in which to get the poles and zeros to input into the vectfit program. Similarly, the program works best when the option to enforce stable poles is disabled, once again it may be worth looking into how the program works on a deeper level in order to understand how to proceed. 

Just as the servo's individual transfer function was taken, we also came up with a  plan to measure the PZT's individual transfer function (using the MokuLab). The connections for the same have been made and the Moku is at the Xend (disconnected). We may also have to build a highpass filter (similar to the one whose signal enters the PZT) to facilitate taking readings at high frequencies using the Moku. 

  16966   Thu Jun 30 19:04:55 2022 ranaSummaryPSLPSL HEPA: How what when why

For the PSL HEPA, we wanted it to remain at full speed during the vent, when anyone is working on the PSL, or when there is a lot of dust due to outside conditions or cleaning in the lab.

For NORMAL conditions, the policy is to turn it to 30% for some flow, but low noise.

I think we ought to lock one of the arms on IR PDH and change the HEPA flow settings and plot the arm error signal, and transmitted power for each flow speed to see what's important. Record the times of each setting so that we can make a specgram later

  16967   Thu Jun 30 19:24:24 2022 ranaSummaryPEMeffect of nearby CES construction

For the proposed construction in the NW corner of the CES building (near the 40m BS chamber), they did a simulated construction activity on Wednesday from 12-1.

In the attached image, you can see the effect as seen in our seismometers:

this image is calculated by the 40m summary pages codes that Tega has been shepherding back to life, luckily just in time for this test.

Since our local time PDT = UTC - 7 hours, 1900 UTC = noon local. So most of the disturbance happens from 1130-1200, presumably while they are setting up the heavy equipment. If you look in the summary pages for that day, you can also see the IM lost lock. Unclear if this was due to their work or if it was coincidence. Thoughts?

  16968   Fri Jul 1 08:50:48 2022 yutaSummaryLSCFPMI with REFL/AS55 trial

[Anchal, Paco, Yuta]

We tried to lock FPMI with REFL55 and AS55 this week, but no success yet.
FPMI locks with POX11, POY11 and ASDC for MICH stably, but handing over to 55's couldn't be done yet.

What we did:
 - REFL55: Increased the whitening gain to 24dB. Demodulation phase tuned to minimize MICH signal in I when both arms are locked with POX and POY. REFL55 is noisier than AS55. Demodulation phase and amplitude of the signal seem to drift a lot also. Might need investigation.
 - AS55: Demodulation phase tuned to minimize MICH signal in I when both arms are locked with POX and POY. Whitening gain is 24dB.
 - Script for demodulation phase tuning lives in https://git.ligo.org/40m/scripts/-/blob/main/RFPD/getPhaseAngle.py
 - Locking MICH with REFL55 Q: Kicks BS much and not so stable probably because of noisy REFL55. Offtet also needs to be adjusted to lock MICH to dark fringe.
 - BS coil balancing: When MICH is "locked" with REFL55 Q, TRX drops rapidly and AS fringe gets worse, indicating BS coil balancing is not good. We balanced the coils by dithering POS with different coil output matrix gains to minimize oplev PIT and YAW output manually using LOCKINs.
 - Locking MICH with ASDC: Works nicely. Offset is set to -0.1 in MICH filter and reduced to -0.03 after lock acquisition.
 - ETMX/ETMY actuation balancing: We found that feedback signal to ETMX and ETMY at LSC output is unbalanced when locking with POX and POY. We dithered MC2 at 71 Hz, and checked feedback signals when Xarm/Yarm are locked to find out actuation efficiency imbalance. A gain of 2.9874 is put into C1:LSC-ETMX filter to balance ETMX/ETMY. I think we need to check this factor carefully again.
 - TRX and TRY: We normalized TRX and TRY to give 1 when arms are aligned. Before doing this, we also checked the alignment of TRX and TRY DC PDs (also reduced green scattering for TRY). Together with ETMX/ETMY balancing, this helped making filter gains the same for POX and POY lock to be 0.02 (See, also 40m/16888).
 - Single arm with REFL55/AS55: We checked that single arm locking with both REFL55_I and AS55_Q works. Single arm locking feeding back to MC2 also worked.
 - Handing over to REFL55/AS55: After locking Xarm and Yarm using POX to ETMX and POY to ETMY, MICH is locked with ASDC to BS. Handing over to REFL55_I for CARM using ETMX+ETMY and AS55_Q for DARM using -ETMX+ETMY was not successful. Changing an actuator for CARM to MC2 also didn't work. There might be an unstable point when turning off XARM/YARM filter modules and switching on DARM/CARM filter modules with a ramp time. We also need to re-investigate correct gains and signs for DARM and CARM. (Right now, gains are 0.02 for POX and POY, -0.02 for DARM with AS55_Q (-ETMX+ETMY), -0.02 for CARM with REFL55_I with MC2 are the best we found so far)
 
Next:
 - Measure ETMX and ETMY actuation efficiencies with Xarm/Yarm to balance the output matrix for DARM.
 - Measure optical gains of POX11, POY11, AS55 and REFL55 when FPMI is locked with POX/POY/ASDC to find out correct filter gains for them.
 - Make sure to measure OLTFs when doing above to correct for loop gains.
 - Lock CARM with POY11 to MC2, DARM with POX11 to ETMX. Use input matrix to hand over instead of changing filter modules from XARM/YARM to DARM/CARM.
 - Try using ALS to lock FPMI.

  16975   Wed Jul 6 19:58:16 2022 PacoSummaryNoiseBudgetXARM noise budget

[Anchal, Paco, Rana]

We locked the XARM using POX11 and made a noise budget for the single arm displacement; see Attachment #1. The noise budget is rough in that we use simple calibrations to get it going; for example we calibrate the measured error point C1:LSC-XARM_IN1_DQ using the single cavity pole and some dc gain to match the UGF point. The control point C1:LSC-XARM_OUT_DQ is calibrated using the actuator gain measured recently by Yuta. We also overlay an estimate of the seismic motion using C1:PEM-SEIS_BS_X_OUT_DQ (calibrated using a few poles to account for stack and pendulum), and finally the laser frequency noise as proxied by the mode cleaner C1:IOO-MC_F_DQ.

A couple of points are taken with this noise budget, apart from it needing a better calibration;

  1. Overall the inferred residual displacement noise is high, even for our single arm cavity.
    1. By looking at the sim OLTF in foton, it seemed that the single arm cavity loop TF could easily become unstable due to some near-UGF-funkiness likely from FM3 (higher freq boost), so we disabled the automatic triggering on it; the arm stayed locked and we changed the error signal (light blue vs gold (REF1) trace)
  2. The arm cavity is potentially seeing too much noise from the IMC in the 1 to 30 Hz band in the form of laser frequency noise.
    1. Need IMC noise budget to properly debug.
  3. At high frequency (>UGF), there seem to be a bunch of "wiggles" which remain unidentified.
    1. We actually tried to investigate a bit into these features, thinking they might have something to do with misalignment, but we couldn't really find significant correlation.

RXA edit:

  1. we also noticed some weirdness in the calibration of MC_F v. Arm. We think MC_F should be in units of Hz, and Paco calculated the resulting motion as seen by the arm, but there was a factor of several between these two. Need to calibrate MC_F and check. In principle, MC_F will show up directly in ALS_BEATX (with the green PDH lock off), and I assume that one is accurately calibrated. Somehow we should get MC_F, XARM, and ALS_BEAT to all agree. JC is working on calibrating the Mini-Circuits frequency counter, so once that is done we will be in good shape.
  2. we may need to turn on some MC_L feedback for the IMC, so that the MC length follows the NPRO frequency below ~20 Hz.
  3. Need to estimate where the IMC WFS noise is in all of this. Does it limit the MC length stability in any frequency band? How do we determine this?
  4. Also, we want to redo this noise budget today, whilst using AS55 instead of POX. Please measure the Schnupp asymmetry by checking the optimum demod phase in AS55 for locking Xarm v Yarm.
  16976   Wed Jul 6 22:40:03 2022 TegaSummaryCDSUse osem variance to turn off SUS damping instead of coil outputs

I updated the database files for the 7 BHD optics to separate the OSEM variance trigger and the LATCH_OFF trigger operations so that an OSEM variance value exceeding the max of say 200 cnts turns off the damping loop whereas pressing the LATCH_OFF button cuts power to the coil. I restarted the modbusIOC service on c1susaux2 and checked that the new functionality is behaving as expected. So far so good.

 

TODO

Figure out the next layer of watchdogging needed for the BHD optics.  

 

Quote:

[Anchal, JC, Ian, Paco]

We have now fixed all issues with the PD mons of c1susaux2 chassis. The slow channels are now reading same values as the fast channels and there is no arbitrary offset. The binary channels are all working now except for LO2 UL which keeps showing ENABLE OFF. This was an issue earlier on LO1 UR and it magically disappeared and now is on LO2. I think the optical isolators aren't very robust. But anyways, now our watchdog system is fully functional for all BHD suspended optics.

 

  16979   Thu Jul 7 21:25:48 2022 TegaSummaryCDSUse osem variance to turn off SUS damping instead of coil outputs

[Anchal, Tega]

Implemented ramp down of coil bias voltage when the BHD optics watchdog is tripped. Also added a watchdog reset button to the SUS medm screen that turns on damping and ramps up the coil PIT/YAW bias voltages to their nominal values. I believe this concludes the watchdog work.

Quote:

TODO

Figure out the next layer of watchdogging needed for the BHD optics.  

 

  16982   Fri Jul 8 23:10:04 2022 KojiSummaryGeneralJuly 9th, 2022 Power Outage Prep

The 40m team worked on the power outage preparation. The detailed is summarized on this wiki page. We will still be able to access the wiki page during the power outage as it is hosted some where in Downs.

https://wiki-40m.ligo.caltech.edu/Complete_power_shutdown_2022_07

  16983   Mon Jul 11 11:16:45 2022 JCSummaryElectronicsStartup after Shutdown

[Paco, Yehonathan, JC]

We began starting up all the electronics this morning beginning in the Y-end. After following the steps on the Complete_Power_Shutdown_Procedures on the 40m wiki, we only came across 2 issues.

  1. The Green beam at the Y-End : Turn on the controller and the indicator light began flashing. After waiting until the blinking light becomes constant, turn on the beam. 
  2. C1lsc "could not find operating system"-unable to SSH from Rossa : We found an Elog of how to restart Chiara and this worked. We proceeded by adding this to the procedures of startup.
  16988   Mon Jul 11 19:29:23 2022 PacoSummaryGeneralFinalizing recovery -- timing issues, cds, MC1

[Yuta, Koji, Paco]

Restarting CDS

We were having some trouble restarting all the models on the FEs. The error was the famous 0x4000 DC error, which has to do with time de-synchronization between fb1 and a given FE. We tried a combination of things haphazardly, such as reloading the gpstime process using

controls@fb1:~ 0$ sudo systemctl stop daqd_*
controls@fb1
:~ 0$ sudo modprobe -r gpstime
controls@fb1:~ 0$ sudo modprobe gpstime
controls@fb1:~ 0$ sudo systemctl start daqd_*
controls@fb1:~ 0$ sudo systemctl restart open-mx.service

without much success, even when doing this again after hard rebooting FE + IO chassis combinations around the lab. Koji prompted us to check the local times as reported by the gpstime module, and comparing it to network reported times we saw the expected offset of ~ 3.5 s. On a given FE ("c1***") and fb1 separately, we ran:

controls@c1***:~ 0$ timedatectl
  Local time: Mon 2022-07-11 16:22:39 PDT
  Universal time: Tue 2022-07-11 23:22:39 UTC
       Time zone: America/Los_Angeles (PDT, -0700)
       NTP enabled: yes
       NTP synchronized: no
 RTC in local TZ: no
       DST active: yes
 Last DST change: DST began at
                  Sun 2022-03-13 01:59:59 PST
                  Sun 2022-03-13 03:00:00 PDT
 Next DST change: DST ends (the clock jumps one hour backwards) at
                  Sun 2022-11-06 01:59:59 PDT
                  Sun 2022-11-06 01:00:00 PST
controls@fb1:~ 0$ ntpq -p
     remote           refid      st t when poll reach   delay   offset  jitter
==============================================================================
 192.168.123.255 .BCST.          16 u    -   64    0    0.000    0.000   0.000

which meant a couple of things:

  1. fb1 was serving its time (broadcast to local (martian) network)
  2. fb1 was not getting its time from the internet
  3. c1*** was not synchronized even though fb1 was serving the time

By looking at previous elogs with similar issues, we tried two things;

  1. First, from the FEs, run sudo systemctl restart systemd-timesyncd to get the FE in sync; this didn't immediately solve anything.
  2. Then, from fb1, we tried pinging google.com and failed! The fb1 was not connected to the internet!!!

We tried rebooting fb1 to see if it connected, but eventually what solved this was restarting the bind9 service on chiara! Now we could ping google, and saw this output

controls@fb1:~ 0$ ntpq -p
     remote           refid      st t when poll reach   delay   offset  jitter
==============================================================================
+tor.viarouge.ne 85.199.214.102   2 u  244 1024  377  144.478    0.761   0.566
*ntp.exact-time. .GPS.            1 u   93 1024  377  174.450   -1.741   0.613
 time.nullrouten .STEP.          16 u    - 1024    0    0.000    0.000   0.000
+ntp.as43588.net 129.6.15.28      2 u  39m 1024  314  189.152    4.244   0.733
 192.168.123.255 .BCST.          16 u    -   64    0    0.000    0.000   0.000 

meaning fb1 was getting its time served. Going back to the FEs, we still couldn't see the ntp synchronized flag up, but it just took time after a few minutes we saw the FEs in sync! This also meant that we could finally restart all FE models, which we successfully did following the script described in the wiki. Then we had to reload the modbusIOC service in all the slow machines (sometimes this required us to call sudo systemctl daemon-reload) and performed burt restore to a last Friday's snap file collection.


IMC realign and MC1 glitch?

With Koji's help PMC locked, and then Yuta and Paco manually increased the input power to the IFO by rotating the waveplate picomotor to 37.0 deg. After this, we noticed that the MC REFL spot was not hitting the camera, so maybe MC1 was misaligned. Paco checked the AP table and saw the spot horizontally misaligned on the camera, which gave us the initial YAW correction on MC1. After some IMC recovery, we saw only MC1 got spontaneously kicked along both PIT and YAW, making our alignment futile. Though not hard to recover, we wondered why this happened.

We went into the 1X4 rack and pushed MC1 suspension cables in to disregard loose connections, but as we came back into the control room we again saw it being kicked randomly! We even turned damping off for a little while and this random kicking didn't stop. There was no significant seismic motion at the time so it is still unclear of what is happening.

  16991   Tue Jul 12 13:59:12 2022 ranaSummaryComputersprocess monitoring: Monit

I've installed Monit on megatron and nodus just now, and will set it up to monitor some of our common processes. I'm hoping that it can give us a nice web view of what's running where in the Martian network.

  16992   Tue Jul 12 14:56:17 2022 TomislavSummaryElectronicsElectronics noise measurements

[Paco, Tomislav]

We measured the electronics noise of the demodulation board, whitening board, and ADC for WFSs, and OPLEV board and ADC for DC QPD in MC2 transmission. We were using SR785.

Regarding the demodulation board, we did 2 series of measurements. For the first series of measurements, we were blocking WFS (attachment 1) and measuring noise at the output of the demod board (attachment 2a). This measurement includes dark noise of the WFS, electronics noise of demod board, and phase noise from LO. For the second series of the measurements, we were unplugging input to the demod board (attachment 2b & 2c is how they looked like before unplugging) (the mistake we made here is not putting 50-ohm terminator) and again measuring at the output of the demod board. This measurement doesn't include the dark noise of the WFS. We were measuring it for all 8 segments (I1, I2, I3, I4, Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4). The dark noise contribution is negligible with respect to demod board noise. In attachments 3 & 4 please find plots that include detection and demodulation contributions for both WFSs.

For whitening board electronics noise measurement, we were terminating the inputs (attachment 5) and measuring the outputs (attachment 6). Electronics noise of the whitening board is in the attachments 7 & 8.

For ADC electronics noise we terminated ADC input and measured noise using diaggui (attachments 9 & 10). Please find these spectra for WFS1, WFS2, and MC TRANS in attachments 11, 12 & 13.

For MC2 TRANS we measured OPLEV board noise. We did two sets of measurements, as for demod board of WFSs (with and without QPD dark noise) (attachments 14, 15 & 16). In the case of OPLEV board noise without dark noise, we were terminating the OPLEV input. Please find the electronics noise of OPLEV's segment 1 (including dark noise which is again much smaller with respect to the OPLEV's electronics noise) in attachment 17.

For the transfer functions, demod board has flat tf, whitening board tf please find in attachment 18, ADC tf is flat and it is (2**16 - 1)/20 [cts/V], and dewhitening tf please find in attachment 19. Also please find the ASD of the spectral analyzer noise (attachment_20).

Measurements for WFS1 demod and whitening were done on 5th of July between 15h and 18h local time. Measurements for WFS2 demod and whitening were done on 6th of July between 15h and 17h local time. All the rest were done on July 7th between 14h and 19h. In attachment 21 also find the comparison between electronics noise for WFSs and cds error signal (taken on the 28th of June between 17h and 18h). Sorry for bad quality of some pictures.

  16993   Tue Jul 12 18:35:31 2022 Cici HannaSummaryGeneralFinding Zeros/Poles With Vectfit

Am still working on using vectfit to find my zeros/poles of a transfer function - now have a more specific project in mind, which is to have a Red Pitaya use the zero/pole data of the transfer function to find the UGF, so we can check what the UGF is at any given time and plot it as a function of time to see if it drifts (hopefully it doesn't). Wrestled with vectfit more on matlab, found out I was converting from dB's incorrectly (should be 10^(dB/20)....) Intend to read a bit of a book by Bendat and Piersol to learn a bit more about how I should be weighting my vectfit. May also check out an algorithm called AAA for fitting instead.

  16994   Tue Jul 12 19:46:54 2022 PacoSummaryALSHow (not) to take NPRO PZT transfer function

[Paco, Deeksha, rana]

Quick elog for this evening:

  • Rana disabled MC servo .
  • Slow loop also got disengaged.
  • AUX PSL beatnote is best taken with *free running lasers* since their relative frequency fluctuations are lowest than when locked to cavities.
  • DFD may be better to get PZT transfer funcs, or get higher bandwidth phase meter.
  • Multi instrument to be done with updated moku
  • Deeksha will take care of updated moku
  16997   Wed Jul 13 12:49:25 2022 PacoSummarySUSSUS frozen

[Paco, JC, Yuta]

This morning, while investigating the source of a burning smell, we turned off the c1SUS 1X4 power strip powering the sorensens. After this, we noticed the MC1 refl was not on the camera, and in general other vertex SUS were misaligned even though JC had aligned the IFO in the morning to almost optimum arm cavity flashing. After a c1susaux modbusIOC service restart and burt restore, the problem persisted.

We started to debug the sus rack chain for PRM since the oplev beam was still near its alignment so we could use it as a sensor. The first weird thing we noticed was that no matter how much we "kicked" PRM, we wouldn't see any motion on the oplev. We repeatedly kicked UL coil and looked at the coil driver inputs and outputs, and also verified the eurocard had DC power on which it did. Somehow disconnecting the acromag inputs didn't affect the medm screen values, so that made us suspicious that something was weird with these ADCs.


Because all the slow channels were in a frozen state, we tried restarting c1susaux and the acromag chassis and this fixed the issue.

  16998   Wed Jul 13 13:26:44 2022 ranaSummaryElectronicsElectronics noise measurements

as I said to you yesterday, I don't think image 2a shows the output of the demod board. The output of the demod board is actually the output connector ON the demod board. What you are showing in 2a, is the signal that goes from the whitening board to the ADC I believe. I may be msitaken, so please check with Tega for the signal chain.

  17002   Thu Jul 14 00:10:08 2022 yutaSummaryLSCFPMI with REFL/AS55 trial continued

[Paco, Koji, Yuta]

We managed to lock MICH using REFL55_Q by setting the demodulation phases and offsets right.
The following is the current FPMI locking configuration we achieved so far.

DARM: POX11_I / gain 0.007 / 0.5*ETMX-0.5*ETMY (or 1*ETMX) / UGF of ~100 Hz
CARM: POY11_I / gain 0.018 / 1*MC2 / UGF of ~200 Hz
MICH: REFL55_Q / gain -10 / 0.5*BS / UGF of ~30 Hz

Transitioning DARM error signal from POX11_I to 0.5*POX11_I+0.5*POY11_I was possible with FM4 filter off in DARM filter bank, but not to AS55_Q yet.

REFL55 and AS55 demodulation phase tuning:
 - We found that both AS55 and REFL55 are contaminated by large non-MICH signal, by making a ASDC vs RF plot (see 40m/16929).
 - After both arms are locked with POX and POY, MICH was locked with AS55_Q. ASDC was minimized by putting an offset to MICH filter.
 - With this, REFL55 offsets were zeroed and demodulation phase was tuned to minimize REFL55_Q.
 - Locked MICH with REFL55_Q, and did the same thing for AS55_Q.
 - Resulting ASDC vs RF plots were attached. REFL55_Q now looks great, but REFL55_I and AS55 are noisy (due to signals from the arms?).

Jupyter notebook: https://git.ligo.org/40m/scripts/-/blob/main/CAL/MICH/MICHOpticalGainCalibration.ipynb

Sensing matrix:
 - With FPMI locked using POX/POY, DARM and CARM lines were injected at around 300 Hz to measure the sensing gains. For line injection, C1:CAL-SENSMAT was used, but for the demodulation we used a script. The following is the result.

 Sensors              DARM (ETMX)         CARM (MC2)        
C1:LSC-AS55_I_ERR    3.10e+00 (-34.1143 deg)    1.09e+01 (-14.907 deg)    
C1:LSC-AS55_Q_ERR    9.96e-01 (-33.9848 deg)    3.30e+00 (-27.9468 deg)    
C1:LSC-REFL55_I_ERR    6.75e+00 (-33.7723 deg)    2.92e+01 (-34.0958 deg)    
C1:LSC-REFL55_Q_ERR    7.07e-01 (-33.4296 deg)    3.08e+00 (-33.4437 deg)    
C1:LSC-POX11_I_ERR    3.97e+00 (-33.9164 deg)    1.51e+01 (-30.7586 deg)    
C1:LSC-POY11_I_ERR    6.25e-02 (-20.3946 deg)    3.59e+00 (38.4207 deg)

Jupyter notebook: https://git.ligo.org/40m/scripts/-/blob/main/CAL/SensingMatrix/MeasureSensMat.ipynb

 - By taking the ratios of POX11_I and AS55_Q for DARM, POY11_I and REFL55_I for CARM, we tried to find the correct gains for REFL55 and AS55 for DARM and CARM. x3.96 more gain for AS55_Q than POX11_I and x0.123 less gain for REFL55_I than POY11_I.

Next:
 - Try locking the arms with no triggering, and then try locking FPMI with REFL/AS without triggering. No FM4 for this, since FM4 kills gain margin.
 - Lock single arm with AS55_Q and make a noise budget. Make sure to misalign ITMX(Y) completely when locking Y(X)arm.
 - Lock single arm with REFL55_I and make a noise budget.
 - Repeat Xarm noise budget with Yarm locked with POY11_I and MC2 (40m/16975).
 - Check IMC to reduce frequency noise (40m/17001)

  17007   Fri Jul 15 19:13:22 2022 PacoSummaryLSCFPMI with REFL/AS55 demod phase adjust

[Yuta, Paco]

  • We first zero the offsets in ASDC, AS55, REFL55, POX11, and POY11 when PSL shutter is closed.
    • After this, we checked the offsets with only ITMX aligned. Some of RFPDs had ~2 counts of offsets, which indicate some RFAM of sidebands, but we decided not to tune Marconi frequencies since the offsets were small enough.
  • We went over the demod phases for AS55, REFL55, POX11, and POY11.
    • For POX11/POY11 first we just minimized the Q in each locked XARM/YARM individually. The newfound values were
      • C1:LSC-POX11_PHASE_R = 106.991
      • C1:LSC-POY11_PHASE_R = -12.820
    • Then we misaligned the XARM by getting rid of the MICH fringe in the ASDC port with ITMX yaw offset, and locked YARM using AS55_Q and REFL55_I and found the demod phase that minimized the AS55_I and REFL55_Q. The newfound values were
      • C1:LSC-AS55_PHASE_R = -65.9586
      • C1:LSC-REFL55_PHASE_R = -78.6254
    • Repeating the above, but now misaligning YARM with ITMY yaw offset, locking XARM with AS55_Q and REFL55_I, we found the demod phases that minimized AS55_1 and REFL55_Q. The newfound values were
      • C1:LSC-AS55_PHASE_R = -61.4361
      • C1:LSC-REFL55_PHASE_R = -71.0434
  • The above demod phases difference, Schnupp asymmetry between X and Y were measured. We repeated the measurement three times to derive the error.
    • Optimal demod phase difference between X arm and Y arm for both AS55 and REFL55 were measured to be -4.5 +/- 0.1 deg, which means that lx-ly = 3.39 +/- 0.05 cm (Marconi frequency: 11.066195 MHz).
  • We measured the gain difference between AS55_Q and POX11/POY11 = -0.5
  • We measured the gain difference between REFL55_I and POX11/POY11 = -2.5

After this, we locked DARM, CARM and MICH using POX11_I, POY11_I and AS55 error signals respectively, and actuating on ETMX, MC2, and BS with NO TRIGGERS (but FM triggers were on for boosts as usual). Under this condition, FM5 is used for lock acquisition, and FM1, FM2, FM3, FM6 are turned on with FM triggers. No FM4 was on. We also noticed:

  • CARM FM6 "BounceRoll" is slightly different than "YARM" FM6 "Bounce". The absent roll resonant gain actually makes it easier to control the CARM, we just had to use YARM filter for locking it.
  • When CARM is controlled, we often just kick the ETMX to bring it near resonance, since the frequency noise drops and we otherwise have to wait long.
  17008   Fri Jul 15 22:36:04 2022 ranaSummaryLSCFPMI with REFL/AS55 demod phase adjust

Very nice!

DARM feedback should go to ETMY - ETMX, not just a single mirror: Differential ARM.

For it to work with 1 mirror the UGF of the CARM loop must be much larger than DARM UGF. But in our case, both have a UGF of ~150 Hz.

In principle, you could run the CARM loop with higher gain by using the CM servo board, but maybe that can wait until the X,Y -> CARM, DARM handoff.

 

  17012   Mon Jul 18 16:39:07 2022 PacoSummaryLSCFPMI locking procedure using REFL55 and AS55

[Yuta, Paco]

In summary, we locked FPMI using REFL55_I, REFL55_Q, and AS55_Q. The key to success was to mix POX11_I and POY11_I in the right way to emulate CARM/DARM, and to find out the correct demodulation phase for AS55.


Procedure

  1. Close PSL shutter and zero offsets in AS55, REFL55, POX11, POY11, and ASDC
    • For ASDC run python3 resetOffsets.py -c C1:LSC-ASDC_IN1, otherwise use the zer offsets on I and Q inputs from the RFPD medm screen.
  2. Lock XARM/YARM using POX/POY to tune demodulation phase.
    • Today, the demode phase in POX11 changed to 104.801, and POY11 to -11.256 deg.
  3. XARM and YARM are used in the following configuration
    • INMAT
      • 0.5 * POX11_I - 0.5 * POY --> XARM
      • 0.5 * POX + 0.5*POY --> YARM
      • REFL55_Q --> MICH (** this should be turned on after POX11/POY11)
    • LSC Filter gains
      • XARM = 0.012
      • YARM = 0.012
      • MICH = +40 (note the sign flip from last time)
    • OUTMAT
      • XARM --> 0.5 * ETMX - 0.5 * ETMY
      • YARM --> MC2
      • MICH --> BS
    • UGFs (sanity check)
      • XARM (DARM) ~ 100 Hz
      • YARM (CARM) ~ 200 Hz
      • MICH (MICH) ~ 40 Hz
  4. Run MICHOpticalGainCalibration.ipynb to see if ASDC vs REFL55_Q looks nice (ellipse in the XY plot), and find any residual offset in REFL55_Q.
    • If the plot doesn't look nice in this regard, the IFO needs to be aligned.
  5. Sensing matrix for CARM/DARM and MICH.
    • With the DARM, CARM and MICH lines on, verify the demod error signals look ok both in mag and phase.
    • For example, we found that CARM error signals were correctly represented by either 0.5 * POX11_I + 0.5 * POY11_I or 0.5 * REFL55_I.
    • Similarly, we found that DARM error signal was correctly represented by either 0.5 * POX11_I - 0.5 * POY11_I or 2.5 * AS55_Q.
    • To find this, we minimized CARM content in AS55_Q, as well as CARM content in REFL55_Q.
  6. We acquired the lock by re-configuring the error point as below:
    • INMAT
      • 0.5*REFL55_I --> YARM (CARM)
      • 2.5 * AS55_Q --> XARM (DARM)
    • During the hand-off trials, we repeatedly ran the sensing matrix and UGF measurements while stopping at various intermediate mixed error points to check how the error signal calibrations changed if at all.
      • Attachment #1 shows the DARM OLTF using POX/POY (blue), only with CARM handoff (green), and after DARM handoff (red)
      • Attachment #2 shows the CARM OLTF using POX/POY (blue), only with CARM handoff (green), and after DARM handoff (red)
      • Attachment #3 shows the MICH OLTF using POX/POY (blue), only with CARM handoff (green), and after DARM handoff (red)
    • The sensing matrix after handoff is below:
Sensing Matrix with the following demodulation phases
{'AS55': 192.8, 'REFL55': 95.63177865911078, 'POX11': 104.80089727128349, 'POY11': -11.256509422276006}
Sensors          	           DARM     	           CARM     	            MICH     	
C1:LSC-AS55_I_ERR_DQ	5.09e-02 (89.6761 deg)	2.03e-01 (-114.513 deg)	1.28e-04 (-28.9254 deg)	
C1:LSC-AS55_Q_ERR_DQ	4.78e-02 (88.7876 deg)	3.61e-03 (-68.7198 deg)	8.34e-05 (-39.193 deg)	
C1:LSC-REFL55_I_ERR_DQ	5.18e-02 (-92.2555 deg)	1.20e+00 (65.2507 deg)	1.15e-04 (-102.027 deg)	
C1:LSC-REFL55_Q_ERR_DQ	1.81e-04 (59.0854 deg)	1.09e-02 (-114.716 deg)	1.77e-05 (-23.6485 deg)	
C1:LSC-POX11_I_ERR_DQ	8.51e-02 (91.2844 deg)	4.77e-01 (67.1709 deg)	7.97e-05 (-72.5252 deg)	
C1:LSC-POX11_Q_ERR_DQ	2.63e-04 (114.584 deg)	1.32e-03 (-113.505 deg)	2.10e-06 (118.146 deg)	
C1:LSC-POY11_I_ERR_DQ	1.58e-01 (-88.9295 deg)	6.16e-01 (67.6098 deg)	8.71e-05 (172.73 deg)	
C1:LSC-POY11_Q_ERR_DQ	2.89e-04 (-89.1114 deg)	1.09e-03 (70.2784 deg)	3.77e-07 (110.206 deg)	

Lock gpstimes:

  1. [1342220242, 1342220260]
  2. [1342220420, 1342220890]
  3. [1342221426, 1342221574]
  4. [1342222753, 1342223230]

Sensitivity estimate (NANB)

Using diaggui, we look at the AS55_Q error point and the DARM control point (C1:LSC-XARM_OUT). We roughly calibrate the error point using the sensing matrix element and actuation gain at the DARM oscillator freq 4.78e-2 / (10.91e-9 / 307.880^2). The control point is calibrated with a 0.95 Hz SUS pole. Attachment #4 shows the sensitivity estimate.

  17016   Mon Jul 18 21:41:42 2022 AnchalSummaryLSCFPMI locking procedure using REFL55 and AS55

Now that you have found a working configuration, I suggest we update CARM and DARM filter banks so that they are used in locking those degrees of freedom instead of repurposing XARM/YARM banks. It would be bit easier to understand and leaves room for future changes for one configuration while keeping single arm lock configurations untouched.

  17021   Wed Jul 20 11:58:45 2022 PacoSummaryGeneralJenne laser kaput?

[Paco, Yehonathan, JC]

We were trying to setup the Jenne laser to characterize the response of three 1811s that Yehonathan is using for his WOPA experiment (in QIL). We hooked up a ~ 5 VDC power supply to the bias tee and looked to see if there was any DC response in the REF PD. We used a DB9 breakout board and a DB9 cable, and saw some current being drawn. The DC current was a bit too high (500 mA), so we turned the DC voltage off, and realized the VDC power was reversed, probably along the DB9 cable which we didn't check before. As we flipped the power supply leads and turned power back on, we could no longer see any current even though the voltage was now right (or was it???). We would like to debug this laser, and continue using it if it still works (!), but there is negligible documentation either here or in the wiki, so if there are any known places to look at it would be helpful to know them.

  17022   Wed Jul 20 14:12:07 2022 PacoSummaryGeneralJenne laser kaput!

[Koji, Yehonathan, Paco]

Koji pointed out that this laser was always driven with a current driver (which was not nearby), and after finding it on one of the rolling carts, we hooked up the system but found that the laser driver displayed open circuit near the usual 20mA operating point. We therefore have to conclude that this laser is no more. We will look for a reasonable replacement.

Quote:

[Paco, Yehonathan, JC]

We were trying to setup the Jenne laser to characterize the response of three 1811s that Yehonathan is using for his WOPA experiment (in QIL). We hooked up a ~ 5 VDC power supply to the bias tee and looked to see if there was any DC response in the REF PD. We used a DB9 breakout board and a DB9 cable, and saw some current being drawn. The DC current was a bit too high (500 mA), so we turned the DC voltage off, and realized the VDC power was reversed, probably along the DB9 cable which we didn't check before. As we flipped the power supply leads and turned power back on, we could no longer see any current even though the voltage was now right (or was it???). We would like to debug this laser, and continue using it if it still works (!), but there is negligible documentation either here or in the wiki, so if there are any known places to look at it would be helpful to know them.

 

  17023   Wed Jul 20 15:58:52 2022 KojiSummaryGeneralJenne laser kaput!

For troubleshooting, the proper laser driver (found beneath the AG network analyzer) was connected.
The current ~1mA was provided and the driver detected the "open circuit", which means the laser diode was busted.

https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T060240

The laser diode in the parts list is: "GTRAN GaAs Strained QW Laser Diode, Part # LD-1060".

  17030   Mon Jul 25 09:05:50 2022 PacoSummaryGeneralTesting 950nm laser found in trash pile

[Paco, Yehonathan]

==== Late elog from Friday ====

Koji provided us with a QFLD-950-3S (QPHOTONICS) salvaged from Aidan's junk pile (LD is alive according to him). We tested the Jenne laser setup with this just to decide if we should order another one, and it worked.

The laser driver anode and cathode pins (8/9, 4/5 respectively) on the rear DB9 port from the  ILX Lightwave LDX-3412 driver were connected to the corresponding anode and cathode pins in the laser package (5, and 9; note the numbers are reversed between driver and laser). Then, interlock pins 1 and 2 in the driver were shorted to enable operation. This is all illustrated in Attachments #1-2.

After setting a limit of 27.6 mA current in the driver, we slowly increased the actual current to ~ 19 mA until we could see light on a beam card. We can go ahead and get a 1060 nm replacement.

  17035   Mon Jul 25 18:22:30 2022 DeekshaSummaryWikiMeasured the PZT TF Successfully

Measured the PZT beatnote using the setup mentioned in elog post 17031. Attached is the data taken from 10kHz to 1MHz, decadewise data was also taken that I'm not including in this post. A_R refers to the transfer function taken of channel A wrt the voltage reference (the swept sine we are inputting which has an IF of 30kHz). A and B correspond to the I and Q components of the signal taken from the DFD, respectively. I am currently working on plotting the data, and will shortly update this post with plots. Next steps - 

- quantify the uncertainty in the signal (I think)

- vectfit the data to find poles and zeroes

(and possibly find a better way to print/obtain data)

Edit: first pass of data plotted

  17051   Mon Aug 1 17:19:39 2022 CiciSummaryGeneralRPitaya Data on Jupyter Notebook

Have successfully plotted data from the Red Pitaya on Jupyter Notebook! Have lost years of my life fighting with PyQt. Thanks to Deeksha for heavy contribution. Next task is to get actually good data (seeing mostly noise right now and haven't figured out how to change my input settings) and then to go to set up the RPi in the lab.

  17064   Fri Aug 5 17:03:31 2022 YehonathanSummaryGeneralTesting 950nm laser found in trash pile

I set out to test the actuation bandwidth of the 950nm laser. I hooked the laser to the output of the bias tee of PD testing setup. I connected the fiber coming out of the laser to the fiber port of 1611 REF PD.

The current source was connected to the DB9 input of the PD testing setup. I turned on the current source and set the current to 20mA. I measured with a fluke ~ 2V at the REF PD DC port.

I connected the AC port of the bias tee to the RF source of the network analyzer and the AC port of the REF PD to the B port of the network analyzer. Attachment 2 shows the setup.

I took a swept sine measurement (attachment) from 100kHz to 500MHz.

It seems like the bandwidth is ~ 1MHz which is weird considering the spec sheet says that the pulse rise time is 0.5ns. To make sure we are not limited by the bandwidth of the cables I looped the source and the input of the network analyzer using the cables used for the previous measurement and observed that the bandwidth is a few 100s of MHz.

  17069   Tue Aug 9 19:54:31 2022 yutaSummaryLSCFPMI locking tonight

[Tega, Anchal, Yuta]

We resored FPMI locking settings. Below is the summary of locking configurations tonight.
To ease the lock acquisition, the step to feedback POX11_I to ETMX and POY11_I to MC2 before POX and POY mixing was necessary tonight.

CARM (YARM):
 - 0.5 * POX11_I + 0.5 * POY11_I handed to 0.5 * REFL55_I
 - YARM filter module, FM4,5 for acquisition, FM1,2,3,6,8 triggered, C1:LSC-YARM_GAIN = 0.012
 - Actuation on -0.77 * MC2
 - UGF ~ 250 Hz

DARM (XARM):
 - 0.5 * POX11_I - 0.5 * POY11_I handed to 4.6 * AS55_Q (it was 2.5 in 40m/17012)
 - XARM filter module, FM5 for acquisition (no FM4), FM1,2,3,6,8 triggered, C1:LSC-XARM_GAIN = 0.015
 - Actuation on 0.5 * ETMX - 0.5 * ETMY
 - UGF ~ 120 Hz

MICH:
 - 1 * REFL55_Q (turned on after XARM and YARM acquisition)
 - MICH filter module, FM4,5,8 for acquisition, FM2,3 triggered, C1:LSC-MICH_GAIN = +40
 - Actuation on 0.5 * BS
 - UGF ~ 100 Hz

Measured sensing matrix:
Sensing Matrix with the following demodulation phases
{'AS55': 200.41785156862835, 'REFL55': 93.7514468401475, 'POX11': 105.08325063571438, 'POY11': -11.343909976281823}
Sensors              DARM                    CARM                   MICH
C1:LSC-AS55_I_ERR_DQ 5.27e-02 (-154.105 deg) 2.83e-01 (132.395 deg) 1.17e-04 (-40.1051 deg)
C1:LSC-AS55_Q_ERR_DQ 3.99e-02 (-151.048 deg) 1.42e-02 (125.504 deg) 1.41e-04 (-2.42846 deg)
C1:LSC-REFL55_I_ERR_DQ 5.59e-02 (77.6871 deg) 1.15e+00 (-44.589 deg) 3.55e-04 (69.2585 deg)
C1:LSC-REFL55_Q_ERR_DQ 1.84e-03 (16.3186 deg) 3.35e-03 (125.67 deg) 4.59e-05 (4.18718 deg)
C1:LSC-POX11_I_ERR_DQ 1.54e-01 (-157.852 deg) 6.07e-01 (-42.1078 deg) 5.55e-05 (73.3963 deg)
C1:LSC-POX11_Q_ERR_DQ 6.83e-05 (-148.591 deg) 6.37e-04 (121.983 deg) 1.35e-06 (43.7201 deg)
C1:LSC-POY11_I_ERR_DQ 1.85e-01 (36.1624 deg) 5.73e-01 (-43.1776 deg) 2.12e-04 (82.16 deg)
C1:LSC-POY11_Q_ERR_DQ 2.16e-05 (130.937 deg) 6.38e-05 (-173.194 deg) 1.40e-06 (47.5416 deg)

FPMI locked periods:
  - 1344129143 - 1344129520
  - 1344131106 - 1344131305
  - 1344133503 - 1344134020

Next:
- Restore CM servo for CARM

  17073   Wed Aug 10 20:30:54 2022 TegaSummarySUSCharacterisation of suspension damping

[Yuta, Tega]

We diagnosed the suspension damping of the IMC/BHD/recycling optics by kicking the various degree of freedom (dof) and then tuning the gain so that we get a residual Q of approx. 5 in the cases where this can be achieved.

MC1: Good
MC2: SIDE-YAW coupling, but OK
MC3: Too much coupling between dofs, NEEDS ATTENTION
LO1: Good
LO2: Good
AS1: POS-PIT coupling, close to oscillation, cnt2um off, NEEDS ATTENTION
AS4: PIT-YAW coupling, cannot increase YAW gain because of coupling, No cnt2um, No Cheby, NEEDS ATTENTION
PR2: No cnt2um, No Cheby
PR3: POS-PIT coupling, cannot increase POS/PIT/YAW gain because of coupling, No cnt2um, No Cheby, NEEDS ATTENTION
SR2: No cnt2um

  17089   Thu Aug 18 14:49:35 2022 YehonathanSummaryLSCFPMI Sensitivity

{Yuta, Yehonathan}

We wrote a notebook found on Git/40m/measurements/LSC/FPMI/NoiseBudget/FPMISensitivity.ipynb for calculating the MICH, DARM (currently XARM), CARM (currently YARM) sensitivities in the FPMI lock which can be run daily.

The IN and OUT channels of each DOFs are measured at a certain GPS time and calibrated using the optical gains and actuation calibration measured in the previous post.

Attachment shows the results.

It seems like the UGFs for MICH and DARM (currently XARM) match the ones that were estimated previously (100Hz for MICH, 120Hz for DARM) except for CARM for which the UGF was estimated to be 250Hz and here seems to be > 1kHz.

Indeed one can also see that the picks in the CARM plot don't match that well. Calculation shows that at 250Hz OUT channel is 6 times more than the IN channel. Calibrations for CARM should be checked.

MICH sensitivity using REFL55 at high frequencies is not much better than what was measured with AS55.

DARM sensitivity at 10Hz is a factor of a few better than the single arm lock sensitivity.

Now it is time to do the budgeting.

  17091   Thu Aug 18 18:10:49 2022 KojiSummaryLSCFPMI Sensitivity

The overlapping plot of the calibrated error and control signals gives you an approximately good estimation of the freerun fluctuation, particularly when the open-loop gain G is much larger or much smaller than the unity.
However, when the G is close to the unity, they are both affected by "servo bump" and both signals do not represent the freerun fluctuation around that frequency.

To avoid this, the open-loop gain needs to be measured every time when the noise budget is calculated. In the beginning, it is necessary to measure the open-loop gain over a large frequency range so that you can refine your model. Once you gain sufficient confidence about the shape of the open-loop gain, you can just use measurement at a frequency and just adjust the gain variation (most of the cases it comes from the optical gain).

I am saying this because I once had a significant issue of (project-wide) incorrect sensitivity estimation by omitting this process.

  17123   Wed Aug 31 12:57:07 2022 ranaSummaryALScontrol of ALS beat freq from command line -easy

The PZT sweeps that we've been making to characterize the ALS-X laser should probably be discarded - the DFD was not setup correctly for this during the past few months.

Since the DFD only had a peak-peak range of ~5 MHz, whenever the beat frequency drifts out of the linear range (~2-3 MHz), the data would have an arbitrary gain. Since the drift was actually more like 50 MHz, it meant that the different parts of a single sweep could have some arbitrary gain and sign !!! This is not a good way to measure things.

I used an ezcaservo to keep the beat frequency fixed. The attacehed screenshot shows the command line. We read back the unwrapped beat frequency from the phase tracker, and feedback on the PSL's NPRO temperature. During this the lasers were not locked to any cavities (shutters closed, but servos not disabled).

For the purposes of this measurement, I reduced the CAL factor in the phase tracker screen so that the reported FINE_PHASE_OUT is actually in kHz, rather than Hz on this plot. So the green plot is moving by 10's of MHz. When the servo is engaged, you can see the SLOWDC doing some action. We think the calibration of that channel is ~1 GHz/V, so 0.1 SLOWDC Volts should be ~100 MHz. I think there's a factor of 2 missing here, but its close.

As you can see in the top plot, even with the frequency stabilized by this slow feedback (-1000 to -600 seconds), the I & Q outputs are going through multiple cycles, and so they are unusable for even a non serious measurement.

The only way forward is to use less of a delay in the DFD: I think Anchal has been busily installing this shorter cable (hopefully, its ~3-5 m long so that the linear range is more. I think a 10 m cable is too long.), and the sweeps taken later today should be more useful.

  17127   Fri Sep 2 13:30:25 2022 Ian MacMillanSummaryComputersQuantization Noise Calculation Summary

P. P. Vaidyanathan wrote a chapter in the book "Handbook of Digital Signal Processing: Engineering Applications" called "Low-Noise and Low-Sensitivity Digital Filters" (Chapter 5 pg. 359).  I took a quick look at it and wanted to give some thoughts in case they are useful. The experts in the field would be Leland B. JacksonP. P. VaidyanathanBernard Widrow, and István Kollár.  Widrow and Kollar  wrote the book "Quantization Noise Roundoff Error in Digital Computation, Signal Processing, Control, and Communications" (a copy of which is at the 40m). it is good that P. P. Vaidyanathan is at Caltech.

Vaidyanathan's chapter is serves as a good introduction to the topic of quantization noise. He starts off with the basic theory similar to my own document on the topic. From there, there are two main relevant topics to our goals.

The first interesting thing is using Error-Spectrum Shaping (pg. 387). I have never investigated this idea but the general gist is as poles and zeros move closer to the unit circle the SNR deteriorates so this is a way of implementing error feedback that should alleviate this problem. See Fig. 5.20 for a full realization of a second-order section with error feedback.

The second starts on page 402 and is an overview of state space filters and gives an example of a state space realization (Fig. 5.26). I also tested this exact realization a while ago and found that it was better than the direct form II filter but not as good as the current low-noise implementation that LIGO uses. This realization is very close to the current realization except uses one less addition block.

Overall I think it is a useful chapter. I like the idea of using some sort of error correction and I'm sure his other work will talk more about this stuff. It would be useful to look into.

One thought that I had recently is that if the quantization noise is uncorrelated between the two different realizations then connecting them in parallel then averaging their results (as shown in Attachment 1) may actually yield lower quantization noise. It would require double the computation power for filtering but it may work. For example, using the current LIGO realization and the realization given in this book it might yield a lower quantization noise. This would only work with two similarly low noise realizations. Since it would be randomly sampling two uniform distributions and we would be going from one sample to two samples the variance would be cut in half, and the ASD would show a 1/√2 reduction if using realizations with the same level of quantization noise. This is only beneficial if the realization with the higher quantization noise only has less than about 1.7 times the one with the lower noise. I included a simple simulation to show this in the zip file in attachment 2 for my own reference.

Another thought that I had is that the transpose of this low-noise state-space filter (Fig. 5.26) or even of LIGO's current filter realization would yield even lower quantization noise because both of their transposes require one less calculation.

  17131   Fri Sep 2 15:40:25 2022 AnchalSummaryALSDFD cable measurements

[Anchal, Yehonathan]

I laid down another temporary cable from Xend to 1Y2 (LSC rack) for also measuring the Q output of the DFD box. Then to get a quick measurement of these long cable delays, we used Moku:GO in oscillator mode, sent 100 ns pulses at a 100 kHz rate from one end, and measured the difference between reflected pulses to get an estimate of time delay. The other end of long cables was shorted and left open for 2 sets of measurements.

I-Mon Cable delay: (955+/- 6) ns / 2 = 477 +/- 3 ns

Q-Mon Cable delay: (535 +/- 6) ns / 2 = 267 +/- 3 ns

Note: We were underestimating the delay in I-Mon cable by about a factor of 2.

I also took the opportunity to take a delay time measurement of DFD delayline. Since both ends of cable were present locally, it made more sense to simply take a transfer function to get a clean delay measurement. This measurement resulted with value of 197.7 +/- 0.1 ns. See attached plot. Data and analysis here.

  17132   Tue Sep 6 09:57:26 2022 JCSummaryGeneralLab cleaning

DB9 Cables have been assorted and placed behind the Y-Arm. Long BNC Cables and Ethernet Cables have been stored under the Y-Arm. 

Quote:

We held the lab cleaning for the first time since the campus reopening (Attachment 1).
Now we can use some of the desks for the people to live! Thanks for the cooperation.

We relocated a lot of items into the lab.

  • The entrance area was cleaned up. We believe that there is no 40m lab stuff left.
    • BHD BS optics was moved to the south optics cabinet. (Attachment 2)
    • DSUB feedthrough flanges were moved to the vacuum area (Attachment 3)
  • Some instruments were moved into the lab.
    • The Zurich instrument box
    • KEPCO HV supplies
    • Matsusada HV supplies
  • We moved the large pile of SUPERMICROs in the lab. They are around MC2 while the PPE boxes there were moved behind the tube around MC2 area. (Attachment 4)
  • We have moved PPE boxes behind the beam tube on XARM behind the SUPERMICRO computer boxes. (Attachment 7)
  • ISC/WFS left over components were moved to the pile of the BHD electronics.
    • Front panels (Attachment 5)
    • Components in the boxes (Attachment 6)

We still want to make some more cleaning:

- Electronics workbenches
- Stray setup (cart/wagon in the lab)
- Some leftover on the desks
- Instruments scattered all over the lab
- Ewaste removal

 

  17140   Thu Sep 15 11:13:32 2022 AnchalSummaryASSYARM and XARM ASS restored

With limited proof of working for a few times (but robustly), I'm happy to report that ASS on YARM and XARM is working now.


What is wrong?

The issue is that PR3 is not placed in correct position in the chamber. It is offset enough that to send a beam through center of ITMY to ETMY, it has to reflect off the edge of PR3 leading to some clipping. Hence our usual ASS takes us to this point and results in loss of transmission due to clipping.

Solution: We can not solve this issue without moving PR3 inside the chamber. But meanwhile, we can find new spot positions on ITMY and ETMY, off the center in YAW direction only, which would allow us to mode match properly without clipping. This would mean that there will be YAW suspension noise to Length coupling in this cavity, but thankfully, YAW degree of freedom stays relatively calm in comparison to PIT or POS for our suspensions. Similarly, we need to allow for an offset in ETMX beam spot position in YAW. We do not control beam spot position on ITMX due to lack of enough actuators to control all 8 DOFs involved in mode matching input beam with a cavity. So instead I found the right offset for ITMX transmission error signal in YAW that works well.

I found these offsets (found empirically) to be:

  • C1:ASS-YARM_ETM_YAW_L_DEMOD_I_OFFSET: 22.6
  • C1:ASS-YARM_ITM_YAW_L_DEMOD_I_OFFSET: 4.2
  • C1:ASS-XARM_ETM_YAW_L_DEMOD_I_OFFSET: -7.6
  • C1:ASS-XARM_ITM_YAW_T_DEMOD_I_OFFSET: 1

These offsets have been saved in the burt snap file used for running ASS.


Using ASS

I'll reiterate here procedure to run ASS.

  • Get YARM locked to TEM00 mode and atleast 0.4 transmission on C1:LSC-TRY_OUT
  • Open sitemap->ASC->c1ass
  • Click ! Scripts YARM -> Striptool to open a striptool monitor for ASS error signals.
  • Click on ! Scripts YARM -> Dither ON to switch on the dither.
  • Wait for all error signals to have settled around zero (this should also maximize the transmission channel (currently maximizing to 1.1).
  • Click on ! Scripts YARM -> Freeze Offsets
  • Click on ! Scripts YARM -> Offload Offsets
  • Click on ! Scripts YARM -> Dither OFF.
  • Then proceed to XARM. Get it locked to TEM00 mode and atleast 0.4 transmission on C1:LSC-TRX_OUT
  • Open sitemap->ASC->c1ass
  • Click ! Scripts XARM -> Striptool to open a striptool monitor for ASS error signals.
  • Click on ! Scripts XARM -> Dither ON to switch on the dither.
  • Wait for all error signals except C1:ASS-XARM_ITM_PIT_L_DEMOD_I_OUT16 and C1:ASS-XARM_ITM_YAW_L_DEMOD_I_OUT16 to have settled around zero (this should also maximize the transmission channel (currently maximizing to 1.1).
  • Click on ! Scripts XARM -> Freeze Offsets
  • Click on ! Scripts XARM -> Offload Offsets
  • Click on ! Scripts XARM -> Dither OFF.
ELOG V3.1.3-