40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 7 of 341  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Authordown Type Category Subject
  16911   Mon Jun 13 20:26:09 2022 yutaUpdateASCYarm ASS re-tuning in progress -part 2-

[Anchal, Yuta]

We are still in the progress of re-commissioning Yarm ASS.
Today, we tried to adjust output matrix by measuring the sensing matrix at DC.
Turning on yaw loops kind of works, but pitch does not. It seems like there is too much coupling in pitch to yaw.
We might need to adjust the coil output matrix of ITMY and ETMY to go further, and/or try measuring the sensing matrix including pitch - yaw coupling.

What we did:
 - Confirmed that turning on TT1 and TT2 loops (max-transmission loops) work fine. When we intentionally misalign TT1/2, the ASS loops correct it. So, we moved on to measure the sensing matrix of A2L paths, instead of using theoretical matrix caluclated from cavity geometry we used last week (40m/16909).
 - Instead of +/-1's, we put +/-2's in the ITMY coil output matrix to balance the actuation between ETMY and ITMY to take into account that ITMY is now using only two coils for actuating pitch and yaw (40m/16899).
 - Measured the change in C1:ASS-YARM_(E|I)TM_(PIT|YAW)_L_DEMOD_I_OUT16 error signals when offset was added to C1:SUS-(E|I)TMY_ASC(PIT|YAW)_OFFSET. We assumed pitch-yaw coupling is small enough here. Below was the result.

                            ETM PIT error  ITM PIT error
ETM PIT OFFSET of +100cnts: -3.0cnts       -2.99cnts
ITM PIT OFFSET of +100cnts
: -11.94cnts      -5.38cnts

                            ETM PIT error  ITM PIT error
ETM YAW OFFSET of +100cnts:
-3.42cnts      -16.93cnts
ITM YAW OFFSET of +10 cnts: +1.41cnts      +0.543cnts


 - Inverted the matrix to get A2L part of C1:ASS-YARM_OUT_MTRX. Attachment #1 is the current configuration so far.
 - With this, we could close all yaw loops when pitch loops were not on. But vise versa didn't work.
 - Anyway, we aligned the IFO by centering the beams on test masses by our eyes and centered all the oplevs (Attachment #2).

Next:
 - Do coil balancing to reduce pitch-yaw coupling
 - Measure sensing matrix also for pitch-yaw coupling
 - Xarm ASS is also not working now. We need to do similar steps also for Xarm

Attachment 1: Screenshot_2022-06-13_20-47-12.png
Screenshot_2022-06-13_20-47-12.png
Attachment 2: Screenshot_2022-06-13_20-44-43.png
Screenshot_2022-06-13_20-44-43.png
  16914   Tue Jun 14 19:34:06 2022 yutaUpdateSUSResonant frequency identification from the free swing test

[JC, Anchal, Yuta]

We are working on resonant frequency idendification from the free swing test done last weekend.
Table below is the resonant frequencies identified, and attached are the plots of peak identification for some of our new suspensions.
To identify the resonant frequencies, the kicks were done in each degrees of freedom so that we can assume, for example, SUSPOS will be mostly excited when kicked in POS and the heighest peak is at the POS resonant frequency.
For PR3, AS1 and ETMY, the resonant frequency idendification needs to be done in the order of POS, PIT, YAW, SIDE and identified frequencies need to be removed when finding a peak.
Other than that, the identification was done without any prior assumptions on the suspensions.
For ITMY, ETMY, PR2, PR3, AS1, AS4, yaw has lower resonant frequencies than pitch, as opposed to other suspensions.
For LO1, POS and PIT frequencies might be swapped because LLCOIL is not working (40m/16898) and POS/PIT kicks both might be excited SUSPOS/PIT.
LO1 coil output matrix was temporarily modified so that we use only two coils for POS/PIT/YAW excitation (Attachment #7), as we did for ITMY (40m/16899).

The scripts for the free swinging test and analysis live in /Git/40m/scripts/SUS/InMatCalc

     POS    PIT    YAW    SIDE
BS   0.990  0.748  0.794  0.959 
ITMY 0.987  0.739  0.634  0.948 fPIT > fYAW
ETMY 0.979  0.816  0.649  0.954 fPIT > fYAW
ITMX 0.978  0.586  0.758  0.959 
ETMX 0.962  0.725  0.847  1.000 
PRM  0.939  0.541  0.742  0.990 
PR3  1.019  0.885  0.751  0.989 fPIT > fYAW
PR2  0.996  0.816  0.724  0.999 fPIT > fYAW
SRM  0.969  0.533  0.815  0.985 
SR2  0.978  0.720  0.776  0.997 
LO1  0.926  1.011  0.669  0.993 POS AND PIT MIGHT BE SWAPPED
LO2  0.964  0.998  0.995  0.990 WRONG DUE TO STUCK (40m/16913)
AS1  1.028  0.832  0.668  0.988 fPIT > fYAW
AS4  1.015  0.800  0.659  0.991 fPIT > fYAW
MC1  0.967  0.678  0.797  0.995 
MC2  0.968  0.748  0.815  0.990 
MC3  0.978  0.770  0.841  0.969 
Attachment 1: LO1.png
LO1.png
Attachment 2: AS1.png
AS1.png
Attachment 3: AS4.png
AS4.png
Attachment 4: PR2.png
PR2.png
Attachment 5: PR3.png
PR3.png
Attachment 6: SR2.png
SR2.png
Attachment 7: Screenshot_2022-06-14_21-07-09.png
Screenshot_2022-06-14_21-07-09.png
  16919   Wed Jun 15 15:45:37 2022 yutaUpdateSUSLO1 LLCOIL now working, it was loose connection

We tracked the issue of LO1 LLCOIL not actuating LO1, and found that the DB9 cable from the coil driver to the sat amp was loose.
I tightened the screws and now it is working.
Never ever connect cables without screwing the connectors tightly! angryno

What I did:
 - Measured the resistance and the inductance of each coil with BK PRECISION LCR meter, as I did for ITMY (Attachment #1, 40m/16896). The result is the following and it shows that LLCOIL is there.

Feedthru connector: LO1 1
Pin 3-15 / R = 16.0Ω / L = 3.27 mH (UL)
Pin 7-19 / R = 15.8Ω / L = 3.27 mH (UR)
Pin11-23 / R = 15.7Ω / L = 3.27 mH (LL)

Feedthru connector: LO1 2
Pin 3-15 / N/A
Pin 7-19 / R = 15.6Ω / L = 3.22 mH (SD)
Pin11-23 / R = 15.9Ω / L = 3.30 mH (LR)

 - Swapped the DB25 cable which goes to the feedthru LO1 1 and feedthru LO1 2. LLCOIL could be drived from LR coil driver and LRCOIL could not be drived from LL coil driver. SD and UR worked fine with the swap. This means that there is something wrong with the LL driving.
 - Went to see the rack which have coil drivers and sat amp for LO1, and immediately found that the DB9 cable was loose (Attachment #2). Tightened them and the issue was fixed.
 - C1:SUS-LO1_TO_COIL matrix gains were reverted to default values (Attachment #3).

Attachment 1: Measurement.JPG
Measurement.JPG
Attachment 2: BAD.JPG
BAD.JPG
Attachment 3: Screenshot_2022-06-15_15-59-05.png
Screenshot_2022-06-15_15-59-05.png
  16920   Wed Jun 15 17:03:17 2022 yutaUpdateSUSITMY ULCOIL issue solved, loose connection in sat amp box

[Anchal, Yuta]

We fixed the issue of ITMY ULCOIL not driving ITMY by replacing one of the 64pin ribbon cable in the satellite amplifier box.
We thought the coil driver and the sat amp box are OK by checking the voltage change at the output of the sat amp box by giving an offset to UL coil driver, but it was not giving a current change, probably due to too much contact resistance in the cables.
It was sneaky because it was not completely disconnected.

All the coils for our suspensions are now working!

What we did:
 - Using breakout boards, the output current of sat amp box was measured using FLUKE multimeter. It turned out that UL is not giving measurable current. We also confirmed that UR coil driver can drive UL by re-directing the current from UR coil driver to UL. This means that the UL magnet was not de-magnetized!
 - Measured the coil resistance from at the coil driver output and found that UL coil seen from there has too high resistance which cannot be measured with the multimeter, whereas UR coil was measured to be ~30 Ohms.
 - Went back to the feedthru and measured the resistance of UL coil. Upto the output of the Satellite Amp Terimator, the resistance was measured to be ~16 Ohms, but not at the input of the Satellite Amp Terimator (Attachment #1,2).
 - It turned out that #16 pin of 64pin ribbon cable in between the Satellite Amp Terimator (LIGO-D990021) and the Satellite Amp board (LIGO-D961289) at the Satellite Amp Terimator side was not good (Attachment #3).
 - Replaced the cable and confirmed that ULCOIL can kick ITMY (Attachment #4).
 - C1:SUS-ITMY_TO_COIL matrix was reverted to default values.

Next:
 - We might have to re-commission Yarm ASS again since pitch-yaw coupling have changed. -> EDIT: Checked that it works (except for ITM PIT L), including offloading offsets (writeASS_offsets.py), 18:30 local.
 - Now that LO1 LLCOIL issue is solved and LO2 stuck is solved, we should do the free swing test again to identify the resonant frequencies.
 - OSEM sensor diagonalization (input matrix), coil balancing (and F2A)

Attachment 1: Measured16Ohms.JPG
Measured16Ohms.JPG
Attachment 2: SatAmpTerminator.JPG
SatAmpTerminator.JPG
Attachment 3: BAD.JPG
BAD.JPG
Attachment 4: SUCCESSFUL_KICK.png
SUCCESSFUL_KICK.png
  16922   Thu Jun 16 15:29:03 2022 yutaUpdatePSLPMC input beam aligned again, IMC

[Paco, Tomislav, Yuta]

Somehow, when we were trying to measure WFS open loop transfer functions, PMC unlocked many times for the past two hours and PMC transmission got low.
PMC iput beam was aligned again, and IMC WFS DC offsets and RF offsets were adjusted.
PMC transmission is now C1:PSL-PMC_PMCTRANSPD~0.75, and IMC transmission is C1:IOO-MC_TRANS_SUM~1.4e4.
Actually, IMC transmission once reached 1.5e4 at 06-16-2022 20:01 UTC with PMC transmission of 0.75 (see Attached). There might be a better alignment.

Attachment 1: Screenshot_2022-06-16_15-27-30.png
Screenshot_2022-06-16_15-27-30.png
  16929   Fri Jun 17 16:22:21 2022 yutaUpdateLSCActuator calibration of BS. ITMX, ITMY, updated MICH displacement spectra from c1cal

Following what we have done in 2013 (40m/8242), actuator calibration was done using MICH.

AS55_Q in MICH : 9.74e8 counts/m
BS   : 26.08e-9 /f^2 m/counts
ITMX : 5.29e-9 /f^2 m/counts
ITMY : 4.74e-9 /f^2 m/counts

Optical gain is 25% lower than the measurement in June 6 (40m/16892), probably because our estimate was too rough then and also we now have ~15% lower IMC transmission.
Actuator gains are 2-30% higher than the measurement in 2013.

MICH error signal calibration:
 C1:LSC-AS55_Q_ERR was calibrated by taking data with C1:LSC-ASDC_OUT, when Michelson was aligned and free swinging (Attachment #1).
 AS55_Q and ASDC were X-Y plotted and fitted with ellipse to get an amplitude of AS55_Q to be 82.51 counts (Attachment #2).
 4*pi*A/lambda gives you 9.74e8 counts/m, where meters are in terms of difference between BS to ITMX length and BS to ITMY length.
 Jupyter notebook: https://git.ligo.org/40m/scripts/-/blob/main/CAL/MICH/MICHOpticalGainCalibration.ipynb

Openloop transfer function for actuator calibration:
 C1:LSC-MICH_GAIN was lowered to -1 (instead of -6), and some of filters are turned off to make the MICH UGF to be ~10.
 Also, ellip("LowPass",4,1,40,50) was added to C1:LSC-MICH_A filter bank to cut the feedback above 50 Hz, so that the loop does not suppress the measurement.
 The configuration is in Attachment #3.

Actuator calibration of BS, ITMX, ITMY:
 With this MICH OLG, transfer functions from C1:LSC-BS,ITMX,ITMY_EXC to C1:LSC-AS55_Q_ERR were measured.
 AS55_Q was calibrated to meters using the calibration factor above, and fitted the transfer function with 1/f^2 in 70-150 Hz range to get the actuator efficiency mentioned above (Attachement #4).
 Thus, meters in this calibration is in terms of ITM POS motion (not in BS POS motion).
 Jupyter notebook: https://git.ligo.org/40m/scripts/-/blob/main/CAL/MICH/MICHActuatorCalibration.ipynb

MICH displacement noise:
 Measured values were added to c1cal model as follows.
  C1:CAL-MICH_CINV FM2: 1/9.74e8 = 1.03e-9
  C1:CAL-MICH_A FM2: 2.608e-8 (it was 2.07e-8 from 2013!)
  C1:CAL-MICH_A_GAIN = 0.5 to take into account of C1:LSC-OUTPUT_MTRX_8_2=0.5 in the LSC output matrix for BS
 Spectrum of C1:CAL-MICH_W_OUT (now calibrated in nm) with configuration in Attachment #5 was taken.
 Attachement #6 is the result. I also took the spectrum with PSL shutter off to measure the sensing noise. The sensing noise limits our sensitivity above ~40 Hz at 5e-11 m/rtHz.

Attachment 1: MICHOpticalGainCalibrationFig1.png
MICHOpticalGainCalibrationFig1.png
Attachment 2: MICHOpticalGainCalibrationFig2.png
MICHOpticalGainCalibrationFig2.png
Attachment 3: Screenshot_2022-06-17_14-23-04_MICHOLTF_ActuatorCalibration.png
Screenshot_2022-06-17_14-23-04_MICHOLTF_ActuatorCalibration.png
Attachment 4: MICHActuatorCalibration.png
MICHActuatorCalibration.png
Attachment 5: Screenshot_2022-06-17_15-54-41_MICHCalibrationFilters.png
Screenshot_2022-06-17_15-54-41_MICHCalibrationFilters.png
Attachment 6: Screenshot_2022-06-17_15-53-41_MICHDisplacement.png
Screenshot_2022-06-17_15-53-41_MICHDisplacement.png
  16932   Tue Jun 21 14:17:50 2022 yutaConfigurationBHDBHD DCPDs re-routed to c1sus2

After discussing with Anchal, we decided to route BHD related PD signals directly to ADC of c1sus2, which handles our new suspensions including LO1, LO2, AS1, AS4, so that we can control them directly.
BHD related PD signals will be sent to c1lsc for DARM control.

Re-cabling was done, and now they are online at C1:X07-MADC1_EPICS_CH16 (DC PD A) and CH17 (DC PD B) with 15ft DB9 cable.
Here, DC PD A is the transmission of BHD BS for AS beam, and DC PD B is the reflection of BHD BS for AS beam (see attached photo).

Attachment 1: C1X07ADC1.JPG
C1X07ADC1.JPG
Attachment 2: BHDDCPDs.JPG
BHDDCPDs.JPG
  16935   Tue Jun 21 21:17:16 2022 yutaUpdateBHDRTS models for BHD added but PCIE error remaining

[Anchal, Yuta]

RTS models for BHD homodyne phase control (c1hpc) and angular control (c1bac) are created and added to c1sus2.
c1su2 and c1lsc models were modified accordingly.
We still have issues with IPC PCIE connection sending DCPD A and B signals to c1lsc and DC error 0x2000 in c1su2 model.

c1hpc (host: c1sus2) Attachment #1
 This model is for homodyne phase control.
 It can dither LO1, LO2, AS1, AS4 in POS and demodulate mixture of DCPD A/B signals for the phase control to feedback to those optics.
 It also sends DCPD A/B signals to c1lsc via cdsIPCx_PCIE.
 Dither and controls signals are sent to the optics via cdsIPCx_SHMEM.

c1bac (host: c1sus2)
 This model is for BHD angular control.
 It is basically the same as c1hpc, but it is for PIT and YAW dithering of LO1, LO2, AS1, AS4.

c1su2 (host: c1su2) Attachment #2
 LSC and ASCPIT/YAW feedback signals from c1hpc and c1bac via shared memory were added to send them to corresponding optics.
 Somehow Mux/Demux didn't work to send SHMEM signals inside the subsystem in the Simulink model (this works for ADC, but probably not for IPC stuff?), and we had hard time make-install-ing this model.

c1lsc (host: c1lsc) Attachment #3
 DCPD A/B signals from c1hpc via PCIE were added for our new error signals for LSC.

Starting and restarting the models
 After having some troubles make-install-ing modified models (be careful of goto and from tags!), we stopped all the models in c1sus, c1ioo, c1lsc, c1sus2 and started all of them, including new c1hpc and c1bac models.
 This somehow created RFM errors in c1scx and c1scy.
 So, we proceeded to do the same step we did in 40m/16887 and 40m/15646, now including c1sus2 for the restart.
 Initial attempt made c1lsc, c1sus, c1ioo mostly red, so scripts/cds/rebootC1LSC.sh was run again on pianosa.
 RFM issues for c1scx and c1scy were solved.
 Shared memory within c1sus2 seems to be working, but sending DCPD A/B signals from c1hpc to c1lsc is not working (see Attachement #4).

Next:
 - Fix C1:HPC-LSC_DCPC_A/B issue
 - Make/modify MEDM screens

Attachment 1: Screenshot_2022-06-21_20-12-55_C1HPC.png
Screenshot_2022-06-21_20-12-55_C1HPC.png
Attachment 2: Screenshot_2022-06-21_20-14-56_C1SU2.png
Screenshot_2022-06-21_20-14-56_C1SU2.png
Attachment 3: Screenshot_2022-06-21_20-13-38_C1LSC.png
Screenshot_2022-06-21_20-13-38_C1LSC.png
Attachment 4: Screenshot_2022-06-21_20-34-44_RED.png
Screenshot_2022-06-21_20-34-44_RED.png
  16940   Wed Jun 22 18:55:31 2022 yutaUpdateLSCDaily alignment work; POY trouble solved

[Koji, Yuta]

I found that Yarm cannot be locked today. Both POY11 and POYDC were not there when Yarm was aligned, and ITMY needed to be highly misaligned to get POYDC.
POY beam also could not be found at ITMY table.
Koji suggested to use AS55 instead to lock Yarm. We did it (AS55_I_ERR, C1:LSC-YARM_GAIN=-0.002) and manually ASS-ed to get Yarm aligned (ASS with AS55 somehow didn't work).
After that, we checked ITMY table and found that POY beam was clipped at an iris which was closed!
I opened it and now Yarm locks with POY11 again. ASS works.
PMC was also aligned.

C1:PSL-PMC_PMCTRANSPD ~0.74
C1:IOO-MC_TRANS_SUM ~14000
C1:LSC-TRY_OUT ~0.7
C1:LSC-TRX_OUT ~0.8

Attachment 1: Screenshot_2022-06-22_17-17-42_XYaligned.png
Screenshot_2022-06-22_17-17-42_XYaligned.png
Attachment 2: Screenshot_2022-06-22_18-58-26_Transmission.png
Screenshot_2022-06-22_18-58-26_Transmission.png
  16949   Mon Jun 27 12:32:45 2022 yutaUpdateIOOWFS issues fixed

[Anchal, Yuta]

We found that MC1 local damping loop signs were revereted to the state before our standardization on June 7th (40m/16898), but the WFS output matrix was not reverted.
This caused the sign flip in the feedback to MC1, which caused the IMC WFS issue.
This probably happened when we were restarting the models after RTS modeling (40m/16935). We might have used wrong snap files for burt-restoring.

We went back to the snapshot taken at 09:19 June 21, 2022 and now the IMC WFS is working,

  16952   Mon Jun 27 18:54:27 2022 yutaUpdateLSCModulation depths measurement using Yarm cavity scan

[Yehonathan, Yuta]
EDITED by YM on 22:11 June 27, 2022 to correct for a factor of two in the modulation index

Since we have measured optical gain in MICH to be an order of magnitude less compared with Yehonathan's FINESSE model (40m/16923), we measured the power at AS55 RF PD, and measured the modulation depths using Yarm cavity scan.
We found that 50/50 beam splitter which splits AS55 path into RF PD and RF QPD was not included in the FINESSE model. Measured modulation index were as follows:

TEM00 peak height: 0.6226 +/- 0.0237
RF11 peak height: 0.0067 +/- 0.0007
RF55 peak height: 0.0081 +/- 0.0014
RF11 modulation index: 0.208 +/- 0.012
RF55 modulation index: 0.229 +/- 0.020
RF11 modulation index: 0.104 +/- 0.006
RF55 modulation index: 0.114 +/- 0.010

Here, modulation depth m is defined in E=E_0*exp(i*(w*t+m*sin(w_m*t))), and m m/2 equals to square of the intensity ratio between sidebands and TEM00.

Power measurement at AS55 RF PD:
 - ITMY and ITMX single bounce reflection was measured to be 50-60 uW at the front of AS55 RFPD.
 - In the FINESSE model, it was expected to be ~110 uW with 0.8 W input to PRM (0.8 W * 5%(PRM) * 50%(BS) * 50%(BS) * 10%(SRM) * 10%(AS2) gives 100 uW)
 - In AP table, AS55 beam was split into two paths with 50/50 beam splitter, one for AS55 RF PD and one for AS WFS and AS110. This will be included in the FINESSE model.

Modulation depth measurement using Yarm cavity scan:
 - Aligned Yarm using ASS, and unlocked Yarm to get the 2sec scan data of C1:LSC-TRY_OUT_DQ, C1:LSC-POY11_I_ERR_DQ, C1:LSC-AS55_I_ERR_DQ.
 - TRY data was used to get TEM00 peak heights
 - POY11/AS55 data was used to find RF11/RF55 sideband peaks, and height was measured at TRY (see attached).
 - If we define m to be E=E_0*exp(i*(w*t+m*sin(w_m*t))), the amplitude of TEM00 I_00 is proportional to J_0(m) and the amplitude of upper/lower sideband I_f1 is proportional to J_1(m), where J_n(m) is the bessel function of the first kind.
 - m can be calculated using 2*sqrt(I_f1 / I_00).
 - Results were shown above. Error is calculated from the standard deviation of multiple measurements with multiple peaks,
 - The code for doing this lives in https://git.ligo.org/40m/measurements/-/blob/main/LSC/YARM/modulationIndex.ipynb

Discussion:
 - Power at AS55 account for the factor of 2, In the FINESSE model, modulation index of 0.3 was used (could be m=0.3/2 or m=0.3; needs check). These combined can explain a factor of 3 at least (or 6).
 - Gautam's measurement in Jan 2021 (40m/15769) gives almost double modulation index, but I'm not sure what is the definition Gautam used. It agrees with Gautam's measurement in Jan 2021.

Attachment 1: YarmModIndex.png
YarmModIndex.png
  16954   Tue Jun 28 14:24:23 2022 yutaUpdateBHDBHD DC PD signals now also sent to c1lsc to circumvent IPC error

[JC, Yuta]

To circumvent IPC error sending BHD DC PD signals from c1sus2 to c1lsc, DB9 cable from BHD DC PD box sent to c1sus2 is now split and sent also to c1lsc.
They are now available in both

c1sus2 ADC1
C1:X07-MADC1_EPICS_CH16 (DC PD A) and CH17 (DC PD B)

c1lsc ADC1
C1:X04-MADC1_EPICS_CH4 (DC PD A) and CH5 (DC PD B)

Next:
 - Add battery powered SR560 to decouple c1sus2 and c1lsc to avoid the ground loop

Attachment 1: C1LSC.JPG
C1LSC.JPG
Attachment 2: C1SUS2.JPG
C1SUS2.JPG
Attachment 3: Screenshot_2022-06-28_16-03-16_BHDDCPDcopied.png
Screenshot_2022-06-28_16-03-16_BHDDCPDcopied.png
  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.

  16977   Thu Jul 7 18:18:19 2022 yutaUpdateLSCActuator calibration of ETMX and ETMX

(This is a complete restore of elog 40m/16970 from July 5, 2022 at 14:34)

ETMX and ETMY actuators were calibrated using single arm lock by taking the actuation efficiency ratio between ITMs. Below is the result.

ETMX :  2.65e-9 /f^2 m/counts (0.5007 times ITMX)
ETMY : 10.91e-9 /f^2 m/counts (2.3017 times ITMY)

Motivation:
- ETMX and ETMY actuators seemed to be unbalanced when locking DARM (see 40m/16968)

What we did:
- Reverted to C1:LSC-ETMX_GAIN = 1
- XARM was locked using POX11_I_ERR (42dB whitening gain, 132.95 deg for demod phase) with ETMX and C1:LSC-XARM_GAIN=0.06
- YARM was locked using POY11_I_ERR (18dB whitening gain, -66.00 deg for demod phase) with ETMX and C1:LSC-YARM_GAIN=0.02
- OLTFs for each was measured to be Attachment #1; UGF was ~180 Hz for XARM, ~200 Hz for YARM.
- Measured TF from C1:LSC-(E|I)TM(X|Y)_EXC to C1:LSC-(X|Y)ARM_IN1 (see Attachment #2)
- Took the ratio between ITM actuation and ETM actuation to calculate ETM actuation. For ITM actuation, we used the value measured using MICH (see 40m/16929). The average of the ratio in the frequency range 70-150 Hz was used.

Files:
- Measurement files live in https://git.ligo.org/40m/measurements/-/tree/main/LSC/XARM and YARM
- Script for calculation lives at https://git.ligo.org/40m/scripts/-/blob/main/CAL/ARM/ETMActuatorCalibration.ipynb

Discussion:
- ETMX actuation is 4.12 times less compared with ETMY. This is more or less consistent with what we measured in 40m/16968, but we didn't do loop-correction at that time.
- We should check if this imbalance is as expected or not.

Summary of actuation calibration so far:
BS   : 26.08e-9 /f^2 m/counts (see 40m/16929)
ITMX :  5.29e-9 /f^2 m/counts (see 40m/16929)
ITMY :  4.74e-9 /f^2 m/counts (see 40m/16929)
ETMX :  2.65e-9 /f^2 m/counts (0.5007 times ITMX)
ETMY : 10.91e-9 /f^2 m/counts (2.3017 times ITMY)

 

Attachment 1: Screenshot_2022-07-05_14-52-01_OLTF.png
Screenshot_2022-07-05_14-52-01_OLTF.png
Attachment 2: Screenshot_2022-07-05_14-54-03_TF.png
Screenshot_2022-07-05_14-54-03_TF.png
Attachment 3: Screenshot_2022-07-05_14-56-41_Ratio.png
Screenshot_2022-07-05_14-56-41_Ratio.png
  16978   Thu Jul 7 18:22:12 2022 yutaUpdateLSCActuator calibration of MC2 using Yarm

(This is also a restore of elog 40m/16971 from Jul 5, 2022 at 17:36)

MC2 actuator calibration was also done using Yarm in the same way as we did in 40m/16970 (now 40m/16977).
The result is the following;
MC2 : -14.17e-9 /f^2 m/counts in arm length (-2.9905 times ITMY)
MC2 :   5.06e-9 /f^2 m/counts in IMC length
MC2 :  1.06e+05 /f^2 Hz/counts in IR laser frequency

What we did:
- Measured TF from C1:LSC-MC2_EXC to C1:LSC-YARM_IN1 during YARM lock using ETMY (see Attachment #1). Note that the sign of MC2 actuation and ITMY actuation is flipped.
- Took the ratio between ITM actuation and MC2 actuation to calculate MC2 actuation. For ITM actuation, we used the value measured using MICH (see 40m/16929). The average of the ratio in the frequency range 70-150 Hz was used (see Attachment #2).
- The actuation efficiency in meters in arm length was converted into meters in IMC length by multiplying it by IMCLength/ArmLength, where IMCLength=13.5 m is half of IMC round-trip length, ArmLength=37.79 m is the arm length.
- The actuation efficiency in meters in arm length was converted into Hz in IR laser frequency by multiplying it by LaserFreq/ArmLength, where LaserFreq=1064 nm / c is the laser frequency.

Files:
- Measurement files live in https://git.ligo.org/40m/measurements/-/tree/main/LSC/YARM
- Script for calculation lives at https://git.ligo.org/40m/scripts/-/blob/main/CAL/ARM/ETMActuatorCalibration.ipynb

Summary of actuation calibration so far:
BS   : 26.08e-9 /f^2 m/counts (see 40m/16929)
ITMX :  5.29e-9 /f^2 m/counts (see
40m/16929)
ITMY :  4.74e-9 /f^2 m/counts (see
40m/16929)
ETMX :  2.65e-9 /f^2 m/counts (0.5007 times ITMX)
ETMY : 10.91e-9 /f^2 m/counts (2.3017 times ITMY)

MC2 : -14.17e-9 /f^2 m/counts in arm length (-2.9905 times ITMY)
MC2 :   5.06e-9 /f^2 m/counts in IMC length

 

NOTE ADDED by YM on July 7, 2022

To account for the gain imbalance in ETMX, ETMY, MC2, LSC violin filter gains were set to:
C1:LSC-ETMX_GAIN = 4.12
C1:LSC-MC2_GAIN = -0.77
This is a temporary solution to make ETMX and MC2 actuation efficiencies from LSC in terms of arm length to be the same as ETMY 10.91e-9 /f^2 m/counts.

I think it is better to make C1:LSC-ETMX_GAIN = 1, and put 4.12 in C1:SUS-ETMX_TO_COIL gains. We need to adjust local damping gains and XARM ASS afterwards.
As for MC2, it is better to put -0.77 in LSC output matrix, since this balancing depends on LSC topology.

Attachment 1: TF.png
TF.png
Attachment 2: MC2.png
MC2.png
  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)

Attachment 1: AS55_I.png
AS55_I.png
Attachment 2: AS55_Q.png
AS55_Q.png
Attachment 3: REFL55_I.png
REFL55_I.png
Attachment 4: REFL55_Q.png
REFL55_Q.png
  17014   Mon Jul 18 17:07:12 2022 yutaUpdateLSCx4.12 added to ETMX coil outputs to balance with ETMY

To balance the actuation on ETMX and ETMY, x4.12 was aded to C1:SUS-ETMX_(UL|UR|LR|LL|SD)COIL FM1. OSEM damping filter gains, oplev loop gains, and alignment offsets were divided by this factor.
C1:LSC-ETMX_GAIN is now 1.

To do:
 - Balance ETM and ITM. It should make ASS more sensible.
 - Re-commission Xarm ASS and Yarm ASS.

  17018   Tue Jul 19 16:00:34 2022 yutaConfigurationBHDFast channels for BHD DCPDs now available in c1lsc but not in c1hpc

[Paco, Anchal-remote-support, Yuta]

We added fast channels to BHD DC PDs.
C1:LSC-DCPD_(A|B)_IN1 are now available, but C1:HPC-DCPD_(A|B)_IN1 still gives us zero.

c1hpc situation -> not good
 - We can see the slow signal at C1:X07-MADC1_EPICS_CH16 (DC PD A) and CH17 (DC PD B)
 - C1:HPC-DCPD_(A|B)_IN1 is there, but zero.
 - We have modified c1hpc model to add DCPD_(A|B) filters in front of the input matrix (see Attachment #1).
 - After modifying the model, we run
ssh c1sus2
rtcds make c1hpc
rtcds install c1hpc
ssh fb1
sudo systemctl restart daqd_*

 - After this, we got 0x2000 error. So, we ran the following. This removed 0x2000 error, but DCPD signals are still zero. They are also not available in C1HPC-MONITOR_ADC1.adl screen (see Attachment #3).
ssh c1sus2
rtcds restart c1hpc


c1lsc situation -> good
 - We could see the slow signal at C1:X04-MADC1_EPICS_CH4 (DC PD A) and CH5 (DC PD B), and also C1:LSC-DCPD_(A|B)_NORM after making C1:LSC-DCPD_(A|B)_POW_NORM=1. The ADC channel and DCPD channel are exactly the same.
 - After confirming the above, we modified the c1lsc model to add DCPD_(A|B) filters in front of the input matrix (see Attachment #2).
 - After modifying the model, we run
ssh c1lsc
rtcds make c1lsc
rtcds install c1lsc
ssh fb1
sudo systemctl restart daqd_*

 - After this, we also got 0x2000 error. We also noticed that, for example, C1:X04-MADC0_EPICS_CH31 and C1:LSC-ASDC_INMON are different, which used to be the same (ASDC_INMON was largely attenuated).
 - In the end, we run the following to remove 0x2000 error, but it crashed c1lsc, as well as c1sus, c1ioo.
ssh c1lsc
rtcds restart c1lsc

 - So, we did rebootC1LSC.sh. This made c1lsc, c1ioo and c1sus as green as before, except for RFM issue in TRX/TRY, like we saw in June. We followed the steps in 40m/16887 to hard reboot c1iscex/c1iscey and ran rebootC1LSC.sh again. This made C1CDS_FE_STATUS.adl screen as green as before (see Attachment #3).

 - Fast channels C1:LSC-DCPD_(A|B)_IN1 are now available. They are also available in C1LSC-MONITOR_ADC1.adl screen (see Attachment #3).

Attachment 1: Screenshot_2022-07-19_14-26-39_c1hpc.png
Screenshot_2022-07-19_14-26-39_c1hpc.png
Attachment 2: Screenshot_2022-07-19_14-24-49_c1lsc.png
Screenshot_2022-07-19_14-24-49_c1lsc.png
Attachment 3: Screenshot_2022-07-19_15-51-25_GreenGreen.png
Screenshot_2022-07-19_15-51-25_GreenGreen.png
  17020   Tue Jul 19 18:41:42 2022 yutaUpdateBHDContrast measurements for Michelson and ITM-LO

[Paco, Yuta]

We measured contrast of Michelson fringe in both arms locked and mis-aligned. It was around 90%.
We also measured the contrast of ITM single bounce vs LO beam using BHD DC PDs. It was around 43%.
The measurement depends on the alignment and how to measure the maximum and minimum of the fringe. ITM-LO fringe was also not stable because motions of AS/LO mirrors are large. More tuning necessary.

Background
 - As measured in elog 40m/17012, we see a lot of CARM in AS, which indicates large contrast defect.
 - We want to check mode-matching of LO beam to AS beam.

BHD DC PD conditioning
 - We added DCPD_A and DCPD_B to /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/LSC/LSCoffsets3 script, which zeros the offsets when shutters are closed.
 - We also set C1:LSC-DCPD_(A|B)_GAIN = -1 since they are inverted.

Contrast measurement
 - Contrast was measured using channels ['C1:LSC-ASDC_OUT','C1:LSC-POPDC_OUT','C1:LSC-REFLDC_OUT','C1:LSC-DCPD_A_OUT','C1:LSC-DCPD_B_OUT']. For LO, only DCPD_(A|B) are used.
 - We took 15%-percentile (40% for ITM-LO fringe) from the maximum and minimum of the data, and took the median to estimate the maximum value and the minimum value (see Attachment).
 - Contrast = (Imax - Imin) / (Imax + Imin)
 - We measured three times in each configuration to estimate the standard error.
 - Jupyter notebook: https://git.ligo.org/40m/scripts/-/blob/main/CAL/BHD/measureContrast.ipynb

Results
Both arms locked, MICH fringe (15% percentile)
Contrast measured by C1:LSC-ASDC_OUT is 89.75 +/- 0.17 %
Contrast measured by C1:LSC-POPDC_OUT is 79.41 +/- 0.86 %
Contrast measured by C1:LSC-REFLDC_OUT is 97.34 +/- 0.34 %
Contrast measured by C1:LSC-DCPD_A_OUT is 95.41 +/- 1.55 %
Contrast measured by C1:LSC-DCPD_B_OUT is 89.76 +/- 1.49 %
Contrast measured by all is 90.34 +/- 1.68 %


Both arms mis-aligned, MICH fringe (15% percentile)
Contrast measured by C1:LSC-ASDC_OUT is 89.32 +/- 0.57 %
Contrast measured by C1:LSC-POPDC_OUT is 94.55 +/- 0.62 %
Contrast measured by C1:LSC-REFLDC_OUT is 97.95 +/- 1.37 %
Contrast measured by C1:LSC-DCPD_A_OUT is 96.40 +/- 1.04 %
Contrast measured by C1:LSC-DCPD_B_OUT is 90.98 +/- 1.07 %
Contrast measured by all is 93.84 +/- 0.94 %


ITMY-LO fringe (40% percentile)
Contrast measured by C1:LSC-DCPD_A_OUT is 45.51 +/- 0.45 %
Contrast measured by C1:LSC-DCPD_B_OUT is 38.69 +/- 0.43 %
Contrast measured by all is 42.10 +/- 1.03 %


ITMX-LO fringe (40% percentile)
Contrast measured by C1:LSC-DCPD_A_OUT is 46.65 +/- 0.65 %
Contrast measured by C1:LSC-DCPD_B_OUT is 39.82 +/- 0.51 %
Contrast measured by all is 43.24 +/- 1.45 %


Discussion
 - As you can see from the attachment, REFLDC is noisy and over estimating the contrast. ASDC is reliable. We need to tune the threshold to measure the maximum value and minimum value. We should also use the mode instead of median.
 - Contrast depends very much on the alignment. We didn't tweak too much today.
 - ITM-LO fringe was not stable, probably due to too much motion in AS1, AS4, LO1, LO2. Their damping needs to be re-tuned.

Next:
 - Model FPMI sensing matrix with measured contrast defect
 - Estimate AS-LO mode-mismatch using the measured contrast
 - Lock ITM-LO fringe using DCPD_(A|B) as error signal, and ITM or LO1/2 as actuator
 - Lock MICH with DCPD_(A|B), and with LO beam
 - Get better contrast data with better alignment and better AS1, AS4, LO1, LO2 damping

Attachment 1: ContrastMeasurements.pdf
ContrastMeasurements.pdf ContrastMeasurements.pdf ContrastMeasurements.pdf ContrastMeasurements.pdf ContrastMeasurements.pdf ContrastMeasurements.pdf ContrastMeasurements.pdf ContrastMeasurements.pdf
  17028   Fri Jul 22 17:46:10 2022 yutaConfigurationBHDc1sus2 watchdog update and DCPD ERR channels

[Tega, Yuta]

We have added C1:HPC-DCPD_A_ERR and C1:HPC-DCPD_B_ERR testpoints, which can be used as A+B, A-B etc.
Restarting c1hpc crashed c1sus2, and also made c1lsc/ioo/sus models red.
We run /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/Git/40m/scripts/cds/restartAllModels.sh to restart all the machines. It worked perfectly without manually pressing power buttons! Wow!heart

We have also edited /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/medm/c1su2/C1SU2_WATCHDOGS.adl so that it will use new /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/Git/40m/scripts/SUS/medm/resetFromWatchdogTrip.sh instead of old /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/SUS/damprestore.py.

Attachment 1: Screenshot_2022-07-22_17-48-25.png
Screenshot_2022-07-22_17-48-25.png
  17040   Wed Jul 27 18:30:50 2022 yutaUpdateBHDLO beam power at BHD DCPDs is significantly lower than expected

[Paco, Yehonathan, Yuta]

We measured power and counts at BHD DCPDs with LO beam only and ITM single bounce.
We found that LO beam power is ~7 times less than the expected.
We also confirmed that AS beam is clipped somewhere inside vacuum and have 20-50% less power compared with the expected.
LO/AS beams going to DCPD A and B also have power imbalance by 30-40%.

What we did:
 - Run LSCoffsets.py to zero the offsets. I modified the old script so that it can handle new BHD PDs. Also, a bug was fixed (it didn't take into account the gains in filer modules, so INMON is now used instead of OUT16 for calculating offsets).
https://git.ligo.org/40m/scripts/-/blob/main/RFPD/LSCoffsets.py
 - Measured powers and counts in BHD DCPDs at ITMY table with LO beam only and ITMX/ITMY single bounce.
 - During the measurement, we found that power into DCPD A and DCPD B are quite different. One of the reason was a lens and an iris right after the viewport for A path. We removed both of them. Also, only A path have a pickoff which picks off ~20% of light to BHD camera (called SRMF; 40m/16880).
 - We also found that LO beam shape is ugly. ITM single bounce beam from X and Y have similar clipping (see Attached photos). We tried to reduce clipping with various suspensions (LO1, LO2, AS1, AS4, SR2, SRM, BS, ITMX, PR2), but was not possible by moving only single suspension.

Result:
 - Result of counts and power measurements are as follows. Power was measured right in front of DCPD, and also right after the viewport to estimate the loss in the in-air paths. Note that LSC channels have gain of 1, but HPC channels have gain of -1.9 for DCPD_A and -1 for DCPD_B.

                       Blocked  LO       ITMX      ITMY    
C1:LSC-DCPD_A_OUT16    -0.01    -17.89    -91.62    -86.21    
C1:LSC-DCPD_B_OUT16    +0.06    -17.72   -131.83   -131.98    
C1:HPC-DCPD_A_OUT16    +0.07    +34.12   +174.63   +164.24    
C1:HPC-DCPD_B_OUT16    +0.13    +17.60   +131.31   +131.49    
Power at DCPD_A        19 uW    63 uW    278 uW    290 uW    
Power at DCPD_B        19 uW    65 uW    393 uW    404 uW    
Power at viewport A    -- uW    82 uW    350 uW    337 uW    
Power at viewport B    -- uW    64 uW    436 uW    431 uW

DCPD calibration:
 - From the measurements above, counts/W in IN1 can be calculated as follows. Offset of 19 uW is substracted from the measured power to take into account for background light.

C1:LSC-DCPD_A_IN1     -3.59e+05 counts/W
C1:LSC-DCPD_B_IN1     -3.61e+05 counts/W
C1:HPC-DCPD_A_IN1     -3.60e+05 counts/W
C1:HPC-DCPD_B_IN1     -3.57e+05 counts/W

Discussion:
 - DCPD calibration shows that DCPD to ADC itself is quite balanced within 1%. A factor of 1.8-1.9 seen was from unbalanced light between A path and B path (40m/17037).
 - Power expected for ITM single bounce to one of DCPDs is ~520 uW, but was 350-430 uW as measured right after the viewport. Power at A is significantly less than that for B. Note that power at AS55 was as expected (40m/16952). Also, clipping cannot be reduced by moving suspensions. These could mean that clipping is happening after AS2.

950 mW * 0.9 (IMC transmission?) * 5.637%(PRM) * 97.8%(PR2) * 50%(BS) * 98.6%(ITM) * 50%(BS) * 10%(SRM) * 90%(AS2) * 50%(BHDBS) = 520 uW

 - Power expected for LO beam to one of DCPDs is ~530 uW, but was 60-80 uW as measured right after the viewport. Power at A is significantly more than that for B, which is opposite for ITM single bounce. This could mean that something is happening at BHDBS? We are not sure why the power is so low. Are we seeing some ghost beam? For PR2 transmission, 22000 ppm was used for calculation, from 40m/16541.

950 mW * 0.9 (IMC transmission?) * 5.637%(PRM) * 2.2%(PR2) * 50%(BHDBS) = 530 uW

 - As far as we remember, beam shapes were not as bad when we closed out the chambers...

Next:
 - Check if measured power explains the visitivity of LO-ITM single bounce (40m/17020)
 - If not, what is the mode mismatch? Is it possible to explain the mode mismatch with deviations from designed mode-matching telescope?
 - Measure POP power to see if PR2 actually have T=2.2%
 - Play with LO1 and LO2 to invesitate LO beam shape and power
 - Check coherence between LO/AS power fluctuations with suspension motions
 - What is the expected counts/W for these DCPDs?
 - Balance the optical paths in ITMX table for A and B (same lenses, same mirrors)
 - Install better lens in front of camera

Attachment 1: LOBeamAtBHD.JPG
LOBeamAtBHD.JPG
Attachment 2: ITMXSingleBounceAtBHD.jpg
ITMXSingleBounceAtBHD.jpg
  17056   Wed Aug 3 16:00:51 2022 yutaUpdateBHDBHD fringe aligned with reduced LO and AS beam clipping

Last week, we could find an alignment which realizes LO beam and AS beam both unclipped, but it was not consistent with an alignment which realize BHD fringe (40m/17046).
Today, we tweaked the alignment of SR2, AS1, AS4 to have BHD fringe with reduced LO and AS beam clipping.
AS beams on AP table and BHD both still look clipped, but much better now.
Ideally, SR2 and AS1 will unclip AS beam, and LO1, LO2, AS4 would make BHD fringe, but it is hard right now since LO beam seem to have little room and LO2 have little actuation range.
BHD optics on ITMY table, including camera, and AS55/ASDC were realigned after the aglinment work (Note that DCPD_A path have a pick-off for camera path, and this pick-off mirror have quite significant incident angle dependence of R/T ratio).

Current alignment scheme:
Current alignment scheme I figured out is the following.
 - Check Y green. If it is transmitted at good spot on GTRY camera, Yarm is OK. If not, tweak ITMY/ETMY. alignment.
 - Mis-align AS4, align TT1, TT2, LO1 to have DCPD_A_OUT of ~130 and DCPD_B_OUT of ~125.
 - Align PR3, PR2 to maximize TRY_OUT to ~1.05.
 - Tweak ITMY/ETMY if the beam spot on them are not good.
 - Align BS, ITMX to have good MICH fringe and TRX_OUT to ~1.1.
 - Tweak ITMX/ETMX if the beam spot on them are not good.
 - Misalign ETMY, ETMX, ITMY to have LO-ITMX fringe in BHD DCPDs, and align AS beam with SR2 and AS4 differentially, with ratio of AS4/SR2=3.6.

DC PD values in various configurations:
Both arms locked with POX/POY, MICH free, PRM/SRM misaligned

                          Mean     Max      Min
C1:IOO-MC_TRANS_SUM :     14088.57 13947.52 14167.04
C1:LSC-ASDC_OUT16 :           0.16    -0.02     0.34
C1:LSC-POPDC_OUT16 :        369.34   -74.88   854.34
C1:LSC-REFLDC_OUT16 :         0.03    -0.00     0.06
C1:LSC-TRY_OUT16 :            1.00     0.95     1.04
C1:LSC-TRX_OUT16 :            1.07     1.04     1.08

Only LO beam to BHD DCPDs
                          Mean     Max      Min
C1:IOO-MC_TRANS_SUM :     14121.32 14057.71 14159.38
C1:HPC-DCPD_A_OUT16 :       129.80   128.37   130.68 (Consistent with, 40m/17046. Power as expected within 20%. Squashed shape)
C1:HPC-DCPD_B_OUT16 :       123.42   121.92   124.48

ITMX single bounce (ITMY, ETMX, ETMY, PRM, SRM, LO misalgined)
                          Mean     Max      Min
C1:IOO-MC_TRANS_SUM :     14105.13 14000.89 14171.91
C1:HPC-DCPD_A_OUT16 :        92.54    91.45    93.30 (Consistent with 40m/17040, Power as expected within 40%. Clipped to the left in camera)
C1:HPC-DCPD_B_OUT16 :       137.70   136.55   138.53 (Note that DCPD_A/B ratio is different from LO, due to BHD BS R/T unbalance; 40m/17044)
C1:LSC-ASDC_OUT16 :           0.10     0.09     0.10 (Power as expected 40m/16952. Clipped to the right in camera)
C1:LSC-POPDC_OUT16 :        309.19   288.93   327.10 (Power as expected within 30% 40m/17042.)
C1:LSC-REFLDC_OUT16 :         0.02     0.01     0.02

ITMY single bounce (ITMX, ETMX, ETMY, PRM, SRM, LO misalgined)
                          Mean     Max      Min
C1:IOO-MC_TRANS_SUM :     14112.09 14025.37 14154.51
C1:HPC-DCPD_A_OUT16 :        92.58    92.01    93.26
C1:HPC-DCPD_B_OUT16 :       137.68   136.81   138.27
C1:LSC-ASDC_OUT16 :           0.10     0.09     0.10
C1:LSC-POPDC_OUT16 :        308.48   290.49   319.73
C1:LSC-REFLDC_OUT16 :         0.02     0.01     0.02

MICH fringe only (ETMX, ETMY, PRM, SRM, LO misalgined)
                          Mean     Max      Min
C1:IOO-MC_TRANS_SUM :     14090.34 13979.15 14143.86
C1:HPC-DCPD_A_OUT16 :       325.60    91.92   714.57
C1:HPC-DCPD_B_OUT16 :       400.27    18.37   762.57
C1:LSC-ASDC_OUT16 :           0.19    -0.05     0.41
C1:LSC-POPDC_OUT16 :        595.66  -119.21  1334.11
C1:LSC-REFLDC_OUT16 :         0.03    -0.01     0.07

LO-ITMX fringe only (ITMY, ETMX, ETMY, PRM, SRM misalgined)
                          Mean     Max      Min
C1:IOO-MC_TRANS_SUM :     14062.58 13968.05 14113.67
C1:HPC-DCPD_A_OUT16 :       224.31    89.57   371.66
C1:HPC-DCPD_B_OUT16 :       259.74    85.37   421.86


Next:
 - Measure contrast (40m/17020) and estimate mode-matching of LO-AS again (40m/17041)
 - Now that we have better LO-AS fringe, lock LO phase in MICH (40m/17037)
 - Now that Dolphin issue was fixed, try double-demodulation to lock LO phase

Attachment 1: Screenshot_2022-08-03_15-46-36_BHDfringeAlmostUnclipped.png
Screenshot_2022-08-03_15-46-36_BHDfringeAlmostUnclipped.png
  17067   Tue Aug 9 15:33:12 2022 yutaUpdateBHDBHD fringe contrast improved from 43% to 74%

[Anchal, Yehonathan, Yuta]

We did the constrast measurement with the method same as 40m/17020.
Contrast between ITM single bounce and LO beam increased to 74% (we had 43% before unclipping LO beam in 40m/17056).
From equations in 40m/17041 and measured ITM sigle bounce power (93 or 138 counts @ BHD DCPD) and LO power (130 or 124 counts @ BHD DCPD) from 40m/17056,  expected visibility for perfectly mode-matched case is 99%.
Measured constrast of 74% indicate mode-matching of 56%.

Both arms locked, MICH fringe (20% percentile)
Contrast measured by C1:LSC-ASDC_OUT is 80.66 +/- 0.20 %
Contrast measured by C1:LSC-POPDC_OUT is 92.27 +/- 0.66 %
Contrast measured by C1:LSC-REFLDC_OUT is 89.59 +/- 0.84 %
Contrast measured by all is 87.51 +/- 1.69 %

Both arms misaligned, MICH fringe (20% percentile)
Contrast measured by C1:LSC-ASDC_OUT is 82.50 +/- 0.61 %
Contrast measured by C1:LSC-POPDC_OUT is 94.18 +/- 0.26 %
Contrast measured by C1:LSC-REFLDC_OUT is 92.78 +/- 0.19 %
Contrast measured by all is 89.82 +/- 1.75 %

ITMX-LO fringe (40% percentile)
Contrast measured by C1:HPC-DCPD_A_OUT is 73.93 +/- 1.52 %
Contrast measured by C1:HPC-DCPD_B_OUT is 73.56 +/- 1.22 %
Contrast measured by all is 73.74 +/- 0.98 %

ITMY-LO fringe (40% percentile)
Contrast measured by C1:HPC-DCPD_A_OUT is 73.45 +/- 0.61 %
Contrast measured by C1:HPC-DCPD_B_OUT is 75.27 +/- 0.50 %
Contrast measured by all is 74.36 +/- 0.54 %

Attachment 1: HPC-DCPD_B_OUT_1344118517_ITMY-LO.png
HPC-DCPD_B_OUT_1344118517_ITMY-LO.png
Attachment 2: HPC-DCPD_A_OUT_1344118517_ITMY-LO.png
HPC-DCPD_A_OUT_1344118517_ITMY-LO.png
Attachment 3: HPC-DCPD_B_OUT_1344118318_ITMX-LO.png
HPC-DCPD_B_OUT_1344118318_ITMX-LO.png
Attachment 4: HPC-DCPD_A_OUT_1344118318_ITMX-LO.png
HPC-DCPD_A_OUT_1344118318_ITMX-LO.png
  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

  17085   Wed Aug 17 07:35:48 2022 yutaBureaucracyGeneralMy wish list for IFO commissioning

FPMI related
- Better suspension damping HIGH
 - Investigate ITMX input matrix diagonalization (40m/16931)
 - Output matrix diagonalization
 * FPMI lock is not stable, only lasts a few minutes for so. MICH fringe is too fast; 5-10 fringes/sec in the evening.
- Noise budget HIGH
 - Calibrate error signals (actually already done with sensing matrix measurement 40m/17069)
 - Make a sensitivity curve using error and feedback signals (actuator calibration 40m/16978)
 * See if optical gain and actuation efficiency makes sense. REFL55 error signal amplitude is sensitive to cable connections.
- FPMI locking
 - Use CARM/DARM filters, not XARM/YARM filters
 - Remove FM4 belly
 - Automate lock acquisition procedure
- Initial alignment scheme
 - Investigate which suspension drifts much
 - Scheme compatible with BHD alignment
 * These days, we have to align almost from scratch every morning. Empirically, TT2 seems to recover LO alignment and PR2/3 seems to recover Yarm alignment (40m/17056). Xarm seems to be stable.
- ALS
 - Install alignment PZTs for Yarm
 - Restore ALS CARM and DARM
 * Green seems to be useful also for initial alignment of IR to see if arms drifted or not (40m/17056).
- ASS
 - Suspension output matrix diagonalization to minimize pitch-yaw coupling (current output matrix is pitch-yaw coupled 40m/16915)
 - Balance ITM and ETM actuation first so that ASS loops will be understandable (40m/17014)
- Suspension calibrations
 - Calibrate oplevs
 - Calibrate SUSPOS/PIT/YAW/SIDE signals (40m/16898)
 * We need better understanding of suspension motions. Also good for A2L noise budgeting.
- CARM servo with Common Mode Board
 - Do it with single arm first

BHD related
- Better suspension damping HIGH
 - Invesitage LO2 input matrix diagonalization (40m/16931)
 - Output matrix diagonalization (almost all new suspensions 40m/17073)
 * BHD fringe speed is too fast (~100 fringes/sec?), LO phase locking saturates (40m/17037).
- LO phase locking
 - With better suspensions
 - Measure open loop transfer function
 - Try dither lock with dithering LO or AS with MICH offset (single modulation)
 - Modify c1hpc/c1lsc so that it can modulate BS and do double demodulation, and try double demodulation
- Noise Budget HIGH
 - Calibrate MICH error signal and AS-LO fringe
 - Calibrate LO1, LO2, AS1, AS4 actuation using ITM single bounce - LO fringe
 - Check BHD DCPD signal chain (DCPD making negative output when fringes are too fast; 40m/17067)
 - Make a sensitivity curve using error and feedback signals
- AS-LO mode-matching 
 - Model what could be causing funny LO shape
 - Model if having low mode-matching is bad or not
 * Measured mode-matching of 56% sounds too low to explain with errors in mode-matching telescope (40m/16859, 40m/17067).

IMC related
- WFS loops too fast (40m/17061)
- Noise Budget
- Investigate MC3 damping (40m/17073)
- MC2 length control path

  14205   Fri Sep 21 09:59:09 2018 yukiConfigurationASCY end table upgrade plan

[Yuki, Gautam]

Attachments #1 is the current setup of AUX Y Green locking and it has to be improved because:

  • current efficiency of mode matching is about 50%
  • current setup doesn't separate the degrees of freedom of TEM01 with PZT mirrors (the difference of gouy phase between PZT mirrors should be around 90 deg) 
  • we want to remotely control PZT mirrors for alignment
    (Attachments #2 and #3)

About the above two: 

One of the example for improvement is just adding a new lens (f=10cm) soon after the doubling crystal. That will make mode matching better (100%) and also make separation better (85 deg) (Attachments #4 and #5). I'm checking whether we have the lens and there is space to set it. And I will measure current power of transmitted main laser in order to confirm the improvement of alignment.

About the last:

I am considering what component is needed. 

Reference:

Attachment 1: Pic_CurrentSetup_AUXYgreen.jpeg
Pic_CurrentSetup_AUXYgreen.jpeg
Attachment 2: ModeMatchingSolution_Current.pdf
ModeMatchingSolution_Current.pdf
Attachment 3: ModeMatchingSolution_Current_Magnified.pdf
ModeMatchingSolution_Current_Magnified.pdf
Attachment 4: ModeMatchingSolution_Optimized.pdf
ModeMatchingSolution_Optimized.pdf
Attachment 5: ModeMatchingSolution_Optimized_Magnified.pdf
ModeMatchingSolution_Optimized_Magnified.pdf
  14211   Sun Sep 23 17:38:48 2018 yukiUpdateASCAlignment of AUX Y end green beam was recovered

[ Yuki, Koji, Gautam ]

An alignment of AUX Y end green beam was bad. With Koji and Gautam's advice, it was recovered on Friday. The maximum value of TRY was about 0.5.

  14212   Sun Sep 23 19:32:23 2018 yukiConfigurationASCY end table upgrade plan

[ Yuki, Gautam ]

The setup I designed before has abrupt gouy phase shift between two steering mirrors which makes alignment much sensitive. So I designed a new one (Attached #1, #2 and #3). It improves the slope of gouy phase and the difference between steering mirrors is about 100 deg. To install this, we need new lenses: f=100mm, f=200mm, f=-250mm which have 532nm coating. If this setup is OK, I will order them.

There may be a problem: One lens should be put soon after dichroic mirror, but there is little room for fix it. (Attached #4, It will be put where the pedestal is.)  Tomorrow we will check this problem again.

And another problem; one steering mirror on the corner of the box is not easy to access. (Attached #5) I have to design a new seup with considering this problem.

Quote:

One of the example for improvement is just adding a new lens (f=10cm) soon after the doubling crystal. That will make mode matching better (100%) and also make separation better (85 deg) (Attachments #4 and #5). I'm checking whether we have the lens and there is space to set it. And I will measure current power of transmitted main laser in order to confirm the improvement of alignment.

 

Attachment 1: Pic_NewSetup0923_AUXYgreen.jpeg
Pic_NewSetup0923_AUXYgreen.jpeg
Attachment 2: ModeMatchingSolution_Result.pdf
ModeMatchingSolution_Result.pdf
Attachment 3: ModeMatchingSolution_Magnified_0923.jpg
ModeMatchingSolution_Magnified_0923.jpg
Attachment 4: pic0923_1.jpg
pic0923_1.jpg
Attachment 5: pic0923_2.jpg
pic0923_2.jpg
  14214   Mon Sep 24 11:09:05 2018 yukiConfigurationASCY end table upgrade plan

[ Yuki, Steve ]

With Steve's help, we checked a new lens can be set soon after dichroic mirror.

Quote:

There may be a problem: One lens should be put soon after dichroic mirror, but there is little room for fix it. (Attached #4, It will be put where the pedestal is.)  Tomorrow we will check this problem again.

Attachment 1: pic0924_1.jpg
pic0924_1.jpg
  14216   Tue Sep 25 18:08:50 2018 yukiConfigurationASCY end table upgrade plan

[ Yuki, Gautam ]

We want to remotely control steeing PZT mirrors so its driver is needed. We already have a PZT driver board (D980323-C) and the output voltage is expected to be verified to be in the range 0-100 V DC for input voltages in the range -10 to 10 V DC.
Then I checked to make sure ir perform as we expected. The input signal was supplied using voltage calibrator and the output was monitored using a multimeter. 
But it didn't perform well. Some tuning of voltage bias seemed to be needed. I will calculate its transfer function by simulation and check the performance again tommorow. And I found one solder was off so it needs fixing.  

Reference:
diagram --> elog 8932
 

Plan of Action:

  • Check PZT driver performs as we expected
  • Also check cable, high voltage, PZT mirrors, anti-imaging board
  • Obtain calibration factor of PZT mirrors using QPD
  • Measure some status value before changing setup (such as tranmitted power of green laser)
  • Revise setup after a new lens arrives
  • Align the setup and check mode-matching
  • Measure status value again and confirm it improves
  • (write programming code of making alignment control automatically)
  14218   Thu Sep 27 14:02:55 2018 yukiConfigurationASCPZT driver board verification

[ Yuki, Gautam ]

I fixed the input terminal that had been off, and made sure PZT driver board performs as we expect. 

At first I ran a simulation of the PZT driver circuit using LTspice (Attached #1 and #2). It shows that when the bias is 30V the driver performs well only with high input volatage (bigger than 3V). Then I measured the performance as following way:

  1. Applied +-15V to the board with an expansion card and 31.8V to the high voltage port which is the maximum voltage of PS280 DC power supplier C10013.
  2. Terminated input and connectd input bias to GND, then set offset to -10.4V. This value is refered as elog:40m/8832.
  3. Injected DC signal into input port using a function generator.
  4. Measured voltage at the OUT port and MON port.

The result of this is attached #3 and #4. It is consistent with simulated one. All ports performed well.

  • V(M1_PIT_OUT) = -4.86 *Vin +49.3 [V]
  • V(M1_YAW_OUT) = -4.86 *Vin +49.2 [V]
  • V(M2_PIT_OUT) = -4.85 *Vin +49.4 [V]
  • V(M2_YAW_OUT) = -4.86 *Vin +49.1 [V]
  • V(M1_PIT_MON) = -0.333 *Vin +3.40 [V]
  • V(M1_YAW_MON) = -0.333 *Vin +3.40 [V]
  • V(M2_PIT_MON) = -0.333 *Vin +3.40 [V]
  • V(M2_YAW_MON) = -0.333 *Vin +3.40 [V]

The high voltage points (100V DC) remain to be tested.

Attachment 1: PZTdriverSimulationDiagram.pdf
PZTdriverSimulationDiagram.pdf
Attachment 2: PZTdriverSimulationResult.pdf
PZTdriverSimulationResult.pdf
Attachment 3: PZTdriverPerformanceCheck_ResultOUT.pdf
PZTdriverPerformanceCheck_ResultOUT.pdf
Attachment 4: PZTdriverPerformanceCheck_ResultMON.pdf
PZTdriverPerformanceCheck_ResultMON.pdf
Attachment 5: PZTdriver.asc
Version 4
SHEET 1 2120 2120
WIRE 1408 656 1408 624
WIRE 1552 656 1552 624
WIRE 1712 656 1712 624
WIRE 1872 656 1872 624
WIRE 2016 656 2016 624
WIRE 1408 768 1408 736
WIRE 1552 768 1552 736
WIRE 1712 768 1712 736
... 193 more lines ...
  14219   Sun Sep 30 20:14:51 2018 yukiConfigurationASCQPD calibration

[ Yuki, Gautam, Steve ]

Results:
I calibrated a QPD (D1600079, V1009) and made sure it performes well. The calibration constants are as follows:

X-Axis: 584 mV/mm
Y-Axis: 588 mV/mm

Details:
The calibration of QPD is needed to calibrate steeing PZT mirrors. It was measured by moving QPD on a translation stage. The QPD was connected to its amplifier (D1700110-v1) and +-18V was supplied from DC power supplier. The amplifier has three output ports; Pitch, Yaw, and Sum. I did the calibration as follows:

  • Center beam spot on QPD using steering mirror, which was confirmed by monitored Pitch and Yaw signals that were around zero.  
  • Kept Y-axis micrometer fixed, moved X-axis micrometer and measured the outputs. 
  • Repeated the procedure for the Y-axis. 

The results are attached. The main signal was fitted with error function and I drawed a slope at zero crossing point, which is calibration factor. I determined the linear range of the QPD to be when the output was in range -50V to 50V, then corresponding displacement range is about 0.2 mm width. Using this result, the PZT mirrors will be calibrated in linear range of the QPD tomorrow. 

Comments:

  • Some X-Y coupling existed. When one axis micrometer was moved, a little signal of the other direction was also generated.
  • As Gautam proposed in the previous study, there is some hysteresis. That process would bring some errors to this result.
  • A scale of micrometer is expressed in INCH!
  • The micrometer I used was made to have 1/2 inch range, but it didn't work well and the range of X-axis was much narrower. 

Reference:
previous experiment by Gautam for X-arm: elog:40m/8873, elog:40m/8884

Attachment 1: QPDcalibrationXaxis.pdf
QPDcalibrationXaxis.pdf
Attachment 2: QPDcalibrationYaxis.pdf
QPDcalibrationYaxis.pdf
  14221   Mon Oct 1 13:33:55 2018 yukiConfigurationASCQPD calibration
Quote:

I assume this QPD set is a D1600079/D1600273 combo.

How much was the SUM output during the measurement? Also how much were the beam radii of this beam (from the error func fittings)?
Then the calibration [V/m] is going to be the linear/inv-linear function of the incident power and the beam radus.

You mean the linear range is +/-50mV (for a given beam), I guess.

  • The SUM output was from -174 to -127 mV.
  • The beam radii calculated from the error func fittings was 0.47 mm.
  • Total optical path length measured by a ruler= 36 cm.
  • Beam power measured at QPD was 2.96 mW. (There are some loss mechanism in the setup.)

Then the calibration factor of the QPD is

X axis: 584 * (POWER / 2.96mW) * (0.472mm /  RADIUS) [mV/mm]
Y axis: 588 * (POWER / 2.96mW) * (0.472mm /  RADIUS) [mV/mm].

Attachment 1: Pic_QPDcalibration.jpg
Pic_QPDcalibration.jpg
  14224   Tue Oct 2 18:50:53 2018 yukiConfigurationASCPZT mirror calibration

[ Yuki, Gautam ]

I calibrated PZT mirrors. The ROUGH result was attached. (Note that some errors and trivial couplings coming from inclination of QPD were not considered here. This should be revised and posted again.) 

The PZT mirrors I calibrated were:

  • A 2-inch CVI mirror (45 degree, HR and AR for 532nm)
  • A 1-inch Laseroptik mirror (45 degree, HR and AR for 532nm)

I did the calibration as follows:

  • +-15V was supplied to PZT driver circuit, +100V to PZT driver bias, and +-18V to QPD amplifier.
  • Optical path length was set to be same as that when I calibrated QPD, which is 36cm.
  • The full range of CVI mirror is 3.5mrad according to its datasheet and linear range of QPD is 0.2mm, so I set the distance between PZT mirrors and QPD to be about 6cm. (I realized it was wrong. When mirror tilts 1 deg, the angle of beam changes 2 deg. So the distance should be the half.)
  • After applying 0V to PZT driver input (at that time 50V was applied to PZT mirror), then centered beam spot on QPD using steering mirror, which was confirmed by monitored Pitch and Yaw signals of QPD that were around zero.  
  • In order to avoid hysteresis effect, I stared with an input signal of -10V. I then increased the input voltage in steps of 1V through the full range from -10V to +10V DC. The other input was kept 0V.
  • Both the X and Y coordinates were noted in the plot in order to investigate pitch-yaw coupling.

The calibration factor was

CVI-pitch: 0.089 mrad/V

CVI-yaw: 0.096 mrad/V

Laseroptic-pitch: 0.062 mrad/V

Laseroptic-yaw: 0.070 mrad/V

Comments:

  • I made sure that PZT mirrors move linearly in full input range (+-10V).
  • PZT CH1 input: Yaw, CH2: Pitch, CH3: +100V bias
  • The calibration factor of PZT mirrors [mrad/V] are not consistent with previous calibration (elog:40m/8967). I will check it again.
  • I measured the beam power in order to calibrate QPD responce with a powermeter, but it didn't have high precision. So I used SUM output of QPD to the calibration.
  • Full range of PZT mirrors looks 2 times smaller.

Reference:
Previous calibration of the same mirrors, elog:40/8967

Attachment 1: PZTM1calibrationCH2.pdf
PZTM1calibrationCH2.pdf
Attachment 2: PZTM1calibrationCH1.pdf
PZTM1calibrationCH1.pdf
Attachment 3: PZTM2calibrationCH2.pdf
PZTM2calibrationCH2.pdf
Attachment 4: PZTM2calibrationCH1.pdf
PZTM2calibrationCH1.pdf
  14226   Wed Oct 3 14:24:40 2018 yukiConfigurationASCY end table upgrade plan

Interim Procedure Report:

Purpose

The current setup of AUX Y-arm Green locking has to be improved because:

  • current efficiency of mode matching is about 50%
  • current setup doesn't separate the degrees of freedom of TEM01 with PZT mirrors (the difference of gouy phase between PZT mirrors should be around 90 deg) 
  • we want to remotely control PZT mirrors for alignment

What to do

  • Design the new setup and order optices needed (finished!)
      - As the new setup I designed, adding a new lens and slightly changing the position of optics are only needed. The new lens was arrived here.
  • Check electronics (PZT, PZT driver, high voltage, cable, anti-imaging board) (finished!)
      
    - All electronics were made sure performing well.
      - The left thing to do is making a cable. (Today's tasks)
  • Calibrate PZT mirror [mrad/V] (finished!)
      
    - The result was posted here --> elog:40m/14224.
  • Measure the status value of the current setup (power of transmitted light ...etc) (Tomorrow, --> finished!)
  • Install them in the Y-end table and align the beam (Will start from Tomorrow) (The setup has a probrem I found on 10/04)
  • Measure the status value of the new setup
      - I want to finish above during my stay.
  • Prepare the code of making alignment automaticaly
  14227   Wed Oct 3 18:15:34 2018 yukiConfigurationASCAI board improvement

[ Yuki, Gautam ]

I improved Anti-Imaging board (D000186-Rev.D), which will be put between DAC port and PZT driver board.

It had notches at f = 16.6 kHz and 32.7 kHz, you can see them in the plot attached. So I replaced some resistors as follows:

  • R6 and R7 replaced with 511 ohm (1206 thin film resistor)
  • R8 replaced with 255 ohm (1206 thin film resistor)
  • R14 and R15 replaced with 549 ohm (1206 thin film resistor)
  • R16 replaced with 274 ohm (1206 thin film resistor)

Then the notch moved to 65.9 kHz (> sampling frequency of DAC = 64 kHz, good!). 
(The plot enlarged around the notch frequency and the plot of all channels will be posted later.)

All electronics and optics seem to be ready. 

Reference, elog:40m/8857
Diagram, D000186-D.pdf

Attachment 1: TF_AIboard.pdf
TF_AIboard.pdf
  14228   Thu Oct 4 00:44:50 2018 yukiConfigurationASCAI board improvement

[ Yuki, Gautam ]

I made a cable which connects DAC port (40 pins) and AI board (25 pins). I will check if it works.

Tomorrow I will change setup for improvement of AUX Y-end green locking. Any optics for IR will not be moved in my design, so this work doesn't affect Y-arm locking with main beam. 
While doing this work, I will do:

  • check if the cable works
  • make another cable which connects AI board (10 pins) and PZT driver (10 pins).
  • check if eurocate in Y-rack (IY4?) applies +/-5V, +/-15V and +/-24V. It will be done using an expansion card.
  • improve alignment servo for X-end.
  • setup alignment servo for Y-end.
  • about optical loss measurement.  
  14230   Thu Oct 4 22:15:30 2018 yukiConfigurationASCY-end table upgrade

Before changing setup at Y-end table, I measured the status value of the former setup as follows. These values will be compared to those of upgraded setup.

  • beam power going into doubling crystal (red12): 20.9 mW with filter, 1064nm
  • beam power going out from doubling crystal (red12): 26.7 mW with filter, 532nm
  • beam power going into faraday isolator (green5): 0.58 mW without filter, 532nm
  • beam power going out from faraday isolator (green5): 0.54 mW without filter, 532nm
  • beam power going to ETMY: 0.37 mW without filter, 532nm
  • beam power of transmitted green light of Y-arm, which was measured by C1:ALS-TRY_OUT: 0.5 (see attachment #1)

(These numbers are shown in the attachment #2.)

The setup I designed is here. It can bring 100% mode-matching and good separation of degrees of TEM01, however I found a probrem. The picture of setup is attached #3. You can see the reflection angle at Y7 and Y8 is not appropriate. I will consider the schematic again.

Attachment 1: AUXYGreenLock20180921.jpg
AUXYGreenLock20180921.jpg
Attachment 2: Pic_FormerSetup.jpeg
Pic_FormerSetup.jpeg
Attachment 3: Pic_CurrentSetup1004.jpg
Pic_CurrentSetup1004.jpg
  14232   Fri Oct 5 17:32:38 2018 yukiConfigurationASCY-end table upgrade

I measured it with the wrong setting of a powermeter. The correct ones are here:

  • beam power going into doubling crystal (red12): 240 mW, 1064nm
  • beam power transmitted dichroic mirror (Y5): 0.70 mW, 532nm
  • beam power going into faraday isolator (green5): 0.58 mW, 532nm
  • beam power going out from faraday isolator (green5): 0.54 mW, 532nm
  • beam power going to ETMY: 0.37 mW, 532nm
  • beam power of transmitted green light of Y-arm, which was measured by C1:ALS-TRY_OUT: 0.5 (see attachment #1)

The calculated conversion efficiency of SHG crystal is 1.2%W.

  14234   Fri Oct 5 22:49:22 2018 yukiConfigurationASCY-end table upgrade

I designed a new layout. It has good mode-matching efficiency, reasonable sensitivity to component positions, good Gouy phase separation. I'm setting optics in the Y-end table. The layout will be optimized again after finishing (rough) installation.  (The picture will be posted later)

  14236   Sun Oct 7 22:30:42 2018 yukiConfigurationLSCYarm Green locking was recovered

I finished installation of optics in the Y-end and recovered green locking. Current ALS-TRY_OUTPUT is about 0.25, which is lower than before. So I still continue the alignment of the beam. The simulation code was attached. (Sorry. The optic shown as QWP2 is NOT QWP. It's HWP.)

Attachment 1: Pic_NewLayout1007.jpg
Pic_NewLayout1007.jpg
Attachment 2: YendGreenModeMatching.zip
  14237   Mon Oct 8 00:46:35 2018 yukiConfigurationASCY-end table upgrade
Quote:

I measured it with the wrong setting of a powermeter. The correct ones are here:

  • beam power going into doubling crystal (red12): 240 mW, 1064nm
  • beam power transmitted dichroic mirror (Y5): 0.70 mW, 532nm
  • beam power going into faraday isolator (green5): 0.58 mW, 532nm
  • beam power going out from faraday isolator (green5): 0.54 mW, 532nm
  • beam power going to ETMY: 0.37 mW, 532nm
  • beam power of transmitted green light of Y-arm, which was measured by C1:ALS-TRY_OUT: 0.5 (see attachment #1)

After installation I measured these power again.

  • beam power going into doubling crystal: 241 mW, 1064nm
  • beam power transmitted dichroic mirror: 0.70 mW, 532nm
  • beam power going into faraday isolator: 0.56 mW, 532nm
  • beam power going out from faraday isolator: 0.53 mW, 532nm
  • beam power going to ETMY: 0.36 mW, 532nm

There is a little power loss. That may be because of adding one lens in the beam path. I think it is allowable margin.

  14240   Tue Oct 9 23:03:43 2018 yukiConfigurationLSCYarm Green locking was recovered

[ Yuki, Gautam, Steve ]

To align the green beam in Y-end these hardware were installed:

  • PZT mirrors in Y-end table
  • PZT driver in 1Y4 rack
  • Anti-Imaging board in 1Y4 rack
  • cables (DAC - AIboard - PZTdriver - PZT)
  • high voltage supplier 

I made sure that DAC CH9~16 and cable to AI-board worked correctly. 

When we applied +100V to PZT driver and connected DAC, AI-board and PZT drive, the output voltage of the driver was not correct. I'll check it tomorrow.

Attachment 1: Pic_1Y4.jpg
Pic_1Y4.jpg
Attachment 2: Pic_PZTcable.jpg
Pic_PZTcable.jpg
  14241   Wed Oct 10 12:38:27 2018 yukiConfigurationLSCAll hardware was installed

I connected DAC - AIboard - PZTdriver - PZT mirrors and made sure the PZT mirrors were moving when changing the signal from DAC. Tomorrow I will prepare alignment servo with green beam for Y-arm.

  14243   Thu Oct 11 13:40:51 2018 yukiUpdateComputer Scripts / Programsloss measurements
Quote:

This is the procedure I follow when I take these measurements for the XARM (symmetric under XARM <-> YARM):

  1. Dither-align the interferometer with both arms locked. Freeze outputs when done.
  2. Misalign ETMY + ITMY.
  3. ITMY needs to be misaligned further. Moving the slider by at least +0.2 is plentiful to not have the other beam interfere with the measurement.
  4. Start the script, which does the following:
    1. Resume dithering of the XARM
    2. Check XARM dither error signal rms with CDS. If they're calm enough, proceed.
    3. Freeze dithering
    4. Start a new set of averages on the scope, wait T_WAIT (5 seconds)
    5. Read data (= ASDC power and MC2 trans) from scope and save
    6. Misalign ETMX and wait 5s
    7. Read data from scope and save
    8. Repeat desired amount of times
  5. Close the PSL shutter and measure the PD dark levels

Information for the armloss measurement:

  • Script which gets the data:  /users/johannes/40m/armloss/scripts/armloss_scope/armloss_dcrefl_asdcpd_scope.py
  • Script which calculates the loss: /users/johannes/40m/armloss/scripts/misc/armloss_AS_calc.py
  • Before doing the procedure Johannes wrote you have to prepare as follows:
    • put a PD in anti-symmetric beam path to get ASDC signal.
    • put a PD in MC2 box to get tranmitted light of IMC. It is used to normalize the beam power.
    • connect those 2 PDs to oscilloscope and insert an internet cable to it.
  • Usage: python2 armloss_dcrefl_asdcpd_scope.py [IP address of Scope] [ScopeCH for AS] [ScopeCH for MC] [Num of iteration] [ArmMode]

Note: The scripts uses httplib2 module. You have to install it if you don't have.

The locked arms are needed to calculate armloss but the alignment of PMC is deadly bad now. So at first I will make it aligned. (Gautam aligned it and PMC is locked now.) 

gautam: The PMC alignment was fine, the problem was that the c1psl slow machine had become unresponsive, which prevented the PMC length servo from functioning correctly. I rebooted the machine and undid the alignment changes Yuki had made on the PSL table.

  14245   Fri Oct 12 12:29:34 2018 yukiUpdateComputer Scripts / Programsloss measurements

With Gautam's help, Y-arm was locked. Then I ran the script "armloss_dcrefl_asdcpd_scope.py" which gets the signals from oscilloscope. It ran and got data, but I found some problems.

  1. It seemed that a process which makes arm cavity mislaigned in the script didn't work.
  2. The script "armloss_dcrefl_asdcpd_scope.py" gets the signal and the another script "armloss_AS_calc.py" calculates the arm loss. But output file the former makes doesn't match with the type the latter requires. A script converts format is needed.

Anyway, I got the data needed so I will calculate the loss after converting the format.

  14248   Fri Oct 12 20:20:29 2018 yukiUpdateComputer Scripts / Programsloss measurements

I ran the script for measuring arm-loss and calculated rough Y-arm round trip loss temporally. The result was 89.6ppm. (The error should be considered later.)

The measurement was done as follows:

  1. install hardware
    1. Put a PD (PDA520) in anti-symmetric beam path to get ASDC signal.
    2. Use a PD (PDA255) in MC2 box to get tranmitted light of IMC. It is used to normalize the beam power.
    3. Connect those 2 PDs to oscilloscope (IP: 192.168.113.25) and insert an internet cable to it.
  2. measure DARK noise
    1. Block beam going into PDs with dampers and turn off the room light.
    2. Run the script "armloss_dcrefl_acdcpd_scope.py" using "DARK" mode.
  3. measure the ASDC power when Y-arm locked and misaligned
    1. Remove dampers and turn off the room light.
    2. Dither-align the interferometer with both arms locked. Freeze outputs when done. (Click C1ASS.adl>!MoreScripts>ON and click C1ASS.adl>!MoreScripts>FreezeOutputs.)
    3. Misalign ETMX + ITMX. (Just click "Misalign" button.)
    4. Further misalign ITMX with the slider. (see previous study: ITMX needs to be misaligned further. Moving the slider by at least +0.2 is plentiful to not have the other beam interfere with the measurement.)
    5. Start the script "armloss_dcrefl_acdcpd_scope.py" using "ETMY" mode, which does the following:
      1. Resume dithering of the YARM.
      2. Check YARM dither error signal rms with CDS. If they're calm enough, proceed. (In the previous study the rms threshold was 0.7. Now "ETM_YAW_L_DEMOD_I" signal was 15 (noisy), then the threshold was set 17.)
      3. Freeze dithering.
      4. Start a new set of averages on the scope, wait T_WAIT (5 seconds).
      5. Read data (= ASDC power and MC2 trans) from scope and save.
      6. Misalign ETMY and wait 5s. (I added a code which switchs LSC mode ON and OFF.)
      7. Read data from scope and save.
      8. Repeat desired amount of times.
  4. calculate the arm loss
    1. Start the script "armloss_AS_calc.py", whose content is follows:
      • requires given parameters: Mode-Matching effeciency, modulation depth, transmissivity. I used the same value as Johannes did last year, which are (huga)
      • reads datafile of beam power at ASDC and MC2 trans, which file is created by "armloss_dcrefl_acdcpd_scope.py".
      • calculates arm loss from the equation (see 12528 and 12854).

Result:

YARM
('AS_DARK =', '0.0019517200000000003') #dark noise at ASDC 
('MC_DARK =', '0.02792') #dark noise at MC2 trans
('AS_LOCKED =', '2.04293') #beam power at ASDC when the cavity was locked 
('MC_LOCKED =', '2.6951620000000003')
('AS_MISALIGNED =', '2.0445439999999997') #beam power at ASDC when the cavity was misaligned
('MC_MISALIGNED =', '2.665312')

\hat{P} = \frac{P_{AS}-P_{AS}^{DARK}}{P_{MC}-P_{MC}^{DARK}} #normalized beam power 

\hat{P}^{LOCKED}=0.765,\ \hat{P}^{MISALIGNED}=0.775,\ \mathcal{L}=89.6\ \mathrm{ppm}

Comments:

  • "ETM_YAW_L_DEMOD_I_OUTPUT" was little noisy even when the arm was locked.
  • The reflected beam power when locked was higher than when misaligned. It seemed strange for me at first. Johannes suggested that it was caused by over-coupling cavity. It is possible when r_{ETMY}>>r1_{ITMY}.
  • My first (wrong) measurement said the arm loss was negative(!). That was caused by lack of enough misalignment of another arm mirrors. If you don't misalign ITMX enough then the beam or scattered light from X-arm would bring bad. The calculated negative loss would be appeared only when \frac{\hat{P}^{LOCKED}}{\hat{P}^{MISALIGNED}} > 1 + T_{ITM}
  • Error should be considered.
  • Parameters given this time should be measured again. 
  14251   Sat Oct 13 20:11:10 2018 yukiUpdateComputer Scripts / Programsloss measurements
Quote:

the script "armloss_AS_calc.py",

  • "ETM_YAW_L_DEMOD_I_OUTPUT" was little noisy even when the arm was locked.
  • The reflected beam power when locked was higher than when misaligned. It seemed strange for me at first. Johannes suggested that it was caused by over-coupling cavity. It is possible when r_{ETMY}>>r1_{ITMY}.

Some changes were made in the script for getting the signals of beam power:

  • The script sees "C1:ASS-X(Y)ARM_ETM_PIT/YAW_L_DEMOD_I_OUTPUT" and stops running until the signals become small, however some offset could be on the signal. So I changed it into waiting until (DEMOD - OFFSET) becomes small. (Yesterday I wrote ETM_YAW_L_DEMOD_I_OUTPUT was about 15 and was little noisy. I was wrong. That was just a offset value.)
  • I added a code which stops running the script when the power of transmitted IR beam is low. You can set this threshold. The nominal value of "C1:LSC-TRX(Y)_OUT16" is 1.2 (1.0), so the threshold is set 0.8 now.  

In the yesterday measurement the beam power of ASDC is higher when locked than when misaligned and I wrote it maybe caused by over-coupled cavity. Then I did a calculation as following to explain this:

  • assume power transmissivity of ITM and ETM are 1.4e-2 and 1.4e-5.
  • assume loss-less mirror, you can calculate amplitude reflectivity of ITM and ETM.
  • consider a cavity which consists two mirrors and is loss-less, then \frac{E_{r}}{E_{in}} = \frac{-r_1+r_2e^{i\phi}}{1-r_1r_2e^{i\phi}} holds. r1 and r2 are amplitude reflectivity of ITM and ETM, and E is electric filed.
  • Then you can calculate the power of reflected beam when resonated and when anti-resonated. The fraction of these value is \frac{P_{RESONANT}}{P_{ANTI-RESO}} = 0.996, which is smaller than 1.
  • I found this calculation was wrong! Above calculatation only holds when cavity is aligned, not when misaligned. 99.04% of incident beam power reflects when locked, and (100-1.4)% reflects when misaligned. The proportion is P(locked)/P(misaligned)=1.004, higher than 1.

 

  14254   Mon Oct 15 10:32:13 2018 yukiUpdateComputer Scripts / Programsloss measurements

I used these values for measuring armloss:

  • Transmissivitity of ITM = 1.384e-2 * (1 +/- 1e-2) 
  • Transmissivitity of ETM = 13.7e-6 * (1 +/- 5e-2)
  • Mode-Matching efficiency of XARM = 0.912 * (1 +/- 2e-2)
  • Mode-Matching efficiency of YARM = 0.867 * (1 +/- 2e-2)
  • modulation depth m1 (11MHz) = 0.179 * (1 +/- 2e-2)
  • modulation depth m2 = 0.226 * (1 +/- 2e-2),

then the uncertainties reported by the individual measurements are on the order of 6 ppm (~6.2 for the XARM, ~6.3 for the YARM). This accounts for fluctuations of the data read from the scope and uncertainties in mode-matching and modulation depths in the EOM. I made histograms for the 20 datapoints taken for each arm: the standard deviation of the spread is over 6ppm. We end up with something like:

XARM: 123 +/- 50 ppm
YARM: 152+/- 50 ppm

This result has about 40% of uncertaintities in XARM and 33% in YARM (so big... no).

In the previous measurement, the fluctuation of each power was 0.1% and the fluctuation of P(Locked)/P(misaligned) was also 0.1%. Then the uncertainty was small. On the other hand in my measurement, the fluctuation of power is about 2% and the fluctuation of P(Locked)/P(misaligned) is 2%. That's why the uncertainty became big.

We want to measure tiny value of loss (~100ppm). So the fluctuation of P(Locked)/P(misaligned) must be smaller than 1.6%.

(Edit on 10/23)
I think the error is dominated by systematic error in scope. The data of beam power had only 3 degits. If P(Locked) and P(misaligned) have 2% error, then
\frac{P_L}{P_M}\frac{1}{1+T_{\mathrm{ITM}}} = 0.99(3).
You have to check the configuration of scope.

Attachment 1: XARM_20181015_1500.pdf
XARM_20181015_1500.pdf
Attachment 2: YARM_20181015_1500.pdf
YARM_20181015_1500.pdf
  14255   Mon Oct 15 12:52:54 2018 yukiUpdateComputer Scripts / Programsadditional comments
Quote:

but there's one weirdness: It get's the channel offset wrong. However this doesn't matter in our measurement because we're subtracting the dark level, which sees the same (wrong) offset.

When you do this measurement with oscilloscope, take care two things:

  1. set y-range of scope as to every signal fits in display: otherwise the data sent from scope would be saturated.
  2. set y-position of scope to the center and don't change it; otherwise some offset would be on the data.
ELOG V3.1.3-