40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab CAML OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 92 of 355  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Authordown Type Category Subject
  6398   Sat Mar 10 02:00:03 2012 keikoUpdateLSCupdate on the locking activity

ITMX and ITMY balance for the MICH excitation (lockin) is adjusted again. Now it's ITMx = -0.992, ITMy = 1 for MICH (lockin output matrix values).

RA: what were the old values? Does this change make any difference for the signal mixing noticed before?

  6400   Mon Mar 12 01:04:18 2012 keikoUpdateLSCRAM simulation update, RAM LSC matrix

 I calculated the DRMI RAM LSC matrix with RAM and the operation point offsets.

  • configuration: C1 DRMI
  • RAM is added by an Mach-Zehnder ifo placed before the PRM
  • demodulation phases are optimised for each DoF
  • the operation points offset from the PDH signals are calculated and added to the optical configuration as mirror position offsets
  • Then the matrix is calculated with the offsets and the RAM
  • The set of the scrips are found as RAMmatrix.m, normMAT.m, newGetMAT.m,  on CVS/ifomodeling/40m/fullIFO_Optickle. They are a bit messy scripts at this moment.

Results:

(1) No RAM LSC matrix

  PRCL MICH SRCL
REFL11I 1 -0.001806 -0.000147
AS 55Q 0.000818 1 0.000474
AS 55 I 1.064561 902.292816 1

(2) With 1% RAM mod index of PM (normalised by (1) )

  PRCL MICH SRCL
REFL11I 1.000618 -0.001837 -0.000163
AS 55Q 0.000919 1.000521 0.000495
AS 55 I 1.169741 924.675187 1.018479
 

(3) With 5% RAM mod index of PM (normalised by (1) )

  PRCL MICH SRCL
REFL11I 0.999986 -0.001812 -0.000150
AS 55Q 0.000838 1.000028 0.000479
AS 55 I 1.084598 906.83668 1.003759
 

  6401   Mon Mar 12 18:57:58 2012 keikoUpdateLSCRAM simulation update, RAM LSC matrix

Quote:

 I calculated the DRMI RAM LSC matrix with RAM and the operation point offsets.

  • configuration: C1 DRMI
  • RAM is added by an Mach-Zehnder ifo placed before the PRM
  • demodulation phases are optimised for each DoF
  • the operation points offset from the PDH signals are calculated and added to the optical configuration as mirror position offsets
  • Then the matrix is calculated with the offsets and the RAM
  • The set of the scrips are found as RAMmatrix.m, normMAT.m, newGetMAT.m,  on CVS/ifomodeling/40m/fullIFO_Optickle. They are a bit messy scripts at this moment.

Results:

(1) No RAM LSC matrix

  PRCL MICH SRCL
REFL11I 1 -0.001806 -0.000147
AS 55Q 0.000818 1 0.000474
AS 55 I 1.064561 902.292816 1

(2) With 1% RAM mod index of PM (normalised by (1) )

  PRCL MICH SRCL
REFL11I 1.000618 -0.001837 -0.000163
AS 55Q 0.000919 1.000521 0.000495
AS 55 I 1.169741 924.675187 1.018479
 

(3) With 5% RAM mod index of PM (normalised by (1) )

  PRCL MICH SRCL
REFL11I 0.999986 -0.001812 -0.000150
AS 55Q 0.000838 1.000028 0.000479
AS 55 I 1.084598 906.83668 1.003759
 

Adding some more results with more realistic RAM level assumption.

(4) With 0.1% RAM mod index of PM (normalized by (1) )

  PRCL MICH SRCL
REFL11I 0.99999 -0.001807 -0.000148
AS 55Q 0.000822 1.000002 0.000475
AS 55 I 1.068342 906.968167 1.00559
 

(5) With 0.5% RAM mod index of  PM (normalized by (1) )

  PRCL MICH SRCL
REFL11I  0.999978  -0.001810    -0.000149 
AS 55Q 0.000830  1.000010  0.000476 
AS 55 I 1.075926 904.321433  1.001677
 

  6417   Wed Mar 14 16:33:20 2012 keikoUpdateLSCRAM simulation / RAM pollution plot

In the last post, I showed that SRCL element in the MICH sensor (AS55I-mich) is chaned 1% due to RAM.

Here I calculated how is this 1% residual in MICH sensor (AS55 I-mich) shown in MICH sensitivity. The senario is:

(1) we assume we are canceling SRCL in MICH by feed forward first (original matrix (2,3) element).

(2) SRCL in MICH (matrix(2,3) is changed 1% due to RAM, but you keep the same feed forward with the same feedforward gain

(3) You get 1% SRCL residual motion in MICH sensor. This motion depends on how SRCL is quiet/loud. The assumed level is

Pollution level = SRCL shot noise level in SRCL sensor  x  SRCL closed loop TF  x  1% residual .... the following plot.

 

 

AS sensor = AS55I-mich  --- SN level 2.4e-11 W/rtHz ------- MICH SN level 6e-17 m/rtHz

SRCL sensor = AS55 I-SRCL --- SN level 2e-11 W/rtHz ---  SRCL SN level 5e-14 m/rtHz

 

 

RAMexampleplot.png

 

 

Quote:

Adding some more results with more realistic RAM level assumption.

(4) With 0.1% RAM mod index of PM (normalized by (1) )

  PRCL MICH SRCL
REFL11I 0.99999 -0.001807 -0.000148
AS 55 Im 0.000822 1.000002 0.000475
AS 55 Is 1.068342 906.968167 1.00559
 

 

 

 

 

  6419   Wed Mar 14 21:01:36 2012 keikoUpdateLSCevolution of the sensing matrix in PRMI as a function of time

This is the simulated signals to compare with the original post #6403

 

 

PRMI configuration, PRCL signal

[W/m] Simulation Measured
REFL11 575440

 

~10000

REFL33 4571 ~50
REFL55 288400 ~5000
REFL165 891 NA
AS55 71 70

 

PRMI configuration, MICH signal

[W/m] Simulation Measured
REFL11 2290

 

~600

REFL33 36 ~4
REFL55 5623 ~200
REFL165 17 NA
AS55 6456 ~200
 

Simulated DC REFL power is 9mW (before the attenuator). AS DC is 0.3mW.

They don't agree. I suspect the PR gain for the SBs are somehow different. It is about 40 (or a bit less) in the simulation for 11MHz.

 

 

 

 

  6449   Tue Mar 27 02:18:31 2012 keikoUpdateIOOBeam Profile measurement: IPPOS beam

Keiko, Rana, Suresh

Related to the beam profile of IPPOS today, we tried to measure the beam size at the ETMY point in order to estimate the input beam mode. We measured the beam size hitting at the suspension frame by a camera image, with two situations to see two "z" for beam profile.

(1) Input beam is slightly misaligned and the injected beam hits the end mirror frame. Assuming z=0 at the input mirror, this should be z=40m.

(2) Input beam hits the centre of the end mirror, and ITMY is slightly misaligned and the beam hits the end mirror frame after the one-round trip. Assuming z=0 at the ITM, this position should be z=120m.

text9149.png

The injected beam at the end point and the one round trip ligt at the end point should be the same size, if the input mode matches to the cavity mode. You can see if your injected light is good for the cavity or not. We compared and assumed the above two beam sizes by looking at the photo of the beam spot.

(1) first_cap.png (2) second_cap.png

 Assuming the zoom factor difference by the part below the beam (shown with allow in the photos. Arbitrary unit.), the beam in (2) is smaller than expected (roughly 40%?).

However this is a very rough estimation of the beam sizes! It is difficult to assume the beam size shown on the photos! It looks smaller only because the power of (2) is smaller than of (1). I don't think we can say anything from this rough estimation. One may be able to estimate better with CCD camera instead of this normal camera. 

 

  6452   Tue Mar 27 16:06:59 2012 keikoUpdateIOOBeam Profile measurement: IPPOS beam

I changed the ETMY CCD camera angle so that we can see the suspension frame in order to repeat the same thing as yesterday. The ETMY camera is not looking at the beam or mirror right now.

  6458   Tue Mar 27 21:37:51 2012 keikoConfigurationIOOBeam Profile measurement: IPPOS beam

 From the mode measurement I and Suresh have done yesterday, I calculated what beam size we expect at ETM ((1) upper Fig.1)  and at ETM after one bounce ((2) lower Fig.1).

expsche.png

Fig.1 (Yarm)

In case of (1), we expect approximately w=6300 um (radius), and w=4800 um for one-bounce spot (2) from the measured mode, see Fig.2.

drawing.png

Fig.2

This roughly agree with what we observed on CCD camera. See, pic1 for (1) and pic2 for (2). The spot at the ETMY (1) is larger than the one-bounced spot (2). From the monitor it is difficult to assume the radius ratio. The observed spot of (2) is a bit smaller than the prediction. It could happnen when (A) the ETMY (as a lens) is slightly back of the ideal position (= the distance between the ITM and ETM is longer than 40m) (B) the real waist is farer than ITM position toward MC (I assumed roughly 5 m from Jenne's plot, but could be longer than that).

P3270007-s.jpg  P3270008-s.jpg

pic1 (left): beam spot hitting on the suspension frame. pic 2 (right): the one-bounced beam spot hitting on the suspension frame.

 

  6464   Thu Mar 29 11:29:27 2012 keikoUpdateLSCPOP22/POP110 amplifires

Yesterday I and Kiwamu connected two amplifiers (mini-circuit, ZFL-1000LNB+) for POP22/110. Dataviewer can see some signals. I'll test the signal levels and freq components before the rack just in case. [Kiwamu, Keiko]

  6466   Thu Mar 29 18:42:11 2012 keikoUpdateLSCPOP22/POP110 amplifires

Adding two amplifiers on POP22/110, I checked the signals going to the dmod board of 22 and 110.

The signal flows: Photodetector of POP --> Amp1 --> Amp2 --> RF splotter --> bandpass filter for 22MHz / 110MHz --> 22MHz / 110MHz demod board.

 

 

 

 Here is the picture of RF spectrum just after the bandpass filter of 22MHz going to the 22MHz demod board. The signal peak at 22MHz is about -40dBm. There is a structure slightly lower than 22MHz.

P3290004.JPG

The below is the RF spectrum for 110MHz branch. The peak at 110MHz is about -15dBm. The peak on the left of 110MHz is 66MHz peak.

P3290005.JPG

 

Quote:

Yesterday I and Kiwamu connected two amplifiers (mini-circuit, ZFL-1000LNB+) for POP22/110. Dataviewer can see some signals. I'll test the signal levels and freq components before the rack just in case. [Kiwamu, Keiko]

 

  6475   Mon Apr 2 18:24:34 2012 keikoUpdateLSCRAM simulation for Full ifo

 I extended my RAM script from DRMI (3DoF) to the full IFO (5DoF).

Again, it calculates the operation point offsets for each DoF from the opt model with RAM. Then the position offsets are added to the model, and calculates the LSC matrix. RAM level is assumed as 0.1% of the PM modulation level, as usual, and lossless for a simple model.

 

 

Original matrix without RAM:

REFL f1 : 1.000000    0.000000    0.000008    -0.000005    0.000003 

  AS f2 : 0.000001    1.000000    0.000005    -0.003523    -0.000001 

 POP f1 : -3956.958708    -0.000183    1.000000    0.019064    0.000055 

 POP f2 : -32.766392    -0.154433    -0.072624    1.000000    0.024289 

 POP f2 : 922.415913    -0.006625    1.488912    0.042962    1.000000 

 

(MICH and SRCL uses the same sensor, with optimised demodulation phase for each DoF.) 

Operation position offsets are:

PRCL   -3.9125e-11 m

SRCL    9.1250e-12 m

CARM  5.0000e-15 m  

and no position offsets for DARM and MICH (because they are differential sensor and not affected by RAM offsets).

 

Resulting matrix with RAM + RAM offsets, normalised by the original matrix:  

REFL f1 : 0.001663    -0.000000    0.003519    0.000005    -0.000003 

  AS f2 : 0.000004    0.514424    0.000004    -0.001676    -0.000001 

 POP f1 : 7.140984    -0.001205    15.051807    0.019254    0.000417 

 POP f2 : 0.029112    -0.319792    0.042583    1.000460    0.024298 

 POP f2 : -0.310318    -0.014385    -1.761519    0.043005    0.999819 

 

As you can see in the second matrix, the CARM and DARM rows are completely destroyed by the RAM offsets! The signals are half reduced in the DARM case, so the mixture between DARM and MICH are about 50% degraded.

 I also would like to extend this script to use the DC readout, but don't know how to calculate the postion offset for AS_DC because the error signal is not zero-crossing for AS_DC anymore. Do you have any suggestions for me?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  6480   Tue Apr 3 14:11:33 2012 keikoUpdateLSCRAM simulation for Full ifo

Quote:

Quote:

 I also would like to extend this script to use the DC readout, but don't know how to calculate the postion offset for AS_DC because the error signal is not zero-crossing for AS_DC anymore. Do you have any suggestions for me?

 I don't think I understand the question. AS_DC should not have a zero crossing, correct?

 That's right. I calculate the offset of the operation point (when you have RAM) from the zero-crossing point of the PDH signals. I don't know how to do that for AS_DC, because it doesn't cross zero anymore anytime.

  6481   Tue Apr 3 14:17:18 2012 keikoUpdateLSCRAM simulation for Full ifo

I add a flow-chart drawing what the scripts do and how the scripts calculate the LSC matrix.

flowchart.png

 

(1) First, you calculate the LSC matrix WITHOUT RAM or anything, just for a reference. This is the first matrix shown in the quoted post.

(2) The script calculates the LSC matrix with RAM. Also, the heterodyne signals for all 5 DoF are calculated. The signals have offsets due to the RAM effect. The operating position offsets are saved for the next round.

(3) The script calculates the LSC matrix again, with RAM plus the offset of the operation points. The matrix is shown in the last part of the quoted post.

 

Now I am going to check (A) LSC matrices (matrix 2, the second matrix of above chart) with different RAM levels (B) Are pos-offsets degrade the CARM and DARM so much (See, the quated result below), is that true?

Quote:

Original matrix without RAM:

REFL f1 : 1.000000    0.000000    0.000008    -0.000005    0.000003 

  AS f2 : 0.000001    1.000000    0.000005    -0.003523    -0.000001 

 POP f1 : -3956.958708    -0.000183    1.000000    0.019064    0.000055 

 POP f2 : -32.766392    -0.154433    -0.072624    1.000000    0.024289 

 POP f2 : 922.415913    -0.006625    1.488912    0.042962    1.000000 

 

(MICH and SRCL uses the same sensor, with optimised demodulation phase for each DoF.) 

Operation position offsets are:

PRCL   -3.9125e-11 m

SRCL    9.1250e-12 m

CARM  5.0000e-15 m  

and no position offsets for DARM and MICH (because they are differential sensor and not affected by RAM offsets).

 

Resulting matrix with RAM + RAM offsets, normalised by the original matrix:  

REFL f1 : 0.001663    -0.000000    0.003519    0.000005    -0.000003 

  AS f2 : 0.000004    0.514424    0.000004    -0.001676    -0.000001 

 POP f1 : 7.140984    -0.001205    15.051807    0.019254    0.000417 

 POP f2 : 0.029112    -0.319792    0.042583    1.000460    0.024298 

 POP f2 : -0.310318    -0.014385    -1.761519    0.043005    0.999819 

 

 

 

  6482   Tue Apr 3 15:50:58 2012 keikoUpdateLSCRAM simulation for Full ifo

Oops, Yesterday's results for DARM was wrong!

I got more convincing results now. 

 

> (B) Are pos-offsets degrade the CARM and DARM so much (See, the quoted result below), is that true? 

 

Here is the new results. It does change CARM a lot, but not DARM:
 
Matrix1 (normalised so that the diagonals are 1):
REFL f1 : 1.000000    0.000000    0.000008    -0.000005    0.000003 
  AS f2  : 0.000001    1.000000    0.000005    -0.003523    -0.000001 
 POP f1 : -3956.958708    -0.000183    1.000000    0.019064    0.000055 
 POP f2 : -32.766392    -0.154433    -0.072624    1.000000    0.024289 
 POP f2 : 922.415913    -0.006625    1.488912    0.042962    1.000000 
(=Matrix 2)
 
Position offsets:
only CARM, 4.6e-16 (this number changed because I increased the resolution of the calculation)
 
Matrix3 (normalised by matrix 1):
REFL f1 : 0.039780    -0.000000    0.003656    0.000005    -0.000003 
  AS f2  : 0.000008    1.000017    0.000005    -0.003499    -0.000001 
 POP f1 : 159.146819    -0.000138    15.605155    0.019393    0.000055 
 POP f2 : 1.277223    -0.154415    0.047344    1.000008    0.024289 
 POP f2 : -35.422498    -0.006633    -1.886454    0.042963    1.000000 

 

  • CARM got a small position offset which degrades CARM signal 2 orders of mag (still the biggest signal in the sensor, though).
  • DARM was not so bad, and probably the change of the DoF mixture is mostly not changed.
  • Matrices don't change only with 1e-4 RAM. It changes with position offsets.
  • I'll see how the matrix changes without position offsets but only with RAM effects, changing RAM levels.
  • Again, above is C1 configuration, 1e-4 RAM level of PM level.

 

 

Quote:

I add a flow-chart drawing what the scripts do and how the scripts calculate the LSC matrix.

flowchart.png

 

(1) First, you calculate the LSC matrix WITHOUT RAM or anything, just for a reference. This is the first matrix shown in the quoted post.

(2) The script calculates the LSC matrix with RAM. Also, the PDH signals for all 5 DoF are calculated. The PDH signals have offsets due to the RAM effect. The operating position offsets are saved for the next round.

(3) The script calculates the LSC matrix again, with RAM plus the offset of the operation points. The matrix is shown in the last part of the quoted post.

 

Now I am going to check (A) LSC matrices (matrix 2, the second matrix of above chart) with different RAM levels (B) Are pos-offsets degrade the CARM and DARM so much (See, the quated result below), is that true? 

 

  6483   Tue Apr 3 22:50:37 2012 keikoUpdateLSCRAM simulation for Full ifo

Koji and Jamie suggested me to include the coupling between DoFs when I calculate the last matrix. So far, I just add all the pos-offsets of 5 DoFs and re-calculate the matrix again. However, once I add one DoF pos-offset, it could already change the LSC matrix therefore different pos-offset to the other four DoF, we must iterate this process until we get the equilibrium pos-offsets for 5 DoFs.

I also noticed an error in the optical configuration file. AM mod levels were smaller than that supposed to be because of the hald power going through the AM-EOMs in the MZI paths. Also I have put PM-Mods in the MZT path which gives the smaller mod indexes. So, smaller mod levels were applied both for PM and AM. As PM-AM ratio is still kept in this, so the matrices were not very wrong, I assume. I'll modify that and post the results again.

  6486   Wed Apr 4 23:57:35 2012 keikoUpdateLSCRAM simulation for Full ifo

 I'm still wondering whether iteration version or simple version is closer approximation to the real situation. Sorry for few explanations here. I will try to present those on Friday.

 

Anyway, here is the results for both:

%*.*.*. Original matrix w/o RAM .*.*.*

REFL f1 : 1.000000        0.000000    -0.000003    -0.000005    0.000007 

  AS f2 : 0.000002        1.000000    0.000009    -0.003522    -0.000002 

 POP f1 : -3954.521443    -0.000965    1.000000    0.019081    -0.000152 

 POP f2 : -32.770726    -0.154433    -0.072594    1.000000    0.024284 

 POP f2 : 922.393978    -0.006608    1.488319    0.042948    1.000000 

 

*** Iteration *** 

%*.*.*. Resulting matrix w/ RAM .*.*.*

REFL f1 : 0.039125    -0.000000    0.003665       0.000005    -0.000007 

  AS f2 : 0.000010    1.000431    0.000009       -0.003500    -0.000002 

 POP f1 : 156.420221    -0.000246    15.586838    0.019406    -0.000154 

 POP f2 : 1.255806    -0.154275    0.047313       1.000008    0.024285 

 POP f2 : -34.814720    -0.006600    -1.884850    0.042950    1.000000 

Offsets converged to:

PRCL =  2.1e-15, MICH = 1.1e-17, SRCL = -3.8e-15, CARM = 2.2e-16, DARM = 0 

(POP CARMs became so much smaller compared with the other matrix below, because the offsets are added al of 5 DoFsl at once here.)

 

*** no iteration, offsets added for each DoF separately ***

REFL f1 : 0.020611        -0.000000    0.003600    0.000005    -0.000007 

AS f2   : 0.000002        1.000000    0.000009    -0.003522    -0.000002 

POP f1  : 1842.776419    -0.000198    21.533358    0.019404    -0.000132 

POP f2  : -32.700639    -0.153095    -0.072481    0.999995    0.024360 

 POP f2 : 922.393862    -0.006435    1.488298    0.042949    0.999982 

Added offsets:

PRCL =  7.5e-15, MICH = 6.25e-16, SRCL = -1.4e-14, CARM = 4.5e-16, DARM = 0

* So far, I used to add all the offsets at once. This time I add CARM and get the CARM row, add PRCL and get the PRCL row... and so on.

Quote:

Koji and Jamie suggested me to include the coupling between DoFs when I calculate the last matrix. So far, I just add all the pos-offsets of 5 DoFs and re-calculate the matrix again. However, once I add one DoF pos-offset, it could already change the LSC matrix therefore different pos-offset to the other four DoF, we must iterate this process until we get the equilibrium pos-offsets for 5 DoFs.

I also noticed an error in the optical configuration file. AM mod levels were smaller than that supposed to be because of the hald power going through the AM-EOMs in the MZI paths. Also I have put PM-Mods in the MZT path which gives the smaller mod indexes. So, smaller mod levels were applied both for PM and AM. As PM-AM ratio is still kept in this, so the matrices were not very wrong, I assume. I'll modify that and post the results again.

 

  6504   Sat Apr 7 00:31:12 2012 keikoUpdateLSCRAM simulation for Full ifo

I didn't understand how CARM can be decreased 2 orderes of magnitude and PRCL can be INCREASED by such small offsets (see the matrix quoted).

Apparently it was because of an optical-spring ish effect from the "detuning" (which is actually RAM position offsets). I put two plots which are CARM and PRCL tranfer functions to REFL f1 or POP f1, when there is a slight PRCL offset (0, 1e-14m, and 1e-15m cases are plotted). Looking at these plots, it was not a good idea to calculate the LSC matrix in DC because they are affected by this detuning a lot. I'll try f = 150 Hz for the matrix.

plot4a.pngplot4b.png

Quote:

*** Iteration *** 

%*.*.*. Resulting matrix w/ RAM .*.*.*

REFL f1 : 0.039125    -0.000000    0.003665       0.000005    -0.000007 

  AS f2 : 0.000010    1.000431    0.000009       -0.003500    -0.000002 

 POP f1 : 156.420221    -0.000246    15.586838    0.019406    -0.000154 

 POP f2 : 1.255806    -0.154275    0.047313       1.000008    0.024285 

 POP f2 : -34.814720    -0.006600    -1.884850    0.042950    1.000000 

Offsets converged to:

PRCL =  2.1e-15, MICH = 1.1e-17, SRCL = -3.8e-15, CARM = 2.2e-16, DARM = 0  

  14039   Thu Jul 5 17:33:36 2018 keerthana, sandrineUpdateelogLights not working
  • N/S ARM FL.
  • N/S ARM INC.

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

  14040   Thu Jul 5 17:58:04 2018 keerthana, sandrineUpdateelog 

(Analisa, Sandrine, Keerthana)

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

 

  13938   Mon Jun 11 11:45:13 2018 keerthana UpdateelogComparison of the analytical and finesse values of TMS and FSR.
Quantity Analytical Value Finesse Value Percentage Error
Free Spectral range (FSR) 3.893408 MHz 3.8863685 MHz 0.180 %
Transverse Mode Spacing (TMS) 1.195503 MHz 1.1762885 MHz 1.607 %

The values obtained from both analytical and finesse solution is given in the above table along with the corresponding percentage errors.finesse1.pdf

The parameters used for this calculation are listed below.

Parameter Value
length of the cavity (L) 38.5 m
Wavelength of the laser beam (\lambda) 1064 nm
Radius of curvature of ITM (R1) \infty
Radius of curvature of ETM (R2) 58 m

The cavity scan data obtained from Finesse is also attached here.

  13866   Fri May 18 19:10:48 2018 keerthanaUpdateGeneralCode for adjusting the oscillator frequency remotly

Target: Phase locking can be acheived by giving a scan to the oscilator frequency. This frequency is now controlled using the knobe on the AM/FM signal generator 2023B. But we need to control it remotely by giving the inputs of start frequency, end frequency and the steps.

The frequency oscilator and the computer is connected with the help of GPIB Ethernet converter. The IP address of the converter I used is '192.168.113.109' and its GPIB address is 10.

I could change the oscilator frequency by changing the input frequency with the help of the code I made (Inorder to check this code, I have changed the oscilator frequency multiple times. I hope it didn't create trouble to anyone). Now I am trying to make this code better by adding certain features like numpy, argument parse etc, which I will be able complete by next week. I am also considering to develop the code to have a sliding system to control the oscillatory frequency.

For record: The maximum limit of frequency which i changed upto is 100MHz.

 

  13875   Mon May 21 18:02:55 2018 keerthanaUpdateGeneralTesting of the new mini-circuits frequency counter

Today, I tested the new mini-circuit frequency counter by connecting it with the beat signal output. The frequency counter works fine. Now I am trying to get a display of the frequency in the computer screen using python programming. I have made the code for remotely changing oscilator frequency and it is saved in the folder 'ksnair'. A picture of the new mini circuits frequency counter is attached below. Part no: UFC-6000, S/N: 11501040012, Run: M075270.

  13879   Tue May 22 17:29:27 2018 keerthanaUpdateelogMEDM Diagram for the auxilary laser system control and display.

(keerthana, gautam, jon)

In the morning, Jon gave me an overview of the Auxiliary laser system which we are planning to setup. Based on the diagram he uploaded in the elog, I have made the MEDM diagram for controlling and displaying the parameters. Here the parameters which we will be controlling are temperature (in terms of voltage), oscilator frequency ( with the help of IFR 2023B), the frequency offset and the PID controls. The display includes the beat frequency, error signal voltage, control voltage and a switch to give feed back to the AUX laser. As the frequency counter is not connected at the moment, I haven't included its channel number in it. The screenshot of the diagram is attached with this. I am also considering to give a PID feedback to the slow control from the AUX feedback signal. The screen can be accessed from the PSL dropdown menu in sitemap.

  13915   Mon Jun 4 19:41:01 2018 keerthanaUpdate Finesse code for cavity scan

The cavity scan data obtained from the Finesse simulation is attached here. Fig1 indicates the cavity scan data in the absence of induced misalignment. In that case only the fundemental mode is resonating. But when a misalignment is induced, higher order modes are also present as seen in Fig2. This is in the absence of surface figure error in the mirrors. Now I am trying to provide perturbations to the mirror surface in the form of zernike polynomials and get the scan data fom the simulation. These cavity scan data can be used to develop fitting models. Once we have a model, we can use it to analyse the data from the experimental cavity scan.

  13924   Thu Jun 7 10:26:36 2018 keerthanaUpdatePSLobserving the resonance signal corresponding to the injected frequency.

(Johannes, Koji, Keerthana)

The PLL loop ensures that the frequency difference between the PSL laser and the AUX laser is equal to the frequency we provide to the Local Oscillator (LO) with the help of a Marconi. Only a small pick off part of both the AUX and PSL lasers are going to the PLL loop. The other part of both the lasers are going to the interferometer. Before entering into the optical fibre, the AUX laser passes through an AOM which changes its frequency by an amount of 80MHz. When the PLL is locked, the frequency coming out of the PLL will be equal to the frequency set up in the Marconi (fm). When it passes through AOM, the frequency becomes fdiff = fm ±80 MHz. If this frequency beam and the PSL laser beam is aligned properly, and if this frequency is equal to the product of an integer and the free spectral range of the cavity, this will resonate in the cavity.  Then we expect to get a peak in the ETM transmission spectrum corresponding to the frequency we injected through the optical Fibre.

Through out the experiment we need to make sure that the PSL is locked. Thus, the signal detected by the photo detector when only PSL is resonating inside the cavity, act as a DC signal. Then we give a narrow scan to the Marconi. When fdiff = N*FSRy this condition is satisfied, we will observe a peak in the output. Here FSRy  is the free spectral range of the cavity which is approximately equal to 3.893 MHz.

Yesterday afternoon, Johannes, Koji and myself tried to observe this peak. We aligned the cavity by observing the output signal from the AS100 photo detector. We made the alignment in such a way that the intensity output getting from this photo detector is maximum. We used a Spectrum analyser to see the output. After that we connected a photo detector to collect the YEND transmission signal from the ETM mirror. We used a lens to focus this directly to the photodetector. Then we connected this photodetector to the spectrum analyser, which was located near the AS table. We took a large cable to meet this purpose. But still the cable was not lengthy enough, so we joined it with another cable and finally connected it with the spectrum analyser. Then we gave a scan to the Marconi from 51 MHZ to 55 MHz. We repeated this experiment with a scan of 55 MHz to 59 MHz also. We repeated this a few times, but we were not able to see the peak.

We assume that this can be because of some issue with the alignment or it can be because of some issue with the photo detector we used. We would like to repeat this experiment and get the signal properly.

I am attaching a flow chart of the setup and also a picture of the mirrors and photo detector we inserted in the Y-End table.

 
  13926   Thu Jun 7 14:35:26 2018 keerthanaUpdateelogTable- useful for doing the scanning.

I think this table will help us to fix the scanning range of the Marconi frequency. This will also help in predicting the position of the resonance peak corresponding to the injected frequency.

fdiff = fm ±80 MHz ;                     fdiff = N*FSRy ;              FSRy = 3.893 MHz.

N = Integer number fdiff =injected fm = Marconi frequency
1 3.893 76.107
2 7.786 72.214
3 11.679 68.321
4 15.572 64.428
5 19.465 60.535
6 23.34 56.66
7 27.251 52.749
8 31.144 48.856
9 35.037 44.963
10 38.93 41.07
11 42.79 37.21
12 46.716 33.284
13 50.609 29.391
  13939   Mon Jun 11 13:55:33 2018 keerthanaUpdateGeneralProject Updates

As of now, I have made the codes needed to sweep the marconi frequency for taking the cavity scan data, the photo diode at the y-end is conected to the spectrum analyser already and I also have the finesse simulation of the Ideal Fabry-perot cavity. By seeing my last elog entry, Gautam suggested me that I need to take a different approach for estimating the FSR and TMS value from the Finesse graph. That is, by using least square fit models. Now I am trying to do that and get a better estimate of the error values. Based on my understanding I am dividing this project into various tasks.

1. Getting a better estimate of the error value by using least square fits. Also plotting a graph of frequency Vs mode number and finding the value of Free Spectral Range from its slop.

2. Inserting zernike polynomials to the Finesse simulation and with the help of least square fit, plotting the graph of frequency Vs mode number. Understanding the shifts from the Ideal graph we obtained from step 1. Using this data, plotting the phase map corresponding to this.

3. Repeating step 2 by taking different zernike polynomials and creating a data base which will be useful for the analysis of the real data. This will also prepare me to do the fitting models easily.

4. Collecting data from the IFO and applying these fitting models to it. Finding the set of zernike polynomials which are similar to the actual fugure error of the mirror. Plotting the Phase map corresponding to those zernike polynomials.

If you feel that there is some mistake in the steps, please correct me. It will be really helpful!

  13943   Mon Jun 11 19:16:49 2018 keerthanaUpdateelogComparison of the analytical and finesse values of TMS and FSR.

The percentage error which I found out =[(analytical value - finesse value)/analytical value]*100

But inorder to find the finesse value, I just used curser to get the central frequency of each peak and by substracting one from the other I found TMS and FSR.

The resolution was 6500 Hz. Thus, it seems that this method is not actually reliable. I am trying to find the central frequency of each mode with the help of lorentzian fits. I am attaching a fit which I did today. I have plotted its residual graph also.

I am uploading 4 python scripts to the github.

1. Analytical Solution

2. Finesse model- cavity scan

3. Finesse model- fitting

4. Finesse model- residual

Quote:

Hmm? What is the definition of the percentage error? I don't obtain these numbers from the given values.
And how was the finesse value obtained from the simulation result? Then what is the frequency resolution used in Finesse simulation?

fitting_1.pdf

  13945   Mon Jun 11 22:18:18 2018 keerthanaUpdateelogComparison of the analytical and finesse values of TMS and FSR.

Oopss !! I made a mistake while taking the values from my notes. Sorry.

Quote:

> The percentage error which I found out =[(analytical value - finesse value)/analytical value]*100

Yes, I this does not give us 0.70%

(3.893408 - 3.8863685)/3.893408 *100 = 0.18%

But any way, go for the fitting.

 

  13954   Wed Jun 13 11:59:03 2018 keerthanaUpdateelogcommand line enabled code for frequency scanning

I have modified the code for frequency scanning and have made it completely command line enabled. The code is written in python. It is saved in the name "frequency_scanning_argparse.py". I have uploaded it to the Mode-Spectroscopy Github repository.

Inorder to use this code there are two ways.

1. We can mention the ' frequency' on which marconi need to work. Then it will change the marconi frequency to that perticular value.

eg: Type in the terminal as follows for changing the marconi frequency to 59 Mhz.

python frequency_scanning_argparse.py 59e6

2. Inorder to give a scan to the marconi frequency, provide the 'start frequency', 'end frequency' and the 'number of points' in between. This will be more conveniant when we want to run the scan in different ranges.

eg: Type in the terminal as follows for a start frequency of 59 Mhz, end frequency of 62MHz and number of points in between equal to 1000.

python frequency_scanning_argparse.py 59e6 62e6 1000

In both cases the code will show you the frequency of the marconi before we run this code and it will change the marconi frequency to the desired frequency.

  13956   Wed Jun 13 18:08:36 2018 keerthanaUpdate Finesse code for cavity scan

The unit mentioned in the x-axis was wrong. So I have remade the graphs. The point where frequency equals to zero is actually the frequency corresponding to the laser, which is in the range of 1014 Hz and it caliberated as zero.

Quote:

The cavity scan data obtained from the Finesse simulation is attached here. Fig1 indicates the cavity scan data in the absence of induced misalignment. In that case only the fundemental mode is resonating. But when a misalignment is induced, higher order modes are also present as seen in Fig2. This is in the absence of surface figure error in the mirrors. Now I am trying to provide perturbations to the mirror surface in the form of zernike polynomials and get the scan data fom the simulation. These cavity scan data can be used to develop fitting models. Once we have a model, we can use it to analyse the data from the experimental cavity scan.

finesse1.pdffinesse2.pdf

  13995   Thu Jun 21 13:24:00 2018 keerthanaUpdateelogThe cavity scan data of June 20

(Jon, Keerthana, Sandrine)

We tried to align the AUX and PSL laser yesterday. We collected the data from the spectrum analyser for the Y-ARM reflection and also for the Y-ARM transmission from the ETM mirror. I am attaching the plots here.

  14017   Tue Jun 26 10:06:39 2018 keerthanaUpdateAUXFirst Coherent AUX Scan of PRC Using AM Sidebands

(Jon, Keerthana, Sandrine)

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

 

  14045   Sun Jul 8 22:27:25 2018 keerthanaUpdate AUX diagram

(Analisa, Keerthana, Sandrine)

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

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

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

3. Double demodulation technique.

4. Single demodulation technique.

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

  Draft   Wed Jul 11 18:13:19 2018 keerthanaSummaryAUXGouy Phase Measurements from AUX-Laser Scans

From the Measurement Jon made, FSR is 3.967 MHz and the Gouy phase is 52 degrees. From this, the length of the Y-arm cavity seems to be 37.78 m and the radius of curvature of the mirror seems to be 60.85 m.

 

Guoy Phase = \cos^{-1} \sqrt{g1.g2}

\\ g = 1- \frac{L}{R}

L = \frac {c} {2*FSR}

FSR = Free spectral Range

L = Lenth of the arm

R = Radius of curvature of the mirror (R1 =\infty  , R2= unknown)

Quote:

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

Y-Arm Scan

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

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

YARM Gautam V. Finesse Model Actual
FSR 3.966 MHz 3.967 MHz
Gouy phase 54.2 deg 52.0 deg

 

 

  14057   Thu Jul 12 14:06:39 2018 keerthanaUpdateelogFinesse and Analytical solution - Comparison

I tried to compare the cavity scan data we get from the Finesse simulation and that we expect from the Analytical solution. The diagram of the cavity I defined in Finesse is given below along with the values of different quantities I used. For the analytical solution I have used two different equations and they are listed below.

Analytical 1 - Blue Graph

\phi = \frac {2.L.\Omega_1}{c}

t_{cav} = \frac{t_e. t_f \exp^{-i\frac{\phi}{2}}}{1- r_f. r_e \exp^{-i\phi} }

T_{cav} = \left|{t_{cav}} \right|^2

 

Analytical 2 - Red Graph

F = \frac {4. r_f.r_e}{(1-r_f.r_e )^2}

\phi = \frac {2.L.\Omega_1}{c}

T_{cav} = \left|{t_{cav}} \right|^2 = \frac {(t_e.t_f)^2}{(1 - r_f . r_e)^2} \frac{1}{1+F(\sin\frac {\phi}{2})^2}

The graph obtained from both these solutions completely matches with each other.

Finesse Solution

The cavity which I defined in Finesse is shown below. The solution from Finesse and the Analytical solution also matches with each other. Another plot is made by taking the difference between Finesse solution and Analytical solution. The difference seems to be of the order of \approx 10^{-19}.

The Difference plot is also attached below.

  10711   Thu Nov 13 22:52:48 2014 kateUpdatePEMSeismometers set up for huddle test

Jenne, Diego, Kate

We want to conduct a huddle test with the three 40m seismometers (2 Guralps and 1 Trillium), so we began to get that set up in order. All three are currently sitting on the large granite slab approximately halfway down the length of the MC tube. We had to move all three seismometers: the Trillium had been next to the BS and the Guralps at the end stations. All three are balanced and aligned and we have put the foam box over them. 

The Trillium has not yet been used here, so we had to first wire its power supply. We're now providing its readout box with +/- 20 V. Getting that hooked up required powering down several electronics racks, which involved auxiliary prep work like turning off the suspension watchdogs. We also installed 3 new BNC cables to carry the Trillium x,y,z signals from its box to the CDS AA board. We're using the inputs which had previously been used for recording the STS2 signals. 

We could find only one of the two 'short' Guralp cables, so at the moment just one of the two Guralps is powered and connected to CDS. Jenne made (some time ago) new cables so that we could leave the long cables that run from the corner to each end station in place to preserve the nominal setup. 

Attachment/edit by Jenne: Seismic spectra.  Note that the T240 is connected to the channels that are called STS_1.  I compared the Guralp spectra to our seismic_ref, and they match up pretty well.  The new spectra is maybe a factor of 2 or so above the reference, at a few Hz. Anyhow, the Guralp seems fine.  I am sure that somewhere we have a second short (as in, not 50m long) Guralp cable, I just can't remember right now where it might be.  Also, the T-240 has some seriously crazy noise up around 30Hz.  What's up with that??  I want to ask Zach if he saw this when he had the Trillium, or if it is new.

Seismic_13Nov2014.pdf

  4407   Sun Mar 13 00:00:58 2011 jzweizig, ranaConfigurationDAQNDS2 code change and restart

 John has changed the NDS2 code and restarted it on Mafalda. The issue is that it goes off the rails everytime the DAQD is restarted on FB because of filename convention war between GDS and CDS.

Until this is resolved, please make sure to restart the NDS2 process on Mafalda everytime you restart DAQD by doing this:

pkill -KILL nds2

/users/jzweizig/nds2-mafalda/start_nds2

  4772   Tue May 31 14:29:00 2011 jzweizigUpdateCDSframes

There seems to be something strange going on with the 40m frame builder.
Specifically, there is a gap in the frames in /frames/full near the start of
each 100k second subdirectory. For example, frames for the following times are missing:

990200042-990200669
990300045-990300492
990400044-990400800
990500032-990500635
990600044-990600725
990700037-990700704
990800032-990800677
990900037-990900719


To summarize, after writing the first two frames in a data directory, the next ~10 minutes of frames are usually missing. To make matters worse (for
the nds2 frame finder, at least) the first frame after the gap (and all successive frames) start at an arbitrary time, usually not aligned to a 16-second boundary. Is there something about the change of directories that is causing the frame builder to crash? Or is the platform/cache disk too slow to complete the directory switch-over without loss of data?

  298   Tue Feb 5 17:39:05 2008 jweinerConfigurationPEMPEM-AS_MIC taken down from AS table, will put in PSL enclosure soon
I took down the microphone that Andrey hung above the AS table his first week in lab. I want to hang the microphone above the PMC to check the effect of acoustic noise on the PMC. The cables were a little more tangled than I thought so I've only taken the microphone down and haven't hung it back up yet, but on Thursday I'll have enough time to carefully put it up inside the PSL and see what I can find out about acoustic noise inside the PSL. I think the microphone should be sensitive enough for the frequencies we're interested in, and I'll hopefully find out if it's sufficient once I put it up in the PSL. The microphone cable and microphone are on top of the PSL for now.
  780   Fri Aug 1 11:51:15 2008 justingOmnistructureComputersadded /cvs/cds/site directory
I added a /cvs/cds/site directory. This is the same as is dicsussed here. Right now it just has the text file 'cit' in it, but eventually the other scripts should be added. I'll probably use it in the next version of mDV.
  303   Fri Feb 8 17:55:53 2008 joshConfigurationPEMPEM-AS_MIC now in PSL enclosure
I have moved the microphone to the PSL enclosure, hanging near the south (Y) side from a support rod for the overhanging storage area so that it's reasonably close to the PMC. I've fastened it in many places using cable ties to make sure that it won't fall.

Alberto helped me solder together a female BNC-female 3.5 mm stereo adapter so that I can use the DAQ to output through BNC to PC speakers. My plan is do sweep sine output through PC speakers to find the transfer function of sound from outside the enclosure to inside the enclosure and by moving the microphone more centrally over the PSL table, check if there are any strong resonances. Hopefully I can use this technique at other places around the interferometer or measure the effect of installing acoustic foam.
  2911   Tue May 11 16:38:16 2010 josephb,rana,rolfUpdateCDSCDS questions and thoughts

1) What is c1asc doing?  What is ascaux used for?  What are the cables labeled "C1:ASC_QPD" in the 1X2 rack really going to?

2) Put the 4600 machine (megatron) in the 1Y3 (away from the analog electronics)  This can be used as an OAF/IO machine.  We need a dolphin fiber link from this machine to the IO chassis which will presumably be in 1Y1, 1Y2 (we do not currently have this fiber at the 40m, although I think Rolf said something about having one).

3) Merge the PSL and IOOVME crates in 1Y1/1Y2 to make room for the IO chassis.

4) Put the LSC and SUS machines into 1Y4 and/or 1Y5 along with the SUS IO chassis.  The dolphin switch would also go here.

5) Figure out space in 1X3 for the LSC chassis.  Most likely option is pulling asc or ascaux stuff, assuming its not really being used.

6) Are we going to move the OMC computer out from under the beam tube and into an actual rack?  If so, where?

 

Rolf will likely be back Friday, when we aim to start working on the "New" Y end and possibly the 1X3 rack for the LSC chassis.

 

  2517   Fri Jan 15 18:53:05 2010 josephb,peter,kojiUpdateComputersAttempted locking with Megatron replacing ETMY front end

This afternoon we attempted to lock the interferometer using Megatron insteady of the usual ETMY front end.

We attempted it once, found the alignment seemed particularly bad, then realized we had forgotten to add the QPDs.  In the process of adding the QPDs to the tst.mdl file, we realized I (Joe) should have been looking at the iscNetDsc.h file, not the iscNetDs40m.h file for the RFM memory structure.  The only major difference was the memory location of where the qpd information gets passed.

We added QPDs to the tst.mdl file, writing to the RFM network with the QPD pitch, yaw and sum values.

We also added normalization to the oplev, by dividing the OL pitch and yaw values by the OL sum value in the tst.mdl file.

The lscPos, ascPit, ascYaw were working properly, although we did have to poke at the ascPit and ascYaw values once before they started reading properly at Megatron (they started at -1e20).  We think the RFM card may have started in an odd state, and without something causing the ascPit and ascYaw values to change, it never updated.

At the end of the day, the interferometer was locked for a few seconds.  There is are still some issues to be worked on, but its progress.

Koji returned everything back to normal operations after the test.

  3432   Wed Aug 18 11:40:59 2010 josephb,kiwamu,yoichiUpdateCDSEnd station working with latest RCG code

We were able to get the latest SVN checkout (revision 2009), working with the c1x00 (IOP) and c1vgl models at the new X end on the c1iscex machine.

We were unable to get it working yesterday, and as far as we can tell, the only significant change was a reboot of the c1sus machine.  Before the reboot, it did not look like there were any conflicting models running on the c1sus machine, but apparently something was preventing the models on c1iscex from running properly.

Other simulated plant models still need to have their shared memory location blocks updated to the new type.

Now that we have proved we still can get the end model running, we are moving onto the c1sus machine.

  3237   Fri Jul 16 15:57:19 2010 josephb,kiwamuUpdateComputersNew X end FE and IO chassis work

We finished setting up the new X end front end machine (still temporarily called c1scx), and attached it to its IO chassis.  We're preparing for a test tomorrow, where we redirect the Limo breakout box to the new front end and IO chassis, so Kiwamu can test getting some green locking channels into his controls model.

We strung a pair of blue fibers from the timing master to the new X end (and labeled them), so we have a timing signal for the IO chassis.  I also labeled the orange fiber Alex had repurposed from the RFM to timing for the new Y end when I noticed he had not actually labelled it at the timing master.

  3434   Wed Aug 18 12:24:58 2010 josephb,kiwamuUpdateCDSshmem issue

Apparently its possible to have working models get into a bad state in regards to shared memory, which prevents the model from working after killing it and restarting it.  We found that by shutting all the models down, and then killing and restarting the setup_shmem process, it allowed models to function properly again.

The symptom was getting stuck at the burt restore step, according the log files (/opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/target/c1SYS/logs/log.txt).

  2695   Mon Mar 22 16:57:45 2010 josephb,daisuke, alexConfigurationComputersMegatron test points working again

We changed the pointer on /cvs/cds/caltech/target/gds/bin/awgtpman from

/opt/gds/awgtpman    to

/cvs/cds/caltech/target/gds/bin/awgtpman.091215.

Then killed the megatron framebuilder and testpoint manager (daqd, awgtpman), restarted, hit the daq reload button from the GDS_TP screen. 

This did not fix everything. However, it did seem to fix the problem where it needed a rtl_epics under the root directory which did not exist.  Alex continued to poke around.  When next he spoke, he claimed to have found a problem in the daqdrc file.  Specifically, the cvs/cds/caltech/target/fb/ daqdrc file.

set gds_server = "megatron" "megatron" 10 "megatron" 11;

He said this need to be:

set gds_server = "megatron" "megatron"  11 "megatron" 12;


However, during this, I had looked file, and found dataviewer working, while still with the 10 and 11.  Doing a diff on a backup of daqdrc, shows that Alex also changed

set controller_dcu=10  to set controller_dcu=12, and commented the previous line. 

He also changed set debug=2 to set debug=0.

In a quick test, we changed the 11 and 12 back to 10 and 11, and everything seemed to work fine.  So I'm not sure what that line actually does.  However, the set controller_dcu line seems to be important, and probably needs  to be set to the dcu id of an actually running module (it probably doesn't matter which one, but at least one that is up).  Anyways, I set the gds_server line back to 11 and 12, just in case there's numerology going on.

I'll add this information to the wiki.

  2540   Thu Jan 21 17:23:30 2010 josephb,alex,kojiHowToComputersRCG code fixes

In order to see the Contec DO-32L-PE Digital output PCIe card with the new controls, we had to add the CDO32 part to the CDS_PARTS.mdl file in control /cds/advLigo/src/epics/simLink/ directory on megatron, as well as create the actual model mdl file (based on cdsDio.mdl) in the control/cds/advLigo/src/epics/simLink/lib directory. 

The CDO32.pm file (in /home/controls/cds/advLigo/src/epics/util/lib) has existed for some time, it was just missing the associated pieces in simlink.  However, Alex also checked out a newer version Dio.pm in the process.  As we are not using this part at this time, it should be fine.

The code now compiles and sees the digital output card.

You need a special care on this block as it turned out that the code does not compiled if the "constant" block is connected to the input. You must use appropriate block such as bitwise operator, as shown below.

  2212   Mon Nov 9 13:22:08 2009 josephb,alexUpdateComputersMegatron update

Alex and I took a look at megatron this morning, and it was in the same state I left it on Friday, with file system errors.  We were able to copy the advLIGO directory Peter had been working in to Linux1, so it should be simple to restore the code.  We then tried just running fsck, and overwritting bad sectors, but after about 5 minutes it was clear it could potentially take a long time (5-10 seconds per unreadable block, with an unknown number of blocks, possibly tens or millions).  The decision was made to simply replace the hard drive.

Alex is of the opinion that the hard drive failure was a coincidence.  Or rather, he can't see how the RFM card could have caused this kind of failure.

Alex went to Bridge to grab a usb to sata adapter for a new hard drive, and was going to copy a duplicate install of the OS onto it, and we'll try replacing the current hard drive with it.

ELOG V3.1.3-