You should add the flags in the model so that the error and control signals are written to the disk (as _DQ channels). Also make some filters so that the calbration of the signals can be loaded into them. In this way the data written to disk will be calibrated in some units (e.g. meters or Newtons).
I restarted the DAQ and the KRK model today at about 11AM local time to increase the acquire rate of the accelerometer channels.
The autolocker script died when it couldn't access the epics channels, I restarted it.
Seems like a rather qualitative analysis. Is there any way you can make a 2D FFT of this so that we can see what the distribution of grain sizes are? What are typical sorts of grain size analysis people do in order to get quantitative comparisons?
In order to bypass the mechanical resonance problems that people have been having with the blades (i.e. they're not good for high BW locking), today we discussed using a stiff PZT mirror in one of the Michelson arms.
In principle, we would be concerned that we get crackle from this PZT element, but the LLO people have done some crackle measurements on the OMC PZTs so that we should have a good upper limit on that component and its good enough ??
Stiff, high BW, PZT actuated mirror mounts have been used for laser locking:
High Voltage Piezo drivers:
When using such large resistors for the active filtering, its best to use a FET input opamp instead of the OP27. Otherwise it kind of spoils the stability of the reference. Zach has a comparison of noise for various FET input opamps for this purpose.
* one leg got an air leak - ask Steve V to repair or send back to Newport for exchange
* Xiaoyue will check weights for new carbon steel blades
* may start new blade run in 10 days
* RSI paper to be resubmitted this week
I think it would be useful to add this final step where you compute the aLIGO noise estimates, into the DCC document.
I also used to use 0.001 for the vertical to horizontal coupling, but recently someone was telling me that the factor is a bit larger; I think Brett or Dennis would know.
If the resistors in the dewhitening filter and the coil driver are either wire-wound or (for SMD) metal film or thin film or MELF, its highly doubtful that you could see excess resistor noise.
IF, however, you used carbon or thick-film SMD resistors (Digi-key default), then it is likely wherever the current density is high.
Whitened specgram please to help see small differences. Also your noisy / quiet spectra look like they are contaminated at the low frequencies by the leakage from low frequencies due to the FFT window being too short. Perhaps retry with a 8 second FFT window to see if the effect is different.
There were a couple of SR560 in the lab which I notice have been unplugged for months. Since this slowly degrades the batteries and causes us to spend money/time to replace them, I have moved these to the EE shop and put them on charge.
please plug these in whenever they are not in use
you can just use some BNC clip doodles (mini grabbers, etc). Go directly from the test equip (scopes, analyzers) to the pins on the board. Or if you are able to mount the D-sub connectors, you can use a breakout board. Can borrow from the 40m if you don't have them in WB.
Before making a wide deployment, we should also test the latest noisemon circuit for downconversion.
Can't tell what's going on. Pleaese make the plots readable and describe in the elog what precisely is being calculated.
I'm attaching a script to download data from the LIGO sites with python.
I recommend using it in your anaconda3 ENV:
conda install -c conda-forge nds2-client python-nds2-client
and then before running the script you have to initialize your Kerberos token:
then you run the script:
python getData.py --ifo=L1 --fs=1024
as usual, run with the -O or -OO flags to silence the debug messages.
# this function gets some data (from the 40m) and saves it as
# a .mat file for the matlabs
# Ex. python -O getData.py
import scipy.io as sio
import scipy.signal as sig
from astropy.time import Time
I don't agree about this. Doesn;t this ignore the noise of the noisemon circuit (analog readout noise + ADC noise) ? I think you must have a model for than noise in order to infer the DAC noise. Or maybe my pringle suggestion has better SNR?
This is how we calculate the DAC noise spectrum. The unit is V/rtHz.
it might be the low input impedance of the board which the coil driver cannot drive..
I suggest you use probes to see where in the noisemon circuit the distortion is starting
you have to overlay the estimated displacemnt noise with the existing L1 noise bud or else we cant tell what the importance of the result is
for some reason the DAC noise estimate is too high, it can't really be so large compared to the real DARM curve (see the noise budget curves from LLO - there are other noise sources besides DAC noise)
I hve modified the code to plot nicer and also to remove some divide by zero problems. There is also still some warnings about other divide by zero - those should probably be fixed by examining how better to handle it when the coherence goes to zero.
Analysis & Data
would be good if you could find a solution that is not very sensitive to precise lens placement
For the splitting, I recommend not to use a splitter.
Instead, you can use a -10 or -20 dBm bi-directional coupler. You send the -10 dBm signal to the EOM amp, and you can fill up the needed power for the LO mixer. Also the "bi" nature of the coupler means that you can check for reflected power to diagnose if you are having impedance mis-match. Since you don't have an isolation amplifier in your setup, its important to make sure that reflections from one leg don't go back into the oscillator and disturb the other leg. Or maybe your oscillator box has an isolation amplifier between the oscillator and the splitter?
Should measure the S-matrix using a bi-directional coupler.
We tested AD734 on the diagnostic bread board, the result is good.
We want to square/multiply signals between 10 to 100 Hz, so we use AD734 chip to do the work. The circuit is connected as described here
We try to square the signal. the test signals are sine waves at 10 Hz, 50Hz. The output are nice sine waves, but the gain is high (72dB). The chip rails as the input exceeds 0.5 Vpkpk. We will have to check the signal from the PD in the setup to see if it is higher than 0.5 Vpkpk or not. If so we can change the gain of the chip. Otherwise we can go ahead and use it.
The spectrum of the output, for 10Hz input, there's a peak at 20Hz output. For 50Hz input, there's a peak at 100Hz. The response is flat between this bandwidth.
I placed the two beam profilers with the two laptops and chargers right inside the Crackle lab, as requested by Paco.
We setup the Michelson interferometer with two identical x and y arms. We drove both mirrors at 2 Hz and observed signal at 10 Hz using a lockin amplifier. We saw no significant difference whether the mirror were dirven or not.
(The pzt for the second mirror is fixed. The wire is soldered back to its electrode.)
We setup the Michelson interferometer, now with similar setups on two arms. The end mirrors on both arms are attached on metal shims. The shims touch the PZTs which are driven by 2Hz, 6Vpkpk sinusoidal signal with 7 V offset.
We use a voltage divider(we planned to make one, but we found a nice one in EE lab lying on the floor, so we borrowed it) to adjust the voltage on one of the PZTs to make sure that both mirrors are driven by the same distance. We adjusted the divider to minimize the signal at 2Hz.
fig 1: With a voltage divider, we can adjust the voltage on the PZT so that both mirrors are pushed by the same distance and the 2Hz common mode is minimized. On the plot, Y axis shows the signal output from the lock in amplifier at 2Hz. The higher value means the stronger signal at 2Hz. X axis is time scale. The setup was 5mV sensitivity range, filter in 300 ms, phase -152.3 degree.
The signal output from the lock in amp has not been calibrated to length yet. We just want to see the qualitative result.
Once we made sure that we minimized the common mode, we tried to measure the possible up converted noise at 10Hz. (We used the internal oscillator in the lockin amplifier for reference signal at 10 Hz.)
First, we did not drive the mirror, so that we could see the signal at 10 Hz due to background. Then, we drove the mirror at 2 Hz, and observed any possible up-converted noise at 10Hz
There is nothing conclusive yet. The 2Hz signal that drives the PZTs are plotted here for comparison. From a quick glance, there is no obvious correlation between the noise and the driving signal.
fig2: Signal from the lock in amp at 10Hz. Setup: sensitivity at 500 uV, in filter 300 ms.
Why are we doing this:
We want to measure any possible up-converted noise when the material under stress is driven at low frequency. For example, the system is driven at 2Hz, there might be broadband noise occurs due to the motion. If there is, we can try driving the system with different amplitude to see if the noise changes or not.
I ordered 5 of AD734 and thinking about how to make a circuit for squaring the signal.
The "chopping" signal readout technique requires that we square the signals. Basically we need to (as rana suggested):
(1) square the signal from PD, (after 10-100Hz bandpass) to convert it to power, and band pass it again.
(2) square the driving signal (might be varied from 0.1- 1Hz.) This is illustrated in the diagram as doubling the frequency ("2 x freq" box.) The driving signal for PZT is offset. So the signal is V drive = A + B xsin (2pi fdrive t) with A > B. This ensures that the voltage on one end of the PZT is always higher than another end. We might need to high pass this signal first, to get a signal with only 2 fdrive frequency after we square it.
(3) multiply signal from (1) and (2) to demodulate the signal.
Basically, 3 multipliers are needed.
The first one is for (1), so the input frequency is ~ 10 -100Hz, and the output is 20-200 Hz.
The second multiplier is for (2), the signal is ~ 0.1 - 1 Hz, but this one might have large DC term after we square it.
The third one is for (3), this one has to multiply 2 low f signals together which is quite similar to (2), so the design can be the same.
I'll consult Frank and/or Koji again before finalize the multiplier circuit.
In the mean time, we might try this mixer to multiply the signal. I'll order one.
koji, mingyuan, tara: We designed the circuit for multiplying/ squaring signals with AD734.
The details for each signal are discussed here.
The "general multiplying circuit" box in the diagram shows how each AD734 will be powered/ fed input signal.
For the signal from the PD, we need to bandpass(10-100Hz) it first. We plan to use a SR560. To split the signal to x and y input, we will use a T connector. Then square the signal and band pass it again at 0.1 - 100Hz bandwidth.
For the signal from the function generator which drives the PZT. We will high pass it, by either SR560 or a high pass circuit. We might need a buffer here if the output impedance of the function generator is not high. Split the signal with a T again, and square it.
After both signals are squared, we multiply them together. Send one to X1 input, another signal goes to Y1 input. Then we FFT the output signal from W.
I tested the mixer, the demodulated signal from input at 10 - 100 Hz might be too small and too distorted to get reliable data.
As we want to square/demodulate signal in 10 - 100 Hz BW. a low frequency mixer might be a good tool. I asked Alastair to buy this mixer for me, and it arrived today.
The lowest acceptable frequency in the design is 500 Hz, but I don't know how well it works at 10 - 100 Hz so I tested it.
==Setup and result==
I used SR785 to generate sine wave, then split it with a T and connected the output to LO and RF of the mixer.
I tested that the mixer works fine at the designed frequency. The plot below shows the result from 1kHz signal input.
Next, I changed the frequency to 10 Hz, 50Hz, and 100Hz.
The demodulated signal is then observed in frequency domain (left column of the plot) and in time domain ( right column of the plot)
I think the peaks at driving frequencies (10Hz, 50Hz, 100Hz and their harmonics) appear because of the offset of the sine input signal.
The results for low frequency seem to be too distorted. We will test the AD734 chips tomorrow. I got the package this afternoon.
I ordered opto mechanical mounts for turning the beam vertically. See the details in psl log.
I also orderedspring lock washers and wave washers. There will be used when we clamp the guillotine things for putting the load on the tip of the blade.
The pressure from the clamp should not exceed the yield strength of the maraging steel blade. So the spring lock washer should give us some limits of pressure on the blade. There is no specification about how much pressure it would be, so I ordered two kinds of washer for testing.
By mingyuan, tara
We figured out the offset problem in AD734 chips, the box for squaring and multiplying signals is finished.
The problem from the previous circuit was that the ground from the signal was grounded with the load ground. This time the load ground is separated from the signal ground, Z2 is grounded to load ground. These corrections fix the offset problem and the maximum allowed input ( was 0.6 V.) Now the input can be up to 10V. The output, Z, is (X1-X2)x(Y1-Y2)/10 as described in the datasheet. Now the chip are connected as shown below.
We are thinking about not using the default denominator (/10) for a multiplying chip (we certainly need it for squaring chips, otherwise the output will rail), because after the signals (from PD and driving voltage) are squared, their dc levels are ~3 V. When the two are multiplied together, the voltage output drops to 3x3/10 = 0.9 V. So if we can have denominator = 1, the signal will be larger. However, we have to understand how the noise in the chip works first. See Mingyuan's entry about input referred noise of the chip ,it is roughly 3 mV/rtHz. If the SNR remains constant regardless of the denominator, we might not need to worry about it.
By Mingyuan Tara
We measured the FFT of the demodulated signal from chopping technique. We did not see much. The background noise is still too high.
With everything ready, we used chopping technique to measure crackling noise. We measure the PSD from the demodulated signal between a) the mirrors being driven at 2Hz, and b) background noise, when the system was at rest, no driving force applied to the mirrors. We did this to check if we can see any signal due to crackling noise/ rubbing noise/ pzt noise or any noise originated from the driving mechanism or not. The result is not quite clear, we see a few peaks from the driven system around 40 Hz, but we have yet to confirm and identify them.
The setup is shown in the diagram below. For each bandpass through SR560, we added the gain to the signal as much as possible without railing the signal. Note that in this setup we did not bandpass the signal from PD after we square it , as shown in previous entries. Because Mingyuan did not understand why would we need to and I could not answer him properly, so I agreed to let him have it his way.
When we measured the data from the driven system (red curve in the plot), the setup is as shown in the diagram. However, for background measurement (blue curve in the plot), we want to keep the DC supply provided by the function generator to the pzt so that the sensitivity of the signal remain the same. Hence, we used a second function generator to send in similar driving voltage to the squaring box, while the first function generator was set to the dc output voltage to supply the pzts, no sinusoidal output. (We made a mistake by just unplugging the Vdrive to the pzt and to the squaring box, and the noise level dropped so much.)
The red and blue curve shows the psd of the demodulated signal when the blades were driven, and the static case respectively. The peak at 4 Hz that presents in both cases are from the square of the driving signal at 2Hz.
There are a few peaks around 36 - 40 Hz when the blades were driven. We could not see this in the SR785 monitor because the monitor was so faint. I just saw this after I plotted the data. The peaks might come from some resonances in the setup. We expect crackling noise to be more broad band. We will confirm and identify the source of the peak to make sure that we can see some signal from the driving (it can be rubbing between metal, pzt noise, crackle.)
We will repeat the same measurement, and try changing driving frequency/ amplitude, to see if the signal changes or not.
We built a simple voltage summing circuit for adding DC level to the pzt. This circuit allows us to fine tune the inteferometer's differential arm length, so that we can operate at the fringe's maximum slope. Then we checked the peaks we observed from last time. It turned out to be harmonics from the common mode from driving.
The circuit schematic is shown below. The result Vout = Vin1 + Vin2.
The adding circuit is used as shown in the schematic (highlighted in yellow.)
*Later, we can use this summing circuit in a feedback control loop for locking the interferometer.
Then we used this circuit in the setup and repeat the measurement to check the peaks we observed last time. With the same setup, we observed the peaks again, but they probably are harmonics from 4Hz from common mode motion which was not perfectly cancelled.
We repeated the measurement again with 0.7 Hz driving, and the peaks disappeared. The signal between driving and not driving the arms are very similar. The shape of the PSD changes slightly because of the lower amplitude of the driving signal, as we low pass the signal at 0.1 Hz.
We do need a seismic isolation and vacuum chamber. Right now, sound from people speaking in the lab can disturb the measurement.
a few things we have to consider soon, before we use the maraging steel blades pulled down by a mass block in the experiment.
1) how should we push the blades? capacitor plate? magnetic coil?
2) When can we move and get a better table, so that we can decide on seismic isolation stage.
3) We have to start looking for vacuum bell jar for the experiment.
4) lock the interferometer?
5) will we get an npro laser for the experiment?
I made an estimate for frequency noise requirement for a laser that can be used in crackle experiment. With some assumptions, I came up with df = 3x102 [Hz/rtHz ] for the requirement.
The two beams from both arms are recombined at the output port of a Michelson interferometer. If it is operated at dark port, the output signal will be linear with the differential length between the two arms.
some assumptions in the calculation:
This will be a requirement for the planned ecdl.
Is a HeNe laser good enough? I'm not sure about HeNe frequency noise level, and I haven't found it in literature that much. I checked here,see fig 5, HeNe f noise is not so bad compared to NPRO noise (10^4 /f Hz/rtHz).This feels a bit counter intuitive. But if it is real, it should be ok for the measurement around 100 Hz and above.
Ming Yuan, tara
We setup the basic Michelson interferometer with one arm which can driven by a PZT and another one whose position is adjustable.
The laser we got didn't work at the beginning. We found that the power supplier was not functional. Tara borrowed another power supplier for the laser.
The basic Michelson interferometer was setup. One of the mirror attached on copper plate was replaced by a regular mirror with position adjustable. One of the PZT is needed to be fixed.
We observed Dark Fringe by adjusting position of the regular mirror.
We got the signal from a basic Michelson setup with one of the arm being driven by a PZT.
This is the signal from the oscilloscope.
First, we check the signal when there is no voltage applied to the PZT, the signal is plotted in green.
Then, we drove only one of the mirror by PZT. The voltage is 6Vpkpk, with 7V offset.
The signal is plotted in blue when the mirror was driven. We can see strong signal on the scope.
We measured the weight needed for pulling the blades down, and measured Q, f0 of the blades. For Rom blade, the weight is 1.279 kg, f0 = 2.27 Hz, Q = 300. For Rem blade, the weight is 2.005kg, f0 = 2.35Hz, Q = 475. The test blades are named Romulus(Rom) and Remus(Rem).
Why do we do this:
The maraging blades are designed to be flat when they are in used, so we need to know how much weight do we need to pull them down to their operating level. The weight will determine the size of the load mass we want in the drawing as well. We plan to mount mirror mount on the load mass, so we can align the mirror for the interferometer's end mirror. Plus, resonance frequencies and Qs of the blades and seismic noise will be used to estimated the noise budget of the setup.
The weight was applied to the blade until the blade horizontally leveled. Then the total weight was recorded. After that, we used shadow sensing technique to determine their resonance frequencies and Q factors.
The results are summarized here:
Blade load mass f0 Q
Rom 1.279 kg 2.27 Hz 300
Rem 2.005 2.35 Hz 475
fig1: determining the weight. The blade mounted on the table appears flat with the right weight.
fig2: Q measurement from Rom
fig3: Q measurement from Rem
Some useful things to remember for the AD734:
The transfer function when wired as a multiplying circuit is: W = ((X1-X2)*(Y1-Y2) / 10V) + Z2
For this to be true the Z1 pin should be wired to the output W, to provide feedback, which isn't shown explicitly on Tara's general multiplying circuit diagram. Also for testing the chip inputs were wired as differential, not with one leg grounded as shown on the GMC diagram.
The 10 V comes from the default division voltage when the denominator control inputs (U0, U1, U2) are grounded. If you want some added offset to the output you can send it to the Z2 pin.
The input impedance is listed as 50k for all X, Y, and Z pins.
We measured the noise with 0V X/Y inputs, it was around 1 mV/rtHz at 10 Hz, as you can see in Tara's earlier post, slightly improving at higher frequency.
The input noise is listed as 1 uV/rtHz from 100 Hz to 1 MHz. The amplifier gain is listed as 72 dB which is ~ 4000x, and we were at the default denominator of 10V so this corresponds to a noise of 1e-3 * 10 / 4000 = 2.5 uV/rtHz at the input, seems reasonable compared to spec sheet. The signal to be squared in the creak setup (the output of the Michelson) will have to be bandpassed first, probably by an SR560, so gain can be applied there to get in over the multiplier noise floor.
As Tara noted the output does rail for signal amplitudes well below the listed maximum input, so we need a better understanding of how to control the gain.
We made a drawing for a structure hat will hold the maraging blade. The details aren't complete yet. The holes for the clamping will be identified, but the sketch shows the rough idea.
We want to clamp the blade to a structure. The drawing for the clamp will be provided by Ryan (he found it in the dcc.) The structure is consisted of the base and the pillar. Although a monolithic structure is better, it might be to expensive to carve out a big piece of Al block, so Koji suggested that we do it like this. The base will be mounted on the table, and the pillar will be mounted on the base by 4 screws. The height of the pillar is not decided yet. It depends on how big the Al mass block we need to pull down the blade by its weight, and how the mirror for reflecting the beam up will be mounted, but it should be around 6 - 8 inches.
The mass block will be used for mounting the end mirror of the interferometer + a translational stage. This way we can steer the beam with 2 mirrors and adjust the arm length. We will determine the weight, so we can estimate the size of the mass block, assuming we will use Al.
We made a sketch for the weight clamp that will carry the mass block on the end of the blades. This will be done in Solidwork tomorrow.
We plan to load a block of mass under the tip of the blade by using a pair of knife edge pieces so that the rubbing between the mass block and the blade is minimized.
The edge of the blade cannot be too large, or it will be noisy when the blade is driven. On the other hands, if the blade angle is too small (sharper blade), the stress on the blade due to the weight will be too large and cause plastic deformation on the blade, which we don't want. We plan to make it flat ~ 1mm wide, with 120degree open angle.
The yield tensile strength of maraging steel is ~ 1 -2 GPa. With the contact area at the knife edge we can calculate the maximum clamping force.
The width of the edge is ~ 5cm
The thickness of the edge ~ 1mm.
so the maximum force should not exceed ~ 1 GPa x 0.05 m x 0.001 m ~10^4 newton.
We will use spring washers to make sure that we do not tighten the clamps together with too much force and cause plastic deformation on the blade.
We finalized the drawing for blade clamping system. The drawings are posted here and in Crackle ATF Wiki. We will submit the drawings to the machine shop tomorrow.
For each blade, the clamping system will consist of: 1)Steel base, 2)Steel pillar, 3) Steel top clamp, 4) Al knife edge top piece,5)Al knife edge bottom piece,and 6) Al end piece.
1) Steel base x1: The steel base is 3"x3"x0.5" . It has 4 counter sunk holes that allow us to mount the steel pillar on it. It has 3" rails on both sides, so we can mount it on the table. Extra clamps can be used to hold the base on the table.
2) Steel pillar x1: It is 5.5" height with 2"x2" square cross section. There are 4 tapped 1/4-20 holes , 1" in depth, on the bottom for mounting it on the base. There are 2 tapped 3/8 , 1" in depth, on top for clamping two clamps along with the blade.
3) Steel top clamping piece x1, This will clamp the blade on the pillar.
4) Aluminum knife edge, top piece x1,
5) Aluminum knife edge, bottom piece x1: (4&5) The two knife edge pieces will be used for loading the mass block on the maraging blade tip. The explanation is written in this entry.
6) Aluminum end piece that holds the mirror mount on the blade tip x1: We want to have a steerable mirror for the IFO. So we need a mirror mount. The block will hold the mount and the blade tip together through screws. This piece is uploaded in the above entry.
The assembly (without the blade and the mirror mount) is shown below.
We submitted the drawing to the machine shop today. The works should be done before May 23rd.
The base/ pillar/ blade clamp will be made from stainless steel. The knife edge pieces and mirror mount at the blade tip will be made from aluminum.
The laser noise measurement could have been compromised by clipping or scattering since we added the weight to the stack between the time when the Michelson noise was taken and the laser noise was measured. After that Dan found that the stack was touching the chamber. So I suggest that the laser noise measurement should be repeated right after the low noise Michelson spectrum is achieved.
Here are some comments:
- The noise from Michelson ifo, that Dan posted yesterday, appeared to be just above the SR785 noise. But now Dan knows how to do the whitening to beat this noise down. The Michelson spectrum was not corrected for the loop gain. The voltage noise from Michelson was ~30nV/rtHz refered to the PD output at 100 Hz. Today we measured the Thorlab PD100A dark noise to be around 15 nV/rtHz at 100 Hz (not bad for a cheap PD with ~10 V full range). We also tried to measure the laser intensity noise and found that we would expect it to be several times higher than the Michelson in-lock spectrum we got yesterday(?). The laser noise measurement was done by blocking one of the arms with a black glass dump. So the laser noise needs more investigation.