Centered the ISS second loop array, using picomotor 1. The QPD signals were zeroed, and in that state all PD powers were high and quite similar. See first attached plot.
For reference, the typical power levels measured before are (18054)
| Old | New | ||
| PD1 | IOP-PSL0_MADC1_EPICS_CH24 | 1247 | 10167 |
| PD2 | IOP-PSL0_MADC1_EPICS_CH25 | 1370 | 10179 |
| PD3 | IOP-PSL0_MADC1_EPICS_CH26 | 1346 | 11333 |
| PD4 | IOP-PSL0_MADC1_EPICS_CH27 | 1487 | 10434 |
| PD5 | IOP-PSL0_MADC1_EPICS_CH28 | 1506 | 11467 |
| PD6 | IOP-PSL0_MADC1_EPICS_CH29 | 1400 | 10640 |
| PD7 | IOP-PSL0_MADC1_EPICS_CH30 | 1625 | 12345 |
| PD8 | IOP-PSL0_MADC1_EPICS_CH31 | 1504 | 11525 |
Note that the normalization of the signals might be different, as well as the input power, so only the relative differences are important. The distribution of power levels is comparable with the old measurements.
With the IMC offline, measured and retuned the dark offsets:
H1:PSL-ISS_SECONDLOOP_PD1_INMON 507.360238647
H1:PSL-ISS_SECONDLOOP_PD2_INMON -0.477651876211
H1:PSL-ISS_SECONDLOOP_PD3_INMON -4.05748717785
H1:PSL-ISS_SECONDLOOP_PD4_INMON -4.37042988539
H1:PSL-ISS_SECONDLOOP_PD5_INMON 0.0666494309902
H1:PSL-ISS_SECONDLOOP_PD6_INMON -0.540560656786
H1:PSL-ISS_SECONDLOOP_PD7_INMON -1.43365537077
H1:PSL-ISS_SECONDLOOP_PD8_INMON -0.803998035192
They're all normal, except for PD1 which has a very large offset.
More preparation for opening up the Y-arm Monday.
Updated the ALS code in the X end station TwinCAT and switched to the new LaserLocking library. The medm screens were updated as well. Seems to work.
Since it worked for X, upgraded Y end as well.
TITLE: 06/08 Day Shift: 15:00-23:00 UTC (08:00-16:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Planned Engineering
INCOMING OPERATOR: None
SHIFT SUMMARY:
15:00 (8:00) Start of shift
15:05 (8:05) Mark to LVEA -- collect rigging equipment
16:11 (9:11) Marc to EX -- grab timing comparator
16:21 (9:21) Robert to PSL
16:32 (9:32) Fil to LVEA
16:40 (9:40) Marc back from EX
16:48 (9:48) Kyle to EX VEA
18:51 (11:51) Robert to IOT2
19:02 (12:02) Georgia and TVo to LVEA -- look at IMC open loop transfer function
19:08 (12:08) Georgia and TVo back from LVEA
19:24 (12:24) Robert back from IOT2
20:01 (13:01) Mark and Tyler to EX -- mechanical work
20:10 (13:10) Kyle and guest to LVEA -- informal tour
20:32 (13:32) Jeff B to LVEA -- work on ITM cameras
20:34 (13:34) Georgia and Craig to LVEA -- look for router
20:37 (13:37) Ed and Marc to EX -- reinstall chassis
20:48 (13:48) Fil to LVEA
20:53 (13:53) Kyle, guest out of LVEA
20:57 (13:57) Ed and Marc back from EX
21:10 (14:10) Georgia and Craig back from LVEA
21:20 (14:20) Jeff B back from LVEA
21:30 (14:30) Kyle to LVEA -- open valve on pump cart
21:36 (14:36) Ed to LVEA -- look for wireless router
21:46 (14:46) Richard and Fil to LVEA -- look at temporary wiring
21:53 (14:53) Chandra to LVEA -- valve ion pumps
22:07 (15:07) Richard and Fil back from LVEA
22:08 (15:08) Kyle out of LVEA
22:08 (15:08) Kyle to EY
22:15 (15:15) Ed back from LVEA
22:40 (15:40) Chnadra back from LVEA
22:47 (15:47) Kyle back from EY
22:50 (15:50) Sheila and Hang to LVEA -- moving REFL9 phase shift from digital to analog
22:54 (15:54) Marc and Robert to vault
23:00 (16:00) End of shift
Today we set up a method of quickly taking transfer functions of the IMC using an SR785 in the LVEA. Richard plugged in a GPIB to the CDS network and activated the port at IP 10.22.10.31, GPIB address 10. I was then able to quickly take an IMC OLG transfer function using EricQ's netgpibdata scripts, in particularly the SRmeasure script which tells the SR785 what to measure and returns the data. This is very useful because the IMC has been unlocking over the past few days, but if we wanted to check the OLG for instability we had to go into the LVEA. At 11 Watts input power, the IMC OLG is 30 kHz with 58 degrees phase margin.
E. Merilh, M. Pirello
Today we completed the modification to the Timing Comparator chassis at X-END, the following work was completed on each chassis.
E1800008-v1 Replace 5V regulator with separate power supply.
E1200034-v6 & E1700246-v1 Add more frequency counters to unused Timing Comparators channels.
Previous Alog can be seen here ALOG40064
This completes the work on the timing comparators and closes:FRS4910 WP7383
J. Kissel, H. Radkins Something appears to have gone terribly wrong after Friday Jun 1 with the ISI HAM6 performance below ~0.2 Hz. Given that frequency range, first suspects are CPS and Sensor Correction. More likely to be CPS, given Hugh's battle with them during the vent (see e.g. LHO aLOG 41204). I've informed Hugh and will file an FRS ticket. Attached plots stolen from the summary pages show the performance of the table on Jun 1, Jun 2, and today (Jun 8) 2018.
Not a surprise, but just confirming corner 3 of HAM6 CPS noise is very hig, see first plot attached.
The DC level changed on June 1st at 15:30 UTC (08:30 am local), and the noise went up starting June 5 at around 02:20 UTC (19:20 local), see second plot.
Doing a quick search, it doesn't look like the CPS weekly was done last week. That would have picked this up easily.
I valved-in IP2, IP5, IP3 and IP4 and, concurrently, valved-out the YBM, XBM and Vertex turbo pumps. Additionally, I connected a pump cart to GV5's annulus pump port and removed the pump cart from IP3. Assuming the IPs stabilize and GV5's AIP can run unassisted, we should be ready to open the Y-arm on Monday,
Water vapor has gone down, but hydrocarbon and H2 levels have gone up.
Valving out each IP one by one to see if one contributes more than others. Attached is scan with IP2 valved out.No noticeable change after 20 minutes. IP2 is not refurbished; all others are rebuilt and were baked out by vendor. New isolation GVs were not baked out.
IP3 isolated for 35 min. No change.
IP4 isolated for 15 min. No change.
IP5 isolated for 15 min. No change.
There may be small changes in partial pressures during each test, and given longer isolation durations, may be more obvious. I was quickly looking for a show stopper. IP 2,3,4,5 all valved back in.
Fil, Jeff B, Dave:
the Mid-Y weather station is once again operational after the CP4 bake-out hiatus. The AC converter on the Comtrol unit had failed and was replaced. Jeff B noted that the WIKI instructions are specifically to start the code from scratch, and does not cover stopping the currently running code (inside a screen session). This system will be upgraded to Beckhoff, so we will resolve documentation at that point.
This completes WP 7632. No issues encountered. There are now three EtherCAT NIC cards installed with two ports each. These now fill all the available slots.
Removed End-X VEA2 dust monitor from the check_dust_monitors_are_working script. Have committed the updated script to the SVN repository. The dust monitors added to support the various chamber openings have all been removed as the chambers were closed. The dust monitoring scheme is back to an observation run status.
With the OMC locked on a singel bounce beam and 10W of input power, I started a slow scan of the IMC VCO using a script that Anamaria sent. The scan started at 1212469399, or 10:03 local time. The script is set to run for 12 hours.
If anyone needs to stop it the matlab session that is open on ZOTWS11 (front corner next to Hugh) is scanning the VCO.
This is for a comparison to the measurements in LLO log 39247
The scan started at 5:02:56 utc and ended at 11:35:36 utc when the OMC lost lock (don't know why). The VCO frequency was swept from 78.62 to 79.33 MHz. That's a bit over half the scan, so I would suggest rerunning it some other time from 0 to 5 in the VCO_TUNEOFS channel (then it will take circa 6 hrs). I will start making the images for this part of the scan and post them on this alog later.
The IMC lock loss ended this scan. There was an oscillation in the FSS which may or may not have caused the IMC to unlock.
Gabriele Sheila Georgia
The spectra we took yesterday were taken with the ISS unlocked. We have retaken the IMC-WFS and IMC-IM4_TRANS spectra with the ISS locked and conclude that we are not currently seeing excess jitter as, if it was, we should be able to see it in IM4_TRANS.
The first attachment shows the WFS (pink, green, cyan, brown traces) and IM4_TRANS spectra (blue, red traces), uncalibrated, both measured with the IMC and ISS locked. The coherence between the WFS and IM4_TRANS (bottom plot) is now dramatically reduced compared to alog 42362, i.e. the peaks we see in the WFS are not on the beam entering the interferometer. This plot suggests that the noise is coming from IOT2. The peaks in the IM4_TRANS pit and yaw spectra are also present in the sum output of the PD.
The second attachment shows the beam-widths-calibrated spectra from alog 42373, with the IMC locked at 10 W for the IM4_TRANS (yellow, black), bullseye PD (red, blue), and unlocked for the WFS spectra (pink, green, cyan, brown traces). The low frequency IM4_TRANS spectrum is quieter, and the coherence with the bullseye is no longer high. If the peaks in the IMC-WFS spectra were due to beam jitter they should be visible in IM4_TRANS.
Also note for these plots we have not yet addressed the sqrt(2) error in the bullseye calibration.
A few comments to have a reference for future memory:
All those results seem to point in the direction that:
1) almost all the noise we see in the WFS is not real beam jitter that will go into the IMC and the IFO
2) we do not have any evidence that the relevant beam jitter is now larger than during O2
3) but we don't have either any evidence that the beam jitter is significantly better
4) we can probably conclude that the beam jitter is not worse (except for a few peaks that are visible on IM4, but they might be residual intensity noise)
Thomas, Sheila, Georgia
Summary
We have calibrated the width, pitch, and yaw outputs of the PSL bullseye PD, accounting for the larger beam size incident on the detector.
We then compared the PSD at the bullseye with the IMC-WFS (on reflection, measured with IMC unlocked) and IMC-IM4_TRANS (with IMC locked) to look for jitter coupling.
The jitter measured by the bullseye PD is 2-3 orders of magnitude below the WFS noise, implying that our jitter does not originate from the 70 W amplifier.
Bullseye PD calibration
Keita reported yesterday on the installation of the bullseye PD, on a pick off directly after the 70 W amplifier stage (alog 42344). TVo and I set about updating the filter banks, which convert the individual segments to width, pitch and yaw, relative to the beam width on the photodiode. We calculated the beam width based on the power on the outer and inner segments, and following Vaishali and Kiwamu's note (DCC-T1700126) calculated the new responses. The new gains are:
g_width = 0.55
g_pit = 0.61
g_yaw = 1.06
Which is only a few percent off the previous gains.
Comparing bullseye PD and IMC spectra
To calibrate the bullseye PD, IMC-WFS, and IMC-IM4_trans such that they can be compared quantitatively, we did a calibration similar to alog 39434 - including the PMC and IMC suppressions, and converting the IMC PDs to units of beam width. The bullseye raw data is multiplied by the PMC and IMC suppressions; the IMC-WFS data is multiplied by the IMC suppression and the factor of sqrt(pi/8) to convert to units relative to beam width, and the IMC-IM4_TRANS data is multiplied by the factor of sqrt(pi/8).
The PMC suppression was calculated from DCC-T0900616, S_PMC = 0.0163. The IMC suppression was calculated from DCC-T060269, and the finesse from DCC-G1400096, giving S_IMC = 0.0039.
The calibrated plot is attached. The bullseye PD spectra are well below the IMC-WFS (showing lots of jitter) and IMC-TRANS traces.
Attached is the spectra of the bullseye photodiode, now versus O2. The references are from 20170817, which show significantly higher noise in pit, yaw, and wid compared. This supports the idea that the 70W amplifier has much lower jitter motion and the increased jitter seen at the IMC_WFSs (aLOG-42362‌ and aLOG-41947) could be coming from something downstream of the laser.
Somewhat puzzled. The plot indicates that at 10-100Hz the jitter as measured by IM4 is larger than before the IMC, but coherent with the bullseye at the 0.1 to 0.3 level!?
How are the IMC WFS DC signals calibrated? The DC signals are good for measuring jitter, when unlocked. In the past, we had to apply a 1/3 factor when locked, see alog 34845.
I interpreted the plot to mean that the noise on IM4-TRANS is too high to see the jitter. I forgot to mention that the broadband coherence between the bullseye and IM4-trans depended on the incident laser power and looked much higher at low powers. This confused me as well.
Also note in this plot the WFS was measured at ~5W input power (if I've remembered correctly) while the IM4-TRANS was at ~17W input power.
Vaishali/Kiwamu's document calculates dw/w/sqrt(2) instead of dw/w where dw is the beam radius change and w is the beam radius, both at the detector, you need to multiply sqrt(2).
The normalized amplitude of the first radial LG mode that the detector is sensitive to is dw/w, not dw/w/sqrt(2).
I'll leave the check of PIT and YAW calculation to Georgia and Thomas.
If you're interested:
The misunderstanding might have come from some confusion about HG VS LG but I'm not sure.
When the waist size of the beam changes from w0 to w0+dw0 and the waist is displaced by dz, the resulting beam will be expressed by a linear combination of the lowest LG mode LG0 and the first LG radial mode LG1 as
E = LG0 + (dw0/w0+i*dz/zR/2) * exp(i*2*pG) * LG1
where zR is the Rayleigh range and pG is the Gouy phase at the detector. The amplitude of the higher order mode is abs(dw0/w0+i*dz/zR/2), not dw0/w0/sqrt(2) nor dw/w/sqrt(2).
Only the real part of LG1 term is detected as the change of the beam radius when you use DC detector like Bull's eye. pG rotates the complex mismatching parameter and selects the DOF that is measured. For example if pG=0 (detector is at the waist) or +-pi/2 (the detector is in the far field) abs(dw/w)=abs(dw0/w0), and the detector is insensitive to the waist position change to the first order. If pG=+-pi/4 (detector is away from the waist by Rayleigh range) dw/w=-+dz/zR/2 and it's insensitive to the waist size change.
In general, the radius change at the detector is
dw/w=dw0/w0*cos(2*pG)-dz/zR/2*sin(2*pG)
and the detector is insensitive to the orthogonal DOF i.e.
dw0/w0*sin(2*pG)+dz/zR/2*cos(2*pG).
Georgia and I checked the Pit and Yaw calibration for how Vaishali and Kiwamu scaled the units and they are in terms of dw/w which Keita had pointed out is the correct way to compare the bullseyes to the QPD. So we'll change the calibration factor of the width by a sqrt(2) and leave pitch and yaw alone.