TITLE: 08/31 Eve Shift: 23:00-07:00 UTC (16:00-00:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Commissioning
INCOMING OPERATOR: None
SHIFT SUMMARY: Commissoining and an earthquake.
LOG:
Today the AIP cables for Beam Manifold 122, 136, 192 and 196 were landed.
BM122 and 136 go from the H1 input and output mode cleaner tubes to the vacuum rack located along the X-arm, also known as LX.
BM192 and 196 go from the diagonal input and output mode cleaner tubes to the vacuum rack located along the Y-arm, also known as LY.
These cables communicate the pressure at the annulus joints to the racks.
Note:Today while landing cables at the rack for BM192 and 196, power to PT180 was removed (2x), after landing the AIP wires power was restored to PT180.
Work permit 6089 was closed.
6.7 in Papua New Guinea shook us about for a few hours. We put the SEI configuration to EarthQuake and then tried locking after a handful of minutes and it looked like it was doing well, getting us to SWITCH_TO_QPDS before losing lock. When the seismometers looked low enough and we still could not lock, we tried switching back to WINDY and then we immediately noticed a difference and made it all the way to DC_READOUT.
Perhaps the EarthQuake configuration is not as good as we previously thought.
Jeff K, Chris Whittle
We used the interometer uptime to test the ITM charge measurement script by taking data for ITMX. With the previously used excitation frequency of 20.1 Hz being used for other measurements, we opted for an excitation at 11.5 Hz. At this frequency, we found an excitation amplitude of 1k counts to be sufficient for a good SNR. We have taken data at bias voltages between -10k and 10k counts, but have yet to perform post-processing.
We additionally tested whether flipping the analog voltage out switches to the quadrants had any effect on the locked interferometer. No effects were observed for flipping on/off quadrant voltages in various orders. This test was performed on just ITMX and with no actual output voltage to the quadrants.
Plotting the PSD for each of the tested bias voltages (see here) shows almost identical peaks in DARM for each bias voltage. I confirmed that the voltages being driven at the time were as expected (see here).
Zooming in on the PSD (see here) shows a peak ordering that seems consistent with a zero crossing at a large negative bias voltage. This is inconsistent with previous measurements, which found a zero crossing at 3k for ITMX. I will repeat these measurements later, covering the full range of bias voltages.
The same measurement was repeated sweeping over a larger range of bias voltages (up to ±100k counts). Attached are plots of the DARM response as a function of bias voltage for both sets of measurements. Both are consistent with a zero crossing at a large negative bias voltage.
Expecting PT120 to be 3 x 10-9 torr -> Don't see logged activity to explain -> am on road and not able to trend data etc.
Probably gauge problem since 114 did not follow.
Some more gauges -
Pressure change was due to incorrect wiring of PT-120 during Beckhoff transition and was brought to light when Gerardo incorporated signal wiring for AIPs and needed to turn off PT180 this week. Pressure reading now is correct (and the same as it was in Q2 2016). We should check other gauges to be sure they are wired properly and reading correct pressures. Wearing laser safety glasses contributes to issues like this because visibility is compromised.
J. Kissel In short: The ETM ESD bias signs have now been flipped. After whining about it since ER9, I've commissioned why the bias sign flipping had caused the ALS DIFF control to go unstable (and subsequently DARM once we get onto ETMY): controlling the loop gain sign beyond the ESD linearization just doesn't work. As such, I've restored all settings for both test masses to their successful settings back in April -- namely that from LHO aLOG 26826. As such, we've returned to the aesthetically displeasing but functional method of controlling the DARM loop sign in the DRIVEALIGN matrix. We still have yet to assess the impact on PI damping. ---------------------- Explicit details for the next time this becomes confusing: ETMX (1) Changed H1:SUS-ETMX_L3_LOCK_INBIAS from -9.5 [V] to +9.5 [V] (2) Changed H1:SUS-ETMX_L3_DRIVEALIGN_L2L_GAIN from +1.0 to -1.0 H1:SUS-ETMX_L3_DRIVEALIGN_L2P_GAIN from +0.021 to -0.021 H1:SUS-ETMX_L3_DRIVEALIGN_L2Y_GAIN from +0.007 to -0.007 (3) Changed H1:SUS-ETMX_L3_ESDOUTF_LIN_FORCE_COEFF from -124518.4 to +124518.4 (4) Made sure all H1:SUS-ETMX_L3_ESDOUTF_??_GAIN fields are +1 always, all the time, as before. (No changes need to the calibration model since we don't use ETMX in our lowest noise state.) ETMY (5) Changed H1:SUS-ETMY_L3_LOCK_INBIAS from +9.5 [V] to -9.5 [V] (6) Changed H1:SUS-ETMY_L3_DRIVEALIGN_L2L_GAIN from +30.0 [V] to -30.0 [V] (7) Changed H1:SUS-ETMY_L3_ESDOUTF_LIN_FORCE_COEFF from +124518.4 to -124518.4 (even though ETMY doesn't use linearization). (8) Made sure all H1:SUS-ETMX_L3_ESDOUTF_??_GAIN fields are +1 always, all the time, as before. (9) Changed H1:CAL-CS_DARM_FE_ETMY_L3_DRIVEALIGN_L2L_GAIN from +30 to -30 (10) Changed H1:CAL-CS_DARM_FE_ETMY_L3_ESDOUTF_UL_GAIN from -1 to +1, where it should remain always, all the time, as before. (11) Changed H1:CAL-CS_DARM_FE_ETMY_L3_ESDOUTF_LIN_FORCE_COEFF from +124518.4 to -124518.4 (even though ETMY doesn't use linearization). I've also redone (essentially reverted) the DOWN state in the ISC_LOCK guardian with respect to the ETM ESD settings, such that steps 2-3, and 6-11 are done automatically if a user does steps 1 and 5. Once we figure out the impact on PI damping, we'll code these up in the DOWN state of the ISC_LOCK guardian as well. Finally, I've accepted these changes into the H1SUSETMX down.snap (to which its safe.snap is a soft link) H1SUSETMY down.snap (to which its safe.snap is a soft link) H1CALCS safe.snap and OBSERVE.snap. SDF systems.
I have flipped PI ETM damping gain signs and confirmed successful damping many many times now. I've added a bias flip check to the SUS_PI guardian under the PI_DAMPING state; this will choose sign of gain based on sign of ETM bias.
Not that this is a surprise or anything, but I was noticing that the light on the OMC trans camera changes noticeably as the IFO thermalizes.
I've temporarily increased the exposure of the camera to 7000 (usually 569). You can't see much at 2W, but you start to see it at 20W and 35W - again not so surprising. What is perhaps more interesting is the way the light there changes after we've been at 50W for a while. The titles of the attachments include how long we were at each power. All images were taken during the same lock, so the 2 min at 50W image is after 5 min at 20W, and then 5 min at 35W, so it's not straight 2W->50W on this acquisition.
Since the original images are .tiffs, I've included a screenshot of all 6 images. Top row, left to right: 2W, 5min@20W, 5min@35W. Bottom row, left to right: 2min@50W, 6min@50W, 30+min@50W.
From the picture @2min 50W, I could see that this mode is probably one of the 9th-order modes.
I made the attached HOM map, based on the transverse mode spacing (TMS) of this OMC, measured during the final test.
It is likely that this 9th order mode is +9MHz sideband.
In order to try to push this mode away from the resonance, you can tune the DC voltage of the OMC PZT.
There must be two or three carrier TEM00 resonances in the OMC PZT range (0~100V) as one FSR corresponds to ~40V of the PZT voltage.
Choose the lowest voltage one. The DC voltage of the PZT changes the curvature of an OMC mirror and then the TMS by about 10ppm/V.
(Increasing the PZT voltage will not give us a good solution. It causes 10th -45MHz (cyan) mode comes into the resonance.)
You may already be at the lowest resonance, or the lowering the operating PZT voltage may not be enough to push the resonance away.
If this resonant HOM is still problematic, we need to reduce the leakage 9MHz sidebands from the interferometer.
[Sheila, Jenne]
We now lock the OMC on the carrier with the lowest PZT voltage possible, which is about 20V. We used to be locking with about 60V. It's not yet clear if this is enough of a change - we need to do some intensity noise coupling measurements with both lock points.
Here are some camera images though. Recall that in the last alog (29395) we spent some time at medium PSL powers before going up to 50W, so the total IFO thermal state isn't the same when we first arrive at 50W. The top row of images is from one lock, and the second row is from a different lock, although the times since arriving at 50W are accurate in the image titles. Top left is 2W DC Readout, then just after getting to 50W, then 2 min and 5 min at 50W. In a different lock the second row shows 35 and 45 minutes after arriving at 50W.
Posting Jenne's pictures for comment above
TITLE: 08/30 Day Shift: 15:00-23:00 UTC (08:00-16:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Commissioning
INCOMING OPERATOR: TJ
SHIFT SUMMARY: Down for maintenance, SRC Gouy phase measurements, and ISS work until ~21:00. Ran through initial alignment and the IFO locked up to DC Readout easily.
LOG:
15:03 Karen to LVEA
15:09 Bubba getting 3IFO crates down from LVEA racks for Betsy
15:11 Ed to EY OPLEV work
15:22 Peter to PSL racks looking at connectors
15:29 Peter out
15:29 Gerardo to LY vac rack
15:33 Richard to HAM2
15:45 Kiwamu to LVEA for Gouy phase measurements
15:52 FIle to EY WFS readbacks
15:56 Chandra to LVEA
16:00 RIchard to LVEA
16:15 Hugh restarting HEPI pump station
16:23 Norco to MX N2
16:54 Gerardo done
16:58 Chris to EX
16:58 Hugh to ends for HEPI checks
17:04 Richard to LX vac rack
17:06 Robert to LVEA setting up injection equipment
17:08 Karen to EY
17:09 Kiwamu out
17:21 RIchard out
17:34 John and Chandra to LVEA
17:46 Hugh done
17:51 Jeff B to LVEA
18:00 Gerardo to LVEA
18:01 Jeff B done
18:13 Karen out of EY
18:16 Corey to squeezer bay
18:37 John and Chandra done
18:37 Gerardo done
18:40 Jenne to LVEA regluing seismos
18:40 Kiwamu done with SRC meas.
18:40 Keita to swap ISS board
18:44 Corey out
18:55 Jenne done
19:02 Robert to LVEA
19:41 Keita done
20:22 Gerardo done
20:22 Chandra done
20:24 Kiwamu and Corey to LVEA taking pics
20:50 Kiwamu and Corey out
21:10 ETMx RMS WD tripped
22:34 Sheila to LVEA
Elli (remotely), Kiwamu
Today, I spent a few hours to get an SRC gouy phase measurement done. I was able to finish a first round of measurement.
The data will be analyzed by Elli remotely.
[The set up]
The first attachment shows a simplified layout of ISCT6 for the measurement.
It seems that the set up have been almost unchanged except for CAM17 which seems to be further away from the beam splitter in front by a couple of inches (see previous setup in 25510). This shift could be due to the re-alignment activity that Koji and I did 20 days ago (29030). We might have shifted the CAM17 position because it was in the way of the OMC reflection path. Nevertheless, the alignment of the beam onto CAM17 was already good from the beginning and I need a slight touch on a steering mirror to get the beam centered on CAM17.
Additionally, some more pictures are available at ResouceSpace.
[The measurement]
As opposed to the previous method, the method we tried today is an AC measurement or some kind of lock-in technique where we excite an optic (e.g. BS or PR2) at a non-zero frequency. Our hope is that it is going to get rid of undesired effects from slow drift of suspensions' alignment.
Laser power into IMC = 25 W
IFO configuration = single bounce with ITMY aligned (i.e. ITMX misaligned)
CO2Y = 287 mW
ITMY ring heater = 0.5 W (0.25 W for upper and lower segments each)
- The first measurement
Started at 18:10:42 UTC (Aug/30/2016)
Ended at 18:20:42 UTC (Aug/30/2016)
Excitation to SUS-BS_M1_OPTICALIGN_Y_EXC
Frequency 0.2 Hz
Excitation amplitude 5 urad
- The second measurement
Started at 18:28:20 UTC (Aug/30/2016)
Ended at 18:38:20 UTC (Aug/30/2016)
Excitation to SUS-PR2_M1_OPTICALIGN_Y_EXC
Frequency 0.2 Hz
Excitation amplitude 20 urad
[Detailed settings]
I adjusted the exposure time so that none of the pixels saturate while keeping high intensity counts. This ended me up with an exposure time of 700 (usec, I believe) for ASAIR (CAM18). Doing the same adjustment, I set that of CAM17 to 1000 usec. Also the followings are the camera settings that I used.
-CAM18 setting
[Camera Settings]
Camera Name = H1 AS Air (h1cam18)
maxX = 659
maxY = 494
Exposure = 3000
Analog Gain = 100
Auto Exposure Minimum = 150
Name Overlay = True
Time Overlay = True
Calculation Overlay = True
Do Calculations = True
Auto Exposure = False
Calculation Noise Floor = 25
Snapshot Directory Path = /ligo/data/camera
Frame Type = Mono12
Number of Snapshots = 1
Archive Image Minute Interval = 0
Archive Image Directory = /ligo/data/camera/archive/
[No Reload Camera Settings]
Base Channel Name = H1:VID-CAM18
Camera IP = 10.106.0.38
Multicast Group = 239.192.106.38
Multicast Port = 5004
Height = 480
Width = 640
X = 0
Y = 0
- CAM17 settings
[Camera Settings]
Camera Name = (h1cam17)
maxX = 659
maxY = 494
Exposure = 3000
Analog Gain = 100
Auto Exposure Minimum = 150
Name Overlay = True
Time Overlay = True
Calculation Overlay = True
Do Calculations = True
Auto Exposure = False
Calculation Noise Floor = 25
Snapshot Directory Path = /ligo/data/camera
Frame Type = Mono12
Number of Snapshots = 1
Archive Image Minute Interval = 0
Archive Image Directory = /ligo/data/camera/archive/
[No Reload Camera Settings]
Base Channel Name = H1:VID-CAM17
Camera IP = 10.106.0.37
Multicast Group = 239.192.106.37
Multicast Port = 5004
Height = 480
Width = 640
X = 0
Y = 0
[The data]
All the data that I took can be found in kiwamu.izumi/Public/measurements/20160830_SRCgouy/data/
The relevant time series are saved with dtt and therefore they are in xml format. The camera images were recorded for each measurement and they are saved in avi format.
By the way, there was one thing I did not understand.
The beam size as seen by AS AIR was smaller than that seen by CAM17. According to a coarse beam scan with a laser card and my eyes, the waist location seems to be roughly 5 inches upfront of CAM17. This made me expect that the beam size would be larger at AS AIR, but it was not. To double-check the beam sizes, I checked the beam profile of the beams on AS AIR and CAM17 using their images. The below are the camera images.
And the below are the horizontal profile of the above images (along the white dashed line).
According to my Gaussian fit, the beam radius on AS AIR is 43 pixels while the one on CAM17 is 62 pixels. So indeed the beam size on AS AIR is larger than CAM17 for some reason. I am not sure if this has been true in the past. Or maybe my coarse beam scan with a laser card was not precise enough.
I've made some time domain plots of camera centroid location vs optic location. The camera centroid is calculated across the entire image, we can improve this by fitting a gaussian beam to the images. The optic location is the oplev readout for the BS exitation, and the M3 witness sensor for the PR2 excitation. Ive fit a linear fit to these plots, and calculated an error on the slope from the covariance matrix, see attached. I really should have done this analysis in the frequency domain for better signal-to-nosie, so I'll follow this up.
This measurement looked at spot motion on IST6 cameras for a straight shot through the SRC. We need a second measurement of the spot motion of the beam that has made a round trip of the SRC, and then we can calculate the SRC gouy phase. The errors on this first part of the measurement indicate we should be able to measure the gouy phase to +/-10deg (and with further data processing I think we can reduce these errors a bit), which could let us know if the gouy phase is way off the design value. Looking at the quality of this data, I think it is worthwhile doing the follow-up measurement.
That said, there are a few things about these plots I don't understand. FIrstly there is a lot of scatter for what I was expecting to be a linear relationship, what is going on there? Secondly, two of the graphs cam18BS and cam17PR2 have these sharp edges like some clipping was going on. Maybe this would be removed by using fitting rather than the image centroid to track the location of the beam?
Gerardo, John, Chandra Craned the small scissor lift next to BSC4. Installed wide range hot cathode/pirani gauge and second all-metal valve on bottom existing valve (below CC/pirani pair). Pumped down and valved into main volume. Needs cables. Left scissor lift next to BSC4.
This morning at about 16:00UTC I made some adjustment to ETMY oplev as per WP #6123. I've included some photos of a 5day trend as well as a before and after 5 the AA reset. THe output power was increased by 7mV in an attempt to stop glitches. I don't know if the after reset pic is of any use as the suspension hadn't quite settled down.
1st attachment is a 1.5-day second trend of the ETMy SUM signal. It is clearly seen that after Ed reset the oplev AA chassis the signal is much quieter. Residual noise is likely caused by laser glitches. The glitching has improved with Ed's adjustment of the laser power, but it appears a further tweak is necessary (see the last 2 attachments; 1st is before adjustment, 2nd is after. Taken from the DetChar summary pages.).
I've re-epoxied Newtonian noise sensors #23 and #25 to their locations on the floor. These were removed during the HAM6 vent, and I hadn't taken the time to put them back yet. I still need to tape the cables to the floor - didn't want to do that until the epoxy is cured.
Jim & I put this PS back in the mix after it was off for a couple weeks for routine maintenance--just cleaned it up, checked the spider, and see directly how bad the pump seal leak was.
Attached is the 30 minutes of the servo'd platform positions and the local inertial L4Cs. You might believe the spike seen on the IPS_Z is correlated with the pressure drop (chans 15 & 16) when we valved in the still slow moving pump. But that glitch is not exceptional considering others occurring. The inertial vertical sensors do see some noise along with the Z IPS when the pump is finally up to speed and the servo drops the drive down to put the pressure on setpoint. It makes sense that the Z sensors would see this DC adjustment as it is the only DOF where the sign of all the sensors are the same (except horz pringle-not shown.) All other dofs have opposite signs cancelling DC shifts this change in DC pressure would produce.
Putting the PS back in service closes WP 5986.
B. Weaver, J. Kissel Betsy smartly gathered charge measurements yesterday while the PSL was down so as to avoid the usual Tuesday morning chaos. I've processed her measurements, and they show a similar story as last week. Nothing unexpected here -- we need to flip the bias sign if we have any hope of getting it back down to 0 [V] effective bias before the next observing run.
The new prototype board was modified to satisfy some of the things in the requirement (T1600064) as listed in 1., 3. and 5. below. I also listed things that were not modified but would have been good if recommendations in T1600064 were implemented.
I wouldn't claim that we won't modify it further, but this is just the current state.
In this entry you'll be able to see the electronics modifications in the attached, but the photos are too small to read the original component values, so read the original drawing D1600298 as necessary.
1. Readback of the PD array signal after the servo loop switch ("SUM PE MON") needed to be DC coupled.
The "whitening" was originally AC-coupled (second attachment) and therefore it was not compatible with digital AC coupling described in the requirement.
We bypassed the big caps in the input of the opamps with some resistors so it acts as one single pole at 2.7k with DC gain of 50 (second attachment, mod 1).
To make the OLTF measurement easier, we made the same change to the whitening downstream of the summation for the excitation DAC output.
The servo board output readback was also AC-coupled, but we want to see if everything is working fine including DC injected into the inner loop board.
We made the output whitening a true whitening (second attachment, mod 2). 0.35Hz zero might be too low, though.
2. The board doesn't implement the analog compensation for the in the inner loop filtering upstream of the error point.
The inner loop error point "whitening" works as a very steep boost seen from the outer loop, roughly an equivalent of (z, p) = ([3; 3; 130], [0.07, 0.07]). T1600064 reccomends to implement the same thing in the outer loop somewhere to cancel this effect to make the loop design simpler.
Since this is not compensated in the prototype board, the outer loop OLTF would become huge for f<3Hz. This means that the digital AC coupling servo should work REALLY hard to effectively AC-couple the entire outer loop at, say, f<1Hz, without reducing the outer loop gain at 10Hz and up.
We do not implement this by analog cut and paste job (no opeamp available for this on the board), but we'll try to make it work by an aggressive digital AC-coupling filter.
3. Integrator as a boost doesn't go well with digital AC coupling so it was converted to a usual boost with finite DC gain.
The error point of the digital AC coupling servo is kept zero at DC (i.e. a pole at zero Hz). The outer loop prototype had an integrator as a boost.
Of course they don't go well as any tiny DC difference between the AC coupling error point and the integrator input will be integrated and eventually the servo runs away. But we don't really need a pole at zero Hz.
We changed it such that the first boost acts as 50Hz LPF with DC gain of 10, and when added to a flat unity gain it becomes 500:50 boost (third attachment) (but see the next entry).
4. Boosts were implemented as three parallel integrators added to a flat unity gain.
We had a choice of unity gain, zp=50:0, 100:0 or 150:0. See the first and the third attachment.
As described in 3. above, we already changed one integrator to []:50 LPF so the boost becomes 500:50.
We didn't fix the parallel summation, it might be OK to go without any boost or using just one.
But T1600064 shows our standard practice of connecting boosts in series.
5. Outer loop servo filters on the board were also changed.
Originally the servo filtering was something like (z,p)=(100, [20^2;40]) (fourth attachment). As described in 2. above, 1st loop effectively adds ([3^2; 130], [0.07^2]). IMC adds another pole at ~8kHz.
Everything added together it's like ([3^2; 100; 130], [0.07^2; 20^2; 40; 8k]), and this might be OK.
But we made a change so the board became ([380;9k],[20^2;600]) by changing one of zero-Ohm resistors in the second stage and one C-R pair in the third stage (fourth attachment). Everything added together it would be ([3^2;130;380;9k], [0.07^2; 20^2;600; 8k]).
This change might not have been necessary. We just felt that letting a big 4.7uF capacitor and a zero-Ohm resistor to determine AC gain at around 10kHz in the first as well as the second stage was maybe too much of an uncertainty in the AC gain.
6. Sallen-Key at 0.1Hz for Digital AC coupling path might be too aggressive
For the moment the Sallen-Key is disabled for the digital AC coupling path (so the only analog filtering is a 10Hz LPF) to make things easier as we try to make it work.
Outer loop and digital AC coupling topology
Error point for the digital AC coupling is upstream of the summation point for the outer loop and the third loop (ERR1 in the attached medm). This comes from two requirements:
If the error point is downstream, the 3rd loop gain will be eaten by the AC coupling loop.
This means that, as we change the VGA gain, the offset coming between the AC coupling error point and the input to the VGA will be amplified and injected downstream, and if this becomes the problem we need to compensate for that using the analog excitation offset.
Second attachment shows the AC coupling OLTF, with the setting shown in the first attachment.
I was looking (again) at the ISS inner loop circuit diagram to make sure that I understand the system correctly and found that my alog 26879 was wrong about inner loop diode in that one pole and one zero were somehow swapped (see the new entry I've just made as an attachment to the alog 26879.
Anyway, since the amplitude actuation of the outer loop summation point of the inner loop is the inverse of the inner loop sensing "whitening", 2. should read
"The inner loop error point "whitening" works as a very steep boost seen from the outer loop, roughly an equivalent of (z, p) = ([3; 3; 2.34k;2.7k], [0.07;0.07;130])".
Sorry for a confusion, it seems like it's too late to fix the original alog entry above.
Correction of correction (sorry).
Original alog 26879 seems to have been correct, therefore the origial entry of this alog should be correct.
The inner loop error point "whitening" works as a very steep boost seen from the outer loop, roughly an equivalent of (z,p)=([3; 3; 130], [0.07, 0.07])
Sorry for further confusion. Again I cannot correct the above original entry nor the above correction any more, thus this entry.
Since there seem to be some confusions about which PD has what kind of analog filtering and sent to which channel, here it is.
I'm quite certain about HPO output before AOM (which is "Power monitor PD" in D1002929) and ISS 1st loop monitors, but not that sure about "monitor PD"s in D1002164. E-travellers are incomplete (they don't say which one is installed where), so I'm just listing the nominal values for these "monitor PD"s.
What | PD name on D0902114 | Circuit type | Analog out | Transimpedance (Ohm) | Analog filter | Channel | Note | Can you find Filter MEDM from sitemap as of this writing? |
HPO output before AOM | PD1 |
Power monitor PD, D1002929 |
DC | 3.3k DC |
H1:PSL-PWR_HPL_DC, DC_LF |
DC_LF is digital downstream of DC, EPICS output is visible as "Power Monitor PD" on PSL_LASER MEDM. |
No | |
AC | 16.5k AC | 5k HPF nominal | H1:PSL-PWR_HPL_AC | No | ||||
ISS 1st loop diodes after PMC | ISS_PDA, ISS_PDB |
Inner loop diodes, D1001998 |
"Filt" on the board, "AC" on the box | 660 DC |
z=[0.0723;2700;0.0707] Hz, p=[3.3607;130;3.12;2300] |
H1:PSL-ISS_PDA and PDB |
No dewhite, output is calibrated in volts. |
No |
H1:PSL-ISS_PDA_DC and PDB_DC |
Digitally low-passed version of PDA and PDB, but has a DC gain of 5 so the DC agrees with the analog of "DC" output on the PD box. | Yes, from ISS | ||||||
H1:PSL-ISS_PDA_AC and PDB_AC | Dewhitened and AC-coupled version of PDA and PDB, has a gain to match PDA_DC and PDB_DC | Yes, from ISS | ||||||
H1:PSL-ISS_PDA_REL | AC-coupled RIN made by PDA_AC/PDA_DC. | Yes, from ISS | ||||||
DC on the box | 3.3k DC | N/A | N/A | |||||
Frontend output before HPO but after FI | PD_AMP | DC on the box | 20k DC nominal | H1:PSL-OSC_PD_AMP_DC | EPICS output visible as "FRONTEND POWER" on PSL_LASER MEDM. | No | ||
AC on the box | 100k AC nominal | 5k HPF nominal | AMP_AC | No | ||||
Back-propagation rejected by FI between frontend and HPO | PD_ISO | PSL monitor PD, D1002164, T100047 | DC | 750 DC nominal | H1:PSL-OSC_PD_ISO_DC | EPICS output visible as "PDISO" on PSL_LASER MEDM. | No | |
AC | 3.75k nominal | 5k HPF nominal | ISO_AC | No | ||||
Back-propagating HPO mode leaking from HPO cavity? | PD_INT | PSL monitor PD, D1002164, T100047 | DC | 1k? | H1:PSL-OSC_PD_INT_DC | EPICS output visible as "PDINT" on PSL_LASER MEDM. | No | |
AC | 5k? | 5k HPF nominal | INT_AC | No | ||||
HPO Brewster plate rejection | PD_BP | PSL monitor PD, D1002164, T100047 | DC | 1.5k nominal | H1:PSL-OSC_PD_BP_DC | EPICS output visible as "PDBP" on PSL_LASER MEDM. | No | |
AC | 7.5k nominal | 5k HPF nominal | BP_AC | No |
I cannot edit the above entry any more, so here is an additional table showing digital filters.
what | analog | channel | model | digital | ||
HPO output before AOM | DC | H1:PSL-PWR_HPL_DC | h1pslpmc | None | ||
H1:PSL-PWR_HPL_DC_LP | p=0.05 | |||||
AC | H1:PSL-PWR_HPL_AC | None | ||||
ISS 1st loop diodes after PMC |
"filt" or AC (DC-coupled) |
H1:PSL-ISS_PDA (and PDB) | h1psliss | cts/volt conversion factor | ||
H1:PSL-ISS_PDA_CALI_AC |
z= [0.0707, 0.0723], p= [0.3, 0.3] and 2nd order 0.3Hz Butterworth HP in addition to dewhite, DC gain of 5. |
|||||
H1:PSL-ISS_PDA_CALI_DC | Some random LPF (p=[0.034141, 0.037449, 10430]), DC gain of 5. | |||||
H1:PSL-ISS_PDA_REL | None | |||||
Frontend output before HPO but after FI | DC | H1:PSL-OSC_PD_AMP_DC | h1pslpmc | Gain of 0.00349223 | ||
AC | H1:PSL-OSC_PD_AMP_AC | Gain of 0.000613 | ||||
Back-propagation rejected by FI between frontend and HPO | DC | H1:PSL-OSC_PD_ISO_DC | Gain set to 1 on May 11 2016 (alog 27112) | |||
AC | H1:PSL-OSC_PD_ISO_AC | Gain of 1 | ||||
Back-propagating HPO mode leaking from HPO cavity? | DC | H1:PSL-OSC_PD_INT_DC | Gain set to 1 on May 11 2016 (alog 27112) | |||
AC | H1:PSL-OSC_PD_INT_AC | Gain of 1 | ||||
HPO Brewster plate rejection | DC | H1:PSL-OSC_PD_BP_DC | Gain set to 1 on May 11 2016 (alog 27112) | |||
AC | H1:PSL-OSC_PD_BP_AC | Gain of 1 | ||||
PMC TRANS | ? | H1:PSL-PWR_PMC_TRANS | Gain of 0.0103, p=0.15 | |||
PMC REFL DC | ? | H1:PSL-PWR_PMC_REFL | Gain of -0.0248015, p=0.15 |
ISS inner loop (or 1st loop) diode has different filter than written above, it turns out. But 130Hz was a zero, not pole. 2.7k was a pole, not zero.
effective trans impedance = 660 Ohm (that's 0.2*3.3k).
z=[0.0707; 0.0723; 130]
p=[3.12; 3.36; 2.34k; 2.70k]
Tagging DetChar, IOO, and ISC for future reference.
Seems like I was really, really tired, here's a correction of correction. Really sorry for the confusion.
My original table was correct.
Inner loop PD is equivalen of 660Ohm, zp=([0.0707;0.0723;2.7k],[3.12;3.36;130;2.34k]).