This entry summarized the status of REFLAIR_B signals. REFLAIR_B is the broadband photodetector, D1002969, mounted in reflection of the interferometer which is responsible for measuring the 3f signals at 27 MHz and 136 MHz in DRMI. The 3f signals are relatively weak, especially at low modulation depth. This has lead to a low signal-to-noise ratio at sub milliampere photocurrent and distortion problems above a milliampere. The problem of saturation by out-of-band intermodulation products was recognized early on a LLO and fixed with a diplexer amplifier, D1300989.
The situation at LHO and LLO are essentially the same.
Koji has recently measured the second order intermodulation products of the RF chain in the broadband photodetector and found the second order intercept point to be rather low, around 30 dBm. This is maybe not too surprising considering these RF amplifiers are single transistors or Darlington configurations operated around a fixed DC working point. No specification of the IP2 is given in the datasheet.
This leads to the conclusion that 3f signals at LHO are predominantly due to intermodulation distortion in the RF amplifier chain and not due to the optical signals. This obviously works just fine for the DRMI, but probably doesn't give the required immunity to the carrier mode for full interferometer locking.
Possible solutions:
Increasing the modulation depth and reducing the photocurrent at the same time will not improve the situation, since the distortion depends on the absolute signal strengths of the individual RF lines. However, removing the first amplifier stage should give us enough room to further increase the modulation depth and improve the signal-to-noise ratio. Using a high modulation depth during locking may require an adjustable EOM driver, such as the, D0900760.
Betsy, Travis
This alog represents the last ~month of intermittent assembly work on the 3IFO QUAD unit "Q7".
After switching out 3 problematic wire segments and the entire set of top stage blade cartridges, we have finally launched a first round of testing on Q7 this morning.
Details:
After assembling and fully suspending Q7, we had a difficult time bringing the 6 DOFs of each chain into coarse alignment. We discovered that the top most blades used in the QUAD were the softest of any QUAD unit thus far, as per the stiffness catalog T1000068. In fact, this set had a much wider variation in stiffness than any other unit as well which was adding to our challenge. We decided that we should delegate this set of blades to the spare bin and swap them with another set. After swapping in a set from the middle of the stiffness range (Tops Set 7), we saw the QUAD chain alignment was much improved in side shift. We then continued to struggle with differential height. We decided that we might have had a wrong wire segment length lower in the chains so we first switched in new main chain PUM loop which had no effect, and then switched in a new set of reaction bottom and final wires which did help our differential height issue. (We confirmed the removed sets were ~1-2mm longer than the new set although we really don't know which is "correct".) With all of this new hardware, we were able to align the chains to within the coarse specs. We laced up the reaction chain lower stages and readjusted alignments and suspension mechanical groundings. Yesterday we assembled the top mass tablecloth and cabled/attached/aligned top 12 BOSEM sensors. Today we are running TFs.
Over the past 2 days, there has been a series of earthquakes (26 so far, ranging from 2.5 to 4.7 magnitude) near Lakeview, OR, approximately 400 miles south of LHO. Something for commissioners to keep in mind as they struggle to lock the IFO. See attachment.
re WP 4913
I switched the HEPI pump Servo to run on the true differential pressure as LLO has been doing forever. I did glitch the system through my sillyness. I was all ready to do it without any serious glitch and next time it will be better. Still, the HEPI position loops on the platform did not trip--pretty good support for the hydraulic system. The differential pressure now does look slightly noisier based on the time series. But of course this is now a sum of two noisy signals, maybe time for some smoothing and serious grounding study.
Attached is 45 minutes of second trends for the Pump station channels and some cartesian basis HEPI L4C signals. I don't see any ill affects of this transition so far.
So the alarm manager is okay as I changed the database alarms. The medm though is also common so if you open the EndY HEPI Pump Servo medm, it will show pressure not okay. When it is deemed okay to continue down this path, I'll update the medm when I install the same database changes at EndX.
no restarts reported
Alexa, Nic, Evan, Dan, Sheila
Tonight we went back to trying to get ALS DIFF working well. We aren't sure what the problem is.
First Nic checked that the gain of the 2 ESDs were the same. The old X gain in L3 LOCK L was 0.2, the new one is 1.12 The old Y gain was 0.7 the new one is 0.384. We also checked the crossover by using the green control signal.
Attached are some plots, based on the suspension model that Jeff used to design the DIFF loop, and filters downloaded from foton. This is using none of the boosts for DIFF, which is how we have been running the last few nights without being able to use the ESD. The two plots on the left are the cross overs for our loop, and the open loop. We can use these plots to compare what we have now to what Jeff originally designed, (G1400146-v2) We also copied the livingston filters, see alog (12590), their crossover is the third plot while their open loop (we added a scaling factor to get the right ugf) is the last plot on the right.
Btoh ESDs are driving, but we seem unable to use them in the loop.
Nic, Alexa, Sheila, Evan, Dan
We wanted to measure the crossover between L1 and L3 of ETMY. We took a transfer function from LOCK_L1/L3 to ALS-Y_REFL_SERVO_CTRL_OUT with green locked to the yarm. We found an old template made by Sheila and Stefan for the L1 stage. We repeated the measurement for a few data points (green trace), and it seemed the same as the old measurement (blue) so we aborted the measurement and went with the assumption that it was still a valid measurement. We then measured for the L3 stage (red trace). Clearly the crossover between L1 and L3 is about 2 Hz as expected. Nic plans on dividing these two transfer functions tomorrow morning...
Fo reference the xml file is located here: /ligo/home/sheila.dwyer/ALS/HIFOXY/Y_UIM_2.xml
Here is the ratio of the ETMY UIM and ESD actuator gains (red and blue traces in original post).
It looks like our crossover is about 2Hz and the phase margin is about 45 degrees.
After spending far too long scratching my head about calibrating the OMC DCPD signals, I've measured the RIN of the OMC transmitted beam, and it's not pretty.
To make the measurement I locked the OMC on the side of a carrier TEM00 fringe, as described here. I measured the open-loop transfer function; this is the first plot attached (UGF is 100Hz, which is about the same as when we're dither-locked on the peak of the fringe with much higher gain in the LSC servo). To calibrate OMC-DCPD_NORM into true RIN I divided by 1/(1+G) in DTT so that the loop suppression is accounted for. To calculate the RIN seen by other PDs, I divide by the PD sum at DC.
The results, in the second plot, show that the beam incident on HAM6 has some issues. At high-ish frequencies, 100Hz and up, the OMC Trans intensity noise is due to noise out of the mode cleaner. It's coherent with IM4 Trans and the ISS second loop PDs. Probably this noise can be mitigated using the ISS second loop and also reducing the IMC angular fluctuations that were described by Gabriele.
At low frequencies, between about 0.2 and 3Hz, there is huge intensity noise on the input beam to HAM6 beam that is not seen just after the IMC (neither IMC_TRANS or the ISS second loop PDs). The noise is seen in HAM6 by the OMC QPDs (in green - limited by electronics noise above 50Hz?) and by ASC-AS_C (dashed black). At high frequencies the intensity noise in HAM6 is coherent with the noise out of the IMC, but the loud stuff around 1Hz is likely due to the clipping that Keita measured yesterday.
The third plot shows an attempt at characterizing the length noise of the OMC; the loop-corrected RIN was converted into meters using the derivative of the usual Fabry-Perot transmission formula at half-resonance (the conversion factor is 3.7e8 RIN/meter). This is a first step towards building an OMC noise budget, following the work by Zach at LLO. At high frequency (around a kHz), the noise begins to drop below the limit of 3x10^-16 meters/rt[Hz] prescribed by Valera's estimate in G1100903, but there's a forest of lines around 1kHz that's not unlike what was observed at L1. At lower frequencies, the noise seen at the DCPDs is dominated by the input intensity fluctuations, and it's not possible to measure the length noise that's intrinsic to the cavity. The photocurrent during these measurements was about 3mA for each DCPD (shot noise RIN of 10^-8/rt[Hz]).
Most of the noise between 50 and 800 Hz is largely non stationary, as visible in the spectrogram (figure 1). It is also clear that the non-stationarity is very similar to the one we see directly in transmission of the IMC
This non stationarity is, as expected, closely related to angular motions of the IMC. In particular, the noise fluctuates in the same way as the IMC transmitted power (figure 2). My guess is that the DC alignment of the IMC is again not very good.
Evan, Alexa
Even after the ETMY L2P work performed yesterday (alog 14832), last night we found the L 2 angle for ETMY was still bad. So today we did some more investigation, again. I don't think we made any big head-way, but I will post what we did and the results anyways...
Setup: We excited ETMY_L1_LOCK_L at various frequencies with an amplitude of 5e5 cts and 0 deg phase. The LOCK filters that are nominally installed were left on. Using the pitch lock-in, we demdoluated the pitch oplev signal at the respective frequencies and noted the I and Q signals. We then turned off this excitation and excited ETMY_L1_DRIVEALIGN_Y2P_EXC. This Y2P filter bank was empty, and we changed the gain from 0 to 1. The phase of this excitation was also set to 0 deg. We adjusted the gain such that the magnitude of the I,Q signals was close to that induced by the LOCK_L excitation. Then, we adjusted the phase of the Y2P excitation until we reduced both I, Q signals to zero. In other words, we drove in length with the LOCK_L, and examined the motion in the pitch oplev. We reduced this motion with an excitation in the Y2P drive align matrix. We had hoped this information would help us create a patch and improve our L2P in L1.
Results:
0.8 Hz
LOCK_L EXC = 5e5cts only | Y2P Gain = 16, 0 deg only | |
I | -0.412 | 0.174 |
Q | -0.082 | 0.387 |
|z| | 0.42 | 0.43 |
ang(z) | 11 deg | 66 deg |
With both excitations, and Y2P phase set to 55 deg, then I = -0.026, Q = -0.006
0.6 Hz
LOCK_L EXC = 5e5cts only | Y2P Gain = 16.5, 0 deg only | |
I | 0.54 | -0.585 |
Q | 0.44 | 0.46 |
|z| | 0.7 | 0.74 |
ang(z) | 39 deg | 38 deg |
With both excitations, and Y2P phase set to 1 deg, then I = -0.01, Q = -0.01
0.5 Hz
LOCK_L EXC = 5e5cts only | Y2P Gain = 10, 0 deg only | |
I | 1.02 | -0.85 |
Q | -0.33 | 0.73 |
|z| | 0.42 | 1.12 |
ang(z) | -18 deg | -40 deg |
With both excitations, and Y2P phase set to -22 deg, then I = -0.06, Q = -0.1
0.4 Hz
LOCK_L EXC = 5e5cts only | Y2P Gain = 3.8, 0 deg only | |
I | 0.045 | -0.092 |
Q | 0.083 | -0.019 |
|z| | 0.095 | 0.094 |
ang(z) | 3 deg | -2 deg |
With both excitations, and Y2P phase set to -5 deg, then I = -0.003, Q = -0.095
We then decided to take a transfer function from L1_LOCK_L_EXC to the pitch oplev, from 0.1 to 1 Hz, which was our region of interest. We forgot to save the DTT template and closed it, but the results were consistent with the measurement above within 10 dB. So we created a notch at 0.5 Hz since it seemed like we were over compenstating this resonance. However, our oplev spectrum did not improve at all. So we moved onto the damping which seemed to help a good amount at these frequencies. One thing we still need to check is confirm which of the stages has the worst L 2 angle.
Another thing... I talked to Arnuad at LLO and all their L2P, L2Y filters in the ETMs are simple low pass filters with the DC gain set to minimize the coupling. The LOCK filters then have nothces at 9, 10 Hz to handle those resonances, but no other resonance are compenstated for. Their M0 damping filters are "aggressive" and help reduce the angular motion.
Alexa, Evan
The ETMY oplev damping was off. We have turned both picth and yaw damping back on.
Additionally, I have tweaked the filters and the gain slightly in order to reduce gain peaking:
According to conlog, the loop gains appear to have been randomly adjusted several times over the last week.
We hope that this might improve the robustness of the ALS locking. If not, we might try a similar recommissioning of the ETMX oplev damping (since this are also off).
Nic, Evan
Last night, we were playing around a bit with the loop shape of the ETMY pitch oplev damping. We returned to the original shape, but found we could not reengage the loop without causing the optic to oscillate. It is currently locked with a factor of 10 less gain (0.3 → 0.03), which is stable but is probably not suppressing the optic motion at all.
I and Daniel were talking about the reason why there are bounce and roll coupling, and the bounce should be the local gravity axis versus the arm angle.
I looked at old DCC document (T980044) and found that Y arm is almost parallel to the vertex local Y axis while X arm is almost parallel to the X end local X axis.
Below is a table of angle deviation from pi/2 between the relevant arm and the local vertical defined by the gravity. Deviation=0 means that the arm is orthogonal to the local gravity. FYI, the difference in the local gravity angle over 4km is about 2*pi*4km/40000km = 628 urad.
EX (X end vertical VS global X) | EY (Y end vertical VS global Y) | IX (Vertex vertical VS global X) | IY (Vertex vertical VS global Y) | |
LHO | 8 urad | 639 urad | -619 urad | 12 urad |
LLO | 315 urad | 19 urad | -312 urad | -611 urad |
The bounce coupling is directl proportional to these numbers.
LHO EY is 80 times worse than LHO EX. At LLO EX is worse than EY, but LLO EX should be a factor of 2 better than LHO EY.
By Keita.
Roll mode:
If the roll motion happens in the plane that bisects the angle formed by the HR surface and AR surface, there's some coupling to length because of the wedge angle.
If that's the mechanism, the coupling depends on the centering on the mass.
By Keita
Jeff pointed out that some incoherent sensor noise (I think that's the phrase he used) in Krishna's post from earlier today. He suggested this may be due to RY coupling to X. We might be able to fix this by pushing up the blend on RY or use a blend the rolls off the seismometers at low frequency. RX and RY already use Ryan's 250 mhz blends, so at first glance we only have 1 filter with a higher blend. I've attached 4 plots, the first three of which show CPS, L4C and T240 components respectively of our available blends. The fourth plot compares the T01_28 (dashed) components and the current 250mhz blend (solid). It looks like the T01_28 maybe (?) fits the bill for more low frequency roll off of the seismometers.
9:15 Fil Aaron to EX working on cabling
10:00 Alastair to LVEA TCS-Y table
10:15 Hugh, Gerardo to LVEA
10:30 Alexa transitioning EY
11:30 JeffB to LVEA, moving SUS pallets for 3IFO
11:00 Kyle to EY cleaning up tools, done 12:00
13:00 JeffB, Bubba to LVEA looking at craning operations around High Bay, out 13:15
14:00 Gerardo to LVEA
14:30 Hugh, Suresh to HAM2 HAM3 for oplev work
K. Venkateswara
I had installed temperature sensors on BRS and GND_T240 yesterday as described in 14825. The first plot shows the trend over a day along with the PEM_VEA temperature sensor. The count to Kelvin conversion was expected to be 1.56e-3 K/count. This seems roughly consistent with the temperature of the T240. The BRS temperature sensor shows a lower magintude and a phase offset due to it's extra thermal shielding and larger mass.
The attached pdf shows the ASD of the temperature sensors and the coherence between them and their respective instruments. The temperature sensors are mostly limited by ADC noise. An op-amp based pre-amp of 50-100 gain would be useful. BRS_RY_Out shows a little bit of coherence near few mHz while T240 X, Y and Z show no coherence with the temperature sensor.
You should add the ADC noise to this plot
I've added a comment about it in 14909. I'm not sure how to display the ADC noise in DTT. In any case, it shouldn't be limited by ADC noise any more.
J. Warner, K. Venkateswara
We have turned on sensor correction on Z and X at ETMX since noon today.
Z on ETMX had been switched to TBetter blend by an unknown person during the weekend. Jim switched it back to the 90 mHz blend(Ryan's LLO blend). We then also turned on the X sensor correction which is currently using the tilt-subtracted super sensor.
The first two pdfs show the before and after plots for the two configurations. Before was taken ~3 am this morning and after was at ~12 noon. Note that the improvements in Yaw/Pitch at low frequencies were largely due to going to the 90 mHz blend and then using Z sensor correction.
The third plot shows the improvement in X and Z transfer functions from the ground to Stage 1 before and after the configuration change.
It seems to be helping over a large frequency range above 10 mHz and not hurting anywhere, so we will leave it on for overnight monitoring. If it affects commissioning in any way, it is easy to turn off through the ISI screens.
edit: Z sensor correction is to HEPI_IPS and X is to Stage1_CPS
J. Kissel, J. Warner In the "after" configuration, given that the coherent linear transfer function ("SCimprovement.pdf") only shows a factor of a few amplification at 50 [mHz], yet the ASD shows a factor of 20-30 amplification, I argue that this is even more evidence for re-injection of residual tilt noise of ST1. I haven't done the usual X_blend * RY * g/w^2, but I've suggested that Jim try to play around with the RY blend filter (i.e. just use one of the other blends we already have in the bank) and see if the change in performance of RY improves or worsens the X performance. #weneedamodel P.S. The optic looks like it was misaligned for the "after" measurement, or there was a laser glitch during the measurement, because the optical lever noise floor seems supremely high, and I'm confident does not reflect the displacement of the optic. The "before" looks OK.
As the wandering laser intensity continues I intend to learn more about these systems. I can only report the findings and make the adjustments. ISS diffracted power is down to ~5% this morning. REFSIGNAL was at -2.04V as it was set by me yesterday. Today I have adjusted REFSIGNAL to -2.02V to bring the diff power to ~8.6%. Attached is a past 5 day trend. the spikes, i am told, are likely caused by activations on MC2? (for example)
Summary
- Follow up measurement for the alog above was done.
- It was confirmed that the first preamp (MAR-6SM) is creating the domnant intermodulation and we will be able to improve it
by removing this first preamp as suggested (by costing some noise increase).
- It may become overkill if we are going to apply notch filters as being tested at LLO. Therefore it is also planned to test other amplifiers
that are similarly low noise to MAR-6SM, and are located between MAR-6SM and GALI-6 in terms of the intermodulation performance.
2nd-order & 3rd-order intercept points (IP2/IP3)
To quantitatively confirm Daniel's expectation above, I took measurements of the amplifier IP2/IP3.
IP2 and IP3 for an amplifier are defined by from the amount of harmonic distortions as
P2 [dBm] = P1 [dBm] x 2 - IP2 [dBm]
P3 [dBm] = P1 [dBm] x 3 - IP3 [dBm]
Here, P1 is the power of the linear output, and P2/P3 are the power of the 2nd/3rd harmonics.
When P1 reaches IPn, Pn becomes equal to P1. i.e. the output starts to be dominated by the n-th order.
Of course, we usually can't drive the amplifier at that level, this is purely a mathematical way to quantify nonlinearlity of the amplifier.
Basically the power of the bilinear intermodulation can also be estimated with IP2 in the same way as above.
Just replace P1 with the total power of two signals into the formula for P2. There may be some factors like 3dB, but just forget about it for now.
TEST1: Nominal configuration (MAR-6SM + GALI-6)
In order to measure IP2/IP3 of the nominal amplifier configuration of the BBPD, the input power was swept from -60dBm to -20dBm.
The input frequencies of 9MHz and 45MHz was used in order to check the frequency dependence. In fact, there was no significant
frequency dependence as we'll see in the result. Therefore only the input frequency of 45MHz was used in the other measurements.
Attachment 1 shows the relationship between the amplifier input power and the output power at the fundamental, 2nd harmonic,
and 3rd harmonic frequencies. The lines were manually applied to illustrate IP2/IP3. From the line for the linear power (red), the gain of
the amp chain was determined to be 32dB. In this configuration, IP2 and IP3 were 35dBm and 31.5dBm, respectively.
Practically, we want to know how much intermodulation (IMD) we produce when the amplifier is connected to the IFO.
I gazed Evan's measurement (14807) again and determied the combined power for 9MHz+36MHz, and 45MHz+91MHz to be
-0.5dBm (-32.5dBm at the input) and -11.9dBm (-43.9dBm at the input), respectively. These are indicated as the vertical black lines in the figure.
We expect to have -0.5*2-35 = -35.5dBm of IMD for 27MHz, and -11.9x2-35 = -58.8dBm of IMD for 135MHz. That is not too far from what we see
from Evan's meausrment. (Sanity check)
TEST2: The 1st preamp only (MAR-6SM)
Attachment 2 shows the same measurement only with the first preamp (MAR-6SM)
Roughtly to say, IP2 of MAR-6SM is reduced by a factor of 14.5dB, which is close to the gain of the second amp (13dB).
This means that the IMD performance of the chain is limited by this amp. Minicircuits show IP3 only in the spec sheet.
The measured value (18.5dBm) is close to the spec (18.1dBm). (I'm not insane)
TEST3: The 2nd preamp only (GALI-6)
Attachment 3 shows the same measurement only with the second preamp (GALI-6)
This amplifier has much better IP2/IP3 than the 1st one. Again the measured IP3 (38dBm) is close to the spec (35.5dBm)
This measuerement indicates that we'll have the IMD of -70dB and <-80dB relative to the source of the IMD when the first amp is removed.
Drawback & some other possibilities
As Daniel pointed out, the second preamp has worse Noise Figure than the first one. So we expect to have worse noise level in terms of the shotnoise intercept photocurrent.
Also Matt is testing on-board notch filters at LLO. If we consider to apply some notching, this GALI-6 could become overkill.
I ordered some other amplifiers like GALI-39, GALI-52 (Daniel's pick), and MAR_8A. They are similarly low noise to MAR-6SM, compatible packages
to the PCB, and located between MAR-6SM and GALI-6. Once they arrive, I'll carry out the same tests.