Andres R. & Jeff B. We finished cabling and suspended H1-SR2. The masses appear to be hanging correctly as no BOSEM adjustments were necessary to center the flags. After confirming the 50% light positioning of the BOSEMs, we started the Phase 3A transfer functions.
- PSL Check done: Watchdogs look good, ref cav is locked but doesn't look clean and the FSS is resonant at 8:55 AM PT but only locked since 7:50 AM PT. Sheila D was notified. - ACB work in the West Bay - TMS work at EY - Electrical inspector on site to meet with Richard M. - HAM4 SR2 work
Scott, Mark, Mitchell Today with Apollo's help we were able to suspend the ACB from the solid stack to begin the balancing process. After correcting an assembly error on my part we successfully hung the baffle. For reasons still unknown the baffle is bottomed out with the documented payload added. After removing 5lbs of mass the baffle box was still mostly bottomed out. I am currently in discussions with Mike Vargas and Scott Shankle about this issue.
I updated all ODC strings, as well as the bitmask and string scripts in cds/h1/scripts: h1setODCbitmask h1setODCbitstrings SVN revision 7038
[Rich Hugh Arnaud]
When activating the ISI level 3 controllers the boost filter of level 2 under FM9 would be enabled (instead of level 3 boost under FM8). This was due to a simple error that we modified from the python script running behind the "isolate" command.
line 350 of script BSCISItool under
/opt/rtcds/userapps/release/isi/common/scripts/
was modified from :
if ($control_level eq 3) {@commands = ("ALL OFF DECIMATE OUTPUT INPUT FM4 FM5 FM6 ON") x $num_dofs, @boost_commands = ("FM9 ON") x $num_dofs; }
to
if ($control_level eq 3) {@commands = ("ALL OFF DECIMATE OUTPUT INPUT FM4 FM5 FM6 ON") x $num_dofs, @boost_commands = ("FM8 ON") x $num_dofs; }
the script was comitted under the svn revision 7037
We rencently noticed a rounding issue when saving filter files under foton for the first time. (See SEI aLog # 360)
We needed a brand new foton file, with the filters of an actual platform, to perfom before/after saving in foton comparison.
To do so: I made a backup copy of H1ISIITMY.txt. Then I Emptied the coefficients of H1ISIITMY.txt, after letting Hugh know that no one should reload the coefficients on ITMY while I was doing that. I then ran the SEI prepare script, which copies the coefficients from Matlab files to the Foton file. H1ISIITMY.txt was then the file I needed, I copied its content, and reverted H1ISIITMX.txt to the backup I made earlier.
While doing this, I noticed that, both before and after, the GDS_TP screen of the ISI was notifying a modified IIR file, meaning that the filters in the foton file did not match what was currently being used, and that filters would be updated when pushing the "coeff reload" button.
I've made some plots of the currently loaded filters on ITMX BSC-ISI
I used the program plot_current_blend_filters.m from /ligo/svncommon/SeiSVN/seismic/BSC-ISI/Common/
which reads the foton file and plots out the filters (thank you Ryan)
I only plotted out the low pass filters assuming that the high pass filters are appropriately complementary
A few comments
A filter name that starts with "T" means that the T240 will be part of the blend
LP filters that go flat at high frequencies are not recommended, so for instance the Stage 1 X 40mHz and T100mHz N0.44 are bad filters and will get replaced
The "best" we have been using the TCrappy filters which are what the blend filters are tuned to
Stage 1 RX TCrappy == TLLO
Z = X = Y
RX = RY = RZ
Thanks, Rich. Another comment: the "750 mHz" filters currently loaded don't provide enough filtering. They must be replaced by a better version, as shown page 22 of https://dcc.ligo.org/DocDB/0111/T1400008/002/T1400008%20List%20of%20SEI%20Complementary%20Filters.pdf The better version is in: HAM-ISI/Common/Complementary_Filters_HAM_ISI/HAM_no_HEPI_Comp_Filters_Stage12_750mHz_2012_10_02.mat These filters will soon be renamed and stored in a upper level common folder (not HAM specific). More generally, we are working on standardizing what can be, and defining how and where the .mat structures should be stored in the svn.
Everyone - ITMX motion has been largely reduced by the seismic teem, now the motion at 0.5 Hz is around 0.03 urad, A LOT less than before; - The tuning of the ETMX is still in progress, but in the meantime Stefan implemented a 'dirty' optical lever feedback which reduced the ETMX PIT motion by about a factor of 5 at 0.5 Hz. With the OL feedback on, ETMX PIT @ 0.5 Hz is around 0.1 urad. There is some gain peaking around 1 Hz. - In this state, the one arm is stably locked on green with 32 uW (calibration to be confirmed) in transmission (~840 counts in ALS-C-TRX_A_LF_OUT) power fluctuations are small, around 5%. We are not seeing the 01 coming into resonance, so we can make a measurement of the frequency noise red/green. (P.S.: Sheila says that ~800 counts is a good number, corresponding to a good cavity alignment.)
The OL design for ETMX PIT was based on Keita's vectfit of the ETMX L2 PIT to OL PIT plant: sos(-0.000000198849, [ -0.99974066400116; 0.00000000000000; -1.00095625813547; 0.00000000000000; -1.99993739410419; 0.99993764249344; -2.00093113886515; 1.00093232796495; -1.99994835681455; 0.99994838427413; -1.99934725191269; 0.99934827919189; -1.99996793385062; 0.99996797457313; -1.99994110527832; 0.99994113352954; -1.99997421429503; 0.99997458606360; -1.99991282601661; 0.99991309284645; -1.99998069701217; 0.99998073379973; -1.99995244319874; 0.99995248011907; -1.99998283879917; 0.99998288208110; -1.99998212292679; 0.99998216522750; -1.99999010413889; 0.99999013224953; -1.99999127808431; 0.99999130800992; ],"o") or equivalently zpk([-0.482248+i*2.71133;-0.482248-i*2.71133;-0.0712051+i*2.83338;-0.0712051-i*2.83338; -0.389292+i*3.12401;-0.389292-i*3.12401;-0.146104+i*3.36657;-0.146104-i*3.36657; -0.711974+i*8.43343;-0.711974-i*8.43343;-5.34064+i*15.7266;-5.34064-i*15.7266;7.63407+i*16.1483; 7.63407-i*16.1483;15.6598],[-0.422847+i*2.68189;-0.422847-i*2.68189;-0.080837+i*2.7458; -0.080837-i*2.7458;-0.15783+i*3.13851;-0.15783-i*3.13851;-0.262356+i*3.29586;-0.262356-i*3.29586; -0.140231+i*3.40571;-0.140231-i*3.40571;-0.510849+i*8.1497;-0.510849-i*8.1497; -0.208194+i*9.98768;-0.208194-i*9.98768;-4.24951],-1.98998e-07) This had three wrong half-plane zeros (and was therefore not invertable by switching poles and zeros) : 7.63407+i*16.1483; 7.63407-i*16.1483; 15.6598 To invert the plant, I moved the complex pole-pair to the left half-plane, and dropped the real pole completely. On top of this inverse plant filter, I added zpk([0],[0.333333;0.333333],10,"n")*resgain(0.45,2,20) the shape the filter, and tuned it on.
(Sheila, Alexa)
1. We wanted to re-visit the EX PLL shot noise measurement we had previously done.
2. WIth the EX PLL locked, the arm cavity well aligned, and the green beam flashing, we looked at the PDH error signal out of the demod IMON and measured the peak-to-peak of the signal to be 230mVpp
3. We went on to investigate the fringe wrapping we saw in the PDH amplitude spectrum at the error point. With the arm locked, we only saw a slight difference in the spectrum with the HEPA fans on or off (Sheila will attach pictures). There did not seem to be fringe wrapping, and the acoustic noise seemed minimal. I will look at the PDH shot noise again when I can misalign ITMX and see if the fringe wrapping is still there..
Results of last set of ETMY transfer function after finishing the alignment (see this alog for alignment numbers) are attached below, and look similar to what was taken monday night. TMS team can start (and probably already did) work on the installation. SUS will go in the next days check for lower masses flag/osem centering as well as top mass verticals.
Attached files :
H1 ETMY fiber after finishing alignment (in black) compared to first alignment (in orange) compared to LLO ETMX fiber in chamber. Main chain (1st pdf) and reaction chain (2nd pdf)
To notice :
- First pitch mode of the main chain fiber quads are shifted down (0.52Hz) compared to the model (0.562Hz). Cf p5 of first attachment.
Jim Rich and Hugh have been working on the ITMX ISI, and found a sign flip. Here are plots of the sus witness sensors (L2WIT) and OpLevs:
Modified instructions for turning on ITMX ISI after a trip:
Of course this mght change, especially the stage 2 blends might work with a different set of blends.
Looked at photo diode forward voltage for ETMY ACB per LIGO-T1100637. PD forward voltage(≈ 0.5V) Pin 13 & 12 PD forward voltage: 0.428V Pin 10 & 9 PD forward voltage: 0.421V Pin 7 & 6 PD forward voltage: 0.428V Pin 4 & 3 PD forward voltage: 0.421V Filiberto Clara & Mitchell
Andres and Jeff working on SR2
Finsihed at 11:10 AM PT
Working on ACB with Apollo.
Out for lunch at 11:44 AM PT
Back at the West bay @ 1:08 PM PT
Also measured & aligned the ERMy (Note: the ERMy is aligned parallel to the AR surface of the ETMy) and measured the gap between the ETMy and ERMy.
Note - we discovered yesterday that the Kentek gap detector was highly dependent on how level it's mounting was. So, the measurement is only good to about +/-0.25mm.
I believe the ITMX optical lever signals are calibrated in urad. If that's the case, the ITMX PIT motion right now is 0.3 urad RMS (this is with the ISI in the configuration Rich left it in). All the RMS comes from 0.1 - 0.7 Hz and I see 1 urad / sqrt(Hz) @ 0.5 Hz. This is significantly worse than ETMY/ITMY motion during the one arm test (0.2 urad/ sqrt(Hz) and 0.3 urad / sqrt(Hz) @ 0.5 Hz T1200450), and normal operations at LLO (0.4 urad RMS, and 0.05 urad/ sqrt(Hz) at 0.5 Hz - LLO log 8637). Need to double check that I am comparing apples to apples.
Don't you mean an RMS of 0.3 rad for pitch? At least, if the vertical axis is in microradians.
Yes, bad typo, I fixed the entry.
I have been silently checking the signal chain of the REFLAIR and POPAIR RFPDs using the AM laser (a.k.a. PD calibrator) to make sure that they are functional expectedly.
Summary
The RF frequency of the AM modulation was adjusted in each measurement such that the demodulated IF signal was below 50 Hz.
Calibration of the amplitude modulation depth
We recalibrated the AM laser.
The current setting of the laser was changed recently because we opened up the current driver when we thought the laser diode had been dead in the early December. Then the laser head and its current driver were sent to Rich at Caltech for his extensive testing although the laser magically fixed itself and he didn't find anything wrong. So this was the first time for us to use the AM laser which had been fixed. Because of that mysterious event, I wanted to recalibrate the laser. First of all, Yuta and I measured the power to be 2 mW with an Ophir Vega without the attenuation filter. Then we measured the modulation depth for the amplitude modulation by using a Newfocus 1611 as a reference.
The new calibration for the amplitude modulation is:
P_am = 5.13 mW x (P_dc / 1 mW) * (1 V / V_drive)
where P_dc is the laser power at DC and V_drive is the drive voltage when it is driven by a 50 Ohm source. For example, if one puts this laser to a PD which then shows a DC laser power of say 2 mW, the AM coefficient is now 5.13 mW x ( 2 mW / 1 mW) /V_drive = 10.26 mW/V_drive.
REFLAIR_A_RF9 (S1203919)
Remarks:
The signal chain is OK. The PD response is smaller by 15% for some reason.
It seems as if the transimpedance is smaller by 15% than what had been measured at Caltech (LIGO-S1203919). The cable loss from the RFPD to the rack was measured to be 0.47 dB. Be aware that the demod gain is half of the quad I/Q demodulator because this is a dual channel demod (see E1100044). The demod conversion gain is assumed to be 10.9 according to LIGO-F1100004-v4.
REFLAIR_A_RF45 (S1203919)
Remarks:
The signal chain is healthy.
Found cable loss of about 1.5 dB. The measurements excellently agree with the loss-included expectation.
POPAIR_A_RF9 (S1300521)
Remarks:
The signal chain is healthy.
The measurement suggests that there is loss of 1 dB somewhere. I didn't measure the cable loss this time.
POPAIR_A_RF45 (S1300521)
Remarks:
The signal chain is OK. Though loss sounds a bit too high.
The measurement suggests a possible loss of 2.6 dB somewhere. I didn't measure the cable loss.
REFLAIR_B_RF27 (S1200234)
Remarks:
The signal gain is bigger than the expectation by a factor of 2.3.
REFLAIR_B_RF135 (S1200234)
Remarks:
The signal gain is bigger than the expectation by a factor of 1.5
POPAIR_B_RF18 (S1200236)
Remarks:
The signal gain is bigger than the expectation by a factor of 2.3
POPAIR_B_RF90 (S1200236)
Remarks:
The signal gain matches with the expected value, but I don't believe this.
There was a typo:
P_am = 5.13 mW x (P_dc / 1 mW) * (1 V / V_drive)
P_am = 5.13 mW x (P_dc / 1 mW) x (V_drive / 1 V)
For 27MHz and 136.5MHz, the RF gains are +19.8dB and +50.7dB, respectively. S1400079
The response of the BBPD isn't really flat over all frequencies. See D1002969.
The description in D1002969 is for the initial version. (The schematics seems up-to-date.)
The latest version has the rf performance as attached.
This is a follow up of the calibration measurements for REFLAIR_B and POPAIR_B.
I have updated the expected signal gain for these photo detector chains using more realistic gains which Koji gave (see his comments above). Now all the values make sense. Note I did not perform any new measurements.
In the following calculations, the quantity in red represent the updated parameters.
REFLAIR_B_RF27(S1200234)
Remarks:
The signal chain is healthy. There is loss of 0.92 dB somewhere.
REFLAIR_B_RF135(S1200234)
Remarks:
The signal chain is OK. There is loss of 3.9 dB somewhere.
POPAIR_B_RF18 (S1200236)
Remarks:
The signal chain is healthy. The signal was bigger by 9% than the expected.
POPAIR_B_RF90 (S1200236)
Remarks:
The signal chain is healthy. There is loss of 1.2 dB somewhere.
From these measurements, we can use POPAIR to infer the calibration for POP.
I looked at a recent lock acquisition while the interferometer was trying to engage the outer ISS loop. The LSC is relatively stable during this time, and the POP beam diverter is still open.
After undoing whitening gain and digital gain (2 ct/ct for POPAIR9/45, and 32 ct/ct for POP9/45), we find the following TFs:
This implies calibrations of 1.7×106 ct/W for POP9 and 1.8×106 ct/W for POP45.
There's a factor of 4 difference in power between POP and POPAIR (17 mW versus 68 mW with a PSL power of 23 W), so the values I gave above are off by a factor of 4. The demod gains should be 6.4×106 ct/W for POP9 and 7.2×106 ct/W for POP45.