LOG-IN
Displaying reports 941-960 of 3201.Go to page Start 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 End
R&D (FilterCavity)
Print this report.
NaokiAritomi - 21:26, Tuesday 20 July 2021 (2632)Get code to link to this report
SHG and FC lock adjustment

[Aritomi, Yuhang]

Today we found that FC green error signal was noisy due to SHG oscillation. The figure 1 and 2 show the FC error signal with SHG gain of 1.4 and 1.6. We decreased the SHG gain from 1.6 to 1.4. The SHG OLTF with gain of 1.4 is shown in figure 3. The UGF is 4.7 kHz and phase margin is 10 deg.

We also found that the FC green injection power was reduced. We changed the SHG temperature and the green injection power increased from 18.8 mW to 23.7 mW.

Images attached to this report
2632_20210720142602_img8985.jpg 2632_20210720142614_img8984.jpg 2632_20210720142633_shgoltf20210720.png
R&D (FilterCavity)
Print this report.
NaokiAritomi - 21:02, Monday 19 July 2021 (2631)Get code to link to this report
Comment to FDS with CCFC around optimal detuning (Click here to view original report: 2556)

Yuhang and Michael fitted this data with mcmc. However, the detuning fluctuation is larger than that with least square... In this fit, the fit has been started from 60Hz and the detuning fluctuation could be smaller with higher fit starting frequency.

Left: mcmc (detuning: 50-68 Hz)

Right: least square (detuning: 49-61 Hz)

Images attached to this comment
2631_20210719140214_20210603ccfcmcmc.png 2631_20210719140336_20210603ccfcfdsnew.png
R&D (FilterCavity)
Print this report.
YuhangZhao - 16:15, Monday 19 July 2021 (2629)Get code to link to this report
Comment to Filter cavity length correction calibration (Click here to view original report: 2606)

In the last calibration calculation, I didn't consider the loop gain. Therefore, the calibration factor must have some error.

Nevertheless, we can use another way to do this calibration without considering the loop gain. 

0. Lock filter cavity.

1. Change slightly the temperature of main laser.

2. Read how much main laser frequency is changed.

3. Check how much length correction is sent to end mirror.

I did these procedures. The frequency change is read from the attached two figures. The correction signal change is in the attached figure three.

And get calibration factor (frequency difference)/(correction signal) = (248.6-235.2) [MHz]/ (5200) [counts] = 2.56 [MHz] / 1000 [counts]

Since 1pm = 1Hz, we can calibrate the factor above as 2.56 [um]/[kcounts].

Images attached to this comment
2629_20210719091216_wechatimage20210719161145.jpg 2629_20210719091220_wechatimage20210719161206.jpg
R&D (FilterCavity)
Print this report.
YuhangZhao - 15:18, Monday 19 July 2021 (2628)Get code to link to this report
Comment to A comparison of fitting FDS from our published result (Click here to view original report: 2620)

The mcmc fit result of four parameters from published FDS data

  sqz (dB) loss (%) phi (deg) det (Hz)
1 8.3 +0.5/-0.3 34.1 +1.0/-0.8 0.1 +0.4/-0.5 46.3 +1.8/-2.1
2 8.2 +0.5/-0.5 36.0 +1.5/-1.9 14.7 +0.9/-0.8 68.7 +2.7/-2.6
3 8.9 +0.1/-0.2 34.4 +0.5/-0.3 26.0 +0.4/-0.3 59.8 +0.9/-0.7
4 7.8 +0.4/-0.3 40.1 +0.7/-1.3 43.3 +1.8/-2.1 66.0 +2.4/-2.9
5 8.9 +0.1/-0.1 34.2 +1.9/-0.9 55.4 +1.7/-1.0 63.6 +1.9/-1.2
6 8.6 +0.2/-0.2 36.7 +2.9/-2.5 91.6 +1.8/-2.0 70.9 +1.6/-1.9
R&D (FilterCavity)
Print this report.
NaokiAritomi - 21:41, Friday 16 July 2021 (2627)Get code to link to this report
OPO automatic lock doesn't work

[Aritomi, Yuhang]

Today we found that OPO automatic lock doesn't work. The reason was that OPO somehow cannot be scanned automatically with servo. For the moment, we locked OPO manually. We checked the UGF of the manual OPO lock and it was 4kHz.

We also found that current of p pol laser was not optimal value and the mode hop appeared in the OPO p pol transmission. We brought the current to the optimal value and the mode hop disappeared.

Comments related to this report
NaokiAritomi - 17:50, Monday 26 July 2021 (2637)

OPO automatic lock recovered by itself.

NaokiAritomi - 19:18, Thursday 29 July 2021 (2643)

OPO automatic lock doesn't work again...

R&D (FilterCavity)
Print this report.
YuhangZhao - 10:42, Friday 16 July 2021 (2626)Get code to link to this report
A 10 hours monitor of two identical frequency RF signal beat with new mixer

Yesterday, I took a new mixer (not the old TAMA one) and monitor its IF channel with two identical frequency RF signals as RF/LO.

The result is attached. Comparing this monitoring with elog2616, we can see much smaller drift.

Images attached to this report
2626_20210716034218_45.png
R&D (FilterCavity)
Print this report.
NaokiAritomi - 21:55, Thursday 15 July 2021 (2625)Get code to link to this report
CCFC without phase shifter for CCFC LO

To investigate the origin of bumps at 50 and 100 Hz in FDS measurement, I removed a phase shifter for CCFC LO and directly connected the DDS output for CCFC LO to the mixer with brown+green LEMO cables.

I tuned the CCFC demodulation phase by changing the LEMO cable length between DDS and mixer for CCFC so that time difference between center and 0 crossing point of the CCFC error signal becomes 44.4 ms, which corresponds to 44.4 ms*1.2 kHz/s = 53.3 Hz detuning. By using brown+green LEMO cables, I could realize the time difference of 44.4 ms. The sign of CCFC error signal is opposite compared with the one with the phase shifter.

The attached figure shows CCFC FDS without the phase shifter. The 100Hz bump becomes better without the phase shifter, but the 50Hz bump is still present. Also the 50Hz harmonics become larger without the phase shifter.

The detuning drift is 36-52 Hz, but this will be better with mcmc fit. The detuning is a bit smaller than the optimal value, so I will change the LEMO cable length for CCFC LO.

Images attached to this report
2625_20210715145546_ccfcfds20210715.png
R&D (FilterCavity)
Print this report.
YuhangZhao - 18:42, Thursday 15 July 2021 (2624)Get code to link to this report
A comparison of FDS least square fit and mcmc fit (the same four parameters are set free in both cases)

To compare least square fit and mcmc fit in a fair way, it is necessary to make both of them have both four parameters free with the four parameters defined in elog2618.

The information of mcmc fit has been already summarized in elog2618. The fit of least square information is summarized in the attached four figures.

Figure 1 and 2 are FDS with detuning ~200Hz. Figure 3 and 4 are FDS with detuning ~70Hz.

The least square fit gives similar result with mcmc if detuning is around 200Hz. However, the least square fit gives not-expected and seems-unresonable result as figure 3 and 4. By just changing the fitting method from least square to mcmc, we extract information more precisely and more reasonably.

Images attached to this report
2624_20210715113542_hfds.png 2624_20210715113548_hfds4moreinfo.png 2624_20210715113555_fds4.png 2624_20210715113601_fds4moreinfo.png
R&D (FilterCavity)
Print this report.
YuhangZhao - 14:39, Thursday 15 July 2021 (2621)Get code to link to this report
Comment to A comparison of fitting FDS from our published result (Click here to view original report: 2618)

For detuning around 200Hz data, the fit result of generated squeezing level and optical losses are

  sqz loss
data1 11.1 38.3
data2 11.2 39.9
data3 11.1 39.9
data4 10.8 37.4
data5 10.6 37
data6 10.5 42

For detuning around 70Hz data, the fit result of generated squeezing level and optical losses are

  sqz loss
data1 10.7 40.6
data2 10.4 40.6
data3 10.4 40.4
data4 10.0 37.5
data5 9.6 36.8
data6 10.0 37.1
R&D (FilterCavity)
Print this report.
YuhangZhao - 14:26, Thursday 15 July 2021 (2620)Get code to link to this report
A comparison of fitting FDS from our published result

Michael and Yuhang

In this elog, we compare the published FDS fit result and the new mcmc method we are using.

  least square detuning (Hz) mcmc detuning (Hz)
data1 42.6 46
data2 69.2 69
data3 62.2 60
data4 60.4 66
data5 67.9 64
data6 71.4 71
Images attached to this report
2620_20210715072707_fds.png 2620_20210715072714_figure2.png
Comments related to this report
YuhangZhao - 15:18, Monday 19 July 2021 (2628)

The mcmc fit result of four parameters from published FDS data

  sqz (dB) loss (%) phi (deg) det (Hz)
1 8.3 +0.5/-0.3 34.1 +1.0/-0.8 0.1 +0.4/-0.5 46.3 +1.8/-2.1
2 8.2 +0.5/-0.5 36.0 +1.5/-1.9 14.7 +0.9/-0.8 68.7 +2.7/-2.6
3 8.9 +0.1/-0.2 34.4 +0.5/-0.3 26.0 +0.4/-0.3 59.8 +0.9/-0.7
4 7.8 +0.4/-0.3 40.1 +0.7/-1.3 43.3 +1.8/-2.1 66.0 +2.4/-2.9
5 8.9 +0.1/-0.1 34.2 +1.9/-0.9 55.4 +1.7/-1.0 63.6 +1.9/-1.2
6 8.6 +0.2/-0.2 36.7 +2.9/-2.5 91.6 +1.8/-2.0 70.9 +1.6/-1.9
R&D (FilterCavity)
Print this report.
NaokiAritomi - 14:16, Thursday 15 July 2021 (2619)Get code to link to this report
Comment to Some trials to fit FDS with mcmc code (Click here to view original report: 2618)

Interesting result! By the way, how is the fitting result of generated squeezing and optical loss for each curve? Are they consistent with each other?

R&D (FilterCavity)
Print this report.
YuhangZhao - 13:44, Thursday 15 July 2021 (2618)Get code to link to this report
A comparison of least square and mcmc

Michael and Yuhang

We took FDS with filter cavity GR control about two weeks ago. The measurement contains 12 effective data with 6 for detuning around 200Hz and 6 for detuning around 70Hz. The data below around 70Hz is contaminated by back scattered noise. To have some margin from back scattered noise, we start fit from 100Hz.

The mcmc code needs a good enough initial value and corresponding range. We start with a least square fit with detuning, homodyne angles free and other parameters fixed. The fit result was used as initial value for mcmc code. The least square fit results are attached as figure 1 and 2.

We used the result of least square for mcmc and set four parameters to be free, including homodyne angle, detuning, optical losses, generated squeezing level. The result is attached as figure 3 and 4. The FDS with 200Hz detuning has more information about the squeezing quadrature rotation. Therefore, the error of fitting result is more precise. But the FDS with 70Hz detuning has less information, which makes the fit result has larger error on detuning.

The mcmc result gives more stabilized detuning, which means data favors a more stable detuning. The least square mothod gives larger detuning change may just comes from the fact that we are fixing other parameters but leave only two free.

Images attached to this report
2618_20210715064345_lfds.png 2618_20210715064354_hfds.png 2618_20210715064403_lfdsmcmc.png 2618_20210715064410_hfdsmcmc.png
Comments related to this report
NaokiAritomi - 14:16, Thursday 15 July 2021 (2619)

Interesting result! By the way, how is the fitting result of generated squeezing and optical loss for each curve? Are they consistent with each other?

YuhangZhao - 14:39, Thursday 15 July 2021 (2621)

For detuning around 200Hz data, the fit result of generated squeezing level and optical losses are

  sqz loss
data1 11.1 38.3
data2 11.2 39.9
data3 11.1 39.9
data4 10.8 37.4
data5 10.6 37
data6 10.5 42

For detuning around 70Hz data, the fit result of generated squeezing level and optical losses are

  sqz loss
data1 10.7 40.6
data2 10.4 40.6
data3 10.4 40.4
data4 10.0 37.5
data5 9.6 36.8
data6 10.0 37.1
R&D (FilterCavity)
Print this report.
NaokiAritomi - 09:58, Thursday 15 July 2021 (2617)Get code to link to this report
CCFC on 20210714

First I checked IR injection alignment. There was yaw misalignment and the mode matching was 89%. 

After the alignment of yaw, the mode matching became 92% as follows. The injected BAB was 447uW. The misalignment is more or less fine, but LG is a bit larger than before.

Mode IR transmission
TEM00 480
yaw 102
pitch 104
LG 111
offset 95

By the way, during the alignment work, I noticed that the injection BAB power drifted a lot between 435uW and 465uW within a few minutes.

Then I locked CCFC and measured FDS (attached figure). CCFC calibration amplitude was 124mVpp, which is somehow lower than before. CCFC gain was 1000 and CC2 mass feedback gain was 3. The CCFC was stable and it kept locking during FDS measurement other than the squeezing quadrature. The 50, 100Hz bumps and detuning drift still exist.

Finally, I checked the nonlinear gain as follows. The nonlinear gain was 4.5 which corresponds to the generated squeezing of 10.2dB.

green power (mW) 0 20
p pol PLL (MHz) 245 185
OPO temperature (kOhm) 7.163 7.163
BAB maximum (mV) 57.2 256
nonlinear gain 1 4.5

I will replace the electronics for CCFC to investigate the 50 and 100 Hz bumps.

Images attached to this report
2617_20210715033655_ccfcfds20210714.png
R&D (FilterCavity)
Print this report.
YuhangZhao - 10:44, Wednesday 14 July 2021 (2616)Get code to link to this report
A 16 hours monitor of two RF signal beat

By using TAMA demodulator, I monitor its output with two identical RF frequency signals as inputs. The signal drifts from 83.1 to 81.9.

Images attached to this report
2616_20210714034401_48.png
R&D (FilterCavity)
Print this report.
YuhangZhao - 23:54, Tuesday 13 July 2021 (2615)Get code to link to this report
A scan of end mirror to get IR detuning change information

Marc, Michael, and Yuhang

When we lock filter cavity with GR, IR detuning has change related to alignment. When GR automatic alignment (AA) and pointing loop is closed, IR detuning change can be stabilized.The filter cavity pointing loop is working mainly to fix the injection beam on end mirror. AA works to align filter cavity to the incident beam.

To check how detuning change for different alignment condition, we can change the pointing. By pointing the incident beam to different positions on end mirror and keeping AA loop closed, we can get AOM frequency for each point on end mirror when BAB is on resonance. The change of position on end mirror gives us a dependence of detuning as end mirror beam hitting point. In this way, we call it a detuning map for end mirror.

The changed parameters are not only beam hitting position on end mirror, the other changed parameters are input/end mirror angles and cavity length. A typical change for input angle is 40urad, end angle is 10urad and cavity length is 0.2um. Since the optical axis of filter cavity is almost the same for GR and IR, the GR AA should work also for IR. In addition, GR length control should also work for IR. Therefore, the map we get should just depend on beam hitting position of end mirror. The corresponding map is attached.

Images attached to this report
2615_20210713165408_measuredoffset.png
R&D (FilterCavity)
Print this report.
YuhangZhao - 12:12, Monday 12 July 2021 (2613)Get code to link to this report
Filter cavity GR transmission camera yaw is centered for the new spot

Today, I went to filter cavity end room and centered the FC GR transmission camera in yaw. But I didn't move pitch.

The pointing offset is still a good reference, since I didn't move PSD.

Images attached to this report
2613_20210712051222_wechatimg752.jpeg
R&D (FilterCavity)
Print this report.
YuhangZhao - 12:04, Friday 09 July 2021 (2611)Get code to link to this report
A 24-hours monitor of filter cavity IR detuning change when GR control is used (2 hour was missed)

The filter cavity IR detuning is monitored from 2021-07-08 11:40 to 2021-07-09 11:40. (The time used in DGS is JST minus 9 hours) The minute trend data is saved in standalone desktop/detuning/20210709.

The screenshot of this monitor is attached.

Although there are many peaks in the detuning data, only 4 of them come from the unlock of filter cavity. Others are due to the suspended mirror sudden position changes but pointing loop has limited bandwidth.

We see change of detuning even when fc length is controlled. 

The FC length control change may also come from the main laser frequency change, which is due to we use laser frequency as a reference at low frequency. Especially, we don't have a reference cavity as used in gravitational wave detectors, such as KAGRA.

Images attached to this report
2611_20210709044816_screen.png
KAGRA MIR (Absorption)
Print this report.
MarcEisenmann - 17:46, Thursday 08 July 2021 (2610)Get code to link to this report
Installation of ETMY in PCI

Abe-san, Aso-san, Marc, Michael

For reference, ETMY cleaning is summarized in KLOG entries : 17219, 17271, 17292, 17311, 17397, 17409

We brought the ETMY inside PCI room using the crane.

We added HEPA filters and put an ion gun at the end of the pressured air.

We remove optics from the small optical table on the side of the PCI setup and installed ETMY box on it.

Using a strong green light and a strong white flashlight we inspected and slightly cleaned the AR surface using ultra pure water and the ion gun.

On this table, we installed ETMY inside its holder using 4 jacks.

In order to avoid incident, we removed the entire imaging unit optical table to ease the ETMY installation on the translation stage.

Before doing so, we had installed pairs of forks on 3 of the 4 pillars to be sure to recover the same imaging unit position.

We installed ETMY on the translation stage (the additional weight due to the jig is negligeable because the translation stage can hold few hundreds kg).

We removed the HR surface first contact while using the ion gun.

To avoid scratching ETMY surface or magnets, we decided to let a metal ring at the edge of the mirror surface.

We reinstalled the IU and turning on the probe beam showed that this beam was still hitting well on the IU optics.

I don't have so much pictures but we'll add beautiful ones to this entry.

This morning  we set up translation stage limit along the Z axis. We are now not letting ETMY get closer than 1 or 2 cm to both side.

There are now really strange troubles with Zaber that does not recognize the translation stage (or any com port) even if it is working fine in labview..

We will solve this issue before any translation stage motion.

KAGRA MIR (Absorption)
Print this report.
MarcEisenmann - 17:25, Thursday 08 July 2021 (2609)Get code to link to this report
calibration for ETMY surface absorption measurement

Here is the calibration performed before the installation of ETMY on PCI setup :

AC_surfref = 0.45825;
DC_surfref = 3.987;
P_in = 30.3e-3;
abs_surfref = 0.22;

R_surf = 17.24 /W

 

The AC peak is located at Z=39.6 mm.

Images attached to this report
2609_20210708102224_etmycalibration20210705.png
R&D (FilterCavity)
Print this report.
YuhangZhao - 19:17, Sunday 04 July 2021 (2608)Get code to link to this report
New filter for filter cavity z-correction

It was noticed that filter cavity z-correction was feeding back some high frequency components recently.

I modified the filters and now less high frequency components are feed to end mirror.

The new filter is called dc_damp2 (gain is adjusted so that we can use gain 1 in medm). Let's use this filter in the future.

Poles: 1e-4, 0.1(1), 20, 20, 300

Zeros: 0.04, 0.05(1), 3

The comparison of signal sent to end mirror is attached.

Images attached to this report
2608_20210704121700_newzcorr.png