Is the Arm-suspensions' axes aligned to each arm-cavity axis?

YoshinoriFujii / Weekly-task

0 stars 0 forks source link

Is the Arm-suspensions' axes aligned to each arm-cavity axis? #36

Open YoshinoriFujii opened 4 years ago

YoshinoriFujii commented 4 years ago

Todo

push the IP in dc along with its L- and T- axis and see the response to the Xarm-cavity signal.
- [x] ETMX
- [x] ITMX
- [ ] ETMY
- [ ] ITMY
shake the suspension with lower frequency along with its L- and T- axis and see the response to the Xarm-cavity signal.
- [x] ETMX
- [x] ITMX
- [x] ETMY
- [ ] ITMY
  
  ref: Fig 5 in https://earth-planets-space.springeropen.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s40623-017-0660-0

YoshinoriFujii commented 4 years ago

push the IP in dc along with its L- and T- axis and see the response to the Xarm-cavity signal.

see /users/VIS/TypeA/general/axis_check/20190928/
I conducted it and measured the time-series, however, the trend was much affected with the ground motion(*1).
- For the Xarm suspensions, we can compensate the ground-motion-trend by using the strainmeter, however, at that time the strainmeter was not functional for a technical problem.
- Actually it seemed that for the first 30min of the ETMX trend data, it was working though.

(*1) This means motion measured by strainmeter. we are not sure if this is the truely the ground motion though. I could be a tilt due to 気圧変化?.

[ ] This measurement is to be done again with the seismometer signal and then to be comapred to the shaking method.

ETMX

timeseries_test

ITMX

timeseries_test

One trial was done here by applying detrend function in matlab: /users/VIS/TypeA/general/axis_check/20190928/ITMX/scripts/IP_L_xarm_axischeck1.m
- According to this calculation the offset of the ITMX-IP-L from the Xarm-cavity axis was:

YoshinoriFujii commented 4 years ago

Shake the suspension with lower frequency along with its L- and T- axis and see the response to the Xarm-cavity signal.

see /users/VIS/TypeA/general/axis_check/20191009/
I injected 10mHz sinusoidal signal to IP-actuators along with its L and T axis, and then obtained the coupling ratio to the Xarm-cavity signal or so.
- 10mHz was selected from a plot in the above [1]; since at that frequency it looked that the effect of the ground motion was relatively small.
This was done with ETMX/ITMX/ETMY-suspensions.

写真 2019-10-16 4 48 21

ETMX

IPL_ecxc

axis_check_Xarm_20191009_EXIPLexc

IPT_ecxc

axis_check_Xarm_20191009_EXIPTexc

ITMX

IPL_ecxc

axis_check_Xarm_20191009_IXIPLexc

IPT_ecxc

axis_check_Xarm_20191009_EXIPTexc

ETMY

IPL_ecxc

axis_check_Xarm_20191009_EYIPLexc

IPT_ecxc

axis_check_Xarm_20191009_EYIPTexc

YoshinoriFujii commented 4 years ago

Continued about the shaking method:

I estimated the angle offset of the IP-L axis from the Xarm cavity axis.
- [X] arctan( { (Xarm / IPT)_IP_Texc } / { (Xarm / IPL)_IP_Lexc } )
- see /users/VIS/TypeA/general/axis_check/20191009/outputs/2Xarm/ETMX_IP2Xarm.txt
- see /users/VIS/TypeA/general/axis_check/20191009/outputs/2Xarm/ITMX_IP2Xarm.txt
- see /users/VIS/TypeA/general/axis_check/20191009/outputs/2Yarm/ETMY_IP2Yarm.txt

Note:
- older info. was calculated with: if abs(phs) > 150deg: tf = -1*tf
  - They are in /users/VIS/TypeA/general/axis_check/20191009/outputs/bk/
- the newer one is done with : if abs(phs) > 90deg: tf = -1*tf
  
  ETMX
  
  older info.

config1: ETMX_IP_Lexc_2Xarm
tf1, Xarm / IPL at 1.0e-02 Hz: -9.794e-01
phs diff, Xarm / IPL at 1.0e-02 Hz: 179.841 deg
config2: ETMX_IP_Texc_2Xarm
tf2, Xarm / IPT at 1.0e-02 Hz: 8.459e-02
phs diff, Xarm / IPT at 1.0e-02 Hz: 3.726 deg

arctan2( tf2, tf1 ):  175.064 deg

config1: ETMX_IP_Lexc_2Xarm
tf1, Xarm / IPL at 1.0e-02 Hz: -9.794e-01
phs diff, Xarm / IPL at 1.0e-02 Hz: 179.841 deg
config2: ETMX_IP_Texc_2Xarm
tf2, Xarm / IPT at 1.0e-02 Hz: 8.459e-02
phs diff, Xarm / IPT at 1.0e-02 Hz: 3.726 deg

arctan2( tf2, tf1 ):  175.064 deg

ITMX

older info.

``` config1: ITMX_IP_Lexc_2Xarm tf1, Xarm / IPL at 1.0e-02 Hz: -1.047e+00 phs diff, Xarm / IPL at 1.0e-02 Hz: 179.332 deg config2: ITMX_IP_Texc_2Xarm tf2, Xarm / IPT at 1.0e-02 Hz: 1.492e-01 phs diff, Xarm / IPT at 1.0e-02 Hz: -45.751 deg arctan2( tf2, tf1 ): 171.895 deg ```

config1: ITMX_IP_Lexc_2Xarm
tf1, Xarm / IPL at 1.0e-02 Hz: -1.047e+00
phs diff, Xarm / IPL at 1.0e-02 Hz: 179.332 deg
config2: ITMX_IP_Texc_2Xarm
tf2, Xarm / IPT at 1.0e-02 Hz: 1.492e-01
phs diff, Xarm / IPT at 1.0e-02 Hz: -45.751 deg

arctan2( tf2, tf1 ):  171.895 deg

ETMY

older info.

``` config1: ETMY_IP_Lexc_2Yarm tf1, Yarm / IPL at 1.0e-02 Hz: -1.093e+00 phs diff, Yarm / IPL at 1.0e-02 Hz: 178.544 deg config2: ETMY_IP_Texc_2Yarm tf2, Yarm / IPT at 1.0e-02 Hz: 1.047e-01 phs diff, Yarm / IPT at 1.0e-02 Hz: 11.752 deg arctan2( tf2, tf1 ): 174.530 deg ```

config1: ETMY_IP_Lexc_2Yarm
tf1, Yarm / IPL at 1.0e-02 Hz: -1.093e+00
phs diff, Yarm / IPL at 1.0e-02 Hz: 178.544 deg
config2: ETMY_IP_Texc_2Yarm
tf2, Yarm / IPT at 1.0e-02 Hz: 1.047e-01
phs diff, Yarm / IPT at 1.0e-02 Hz: 11.752 deg

arctan2( tf2, tf1 ):  174.530 deg

[ ] Need to check the definition of Yarm-cavity signal.
I also tried to check the each stage axis are aligned to IP-axis by the following:
- [x] arctan( { (TML / IPT)_IP_Texc } / { (TML / IPL)_IP_Lexc } )
see /users/VIS/TypeA/general/axis_check/20191009/outputs/2TM/*

ETMX

older info.

``` config1: ETMX_IP_Lexc_2TM tf1, TM / IPL at 1.0e-02 Hz: 1.257e+00 phs diff, TM / IPL at 1.0e-02 Hz: -2.625 deg config2: ETMX_IP_Texc_2TM tf2, TM / IPT at 1.0e-02 Hz: -1.300e-01 phs diff, TM / IPT at 1.0e-02 Hz: -171.102 deg arctan2( tf2, tf1 ): -5.903 deg ```

config1: ETMX_IP_Lexc_2TM
tf1, TM / IPL at 1.0e-02 Hz: 1.257e+00
phs diff, TM / IPL at 1.0e-02 Hz: -2.625 deg
config2: ETMX_IP_Texc_2TM
tf2, TM / IPT at 1.0e-02 Hz: -1.300e-01
phs diff, TM / IPT at 1.0e-02 Hz: -171.102 deg

arctan2( tf2, tf1 ):  -5.903 deg

ITMX

older info.

``` config1: ITMX_IP_Lexc_2TM tf1, TM / IPL at 1.0e-02 Hz: 1.449e+00 phs diff, TM / IPL at 1.0e-02 Hz: -3.059 deg config2: ITMX_IP_Texc_2TM tf2, TM / IPT at 1.0e-02 Hz: 1.354e-01 phs diff, TM / IPT at 1.0e-02 Hz: 101.693 deg phs diff is not like 0 or 180deg. Please keep in mind the coherence etc. arctan2( tf2, tf1 ): 5.340 deg ```

config1: ITMX_IP_Lexc_2TM
tf1, TM / IPL at 1.0e-02 Hz: 1.449e+00
phs diff, TM / IPL at 1.0e-02 Hz: -3.059 deg
config2: ITMX_IP_Texc_2TM
tf2, TM / IPT at 1.0e-02 Hz: -1.354e-01
phs diff, TM / IPT at 1.0e-02 Hz: 101.693 deg

arctan2( tf2, tf1 ):  -5.340 deg

[x] arctan( { (BFL / IPT)_IP_Texc } / { (BFL / IPL)_IP_Lexc } )
- see /users/VIS/TypeA/general/axis_check/20191009/outputs/2BFL/*

ETMX

older info.

``` config1: ETMX_IP_Lexc_2BF tf1, BFL / IPL at 1.0e-02 Hz: 8.782e-01 phs diff, BFL / IPL at 1.0e-02 Hz: -0.446 deg config2: ETMX_IP_Texc_2BF tf2, BFL / IPT at 1.0e-02 Hz: 1.465e-02 phs diff, BFL / IPT at 1.0e-02 Hz: -130.699 deg phs diff is not like 0 or 180deg. Please keep in mind the coherence etc. arctan2( tf2, tf1 ): 0.956 deg ```

config1: ETMX_IP_Lexc_2BF
tf1, BFL / IPL at 1.0e-02 Hz: 8.782e-01
phs diff, BFL / IPL at 1.0e-02 Hz: -0.446 deg
config2: ETMX_IP_Texc_2BF
tf2, BFL / IPT at 1.0e-02 Hz: -1.465e-02
phs diff, BFL / IPT at 1.0e-02 Hz: -130.699 deg

arctan2( tf2, tf1 ):  -0.956 deg

ITMX

older info.

``` config1: ITMX_IP_Lexc_2BF tf1, BFL / IPL at 1.0e-02 Hz: 1.061e+00 phs diff, BFL / IPL at 1.0e-02 Hz: -1.140 deg config2: ITMX_IP_Texc_2BF tf2, BFL / IPT at 1.0e-02 Hz: 5.537e-02 phs diff, BFL / IPT at 1.0e-02 Hz: 81.916 deg phs diff is not like 0 or 180deg. Please keep in mind the coherence etc. arctan2( tf2, tf1 ): 2.987 deg ```

config1: ITMX_IP_Lexc_2BF
tf1, BFL / IPL at 1.0e-02 Hz: 1.061e+00
phs diff, BFL / IPL at 1.0e-02 Hz: -1.140 deg
config2: ITMX_IP_Texc_2BF
tf2, BFL / IPT at 1.0e-02 Hz: 5.537e-02
phs diff, BFL / IPT at 1.0e-02 Hz: 81.916 deg

arctan2( tf2, tf1 ):  2.987 deg

[x] arctan( { (BFT / IPL)_IP_Lexc } / { (BFT / IPT)_IP_Texc } )
- see /users/VIS/TypeA/general/axis_check/20191009/outputs/2BFT/*

ETMX

older info.

``` config1: ETMX_IP_Texc_2BF tf1, BFT / IPT at 1.0e-02 Hz: 8.368e-01 phs diff, BFT / IPT at 1.0e-02 Hz: -1.007 deg config2: ETMX_IP_Lexc_2BF tf2, BFT / IPL at 1.0e-02 Hz: 1.886e-01 phs diff, BFT / IPL at 1.0e-02 Hz: -5.865 deg arctan2( tf2, tf1 ): 12.701 deg ```

config1: ETMX_IP_Texc_2BF
tf1, BFT / IPT at 1.0e-02 Hz: 8.368e-01
phs diff, BFT / IPT at 1.0e-02 Hz: -1.007 deg
config2: ETMX_IP_Lexc_2BF
tf2, BFT / IPL at 1.0e-02 Hz: 1.886e-01
phs diff, BFT / IPL at 1.0e-02 Hz: -5.865 deg

arctan2( tf2, tf1 ):  12.701 deg

ITMX

older info.

``` config1: ITMX_IP_Texc_2BF tf1, BFT / IPT at 1.0e-02 Hz: 9.824e-01 phs diff, BFT / IPT at 1.0e-02 Hz: 2.063 deg config2: ITMX_IP_Lexc_2BF tf2, BFT / IPL at 1.0e-02 Hz: 1.420e-01 phs diff, BFT / IPL at 1.0e-02 Hz: 43.273 deg arctan2( tf2, tf1 ): 8.227 deg ```

config1: ITMX_IP_Texc_2BF
tf1, BFT / IPT at 1.0e-02 Hz: 9.824e-01
phs diff, BFT / IPT at 1.0e-02 Hz: 2.063 deg
config2: ITMX_IP_Lexc_2BF
tf2, BFT / IPL at 1.0e-02 Hz: 1.420e-01
phs diff, BFT / IPL at 1.0e-02 Hz: 43.273 deg

arctan2( tf2, tf1 ):  8.227 deg

YoshinoriFujii commented 4 years ago

summary of the above:

Plotting scripts are /users/VIS/TypeA/general/axis_check/20191009/exe_plot_axes*.py

Each L-axis compared to Xarm cavity

ITEMX	ETMX

If we believe that IP-T axis is purely orthogonal to IP-L axis:

ITEMX	ETMX

Todo for next

Check if the above is real
- [ ] by measuring the transfer functions again after rotating the suspension axes.
- [ ] by try Bruco with the Xarm after rotating the suspension axes.
- [ ] anything else?

YoshinoriFujii commented 4 years ago

Some URL for reference used for the above:

for polar plot: https://matplotlib.org/3.1.1/gallery/misc/transoffset.html#sphx-glr-gallery-misc-transoffset-py
for arrowing: http://tanukigraph.hatenablog.com/entry/2017/12/25/224725
for legend anchoring: https://qiita.com/matsui-k20xx/items/291400ed56a39ed63462
Tips for Github Markdown: https://qiita.com/chezou/items/b62053636fb62a8b62a5

YoshinoriFujii commented 4 years ago

On 2019.10.16
- comments at the briefing:
- For the check of the coupling, only TtoL coupling is necessary. -> LtoL was measured to get the information of angle. and for a sanity check.

YoshinoriFujii / Weekly-task