jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:48, Thursday 11 August 2016 - last comment - 15:59, Friday 12 August 2016(29035)
HAM6 SUS Final Health Assessment -- SUS Dynamics Look Great After Pump-Down
J. Kissel I took an opportunity between shutter testing and beckhoff problems to gather the final at-vacuum measurements of the HAM6 SUS. I'll process the data in complete detail tomorrow (I attach a screenshot of an example DOF from the OMC), but the message is that the TFs look just as good as they did before the vent: free, clear of rubbing, and all resonances are at the same frequency with roughly the same Q. Excellent! Watch this space for full analysis and comparison with previous results. /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/OMCS/H1/OMC/SAGM1/Data/ 2016-08-11_2305_H1SUSOMC_M1_WhiteNoise_L_0p02to50Hz.xml 2016-08-11_2305_H1SUSOMC_M1_WhiteNoise_P_0p02to50Hz.xml 2016-08-11_2305_H1SUSOMC_M1_WhiteNoise_R_0p02to50Hz.xml 2016-08-11_2305_H1SUSOMC_M1_WhiteNoise_T_0p02to50Hz.xml 2016-08-11_2305_H1SUSOMC_M1_WhiteNoise_V_0p02to50Hz.xml 2016-08-11_2305_H1SUSOMC_M1_WhiteNoise_Y_0p02to50Hz.xml /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HTTS/H1/OM1/SAGM1/Data/ 2016-08-11_2249_H1SUSOM1_M1_WhiteNoise_L_0p03to50Hz.xml 2016-08-11_2249_H1SUSOM1_M1_WhiteNoise_P_0p03to50Hz.xml 2016-08-11_2249_H1SUSOM1_M1_WhiteNoise_Y_0p03to50Hz.xml /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HTTS/H1/OM2/SAGM1/Data/ 2016-08-11_2151_H1SUSOM2_M1_WhiteNoise_L_0p03to50Hz.xml 2016-08-11_2151_H1SUSOM2_M1_WhiteNoise_P_0p03to50Hz.xml 2016-08-11_2151_H1SUSOM2_M1_WhiteNoise_Y_0p03to50Hz.xml /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HTTS/H1/OM3/SAGM1/Data/ 2016-08-11_2257_H1SUSOM3_M1_WhiteNoise_L_0p03to50Hz.xml 2016-08-11_2257_H1SUSOM3_M1_WhiteNoise_P_0p03to50Hz.xml 2016-08-11_2257_H1SUSOM3_M1_WhiteNoise_Y_0p03to50Hz.xml
Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
J. Kissel After looking at the results of OMC transfer functions in detail -- using the traditional Matlab plotting software -- I can doubly confirm that the OMC is as healthy as the previous installation of the OMC breadboard. In addition to the cross coupling information which looks quite normal (see 2016-08-11_2305_H1SUSOMC_M1_ALL_TFs.pdf ), a comparison between these measurements, the measurements taken just prior to the vent with the former OMC breadboard, plus a few measurements of LLO's OMC reveals the following: - For the Vertical, Yaw, Roll, and Transverse DOFs, either all measurements agree with the model, or where they do not, the measured resonant frequencies are consistently offset from from the model implying the model is not accurately representing the physical system. - For Longitudinal and Pitch, the first pitch mode modeled to be at 1.9 Hz, is different from the model and different from L1 to H1. However, the H1 OMC suspended with the former and current OMC breadboard show the same dynamics, so the discrepancy is likely not due this past week's work or re-suspension. - Although it appears as though the Q is lower that previous results, it is an artifact of the measurement: in order to expedite testing, the frequency resolution has been reduced from 0.01 Hz to 0.02 Hz.
Non-image files attached to this comment
J. Kissel Attached are the full results for the OMs. Similar to the OMC, I can double confirm after complete analysis that the OMs are as healthy as they were prior to the vent. Nothing to see here!
Non-image files attached to this comment