Displaying report 1-1 of 1.
Reports until 16:52, Thursday 19 October 2017
H1 SUS
travis.sadecki@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:52, Thursday 19 October 2017 - last comment - 14:42, Friday 20 October 2017(39097)
ITMx status update

J. Kissel, T. Sadecki

Today, we adjusted the pointing of the ITMx TM to get the OpLev beam out of the receiver viewport that houses the OpLev PD.  We then aligned the reaction chain such that the CP HR reflection overlaps with the TM AR reflection, thus ensuring parallelism of the inner surfaces at the TM level.  We did not check the 20mm spacing between the chains as time was running short for the day, so we'll have to re-assess that at a later time.  This was mostly a check that we had range in the pitch and yaw adjustment to get us where we need to be.  We did, but just barely, as we used up most of the four main chain fine pitch adjuster ranges to get us there.  We then reinstalled and centered the top mass BOSEMs for both chains and the PUM AOSEMs.  We did not bother with the most fussy, UIM level BOSEMs as Jeff noted that for the bounce/roll mode measurements we need to tune BRDs, the PUM OSEMs will suffice.  Next up: run TF measurements to check for overall health/rubbing, take bounce/roll measurements for BRD tuning, and set up for the final round of fully suspended violin mode measurements.

Comments related to this report
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 17:33, Thursday 19 October 2017 (39099)
Some pictures and a video of the resulting alignment of the ITMX chains to the optical lever QPD. In this picture & video, I'm down the X-arm's spool piece (+X of the beam splitter), looking at the -X, +Z (global IFO coordinates) corner of the suspended cryo-pump baffle, and the in-vacuum side of the viewport that houses the optical lever QPD.

Watch the video, but have the picture with labels next to the video to help guide your eye.

The slower moving, vertical-only, cluster of beams (of which there were four visible, the top the brightest, decreasing in brightness) are the reflections off of the test mass / main chain. 
We assumed 
- the brightest of the four was the prompt reflection off of the HR surface, 
- the second brightest (one lower) was the reflection off of the AR, down-wedged surface, 
- the third and fourth being further internal reflections off of the AR surface.

The faster moving grid of beams are reflections off of the Thin Compensation plate (TCP) / reaction chain. 
We assumed
- the highest (+Z) and furthest left (+Y in global coordinates) of the grid is the prompt reflection off of Surface 1 (i.e. that closest to the test mass)
- the furthest left (+Y) vertical column of the successively dimmer spots is the prompt reflection off of Surface 1 of the internal reflections of the HR surface of the ITM described above.
- each successively dimmer column to the right (toward -X) are internal reflections of all of the above, from Surface 2 (i.e. that closest to the beam splitter) which is horizontally wedged toward (-Y)

Given the above assumptions, we aligned the brightest slow moving spot (HR of ITM), and the brightest, left-most fast moving spot (Surf 1 of TCP) as close as possible to the Oplev QPD.
Images attached to this comment
Non-image files attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 17:36, Thursday 19 October 2017 (39100)
Some more pictures of Travis performing alignment and installing/centering OSEMs.
Images attached to this comment
travis.sadecki@LIGO.ORG - 14:42, Friday 20 October 2017 (39109)

There was a slight misunderstanding regarding which beams we were supposed to make overlap that I only noticed when perusing Jeff's photos.  Jeff was directing me to align the CP Surface 1 (HR) reflection to the ITM HR reflection.  According to E1200951, section 7.1.10, the CP should be aligned to the ITM AR surface, therefore the CP HR and ITM AR reflections should overlap.  We'll revisit this alignment next week since only the reaction chain will need realignment, which would have happened regardless due to further tuning of UIM OSEMs, etc.

Displaying report 1-1 of 1.