Displaying reports 1-20 of 88185.Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 End
Reports until 11:27, Monday 29 June 2026
H1 SUS
betsy.weaver@LIGO.ORG - posted 11:27, Monday 29 June 2026 (90799)
BBSS mystery sleeks/scratches don't budge

Today Ibrahim and I tried water to remove the sleek/spots/scratches on the BBSS AR detailed in alog 90600.  I tried to rub a water soaked q-tip on a small ~5mm x 2mm section of one fo the lower areas previously worked on.  Once scrubbed I chase wiped it with a methanol alpha swab.  I repeated this a few times.  No change.  We then tried to see if we could see these features from looking at the inside of the AR surface through the barrel which sometimes gives hints at if things are in the optic (often visible to the viewing angle) or on-top of the optic (often invisible to this viewing angle).  Unfortunately, we in-fact could see them this way.  So, they may be scratches.

H1 SPI (CDS, SEI, SPI, SYS, VE)
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - posted 11:13, Monday 29 June 2026 - last comment - 11:35, Monday 29 June 2026(90792)
2026-06-29 H1ISIH23 HAM3 ISIK Transceiver Cabling Re-dressed
J. Kissel

This morning, I re-installed the H1SPIH23 pathfinder's photodiode and picomotor cable-table-brackets (CTBs) that had been temporarily moved to upgrade the Corner 1 H1 capacitive position sensor (see LHO:90791), and re-dressed the cabling cable clamps.

As mentioned in passing in LHO:90750 the CRS team will now consume the "spare" SPI_HAM3_004 quadrupus leg, that's J2 of the S2500513 instantiation of D2400342, which manifests as CH8 on the TCSY_C02, Controller 10, PICO G picomotor controller driven by the Corner 2 ECAT chassis -- which shows up on the H1SYSCSAUX computer's SDF system. So this has been routed in the +X direction and up in +Z to the table top on the +Y corner.

I'll post pictures of all the re-dressing in the comments so I can better caption them.
Comments related to this report
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 11:14, Monday 29 June 2026 (90793)SEI
Routing of the J2 leg of the D2400342 picomotor cable to the +Y corner of the table top.
Images attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 11:15, Monday 29 June 2026 (90794)
Big picture images of the ST1 portion of the cable dressing on the Corner 1 sensor/actuator hatch.
Images attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 11:17, Monday 29 June 2026 (90796)SEI
Zoom of how the 2x D25 cables are routed with a nice soft s-curve as the cables jump from the ST1 suspended stage to ST0 support stage.
Images attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 11:25, Monday 29 June 2026 (90797)CDS, SYS
Zoom of Cable Table Bracket 1 (CTB-1), which collects 
    - (1st Floor) the D25 end of the D2400343 PD concentrator cable SPI_HAM3_[031-034] (hidden from view), and 
    - (2nd Floor) the D25 end of the D2400342 quadrupus picomotor cable SPI_HAM3_[001-004]
and sends them into
    - (1st Floor) the ST1 end of 28 AWG D25 cable SPI_HAM3_014
    - (2nd Floor) the ST1 end of 22 AWG D25 cable SPI_HAM3_012
Images attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 11:31, Monday 29 June 2026 (90798)
Zoom of Cable Table Bracket 2 (CTB-2), which collects 
    - (1st floor) IFO MEAS A/B single-element PDs' duopus
    - (2nd floor) IFO REF A/B single-element PDs' duopus
and sends them into
    - (1st floor) Cable D, i.e. SPI_HAM3_032 of the D2400343 PD concentrator.
    - (2nd floor) Cable E, i.e. SPI_HAM3_031 of the D2400343 PD concentrator.
Images attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 11:35, Monday 29 June 2026 (90800)
Zoom of Cable Table Bracket 3 (CTB-3), which collects 
    - (1st floor) OL ISIK QPD B 
    - (2nd floor) FBR PWR REF/MEAS single-element PDs' duopus
and sends them to 
    - (1st floor) Cable B, i.e. SPI_HAM3_034 of D2400343 PD concentrator
    - (2nd floor) Cable C, i.e. SPI_HAM3_033 of D2400343 PD concentrator
Images attached to this comment
H1 SEI (SEI)
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - posted 11:01, Monday 29 June 2026 - last comment - 11:16, Monday 29 June 2026(90791)
2026-06-26 Some HAM3 ISI CPS Upgraded, Targets Grounded and Positioned (Centered) at Zero Offset
J. Kissel / J. Warner / A. Pele
(Belated aLOG)
ECR: E2100347 and E1800270

Wrapping up the in-mode-cleaner-tube work underneath the -X side of HAM3, Jim, Arnaud, and I started the work to upgrade all the HAM3 ISI capacitive position sensors (CPS) to triaxial BNC "triax" cabling for connecting the target to a known ground (per ECR:E1800270), and convering verticals sensors to "fine" resolution sensors (per ECR:E2100347). I worked on the install of V2, and Jim got through H1, V1, and H2 before we had to quit for the day. After Arnaud fixed some teething issues with the CPS readout that were causing a LOT of excess noise (LHO:90763), we were able to position the H1, V1, and V2 target in the middle of the range of the sensor probe head (i.e, near zero [ct] in the range of the  +/- 32k [ct] ADC).

See 2026-06-26_H1ISIHAM3_CPSCenteringWork_Timeline.png for a trend of the three sensors that we've centered.
The y-axis are in ADC counts because I wasn't sure if the "Crs_Cal_V2" calibration,
    FM1    zpk([1.5916],[0.1447], 30.5176)
was a good calibration. 

If so, the readout of the position is
           ADC [ct]        Apparent Position [um = 1e-6*m]
    H1          6.9               0.23
    V1        198.8               6.07
    V2        395.9              12.10
see 2026-06-29_H1ISIHAM3_CPSCentering_CalibratedValues.png.

Three things of note:
(1) In order to gain access to the H2 sensor probe for the upgrade, Jim had to remove all the SPI ISIK transceiver cabling that had been bolted on the Horizontal Corner 1 hatch on 2026-06-10 (LHO:90581). While he centered the target in the middle of the ADC range and re-bolted the hatch back on, he didn't have time to restore the SPI cabling. We'll do re-dress later.

(2) This is probably already known by the SEI team proper, but the in-chamber work securing things to the platform in various places -- even with the lockers engaged -- does change the position of the platform slightly. See the main timeline for time periods of chamber work vs. (apparent?) change in position.

(3) When plugging in the H1 CPS triax, Jim found that the cable wouldn't seat well at the D1-1A1 feedthru. Upon inspection, the teflon insulator between conductors was quite mangled -- see 2026-06-26_ISIHAM3_CPSCenteringWork_H1_BEFORE_BADBADBAD.jpg. He then used a pair of needle-nosed pliers to straighten out the teflon, and got it good enough that it engaged with the feedthru -- see 2026-06-26_ISIHAM3_CPSCenteringWork_H1_AFTER_GOODENOUGH.jpg. We took a look at the adjacent V1 connector head and it seemed fine, and felt fine going into the socket -- see 2026-06-26_ISIHAM3_CPSCenteringWork_V1_ALREADYGOOD.jpg.
Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 11:16, Monday 29 June 2026 (90795)
Picture of how the Corner 1 hatch was left after upgrading and centering the H1 CPS.
Images attached to this comment
LHO General
corey.gray@LIGO.ORG - posted 07:41, Monday 29 June 2026 (90788)
Mon Day Ops Transition

TITLE: 06/29 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Planned Engineering
OUTGOING OPERATOR: None
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_ENV state: MAINTENANCE
    Wind: 15mph Gusts, 12mph 3min avg
    Primary useism: 0.01 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.10 μm/s 
QUICK SUMMARY:

Mon/Early week activities:  GV6(Y-BM) work this morning, BBSS activities with FARO continued, BSC3 rebalance for baffles, HAM3 CPS upgrades, Install CRS, HAM3 baffling, HAM3 ground loop checks.

Rain system just passed through the site on this cloudy morning.  M5.5 earthquake off the southern coast Oregon coast (no WD trips).  Kim is already in the lvea and also covering other buildings more than usual.

H1 AOS
robert.schofield@LIGO.ORG - posted 17:37, Sunday 28 June 2026 - last comment - 12:14, Monday 29 June 2026(90787)
Baffles on +X side of HAM3 aligned, next step is alignment on -X side and mitigation of SPI baffle retroreflections

Mitchell, Disha, Robert

On Friday we finished alignment of the baffles on the +X side of HAM3. This took extra time because we didn’t expect 12 point flange bolts on the PR2 dog clamps that we were moving. Beam spot photos from the BBS showed that we had mitigated retroreflections from the dog clamps and other retro-reflectors that we were worried about, but the brackets for two of the SPI baffles formed strong 2-D corner reflectors with the table top (see figure). We need to hide them with something that is the same height but not normal to the BBS-PR3 beam, and we need to finish aligning the baffles on the –X side.  We may also need to treat two of the table baffle brackets on the +X side of HAM3 if they produce retroreflections in PR3 beam spot photos.

Non-image files attached to this report
Comments related to this report
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 12:14, Monday 29 June 2026 (90801)SEI, SPI, SYS, VE
Here's some pictures to aide the conversation about "which brackets are SPI bracket retro-reflectors?"

These were taken on 2026-06-18 when TJ and I were installing these baffles for the first time (see LHO:90676). Two versions of each photo, one annotated and one not.

2026-06-18_H1SPIH23_ISIK_Baffles_BigPicture_ANNOTATED.jpg shows "looking in the +X direction" big-picture view of the beam splitter from inside the HAM23 mode cleaner tube, and highlights in red which baffles' brackets are the problem.

2026-06-18_H1SPIH23_MinusYSide_Baffles_TopDown_IsometricView_ANNOTATED.png shows a top-down / isometric, "looking in the +X / +Y / -Z direction"  view of the -X / -Y corner of the optical table, again calling out the problematic baffle brackets.

Saying it out loud -- it's not one baffle's brackets, its both 
    - the -Y bracket of the middle upper panel baffle, and 
    - the +Y bracket of the -Y upper panel baffle.
of the ISIK shroud assembly D2400106

Also -- just saying it out loud. Robert shows how shiny these brackets are in the -X view of HAM3 from the beam splitter. "Why aren't these an issue for the -Y view of HAM4 from the beam splitter?" Because HAM4 doesn't have any of these HAM table baffles on its -Y side -- the HAM3 baffles exist because we had to remove the lower panel of the HAM2-HAM3 *mode cleaner tube* baffle on the HAM3 end of the tube (LHO:90138 and LHO:90162) in order to support SPI. But the equivalent panel on the HAM4 end of the HAM4-HAM4 tube baffle is still in place, so these HAM table baffles are not needed.
Images attached to this comment
H1 SQZ
sheila.dwyer@LIGO.ORG - posted 17:11, Friday 26 June 2026 (90783)
OMC scans and beam profile measurements for different psams

Eric, Ryan S, Camilla, Sheila

All week we have been working on getting a set of OMC scans and beam profile measurements for different psams.  We have both sets of data now, with plots and scripts coming soon next week.  

OMC scans

We started with a script that Begum gave us from HAM6 work at LLO.  We set up ASC loops to go from ASA and AS B DC signals to ZM4 and ZM5 (as described in 90742).  We struggled a while to lock the OMC on the seed beam in air, hampered by 90754.  With that noisy OMC lock, yesterday Camilla manually aligned OM3 and the OMC suspension carefully to maximize the 00 transmission.  We then added offsets to H1:OMC-ASC_QPD_{A,B}_{PIT,YAW}_OFFSET, which is not the usual location for OMC QPD offsets.  We will need to get rid of these offsets before we go back to locking. 

OMC A offset: PIT 0.088 YAW: 0.133  OMCB offset: PIT 0.27 YAW: -0.22

We found that we were able to move the psams, whih misaligns the OMC terribly, run the centering loops to the ZMs, then run the OMC QPD loops to bring the 1st order peaks back down to a couple % of the 00 peak repeatedly.  We spent some time modifying and then debugging the script that Begum shared with us.  

It takes in a list of ZM4 and ZM5 strain gauge values, moves the psams servos target to that point and waits 30 seconds with the ZM centering loops on (it doesn't check the acutal value of the strain gauge, perhaps this would be a good thing to add next time).  It then turns on the OMC QPD loops for 20 seconds.  It then takes a 100 second ramp of the OMC PZT, and saves the times and ZM strain gauge targets into a yaml file.  

There is a template you can use to watch all this at userapps/sqz/h1/Templates/ndscope/OMC_psams_scans_monitor.yml  The script that runs these sweeps is at sqzutils, or /ligo/gitcommon/squeezing/sqzutils/omc_scans_sweep_psams.py  There is also a script there that loads the data, identifies the peaks and estimates mode mismatch and misalignment there, analyze_psam_omc_sweeps.py.  A preliminary plot is attached (apologies for the color choices and linear y scale here).  

M2 profile measurements

Eric and Ryan S took a series of M2 profiler measurements of the beam on SQZT 7 today, doing the alignment procedure at each strain gauage setting (they didn't adjust ZM alignments).  Their data is in here, we will post some plots of this next week.

Note about ZM5 strain guage

While Eric and Ryan were making beam profile measurements, they ran into a situation where ZM5 would not go the strain guage setting of 2.  I was able to get it to go to 2 manually, but noticed that there were times when the strain gauge voltage dropped to zero, similar to a problem seen at LLO HAM6 recently.  We should follow up on this next week.

Images attached to this report
H1 SEI
jim.warner@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:38, Friday 26 June 2026 (90782)
BSC2 HEPI actuators reattached.

After getting IAS sign off from Keita, Betsy and Jason yesterday, Mitch and I went to BSC2 to start reattaching the actuators. We finished that this afternoon, according to dial indicators on the chamber we haven't moved from the locked position, but stops are still engaged. Actuators are valved in,  and I have set the alignment targets for HEPI to the current value. IPS readouts should be meaningful again for trends, just remember that they have been disconnected basically since the cartridge was pulled from the chamber, so doing alignment comparisons between before that time and now are pretty pointless. On Monday, I plan to unlock, look at lock/unlock offsets, then use the loops to servo to this locked position. If locked to unlocked shift is large, it may mean we will want to do another round of spring adjustments, but I should be able to do those from above, using the IPSs. 

LHO General
corey.gray@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:30, Friday 26 June 2026 (90771)
Fri Ops DAY Shift Summary

TITLE: 06/26 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Planned Engineering
INCOMING OPERATOR: None
SHIFT SUMMARY:

Main activities today were: SQZ measurements in lvea + control room, connecting actuators for BSC2 hepi, ham3 baffling...
LOG:

LHO VE (VE)
jordan.vanosky@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:29, Friday 26 June 2026 (90780)
Removal of Viewports on HAM2

Jordan, Jake Z, Owen H

Per FRS Ticket 38164, two viewports were removed off of HAM2 and replaced with Class A 10" CF blanks.

On the East Door, port A2F2 was an uncoated ZV-800 (SN 66), and on the West door A1F1 was a ZV-800 Coated SN (R009). These two viewports will be inspected on the bench and put into spares inventory if all looks okay and passes inspection criteria.

These two blank flanges will be added to the list for leak checking during pumpdown.

Images attached to this report
H1 OpsInfo (OpsInfo, SEI)
corey.gray@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:27, Friday 26 June 2026 (90779)
Verbal Alarm Edit

After this week's HAM3 CPS work, had been hearing "HAM3 CPS Glitch" verbal alarms every few seconds, so volume reduced on Verbal.  To allow us to hear Verbal, RyanS made an edit to the tests.py file to remove the alarm for HAM3's CPS Glitches (he commented this change in the file). 

This specific alarm will need to be restored--after the CPS work is complete.

H1 SPI
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:11, Tuesday 23 June 2026 - last comment - 09:13, Monday 29 June 2026(90718)
SPI Pathfinder Analog LO Phase Rotators Set to 0.0 [deg] and 0.0 [deg]
J. Kissel, for J. Freed

At the last minute on 2026-06-18, Josh figured out that we had errantly been sending the SPI's double mixer two copies of a COS wave of 4096 Hz rather than a SIN and COS (LHO:90680). This was because someone had errantly put a 90 [deg] rotation in the SIN analog output path. He fixed it before he left, but didn't save it in the SDF system and it got lost during Monday's bootfest of h1seih23 (LHO:90689). I'm not sure if Josh (or anyone) tuned it to any specific value, but I've changed the SIN analog rotation phase to 0.0 and accepted it in SDF so we don't lose it.

Josh may add some more details in the comments below, in the comments to his LHO:90680.
Comments related to this report
joshua.freed@LIGO.ORG - 09:13, Monday 29 June 2026 (90790)

During investigation I found that that SUS-R2 rack was energiezed by about 1mV. This was found to be caused by SPI RF Splitter being attached to the rack directly. I ran out of time to correct this before my visitation ended

H1 SQZ
begum.kabagoz@LIGO.ORG - posted 17:36, Sunday 14 June 2026 - last comment - 16:48, Friday 26 June 2026(90613)
HAM7 - FC path mode matching projections from beam profile data

Below is the analysis for data taken on the FC path: between ZM1 and ZM2 and between ZM2 and ZM3, with Nanoscan, see Camilla's log 90573. As a reminder, ZM1 are flat optics, ZM2 is a PSAM with variable curvature, FC1 HR side is flat, AR side is curved with RoC ~1m. 

The data suggest that the OPO mode is slightly different from O4 OPO, and also strongly suggest a new optimal ZM2 PSAM voltage can be found within the range. 

We measured the beam profile at 5 different points after ZM1 with A:L2 lens at its nominal 0 position (sled that the lens lives on is flush to its translation stage on both front and back edges). At the last point with A:L2 at 0, we realized it would be pertinent to measure beam profiles for the two extremities of the A:L2 translation stage: -13 mm, which is closer to ZM1 by 13 mm and +17 mm, which is 17 mm further from ZM1. We then proceeded to take 5 measurements (again downstream from ZM1) for each of these lens positions. The nanoscan screenshots for each measurement are attached in the .zip folder. 

The attached gif shows the beam waist position estimation extracted from the beam profile scans downstream ZM1, for all three A:L2 positions. The "target" and "O4 x/y" come from Keita's log 59515The overlap plot attached shows the field overlap in percentage for all three A:L2 positions, with target and O4 beam parameters. With A:L2@0, the overlaps are above 99%, which bodes well for the FC mode matching prospects. There could potentially be a better mode matching solution to the "target" or "O4" for A:L2 between 0 pos and -13mm pos. However, the following measurements betwen ZM2 and ZM3 suggest fine-tuning of A:L2 position will not be necessary. 

We also measured beam profile between ZM2 and ZM3 for three different points, setting ZM2 PSAM voltage to 4 different values at each point. The "nominal" O4 strain gauge (S.G.) for ZM2 has been 3.15 V, which corresponds to ~ 60 or 90 V pzt supply voltage depending on which direction one scans from. The edges of the psam range are 0 V and 196 V, which corresponds to ~1.2-1.3 V and ~6.04 V S.G. respectively. In the interest of more uniform sampling of the available psam curvatures, we also chose to sample 4.5 V S.G. (~120 V or 150 V). 

This table shows experimental data mapped to radii of curvature of the ZM2 mirror, using Camille's E2100298. The exact PZT strain gauge/ PZT supply voltage that gives a certain RoC is affected by the hysteresis curve i.e. sweep direction.

Strain Gauge (V) PZT Supply Voltage (V) RoC (m) with increasing scan RoC (m) with decreasing scan
1.3 V 0 0.8211 0.82202
6.0x V 196 0.8911 0.89114
3.1x V 60 (d) or 90 (i) V 0.8523 0.85025
4.4x V 120 or 150 V 0.87534 0.87242

Attached gif for propagation between FC1 and ZM2 show esimated beam parameters for all four SG cases: 1.3, 3.1x, 4.4x and 6.0x V. The exact values for the strain gauge varied from one beam profile position to the next, however it should be good enough to tell if we have enough range on ZM2 or not.

The gif switches between different SG values once every 2 second, the lefthand plot is useful in looking at the beam divergence near FC1 while the righthand plot is a zoom-in around the beam waist. Looking at the estimated beam waist position for 1.3 V and 3.1x V cases switching across the "FC x/y waist", "VOPO target waist", ''O4 x/y waist", we can guess there could be a better mode matching solution between these two SG values. "FC x/y waist" comes from the Finesse eigenmode solution for the FC path (thanks Kevin Kuns!), target and O4 values are the same from the above-mentioned Keita log, assuming ZM2 curvature to be 0.85025 m (3.15V SG), and the following distances between the optics: A:M3 --> ZM1: 158.2 mm, ZM1--> ZM2: 1498.625 mm, ZM2 --> ZM3: 1821.497 mm, ZM3--> FC1: 1000.261 mm. Camilla extracted these distance values from D1900365-v1.

Knowing the applied PZT voltage and the corresponding RoC, we can use the measurements at 3.1x V and 1.3 V to estimate the mode matching we would obtain if we swept the RoC between that of these strain gauge values. The attached FC mode matching projection plot is computed by taking beam parameter estimated from the beam size measurements for 3.1x V, propagates the beam back to ZM2, unapplies the estimated RoC (decreasing RoC value was used informed by data, indicated in bold in the above table), then reapplies the RoC between these two values, after the overlap with the FC eigenmode is calculated. This projection suggests that mode-matching points with >99% overlap for both x and y axes are accessible. Clearly, there is varying astigmatism with strain gauge setting, see beam profile plots where 3.1x and 6.0x V shows beams with smaller astig. than the other two points. Since the PSAM characterization data gives only a single RoC number rather than separate x/y effective curvatures, the projection should be interpreted as approximate. In practice, the final optimization should be done empirically.

The effect of the astigmatism is also apparent in this defocus vs beam size at FC1 plot that shows mode matching contours. The calculation is made at the FC1.p2.o plane in Finesse.

 

Images attached to this report
Non-image files attached to this report
Comments related to this report
begum.kabagoz@LIGO.ORG - 14:06, Wednesday 24 June 2026 (90744)

The beam width data kindly tabulated by Camilla, the R(V) data from Camille's dcc E2100298, and the analysis code .py are attached, in the .zip. Fair warning, the analysis code also makes a bunch of plots I find useful to look at but another user may find irritating :)

Non-image files attached to this comment
begum.kabagoz@LIGO.ORG - 16:03, Wednesday 24 June 2026 (90746)

Code for the data points upstream of ZM2 attached. The measured beam widths and their corresponding position are listed in the script. The real raw data with the screenshots from the beam profiler UI is attached to the main log. 

Non-image files attached to this comment
eric.oelker@LIGO.ORG - 16:48, Friday 26 June 2026 (90781)

I wanted to try to get an idea of what sort of astigmatism we're seeing on the FC path.  I was able to get good fits of Begum's data right after ZM1.  This indicates that the astigmatism coming right off of the VIP looks quite good ( 99.9 +/- 0.1% overlap between X and Y).  Plots of the fits are attached for each lens position.

 

I wasn't able to get particularly convincing fits of the data after ZM2.  The points are several Rayliegh ranges away from the waist and I found that the fits were quite sensitive.  I could get answers anywhere between 98%-100% mode overlap between X and Y depending on what parameters I used in a la mode for the seed waist.  Someone might be able to do a more sophistocated fit of the data, but I think one would want to measure closer to the waist to better constrain the fit and get a more precise estimate of the astigmatism added by ZM2.  

Images attached to this comment
Non-image files attached to this comment
Displaying reports 1-20 of 88185.Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 End