Rahul, Ryan, Sheila

Today we think that we found a rapid way to iterate the psams preloading, and we made a couple of changes for ZM4.  

Frst Ryan and I measured the beam profile with ZM5 psams servo set to -8V, and ZM4 psams PZT votlage at 0V,  

Rahul can add the details of how he did this, but he added about 1/8 turn of torque to the ZM4 psams.  We then turned the laser back on, and took a beam profile measurement.  Unfortunately the profiler software got into a strange state where the beam waist seemed to be at a very different position and it would not calculate the original beam parameters.  We thought this was because the beam profile had changed dramatically, and Rahul backed off the preload by 1/8 of a turn.  As we were remeasuring the profile Ryan S noticed that the range of the translation stage displayed on the screen went only from 0-100mm, while it normally goes from 0-200mm.  The software would not allow Ryan to reset the measurement range parameter, until we powered the profiler off, exited the software, and started both up again.  

After this, we saw that indeed we had a reasonable q measurement, although not really an improved mode matching. It does seem promising to adjust ZM4 this way, as each iteration took about 30 minutes including our confusion about the beam profiler.  

S. Dwyer, J. Oberling, L. Dartez

This afternoon we went to ISCT1 to align the green beam from the PSL Green PD, and ALS COMM PD. This is pre-peek prep so that by the time the peek takes place we don't need to worry about the beam alignment from the PSL.

We struggled a little bit to find an alignment that agreed with the crystal and the downstream PDs. We were able to get a beam onto the COMM PD. Sheila thinks that what we set up so far is more than enough to get a beatnote during the arm peek. We aligned the green beam onto the green PD but for some reason couldn't get see a readout signal that corroborated that the beam had made it onto the diode. We tried doing some troubleshooting, which included a local cable swap and adjusting the PD placement on the table. Neither were successful and, given the time of day, we opted to revisit at a later time. The important part thing is that the COMM PD _was_ seeing the beam. 

As per WP 13504 we made some changes on h1daqdc0 to see if they would impact the error rate*.  We turned on the irqbalance daemon to see if that would help with IO load.  We are going to let this run a day or two and evaluate what things look like.  We are looking at other ideas (timing changes, network config changes, possible code changes to lock cores and network interrupts together better) but are going to hold off until the control room is ready.

* In the daqd, the CRC errors are a misnomer.  It really means late data, not corrupt data.

While Huyen is here, we've dug out the high voltage CPS that we got several years ago to try testing them on HAM8 again. We have a little preliminary data, that doesn't look good so far, but we will try to see if we can get any improvements over the next couple of days, while HAM8 is still isolated from the rest of the detector.

Jennie and I were looking at the SPI with Sina during a call today and Sina pointed out there was no power on the first PDs on the SPI breadboard. She said there was a witness pd in there SPI laser chassis that could be checked with a multimeter next to the chamber, so I went and checked that this afternoon. I'm not totally sure what all of the labels meant, but I think there is no laser light on the pd in the interface chassis. The SPI_LP_M1_PD was at 0v, the other two, SPI_LPMON_M2_RFMEAS and SPI_LPMON_M3_RFREF were at ~.8v regardless of the state of the CDS control of the SPI pick off shutter, which I had Ryan toggling remotely. We've talked to Ryan and Jason about going into the PSL tomorrow to check the function of the SPI pick off shutter, I think we will also try to check the output of the fiber at the chassis with a laser card at least. Not sure how hard it would be to look with a power meter.

TITLE: 08/10 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Planned Engineering
INCOMING OPERATOR: Ryan S

SHIFT SUMMARY:

Input Align & ZM4 work continued today with LVEA being transitioned to HAZARD toward the end of the shift for checks at ISCT1.

Apollo on-site to begin work addressing a beam tube enclosure section which is failing by installing framework inside the beam tube enclosure (this section in question is part of X1 on the Xarm [near the bridge]).

VAC team has been preparing for the quick X-arm opening peek tomorrow.

 LOG:

• 1454 Leslie & Campbell Inc truck arrives and heads to CEBEX (Bubba)
• 1521-1552 Technical cleaning @lvea (kim)
  • 1617-1722 continuing in lvea (kim)
  • 1722-1820 EX cleaning
• 1541 BTE for X1 [just past bridge] check on cracks by apollo (tyler)
• 1558 Dark gray big truck let in because they appeared to not have the right code.  They headed toward CEBEX; left voicemail with Bubba.
• 1600 SQZ work w/ Single bounce from HAM7 to HAM6 (sheila)
  • 1800 closing ham7 viewport (sheila)
• 1620- tour for documentary group (cassidy.jennie)
• 1657-1723 valve in the turbo pumps in lvea (gerardo.travis)
• 1700 DAS (Distributed Acoustic Sensing) work in MSR (reinhardt)
  • Since Reinhardt needed in/out access, we made the door open for him (via access system's 4R-44-1  OSB-6750-MSR-165-CR-LOCK.
• 1711 EX dust mon cds tests (jonathan)
• 1716-1802 cps elec swap at FCES HAM8 (jim.shoshonna.huyen)
• 1805 HAM8 SEI tests for the afternoon (jim.huyen)
  • 1812 some electronics heating up...if it trips, let Jim know 
• 1814-1830 checking on IMC turbo (travis).
• 1826 LesSchwab truck for CEBEX onsite
• 1848 HAM8 SEI checks @FCES again (jim.huyen)
• 1917 Accelerometer documentation (dave)
• 1929 coil drivers near ham6 (marc.jackie)
•  2001-2245 Beam profile measurements at HAM7 before ZM4 PSAM reset (ryanS.sheila)
• 2010 ZM4 PSAM adjustment in HAM7 (rahul)
• 2019-2115 BSC2 platform checks (betsy.huyen)
• 2220-2235 LVEA transitioned to laser HAZARD
• 2245 Input align checks at ISCT1 (louis.jason.sheila)
• 2318 checking on pem chassis in the CER (richard)

+ Valera

Now that we have the full 6x12 QOSEM to Euler matrix implemented at LLO, I have made a bunch of comparison plots looking at ITM BOSEMs and BBSS QOSEMS. Per sensor, we see about 2 to 3 times improvement but expected more like 10x. I made the comparison for L1 and H1. I also directly compared L1 v H1 BBSS QOSEM performance and compared the L1 6x6 v L1 6x12 OSEM to Euler Matrix.

L1 BS QOSEM vs L1 ITM BOSEM
H1 BS QOSEM vs L1 ITM BOSEM
L1 vs H1 QOSEM
L1 6x6 vs L1 6x12 OSEM to Euler Matrix 

Some things to note for the comparison plots

• ADC noise with the current L1 whitening is a factor of 3 below the noise floor shown on the comparison plots so the QOSEMs are not ADC noise limited. 

• L1 QOSEMS have Sum feedback and whitening turned on (alog 82137)

• H1 QOSEMS have Sum feedback and whitening turned on but whitening is slightly different than LLO’s (alog 91193)

• I believe all ISI’s are in their nominal state but I didn’t check groundmotion so L1 to H1 comparisons or the 6x12 to 6x6 matrix comparison isn’t exactly apples to apples. 

• All L1 data is with the 6x12 OSEM to Euler Matrix unless specifically stated otherwise. All H1 Data is with the 6x6 OSEM to Euler Matrix so they will have some additional gains to get in the DOF comparisons with the full 6x12.

L.Dartez, S. Dwyer, M. Nakano

Continuing from alog 91450, I started using awg to raster the im4 alignment to find the IR beam on the ISCT1 REFL camera on Friday. This effort was paused at the end of the day without finding the beam. This morning, Masayuki and Sheila noticed that the AS AIR camera had a beam but it was off-center. They walked it back using PR2 and IM4 and adjusted PR3 and the BS to compensate. 

When I got in to the control room I adjusted IM4 further to center the beam on ASC-POP_A. ASC-POP_B is still off center but we're choosing to prefer that POP_A stays centered for now.

Later this morning, Masayuki and I decided to see if we could find a PR2 + PR3 + PM1 alignment that 1.) maximizes LSC-POP, 2.) maintains the beam centered on ASC-POP_X, and 3.) maintains the beam center on the ISCT1 REFL camera. Starting from the nominal position (e.g. the position it was already in before we started) we moved PR2 in each direction. Each trial move's procedure was as follows: 1.) move PR2, 2.) compensate with PR3 to recenter ISCT1 REFL camera, 3.) adjust PM1 to center onto POP_X, 4.) observe/record the LSC POP counts.

We currently have roughly 3.4 counts on ASC-POP_X NSUM and 2.7 counts on LSC POP with POP_X centered within about 0.15 and 0.1 counts for PIT and YAW, respectively.

The slider values for PM1 are in PM1_sliders.png and the sliders for PR2,PR3, and IM4 are in IFO_sliders.png.

This new alignment configuration should better position us for the arm peak taking place this week, since we can confirm that we have red beam down to the ISCT1 table and on POP_X. The next intermediate step here will be to lock PRMI...

Wanda V., Reinhardt R. 

On Friday (08/07) we connected both fibres which measure the arms to the Febus interrogator, with the X arm on Ch1 and the Y arm on Ch2. This frees up the Sintela interrogator for Reinhardts experiments. 

The Febus interrogator is now measuring at 2500 Hz with a downsample factor of 10 before saving, coming to a recorded sampling rate of 250 Hz. The gauge length was 6m. In case there is a crash or the measurement needs to be restarted, the pipleline to load is LIGO_20260807_DS_SR_Writer_both250hz_v2. Filesize is ca 50 MB/min/channel

Monday August 10th: 
We measured at 10 m gaugelength over the weekend and it was changed to 6m at 11:00 am (PST) on Monday. 

The filesize is roughly 100 MB/min for the 6m gaugelength (so 200 MB/min for both channels) and roughly 60 MB/min per channel for 10m GL. If this measurement should be restarted, the pipeline is LIGO_20260807_DS_SR_Writer_both250hz_v3. 

In principle, the interrogator can now run "as is" through IR1, but we are still free to change any of the settings. 

On the morning of Monday, 8/3 I noticed that the well tank was quite low. Given the sporadic re-routing of well water supply to CEBEX this was not immediately concerning. Because the well tank can call for the pump to run, it sometimes calls but never satisfies because of the possible configuration of valves at MY. This confuses the FMCS logic, and will cause it to no longer function as designed. That said, when I attempted to manually command the well pump remotely, it alarmed out. At that point, Eric, Bubba and Richard did some lite electrical troubleshooting. The most obvious issue at the time was that the IR contactor refused to pull in despite the cabinet being in hand and being told to run.

At this point, I called Ohmco to see if they were able to shift their schedule around to put eyes on the well cabinet ASAP. They arrived within ~2 hours and began their troubleshooting. After hours of poking around, their assessment was that the soft start motor control was likely faulty. Unfortunately, despite the soft start readout being largely shielded from the sun, it was not operable so no apparent faults could be documented.

A soft start (P/N ATS480D88Y) was ordered on Monday and arrived Friday. Ohmco arrived that day, swapped the motor control's, set the appropriate parameters according to our pump HP and we verified rotation. This fixed the issue and operation of the wellhead returned to normal.

A second, identical soft start motor control has been ordered and is expected to arrive today. This will serve as a backup in the event this issue arises again. It will be clearly labeled and stored in the carpenter shop.

B. Gateley E. Otterman R. McCarthy T. Guidry 

TITLE: 08/10 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: EARTHQUAKE
    Wind: 7mph Gusts, 4mph 3min avg
    Primary useism: 0.58 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.09 μm/s 
QUICK SUMMARY:

NOTE:  Both Ops work stations had troubles logging in  (I could enter my username, but then the computer would freeze...for both computers).  So I'm back here at cdsws27.  It worked, but it was a little slow.

We had a M7.4 earthquake in Bogota (sort of in between Cali/Medellin/Bogota) that rolled in here about 2hrs ago.  Looks like this has mainly tripped mostly LVEA HAMs.  Picket Fence is lighting up in yellow also.

Oh and Rattlesnake Mountain finally returns (after missing quite a bit last week due to a smoky week).  AQI for Richland (closest sensor on AirNow) is at a YELLOW 71.  Only active fire in Benton Franklin counties is far away up near Kahlotus (Nunamaker Road Fire with 20k+ acres.

Also, the GWANW (Gravitational Wave Astronomy North West) meeting will be hosted here at LHO today and tomorrow.

Post NOTE:  Looks like BOTH ops workstations have now moved to the password for the login, so I will try to move back there.

TITLE: 08/07 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Planned Engineering
INCOMING OPERATOR: None
SHIFT SUMMARY:
Dust levels for H1:PEM-CS_DUST_LAB1_300NM_PCF is climbing up to 70,000 counts today. I imagine that the Dust level is goign to continues to rise with the wind this weekend. 

Input Alignment team has a PLAN, which is a simple matter of just walking the mirrors.  

Output  Arm team has been looking for MAXIMUM_POWER through their straws in HAM7, Note: Removed yellow View Port cover and left a guillotine in place on HAM6  & Misaliging SR2 & SR3.  

VAC team reports:  "Cryo Traps are open to the Beam Tubes." &  "The Corner station is still isolated from the Beam tubes." 

End Station Y had it's PCAL Integrating sphere returned today after it was stolen for some lab measurements last night. 

LOG:

Ryan S, Sheila

In summary, after removal of the A:L2 apperture stop we still see about 4% extra losses in HAM7.  We searched for the rejected beam from SFI1 in both directions with lights out, IR card, and viewer.  To explain a few % loss we should expect to have 10-20urad in this beam, which should be visible with lights out an a viewer.  We also noticed that the beam is off in yaw at the location where we had an iris after ZM1.  

Since Ryan and Camilla aligned the beam onto the SQZT7 PD yesterday, we are noting the power on that PD here after each measurement so we can use that to account for fluctuations in power out of the OPO.  

• out of OPO 1.354mW std 0.5uW PD 1.26-1.154 max-min, repeat in same location 1.340mW std 0.57uW PD: 1.26-1.154 max-min
• after ZM4: 1.209mW std 11.5uW  PD 1.233-1.12  
  • PD ratio: 98%  power dropped during measurement
  • power meter ratio:  89%(1st meas) or 90% (2nd meas)
• after BL1: 1.265 mW std 2uW  PD 1.241-1.14
• before BM1 (SFI1 return): 1.268 mW std 582nW  PD  1.23-1.11
• Remembered to start turning lights off
• before ZM1: 1.342 mW std 688nW  PD 1.24-1.11
• after AP1 before SF1 (on the way to FC): 1.316 mW std 680nW  PD 1.235- 1.08
• before BM1: 1.267 mW std 831nW
• on SQZT7: 1.191 mW std 5uW PD: 1.2032 much quieter with curtain up  (9.5% loss where we expect 4%)

From the control room, we dithered ZM2 + ZM3 and tried to reduce the fluctuations in the SQZT7 IR PD, we were able to recover a 4% of power this way, with fairly small adjustments (+9urad ZM2 P, +19 urad ZM2 yaw, 5 urad ZM3 yaw).  

One more round of power measurements: 

• out of OPO: 1.334 mW std 480nW  PD 1.248
• on SQZT7: 1.217 mW std 2.8uW (8.8% total loss)
• before BM1: 1.265 mW std 600nW  PD 1.25 (5% losses from 2 passes of SFI1)
• after BL1: 1.272 mW std 1.6uW  PD 1.25 (no loss from B:L2 apperture stop)
• after ZM1: 1.307 mw (not perfectly centered)  PD 1.25 (2% loss from 1 pass of SFI1)
• on SQZt7: 1.227 mW std 900nW  PD 1.25 (8% total loss)

Jennie Wright, Masayuki Nakano, Khanh Vu

This morning we worked on several tasks on the IOT1 table, including installing the camera and shutter, profiling the beam, and calibrating the DC power.

We identified a new location for the camera using the beam transmitted through JACR_M5. During this process, Masayuki noticed that the beam was being clipped by the shutter. We suspect that the beam may have been clipped for some time. We then installed the camera in its new location, and Masayuki aligned the shutter on the table.

Next, we profiled the beam for the wavefront sensors. We found that the Gouy phase separation between the two WFSs is approximately 70 degrees. We decided to leave the current configuration as it is since the separation is good enough. Masayuki will make a plot and perform a more detailed calculation later.

We also maximized the laser power in the REFL path by optimizing the waveplate angle. When JAC is unlocked, the measured power on the RFPD is 5.1 mW, and the trigger PD voltage is 0.28 V. When JAC is locked, the measured power decreases to 0.4 mW, and the trigger PD voltage is 0.02 V. Since the beam is split evenly, each WFS receives approximately 2.55 mW of optical power.

Finally, we calibrated the DC readout of RFPD by converting counts to mW. Before performing the calibration, Masayuki checked the alignment and recentered the RFPD. He then recorded two sets of measurements, each averaged over 10 seconds:

Measurement #1

* JAC_REFL_A_LF_INMON: 1072.3966186523437 counts
* DC power: 4.4 mW

Measurement #2

* JAC_REFL_A_LF_INMON: 1073.5228637 counts
* DC power: 4.5 mW

After the calibration, we updated filter number 10 with the new coefficients.

Travis, Gerardo, Jordan

During the closing of GV6 back in May, we noticed that there was some blow-by in the pneumatic system when trying to hard close the valve, see alog 90093. 

We were able to hard close the valve eventually but as preventative maintenance we wanted to replace the air cylinder seals, similar to GV7.

Prior to disassembly we measured the locations of the reed switches from the top surface of the bottom plate to the bottom surface of the reed switches:

Bottom Switch: 1 1/8"

Top Switch: 49 1/4"

We then disassembled the air cylinder and replaced the seals following procedure/notes collected during the GV7 repair. During cleaning of the old grease on the piston head, we noticed there were two burrs on the top of the piston, we did not notice any damage to the inside of the cylinder, but as a precaution we used a small flat file to remove the burrs. We also chased the threads on the four threaded rods with a die to aid with reinstallation. After cleaning and inspection of the cylinder tube, we found no issues or damage so we decided to continue to use that cylinder and keep the new one as a spare.

No other issues encountered, we removed the old seals, cleaned the grooves, added copious amounts of the supplied grease to the o-rings, seals and the inside of the air cylinder, and then re-assembled the cylinder tube. Pictures posted below and a final procedure is in progress and will be posted to the DCC.

We did not get a chance to cycle the valve after the seal replacement, so we will continue tomorrow with cycling the valve.