TITLE: 06/26 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: 17mph Gusts, 12mph 3min avg
Primary useism: 0.02 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.08 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:
(Jordan, Owen, Jake, Gerardo)
The annulus sytem for HAM1 and HAM2, shared volume, was pumped down initially with a single aux cart (Hi cube), then to speed thing up a second aux cart (another Hi cube) was added via the HAM2 AIP port. After a couple of days the ion pump controllers appears to be able to keep up with the pressure, see attached trend plot.
(Jordan, Owen, Jake, Gerardo)
The cryotrap cooldown continues, we continue to pump on the cryotrap volume with a turbo pump, the turbo is backed with a SS500 aux cart.
Small changes were the removal of the calibrated leak from the RGA tree, along with the removal of other components in preparation to install an incoming small ion pump next week.
Current pressure in the cryotrap volume is 7.38X10-10 Torr.
Shoshana, Jim, Arnaud
The x6 HAM3 new CPS boards have been set to the following configuration (as per E2200455):
| board SN | probe SN | Location | |
| H1 | 29536 | 22777 | Slot 1 in crate +Y side |
| V1 | 38690 | 22781 | Slot 2 in crate +Y side |
| H3 | 12563 | 22779 | Slot 3 in crate +Y side |
| V3 | 38494 | 22775 | Slot 4 in crate +Y side |
| H2 | 23370 | 22778 | Slot 1 in crate -Y side |
| V2 | 11950 | 22780 | Slot 2 in crate -Y side |
There was some glitching noticed on the channels that were in range prior to this work, which was fixed after this setting change (see attached). Two of the cards were set to Master before and Jim is confident this would have created problems.
Left to do :
1- Label the cards at the front of the boards with module SN and corner #
2- Disconnect the grounding to the chamber of the crate on the +Y side
3- Label the in-air lemo cables with H1, V1, H2 ...
4- Update ICS with the new boards SN
5- Gather the cards that were removed from WHAM3 to send back to microsense for recalibration with a new set of sensors (RMA)
The tracking spreadsheet for this ECR was updated here: E2500184
(Jordan, Gerardo)
We inspected the 5 viewports on the west door of HAM2.
We found on viewport A1F4 the typical smudge or print left by first contact the print appears to be on the inside, but not the vacuum side (this VP has two windwos). We also noted a scratch on the outside window (not under vacuum), around 1 O'clock and about 3/4" away from the edge, we contacted Keita who was walking by the area and we asked him if the location of the smude/scratch were on the path of beam, no they are not. BTW, VP4 is a high quality wedged viewport, a double window, type D1101714.
Then on A1F2 ZV-800 viewport we noted some scratches, something was dancing on the window, since it appears as a single scratch with multiple turns. This viewport was removed and replaced with a spare ZV-800 type. SN of new unit is 0098, old scratched and full of particulate viewport serial number 63.
All other viewports nothing to report, A1F1, A1F3, A1F5.
Arnaud, Marie, Jeff, Oli
Compared to the BSFM, the cross coupling in the BBSS from P to Y is mught higher (This plot shows ~ 2 orders of magnitude, but I don't want to confirm that yet since the data fudge for the BSFM might be incorrect).
I made a comparison of the last few BBSS P to Y measurements and compared them to an old BSFM P to Y measurement.
We found that the P to Y cross coupling looks a lot like just Y to Y (bright blue), so there is much more Y than there should be.
There is still some more work to be done to absolutely confirm this, but current in progress results can be found in /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/BBSS/Common/Results/comparetripleparams/2026-06-25_BBSSvsBSFM, r13050.
A minor grain of salt: though the "(BBSS Teststand BOSEMs * 0.35587 | P to Y)" BOSEM data set seems to report *equal* if not *worse* P to Y magnitude as Y to Y magnitude, the data quality is garbage -- likely incoherent at all-but-on-resonance frequencies.
Took some BBSS transfer functions yesterday afternoon after we touched a bunch of stuff as another check that everything is still looking good. Everything is still looking good.
Settings
CD state 1
DAMP OFF
OPTICALIGN OFF
Data
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/BBSS/H1/BS/SAGM1/Data/2026-06-25_0000_tfs/2026-06-25_0000_H1SUSBS_M1_WhiteNoise_{L,T,V,R,P,Y}_0p02to50Hz.xml
r13045
Results
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/BBSS/H1/BS/SAGM1/Results/2026-06-25_0000_tfs/2026-06-25_0000_H1SUSBS_M1_ALL_TFs.pdf
r13049
Ibrahim, Oli
Today we re-centered M2 BOSEMs and M3 AOSEMs following BBSS alignment work.
These were centered with OpticAlign Offsets of P = 107, Y = 441. These are thought to be a "good" alignment.
We also replaced AOSEM 771, which had bad counts (14k OLG) with AOSEM 770 (high counts at 25.5k - at open light 22.2k - the OLG would change in-chamber depending on whether it's backed out or in my hand).
Then, we also re-attached the LL AOSEM - see picture of cabling - we will likely redo all cabling.
TITLE: 06/25 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Planned Engineering
INCOMING OPERATOR: None
SHIFT SUMMARY:
BBSS' pitch appears to be fine & at end of shift one of its OSEMS. Actuators beginning to get installed on BSC2 ISI. HAM3 also was a hub of activity with CRS prep, baffling installed, v& iewport swap. We also have a new Reservation System with graphical status of laser hazard/safe (thanks TJ!).
LOG:
WP13346 Retire CP1 Overfill System
Erik, Dave:
As a first step in dismantling the daily CP1 overfill system, I stopped and deleted its systemd service on zotvac0. Erik and I verified that this service was not being managed by puppet, and to further verify this we let the puppet agent run and then rebooted zotvac0.
To keep the EDC green for the rest of this week, I installed a dummy IOC on the container cluster which serves those CP1 channels being acquired by the EDC.
Project History
This might be good time to give a brief history of this project. The CP1 LN2 level sensor failed way back in August 2021. For many months we ran the overfill manually. Chandra suggested an automatic system be installed and the first version of my code was rolled out 17 December 2021 just before the holiday shutdown. It then ran daily through to 01 May 2026 when the CP1 regeneration was started. During this time the code had ran daily for 1595 days (4 years, 4 months, 14 days), skiping just 31 days (1.9%). During this time several improvements were made: ramping the LLCV opening to reduce mechanical noise, using rate-of-change on the thermocouples to indicate LN2 flow, sending text messages at start and completion of each fill.
After in-chamber crews physically moved the BS, I was able to restore both the IMC flashes and the sqz beam reflected by ITMX as well as ITMY in AS as well as ISCT1 REFL camera by just using the BS sliders. sqzbeam_as_isct1.png and the video PXL_20260625_204834048TS.mp4
show the sqz beam in the AS (left) and ISCT1 (right) camera when IMC was misaligned, while PXL_20260625_204905669TS~2.mp4 is the video of the IMC flashes when SQZ beam diverter was closed.
BS top suspension offsets were H1:SUS-BS_M1_OPTICALIGN_P_OFFSET = 107.00 and H1:SUS-BS_M1_OPTICALIGN_Y_OFFSET = 441.00.
Right now F2 coil is using ~10% of the DAC range (~13.3 million counts out of 135 million), F2 ~ 6%, and others are small. See BS_DAC_range.png. I don't think further trying to relieve this will be fruitful or useful.
Following on from alog 90738, we last had the corner alignment with the BBSS at PIT +115 and YAW -1557. We decided to offload this YAW to the HEPI so the team embarked on that yesterday, likely another alog from IAS/SEI on that move later. Today we went and looked at the corner beam pointing with Keita refining the BBSS alignment to PIT +107, YAW +441 (see his alog coming).
So now, Jim and Mitchell are embarking on Actuator attachment at the piers. We will relook at the BBSS cage position with the FARO shortly after they are complete, and then re-peek at the corner alignment likely early next week.
Meanwhile, the BBSS PIT to YAW cross coupling investigaton continues...
We took a FARO shot before the HEPI rotation, shown in the 1st attachment, and one after, shown in the 2nd attachment. The FARO measures the yaw rotation at 0.0773°, or 1.35 mrad, in the clockwise direction (44.9990 - 44.9217 = 0.0773; direction is CW since we rotated closer to the +X axis). At this point we had some interference between one of the spring caps for the -X/+Y HEPI pier and the -X blue HEPI crossbar, so we could not rotate any more (Jim cleared the interference this morning by removing the spring cap and grinding some material away). Regardless, this was enough to get us to an acceptable place. In addition to the rotation, we did see some -X position shift in the BBSS cage, as can be seen in the attachments. Averaging out the the rotation gives a shift of 1.4 mm in the -X direction. From the test stand alignment the BBS optic itself was +0.3 mm in the X direction w.r.t. the ISI, so the BBS is now roughly -1.1 mm from its ideal X axis position. Using the same position tolerance from the test stand of +/-1.4 mm, this means we're pretty close to the edge for X axis position but still within, so onward we go.
We'll measure the position again once all the HEPI actuators have been attached to ensure position is still good, as there is potential for things to move during actuator attachment.
Jeff, Arnaud, Betsy, Oli
Yesterday we checked the coil response for the BBSS QOSEMs. We did this at the BBSS M1 QOSEM satamp. Everything is looking good and as we expected.
We did this by putting the BBSS in SAFE, then unplugging the db15's that go to the coil drivers. In their place Jeff plugged in a fancy breakout board that separated out each of the 4 channel pins. The resistance of each of the reading device channels is listed below:
| Coil Voltage (Satamp to Coil Driver) | ||
| Resistance of reading device (no uncertainty to 0.1 Ohm) |
Used to measure
|
|
| Breakout (B/O) Channel 1 | 24.3 Ohm | CH1 (F1), CH5 (LF) |
| Breakout (B/O) Channel 2 | 20.9 Ohm | CH2 (F2), CH6 (RT) |
| Breakout (B/O) Channel 3 | 23.1 Ohm | CH3 (F3) |
| Breakout (B/O) Channel 4 | 23.4 Ohm | CH4 (SD) |
With this channel breakout board we then went channel by channel to measure voltage. We turned the master switch ON so counts can head out from the COILOUTF filter bank. For each channel, we noted the COILOUTF filter bank gain sign, and if there was any voltage read out when no offsets were put in. Then we put an OFFSET in the COILOUTF filter bank and noted the voltage that we were reading. We did this for multiple OFFSETs for each channel. After testing each channel, with an offset still on, we would check the other channels to see if anyone else was seeing anything more than their default reading with no offsets, which they never saw anything different from that. Here is that data:
| Cable | SUS_BS_85 | SUS_BS_87 | ||||||||||
| Channel | CH1 | CH2 | CH3 | CH4 | CH5 | CH6 | ||||||
| OSEM | F1 | F2 | F3 | SD | LF | RT | ||||||
| COILOUTF gain | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | ||||||
| COILOUTF OFFSET | Voltage (V) (+/- 0.5 mV) |
COILOUTF OFFSET | Voltage (V) (+/- 0.5 mV) |
COILOUTF OFFSET | Voltage (V) (+/- 0.5 mV) |
COILOUTF OFFSET | Voltage (V) (+/- 0.5 mV) |
COILOUTF OFFSET | Voltage (V) (+/- 0.5 mV) |
COILOUTF OFFSET | Voltage (V) (+/- 0.5 mV) |
|
| 20,000 | -2.825 | 20,000 | -2.837V | 20,000 | 2.848 | 20,000 | 2.839 | 20,000 | -2.826 | 20,000 | 2.836 | |
| 10,000 | -1.413 | 10,000 | -1.419 | 10,000 | 1.424 | 10,000 | 1.419 | 10,000 | -1.413 | 10,000 | 1.418 | |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | -1.00E-03 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1.00E-03 | 0 | 0 | |
| -10,000 | 1.412 | -10,000 | 1.416 | -10,000 | -1.424 | -10,000 | -1.42 | -10,000 | 1.412 | -10,000 | -1.418 | |
| -20,000 | 2.825 | -20,000 | 2.83 | -20,000 | -2.849 | -20,000 | -2.839 | -20,000 | 2.825 | -20,000 | -2.837 | |
| With OFFSET of -20,000 (in V): | With OFFSET of -20,000 (in V): | With OFFSET of -20,000 (in V): | With OFFSET of -20,000 (in V): | With OFFSET of -20,000 (in V): | With OFFSET of -20,000 (in V): | |||||||
| CH1 (B/O Ch1) | -- | CH1 (B/O Ch1) | 0 | CH1 (B/O Ch1) | 0 | CH1 (B/O Ch1) | 0 | CH5 (B/O Ch1) | -- | CH5 (B/O Ch1) | -1.00E-03 | |
| CH2 (B/O Ch2) | -1.00E-03 | CH2 (B/O Ch2) | -- | CH2 (B/O Ch2) | -1.00E-03 | CH2 (B/O Ch2) | -1.00E-03 | CH6 (B/O Ch2) | 0 | CH6 (B/O Ch2) | -- | |
| CH3 (B/O Ch3) | 0 | CH3 (B/O Ch3) | 0 | CH3 (B/O Ch3) | -- | CH3 (B/O Ch3) | 0 | |||||
| CH4 (B/O Ch4) | 0 | CH4 (B/O Ch4) | 0 | CH4 (B/O Ch4) | 0 | CH4 (B/O Ch4) | -- | |||||
You can see that the voltage signs are all consistant with the sign of the OFFSET * COILOUTF gain, and the values are all pretty consistant as well.
After we were done reading out the voltages for SUS_BS_85, we put offsets of -20,000 in F1, F2, and F3 and checked the voltages on all three channels. All three channels read the same voltage as they had when we had tested them individually at -20,000 counts. That table is below.
| OFFSET of -20,000 for F1, F2, F3 (in V) | |
| CH1 (F1) | 2.825 V |
| CH2 (F2) | 2.831 V |
| CH3 (F3) | -2.849 V |
Some pictures of the "DAC Voltage to Coils" setup that gathered the above data. 2026-06-24_QOSEM_CoilDriveDACVoltage_BigPicture.jpg Zoomed out photo of SUS_BS_85 cable disconnected from the Coil Driver 1-4 channel input to the QOSEM satamp chassis in SUS-R2, and connected to the dummy OSEM system (what Oli calls the "fancy breakout board"), with a DVM reading out the voltage across the resistors. In the pictured case, we're using the DVM (placed in the rack for convenience) reading out the voltage across the Channel 1 resistor of the dummy OSEM which is connects across the + and - legs of the Channel 1 output of the cable (i.e. F1). 2026-06-24_QOSEM_CoilDriveDACVoltage_Zoom_DummyCoilResistor.jpg Zoomed in photo of the clip leads hooked across the resistor. Since the sign of the voltage is critical, I made sure to find a dummy OSEM that had the + and - legs clearly called out, ensuring the positive, red, signal lead for the BNC connection was connected to the + leg of the drive signal, and black to the -, return, leg. 2026-06-24_QOSEM_CoilDriveDACVoltage_Zoom_DVM.jpg Zoom in photo of an example of the DVM read-out voltage during the given offset (in this case, it was the CH1, F1, 10,000 [ct] offset -- multipled by the -1 COILOUTF gain -- to read -1.413 [V]_DC). Note -- again because signs are under question in this investigation -- careful attention was paid to ensure the orientation of the BNC to banana adapter into the DVM; connecting in the standard "nub is negative" configuration i.e. the shield of the BNC cable, connected to the black clip lead on the other end, is connected to the black COM input of the DVM. 2026-06-24_QOSEM_CoilDriveDACVoltage_DisconnectedSatampCable.jpg Zoom in photo of where the SUS_BS_85 DAC drive cable connects into the QOSEM satamp.
Addressed TCS Chillers (Thurs [Jun25] 934-945am local time) & CLOSED FAMIS #64383.
(Still not getting FAMIS notifications and not clear which FAMIS Schedule LHO is supposed to use due to duplicate schedules being generated with the new LIGO Lab FAMIS transition.)
For measurements below, measuring from "top" of the red floaty ball.
Recorded our added mass configuration on the Top Mass. See diagram and associated pictures.
Top Side: 100g total, both on Front (by convention, so the side opposite the OSEM flags)
Bottom Side: 200g total, 100g on Front, 100g on Back
Total Added: 300g
See the diagram.
Jeff, Betsy, Arnaud, Oli
Yesterday afternoon we went to the BBSS QOSEM satamp and checked the coil resistance. We did this by putting the BBSS in SAFE and then unplugging the Satamp to Duopus cables one by one. Each of these three cables have the pins for two QOSEMs, split as CH1 + CH2, CH3 + CH4, and CH5 + CH6. Each cable was unplugged and then the pins for each coil probed. Below are the results. These values are all pretty similar.
| Coil Resistance (Satamp to Duopus) | ||||||
| CH1-2 (SUS_BS_81) | CH3-4 (SUS_BS_82) | CH5-6 (SUS_BS_83) | ||||
| Channel | CH1 | CH2 | CH3 | CH4 | CH5 | CH6 |
| CH Coil Pins | 23 -> 10 | 18 -> 5 | 23 -> 10 | 18 -> 5 | 23 -> 10 | 18 -> 5 |
| OSEM Mapping | F1 | F2 | F3 | SD | LF | RT |
| Coil Resistance | 39.1 +/- 0.1 Ohm | 40.0 +/- 0.2 Ohm | 39.0 +/- 0.2 Ohm | 39.7 +/- 0.2 Ohm | 40.0 +/- 1.5 Ohm | 40.5 +/- 0.5 Ohm |
| Notes | Larger than normal variation | |||||
Picture of the setup: (in this instance) the QOSEM CH 3-4 (i.e. F3 and SD) SUS_BS_82 cable is disconnected at the QOSEM satamp in SUS-R2, and its "to chamber" end is connected to a standard D25 breakout board. Clip leads are connected across the pins as described above to gather the coil resistance. These results are as expected: the QOSEMs are up-cycle bodies and coils from BOSEMs, which are known to have resistance of ~40 [Ohm], in this case 40 +/- 2.5%. Note, this is markedly different than the 35 +/- 10% [Ohm] -- 31.5 to 38.5 [Ohm] -- assumed in LHO:90743. Maybe Tom is assuming that this is the coil resistance if measured directly at the coil flexi-circuit terminals, and the "extra" resistance is from the long cable run to the chamber which is what we typically measure. However, the 2.5% spread in coil resistance values between F1, F2, and F3, is NOT enough of an imbalance to explain the worrisome P to Y cross-coupling seen at DC (LHO:90728 and LHO:90739) and in the M1 to M1 transfer functions (LHO:90765).
Today Gerardo and I removed the unused HAM ISI Oplev viewports from the VP7 ports of both the -X input manifold and the +Y output manifold. The ports were blanked off with 10" CF blanks. I noted a series of 3 scratches on the angled flat of the flange, but the knife edge itself wasn't noticeably deformed. See pics.
Note to VAC: These will need to be leak checked during pumpdown.
The rest of the unused HAM ISI Oplev viewports were removed.from the VP5 position, they were unused ISI Oplev at +X input manifold and the -Y output manifold. The ports were blanked off with CF blanks. The 7.8" aperture MDC viewports, part number 9722012 appear to be in good shape. The chamber flange on the output manifold had a gross scratch that I resorted to "stoning" it to remove the scratch.
One small optical lever pier was removed from the VP5 position on the input manifold +X side, near HAM3. No issues to report. Some of the internal components were placed in a cabinet on the south bay area, per Jason's request.