TITLE: 07/08 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Planned Engineering
INCOMING OPERATOR: None
SHIFT SUMMARY: Work on the CRS and the ISI in HAM3 finished up this morning, so the LVEA went Laser SAFE and doors were put back on HAM3. The corner vacuum volume is now fully closed, and pumping has started on the annulus. Additionally, scaffolding is now in place on GV7 and caution tape is up; exercise caution around the Y termination slab.
LOG:

M. Todd, C. Compton

Camilla and I re-profiled the QCL 0918 unit again today to see where things were left and what the astigmatism in the beam looks like. The whole idea that's been planned was to rotate one of the lenses in the path to induce the right amount of astigmatism the other way (trying to correct the astigmatism present in the laser output) in order to bring the beamsizes on the ITM closer together. Sophie put together a nice analysis for each QCL unit to calculate the right angle and L2 translation to give the right beamsize and removal of astigmatism, alog 89719.

As she points out in her table, the L2 lens needs to be translated back by some millimeters to get the optimal beam size on the ITM. As it was, the L2 lens position was sitting forward so that the fitted beam should be smaller than this nominal value. What some of my modeling has shown is that with the rotation in L1 lens, any translation away from L2's optimal position will re-introduce astigmatism. In a sense this means that to get the adaptive telescope working without astigmatism would require the ability to change the L1 rotation angle actively as well, which we are not able to do. So we profiled the beam after M4 with L2 in its nominal position to see if there was astigmatism. We fit the profile and propagated the beam to the distance the ITM will sit at, and indeed there is a little over 2mm of astigmatism and (as expected) the beam size in both directions is smaller than the nominal by about 2mm (which is as expected). The beamsizes as propagated to the ITM were: tan=49.4mm sag=51.7mm.

I want to take the profile with L2 translated to the -12mm in Sophie's table, and see if the astigmatism goes away as expected before making any conclusions.

However, this issue has motivated me to try reworking the layout a bit, mainly featuring a longer "dog-leg" which pushes L1 further away from the laser. This is an attempt as putting the lenses in the right place so that we minimize the astigmatism while also maintaining acttive control of the beam size on the ITM. The new design was for the QCL 0920 unit, whose table is at a much lower readiness level. This design shows a much lower astigmatism as a function of the L2 translation, however the ITM beam size is much more sensitive to the L2 translation as the design favors a waist after the last steering mirror into vacuum. 

PR2 and MC2 are both looking healthy. Note that multiple DOFs on both suspensions show excess noise between 1.6-1.9 Hz. It's present in both suspensions and started happening once the HAM3 door crew started getting ready to put doors on, so I believe it's just extra noise from something they were doing so the suspensions are looking healthy.

Settings
- DAMP OFF
- SLIDERS OFF
- ISI UNLOCKED but no damping on

MC2
Data
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/MC2/SAGM1/Data/2026-07-08_2030_H1SUSMC2_M1_WhiteNoise_{L,T,V,R,P,Y}_0p02to50Hz.xml
r13058

PR2
Data
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/PR2/SAGM1/Data/2026-07-08_2035_H1SUSPR2_M1_WhiteNoise_{L,T,V,R,P,Y}_0p02to50Hz.xml
r13060

Per WP 13396 I am upgrading the proxmox vm cluster ceph storage from v19 to v20 before it goes end of support.

This has been done in the test stand, and with other groups in LLO & LHO without any service interruption.

I am following the directions in the proxmox wiki: https://pve.proxmox.com/wiki/Ceph_Squid_to_Tentacle

I am starting with an up to date cluster with pve-manager 9.2.3 and ceph: 19.2.3-pve4 which is above the minimum requirements for this upgrade. 

Steps (as noted in the wiki all ceph commands are done on only one box):

1. On each box update the apt sources to use the ceph-tentacle repository (v20) instead of the squid (v19) repositories and run apt-update

2. Set the 'noout' flag on ceph. 

    ceph osd set noout

3. On each box run

    apt full-upgrade

4. On each box, one at a time, restart the monitor daemon, checking health with 'ceph -s'  (HEALTH_WARN with a note about noout flag set is ok.  Watching the gui summary gives near instant feedback too).

    systemctl restart ceph-mon.target

5. verify that Tentacle is in the output of:

    ceph mon dump | grep min_mon_release

6. On each box, one at a time, restart the manager daemon (this happened automatcially with the restart of the monitor).

    systemctl restart ceph-mgr.target

7. On each box, one at a time, restart the OSD daemons.  (check ceph status before proceeding on each box)

   systemctl restart ceph-osd.target

8. Upgrade all CephFS MDS daemons - skipped

9. Disallow pre-squid OSDs and enable all new tentacle only functionality

   ceph osd require-osd-release tentacle

10. clear the noout flag

   ceph osd unset noout

At this point the cpeh is health.

J. Oberling, R. Crouch

Here is the final position of the BBS optic in the LHO Global coordinate system, based on our final FARO measurements taken on 6/29/2026.

The first attachment shows the deviations of our measurement points on the BBSS from CAD nominal and the line shows the measured yaw of the BBSS cage.  The listed "X/Y Ang" is the X/Y projection angle of this line; the line is projected to the X/Y plane and the angle to this projection is measured from the +X axis.  In other words, this is pure yaw, and any contribution from an angle w.r.t. the Z axis has been removed¹.  As can be seen, we had to yaw the BBSS CW much more than expected based on the Zemax model of the IFO.  Recall, the yaw angle was set by Betsy and Keita using both the PSL and SQZ beams (final yaw alignment before our FARO measurement is in alog 90759 and the final check before closing out the chamber is in alog 90920).  We had started by setting the BBSS yaw close to CAD nominal (we were under 100 µrad), but when the check was done with PSL and SQZ beams a futher 2.5 mrad of CW yaw was estimated as necessary to align both beams.  We ended up using HEPI to add ~1.3 mrad of CW yaw, which was deemed good enough.  Why was this necessary?  We have no way to measure the optic pitch and yaw in-chamber (only way to do so is to remove the spool piece between HAM3 and BSC2 and set up a total station/LAC combo in a spot that is normal to the optic face using the FARO; we were told removing this spool piece was not an option), so I'm not sure but I can make a couple guesses.  I think it's likely a combination of at least two things: The yaw alignment from the test stand doesn't survive being craned into the chamber and our as-built input and output optics (PRC and SRC optics) placement/pointing is such that the BBS pointing needs to be changed from the Zemax nominal.  Regarding the former, we know that the test stand pitch alignment doesn't survive, as I looked back through my old aLIGO install notes and we never had a pitch alignment survive being craned; the smallest move I found was ~500 µrad, and I found a couple that were between 2 - 3 mrad, so having to add a mrad or two is not unheard of.  For the latter, I would like to measure the monuments we used to do the in-chamber alignments during aLIGO installation with the FARO.  We did this for the test stand monuments we did all of our Corner Station cartridge alignments on (see these 2 pictures from my BS pre-disassembly test stand measurement mega-alog), and found them to not be where we thought they were; I have a suspicion that we'll find similar with our in-chamber alignment monuments.

But, this is not the BBSS position and yaw deviation we had when we aligned the BBS optic to the ISI on the test stand (BBSS test stand position and yaw alignment is in alog 90274).  Our goal was to place the BBSS in-chamber as close as we could to the deviation we had on the test stand, so that the BBS optic itself was better positioned in the LHO Global coordinate system (since the BBS was aligned to nominal with the SUS cage at the test stand deviation).  To more easily assess how well we did in that, and to help in calculating the BBS optic position, I replaced the Nominal column with our Measured data from the test stand alignment; this is shown in the 2nd attachment (the Measured column is the same between the 2 attachments, it's the Nominal column that changed).  As a reminder, our final test stand position deviations are given in alog 90363.

To calculate the BBS in-chamber position, I averaged the measured deviations from the Test Stand Nominal attachment (X = -1.2mm; Y = 0.0 mm; Z = +0.1 mm; rounded to the nearest 0.1 mm to match our measured BBS test stand deviations) and then added our measured optic deviation from the test stand alignment (X = +0.3 mm; Y = +0.3 mm; Z = -0.1 mm).  These deviations were then used to calculate the BBS optic position; the results are shown in the table below (all units are in mm).

1: PolyWorks measures angles directly to the feature in a 3D space, so using its direct angle measurements such as spatial angle (angle measured from the positive axis direction directly to the feature) and acute spatial angle (angle measured from the closest axis direction, so either positive or negative, directly to the feature) can sometimes cause some confusion when trying to assess pitch/yaw/roll angle.  Using yaw as an example, the issue arises when the feature begins to approach either the positive or negative Z axes.  Imagine a line with a small angle w.r.t. the X axis (so a small yaw angle) but a large angle w.r.t. the X/Y plane (or small angle w.r.t. the Z axis).  In this case, the spatial angle in PolyWorks would measure a large X Angle, since it measures directly to the feature, even though the yaw angle is actually small.  This is where the projection angles come in, although the user must be careful in their application.  PolyWorks has 3 available projection angles to calculate for a direction-based feature: X/Y Angle, Y/Z Angle, and Z/X Angle.  For each of these, the direction of the feature is projected onto the plane indicated (X/Y -> X/Y plane; Y/Z -> Y/Z Plane; Z/X -> Z/X plane) and the angle is then measured from the first listed axis to this projection (so the Z/X projection angle is measured from the +Z axis, Y/Z projection angle measured from the +Y axis, etc.).  From my testing so far the X/Y Angle can be used to measure yaw in every circumstance I've tried it, but one must be careful with the Y/Z and Z/X projection angles.  These can be useful to measure pitch and roll, but measurement features must be set up to take advantage of this (i.e. you don't want to use a feature that lies primarily along the X axis to measure the Y/Z projection angle, as the data will almost certainly be meaningless).

Jim, Dave:

h1crsproc was restarted 14:09 Wed08jul2026 PDT with Jim's latest crs_block.mdl model. No DAQ restart was required.

isi/common/models/crs_block.mdl : r35333 --> r35469
 

Sheila, Camilla, Madi and Rahul

This morning we went into HAM7 chamber and reduced the pre-load on ZM4 (PSAMS) to 65in-lbs (down from 75 in-lbs ). The pre-load on ZM4 was last adjusted in Feb 2024 (see LHO alog 75677). 

This work was done as per the request of SQZ team, who wanted the pre-load on ZM4 to be reduced by 10in-lbs - see Sheila's comment on LHO alog 90919.

Given below are the steps we followed to reduce this pre-load on PSAMS,

After setting ZM4 into SAFE state (Camilla reduced the voltage on ZM4 an ZM5 PSAMS to ZERO and then I switched OFF the chassis) we locked all three stages of the suspension. We had already taken healthy TF measurements before starting our work.

- PSAMS (D1900092) cable was disconnected and carefully re-routed so that it stays away from the fixture plate.

- four add-on masses (basically 1/4-20 screws with washers) attached to PSAMS(D1900092) was then removed.

- bottom mass Fixture plate (D2100121) was attached to the structure using four 8-32 screws.

- PSAMS (D1900092) (already locked using EQ stops) was then further clamped using two 1/4-20 screws through the fixture plate. We had to adjust the height of PSAMS to the align the threads with the holes on the fixture plate.

- Once PSAMS was securely clamped, we removed the three set screws on the Mirror Pusher.

- Using a torque wrench (allen size 0.5inch - thanks to Mitchell for finding it), at first I slightly loosened (1/4 turn counter-clockwise) the Piezo Mirror Pusher (D1900123) and then set the pre-load to 65in-lb as requested by Sheila. 

- We then followed all the above steps backwards (i.e set screws, add on mass put back, fixture plate removed, cable re-connected and the suspension set free).

- Once all done, we started damping the suspension and checked for any BOSEM flag changes - looks all good.

- We took all the tools out and put the curtains back on HAM7 chamber.

- Finally, I took the transfer function measurements and ZM4 is looking healthy like before - see L, P, Y dof.

Next, we will go into laser hazard with SQZ team and check for any changes in beam alignment and make adjustments as required.

This morning, with Mitch and Shoshana, I went into the nozzle between HAM3 and BSC2, via the HAM3 door to fix the broken H3 actuator. I had to remove a couple baffles to get in and get access to the hatch over the H3 actuator, once the hatch was off, I found the pin on the back of the actuator terminal block had come lose, probably when I was in there to do the CPS upgrade. I probably should have checked this wire after I finished that swap, but it there was no way to see that anything was wrong, I had to grab the wire and pull on it. Once that was reconnected and I put everything back together, we did a quick chamberside test and H3 was driving again. I've now completed close out tfs, attached image, and run a CPS linearity measurement to check the new cpses. The linearity test plots failed in a way that didn't save the data, but I do have the terminal output of the test which agrees with HAM7: 

  'Actuator H1 to  CPS H1'

Linear regression y= 1.862 x + 245 

    'Actuator  V1 to  CPS V1'

Linear regression y= 1.890 x + -771 

    'Actuator  H2 to  CPS H2'

Linear regression y= 1.845 x + -271 

    'Actuator  V2 to  CPS V2'

Linear regression y= 5.105 x + 2771 

    'Actuator  H3 to  CPS H3'

Linear regression y= 5.073 x + 1543 

    'Actuator  V3 to  CPS V3'

Linear regression y= 5.119 x + 2882 

At some point after doors go on, I will want to try to fix the cps linearity test script and run it again, among the many other measurements I will need for HAM3.

Gerardo, Camilla. Done in Y-arm in 90917

Gerardo and I removed the blank from the X-arm adapter plate A-1C VP5 (T1200220) and swapped the D2000285-v2 type 01 SN 004 nozzle baffle to D2000285-v3 type 07 SN 002 nozzle baffle plate Mitch had prepared, all existing hardware reused and orientation kept the same. Photos before and after attached.  

The fused silica VP for the ITMY IR camera (not currently used for locking of in NLN but we want to keep) was then moved up to this A-1F VP2 location. The camera can itself has not yet been reinstalled, the camera in the can will need to be lowered, a yellow VP cover is there for now. 

We had issues with the CHETA VP ZnSe, so the planned D1700340-type002 VP assembly was not installed in the lower A-1C VP4, a blank was installed instead. A D2000285-v2 type09 SN 003 nozzle baffle plate with a high 2" aperture was installed, this was swapped for a solid D2000285-v2 type01 SN 004 nozzle baffle, see photos before and after. 

Camilla, Madi

Nominal sliders attached.

We used ZM1 sliders to move the beam down on ZM2 from approx 5.85" to 5.75". We have a target of 5.5" but could not go nay further without saturating ZM2. We then used ZM2 to bring the beam back to 6.25" at ZM3 and ZM3 to retro the beam (viewed at ZM1). Beam made it back to SQZT7 IR PD with minimal clipping seen on the PD. Sliders here

We ran out of time to do any M^2 measurements here so reverted sliders to nominal. We want to see if the astigmatism changes from original measurements. Can be done later using these values.

WP 13384.

"Reimage the Beckhoff machine that runs the NCAL system at end X. Change the PLC to be remotely managed from the new Windows 11 virtual machine running on https://pve-node0:8006 called beckhoff-build (10.105.0.251). Move the EPICS IOC to a Debian container. This is to be done in the same manner as was just done for the HEPI pump control. In this case the channel names should not change, so no DAQ restart should be needed. NCAL channels will disappear for the duration of the work."

This has been completed and the work permit has been closed.

TITLE: 07/08 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: 10mph Gusts, 5mph 3min avg
    Primary useism: 0.03 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.08 μm/s 
QUICK SUMMARY: Some wind and one LVEA dust alarm overnight, otherwise nothing else to report. The LVEA is still Laser HAZARD for HAM3 CRS work to bring us closer to being able to close up that chamber either today or tomorrow. SQZ work continues at HAM7 with strain gauge adjustment on ZM4 and prep for swapping ZM5.

Jordan, Dave:

The CP1 regen turbo is being ramped down, the associated pt100a alarm is no longer needed and was removed.

-<!-- temporarily alarm on PT100A CP1 REGEN PUMP CART  D.Barker LHO 03may2026 -->
-<Channel name="H1:VAC-LY_Y5_PT100A_PRESS_TORR" low="1.0e-04" high="5.0e-01" fields="0" description="CP1 REGEN PUMP CART">
 

[Joan-Rene Merou, Sofia Bussieres, Alicia M. Sintes]

The fasttracks all sky search for continuous waves from isolated neutron stars (600 Hz to 800 Hz) produced, after applying the known lines and prominence vetoes, 29 frequency regions that still showed very high candidate counts. Since following up these candidates would be expensive, we cross-checked each region against the unvetted line lists for H1 and L1 on the full O4 run-averaged spectra that was used in the generation of the official lines lists and searched for relations among the peaks found there. The attached document contains the full investigation with the sets of frequencies where we had these statistical peaks.

The main result is the identification of a previously uncatalogued H1 comb: Unknown H1 lines at 719.56806, 749.53750 and 779.50764 Hz (Sets 6, 5 and 1 in the document) sit at a constant offset of +0.300 Hz above consecutive harmonics (n = 24, 25, 26) of the known  29.96952 Hz PSL enclosure video camera comb . Fitting the full H1 WIP list, 13 currently unidentified entries match f = n x 29.969509 + 0.300 Hz, at n = 1, 15, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 32, 35, 37: 30.26972, 449.84292, 569.72097, 599.69056, 629.66000, 719.56806, 749.53750, 779.50764, 839.44667, 899.38569, 959.32403, 1049.23319 and 1109.17222 Hz. The same +0.3 Hz shift applied to the 100 Hz camera comb (99.99848 Hz spacing, 70.029 Hz offset) explains the unknown line at 770.31806 Hz (Set 3) as the n = 7 tooth plus 0.2997 Hz. Since the line list already contains a camera comb variant with a 0.60065 Hz offset (= 2 x 0.3003, annotated as possible mixing), this family appears to be intermodulation sidebands of the camera combs at multiples of ~0.3003 Hz. We recommend adding this comb to the O4 H1 line list.

We also found a family of H1 doublets split by 0.15Hz to 0.18 Hz among the unidentified lines in this band: 633.35583/633.52806, 646.78014/646.95000, 652.50000/652.66722, 669.30528/669.46833, 722.63333/722.78514, 759.75069/759.92778 and 779.34931/779.50764 Hz.

On the L1 side, four of the sets coincide with strong harmonics of the known 0.032777 Hz comb (665.83222 = 20314 x , 642.62528 = 19606 x , 637.18458 = 19440 x , 635.88194 = 19400 x  the fundamental. The comb is very dense, so this may not be enough evidence to classify these peaks as belonging to this comb.

The remaining regions correspond to broad, drifting or clustered noise bumps appearing in a single detector, which are not consistent with a CW signal. Only two regions (around 658.9 and 615.3 Hz) have no instrumental attribution and will be followed up.

Lines/bands that we intend on vetoing for the search:

H1: new cameracomb sideband comb (n x 29.969509 + 0.30021 Hz): 30.26972, 449.84292, 569.72097, 599.69056, 629.66000, 719.56806, 749.53750, 779.50764, 839.44667, 899.38569, 959.32403, 1049.23319, 1109.17222 Hz; plus the 100 Hz camera comb sidebands at 770.31806 and 970.315 Hz.

H1: ~0.17 Hz doublet family: 633.35583, 633.52806, 646.78014, 646.95000, 652.50000, 652.66722, 669.30528, 669.46833, 722.63333, 722.78514, 759.75069, 759.92778, 779.34931 Hz.

H1: broad unidentified peaks: 776.548 to 776.768, 758.22 to 759.94 (broad structure with multiple peaks), 700.798 to 700.834, 697.027 to 697.071, 671.401 to 671.419, 650.935 to 650.952, 640.718 to 640.729 Hz, and a widened contamination window up to ~670.28 Hz for the known camera to comb line at 670.0186 Hz.

L1: 0.032777 Hz comb harmonics: 665.83222, 642.62528, 637.18458, 635.88194 Hz.

L1: broad unidentified peaks/clusters: 660.75014, 657.24222, 655.48736 (+655.47847), 650.31833 (+650.3075, 650.31139), 649.6806 (within cluster 649.65 to 649.95), 648.51375, 648.77236, 646.34139, 645.85167, and the cluster at 759.216 to 759.221 Hz.

To try improve the coherence on the CRS response measurement an excitation on HAM3 Ry will be running overnight. The excitation can be cleared in the morning (clearing the excitation point with tpclear) if someone needs HAM3 before I get to turn it off in the morning.

[Jim, Shoshana]

The CRS is currently aligned, suspended, balanced, and unlocked on HAM3!

I aligned each HoQI as well as I could on the table, HoQI2 is slightly better than HoQI1, but it shouldn't be an issue. I also lowered the resonant frequency as much as possible, but I ended up running out of mass that I could easily remove from the bottom, so right now the resonant frequency is at ~25Hz. It's possible this raised frequency is because these flexures (21, 22) might be slightly thicker than the previous ones as they came from a different batch.

Tested the picomotor, moving the X value positive moves the mass to the left (towards HoQI1). We had it do three revolutions in both directions and the picomotor was able to couple with the mass adjuster while at maximum range (tilting fully to either side). We've also discovered that the GS13s outputs go crazy when the picomotor is running, which is something to be aware of.

We've verified that voltage makes it to the damping capacitor plates on either side. We've also confirmed that in the HOQI{1,2}_DIST data increases as the corner cube gets closer to either interferometer (i.e. when the left corner cube (wing) gets closer to HoQI1, the HoQI1_DIST channel data increases)

Attached are various photos of the CRS on the table for future reference, as well as a guide to all the balance masses currently on it.

WP 13304.

"Reimage the Beckhoff machine controlling the HEPI pump controller at end X and the Beckhoff machine controlling the HEPI controller at end Y. Change the code and infrastructure to match what was done at the corner station."

I completed end X today. This completes the WP, except for a DAQ restart, which is planned for tomorrow. I will close the WP after that has been done.

All HEPI pump stations are up and running on PID control.