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.

TITLE: 07/06 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Planned Engineering
INCOMING OPERATOR: None
SHIFT SUMMARY:
HEPI alarms are not currently set correctly.  The good-ole Verbal Alrams system uses the channel names to flag alarms to the control room. These channel names have been changed in the last 2 weeks.  H1:HPI-PUMP_EX_DIFF_PRESS_PSI is te new name for EX. 

CRS and ISI work continues

EE folks have been starting some SPI Shutter cabling. 

LOG:

Patrick is now running the new containerized HEPI Pump Controller IOC on the service-host cluster. Because some channels did not get renamed, my temporary edc_green_ioc was causing some channel duplication errors. Since we will be restarting the EDC tomorrow to sync to the new channels, for tonight I have removed all the temporay EX HEPI pump channels from edc_green_ioc. EDC has currently has a disconnect count of 253.

Note that the control room ALH alarm handler is alarming on old HEPI pump controller names. It needs to be updated to the new names.

Rahul K, TJ S

PR2 was unlocked, ISI and HEPI locked. 

Accelerometer location 1 - Roughly vertical center of the cage on the -Y side. Acc dofs = IFO dofs

Meas 1 - Hitting in +X direction on top corner of cage
Meas 2 - +Y direction same corner
Meas 3 - -Z direction, same corner

Location 2 - Top of cage on -Y+X corner. Acc dof XYZ = -X,YZ IFO

Meas 4 - +Y hitting same top corner as previous round
Meas 5 - +X IFO direction same corner
Meas 6 - -Z same corner

Rahul K, TJ S

MC2 was unlocked, ISI and HEPI locked. 

Accelerometer location 1 - Roughly in the vertical center of cage on +Y,+X side. Acc dofs = IFO dofs

Meas 1 - Hitting -Y at the top of cage
Meas 2 - -X same area
Meas 3 - -Z top of cage, same corner

Location 2 - On the upper portion of the cage on the -X side. Acc dofs = IFO

Meas 4 - -Y on top corner of cage
Meas 5 - -X same corner
Meas 6 - -Z top of cage, same corner

When I get another minute, it will be interesting to see how these compare to the other triple suspensions that have these type of baffles.

Rahul K, TJ S

The CRS was locked, the ISI and HEPI were locked, and the rest of the suspensions were unlocked for our B&K hammer tests. This allowed us to test out the modes of the baffle panels on the CRS, but we don't have a great idea of the operating state of the CRS structure.

Accelerometer location - On the top of CRS Shroud Mount Assembly (D2500083) using the 8-32 screw to secure the mounting bracket and with the shroud in place. Acc. dofs = IFO dofs.

Meas 1 - Hit on top of the -X+Y baffle bracket in the -Y direction
Meas 2 - Hit -X direction on same baffle bracket
Meas 3 - Hit -Z direction on same baffle bracket

Meas 4 - Hitting on the bottom corner of the baseplate that slightly hung off of the optical table in -Y direction
Meas 5 - Hit in the same area in +X
Meas 6 - Hit in the same area in +Z

Peaks of note are at 64, 130, 169Hz. None of these peaks seem to be show stoppers, but good to note.

Checked spectrum over the weekend for the newly installed CPS on HAM3. Noise looks great.

Horizontal CPS noise is at 3e-10m/sqrt(Hz) and Vertical CPS noise is at 4e-11m/sqrt(Hz) >1Hz (see figure 1) which is what we expect from https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T0900450

Only the corner 1 GS13 were plugged (see figure 2), so I could not verify if those looked ok or not.

This calibrated dtt template lives under : /ligo/svncommon/SeiSVN/seismic/HAM-ISI/H1/HAM3/Data/Spectra/Undamped/h1_ham3_all_sensors.xml

Ibrahim, Oli, Rahul

As part of our final round of BBSS work, we:

• Blew the BBS. Went from the AR side ~1-2 inches from optic surface and slowly with flashlight blew all specs that I could see.
• Set EQ Stops to ~1mm from the edge of the suspensions and drove the nuts in to finger-tightness.
• Centered QOSEMs - see attachment. All are under the 2000 spec and none were shorted.
• Removed tools from chamber.

Now, I'm taking transfer functions to confirm BBSS is still happy

The HAM2 East door A2F4 viewport failed inspection last week and was removed.  It was replaced with a re-inspected ZV-800 that was removed from HAM5 earlier this month.  See pics for SN, etc. 

The FCT bellows that was disconnected at the beginning of the vent was reattached to BSC3 port.

Filing a late report, last week I measured the resistance of the strain gauge on the PSAMS for ZM5 suspension in HAM7 chamber. This is to investigate the inconsistent behavior (voltage drop/open loop issues) of the strain gauge attached to the PSAMS on ZM5 - details posted in LHO alog 90783.

To measure the resistance of the strain gauge and confirm if anything is broken, I decided to check it chamber side (on the racks in the LVEA). To locate the chassis in the LVEA I referred to the A+ SUS HAM 7 (sush7) System Wiring Diagrams (D2000202_V12), page 04 (ZM5, M2 PSAMS). This document pointed me towards SQZ-R1, Slot U2, where the chassis D2000555 was located. At first, I switched off the chassis and then unplugged cable no 6 which was connected to the JIG Box (J8-Metal PCB Jumper Box DB25 Male female). Then I  connected a breakout board to cable no 6. For measuring the resistance of the strain gauge, I looked into D2000383 to find the correct pins (Camille Makarem (CIT) also talked to the vendor and sent me the pin number, as given in E2500225). This is as follows,

700 Ohms between Ex+ and Ex-

350 Ohms between signal+ and Ex-.

From the pinouts in https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-E2500225, this should be

700 Ohms between pins 1 and pins 3/2

350 Ohms between pins 6 and pins 2/3
 

Chamber side this comes to be pin 12 & 25 and pin 11 & 25. Using a multimeter, I got the following readings,

Pin 12 & 25 = 706 Ohms (looks good)

Pin 11 & 24 = 360.5 Ohms (looks good)

The chassis was powered on after the measurements were complete and cable 06 reconnected to the JIG box and secured using two screws (which were missing). The above measured numbers are as per the strain gauge manufacturer. However, It could be possible that the soldering is coming off and giving us open loop sometimes, if not all times. We will continue to investigate this issue and if we are not able to fix it then the plan is to replace it with a spare unit. A spare ZM5 PSAMs unit is currently being prepared by Camille Makarem and should be shipped to LHO within a day or two. We will then start working on swapping out the faulty unit with spare one, in-situ.  

WP 13381

The CRS laser was tied to the site safety interlock system. The local e-stop button on rack TCS-R2 was removed.

Once HAM3 is balanced, and the ISI sensors and plants are checked, we'd like to take a 1mHz resolution Ry to Ry transfer function of the CRS to verify its response, and infer if the Center of Mass is below the Rotation Point. The measurement consists in driving Ry of the ISI and normalizing the CRS response to the Ry drive with the CPS response to that same drive (which is flat in the 1mHz - 1Hz region)

A template for this measurement was created under the folder :

/ligo/svncommon/SeiSVN/seismic/HAM-ISI/H1/HAM3/CRS/CRS_tilt_TF_070626.xml

Ideally those measurements would look like the ones we measured at MIT (see https://alog.ligo-la.caltech.edu/SEI/index.php?callRep=2564)

The excitation is running through the RY ISO exc point with the ISI damped with the following awggui template : 

/ligo/svncommon/SeiSVN/seismic/HAM-ISI/H1/HAM3/CRS/ry_exc.txt 

(open awggui from this folder ->File->Open Configuration-> Select ry_exc.txt) 

The first number in the notch filter notch(0.016,30,20) will need to be adjusted to the actual CRS frequency. The excitation gain in the 'overall Gain'  will also need to be adjusted to minimize saturation, and maximize coherence with the CRS. 

"configure channels for plot" on the right-click popup menu is working with scatter plots. There's a new column that shows which channel is the X axis channel. You can click on the column to switch the X axis to a different channel.

TITLE: 07/06 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: 13mph Gusts, 8mph 3min avg
    Primary useism: 0.03 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.08 μm/s 
QUICK SUMMARY:

Dust alarm was going off and HPI PUMP EX Pressure Diff PSI is saying it's invalid

Mitchell, Robert

Mitchell and I completed our baffling work on HAM3 on Thursday. This included installing and aligning baffles on the +X and -X sides of HAM3 and baffle extensitons of the PR2 scraper baffle. In addition, we fixed a retroreflection of light scattered from the PRM by an optic on the POP path (90193) and we "baffled" two of the SPI baffle bracket ends that were retroreflecting light to the BS (90787). The figure shows "before" and "after" these two fixes. Alignment was checked with beamspot photos from PRM, PR3, MC1 and 2 and BBS.  I also checked the baffling of the CRS, and I found no significant problems. I have examined the photos, but most of the figures are not finished and will have to be in a subsequent log. 

-Flexures installed SN 21, SN 22, they have survived throughout the day (I haven't unlocked the CRS since moving to the table, but visually they look fine)

- I re-balanced the CRS so there is now a new distribution of masses on the proof mass 

-The CRS is semi-bolted on the table, we haven't put any dog clamps down, but there is one place where the CRS can be bolted directly into the table 

-Temperaraly put baffles on, on baffle SN 001 had to remove one of the bolts to fit it around a pre-existing optic on the table 

-Fil, Mitchell and I got the out of vacuum fiber all cabled up, however, later in the day when we tested the laser power at each point of the chain, it looked like light wasn't making it through the fiber. We have been using this fiber for testing chamberside so if it's an issue with the fiber it started today.

-We turned on the laser briefly to look at the power at each point along the chain:

OUT OF LASER: 20.5mW

OUT OF VAC FIBER: 7um

Which means there's either a issue with the 27m out of vac fiber, or the connector between the laser and the fiber

The plan for Monday is to first switch out the connector and hope that was the issue. If that doesn't fix it, I'll look for another temperary fiber to use to at least get the HoQIs aligned and deal with the broken fiber later.

[Sheila, Camilla, Ryan, Eric]

We would like to verify that our recent mode measurements after ZM5 ( 90783) and before ZM4 (90815 ) make sense by connecting the two.  We decided to use the q value from the measurement at the nominal ZM2 strain in 90815 (ZM2 strain = 3.15V) and propagate that mode through the path containing ZM4 and ZM5 and calculate the overlap with the q values from 90783 measured at different strain settings for ZM4/ZM5.  The goals here are as follows:

1. Improve our model of the ZM4 - to - SEC path and verify that we're interpreting our mode measurements (with M^2 > 1) correctly.  
2. Determine the ROC for ZM4 and ZM5 as a function of the strain gauge voltage.  This is particularly important since we are going to replace ZM5 and Camille would like to know what ROC to shoot for with the pre-stressing procedure.

First, I address item 1.

Mode Measurements with M² > 1:

Our system seems to be adding some higher order abberations to the beam.  As a result, our mode measurements indicate that we have an M^2 number significantly above 1 (between 1.2 - 1.5 depending on the PSAM settings).  When M^2 is > 1, the presence of HOM content in the beam prevents one from focusing down to as tight of a waist, for the same divergence angle, the beam radius at the waist will be larger by a factor of M.  The thorlabs beam profiler accounts for this by fitting the data to the following formula (which we confirmed by doing our own independent fit):

w(z)² = w_M²[1 +(z - z₀)² (pi*w_M²/(M²*lambda))²]

Where w_M² = M²*w₀²  Is the waist for a beam with M²>1, and w₀ is the waist for the TEM00 component of the beam (ie for M² = 1). 

The q parameter ends up the same as before:

q(z) = (z-z₀) + i*z_R

where z_R = pi*w₀²/lambda = pi*w_M²/(lambda* M²)

Knowing that M² > 1 tells us that our beam is a mixture of TEM00 and some higher order mode content.  However, from the M² value alone we don't know which higher order modes are excited (in principle one might be able to make some rough projections using the surface abberation measurements of the PSAMs from Caltech, but that sounds tricky and is beyond the scope of today's post).  If we want to do mode matching calculations, the only thing we can do at the moment is back propagate the TEM00 component and do all mode calculations for TEM00.  

We use the same beam propagation matricies as always to back propagate the TEM00 component to determine what the TEM00 mode looks like in HAM 7.  

Determination of the ZM4 and ZM5 ROCs

I then took the q value (for the nominal ZM2 = 3.15V) from the measurement before ZM4, back propagated it to ZM4 using our length measurements.  I then propagated the q through ZM4 and ZM5 and calculated the overlap with the q values measured after ZM5 for various values of the ZM4/ZM5 strain gauge settings in ( 90783)

Then, the ROCs for ZM4 and ZM5 were chosen for each strain gauge settings to maximize the overlap.  The overlap is => 98% over the entire 2D grid of ZM4/ZM5 strain gauge values, which gives us some confidence that the ROC values are accurate.  One thing that gives us pause is that the change in ROC for ZM5 doesn't appear to change linearly in diopters with the strain gauge reading.  ZM4, on the other hand is roughly consistant with a 5 mD/V change though because the beam spot is quite small on ZM4, we are relatively insensitive to its ROC value.

These values give the following overlaps for the x and y direction (our mode measurements indicate we have non-negligible asitgmatism on this path) for propagating the nominal q value from (90815 where ZM2 strain = 3.15) to the q vales from ( 90783) .

The fact that this set of ROC values gives good overlap over the entire 2D grid suggests that these ROCs are a resonable model for ZM4 and ZM5 at these strain gauge settings.

Attached is an a la mode file for doing the beam propagation.  One could do some more intellegent fitting of the data to extract the best ROC estimates; I'm just sorta hand fitting it at the moment.

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.

Camilla Sheila