Displaying reports 201-220 of 89077.Go to page Start 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 End
Reports until 15:58, Thursday 13 August 2026
H1 SEI
shoshana.apple@LIGO.ORG - posted 15:58, Thursday 13 August 2026 (91512)
Mode Hopping in CRS laser

 

Images attached to this report
H1 AOS
betsy.weaver@LIGO.ORG - posted 14:59, Thursday 13 August 2026 (91529)
HAM7 Ground loop checks

Fil, Betsy

Today Fil and I did a quick repeat of T2200048 HAM7 ground loops check just before doors are going on.

Last checks were done:

Feb this year by Camilla/Sheila https://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=89048

Feb 2022 Fil/me https://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=61738

Keita had done them prior, hence the document.

We basically found the same results as Camilla/Sheila namely:

All the rest were "open".

H1 ISC
ryan.short@LIGO.ORG - posted 14:19, Thursday 13 August 2026 (91528)
PRMI Alignment Signals Comparison

In our PRMI locking today, Sheila had me compare some signals from today to a past PRMI time and pointed me to alog91238. We weren't sure however if these numbers made sense, so I found another PRMI time from November (specifically Nov 26th, GPS 1448216615, PRMI ASC converged) and re-did the comparison to today.

  POP_A_LF POPAIR_B_LF REFLAIR_A_LF POPAIR_B_RF18_I POP_X_DC_NSUM POP_A_NSUM POP_B_NSUM
PRMI Nov 26th 84 17 2.55 85 0.082 (seems low, may not have been well aligned) 80 73
PRMI today 30 6 2.57 30 160 8 5

 

H1 SYS (CDS)
filiberto.clara@LIGO.ORG - posted 14:00, Thursday 13 August 2026 (91525)
Electronics for IFO Analog Cameras Decommissioned

WP 13511
FRS 33242

The electronics for the IFO analog cameras were uninstalled. No impact to the PSL and building cameras (access sytem). Analog cameras were left installed, available for local monitoring. The single fibers used to connect from each end station to the corner station are now available/spares. The MSR Video Rack 7 is mostly empty.

F. Clara, J. Figueroa

Images attached to this report
H1 SUS (SUS)
rahul.kumar@LIGO.ORG - posted 13:38, Thursday 13 August 2026 (91524)
Spare ZM5 (PSAMS - s/n 02) unit repaired with a new PZT - 65in-lb pre-load applied on the mirror.

Ryan C, Rahul

This unit will be shipped to CIT for ROC measurements on Zygo interferometer. This will then be return to LHO and stored in the desiccant cabinet as a spare ZM5 unit.

We removed the broken PZT and replaced it with a new one sent by Camille.

The strain gauge resistance  was measured to be around 700 ohms and 360ohm and the PZT capacitance was around 20 uF.

Details - s/n 02, mirror pre-load value = 65 in-lb.

H1 SUS
sheila.dwyer@LIGO.ORG - posted 12:37, Thursday 13 August 2026 - last comment - 09:08, Friday 14 August 2026(91522)
PR2 ringing at 1 Hz

Masayuki, Sheila

When we step the alignment sliders in pitch or yaw on PR2, we see 1 Hz ringing for 15-20 seconds.  

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
rahul.kumar@LIGO.ORG - 14:05, Thursday 13 August 2026 (91527)SUS

Keeping an eye on PR2, took an osem spectra of the inmons and don't see anything abnormal in the suspension right now - but will keep investigating it if these oscillations returns.

Images attached to this comment
masayuki.nakano@LIGO.ORG - 09:08, Friday 14 August 2026 (91538)

This is Sheila

It seems like this ringing at 3Hz has been seen in PR2 for about the last month.  A step of 2urad in pitch causes a ringing with an intial amplitude of 5 urad at 1 Hz that damps down over about 20 seconds.  For yaw the magnitudes are similar, the ringing amplitude is about twice the amplitude of the step.  

Images attached to this comment
H1 IOO
daniel.sigg@LIGO.ORG - posted 12:26, Thursday 13 August 2026 (91521)
Heater controller for JAC

I copied the OPO TEC controller code and modified it to use for the JAC heater.  

The controller uses the H1:JAC-HEATER_DRV_VSET_OFFSET channel to add its control output to the heater.  The controller gain needs to be negative.

Atteched a screeshot of the new screens.

Images attached to this report
H1 SEI
jim.warner@LIGO.ORG - posted 12:21, Thursday 13 August 2026 (91520)
HAM7 ISI tfs look as good as ever, ok to close

SQZ finished in HAM7 this morning, I've now unlocked, rebalanced the table and taken ISI close-out tfs. I believe it is a known issue with this chamber, but the resonances aren't as clean to resolve as they generally are for other tables, but todays measurements look very similar to my previous measurements. For the attached plots, refs 0-5 are the l2l gs13 tfs from February this year, 6-11 are from today. I think we are okey to close.

Images attached to this report
H1 SQZ
camilla.compton@LIGO.ORG - posted 11:53, Thursday 13 August 2026 (91518)
HAM7 High Voltage Bypass undone
WP 13282 
Fil undid the HAM7 High Voltage Bypass after Ryan S ramped down all the PSAMS PZTs. 
H1 SQZ
camilla.compton@LIGO.ORG - posted 10:52, Thursday 13 August 2026 (91514)
HAM7 Final SQZ alignment check and IFO Backscatter test - all good.

Sheila, Camilla, Ryan

After yesterday 91497 and today's checked we are finished with HAM7, it's been handed over to Jim for SEI checks. 

Sheila aligned the IFO in single bounce off ITMY to the OMC:

Check SQZ alignment with this SRM/OMs alignment:

Backscatter test, repeating 88609:

Images attached to this report
H1 SQZ
camilla.compton@LIGO.ORG - posted 09:58, Thursday 13 August 2026 - last comment - 12:13, Thursday 13 August 2026(91497)
HAM7 SQZ Work, 99% Done, Wednesday August 12th
Sheila, Ryan S, Camilla,
Cartoon Layout D2000021

We have completed all HAM7 close out tasks as in E2600157. Only thing left is that we may repeat 88609 backscatter tests tomorrow before SEI closeout tasks. Rahul and Ryan C completed SUS closeout measurements 91500.

Mode matching
We are happy with our mode matching after the adjustments Ryan and Rahul made yesterday, 91484.We have predicted mode mismatch <0.5% and astigmatism ~0.5%. 
 
Losses
Today we're taking a final look at reducing our losses through the OPOS and final checks before close out. I'll post what we did in the comments but we think we spent a lot of time just chasing clipping on our ZM3 iris. After all irises were removed, we measured powers below, using the crane for the out of the OPO and centering on the power meter with a VRC2D1 IR pinhole aperture:

This is a loss of: 7.8%, 5.4%, 5.4%. We expect 4% but have been measuring up to 8% 91444 so are happy with this and will revisit in a future vent with different equipment. It is hard to look for 1% loss when our method gives us 1-2% variation. 

Co-alignment
As we've seen before, green and red beams were off in yaw. We pico'ed H:M1 and H:M2 to coalign green with IR. 
 
Retrorefection
We were happy with the retrofection of the IR beam off FC1. Our new technique to check this is to move the beam off ~200urad using ZM3 in Pitch (plus undoing the move on the yaw osems from cross coupling) to check yaw and vice versa to check pitch. 
 
Checked beam in HAM6
We temporarily removed the VP cover and guillotine in the HAM5 relay tube and opened the beam diverter. Beam was on AS A, B and C with expected powers, also on OMC A and B. Turned on ASC loops DC centering 3 and 4 and the SQZ beam was centered on AS_B,C and OMC_A/B without saturating OM1 and OM2. Plot attached.
 
Checked beams on diodes
Checked that there was light on all rejected fiber diodes, previously checked centering and beam dumps 91197, checked there was light on the WFS (did not turn down power to check centering but we have picos if adjustment needed later. 
 
Checked FC Refl on Periscope
The FC REFL beam was missing the lower pericope mirror so we raised the height of it on the UPM using H:M4. 
 
Checked and removed all Irises
We checked irises, we were a little low on ZM3 and ZM5 iris and a little to -X on the ZM3 iris. As long as were are hitting FC1 in the correct place and retroflected this doesn't matter, irises were just to stop us loosing alignment. We removed all irises and checked for knobs. 
 
Check for stray beams
Ryan and I scanned using the IR viewer and iPhone cameras and saw no stray un-dumped beams.
 
Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
camilla.compton@LIGO.ORG - 12:13, Thursday 13 August 2026 (91519)

Yesterday morning we spent time searching for losses, we later realized the ~2% loss we were chasing was caused by at temporary iris we had set at the beam at ZM3, next time we should use a larger 2" iris. Here is our results. 

We checked the sliders of ZM2 and ZM3 by in turn putting a +/-10urad wobble on each and adjusting the sliders to be in the middle of the slider values where we started clipping: This gave us a repeatable 0.3% power improvement on the SQZT7 IR PD for <5urad slider changes. 

In HAM7, as our main extra loss location is SFI1, we wanted to see if we could reduce this, before committing to moving A:M1 or A:M2,we tried moving ZM1 in yaw with the power meter on a crane after the SFI1 second pass (between SFI1 and B:M1). We found that the power was repeatably higher with ZM1 with -150urad in yaw, so sliders at (P 800, Y -240).  Data attached.

Method of using Thorlabs power meter: We added the Thorlabs VRC2D1 IR pinhole aperture to the front of the power meter, moved power to maximize power though the pinhole and then removed pinhole and measure power.

We then put the power meter after the first pass of SFI1, between SFI1 and A:L2. We moved A:M1, starting with the thumb knob at 2pm, our clockwise edge of where we started clipping was clockwise 200deg to 9o'clock. The Anti clockwise edge was 360deg from starting location to 2 o'clock. So we are not 100% centered but not very near the edge.  We could not see any repeatable power changes by moving a quarter turn of the knob. Data attached. We put A:M1 back to starting location. 

This makes sense as on the first pass through SFI1 we could not improve the loss with alignment but on the second pass we could as the beam was double passes the iris that was causing clipping. 

Non-image files attached to this comment
H1 IOO (OpsInfo)
ryan.short@LIGO.ORG - posted 09:24, Thursday 13 August 2026 (91513)
IMC_LOCK Jumps to FAULT when JAC Unlocks

This is an update I've been meaning to put in for a while, but Sheila reminded me of it this morning. The IMC_LOCK Guardian will now jump to 'FAULT' if it sees JAC is unlocked and wait there, much like it does if the PSL isn't ready.

To do this, I moved the 'JAC_LOCKED()' function from the JAC_LOCK node into ISC_library.py so that both the JAC and IMC nodes can use it and it would only need to be changed in one place, and I used the function in a decorator in the IMC_LOCK node (again, much like the PSL check). All changes loaded and committed to svn.

LHO General
corey.gray@LIGO.ORG - posted 07:49, Thursday 13 August 2026 - last comment - 08:49, Thursday 13 August 2026(91507)
Thurs DAY Ops Transition

TITLE: 08/13 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: CALM
    Wind: 5mph Gusts, 3mph 3min avg
    Primary useism: 0.01 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.08 μm/s 
QUICK SUMMARY:

HAM7 will be a focus today with quick SQZ backscatter measurements (Rahul gave the thumbs up for SUS yesterday) and then longer SEI suite of health checks by Jim before potential close-out for sealing up HAM7 (which means lots of activities in the East Bay with Forklift/crane/other noisy activities).

IFO work with continue with Masayuki.  CRS work continues. 

On the Reservation System, I don't see "LVEA Local" laser Hazard, but yesterday we had local laser hazard for HAM7. 

Smoky day continue (although you can faintly see Rattlesnake).  This morning has shown a slow trend down in AQI to 148 (orange) from a peak of 165(red) overnight...yesterday at 10am we were at 11AQI (green).

Comments related to this report
corey.gray@LIGO.ORG - 08:26, Thursday 13 August 2026 (91510)

Checking on Laser Status

The entire LVEA is currently laser SAFE.  

At LVEA East Bay, the panels on the SOUTH side were cleared out of the way.  And on the NORTH side they were still up (with a little walkway entrance OPEN) and there was a Laser SAFE sign posted.

So, at the moment the ENTIRE LVEA is SAFE.  Just wanted to assess things this morning with all the acitivities.

camilla.compton@LIGO.ORG - 08:49, Thursday 13 August 2026 (91511)SEI

We untripped the SEI_BS Watchdog, it had a T240 trip at 7:12am PT (14:12 UITC), see attached. We untripped the watchdog with no issues. 

Images attached to this comment
H1 ISC (ISC)
masayuki.nakano@LIGO.ORG - posted 14:45, Wednesday 12 August 2026 - last comment - 11:08, Thursday 13 August 2026(91501)
PRMI locked

Summary

PRMI locked!!
The MICH loop was reworked, the PRCL gain was raised, and the REFLAIR demodulation phases were tuned. The guardian has been updated to the new nominal.


Loop adjustment

After aligning BS and PRM using PRX and MICH, I first tried to lock with ISC_DRMI as it was, changing nothing. It never caught after about 20 minutes of waiting in total, split between yesterday and today.

So I went back to the MICH loop. With PRM misaligned and MICH locked, I measured the open loop gain. The UGF was at 5 Hz and the phase margin sat around 20 deg across 5–10 Hz. So, I decided to modify the MICH loop and push UGF up to 10 Hz with reasonable phase margine.

The largest phase eater was the ELP35 in FM2 of BS_M3_LOCK. I loaded an ELP200 into FM3, which was free, and used it in place of the ELP35 in FM2. That loosened the phase roll-off enough to give about 40 deg of margin at 10 Hz.

Back to PRMI. MICH1 and MICH2 also carried several low-pass filters, so I switched all of them off, and it locked within a few minutes. Once locked, all of the low-passes could be switched back on without losing lock.
Repeating this, it locked within a few minutes every time.

With the lock holding I measured the MICH and PRCL loop gains. MICH showed gain bump above 10 Hz, and the PRCL UGF turned out to be only 20 Hz. Doubling the PRCL loop gain brought its UGF up to 55 Hz, and the MICH gain bump went away. This was the most stable state I found, and the time to reacquire came down to 1–2 minutes, so I took it as the nominal and edited the guardian at this point.


Servo change summary

Filter changes

Filter bank Module Change
MICH1 FM5 (LP80) off for acquisition, on after lock
MICH2 FM2 (LP50) off for acquisition, on after lock
BS M3 LOCK FM2 (ELP35) → FM3 (ELP200) permanent; ELP200 newly loaded into the empty FM3
REFLAIR_A_RF9 input matrix set to 3.5, doubling the PRCL loop gain

Guardian edits

What File Line
MICH1 FM5 lscparams.py 530
MICH2 FM2 ISC_DRMI.py 219
BS M3 LOCK, ELP35 → ELP200 ISC_DRMI.py 298, 523, 585
REFLAIR_A_RF9 input matrix lscparams.py 718
Engage the low-passes after lock ISC_DRMI.py 628–630

REFLAIR demodulation phase

Last, I tuned the REFLAIR demodulation phases. A 50 Hz excitation of amplitude 3 was injected into PRCL1 ERR, and the phases were adjusted to minimise the peak in RF9_Q and RF45_Q. The I peak heights did not change much.

  demod phase [deg] Q peak height
RF45 -176 → -171 0.1 → barely visible
RF9 -29 → -34 0.1 → barely visible

OLG

A final open loop gain measurement gave:

Loop UGF Phase margin
MICH 10 Hz 50 deg
PRCL 50 Hz 50 deg

Both open loop TFs are attached.

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
sheila.dwyer@LIGO.ORG - 11:08, Thursday 13 August 2026 (91517)

I do not understand why the PRCLK gain was low by a factor of 2, but Elenna noted a similar gain loss in March: 89567, this didn't go into the guardian at the time but is probably the same gain loss that Masayuki put into the PRMI input matrix yesterday.  

H1 IOO (IOO)
masayuki.nakano@LIGO.ORG - posted 22:31, Tuesday 11 August 2026 - last comment - 13:02, Thursday 13 August 2026(91487)
Absolute angular calibration of the JAC steering actuators from the second harmonic of the cavity transmission.

Summary

We have calibrated the two JAC steering actuators the PZT (IO_MB_M4) and the JM1, in μrad per drive count at DC. The scale comes from the second harmonic of the cavity transmission under a dithered drive, which is insensitive to DC misalignment and so needs no external angle reference. 


Method

By expanding the injected field in the cavity's own eigenmode basis, we can describe the misaligned as,

Ein(t) = E0 + δ(t) E1

with E0 the cavity's TEM00 mode and E1 the TEM10 (pitch) or TEM01 (yaw) mode, orthonormal. As long as the misalignment is small enough comparing to the beam size, the single complex coefficient δ carries the whole misalignment on that axis: its real part is a transverse displacement in units of the waist size, its imaginary part an angle in units of the divergence angle. Only the TEM00 is resonant, so the transmitted power follows the fraction of the input that sits in E0, i.e. 1 − |δ|2 for |δ|2 « 1.

Dithering a steering actuator makes δ oscillate about whatever value it already had:

δ(t) = δofs + δa cos(2πft)

where δofs is the static misalignment already present, and δa is the dither we deliberately applied, which is exactly the quantity we want in order to calibrate the actuator. TRANS signal (1 − |δ|2) can devided into three components with its frequecies:

frequency value contains the unknown δofs?
DC ofs|2 + |δa|2/2 yes
f 2 Re(δofs*δa) yes — magnitude and relative phase
2f a|2/2 no

The static offset drops out of the second harmonic algebraically. 2f therefore delivers a| with no reference to the alignment state we happened to be sitting at, and with no external angle standard. The DC and f terms, the two one would reach for first, are both contaminated by it.

This is the whole point of the method, and it is directly visible in the plot. adding a static offset grows the 1f line by +528 % while the 2f line moves by +8 %, its own measurement noise.


Measurement

I proceeded 4+1 measurement in total with the JAC locked. For each measurement, one actuator axis was dithered at 11 Hz, with the excitation injected on the channels below and the drive read back on the corresponding _OUT. I excited JM1/PZT PIT/YAW per one measurement, and the other one is the PZT_PIT excitation with static offset (30 cnts) to demonstrate that the 2f peak is not affected by the offset. Transmission was read on H1:JAC-TRANS_A_LF_OUT.

record excitation channel drive read back on amplitude at 11 Hz [cnt] drive offset [cnt] TRANS DC [cnt]
PZT_PIT H1:JAC-PZT_PIT_EXC H1:JAC-PZT_PIT_OUT 20.0 0 6451.2
PZT_PIT_ofs H1:JAC-PZT_PIT_EXC H1:JAC-PZT_PIT_OUT 20.0 30 6442.5
PZT_YAW H1:JAC-PZT_YAW_EXC H1:JAC-PZT_YAW_OUT 20.0 0 6442.6
JM1_PIT H1:SUS-JM1_M1_TEST_P_EXC H1:SUS-JM1_M1_TEST_P_OUT 40.0 0 6445.5
JM1_YAW H1:SUS-JM1_M1_TEST_Y_EXC H1:SUS-JM1_M1_TEST_Y_OUT 40.0 0 6440.2

a| is calculated from peak heights of the transmission at 22 Hz, converted to a mirror tilt using the local beam radius at each actuator from the current JAC reflected-path layout model (alog91472 comment), and calibrated into DC responce using each actuator's frequency response as measured (described below).


Results

actuator axis excitation channel a|2 efficiency [μrad/cnt]
at 11 Hz (as measured) at DC
PZT PIT JAC-PZT_PIT_EXC 1.09e-5 0.0093 0.083
PZT YAW JAC-PZT_YAW_EXC 6.47e-6 0.0093 0.079
JM1 PIT SUS-JM1_M1_TEST_P_EXC 1.01e-5 0.0216 0.89
JM1 YAW SUS-JM1_M1_TEST_Y_EXC 1.67e-5 0.0254 0.92

The 11 Hz column is what the dither actually produced; the DC column is that value divided by the actuator's own response at 11 Hz, and is the number to use for a DC gain. 


Appendix

Actuator frequency response

The frequency response itself comes from a separate set of four broadband actuator-to-wavefront-sensor records (300 s each, one actuator per record, see atatched plots), from which the JM1 suspension resonance and the PZT drive pole are fitted. Only the shape of those transfer functions is used; their absolute scale plays no role in the calibration.

The fitted frequency responses are:

AOI compensation

Both actuators sit at a design AOI of 45°, and the rows above include the geometric correction that follows. A tilt whose rotation axis lies in the mirror surface and in the plane of incidence steers the beam by only 2θ cos(AOI), against the full for the axis perpendicular to that plane. At the PZT the suppressed axis is YAW in the cavity-referred channel naming (the HAM1 periscope exchanges the transverse planes downstream of it); JM1 sits after that periscope, so for it the suppressed axis is PIT. The assignments follow from each mirror's orientation, and the correction uses the design 45° rather than a value fitted to the measured ratio.

Cross-checks

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
masayuki.nakano@LIGO.ORG - 13:02, Thursday 13 August 2026 (91523)

Short note: a mirror rotated by θ, sitting where the beam radius is w(z), produces |δ| = k w(z) θ, and its phase relative to TEM00 is 90° plus the Gouy phase accumulated from the reference waist. This can be applied for the mirror which is transmitting the lens. This is because δ is the field amplitude of the first-order mode it is continuous across lenses, so a mirror separated from the reference space by lenses is handled by simply adding up the free-propagation Gouy phase to the reference waist. The table below therefore carries the beam radius and the accumulated Gouy phase at each actuator.

actuator axis excitation channel a|2 efficiency [μrad/cnt] beam radius
w [mm]
Gouy phase from
the JAC waist [deg]
at 11 Hz (as measured) at DC
PZT PIT JAC-PZT_PIT_EXC 1.09e-5 0.0093 0.083 3.020 -86.4
PZT YAW JAC-PZT_YAW_EXC 6.47e-6 0.0093 0.079 3.270 -73.5
JM1 PIT SUS-JM1_M1_TEST_P_EXC 1.01e-5 0.0216 0.89 0.620 -32.7
JM1 YAW SUS-JM1_M1_TEST_Y_EXC 1.67e-5 0.0254 0.92 0.681 -30.8

The beam radius (1/e2 intensity) and the Gouy phase are model values at the actuator, taken from the JAC REFL optical model.

H1 SQZ (SUS)
ryan.short@LIGO.ORG - posted 15:57, Tuesday 11 August 2026 - last comment - 15:37, Friday 14 August 2026(91484)
ZM4 PSAMs Preload Adjusted (Again, Final)

R. Kumar, S. Dwyer, C. Compton, R. Short

Following the work done yesterday adjusting the preload on the ZM4 PSAMs (alog91471), Rahul and I set about adjusting it further today to get our calculated projected beam size on SRM close to where we want it. Using the same procedure as yesterday, I turned off the ZM4/5 PSAM drive chassis, Rahul went into HAM7, locked down ZM4, torqued the preload about 1/8" of a turn (it's hard to quantify a torque spec in this manner), then finally unlocked the suspension. I moved the ZM4 pitch alignment slider about -1400 counts to realign the beam on SQZT7 to our alignment irises as a result of this torque adjustment. I then proceeded to take a couple of beam profiles on the table with the M^2 device to see where we landed. This plot [initial] shows the difference between before and after this adjustment in terms of the projected beam at SRM with a few different PSAM settings on ZM4 and ZM5. The four points I took here informed us that we could stand to torque ZM4 a bit further to hopefully line up with the center of the plot.

Rahul went back into HAM7 and torqued another 1/8" and I took another couple of profiles after (I did not need to move ZM4's alignment sliders after this adjustment). I took a total of nine profile points here, all of which can be seen compared to other measurements today on this plot [full]. Since there are points in the bullseye, we decided to stop here and that this is where the ZM4 preloading will stay. This plot [final] shows just the beam profiles taken at our final preloading position.

Tomorrow we will move on to final closeout checks in HAM7.

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
ryan.crouch@LIGO.ORG - 16:26, Tuesday 11 August 2026 (91486)SUS

I ran a health check TF on ZM4 and it looks good.

2026-08-11_2200_H1SUSZM4_M1_WhiteNoise_L_0p02to50Hz.xml
2026-08-11_2200_H1SUSZM4_M1_WhiteNoise_P_0p02to50Hz.xml
2026-08-11_2200_H1SUSZM4_M1_WhiteNoise_Y_0p02to50Hz.xml

Non-image files attached to this comment
rahul.kumar@LIGO.ORG - 10:26, Thursday 13 August 2026 (91515)

The current pre-load value on the ZM4 is 60in-lb + 1/8th + 1/8th turn using a 0.5in size wrench.

sheila.dwyer@LIGO.ORG - 15:37, Friday 14 August 2026 (91551)

Here is a scatter plot for Ryan's final set of measurements, at the final ZM adjustment before the doors went on HAM7.  

It seems that in this position the values of M^2 are smaller than those in 91455 91385 and 90804, and the overlap between the vertical and horizontal q parameters is slighly better.  We can expect to get mode matching better than 99% between the squeezer and OMC for a pretty good amount of our psams range.  

Images attached to this comment
Displaying reports 201-220 of 89077.Go to page Start 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 End