Displaying reports 46201-46220 of 86768.Go to page Start 2307 2308 2309 2310 2311 2312 2313 2314 2315 End
Reports until 18:52, Monday 30 April 2018
LHO VE
kyle.ryan@LIGO.ORG - posted 18:52, Monday 30 April 2018 - last comment - 19:04, Monday 30 April 2018(41756)
Prepped BSC1 N and BSC3 W doors for removal

This evening, I vented BSC1's annulus volume with UHP N2 and BSC3's with room air as an experiment.  I believe that LLO has determined that venting the viton-sealed annulus volumes with dry nitrogen can measurably reduce the subsequent pump downs. 

Additionally, I removed all but 4 door bolts from BSC1 N. and BSC3 W. doors.  Preliminarily, these remaining four/door bolts had been loosened 1 full turn ccw so as to not over deflect the door flanges when the other bolts were loosened and removed completely.. 

Also, the bolts on these two door flanges were WAYYYYYYY TOOOOOO TIIIGGGGHHHHTT!!!!  and were a complete pain in the "arse" to remove.  I vaguely remember someone commenting that this was in response to overhearing talk of us having a potential door leak following the last time that these had been cycled - NOTE TO ALL CONCERNED:  Once the mating flanges are in contact with each  other, additional torquing of the bolts only results in unnecessary galling etc..... don't do this!  The "long" wrenches should never be used to "tighten" door bolts.

Comments related to this report
chandra.romel@LIGO.ORG - 19:04, Monday 30 April 2018 (41758)

Thanks, Kyle! It is also important to not under torque the doors. We found the recent BSC door at EY with loose bolts. Doors should be checked again after a vacuum is pulled if door crew is unsure of adequate torque.

LHO VE (VE)
gerardo.moreno@LIGO.ORG - posted 17:31, Monday 30 April 2018 (41755)
BSC7 PT170 Gauge Replaced

Replaced BSC7 PT170 gauge (Old gauge BPG402) with a new type of guage model number BCG450.  Conflat joint will need to be leak tested.

H1 SUS
travis.sadecki@LIGO.ORG - posted 17:14, Monday 30 April 2018 (41753)
ETMx re-welding day 1

After a bit of a rough start up period (nothing major or unusual, just ALL of the usual little things), we welded in the first fiber to the new ETMx PUM and TM.  More tomorrow.

LHO VE
chandra.romel@LIGO.ORG - posted 17:11, Monday 30 April 2018 (41752)
CP4 bake ramp down begins

Today we started ramping down CP4 bake temperature after it soaked at 130C for 30 days (minus variances from top to bottom temps).

MCE came on site today to modify the (single sequence) ramp profile. The "holding time" was faulty because the temperature bands were set too narrow (+/- 0.01C). They are now +/-1C so the program can soak and then automatically begin its ramp down. It soaked at 124C for an hour this afternoon and began ramp down around 5pm local at 1C/hr until it reaches room temperature. I will monitor tonight.

We will need to remove the additional 10 kW heater from the circuit when temps approach ~ 100C (I'm guessing).

LHO VE (CDS, VE)
patrick.thomas@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:28, Monday 30 April 2018 - last comment - 17:25, Monday 30 April 2018(41751)
Replacing PT170 gauge
Part of WP 7519.

Gerardo has gone out to the LVEA to replace PT170 with a BCG450 Inficon gauge (It is currently a BPG402 Inficon gauge). When he is done I will update and restart the software on h0vaclx to match the change.
Comments related to this report
patrick.thomas@LIGO.ORG - 17:25, Monday 30 April 2018 (41754)
Work complete. No issues seen. DAQ restart needed at some point.
H1 General
cheryl.vorvick@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:14, Monday 30 April 2018 (41750)
Day Summary:

Summary:

Details:

H1 General
cheryl.vorvick@LIGO.ORG - posted 13:43, Monday 30 April 2018 (41746)
Morning Meeting:

Summary:  We are venting the Vertex to enter HAM5 and access both ITMs, hardware install in all three chambers.  Parasitic vacuum work on the Input Mode Cleaner beam tube to replace IP gate valves, work on the PSL continue with mode matching into the PMC, fiber pulling at EX, contractors on site for Richard and Bubba, and APS continues their work (contractor, access control).

Access to MY: Chandra requests that any activity at MY be cleared with her, due to the ongoing bakeout.

VAC:

SUS:

PSL:

Other:

H1 SQZ (ISC)
sheila.dwyer@LIGO.ORG - posted 12:27, Monday 30 April 2018 (41739)
Some beam profile data

I pulled some data off of the beam profile laptop showing the profiles of our beams in different places.  The plots attached are all shifted so that the max intensity is at 0 um and normalized to 1.  For some of these beam profiles I don't know which direction is vertical and horizontal.

Below, the beam leaving the OPO platform is a nice guassian with widths that are only 0.2% different between vertical and horizontal apertures.

 

Below is the same plot for the single bounce interferometer beam, I believe this is a reflection off of ITMX (this is data that Terra, T Vo, Sebastian and Dan Brown saved). This is very similar to the plot that Aidan made with Terra's screenshots (41541):

And after the seed beam from the OPO passes through HAM5 it has a variety of shapes, some of which seem clearly clipped, depending on the alignment of ZM2.  We didn't do a full exploration of the possible alignments we could achieve with the picomotor, ZM1, and ZM2 because of time constraints, we think though that we have a squeezer beam that is reasonably well aligned to the interferometer beam.  

 

This beam quality issue isn't a show stopper for the level of squeezing that we want to see in O3, as we have seen that it is possible to couple about 90% of the squeezer seed beam into the OMC.  This would need to be solved in order to get more squeezing.  However, whatever is causing the beam quality issue for the squeezer beam is likely also a source of problems for the interferometer beam, and could potentially be cause more immediate noise problems. 

Images attached to this report
Non-image files attached to this report
H1 PEM
jeffrey.bartlett@LIGO.ORG - posted 12:02, Monday 30 April 2018 (41745)
Place 4" Wafer in HAM6
Corey, Jeff B., 

   This morning Corey (1) removed the first contact from the 1" optics attached to the upper part of the OMC weldment, and (2) placed a new 4" witness wafer on the table, located on the +X, +Y side of the table. See attached photo for location. 

   Both doors were installed a short time after the wafer was placed.  
Images attached to this report
H1 SEI
hugh.radkins@LIGO.ORG - posted 11:42, Monday 30 April 2018 (41744)
H1 EndX HEPI Pump Station Filters change update

Was going to open the fluid flow to the LVEA after being in local recirculation mode for a week after changing the filters early last week.  But, we (Bartlett & I) found a very slow leak on the fine output filter. It was slow enough that the medium was sticky and dried out rather than flowing.  We managed to get a little bit of a turn on the filter and will check on the leak condition later today/tomorrow.

FYI, please don't close the valve that appears to be almost but not completely closed.  It is purposely in that state to increase pressure at the filter to expose potential leaks.  Not that anyone has done so or even considered doing so, I just wanted to be explicit.

H1 SUS (SUS)
cheryl.vorvick@LIGO.ORG - posted 11:20, Monday 30 April 2018 (41743)
Pre-Vent TFs of H1SUSSR2

TFs taken this morning before venting, collected because SR2 may be locked and unlocked for the baffle install.

/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/SR2/SAGM1/Data/
2018-04-30_1534_H1SUSSR2_M1_WhiteNoise_L_0p01to50Hz.xml
2018-04-30_1534_H1SUSSR2_M1_WhiteNoise_T_0p01to50Hz.xml
2018-04-30_1534_H1SUSSR2_M1_WhiteNoise_V_0p01to50Hz.xml
2018-04-30_1534_H1SUSSR2_M1_WhiteNoise_R_0p01to50Hz.xml
2018-04-30_1534_H1SUSSR2_M1_WhiteNoise_P_0p01to50Hz.xml
2018-04-30_1534_H1SUSSR2_M1_WhiteNoise_Y_0p01to50Hz.xml

- Cheryl, JeffK

LHO VE
david.barker@LIGO.ORG - posted 11:11, Monday 30 April 2018 (41742)
Vac Alarms: removed thermocouple CP4 TE253 channels, silenced EY Cold Cathode for today

Chandra, Dave:

Chandra requested that the CP4 thermocouple alarm channels be removed from the system:

This was done and the system was restarted.

Also, while contractor work is ongoing at EY, I have bypassed the beam tube CC alarm until 5pm PDT today:

H1 SUS
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - posted 10:21, Monday 30 April 2018 (41740)
First In-vac TFs of H1SUSZM2 and H1SUSOFI
J. Kissel

Since HAM5 has been up-and-down to air several times since ZM2 and the actuators for the OFI have been installed, it's taken us a while to get their first in-vacuum, clean set of transfer functions. Today is the day! ...Just before we vent again this morning.

Raw data lives here:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HTTS/H1/ZM2/SAGM1/Data/
2018-04-30_1545_H1SUSZM2_M1_WhiteNoise_L_0p02to50Hz.xml
2018-04-30_1545_H1SUSZM2_M1_WhiteNoise_P_0p02to50Hz.xml
2018-04-30_1545_H1SUSZM2_M1_WhiteNoise_Y_0p02to50Hz.xml

/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/OFIS/H1/OFI/SAGM1/Data
2018-04-30_1547_H1SUSOFI_M1_WhiteNoise_L_0p02to50Hz.xml
2018-04-30_1547_H1SUSOFI_M1_WhiteNoise_T_0p02to50Hz.xml
2018-04-30_1547_H1SUSOFI_M1_WhiteNoise_Y_0p02to50Hz.xml


Will process in detail later, but as expected the results look great.
H1 General (VE)
cheryl.vorvick@LIGO.ORG - posted 10:04, Monday 30 April 2018 (41738)
EY Cold Cathode gauges tripped off

EY tripped off at 16:33UTC (9:33PT).  Snapshot attached show state when tripped.

Images attached to this report
H1 SUS
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - posted 09:46, Monday 30 April 2018 (41736)
ZM1 and OM3 TFs and ASDs Re-checked after Ground Loops Fixed
J. Kissel

In prep for doors this morning, I've re-checked the health of the suspensions which had ground loop fix surgery this past Friday evening (LHO aLOG 41722).

Both transfer functions testing the full sensor-actuator chain and high-frequency ASD of the OSEM sensors look good. Will process in detail later.


/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HTTS/H1/ZM1/SAGM1/Data/
2018-04-30_1528_H1SUSZM1_M1_WhiteNoise_L_0p02to50Hz.xml
2018-04-30_1528_H1SUSZM1_M1_WhiteNoise_P_0p02to50Hz.xml
2018-04-30_1528_H1SUSZM1_M1_WhiteNoise_Y_0p02to50Hz.xml
2018-04-30_1544_H1SUSZM1_OSEM_Noise_ASDs.xml

/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HTTS/H1/OM3/SAGM1/Data/
2018-04-30_1526_H1SUSOM3_M1_WhiteNoise_L_0p02to50Hz.xml
2018-04-30_1526_H1SUSOM3_M1_WhiteNoise_P_0p02to50Hz.xml
2018-04-30_1526_H1SUSOM3_M1_WhiteNoise_Y_0p02to50Hz.xml
2018-04-30_1544_H1SUSOM3_OSEM_Noise_ASDs.xml
H1 PSL
edmond.merilh@LIGO.ORG - posted 09:35, Monday 30 April 2018 (41735)
PSL Weekly Report - 10 Day Trends FAMIS #6198
Images attached to this report
H1 General (PEM, SUS)
cheryl.vorvick@LIGO.ORG - posted 08:08, Monday 30 April 2018 (41734)
Morning Update:
Images attached to this report
H1 SUS (ISC, SUS)
keita.kawabe@LIGO.ORG - posted 18:22, Wednesday 25 April 2018 - last comment - 10:04, Monday 30 April 2018(41675)
TMSX's loss of BOSEM sensitivity due to sagging and rolling over time, cured by resetting BOSEM depth (Corey, Keita)

Related entries:

https://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=29416

https://services.ligo-la.caltech.edu/FRS/show_bug.cgi?id=6446

Summary:
For a very long time we've been limping along with some of the TMSX BOSEMs (namely F1, LF and RT) somehow seemingly less sensitive than they used to be (see the above alog and FRS).

By merely pushing BOSEMs closer to the magnets using adjustment nuts and roughly setting them to half the open value, the response of these BOSEMs were restored.

We also changed RT BOSEM (SN 164) to the one Betsy gave us (SN 083) because we could, but it was unnecessary in a retrospect. We won't change it back because it's a pain.

Details:

We measured the OSEMINF_INMON for suspected ones fully open by pulling BOSEMs away from the mass using adjustment nuts. (In the case of RT we removed the BOSEM plate from the cage and didn't see a large change.)

We found that all of them were already very close to the open values, and that open values were smaller than they used to be judging from the offsets that were set a long time ago. The former means that BOSEM bodies are much farther away from the magnets than they used to be. Apparently TMSX sagged and rolled.

 

OSEMINF_INMON before (counts)

Open count 2*|Offset| before
F1 19.1k 21.1k 25.44k
LF 18.1k 18.7k 23.16k
RT 21.4k 22.1k (26.95k after the swap) 26.172k

We swapped RT (SN 164) with the known good one (SN 083). No particular reason for the choice of RT rather than LF, it's just that Corey was working on RT at that time and thus was convenient to test.

We set the offsets to half the corresponding open count, and adjusted the BOSEM depth so that they come close to the offset.

The attachment shows the coil to coil transfer coefficient (OSEMINF/COILOUTF_EXC) at about 0.02 Hz before/after the change for F1, LF and RT (it also shows F2 and F3 but there's no "after" for these). You want to compare pink open circle with red solid disk, or blue open triangle with blue solid triangle.

As you can see the sensitivity increased by a factor of 1.9 for F1, 2.75 for LF and 3.3 for RT.

  Measurement before Measurement after sensitivity increase (after/before)
F1 8.1e-4 1.53e-3 1.9
LF 2.28e-4 6.27e-4 2.8
RT 2.54e-4 8.34e-4 3.3 (=1.2*2.8)

As for RT, a factor of 1.2 came from the increase in the LED power (26.95k/22.1k=1.22), so the change caused by the depth of OSEM is 3.3/1.2=2.8, almost the same as LF.

I removed a factor of 3 that was added to the PIT damping gain at some point, now all damping gains are 1 (except SD).

I'm also somewhat worried about TMSY LF and RT just because the OSEMINF_INMON is much larger than the offset (second attachment). However, similar measurement for TMSY (third attachment, left half is TMSX, right half is TMSY), it doesn't look as if F3 and LF are terrible.

 

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
keita.kawabe@LIGO.ORG - 18:27, Wednesday 25 April 2018 (41676)

It seems as if TMS sank and LED lost power at the same time, so it would have been difficult to judge what was going on just by looking at the data.

jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 10:04, Monday 30 April 2018 (41737)ISC, SUS
J. Kissel

I've completed the update to the open light current compensation in the OSEMINF filters by installing the normalization gains (H1:SUS-TMSX_M1_OSEMINF_${DOF}_GAIN) for the above updated OSEMs (F1, LF and RT), and then accepted the new offsets and gains in the SDF system. See attached screenshots, but for the sake of future searchability:


OSEM     Open Light Current    OFFSET         GAIN
            (ADC counts)     (OLC / -2)     (30000/OLC)
F1             21030           -10515         1.4265
LF             18700            -9350         1.6043
RT             26950           -13475         1.1132
              
Images attached to this comment
H1 SYS (INS, SYS)
georgia.mansell@LIGO.ORG - posted 18:46, Thursday 19 April 2018 - last comment - 13:59, Saturday 28 April 2018(41559)
Electric Field Meter testing with viewport-mounted capacitor
[Robert S, Georgia M]
 
We tested the electric field meter (EFM) with a viewport-mounted capacitor which Robert has previously used to observe electric field coupling to DARM. We measured the fields associated with the capacitor in both the x and y axes of the EFM.
 
The capacitor is mounted on the outside of the viewport (photo 1) and driven with 10V pk-pk at 190 Hz (and later 211 Hz).
 
We amplified the differential EFM signal with a SR560 preamp with a gain of 100, to increase the EFM noise floor over the ADC noise, and read this into a PEM CDS channel (channel 14 on the PEM chassis at the bottom of the TCS rack, channel H1:PEM-EX_ADC_0_13).
 
To calibrate these spectra we used 65536 cnts = 4 V, and 0.8 V_{drive}/V_{out} of the EFM, factored in the SR560 gain, and divided by the distance from the sensor plates to the body of the cube. I'm attaching some preliminary spectra. The first spectrum is for comparison of the calibration from yesterday (which used SR785 data rather than CDS-read data), the second is zoomed in to the frequencies we drove with the capacitor. Analysis is ongoing!
Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
rainer.weiss@LIGO.ORG - 15:12, Saturday 21 April 2018 (41582)
Calibration of the field meter does not need knowledge of the input capacitance. With the calibration plates, the electic field
on the sense plate is simply  E(cal)= V(cal)/d where d is the calibration-sense plate separation. If you want to improve the accuracy you will need to account for the thickness of the copper disk on the sense plate and a few percent error due to the fringing field.

The current sensitivity curves are pretty close to the ones measured in the prototype. How did you handle the factor of 2 due to the two plates on each coordinate and the output which is the difference?
craig.cahillane@LIGO.ORG - 00:08, Monday 23 April 2018 (41591)
We were a little confused about how to calibrate the EFM.  It's not such an easy problem as it first seems.

Calibration Plate Voltage to Electric Field TF

V_cal refers to the potential difference between the calibration plate and ground. Ground is connected to the body of the EFM. The sensor plate is kept isolated and should be at voltage V_sense = V_cal * d2/(d1 + d2) where d1 is the distance between the cal plate and sensor plate, and d2 is the distance between the sensor plate and the body. If we assume that the electric field E_cal is constant over the entire EFM, then I think we ought to be using the total distance d = d1 + d2 between the calibration plate and body for E_cal = V_cal/d. d1 = 1/2 inch = 1.27 cm, and d2 = 5/8 inch = 1.59 cm, so d ~ 2.86 cm and E_cal/V_cal = 1/d ~ 35.0 (V/m)/V using this method. However, we became concerned about the geometry of the EFM affecting this result. There is a copper disk which connects the sensor plate to the sensor pin, and there are a bunch of large screws between the sensor plate and the body. We decided to compute an "effective distance" using the capacitances we measured between the cal and sense plates (~11pF), and the sense plate and the body (~19pF) via E = Q/(2 A e0), where A is the area of the plates (~0.01 m^2), e0 is the vacuum permittivity, and Q is the charge on the cal plate. Q = C V, so we can recover E/V = C/(2 A e0) = 1/d, so our effective distance d = (2 A e0)/C, where C is the total capacitance between the cal plate and the body (~7pF). Using this method, E/V ~ 38.9 (V/m)/V, not much different than our result from 1/d. This is the number we used to calibrate from V_cal to E_cal. I don't know what value was used for the initial prototype.

Differential Amplifier Factor of Two

We did not account for this. We did not understand that the EFM body was grounded, so that the body absorbs the E_cal field by inducing charge on its near face. In the presence of a large external electric field both sense plates will have voltage induced, so we will get twice the response from the EFM differential amplifier circuit. We measured a TF from V_cal to V_out where V_out is the voltage output of the EFM differential amplifier circuit, and got V_out/V_cal ~ 0.8 from 5 kHz down. This should be multiplied by 2 for the V_out/V_external TF.

Corrected Plots

Plot 1 is the newly calibrated ambient electric field ASDs recorded by the EFM. Plot 2 is the V_out/V_cal TF.
Images attached to this comment
craig.cahillane@LIGO.ORG - 18:33, Tuesday 24 April 2018 (41643)
We (the EFM calibration team) never understood that the sensor plates are virtually grounded by the op-amp inside the EFM until we saw Figure 2 of T1700103.  This is why we kept insisting that E = Vcal/d should use d = distance between calibration plate and the EFM body: we thought that the sensor plate was an floating conductor.

I fixed our calibration to account for the grounded sensor plates.  If I use E = Vcal / d where d is the distance between the cal and sensor plates (d ~ 1/2 inch ~ 1.27 cm), I get .

If I account for the copper plate and fringing fields by using our measured capacitance between the calibration plate and sensor plate (C ~ 14.7 pF), I get  (Area A of the plates is ~ 0.01 m^2).  This is the E/V calibration I used for the plots below.  

Also included was our cal volts to EFM output volts measured calibration value of 0.8 V/V.  This was multiplied by two to account for the differential response of the EFM to external electric fields, and inverted to give .

Unfortunately, with this corrected calibration our prototype EFM spectrum is worse than we originally thought.  In fact, it's worse than your final prototype spectrum from T1700569 by about a factor of two.  I am not sure why this should be the case.  Rich's LT Spice model has a output voltage noise floor of about 200 nV/rtHz at 200 Hz upward.  In your Figure 2 of T1700569, you report a Vn of 110 nV/rtHz, so maybe this result is correct.
Images attached to this comment
rainer.weiss@LIGO.ORG - 12:56, Tuesday 24 April 2018 (41638)
The calibration is simpler than you make it. With the cube grounded and the calibration plates 
mounted on the sense plate, the electric field induced on the sense plate is E = V(cal)/d (with small 
correction for fringing and the copper plug). If you want to make a model for the calibration to predict 
the sensitivity that is more complicated and requires knowledge of the capacitances and the potentials 
between the sense plate and the cube.
rich.abbott@LIGO.ORG - 12:45, Wednesday 25 April 2018 (41665)ISC
Craig, you refer to T1700103 figure 2 to understand the virtual ground.  This is not the correct schematic for the implementation of the EFM that was recently built.  Each EFM input is simply 10^12 ohms to ground (in parallel with the sense plate capacitance).  There is no virtual ground provided actively by the operational amplifier.
craig.cahillane@LIGO.ORG - 12:00, Friday 27 April 2018 (41720)
Final note on the EFM calibration.

Conclusions: 

After a discussion with Rai and Rich we determined the correct calibration is   where  is the driven voltage on the cal plate,  is the induced voltage on the sense plate, and  is the distance between cal and sense plate.  

We need to know the voltage induced on the sense plate.  To do this I simulated the circuit in the first picture.  Again, we measured the capacitance between the cal and sense plate to be 14.7 pF, while the capacitance between the sense and body was 19 pF.  I found  above 10 mHz.  

Solving for  gives the result above.  The final plot is the correctly calibrated ambient electric field spectrum.
Images attached to this comment
rainer.weiss@LIGO.ORG - 13:59, Saturday 28 April 2018 (41733)
I am very sorry for having generated all this confusion. The sense plate is not a virtual ground, that was the case in earlier circuits. In this
circuit the proper formulation for the electric field on the sense plate from the calibration plate is

          V(cal) - V(sp)           V(cal) C(cal-sp) 
E(cal) = ---------------- = ----------------------------------  So, the calibration field is smaller than in the case for the sense plate held
            d(cal-sp)       d(cal-sp)(C(cal-sp)+C(sp-allelse))

at ground potential which makes the field meter more sensitive. Which is what you found. The error is purely mine and not Rich Abbott's or any
of the people in the electronics group. It comes from my not thinking about the calibration again after the circuit was changed from one type
to another in my lab.
Displaying reports 46201-46220 of 86768.Go to page Start 2307 2308 2309 2310 2311 2312 2313 2314 2315 End