Displaying reports 46361-46380 of 86767.Go to page Start 2315 2316 2317 2318 2319 2320 2321 2322 2323 End
Reports until 20:24, Friday 20 April 2018
LHO VE
chandra.romel@LIGO.ORG - posted 20:24, Friday 20 April 2018 (41579)
CP4 bake update

Over the past three days we have been slowly increasing GN2 heater power on CP4 via new variac. Attached is plot since Wed. with variac settings. Today I opened the LN2 draw valve all the way (2-1/8 turns) at Dewar to increase flow but as we know from last time, we bottom out and need the help of the pressure build circuit. I opened that valve 1/2 turn and slowly the Dewar head pressure increased from 12 psig to 16 psig, but I noticed a hissing and vapor coming out of the capped pipe where the LN2 delivery truck connects to. My guess is either the top or bottom fill valves is leaking. I closed the pressure build valve for the weekend. The temperature dip at the end of the plot is likely due to intermediate increased flow and is now recovering. Will monitor over weekend.

Images attached to this report
LHO VE
chandra.romel@LIGO.ORG - posted 20:09, Friday 20 April 2018 - last comment - 21:29, Friday 20 April 2018(41577)
HV NEG commissioning - day 2

Spent the past two days with SAES Getters reps to commission the new high vacuum NEG pump (HV1600-10 NexTorr) installed on BSC6 at EY. We activated the pump yesterday and ran it nominally at 180C overnight. This morning we valved it into the main volume. Attached is ~2day plot. The pressure improved with the NEG+IP valved in. We were scanning the RGA during the transition of valving the pump in today and saw no change in partial pressures immediately. Over hours H2 fell by ~30%. I will attach RGA scans next week.

We tested the 50 m cable this afternoon with the power supply in the adjacent mechanical room. It powered up ok but I found it faulted when I went back later to check on it and the temperature dropped from 180C to 46C. It seemed to turn back on OK. Will check it one more time before I leave. It can run cold, but won't be as effective. The error message read:  Global: 202 - Main Line Wrong Voltage. Touch this bar to clean the alarm.

We also activated the CapaciTorr NEG pump on BSC6 while we were out there, but left it valved out. Before activating we pumped out with cart the Ar, etc gasses that built up over months during the EY vent, which caused the pressure to creep to e-4 Torr.

 

Plot legend: PT-428 is hot cathode (HC) IG on HV NEG housing; PT-410B is CC on BSC10; PT425 is HC on BSC6.

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
chandra.romel@LIGO.ORG - 20:10, Friday 20 April 2018 (41578)

Next time we vent EY, we should expose this pump to pressures at e-4 Torr to test its capacity.

chandra.romel@LIGO.ORG - 21:29, Friday 20 April 2018 (41580)

Found PS faulted again. I moved it into VEA and used short cable that is proven to work. May need to send 50 m back or make an adjustment in voltage parameter. Should have tested first before we pulled it. Sorry G.

 

Note that if the IP cable feels the slightest bump it gives an arcing error on its PS. It will continue to work but can be reset by rebooting.

H1 CDS
patrick.thomas@LIGO.ORG - posted 18:23, Friday 20 April 2018 - last comment - 18:47, Friday 20 April 2018(41573)
restarted medm web screenshots, something is wrong
Gerardo, Patrick

Wanted to only restart the screenshots for the vacuum system but ran into trouble and ended up restarting all of them. Kept getting 'Xvfb failed to start' when attempting to run h0_start, but not when running the others. Deleted /tmp/.X99-lock and /tmp/.X6-lock after searching the web for answers, but this did not help. Upon Gerardo's suggestion we compared the scripts. h1_cds_psl_start, h1_sei_start, and h1_sus_start had 'exec xvfb-run -a', but h0start only had 'exec xvfb-run'. I copied h0start to h0start.original_20_apr_2018 and added '-a' to h0start. This allowed it to run, but now all of the screenshots have black rectangles over them.
Comments related to this report
patrick.thomas@LIGO.ORG - 18:35, Friday 20 April 2018 (41574)
Ran 'ps -elf | grep Xvfb'. Found two processes:

controls@script0:screenshooter 0$ ps -elf | grep Xvfb
0 S controls  1172     1  0  80   0 - 185119 poll_s 2016 ?        18:55:17 Xvfb :6 -screen 0 1600x1200x24
0 S controls  2716     1 20  80   0 - 15987 poll_s 17:04 ?        00:17:22 Xvfb :99 -screen 0 1920x1400x24 -nolisten tcp
0 S controls 14854 31575  0  80   0 -  1918 pipe_w 18:29 pts/0    00:00:00 grep --color=auto Xvfb

Killed them both. Got mail in /var/mail/controls. Last line reads:

ligo/apps/simlink_webview/update_webview.cron: line 39:   618 Killed                  matlab -display :6 -logfile $USERAPPS_DIR/cds/common/scripts/webview.log -r 'cd $USERAPPS_DIR/cds/common/scripts/; webview_simlink_update'

Looks like I stopped something that I shouldn't have....

But now the original script to run the vacuum screenshots works.
patrick.thomas@LIGO.ORG - 18:47, Friday 20 April 2018 (41575)
So it appears to be working now, but I may have killed the simulink web screenshots.
H1 SQZ
sheila.dwyer@LIGO.ORG - posted 18:20, Friday 20 April 2018 - last comment - 11:10, Thursday 26 July 2018(41572)
green aligned to OPO, more mode matching measurements

Nutsinee, Sheila

This morning Nutsinee and I measured the beam profile arriving in HAM6 from the squeezer, before OM1.  

Then we improved the alignment of the 532 beam into the OPO, the power in the 1st order mode is now about 5% of the power in the 00 mode.  Nutsinee saved scan data for the 532 beam.  

Then we placed an aperture on the far side on HAM6 in the seed path, and removed the translation stage lens from the translation stage.  We measured the beam profile in a few locations after ZM1, which seems to be agreeing with the model that Dan and Thomas have.  We repalced the lens and checked that the beam still comes back to HAM6 on the OMC side. 

Lastly we measured the distance from the beam diverter to the LVEA wall is 137.5 inches. 

More details about the measurements are coming soon.

Comments related to this report
sheila.dwyer@LIGO.ORG - 11:10, Thursday 26 July 2018 (43084)

Hoacun, Sheila

Distances from periscope/table/wall/beam diverter:

  • Attached is a PDF that Terry sent to Haocun with measured distances in chamber, including that ZM1 to the beam diverter is 37 inches.  The beam diverter to wall distance above combined with the distances in Terry's notebook imply that the beam diverter is 201.5 inches from the LVEA wall.  
  • After the chamber was closed, we moved the table closer to the chamber.  Hoacun and I just measured the distance from the mark on the floor that Hugh and TJ made in April, and we see that the table has moved closer to the chamber by 14.5 inches.  The edge of the table is now 87 inches from the LVEA wall and the top periscope mirror is 80 inches from the wall.  (This agrees with Terry's notebook)
  • So, the top periscope mirror is now 114 inches from the beam diverter or 2.9 meters from the beam diverter.

 Measurements of seed mode in chamber: 

  • Measurements for the lens solution that we left installed when we pumped down is here: 41683, the third plot shows that the measured horizontal waist of the seed beam is 556 um at 3.52m from SRM and the vertical waist is 571um at 3.53m from SRM. 
  • Using the finesse model that Dan Brown +T Vo updated with squeezer info, (here, lines 582 + info about squeezer around line 650), the distance from ZM1 to SRM is 4.36m.  
  • So the information we want for mode matching to the homodyne is that the beam waist is 556 um at 0.84meters from ZM1, which is 0.095m before the beam diverter. 
  • (Other mode matching information from before we did our lens swap is in alogs 41504 and 41521).  

Conclusion:

The seed waist is 556um at 0.095meters before the beam diverter, or 3 meters from the top periscope mirror.

Images attached to this comment
Non-image files attached to this comment
H1 AOS
robert.schofield@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:49, Friday 20 April 2018 (41571)
Cryobaffle at EX is free

Checked while Georgia and I were working on EFM. No contact was visible and it seemed to swing freely.

H1 GRD
jameson.rollins@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:46, Friday 20 April 2018 (41569)
guardian upgraded to 1.2.0, running on new guardctrl server h1guardian1

After finally resolving the seg fault issues in guardian (report in full to follow), guardian has been upgraded site-wide and moved to the new production guardctrl host, "h1guardian1".

We've been monitoring the system for the last couple of days and it seems to be working nominally and not showing signs of excess load on the guardian machine.  We have seen no seg faults with this new version.

new guardian version: 1.2.0

Other than the fix for the seg faults, which turned out to be because pcaspy is not thread safe, there aren't too many changes in this version that users should notice.  The main new features have to do with the node management interface:

Other than that there are just various bug fixes and minor improvements.

new guardian machine, node process supervision

The new production guardian machine is h1guardian1, which is running Debian 9 with all needed software installed from packages from CDSSoft.

Guardian process supervision on h1guardian1 is now handled by systemd.  In particular, it's handled via systemd --user under the "guardian" user account.

The load on this machine seems pretty good:

The above is while running all 124 of the H1 nodes.  We'll be monitoring this to make sure load average stays below 100.

Note: this is mostly of no consequence to users, as they'll continue to interact with the supervision system via the guardctrl interface, which has been updated to work with the new system...

new guardctrl interface

The new systemd supervision infrastructure required a new version of guardctrl, which is now installed on all workstations.  It works mostly the same as the old version, with some slight changes in some of the subcommands:

jameson.rollins@zotws6:~ 0$ guardctrl -h
usage: guardctrl [-h] [-d] ...

Guardian daemon supervision control interface.

Control guardian daemon processes managed by the site systemd
supervision system.

optional arguments:
  -h, --help   show this help message and exit
  -d, --debug  print debug information to stderr

Commands:
    help       show command help
    list       list nodes and node subervision state
    status     print node service status
    enable     enable nodes
    start      start nodes
    restart    restart nodes
    stop       stop nodes
    disable    disable nodes
    log        view node logs

Add '-h' after individual commands for command help.

Node names may be specified with wildcard/globbing, e.g. 'SUS_*'.
A single '*' will act on all configured nodes (where appropriate).
jameson.rollins@zotws6:~ 0$

Known issues:

code archiving temporarily disabled

Guardian node code arching has been temporarily disabled until we're fully confident in the new system.  This is because of ownership of the code archives that will need to be moved to the new guardian user.  If things are still looking good by next week we will enable the code archives then.

old guardctrl host h1guardian0 still available in case of emergency

If for any reason there are problems with the new setup, we can easily restore everything to the old configuration on h1guardian0.  The new guardctrl interface is backwards compatible with the old h1guardian0 host.

The procedure to restore a single node to the old host would be something like this:

$ guardctrl stop NODE_NAME
$ GUARDCTRL_HOST=h1guardian0 guardctrl start NODE_NAME

To do the same for all nodes, replace "NODE_NAME" with "'*'".

NOTE: if all nodes are moved back to the old host, the CDS admins would need to update the DNS record for "h1guardian" to point to "h1guardian0" instead of "h1guardian1".

Images attached to this report
LHO General
patrick.thomas@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:14, Friday 20 April 2018 (41570)
Ops Shift Summary
Prior to shift:
Verbal alarms is crashed
Jamie working on guardian

14:47 UTC Jeff B. to end X to reset dust monitor
15:28 UTC Jeff B. back from end X
15:37 UTC Let Advanced Protection Services (APS) through gate
15:48 UTC Peter to PSL enclosure
15:59 UTC Let visitor through gate to see Chandra
16:04 UTC Let Advanced Protection Services (APS) through gate
16:38 UTC Robert to end X to change a setting on electric field injection
16:43 UTC Sheila and Nutsinee to HAM6 to run a beam scan on the squeezer beam
17:05 UTC Robert back from end X
17:12 UTC Greg G. to LVEA
17:24 UTC Robert and Georgia to end X, inchamber work on EFI, check cyropump baffles
17:30 UTC Ed to optics lab, LVEA for property inventory
17:37 UTC Gerardo to LVEA to retrieve power supply to take to end Y
18:03 UTC Peter done in PSL enclosure
18:55 UTC Terry to HAM5 to give equipment to Sheila
18:55 UTC Gerardo to end Y to check on status of HV NEG pump bake
18:59 UTC Robert and Georgia back from end X
19:06 UTC Ken to end X to work on the ceiling above the outside door
20:02 UTC Ken done at end X
20:06 UTC Marc and Elizabeth to LVEA to look for equipment for property inventory
20:14 UTC Marc and Elizabeth done
20:14 UTC Let visitor through gate to see Chandra
20:24 UTC Ed and Elizabeth to end Y for property inventory
20:49 UTC Ed and Elizabeth back from end Y
20:55 UTC Nutsinee back to HAM6
20:56 UTC Elizabeth to LVEA to look for coil of wires
20:58 UTC Corey and Hugh to HAM5 area to prep for vent next week
21:09 UTC Elizabeth back from the LVEA
21:09 UTC Sheila back to HAM6
22:25 UTC Hugh back
22:47 UTC Corey back
H1 CDS (DAQ)
david.barker@LIGO.ORG - posted 15:14, Friday 20 April 2018 (41568)
compiling all models against RCG3.4.2

I have just completed a full round of model code compilation. This is just a "make" not a "make install" so no target/DAQ/GDS files have been modified.

Before the builds I backed up the H1.ipc file and emptied the file. After the build was completed, I reverted the original H1.ipc file back in case we restart any systems this weekend.

I wrote a script to compare the new DAQ-INI files with what are currently being used. Of the 107 models, 11 have different INI files. This indicates their code has been changed since the last H1 build (calcs, susauxb123, susauxex, susauxey,susauxh34, susetmx, susetmy, susitmx, susitmy, susitmpi, susprocpi)

I'm reviewing these models to see what has changed.

LHO VE
david.barker@LIGO.ORG - posted 11:51, Friday 20 April 2018 (41563)
vacuum alarms reconfiguration

As per Chandra's request:

CP4_TE253A Rate-Of-Change channel has been removed from alarms.

CP4_TE253A (low,high) levels have been changed from (0,150) to (100,200) degC

As per Ryan's request, Kyle's contact email address has been changed to his new caltech.edu one.

H1 CDS (DAQ)
david.barker@LIGO.ORG - posted 11:48, Friday 20 April 2018 - last comment - 14:23, Friday 20 April 2018(41562)
RGC 3.4 testing status

h1susauxb123 and h1pemmx front end systems are both running RCG3.4.2/Gentoo3.0.8 with no current issues.

The problem of the models not starting automatically on reboot has been resolved.

There have been some occasional  DAQ issues seen when h1susauxb123 models were started/stopped. Specifically: sometimes when the models are stopped the DAQ data from h1seih16 were glitched (running start_streamers.sh on susaux123 clears this). During some starts of the code the DAQ status for the models h1susopo and h1ascimc were flashing between 0x0 and 0x2000. This was when the susaux models were not starting correctly, has not been seen since.

One surprise, after recompiling h1susauxb123 the resulting DAQ-INI file was different. The file h1susauxb123.mdl has not been modified since 2015, so I suspect some of the common mdl files used by this model have been modified recently.

Comments related to this report
david.barker@LIGO.ORG - 12:12, Friday 20 April 2018 (41564)

due to INI file mismatch, DAQ data from h1susauxb123 is currently not correct. I'll revert it back to RCG3.2 soon.

david.barker@LIGO.ORG - 13:00, Friday 20 April 2018 (41565)

h1susauxb123 is now back at RCG3.2 with good DAQ data. Due to the recent model changes, I did not perform a new rebuild against 3.2 as this would require a DAQ restart. Instead I restored the target directory, the DAQ-INI and the GDS-PAR files from archive. I restored the 3.2 version of awgtpman as well.

While h1susauxb123 was being reverted, DAQ data from h1seih16 was again invalid for a few minutes.

keith.thorne@LIGO.ORG - 14:23, Friday 20 April 2018 (41566)
The interruptions in the mx_stream when testing h1susauxb123 may be due to differences in the indexing of the mx_stream slots (i.e. which of the two 10G cards, which of 16 slots on a card) between the old boot server (h1boot0) and new boot server (h1boot1).   The relevant files are '/diskless/root/etc/init.d/mx_stream' on both boot servers.  On the test stands, there were tests to avoid use of slot 0, because it seemed to be affected when mx_streams in others slots were redone.
H1 PSL (PSL)
richard.savage@LIGO.ORG - posted 07:42, Friday 20 April 2018 (41560)
PSL layout status as of last evening

PeterK, JasonO, RickS

Yesterday afternoon and evening we realigned the beam path from the 70-W amplifier to the PMC, addressing the discrepancy in optical component mounting heights - 10 cm vs. 4".  All components for mounting lenses (lens mounts, rails, etc.) and the new Faraday Isolator located between the Front End and the 70-W amplifier were designed for a fixed optical height of 10 cm.  Almost all mirror mounting components, the 70-W amplifier, and the PMC were designed for a fixed optical height of 4".  The difference of ~1.6 mm is significant.

After the first turning mirror downstream of the 70-W amplifier and up to the last two turning mirrors (with PicoMotors) directing the beam into the PMC, we set the beam height at 10 cm.  Thus, the beams are obviously below center on all turning mirrors.

We removed the high-power AOM for the ISS and spent a few hours tweaking the modematching to the PMC.

Currently, the PMC visibility is about 75%.  We suspect that the alignment through the 70-W amplifier needs to be adjusted.

We left the system with the new PMC running at full power (about 70 W) and the PMC output power directed to the water-cooled beam dump directly downstream of the PMC.

We are modifying some of our alignment flags, designed for 4", to the 10 cm beam height.

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.
H1 SYS (ISC, SYS)
georgia.mansell@LIGO.ORG - posted 18:17, Wednesday 18 April 2018 - last comment - 09:28, Friday 20 April 2018(41532)
Electric field meter spectra with and without shielding, and RC decay time

[Craig Niko Georgia]

Conclusions:

    - We have taken electric field spectra with the foil door off, foil door on, and a foil house built around the EFM. Spectra coming soon.
    - We also applied a DC voltage to the calibration plates and looked at the decay time at the output of the EFM, which should give us a confirmation of the EFM resistor (should be 1 TOhm)


We went back to end-X to take more electric field meter (EFM) data. We wanted to find out whether the low frequency slope shown in our previous log post is due to sensor noise or fields within the chamber. We were also interested in confirming the dependence of the 60 Hz and 30 Hz peaks on the presence of the foil door. We made a foil house for the EFM which attached to the rod, and were careful not to ground the sensor plates (picture 1). The soft door cover was on for all these measurements. These three spectra will be posted shortly.

We also used a voltage calibrator to apply a DC voltage to the calibration plates, and measure the decay time of the voltage out of the EFM. The reason we checked this was to confirm the 1e12 Ohm resistor. The time constant of the RC circuit formed by the capacitance of the calibration-sensor plate (~7.6 pF), and the 1e12 Ohm resistor should be 7.6 seconds.
    - Note that we were using larger spacers between the sensor plates and calibration plates as we (embarrassingly) lost track of the old ones, and so cleaned up and used the spacers from the first EFM, the capacitances were measured to be 7.8 pF from calibration plate to +X sensor plate, and 7.5 pF from calibration plate to -X sensor plate.
    - We applied 3V DC continously to the calibration plates.
    - The decay is shown in the 2nd photo, the two traces are the positive and negative x outputs (generally we do a differential measurement, this is not a very fancy scope). The decay time looks to me to be about 12 seconds (though it’s hard to tell since I can’t tell when exactly the voltage was applied, Crag can correct me here...), so perhaps our resistance is larger than expected.
 

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
craig.cahillane@LIGO.ORG - 19:18, Wednesday 18 April 2018 (41533)ISC
Here are the results from the measurements Georgia described.

A couple of notes:
1) Our overall EFM noise is lower today than yesterday.
2) The EFM ambient electric field noise below 100 Hz still follows f^{-1.5}.  It seems like it is sensor noise, but the LT Spice model disagrees.
3) Our different foil configurations did not affect the overall noise floor, only the height of the 60 Hz line and some (probably acoustic) resonances.
4) The estimated displacement noise in plot 2 relies on many assumptions (zero charge on test mass, true measurement of ambient electric fields near the test mass, correct calibration from volts to electric field) and is posted for discussion purposes.

Some differences from my last ambient electric field post alog 41483:
1) Included Rich's LT Spice model of the EFM circuit noise.
2) Updated the calibration from calibration volts to electric field.  Estimated |E/V_Cal| ~ 38.9 (V/m)/V, based on the series capacitance between the calibration plate and the sensor plate (~11 pF), and the sensor plate to the grounded EFM body cube (~19 pF).  This explains the increased EFM noise from alog 41483.  Before I used |E/V_Cal| ~ 5 (V/m)/V, which I now believe is incorrect.

EDIT: After some notes from Sheila and Aaron Buikema, Plot 2 as it is is definitely untrustworthy.  It relies on the force coupling F = q E, where E is the ambient electric field and q is the charge on the test mass.  If the total charge on the test mass is 0, then F = 0, even with the ESD bias inducing a polarization on the test mass.
Images attached to this comment
rich.abbott@LIGO.ORG - 17:23, Thursday 19 April 2018 (41557)ISC
Reading the results of the RC decay experiment and the observation of a ~12 second time constant instead of the anticipated 7.6 seconds, I think the more likely conclusion is that the capacitance is larger than anticipated.  In an ideal world, the 10^12 ohm resistor has a 10% tolerance from the manufacturer.  Poor cleaning could certainly decrease the value of the resistor, but it seems unlikely that the resistor would be almost 60% higher in resistance.

I wonder if the assumed capacitances are accurate?  Was the 3V stimulus removed such that the calibration plate was no longer attached to the voltage source, or was the voltage stepped from 3V to 0V leaving the source still attached?  I have a picoammeter here at Caltech and I will try to establish the accuracy of the resistors.
georgia.mansell@LIGO.ORG - 09:28, Friday 20 April 2018 (41561)

In answer to your questions Rich - I'm not sure how reliable the capacitance measurement is. We measured this a couple of times with the tweezers in chamber, and the capacitance didn't fluctuate between measurements, but I don't have a sense of the reliability of these things. We left the source attached and stepped between 3 V and 0 V charging and discharging the capacitor. It would be interesting to confirm the resistance in the lab there.

Displaying reports 46361-46380 of 86767.Go to page Start 2315 2316 2317 2318 2319 2320 2321 2322 2323 End