Displaying reports 46661-46680 of 87753.Go to page Start 2330 2331 2332 2333 2334 2335 2336 2337 2338 End
Reports until 11:55, Monday 04 June 2018
LHO General
patrick.thomas@LIGO.ORG - posted 11:55, Monday 04 June 2018 (42305)
Ops Morning Shift Summary
14:06 UTC Vanessa to end X
15:26 - 15:35 UTC Jeff B. to/from cleaning area
15:47 UTC APS through gate
15:55 UTC APS through gate
16:49 - 17:33 UTC Jim to end X to pick up equipment
17:22 - 17:26 UTC Kyle to end Y VEA
17:35 - 18:37 UTC Karen to end Y to drop off supplies, then mid Y to clean
17:49 - 18:03 UTC Chandra to LVEA
18:13 UTC Georgia to LVEA to reroute cables for ITMY charge measurements
18:20 UTC RO Water alarm
18:28 UTC Keita to end X to turn on ALS laser (WP 7618)
18:51 UTC Richard to LVEA to run fiber

18:55 UTC Handing off to Corey
LHO General
patrick.thomas@LIGO.ORG - posted 09:31, Monday 04 June 2018 (42304)
9 AM meeting notes
Preparing to pump end X
In process of opening GV12
Pumping end Y

DRMI/EY commissioning
DRMI locking, ASC WFS not converging
EOM swap -> possible phase difference

PSL ISS commissioning

CP ion pumps installed and pumping

ISCT1 table alignment ongoing

mid Y CP4 oven work is done

Chiller in fiber welding lab died, moving one from end X

Tuesday: LASER SAFE
Unlock HAM 5/6 HEPI, check range of motion
Pulling fibers in MSR (WP 7617)
Swapping controllers for illuminators
OMC/AS-C whitening chassis swap
Resume filter swapping of end X HEPI
H1 SUS (SUS)
georgia.mansell@LIGO.ORG - posted 18:56, Friday 01 June 2018 (42302)
ITMX effective bias measurement

I've made a similar measurement to the usual ETM-optical-lever-effective-bias-voltage, on ITMX.

Method

Since the ESD quadrants are hooked up to a low voltage driver, in order to drive them hard enough I connected the bias output of the ITMY HV chassis to the quadrants directly, one by one. I looked at the optical lever response to the individual quadrant drive (V_{signal}) as a function of ITMX bias voltage. The bias voltage where the optical lever response is zero is the usual V_eff we measure.

I drove each quadrant for 2 mins, at 0.8 Hz, with an amplitude of ~120000 counts as monitored on H1:SUS-ITMY_L3_MASTER_OUT_DC_DQ. I recorded the timestamps for these drives and bias voltages and then looked back at the optical lever pitch and yaw channels. I then calculate the transfer function from the signal drive to the optical lever, and plot this as a function of bias voltage. See attached plot.

The scripts (driveITMChargeMeas.m, using the function process_single_quadrant.m) live in userapps/release/sus/common/scripts/quad/opLevChargeMeasurements/ and are adapted from Sheila's in-lock charge measurements.

Final numbers

  V_eff (pitch) [V] V_eff (yaw) [V]
UR -187.7 14.5
LR 94.6 49.6
UL -33.5 91.6
LL 92.6 74.6

Note that due to the larger gap between the test mass and reaction mass, the alpha and gamma co-efficients are smaller for the ITMs than the ETMs (see alog 38387), giving a larger V_eff. To compare the V_eff of ITMX to the ETMs we need to divide by a factor of ~1.5.

I'm not 100% confident in this data as the V_eff varies significantly for pitch and yaw of the same quadrant (in particular UR) which I don't understand.

Images attached to this report
H1 AOS (AOS, PEM, SUS)
suresh.doravari@LIGO.ORG - posted 18:52, Friday 01 June 2018 (42301)
Magnetometer installed near He-Ne Laser power supply to monitor EMI emission

[Niko, Suresh]

Motivation:   

    We suspect that the He-Ne Laser power supply may be generating an unacceptable amount of EMI.  To check this we installed a magnetometer close to the power supply of the laser.

Updated He-Ne laser setup:

   1) we moved the power supply close to the laser (see pictures attached) and placed the magnetometer near them on the ground.

   2) the optical fiber was rerouted to minimise dangling.  The fiber has been supported close to the laser and the oplev transmitter to decrease fiber motion.

   3) To check if the large (39dB) whitening gain was introducing noise into the oplev signals.  We temporarily reduced the gain to 19dB and then after about an hour put it back to 39dB.  This change did not seem to have an effect on the noise level in the oplev signals. 

   4) The Magnetometer signals are connected (X,Y,Z) to inputs (1,5,6) on PEM BNC breakout panel which show-up in CDS channels H1:PEM-EY_ADC_0_08_OUT_DQ, H1:PEM-EY_ADC_0_12_OUT_DQ and H1:PEM-EY_ADC_0_13_OUT_DQ.

Results Pending further analysis:

Will look at data with Robert and report on the EMI issue next week.

Will look at oplev data to see if rerouting the fiber has made any difference.

 

 

 

Images attached to this report
H1 AOS
thomas.vo@LIGO.ORG - posted 18:11, Friday 01 June 2018 (42299)
Offloaded OM1 and OM2 alignment offsets

Dan Brown, TVo

We relieved the AS DC Centering loops by changing the OM1 and OM2 alignment offsets so that when we lose lock on DRMI we'll be a bit closer to a decent alignment on AS_A which will help speed up re-locking.

H1 ISC (ISC)
thomas.vo@LIGO.ORG - posted 18:08, Friday 01 June 2018 (42298)
RePhased REFLAIR_A_RF45 and REFLAIR_A_RF9

Sheila, Gabriele, TVo

We found that the phasing wasn't very good for REFL 9 and 45 when locked on DRMI so we changed the tuning:

Sensor Old New
REFLAIR_A_RF45 91 80
REFLAIR_A_RF9 -30 -21
LHO VE
kyle.ryan@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:34, Friday 01 June 2018 (42296)
Shut off purge-air at X-end

Decoupled vent/purge line and shut down purge-air supply.  I then opened the 2 1/2" vent/purge valve and let the ~1 psig air "blow down" to slightly above room pressure.  The measured dew point of the exiting air was -10C. 

LHO VE
kyle.ryan@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:28, Friday 01 June 2018 (42294)
GV12 partially open

After only 3 iterations of briefly driving GV12 in the OPEN stroke (1000 rpm - stop, wait a day, 500 rpm - stop, wait 3 hours then 400 rpm) 3 hours of accumulated gas from the isolated gate annulus volume was dumped into the Y2 BT module and CP4 (see attached).  This indicates that a "crescent" of O-ring has obviously pulled away but it is likely that much of the total circumference of the O-rings still remain adhered.  As such, we will continue our ultra-conservative approach and operate the motor for only brief periods so as to keep a slight tension on the O-rings that will encourage them to release on their own.   This, being in contrast to opening the valve in one step which could result in the O-rings being pulled from the capturing dove-tail grooves. 

It looks like the ion pump can handle the remaining annulus volumes unassisted by the turbo but I am leaving the turbo+aux. cart running (but isolated) over the weekend. 

Non-image files attached to this report
H1 General
jim.warner@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:02, Friday 01 June 2018 (42277)
Shift Summary

15:30 Richard to LVEA

15:45 Richard, Apollo out

16:00 Fil & Jenne to HAM6

16:15 DanB to squeeze

16:30 Ken to EX, power for access system

16:30 Chandra to LVEA IP3

17:45 TJ to LVEA

18:00 JeffB to PSL rack area

19:15 Apollo, Chris to EX to put doors on

20:00 Ed to LVEA

20:00 Chandra to LVEA

21:00 Niko, Suresh to EY to work on Oplev

23:00 Ed to LVEA
​​​​​​​

22:00 TJ to LVEA

22:15 Kyle to EX

 

 

 

LHO VE
chandra.romel@LIGO.ORG - posted 15:21, Friday 01 June 2018 (42289)
HAM 6 leak checked

[Kyle, Chandra]

Helium leak checked new flanges on HAM 6. No leaks found with background at 2e-9 mbar-L/s. Valved in 500 l/s ion pump. Turbo continues to assist in pumping.

LHO VE
chandra.romel@LIGO.ORG - posted 15:19, Friday 01 June 2018 - last comment - 16:44, Friday 01 June 2018(42288)
IP3 installed; IP2 being pumped

[Mark, Tyler, Chandra]

Mark and Tyler installed IP3 this morning. It is leak tight (with 7.2e-10 mbar-L/s background). It is currently being pumped with aux cart + hung turbo. It can't maintain itself yet. Voltage gets to 2000 V (84 mA) before tripping off. Will valve it out from aux cart over weekend and resume pumping on Monday.

IP2 is slowly recovering (re-installed this old pump that had vented with room air). It gets up to 4400 V before tripping. Will also valve out over weekend.

Comments related to this report
chandra.romel@LIGO.ORG - 16:44, Friday 01 June 2018 (42297)

Tried one more time to energize IP2,3. IP2 came up to 5000 V and IP3 up to 5200 V before tripping off. I valved out both aux carts for the weekend.

H1 SUS
betsy.weaver@LIGO.ORG - posted 14:40, Friday 01 June 2018 - last comment - 10:06, Tuesday 05 June 2018(42285)
ETMX ETM16 Test Mass HR Surface features observed during closeout

While inspecting the HR surface during (and just) after the FirstContact pull on the ETMX HR Surface yesterday, Travis and I saw a few points within the central 6" of the optic.  Pictures are attached.  One feature looks more like a small sleek or scratch rather than a dot.  Upon review of the "map" we made roughly a year ago when the optic was in the bonding lab (also attached), we see that many of these were there during that inspection.  In conference with GariLynn this morning, she confirmed my decision to move to chamber closeout and the door has just been installed on the chamber.  We will digest these pictures and compare to previously obtained coating maps and metrology data.

Note, keep in mind that it is very difficult to say much about the optic surface quality based on these photos.  It is difficult to state whether such observed features will be a problem, whether they are in the coating or on top of the coating, etc.  TBC...

 

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
garilynn.billingsley@LIGO.ORG - 16:22, Friday 01 June 2018 (42295)COC
The scratch is found in the original polishing defect report at C1205029
Scatter measured with an integrating sphere shows several high points in the center 50 mm diameter, measured scatter is 7.7 ppm at E1500336
Thanks for the great pics!
garilynn.billingsley@LIGO.ORG - 10:06, Tuesday 05 June 2018 (42327)
Further analysis at https://dcc.ligo.org/T1800255  No new conclusions.
H1 SUS
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - posted 11:55, Friday 01 June 2018 - last comment - 13:44, Friday 01 June 2018(42283)
H1 SUS EX (ETMX and TMSX) are ready for Doors
J. Kissel

I've repeated the standard transfer functions on both SUS ETMX and TMSX to confirm that we're ready for doors this afternoon. There was a little bit of confusion on TMSX (see details in comments below), but I can now confirm that all suspensions are healthy, and we're ready for doors. 

Data templates:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMX/SAGM0/Data/
2018-06-01_1602_H1SUSETMX_M0_Mono_WhiteNoise_L_0p02to50Hz.xml
2018-06-01_1602_H1SUSETMX_M0_Mono_WhiteNoise_P_0p02to50Hz.xml
2018-06-01_1602_H1SUSETMX_M0_Mono_WhiteNoise_R_0p02to50Hz.xml
2018-06-01_1602_H1SUSETMX_M0_Mono_WhiteNoise_T_0p02to50Hz.xml
2018-06-01_1602_H1SUSETMX_M0_Mono_WhiteNoise_V_0p02to50Hz.xml
2018-06-01_1602_H1SUSETMX_M0_Mono_WhiteNoise_Y_0p02to50Hz.xml

/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMX/SAGR0/Data/
2018-06-01_1642_H1SUSETMX_R0_WhiteNoise_L_0p02to50Hz.xml
2018-06-01_1642_H1SUSETMX_R0_WhiteNoise_P_0p02to50Hz.xml
2018-06-01_1642_H1SUSETMX_R0_WhiteNoise_R_0p02to50Hz.xml
2018-06-01_1642_H1SUSETMX_R0_WhiteNoise_T_0p02to50Hz.xml
2018-06-01_1642_H1SUSETMX_R0_WhiteNoise_V_0p02to50Hz.xml
2018-06-01_1642_H1SUSETMX_R0_WhiteNoise_Y_0p02to50Hz.xml

/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/TMTS/H1/TMSX/SAGM1/Data/
2018-06-01_1552_H1SUSTMSX_M1_WhiteNoise_L_0p02to50Hz.xml
2018-06-01_1552_H1SUSTMSX_M1_WhiteNoise_P_0p02to50Hz.xml
2018-06-01_1552_H1SUSTMSX_M1_WhiteNoise_R_0p02to50Hz.xml
2018-06-01_1552_H1SUSTMSX_M1_WhiteNoise_T_0p02to50Hz.xml
2018-06-01_1552_H1SUSTMSX_M1_WhiteNoise_V_0p02to50Hz.xml
2018-06-01_1552_H1SUSTMSX_M1_WhiteNoise_Y_0p02to50Hz.xml
Non-image files attached to this report
Comments related to this report
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 13:44, Friday 01 June 2018 (42286)
Regarding the TMTS confusion:

Most of the measurement time was focused on the confusing transfer function that appeared in essentially only the T to T top mass (M1) transfer function. See attached screenshot showing
(a) BLACK A reference from 2018-05-30 (see LHO aLOG 42231). Both stages of BSC-ISI are locked during this measurement. (HEPI is still locked.)
(b) BLUEThis morning's 2018-06-01 confusing results, where the 1.4 Hz mode has split into several different modes at 1.23, 1.36, 1.43, 1.54, and 1.7 Hz. Both stages of the BSC-ISI are floating, but *not* damped during this measurement. (HEPI is still locked.)
(c) REDThe same measurement, with the BSC-ISI damping loops ON. (HEPI is still locked.) 

In (a) and (c) the 1.37 Hz, T2, Transverse mode is exactly where expected. However with the ISI undamped in (b), the mode frequencies called above show up instead. The weird thing is that none of these frequencies corresponds to any SUS resonant mode in the chamber. Maybe they're the BSC-ISI modes, but I'm surprised that they're that high Q.

The real point of confusion was that the BSC-ISI overview screens' border doesn't go red (normally indicating the inability to drive the DACs) upon an SEI IOP watchdog trip. The SUS IOP watchdogs had been cleared, but the only ISI-overview indication of the trip was a small red box above the DAC outputs, and that the DAC outputs were zero even with ISI damping loops ON. We should make the IOP watchdog actuation blockage a little more clear (and to be fair, it's only infrequently that I pull up the BSC-ISI screen at all when taking SUS transfer functions, but that's user conditioning and not anyone's fault).

Along the way, assuming it was some sort of new, subtle rubbing that appeared between 2018-05-30 and today, I tried adding large offsets in all directions. First vertical, because I suspected a temperature drift by trending the vertical OSEMs in the chamber. When that revealed no change, I tried a Roll offset, and tried with & without the (rather large) P & Y alignment offsets. No dice. T'was then that I started thinking about the isolation level of the BSC-ISI and noticed the IOP watchdog, untripped it, and all became well.

C'est la vie de mise en service!
Images attached to this comment
H1 ISC
jenne.driggers@LIGO.ORG - posted 18:45, Thursday 31 May 2018 - last comment - 14:55, Friday 01 June 2018(42273)
Search for cause of AS_C signal level change with fast shutter state

[Sheila, Keita, Jenne, with input and thoughts from several others]

We have looked at a few things today, trying to understand why the apparent signal level on AS_C changes with the state of the fast shutter.  The size of the jump when the shutter is open vs. closed is similar to the expected signal size for true light on the PD.  So, with the single-bounce beam, it looks like the amount of light on AS_C doubles when the shutter is opened.  There shouldn't be any actual light change on AS_C as a result of the fast shutter state, since AS_C is before the shutter (and in fact used as the trigger for the shutter). 

This jump in signal happens with the same amplitude whether or not the IMC is locked.  So, opening the shutter makes AS_C look like there is an extra ~5mW on the QPD, even if there is no actual IR light in HAM6.  This makes us suspicious of an electronics problem, rather than a mechanical interference with the fast shutter wires, or some optical thing like scattered light.  Also, the signal is not affected if we move either SRM, OM1, OM2, or OM3 when there is light in HAM6, which is further evidence that it's not a real beam hitting AS_C. 

The attached screenshot shows the jump in AS_C_NSUM as well as AS_C_SEG1 (there is a minus sign between them), when we close the shutter.  These are the purple and green traces in the strip tool, and the shutter was activated around -7.5 minutes.  At -5.2 minutes, we unplugged the input of the AS_C transimpedance amplifier, and plugged the output of the PD to the OMC QPD tranimpedance amp at -4 minutes.  At -2.5 minutes I closed and re-opened the shutter.  The scale of the NSUM signals are all the same as each other, and the scale of the SEG1 signals are all the same as each other.  The whitening gain and filter settings of the OMC QPDs were set to be the same as the AS_C settings at the -7.5 minute time (no whitening filters, gain of 36 dB).  So, if the problem were entirely on the PD, we would expect the same size jump when the PD was plugged in to the OMC QPD chassis.  Since we don't see nearly the same size jump, it seems like at least some of the problem is in the transimpedance amplifier.  Also, the inmons of OMC_A seemed much less noisy (when plugged in to the AS_C PD) than when the AS_C PD is actually plugged in to its regular chassis.

The fact that we do still see a jump, and in both OMC_QPD_A (which should actually have the AS_C signal) and OMC_QPD_B (which should be nothing) makes it seem like there is still potentially some funny business going on. 

With no input to the whitening board, we didn't see the jump behavior.  So, it's not by itself doing this jumping, but it isn't fully exonerated from being involved in some ground loop craziness.  We did observe that the whitening board seems to be switching filters and gains as expected, although there was a weird time at 16:22:15 UTC where 2 of the 4 AS_C segments were totally weird.  But, that was not reproduce-able.  Sheila has a DTT template saved with that data, where you can see a big difference even below 5 Hz.  But, interestingly, when I go back in time and check the INMONs (which should be the same, just slower data rate as the IN1 channels), I don't see any of that discrepancy.  Confusing.  And, also not reproduce-able thus far.

A good test will be to unplug the OMC DCPDs from the whitening board (which is on the same chassis as AS_C), since that shared connection ties the AS_C ground to chamber ground, and see if AS_C still jumps in a weird way. 

There seems to be some extra noise on the analog AS_C sum channel that is used for the fast shutter trigger, when that signal is connected to the trigger controller.  We had it T-ed to a 'scope, and then removed the connection to the trigger controller, and saw that the RMS got smaller.

tl;dr: We're still confused by AS_C.  Maybe it's a problem with the transimpedance amplifier?  We'll have to modify one of the spares, or see if one of the other Lab locations has a modified one, if we're going to switch it out, since it needs the sum channel to come out in analog for the fast shutter trigger.

 

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
sheila.dwyer@LIGO.ORG - 11:23, Friday 01 June 2018 (42279)

About the weird time that Jenne mentioned:

Attached is a dtt template and screenshot, as well as dataviewer traces from the time.  This was measured with the IMC unlocked, and no whitening filters on.  We attempted to reproduce this several times by changing the whitening settings and setting them back, but weren't able to.  When the IMC_LOCK guardian state is 80 it is offline, and when the whitening filter settings are 0 they are off.  

About amount of light on AS_C compared to these spurious signals:

This diode is calibrated into W arriving in HAM6, (see 29078 and links in comments, the calibration was turned off in Jenne's screenshot above), between the beam arriving in HAM6 and the QPD there is OM1 with 800ppm transmission and a 48% beam splitter.  So 5mW measured on the SUM channel in single bounce means about 2uW on the QPD.  

Looking at the screenshot linked above, it looks like the change in the sum channel when the fast shutter closes is about 2.5mW into HAM6, or about 1 uW, the second attached screenshot shows that this is about the same as the change due to the shutter when the mode cleaner is unlocked. 

The 1610 counts of dark current that we see with the shutter closed, 36dB of whitening gain and no whitening filters on is equivalent to 26mW into HAM6 or 10uW on the diode.  

While fully locked in O2 we had about 0.4W into HAM6, meaning 150 uW on the QPD. 

TL, DR: Our dark currents right now are about 7% of the total signal we will get in full lock, about 5 times larger than the signal size in single bounce (using this diode in single bounce is part of our initial alignment procedure), and about 10 times larger than the spurious signal from the fast shutter. 

Images attached to this comment
Non-image files attached to this comment
jenne.driggers@LIGO.ORG - 11:42, Friday 01 June 2018 (42281)

[Fil, Jenne]

After a long list of tests to isolate where the problem was, we have found and fixed the problem with AS_C!  Hooray! 

It turns out that we have an in-chamber short between pins 3 and 4 of the cabling that goes to the input of the transimpedance amplifier.  Recall that this transimpedance amplifier chassis can serve 2 DC QPDs, although we are only using one.  Pin 3 of the input from chamber is the "sense" input channel that is used to do some analog noise cancellation.  Pin 4 is the anode from one of the segments of the 2nd QPD.  So, we were taking any pickup noise from this unused QPD channel and feeding it into the input of the noise cancellation, thus actually making it a noise injector.

Fil has extracted pin 4 from the cable connector that goes into the transimpedance amplifier.  After doing so, and plugging everything back in, the large rms noise was gone, the large dark current was gone, and there was no longer a jump when we actuate the shutter - it all looks good.

Fil noted that the whitening chassis that is currently installed is a spare, that does not have the new mods for the OMC DCPD half that prevent saturations when the violin modes are high.  So, we should put the original whitening chassis back in place, now that we know it is not the problem.  Sheila also noted that the dark offset of AS_C seems surprisingly large if she turns on the 3rd stage of whitening, so maybe there is a large DC offset on the 3rd whitening stage in this spare chassis - hopefully swapping back to the original will solve this also.

When we do in-chamber short checks, we typically only check pins against ground, not pins against other pins.  We should add these noise sense pins on the DC QPDs to a list of pins that ought to be checked for shorts against any other pin (and similar, if there are similar noise cancellation circuits in other PD chassis).

jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 14:55, Friday 01 June 2018 (42287)SYS
Opened (and closed) FRS Ticket 10800 in order to capture this (and all previous aLOG's) history of the issue and relevant drawings.
Opened (and marked as whenvent) IIET Ticket 10802 which indicates that the above solution is a temporary fix to the in-vacuum problem that pins are shorted in chamber. 

Note, we believe the short was created on Apr 26 2018 when searching for *other* "ground loops" (i.e. shorts to ground) (see LHO aLOG 41709).
H1 SUS (SEI, SYS)
betsy.weaver@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:47, Thursday 31 May 2018 - last comment - 15:44, Friday 03 August 2018(42271)
BSC9 Chamber closeout status

This afternoon,

- I wiped the AERM and ETM barrel surfaces as best I could with swabs and methanol to remove particulate.

- Travis and I removed the FirstContact sheet from the optic - upon inspection, we still found some point features within the central ~6" of the optic HR surface.  They did not blow away with 20psi N2 Top Gun, nor do they look like FC pieces.  I will compare my pictures to the map we made during last year's lab inspection.

- Travis and I checked for charge via the "normal" procedure of looking with an electrometer at the back surface of the AERM with a special bracket.  Details below to follow.

- Travis ocked all EQ stops nuts, taking into account sag once under vacuum.

- We set the top 4 QUAD BOSEMs to slightly more closed, also to take into account the sag of the suspensions once under vacuum.

- Removed all tooling, wiped floor and ACB surface.

- Travis swung the ACB back into it's nominal position.

- Jim unlocked the ISI and made a quick medm check.

- Laid new witness CC wafers and optics. - Pulled FC from 2x optics (1 vertical on QUAD, 1 horizontal under QUAD).

Tomorrow we will run TFs in the am and then launch the door crew.

Comments related to this report
betsy.weaver@LIGO.ORG - 09:41, Saturday 02 June 2018 (42303)

Forgot to mention that just after the FirstContact pull, we installed the electrometer bracket to the back side of the AERM and measured in the Center, and 4 quadrants charge on the electrometer between +/-3V.  Data to follow.

travis.sadecki@LIGO.ORG - 15:44, Friday 03 August 2018 (43246)

Finally getting around to putting in the actual numbers for these measurements taken on May 31, 2018 at 3:30pm.  This Quad now has an AERM in the reaction chain.

Procedure:  Pulled First Contact, blew all surface and the gap for 60 seconds.  Took electrometer readings at 5 locations.  UL = -3.1 V, UR = -3.3 V, Center = 3.4 V, LR = 0.1 V, LL = 3.8 V.

Tested electrometer fluctuations by putting the cap on the electrometer head and setting it on the floor of the chamber (no person touching it) and zeroed it.  Reading fluctuated betwee 0 and 3 V.

Measured all 5 locations again 10 minutes after the first blow.  UL = 2.5 V, UR = 2.0 V, Center = 3.0 V, LR = 2.0 V, LL = 2.0 V.

H1 ISC (PSL)
peter.king@LIGO.ORG - posted 09:38, Thursday 31 May 2018 - last comment - 16:00, Friday 01 June 2018(42257)
ND filter installed on ALS photodiode
At Daniel's request I installed a neutral density filter
(ND05A) on the photodiode
located after the reference cavity in the ALS path.

    The power transmitted by the reference cavity was measured between the first turning mirror
located after the step down periscope and a lens (see RC_Trans.jpg) to be 28.3 mW.  At the time
the FSS MEDM screen indicated a reference cavity transmission of 2.8 V.  The 1 mW = 100 mV factor
is consistent with a measurement taken a long time ago.
Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
keita.kawabe@LIGO.ORG - 11:23, Thursday 31 May 2018 (42262)

After Peter was done, I updated the calibration of H1:ALS-C_FIBR_EXTERNAL_DC_POWERMON.

When I was watching H1:PSL-FSS_TPD_DC_OUTPUT it was about 2.68V, so using Peter's measurement the power upstream of the BS for the PD should have been ~2.68/2.8*28.3=27.1mW.

I changed H1:ALS-C_FIBR_EXTERNAL_DC_SPLITTERR from 50% to 3% so the "power before pickoff" (H1:ALS-C_FIBR_EXTERNAL_DC_POWERMON) reads ~27mW.

(The BS should be 5% according to Peter's picture, ND05 means about a factor of 3 reduction, so it should be 5/3% ~ 1.7% instead of 3, something should be off by a factor of 2 or so but I wont investigate further because this is of no real consequence.)

keita.kawabe@LIGO.ORG - 12:12, Thursday 31 May 2018 (42263)

ALS Y laser was turned on (EY is still laser safe, ISCTEY is locked). PLL was locked.

daniel.sigg@LIGO.ORG - 15:59, Thursday 31 May 2018 (42268)

When I looked at the screen I thought the responsivity was off. This should be a Si diode.

keita.kawabe@LIGO.ORG - 16:00, Friday 01 June 2018 (42292)

I temporarily set responsivity to 0.36A/W assuming Thorlabs FDS1010 (but I don't know if it is), and "reflectivity of pick off beamsplitter" to 3%*0.64/.36=5.3% to keep the calibration correct. That's roughly a factor of 3 larger than expected from BS label and ND05.

H1 TCS (TCS)
marie.kasprzack@LIGO.ORG - posted 20:55, Thursday 24 May 2018 - last comment - 15:47, Friday 01 June 2018(42182)
Ring heater- initial Hartmann sensor measurements

[Marie, Aidan, Alexei, Dan, TJ]

As mentioned above in alog 42171, we set up a ring heater measurement last night to observe the response of the HWS. The ring heater was switched on with 2 W total power dissipated (1W in the upper segment, 1W in lower segment) for 8 hours. Results are encouraging:

In figure 1, we can clearly see the effect of  thermal transient from the ring heater on the spherical power of the HWS beam phase. The measured amplitude of the maximum phase deformation (~ -80 udiopters) corresponds to the prediction of the model, once we roughly correct for the magnification of the beam on the test mass (we measured it yesterday to be about 23.5 instead of 20.5 in the model). It indicates that the HWS might be probing the test mass correctly. However, a more careful analysis is required.
The spherical power from the HWS indicates a large drift at the beginning. We think it is partly due to the thermal stabilization of the HWS sensor itself. The total slope over the first 6 hours is about 40 udiopters, which is large compared to the effect of the ring heater. There is a cross-coupling between the spherical power and prism X, on top of a beam drift indicated by the prism X/Y power (corresponding to the tilts of the test mass).

In figures 2 to 5, we can see the wavefront measurements from the HWS at different stages:  after the sensor thermal drift (+6h on the time scale of figure 1), when the deformation is maximum (+9h), before the ring heater is switched off (+14h) and at the end of the measurement (+17h). The code needs to be changed to see more clearly the phase below 90 nm difference. 


****

Today we worked on the beam optimization by adjusting the beam alignment and initial iris aperture. One issue is the axis-symmetric reduction of the iris aperture doesn't translate into a symmetric effect in the return beam power distribution. It indicates that the beam is clipping and we are not imaging its center. However, the number of centroid has increased with respect to yesterday (+ 30%), as well as the intensity homogeneity on the HWS.

As it is inefficient to check the performance of the setup with ring heater tests, due to the large amount of time they take, today we looked for faster figures of merit. One of them could be the cross-coupling between the prism X/Y and the spherical power. If the coupling is low, the beam is more likely to be aligned on the test mass. We injected a yaw oscillation at ETMY M0 (10 urad at 0.03 Hz). When optimizing the homogeneity of the power distribution of the HWS return beam, we could see a reduction of the cross-coupling between prismX and the spherical power. It was reduced by a factor 1.5 (with 120 udiopters/ 34 urad) compared to last night. We scheduled a ring heater test for tonight to confirm if the situation has improved.

Another important parameter is the sensor noise floor at high frequency (time scale of minutes). The noise on the sensor is higher than expected and this will limit our ability to see high spatial resolution changes. After today's work, the rms of the noise over 10 mins is reduced by a factor 3 (see figure 6).

We still need to test the impact of our system on the ALS beam and vice versa.

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
aidan.brooks@LIGO.ORG - 09:50, Tuesday 29 May 2018 (42186)

I've added the same wavefront plots with the colorscale extended to 450nm and the magnification corrected to 23.5 rather than 20.5. 

* We discovered a sign error in the wavefront reconstruction algorithm. Previous negative lens wavefronts were shown as positive lenses. This has been corrected here.

Images attached to this comment
marie.kasprzack@LIGO.ORG - 15:47, Friday 01 June 2018 (42291)TCS

The second test of the ring heater after the beam optimization mentioned above (night of May 25) confirms that the noise is reduced in the measurement. However there is still coupling with the prism_x/y, indicating that the beam was not centered on ETMY.

To estimate the coupling, the model (corrected for the magnification) was fitted with a linear combination of the measured spherical power and the tilts (see figure 1). The coupling coefficients are for 7.5 prism_x and -4 for prism_y. The cylindrical power isn't coupled with the spherical power. The corrected data is matching the model quite well once the ring heater is on, but there is still discrepancy between hour 24 and 30: there might be another mechanism driving the drift.

Images attached to this comment
H1 SUS (SUS)
cheryl.vorvick@LIGO.ORG - posted 15:51, Tuesday 22 May 2018 - last comment - 16:13, Friday 01 June 2018(42129)
ITMX and ITMY TFs taken today, under vacuum

files saved in:

Comments related to this report
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 16:13, Friday 01 June 2018 (42293)
J. Kissel

I've processed Cheryl's data for the Main Chains of the ITMs, 
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ITMX/SAGM0/Data/
    2018-05-22_2102_H1SUSITMX_M0_WhiteNoise_L_0p01to50Hz.xml
    2018-05-22_2102_H1SUSITMX_M0_WhiteNoise_P_0p01to50Hz.xml
    2018-05-22_2102_H1SUSITMX_M0_WhiteNoise_R_0p01to50Hz.xml
    2018-05-22_2102_H1SUSITMX_M0_WhiteNoise_T_0p01to50Hz.xml
    2018-05-22_2102_H1SUSITMX_M0_WhiteNoise_V_0p01to50Hz.xml
    2018-05-22_2102_H1SUSITMX_M0_WhiteNoise_Y_0p01to50Hz.xml

/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ITMY/SAGM0/Data/
    2018-05-22_2119_H1SUSITMY_M0_Mono_WhiteNoise_L_0p01to50Hz.xml
    2018-05-22_2119_H1SUSITMY_M0_Mono_WhiteNoise_P_0p01to50Hz.xml
    2018-05-22_2119_H1SUSITMY_M0_Mono_WhiteNoise_R_0p01to50Hz.xml
    2018-05-22_2119_H1SUSITMY_M0_Mono_WhiteNoise_T_0p01to50Hz.xml
    2018-05-22_2119_H1SUSITMY_M0_Mono_WhiteNoise_V_0p01to50Hz.xml
    2018-05-22_2119_H1SUSITMY_M0_Mono_WhiteNoise_Y_0p01to50Hz.xml

and attach the results. I also whole-heartedly agree with her assessment -- everything looks great.
Non-image files attached to this comment
Displaying reports 46661-46680 of 87753.Go to page Start 2330 2331 2332 2333 2334 2335 2336 2337 2338 End