CP4 is baking at a rate of around 0.7C/hr. Flow is still 80% restricted at return duct. Kyle, Gerardo and I are splitting shifts to monitor pressure and temperatures remotely. Next week we'll start the regen GN2 heater. 

Temps are monitored here: https://lhocds.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/cr_screens/png/video0-1.png, and also at CP3's discharge TE202A channel (we are unofficially calling it GV11 air temp).

The heater is controlled by the reading of thermocouple installed at supply exit, which is the warmed spot, as expected.

J. Kissel, J. Warner

While in chamber to B&K the PCAL Periscope (see LHO aLOG 40814), I grabbed a few publicity photos of the backside of H1SUSETMY on Jim's phone for future talks that reference the AERM.

Enjoy!

J. Kissel, J. Warner

Jim and I hammered the H1 PCAL EY Periscope this morning after all planned modifications have been completed (as of LHO aLOG 40777). Excellent news -- all resonances below 400 Hz have been entirely squashed. Given these results, I would expect higher frequency resonances are equally squashed.

Nice work design and installation teams!

The attached images show the chosen accelerometer locations (different from LHO aLOG 40330 because both accelerometer mounting holes were used up by the baffle installation) and hit locations.

The .pdf attached shows four plots: 
- A recap of what we used to have at H1 and L1,
- A before vs. after comparison of the 12 O'Clock position accelerometer response to a 7 O'Clock strike
- A before vs. after comparison of the 3 O'Clock vs. 9 O'Clock position to 7 O'Clock strike (because of the cylindrical symmetry, we figured 9 and 3 were equivalent, as long as the radial position was the same-ish).
- A show of both 12 and 9 O'Clock responses to 7 O'Clock strike in the final configuration, showing there isn't an high-Q resonance left to be found!

Checked for ground loops at EY this afternoon. Found issues with three cables (SUS_1, SUS_16, and SUS_19). Coordiinated with SUS team and will investigate/repair on Monday.

TITLE: 03/02 Day Shift: 16:00-00:00 UTC (08:00-16:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Planned Engineering
LOG:

Jeff K. and Jim running B&K measurements of PCAL at end Y

16:27 UTC Corey to ISCT6 to fix door handle
16:39 UTC Sheila to optics lab to cover equipment in prep for facilities work
16:51 UTC Corey to optics lab to cover equipment in prep for facilities work
16:59 UTC Jeff K. and Jim back from end Y
17:09 UTC Jason and Ed to PSL enclosure
17:19 UTC Terry to ISCT6 to work on beam path
17:25 UTC Rick to end X to put lock and tag on PCAL laser in prep for vent
17:31 UTC Travis to end Y, in chamber work
17:49 UTC Chandra to mid Y
17:54 UTC Karen at mid Y
18:00 UTC Karen leaving mid Y to retrieve vacuum from corner station
18:17 UTC Karen back at mid Y
18:24 UTC Sheila and Corey out of optics lab
18:24 UTC Travis back from end Y
18:31 UTC Marc to LVEA for cosmic ray testing
18:31 UTC Nutsinee to ISCT6
18:50 UTC Matt H. to PSL
19:05 UTC Karen leaving mid Y
19:11 UTC Signed WP 7395. Sheila making model changes, no restarts
19:36 UTC Nutsinee back
19:38 UTC Tumbleweed thrashing near corner station
20:02 UTC Delivery from Apollo
20:02 UTC Jeff K. to optics lab
22:09 UTC Matt H., Ed and Jason out of PSL enclosure for lunch
20:10 UTC Jeff K. out of optics lab
20:55 UTC TJ and Travis to HAM6
21:08 UTC Marc and Elizabeth to LVEA to work on cosmic ray
21:15 UTC Sheila to LVEA to look for headsets
21:18 UTC Ed and Jason to PSL enclosure
21:23 UTC Sheila to end Y to look for headsets
21:23 UTC Matt H. to PSL enclosure
21:24 UTC TJ and Travis out of HAM6
21:32 UTC Marc and Elizabeth back
21:44 UTC Filiberto and Elizabeth to end Y for SUS ground loop checking, then pulling fiber from patch panel in VEA to fan room for access control system
21:48 UTC Sheila back
21:54 UTC Hugh and Mark to LVEA
21:57 UTC Sheila to HAM6 to install fibers
22:00 UTC Nutsinee to find Sheila in LVEA
22:10 UTC Travis moving equipment from end Y to end X
23:07 UTC Travis back
23:24 UTC Greg leading tour into CR
23:36 UTC Greg leading tour out of CR to overpass
00:10 UTC Cheryl to PSL enclosure, WP 7393
00:24 UTC Filiberto and Elizabeth back

in the AS_B path.

J. Kissel

I've filled in the infrastructure for ZM1, which was mostly copying over filters from ZM2, and filling in the standard OSEM2EUL and EUL2OSEM matrices for an HTTS. I found, however, that the damping loops don't work. So, I took some driven transfer functions and spectra to see if I could identify the problem. Sadly, the dynamics -- especially the common mode actuator longitudinal TF -- looks pretty dicey. See attached screen shots.

Data templates live here:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HTTS/H1/ZM1/SAGM1/Data
    2018-03-02_2225_H1SUSZM1_M1_WhiteNoise_L_0p01to50Hz.xml
    2018-03-02_2225_H1SUSZM1_M1_WhiteNoise_P_0p01to50Hz.xml
    2018-03-02_2225_H1SUSZM1_M1_WhiteNoise_Y_0p01to50Hz.xml

We found the thermocouple on the supply air near the heater was not reading properly (too low). I replaced it with a more robust model and now it reads as we would expect - highest temperature out of the four we're monitoring; temperature gets cooler further from heater (vs opposite we were seeing yesterday). TC#2 is now near the REGEN pipe near top of enclosure, reading air temp. TC#3 is on metal valve on bottom of CP4, reading metal temp. TC#4 is clamped to GV11 lifteye, reading metal temp. We are heating again at 1C/hr and will monitor closely.

Kyle installed a flow restrictor plate on the return duct which covers ~80% of the 20" diameter as a quick way to reduce flow. We could also install a GV VFD on the fan motor which has same specs at GV motor.

Mark D. and Mark L. (and Bubba from home) came to the rescue with some ducting parts that we can install inside the enclosure to extend the return, if needed. We will continue to bake as-is and see how the temperature profile changes with time.

WP7388 Cheryl, Greg, Fil, Dave: summing unit commissioning.

The summing chassis (D1500265) outputs a temperature set-point control voltage of 4.15V when the control voltage from h1tcscs is 0 Volts. This corresponds to a set-point temperature of 19.6C (this should represent a temperature below the normal operating range, but Greg mentioned it could be too high).

The voltage to setpoint-temperature conversion is 0.21 V/degC (assuming linear with zero crossing).

The voltage being sent by the h1tcscs DAC has two amplitude drops before it is summed with the baseline 4.15V coming from the summing unit. The first is a gain of 0.5 when the differential signal from the General Standards DAC is converted to a single-ended signal. The second is an internal gain of 0.17 in the summing box (see D1500265). Therefore, to increase the temperature set-point by one degree Celsius, from 19.6C to 20.6C, the model should drive the DAC with 8159 counts. This number is obtained by:

8159 counts gives a DAC output of (20./65536.)*8159 = 2.49V

The delta-V voltage at the output of the summing box is then 2.49*0.5*0.17 = +0.21V

When we drove h1tcscs DACs with this number yesterday, the set-point increased by 0.7C instead of 1.0C (read on the LCD panel of the chillers). It looks like we will use empirically derived DAC values if there is a voltage drop on the long haul from the CER to the MR-Mezzanine.

The Pcal laser at Xend has been locked out and tagged out in preparation for the upcoming in-chamber work.

Feel free to add your lock to the hasp while working in chamber.

J. Kissel

Took a few quick TFs hoping to see that TJ's work yesterday freed up H1SUOPO -- but I don't think so. Back to the drawing board! I'm starting to suspect the coordinate system, but that'll take a bit more thinking.

E. Bonilla, A. Fernandez-Galiana, J. Kissel

A few days ago, I took the first transfer functions of the newly free, newly installed H1 SUS OPO, and instantiation of an optical parametric oscillator suspension (OPOS) -- see initial results in LHO aLOG 40749. The data can be found here:
    /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/VOPO/H1/OPO/SAGM1/Data/
        2018-02-27_2209_H1SUSOPO_M1_WhiteNoise_L_0p02to50Hz.xml
        2018-02-27_2209_H1SUSOPO_M1_WhiteNoise_P_0p02to50Hz.xml
        2018-02-27_2209_H1SUSOPO_M1_WhiteNoise_R_0p02to50Hz.xml
        2018-02-27_2209_H1SUSOPO_M1_WhiteNoise_T_0p02to50Hz.xml
        2018-02-27_2209_H1SUSOPO_M1_WhiteNoise_V_0p02to50Hz.xml
        2018-02-27_2209_H1SUSOPO_M1_WhiteNoise_Y_0p02to50Hz.xml

In order to bring this new suspension type into the fold, I've started to create the standard testing and commissioning infrastructure for analyzing the data in full, namely
    - With extensive help from Edgard, I've updated the single stage suspension model generating function,
        /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/Common/MatlabTools/SingleModel_Production/generate_Single_Model_Production.m
      to accept the new dynamical model,
        /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/Common/MatlabTools/SingleModel_Production/ssmake_voposus.m
      and the new parameter file
        /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/Common/MatlabTools/SingleModel_Production/oposopt_h1susopo.m
      such that I can produce a dynamical model of the OPOS on the fly.
    - I've copied over Alvaro's updated OSEM2EUL and EUL2OSEM matrix generation script into a more standard name and format,
        /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/VOPO/Common/MatlabTools/make_susopos_projections.m
      such that it's functional, and can spit out those matrices for use on the fly.
    - I've created a new DTT measurement analysis script that calibrates the raw data, and compares that data against the model,
        /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/VOPO/Common/MatlabTools/plotOPOS_dtttfs_M1.m
      so that we can debug an individual set of TFs for rubbing and expected/unexpected cross-coupling, and save the data to a standard, matlab friendly format so that we can compare different measurement sets over time and across sites.
The last thing on the to-do list is to create a "plotallopos_dtttfs.m" that will then contain a list of all measurements of any OPOS that will do that comparison over time and across sites. Also, as I'm sure you've noticed, there're still lingerings of "vopo" in all the scripts and folders that I haven't touched yet in the interest of getting the data processed. I'll save both for another day.

After all that infrastructure work, and comparison against the model, we clearly have our work cut-out for us, and the terrible T and Y TFs explain why I wasn't able to get rudimentary damping loops to work.
TJ has said that he's moved around a cable by H3 that he thinks was rubbing today, so I'll make attempts to remeasure the thing ASAP. Didn't get to it tonight 'cause of the work needed to create the above infrastructure. Sorry!

J. Kissel, E. Bonilla

I've formally processed Travis' interim transfer functions that he took a few days ago after he and Betsy were approaching happiness about the suspension being free (see LHO aLOG 40585). Both chain's results are interesting:

Main Chain:
   - I see some high Q cross coupling on the higher frequency resonances that I don't like between 2 and 3 Hz. M0 P to P shows it the worst, and it seems to have R0 T, M0 Y, R0 V, and M0 L modes that aren't expected, and indicate interaction between the chains.  We should look take a look for subtle rubbing at or between the lower stages of the main chain.

Reaction Chain:
   - I've worked with Edgard to get the new model for the AERM reaction chain suspension up and running, and incorporated into the traditional testing & commissioning infrastructure. The required changing several of the files inside the 
       /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/Common/MatlabTools/QuadModel_Production/
     directory, but all is now functional. 
     I'm excited to say that the model matched the data extremely well right out of the box. Also, the obvious, expected changes between an ERM and an AERM are evident in the middle-frequency modes, most obvious in the Longitudinal and Yaw TFs, which typically only depend on highly controlled parameters -- the mass and lengths of wires. We only had to 
         - adjust the mass of the PenRe (Reaction Mass' PUM) to what Betsy reports in LHO aLOG 40291, (from 65.1 to 64.356 / kg)
         - update the PenRe's Pitch and Yaw (and associated off-diagonal) moments of inertia to match -v5 of T1500563, 
         - fiddle with the Roll moments of inertia for the PenRe and Annular Reaction Mass itself (I2x from 0.998 to 0.6 / kg.m^-2, I3x from 0.3064 to 0.4 / kg.m^-2)
     in order to get the data to match as well as shown. The metrics for success (and what originally didn't match well) were the T / R modes (now modeled) at 0.91 and 2.68 / Hz. The latest model parameter set is committed to 
         /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/Common/MatlabTools/QuadModel_Production/quadopt_aerm.m
    The biggest descrepancy from the model is the Pitch transfer function, but we've seen this with every reaction chain type -- the ESD, PUM adn UIM OSEM cabling have always significantly altered / stiffened up the Pitch TF. No surprise or alarm there.
    Nice -- glad to see a new suspension type measured and successfully compared to its first-principles model!

    But, we've still got some work do to before we're happy with the dynamics and are confident the isolation stages are free.

Started CP4 bake today, with some hiccups. The heater was being controlled by a TC that was in a blind spot and not reading a well represented temperature, causing the enclosure to heat up too fast. The heater is now controlled via TC#1 which is clamped to a valve body on bottom of CP4, and can be read out from camera image found here:  https://lhocds.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/cr_screens/png/video0-1.png. The other three TCs are:  TC#2 reads air near GV 11 (east end); TC#3 reads air at exit of heater duct (west end); TC#4 reads air at top near GN2 regen pipe. 

We discovered a bigger problem - the air in east end of enclosure is not being circulated because the supply and return are on top of each other at west end, so the east side (GV11) is heating at a higher rate. Tomorrow we will work with contractors to install an extension duct at return to balance air mix. We decided to stop the heater for tonight to protect GV11. (edit:  the heater had already tripped because at least one of the four TCs had exceeded the setpoint+10C - good to know the safety protocol works!)

A quick rundown of today's activities in HAM6:

• Installed mirror into ZM1 suspension
• Balanced the tip-tilt as best I could without a laser. When we have a beam I will most likely need to adjust the pitch slightly and then recenter the OSEMs.
• Rerouted the beam diverter cable and placed the BD on the South side og the table. The iris used to keep the alignment for ZM1 is currently in the location that this BD needs to be, so we will have to put it in its final position when we can get the iris out of the way.
• Cleaned up some of the other cables below the table since I was already down there for the BD cabling.
• Routed and cabled ZM1.
• Sheila and I then connected the correct cables to each respective OSEM, took and open light measurement, and then proceeded to center them with their new offsets. They will need to be recentered after the pitch is adjusted with a beam.
• We packed up the extra screws, tools, and such and left only what we think we will need. I also removed the cable tags that Hugh had placed to identify each cable.
• Jeff K had mentioned that the OPOS was rubbing, so I poked around and found the H3 OSEM cable to have twisted a bit in one of its cable brackets which was causing it to lightly touch the suspended platform. Hopefully that fixed it.

Pictures to come tomorrow.

[Keita, Georgia]

With the new EY alignment, Keita and I adjusted the TMS pitch and yaw to steer the green ALS beam (reflected off ETMY) back onto the in-air table.

Keita adjusted one of the weights on the TMS table to improve the alignment in pitch. It is now 4" from where it was in O2, in the -y direction.

The TMS slider values are now P = 14.6 urad, Y = -217 urad, with the reflection roughly aligned. The full slider range in pitch is +/- 608 urad, so we think even with this rather large offset there is enough range to steer the beam 1m over 4km.

Finally, some of the OSEM sensors on the upper stage of the TMS suspension are not in the center of their range, something we might want to go back in and fix.