PSL 70W Amplifier Installation Update

J. Oberling, E. Merilh

The last few days have been spent taking caustic measurements and searching for mode matching solutions so we can identify what lenses we need for mode matching prior to placing elements on the table; as a result there is not a whole lot of installation activity to report.  We left off Friday with a lovely LG01 mode in the Wincam.  On Monday morning Bubba very kindly shaved some mounts down for us (for WP02 and PBS02) to solve our clipping problem.  These were installed and the LG01 mode was still observed on the Wincam.  To see if we were seeing something real or just an issue with the Wincam, we borrowed a Thorlabs rotating slit beam profiler from the Pcal folks (who had lent it to the SQZ folks).  Setting this profiler up, we saw a nice Gaussian beam on the profiler.  Apparently something is up with that Wincam, so we will continue to use the Thorlabs profiler.

Using the same 300mm focal length lens, we took a measurement of the FE beam caustic, attached as LHO_FE_Caustic1.txt.  The first column is scale position in cm (corrected for the fact we had the wrong location of the sensor in the profiler when taking the measurement), and the last 2 columns are horizontal and vertical beam radii in µm, respectively.  This was imported into JamMT, the lens added, and the resulting FE waist given as 77.2 µm in radius, positioned ~15mm outside of the FE box.  This is uploaded as FE_caustic_after_distance_check.png (z=0 is the end of the scale used to take the caustic measurement, all distances are relative to that); we doubled checked all of our distance measurements this morning and made some small corrections, hence the filename.  While the location makes sense, the beam radius seems small as the LIGO FE lasers were all measured to be between 150µm and 250µm; although we have swapped the NPRO in the FE, which can have an effect on the waist size and location.  JamMT yielded only one mode matching solution with this initial waist that fits within the constraints of the beam path; this is uploaded as 70W_MM_solution1-FE_caustic_with_lens.png.  Unfortunately, I didn't think to take a picture of the measurement setup used; I'll take one tomorrow morning and upload it as a comment to this alog.

As a double check, we measured the caustic with no lens in place, and followed the same procedure as above.  The measurement is uploaded as LHO_FE_Caustic_no_lens.txt (same units as the previous .txt file, this time the position dimension is referenced to the FE box (since there was no lens installed)), and the resulting FE waist as FE_Caustic_no_lens.png.  As can be seen, something is not quite right with this measurement as it claims the waist is 2mm in diameter and located some 4.9 meters (yes, meters) behind the FE box (this is somewhere way past the NPRO and not in the FE box at all...), so this isn't the double check we thought it would be.  We tried installing a 400mm focal length lens in place of the 300mm, but this put the resulting focus off the edge of the table; a 200mm focal length lens gets the spot too small for the profiler to give accurate measurements.  We will do some more investigation of this in the morning (maybe try the 200mm lens anyway and see what we get), but at this point I think our best check is to set up the lenses from the given solution, put the Thorlabs profiler at the location the 70W amplifier expects the beam waist to be, and see what our beam diameter is.  If we're close, then onward we go; if not, then more investigation is needed.

Ops Day Shift Summary

 

ETMX SUS OPLEV trends - unexpected jump. Already.

This morning, Travis had to repoint the ETMX with some bias to get it back on the Oplev which I found odd.  The Oplev had been zeroed to the ETMX SUS last ~Monday reportedly by Jason.  However, besides that jump in the trend data, there is another jump on Tuesday.  I am guessing that the ISI EX model work/bootfest changed the pointing of the floating ISI/SUS.  Travis used the ETMX SUS to repoint back to zero.

This morning, Jim locked the ISI so hopefully there will be no more unexpected shifts due to anything ISIish.

Side note - try not to bump the OPLEV piers.  Ever. 

 

 

VOPO Work

TJ Sheila Daniel

TJ fixed the short on DCPD2 betwen anode and case following Rich's suggestion of adding a piece of viton under the ceramic circuit board. The same was done for DCPD1.

However, wew found that for DCPD1 the anode and cathode are swapped. We made it work with some clip leads (for now).

• DCPD 1: CLF rejected
• DCPD 2: SHG rejected

We tested the PZTs and both of them are working.

EY / BSC10 Electric Field Measurements -- Take 3: Driven Fields Clearly Visible Above Sensor Noise

J. Kissel, G. Mansell

Georgia and I gathered one last data set with the prototype electric field sensor at BSC10 / EY, with the goal of measuring a few driven fields: the ISI coil drivers and the SUS ETMY's ESD Shield. With a reasonable drive (sine waves @300 Hz, with ~40% of the DAC range for the ISIs, as-low-as 5 Vpp on the ESD shields) we can resolve both clearly above the noise floor.

Attached are the results, in 2018-03-06_H1SUSETMY_BSC10_EFM_Results.pdf

We conclude (at the respective frequencies), the field generated per unit drive is 
                      Field Coupling     Units                          Notes
    ISI ST1 Coils        0.8723          (V.m^{-1}).A^-1                (Driven in V, 3 Vertical Actuators, 
                                                                         answer = mean(field ./ (3*current drive on V1)))
                         3.7284e-10      (V.m^{-1}).(DAC ct)_Z^{-1}  (answer = mean(field ./ (3*dac count drive on V1)))

    ESD Shield           0.0024451       (V.m^{-1}).V                   (answer = mean(field ./ voltage drive on shield))


%%%%%%%%%%%
Details
%%%%%%%%%%%
Measurement Setup Notes
    The ESD Cabling vs. The SHV Passthrough Box in which one can configure how the shields are connected, a.k.a "Shield Box"
    Associated Pictures: 2018-03-06_H1SUSETMY_ESD_CablesAtFeedThru_AsFound_Pics.pdf
        - We went up to the mezzanine work platform above BSC10 in order to connect / replace the current limiting resistor (CLR) box with the Shield Box, and we were surprised to find the chamber-feedthru-to-CLR-box-side of the ESD cables disconnected from the CLR box. This was both convenient and inconvenient for us: the cables we needed to connect to the Shield Box were already disconnected, but that meant we had to assume the cable ordering from the rack-side of the CLR box was correct and the box was a passthrough (I was 90% confident of this, but I note that this box is not in the wiring diagram -- D1400177). The order we found connected: 
        Rack-side CLR          Rack-side
          Box Label           Cable Label
            1                      LR
            2                      UR
            3                      UL
            4                      LL
            5                      Bias
        - Before connecting the chamber-feedthru-to-CLR-box-side of the ESD cables to the Shield Box, we tested whether the CLR-box side of the shields were grounded w.r.t. the chamber (a.k.a. "floating"). The were not grounded; they were floating. We did not check whether the chamber-feedthru side of the cables were grounded. We should have, but we're reasonably confident that the CDS team confirms this regularly.

    Driving the Shield:
    Associated Pictures: 2018-03-06_H1SUSETMY_BSC10_ShieldDrive_Setup_Pics.pdf
        - After connecting the chamber-feedthru-to-CLR-box-side of the ESD cables to the Shield Box (in the above described order), we had a frustrating amount of trouble trying to keep the Shield box (electrically) floating, i.e. preventing it from grounding, and making sure what voltage we applied to the Shield Box's shield "excitation" wire + gator clip actually went to the shields of the chamber-feedthru-to-CLR-box-side of the ESD cables. The "ShieldDrive_Setup_Pics" picks show that we needed the already-there clean wipe bag, and several used clean wipes in order to get the Shield Box chassis and all shields floating the desired affect, that driven voltage showed up on the shield and only the shield of the chamber-feedthru-to-CLR-box-side of the ESD cables.
        - We used an analog SR DS340 wave function generator to drive the shield, with the "func out" output set to High-Z. The output was connected to the gator-clip of the Shield Box's excitation cable with a BNC to clip-lead adapter that had its clip leads cut off. We were sure to wrap the gator-clip + (red) signal bare wire in a used cleanroom wipe to ensure shielding from ground. The (black) shield wire was floating in air.
        - In order to test that the drive was making it to the chamber-feedthru-to-CLR-box-side of the ESD cable shield and the system was otherwise floating, we requested a 1 V_{pk} offset from the SR DS340, and measured the potential difference between ground and the CLR-box side (now the Shield Box side) of the chamber-feedthru-to-CLR-box-side of the ESD cables.
        - We then BNC T'd in an oscilliscope to confirm the output levels of our various sine-wave drives (removing the 1V offset).

    The Field Meter:
    Associated Pictures: 2018-03-06_H1SUSETMY_BSC10_InChamber_Electrometer_Pics.pdf 
        - We re-installed the prototype field meter in the middle of the chamber on the bench that was in chamber. It was set up to measure the field in the longitudinal direction.
        - We guess that the field meter is about 0.75 meters away from the EY test mass, in the +X, +Y global coordinate direction.
        - Of acoustical note from the last time, this bench was sitting on used clean wipes, where as the previous measurements' bench had not.
        - At the request of others, we took a full-span measurement of the ambient chamber field (with the door covered in foil to rudimentarily complete the chamber faraday cage) with the return of the battery box floating (i.e. with the white banana clip hooked into the battery box, no grounding clip) and grounded (i.e. with the banana clip hooked into the battery box, and also electrically connected to ground). We saw no difference in these results (see pg 4 of the EFM_Results.pdf attachment) so we measured the remaining driven results with the return floating.
        - We used this reference ASD to find a nice quiet / sensitive region to drive. We chose the ~300 Hz region because it was above all of (what we think to be) acoustic noise, but still low enough frequency to be relevant to the most sensitive region of the IFO's DARM sensitivity.

    ST1 ISI Z Drive:
        - Both stages of the BSC ISI are mechanically locked to Stage 0, and HEPI is locked, so no physical motion of the platform is caused by driving the ST1 actuators at ~300 Hz.
        - We had to reset many layers of watchdogs, including the hardware watchdog in the EE HighBay in order to allow for ISI drive to occur.
        - Once able, drove the ISI in Z with a 367.3 Hz size wave (via awggui, with a 360-370 Hz 4th other cheby1 bandpass to be sure we were only driving at 367.3 Hz) in the H1:ISI-ETMY_ST1_ISO_Z_EXC field.
        - We drove at 200 ct_pk and 400 ct_pk at the ISO_Z_EXC point, which I later confirmed with dataviewer and DTT that that corresponds to identical drive to the V1, V2, and V3 actuators, at the level of 12700 and 25300 ct_pk, which is 8111 and 16223 ct_{rms} (as measured via ASD by a fres = 0.125 Hz BW spectrum, with the default Hann window; NENBW = 1.5, ENBW = NENBW*fres = 0.1875).
        - The two amplitudes were to check for / confirm linearity. 

    ESD Shield Drive:
        - With feedthru-to-CL-box ESD cables, the Shield Box, and waveform generator described as above, we drove three sign waves at 383.5, 321.9, and 269.1, to look for frequency dependence, and the first of which at three amplitudes to look for linearity.

Analysis Details
        - I calibrated the DAC output of the ISI into current across the coils by dividing by the following calibration (in matlab in post-processing) derived from D1001575,
             coildriver.c = zpk(-2*pi*136,-2*pi*[32 300],1);
             isiinterface.c = zpk(-2*pi*15.9, -2*pi*0.4, 0.4/15.9);
             actuator.g = 20/2^16 * 1.0 * 0.156; % A / DAC ct
             calibration.isi.c = actuator.g * coildriver.c * isiinterface.c;
        - That results in a calculated current of 3.4 and 6.9 uA_{rms} at 367.3 Hz on each coil.
        - To convert this to the total current through the three vertical coils, I just multiply by 3 to get 10.4 and 20.8 uA_{rms}.
        - Because the ASD I used is not bin-centered, I scaled this up a bit by the ratio of the data-viewer measured peak amplitude (converted to rms amplitude) and the peak amplitude measured in the MASTER_OUT ASD (again converted to rms amplitude). These factors were a small 10% correction to arrive at the numbers you seen in the legend of plot 2 in EFM_Results.pdf.
        - To arrive at the concluding answer above, I took the mean of the to rms amplitude ratios (noting that the SR785 uses a Blackman-Harris window as default, NENBW = 2.0044, fres = 0.25, ENBW = NENBW*fres = 0.5111)

Results Discussion
        - It appears the field scales linearly with both ISI and ESD shield excitation. Good! That's why I report the average in the concluding results.
        - With three data points, it's tough to say, but the lowest of the three frequencies we drove of the ESD shield showing a larger amplitude makes be suspicious that the shield coupling is frequency dependent.

What's Next
        - We intend to bring the field meter down to EX next and do a plethora of further exploratory measurements.
            - Take a more detailed frequency response of the field resulting from the ESD shield driving.
            - Try driving the signal and bias of the ESD
            - Try different DOF excitations on the ISI ST1
            - Try driving ISI ST2 actuators. (probably won't see anything, cause they're smaller than the ST1 actuators.)
            - Try driving OSEM coils. (probably won't see anything).
        - We also intend to project these results to DARM, essentially calibrating LLO's measurements of the shield driving to DARM (LLO aLOG 28675) into electric field units.
            

ISI CPS Noise Spectra Checks (FAMIS #6940)

   Posted are the results of the IS CPS noise spectra. All look OK except HAM6. HAM6 is a bit elevated. Since there are many activities at or near HAM6 this is not necessary unexpected. Closing FAMIS #6940. 

Weekly PSL Chiller Checks and Top-off (FAMIS #6565)

   Add 150ml water to Crystal chiller. Added 200ml to Diode chiller. 
   As noted before, the crystal chiller filter is brown, due to 70W install, and will be replaced when the install is finished. The Diode chiller filter is OK. Closing FAMIS task #6565  

CP4 regen bake

(late entry from today's work)

Today we valved in heated gas N2 to allow it to flow through the CP4 reservoir. We learned a few things:

1. The regen heater has a thermocouple sensor (+ a second spare TC) at the heater elements (TE253B & TE235C), which is used as an over-temperature protection connected to a temperature limit switch inside the Watlow controller. The limit switch works; I was able to trip the heater a few times, mostly when heater is on with no GN2 flow. BTW, it appears TE253B does not work - I haven't looked at the field wiring to see if leads are connected at the heater; we simply switched leads to TE253C inside controller.
2. I started GN2 flow when the bake enclosure was reading around 90C at TC#1 (supply air). This is when things got fun. The enclosure heater increased to full-on 100%, but all four temps we monitor were not increasing. Turns out the GN2 was absorbing all the excess heat. The regen pipe was warm at the entrance of the enclosure but the exhaust pipe was hot to the touch. The GN2 supply was not nearly as warm - measuring  around 30C at the TC outside the building, just downstream of the heater. I adjusted proportional gain setting in Beckhoff between values of 1 and 6, trying to ramp up the temp. of the GN2 relatively fast to more closely match the enclosure air temp. This process of beginning to warm up GN2 and equalize both systems takes a lot longer than I had time for this afternoon, so I will try again starting early tomorrow morning. For tonight there is no GN2 flow.
3. We have a bug in the bake enclosure's PLC controls that needs to be worked out with vendor. Read aLOG for more details:  https://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=40867

I insulated the exposed regen and exhaust pipes and wrapped the exposed purge valve underneath CP4 with Al foil. Also replaced broken TC#2 that measures air a few feet away from supply near top of enclosure (mounted to regen pipe). 

Reboot of CP4 bake-out controller/PLC needed

Heat Profile Summary 

RAMP -> Increase measured temperature towards the SETPOINT value at a rate of 1C / hour 

SOAK -> After measured temperature attains the SETPOINT value, maintain measured temperature at SETPOINT value for time (hours) value entered as "HOLD" 

RAMP -> Decrease measured temperature towards value at a rate of 1C / hour to that seen at the start of the initial RAMP segment. 


We increased the SETPOINT value to 115C before leaving the site tonight.  Once home, I logged on and noticed that all four of the displayed (camera looking at controller display) temperatures had risen significantly from the values I had noted when leaving the site, i.e. had ramped up at a rate much faster than the program limit of 1C / hour should have allowed it to.  In spite of this, the heater output was showing 100%, i.e. was fully on (20 kW)!  The output should have responded and been 0% to prevent such a rapid temperature increase.  I also noticed that the "HOLD" lamp was on.  Thus, the heating profile had somehow advanced to the SOAK segment of the profile and was trying to get the measured temperature to match the SETPOINT value of 115C.  

I phoned Sheila D. in the control room and she agreed to go out the Y-mid station and help us remotely.  Unfortunately, she couldn't get into the building as the mid-stations require a unique key.  When I arrived, I lowered the SETPOINT value to slightly less than that of TC1 (T/C used by control loop) which should have caused the heater output to respond by decreasing down from 100%.  I waited several minutes, but the heater output never changed and the HOLD lamp stayed on.  I ended up power cycling the control unit and restarting the program.  I also lowered the SETPOINT value.  It seems to be working now.

NOTE 
TC3's bimetal junction must be sampling the air even though it is intended to be clamped to the SST of CP4.  I believe this because it changes much too rapidly as should be physically possible while in contact with a large mass and it behaves much like TC1 and TC2 which are intended to be sampling air.  TC4 is confirmed anchored to the lift eye on the side of GV11 and is the only T/C which behaves as if in good thermal contact with a large mass of SST.  I will re-examine TC3 tomorrow.  

Adding Viton Beneath Balance Masses of H1 OPO (an OPOS) Reduces Broadboard Bending Mode Qs by a Factor of 2-3

Á. Fernández, J. Kissel, T. Shaffer

Álvaro, T.J. and I B&K hammered the optical parametric oscillator suspension's (OPOS) fully-payloaded bread board today, both with and without viton beneath its balancing masses. The reduction of bending mode Qs was about a factor of 2 to 3. Not very impressive -- my feeling is that we're either (a) putting viton where there is little bending, and/or (b) the balance masses do not provide enough moving mass at these mode frequencies to really suck out the mode energy through the viton.

I've not been tied close enough to this suspension to know if there is further action / improvement to make or take. Are there specific requirements we're trying to meet? Comment below if you have.
(Note, these results show that traditional, yet often broken, requirement of "Anything attached to the HAM-ISI must have its first bending mode resonances above 150 Hz" has been meet. Also, the addition of viton does not and will not have any affect on what ~1 Hz ISI - OPOS plant interaction issues Arnaud saw in LLO aLOG 37394.)

I attach the transfer function results.

We struck the platform vertically down at the outer edges, in the +Transverse corner and in the +Longitudinal corner (see E1700390 and/or G1300086 for basis definitions), and measured the response with the usual three-axis accelerometer. I only show the vertical response to each vertical excitation. 

Stay tuned for pictures. 

I attach the raw data (.pls files), the exported data (.txt files), and the script used to analyze the data.