Displaying reports 481-500 of 85749.Go to page Start 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 End
Reports until 15:12, Monday 27 October 2025
H1 ISC
jennifer.wright@LIGO.ORG - posted 15:12, Monday 27 October 2025 (87773)
Discarded one uncommitted change in labutils

Jennie W, TJ Schaffer

 

I used git restore to undo the following change in the labutils/PIMON/plot_lockloss.py script.

git diff plot_lockloss.py
diff --git a/PIMON/plot_lockloss.py b/PIMON/plot_lockloss.py
index 34cc35a..9a5575e 100644
--- a/PIMON/plot_lockloss.py
+++ b/PIMON/plot_lockloss.py
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
 from pathlib import Path
 from matplotlib.backends.backend_pdf import PdfPages
 
-file = sys.argv[1]
+file = '/ligo/data/pimon/locklosses/1445269860_lockloss_pi_data.npz'

 
 data = np.load(file, allow_pickle=True)

 RMS = lambda y: np.cumsum(y[::-1])[::-1]

Just so we can push the labutils repository.
 

H1 DetChar (DetChar)
vicente.sierra@LIGO.ORG - posted 13:53, Monday 27 October 2025 (87772)
Data Quality Shift Report: LHO 2025-10-20 to 2025-10-26

Link to report here.

Summary:

H1 General
ryan.short@LIGO.ORG - posted 13:17, Monday 27 October 2025 (87771)
Ops Day Mid-Shift Report

H1 returned to observing at 19:54 UTC after a fairly strightforward relocking process. DRMI took a while to catch, but once it did, we paused to take a few OLG measurements (alog87768).

The 1 HZ ASC ringup started right around reaching low noise. Elenna tried a couple things to mitigate it, but we eventually just transitioned to high-gain ASC to finally subdue it.

I had one SDF to accept (see screenshot) which appears to be from Tony's SQZ troubleshooting overnight (alog87760).

Images attached to this report
H1 PSL
ryan.short@LIGO.ORG - posted 12:35, Monday 27 October 2025 (87770)
PSL 10-Day Trends

FAMIS 31109

PMC TRANS is having a bit of increase again, but otherwise no major events this week. I adjusted the ISS RefSignal this morning to bring the diffracted power back to our target of 4%; something I've been meaning to do for a while.

Images attached to this report
H1 ISC
elenna.capote@LIGO.ORG - posted 12:25, Monday 27 October 2025 - last comment - 13:39, Tuesday 25 November 2025(87768)
DRMI Inventory log

Some DRMI locking info

MICH, PRCL, SRCL filter banks during the "acquire DRMI 1f" state before the lock is grabbed.

OLGs for MICH, PRCL, SRCL after 1F acquisition, DRMI ASC engaged.

 

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
elenna.capote@LIGO.ORG - 14:51, Tuesday 28 October 2025 (87807)

MICH, PRCL, SRCL filter banks when DRMI 1F is locked, settings for the measurement time above.

Images attached to this comment
elenna.capote@LIGO.ORG - 15:02, Friday 21 November 2025 (88199)

PRMI OLGs

Images attached to this comment
ryan.short@LIGO.ORG - 13:39, Tuesday 25 November 2025 (88240)ISC

PRCL and MICH filter banks while PRMI is locked before PRMI ASC is turned on.

Images attached to this comment
LHO VE
david.barker@LIGO.ORG - posted 10:59, Monday 27 October 2025 (87769)
Mon CP1 Fill

Mon Oct 27 10:10:35 2025 INFO: Fill completed in 10min 32secs

 

Images attached to this report
H1 ISC
jennifer.wright@LIGO.ORG - posted 10:58, Monday 27 October 2025 - last comment - 17:13, Wednesday 26 November 2025(87766)
Change of reflected power from OMC during DARM offset step

I made plots of anti-symmetric power P_AS vs. power at reflected port of OMC P_OMC_REFL during the DARM offset step measurement on September 4th, (see LHO alog #86785 and 87629).

I had to use the Beckhoff reported power for this (H1:OMC-REFL_A_DC_POWER) as the front-end channel is calibrated wrongly (see LHO alog #87648).

I also plotted the P_OMC_REFL vs.  P_DCPD, ie. reflected vs. transmitted power for the OMC.

The plots for our two measurements taken at different times during IFO thermalisation are below, both were taken when OM2 was hot.

Non-image files attached to this report
Comments related to this report
jennifer.wright@LIGO.ORG - 15:25, Wednesday 26 November 2025 (88259)

I reran these plots as the axis limits of the P_REFL vs. P_DCPD plot were wrong and were cutting off end point, plus removed line that explained what the y-intercept was for each plot as different dependent on whether we plot P_REFL vs P_AS or P_REFL vs. P_DCPD.

I also switched the P_REFL channel being used in my code to H1:OMC-REFL_A_DC_POWER from H1:OMC-REFL_A_DC_POWERMON as this latter channel has a factor of 100 relative to the former that I don't really undestand. The DC_POWER channel seems to give a realistic reading for the OMC reflected power that is much less than the power into HAM6.

First link contains two plots when we were half-way thermalised:

First plot is power at the OMC reflected PD vs. power at the antisymmetric port (calibrated into the power into HAM6) for the case where we were 1Hr 25 mins into lock.

Second plot is power at the OMC reflected PD vs. power transmitted to the DCPDs for the case where we were 1Hr 25 mins into lock.

 

The second link contains two plots also when we were thermalised:

First plot is power at the OMC reflected PD vs. power at the antisymmetric port (calibrated into the power into HAM6) for the case where we were 3 hrs 59 mins into lock.

Second plot is power at the OMC reflected PD vs. power transmitted to the DCPDs for the case where we were 2 hrs 59 mins into lock.

Non-image files attached to this comment
jennifer.wright@LIGO.ORG - 17:13, Wednesday 26 November 2025 (88262)

We can write down an equation for P_REFL from the OMC in terms of P_DCPD, using our linear fit.

P_REFL = ( c*P_DCPD + d ) mW

We know the nominal setting for P_DCPD is 40mA, and we can take the responsivity of the DCPDs at 100 % efficiency to be 

responsivity = e * lambda / (c * h)

From the squeezer budget (E2400269) we can get a number for the Q.E. of the PD that also includes OMC losses for the transmitted beam, transmissivity = 0.937

Therefore the power at the DCPDs at nominal DARM offset is 40mA/(responsivity*transmissivity) = 49.7 mW.

The reflectivity of the OMC breadboard is 2.75e-4 as calculated from parameters given in T1500060-v3.

The formula for the power measured at the reflected port of the OMC can also be expressed as:

P_REFL = R_cav [ P_00_arm + P_00_cd] + P_HOM_arm + P_sb + P_HOM_cd

where P_00_arm is the power in the fundamental carrier mode which changes with DARM offset, P_00_cd is the contrast defect light that is in the fundamental carrier mode, P_HOM_arm is light at higher order mode frequencies which also change with DARM offset, P_sb is power in the sidebands, P_HOM_cd is contrast defect light at higher order mode frequencies.

Whereas the formula for the power transmitted by the OMC can be described as:

P_DCPD = T_cav [ P_00_arm + P_00_cd]

As we assume that all HOM and sidebands are reflected by the OMC.

The mode-matching, MM, of the OMC to the differential arm mode is defined as:

P_00_arm / ( P_HOM_arm + P_00_arm )

This can be calculated using:

P_00_arm = (P_DCPD - d)/T_cav

P_HOM_arm = P_REFL - d - (R_cav*P_00_arm)

If we do this calculation for the half-way thermalised measurement we get 

MM = 0.9975

For the fully thermalised case we get:

MM = 0.9978

The code to calculate this is in: Calculate_refl_power.py located at /ligo/home/jennifer.wright/git/2025/DARM_OFFSET/

 

X1 SUS
ibrahim.abouelfettouh@LIGO.ORG - posted 10:50, Monday 27 October 2025 (87767)
LHO Dummy Prism Position Measurement (glass test build vs. metal)

Ibrahim, TJ O'Hanlon

There was question about where the prism position was with respect to the nominal position (known to be 2.6775mm from the cetner line as figure 1 shows).

As it turns out, measuring from the scribe line of the center of the dummy test mass, yields an "dummy mass upside down" answer that has confused us (LLO Measurement). However, using the scribe on the glued tooling that we used to determine the secondary prism location resulted in the correct value ~2.73mm. While all these are rough measurements, I wanted to check if LLO's upside-down metal-prism version is equivalent to LHO's scribe-on-prism tooling glued-on version. For the LLO comparison, I used the metal prism build dimensions from D1900580. According to a scale-comparison (using line lengths ratios), they are at least comparable (Figure 2).

TJ agrees that the the scribe line I'm using, which was on D2400027 (also screenshotted below) and says "our prisms are in the same place but you are measuring off of the scribe line off the D24000247 while I am looking at the center round mass. The center round mass scribleline would match with d24000247 if it wasn't flipped".

Meaning LHO and LLO prisms are in the same spots but that the dummy scribe line is not to be trusted. That spot also matches (with at least +-1 mm error until measured more accurately) the 2.67mm nominal value.

I've attached some pictures of the measurement.

Images attached to this report
H1 ISC
elenna.capote@LIGO.ORG - posted 10:13, Monday 27 October 2025 (87762)
LSC OLGs

I don't have a sense of what exactly the problem is yet, but last week's adventure taught us that this 1 Hz instability is related to the gain of SRCL just as much as it is related to the DHARD, CHARD and CSOFT gains. I checked the SRCL UGF today when we reached NLN and it was at 10.5 Hz, which seems low even by these standards.

I have increased the SRCL gain by 3 dB (-7.5 to -10.5) which brings the UGF to 15 Hz.

I remeasured the MICH OLG, and it's still around 5.5 Hz, which is as Evan designed.

PRCL UGF is back to 50 Hz; we made this change in June.

Guardian and SDF updated.

Images attached to this report
H1 TCS
thomas.shaffer@LIGO.ORG - posted 10:11, Monday 27 October 2025 (87763)
TCS pipe expansion joint leak barrier added

This is a late alog, but I wanted to put it in to document. In July, Randy installed an acrylic barrier on the pipe bridge that would block any spray from a failed cooling line expansion joint from spraying onto squeezer electronics racks or optics tables. Associated FRS30283 

Images attached to this report
LHO General (Lockloss)
ryan.short@LIGO.ORG - posted 07:42, Monday 27 October 2025 - last comment - 10:16, Monday 27 October 2025(87761)
Ops Day Shift Start

TITLE: 10/27 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Earthquake
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Tony
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_ENV state: EARTHQUAKE
    Wind: 10mph Gusts, 7mph 3min avg
    Primary useism: 0.19 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.26 μm/s 
QUICK SUMMARY: H1 lost lock at 12:48 UTC after spedning almost 16 hours locked from a M6.5 EQ out of the Caribbean. Still in EQ mode, so will start relocking once ground motion calms down.

Comments related to this report
ryan.short@LIGO.ORG - 10:16, Monday 27 October 2025 (87764)Lockloss

H1 back to NLN at 16:57 UTC.

Ran in initial alignment then set to relocking automatically. Paused in a couple of places on the way up for Elenna to make some ASC measurements, now starting some commissioning activities which are slated to be wrapped up by 18:30 UTC.

And of course as soon as I'm about to post this, lockloss @ 17:14 UTC from what looks like an ETM glitch.

H1 SQZ (SQZ)
anthony.sanchez@LIGO.ORG - posted 04:03, Monday 27 October 2025 - last comment - 10:30, Monday 27 October 2025(87760)
Incoherent Ramblings from the AM

At [?] in the morning H1 was Found Locked but SQZ_Man was upset.
SQZ_Man stuck in loop from Beam Div_Open_FRS ->FC_WAIT _FS. 

SHG H1:SQZ-SHG_TEC_SETTEMP was adjusted down to maximixe H1:SQZ-SHG_GR_DC_POWERMON

still stuck in loop

Ran the noconda python switch_nom_sqz_states.py without script
....UH.... Broke all the SQZr Gaurdians.... Ooops
Ran the noconda python switch_nom_sqz_states.py with script
Taking SQZ_man to no_squeezing
Ran the noconda python switch_nom_sqz_states.py without script.... again
Nothing broke !!! But Still cannot get to observing.
Had to manually take SQZ_ SHG to Down. 
Back to Observing. Range only at 133 Mpc

 

Comments related to this report
sheila.dwyer@LIGO.ORG - 10:30, Monday 27 October 2025 (87765)

The problem was that the OPO pump ISS was running out of range, as the OPO reflected power has slowly been increasing since our last crystal move.  I've adjusted the wave plate on SQZT0 to allow more green power to be launched, this now gives a control mon of about 5 when the OPO transmission is 80 uW.  

 

LHO General
corey.gray@LIGO.ORG - posted 22:00, Sunday 26 October 2025 (87759)
Sun EVE Ops Summary

TITLE: 10/26 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 150Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Tony
SHIFT SUMMARY:

H1's been locked 8+hrs & microseism continues to fall (almost touching 50th percentile line) and winds are calm.
LOG:  n/a

H1 AOS (DetChar)
robert.schofield@LIGO.ORG - posted 17:31, Sunday 26 October 2025 (87758)
Update on the search for the site of non-linear vibration coupling in the LVEA

Summary

I found vibration coupling associated with motion of the HAM4 ISI (at a few times background),  BSC2 ST2 motion (at about 10 times background), and, likely, on the chamber walls of the ITMs (accounting for much of DARM in the 20 Hz region). The coupling associated with HAM4 may be due to reflection of the 45 degree annular beams from the BS and its cage, and may be mitigated by BBS installation and table baffles at HAM4. The coupling at the chamber walls of the ITMs may be due to the 20 degree annular beam from the ITM bevels, which would be mitigated by installation of cage baffles on the ITMs. However,  I would like some more commissionsing time to be more sure of this.

Recently, broad-band non-linear vibration coupling in the corner station was revealed by investigations of the coupling of HVAC components to DARM (86412). This is an update on searches for the site of that coupling. 

We check for sites on the internal tables (ISIs) by shaking individual ISIs or HPIs. Discriminating between sites on the vacuum enclosure is more difficult because shaking at one location tends to shake many vacuum chambers about the same amount. To identify an enclosure site, we use frequency dependance and  propagation delays (velocities on these steel membranes are only 100s of m/s). The basic idea is that if a patch of chamber wall is producing noise by reflecting scattered light back into the interferometer, then an accelerometer that is placed on the outside of that patch will, comapared to other accelerometers, produce a signal that is  precisely correlated with the signal in DARM.

Internal tables

I eliminated most of the tables in the LVEA either by injecting into the ISI control loops or by monitoring their motion during external injections. However, I did find coupling at the HAM4 ISI and the BS ISI.

Coupling at HAM4 ISI

Figure 1 shows that we found coupling at the HAM4 ISI. An increase in Y-axis motion of about 30 produced a feature in DARM that was several times background. This coupling appeared mainly linear and so was not the coupling we were looking for. A potential source of this coupling is reflection of the 45 degree annular beam from the beamsplitter that illuminates this table (83050). The BBS, its less reflective cage and planned table baffling may mitigate this coupling.

Coupling with motion of ST2 of the BS ISI

Figure 2 shows that I produced noise in DARM by shaking the BS ISI.  I did a series of injections that suggest that noise in DARM is produced by motion of BS ISI ST2 (where the cage is attached), but not motion of ST0  (where the eliptical baffles are attached) or of the BS itself.  This noise may be associated with the 45 degree annular beam from the BS (83050) and may be reduced with the new BBS cage, which is less reflective.

Vacuum enclosure

I have been using three techniques to find coupling sites on the inside walls of the vacuum enclosure. These tests, while ongoing, have narrowed down the non-linear coupling to the enclosure walls in the vertex.

1) Shaker and speaker sweeps from multiple locations

Shaker sweeps are used in two ways. First, frequency consistency - if an accelerometer is mounted at the coupling site, and shows a resonance at some frequency, then there should be an indication of greater motion in DARM at that frequency also. Second, consistency for vibration injections from multiple locations. Thus if the accelerometer is mounted at the coupling site, and it moves less for injections onto the mode cleaner tube than onto BSC8, then DARM should also be less affected by the SR tube injection. Figure 3 illustrates this for one of the sweep pairs.

The most consistent accelerometer locations in frequency:  ITMX, ITMY and BS chamber walls

The most consistent accelerometer locations in response to different shaker locations: ITMX, ITMY and BS chamber walls

2) Beating shakers technique

The Beating Shaker technique (52184) uses differences in propagation time from different shaker locations to locate the coupling site. When two shakers inject at two slightly different frequencies (e.g. 35.005 Hz and 35 Hz), the beat envelope will have a different phase at different locations due to propagation delays. If the accelerometer is at the coupling site, its beat enveope will be in phase with DARM’s for any shaking location.

The beat envelope in DARM was not as clear as it has been for past uses of the Beating Shaker technique, because of the side bands. So I fit a simulated beat envelope using a cross correlation technique. This is illustrated in Figure 4.  The best accelerometers for beat consistency were ITMY–Y, ITMY-X and ITMX-Z. I think it might be useful for DetChar or others to search for an ASC motion that could account for the side bands during the injection period shown in Figure 4.

3) Hand held mini-shaker

A small shaker made of a speaker with an attached reaction mass (Figure 5) is used to take advantage of the large amplitude near-field region right at the shaker in an attempt to find a region on the vacuum enclosure where the shaker coupling dramatically increases. This technique eliminated the BSC7 potential sites and I hope to use it to test the 20 degree ITM  beam hypothesis in future commissioning sessions.

 

Since our accelerometer array has low spatial resolution (something to think about for CE) we also mount temporary accelerometers as we narrow in on a site. This is the stage I am at, mounting accelerometers to further narrow the site. However, the results so far are consistent with coupling of the 20 degree beam from the ITM bevels (83050) . These annular beams were elimited by the cage baffles at LLO and we plan on installing them at LHO.

 

Non-image files attached to this report
LHO General
corey.gray@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:59, Sunday 26 October 2025 (87757)
Sun EVE Ops Transition

TITLE: 10/26 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 151Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Ryan S
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_ENV state: CALM
    Wind: 13mph Gusts, 7mph 3min avg
    Primary useism: 0.03 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.30 μm/s 
QUICK SUMMARY:

H1's been locked just over 3hrs with range hovering arouind 154Mpc.

In the last 14hrs, microseism has steadily been dropping off the 90th percentile line.  Winds are calm-ish for the last 8-ish hours.

LHO General
ryan.short@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:33, Sunday 26 October 2025 (87756)
Ops Day Shift Summary

TITLE: 10/26 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 153Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Corey
SHIFT SUMMARY: Two lock acquisitions today, both of which had locklosses during TRANSITION_FROM_ETMX on the first try. This made the relocking times a bit longer, but generally the process was automatic. H1 has been locked for 2.5 hours.

H1 General (ISC, OpsInfo, SUS)
ryan.short@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:27, Sunday 26 October 2025 (87755)
Summary of H1 Locking Troubles and Changes for the Week of Oct. 20th-25th

Now that we're back to observing with regularity after a week full of intense troubleshooting, I decided it would be nice to have a summary of the events that contributed to IFO locking issues in the past week and what was done along the way to fix them all in one place, so that's what I'll attempt do in this alog. Anyone should be encouraged to add comments with things I missed or additional commentary. Things I believe to be the most significant changes either contributing to or fixing IFO locking issues I've bolded.

H1 PSL (ISC, PSL)
keita.kawabe@LIGO.ORG - posted 18:48, Friday 24 October 2025 - last comment - 16:47, Monday 27 October 2025(87729)
ISS array another design issue (Rahul, Keita)

Summary:

We aligned everything such that none of 8 PDs was excellent but all were OK (we were also able to set up such that 4 pds were excellent but a few were terrible but decided not to take that), we were preparing for putting the array in storage until the installation, only to find that something is wrong with the design of the asymmetric QPD clamp D1300963-V2. It's unusable as is.

QPD clamp doesn't constrain the position of the QPD laterally, and there's a gross mismatch between the position of properly aligned QPD and that of the center hole of the QPD clamp. Because of that, when QPD is properly positioned, one of the QPD pins will touch the QPD clamp and be grounded unless the QPD connector is fixed such a way to pull the QPD pins sideways. Fortunately but sadly, the old non-tilt QPD clamp D1300963-V1 works better, so we'll use that.

Another minor issue, is that there seems to be a confusion as to the direction of the QPD tilt in terms of the word "pitch" and "yaw". The way the QPD is tilted in D1101059-v5 (this is how things are set up in the lab as of now) doesn't seem to follow the design intent of ECR E1400231 though it follows the word of it. After confirming that this is the case with systems, we'll change the QPD tilt direction (or not). This means that we're not ready to put everything in storage quite yet.  

None of these affect the PD array alignment we've done, this is just a problem of the QPD.

Pin grounding issue due to the QPD clamp design.

I loosened the screws for the QPD connector clamps (circled in blue in the first attachment) and the output of the QPD preamp got crazy with super large 60Hz noise and large DC SUM even though there was no laser light.

I disconnected the QPD connector, removed the connector clamps too, and found that one pin of the QPD was short circuited to the ground via the QPD clamp (not to be confused with the QPC connector clamps, see 2nd attachment).

Turns out, the offending pin was isolated during our adjustments all the time because the QPD connector clamps were putting enough lateral pressure as well as down such that the pins were slightly bent from the offending side. I was able to reattach the connector, push it laterally while tightening the clamp screws, and confirm that the QPD functioned fine. But this is not really where we wanted to be.

I rotated the QPD clamp 180 degrees (which turns out to make more sense judging from the drawings in the first attachment), which moved the QPD. Since the beam radius is about 0.2mm, if the QPD moves by 0.2mm it's not useful as a reference of the in-lab beam position. I turned the laser on, repositioned the QPD back to where it should be, but the pin on the opposite side started touching. (Sorry no picture.)

I put the old non-tilt version clamp and it was much, much better (attachment 3). It's annoying because the screw holes don't have an angled recess. The screw head is tilted relative to the mating surface on the clamp, contacting at a single point, and tightening/loosening the screw tend to move the QPD. But it's possible to carefully tighten one screw a bit, then the other one a bit, repeat that dozen times or so until nothing moves even when pushed firmly by finger. After that, you can still move the QPD by tiny amounts by tapping the QPD assy by bigger Allen key. Then tighten again.

What's going on here?

In the 4th attachment, you can see that the "center" hole of the QPD clamp is offset by 0.55" (1.4mm) in the direction orthogonal to A-A, and about 0.07" (even though this number is not specified anywhere in the drawing) or 1.8mm in A-A direction. So the total lateral offset is sqrt(1.4^2+1.8^2)~2.3mm. OTOH, the QPD assy is only 0.5" thick, so the lateral shift arising from the 1.41deg tilt at the back of the QPD assy is just 1.41/180*pi*0.5=0.0123" or 0.3mm.

Given that the beam position relative to the array structure is determined by the array itself and not by how the QPD is mounted, 2.3mm lateral shift is impossibly large, something must be wrong in the design. The 5th attachment is a visual aid for you.

Anyway, we'll use the old clamp, it's not worth designing and manufacturing new ones at this point.

QPD tilt direction.

If you go back to the first attachment, the QPD is tilted in a direction indicated by a red "tilt" arrow in the lab as we just followed the drawing.

The ECR E1400231 says "We have to tilt the QPD 1 deg in tip (pitch) and 1 deg in tilt (yaw)" and it sounds as if it colloborates with the drawing.

However, I suspect that "pitch" and "yaw" in the above sentence might have been misused. In the right figure of the 6th attachment (screeshot of ECR unedited), it seems that the QPD reflection hits the elevator (the red 45 degree thing in the figure) at around 6 O'clock position around the eliptic exit hole, which means that the QPD is tilted in its optical PIT. If it's really tilted 1 degree in optical PIT and 1 degree in optical YAW, the reflection will hit something like 7:30 position instead of 6:00.

That makes sense as the design intent of the ECR is to make sure that the QPD reflection will not go back into the exit hole. The 7th attachment is a side view I made, red lines represent the IR beams, yellow lines the internal hole(s) in the elevator, and green lines the aperture of the two eliptical exit holes. Nothing is to scale, but hopefully you agree that, in order to steer the QPD reflection outside of the exit hole aperture, PIT UP requires the largest tilt and PIT DOWN requires the least tilt. We have a fixed tilt of QPD, so it's best to PIT DOWN, that's what I read from the ECR. If you don't know which angle is bigger or smaller, see attachment 8.

Anyway, I'll ask Callum if my interpretation is correct, and will act accordingly.

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
keita.kawabe@LIGO.ORG - 16:09, Monday 27 October 2025 (87774)

A followup summary:

Callum and Betsy say that I'm in the best position to judge, so I decided to tilt the QPD in its optical PIT.

Turns out that the QPD was already tilted in QPD's optical PIT so everything is fine(-ish). We'll put the unit in storage tomorrow.

Seems like we were tricked by the part drawing of the tilt washer D1400146, not the assembly drawing D1101059.

Details:

Before rotating anything, I wanted to see if the reflection from QPD could be seen on the aluminum part using the IR viewer, and indeed we could see something. The first attachment shows that some kind of diffraction pattern is hitting the barrel of the 1" 99:1 sampler in PIT. The second attachment shows that the bright spots are gone when Rahul blocked the beam going to QPD, so it's clearly due to the reflection of the QPD. The pattern might come from the gaps at the QPD center. It wasn't clear if the reflection was directly hitting the barrel  through AR, or if it hits 99% coating and reflected towards the barrel.

(There was also some IR visible in the input aperture but the beam is much smaller than this aperture, I believe we're seeing the scattered light coming back to this aperture from inside the array structure.)

We pulled the spare tilt washer D1400146-V1 (drawing with my red lines in the 3rd attachment) and measured the depth of the recess at 12 O'clock position (red E in the drawing), 3:00 (B), 6:00 (C) and 9:00 (D) using a caliper. It's a rough measurement, but anyway we repeated the measurement twice and got the following:

  A B (registration mark) C D
Meas 1 1.45 mm 1.21 1.45 1.70
Meas 2 1.41 1.21 1.49 1.71
Average 1.43 1.21 1.47 1.705

Clearly B at the registration mark is the shallowest position and the opposite position D is the deepest. The recess diameter was measured to be 23.0mm (specified as between .906 and .911" or 23.01 to 23.14mm), so the tilt of the recess as measured is (1.705-1.21)/23 ~ 21.5mrad or 1.2 deg, which reasonably agrees with 1.41deg specification and, more importantly, these measurements cannot be explained if the part was manufactured as specified in the drawing.

It seems that the drawing of the tilt washer D1400146 is incorrect or at least doesn't agree with reality, and the assembly drawing D1101059 was correct in that following that will give us the QPD tilt along optical PIT.

Seeing how the QPD reflection hits the barrel of the 99:1 sampler, the ghost beam dumping doesn't look well thought out but that's what it is.

4th picture shows the registration mark of the tilt ring as was set in the lab for future reference.

We've done the last QPD scan (turns out that I happened to set the PIT-YAW angle really well). Data will be posted later. Now we're ready to pack things up.

Images attached to this comment
keita.kawabe@LIGO.ORG - 16:47, Monday 27 October 2025 (87779)

We "measured" the dimension of the new (non-functional) QPD clamp D1300963-V2 by taking a picture with a ruler.

The offset of the center bore along the line connecting the two screw holes was measured to be about 1.9mm, which agrees pretty well with the above alog where I wrote "(even though this number is not specified anywhere in the drawing) or 1.8mm".

Images attached to this comment
Displaying reports 481-500 of 85749.Go to page Start 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 End