Displaying reports 55961-55980 of 81676.Go to page Start 2795 2796 2797 2798 2799 2800 2801 2802 2803 End
Reports until 12:49, Monday 04 April 2016
H1 SEI (CDS, DetChar)
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - posted 12:49, Monday 04 April 2016 (26423)
Extra Filter Banks for SUSPOINT path added; IPC removed from H1OAF Model
J. Kissel, D. Barker
WP #5812

I'm continuing to work on filling out and debugging the recently installed SUSPOINT path (see LHO aLOGs 26363, 26321, 26320). 

I realized the part of that path which resides inside the OAF front-end model which projects the optic's Longitudinal displacement into the IFO Cavity Basis will need AI filtering for the corner station IPC channels (the ISI models send at 4096 Hz and the OAF model receives at 16384 Hz). Where there had previously only been test points and epics outputs to monitor the received channels, there are now full filter banks. Screens and details of filtering to come.

Also, while playing with the OAF model, Dave suggested we get rid of some more unused IPC connections. So, the "CONN" block -- some vestigial attempt at a monitoring system for the inter-process communication -- and its corresponding IPC senders (on of each flavor, Shared Memory SHMEM, Dolphin PCIe, Reflected Memory RFM) which had no receivers, have been removed. Attached is a screen shot of the block and senders we removed.

The latest version of the h1oaf model has been committed to the svn repo.

This required a frame-builder restart, but we've made no change to the DAQ channel list.
Images attached to this report
H1 CDS (DAQ)
david.barker@LIGO.ORG - posted 12:45, Monday 04 April 2016 (26424)
h1oaf model restart, h1fw1 continues to panic crash

h1oaf, addition of filter modules and removal of connection monitor part with IPC channel. WP5812

Jeff, Jim, Dave:

h1oaf was modified to add more filter modules and remove the unused "connection monitor" system, which frees up an RFM channel per arm. After the DAQ restart, h1fw1 panic crashed with:

Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal execption in interrupt

This time I power cycled h1fw1 (after lessons learnt Friday) and it has been running for 20mins so far.

LHO VE
chandra.romel@LIGO.ORG - posted 12:04, Monday 04 April 2016 (26422)
Diagonal annuli pumping
HAM 8:   6 mA  @ IP and 2.6e-6 Torr at turbo
HAM 9:   8 mA and 6.0e-7 Torr at turbo
HAM 11:  10 mA+ (still with red light) and 2.1e-6 Torr at turbo
BSC4: 6.8e-6 Torr at turbo
H1 General
jeffrey.bartlett@LIGO.ORG - posted 11:26, Monday 04 April 2016 (26421)
Prep for HAM6 Vent
   Cleanroom over HAM5 & HAM6 has been patched up and is powered up. A first cleaning was done this morning. Clean crew (give them a big thanks for the phenomenal job of maintaining cleanliness in the LVEA and at the Ends) gave the floor an extra scrub. Initial dust counts do not look too bad considering the activities this morning around HAM6.

   Staged two small cleanrooms on the south wall ahead of the doors coming off. Several work tables have also been staged.

   Will do a second cleaning tomorrow morning before the doors come off.     
H1 SEI
hugh.radkins@LIGO.ORG - posted 10:53, Monday 04 April 2016 (26419)
WHAM5 HEPI Locked for Good Measure

Since HAM5 will be in the cleanroom and likely HAM5 will be bumped almost as much as HAM6, locked up HAM5 HEPI as well.

Position, relative to normally isolated:

-7um X, +15 Y, +31 Z, -10urad RX, -0.1 RY, +3 RZ.  The ISI remains isolated.  If the operator finds  either HAM5 or HAM6 tripped, maybe best to just put it in DAMPED.  The Chamber Manager has been paused since the HEPI can't isolate, so, you'll have to use the ISI Manager to change the guardian state.

H1 SEI
cheryl.vorvick@LIGO.ORG - posted 09:34, Monday 04 April 2016 (26418)
SEI in-vac T240 mass position check

Results are that three proof masses are out of range - I've emailed Hugh to make aware.

Averaging Mass Centering channels for 10 [sec] ...


There are 3 T240 proof masses out of range ( > 0.3 [V] )!
ETMX T240 2 DOF X/U = -0.387 [V]
ETMX T240 2 DOF Y/V = -0.399 [V]
ITMY T240 3 DOF Z/W = -0.303 [V]


All other proof masses are within range ( < 0.3 [V] ):
ETMX T240 1 DOF X/U = 0.041 [V]
ETMX T240 1 DOF Y/V = 0.063 [V]
ETMX T240 1 DOF Z/W = 0.083 [V]
ETMX T240 2 DOF Z/W = -0.251 [V]
ETMX T240 3 DOF X/U = 0.063 [V]
ETMX T240 3 DOF Y/V = -0.13 [V]
ETMX T240 3 DOF Z/W = 0.027 [V]
ETMY T240 1 DOF X/U = 0.011 [V]
ETMY T240 1 DOF Y/V = -0.069 [V]
ETMY T240 1 DOF Z/W = -0.02 [V]
ETMY T240 2 DOF X/U = -0.192 [V]
ETMY T240 2 DOF Y/V = 0.011 [V]
ETMY T240 2 DOF Z/W = 0.123 [V]
ETMY T240 3 DOF X/U = -0.028 [V]
ETMY T240 3 DOF Y/V = -0.026 [V]
ETMY T240 3 DOF Z/W = 0.071 [V]
ITMX T240 1 DOF X/U = -0.197 [V]
ITMX T240 1 DOF Y/V = 0.24 [V]
ITMX T240 1 DOF Z/W = 0.186 [V]
ITMX T240 2 DOF X/U = 0.201 [V]
ITMX T240 2 DOF Y/V = 0.244 [V]
ITMX T240 2 DOF Z/W = 0.227 [V]
ITMX T240 3 DOF X/U = -0.091 [V]
ITMX T240 3 DOF Y/V = 0.186 [V]
ITMX T240 3 DOF Z/W = 0.212 [V]
ITMY T240 1 DOF X/U = 0.165 [V]
ITMY T240 1 DOF Y/V = 0.027 [V]
ITMY T240 1 DOF Z/W = 0.095 [V]
ITMY T240 2 DOF X/U = 0.166 [V]
ITMY T240 2 DOF Y/V = 0.259 [V]
ITMY T240 2 DOF Z/W = 0.184 [V]
ITMY T240 3 DOF X/U = 0.037 [V]
ITMY T240 3 DOF Y/V = 0.194 [V]
BS T240 1 DOF X/U = 0.033 [V]
BS T240 1 DOF Y/V = 0.049 [V]
BS T240 1 DOF Z/W = 0.178 [V]
BS T240 2 DOF X/U = 0.12 [V]
BS T240 2 DOF Y/V = 0.196 [V]
BS T240 2 DOF Z/W = 0.205 [V]
BS T240 3 DOF X/U = 0.089 [V]
BS T240 3 DOF Y/V = 0.074 [V]
BS T240 3 DOF Z/W = -0.026 [V]


Assessment complete.

This closes FAMIS task 4367.
 

H1 SEI
hugh.radkins@LIGO.ORG - posted 07:38, Monday 04 April 2016 (26414)
WHAM6 HEPI Locked

Completed locking around 0615.  Ready to tolerate rambunctious activities.

Position is pretty good wrt nominal: +19um X, +15 Y, +38 Z, +5urad RX, -3 RY, & +7 RZ. Plenty level for ISI work.

H1 AOS
chandra.romel@LIGO.ORG - posted 07:36, Monday 04 April 2016 (26413)
turned on Kobelco in prep for HAM6 vent
...at 7:20 am local time. Pressure reads 1.2 psig.
H1 ISC
keita.kawabe@LIGO.ORG - posted 02:33, Monday 04 April 2016 - last comment - 09:08, Monday 04 April 2016(26412)
Before moving ISCT6

If you'd like to move the table, you need to do the following:

Comments related to this report
keita.kawabe@LIGO.ORG - 09:08, Monday 04 April 2016 (26417)

All done, ISCT6 was moved to the side of HAM5, JeffB is covering the duct opening on ISCT6. (JeffB, Richard, Kyle, Keita)

LHO VE
kyle.ryan@LIGO.ORG - posted 21:54, Sunday 03 April 2016 (26411)
Pressures near CP3
PT243 - 1.17 x 10-9 torr 
PT244 - 1.57 x 10-9 torr 
PT210 - 1.57 x 10-9 torr 

I know, I know :)
H1 ISC (TCS)
kiwamu.izumi@LIGO.ORG - posted 02:38, Sunday 03 April 2016 - last comment - 11:10, Thursday 14 April 2016(26409)
DARM cavity pole reaching 362 Hz

Related alogs 26264. 26245

I did some follow-up tests today to understand the behavior of the DARM cavity pole. I put an offset in some ASC error points to see how they affect the DARM cavity pole without changing the CO2 settings.

I conlude that the SRC1 ASC loop is nominally locked on a non-optimal point (when PSL is 2 W) and it can easily and drastically changes the cavity pole. The highest cavity pole I could get today was 362 +/- a few Hz by manually optimizing the SRC alignment.


[The tests]

This time I did not change the TCS CO2 settings at all. In order to make a fair comparison against the past TCS measurements (26264, 26245), I let the PSL stay at 2 W. The interferometer was fully locked with the DC readout, and the ASC loops were all engaged. The TCS settings are as follows, TCSX = 350 mW, TCSY = 100 mW. I put an offset in the error point of each of some ASC loops at a time. I did so for SRC1, SRC2, CSOFT, DSOFT and PRC1. Additionally, I have moved around IM3 and SR3 which were not under control of ASC. All the tests are for the PIT degrees of freedom and I did not do for the YAWs. During the tests, I had an excitation line on the ETMX suspension at 331.9 Hz with a notch in the DARM loop in order to monitor the cavity pole. Before any of the tests, the DARM cavity pole was confirmed to be at 338 Hz by running a Pcal swept sine measurement.

The results are summarized below:

The QPD loops -- namely CSOFT, DSOFT, PRC1 and SRC2 loops -- showed almost no impact on the cavity pole. The SOFTs and PRC1 tended to quickly degrade the power recycling gain rather than the cavity pole. I then further investigated SRC1 as written below.

 

[Optimizing SRC alignment]

I then focused on SRC1 which controlled SRM using AS36. I switched off the SRC1 servo and started manually aligning it in order to maximize the cavity pole. By touching PIT and YAW by roughly 10 urads for both, I was able to reach a cavity pole of 362 Hz. As I aligned it by hand, I saw POP90 decreasing and POP18 increasing as expected -- these indicate a better alignment of SRC. However, strangely AS90 dropped a little bit by a few %. I don't know why. At the same time, I saw the fluctuation of POP90 became smaller on the StrioTool in the middle screen on control room's wall.

In order to double check the measured cavity pole from the excitation line, I ran another Pcal swept sine measurement. I confirmed that the DARM cavity pole was indeed at 362 Hz. The attached is the measured DARM sensing function with the loop suppression taken out. The unit of the magnitude is in [cnts @ DARM IN1 / meters]. I used liso to fit the measurement as usual using a weighted least square method. 

By the way, in order to keep the cavity pole at its highest during the swept sine measurements, I servoed SRM to the manually adjusted operating point by running a hacky dither loop using awg, lockin demodulators and ezcaservos. I have used POP90 as a sensor signal for them. The two loops seemingly had ugf of about 0.1 Hz according to 1/e settling time. A screenshot of the dither loop setting is attached.

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
daniel.sigg@LIGO.ORG - 02:58, Sunday 03 April 2016 (26410)

Probably interestinmg to take a look at ASC_ASA/B_36/90/DC, and see, if there is a better combintion available.

jenne.driggers@LIGO.ORG - 11:39, Friday 08 April 2016 (26497)

It occurs to me that we might try putting some offsets into the centering loops for the SRC WFS.  Can we find a pointing location where the AS36 signals give us an optimal alignment for the SRC? 

On a somewhat parallel thought, Evan and I wonder if we could set offsets in the SRC1 loops after choosing an alignment based on some dither lines?  Maybe we don't want always-on dither lines, but we could use them to help us figure out what our optimal alignment is.

kiwamu.izumi@LIGO.ORG - 13:34, Wednesday 13 April 2016 (26567)

Here are some more data.

In this plot, full lock was achieved at some point between 0 and 500 sec. A small change in the SRM alignment offsets are due to the DRMI guardian completing the ASC offload to the top mass before decreasing the CARM offset. The measurement of the cavity pole and optical gain is valid only after 500 sec or so.

As I mentioned in the last ISC call, the cavity pole frequency and optical gain are anti-correlated -- one goes up and the other goes down.

The below shows a summary of my manual SRM alignment.

  Before  After  Difference (after - before)
SRM PIT -727 urad  -737 urad  -10 urad
SRM YAW  908 urad  901 urad  -7 urad

As I wrote in the original entry, I steered SRM PIT and YAW by -10 and -7 urad respectively.

 

Also I attach a screen shot of trends showing the 2f RF signals during the same period.

As the cavity pole increases the POP90 consistently decreases. This is what we expected because SRC sucks more light into it. POP18 also increased at the beginning which is good. However it decreased slightly after I aligned SRM yaw for some reason. The most outrageous one is AS90. As the cavity pole increased, the AS90 kept decreasing. I have no idea why.

Images attached to this comment
kiwamu.izumi@LIGO.ORG - 18:40, Wednesday 13 April 2016 (26583)

Conclusion (again): it is the SRC alignment that changes the cavity pole.

[SRM and SR2 alignments]

I completely forgot about the SRC2 loop which controls the pointing of the output beam on to ASC_AS_C. This loop was active during my measurement silently correcting SR2 and SRM as I manually moved SRM. So I checked the witness sensors to see how much they actually moved instead of looking at my adjustment of the SRM alignment.

As you can see, SRM actually moved to the opposite direction in its angles due to the SRC2 loop counteracting on my adjustment. In total they have moved by the amounts listed in the table below.

   before  after  difference (after-before)
SRM pit  -105 urad  -95 urad  10 urad
SRM yaw  873 urad  876 urad  3 urad
SR2 pit  2603 urad  2600 urad  -3 urad
SR2 yaw  790 urad  791 urad  1 urad

 

[A finesse simulation also suggests that the cavity pole is a strong function of SRs' alignment]

With the above misalignment values in hand, I then ran a finesse simulation to see if I can reproduce a similar result. Indeed, I could change the cavity pole from an optimum of 366 Hz to 344 Hz in the simulation (while my measurement was from 360-ish Hz to 345-ish Hz). The attached is a simulated DARM response with and without these misalignment.

Because I was too lazy to fit out the effect of the time delay and next FSR peak, I simply searched for a frequency point where the phase rotates by 45 deg as a cavity pole frequency. This probably makes the absolute calibration of the cavity pole somewhat inaccurate, but the difference between the two cavity pole frequencies should be moreorless accurate.

Also I attach the finesse code in pdf format.

Images attached to this comment
Non-image files attached to this comment
kiwamu.izumi@LIGO.ORG - 11:10, Thursday 14 April 2016 (26591)

Addendum:

In the finesse simulation, the DARM response showed some difference at low frequencies between the two results. So I re-ran the same code and extended the frequency range to 0.1 Hz. It is seemingly due to a radiation pressure effect. I don't have a good explanation why it changed by SRs' alignment.

Images attached to this comment
H1 ISC (ISC)
jenne.driggers@LIGO.ORG - posted 17:58, Friday 01 April 2016 - last comment - 21:53, Friday 01 April 2016(26405)
NomLowNoise for ~10 seconds

[Evan, Jenne, JimW]

We turned the ITM pitch oplev damping back on, set some QPD offsets for POP and transmons, and were able to go to 20W without trouble.  We have finally made it to nominal low noise for the first time in weeks!  Hooray!  Sadly, a 2.84Hz oscillation killed us after about 10 seconds.  Work continues, but I was excited enough to write an alog.

Comments related to this report
evan.hall@LIGO.ORG - 21:53, Friday 01 April 2016 (26408)

We lost lock several times very suddenly within 20 minutes of powering up. Also, POP90 seemed to be escaping upward. Looking at the 36 MHz wavefront sensors, one can see several quadratures of AS A are escaping. (AS A has not been used in any alignment loops for the past six weeks or so). In particular, AS A 36Q seems to correspond to the motion of SRM yaw as seen by its OSEM (see attachment).

We switched control of the SRM yaw loop from AS B 36I to AS A 36Q immediately after powering up to 20 W. This stops POP90 from escaping and seems to hold SRM yaw in place. So far we have been at >20 W for more than 90 minutes. The new setting (−0.5 ct/ct for AS A 36Q to SRC1 yaw) is not in the guardian.

Overall, the carrier power in the PRC seems less stable than before. It seems to have ~0.2 Hz fluctuations that sometimes approach 5% RIN, and correspond to fluctuations in cHard pitch, PRM pitch, and beamsplitter pitch. This frequency seems too low to correspond to an optomechanical resonance, so we suspect some alignment control problem. We tried turning down the PRM pitch loop gain by a factor of 2, but this didn't seem to change anything.

As Sheila anticipated, angular noise in DARM is quite bad right now. Some of it can probably be improved with a careful A2L retuning. The rest may require loop reshaping.

We also chose new QPD offsets for the soft loops and the PRM loops, in order to maximize recycling gain at 2 W.

Images attached to this comment
LHO VE
kyle.ryan@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:51, Friday 01 April 2016 - last comment - 20:01, Friday 01 April 2016(26403)
Manually over-filled CP3
1555 -1635 hrs. local -> To and from Y-mid 

Recent conditions -> 60F - 75F days, Dewar ~40% full vapor pressure 14 psi, LLCV 18% open 

[Executed nominal procedure as was practiced for 48 hour over-fill intervals] 

LN2 at exhaust after 32 min 30 seconds with LLCV bypass 1/2 turn open and exhaust check valve bypass open 

Next scheduled over-fill to be Monday, April 4th before 4pm local.  

NOTE: Need to revisit agreement between Dewar's local mechanical level gauge and value indicated by CDS.  Also, recommend adopting new default for LLCV bypass X turns open for new 72 hour over-fill interval (something more open than previous default of 1/2 turn open).  

Comments related to this report
john.worden@LIGO.ORG - 20:01, Friday 01 April 2016 (26407)

After seeing that it took 30 minutes to get liquid out and given the warm weather I called the control room and had Jim raise the liquid level control valve to 20% from the existing 18%. The next web snapshot showed that the exhaust pressure had risen to 1 psi (from .7).

H1 CDS (DAQ)
david.barker@LIGO.ORG - posted 15:52, Friday 01 April 2016 - last comment - 16:55, Friday 01 April 2016(26401)
messy DAQ restart after ISI model changes

After Jeff and Hugh made their fixes to all the ISI models and restarted them, I did a DAQ restart.

The restart was normal except that h1fw1 did not come back. It had tried to restart its daqd process, and then kernel panic'ed similar to Wednesday evening's crash (VFS count 0). I reset the machine by pressing the front panel RESET button, it all came back normally after that.

Comments related to this report
david.barker@LIGO.ORG - 16:55, Friday 01 April 2016 (26404)

We had two more kernel panics after this restart. The sequence is: daqd process dies, monit starts new daqd, process gets as far as opening its log file, kernal panic from put_cred_rcu function.

After second panic, I performed a full power down of h1fw1 and h1ldasgw1. Recovery sequence: power up h1ldasgw1 wait for boot, then manually mount /cds-h1-frames and export as NFS. Then power up h1fw1.

H1 SEI (ISC, SEI, SYS, VE)
vernon.sandberg@LIGO.ORG - posted 11:40, Friday 01 April 2016 - last comment - 08:32, Monday 04 April 2016(26389)
HAM6 Vent Plan for the Week of April 4, 2016

B. Weaver, H. Radkins, V. Sandberg

 

LHO WHAM6 Vent Plan for 2016 April 04 - 08

DCC Document: E1600092, “HAM6 - ISI Damper Install”

https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-E1600092

 

APPROVED work to be done in order of importance:

Install HAM ISI Dampers assemblies (Jim W., Nutsinee K.). 

Retune Tuned Mass Dampers (TMDs).

 

DCC Vent Documents referenced in this plan:

a)   D1500469 Drawing documents for ham blade dampers

b)   D1600085  Drawing documents for GS13 dampers

c)   D1500200  Drawing documents for flexure dampers

d)   D0900703  Drawing documents for Tuned Mass Dampers (TMDs)

e)   E1100963  Retuning the TMDs

f)   T1500580 HAM ISI Damping Study - Mittleman

g)   G1500880  Damping Tests on Flexture Demo - Lantz

 

SCHEDULE

MON  April 4, 2016  (possibly prior if time allowed)

1)    Transition to LASER SAFE

2)    Turn cleanrooms on around HAM6

3)    Mark and move ISCT6 out of the way to facilitate door removal

4)    Clean area, door flange, and cleanrooms

5)    Stage supplies and equipment

a)     Contamination control kit

b)    B&K hammer setup and computer

c)     Various ISI damper assemblies

d)    ISI tool kit, TMD table setup

e)     ISI parts as per E1600084

f)     Septum viewport cover D1200448

6)    Confirm dust monitor is working

7)    Lock HEPI

8)    Confirm purge air is on at HAM6

9)    Vent HAM6

 

TUES  April 5th, 2015

10)     Remove ALL 3 CHAMBER DOORS – Review and follow M1100039 “ Hanford checklist – HAM Door Removal”

11)     Entry chamber checklist items: Pick up floor CC wafers.  Take particle counter measurements and record:

12) SEI Lock ISI 

13) Entry chamber checklist items: Pick up table top CC wafers. 

14)Install Septum Window Cover

15) Evaluate, mark and Move Beam Diverter ONLY IF ABSOLUTELY NEEDED for ISI work.  IF CABLES of Beam Diverter get removed, a test of the Beam Diverter function will need to be made before closeout.

16)     Start ISI damper install work. 

a) ISI Wall units need to be moved for this work. 

Note, DO NOT REMOVE ANY TABLE TOP OPTICS.  Confer with Keita before hand if this is needed.

b) Remove Tuned Mass Dampers (TMDs)

c) Install new spring damper assemblies

d) Measure new spring modes using the B&K System

e) Retune TMDs with new info

f) Reinstall TMDs

 

WED  April 6th, 2016

17) Continue ISI damper install work.

18) Take particle measurements and record:

 

THUR  April 7th, 2016

19)  Finish ISI damper install work

20)  Check Beam Diverter functionality

21)  Quick check of ISI Balance and clean TF

22)  Remove Septum Window Cover

23)  Chamber closeout – perform applicable exit checklist tasks E1201035.

24)  Take particle count measurements and record:

25)  Replace 1 HAM6 door if possible

 

FRI,  April 8th, 2016

26)  Replace remaining HAM6 Doors

27)  Begin pump down

              28)  Reset ISCT6

 

Comments related to this report
hugh.radkins@LIGO.ORG - 08:32, Monday 04 April 2016 (26416)

See D1201388-v4 for as-built of the Optical Table top payload, which may need to be removed temporarily.

H1 CAL
kiwamu.izumi@LIGO.ORG - posted 11:19, Thursday 24 March 2016 - last comment - 18:36, Friday 01 April 2016(26229)
Pcal Y optical follower servo not functioning

Darkhan, Kiwamu,

We found that the optical follower servo (aka OFS) for the Pcal Y had stopped running. Pressing around some buttons on the medm screen, we could not make it back up running. We are suspecting some kind of hardware issue at the moment. According to trend data, it seems that it stopped running at around 18:30 UTC on Mar 18th for some reason. We will take a look at the hardware in the next Tuesday during the maintenance period.

Comments related to this report
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 18:36, Friday 01 April 2016 (26406)AOS
J. Kissel, E. Hall, [R. Savage via remote communication at LLO]

This was re-discovered again tonight. 
Opened FRS ticket #5241 so we don't forget. 
Email sent to E. Goetz and T. Sadecki suggesting they address on Monday 4/4.

Further information from our re-discovery:
Looks like Kiwamu had left the calibration line amplitude in a low / off state. We restored the line amplitudes to nominal, and it caused excess noise in the DARM spectrum (lots of lines, a little bit of elevated noise floor).
We don't see any sine-wave-like excitation in the OFS, TX, or RX PDs with a single calibration line on at reasonable amplitude (which is contradictory to elevated noise in DARM).
Rick suggests:
- Check the AOM.
- Check the shutter.
- Check that the laser hasn't tripped.



Displaying reports 55961-55980 of 81676.Go to page Start 2795 2796 2797 2798 2799 2800 2801 2802 2803 End