Cleared the counts on the listed chambers and counts.

HAM2 - 71

HAM3 - 63

HAM5 - 1205

   Installed the new GT521S dust monitor in Diode room. Ran new vacuum tubing into DR for the new monitor and configured it for operations. Edited the SITEMAP to point to the new monitor code. Working on sorting out the network connection. 

   Shutdown the old vacuum pump and removed old vacuum tubing from the Diode room and the CER. 

Note: This is the last of the new GT521S dust monitors to be installed. Still have a couple of network connections to sort out to complete the upgrade project.  

I took charge measurements today but could not make it through the Long_Trend.m due to some nds2 errors from some maintenance. The plots from ESD_Analyze_many.m looked good though. I will try again tomorrow.

Ed, Keita

We re-aligned the OpLevs at for ITMY,ITMX, PR3 and SR3.

John, Chandra

Removed and replaced pneumatic actuators on LLCV at CP 7 & 8 with electronic actuators. Actuators may be slightly overfilling until power is wired to device to retain auto feedback.

Richard is working on fabbing two 24 to 12 V boards to power them up.

Similar to ETMY in that it works and has survived.

The attached trends shows six hours covering maintenance.  There are no status or control channels available for ETMX, yet.

The lower trace(H1:ISI-GND_BRS_ETMX_DAMPCTRLMON) is the velocity (sqrt angular velocity) and damping is automatically engaged when this signal exceeds 4200.  The turn off is more involved than BRSY but when this DAMPCTRLMON signal stays between 4000 and 4200 units, the damping is turned off after 15 minutes.  Again, it looks like it works well and has survived maintenance day abuse.  Nice.

The automatic damping works and the BRS survives.

The attached 6 hours of trends show the BRSY rotation, and its rotational velocity in the bottom panels.  The upper panels display the Auto-damping turn on velocity and the DAMPBIT which indicates damping is on when high.

These traces show two periods where the damping was forced on by lowering the HIGHTHRESHOLD.  The damping is turned off 250 seconds after the velocity falls below the LOWTHRESHOLD.  The effectiveness of the damping is evident in the rotational angle and velocity peaks.

Further, in the middle time period, the cleaning crew entering the VEA sets off the Damping automatically and the amplitude and velocity are quickly reduced.

Also attached is the medm available from the Y-Arm ISI SITEMAP drop down.  I'll probably continue to tweek this so make suggestions if you see improvements.

Conclusion, things work pretty well, yeah!

They look like optical lever trends. I don't know what these numbers mean as many optics have been tripped or  misaligned for much of the last week.

Also, valved-in pump cart at HAM12 (Gerardo had isolated this yesterday for a test).

In the week of LVC there was a beam manifold vent (alog 26065). After the volume was pumped down, ITM oplevs were totally off and never came back (attached). (It should be grouting during that week, not the vent itself.)

Basically the beam is in a single quadrant, both for ITMX and ITMY.

It's the oplevs, not the mirrors themselves, as we went to a full power lock while the oplevs are off.

Don't enable oplev damping or do oplev-related measurements until they are centered again.

Attached below are the trends from the past 45 days. There are also temperature trends for the end stations as there was, in my opinion, and irregularity in the EY_CONTROL_VOUT graph. Someone who is more the expert than I suggested I consider this. Also, the previous months trends show that everything seems to be consistent except for this EY channel.

John, Chandra, Richard, Ken (electrician)

Yesterday we removed and replaced the pneumatic actuator on the LLCV of CP1 with an electronic actuator. Richard's group made a 24 to 12 V board. The liquid level rose to 99% during installation and then settled back to 92% through PID loop 16 hrs later. 

Plan is to R&R actuators at end stations next (CP 7 & 8).

Motivation is to R&R all eight actuators before power outage in June. Actuators do not change position when power is lost.

TITLE: 04/19 Day Shift: 15:00-23:00 UTC (08:00-16:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Planned Engineering
OUTGOING OPERATOR: None
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    Wind: 4mph Gusts, 1mph 5min avg
    Primary useism: 0.02 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.18 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY: PSL still in surgery, and maintenance day is upon us.

 

Nutsinee K. & Thomas Abbott

Since no one has re-calibrated the calculated power and calculated angle of the CO2 rotation stages after their performances improved so we played a little calibration game tonight. The results are attached below. Figure 1 shows the measured power vs. calculated CO2 power before and after re-calibration. Figure 2-5 show fits and improvement of calcualted vs measured power before and after the re-calibration (CO2Y power RMS improved from 0.14 to 0.08, CO2X power RMS improved from 0.88 to 0.13). Figure 6-7 show details of the fit parameters and Figure 8-9 shows the current calibration. The differences between measured power and calculated power should now agree within 0.1 W or less. Although I noticed the minimum power and the corresponding angle of CO2X can change slightly after "search for home" so if the calculated power and measured power doesn't agree within .1 this could be the reason and you would have to re-enter min angle and min power (Hint. not 0 for CO2X.).

Details:

I left "Power in" variable alone since I'm not sure where the number came from (I assume this is the power going to the ITMs). Instead I changed parameter A and D according to my fits. Parameter B and C (min angle and min power) came from observations (CO2X min power never goes to 0). I wrote down the minimum power I could get to and wrote down the corresponding angle and throw them in the calibration.

Conclusion: The calculated power and measured power should agree within 0.1 W. Whether you request an angle to go to a certain power or request wanted power directly the result is the same.

I also have screenshots of the old calibrations if anyone ever needed them.

I set up a simple prototype system to monitor the beam tube between the corner station and mid-Y for impulsive events, like stick-slip events, that might generate beam tube particulate glitches in DARM. The idea is to monitor this for a few months and, if we see events, propose a full deployment. If we don’t see events, we may move the prototype system on to another of the 4 sections of beam tube.

I originally used a microphone in the beam tube enclosure because there were many bellows that would attenuate the signal travelling on the tube. But the air signal also moves the beam tube locally, which, because it is similar to the beam tube at the impact location, likely resonates at the same frequencies that the impact excited, so I tried an accelerometer on the beam tube. This turned out to be about a factor of 2 better than the microphone at detecting distant taps when focused on a beam tube resonance at about 200 Hz. With this system I could detect light taps 2km away. My standard tap is made by holding a plastic and metal scissors 6 inches above the beam tube, then letting the scissors rotate freely around a finger so that the tip of the scissors hit the beam tube (see Figure 1). A standard tap in the control room elicited no reactions and is not as loud as dropping a scissors from the same 6 inch height. This standard tap is somewhat softer than the taps that generated DARM glitches; if it can generate glitches, it does so only rarely. At 2km this tap is just visible so I think that we are in good shape to detect anything that has a high probability of generating a glitch over the entire 2km stretch. The signal from the taps travelled at an average of just under 400 m/s.

The prototype system also includes a microphone set up just outside of the beam tube enclosure. This microphone is used to discriminate local from distant events. For example, the LN2 dewar stick-slip events that can often be heard would produce small beam tube motions, as would passing cars; these motions might, without the microphone, be confused for distant large impulsive events.

Figure 2 shows the signals from standard taps at various distances, as well as rattling the beam tube enclosure door nearest the accelerometer (happens during high wind) and impacts on the large LN2 dewar. The door and dewar signals were easy to differentiate from the BT taps because large microphone signals were present.

~4:30 (local) Peter and Jason came out. Water leak issue. No PSL = No commissioning today.

2:58 At this point everybody has gone home. I'll end my log here but will be around for a little longer.

Few notes:

HVE-LY:CP1_LT100 alarm went off due to an overflow. This is a known issue and it should correct itself.

The photo shows the new buried seismometer set up at X-end.  Figure 1 shows the signal compared to the building STS. Note that the coherence between the Y-axes is quite low even at 1 MPH. This axis also had low coherence when I huddled it with the PEM seismometer so it is likely noisy. Hugh and I noted that the Y-axis did not seem to go through the centering process when commanded like the other axes. The new Trillium should solve this.

That being said, the important axis is the X-axis. Note that the windy signal from the buried seismometer is, just below 0.1 Hz, at about the same low level as the GND STS.  I doubt that the ground seismometer would help much at this location.  It may be necessary to move it into the depression that the building sits in to make it better than the GND STS. We chose this location for a seismometer to monitor the prototype wind fence, hoping that it would also have less tilt than the building seismometer.  But it looks like we will need a second hole if we are going to use a buried seismometer in a super sensor at EX.

Figure 2 shows data for the EY seismometers for wind speeds averaging 32 MPH. The buried seismometer is at least a factor of two better than the building seismometer along the beam axis, as it was during the several other storms I studied. While we hope that we don’t need to use the buried seismometer at EY because the new EY BRS does even better, I think it is still worth testing it in a super sensor because a buried seismometer may be useful at the corner station or at LLO.