WP 5770 Power down h1lsc0 computer to allow modification of timing slave power in I/O chassis.
[Aidan, Cao]
In the online TCS simulation, I updated the absorption coefficients for ITMX, ETMX and ETMY to reflect actual measured values: https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T1400685
Additionally, I rescaled the TR_X and TR_Y values to reflect the arm powers, courtesy of some calibration work from Cao.
I have a script (copied below) I've been using to update these values as this allows me to store references to measurements and calibrations.
load_IFO_SIM_COEFFICIENTS.sh
caput H1:TCS-SIM_IFO_XARM_LENGTH 3994.47 # aLOG 20149
caput H1:TCS-SIM_IFO_YARM_LENGTH 3994.47
caput H1:TCS-SIM_IFO_SILICA_REF_INDEX 1.44963 #Suprasil 3001, "Heraeus reports 1.44963 as the index at 1064", GLB email Sept 5, 2014
caput H1:TCS-SIM_XARM_POWER_WATTS_PER_INPUT_UNIT 2.606 # estimate of peak value of 105.9kW in arms (needs ref) between 1141200000 and 1141300000 coupled with measurements of TR
_X
caput H1:TCS-SIM_YARM_POWER_WATTS_PER_INPUT_UNIT 2.378
caput H1:TCS-SIM_IFO_cdsMuxMatrix1_1_1 0.5
caput H1:TCS-SIM_IFO_cdsMuxMatrix1_1_2 0.5
caput H1:TCS-SIM_IFO_cdsMuxMatrix1_2_1 1.0
caput H1:TCS-SIM_IFO_cdsMuxMatrix1_2_2 -1.0
# PRC BLOCK
caput H1:TCS-SIM_IFO_PRC_ITM_R3 24.3931 #T0900043-v11, Table 1
caput H1:TCS-SIM_IFO_PRC_R3_R2 16.1558
caput H1:TCS-SIM_IFO_PRC_R2_RM 16.6037
caput H1:TCS-SIM_IFO_PRC_R3_ROC 36.021 # https://galaxy.ligo.caltech.edu/optics/ PR3-01
caput H1:TCS-SIM_IFO_PRC_R2_ROC -4.543 # https://galaxy.ligo.caltech.edu/optics/ PR2-04
caput H1:TCS-SIM_IFO_PRC_RM_ROC -10.948 # https://galaxy.ligo.caltech.edu/optics/ PRM-04
# SRC BLOCK
caput H1:TCS-SIM_IFO_SRC_ITM_R3 24.1176 #T0900043-v11, Table 1
caput H1:TCS-SIM_IFO_SRC_R3_R2 15.4607
caput H1:TCS-SIM_IFO_SRC_R2_RM 15.726
caput H1:TCS-SIM_IFO_SRC_R3_ROC 36.013 # https://galaxy.ligo.caltech.edu/optics/ SR3-02
caput H1:TCS-SIM_IFO_SRC_R2_ROC -6.424 # https://galaxy.ligo.caltech.edu/optics/ SR2-04
caput H1:TCS-SIM_IFO_SRC_RM_ROC -5.638 # https://galaxy.ligo.caltech.edu/optics/ SRM-05 ????? - CHECK
# SPRING CONSTANTS
caput H1:TCS-SIM_IFO_YARM_PEND_SPR_CNST 1.0 # ??????
caput H1:TCS-SIM_IFO_XARM_PEND_SPR_CNST 1.0 # ??????
# ACOS PRC BLOCK
caput H1:TCS-SIM_IFO_ACOS_PRC_A_D_OFFSET 0.87
caput H1:TCS-SIM_IFO_ACOS_PRC_A_D_A0 0.5155940062460905
caput H1:TCS-SIM_IFO_ACOS_PRC_A_D_A1 -2.0281847857870914
caput H1:TCS-SIM_IFO_ACOS_PRC_A_D_A2 -3.6292076586482307
caput H1:TCS-SIM_IFO_ACOS_PRC_A_D_A3 -14.378615634122346
caput H1:TCS-SIM_IFO_ACOS_PRC_A_D_A4 -69.29856186065047
caput H1:TCS-SIM_IFO_ACOS_PRC_A_D_A5 -373.821577053177
# ACOS SRC BLOCK
caput H1:TCS-SIM_IFO_ACOS_SRC_A_D_OFFSET 0.87
caput H1:TCS-SIM_IFO_ACOS_SRC_A_D_A0 0.5155940062460905
caput H1:TCS-SIM_IFO_ACOS_SRC_A_D_A1 -2.0281847857870914
caput H1:TCS-SIM_IFO_ACOS_SRC_A_D_A2 -3.6292076586482307
caput H1:TCS-SIM_IFO_ACOS_SRC_A_D_A3 -14.378615634122346
caput H1:TCS-SIM_IFO_ACOS_SRC_A_D_A4 -69.29856186065047
caput H1:TCS-SIM_IFO_ACOS_SRC_A_D_A5 -373.821577053177
# ACOS YARM BLOCK
caput H1:TCS-SIM_IFO_ACOS_XARM_SQRT_G_OFFSET 0.87
caput H1:TCS-SIM_IFO_ACOS_XARM_SQRT_G_A0 0.5155940062460905
caput H1:TCS-SIM_IFO_ACOS_XARM_SQRT_G_A1 -2.0281847857870914
caput H1:TCS-SIM_IFO_ACOS_XARM_SQRT_G_A2 -3.6292076586482307
caput H1:TCS-SIM_IFO_ACOS_XARM_SQRT_G_A3 -14.378615634122346
caput H1:TCS-SIM_IFO_ACOS_XARM_SQRT_G_A4 -69.29856186065047
caput H1:TCS-SIM_IFO_ACOS_XARM_SQRT_G_A5 -373.821577053177
# ACOS XARM BLOCK
caput H1:TCS-SIM_IFO_ACOS_YARM_SQRT_G_OFFSET 0.87
caput H1:TCS-SIM_IFO_ACOS_YARM_SQRT_G_A0 0.5155940062460905
caput H1:TCS-SIM_IFO_ACOS_YARM_SQRT_G_A1 -2.0281847857870914
caput H1:TCS-SIM_IFO_ACOS_YARM_SQRT_G_A2 -3.6292076586482307
caput H1:TCS-SIM_IFO_ACOS_YARM_SQRT_G_A3 -14.378615634122346
caput H1:TCS-SIM_IFO_ACOS_YARM_SQRT_G_A4 -69.29856186065047
caput H1:TCS-SIM_IFO_ACOS_YARM_SQRT_G_A5 -373.821577053177
# OPTICS gains
caput H1:TCS-SIM_ITMX_SUB_DEFOCUS_RH_GAIN -9.0E-6
caput H1:TCS-SIM_ITMY_SUB_DEFOCUS_RH_GAIN -9.0E-6
caput H1:TCS-SIM_ETMX_SUB_DEFOCUS_RH_GAIN -9.0E-6
caput H1:TCS-SIM_ETMY_SUB_DEFOCUS_RH_GAIN -9.0E-6
caput H1:TCS-SIM_ITMX_SUB_DEFOCUS_CO2_GAIN 62.3E-6
caput H1:TCS-SIM_ITMY_SUB_DEFOCUS_CO2_GAIN 62.3E-6
caput H1:TCS-SIM_ITMX_SUB_DEFOCUS_SELF_GAIN 4.8709E-4
caput H1:TCS-SIM_ITMY_SUB_DEFOCUS_SELF_GAIN 4.8709E-4
caput H1:TCS-SIM_ETMX_SUB_DEFOCUS_SELF_GAIN 3.8577E-4
caput H1:TCS-SIM_ETMY_SUB_DEFOCUS_SELF_GAIN 3.8577E-4
caput H1:TCS-SIM_ITMX_SURF_DEFOCUS_RH_GAIN 1.066E-6
caput H1:TCS-SIM_ITMY_SURF_DEFOCUS_RH_GAIN 1.066E-6
caput H1:TCS-SIM_ETMX_SURF_DEFOCUS_RH_GAIN 1.066E-6
caput H1:TCS-SIM_ETMY_SURF_DEFOCUS_RH_GAIN 1.066E-6
caput H1:TCS-SIM_ITMX_SURF_DEFOCUS_SELF_GAIN -3.652E-5
caput H1:TCS-SIM_ITMY_SURF_DEFOCUS_SELF_GAIN -3.652E-5
caput H1:TCS-SIM_ETMX_SURF_DEFOCUS_SELF_GAIN -2.931E-5
caput H1:TCS-SIM_ETMY_SURF_DEFOCUS_SELF_GAIN -2.931E-5
caput H1:TCS-SIM_ITMX_SURF_ROC_NOM 1939.3
caput H1:TCS-SIM_ITMY_SURF_ROC_NOM 1939.2
caput H1:TCS-SIM_ETMX_SURF_ROC_NOM 2241.54
caput H1:TCS-SIM_ETMY_SURF_ROC_NOM 2238.9
caput H1:TCS-SIM_ITMX_SUB_DEFOCUS_STATIC -1.2467E-5
caput H1:TCS-SIM_ITMY_SUB_DEFOCUS_STATIC 1.7479E-6
caput H1:TCS-SIM_ITMX_SURF_ABSORPTION 520E-9 # alog 16578
caput H1:TCS-SIM_ITMY_SURF_ABSORPTION 250E-9
caput H1:TCS-SIM_ETMX_SURF_ABSORPTION 160E-9 # aLOG 19867
caput H1:TCS-SIM_ETMY_SURF_ABSORPTION 253E-9 # aLOG 19835
TITLE: 03/10 day Shift: 16:00-00:00 UTC (08:00-16:00 PST), all times posted in UTC STATE of H1: Planned Engineering OUTGOING OPERATOR: None QUICK SUMMARY: Nothing IFO unlocked; wind speeds <20mph; .1-.3 uSei hovering between 1-2um/s; DIAG_MAIN showing, "OPLEV_SUMS:SR3 sum is low"
[Kiwamu, AIdan, Elli, Cao]
Following from alog 25905, we attempted to realign the beam spot, which is suspected to be the beam reflected from the HR surface of ITMY onto Hartmann sensor. In order to do this:
1. Turn off CAGE SERVO, misalign the SR3 to the PITCH and YAW values:
PITCH: 1458
YAW: -216.9
2. Since this beam is most far off from the nominal values in PITCH, we start walking the SR3 PITCH back to the nominal value (563.4. At the nominal value, a beam is centered onto HWS, which we suspected it to be the one refleced from AR surface). The walking is done in in increment:
- Decrease the PITCH of SR3 until the beam of interest moves up sightly off the amera active surface.
- Start decreasing the PITCH of the upper periscope, then decrease the PITCH of the lower periscope to compensate. This essentially translate the beam upward, bringing the beam of interest back down into the image frame of HWS.
3. After moving 400 radians in PITCH closer to nominal value, the SLED beam was clipped on the upper periscope mirror (2'' mirror). Initially prior to adjusting the periscope mirror, the beam was at the center. Therefore, a change in 1/sqrt(2) inch helps achieving a change of 400 rad in PITCH. At this point, the green beam in also close to upper edge of th upper periscope mirror. We then moved the upper periscope upward by 0.7 inch order to accomodate another 400 rad change in PITCH of SR3 to move closer to nominal value.
4. After reposition upper periscope mirror, we repeated the similar process of walking SR3 back to nominal values and tilting the upper periscope mirror. However, once achieving SR3 PITCH of 880, we started seeing clipping. Using IR viewer to look into the viewport, Kiwamu identified that the the beam is cipping on the top edge of the in vacuum lens (which was also the wong lens installed). We noticed that the green beam was at the bottom of the upper periscope mirror. We wondered if there was any separation between SLED beam and the green beam of the case of ITMY HWS, considering the y beams pass through SR2 and a wrong in-vacuum lens. We will need to check with Aidan for some ray-tracing model to investigate this.
5. Due to this clipping,we could not proceed walking the desired beam onto HWS at SR3 nominal PITCH and YAW values. We then moved the upper periscope downward to initial position, misalign SR3 such that the HR beam candidate was centered onto the HWS and started the ring heater test. Each RH segment were turned on to 2W and we observed the measured spherical power from the HWS, compared to the simulation. This was indeed the first beam that we observed changes when RH is applied. However, looking at image RH_ITMY_9Mar.png , we noticed the trend of change did not follow what we expected from the simuation:
i. When RH is on,we expected the spherical power to decrease, what observed was the opposite in which the spherical power measured increased with time.
ii. The rate of increase in spherical power was much lower than the simulated rate of decrease. Whereas in my recent study of the RH model for X-arm, the magnitude of spherical power simulated is much smaller than measured data.
iii. The measurement of spherical power was very noisy.
For the first two points, I suspected it's either:
1/ The beam may not be centerd on the test mass but off slightly to one side and what we're getting is an artefact .
2/ The magnification and the change to a concave lens (the wrong in-vaccuum lens) have not been accounted for correctly, thus resulting in a flip of wavefront, giving rise to increase in spherical power measured.
Either way, I will have a look at the gradient plot tomorrow and see if we can do some ray tracing modelling to identify where the problem comes from.
The attached shows a cartoon of what we think the situation is.
As Cao explained in his alog, we needed to shift the upper periscope mirror in order to get the beam of interest aligned on HWS with the nominal SR3 alignment. Position (A) is the nominal location of the upper periscope mirror in which a wrong beam has been aligned to HWS (alog 25905). Position (B) is a place we tentatively shifted the mirror position. According to the screw holes on the periscope, we seem to have shifted the mirror and its base plate by 0.7'' upward. A back-of-envelope calculation suggested that the mirror needed to go another 0.7'', but we stopped at this point because we started having an issue.
In position (B) the beam started clipping at an in-vac lens in the HAM4 chamber. This is consistent with what we saw previously (alog 25766 although no mention in the log). The clipping was visible through the viewport with an IR viewer, and also visible on the SR3 camera that clearly showed a clipped beam incident on SR3. Interestingly, the green beam started falling off the upper periscope mirror at the bottom of the mirror. It completely missed the bottom periscope mirror.
After today's alignment challenge and test, we shifted the mirror back to position (A) so that we can have beams which are not clipped.
SR3 was left misaligned by 771 urad in pitch overnight. I re-engaged the SR3 cage servo and noticed that the output was very large. Since Team TCS had been moving it around last night, I trended the Optic_Align values, and put them back to their positions from early yesterday. Yaw was at its nominal position, but pitch was too high by 771 urad.
I looked further into the data from last night RH test of the ITMY HWS. We were misalining the SR3, to test whether the [1458, -216.9] beam the HR beam:
The time series seen from dataviewer DV_RH_IMY_9Mar.png shows that together with the small change in spherical power, there is also a change strong change in prism.
The ratio between spehrical power and prism results should give the offset of the beam from the test mass. Therefore, I looked at the ratio between PRISM_X/SPHERICAL_POWER and PRISM_Y/SPHERICAL_POWER.
Image OFFSET_RH_9Mar.png shows the plot of the time series of these two ratio and the second subplot shows the PRISM_X/SPHERICAL_POWER vs PRISM_Y/SPHERICAL_POWER.
The ratios look very noisy for the first 40 minutes that the HWS was running, and us independent of the power applie onto the RH. But we can see a trencd that both ratios decreases to -1 m*rad. This shift to the offset at -1 m*rad can be seen quite clearly in the second subplot where there is a cluster of data point at (-1,-1) region.
Gradient plot showed strong prism developing but no evidence of spherical power (compare beginning frame RH_ITMY_grad_start.png and final frame RH_ITMY_grad_end.png). What was more curious was that some centroids were missing from the gradient plot (see RH_ITMY_grad_end.png ).This certainly has effected the fidelity of any parameter measured by the HWS. Howevwe there is certainly no evidence supporting this is the right spot.
Aidan has recently checked the reflectivity of AR and HR surface, and for this wavelength (840 nm), the AR surface has the stronger reflectivity. Thus now the suspected HR beam is the one we are currently centered on at the nominal values PITCH and YAW of SR3. We have now turned the both ITMX and ITMY HWS on (alog 25991).
However our previous test (RH and CO2 laser) with this spot also results in strange result that did not support our simulation. For example, time series RH_ITMY_1Mar.png shown for RH test on March 1 when this beam was centered on HWSY showed that there was no change in spherical power while RH was turned on to 1W for 1 hours. The step change observed was resulted from us opening the HWS table to replace HWSX SLED on the day (alog 25806). The CO2 test data on 26 Feb with the same beam showed a decrease in spherical power measured, whereas the simulation expected spherical power to inrease (see ITMY_CO2_26Feb.png). Checking the gradient plot also did not show evidence of thermal lensing expected with CO2 but gradient developing towards the (-ve x, -ve y) region of the quiver plot.
State of H1: warm, after TCS work
Activities:
Elli, Kiwamu, Kau, Nutsinee: people working on TCS
Dick: working at PSL racks
Curent Status: high useism and ITM heaing combine to prevent locking
Kiwamu, Stefan
Looking at the cross-power plot in alog 25768, we see a coherent noise floor following the shot noise a factor 3.3 below.
Looking at alog 21167, this seems cosistent with our old firend the excess 45.5 MHz noise in DARM.
Shot noise of 20mA: 8e-8mA/rtHz: a factor of 3.3 below that: 2.4e-8mA/rtHz. This is roughly consistent with the residual coherence seen in alog 21167.
Kiwamu will make an all-O1 plot to nicely resolve that noise. We need to add this noise to the mystery noise projection in alog 25106 (this plot).
Here is a cross-spectrum with more number of averaging (over 867 hours using the data between Oct-21-2015 to Jan-17-2016 with some glitchy durations excluded).
I looked at some few-hour stretches of O1 data and took the coherence between the DCPDs.
Above 1 kHz (where the DARM OLTF is −55 dB or less), the coherence goes as low as 1×10−4. See attachment for an example; FFT BW is 2 Hz and number of averages is >50,000. That would imply a correlated DCPD sum noise that is a factor of 7 below the shot noise [since the correlated noise ASD in each PD should be (1×10−4)1/4 = 0.1 relative to the uncorrelated (shot) noise ASD].
I suppose it is possible that the secular fluctuations in the nonlinear 45 MHz noise are enough to push the overall O1 coherence up to 2×10−3, which is what is required to achieve a correlated noise that is a factor of 3.3 below the shot noise in the DCPD sum.
To test this, I propose we look at the variation over O1 of some kind of BLRMS of the 45 MHz EOM driver control signal (or perhaps just the dc level of the control signal), similar to what Kiwamu has already done for some of the suspension channels.
During this same time period, the excess of sum over null above 1 kHz is about 0.1×10−8 mA/Hz1/2. Assuming 8×10−8 mA/Hz1/2 of null current therefore implies the correlated excess is a factor of 6 to 7 below shot noise.
(The slope in the data is probably from the uncompensated AA filtering).
The second attachment shows the conversion of the sum and null into equivalent freerunning DARM. From the residual alone, the limit on the coating Brownian noise seems to be a factor of 1.6 above nominal. (I quickly threw in a 5 kHz zero when undoing the loop in order to compensate for the AA filtering).
Finally, I add some mystery noise traces to this residual, where the slopes and amplitudes have been arrived at by careful numerology. The addition of a 1/f2 noise and a mystery white sensing noise (similar to 26004, but tuned to the residual during this time period) reduces the possible coating Brownian excess factor to 1.45 or so.
Here is an updated version of the cross spectrum using the O1 data. I have fixed a bug which previously overestimated the cross specctrum and have extended the analysis to high frequencies above 1 kHz.
As pointed out by Evan, my previous analysis overestimated the correlated noise. This turned out to be due to a bug in my code where I summed the absolute value of the segmented cross spcetra when averaging them. This is apparently wrong because the cross spectra by nature can have negative value (and imaginary number). I fixed the analysis code and reran the analysis again. The result looks consistent with Evan's targeted cross spectrum -- the kink point of the cross correlation happenes at around 1 kHz with the noise floor touching 1e-20 m/sqrtHz.
LN2 levels for CP3 and CP8 are not under PID control.
Forgot to mention that I am monitoring from home
Patrick, Richard, Carlos, Jim, Dave
The new Beckhoff vacuum controls system uses a new channel naming convention. This required several software systems to be reconfigured.
DAQ
When going from the old system to the new system there are three catagories of channel being acquired by the DAQ:
1. old channels which have no equivalent in the new system (qty 97)
2. old channels which have new names in the new system (qty 90)
3. channels which are added by the new system (qty 639)
For catagory 1 I did not do anything, but I most probably should add them back into the DAQ configuration so old data could be accessed.
For catagory 3 other than putting them into the new H0EDCU_VE.ini file there was nothing to be done. They popped into existence yesterday at 6pm.
For catagory 2 some work is needed. To preserve the minute trend lookback back when they had the old name, it was necessary to move their raw minute trend files from the old name to the new name. Patrick provided a file which maps oldname->newname. The process is slightly complicated by the fact that raw minute files reside under 256 directories, named by the CRC8 checksum of the channel's name string (to prevent one monolithic directory). I have included the mapping file and the move script which was ran on h1tw1. I actually did a copy rather than move, so this could be done while the DAQ was still running.
The DAQ change sequence was: Copy minute trend files from oldname to newname, generate the new H0EDCU_VE.ini and H0EDCU_FMCS.ini (Beckhoff reads out the water pressure) then restart DAQ
EPICS GATEWAY
We discovered that there is a channel filter on the epics gateways between the h0ve network and the DAQ/CDS/WS networks. This filtered to the old HVE- naming, we added an additional H0:VAC- rule.
AUTOBURT
Patrick created a new h0veex/autoBurt.req file, this was installed.
MEDM
The VE site overview was changed to match the new EX channel names.
ALARMS
Both the control ALH alarm handler and the cdslogin cell phone texter alarm handers were modified to use the new channel names.
I made a first attempt to investigate the probability of a beam tube tap producing a DARM glitch as a function of tap amplitude. I mounted an accelerometer on the beam tube just inside the single door at Y1-4 +1Y and tapped 2 stiffening rings away. The only DARM glitch produced was for a tap that saturated the accelerometer (> 1.09 m/s^2). There were a total of ten taps that exceeded this threshold. No glitches were seen for the 70 taps that were under this threshold. This data supports the contention that the glitch probability is a strong function of tap amplitude. I would like to use a shaker to inject at lower amplitudes for day-scale periods in order to better understand the probability function, but this experiment hasn’t been cleared yet because of fatigue concerns.
One could imagine sudden accelerations of the beam tube, such as thermal expansion stick-slip events, that might be high enough in amplitude and frequency to produce particulate glitches. I investigated the possibility of using microphones to detect such events. I set up a temporary microphone in the beam tube enclosure, running into the CS DAQ. I found, that for the amplitude of taps that produced glitches, I could detect the sound from 1km away (Figure 1). Thus we could monitor the entire beam tube with 8 microphones, based in the stations, but located in the beam tube enclosure just outside the stations.
|
amplitude m/s^2 |
injections |
glithes |
|
>1.09 |
10 |
1 |
|
1.07-1.09 |
20 |
0 |
|
less than 1.07, greater than 0.05 |
50 |
0 |
To install this at LLO would require procurement of front-end computers/IO chassis for mid-stations. We noted this equipment was purchased by aLIGO for LHO, but not for LLO.
Late entry for yesterday's maintenance.
cdsfs0 upgrade to new hardware WP5757
Richard, Carlos, Ryan, Jim, Dave:
The old cdsfs0 /ligo NFS file server was decommissioned and replaced with a newer model. The storage capacity was increased from 4TB to 40TB for the /ligo file system. This was an early maintenance task, starting around 6am PST. It required the reboot of many servers and workstations, but did not require a restart of the front ends or DAQ systems. The only problem reported from users was files with controls group ownership could not be modified by users who belong to this group. Ryan resolved the problem, we put in a temporary fix and need to reboot cdsfs0 next week to implement a permanant solution.
Richard and Carlos put H1 into a safe state before the computers were stopped.
h1asc model change WP5766
Kiwamu, Jennie, Sheila, Dave:
A new h1asc model was installed. This required a DAQ restart.
H1 BSC ISI model changes WP5765
Hugh, Jim W, Dave
the ISI BSC models (five in total) were restarted with new code. This required a DAQ restart
EX Vacuum Controls Beckhoff Install WP5758
Richard, Filiberto, Patrick, Carlos, Dave:
The original VME vacuum controls system h0veex was replaced with the new Beckhoff industrial control system. The hardware was swapped out quickly in the morning, the new unit has the same name and IP address as the VME system it replaces.
Various software components were changed, details in seperate alog.
Due to time constraints, two tasks were postponed: WP5757 install first verson of h1susitmpi, WP5764 install of first version of h1ngn.
Activity Log: All Times in UTC (PT) 16:00 (08:00) Ellie – Taking SRC interface measurements 16:58 (08:58) Ellie – Going into Optics Lab 17:10 (09:10) Ed – Add water to PSL Diode chiller 17:25 (09:25) Hugh – Going into the CER 17:32 (09:32) Hugh – Out of CER 17:36 (09:36) Ellie – Out of Optics Lab 20:01 (12:01) Kyle – Going into LVEA to turn off vacuum pump 20:05 (12:05) Dick – Going into the LVEA checking for noise at ICS rack 20:40 (12:40) Kyle – Out of the LVEA 20:48 (12:48) Ellie – Transition LVEA to Laser Hazard 20:50 (12:50) Ellie & Cao – Going into the LVEA to work on ISCT6 table 21:59 (13:59) Ellie & Cao – Out of the LVEA 22:13 (14:13) Gerardo – Going to X-Beam manifold to make some measurements 22:40 (14:40) Gerardo – Out of the LVEA 23:00 (15:00) Gerardo – Going to Mid-Y for CP-3 fill 23:30 (15:30) Gerardo – Back from Mid-Y 23:50 (15:50) Ellie – Going into the LVEA tow work on ISCT6 End of Shift Summary: Day Shift 16:00 – 00:00 (08:00 – 16:00) All times in UTC (PT) Support: Incoming Operator: Cheryl Shift Detail Summary: Commissioning work all day.
1/2 open LLCV bypass valve, and the exhaust bypass valve fully open.
Flow was noted after 2 minutes 20 seconds, closed LLCV valve, and 3 minutes later the exhaust bypass valve was closed.
Next over-fill on Friday, March 11th before 23:59 utc.
Attached are 7 day pitch, yaw, and sum trends for all active H1 optical levers.
Almost everything looks good, with no changes from last week. The only concerning thing that we need to keep an eye on is the BS SUM; it has dropped from >20k counts to <10k counts over the last week. As soon as I get back from Germany I can start looking into it.
Kyle. Gerardo, Chandra Gerardo -> Installed 12" CFF at HAM10 D8 and gauge pair isolation valve on BSC4 Chandra -> R&R LVEA Turbo levitation batteries Kyle -> Drilled and tapped holes, mounted scroll pump local to Diagonal Turbo and upgraded gauge controller on Diagonal Turbo Kyle, Chandra -> Ran QDP80s, YBM, XBM and Diagoanl Turbos and vent/purge air supply (KOBELCO). The KOBELCO displayed a "HIGH LUBE OIL TEMP" Warning after having run for a while. Chandra noticed that the chilled water booster pump was off and that the output pressure once on was only 60psi (this may be the result of a reduced frequency running of the chilled water circulating pump - nominally this would be 90 psi - we need to investigate) The measured dewpoint after > 1 hour of run time was <-30C. Gerardo noticed that the Diagonal volume was still left connected to the purge air header from when it had last been purged, the isolation valve was then closed. NOTE: The XBM Turbo spun up to full RPM but tripped off during the braking phase. This Turbo has a history of high vibration - typically during the accelerating phase.
The Turbo pump controllers are being left energized overnight in the LVEA to allow the Turbo rotors to come to a full stop
No FRS required. Lower than expected pressure in output from booster pump in chilled water system is likely due to difference in building chilled water pressure (variable speed pumps).
[Aidan, Kiwamu, Elli, Cao]
SUMMARY:
We prformed a definitive test to confirm the HWSY beam reflected off the HR surface of ITMY. The test arrived at the same conclusion as a previous test reported in alog25617.
The beam reflected from HR surface is the one observed at :
SR3 PITCH: 1458 urad
SR3 YAW : -216.9 urad
(The nominal value of SR3 PITCH and YAW at the moment are 563 and -153.9)
METHOD:
1. We turned of SR3 CAGE SERVO, and initiate excitations of PITCH and YAW of SR3. These excitations ran for about 5 hours yesterday, between 1141238996 and 1141254773 (gps time)
| Excitation | Amplitude (urad) | Frequency (mHz) |
| PITCH | 1500 | 10.3 |
| YAW | 2000 | 3.7 |
This allowed us to scan SR3 and map out all the possible reflected beams onto the HWSY from the TOTAL_PIXEL_VALUE recorded by the HWSY.
| Spot | PITCH (urad) | YAW (urad) |
| 1 | 563.4 | -153.9 |
| 2 | 1458 | -216.9 |
| 3 | 1332 | -1220 |
| 4 | 626.3 | 613.3 |
We will use the numbers to refer to each spot in the rest of this report. We are currently centered on beamspot 1
2. We modify the HWS magnification H1:TCS-ITMY_HWS_MAGNIFICATION from 17.5 to 7.5 according to T1400686
3. This morning, we moved SR3 alignment to the PITCH and YAW values corresponding to the four spots. At each spot:
- Stream the HWS images to make sure the spot was centered
-Create a new folder that does not contain reference *.mat file so the HWSY take new reference each time a new spot was centered.
-Start HWS and steam data
-Initiate 50 mHz, 2urad amplitude excitation on ITMY YAW (H1:SUS-ITMY_M0_OPTICALIGN_Y_EXC)
-Observe the changes in the three signals:
1. H1:SUS-ITMY_L3_OPLEV_YAW_OUTPUT (OPLEV Yaw)
2. H1:SUS-ITMY_M0_OPTICALIGN_Y_OUTPUT
3. H1:TCS-ITMY_HWS_PROBE_PRISM_X (Prism X)
- Let the excitation run for 5-10 mins, turn off the excitation, let the OPLEV Yaw and Prism X signals to stabilize and epeat the procedure for all the spots.
4. We then plot the signals H1:TCS-ITMY_HWS_PROBE_PRISM_X and H1:SUS-ITMY_L3_OPLEV_YAW_OUTPUT and compared the magnitude of oscillation in Prism X measured (if any). The one that has the largest 50 MHz signal is the one reflected off the HR surface of ITMY.
shows the four plots of time series of H1:TCS-ITMY_HWS_PROBE_PRISM_X signal compared to H1:SUS-ITMY_L3_OPLEV_YAW_OUTPUT. From these plots:
Beam spots 3 and 4: definitely do not reflected from any surface of ITMY since there is no evidence of 50 mHz oscilliation. They may come from the CP, which fit with the fact that CP is horizontally wedged. It is also interesting to note that the Prism X values for these two beams decrease contiously during measurement.
Beam spots 1 and 2: these two beams come from the 2 surfaces of ITMY.
The oscillation in X prism measured for beamspot 1 has an amplitude of approximately 0.6±0.2 urad
The oscillation in X prism measured for beamspot 2 has an amplitude of approximately 1.5±0.2 urad
Therefore, the magnitude of oscillation in x prism for beamspot 2 is greater. This can be clearly seen if the two time series are plotted together:
I remember that the clipping we saw was by the first steering mirror in the HAM4 chamber. I could see a bright scattering from the view port with an IR viewer.
We reproduced the clipping today on Mar 9th. We confirmed that the clipping occurred at the first in-vac lens (see HAM4 drawing), not the steering mirrors.
