ETMX BSC9 - Vent Master = Betsy Weaver
https://dcc.ligo.org/E1500265

APPROVED work to be done in order of importance:

Remove charge from ETMx (Travis, Danny, Gary, Betsy, Kate, Calum, Tester Arnaud)

Install VE ports to enable mounting of TMDS and new pumps (Gerardo, Kyle)

Add Krytox to beam diverters on TMS, additional QPD strain relief (Corey, Keita)

Fix clipping on TMSx (Corey, Keita)

Remove most bias from ETMx (Betsy, Travis or Danny, Gary)

Swap ESD feedthru, time permitting (Richard, Betsy)

Check ETMx PUM UL coil/cable seating, attempt to fix excess noise

as per Bug 929, alog 13047 (Betsy, Travis or Danny, Gary)

DCC Vent Documents referenced in this plan:

• E1201035-v17, "aLIGO Chamber Entry & Exit Procedures"  https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-E1201035
• M1100039, "Hanford Checklist - HAM Door Removal"  https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-M1100039
• M1300464-v4, "Procedure for preparing aLIGO IFO for pumpdown"  https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-M1300464

Additional Documentation:

• The ECR approving the use of Krytox LVP is E1400353
• The Beam Diverter assembly is described in E1100686-v3
• The ETM/ERM Gap discharge procedure is described in T1500101

SCHEDULE

FRI-MON early morning permitting, June 12-15, 2015

1)    Turn cleanrooms on

2)    Clean area, door flange, and cleanroom

3)    Start staging of supplies and equipment

4)    Confirm dust monitor is working

MON, June 15, 2015

5)    Transition to LASER SAFE

6)    CDS: Control systems need to be up and running through vent – confirm that normal TUES CDS maint does not interfere with controls.

7)    Confirm purge air is on

8)    Close gate valves

9)    Vent BSC9

10)  Remove door – 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)  Inspect optic – Calum, Kate, Travis, Betsy, Danny, Gary

13)  Transition to LASER HAZARD

14)  Start TMS work

QPD strain relief, rebalance TMS and check alignment

Krytox on BD

Possibly fix clipping, recheck alignment

Take particle counter measurements and record:

TUES, June 16, 2015

15)  Finish TMS work.  Take particle counter measurements:

16)  Transition to LASER SAFE

17)  VE work – installation of 2 ports

WED, June 17, 2015

18)  Debias ETMx via watching pointing on oplev, note removing ~300 counts will be good enough.  Check TFs to ensure full suspension after complete.  Take particle counter measurements:

19)  Check cabling to ETMx L2 UL AOSEM – lots of sensor noise

20)  Swap and reterminate ESD feedthru (maybe – will skip if not enough time to complete)

THUR, June 18, 2015

21)  Discharge ETMx, noting details of measurements for alog, as per procedure T1500101.  Inspect all EQ stops at TM stage for proximity.  Take particle counter measurements throughout and record:

22)  SUS ETMx TF test

23)  Chamber closeout – note, a truncated exit chamber checklist will be executed due to risk of recontamination of charge.

24)  Put door on, start pump down.

FRI, June 19, 2015

25)  Perform ESD/OL charge measurements.

DCC References

ETMX BSC9
https://dcc.ligo.org/E1500265

ETMY BSC10
https://dcc.ligo.org/E1500266

HAM6
https://dcc.ligo.org/E1500267


Plan for Contamination Control prep for the End Stations vent:

(prepared by Jeff Bartlet and Betsy Weaver)

    1). Friday morning Christina & Karen will do the first cleaning.
    2). Sunday Kyle will turn on the cleanrooms.
    3). Monday morning Jeff will take dust readings near the roof.
    4). Monday morning Christina & Karen will do the second cleaning.
    5). Jeff will monitor the dust counts during the door removals.

At Sheila request, I look into some of the long locks to see if the coupling of SRCL to DARM is stationary or not. In brief, as far as I can tell, it looks stationary.

I took 5 hours of data from 1118016016, and compute the coherence between DARM and SRCL with 0.1 Hz resolution (first plot). There is some coherence, especially in the region between 20 and 70 Hz. 

Then I computed the coherence and transfer function for short 10 seconds-long periods, with a resolution of 1 Hz. I computed the average and standard deviation of the coherence and the absolute  value of the TF. The second plot shows the coherence and the transfer function: the shaded regions correspond to the standard deviation. It seems to me that there aren't large flutuations as was the case in the past.

09:55 Received a GRB alert. Unfortunately LHO was not locked at the time. The GRB alert alarm handler worked well.    

Leonid, Betsy

Between yesterday afternoon and this morning, we obtained 4 more good ETMx charge measurements using the optical lever.  Soon to be attached are the trends of the data compared to the previous JAN and APRIL measurements.  Note, as has been stated over the last few days, the LL quadrant of the ESD does not appear healthy, and therefore is the only data point showing a lot of scatter.  This morning Richard went to End X and found that it is shorted.  We suspect it is likely shorted at the feedthru which is still the "old" style.  We plan to swp the feedthru and re-terminate the ESD in-vac cable during next weeks vent - this will bring it up-to-date with the EY ESD and both L1 ESD connections.

On Wednesday night, because we couldn't get much past DRMI due to wind, I tried changing the St1 blend on the BS ISI to match the "windy" blend used on the ITMs. This is a change that the commissioning crew and I have agreed should happen for a while, but we didn't want to disturb the IFO during data taking. Previously the BS was running the 45mhz blends in X&Y, while the ITM's were running the 90mhz blends in the beam direction. Looking at CPS spectra, this meant that the BS was moving a lot more at low frequency than the ITM's (see first attached spectra, BS is red and blue, ITM beam directions are in purple and black). Now that I've switched the BS, it is moving the same as the ITMs. Sheila suggested I look at the ASC signals during the subsequent lock (I left the blends because it was still "windy") to see if this affected the angular control of the IFO. I think at low frequency this made an improvement in MICH (second and third plots, which are ASC yaw and pitch for MICH, green is before, brown after on both). I checked the ground at both times to make sure the input motion was the same and there are differences, but not huge (last plot, green and brown are before, red and blue are after, solid is Y, dashed is X). I don't show Z but it was even more similar.

ER7 will end at 08:00 on Sunday the 14th.
 
The Vent prep work will start Sunday the 14th. 
	Betsy will be the vent coordinator for the End-X and End-Y activities 
	Hugh will be the vent coordinator for the HAM-6 activities
For the vent plan, see aLOG 19085

Beam tube cleaning continues on the X-Arm

Bubba - working on fan repairs in the Mechanical building

Kyle – Prep work for the vent. Goal is to have the doors ready to come off at 12:00 Monday the 15th

Peter – Will transition the end stations to Laser Safe by locking the laser enclosures and verifying all view ports are in place. The laser will not be shut down until Monday when the doors are ready to come off. 

Since my last post the wind is beinging to pick up again, not anything crazy but gusts above 20mph. I have gotten a few tries very close, at 607 I made it all the way to LOWNOISE_ESD_ETMY but something always seems to break it.

On my last attempt, ETMY and ITMX bounce and roll modes were badly rung up, I managed to damp them below 10^-11 and then as soon as I went to move on it broke lock.

Cleaning crew will be heading into the end stations in a few minutes.

Looks like I failed for tonight. Handing it off to Jeff here in a min.

model restarts logged for Thu 11/Jun/2015

no restarts reported

The winds died down about 2.5 hours ago but locking has still been unsuccessful. Breaks lock consistantly at REFL_TRANS. I have tried a handful of initial alignments, but with the same results.  I eventually  got past REFL_TRANS by touching PRM a little, but at DRMI_ON_POP I couldn't recover RF90 and RF18, seemed like me touching PR2 made things worse not better like it normally would.

I have a few more ideas I will try before I wake someone up for help.

Walked on to a very windy site(40+mph winds) and no locking for about 10 hours. Since then, the winds have died down a little but locking is still not happening. I can't get it past DRMI, most often it will get stuck on LOCK_DRMI_1F for a very long time.

Here's to hoping the wind will die down some more.

Sheila added a "Brief Version" of the initial alignment procedure to the OPS wiki page.  It is a the top of the IA wiki, above the more verbose version used by the operators up to now.  The idea is that as we become more familiar with locking the IFO, we'll need more of an outline of what to do than a step by step procedure with all the possiblilites spelled out.  She is hoping this will speed up the lock acquisition time and increase the duty cycle.

Struggled with wind all night.  Never got past DRMI 1f.  I did initial alignment several times (for practice and to make sure I wasn't missing something).  Good luck TJ.

Times UTC

11:00 Leo and Betsy still taking charge measurements

11:03 Robert back from Y arm beam tube enclosure

1:32 Leo done with charge measurements

1:42 returned ETMx and ETMy ESD to nominal states

2:00 started initial alignment

Winds have been mid-20 to low-30 MPH since the start of the shift.  Locking attempts have been unsuccessful, stalling at DRMI 1f so far.  I talked to Gary in the CR at LLO a couple of times now to give him a heads up that we are in for a tough evening.

from Corey, Janeen, Gary, and Vern

Today, in consultation with the Joint Run Planning Committee of the LVC, the following timetable for concluding ER7 was settled upon.

    The end date of focused data taking was 2015 June 11 8:00 am PDT.
    The end date of ER7 is 2015 June 14 8:00 am PDT.

Between these dates H1 and L1 will be run in a best-effort mode to have coincident locks, with intent bits set (getting us closer to and maybe surpassing the 48hr CBC target); however, they will share the time with the following invasive measurements that have been deemed as critical before the end of ER7:

    PEM Injections (H1 [Schofield] & L1)
    Stochastic Burst Injection (H1 [Kissel] & L1)
    Calibrations (H1 [Kissel] & L1)
    Guardian (L1) and Opportunistic Commissioning (L1 and H1)

All but the Stochastic Burst injections do not require coincident locks and their proposers have been encouraged to wait for a loss of lock by one of the IFOs before starting their activities.  Once begun, they should be carried to completion to a degree reasonably possible.  We expect quiet coincident times to be available in the late evening and early morning hours and the opportunities for invasive measurements to be more likely during the daytime hours. The Stochastic injections will have to be done when the proposers are ready and the IFOs locked.  The intent bits should be unset during the injections.

SCHEDULED WORK:

Nothing is totally set in stone, BUT if one of these items is scheduled to happen, it will happen (even if there is double-coincidence!).  For example, if one of the above is scheduled to happen and that person comes to you to say they are ready:

    Ask for an estimate of how long they'll be
    Call the LLO Control Room (225.686.3131) & let the Operator know how long H1 will be down
    Change Intent to Commissioning
    End lock of H1, if asked to.  (Is there a preferred way to take H1 down?)
    Make a note of this activity in the ALOG

OPPORTUNISTIC WORK:

Others may be more flexible with when they can start their work and may choose to do so at an opportunistic time (i.e. H1 [or L1] is DOWN).  In this case, do the same steps as noted above.

LLO Calls To Say L1 Will Be Down:

If L1 calls in to say they will be down to work on one of the activities above, it's up to local staff and you (the on-shift operator) to determine how to proceed.  Since we won't have double-coincidence, then we should jump on an opportunity to complete one of the above tasks.  So make an announcement to those who might be interested (i.e. Robert or Jeff) if they're in the Control Room.  If they're not in the Control Room, send an email to them (they'll likely be keeping an eye on the Summary Pages, too).  If there are no takers for H1, you can leave the Intent as Undisturbed.

COORDINATION BETWEEN CONTROL ROOMS

This is a new state for running in ER7, and coordination between sites is paramount.  So please don't hesitate to talk to the LLO Operator!

 

I've produced a 10 minute stochastic injection stream for simultaneous application at LHO and LLO when both machines are locked simultaneously. Hopefully there will still be a window of opportunity to run this test. The injection file is at h1hwinj1:/ligo/home/edward.daw/injections/SB_H1_ER7_V3.txt
The livingston counterpart file is at l1hwinj1:/home/edward.daw/injections/SB_L1_ER7_V3.txt

After the LHO IFO dropped lock around 1pm, Leo and I jumped on making more charge measurements of ETMx and ETMy via the oplev/ESDs.  However, we immediately recreated that there seemed to be no coherence in the ETMy measurements.  We fumbled around for a while looking at no coherence with signals here and there and then invoked Kissel.  Sure'nuf, the ESD drive on ETMy wasn't driving in "LO" or "HI" voltage mode.  Richard headed to end Y and re-discovered that turning things off and reterminating the DAC cable fixed the problem - see alog 13335 "Lock up of the DAC channels".

The ETMy measurements are now in progress.  Again.

Meanwhile, we attempted to look at why the ETMx LL ESD drive wasn't working and confirmed what Keita saw last night - it doesn't work.  We see the requested drive in the monitor channels which means that the signal goes bad somewhere beyond the chassis (toward the chamber).  As usual, "no one has been down there" but we're not sure how we can use this ESD to lock the IFO with a dead channel.  Richard reports that he will go there tomorrow to investigate.

00:00 The ifo locked right before I came in. Wind speed is <20 mph. 90 mHz blend filter is used for BSC2.

           I noticed the BS oplev sum is saturated (> 80000 counts). Is this alright? It's been around this value for 10+ days.

01:55 There's a big bump at ~30 Hz that caused a big dip in the BNS range. SUS Oplev plots didn't show anything suspicious. The bump at this frequency happened through out the night, just not as big.

02:00 A 4.7 MAG earthquake in Ecuador shook PR3 a little and BNS range dropped slightly (from 61 Mpc to 60 Mpc), but that's all it did. No WD tripped. 

08:00 We've been locked for 8+ hours and still going strong at 61 Mpc! We had 5+ hours of coincidence with Livingston tonight. Handling the ifo to Jeff B.

Using two hours of undisturbed data from last night's 66 Mpc lock, I repeated Den's sum/null stream analysis in order to see if we have a similar 1/f^1/2 excess in our residual.

I took the OMC sum/null data (calibrated into milliamps), undid the effect of the DARM OLTF in order to get an estimate for the freerunning OMC current, and then scaled by the DARM optical gain (3.5 mA/pm, with a pole at 355 Hz) to get the equivalent freerunning DARM displacement. The residual is then the quadrature difference between the sum and null ASDs.

The attachment shows the sum, null, and residual ASDs, along with the anticipated coating Brownian noise from GWINC. [Just to be clear: the "sum" trace on this plot corresponds to our usual freerunning DARM estimate, although in this case it comes purely from the error signal rather than a combination of the error and control signals.]

If there is some kind of excess 1/f^1/2 noise here, it is not yet large enough to dominate the residual. Right now it looks like the residual is at least a factor of 2.2 higher than the expected coating noise at all frequencies. We already know some of this is intensity noise.

The other thing to note here is that we are evidently not completely dominated by shot noise above 1 kHz.

Dan, Travis

Tonight during our long lock we measured the decay time constant of the ITMX bounce mode.  At 10:10 UTC we set the intent bit to "I solemnly swear I am up to no good" and flipped the sign on the ITMX_M0_DARM_DAMP_V filter bank and let the bounce mode ring up until it was about 3e-14 m/rt[Hz] in the DARM spectrum.  Then, we zeroed the damping gain and let the mode slowly decay over the next few hours.

We measured the mode's Q by fitting the decay curve in two different datasets.  The first dataset is the 16Hz-sampled output of Sheila's new RMS monitors; the ITMX bandpass filter is a 4th-order butterworth with corner frequencies of 9.83 and 9.87Hz (the mode frequency is 9.848Hz, +/- 0.001 Hz).  This data was lowpassed at 1Hz and fit with an exponential curve.

For the second dataset I followed Koji's demodulation recipe from the OMC 'beacon' measurement.  I collected 20 seconds of DELTAL_EXTERNAL_DQ data, every 200 seconds; bandpassed at 9 and 12Hz, demodulated at 9.484Hz, and lowpassed at 2Hz; and collected the median value of the sum of the squares of the demod products.  Some data were neglected on the edges of the 20-sec segment to avoid filter transients.  These every-200-sec datapoints were fit with an exponential curve.

Results attached; the two methods give different results for Q:

RMS channel: 594,000

Demodulated DARM_ERR: 402,000

I fiddled with the data collection parameters and filtering parameters for both fits, but the results were robust.  When varying parameters for each method the results for Q were repeatable within +/- 2,000, this gives some sense of the lower limit on uncertainty of the measurement.  (The discrepancy between the two methods gives a sense of the upper limit...)  Given a choice between the two I think I trust the RMS channel more, the demod path has more moving parts and there could be a subtlety in the filtering that I am overlooking.  The code is attached.