(Matt H, Stuart A, Jeff K, Jeremy B)

After getting the okay from SEI, I unlocked the 4 HXTS's on HAM2. TF's were run on All 8 suspensions (4x HXTS, 4x HAM AUX) on the table and all were given the all clear. So SEI TFs should be good to start..once we damp the suspensions of course :-)

We took particle counts. Cant remember exact number but Stuart has the numbers and i believe will post

Jeff B, Andreas, Jeff K, Stuart A, Jeremy B, Matt H, Apollo).

Both doors on HAM3. Jeff B started by inserting optic Started on PR2 side as that is the "least" important of the two optics in tha chamber. There was a drop of FC under the optic (not from a run down the optic, obviously fell off during painting) so that was cleaned up easily. Once particle counts deemed good to go, first contact was peeled (there was a little bit of the outer crust left behind from say 2-3 o'clock position and 4-5 o'clock position.....I decided not to attack it with a swab and just leave it...Calu you need to practice your first contact outer layer painting skills :-) :-D). Its only a bit and well out of the beam path. Optic was unlocked and TF's taken. Once given the all clear door went on. Stuart has a log of particle countsduring process, timeline and also how many particles I deemed I saw on optic throughout the process.

Once HAM3 east door on, we checked particle counts on west side. These were low and so went to peel FC here. Found that top gun nitrogen tank low, so swapped out before blowing to peel FC. Once swapped, peeled FC, again unlocked suspension and then did TF's. Once these past door went back on. They had some troubles getting a good angle to put door on so took a little longer than wanted. Again Stuart has log of timeline, particle counts, particulates on optic, etc.

I talked to Travis about mobility wafer and if he wanted it replaced (by replace I mean swap out the the wafer already in it....it was put back in its original position before the ISI guys balanced the table by Travis and I) before we closed up. He suggested to leave it as looking for a delta if anything moves from time of closing/pumping down...so I left it as is.

Damn...I know one thing I forgot.....to peel the FC on the small optic...how did I forget that #facepalm.......hmm  I wonder if I took off a viewport I can reach in and get it. Its on the outer leg of the MC2 suspension. Will talk to Calum about.  Who has the longest reach at LHO ? We may just be able to get it from the viewport.....To all and sundry....dont let me forget for HAM2............

Running from opsws3. No touching.

Not too bad to rebalance but only because everything needed was in the LVEA.  One of the four 10Kg Optical Table Masses(D0901075) had to be removed as there was so little wall mass on the West side of the ISI walls.  The bottom mass of the two stacker was removed and the upper damped mass was moved to the table top onto the damping viton.  So all three masses remaining on the table top are unbolted and resting on viton damping pads.

The total mass reduction of the Balance Mass Payload is 3.5kg.  Will update the drawing for this as-built.

This morning Hugh and Jim rebalanced the BSC1 ISI.  In order for them to test, I jumped in and unlocked the SUS.  I ran quit TFs of V and P DOFs on both the main and reaction chain to confirm the SUS is healthy enough for ISI TFs.  SEI is launching testing on BSC1 now.

Considering it is my last day, I decided I should write up a summary of what I have been doing this summer.

Summary:
The lid of the laser was put on too early, alarm should be put in place at 70% relative humidity inside the laser to warn of a leak.

Details:
In the laser room, there was a leak on 7/1. When I looked into it, there were no clear indicators in the Laser Room temperatures or relative humidity levels, but I finally found the right channel inside of the laser box. The relative humidity inside the laser box usually stays around 40% has never gone over 60% in the last two years until this leak, when it spiked at about 85%. After the initial leak, the humidity went way down to about 35% because we removed the lid and really dried it out, but once we replaced it, the humidity jumped way back up again. We must have put the lid on too early, but it is slowly drying out. Today, the humidity is sitting at about 60%.

In the attached photos, the first one is a plot of the relative humidity in the laser box over the last two years, and you can see it only gets close to 60% one time (excluding the leak). The second picture is from the leak until now. You can see in this one the first peak is the leak, then it goes way down because we dried it out, and suddenly peaked again. My guess is that we put the lid back on too early, and it may still need to dry out more.

I believe the slow up and down trends in the humidity are due to the changing seasons. It tends to be more humid in the summer and less humid in the winter.

Summary:
In order to reduce temperature differences between commissioning mode and science mode, we should keep the temperature in the laser room at about 22.8 degrees C to keep it consistent with science mode temperatures which are much harder to change.

Details:
In the most recent switch from commissioning mode to science mode at 2:00 PM on 7/14, there was a difference of about 3 degrees C in the Laser Room, which is better than previous switches which have had a 4-5 degree difference. The changes are more significant on the temperature sensors on the table than the ones in the air conditioner. My assumption is that this is because the air conditioner keeps them cooler most of the time until they are shut off during science mode. The temperature inside of the laser only changes by less than 1 degree C, and seems to only be slightly affected.

The third picture attached is a plot of the four temperature sensors in the Laser Room during a transition from commissioning mode to science mode. The two graphs on the left are in the air conditioning units in the Laser Room, and the two on the right are on the table. I think the sensors on the table should be moved to the floor to prevent other factors from affecting them.

I also believe the names for the PSL environment sensors may have been mixed up, the thermometer on the south side of the table is closer to the laser box and generally is a few degrees warmer, but it is labeled as north, so this should be looked into.

(Jeremy B, Jeff B, Andreas, Matt H)

Jeremy and I went in and bolted the baffles back onto the PR3 structure, put the ballfe back in front of PRM, and put all the EQ stops that we had to take off to first contact back on the small triples. We also clipped off the peek ends on the cable ties to try to reduce the peek load in that chamber.

Whilst doing this Jeff and Andreas checked the PRM grounding issue (I think they said they thought it was clear..will have to check) and also put on the 4" witness plate holder and the 1" optic (both are by PRM to stay out of the way of beams).

Seeing as SEI were still balancing in BSC1, Jeff went off to deep clean BSC3 and Jeremy and I deep cleaned HAM2. That way all the particles we stir up in both chambers can settle over lunch and we can in theory put doors back on HAM3 after lunch. We vacuumed/wiped in bellows, around the septum, around the septum viewports, in and around the support tubes, under the ISI, on stage zero of the ISI, on the ISI table top, in and around the small optics, on the suspension structures. So the deep clean for this chamber should also now be done. We should give it a quick once over again before we removed FC, but to get that deep clean out the way is good.

Also the cleaners after we cleaned inside the chamber, very kindly cleaned inside the cleanroom in HAM2....and also inside the cleanroom in HAM3 in preparation of the doors going on this afternoon (on HAM3 I mean). They said they saw stuff come up so was a good idea to get it cleaned. They will also clean inside HAM2 cleanroom in the morning

SEI should now be good to go ahead and balance. Reminder, HXTS triples locked on intermediate and lower stages, upper stage unlocked and so are the HAM AUXs

Particle counts:

In HAM2 cleanroom before start work

All counts zero

IN HAM2 chamber start of work

0.3um...30 counts

0.5um...20 counts

0.7um....20 counts

1.0um..10 counts

rest zero

In HAM2 after everything put back but before cleaning

(Cant remember numbers but I think the counts was in the teens for 0.3um, and 7 for 0.5um..thats what I seem to recall thats what Jeff B said)

In HAM2 after cleaning

0.3um....410 counts

0.5um....210 counts

0.7um....150 counts

1.0um....130 counts

2.0um....90 counts

5.0um...20 counts

So we definiitely stirred stuff up cleaning and I b elieve made the right call to clean this chamber now before pull FC this afternoon to allow everything to settle.

Uploaded a couple pics if people interested in temp/humidity

This morning, with Hugh's help, I went into BSC1 and unlocked and rebalanced the ISI. Rather difficult, as I had to use the masses on the side of St2. At one point, I had to cram my body as far up into the dome as I could physically fit to remove mass off the top-most mounting points. The floating position looks good, and the ISI is currently unlocked (per Betsy's instructions), but the lower stages of the quad are locked on the barrels. Will try for Tf's tonight, if possible.

Removed UIM units from SUS-C5 in CER:
U33 S0900307
U32 S0900306

Replaced with UIM units that have been modified per E1400164.
U33 S0900301
U32 S0900308

Filiberto Clara

no restarts reported

Summary: in preparation for beam arriving in HAM6 / ISCT6, I wanted to explore the potential for mode mismatch to the OMC, and how it might be corrected.  I found that for essentially any reasonable combination of errors in optic positions and ROCs, the mode matching can be recovered by a small adjustment to SR2.  (Given the way the SRC is designed, I don't think this is surprising to anyone -- it may even be intentional! -- but it was an interesting exercise.)

Details:

At L1 they observe a mode mismatch to the OMC of ~25%, depending on which ITM supplies the bounce.  Lisa found that this could be caused by a small (1.5cm) change to the SR2-SR3 distance, assuming the PRC length is nominal.  At LHO we are a 2-3 weeks away from measuring the beam arriving in HAM6.  In principle, there may be errors in the position of any of the optics on the order of 1cm, and errors to the ROC for the curved mirrors (of order ~few cm?).  The question is, if we are very unlucky and the initial mode matching to the OMC is bad, can we correct it in a simple way?

I used Lisa's script from LLO:8565 as a starting point to estimate the mode mismatch that could occur from small errors in the positions and ROCs for optics in the output path, SR3 to OMC.  At LHO the PRC length has been measured to better than 1mm; it's very close to nominal, so for now I assume the positions of the PRs, the BS, and the ITMs are correct.  That leaves six optical components with un-verified positions: SR3, SR2, SRM, OM1, OM2, and the OMC.  (I fold errors in the position of OM3 into the position of the OMC.)

Modeling a beam subject to small variations in eleven optical parameters is a lot to keep track of in closed-form, so I implemented a Monte Carlo approach: for 10k trials I independently varied the longitudinal position and ROC of the six optics in the output path, and calculated the mode overlap with the OMC waist (w0=490um).

Errors in position were drawn from Gaussian random variables with sigma = 2.0cm; these were applied to SR3, SR2, SRM, OM1, OM2, and the OMC.  Errors in radius of curvature were drawn from a Gaussian distribution with sigma = 5.0cm; these were applied to SR3, SR2, SRM, OM1, and OM2.  I'm not sure if these values are reasonable (2cm in position sounds like a lot), but they seemed like fair conservative guesses, based on the as-built dimensions for L1 in E1200274-v3, compared to the nominal values in T0900043-v11.

For 10k trials, the median overlap with the OMC waist after varying the parameters of the optics was 0.85; the distribution is shown in Fig2.  This median is better than what's observed at L1, which may mean they got unlucky, or the magnitudes of my errors are too small.  (NOTE: for simplicity I am using a single bounce off ITMX with the nominal ROC of 1934m.)

Next, I used a la mode's optimizePath() function to correct the mode mismatch by varying the position of SR2.  Based on table layouts this seemed to be the easiest optic to move.  The range on the optimization of SR2's position was +/-5cm.

The result is that even for very bad mode overlaps, the errors can be compensated by moving SR2.  And, whether or not the overlap can be completely recovered is only a function of how far you can move SR2.  (I.e., if we are terribly unlucky at H1, maybe we can move it by more than 5cm.)  This might be known already to optics experts, but it was surprising to me that even for large errors in optic ROCs the mode can be corrected by changing a single degree of freedom.  I guess this is what you gain when your beam-reducing telescope has a short Rayleigh range?  (Flip side: we're really sensitive to the position of SR2 and SR3.)

In the attached: Fig1 is the distribution of mode overlap to the OMC, for 10k trials with independently varied parameters.  Fig2 is how well you can improve things by moving SR2; the horizontal coordinate is starting (mis)match, and the vertical coordinate is corrected (mis)match, after at most a +/-5cm change to SR2.  Fig3 is a comparison of how much you need to move SR2 vs how much you get back.  The scripts I used are there too.  It's not a very elegant implementation, for 10k trials it takes way too long to finish, something like an hour.



Notes:

 - This is all fine from a mode-matching perspective, but I don't know enough about optical cavities to say whether changing the SRC length by 5cm is okay or a complete disaster.  Also, I think that a la mode's optimization procedure changes only the position of the optic in question, and doesn't take into account the changes to relative lengths.  So, when it moves SR2 by 5cm, a la mode is increasing the distance from SR3 to SR2, and decreasing the distance from SR2 to SRM.  This would be fine if SR2 was a lens, but it's a mirror; if the position changes by 5cm the SR3-SR2 and SR2-SRM distances should change in the same direction.  (I think that since the SR3-SR2 distance is the important one, this is does not change the results, but I haven't checked in detail.)

  - I belatedly realized that the ROCs for the SR optics have been measured and they're listed on the core optics website (galaxy.ligo.caltech.edu/optics).  So, errors in the ROC of 5cm are probably way too generous.  I'm not sure about the OM1 and OM2 optics.

 - Of course in order to correct something you need to measure it first.  If the mode mismatch is bad we'll have to characterize the beam on ISCT6 with Chris M's beam scan technique or something similar.  It might be worth modeling how accurately we can measure the necessary correction to SR2's position.

J. Kissel, S. Aston, A. Pele, B. Weaver, T. Sadecki

Looking to get a "did the new baffles screw up the suspension?" answer sooner, rather than later, Betsy and Travis unlocked H1 SUS BS and and I ran a full suite of transfer functions. The results looked reasonably clean, except for some reduced Qs on the first L/T/P modes, and an out-standing mode at 1.69 [Hz] in vertical (see first attachment). 

With the "undamped ISI!" bug in my ear from SR3, and the help of the notes in the "plotall" comparison script, 
${SusSVN}/sus/trunk/BSFM/Common/MatlabTools/plotallbsfm_tfs_M1.m
we recalled that we've seen this same feature 1.69 [Hz] before on a BSFM when the SEI system was free, but undamped (see LHO aLOG 7305). Sure enough, the SEI system had been tripped since who-cares-when during the measurement. A follow-up measurement of V to V with the SEI system back online (with HPI "pos" loops ON, and ISI damped), the 1.69 [Hz] mode disappeared (see second attachment), and Qs were restored on the lowest modes (not shown -- I only captured a T to T before being interrupted by Jim who has priority).

Apologies for the errant calibration on the single, good-looking, V to V TF -- I went to fix it after I found the error, but the site has lost connection with it's Matlab license server. #facepalm

We will assess again, officially, after first contact is removed -- but the new baffles are free of the suspension, or vice versa.

Note: I've created a new script,
${SusSVN}/sus/trunk/BSFM/Common/MatlabTools/plotbsfm_dtttfs_M1_singleDOF.m
to create the second attachment, for those times when we only have time for a before-and-after DTT TF in one DOF such as this.

Today's data:

2014-07-23_1841_H1SUSBS_M1_L_WhiteNoise.xml
2014-07-23_1841_H1SUSBS_M1_P_WhiteNoise.xml
2014-07-23_1841_H1SUSBS_M1_R_WhiteNoise.xml
2014-07-23_1841_H1SUSBS_M1_T_WhiteNoise.xml
2014-07-23_1841_H1SUSBS_M1_V_WhiteNoise.xml
2014-07-23_1841_H1SUSBS_M1_Y_WhiteNoise.xml

2014-07-23_2313_H1SUSBS_M1_T_WhiteNoise.xml
2014-07-23_2313_H1SUSBS_M1_V_WhiteNoise.xml

where the latter two files are while the ISI was damped (and the V file is what's used for the second attachment).

(Kate G, Jeremy B, Matt H)

Quick summary alog...more detailed one to come

HAM3

After Stuart gave both suspensions a clean bill of health (so we know that as of this morning they were good)..I locked the face stops of the intermediate and bottom mass so that Jeff B could start cleaning.

HAM2

ALL OPTICS HAVE FIRST CONTACT ON THEM. It was a Herculean effort today......especially by Kate, but we managed to get all four optics in HAM2 first contacted from start to finish today, including outer crusts painted and peek pull tabs. We did have to remove another baffle today (the one attached to the PR3 structure that is used to prevent the wire heating), so not quite ready for SEI to begin balancing yet. I need to put all the baffles, EQ stops, etc that have removed to allow FCing to be done back. But give Jeremy and I 1.5-2 hours to put it all back together and should have it ready.

I dont have the photos/details on particle counts, etc but in the near future hoprfully Kate or I will have some spare time to write about.

After securing doors on HAM4, TFs taken indicated an issue with the actuation for the SR2 M1 LF BOSEM channel (see LHO aLOG entry 12923). Upon investigation this was found to be due to a loose connector on the air side of the chamber flange (see LHO aLOG entry 12942) and must have developed during chamber close-out activities.

Phase 3a TF measurements have been retaken for all stages of the SR2 suspension as follows:-  

- SR2 M1-M1 undamped (2014-07-23_1300_H1SUSSR2_M1_ALL_TFs.pdf)
- SR2 M2-M2 undamped (2014-07-23_1500_H1SUSSR2_M2_ALL_TFs.pdf)
- SR2 M3-M3 undamped (2014-07-23_1600_H1SUSSR2_M3_ALL_TFs.pdf)

HAM4 ISI Status: ISI unlocked, no damping or isolation loops running.

SR2 alignment: No offset was applied during this measurement.

SR2 undamped measurements for each stage have been compared with other H1 HSTS suspensions at Phase 3a of testing (allhstss_2014-07-23_Phase3a_H1SR2_*_ALL_ZOOMED_TFs.pdf).

Summary: 

M1-M1 TFs verify that the actuation problem has been solved, with L & Y DOFs now exhibiting expected performance, and raise no new concerns.
 
M2-M2 TFs, show good agreement with the model and are consistent with other H1 HSTS suspensions.

M3-M3 TFs, while noisy, again, thees show good agreement with the model and are consistent with other H1 HSTS suspensions.

All data, scripts and plots have been committed to the sus svn as of this entry.

   Did a vacuum and wipe down cleaning in HAM3. The visual inspection with the flashlight array did not show large amounts of contamination inside the chamber. There were many large pieces of metal in the wells underneath the support tubes. After removing this debris, wiping did not show additional metal on the Alpha wipe. 

   Particle counts were somewhat high during most of the cleaning, due to the disturbance of vacuuming and wiping. The counts spiked when Betsy & Travis entered BSC1, but they dropped back to “normal” background levels in a few minutes. What seemed to lower the particle counts significantly was having the top half of the soft cover open. One data point does not make a trend, but this is something to keep an eye on.

Location				                 0.3	0.5	1.0
West side cleanroom cover on		14	4	2
In chamber Cover on			202	96	16
In chamber cover on +5 minutes	88	40	13
In chamber cover top half open	3	1	1
After vacuum cover on			339	182	36

East side cleanroom cover on		0	0	0
In chamber cover on			222	126	22
B&T in BSC1 cover on HAM3		668	435	101
In chamber cover on +5 minutes	286	161	29
In chamber cover top half open	17	13	9
After vacuum cover on			74	42	17
After wipe down cover on             	421	216	47

West side cleanroom cover on		32	19	3
In chamber cover on			251	143	37
In chamber cover top half open	37	16	6
   Betsy & Travis exit BSC1 during the west side wipe down
After wipe down cover on	         	340	182	34
After wipe down cover on + 10 min  115	70	16

[Stuart Hugh Arnaud]

Following on alogs 12929 and 12902, an other test was carried out on SR3 giving a bettter understanding of why its first vertical mode was damped. The same V2V tf was taken with the ISI damped, and interestingly enough the Q of this mode gets higher when the ISI is damped, cf attached screenshot.

It appears that the rotational modes of this HAM are also around 1Hz (looking at Rx Ry TF from an ISI measurement taken in May cf attachment), mode that we were certainly exciting when driving the suspension along the vertical axis with the ISI undamped.

At first we were wondering why some previous vertical measurements were showing high Q resonances, but quickly realized that those were taken with the ISI either locked or half locked (from July 15th ISI was locked, from yesterday when doors were off, Matt half locked the ISI to back off the EQ stops).

(lots and lots of people)....and I want to thank ALL these people for all their help today. Everybody was willing to pitch in and help, and was fantastic that that happened.

Its been another long day and I am tired so this will be quick (more detailed report to come)....also apoogies if this alog makes no sense. My mind is mush now.

HAM5 was closed up today. ISI balance was rechecked and slightly altered, clean of chamber  happened, had also to pause for some time where we had to wait until particle counts dropped to level happy to peel FC off SR3 but eventually got both doors on. We did notice that when FC pulled immediately it looked awesome, and then in the time before door went on, started to see small amounts of particulate already coming back. After doing some quick TFs in a couple DOF's it was given the okay to put doors on and they were put on as quickly as we could. We did learn various things on how to speed up, etc.

Rough timeline: 1st contant removed 11.20am 1" optic. 11.44am first contact removed from SR3 optic. North door on ~12.37pm, South door on ~13.14pm.

Changed up the order for HAM4 door and ISI was half unlocked and North door went on before started anything (discovered after door went on that first contact is still on the inside of the viewports :-(...after discussion with Mike L we will pull off the viewports at a later date to remove). From that we had to wait an awful long time trying to wait for particle counts to drop out of the hundreds. Things learned is we found counts spike when door gets put on, couldnt have the BSC chamber cross flow on as would make counts in the hundreds in HAM4, same with people trying to work in BC1, or even lifting a cover elsewhere. Eventually counts went down and we pulled FC on SR2. Unfortunately right at the end of the pull the gas bottle ran dry on the top gun :-( :-(. And immediately looking at the SR2 optic it looked bad...as if we had never used FC. After a bit of back and forth and a round table discussion it was decided we would try to first contact again with everything its its present state. That is to try to re-spray FC using the hold on cone and if that didnt work to paint on FC after first trying blow off anything that we could. We found the cone didnt work (wouldnt fit) and so we painted. Was a pain as coulndt really see it, but we got it done in the end (well done Kate and Rich for staying behind with me to get this done..your help is appreciated more than can express). So will try to pull FC again in the morning and we will see what we see.

Hopefully others will make alogs regarding particle counts, etc. ...and I may try to write a more detaield report at a later date with some photos etc depending on if they turned out when look at.