WP4715: 

I made two changes to the H1 PEM models:

1. Fixed EX microphone channel names

2. Created quadrature sums on all MAG and ACC (x,y,z) triples if missing.

All PEM models were rebuilt against RCG2.8.4 and restarted. A corresponding DAQ restart was made.

[Stefan, Kiwamu]

As part of the CDS activity today, we placed new eight RFM senders in h1asc.mdl. It complied fine and I restarted the model. The ASC frontend was then manually burtrestored to 8:00AM this morning. The SVN revision is now at 8346.

This update had been already applied to the Livingston model (i.e. l1asc.mdl) but we had not until today for some reason. Anyway this update was needed not only for the ASC model but also for making the h1iscex(y) model(s) identical to that of Livingston as the iscex(y) were supposed to acquire these RFM channels. After the restart, we checked a couple of the new channels to see if they successfully send signals to the end station. We checked QPD1_PIT and QPD1_YAW of iscex and seemed fine. We didn't check iscey. We didn't edit the ASC master model at all.

The name of the RFM blocks:

• H1:ASC_ISCE(X|Y)_QPD(1|2)_(PIT|YAW)

The minor leak at Pier2(SW) on BSC9 has filled its catch and has dripped out; it has taken months to fill the catch so it isn't going to make a mess in the next few weeks though.  I guess I failed to mind/clean this up frequently enough to prevent the overflow.  I could not access it this time though as the ameristating of the west side prevents getting to this and I didn't want to tear this down.  In case it isn't clear, the drip is outside the ameristat away from the west door.

The HEPI pump station motor/pump noise has changed and there is an obvious wobble in the pump side coupler.  John has recommended a few tests and I'll try to implement these soon.

(Took these notes for Gerardo)

• Upcoming Apollo & cleaning activities discussed
• SUS Work:  ITMx was discussed a little, but sounds like SUS crew more focused on MC2 & ITMy
• HAM5 magnet work (& search for "missing" magnets) Jeff & Andres
• Install of new DV (fix the "mean" values)
• Reboot of daq for beckhoff/pem changes
• AAI board work
• Putting lid back on laser (peter)
• HAM4 balance/check (hugh)
• EX:  stage & cleaning for vent next week, assesment of qpd
• Maintenance:  pump annullus gv7 spool (kyle)
• Business:  2 groups of student tours

WP 4719

Installed updated dataviewer to fix a bug that incorrectly displayed trend mean data as 0 when max and min values are integers.

model restarts logged for Mon 07/Jul/2014
2014_07_07 00:40 h1fw0
2014_07_07 01:38 h1fw0
2014_07_07 02:46 h1fw0
2014_07_07 03:45 h1fw0
2014_07_07 04:39 h1fw0
2014_07_07 05:27 h1fw0
2014_07_07 05:43 h1fw0
2014_07_07 06:39 h1fw0
2014_07_07 07:33 h1fw0
2014_07_07 07:41 h1fw0
2014_07_07 08:40 h1fw0
2014_07_07 09:39 h1fw0
2014_07_07 11:24 h1fw0
2014_07_07 11:53 h1fw0
2014_07_07 13:02 h1fw0
2014_07_07 13:25 h1fw0
2014_07_07 14:43 h1fw0

h1fw0's problem (purple) resolved when solaris QFS box rebooted. No unexpected restarts.

J. Kissel

Executive Summary: 
(1) I believe we DO NOT need to manually alleviate the alignment on the IMs, but it's close.
(2) Assuming a worst-case scenario, IM2 would use up ~80% of it range to maintain alignment.
(3) The alignment slider calibration I recommend we use is:
P: 0.21 +/- 0.015 [urad/ct]
Y: 0.39 +/- 0.009 [urad/ct]
(4) Calculating the calibration from from a model of the signal chain fails; there's still unknowns in the signal chain that add up to discrepancies of 2 and 4 for P & Y.
(5) Given the EUL2OSEM gain, and the usage of the same actuators for P & Y, the actuators can drive 2.96 [mrad] in P and 1.62 [mrad] in Y if alignment offset is needed in both DOFs. 
(6) We would need to relieve 1 [mrad] of pitch, which is about at the limit of the mechanical alignment precision.

I have *not* installed the calibration gain. I'll do it tomorrow.

----------
During the last integrated testing stint, good alignment of IM2 and IM4 was believed to be at the limit of the DAC range of their OSEMs, given their actuation strength has now been decreased by ~10 (see LHO aLOGs 8767, 8759). 

However, due the confusion of uncalibrated alignment sliders, artificial limitation of the slider range on the MEDM screen, 16-bit vs 18-bit DAC range, coil driver strength changes, computer reboots, electronics being swapped in and out, and a few vent cycles ... I think the saturation had been misreported. 

Currently, the worst offending with the largest alignment bias request is IM2 with + ~81000 [ct] out of +/- 2^17 = 131072 [ct], or 61% of its range. I've confirmed with the OSEMs that the range of drive is still roughly +/- 6 [mrad] in P and Y, and the calibration of the slider counts into [urad] is
P: 0.21 +/- 0.015
Y: 0.39 +/- 0.009
where the uncertainty is the standard deviation across the four IMs. Unfortunately (and the reason why I just measured it), a component by component model of the calibration doesn't make any sense, even after using measured compliance values. More on that later.

So the questions are:
- Is +/- 6 [mrad] enough to cover the alignment change from in-air to in-vacuum? Yes. Data from prior to the vent and before installation attacked shows that the optics move by at *most* 1 [mrad], where the majority moved of order 100 [urad]. So, assuming IM2 moves the worst amount of distance (which this past vent shows it moved 148 and 174 [urad] in P & Y respectively) that's only an additional ~17% on top of 61%, or 78% (and the damping control signal variation on this is a negligible ~0.1%).
- Is it worth trying to mechanically alleviate the alignment for 78% and 2 [mrad]? We have no experience HAUX aligners on site for this remaining week in which we indeed to keep HAM2 open. The precision to which one can mechanically align the SUS is roughly 1 [mrad] (see section 2.1.1 of T1200469). Given Murphy's law, the lack of alignment references, the amount of stuff we've already changed in HAM2 with the IMC bypass, and the uncertainty which still swirls around the exact numbers and direction, I say it's a gamble not worth taking.

Below is a collection of information needed to assess how much the optics need moving.

I've surveyed the (1) alignment sliders, (2) OSEM sensor values, and (3) DAC output values over the past 30 days, to get a feel for how much we need to move. However, three events have occured that complicate the story:
(a) On 2014-June-04 16:21 UTC to 2014-June-04 23:13 UTC, Filiberto and Aaron swapped out / investigated AA and AI chassis of H1sush2b, so OSEM sensor signals went dead (no aLOGs, but Fil confirms that's when his work-permit for this swap was open via email).
(b) On 2014-Jun-12 17:21 UTC, a power glitch necessitated a restart of the h1sush2b computer (among many others). This reboot reloaded a save.snap value that must have been out of date, because IM4 P & Y alignment value changed by a few hundred counts (see below).
(c) On 2014-Jun-24 ~23:00 UTC (+/- 15 [minutes]), the alignment was modified in order to accommodate the IMC bypass.
"IM2_P_35DayTimeline.pdf" shows this timeline on IM2 P only for clarity, but "OSEMPosition_2014-06-01_to_2014-07-04.png" shows that all 8 DOFs show similar features over the 35 day period.


(1) OSEM sensor values, before the vent (Jun 1), after the vent, once the alignment had asymptotically stabilized just before the (a) AA/AI chassis shutdown on the Jun 4, and after the alignment had been left alone from the IMC bypass during the 4th of July weekend:

% Pre-vent            P          Y
osems(1).disp =  [  225.0     1709.5;... % [urad] IM1
                   1380.6      -45.5;... % [urad] IM2
                    447.6      620.0;... % [urad] IM3
                  -3034.0    -2174.8];   % [urad] IM4
% Post-vent           P          Y
osems(2).disp =  [  195.7     1772.9;... % [urad] IM1
                   1528.8     -220.2;... % [urad] IM2
                    511.8      599.3;... % [urad] IM3
                  -3167.0    -2302.0];   % [urad] IM4
% Post-IMC Bypass     P          Y
osems(3).disp =  [  335.0     1851.0;... % IM1
                   2179.0      165.0;... % IM2
                   1522.0      816.0;... % IM3
                  -3201.0    -2212.0];   % IM4
       %   P          Y
diff =  -29.3         63.4  % [urad] IM1
        148.2       -174.7  % [urad] IM2
         64.2        -20.7  % [urad] IM3
         -133       -127.2  % [urad] IM4


(2) Alignment slider values, before vent and after their change from (c) above. These slider values *have* not been calibrated into physical units, as the alignment bias gain is 1. The only P&Y gain between the sliders and the DAC are the EUL2OSEM matrices compensating for the lever arm, which have a gain of +/- 8.594. 

Optic DOF      Pre-vent     After Glitch     After Realignment       Diff [ct]
   IM1 P         0.0           (same)             (same)               n/a
       Y      1469.0           (same)             (same)               n/a
   IM2 P      4600.0           (same)             7600.0              +3000
       Y      2000.0           (same)             (same)               n/a
   IM3 P     -1397.9           (same)             2980.0              +4377
       Y      1060.8           (same)             2120.0              +1060
   IM4 P     -2350.0           -2707.0            (same)              -357
       Y     -3607.0           -3390.0            (same)              217


(3) DAC Output values, before the vent

Optic     DOFs         DAC Output  
IM1      UL / UR     -12631 / -12631
         LL / LR     +12631 / +12631

IM2      UL / UR     +22344 / -56720
         LL / LR     +56720 / -22344

IM3      UL / UR     -21130 /  +2897
         LL / LR      -2897 / -21130

IM4      UL / UR     +10802 / +51194
         LL / LR     -51194 / -10802


------
What I think the alignment slider gain should be:
If I use the same method as used in other susTypes (see e.g. LHO aLOG 4730), where the EUL2OSEM matrix properly compensates for the lever arm an number of OSEMs, 

OPTICALIGN GAIN [cts/urad] = ( DAC [V/ct] * Coil Driver [A/V] * Coil/Magnet [N/A] * HAUX M1 to M1 [rad/N.m] * 1e6 [urad/rad] )^-1
                           = ( (20/2^18)  * 0.988e-3          * 0.0158            * 74.23 (for Pitch)       * 1e6            )^-1
                           = 11.311 [ct/urad] (for Pitch)
                          or 0.08841 [urad/ct]
OPTICALIGN GAIN [cts/urad] = ( DAC [V/ct] * Coil Driver [A/V] * Coil/Magnet [N/A] * HSTS M1 to M1 [rad/N.m] * 1e6 [urad/rad] )^-1
                           = ( (20/2^18)  * 0.988e-3          * 0.0158            * 73.87 (for Yaw)         * 1e6            )^-1
                           = 11.367 [ct/urad] (for Yaw)
                          or 0.087974 [urad/ct]

-- a factor of 2 and 4 off the measured values -- where the DAC gain is taken from T1200311, the coil driver transconductance from T1200264, and coil magnet strength from T1000164, and the compliance from the collection of H1 HAUX measurements in LHO aLOG 8344, since the transfer function model still does not well-match the transfer function data.

--------
The final attachment "2014-07-08_H1HAUX_AlignmentOffset_Calibration.pdf" shows the measurement results of simply taking the alignment sliders at several data points along its range, and pulling the OSEM value off of a data viewer trace. Because I left the opposing DOFs offsets ON during the range walk through, some of the SUS which already had appreciable offsets reached saturation more quickly (i.e. IM4P, IM2Y, and IM2Y). For those data sets, I removed the end points from the fitting routine (which was just a first order polyfit, nothing fancy).

Data was reduced and plots were created by
${SusSVN}/sus/trunk/HAUX/H1/Common/alignmentrelief_Summer2014.m

Currently, the bottom of a search results page includes the "Displaying reports X-Y of Z. Go to page Start 5 6 ... End" links.  Conspicuously absent from the links are links for the Next and Previous pages of results.  Navigating through the results therefore always requires more energy than should be needed, to identify the number of the current results page, and select the next number.  If a Next link was provided, it would be much easier to scroll through search results.

Better yet, the subsequent results should just automatically show up at the bottom of the page when scrolling down.  This can be achieved fairly simply with the jQuery jScroll plugin.

This morning, I finished the cable routing through the reaction chain to the lower stage OSEMs.  Then, Travis and I worked on fully suspending both chains.  After adjusting out some course pitch observed at the test mass and CP, we noticed we have a large pitch at the top mass.  Both chains are also hanging about 1-2mm high (we have shims to remove which will correct this later when IAS sorts any SUS+HEPI height issues).  We'll continue the coarse pitch work tomorrow which is a bit of a head scratcher.  Both chains have been left ~fully suspended.

J. Kissel, T. Sadecki, B. Weaver,

Because it was free, we took some new open light current values for H1 SUS ITMY, the have been installed. No values have changed more than 10-15%, but all have gone down since we last took these (see LHO aLOG 4549).


OSEM     Open        Normalizing    Compensating
        Light           Gain           Offset
       Current [ct]
M0F1     27894         1.075           -13947
M0F2     27280         1.100           -13640
M0F3     27059         1.109           -13530
M0LF     25600         1.172           -12800
M0RT     23555         1.274           -11778
M0SD     27538         1.089           -13769
R0F1     23855         1.258           -11927
R0F2     24148         1.242           -12074
R0F3     24696         1.215           -12348
R0LF     25745         1.165           -12872
R0RT     23838         1.258           -11919
R0SD     24543         1.222           -12271
L1UL     27800         1.079           -13900
L1LL     28750         1.043           -14375
L1UR     27706         1.083           -13853
L1LR     29654         1.012           -14827
L2UL     23978         1.251           -11989
L2LL     20272         1.480           -10136
L2UR     16251         1.846            -8125
L2LR     17254         1.739            -8627

Note that these values still need to be captured in a safe.snap, and the OSEM Chart needs updating.

The north door on ham 5 was removed this morning. 
We replaced the adapter spool at GV 7 and installed the annulus piping. The cleanroom was transported from the north bay to north / west bay main crane access area.

Dan and Dave.

h1fw0 was down for about an hour today, Dan performed diagnostics on the /ldas-h1-frames file system. He first tried a samfsck on the file system, but the problem reappeared within 5 minutes. After many other investigations we ended up rebooting the h1ldasgw0 machine and h1fw0 has been stable for over an hour. 

While trying to untrip the ETMY ISI through guardian the ISI stage 2 watchdogs tripped (again). JeffK suggested manually turning on the Gain filters for the GS-13 inputs (to reduce the analog gain by 10...or LOW GAIN mode), resetting the watchdogs again, then requesting Fully_Isolated from guardian.

if it is necessary to reduce the gain by hand, shouldn't guardian handle this?

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

After another day's worth of fumbling and hand-waving, we've finally traced the discrepant transfer function magnitude to a loose cable connection at the air-side of the feedthrough. In the course of attempted fixes, we measured a few more things, moved a few more things, replaced the R0 F2 and F3 OSEMs, but the only thing that fixed it was the cable connection. This flaw with the electronics chain should have been found earlier with our cable swap on Friday, with remeasuring the open light current, and with Arnaud's DC actuation test below, but frustratingly, it did not. But we found it. 

I'm in the process of getting formal transfer function measurements now, but I'm confident from what I'm seeing thus far that this SUS is read for close-out. Will post comparison TFs once they're finished.
We have exORSIIIIIIIZED the demons. This SUS is clee-uh.

Details (In rough chronological order)
-------
- Arnaud compared the ETMY and ITMX R0 F2 to F2 and F3 to F3 drive at DC using the alignment offsets (the only QUADs available, so take ERM and TCP chain comparison with a grain of salt), and concluded that the chains are driving with comparable and within a chain F2 and F3 are of comparable strength with such a quick study. 
- Betsy retook an L2L transfer function (just for sanity's), saw the same discrepant factor of two -- and some more Yaw resonant cross-coupling. Still F2 shows the majority of the badness.
- Decided just to swap the OSEMs, and hopefully move on. Below are the new serial numbers, open light current, and compensation gains and offsets. These *have* been installed. We'll take a new safe.snap this evening after all the commotion has died down.
- Betsy & Travis poked at this, looked at that, iterated with measurements several times on the floor.
- At last, Betsy went a long the signal chain, and made sure all connections were secure, and finally found this bad connection at the in-air connection at the feedthrough.
- Simultaneously, Travis loosened up the the cable loop from the optical table to the top mass. This may have alleviated the extra Yaw peaks that had shown up today. 

Open light current values and serial numbers for the new OSEMs.
      Raw    New     New        S/N
      ADC    Gain    Offset      
R0F2 25646   1.170   -12823     077
R0F3 26554   1.130   -13277     147

We'll also update the OSEM chart and grab a new safe.snap once transfer functions are finished.