I double checked the positions of PR3 and SR3 before the DAQ restart that's planned for today, SR3 seems to have done a bit of drifting from the LVEA zone4 temperature increasing by ~ 2 degrees. The T cursers denote the power outage. PR3s YAW oplev looks a little different post power outage but its' top mass osems don't really seem to have moved.

Mon Apr 14 10:08:47 2025 INFO: Fill completed in 8min 44secs

FAMIS 31081 (this also serves as a checkup on the PSL following the large power outage early last week)

Generally things are behaving as expected with just a few exceptions. Most notably, both amplifier output powers are ~1W lower than before the outage, likely due to the current being lower on the pump diodes in AMP1 by ~0.1A each. We had set the currents for AMP1 (power supplies 1 and 2) back to pre-outage levels of 8.7A, but perhaps due to rounding issues coming out of Beckhoff (?) the actual current is apparently lower. We may bump these up by another tenth of an amp to see if this brings the output power back up.

PMC transmitted power is lower by ~1W (and noisier), either due to the lower power out of the amplifiers or the misalignment I can clearly see on the PMC REFL camera. I'll plan to try and touch that up, along with RefCav alignment, before the work in the enclosure for the installation of the SPI pickoff starts tomorrow.  Edit: I forgot that the picomotor driver for the PSL is shared with IOT2L and lives on that table which is fully disconnected for vent work.

Morning dry air skid checks, water pump, kobelco, drying towers all nominal.

Dew point measurement at YBM , approx. -44C

Closes FAMIS26372, last checked in alog83723.

Nothing of note on the scopes, everything looks like it did during the last check.

There were some earthquakes overnight, they bled into multiple bandwidths. There was a smaller local and a larger pacific EQ within 15 minutes of each other, a 6.5 near Fiji and a 2.5 from northern Washington about ~19 hours ago.

TITLE: 04/14 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Planned Engineering
OUTGOING OPERATOR: None
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_ENV state: MAINTENANCE
    Wind: 1mph Gusts, 0mph 3min avg
    Primary useism: 0.02 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.13 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:

The vent continues, on the Trello for today is:

• Guardian Work, DAQ restart - TJ
• HAM1 - Install ISI tooling
• HAM1 ISC prep - check all removed cables for loose screws, continued
• HAM1 ISC prep - Inspect Optics and beam dumps, FC if needed, continued
• HAM1 ISC prep - Recheck all RMs with FRS ticket issues, continued
• VAC - Start Feedthru Swap, need Betsy for some cables, continued, mostly done except 1-2 small ones
• PSL/FIL - Moving picomotor driver, pull cables
• EX and EY - ALS work beam profiling

Sun Apr 13 10:08:59 2025 INFO: Fill completed in 8min 56secs

Sat Apr 12 10:09:32 2025 INFO: Fill completed in 9min 29secs

Elenna, Matt, Camilla. Continuing ISC component inspection and prep for re-installation from 83858. 

Elenna, Matt and I continued to first contact the optics in pans 1 and 2:  M7, M11, M12 (new 90/10 BS), M13, M15 (New 50/50 BS), M16, M17, M18. After again inspecting some of those we cleaned yesterday, we decided to re-clean some. Some needed multiple first contacting, they aren't all perfect (there is a 1" long incredibly hard to see line on M15 and a mark in the center of M18 photo that I will ask a second option on), but otherwise we are calling these two pans of optics ready for re-installation. 

For M15, I installed the picomotors that I removed from the right handed mount into a left handed siskiyou mount. I installed the manually adjustable actuators removed from the left handed mount into the right handed mount, this will be stored. Notes on how to do this are attached.

Still to be done: decide if M15 and M18 are okay or need swapping, clean optics in pan 3; inspect periscope mirrors; swap out any glass beamdumps we can. 

TITLE: 04/11 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Planned Engineering
INCOMING OPERATOR: None
SHIFT SUMMARY: BSC8 work finished up and doors were put back on, HAM1 work continues, the ISI is all packed up and ready to move over to its new home.
LOG:

• BSC8 - ITMY and R0 TFs after alignment complete DONE alog83876
• HAM1 ISC prep - check all removed cables for loose screws DONE
• HAM1 ISC prep - Inspect Optics and beam dumps, FC if needed Ongoing
• HAM1 ISC - rework M12 and M15 DONE
• HAM1 ISC prep - Recheck all RMs with FRS ticket issues DONE?
• JASON - IAS HAM1 support tube ends?
• BSC8 - Prep for Closeout DONE
• BSC8 - DOOR ON DONE
• HAM1 - Prep for ISI install DONE alog83879
• VAC Start Feedthru Swap Ongoing?

Travis, Betsy, Randy, Jordan

- BSC8 -X door re-installed with one round of bolt torquing (will perform another round Monday), purge air increased prior to door install, then purge valve at YBM closed. Corner volume has slight overpressure and will be blown down to atm. prior to pumpdown

- Continued installation of HAM1 electrical feedthrus

- Scroll pump staged for CP1 RGA pumpdown and bake-out

J. Freed,

Today, with the gracious help of K. Kawabe, I took power meaurments of the SPI Pickoff BS (BST11) and its spare using S-polarized light

Due to the limited time and person power, we used a S121C PD to take these measurments, which we now realize has a 7% uncertainty at 1064nm with a >1mm diameter beam. Although we relized that the beam was too large after we finished the measurment of the main optic and added a lens to focus the beam during the spare measurement, we have no idea if the beam was ever below the 1mm threashold. As such even though we were using a PM100D power monitor which has a resolution of 0.1 mW, we have to quote an uncertainty of 10% of the final value for our meaurments. This is colaberated by the fact that mulitiple measurments of the same beam could yeild different reults when the PD was taken out of the beam path and put back in, but remained steady if left alone.

SPI-BS-PWR_MEAS.png Shows the measurment set up. The only pick off that was available was p-polarized, as such, we added another half wave plate/PBS combo to get S-Polarized light to our BS

There also existed a ghost beam from the AR-Coated wedge side of the BS that was not taken into acocount for the main optic but was for the spare. Though we dont think the ghost beams affected this measurment as they were 3 orders of magnitude of power below the main beams.

SPIPBSRATIOMEAS-3.txt is a text file containing extra notes as well as the power values measured. The power ratios were found by taking an average of all the trials and then divided by the power we measured just before the beam splitter.

J. Kissel

Figured I'd make the same in-air vs. in-vac comparison of the whole 6 x 6 transfer function matrix for H1 SUS PR3 like I did for SR3 in LHO:83831.


                 D R I V E   D O F 
          L     T     V     R     P     Y

     L    --    meh   meh   meh   eand  YI
 
R    T    meh    --   nd    eand  meh   meh
E 
S    V    YI    YI    --    nd    meh   nd
P
     R    meh   eand  YI    --    YI    meh
D 
O    P    eand  YI    YI    YI    --    nd
F
     Y    YI    nd    nd    nd    nd    --

Recall the legend is 
  YI = Yes, Interesting. DC response magnitude is a bit different between vac and air, but not by much and all the resonances show up at roughly the same magnitude.
 meh = The resonant structure is different in magnitude, but probably just a difference in measurement coherence
eand = The cross coupling is expected, and not different between air and vac.
  nd = Not Different (and unmodeled). The cross-coupling is there, but it doesn't change from air to vac.

(1) For some reason, the data quality on the upper diagonal is worse for the PR3 in-air TFs vs. SR3's but better on the lower diagonal. The "mehs" in PR3's cases are more "man, I wish the coherence was better so we could make a better statement."
(2) For the most part, the same DOFs that are "Yes, Interesting" for PR3 are "Yes, Interesting" for SR3.

Needs a more careful study, but we're only looking at crappy in-air vs. good in-vac data because we're vented right now, and we want to see if it's sensible to measure these things in air, fit the data, and trust that that fit will work in vacuum. 
Given that we're seeing *any* of these elements as "Yes, Interesting -- there's a difference between in-air and in-vac" means that we're getting scared away from do that -- the problem is hard enough! We'll probably just end up waiting for the SUS to be back at vacuum in a few weeks.

Laser Status:
    NPRO output power is 1.839W
    AMP1 output power is 69.11W
    AMP2 output power is 139.0W
    NPRO watchdog is GREEN
    AMP1 watchdog is GREEN
    AMP2 watchdog is GREEN
    PDWD watchdog is GREEN

PMC:
    It has been locked 1 days, 3 hr 1 minutes
    Reflected power = 22.81W
    Transmitted power = 104.6W
    PowerSum = 127.4W

FSS:
    It has been locked for 2 days 23 hr and 35 min
    TPD[V] = 0.8157V

ISS:
    The diffracted power is around 4.2%
    Last saturation event was 4 days 5 hours and 23 minutes ago

Possible Issues: None reported

Visually the ETMY HWWD looks nominal, all power LEDs are green. To test I unplugged the top monitor connector and after a few seconds the LED-FAULT red led lit up. After 8 seconds I plugged the monitor connector back in which cleared the LED-FAULT light.

Attached trend shows the HWWD STAT go to 8 (led current fault) and the countdown timer started counting down from 20 minutes (seconds channel shown).

It appears there is no problem with the HWWD unit itself, and the change in behavior since the power outage must be related to something upstream (satellite amps). I'll pass this onto Fil for further testing.

At this point I'm not sure if the ETMY hardware watchdog system is fully functional, but bear in mind this is a secondary watchdog to the IOP SWWD.

I took transfer functions for ITMY's M0 and R0 to check for any rubbing that might have been caused by the negative pitch adjustment made to R0 (83865). Most importantly, we wanted to make sure that a negative pitch offset in the R0 OPTICALIGN OFFSET sliders wouldn't cause R0 to hit anything when driven. The negative pitch means that R0 is tilted away from M0, so the bottom of R0 juts towards the bottom of M0.

First I took a set of regular R0 transfer function measurements with the R0 offset sliders at 0. These look good.

I then set the R0 Pitch offset slider to -250, which we are unlikely to go past (typically that slider is set to mid +200s). We called this the 'closest approach'. I wasn't able to set the slider to its full offset of -440, because then the DAC range is so limited that we aren't able to drive it to take any measurements. These transfer functions also all look good. We especially made sure that Pitch was looking good and not rubbing anywhere.

To be even more certain that we weren't going to end up with anything touching, we ran a few transfer functions on M0 with a 'double closest approach' setup. With the R0 Pitch slider still set to -250, I changed the M0 Pitch slider to +250, tilting the bottom of M0 towards the bottom of R0, putting them even closer. I then checked Pitch, Vertical, and Yaw, with Pitch being the most important in telling us whether we were anywhere near close to having them hit anything. Those also all came back clean (Yaw looks weird but Jeff assured me that that's due to cross-coupling movement that went away when we reran it with damping loops on*).

We are confident that the adjustments made in the chamber didn't put us at risk of rubbing, and so doors are clear to go on. Once doors are back on we will check again.

These measurements have been committed to svn and can be found at:

.../QUAD/H1/ITMY/SAGR0/Data/2025-04-10_1800_H1SUSITMY_R0_WhiteNoise_{L,T,V,R,P,Y}_0p01to50Hz.xml         r12208

.../QUAD/H1/ITMY/SAGR0/Data/2025-04-10_2200_H1SUSITMY_R0_WhiteNoise_{L,T,V,R,P,Y}_0p01to50Hz.xml         r12208

.../QUAD/H1/ITMY/SAGM0/Data/2025-04-11_1600_H1SUSITMY_R0_WhiteNoise_{V,P,Y}_0p02to50Hz.xml               r12212         

Results have been committed to svn and can be found in:

.../QUAD/H1/ITMY/SAGR0/Results/2025-04-10_1800_H1SUSITMY_R0_ALL_TFs.pdf                      r12210

.../QUAD/H1/ITMY/SAGR0/Results/2025-04-10_2200_H1SUSITMY_R0_ALL_TFs.pdf                      r12210

* Full explanation from Jeff: "the 'weirdness' in yaw is the several frequency points where the reference looks smooth as a function of frequency between resonances, and the new data has 'lots' of single-data-point excursions from that smoothness. I attribute this to lack of coherence, and lots of motion on the QUAD. Yaw is a differential measurement of F2 and F3. We’re already having to drive less than normal because we have large offsets on. But also, we typically see that since there’s lots of motion, the imperfect calibration of the F2 and F3 sensors shows up, and lots of other DOF’s resonances show up at a low level where they shouldn’t. Turning on the damping loops and measuring again with them on is the confirming evidence that this is what’s going on. We took the same TF with the R0 and M0 chains damped and they look good."

[Betsy, Keita, Camilla, Richard M., Elenna]

After the power outage, we wanted to get some confirmation of PZT pointing out of the PSL. Betsy, Keita and Camilla went in the cleanroom with the IR viewer and indicator cards and took the covers off the IMC refl and trans viewports on HAM2. Keita found the beam out of the IMC REFL viewport, and I adjusted the IMC PZT in pitch and yaw under direction from Keita. I accidentally moved the pitch slider a bit at the beginning due to user error. Then, we took large steps of 1000 or 2000 counts to move the offsets in pitch and yaw.

Start values: pitch: 22721, yaw: 5488

End values: pitch: 21192, yaw: 6488

Then, Betsy found the beam out of the IMC TRANS viewport and Richard marked the beam spot approximately on the outside of the cleanroom curtain with a red sharpie. This is super rough but gives us a general location of the beam. We think this is a good enough pointing recovery to proceed with vent activities.