Displaying reports 68361-68380 of 82999.Go to page Start 3415 3416 3417 3418 3419 3420 3421 3422 3423 End
Reports until 18:59, Thursday 13 November 2014
H1 PSL
patrick.thomas@LIGO.ORG - posted 18:59, Thursday 13 November 2014 (15047)
added 250mL H2O to H1 PSL chiller


			
			
H1 SUS
nicolas.smith@LIGO.ORG - posted 18:35, Thursday 13 November 2014 (15046)
ETMX ESD charge measurement using offset null technique

I tried out a different version of the charge measurement. I'll detail it more later but the gist of it is that I drive the pitch of the TM using the built-in frontend lockin and feed back the lockin output to an offset on the ESD quadrant drive. This is done without any DC bias on the full face bias electrode.

In any case the effective offset voltage I measure for the four ESD quadrants are:

LR: 184V

LL: 159V

UR: 1V

UL: 12V

H1 IOO
gabriele.vajente@LIGO.ORG - posted 18:08, Thursday 13 November 2014 (15044)
IMC alignment offsets

To understand the origin of the offsets I had to add ot almost all IMC ASC loops, I recentered the two IMC WFS, using the picomotors.

The offsets changed, but they didn't go to zero. So we can now conclude that the offsets are dependent on the WFS centering, as expected.

Then, I started moving around the beam on MC2_TRANS QPD, again using the picomotors. This alos had an effect on the intensity noise coupling. I removed all offsets from the loops, moved the beam on MC2_TRANS, trying to minimize intensity noise. This task was particularly difficult, for two main reasons. First, every time I moved the beam on MC2_TRANS, I had to recenter the beam on WFS_A and WFS_B. Second, HAM3 ISI tripped few times, messing up with my tests.

However, I believe I found a good position of the beams on the QPDs/WFSs. At present, there are no offsets in the loops, and the beam spot position on MC2_TRANS should be good enough to give us low intensity noise.

I checked the optimal offsets using the usual scatter plots, and it appears that things could still be improved with an offset in DOF_1_YAW, so the present position is not yet optimal. More tweaking tomorrow, but only in the case the present offsets remain stationary over night.

I also recenter IM4_TRANS_QPD.

H1 AOS (SUS)
kiwamu.izumi@LIGO.ORG - posted 17:06, Thursday 13 November 2014 - last comment - 18:04, Thursday 13 November 2014(15042)
SR3 oplev beam clipped on the way to QPD

Hugh, Evan, Kiwamu,

Since Keita established a new good SR3 alignment (alog 15020), we tried moving the oplev QPD to center the beam on it. However it turned out that the beam seems to be largely clipped on its way to hit the QPD. We could not identify what clips the beam.

We decided to steer SR3 back to the old angle such that we can reliably engage the oplev damping loop for tonight. This should be fixed tomorrow morning.

 

(some details)

When SR3 was on the new alignment values, the sum of the oplev signals was about 200 counts. We thought this was due to the beam mostly falling off from the QPD, but it turned out that the beam was actually still on the QPD but with the most of it clipped somewhere. We also made sure that we did not catch a ghost or some kind of fake beams by moving the QPD stage around. We steered SR3 back to the old angle and saw the sum going back to 30000 counts or so with pitch and yaw going back to 30 urad or so from 0 urad in the oplev screen. We are concluding that the oplev beam is clipped at some point between the SR3 optic and the QPD when SR3 is in the new angle. We need to open the receiver box and see what is going on. For tonight, we decided to set SR3 back to the old angle in order for us to be able to engage the oplev damping loop which was a key for stable SRC.

Comments related to this report
kiwamu.izumi@LIGO.ORG - 18:04, Thursday 13 November 2014 (15045)

It seems that the cliiping-like behavior happens only when steering SR3 in the positive direction in pitch. This was confirmed by steering SR3 and monitoring how fast the sum drops as the beam starts falling off of the QPD. Aparently the positive direction in pitch makes the sum drop faster than the other three directions (negative pitch, positve and negative in yaw) and the other three directions showed almost the same speed of the decrease in the sum.

LHO FMCS
john.worden@LIGO.ORG - posted 17:03, Thursday 13 November 2014 (15043)
FMCS Temperature excursions

Bubba and I are making progress understanding the control logic (and illogic?) of our VEA control loops. We have turned on heaters in all three VEA/LVEA areas in order to compensate for the cold front.

Provided we have made sensible changes to the system we should see things stabilizing overnight.

One mechanical problem found was an outside air damper at Y END which was not able to close - therefore admitting a significant amount of cold outside air. We did not have a similar problem at X END where the excursion was much less pronounced.

Hopefully this mechanical fix and some parameter changes will settle things.

H1 ISC
daniel.hoak@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:28, Thursday 13 November 2014 (15041)
changes to AS_C transimpedance board and ISCT6 shutter controller

Dan, Fil

We've modified the QPD transimpedance board for the ASC-AS_C QPD so that the SUM output that's used for the fast shutter triggering no longer saturates when the DRMI is locked at 10W.  We swapped R23 from a 20k ohm resistor to 1.24k ohm; this change reduces the amplification of the SUM output by 16x and brings the board (S1301506) into agreement with version 6 of the schematic (D1001974).  [NB: with the DRMI locked at 10W we observed ~3.3mW on ASC-AS_C, or ~130mW into HAM6; this is dominated by the 45MHz sidebands and it roughly aligns with what's expected at 10W (65% transmission of 45MHz sidebands to the AS port, Gamma2=0.28 gives 112mW into HAM6 -- probably we are getting some extra light from higher order modes).] 

We also modified the controller box for the HAM6 shutters to have the correct output polarity.  The output from the box (S1203609) was previously +5V on a trigger condition (shutter CLOSED) and 0V on a nominal condition (shutter OPEN).  We implemented the version 2 modifications to the board (D1102312), namely connecting pin1 of U8A (the OUTN signal) to the front-panel OUT connector, and connected P2 pin1 (the OUT signal, opposite polarity from OUTN) to the J1 pin10 slot on the D880C card.  Note that we only modified channel1 in this box, we left channel2 as we found it.

Now, the SUM output from ASC-AS_C should not exceed 1V when the DRMI is locked (unless we mode hop?), and the controller output will be logic-low upon a trigger condition.  The trigger output has been connected to the OMC PZT driver board, we'll commission the PZT shutter function soon.  (Zach's results from L1 are here.)

I've verified that the trigger function works from the control room via the Beckhoff interface.  The code for this function may need to be modified to accomodate the toaster shutter, which has its own Beckhoff interface and will record a fault condition if the input from the shutter controller is logic-low for too long.  Currently the shutter controller will not reset the trigger logic without user intervention; it might be a good idea for the logic signal to reset itself after the PD input has passed below threshold, and have the fast shutter state remain closed (i.e., toast up) until a user/guardian/script opens it.

H1 General
jim.warner@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:07, Thursday 13 November 2014 (15040)
Op Daily Summary

8:00ish Karen, Kris, Aaron in LVEA
9:00 JeffB, Andres to LVEA
9:15 Fil, Karen, Kris to EY
10:00 Betsy Travis to LVEA West Bay
10:45 Gerardo to H2 PSL enclosure
11:00 Fil to EY
13:30 Fil to CER
14:30 DanH to HAM6
15:00 Kiwamu to ISCT6
 

H1 SUS (DetChar, ISC)
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - posted 15:35, Thursday 13 November 2014 - last comment - 10:16, Friday 14 November 2014(15039)
H1 SUS ETMY Investigation Continues
J. Kissel, A. Staley, K. Izumi, K. Kawabe

Continuing investigations of why ETMY behaves poorly when attempting ALS DIFF (see LHO aLOG 15037) -- I've looked at two more things:
(1) Pitch-only optical lever Damping: This had been turned on only *after* it had been decided that ETMY was "fragile," i.e. any impulses would shake the SUS quite a bit -- but I checked it anyways. First attachment is comparing spectra with the PUM (L2) stage actuated, optical lever Pitch damping loop ON vs. OFF. It's damping pitch, as expected, and not injecting anything terrible. This of course is assessing the stationary noise, and we're worried about non-stationary problems ... but ruling things OUT with quantitative data, I feel, is just as important along the investigatory route.

(2) DRIVEALIGN Matrices: I attach comparisons between everything in the ETMs UIM (L1) DRIVEALIGN matrices (Only the P2P, Y2Y, and L2P have anything in them, so those are what's compared in the attachment). I believe the original design intent for P2P and Y2Y filters was to have global WFS transfer function be similar to the test-mass transfer functions -- hence the high-Q, plant inversion-y type stuff. They are slightly different between the two test masses, but, in-fact, they don't matter matter at all because we don't feed any angular signals to the UIM stage. 

However, I've found that the ETMY UIM L2P frequency-dependent decoupling filter in the UIM bank is significantly different than ETMX's -- and the filter has a much larger step response. I compare three different sets of filters on pgs 1 and 2:
ETMX -- FM1 & FM2, "L2P" & "L2P2" 
ETMY, Current -- FM1, FM2, & FM4 "L2P", "L2P2", and "BetterRolloff"
ETM, Legacy -- FM6 & FM7,  "L2Plegacy" & "L2P2legacy" 
It looks like the initial story here is laid out in LHO aLOG 11832, but there're several more aLOGs referencing UIM / L1 L2P Filters, and how they've been bad, they've been good, they've been turned off, they've been turned on...

The foton calculation of the step response disagrees with the measured step response LHO aLOG 14832 -- but recall that the filter step response is not the only thing measured in that 14832 measurement -- it's measuring both the filter AND mechanical step response. We now have local damping filters from LLO which has reduced the mechanical impulse response time by a factor of a few. This, coupled with a smaller impulse response filter should help, but we'll remeasure once a new filter is designed.

I'll move on to chasing this down -- re-measure the step response, and also remeasure the plant upon which these filters were designed.

Of course, an immediate, band-aid fix could be just to copy ETMX's L2P filter over to ETMY, but while we wait for the temperature in the VEAs to settle down, I've been given the green light to measure some TFs.
Non-image files attached to this report
Comments related to this report
alexan.staley@LIGO.ORG - 10:16, Friday 14 November 2014 (15059)

CORRECTION:

The first attached plot in alog 14832 shows the impulse reponse of ETMY L1 stage with:

  • ETMY, Current -- FM1, FM2, & FM4 "L2P", "L2P2", and "BetterRolloff"
  • ETMY, simple -- FM8 "z0.5p10"
  • ETMY, old roll off -- FM1, FM2 & FM3
  • ETMY, nothing -- all filters off

The trace the was *not* plotted was the ETMY, Legacy -- FM6, FM7. We had taken an impulse response of this configuration, but it was so bad that we did not leave it in the plot. Clearly this disagreed with Jeff's response.

H1 CDS
daniel.sigg@LIGO.ORG - posted 12:29, Thursday 13 November 2014 (15038)
Topology of the EtherCAT System

The two attached images show the corner and end station topologies of the EtherCAT network, respectively.

The number of EtherCAT modules/terminals is 332 and 109 for the corner and end station, respectively. The total is 550.

Images attached to this report
H1 CDS (PSL)
david.barker@LIGO.ORG - posted 10:16, Thursday 13 November 2014 (15034)
PSL front end brought back online, seeing the IRIGB error on the IOP regularly now

Following the Beckhoff chassis work, we brought the h1psl0 system back online by power cycling the CPU and IO Chassis. We are seeing a regular excursion of the IRIGB timing signal on the IOP model (every restart in the past two days has seen this). It takes about 30mins to ramp back to its nominal value. In the plot you can see the current ramp and the one associated with last night's reboot.

Images attached to this report
H1 PSL (PSL, TCS)
filiberto.clara@LIGO.ORG - posted 09:21, Thursday 13 November 2014 (15031)
PSL/TCS Beckhoff Chassis
Removed chassis and found similar failure as yesterday. This time it was the TCS X rotation stage power board that failed. Removed failed board from chassis and re-installed PSL / TCS chassis back in rack so PSL could be brought back up.

For now we are not connecting the TCS Y and X rotation stage field cables to the EtherCat chassis. Further investigation needs to be done to see why the same part (diode) has failed on two separate boards.
H1 CDS (DAQ)
david.barker@LIGO.ORG - posted 08:00, Thursday 13 November 2014 (15030)
CDS model and DAQ restart report, Wednesday 12th November 2014

model restarts logged for Wed 12/Nov/2014
2014_11_12 09:21 h1ioppsl0
2014_11_12 09:21 h1psldbb
2014_11_12 09:21 h1pslfss
2014_11_12 09:21 h1psliss
2014_11_12 09:21 h1pslpmc

2014_11_12 22:27 h1fw1
2014_11_12 23:20 h1ioppsl0
2014_11_12 23:20 h1psldbb
2014_11_12 23:20 h1pslfss
2014_11_12 23:20 h1psliss
2014_11_12 23:20 h1pslpmc
2014_11_12 23:28 h1ioppsl0
2014_11_12 23:28 h1psldbb
2014_11_12 23:28 h1pslfss
2014_11_12 23:28 h1psliss
2014_11_12 23:28 h1pslpmc

h1fw1 unexpected restart. PSL restarts due to IO Chassis +24V DC power glitching related to Beckhoff chassis issues.

H1 ISC
alexan.staley@LIGO.ORG - posted 00:18, Thursday 13 November 2014 - last comment - 09:38, Thursday 13 November 2014(15028)
Input pointing is bad again

(Alexa, Evan, Dan, Nic, Sheila)

We wanted to try DRMI with the arms off resonance again, but were running into some troubles. We haven't really paid any attention to input alignment since maintence day happened... First, when we lock PRX and use the wfs to align PRM the ASAIR build-up is too low by a factor of 2. It's possible that our alignment onto ASAIR has degraded since Keita adjust SR2, SR3, especially given that the image position on the camera has moved so much. More concerning is the fact that when we try to lock PRMI on the SB the POPAIR18 build-up is also very low; the maximum we got was 200ish; when we expect more like 360. We did not have a chance to try DRMI, or investigate too deeply into the PRC gain because of the beckhoff issues.

Comments related to this report
keita.kawabe@LIGO.ORG - 09:38, Thursday 13 November 2014 (15032)

It might be that we've been following the temperature drift in the LVEA. There has been a big downward temperature spike, then the FMCS responded, and totally totally overshot.

In the attached, colored vertical lines indicate Suresh's laser change, Hugh's HAM2 change and commissioners' changing input alignment. From the HAM2 oplev, Hugh's work looks like a minimal impact.

But the time the commissioners responded to whatever change by turning the mirrors corresponds to the temperature change.

Images attached to this comment
H1 CDS (CDS)
evan.hall@LIGO.ORG - posted 00:01, Thursday 13 November 2014 - last comment - 10:53, Thursday 13 November 2014(15027)
PSL/TCS Beckhoff fuse blown again

Appears to be the same failure mode as yesterday.

We have left the Beckhoff chassis in the blown-fuse state. We have successfully restarted the frontend models (see below), but the Beckhoff will not run properly without this chassis, so we cannot continue tonight.

To bring the frontend models back: Nic shut off the PSL frontend and Sheila power cycled the IO chassis. Then Nic started the PSL frontend. This didn't work the first time, so Nic shut down the PSL frontend again, unplugged and plugged in the power cable, then turned it back on.

Comments related to this report
sheila.dwyer@LIGO.ORG - 10:34, Thursday 13 November 2014 (15035)

according to Daniel, we could have recovered partially from this last night by going into the system manager, right clicking on the bad chassis and selecting disable.  Then a red X would appear over that chassis.  If we redo the generate mappings, check configuration, activate confguration, the system should run again. 

daniel.sigg@LIGO.ORG - 10:53, Thursday 13 November 2014 (15036)

Attached is a screenshot of the TwinCAT System Manager. The context menu will bring up the option to disable an entire EK1100 chain. Once disabled, a red X should be visible in the overview. After disabling the offending chassis or module, one has to generate the mapping, check the configuration and activate the configuration (see second screenshot). Make sure you are in run-time mode.

Caveat: The chassis are daisy chained. Turning off a chassis will no only disable the chassis itself, but all units which are hanging off this chassis. Using an Ethernet coupler it is possible to bypass a single chassis.

Images attached to this comment
H1 ISC
alexan.staley@LIGO.ORG - posted 21:40, Wednesday 12 November 2014 - last comment - 11:21, Thursday 13 November 2014(15025)
ALS DIFF success

(Alexa, Evan, Sheila, Nic, Kiwamu)

Tonight we locked ALS DIFF with a UGF of 8 Hz, phase margin of 60 deg (2014-11-12-ALS_OLTF.pdf). The in loop noise is 1e-3 um/rtHz RMS down to 0.1 Hz (ALS_Diff_spectra_11122014.pdf). This is comparable to our old ALS_DIFF spectra, which was comparable to HIFOXY days. 

We are running under a similar configuration to LLO. We are using an offloaded distribution for the Quads. Our LSC-DARM and L1_LOCK_L filters are similar to LLO's as described in alog 14961. We have added a resG filter in LSC-DARM to supress noise at 1 Hz and 0.4 Hz. We also added an additional boost in the L1 LOCK L stage to improve our RMS at low frequency. The ESD LOCK L filter was initially empy; however, we added an elliptic filter in L3_LOCK_L to supress noise we saw at around 100 Hz in the ESD coil output, and to reduce the range we use on the ESD coils. The current LSC-DARM filter is shown in LSCDARM_filters.pdf. Meanwhile the L1_LOCK_L filter with the addition of the ESD ellpitcal filter is shown in UIM_filters.pdf.

We have about a factor of 7 headroom in the ESD before we would saturate, and about a factor of 30 head room in the ESD.  Tonight the 1-3 Hz seismic is fairly high (0.1 um/sec) but the low frequency is low (0.2 um/sec at 0.1-0.3 Hz).  So it seems like we have some room for the seismic to get worse without needing to add the top mass.

Our UIM/ESD crossover is at 0.9 Hz with 50 deg phase margin. The L1_LOCK_L_GAIN = 0.28, L3_LOCK_L_GAIN = 1. We collected data from L1_LOCK_L IN1/IN2 to measure the crossover (UIM_measure_EXonly.pdf). The data is also depicted in DARM_crossovers.pdf; this image also shows the same TF produced by the model along with the UIM/ESD.  The model seems to agree with the data well; albeit with a gain of 5 fudge factor. I have also attached the OLTF produced by the model (DARM_TFs.pdf).

We found we could stabily and repeatbly lock ALS DIFF with a LSC-DARM gain of 400. We were ONLY feeding back to EX. We are suspicious of the EY ESD; when we feed back to EY the y-arm eventually drops lock even with a low DARM gain. We did little investigation into this issue.

ALS_DIFF guardian has been updated, and can lock DIFF in this configuration.

Images attached to this report
Non-image files attached to this report
Comments related to this report
peter.fritschel@LIGO.ORG - 06:36, Thursday 13 November 2014 (15029)

Nice to see this working again. I'm confused by your sentence: We have about a factor of 7 headroom in the ESD before we would saturate, and about a factor of 30 head room in the ESD. Do you mean the UIM stage for one of these? Also, in the future 'ESD coil' should be 'ESD electrode'.

alexan.staley@LIGO.ORG - 09:55, Thursday 13 November 2014 (15033)

Sorry Peter, I meant to say: We have about a factor of 7 headroom in the ESD before we would saturate, and about a factor of 30 head room in the UIM. I have also attached the coil spectrum now.

Images attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 11:21, Thursday 13 November 2014 (15037)SUS
J. Kissel

Sheila has tasked me into figuring out what's wrong with ETMY. Here're some additional notes that I've gathered from talking to Alexa / Sheila / Evan/ Nic that were not included in the (already amazingly and delightfully detailed) entry above.

- I found EX & EY Yaw damping loops *without* the +12 [dB] gain-only filter on. Sheila / Alexa didn't know when / why the filter was turned OFF; a dataviewer trend reveals that it was just never turned ON after install on Nov 11th. Since this bug is common to both ETMs, I don't expect it was the problem. I've now turned them ON so we have as little difference between the damping loop design as possible, so we have less things to blame.
- EX (ONLY) has a new "NicLP" low-pass filter engaged in FM2 of the L3_LOCK_L control. From what I gather, this elliptic low-pass filter was installed *after* they'd stopped using EY, so I also don't suspect this difference.
- EY (ONLY) has optical lever damping in PITCH engaged. This also was turned on right as the switch to only using EX only, when it was determined that there was a problem with EY. It's also the only QUAD damping loop that has a sufficient amount of documentation associated with it (see LHO aLOG 14878) that we trust it to be functional (thanks Evan)!

I'll now begin measuring stuff, in hopes to find problems...
H1 ISC
keita.kawabe@LIGO.ORG - posted 15:57, Wednesday 12 November 2014 - last comment - 11:31, Thursday 13 November 2014(15020)
Unclipping SRC-AS chain

Looking at the SR2 peanuts-shaped baffle, I set the new SR3 alignment offset.

SR3 Old: [430.3, 142.6]

SR3 New: [654.3, -38.8]

The original position was not that bad, it was a bit too the left and low.

After this, I scanned SR2 while centering the AS_C QPD using picos.

SR2 Old: [2963.7, 2728.0]

SR2 New: [1339.7, 1575]

The new AS beam position on the camera is to the left and high.

Comments related to this report
keita.kawabe@LIGO.ORG - 16:18, Wednesday 12 November 2014 (15022)

SR3 details:

Peanuts-shaped SR3 baffle was used as a reference.

The IFO beam is supposed to be in the right hole, the angle between SR3-SR2 beam and SR2-SRM is 29 mrad, the distance from the baffle to SR2 is about 460mm (just by eyeballing the drawing), so the beam separation on the baffle is about 17.5mm.

This means that the SR3-SR2 beam should be about 17.5/2 mm to the left from the center of the right baffle hole.

PR3 YAW offset when the beam just hits the right edge of the baffle was -1394.4, while the offset when the beam was on the center line of the right baffle hole was -194.4.

When looked from HAM5, the right baffle hole looks like an ellipse with the major axis vertical, and the minor radius is 67.5mm.

Therefore the PR3 YAW offset should be

SR3 Y = -194.4  + (-194.4+1394.4) * 17.5mm/2 / 67.5mm = -38.8

PR3 P offset when the beam hits the top/bottom edge of the tallest part of the hole was 2350.3/-1041.7, and the average is 654.3.


This also means that the SR3 YAW slider calibration is off.

For YAW, 1200 urad of the slider offset produced about 67.5mm.

2*angle*16m = 67.5mm -> angle = 2.1mrad.

Therefore, in reality, the SR3 slider calibration for Y is 2.1mrad/1.2mrad = 1.76. (But I'd claim that the measurement error is probably as large as 30% or so).

 

For SR3 PIT,  it's good.

The beam moved from the bottom to the top with -3392 urad slider step. The hole height is 114mm.

2*angle*16m=114mm -> angle = 3.6mrad.

The SR3 slider calibration for P is 3600/3392 = 1.06

keita.kawabe@LIGO.ORG - 11:31, Thursday 13 November 2014 (15023)

SR2 details:

Before SR3 bias was set, AS_C was centered using pico.

After SR3 was done, AS_C was centered using SR2 bias. After this, SR2 bias was [1399.7, 1485.0]. This is our "initial position".

Then SR2 bias was scanned first in Y, then in P, and then Y again.

Attached left is the Y scan and the right is the P scan. Blue vertical lines indicate where I started.

As I was sort of suspecting, PIT was more off than YAW, and anyway I settled on [P,Y]=[1339.7, 1575].

One caveat is that the final position corresponds to one data point where I see a jump in the AS_C SUM (look at the green circle that goes to 1.04). This is repeatable, and I think this is where some stray beam or maybe the reflection from the AS_C goes into the AS_C. I don't think this corresponds to smaller loss. This position was chosen as the final position by eyeballing the peak of the green plot excluding that abnormal data point.

Images attached to this comment
Displaying reports 68361-68380 of 82999.Go to page Start 3415 3416 3417 3418 3419 3420 3421 3422 3423 End