Today, Kate and Travis finished the First Contact application on the remaining MC1/3 mirror and the PRM.  Calum moved all of the cleaning equipment from HAM3 to HAM2 and as I was leaving at ~4:30 he was rolling his latest dust collection tool around on HAM2 hardware.  If they hadn't already pressed through it, we plan to clean HAM2 tomorrow, repeat the FC sheet pulls and TFs on the MC1, MC3, and PRM tomorrow and close get the doors on.  We also plan to pull the FC from ITMx and close that chamber tomorrow after last chamber checks.

Today, Calum and I cleaned the HAM3 table and it's 2 HSTS suspension structures and baffles.  We then pulled the First Contact on MC2 (3:30pm prompt) and gave it a quick inspection.  It looks OK - no super macroscopic particles.  Jim unlocked the HAM3 table and while Apollo put the East door on the chamber I ran a few averages of L, P, V TFs and verified that the MC2 seemed healthy.  I also checked that I could close the loops on all 6 DOFs of damping on both PR2 and MC2.  Apollo then proceded with putting on the West door.  1 (chamber) down, 2 to go.

Sorry for the delay in this status alog:

Today, Calum and I:

- centered the outstanding M2 (lower) stage BS BOSEMs

- set the top BS BOSEMs to account for some buoyancy

- set the top ITMx BOSEMs to account for some buoyancy

- added the 1" witness optic to the ITMx lower structure

- reinforced the First Contact on the ITMx and it's CP in prep for pulling and closing up tomorrow

Note, the last step above required that I semi-lock the optics which I did, and then left in that state since we need them locked for pulling the FC tomorrow.  I had understood that SEI was not needing the evening to do TFs here, although I see Sebastien has started TFs.  I've written him this email:

Howdy, Seb -
I see you started TFs on the ITMx - the ITMx is half locked up... Although it seems like it is damping, there is
1) extra payload on the ISI due to added teflon fixtures to lock the ITMx optic
and
2) the suspension may be damping well because it is infact locked up slightly.

Not sure how this will affect the SEI TFs tonight...

J. Kissel, T. Vo

Because of the recent resonant features seen in ISI-ITMX that seemed to have been fixed by a simple lock and unlock of the ITMX Arm Cavity Baffle (see LHO aLOG 8632), I asked "has anyone ever taken B&K hammer transfer functions of the ACB?" The answer was a resoundingly loud "no" (I am Jack's complete lack of surprise). Me and my big mouth volunteered to do it, and there was a tiny window of opportunity before Thomas cleaned up the chamber, so Thomas and I pioneered the first B&K measurements of the ITM ACB. Details of the measurement setup and execution below.

Again, I don't know how to properly export the data (as indicated in LHO aLOG 8654), so you'll have to be patient regarding the results. Note that obtaining official plots of the results should not in any way be considered as a hold-up for chamber close out.

Of course, after taking the measurements and cleaning up the chamber -- because we *touched* the baffle -- we had Sebastien run a quick set of ISI-ITMX transfer functions, and it informed us we're not-at-all done battling this bumbling oaf of a baffle (see LHO aLOG 8653). This should be considered a hold-up for chamber close out. Round three, first thing tomorrow!

-----------
Details:
We took two distinct measurements: 
(1) With the accelerometer on the suspended baffle itself, using a unused slotted bolt hole in the inside middle, closest to the ITM HR surface. This test was just a shot in the dark, to see if we could get a nice driven transfer function of the suspended stage, since there have been no prior attempts with this generation of the ACB baffle. At first glance from the B&K software plots, it looks like a complete mess, so it will most likely either be a completely confusing / useless or completely depressing result.

DSCN0206.jpg (or pg 3 of the .pdf) shows a picture of the accelerometer from inside the baffle looking out back toward ITMX. As is (hopefully) resolvable in the picture, ACC +X = ITMX -L, ACC +Y = ITMX -T, ACC +Z = ITMX +V. The Y impact was on the (ITMX) +T face, bottom corner, closest to the ITM, in the (ITMX) -T direction. The X impact was along the bottom edge of the (ITMX) -L face, in the +L direction.

(2) With the accelerometer on the bottom of the support structure's tube (shown in DSCN0209.jpg). One can't see it in the picture, but the accelerometers axes were aligned with the global IFO's axes, such that ACC +X = Points down X arm towards ETMX, ACC +Y = Points down the Y Arm towards ETMY, and ACC +Z = Points up with local gravity (the same as ITMX's +V). The X & Y impacts were made towards the bottom of the outer, support structure, "eddy current damping 8 dia," tube (D1002564, of the assembly D1200275). Man, that thing rung like a bell when Thomas whacked it...

The files live on the B&K laptop only, in
C:Users\ligo\Desktop\SUS Hammer Test\ITMX\BandK\
and are called
(1x) SimpleHammerDisplay3-ArmCavityBaffleBaffle-ISIfloating-SuspendedElements_Ximpact.pls
(1y) SimpleHammerDisplay3-ArmCavityBaffleBaffle-ISIfloating-SuspendedElements_Yimpact.pls
(2x) SimpleHammerDisplay3-ArmCavityBaffleBaffle-ISIfloating-StructuralElements_Ximpact.pls
(2y) SimpleHammerDisplay3-ArmCavityBaffleBaffle-ISIfloating-StructuralElements_Yimpact.pls

J. Kissel, C. Vorvick

Calum and Betsy installed the new PR3 baffles (D1300957) yesterday (see LHO aLOG 8619), but only roughed in their alignment with respect to the optic / prisms / wires. Today Cheryl and I went into HAM2, and I aligned the baffles to-the-best-of-my-ability, by-eye, and then tool tightened them to PR3 HLTS structure. My left-right metric was "just covering the edge of the bevel on the optic with the straight portion of the baffles" and my up-down metric was having the "bottom curves of the baffles following the curvature / bevel of the lower half of the optic."  It was certainly a ball-park activity, given that the goodness of alignment depends heavily on one's angle, orientation, and height of viewing. From most face-on views, however, the baffle looks to be baffling the wires and not clipping the optic.

I took many pictures, but did not find out until later that the memory card on the camera was full, so the pictures were not being stored and lost. FFFFUUUUDDDGGEEEE. 
Cheryl, Calum, Betsy, and Kate have graciously volunteered to retake pictures tomorrow before / after they pull of the first contact on all the optics.

We also took B&K hammer transfer functions after securing the baffles (with PR3 freely suspended, and the ISI Locked, and probably with me leaning on the table). I placed the accelerometer in the exact same location and configuration as in LHO aLOG 6014, (4th picture attached) with ACC +X = PR3 -L, ACC +Y = PR3 -T, and ACC +Z = PR3 +V, in the upper left corner of the cage on the HR face, "front" of the cage. The X impacts with the hammer were just below the accelerometer, on the HR face. The Y impacts were on that same strut / corner, at the same height as the accelerometer, on the -T face of the cage, in the +T direction. Comparing these results with the previous results taken before the baffles were installed -- by-eye they look roughly equivalent. The resident LHO expert of post-processing the data is off to LLO for a few days, so we'll post a comparison next week (or I can ask Calum / Stuart tomorrow, we'll see.)

For now, the saved templates live only on the laptop, and live in
C:\Users\ligo\Desktop\SUS Hammer Test\PR3
and are called
SimpleHammerDisplay3-PR3Baffle-ISIlocked-Ximpact.pls
SimpleHammerDisplay3-PR3Baffle-ISIlocked-Yimpact.pls

I started a measurement for the night. Should be done by tomorrow morning.

*** HPI ***

Unlocked

*** ISI ***

Undamped

*** SUS ***

Damped

Jeff and Thomas went in the BSC3 chamber to do some B&K measurements on the arm cavity baffle.

I ran a quick transfer function on Stage1 after that to see if everything was still okay, since we had some weird interation between the ISI and the baffle yesterday (see aLOG #8632). Well, it is not okay...  (see plot attached)

Some huge overdamping/frequency drifting suddenly appeared. We don't know what could cause that yet (eddy current? cable rubbing?).

To keep going with this unit, we really need to understand what's happening. We'll continue the investigation tomorrow.

The TMSX crew are done for the day and have left the suspension in a hopefully good state, so I'm starting Matlab TFs at 16:45.

- Filiberto to LVEA, BSC03/BG area, check on electronics related to ITMX osems troubles.
- FC party at HAM02.
- Norna to the LVEA, HAM02 area, to join FC party.
- Port-a-Potty vendor, to all site, weekly service call.
- Apollo at Y-End, VEA area, removal of spool piece.
- Kyle at Y-End, VEA area, opening GV17 post spool removal.
- Jeff and Andres to X-end Station, VEA area, TMS related work.
- Cheryl to X-End, retrieve camera equipment.
- Cheryl, to LVEA, HAM02 survey for IO.
- Jeff K, to LVEA, HAM02 baffle, to do B&K testing.

On October 31, Jim & I got all the WBSC9 (ETMX) HEPI Actuators connected.  This included a couple swaps of the Parker Valve on V3.  The process would have you shut the supply to the system to depressure the valve to minimize fluid loss/spillage.  Today while at EndX troubleshooting ISI electronics, the HEPI pump station was checked as it hadn't been for several weeks and fluid was found in the pressure relief drain hose suggesting the pressure had exceeded the ~125psi relief point on the mechanical relief valve.

The trends were checked and sure enough the pressure spiked on the 31st showing a max of 105psi.  Who knows how much higher it actually went relative to these epics data.  Regardless, I suspect this spike in pressure opened the relief valve briefly and then closed when it dropped.  The pump station pressure was controlled by servo and the controller reduced the motor speed accordingly.

Couple things  1) At the end stations there is only one chamber on the system so when the supply valve is shut, the system is dead headed.  Unlike the corner station which has isolating supply & return valves on every chamber, the end station will likely see this spike if the servo is on and the supply valve is closed too quickly.  Not sure if you can close the valve slowly enough to prevent this spike.  I suspect you might be able to do so having the motor slow to a crawl and keep the dead head pressure at the set point and not spike it too badly.  At the end stations, the better solution might be to reduce the set point to very low value and then slowly close the valve.  A good alternative may be to put the system into primary recirc mode; that is open the system by-pass at the reservoir.  Then the chamber valve could be shut with only minor concern about valve actuation speed and pressure spikes.

2) Now that the pressure relief drain hose has fluid in it, it should be drained to ensure it doesn't thicken/dry out in the line blocking future fluid flow.  Not sure if this is a probability but it certainly is possible.  Our experience with the fluid is that it does become more viscous once isolated in small quantities, i.e., drops or puddles.  Also, this fluid is no longer in the system and the reservoir is therefore closer to tripping for low level--something we'd like to avoid.

So, although long on my to-do list, alarms on the pressure channels should be installed with low priority guidance to investigate the pressure relief line and drain as needed.  At the same time, the fluid levels should be checked with respect to the level trip point and topped up as required.

(Alexa, Rich)

We tested the two beam diverters in HAM 6. We found that BDIV-C in beckhoff is connected to BDIV2 in the OMC REFL AIR path, and BDIV-D is connected to BDIV1 in the AS AIR path (this follows schematics). The readback and controls are all okay; however BDIV1 failed everytime we tried to open it. BDIV2 also had difficulty opening, but did not always fail. It seems that the beam diverters get stuck as they move. 

Also, if the beam diverters remain as currently placed on the table, we will need to switch the open/close functionality in software. I will wait until final alignment before implementing this. 

End X picos are mislabeled in the medm screen. I will fix this later.

The pico labeled as M3 (green) (motor 1) is the last one in the IR path (M14)

one labeled as M6 9 green and IR (motor 2) was dichroic (M4)

labeled as M4(IR) motor 3 was steering mirror right in front of periscope (M6)

one labeld as M14 (IR)  motor 4 was first steering mirror for green path (M3)

Keita, Stefan, Sheila

The last item currently we are missing for HAM6 is a QPD sled (see 8633) from the ISC point of view. But the preparation of the sled is not going well.

ModeMaster is not functioning:

Yesterday, I was going to start preparing the sled which requires the use of a ModeMaster for the precision lens adjustment. However it seems that the germanium detector of our ModeMaster is not functioning for some reason. It worked fine with a different silicon detector, but didn't work with the germanium one. I looked at the output from the detectors with an oscilloscope. The silicone showed a square-looking, 20 Hz-modulated output and the amplitude seems depending on the amount of laser power, which makes sense to me. However, once I switched the detector to the germanium one, it showed a similar square-looking wave, but the amplitude didn't depend on the laser power. Moreover, the signal seems just railing -- it swung from -5 to 13 V in every square wave. I incline to conclude that the germanium detector became broken.

Trying to get a replacement:

I already sent an email to Adam and Valera in Livingston to see if they can lend us their ModeMaster. At the same time, I will get some technical support from the company and hopefully get some replacements.

When testing the demod concentrator readbacks at HAM6 we found more DB37 cables with unconnected pin 19. Unfortunately, this leavs the common mode potential undefined.

Spent all day moving top blade back and forth.

There are three problems with this approach, i.e.

1. Each time we move the blade, we need to REALLY check any mechanical interference, and we repeatedly thought that nothing was touching only to find later that something was touching.
2. There's no real feedback as to how much we're moving (though Jeff was getting better).
3. When loosening the blade PIT changes, and when tightening there's a large-ish YAW change while PIT doesn't completely go back (again Jeff was getting better to control this using smaller steps).

Tomorrow we might move the cage using pushers to address all three problems at once.

On a brighter note there were victories also, i.e.

1. Beam diverter moves. And we even found that "open" and "closed" logic are reversed. Success!
2. Picomotor GUI was fixed though we didn't test the picomotors. Success!

The osem signals of ITMX L1 are zeros right now. We should take a look at it tomorrow.