Chris and Dave, WP#4269
We modified the ISC models to add requested channels to the science frame. The following models were modified, compiled, installed and committed to the svn repository. We have not loaded any of the new code onto the front ends, we are waiting for a break in ISC EX commissioning to schedule this.
Summary: Some optic(s) might have moved after the TMS was moved out of the lab.
After the beam centering on QPDs is engaged, the QPDs were nicely centered but the beam spot on the 2ndary was about 3mm off centered to the left, the beam is clipped on the F2 already, and only half or less of the beam makes it to the ETM.
If the TMS ISC table is as was adjusted in the lab, the beam spot should be slightly to the right and a few mm down (https://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=7285), so there's a huge difference between what we expect and what we are observing now. There are two possibilities:
In the latter case we somehow need to realign the green and IR beam to the telescope and recenter the green and red QPDs, all in situ. I'm working on a procedure to do this.
Checking that we're not fooling ourselves.
Sensing electronics offset? -> Exonerated (changing whitening gain didn't change the beam position though it increased the QPD signal)
Beam clipping downstream of Mad City Labs PZTs? -> Exonerated. No clipping in chamber, and the beam looks OK in chamber.
Different gains for quadrants? -> Asked Stefan to check by bringing the beam in one quadrant, one by one.
Ghost beam?
Wrong polarization (which might produce strong ghost beams)?
Identifying what moved and why.
We don't have any good idea to pinpoint what moved except that it should be downstream of the first steering mirror, and either upstream of the secondary or in the QPD path. Optics mounted at the edge of the table are more likely to be bumped.
Loose mount? -> Exonerated. Wiggled all relevant optics (except the fixed top periscope mirror on the TMS ISC table, which I overlooked and should be checked later) by touching the barrel of the mirrors using fingers, but after each attempt the beam position didn't change.
Bumping? -> Not fully rejected. I didn't apply strong pressure nor any strong impact to optics, so bumping-strongly theory is still alive.
Drift? -> Not that likely. We have observed during HIFO-Y a huge alignment drift correlated with ambient temperature (triggered by clean room on/off) and nobody knows why this happens. But at that time we were probably talking about the radius of ITM over 4km = 17cm/4km ~ 40urad drift, while this time it is 3mm on the TMS ISC table, so it's on the order of a few mrad. This is a much larger effect than the drift in the past.
Outdoor GFCI receptacle nuisance tripping -> Will try different power source tomorrow
Work @ GV6 now complete
TF's on ITMX ISI, should finish up ~midnight. SUS can start their measurements after that. There's a light at the end of the tunnel somewhere around here, let's hope it's not an oncoming train.
We also aligned the reaction chain - it now sits within the pitch tolerance at ~1.1mRad up, but we expect it to point to ~600mRad down after we take the heavy FC sheet off of the CP-AR surface.
Also to note - I closed the Ring Heater around the ITMx.
Jeff, Jim, Dave
Jeff found that we had not upgraded the end station sus models (quad, tms and aux) to matlab2012b on monday. He did the upgrade, we compiled, installed and restarted the models:
h1susetm[x,y],h1sustms[x,y],h1susauxe[x,y]
Prior to this change the end stations were running 2010a top level mdl files (and 2012b common models) built with 2.8. As expected, no DAQ restart was required as INI files did not change.
I also found that some of the models didn't have either the "SVN $Id$" or "$HeadURL$" svn tags, which Dave added to "every" model on Tuesday. So I made sure that every end station SUS model had it, and subsequently turned on the svn keyword for those models too. All models Dave mentions above have been committed to the repo. To turn on the metadata property for a given model, ]$ svn propset svn:keywords 'Id' ${modelname}.mdl ]$ svn propset svn:keywords 'HeadURL' ${modelname}.mdl Stuart -- you'll need to do this.
WHAM6's doors were removed and the ISI was locked this morning. The ~800lbs of dummy mass on the Optical Table was then removed to make way for OMC works.
I have created a new CDS overview MEDM screen. Changes are:
added new h1tcscs model to h1oaf0.
added place holder for h1oaf model on h1oaf0
greyed out the TIM error bit on h1ioppemmx's state-word. We are running h1pemmx without an IRIGB card so this bit is permanently set.
Daniel requested I add the full set of Beckhoff PLC1 channels in the MSR to the frame. I had been acquiring a small subset of these defined in the ini files:
H1EDCU_PSLENV.ini
H1EDCU_ECATPEM.ini
H1EDCU_TIMING.ini
These were removed from the daq master and replaced with a new
H1EDCU_ECATC1PLC1.ini
I modified the file to set acquire=3 so channels go both into the full and science frames.
At 12:42 I restarted the DAQ. The EDCU channel count increased from 3,656 to 17,237.
The full frame size increased from 444M to 448M, the science frame increased from 232M to 237M.
ETMX transfer functions Phase 3a after 2nd round of alignment yesterday (cf alog 8503 and 8525) have succesfully been completed, and they show an excellent agreement with the previous measurements taken after the first alignment.
Results attached are described below
(1) M0-M0 undamped TF comparison with the model
(2) R0-R0 undamped TF comparison with the model
(3) M0-M0 undamped TF comparison with the first phase 3a measurement, and the model
(4) R0-R0 undamped TF comparison with the first phase 3a measurement, and the model
Data results and scripts have been commited to the svn
Kyle 11/12/2013 Removed aux. pumps from annulus piping -> Isolated gate annulus from rest of annulus volume for ~30 minutes or so then recombined then isolated -> Observed expected changes in ion pump current (verifying gate annulus isolation valve working and that gate annulus volume is, in fact, evacuated) -> Applied 30 psi to underside of GV6's piston, increased to 40 psi a few hours later followed by 45 psi an hour or two later -> GV6 remained cammed closed -> Will abandon attempt for now -> recombined gate annulus volume (now having been un-pumped for ~6 hours) -> annulus ion pump current increased from (0) LEDs to (1) LED -> Gas load from annulus volume minimal -> Isolated gate annulus volume -> Leaving GV6 with 20 psi applied to top of piston for overnight -> Will repeat opening attempt tomorrow
This entry was originally (accidentally) posted to the LLO aLOG on 11/12/2013
The IMs and MCs have been burtrestored to the automatically generated snap file from monday 11/11 at 20:00
Attached are 10 min trends of the IMs osem signals in the euler basis (Long/Pitch/Yaw) during alignment on monday, and today after restoring the snapfile.
picture 1 : Monday 11/11 from 19:50 to 20:00 PT
picture 2 : Today 11/14 from 10:20 to 10:30 PT
No major shift is seen when comparing both trends
I've looked at the plots, and there is a huge shift of IM1, and shifts that are large on IM2 and IM4. The fact that I changed IM3 on Monday but it's not showing a change is troublesome.
IM1
Delta 800 pitch
Delta 50 yaw
IM2
Delta 115 pitch
Delta 10 yaw
IM3
Delta 0 pitch
Delta 0 yaw
IM4
Delta 70 pitch
Delta 0 yaw
The good alignment time is 5:09PST 11/11, or 1:09UTC 11/12.
To really be confident about your alignment now vs the alignment on Monday, you'll need to trend the alignment slider values, the alignment drive values, and the OSEM readings for 1:05-1:10UTC 11/12, and use that to compare the current IM positions.
[Cheryl Arnaud]
After talking with Cheryl, I attached, a more accurate comparison between two dates : monday 11/11 from 5pm to 6pm during good alignment and thursday during the night (11/15) from midnight to 1am (quieter environment) after the ISS work of thursday, with the restored alignment from monday.
screenshot 1 : position signals in um/urad in the euler basis monday
screenshot 2 : position signals in um/urad in the euler basis thursday night
screenshot 3 : alignment sliders values monday + volt monitor of 1 osem to prove signal is going through the actuation chain
screenshot 4 : alignment sliders values thursday night + volt monitor of 1 osem to prove signal is going through the actuation chain
We should worry if we were seeing a shif of the order of a mrad, which is far from being the case here.
IM1
delta of 80 (not 800) in pitch
J. Kissel, A. Pele Though Arnaud had posted a few of the pictures from our B&K hammering session of ITMX in BSC3 (see LHO aLOG 8497), I post the rest here because I got more pictures that are not necessarily B&K related. I attach four .pdf albums, captioned below; along with a few of the best publicity photos attached in raw form. 2013-11-13_BSC3Cabling.pdf - Nothing to be alarmed by here, but I noticed that tons of cabling were draped from ST0 of ISI-ITMX to their respective feedthroughs in rather hap-hazard ways, and I was worry about potential shorting of isolation between the suspended payload of HEPI and the Chamber. I mentioned this to Jim, and he quickly assured me that the cables are still in a transient state, and will most certainly be cleaned up before the chamber is closed up. I merely post for posterity, so we (i.e. not just folks in SEI) remember what *not* to do. 2013-11-13_BnKHammering.pdf - Just a few more pictures from the B&K hammering session, indicating where I was hitting and a few action shots. As I said, Arnaud has posted most of these already in LHO aLOG 8497. 2013-11-13_ITMXPublicityPhotos.pdf - It's always good to get some shots that can be later used for posters and talks. Here's a fashion show of H1 SUS ITMX. 2013-11-13_IXArmCavityBaffle.pdf - A couple of things to note here: (1) The first two pages show just how incredibly close the ACB is to the QUAD structure as a result of the move decreed by IAS. In page two I'm trying to hold up a 3/16ths allen key up for perspective, but it didn't work out so well. I would estimate the gap at-closest-approach is no more that 5 [mm]. It just gives me the willies. Especially since I gave the ACB a few milli-Jeffs of calibrated excitation, and it started waggling with reasonably high Q at ~5-10 [Hz]. Is the fundamental resonance of this suspension really that stiff / high-in-frequency? Hurumph. (2) This is the first time I've seen the suspension system up-close and personally, so I wanted to get some good shots of it. Very interesting design... (3) There's still some tooling lying around on the baffle itself. We should make sure to grab these before chamber close-out.
The tooling on the baffle is meant to be there to remind me to tighten a loose cable clamp bolt when I go in there to finish up cable routing and photodiode switch out (we had a bad one). The entire baffle will be swept for tools, loose hardware, and particulate as the last thing we do before signing off the chamber close-out.
Travis is cleaned up the cabling today.
I logged the OMC OLs for Jeff B:
prettyOSEMgains('H1','OMC')
M1T1 20997 1.429 -10499
M1T2 21195 1.415 -10598
M1T3 23620 1.270 -11810
M1LF 22733 1.320 -11366
M1RT 21724 1.381 -10862
M1SD 22193 1.352 -11096
I entered the OSEMINF offset and gain values, entered the correct magnet signs in COILOUTF and did a new safe.snap. I had to do this manually because the Matlab script doesn't cope with the fact that the autoBurt.req has three bad lines due to a bug in RTCDS 2.8 leading to the folllowing errors:
H1:SUS-OMC_DACKILL_PANIC.HSV ... not connected so no ca_array_get_callback()
H1:SUS-OMC_DACKILL_PANIC.LSV ... not connected so no ca_array_get_callback()
H1:SUS-OMC_DACKILL_PANIC.LOW ... not connected so no ca_array_get_callback()
Gerardo and Gerardo Jr. are bonding ears to PUM-ETM06. As of yesterday 1 ear had been bonded.
Second ear bonded today, both ears look good and are within tolerance. PUMETM06 will go into a cake tin tomorrow.
We're soliciting ideas for failure modes NOT listed above as well as the checks that could/should be done before going ahead to change the TMS ISC table alignment.
Here are pictures Stefan and Keita took inside the chamber.
I very crudely tested the gain of each QPD segment. I just used the offset in pitch/yaw of PZT2 to move the beam onto each segment. The gain of each segment of QPDA was exactly the same. The gain of each segement of QPDB was within 4% of each other. A dither/demod might be a better test, but at first glance the gain segements look OK to me.