Alexa, Kiwamu,
We spent most of the daytime today for
There were a few noticable effects after the PR2 spot was moved:
Summary of the spot measurements before and after the unclipping.
before [mm] | after [mm] | ||
---|---|---|---|
PRM | Pitch | -2.82 | NA |
Yaw | 0.402 toward West | NA | |
PR2 | Pitch | -6.04 | -5.44 |
Yaw | 2.26 toward West | 14.1 toward West | |
PR3 | Pitch | -24.5 | NA |
Yaw | 0 | NA |
(Some more notes)
We aimed for a displacement of 16 mm on PR2 in order to bring the beam to the ideal point according to Keita's measurement (see alog 14640). However, later, I realized that I had picked a wrong number from his entry -- I must have chosen eitehr 14 or 10 mm. Anyway, the resultant dither measurement suggested that we moved it by 11.5 mm to the right direction on PR2. So it happened to fall into a OK displacement. I think that we anyhow improved the clipping situation on the PR2 baffle.
The POP extraction path was then corrected by using the pico-motorized mirror in HAM3. This was not a difficult task as the beam was hitting the swiss cheese baffle and therore it was visible. We then went out and did fine tunings. The pico motor was adjusted to recover the highest green TRX. We steered a steering mirror for each POP diode.
In order to compute the off-centering on HLTS, I used the mirror sizes described in D1101381.
For computing the HSTS spot position, I used 42.2 mm per alpha (see alog 13765).
This is not blocking our progress right now, but M3 LL FAST IMON is not working, and M3 UR NOISEMON is lower than others by 6 db.
I know that this not the problem of actuation as giving DC offset for each coil moves the optic by roughly the same amount in a correct direction, and VMON works for all coils. There's no reason to believe that there is a big difference in the current/counts between coils.
Doug, Sheila Evan
We used the stage controller to align the PR3 oplev to <0.1 urad in yaw and pitch.
The dip switch board for PR3 now has the serial number H202. There are already H201, H203, and H204 in the oplev cabinet by the PSL. Other unlabeled boards should probably be assigned serial numbers accordingly.
J. Kissel I've collected all the information necessary to reproduce the corner-station optical lever status report (see LHO aLOG 14749) for the end-station levers. I attach pictures, and tabulate info as before below. Rack Board Optical Lever Config Board |------------------ Switch Status ----------------| Centered? Raw Segment Counts Number Installed? Board Switch CH Name CH Name Function HI LO ON/OFF SUS H1-R2 1 ETMX Yes B0 1 +24 [dB] X OFF No* *SUS is Misaligned, (pg 1) (pgs 2-3) B1 2 +12 [dB] X OFF so can't get info B2 3 +6 [dB] X ON B3 4 +3 [dB] X ON B4 5 (1:10) X OFF B5 6 (1:10) X ON B6 7 (1:10) X OFF B7 8 Latch X OFF Total ETMX TF = (1:10), G = +9 [dB] 2 none Yes N/A N/A SUS H1-R2 1 ETMY Yes B0 1 +24 [dB] X OFF No* *SUS is Misaligned (pg 4) (pgs 5-6) B1 2 +12 [dB] X OFF so can't get info B2 3 +6 [dB] X OFF B3 4 +3 [dB] X OFF B4 5 (1:10) X ON B5 6 (1:10) X ON B6 7 (1:10) X OFF B7 8 Latch X OFF Total ETMY TF = (1,1:10,10), G = 0 [dB] 2 none Yes N/A N/A I can confirm that any whitening stages have been correctly compensated for digitally. In addition, recall that ETMX is compensating for the gains shown above, but it's not necessary. Will fix all the levers and compensation on some (glorious) day (hopefully soon) when the IFO isn't needed.
LVEA: Laser Hazard Observation Bit: Commissioning 08:00 Alarm on Mid-X Instrument Air; informed the vacuum group 08:18 Aidan – In LVEA to check TCS laser 08:40 Travis – Going to both end stations to work on PCal cameras 08:55 Robert & Sudarshan - End-X to work on PEM 09:00 King Water – On site for water sampling 09:25 Bubba – Repaired Instrument Air compressor at Mid-X 09:30 Filiberto – End-X to work on PEM cabling 10:05 Jodi & Gary – At Y-End 10:45 Betsy & Sheila – In LVEA for quick survey 13:05 Alistar – Working on TCS in LVEA 13:30 Dave – DAQ restart 14:38 Jeff K. – Going to X & Y end stations to take pictures of OpLevs 15:18 Robert – In the beam tube enclosure between Mid and End-Y
Hanford transportation will operate during swing shift tonight, 10/31. There's no indication that site crews will work over the weekend. Over the last two weeks there's been some day-to-day variation in the number of containers moving in and out of ERDF because of high winds. Transportation and rubble pit operations apparently aren't affected much by rain.
In preparation to correcting the Matrices on HEPI for HAM2, I generated new Plants to see if they'll be too different for the generic controllers. Here are the Symmeterized L2L & C2C,the latter equivalent to the plant with a HEPI Position loop blend (1,0.) The L2Ls are the same as the previous (data from 4 Sept 2013) since I did not collect new data. But the C2C are different. Attached are two pdf with all the plots to compare.
Bottom line--asside from the VP dof at DC, they all look pretty much the same and I think the generic loops will be fine.
This is related to Hugh's log 14774. To elaborate a bit on Hugh's log, I made a measurement with Stage 1 Damped only and HPI isolated. The first plot shows the GND_T240_X , ST1_T240_X and HPI L4C (out of loop witness). There was no coherence with ground below 0.1 Hz but there was significant coherence with HPI L4C. This meant that HPI was somehow introducing excess low-frequency motion.
We then did the same measurement on ETMY and saw no such excess motion. The second pdf shows the corresponding measurement. Stage 1_Y was very coherent with ground_Y. Jim mentioned he had modified the HPI controllers on ETMY as described in Hugh's log, so we decided to try the same on ETMX in X and Y.
This has made a significant difference to the low frequency performance of Stage 1 as shown in the third file. Performance below 0.1 Hz is much closer to ground motion now.
Some more plots of the old vs new isolation filters, per Jeff's request. I dug into the foton file to find numbers to back up what I thought the original design was. The gains of the old and new foton filters are shown in the first image, they show that not much was done to the filter design, just that the gain was reduced. Solid lines are the old design(higher gain, UGF), dashed lines are the current design. Second and third images are the currently installed plant design and a reconstruction of the orignal design (no plots were found from the original design from earlier this year). The solid and dashed orange lines tell most of the story, mostly we just cut the UGF to 2hz, and modified the boost to get more phase margin. No idea why this affect the very low frequency noise, Jeff and Krishna suggested maybe we were re-injecting IPS noise with the higher gain.
Here is another look at the controller with the amplitude scale zoomed out to see the lowest frequencies of the open loop.
J. Warner, K. Venkateswara
We repeated this measurement today and did not see the same results. Sensor correction was off. The attached pdf shows the before (old controller) and after (new low gain UGF controller) data. Very strange. We may have been fooled by different ground motion or perhaps by sensor correction. There is good coherence with ground till ~60 mHz in either controllerconfiguration.
Jim has reverted to the new low gain UGF controller as it should help with ringing of HEPI at 9 Hz.
Dave, Jeff [WP 4927]
the h1susauxh34 model was modified to add EPICS channels to support the SUS Drift Mon program. The model was restarted at 13:22 and the DAQ was restarted to resync at 13:32. It was not a clean DAQ restart, mx-streams had to be restarted on h1pemmx, h1pemmy, h1susex and h1susauxex.
I reverted out my local changes to the driftmon files (changes needed when we didn't have the supporting epics channels) and svn updated this code to the latest version.
The Driftmon MEDM is linked to the SITEMAP via the SUS button on the left-hand block (see attached)
The python script to update the alarm levels is in the general search path. To run it to update all suspension the command is
driftmon_update.py H1 -H nds2.ligo-wa.caltech.edu -P 31200 -l 3600 -d 600 --minor-stdev=4 --major-stdev=5 --all
This gets data starrting one hour ten minutes ago up to one hour ago.
This closes out WP 4927.
The ever eagle-eyed Peter Fritschel found some duplicate PEM channels in my list of science-frame channels (see earlier aLOG entry 14718). I had failed to remove an old channel list (H1PEML0.ini) from the compilation. I redid all the files and tables after that change (see attached rate, channel list files). The commissioning-only counts did not change, as all PEM are in both frames) I have posted the updated FrameRates spreadsheet and PDF of science, commissioning frame counts. The science-frame H1 PEM rate drops from 6.79 to 4.19 MB/s (uncompressed). This is still equal to all the ISC channels (LSC,ASC,OMC,OAF,ISC).
Jim Krishna Hugh
The gain was too close to the UGF and there was very little margin. The zero in the boost where it meets the main controller was lowered from 1.75 to 0.75 hz. This lowered the boosted gain but it is only a position loop anyway.
I have created an MEDM showing the Guardian states for each suspension. It is linked from the SITEMAP screen through the GRD pull down menu.
Earlier this week I revisited tilt decoupling at ETMX. I thought that maybe since the local to cart matrices had been modified since the tilt decoupling was done, maybe the align elements would need tweaking. Happily (or not as I had hoped this would explain why Krishna's tilt subtraction wasn't working as well as it could) everything stil looks pretty good. Attached plots are for X, first is the tilt measurement, red off, blue on. Second pic is the flex modes from the T240s for the tilt off measurement, they didn't appear to change for on or off. I did Y as well. Everything is in the ETMX/Misc/TIlt_Decoupling folder of the SVN.
TCS: Aidan is leaving today. Alistar will continue TSC commissioning next week. PEM: Filiberto pulling PEM cables at both end stations. PCal: Travis will be working on PCal cameras at both end stations. Commissioning: In addition to general commissioning, Keita is working on the PR2 clipping problem. Charge Testing: Rai W. continues working on charge testing experiment at End-Y.
Last night, we tried Z HEPI sensor correction on the BS. It did not go well. When I look at the data this morning, I didn't see the usual reduction in Z motion on the ISI seismometers, with low frequency re-injection. Instead, all we got was bad low frequency reinjection. The attached PDF shows performance from last night on the first 2 pages, with perfromance from the previous night on the last 2. The attached png shows the coherence between the ground STS and the ISI's St1 T240's. The solid lines are with sensor correction on, dashed are with sensor correction off. For some reason turning on Z sensor correction reduces coherence in the Y direction. Jeff and Fabrice have both suggested that maybe the op-lev damping is interfering with the sensor correction. The ground STS that was used for the sensor correction also is having issues, which Hugh has noted before. We'll keep digging.
The table below shows a comparison of the optical levers motion meaured during the five mornings of this week. We used ETMX to evaluate several configurations:
- Monday Oct 27, 3am - 4am, ETMX Stage 1 Z in Low Blend, Sensor Correction Off
- Tuesday Oct 28, 3am - 4am, ETMX Stage 1 Z in Low Blend, Sensor Correction Off
- Wednesday Oct 29, 3am - 4am, ETMX Stage 1 Z in High Blend, Sensor Correction Off
- Thursday Oct 30, 3am - 4am, ETMX Stage 1 Z in Low Blend, Sensor Correction On
- Friday Oct 31, 3am - 4am, ETMX Stage 1 Z in Low Blend, Sensor Correction On. BS sensor correction also ON (BS servo still engaged)
(Jim, please correct if my description of the controls configurations is inacurate)
Results: optical levers RMS motion
ETMX (Pitch/Yaw) Other test masses average (Pitch/Yaw) BS - Op Lev servoed (Pitch/Yaw)
Monday 15nrad /20nRad 30nrad / 30nRad 20nrad / 10nRad
Tuesday 20nrad / 35nRad 35nrad / 35nRad 15nrad / 35nRad
Wednesday 100nrad / 15nRad 40nrad / 35nRad 15nrad / 10nRad
Thursday 12nrad / 10nRad 30 nrad / 40nRad 13nrad / 10nRad
Friday 30 nrad / 10 nRad 30 nrad / 30 nRad 50 nrad / 50 nRad
Comments:
- On Monday and Tuesday, ETMX pitch motion was better than the other test masses, even though using the same configuration
- Wednesday results on ETMX show why we need to blend low on Stage 1 Z to reduce the pictch motion (at the cost of amplifying Yaw)
- Thursday results on ETMX with Sensor Correction On are excellent. The angular motion is as low as on the BS that is servoed.
- Friday results on ETMX are not as good in Pitch as the night before, but it is still much lower than usual in Yaw. The angular motion BS is very high. We might want to disable the op lev servo while testing the sensor correction on this unit. Jim is about to comment on BS sensor coreection activities.
Rana, Kiwamu, Lisa, Alexa, Sheila, Evan
We took some time to measure the 1f and 3f DRMI sensing matrices.
To do this, we used the digital lock-in oscillators on the LSC screen to feed back onto some of the DRMI optics (PR2, SRM, BS, and a combination of 1×BS + 0.02×PR2 that we refer to below as BS+PR2).
The procedure was as follows:
cdsutils servo -r LSC-LOCKIN_1_DEMOD_5_Q_OUTPUT -g -10 -s 0 -t 100 LSC-LOCKIN_1_DEMOD_5_PHASE
.z avg -s 8
to average them.Results for the 1f sensing matrix are as follows. The drive amplitudes have been divided out (and the entire matrix normalized).
1f | PR2 | SRM | BS | BS+PR2 |
9I | 2604(2) | 0.136(4) | −51.60(9) | −3.56(2) |
9Q | 107.5(9) | −0.0364(3) | −2.254(15) | −0.035(2) |
45I | 2015(4) | −3.70(4) | −39.69(6) | −5.51(5) |
45Q | −693(7) | −0.469(6) | 29.58(8) | 18.70(5) |
The matrix elements for SRM (in red) are probably bogus, because we were saturating the SRM actuator while driving.
Then we repeated this for the 3f signals, with REFLAIR27I→DEMOD 11, REFLAIR27Q→DEMOD 12, REFLAIR135I→DEMOD 13, and REFLAIR135Q→DEMOD 14. The drive amplitudes were 15, 9333, and 1999 counts for PR2, SRM, and BS. The results are as follows. Again the drive amplitudes have been divided out (and the entire matrix normalized).
3f | PR2 | SRM | BS |
27I | 9400(40) | −2.560(11) | −173.5(3) |
27Q | −154(8) | 0.618(9) | 14.72(5) |
135I | 2940(50) | −7.96(7) | −58.3(5) |
135Q | −22 550(90) | −0.17(7) | 543(2) |
DRMI lost lock before we were able to get the BS+PR2 measurement for 3f.
Kiwamu did some work to figure out what output matrix values are needed to drive mostly MICH; it is 1×BS + 0.02×PR2 − 0.014×SRM. Rana then measured the sensing matrix with 333 counts on MICH, 17 counts on PRM, and 18999 counts on SRM (and without saturation). WFS were engaged, and the loops were notched at the drive frequency (131.7 Hz).
Here is the 1f sensing matrix, with the drives appropriately divided out.
1f | MICH | PR2 | SRM |
9I | 0.921(26) | 1329.0(3.4) | 0.04300(70) |
9Q | 0.1122(58) | 76.43(46) | -0.02287(16) |
45I | 0.234(76) | 1635.6(3.1) | -3.3273(58) |
45Q | 20.922(62) | -262.6(5.7) | -0.4903(13) |
And likewise for 3f.
3f | MICH | PR2 | SRM |
27I | 4.32(21) | 5410.9(5.8) | -1.7543(47) |
27Q | 8.431(72) | -157.0(2.5) | 0.4443(43) |
135I | -8.5(2.1) | 1389.4(22.9) | -7.289(59) |
135Q | 125.6(2.4) | -12638.3(77.9) | -0.135(63) |
Also last night, we took similar measurements of the PR2/SR2 portions of the DRMI sensing matrices while we tried bringing in the arms. Sheila started at ≈ 7.5 nm and over a few minutes brought the arms to slightly under 4 nm, at which point we lost lock (the conversion from displacement to detuning is 7 nm / Hzgreen). So the attached plots should be read from left to right.
The big jump at 6.5 nm is because Kiwamu had to tune up the DRMI alignment to prevent lock loss. So the jump in the sening matrix elements isn't surprising. Beyond that, the values appear more or less constant, to within uncertainty.
Based on the TCSX central heating calibration (62.3 micro-diopters single-pass per Watt) and the calculated static lens of -80213m, we require:
Edited 31-Oct-2014: this isn't correct because of an error in the laser power calibration
The calibration of defocus vs delivered power is incorrect as the delivered power channel, H1:TCS-ITMX_CO2_LSRPWR_MTR_OUTPUT, was not calibrated correctly.
I went back and reviewed the delivered power for this measurement:
Before thermal lens: H1:TCS-ITMX_CO2_LSRPWR_MTR_INMON = 172.7 counts
During thermal lens H1:TCS-ITMX_CO2_LSRPWR_MTR_INMON = 2113.4 counts
The new gain through the filter banks is 7.2087E-4 Watts per count.
This means 1.399 Watts was applied to ITMX during the thermal lens measurement.
Further analysis of the HWS measurements of the thermal lens show:
Based on the TCSX central heating calibration and the calculated static lens of -80213m, we require:
Optical Lever Whitening Chassis Rack Locations and Chassis Locations and Current Binary Output Module Status at LHO: D.Cook 10/29/2014 Rack SUS H1-R1: Chassis cabled - Board 1- HAM 2 = No BOM installed Chassis cabled - Board 2- HAM 3 = No BOM installed Rack SUS H1-R2: Chassis cabled - Board 1- HAM 2 = No BOM installed Chassis cabled - Board 2- PR3 = BOM installed B1, B2, B4, B9, B10, B12, 17, B18, B20, B25, 26, B28 set HIGH (the rest set LOW) Rack SUS H1-R3: Chassis cabled - Board 1- HAM 5 = No BOM installed Board 2- SR3 = BOM installed B4, B12, B20, B28 set HIGH Rack SUS H1-R4: Chassis cabled - Board 1- HAM 4 = No BOM installed Chassis not cabled - Board 2- Empty Rack SUS H1-R5: Chassis cabled - Board 1- BSC 8 Pier (temp ?) = No BOM installed (jumpered connecter) Chassis cabled - Board 2- BS = BOM installed B1, B3, B4, B9, B11, B12, 17, B19, B20, B25, 27, B28 set HIGH (the rest set LOW) Rack SUS H1-R6: Chassis cabled - Board 1- ITMx = BOM installed B4, B5, B12, 13, B20, B21, B28, B29 set HIGH (the rest set LOW) Chassis not cabled - Board 2- Empty Rack SUS H1-R1 ETMy: Chassis cabled - Board 1- ETMy = BOM installed B4, B5, B12, 13, B20, B21, B28, B29 set HIGH (the rest set LOW) Chassis not cabled - Board 2- Empty Rack SUS H1-R1 ETMx: Chassis cabled - Board 1- ETMx = BOM installed B2, B3, B5, B10, B11, B13, B18, B19, B21, B26, B27, B29 set HIGH (the rest set LOW) Chassis not cabled - Board 2- Empty
This entry has several bugs making the data incorrect. A corrected status chart can be found in LHO aLOG 14749
Alexa measured another set of the beam spots. Here are the summary:
The measurement was done after the unclipping effort and we measured them in the DRMI sb lock configuration. The excitation was set at 131.7 Hz in order to reduce interference from the length loops.