no restarts reported

The matrices described in 13703 were installed. This caused a noticable improvement in the shape of the QPD alignment OLGs. They are now more clearly a clean 1/f shape.

I also tuned the OMC LSC demod phase and set the gain for a 80Hz UGF. (This was done by opening the LSC loop and sitting on the side of a resonance and tuning the phase until the Q signal was 0)

Nic, Jamie, Lisa

With the QPD alignment engaged, we did a scan of the OMC in ITMY single bounce configuration. Data are being sent to Koji right now for a careful analysis, but our rough estimate is that indeed the matching to the OMC is around 90%, so slightly better than for ITMX, as expected. 

Scan data: Sep 9, 2014 21:10:08 - 21:12:00 UTC

no restarts reported

Alexa, Sheila, Kiwamu, Nic, Jamie, Lisa

After some ITMX ISI work, PRY initial alignment work and more Guardian work, variable finesse technology has been used to bring the PRMI close to the dark fringe. This time the normalization of the error signals is done with POPAIR_A. The success is only in principle because once we arrived at the final step to transition to RF for MICH, an earthquake sadly hit us..the bad timing of this earthquake is unbelievable (#%$#&*&!). 
The positive news is that with this new alignment the recycling gain is somewhat higher than before. We don't have precise measurements because we haven't really locked stably on the dark fringe yet, but we think we had a recycling gain around 10 at some point during the MICH offset reduction sequence when the alignment was good.

Jim's ITMX ISI measurements are about to start, and they will last until tomorrow around lunch time.

We've been having trouble isolating ITMX. The punchline is, I think I need to collect a new with the seismometers in low gain and redo the loops. The rest of this post is summary/posterity/flagellation.

-Last week, Sheila complained about the performance of the ITMX ISI.

-To fix this, I took a new transfer function, but in response to something somebody said somewhere, I used a different configuration than previous rounds. This time I left the T240 and L4C in high gain, where before I had usually run all the seismometers in low gain for the tf. 

-I ran through all the commissioning scripts, load new cart matrices, new blend filters, new damping loops, and new isolation loops. Loading everything went off with no problems.

-Turning on the isolation loops was a different story. When I left on Tuesday, St1 was partially working, I never made it to St2. Kiwamu and Jaime were able to wrestle St1 into a semi functional state (alog 13746).

-I've continued to wrestle with this. JeffK suggested less aggressive loops, which I have spent a lot of time making successively more and more conservative loops. The first two attached images show a representative old and new loop. The old loop (that Sheila complained about originally) is more aggressive: higher UGF, more gain peaking, more aggressive boost, less phase at UGF (14 degrees!). The newer loop seems pretty "easy" in comparison, but it took a lot to turn it on, and it still rings a little.

-Another clue, suggested by BrianL, comes from looking at the damping filters. The third image shows one of the loops from ITMY and ITMX. The ITMX loop has 7X less gain, but otherwise looks the same; phase looks the same. The 7X is suspicious, because that is exactly the difference in the gain between the high and low gain of the L4C. I had noticed earlier that the DAC outputs when the ISI was only damping looked low (i.e. never higher than a count, when I thought a few tens of counts was more normal).

-So, this afternoon, I tried turning up the gain on the St1 damping loops to 7x. The outputs of the DAC increased to what I thought were more normal numbers, and nothing went crazy. I tried turning loops on at this point, and it was still difficult, but eventually we got everything on for St1. Additionally, some of the ringing was alleviated by upping the gain on a few of the loops, so that is how I have left it. St2 is damping only still, but St1 has been running for the last 4-ish hours.

-I looked at the St1 & St2 seismometers, as well as the op-levs to compare these not-so-great loops and the just damped state and it looks like the current arrangement is a little better than just damping. My last 3 images are the op-lev spectra, and the St2 seismometers. Pretty sure the big peak at 30hz is Kyle's pump cart, so a temporary issue.

-I have scripts set to launch the tf at about 1 am. I may come in to work on this some more this weekend, I'll let the appropriate people know if I do.

S. Dwyer, G. Grabeel

Completed the alignment of the HWS on the ISC table and end-Y for TCS. The green laser had some alignment issues after the power outage that a burt restore didn't fix. Sheila and I put the PZTs in the middle of their range of motion and realigned the beam onto the QPDs. After the green beam was aligned with the irises and centered on the QPDs I began aligning the TCS HWS side of the ISC table.

The new layout worked really well and I was quickly able to get a good looking beam on the HWS. Unfortunately there is an issue with an incorrect pinout on the HWS cable so I will not be able to get the camera running just yet.

on OPSWS1.  Please don't disturb the matlab session.  The TFs should complete before noon.

Closed these loops with the controllers designed from the TFs taken yesterday.  They turn on fine with Guardian and the ISI (w/ Lvl1 Controllers) only gets marginally excited during the process.  The HEPI and ISI Guardians are not SEI Supervised and are each in EXEC control as there is no ROBUST_ISOLATED choice in the SEI Manager.

A safe.snap was taken.  The only thing there is the open loop drive OFFSETs are still in place although the OFFSET is off.

I still want to study some performance but the positions are locking so good first step.

IP3 and IP4 need to be pumped with pump cart prior to energizing them -> These two IPs haven't been energized since aLIGO de-install/install activities required that they be unbolted from the iLIGO output MC tube a few years ago -> IP3 was found to be < 1 torr, was assisted with the pump cart while energized initially and was able to match its own outgassing after ~30 mins -> IP4 was found to be >> 1 torr and will need prolonged pumping assistance

Rick, Peter, Gerardo, Dave

We captured the settings of the four PSL models this afternoon and updated the SVN repository safe.snaps. To follow other systems' standards, we renamed the configuration controlled files h1pslxxx_safe.snap and symbolically linked them as safe.snap in the target burt directories.

J. Kissel (after talking with R. McCarthy, J. Oberling, D. Barker, H. Radkins, J. Warner)

The ever useful ISI table optical levers for ISIHAM4 and ISIHAM5 are read out by the susham34 and susham56 computers. As such, one needs to distribute the the lever signals from the SUS computer to the desired consumer on the ISIHAM45 computer via the Dolphin network IPC. A long time ago, h1susmc2 had been determined as the "master" for the susham34 front end, and h1sussrm for the susham56, and therefore in charge of distributing optical lever signals, binary IO interactions, etc. As such, a similarly long time ago, I'd installed IPC senders for these optical lever signals from h1susmc2 and h1sussrm but receivers never made it into the h1isiham4 or h1isiham5 front-end models.

Jason has just now getting around to bringing these levers online, and he's discovered the lack of infrastructure in SEI land.

Realizing the problem and simple fix, I've installed the necessary parts in the top levels of the HAM4 and HAM5 (copied from HAM3, with the appropriate name changes). However, because we're already trying to commission six things at once today (SEI ITMX, REFL WFS, SR2 Coil Balancing, HAM5 HPI), and a DAQ / FB restarted did not sound appealing to anyone, we elected NOT to install and restart the front-end code with the new parts. However, I've confirmed the model compiles and committed it to the userapps repo. These models should be make-installed and the front-end process restarted at the next earliest convenience.

Also -- why don't these optical levers have their screens linked from the HAM ISI overview screen? I notice that the ISI levers are still using Ryan DeRosa's optical lever infrastructure (both in Simulink and MEDM) instead of the generic QPD part that all SUS and ISC use... The generic screen is independently linked from LHO's sitemap for HAM2 and 3.

*ahem*...

8:53 am Sudarshan to X-End VEA, Mic check.
9:38 am Cyrus CS control room, reconnect switch for SUS test stand build up.
10:27 am Travis CS VEA, West bay, SUS test stand.
11:45 am Filiberto to CS VEA, BSC1 connect ACB photodiodes.
1:42 pm Dale + 1 Visitor, CS VEA, tour, then roof.
3:10 pm Jason CS VEA, West bay for ITMY OL.

Yesterday, we found that the multi-ton, white mechanical test stand that the Q6 QUAD was mounted to was out of level.  Eh, it's been a while since we've used it.  So today, Travis rolled up his sleeves and releveled it to the QUAD structure.  All ~3 tons of it.  Don't forget to check the level of the test stand when you mount stuff to it!

Jeff K, Betsy

While the SR2 M3 stage coil had previously been balanced using coil sensors, we tried to use the AS_C PD to repeat the measurement.  AS_C is an in-vacuum PD on HAM6 behind SRM.  Keita helped me center the beam on the PD with SR2 bias.  We then used the SR2 LOCK-IN to drive the SR2 in the pringle mode at 5Hz, with 100k aplitude, at varying coil imbalance states.  Unfortunately we could not see much change in the response when the M3 coils were balanced or unbalanced.  Attached shows the unchanged peaks between the 2 states of coil unbalanace.  SR2 pointing was restored to how we found it when we started.

Things to try next:

- Try on SR3

- Try using AS_B PD - a nearby WFS which does not have a lense in front of it - which maybe caused us a problem

As reported before, ITMY OL is making a huge fake triangular wave motion of 10 minutes period mainly in YAW (CH1).

We know that the optic itself is not moving because we cannot see this anywhere else, e.g. look at CH7 (AS_C QPD) and CH8 (L2 stage OSEM of ITMY).

We know that this is not the intensity noise. The RIN of OL SUM (CH6) for this 10min thing is about 0.3% pk-pk while each quadrant (CH2-CH5) sees two orders of magnitude larger signal. In addition, the phase of SEG1 and SEG4 are the opposite of SEG2 and SEG3.

It appears that  either the OL laser or the receiver or both are moving in YAW (unless the electronics of all four channels are conspiring together, which is very unlikely).

We could not find any apparent correlation between this fake OL motion and various FMCS and PEM channels. AOS people, please investigate.

The new H1 ITMs ROC (ITM03 and ITM11) are similar to the ones in L1, but they are swapped (the wavefront error is larger from X than from Y). 

Based on  T1300954 (table 3) and Hiro's wisdom, the effective ROCs of the H1 optics, as measured in reflection, going through the bulk, are:

R_ITMX (ITM03) = 1939.3 + (-10.92*2*1.457); 
R_ITMY (ITM11)= 1939.2 + (1.56*2*1.457);

By looking at the L1 data in single bounce without TCS (below), one should expect something like ~20% mode mismatch for X and something somehow better for Y.

L1 Mode mis-match:
NO TCS:
ITMX    14.5%
ITMY    22%

Even with an input beam perfectly matched to the PRM, I would expect something like:

modematching asX with OMC = 0.8408
modematching asY with OMC = 0.91229