Displaying reports 70281-70300 of 85554.Go to page Start 3511 3512 3513 3514 3515 3516 3517 3518 3519 End
Reports until 19:44, Wednesday 17 December 2014
H1 SUS (INS, SYS)
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - posted 19:44, Wednesday 17 December 2014 - last comment - 07:40, Thursday 18 December 2014(15700)
H1 SUS ETMY Top2Top Transfer Functions Look Great
J. Kissel

After Betsy and Travis successfully finished in-chamber close out (after LHO aLOG 15677), and Kyle, Gerardo, and Bubba have put the door back on (LHO aLOG 15696), I've taken H1 SUS ETMY Top2Top transfer functions on both main and reaction chains to confirm that the suspension is free and clear of rubbing. The transfer functions look spectacular. I'd call it ... wait for it ... a clean exit.

I think the only other thing we should confirm before pump-down is that the ESD drive is functional by turning on the high-voltage driver, driving at ~5 [Hz] in angle, and checking optical lever for the signal, as has been done for the charging measurements. This would clear the work done by Filiberto and Richard also during this vent 

The new templates for this data set live here:
2014-12-18_0143_H1SUSETMY_M0_Mono_L_WhiteNoise.xml
2014-12-18_0143_H1SUSETMY_M0_Mono_P_WhiteNoise.xml
2014-12-18_0143_H1SUSETMY_M0_Mono_R_WhiteNoise.xml
2014-12-18_0143_H1SUSETMY_M0_Mono_T_WhiteNoise.xml
2014-12-18_0143_H1SUSETMY_M0_Mono_V_WhiteNoise.xml
2014-12-18_0143_H1SUSETMY_M0_Mono_Y_WhiteNoise.xml

2014-12-18_0203_H1SUSETMY_R0_L_WhiteNoise.xml
2014-12-18_0203_H1SUSETMY_R0_P_WhiteNoise.xml
2014-12-18_0203_H1SUSETMY_R0_R_WhiteNoise.xml
2014-12-18_0203_H1SUSETMY_R0_T_WhiteNoise.xml
2014-12-18_0203_H1SUSETMY_R0_V_WhiteNoise.xml
2014-12-18_0203_H1SUSETMY_R0_Y_WhiteNoise.xml
Non-image files attached to this report
Comments related to this report
betsy.weaver@LIGO.ORG - 21:38, Wednesday 17 December 2014 (15702)

Travis, Betsy, Jason, Rick, Jim

After the noon SYS/COC/SUS telecon the chamber closeout went like this:

- Took particle counts in chamber - 20 - 0.5um size, 10 - 0.3u size, rest 0.

- Retidied the ESD cable loop after yesterdays fix which needed slack to pull out of the port.

- Blew all 4 of the large optical surfaces for 5-9 mins of N2 deionizing flow in an attempt to reduce charge.

- We attached the green lantern to the ETMy SUS and made a final count of particulate of ~2 particles per square inch.

- Took a few more pcal camera pix to compare with pix from before we attempted cleaning of the ETMy-HR.

- Released the ACB locking bracket and swung it back into place.

- Suspended the CP and the ERM, removing extra teflon payload.

- Reattached the QUAD witness plate holder now loaded with a new witness plate.

- Attached the new 1" vertical witness optic to its place on the side of the suspension frame.

- Removed all tool pans, optic covers, blowers, foil, etc. from the chamber.

- Asked Jim to unlock the ISI.

- Placed the new horizontal floor witness place and 1" vertical witness optic.

- Verified damping loops could enable on the ETMy.

- Took quick P and V TFs of the main and reaction chains.

- Called Bubba/Kyle/Gerardo to proceed with the door attachment.

richard.mccarthy@LIGO.ORG - 07:40, Thursday 18 December 2014 (15708)SUS
Reminder the test of the ESD can be done after we have pumped down.   10-5 torr or lower.
H1 COC
vernon.sandberg@LIGO.ORG - posted 18:19, Wednesday 17 December 2014 (15697)
Schedule for BSC9 Vent and ETMX Cleaning Dec 17-19, 2014

Schedule for BSC9 Vent and ETMX Assessment and Cleaning
Approved work to be done:


  1.   Assessment and cleaning of ETMX HR surface
  2.   Replacement of EX viewport plexiglass window inserts

Tuesday, Dec. 16

Wednesday, Dec. 17

Thursday, Dec 18

Friday, Dec 19, 2014

The last step is at the time and discretion of the Vacuum crew.

LHO VE
kyle.ryan@LIGO.ORG - posted 17:35, Wednesday 17 December 2014 (15696)
Vacuum system related activities
Kyle, Gerardo, Bubba -> Installed HAM1 east door (every other bolt) -> Pumping annulus 

Kyle, Gerardo -> Closed GV20 -> Started slow vent of X-end 

Bubba -> Staged/Status prep for BSC9 West door removal slated for tomorrow morning 

Kyle, Gerardo, Bubba -> Installed BSC10 North door -> Not pumping BSC10 annulus or Y-end until others "sign-off" on readiness tomorrow 
H1 General
jeffrey.bartlett@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:16, Wednesday 17 December 2014 (15693)
Ops Shift Summary
LVEA: Laser Hazard
Observation Bit: Commissioning  

06:15 Karen & Cris – Cleaning at End-Y
09:16 Elli & Thomas – In the LVEA working on HWS alignment
09:25 Hugh – Working on HAM3 CPSs
09:35 Aaron – In Beer Garden terminating cables
10:00 Jeff &  Nutsinee – Tour of LVEA
10:15 Water sampling company on site to test water
10:26 Betsy & Travis – Going to End-Y
10:30 Kyle, Bubba, & Gerardo – HAM1 door install
11:08 Cris – Taking garb to End-X
11:40 Thomas & Elli – Out of the LVEA
12:08 HAM1 door installed
12:30 Dave & Jim – Going to End-Y to connect a HWD monitor cable
13:00 Manny – Dropping of parts at End-X
13:05 Shut down Picomotors at End-X to prep for vent
13:10 Kyle – Going to End-X to soft close GV20 for vent
13:30 Bubba – Going into the LVEA to gather tools for End-X Vent
13:32 Manny – Delivering parts to End-Y
14:00 Rick – Going to End-Y
14:30 Started venting BSC9
15:30 Robert – Going to beam enclosure just short of Mid-Y

H1 SEI (ISC)
fabrice.matichard@LIGO.ORG - posted 15:59, Wednesday 17 December 2014 - last comment - 10:16, Thursday 18 December 2014(15690)
"HEPI Z" to "Stage 1 RZ" to "Tilt" to Mich

Krishna, Sheila, Hugh, Fabrice:

 

We have been chasing  large amplifications at low frequencies (in the range of 10mHz to 30mHz) caused by the Z zensor correction of HEPI, which is necessary to reduce the Z to RZ coupling on Stage 1. It looks like the Z HEPI inertial isolation is causing rotations (RX, RY), that are causing tilt signal in the Stage 1 horizontal seismometers, that couple to X and Y as we blend at 45 mHZ, and then shows up into the cavity signal.

 

The problem was mostly  visible on the BS unit.  We convinced ourself that Z to tilt  was the problem by moving Stage 1 in high blend, which very significantly reduced the Mich amplification around 20 mHz (which exist only when the Z sensor correction is ON)

 

It seems that the excessive Z to tilt coupling in the BS was caused by off centered  vertical position sensors (up to 24000counts). We recentered them by applying  a HEPI vertical force. The Z to Mich coupling is now much lower. So I guess that the gain of the sensors was affected by the large offsets and thus creating excessive Z to RX and RY couplings.

 

Comparison with high blend configurations show that there is probably room to further reduce this coupling. We need the measure the Z to RX and RY coupling and apply corrections.

Comments related to this report
fabrice.matichard@LIGO.ORG - 16:54, Wednesday 17 December 2014 (15694)SEI

The plot attached shows the Mich Out signal:

- in the first box, HEPI Z sensor correction is ON, Stage 1 X abd Y are in low blend, the IPS are off centered. The low frequency amplication is huge.

- in the second box, HEPI Z sensor correction is ON, Stage 1 X abd Y are in high blend, the IPS are still off centered. The low frequency amplication is gone.

- in the third box, HEPI Z sensor correction is ON, Stage 1 X abd Y are in low blend, the IPS are re-centered. Our current understanding/aseumption is that the Z to RX and RY coupling on HEPI has been well reduced.

 

The latest configuration is likely the best compromize:

- good micro-seism atenuation thanks to the low blend on X and Y

- low vertical to pitch coupling thanks to the Z feedback

- little RZ amplification at the micro-seism thanks to the Z sensor correction to HEPI (that offloads Stage 1 Z drive at the micro-seism)

- amplification acceptable at very low frequency, now that the IPS have been re-centered. We'll try to further improve it.

Images attached to this comment
krishna.venkateswara@LIGO.ORG - 16:35, Wednesday 17 December 2014 (15695)

An ASD plot of the MICH_OUT channel is attached under different configurations. The first (RED) is with no sensor correction on BS, ITMX and ITMY. The second (BLUE) is with X, Y sensor correction signals to all three BSCs. The third (GREEN) is with Z sensor correction to HEPI for the BS chamber, showing the large low frequency amplification. The fourth (BROWN) shows the MICH_OUT with the IPS recentered and same configuration as the third. Tilt-decoupling on HEPI ought to reduce the amplification further.

Z sensor correction has been turned OFF on BS and ITMY. X and Y sensor corrections seem to be working fine and can be left ON.

Non-image files attached to this comment
richard.mittleman@LIGO.ORG - 10:16, Thursday 18 December 2014 (15712)

Could be that I'm missing something but it sounds to me like at least one of the IPS is not working properly (ie broken). They are supposed to be linear to within 0.1% over the full range (+/- 0.05 inches)

H1 CDS
david.barker@LIGO.ORG - posted 15:48, Wednesday 17 December 2014 (15689)
temporary connection of ETMY Hardware watchdog analog RMS monitor to spare PEM channel

Dave, Jim

To perform some further HWWD testing at ETMY, we have temporarily connected the HWWD RMS analog monitor (BNC output on rear of unit) to a spare PEM channel on its AA chassis. We are reading the channel using the slow IOP DAQ channel. The plot shows 1 minute of full 16Hz data during the recent ETMY in-chamber work. The 1.6 second integration time can be easily seen in the data.

We are using the next to last channel on the PEM AA chassis, this is ADC3, Ch30 (counting from zero).

Images attached to this report
H1 CDS (SUS)
david.barker@LIGO.ORG - posted 15:37, Wednesday 17 December 2014 (15687)
SUS ETMY comparison between Hardware and Software (IOP) watchdogs

Recent in-chamber work on ETMY has provided a OSEM PD RMS trip level comparison between the Hardware watchdog (HWWD) and the IOP software watchdog (SWWD).

We have verified that the two systems have very similar trip levels. The SWWD trip level is hardcoded at 110mV. The HWWD level can be modified, but it is running at its default of 110mV.

The plot shows: the PD RMS status for the SWWD (Ch 4, GOOD=1, BAD=0); and the HWWD (Ch 2, GOOD=0, BAD=1). Also shown is the SWWD RMS monitor for the ETMY top stage OSEM, SIDE channel, which is the channel driving the RMS errors.

As can be seen, Ch4 and Ch 2 match each other very well.

Note that the maximum time in error in this plot is only 3 minutes. If the excitation were to extend to 10 minutes the SWWD would have tripped the SEI DACs, and if it were to extend to 20 minutes the HWWD would power down the ISI coil drivers.

Images attached to this report
H1 COC
vernon.sandberg@LIGO.ORG - posted 15:03, Wednesday 17 December 2014 - last comment - 15:08, Wednesday 17 December 2014(15685)
Schedule for BSC10 Vent and ETMY Cleaning

Approved work to be done:


  1.   Cleaning and assessment of ETMY HR surface
  2.   Replacement of EY ESD vacuum feethrough connector assembly
  3.   P-Cal alignment

Thursday, Dec. 11


Friday, Dec 12


Monday, Dec 15

After Chamber Vent Following E1400430
1: Disconnect external (air side) ESD cable from feed thru.
2: Install flat surface with Vacuum Foil on it near Flange for a work
surface.
3: Remove ESD feed thru flange  Gerardo
4: IF enough cable exist cut the cables from the connector on the inside.
    IF not enough cable disconnect cable
    disassemble connector then remove connector ends.
5: Crimp new pin on to cables.
6: Verify with SUS which pin is connected to which part of ESD.
7: Make up connector with new pins in proper order D1400177 V2
8: Secure new connector to new feed thru.
9: Install Flange on Vacuum chamber.  Gerardo
10: Connect new external cabling to feed thru
11: Ensure no one is near optic!!!  High Pot connector ~ 700V DC  If it
doesn't pass.  Stop and investigate.
12: Make up external cables to field current limiting resistor box.

Tuesday, Dec. 16


Wednesday, Dec. 17

The last step is at the time and discretion of the Vacuum crew.

Comments related to this report
vernon.sandberg@LIGO.ORG - 15:08, Wednesday 17 December 2014 (15686)

Decision flow diagram from E1400472, drawing by D. Coyne

Images attached to this comment
H1 General
jeffrey.bartlett@LIGO.ORG - posted 14:48, Wednesday 17 December 2014 (15684)
Dust Trends for End-X
Took dust monitor trends from End-X ahead of the vent. Posted are a 7 day trend for both location #1 and #2 and a 72 hour trend. The first cleaning and cleanroom over BSC9 were turned on 12/16/14. 
Images attached to this report
H1 AOS
eleanor.king@LIGO.ORG - posted 14:32, Wednesday 17 December 2014 (15633)
BRDF for ETMs at low angle

Here is an estimate of the BRDF for ETMx and ETMy from the recent scattering images we took. 

 

  BRDF Ps (W) Pinc(W)
ETMy 2.3e-02 8.4e-07 21
ETMx 2.5e-03 8.0e-08 19

 

BRDF=Ps/solidAngle/Pinc/cos(theta_s), in W/steradian , as quoted by Hunter Rew in P1400197.  Ps is power incident on photodiode, solidAngle is that subtended by the photodiode, Pinc=incident power (here the IR power inside the arm), and theta_s is the scattering angle, which is the angle of the photodiode from normal incidence.  SolidAngle-A/L where A is the area of the photo diode and L is its distance from the test mass.

Ps=calibration_factor*Intensity/Exposure, where calibration factor is in (W*microseconds/counts) and is defined by David Feldbaum in LLO alog 12627, intensity is the total pixel counts on the CCD, and exposure is the camera exposure in microseconds.

Pinc is calculated using Dan's calibration of the TMS photodiodes outlined in alog 15431.

A is as given by the camera specs = 1.0209e-05 m^2.

Rick Savage and Joe Gleason helped me get the distance and scattering angle of the camera from the mirror.  L is 6.0452m and theta_s is 4 deg for the ETMS. .

The other paramters used are:

  UTC Measurement time Exposure (microsec) L ((m) theta_s (deg)
ETMy 14-12-11-03-00-00 10000 6.0452 1
ETMx 14-12-12-02-00-00 500000 6.0452 1

 

Because these images are taken at small angles, its not valid to assume the BRDF is constant, so its not meaningful to integrate the BRDF to get an estimate on total scatter in ppm. I wanted to compare numbers to the ITMs, however I can't because the analogue gain setting was different (1023 not 100) for the ITM pictures.  Once ETMy is clean and we have the Y-arm back I will re-measure ETMy and also add numbers for the ITMs.

H1 SUS
betsy.weaver@LIGO.ORG - posted 12:16, Wednesday 17 December 2014 - last comment - 12:51, Wednesday 17 December 2014(15679)
For the record

ITM03 - had a full sheet of FC applied with NO IAS windows, see attached.  ITM03 was installed in BSC3.

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
betsy.weaver@LIGO.ORG - 12:23, Wednesday 17 December 2014 (15680)

ITM11 - had a full sheet of FC applied with NO IAS windows, see attached.  ITM11 was installed in BSC1.

Images attached to this comment
betsy.weaver@LIGO.ORG - 12:51, Wednesday 17 December 2014 (15682)

ETMx - had a full sheet of FC applied WITH IAS windows, see attached.

Images attached to this comment
H1 TCS
eleanor.king@LIGO.ORG - posted 12:00, Wednesday 17 December 2014 - last comment - 15:56, Wednesday 17 December 2014(15678)
ITMx and ITMy HWS aligned

Thomas V, Elli

The ITMy and ITMx Hartmann wavefront sensors are now aligned to their respective SLEDS.

We took the HWS plates out and centered the SLED beam on the camera using the periscope mirrors and the final mirror before the HWS (pictures of the final alignment on the camera are included).

The ITMx image is a lot dimmer than the ITMy image, however the H1:TCS-ITMX_HWS_SLEDPOWERMON  said 5mW whereas H1:TCS-ITMY_HWS_SLEDPOWERMON says 1.8 mW.  We were watching to maximise image brightness as we made the adjustments so I don't know why ITMx image is so much dimmer.

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
thomas.vo@LIGO.ORG - 15:56, Wednesday 17 December 2014 (15691)

We also observed some tarnishing or something on one of the HWS plates, picture attached.  Some light wiping with an ipa wipe did not get it off, so we swapped the plate with a spare.

Images attached to this comment
H1 SUS
betsy.weaver@LIGO.ORG - posted 11:51, Wednesday 17 December 2014 - last comment - 16:00, Wednesday 17 December 2014(15677)
ETMy Test Mass cleaning status

This morning, travis and I pulled the FC sheet that we applied to the ETMy yesterday.  The patchy smudge mark and the large gooeyish particle that we induced yesterday were apparently picked up by this FC sheet.  While there, we tested using the cotton tipped Q-tip on a portion of the ring around the edge of the optic (~1Inch in from bevel edge near the bottom).  We used both DI water and also acetone, both chased with ~5 spot drag wiped of acetone using the pressure technique.  Upon evaluating neither q-tip+ acetone drags seemed to improve the area since both swipes added to the streaking which the chasing acetone could not fully remove with 5 wipes.

Comments related to this report
richard.savage@LIGO.ORG - 16:00, Wednesday 17 December 2014 (15692)
Our cleaning efforts at EndY have focused on the three larger scattering objects on the surace (which were apparently removed) and the ~3" diameter "stain" associated with the thinner central window in a previous layer of First Contact (which we have not been very successful in removing.
)
The composite image below includes six images.  All were taken by illuminating the lower edge of the central "stain" feature with the green LED flashlight.
The two on the left were taken before applying First Contact (note the large scattering objects are still on the surface).
The middle two were taken after the first application and removal of First Contact.
The two on the right were taken today, after the second application and removal of First Contact.

It doesn't appear that we have significantly improved the "stain" feature.
Images attached to this comment
H1 ISC
alexan.staley@LIGO.ORG - posted 22:05, Tuesday 16 December 2014 - last comment - 15:37, Wednesday 17 December 2014(15661)
Sideband Modulation Depth and RFAM
Paul, Sheila, Mackenzie, Alexa
 
We measured the RFAM and the modulation depth for 9 MHz and 45 MHz sidebands. This measurement was previously done by Volker (see alog 3693, 3695).  We followed a similar procedure as explained in our setup alog 15625. During this measurement, the IFR modulation frequency was set to 9.100229 MHz as read from the timing comparator read back.
 

45 MHz RF Input:
12.6dBm out of RF balun on the ISC field racks
3.3dBm into the RF amplifier with -8dB attenuator in the path (with RF power meter).
11.32dBm without the -8dB attenuator (with RF power meter).
21.5 dBm with the -8dB attenuator and with the RF amplifier (with Spectrum analyzer)
3.2dBm into the RF amplifier with -8dB attenuator in the path (with spectrum analyzer).
 
This is consistent with Filiberto's alog 14251 when the RF amplifier was installed.
 
9 MHz RF Input:
17.27dBm measured at the RF balun on the ISC field racks. Based on what we saw for the 45 MHz there might be a 1dBm loss in the cable to the PSL enclosure.
 
Modulation Depth:
With the OSA aligned we found,
 
  RF Input Power Peak Height measured with OSA relative to noise floor Modulation Depth
45 MHz 21.5dBm 79.2mV 0.284
9 MHz 17.27dBm 41.2mV * 0.205
* For the amp of the 9 MHz we had to estimate a bit because the sidebands were laying on the carrier. We estimate that the carrier was about 5.2mV at the peak of the 9 MHz sideband with respect to the noise floor. The 9 MHz sideband peak is then 46.4mV with respect to the noise floor. So the approx 9 MHz sideband is 41.2mV.
 
Meanwhile we measured, the carrier Amp = 3.92 V  with respect to midpoint of noise floor. Similary to alog 8867 we measured the modulation depth using: Gamma = 2*sqrt(V_sideband/V_carrier). The 24 MHz sideband is barely visible. These modulation depths are fairly consistent with what Dan measured using the OMC scan (see alog 14801)

 
RFAM Measurement:
We used an 1811 NewFocus PD (125 MHz Bw) which has a 50 Ohm output impedance for both AC and DC. Our PD is the AC-coupled version the transimpedance gain is 40V/mA (AC) and 1V/mA (DC). So the AC gain is amplified by 40.
DC was connected to a TPS 2024; we measured 28.8mV with high impedance. AC was connected to Agilent 43958 Spectrum Analyzer with a 50 Ohm transimpedance. (Note: this gives another factor of 2 for DC).
Taken from Volker's old alog: the RFAM is then measured via, RFAM = (V_AC/40) / (V_DC/2) where V_AC denotes the Vrms as measured with the spectrum analyzer and V_DC the voltage read from the oscilloscope. The PM value below is the modulation index as measured previously.
 
Spectrum Analyzer peak height for
45.5 MHz = -70.6dBm = 65.99 uVrms, RES BW is 10 Hz, Range is 45.9875 Mhz to 45.50375 MHz (5kHz span)
9.1 MHz = -48.36dBm = 854.05 uVrms, RES BW is 10 Hz, Range is 9.09975 Mhz to 9.1025 MHz (5kHz span)
24 MHz = -98.8dBm = 2.57 uVrms, RES BW is 3 Hz, 24.0784 MHz is the peak which is about center on 5kHz span
 
  RFAM RFAM/PM
45 MHz 1.146e-4 4.0199e-4
9 MHz 1.486e-3 7.233e-3
The RFAM has degrared over time since Volker measured it in 2012 as expected. Kiwamu tells me that these values are still pretty good.
 
Tomorrow we also want to measure the RFAM after the MC. We are all set up to do this on IOT2R, which already has a PD1811 aligned (this just involves blocking the aux beam). Another thing we might consider doing is installing a long cable to the 1811 on the PSL table and send it to a spectrum analyzer outside the enclosure so that we can monitor the RFAM over time. Also, we need an extention for the 1811 PD power cable; at the moment it can't reach the power supply on the floor unless the box is elevated. We did not want to leave the power supply elevated, so at the  moment the 1811 PD is not powered.
 
 
Comments related to this report
daniel.sigg@LIGO.ORG - 10:43, Wednesday 17 December 2014 (15674)

I annotated the scope screenshot from alog 15639 with carrier and sideband frequencies. Just reading off the plot we have

Frequency Amplitude Unit Ratio Γ
Carrier –22.0 dBm 1
–9 MHz sideband –41.0 dBm 0.112 0.226
+9 MHz sideband –41.5 dBm 0.106 0.213
–45 MHz sideband –39.0 dBm 0.141 0.285
+45 MHz sideband –39.5 dBm 0.133 0.269

Taking the average and assuming a 0.5 dB reading error we have Γ = 0.219(12) for the 9 MHz and Γ = 0.277(16) for the 45 MHz sidebands, respectively.

Images attached to this comment
alexan.staley@LIGO.ORG - 14:58, Wednesday 17 December 2014 (15681)

Paul, Mackenzie, Alexa

We measured the RFAM again; this time after the MC (with the PRM misaligned). Paul and Mackenzie had already aligned the beam onto the AC coupled 1811 NewFocus PD on IOT2R (same specs as before). We blocked the auxiliary laser. Again we used a TPS 30324 to measure the DC signal at high impedance, and the Agilent 43958 Spectrum Analyzer to measure the AC signal. We measured 210mV at DC, and

45.5 MHz = -47.5dBm = 942.9 uVrms, RES BW is 10 Hz, 5kHz span
9.1 MHz = -33.4dBm = 4.7086 mVrms, RES BW is 10 Hz, 5kHz span
 
Using the same formula as before RFAM = (V_AC/40)/(V_DC/2), we find:
 
  RFAM RFAM/PM
45 MHz 2.245e-4 6.762e-4
9 MHz 1.121e-3 5.63e-3

The PM represents the modulation depth. We repeated Daniel's calculation but wanted to collect the numbers with the Spectrum Analyzer to reduce the error. So again, we had the aux beam phase locked to the beam on IOT2R. We measured the following:

  Freq Amplitude Ratio Mod Depth
Beat 60 MHz -22.8dBm 1  
+ 45 MHz 105 MHz -37.96dBm 0.174 0.348
+  9 MHz 69 MHz -43.2dBm 0.095 0.19
-9 MHz 51 MHz -42.50dBm 0.104 0.208
-45 MHz 14.5 MHz -38.82dBm 0.158 0.316

Taking the average we find. Gamma_9MHz = 0.199 and Gamma_45MHz = 0.332. This seems a bit high given our previous two measurements. I have used RFAM = 2 * (Vsb/Vcar). There is no sqrt this time because we are measuring the amplitudes; whereas the OSA measured the power. The PD has a BW of 200 MHz, but maybe we are approacing the roll-off. We tried locking the beatnote at a lower frequency so that we would not need to worry about the PD's roll off; however, we had trouble getting a clean lock even at 20 MHz which seemed to be fine yesterday. Paul will attach the raw data.

paul.fulda@LIGO.ORG - 15:37, Wednesday 17 December 2014 (15688)

..and here are the data. It seems like we can even pick out sidebands of sidebands with this measurement technique.

Non-image files attached to this comment
H1 AOS
suresh.doravari@LIGO.ORG - posted 22:08, Monday 15 December 2014 - last comment - 14:15, Thursday 08 January 2015(15637)
BS Oplev laser replaced: A factor ten improvement in RIN and glitch free operation for over four hours and counting

(Doug C and Suresh D.)

    This afternoon we replaced the glitchy diode laser  (Sl. No. 193) in the BS optical lever with a repaired and thermally stabilised laser (Sl. No. 130-1) which was under observation in HAM3 oplev.     The attached plots show the improved performance due to the repairs and stabilisation.

Things to note:

1) Broadband noise injection into pitch has disappeared after swapping the lasers

2) Constant glitching and consequent broadband injection of noise into yaw signals has disappeared after swapping.

3) The RIN has dropped by an order of magnitude at all frequencies

4) The spectrum is stable and does not oscillate between stable and unstable regimes as the temperature in the LVEA changes due to the airconditioners.

 

Please note that the laser is still approaching a stable operating condition and is under observation for a futher 24 hrs.  However its performance over the past six hours is satisfactory.

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
suresh.doravari@LIGO.ORG - 11:04, Tuesday 16 December 2014 (15648)

 

Distinguishing glitch and operator initiated actions in PIT and YAW signals:

 

  We  can distinguish the glitch and operator actions by looking at their spectral signatures.   A glitch would cause a rise in spectral amplitude right across the entire frequency range.  This would then appear as a white line running vertically (across all frequencies) in the spectrogram.  Where as an operator initiated action would have a subsequent suspension damping motion at low frequencies (only). 

   We can see examples of both in the PIT spectrogram.  There are no glitches in the red trace (the spectrogram for that is in bottom panel). This was after about 7PM and folks had already started using the BS oplev for damping.  So their initial alignment efforts show up as small steps with an associated low frequency spectral signature. 


    The blue trace has the classic glitch related signals showing up in pitch.  They can be seen starting at 1.3 hrs and going on till 1.4 hrs.  I dont think anyone was using the IFO at that time.  Since the BS oplev is used for local damping continuously, it is likely that the gliches kicked the optic and caused the activity we see around that time.

  The picture is more messy in the case of YAW as we can see from the blue trace and its associated spectrogram (middle panel).  The yaw signal seems to be continuously affected by the glitching however the event we saw in pitch at 1.3 hrs can also be seen in yaw.  Once again there is no operator related activity in the blue trace while the red trace shows some steps which have an associated low frequency spectral signature (bottom panel).  I concluded that they were associated with the initial alignment activity which was going on at that time.

suresh.doravari@LIGO.ORG - 19:04, Wednesday 17 December 2014 (15699)

I looked at whether the improvement in the laser quality has resulted in an actual improvement in the BS local damping.  There is a tangible improvement in YAW.

 

1) The Spectrogram of YAW motion shows that the injection of broadband noise into the optic motion in YAW due to glitching has disappeared after the swapping of lasers

2) the Coherence between the witness channel and Oplev channel in YAW shows that we can now extend the servo bandwidth to about 10Hz reliably.

3) The spectrum of yaw motion dropped by a factor of two in the range 1 to 20 Hz. This probably has nothing to do with the laser per se.  Probably the pier motion decreased between the two data segments.

Images attached to this comment
suresh.doravari@LIGO.ORG - 17:59, Monday 22 December 2014 (15791)

Performance check after a week of operation

    To see if the laser is still operating safely within the glitch free region, I checked the 1s trend over the past two days.  The laser power has a slow drift of about 1% in a day.  This is probably a LVEA average temperature related effect.   The long term spectrum shows a 1/f shape down to 10^-4 Hz.

And to see the broad band noise I looked at raw signal over the past four hours (256 samples/sec)

The 4hr stretch of raw data spans a period when the oplevs were not used for first 1.4 hour stretch and then were turned on.  We can see the suspension resonances damp in the witness channels.  

The spectrograms show that there is broad band noise in the optic motion, but it is not due to the laser glitching. 

The top panel shows the laser spectrogram and it does not show any broadband noise.

 

Conclusion:

     The laser is performing well, without glitches.   All the action we see in the Pitch and Yaw is associated with either human intervention or lock loss events which have kicked the optic.

Images attached to this comment
evan.hall@LIGO.ORG - 14:15, Thursday 08 January 2015 (15947)

After looking at the oplev spectra with the OL damping loops on and off, I turned down the yaw gain from 650 ct/ct to 500 ct/ct to reduce the amount of extra noise injected between 1 and 10 Hz. The pitch gain is still 300 ct/ct.

In the attached plot, blue is the spectrum without damping, and red is the spectrum with the new damping gain.

Non-image files attached to this comment
Displaying reports 70281-70300 of 85554.Go to page Start 3511 3512 3513 3514 3515 3516 3517 3518 3519 End