Attached are plots of dust counts requested from 5 PM June 13 to 5 PM June 14. Both the dust monitor at location 14 in the LVEA (H2 PSL enclosure) and the dust monitor at location 16 in the LVEA (H1 PSL anteroom) are indicating calibration failures.
After retuning the ISI feedforward controllers (poorly tuned at the first try - https://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=6763) and slightly modifying the blend filters, I re-measured the motion of stage 1 and stage 2 in the following configuration:
Stage 1:
- Damping engaged
- Blend at 250mHz with T240 in the super sensor in all DOFs. 2 notch filters were added in CPS low pass complementary filters at 1.05Hz and 3.5Hz
- Isolation level 3 - UGF: 40Hz
- Sensor correction - STS-2 to stage 1 - In X, Y, Z directions
- Feedforward HEPI to stage 1 - X, Y, Z directions
Stage 2
- Damping engaged
- Blend at 250mHz in all DOFs. with and without notch filters. 2 notch filters were added in the CPS low pass complementary filters at 1.05Hz and 3.5Hz
- Isolation level 3 - UGF: 32Hz
- Sensor correction - stage 1 (T240) to stage 2 - In X, Y, Z directions
I have attached spectra of the stage 2 motion in the X&Y and Z directions. Except the at low frequency (below 100mHz), it is within requirements.
Gerardo, Kiwamu, Michael, Chris
I ended up breaking a pipe fitting trying to fix a small leak in the crystal chiller path, right next to the water filter on the return path. This was a pretty complex piece of piping (several fittings in a row) so instead of repairing the blue LXT pipe, Gerardo and I hooked up a length of red hose between the valve and water filter. This worked, but the flow sensor for the powermeters kept reading 0 and tripping the chiller - this happened last time as well. Kiwamu and I went inside to diagnose this and fix it. The first thing we did was to try and bleed the circuit by removing the supply hose to the box on the oscillator end for the powermeters, but when I tried to hook it back up, either the female quick connect fitting got stuck in the open position or some internal part came off on the male end. Either way about a quart of water started flowing onto the table, thankfully towards the edge of the table and not to the optics. We cleaned that up, filled the chiller, and got it running again. We did have to bleed this line once more, but this time we disconnected the hose from the manifold, not the oscillator box. This looks like the way to fix the problem - likely it's clearing an air bubble. The laser was then restarted.
Penultimate mass put into lower structure and moved into the welding area for alignment. Penultimate was hung on wire loop and pitch checked by eye against the structure. 440 stops were slid in and PUM sat down on them. Various earthquake stops were added around both PUM and test mass. PUM was aligned in pitch and roll. Test mass aligned in pitch, roll and separation from PUM. Looks to be pretty much ready for welding on Monday after doubling checking pitch and separation. Angus, Gary, Travis, Betsy, Joe O'D, Doug, Jason
The corner timing frequency counter was swapped with a spare and is now working. The VCO readbacks were connected to the frequency counter inputs. This allows us to read back the frequency of all VCOs. The slow controls was updated to take advantage of the new readbacks and load them into the VCO structures.
J. Kissel, A. Pele After closer analysis, the 0.43 [Hz] and 1 [Hz] boost filters recently added to the QUAD L damping loops were on the hairy-edge of stability. However, such levels of damping are *needed* on (at least the) 0.43 [Hz] mode in order to lock the HIFO-Y arm cavity (though admittedly, this has not yet been quantified). I've sense re-assessed the "Level 2" L design from 2013-05-01, this time making sure include the same extra boosts and taking the opportunity to tweak the P and R design as well. Further, instead of Matt's BSC-ISI model, I've used Vincent's latest best performance achieved on 2013-05-14 to have a more realistic estimate of the 0.43 and 0.56 [Hz] mode amplitudes. I have not yet installed these filters, I'll wait on a time when it is convenient for fellow commissioners. Details: ------- Here's a summary of the changes from the 2013-05-01 design: (Bode plot comparing the two sets of filters on pg 1 of dampingfilters_comparison_2012-05-01vs2013-06-14_MSvs2013-06-14_RS.pdf ) L: - Added additional 0p43 [Hz] resonant gain boost as designed (will replace "LOCK" filter) - (Notably *did not* include 1 [Hz] resonant gain boost -- the 1 [Hz] isn't bothering anyone, and the filter destroys the loop's phase margin) - Tweaked ellip_L to better isolate and align the notch, and to recover some phase needed after installing the new boost - Knee frequency from 5 [Hz] to 4.9 [Hz] - Stop band isolation from 30 [dB] to 31 [dB] - Q of notch from 15 to 10 R: - Tweaked ellip_R to better align the notch (because there's plenty of phase with which to play, and with the new L and P filters, R sensor noise started to substantially contribute to the 10 [Hz] L total noise) - Knee frequency from 6 [Hz] to 5 [Hz] P: - Added additional 0p56 [Hz] resonant gain boost as designed (will replace "LOCK" filter) - Tweaked ellip_P to better align the notch (because there's plenty of phase with which to play, and with the new L and P filters, R sensor noise started to substantially contribute to the 10 [Hz] L total noise) - Knee frequency from 6 [Hz] to 5 [Hz] I attach the full set of design plots in case this design becomes permanent, but I'll draw your attention to a few plots in particular. Note, for a fair comparison, I attach one set of design figures of merit with Matt's BSC-ISI model used as input motion (dampingfilters_QUAD_2013-06-14_Level2p1.pdf), and one using Vincent's best ETMY data (dampingfilters_QUAD_2013-06-14_Level2p1.pdf), and compare all three in dampingfilters_comparison_2012-05-01vs2013-06-14_MSvs2013-06-14_RS.pdf. "_MS" is "Matt Seismic model" and "_RS" is "Real Seismic data." Pg 1 of dampingfilters_QUAD_2013-06-14_Level2p1_RealSeismic.pdf: (1) This new set of filters still meets the 10 [Hz] performance requirements, if not even a little-bitty-bit better because of the tweaks to the P and R loops Pg 5 of dampingfilters_QUAD_2013-06-14_Level2p1_RealSeismic.pdf (2) The 0.43 [Hz] mode in L is now totally squashed, according to the loop design plot. Pg 6 of dampingfilters_comparison_2012-05-01vs2013-06-14_MSvs2013-06-14_RS.pdf (3) The pitch spectrum at the 0.43 and 0.56 [Hz] spectra is predicted to be about a factor of ~2 less with the new boost, and a factor of 4 less with real seismic data, at about ~5e-8 [rad/rtHz]. I'd love to install these filters and compare against optical lever signals, to see how my model is doing these days... For the seismic kids: (4) Pg 1 and 47:49 of dampingfilters_QUAD_2013-06-14_Level2p1_RealSeismic.pdf Assuming ETMY BSC-ISI's performance at 10 [Hz] is representative of all BSC-ISIs (which we know is *not* true), what Vincent has achieved thus far is roughly equivalent to the sensor noise performance at 10 [Hz], and only dominates between 8 and 10 [Hz]. Nice! Pg 4 and 7 of dampingfilters_comparison_2012-05-01vs2013-06-14_MSvs2013-06-14_RS.pdf (5) If you're really paying attention, you'll notice that the V and Y seismic noise has *changed* between 2013-05-01 and 2013-06-14_MS, even though I'm using the same M. Evans model. Why? Because of MIT and their silly "X Y RZ Z RX RY" ordering of the cartesian degrees of freedom. Don't ask. The newer representation, 2013-06-14_MS, is correct. And besides, I don't care any more about a model, I've got representative data of an awesomely performing BSC-ISI. --------- The new filter design was performed by the script: ${SusSVN}/sus/trunk/QUAD/Common/FilterDesign/design_damping_QUAD_20130614.m The comparison was done with the script: ${SusSVN}/sus/trunk/QUAD/Common/FilterDesign/compare_quad_dampfilter_design.m Matlab representations of the new filters live in: ${SusSVN}/sus/trunk/QUAD/Common/FilterDesign/dampingfilters_QUAD_2013-06-14.mat and the two new models (one with Matt's Seismic Data and one with Vincent's seismic data) are: ${SusSVN}/sus/trunk/QUAD/Common/FilterDesign/ dampingfilters_QUAD_2013-06-14_Level2p1_model.mat dampingfilters_QUAD_2013-06-14_Level2p1_RealSeismic_model.mat respectively. For the input ground motion, I used the "GS13s, ST2, Isolation + Sensor Correction both stages" data, i.e. columns 21, 26, and 31 of ${SeiSVN}/seismic/BSC-ISI/H1/ETMY/Data/Spectra/Isolated/ 'H1_ISI_ETMY_Spectra_XYZ_Comparison_Sensor_Correction_20130514_152000.txt' 'H1_ISI_ETMY_Spectra_RX_RY_RZ_Comparison_Sensor_Correction_20130514_152000.txt' and calibrated by dividing the raw data by cal = 1e9*squeeze(freqresp(zpk(-2*pi*[0 0 0],-2*pi*[pair(1,45)],1),2*pi*bscData.freq));
Alarms: Dust Monitors, CDS Frontend Laser Hazard Projected work: End X electrical and computer work in air lock area Crane RGA over X and Y manifolds Fly HAM 1 door over X arm Crane HAM ISI container over X Manifold 09:14 H1-PSL Chiller alarm – Michael R. added coolant to system. Cheryl V. aligning MC-Trans on IOT2L Jonathan H. and Jim B. moving wireless equipment from End-Y to End-X Dave B, Hugo P, Chris W. recompiling H1LSC and H1ISC EY models 10:30 Michael R. Transition LVEA to laser safe 10:35 Kyle R. opening GV2 and GV7 and soft closing GV8 10:53 Dave B. restarted the DAC 11:16 Patrick T. moving items to Mid-Y for storage 14:00 Kyle going to End-Y to turn off turbo controller 15:20 Dust alarm in Diode Room 15:34 PSL chiller alarm – Thomas V. and Michael R. working on chiller system
Known air leak on GV6 looks to be a "not insignificant" contributor -> Hope to look into this next week
I installed the feedforward from HEPI L4C to stage 1 of the ISI. The results are really good for a first try. Isolation at the resonance of the chamber around 8Hz is really improved by the feedforward. However, Isolation is deteriorated around 1Hz. With some tuning, it will be reduced.
I have attached the calibrated spectra of stage 2 motion in the X&Y and Z directions measured this morning. The damping, feedback, feedforward and the sensor correction were engaged in the best case.
Models were made for the ISIs of the Output Mode Cleaner yesterday.
I made the related HEPI models today.
Those new models started this morning (both ISI and HEPI). The DAQ was restarted as well to account for the new channels.
The sitemap was updated, and safe.snap files were created.
All files (models, sitemap, macro substitution text files and safe.snap) are commited under the SVN.
This preliminary work will allow checking sensors on OMC ISIs and HEPIs, prior to the actual commissioning start.
Work was performed under WP3974 which is now closed.
For the 35W and 200W laser. 200W laser files end in -001.
The noise around 4 kHz is again present in the 200W laser's RPN plot, and it even shows up in the pointing measurement.
Hugo and Dave.
We started the first version of the HPI and ISI models for HAM4,5,6 this morning. h1boot's rtsystab file was extended. The DAQ master file was reconfigured for the new INI and PAR files. After two restarts due to channel duplication we were done by 11am (started at 10:33). The EPICS gateway did not reconnect to the DAQ cleanly, so I restarted the h1fe-cds gateway.
The DAQ has increased in size by the following
| before | after | |
| num chans | 150,000 | 168,000 |
| frame size (MB for 32 sec frame) | 317 | 348 |
| frame data rate (MBps) | 9.9 | 10.9 |
We have officially exceeded the LDAS 10MByte/sec limit.
Attached are plots of dust counts requested from 5 PM June 12 to 5 PM June 13. Both the dust monitor at location 14 in the LVEA (H2 PSL enclosure) and the dust monitor at location 16 in the LVEA (H1 PSL anteroom) are indicating calibration failures.
[Mark B. Arnaud P.]
In the same manner as the previous changes on BSFM/QUADS, the calibration gain and sliders range of the TMSY have been modified for TMSY
Details :
In order to change the sliders range, the following adl file has been modified : SUS_CUST_TMTS_M1_OPTICALIGN.adl located in /opt/rtcds/userapps/release/sus/common/medm/tmts
It has been commited to the svn and a safe_snap file will be saved when isc team will allow it.
The calculation of the gains and offsets is detailed in TMSY_calibration.m located in /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunkTMTS/Common/MatlabTools and the 2nd picture, from Mark B.'s mathematica model has been used as a reference for M1 to M2 compliance in Pitch and Yaw (rad/N.m)
Mindy J, Greg G, Joe O, Thomas V We have installed the TCS RH at EX onto the suspension cage. Pictures attached. Continuity tested well on all pin out that go up to the suspension cables. We will do another round of testing when the in-air cables are hooked up. Upper RH resistivity ~ 42.5 ohms Lower RH resistivity ~ 41.3 ohms Temp sensor resistivity ~ 101 ohms
(Kiwamu, Jax, Stefan) We entered HAM1 today to get the REFL beam out. In order to maximize the power from the Refl port for the HIFO work, we removed both beam splitters from the path , and adjusted the steering mirror to hit the top of the periscope on ISCT1. (The beams from the splitters were previously just dumped - one of them is designed to be a dump, the other is intended for the in vacuum refl sensors), We also used the opportunity to check that the ther beams (green from arm and red to SHG), were well aligned. Note that with the PRM aligned, the gives us about a Watt in ISCT1, which is currently also in the wrong polarization. We dumped the beam riht after the periscope, but we also layed a beam bump under the periscope - due to the wrong polarization a significant amount of light goes through the bottom periscope mirror. This should allow us to close HAM1 again on Friday.
Transfer functions are running overngight on HAM1-HEPI.
Start time: 8.03pm PCT
Attached are plots of dust counts requested from 5 PM June 11 to 5 PM June 12. Both the dust monitor at location 14 in the LVEA (H2 PSL enclosure) and the dust monitor at location 16 in the LVEA (H1 PSL anteroom) are indicating calibration failures.
Made the simulink models for the ISIs of HAM4, HAM5 and HAM6
In order to reduce the motion of the quads at low frequency, I added resonnant gain filters called "LOCK" to the medm filterbank of etmy and itmy. Those filters are designed to help locking the cavity, damping the 0.43Hz and 0.99Hz resonnances of the first longitudinal modes and 0.56Hz of the first pitch mode. The stability of the closed loop hasn't been studied yet, but it looks to be working fine for now. The second and third pictures attached are showing the shape of the damping filters with and without the "LOCK" filter engaged. Those filters are engaged with a ramping time of 10sec.
In Foton :
longitudinal "LOCK" filter = resgain(0.43,2,10)*resgain(1,2,10)
pitch "LOCK" filter = resgain(0.56,2,10)
J. Kissel, A. Pele I've modeled the effect of adding these resonant-gain boost filters on the ETM, and the results are ... interesting. For Pitch, whose design figure of merit is shown in dampingfilters_QUAD_2013-06-14_Level2p1_loopdesign_P.pdf the boost filter only does good. In the 2013-05-01 design, there was plenty of phase margin at low frequency, and the boost was pretty weaksauce. With this boost increase (the previous boost was also at 0.56 Hz), there is still oodles of phase margin on both sides. We shall keep it. For Longitudinal, dampingfilters_QUAD_2013-06-14_Level2p1_loopdesign_L.pdf the situation is a little more dicey. According to the model, with these two new boost filters at 0.43 and 0.56 [Hz], the loop in now only *conditionally* stable, and the phase margin at the last upper unity gain crossing has diminished to 19 [deg]. Assuming that stable locking of the cavity *needs* this level of damping on the lowest two modes, I'll go back the model and look into a redesign that regains unconditional stability and a reasonable phase margin, while continuing to squash these lowest modes. I attach the previous two designs without these boosts for comparison: dampingfilters_QUAD_2013-05-01_loopdesign_L.pdf dampingfilters_QUAD_2013-05-01_loopdesign_P.pdf I've discussed the current implementation with Arnaud, and a couple of other details came up in the discussion. (1) The intent for this additional LOCK filter was that it only be used during lock acquisition, and to be turned off once lock is acquired. As such, the filter has a 10 s ramp on it. It is still yet-to-be tested whether, once lock is acquired, the filter can be turned off, and the QUADs don't ring up again at these frequencies due to ambient excitations. Regardless of this original design intent, I'm going to try and design a filter set than can be left on at all times. I think it's doable. (2) ONLY the ETM has the extra resgain(1,2,10) filter, because when Arnaud tried this on the ITM the loops went unstable. My guess is that this is because the ITM is still a "wirerehang," and so his resonances are different enough that the open loop gain had instabilities. I'll also look into this. Finally, I'll use Vincent's recent 2013-05-14 data as my BSC-ISI ST2 input, instead of Matt's model to assess the overall performance.
