Added H1ECATC1_PLC2.ini, H1ECATY1_PLC1.ini, H1ECATY1_PLC2.ini, H1ECATY1_PLC3.ini to master file, removed H1EDCU_ECATC1.ini.  Also edited H1EDCU_DUST.ini to include H1 diode room dust monitor channels.  Restarted data concentrator, but data concentrator could not parse the H1ECATC1_PLC2.ini file.  Error message "failed to locate first section in ...H1ECATC1_PLC2.ini"  

Edited the new H1ECAT* files, found "units=" missing actual units. Corrected, but the data concentrator still failed with the same error.  Changed slope from 1 to 1.0, removed ^M from the end of the lines, no change, data concentrator still failed.

Finally commented out the H1ECAT*.ini files to restart the data concentrator, as 20 minutes had passed.

Examined the H1ECATC1_PLC2.ini file with "od -c", found 2 unprintable characters at the beginning of the file (octal 377, 376) at the beginning of the file, and each "normal" character has a trailing 000 (byte of value 0) after...

0000000 377 376   [  000   d  000   e  000   f  000   a  000   u  000   l  000

Compare with a working .ini file:

0000000   [   d   e   f   a   u   l   t   ]  

The script that generated the H1ECAT*.ini files needs some repair.

A contamination control test is under way at the main LVEA man-door entrance. You will notice that three frames of sticky mats have been removed and have been replaced by two large Dycem mats. The grey mat is for gross particulate removal and the blue mat is for fine particulate removal. The mats will be cleaned once per day.Picture below

I have access the H1 system to examine DAC outputs during the problem with the large M1 offsets (see aLOG entry).
Note that DCUID 33 is the IOP model.  DCUID 34 is the MC1 model.  On MC1, DAC 0 0-5 are used.  In the attached plot, you will see that there is indeed activity on the DAC outputs for DCUID=34 (MC1) at the same time the DCUID=33 (IOP) reports it, at least to this observer.

I am in the process of measuring the sensing matrix for the IMC WFS.

An issue I have been facing is that both WFS-A and B seem quite insensitive to the angular motion of MC1 and MC3.

(measurement of sensing matrix)

To measure the sensing matrix the way I have been doing is that :

1. Excitation on one of the MC mirrors in either YAW or PIT. I usually excite the very bottom stage at around 5 Hz with amplitude of 200 - 10000 counts in LOCK_P/Y_EXC.
2. Monitoring of the excitation lines in diaggui in both WFS-A and B to make sure that the excitation is big enough.
3. Take a transfer function (or transfer point at the excitation frequency) from the excitation point to the WFS sensors.

I always get a signal with a high SNR when MC2 is excited. This is good. However the signal is always quite small when MC1 and/or MC3 are excited. In fact WFS-A and B are unable to detect the excited motions. I am not sure why at the moment. My feeling is that they behave as if the actuators on MC1 and MC3 are super weak.

As almost reported here the diode current was increased by about 25%. But, remember that adjusting the didoe current also changes the laser frequency! Today we had to adjust the PZT temperature by 11GHz to get the beat note with the PSL back. This corresponds to 2 mode hopes (5GHz per mode hope). We then compensated for this offset by decreasing the front panel temperature potentiometer by 1.40 units. It is about 3K or 3V per mode hope.

We also noticed that the clamp LED was on. This means the internal current limit is engaged. The manual recommends to back-off the diode current by 50mA.

Attached are plots of dust counts requested from 5 PM June 2 to 5 PM June 3.

The dust monitor at location 14 in the LVEA (H2 PSL enclosure) is indicating a calibration failure.

The dust monitor at location 8 in the LVEA (in the small clean room between HAM 2 and HAM 3) has been indicating for a while that this clean room is not clean.
This could be because the prefilter on one of the fan filter units is not in place: alog 6375

(Jax, Alexa, Stefan, Daniel)

The PLL had completely lost its beat note after the PSL problems last week. We found the beat note again and adjusted the temperature at the laser to account for this.

After the PLL locked again, fringing was observed in the arm cavity. Locking is still a work in progress.

During the locking process it was noted that the local oscillator monitor channel (H1:ALS-Y_REFL_A_DEMOD_LOMON) was showing -22 dBm, which was nominally 13 dBm. At the end station, we used an oscilliscope to verify that the input to the system was quite small (~11 mV pp). This was fixed by tightening cables in the RF distribution path.

At this time the channel reads 22 dBm, but measurements with oscilliscopes give 11 dBm, consistent with the nominal input to the demod board. The calibration will probably have to be adjusted.

Still no lock. :( 

The ISI (BSC3-ITMX) was tested with the dummy payload. Everything looks good. Report can be found at E1100848-V1 - aLIGO ISI-BSC3- Phase II report.pdf.

ITMY M0 to M0 and R0 to R0 transfer functions have been running over the weekend for phase 3b testing

The attached documents are showing comparisons between :

• "wirerehang" model in blue for M0/ "thincp" for R0
• undamped phase 3a january 2013 with ISI locked in orange
• undamped phase 3b may 2013 with ISI damped in black
• damped phase 3b may 2013 with ISI damped in pink

Most of the transfer functions are in good agreeement with model and previous measurements. Similarly to Mark's comment for phase 3a testing on aLog 5304, there's a discontinuity at 0.4Hz on the main chain TF in vertical and roll (page 3 and 4 of first pdf), probably due to a measurement artifact. A dtt measurement will be needed to confirm it.

scripts and data have been commited to the svn

Per WP3934, I put the BSC1 HEPI Actuators in Run or Operational Mode.  This entails closing the Fluid Return and Supply lines at the chamber, closing all the bleed valves on the Actuators and then opening the exit valve for the wheatstone bridge.  This is the operational state for the HEPI Actuators.  I saw a 2 to 4 mil drop of the IPS readout for the vertical actuator when the supply & return valves were closed (pressure drop at Actuators).  The Horizontal actuators 'retracted' about 1/2 to 2/3 mil.  These moves did not come back when the pressure was returned.  The Crossbeam Foot is locked and these numbers may recover at that time, we'll see.
We'll stay in this state for a day and when permissible, unlock the Crossbeam Foots and continue with commissioning.

I took over for Justin in the early afternoon.

Cheryl to end X transmon lab
Corey to squeezer bay to work on table enclosure
Hugh to switch HEPI actuators at BSC1 to Run Mode
Cheryl to end Y transmon lab

I started the new IOC for the dust monitor in the H1 PSL diode room. It is running but the data is not being acquired into the frames yet.

[Mark, Arnaud, Hugo, Cheryl, Kiwamu]

Here is our understanding of what happened on the MC1 suspension in this past Friday (alog 6591) although it is still unclear why there was a big offset in the T1 coil.

(1) Suddenly a big offset (-10 k counts ) showed up in the T1 coil (VOLTMON) which wasn't requested from the MC1 suspension model (DAC_OUTPUT_0_0).

(2) The M1 stage was pushed by ~ 10 k counts in OSEMINF_T1_INMON due to the offset. This was visible in the IMC-REFL_DC camera when I was in the control room.

(3) The DC change in the M1 stage then triggered the IOP DAC _KILL because the DC value hit the threshold of 10,000 counts.

(4) Tripping the DAC KILL somehow disabled the unknown offset too and hence it released the M1 stage with a big kick. Consequently an undamped oscillation was observed.

After this every time I untripped the watchdogs, the unknown offset persisted and kept tripping it.

Thomas and I looked at 3 different optical lever setups in the LVEA.  These are oplevs that are already installed and working.  I believe we looked at  the oplevs for PR3, HAM2, and ITMY.  My goal was to see the hardware as it looks installed on a real IFO.  I would recommend we look at ways to rework the housing for access to the hardware.

Very good isolation results were presented in aLOG Sensor Correction Results. During the test, the ISI was the only controlled system. The ISI is locked at DC to stage 0 but the HEPI structure (stage 0) can still wander around since HEPI is not controlled.

HEPI position control:
Since isolation performances of the HEPI are limited (amplification of the motion around the blend frequency and the HEPI sensor correction is not as good as the ISI one), it seems attractive to implement a simple position control to lock HEPI to the ground and steer the whole HEPI-ISI as desired.
In this case, the HEPI-L4C inputs of the super sensors are turned off (via zero gain filters for convenience) and no filters applied to the IPSs.

Then, some rudimentary isolation loops (couple of poles and zeros) were designed such that the UGF is 100mHz. This low UGF allows not changing the HEPI dynamics in the ISI control bandwidth (Low gain peaking between 100mHz and 30Hz).

At low frequency, when no control is engaged, the ground, the HEPI and the ISI are moving together. With the sensor correction, the CPS signals are added to STS-2 signal to evaluate the inertial motion of stage 1. But when the stage 1 of the ISI is driven, HEPI-stage 0 also moves (cf aLOG Feedforward and figure transfer functions from ISI to HEPI in attachment – H1_ISI_ETMY_Interraction_HEPI_ISI_20130530.jpg). Consequently, the stage 1 inertial motion is misevaluated since HEPI motion is not considered.
By increasing the UGF of the position control on HEPI, the HEPI piers and stage 0 are locked together and the stage 1 inertial motion evaluation should be better.

In attachment H1_ISI_ETMY_ASD_Stage_1_Z_Different_Configuration_20130522.jpg , spectra of stage 1 motion in the Z direction are presented in different configurations:
- ISI controlled + No HEPI control
- ISI controlled (with sensor correction on stage 2) + HEPI control (UGF 10Hz - super sensor IPS +L4C + Sensor correction)
- ISI controlled (with sensor correction on stage 1&2) + HEPI control (Position control – UGF 100mHz)
- ISI controlled (with sensor correction on stage 1&2) + HEPI control (Position control – UGF 5Hz)

It seems that controlling the HEPI using a “pure position control” doesn’t improve or deteriorate the isolation performance of the ISI (vs no HEPI control) but it’s simpler to implement than the regular L4C-IPS blend.
Isolation is better when the sensor correction is implemented via the stage 1 of the ISI. Increasing the UGF of the position control from 100mHz to 5Hz doesn’t seem to improve the isolation of the ISI.