Went down to EX after lunch and locked the ISI, after Hugh turned off HEPI offsets. I had to move one of the witness plates on the floor, because I had to slide under the suspensions to get to the far side of the chamber. To reach the lockers, I had to steal a clean-er stool from the LVEA from around HAM5, as our regular in-chamber stools have been mis-placed, wiped it down multiple times, and foiled the base. Wherever this stool came from, we should get a couple more because it was the perfect height for this job. Slid nicely under all of the suspended obstructions, but tall enough that I could reach the lockers. I left the stool down there sitting outside the chamber in-case TMS needs it.
Although I did not really find a smoking gun on SR3, I moved a few EQ stops back and recentered one middle stage OSEM (LR). Now, V and P TFs seem healthy. Moving on.
Kyle came out and checked the purge in the LVEA in light of the fact that we removed the dam - he reports that it is "normal" and functioning as best as it can. Note, he also reported that he checks it every other day. Good.
To all: Please alog if you are adjusting any purge - I'm trying to catch a phantom.
Before doing much in HAM2, but just after APollo worked on "bib around door":
0.3 um 20
0.5um 10
1.0um 0
In the midst of beam hunting this morning, we started quick TFs on SR3. We immediately see some rubbing as V TFs don't look healthy. I took a quick glance at the SUS and did not see anything obvious. Aargh. Back at it after a quick lunch.
In an attempt to resume alignment of the output HAM optics, this time with the aligned ITMy, we unshuttered the PSL beam and entered HAM5 to look for it. We found nothing. Tracing steps backwards, we seem to find that the bypass optics near MC3 got brushed yesterday during the ground look hunt. The PSL beam hits the monument on the wall a bit off in yaw. So, we'll need to reflash the MC and tweek up the alignment of the bypass. Kiwamu has already adjusted the power leaving the PSL down to 200mW. After lunch, we'll start again.
Jeff and Andres spent the morning aligning the SR3 2 lower stage OSEMs.
The opportune shut down of the HEPI Pump during the vent allowed the HEPI Mechanical to respond to the change of state. The Z & Y dofs trend 10s of um with the Y sliding 60um. X waffled around in a window of 3um so basically didn't move. The yaw and tilts are a couple to 15urads so again maybe nothing. See the attached trends remembering the local sensors these are derived from are from the top of the SEI Piers to the suspended HEPI. So, there is most likely coherent motions relative to the floor that these don't see.
Last Thursday, I modified the allowed PV list to further exclude FMCS channels which do not exist in the vacuum subnet (/H0:FMC-.*_H2O_PRESS.*/ rather than /H0:FMC-.*/). Attached is a plot of the corresponding reduction in broadcast traffic in the vacuum subnet. The second plot shows this change (in 'Week 28') relative to the previous change (in 'Week 27') that eliminated most of the redundant broadcasts for reference.
At essentially the exact same time as the EndY shutdown reported yesterday, EndX HEPI Pump Station stopped its output with a OV3 error. Suppose this makes sense. The LVEA road through this fine. Pump Station restarted in the documented manner.
Laser Status: LVEA-HAZARD, EX-HAZARD, EY-HAZARD
(covering Morning for Jeff B)
NOTE to Operators (and others)
With the EX Chamber work, there have been a pair of new Dust Monitors installed (along with new code, alog12738). Unfortunately, the Dust Monitor signals aren't connected to alarms, and do not come up on the main EX Dust Monitor Screens. You can find out counts on these Dust Monitors by bringing up their Expert Screens. So, we will want to look at these screens every now and then.
The Dust Monitors work locally, so those doing in-chamber work should be mindful of any audible alarms (if any) the Dust Monitors may give.
Travis, Betsy
In prep for the PSL alignment check off of ITMy, we pulled the First Contact sheet from the CP-AR surface.
Since IAS finished taking this morning's alignment measurements, Travis and I went into BSC1 and dropped the dam that was standing between BSC1 and BSC2. It is currently laying under the ITMy QUAD in the chamber in the event we need it again soon.
It should be noted that the pitch is without the 352 µrad correction for the First Contact currently on the HR face of the ITMy; this will have to be corrected for after the output arm work, in addition to the yaw and the X axis position. Also, I applied a +40 yaw bias to the ITMy. This zeros the yaw in our alignment equipment (the current slider calibration is a little off).
J. Kissel In prep for the RCG 2.9 upgrade of EY, I've captured all relevant safe.snaps: /opt/rtcds/userapps/release/sus/h1/models/h1susetmy_safe.snap /opt/rtcds/userapps/release/sus/h1/models/h1sustmsy_safe.snap /opt/rtcds/userapps/release/sus/h1/models/h1isietmy_safe.snap /opt/rtcds/userapps/release/sus/h1/models/h1hpietmy_safe.snap and committed them to the userapps repository. All components listed above have been left in their offline state.
no restarts reported.
J. Kissel, D. Hoak, A. Pele, G. Merano Spearheaded by my blind hopes of obtaining measurements of all 6 resonant modes of the suspended bench of the H1 SUS OFI -- an otherwise abandoned suspension, to confirm / refine the recently developed OFIS model -- Arnaud, Dan and Gerardo helped me construct various configurations of a (clean) laser pointer (literally a laser pointer) and an old QPD as a crude shadow sensor / optical lever. The normalized amplitude spectral densities are attached. I was able to confirm the two of the three modes already measured (Long and Vert -- see LHO aLOG 12588), but the only new mode I could get (without hours more pain, and MUCH better equipment / hardware) was the Yaw mode (which did at least roughly agree with the 1.1 [Hz] yaw mode from the model as it currently stands). Unfortunately, as we've learned from every other suspension, the Pitch and Roll modes are those which constrain the model the best. I did not reconfirm the mode's Qs. Ah well. Details and pictures below. The lack of mode frequency and Q should not hold up close-out of this chamber, but as a last ditch effort, we should at least try to get this information from 3IFO's OFI. ----------- Details: Measured Resonances: L* - 0.6306 or 0.6263 [Hz] (15 [mHz] or 7 [mHz] bin width, Configuration 2 & 1, respectively) V - ~1.05 [Hz] (7.5 [mHz] b.w., Config. 3, noisy and low-Q) Y - 1.058 or 1.084 [Hz] (15 [mHz] b.w., and Config 2 or 3, respectively) * the L and T mode are virtually degenerate and given the spew of light and iffy spot on the QPD, this could be either. See attached images for configuration descriptions. I was pretty limited given the clean hardware and table space I had as to how and where I could reflect or shadow light. Very few of the surfaces at the beam / QPD heights I had were reflective, and there were only a few bolt-holts that allowed for a good beam-to-QPD path. Not to mention the quality of the beam coming out of the laser pointer was garbage, the QPD only read out one DOF (the X channel was reported twice out of the preamp #facepalm), and ambient motion was just barely enough to get the first three modes above the noise floor of the QPD at its maximum gain setting (used in config 2 and 3). If this ever needs measuring again (say if the 25 [Hz] modes appear in DARM from some second-order dirt effect) we should really think about the measurement technique. Thanks again to Gerardo, Dan, and Arnaud for their help!
Hugh R, Jess M
As of 00:53:00 UTC July 15, the ETMY chamber was in the following configuration:
Please leave ETMY in level 2 isolation until 8am tomorrow (if it hasn't tripped by then)
Today Hugh and I spent the afternoon trying to get EMTY stably into level 2 isolation. For stage 1, Hugh brought up the DOFs one by one, and we discovered a giant peak in the actuator output signal (and the L4Cs) in all DOFs at 738Hz as the X DOF gain approached 1. (Giant = most of the actuator power spikes at that high frequency right before the ST1 actuators trips.) We're not sure what might cause this, but it's very reproducible and we plan to look into it later this week.
We noticed a small peak in the open loop transfer function at about the same frequency, and the level 2 isolation filter gain is much higher than levels 1 or 3 in this very high frequency range. (See attached.)
As for stage 2, we had no trouble using the control script to bring it up to level 2 with the Start blend, but sometimes it would trip on the actuators shortly after and we couldn't switch the blend for any DOF without tripping (also on the actuators).
I attach the .pdf of the loop design for reference. In doing so I noticed two things: - Why are we allowing gain peaking of 4+? I thought we'd agreed never to design a loop with gain peaking of more than 2ish? - The prediction of the minimum phase margin is busted. I was about to be saddened by a phase margin of 20.8 [deg] (again, I thought we'd agreed that no less than 35 to 40 [deg] phase margin is acceptable) BUT it turns out the phase margin is 41.9 [deg] at the upper unity gain frequency. So, at least the loop is still stable, but hopefully the designer didn't accept the phase margin of 21 [deg] as stable and move on... Regarding the 738 [Hz] resonance -- what's our high-frequency roll-off policy? Seems like still having high-frequency features at a loop gain of 0.2 is treacherous, especially when the feature is close enough to the Nyquist frequency that the *measurement* amplitude (perhaps not the real amplitude) falls off deceivingly because of the DAQ's down sampling filter. Can we not just toss in pole at ~300 [Hz] where it would cost us little in phase margin, but alleviate the worries of this high-frequency non-sense? I think perhaps, now that the era of "OMG we need to get every platform commissioned yesterday!" is over, we should consider dropping these automated scripts and going back to looking at the loop design in detail, understanding the compromises we've made there, and making sure it all makes sense.