H2 workstations ligo.org authenticated

Jonathan and Dave.

We have installed ligo.org authentication on all the H2 CDS Workstations in the control room and the LVEA. In addition to the "controls" generic account, you may log in using your "albert.einstein" ligo.org account. Note if you dont already have a CDS account I will need to create your home directory before this will work for you.

Access to CDS from outside of CDS is still strictly controlled and is not ligo.org authenticated. If you need a remote access account, please contact me.

Please email Jonathan and myself if any problems are found with the new scheme.

BSCISI #2 Assembly Status

(Corey, Eric, Jeff, Jim, Mick V.)

Stage2 Work

After part of Stage1 was put on the Optics Table, continued to build up Stage2.  The Mid-Plate was installed, Upper Hex Assembly installed, and then we moved back to Stage1 work....

Stage1 Work

After the Stage2 Mid-Plate/Upper Hex Assembly was installed, the Stage1 Close-out Plate & Close-Out Plate Cover were installed (still need to put in bolts and torque the latter).

Subassembly Status

• Small (stage 1-2) Actuators:  COMPLETE
• Large (stage 0-1) Actuators:  COMPLETE
• Small (stage 1-2) Lockers:  COMPLETE
• Large (stage 0-1) Lockers:  COMPLETE
• Flexures (stage 0-1):  COMPLETE
• Flexures (stage 1-2):  COMPLETE
• Sensors (stage 1-2):  currently being built
• Sensors (stage 0-1):  currently being built

Misc.

Top-Facing Keel plate was put on the Granite Table (lots of helicoiling for it!)

Opened Y-arm for ~90 minutes for squeezer group

Gerardo assisted-  

Dumped gate annulus then opened GV10.  Dumped gate annulus then cycled GV18, cycled GV5, dumped all annulus volumes then cycled GV1, cycled IP1, IP2, IP3, IP4, and IP11.

Dumped GV14 gate annulus into pump cart, opened GV14

PT144 alarms should now go away

Ops Summary

Sprague
Unifirst
Mid Columbia Forklift
delivery from Peninsula

BSC7 dome removal for in chamber cleaning
LVEA SUS test stand assembly
Transition to laser hazard for locking of H1 Y arm
Optical lever mid arm testing

In-Chamber Cleaning (henceforth ICC)

BSC-7
The dome was removed by the Apollo crew, led by Randy Thompson. The operation went pretty smoothly although the dome still lists to one side and counter-weight must be used to keep it level during transit. The o-ring protectors were installed on the flange (6 sections)and C-3 soft covers were installed on both the door and the dome.

Mark Layne, Zack Haux and I garbed up after lunch. Mark and Zack removed the one electrical feed-through on the chamber and it was wrapped for storage. Zack went into the chamber and installed support tube/bellows protection (C-3 covers)on the west support tube. Mark prepared the 60" dust barriers and Zack installed them in the north and south beamtubes. We thought that the west beamtube nozzle might be a different size than the others but it wasn't true. Turns out that once we got some experience with installation, the dust barrier fit much better. We still have a little work on that dust barrier as the Viton rim is lost somewhere on site. (If nothing else we'll cut and clean a new one.)

The other tooling is ready to go tomorrow: the compressor trailer is in the high bay (close to the BSC), the hose is there too, six tools are cleaned and in the staging area-two with shrouds attached so we can get started tomorrow.

In-Chamber Cleaning (henceforth ICC)

BSC-7

20 June 2011
Continued training Apollo contractors (Mark Layne and Zack Haux) regarding contamination control and viewports (Kyle Ryan), general in-chamber cleaning procedure, and job hazard analysis (Michael Landry). Removed four viewports, one camera, and one illuminator. Viewports were preserved in Class A condition. Camera and illuminator were wrapped in UHV foil and set aside. 

EPICS CDS RMS Filter

J. Kissel, R. Lane

While working on the BSFM we came to the conclusion that we needed to be able to plot the RMS values of the OSEMS. This included some slight modifications to the model to include new Test Points, recompilation of the model, modifications to the.ini to be able to record the new RMS Test Points, and a DAQ reload. We took a power spectrum of X1:SUS-BSFM_M1_OSEMINF_F1_IN1_DQ and X1:SUS-BSFM_M1_WD_OSEM_F1_RMS_IN1_DQ (CDS RMS Channel), discovering that the CDS RMS filter is, in effect, a Low Pass Filter. Note: X1:SUS-BSFM_M1_OSEMINF_F1_IN1_DQ(RMS) is the DTT RMS of X1:SUS-BSFM_M1_OSEMINF_F1_IN1_DQ.

BSCISI #2 Assembly Status

(Corey, Eric, Mike V., Jim)

Plate Shuffling

Thought we could work on the Stage1 floor on the Assembly Stand, but since we need to install Ballast Weights under it, it wasn't going to work.  So this plate was moved onto the Granite Table (where the Stage2 Midplate was....Stage2 Midplate was moved on to the Assembly Stand).

Stage0 Assembly

5/8" bolts were torqued down (once we received a Class-B-ed socket).

Stage1 Assembly

After the Stage1 Floor was moved onto the granite table, the walls were installed.  This assembly was then installed on to the top facing Optics Table plate.

Stage2 Assembly

Tried to be clever and pre-assemble the inner hex walls on this plate while it was on the Assembly Stand, but we discovered these walls cover up holes for other bolts we need to get to later, so the inner hex was disassembled.

X1 BSFM Blade Tip Height Adventure

B. Bland, J. Kissel, R. Lane, J. O'Dell, N. Roberston, T. Sadecki

Over the weekend, I took a two vertical transfer functions, at high frequency (15-50 Hz) and at low frequency (0.05-0.3 Hz), using swept sine DTT (as opposed to the white noise excitations that have been performed in the past) just to begin to get a feel for what would be excitation levels will be needed to get good coherence for Matlab transfer functions. However, in the process, I discovered that there was a good deal of cross-coupling between vertical and roll (with a little bit of transverse -- see first attachment). This cross-coupling is completely unexpected, but our best guess was that it had to do with the recently re-adjusted blade spring tip heights -- in that one side of blades, or even a particular blade was higher that the opposing side. 

So, taking advantage of the newly arrived Joe O'Dell, we went in and re-assessed and re-adjusted all four blade spring tip heights, such that they "better" matched the nomimal 26.6mm from blade spring tip height to M1 base plate (see description of measurement in Saturday's aLOG). After a few more lessons from Joe on how best to align the OSEMs (use CAM tools instead of just fingers -- see second attachment), we sat down for another round of transfer functions. Retook the 15 -50 Hz Vertical transfer function (because it was quick), and the cross-coupling has *changed* but *not improved.* 

Both Joe and Norna recommended a pitch transfer function to diagnose whether we've got the blade tip heights correct. 

Attached (fourth attachment) are the results of the (white noise) transfer function, compared with two models. The first, blue, "d1 = Nominal" model uses the same parameter set that was used for the BSFM's final design review (see T1000724), except that I've removed the damping by turning the damping gains to 0.0, to recreate a free model. This is what the M1, Pitch to Pitch transfer function *should* look like. The second, green "d1 = Nominal - 3 mm" model uses the exact same parameter set, except for subracting 3 mm from the d1 parameter (the distance between the vertical suspension break off points of the M1 blade springs and the M1 center of mass). This is the same as *raising* the blade spring tip heights by 3 mm.

One can see that the "d1 = Nominal - 3 mm" model matches first two measured resonances exactly -- the first mode at 0.41 Hz is a L mode. The second mode, at 0.44 Hz (nominally at 0.48 Hz) is the pitch mode that we're trying to nail (see M080134 for reasoning). Again, this implies that the blade spring tip heights are *too high* by 3 mm. 

So, tomorrow we will readjust the blade spring tip heights such that our fiducial measurement reads 23.6 mm (the distance between the blade spring tip and the M1 base plate).





The DTT files for the attachments can be found here:
~/SusSVN/sus/trunk/BSFM/X1/BSFM01/BUILD02/SAGM1/Data
(First Attachment)
110617_X1SUSBSFM01_SweptSine_V_15to50Hz.xml
110617_X1SUSBSFM01_SweptSine_V_0p05to0p3.xml -- This one's cycles and averages are ridiculous, if you want to use it again (and have it *not* take all weekend, then reduce the number of cycles / averages / points)

(Second Attachment)
110620_X1SUSBSFM01_OSEMDiagonalization_VtoLFRT_1p1Hz.xml
110620_X1SUSBSFM01_OSEMDiagonalization_YtoF2F3_1p4Hz.xml

(Third Attachment)
110620_X1SUSBSFM01_SweptSine_V_15to50Hz.xml

(Fourth Attachment)
110620_X1SUSBSFM_WhiteNoise_P_0p005to50Hz.xml
(Exported as 110620_X1SUSBSFM_WhiteNoise_P_0p005to50Hz_F1F2F3LFRTSDLTVRPY_{tf,coh}.txt)

The Matlab script to process the Pitch transfer function is
plot_110620_X1SUSBSFM01_WhiteNoise_P_0p005to50Hz.m
(which uses the BSFM model and parameter files in ~/trunk/BSFM/Common/MatlabTools/BSFM_Model_Production/, which are edited versions (as described above) of T1000724)

Oplev Mid-arm Test

(Gregorio, Gerardo, R. Savage, Volker)

- Electronics and telescope arrived today
- Breadboard and translation (X-Y Opto-Sigma)ready to be mounted on the RX pylon
- Corrections on the base plates were completed by the Apollo crew (late last week)
- E. James was at the site inspecting the test area; E. Black will come tomorrow
- After staging and planning,'tilt' angles, etc, final locations set for oplev mid-arm test 
   * Final approval is needed to drill holes and grout plates

PT144 alarms

Operators:  Sorry for the nuisance PT144 alarms.  GV14 has been left cracked open to allow IP10 to pump the accumulating hydrogen in the X-1 beam tube module    but obviously it is not open enough as the pressure in X-1 hasn't leveled off -> I will open GV14 a little bit more tomorrow.  

Added 2 quarts turbine oil to Kobelco

Ops Day Shift Summary

The SUS crew prepared the first test stand in the LVEA to receive an ISI.
Gerardo and Gregorio messed with oplevs at MY.
SEI crew (Greg) continued HEPI assembly in the LVEA.
Assembly of custom clean room #2 proceeds apace.
The planned Y-arm peek and laser hazard in the LVEA was delayed until tomorrow morning to give Kyle some time.

HEPI HAM 7

The HAM 7 HEPI frames and crossbeams are now in place and have been brought to nominal position. The set screws in between the HEPI frame and the foot were used to adjust the height and reduce the skew. Working with Scott and Ed the support tubes were able to be brought within 8-12 thousandth of an inch of the specified value.

 

HAM 9 work has already started with removing the old iLIGO equipment and staging the new aLIGO piers and frames.

MTS 01 Solid Stack Assembly

B. Bland, J. Kissel, T. Sadecki

We put up the remainder of the Solid Stack today on Mechanical Test Stand 01 (MTS01). The rest of the assembly went about as smoothly as yesterday:
- The remainder of the parts that we drilled out yesterday fit reasonably well (as opposed to not at all), but in particular we could only get 4 of 8 bolts into the middle (of 5) Table I-Beam [D050162]. We're pretty sure this is a flaw of the hole pattern in the Lower I-Beam [D050158] design, not the Table I-Beams.
- Other pieces that we didn't fit check yesterday also had holes that just didn't align at all with their mating holes, specifically the angle brackets (Upper Angle [D050165] to the Bridge Wall [D050164], and Short Left and Right Angle [D050167 and D050166] to the same Bridge Wall). We drilled out the Upper Angle bracket, but we intend to just re-make the Short Angle brackets custom, after measuring the hole mismatch.

For now, the Solid Stack is in secure enough shape that we can mount H2SUSITMY (QUAD02) to it tomorrow.

If you haven't gathered already, the Solid Stack drawing package [D0902057] needs some serious cross-checking and red-lining if we're to build any more of these things. A Solid Works model would probably help.

Solid Stack on Mechanical Test Stand 1 Progress -- Halfway!

J. Bartlett, B. Bland, J. Kissel, A. Ramirez, T. Sadecki

Today we made a valiant attempt to install the freshly cleaned Solid Stack / Dummy ISI onto Mechanical Test Stand 01. Unfortunately, good 'ol Lady LIGO Luck got the best of us about half way through the day. We discovered two problems almost immediately after installing the first few parts.
(1) On the Table I-Beams (D050162), the weldments that merge the I-beam to the dummy optical table occulted bolt holes that secure the dummy optical table to the Lower I-Beam (D050158)
(2) Mounting holes on the mechanical test stand did not line up with bolt holts in the "Tube Mount Ends" (D050156), which are the interface brackets which connect the Lower I-Beam to the Mechanical Test Stand.
(See attached picture pointing out the problem areas)

Sadly, this required some "Class A" power drilling for a good fraction of the rest of the afternoon. Fortunately, the surfaces that must remain Class A (i.e. the downward facing surface of the dummy optical table) remained untouched by the re-working, under foil and ameristat for the whole process; all modifications were done to surfaces that will never touch Class A parts (and all resulting shavings were immediately vacuumed up and/or otherwise removed from the area).

We did managed to get to fit checking the modified parts, and that's where we've left off for the day (see attached pictures).

X1 BSFM01 OSEM Diagonalization

J. Kissel, R. Lane, T. Sadecki

After the blade tip height adjustment of BSFM01, which (sadly) requires the removal of all the BOSEM Coil/Sensor/IRLED assemblies around the M1 mass, they needed to be reattached and aligned. Attached are the results of the alignment: for both V and Y, we show the magnitude of the transfer functions and coherence between Vertical and Yaw Euler basis drive and all six OSEM basis sensors. Given all of the difficulties in adjusting the position the OSEMs with respect to their flags described below, and after several iterations on each, we had settled for "at least 30 dB of decoupling between to the sensitive and independent OSEM basis sensors." We were able to achieve this for both V and Y (though some are better, and in most it's *easy* to get worse). 

Details:
--------
The alignment process is arduous at best, as we've found from our experience with the QUAD:
(1) The flags are cylindrical, so the left-right adjustment is as sensitive to misalignment as the up-down adjustment (where the up-down, left-right plane is perpendicular to the sensitive axis of the OSEM). This is being fixed with the advent of Matt's flat flags, but we've yet to get any on a working system.
(2) The left-right, up-down range of an OSEM Coil/Sensor/IRLED with respect to a cylindrical flag is at most +/-2 mm from dead center (estimated from D1001794 and D060111), so the centering the flag in this 4 sq. mm box by eye is difficult.
(3) The nominal left-right, up-down adjustment for the OSEM Coil/Sensor/IRLED assembly is two CAM nuts (one for left-right, one for up-down), whose motion is controlled by slots surrounding the opposing CAM nut, carved into the adjustment plate (see D060322). The nuts are only mobile when their respective SHCS is loose; then they maybe rotated with fingers. Ideally, one would loosen one came nut and slide the OSEM along the opposing slot, then rinse and repeat for the other nut. However, both CAM nuts must be loose to enable any motion, and even when loose, there is a good deal of static friction to overcome, often resulting in sudden large motions (larger than the 4 sq. mm box). 
(4) There is a fixed peg and diagonal slot in the corner of the OSEM Adjustment plate, which forces the adjustment motion either along its diagonal, or in a sort of rotation about it. This motion forces one to adjust the up-down, left-right motion simultaneously, making it that much more difficult.

But we know all this.

So in order to get a more quantitative measurement of whether the BOSEMs are centered with respect to their flag, we've performed a test similar to what has been done on the QUAD: at single frequency, drive the suspension in Euler degrees of freedom which are supposed to be independent of others (vertical, yaw), and measure the response in all 6 OSEM basis sensors, moving those sensors which should not couple to the Euler basis drive around until that statement is true. Specifically, we drive in Yaw, which should only be visible in F2 and F3, and move around LF, RT, and SD, then we drive in Vertical, and move F1, F2, and F3. 

The specific frequencies used, 1.1 Hz for Vertical and 1.4 Hz for Yaw, were chosen by taking a spectra of all Euler degrees of freedom and looking for a "lonely resonance" that is seen *only* in V (1.1 Hz) or *only* in Y (1.4 Hz). 

The templates for these transfer functions can be found here:
~/SusSVN/sus/trunk/BSFM/X1/Common/dtt_templates/BSFM_OSEMDiagonalization_VtoLFRT_1p1Hz.xml
~/SusSVN/sus/trunk/BSFM/X1/Common/dtt_templates/BSFM_OSEMDiagonalization_YtoF2F3_1p4Hz.xml

BSFM01 Blade Tip Height Readjustment

B. Bland, J. Kissel, T. Sadecki

Before we started the second round of testing, Betsy and Travis, under the advice of Joe O'Dell, wanted to make an adjustment to the blade spring tip heights of the M1 mass on BSFM01. Here was the story up to this point:
- Initial transfer functions showed several resonances much higher than expected, which implied the M1 suspension points ("d's") were off, and that therefore the M1 blade spring tips were too high. 
- The tips were then lowered a little bit (about ~mm), and no effect was observed.
- The tips were then lowered a good deal (several mm), which finally showed results where resonances were returning to the expected values. However, the tip lowering was done qualitatively so it was unclear exactly how far the tips had been lowered. Further, this caused the remainder of the chain to be significantly lower than modeled.
- BSFM01 was taken down (to be replaced by a QUAD).

However -- the story is little bit more complicated that this (see attached .pdf that demonstrates the story): The blade tip is ideally flat, from base to tip. However, because of the short geometry of these blades, (which, when unloaded, are highly curved) they are in reality a little bit curved up at the tip. Further, the procedure up to this point had been to physically measure the type height from a location that was *not exactly* at the blade tip, using gauge blocks placed physically on the blades (see E1000686). If the tip curves up *further past* the measurement point, then it is not representative of the actual tip height. Finally, though the gauge block as little mass, one still might imagine its presence on the blade spring influencing the measurement.

Now that BSFM01 was back up on the Assembly Test Stand, the plan of attack is two-fold. Re-adjust the blade tip heights back to the nominal height, but using a different reference point for measurement: a gauge block resting on the M1 base plate (with M1 locked down in its nominal position), exactly in front of the blade tip suspension point (again, see attachment). According to Joe's calculation, the distance between the the M1 base plate and M1 blade spring tip, with the suspension is under load and free, should be 26.6 mm.

The adjustment has been done; all four blade tips have been adjusted to have this height with respect to the M1 base plate. 

Now on to measurements, to see whether the results are promising!

Attached are some pictures of the BSFM, including 
- M1 Blade profile pics,
- M1 to M2 wire clearance from the M1 Baseplate, and
- Glamour shots of M2 and M3.

Update On BSC Assembly Work

(Corey, Eric, Fabrice, Greg, Jeff, Jim, Mitch, Myron, Sebastian, Vincent, et. al.)

It's been a while since progress has been posted, but tons of work has occurred; so here's a rough summary of the main assembly points of the last week or two.

BSC ISI#1

• Blade Springs:  Installed and pulled/pushed for both stages
• Lockers: Installed (both stages)
• Actuators: Installed (both stages)
• Sensors:  Assemblies built (except for actual sensor & target face).  But they are practically ready for install
• Horizontal Gs13's:  Installed
• Vert GS13's:  Issue with dowel pin/hole connection.  Will ream (make bigger) the holes on the GS13 base once we receive/clean reamers which were recently ordered.

Notes:  The L4C's & GS13's we recently received from LLO had noticeable dark powder/marks on them (believe this is the typical Aluminum Oxide we've seen before).

WHAT'S NEXT ON #1:  Goal is to float the assembly today (which means tossing lots of mass on the Assembly!), and hopefully start some testing soon (Vincent could atleast play with the Horizontal GS13's)

Circuit Overload?

We have been overloading one of the electrical circuits in the Staging Building (noticed this when we hooked up Rai's helicoil machine and vacuum).  When this circuit trips, it would shut every thing on this circuit down:  including both the BSC/HAM Test Stand AND SUS Test Stand (!!!).  Several times Vincent had to deal with losing all of his work and it would generally take a few hours to get everything back on-line. 

I believe there are the two plugs which are on the wall with the circuit in question.  Do not plug anything into these circuits which could overload the system (i.e. vacuum for example).  Perhaps we should put up some signs, or tape over the plugs, or have some killer moths guard the plugs (more on them below).

BSC ISI#2
Roughly 75% done with helicoiling Optics Table

Staging parts for this assembly

Attack Of The Moths (& Tropical Temperatures)

Over the last month or so, we've noticed a deluge of moths within the cleanroom area of the Staging Building (attached is a photo of a pile of dead ones on the floor).  They've been spotted inside and outside of our big cleanrooms (and we found a dead one on a large BSC plate under a cleanroom cloth cover!).  This is just to note if we come across any questionable particulates.

On Monday it was downright tropical in the Staging Building (can't remember but it was in the mid to high 80s).  John was able to give us tolerable temperatures by the afternoon (perhaps the moths like warm weather & learned how to futz with our thermostat!)