After alinging TMS and the ITM using the bafle PDs, I was unable to find light on the ITM baffle PDs using the old ETM referece (alog 9126). 

I found some fringing at: ITM 75 -59 ETM 384, -77 TMS 136.8, -240.3.  The ETM was moving too much to make a reasonable alingment.  Hugh, Jeff and Jim helped to get both the ETM and ITM to level one isolation, so things are moving less now. 

By misalinging the ITM I measure 12830 counts on refl B.  If I misaling the ETM by 40urad, I can clearly see two return beams, a brighter one from the ETM and a less bright one from the ITM.  Misaligning the ETM by 80urad, the etm return beam is no longer on the refl B PD.  I adjusted the ITM alignment to maximize the power on the refl B PD, at PIT 75 YAW -59 there are 2850 counts on refl B.  Blocking the refl B PD completely we have 52 counts.  I also misalinged the itm to see the signal disappear, so I do believe this beam was really from the ITM. 

The ratio of the ITM return to the ETM return beam is (1-Retm)^2*Ritm/Retm.  Assuming that the ITM reflectivity is 99%, this gives Retm=63%.  This reflectivity will only get lower is the ITM reflectivity is lower than 99%.  With Retm=63%, our measurement of the return beam power from monday night (alog 9171)means that the TMS effiicency  (one way) is 78%, matching better with Keita's prediction (alog 3077) of 82%.  In the first version of this alog I made a mistake, and wrote that the reflectivity was 53%.  

I measure 12uW of 532 arriving on ISCT1 with the ITM misalinged (single shot beam, about 34mW input from ISCEX) ), there is 1.6uW on the DC PD monitoring the X trans.  The DC PD does not seem to be working, it is cabled (R4 ISC1:2) but changing the gain on the medm screen does not change the monitor output for this channel.  I also alinged the single shot beam onto the Comm BBPD, there are 3.5mW there with the ITM misalinged. The slow controls readout of this PD is also not working, but I can see that the PD is working in H1ALS-C_COMM_A_LF.  I added a -62 counts offset (the dark offset) now get around 40 counts with 3.5 uW on the PDs.  

J. Kissel, R. Bork, B. Abbott, D. Barker

In order to determine a good threshold for the new SUS Hardware Watchdog, we've shaken the ITMY chamber vigorously in various states of excitation. 
In summary, with 
- the HEPI and SUS user watchdogs disabled (actuator and inertial sensors set to un-tripably high values)
- ISI damping, SUS damping, and HEPI loops OFF (I just left the ISI tripped the whole time) and 
- driving HEPI at the limit of its DAC range (in Y, RX, and RZ), 
we shook the suspension (and ISI) enough that I would say "Wow, that's a *lot* of motion; it's giving me the willies. We should cut off SEI excitation after 10-20 minutes of this." 

This level of excitation produces roughly 110 [mV] RMS* from the RMS circuit of the SUS Hardware Watchdog. 
* The Hardware Watchdog currently does not expose the output RMS variables, either to analog or digital, so we've replicated what we believe is the SUS Hardware Watchdog's signal chain in the IOP model for the h1susb123's computer, based on the limited documentation available (namely Fig 4 of T1200306), and the DC gain of 31.2 [V/V] from the SUS Hardware Watchdog Chassis, measured on an identical setup in the H1 DAQ Test Stand (thanks Ben/Rolf!).

My figures of merit were 
- the ISI BLRMS Performance matrices, in which 
     - ST1 was solid red above the 0.3 [Hz] band in XYZ, 
     - ST1 was solid red in all frequency bands, and 
     - ST2 was solid red in all bands in all DOFs
- the QUAD M0 OSEM speed dials (the raw ADC input version), in which (for these particular DOFs of excitation from HEPI)
     - F1, F2, and F3 (which are the L, P, and Y sensors) were swinging quickly over *most* (not all) of their range (which is 0.7 [mm])
     - LF, RT, (which are the V and R sensors) showed signs of abnormally large movement, say 25% of their range
     - SD was moving minimally
- The DAC saturation counter screen for HEPI, which was showing several channels off-and-on saturating
- The ITMY Optical Lever, which was not swinging out of its range, but moving abnormally large, say 50% of its range



For future forensics, the rough times that I had this large excitation going was roughly between 
GPS: 1073411801 and 1073412182
UTC: Jan 10 2014 17:56:25 - Jan 10 2014 18:02:46
PST: Jan 10 2014 09:56:25 - Jan 10 2014 10:02:46 

Drive was 0.1 to 10 [Hz] "uniform" white noise, using three independent awggui sessions, driving channels
H1:HPI-ITMY_ISO_Y_EXC    100000 [cts]
H1:HPI-ITMY_ISO_RX_EXC   100000 [cts]
H1:HPI-ITMY_ISO_RZ_EXC   100000 [cts]

The QUAD, ISI, and HEPI survived admirably (as expected), and after the excitation was turned off, SUS and ISI damping loops were immediately functional again, and it quieted down to normal damped motion with ambient input motion from an unisolated chamber. All software watchdog values have been set back to their nominal values.

The new h1susauxasc0 model was showing zero for the ADC channels. Problem was identified with the adc parts and bus selectors in the model. This was fixed and the model was restarted at 10:39.

Earlier (10:11) the DAQ was reconfigured to include this model and restarted.

I did the same alignment procedure as we did yesterday to steer TMSX to get the green light on the center of ITMX using baffle PD1 and 4.

TMSX alignment in its bias sliders:

• PIT = (102.0 + 171.5) /2 = 136.75
• YAW = (-208.8 -273.5) /2 = -241.15

Each of them could go up to 2.5 V when the gain is at 0 dB.

The Integration Team found that the ITMY RH was giving off some false readback numbers like 7E+34 Amps, which is sure to be false. The glitch seems to have occurred on 12/24/13 around 8:19 AM PT.  The SVN shows that the code has not been changed since 12/10/13 and we had tested the pair on 12/04/13 as noted in ALOG 8816 so things were working before Christmas Eve.

After seeing this, I power cycled the chassis and ring heater driver and it seems to have fixed the problem.  Just as a precaution, I also added the trend of the vacuum pressure during this time and it doesn't show signs of any pressure changes.  I'll try to keep an eye on this in the future to see what the root cause might be.

(Alexa, Kiwamu)

We noticed that the FSS was osillating significantly. I first lowered the resonant threshold from .8V to .5V. I also decreased the Common Gain from 30dB to 10.4dB. This seemed to help. It's possible the oscillation was due to instability in the MC servo. 

Alexa, Kiwamu, Koji, Sheila, Stefan

In the morning we worked on getting the green beam correctly positioned onto the periscope mirror and onto ISCT1. First we adjusted PR3 such that the beam was centered through the Swiss cheese baffle opening and the viewport. We then had to move the periscope mirror by 1.5inch toward the east, and move the top mirror up slightly. Following this, we finessed our adjustment of PR3 so that the ALS-X green beam was 4mm toward the east in the horizontal direction and 6mm up in the vertical (as specified by Ketia's alog). We also ensured the beam hit the periscope on ISCT1 with M11.

In the afternoon we were able to see IR POP flashes in HAM1. We had to adjust M10, M15, M16, BDIV1. The pop beam was centered on the LSC_POP_A PD; however, we do not see a strong enough signal. We do see a signal when we shine a flashlight onto the PD. We also aligned the pop beam onto the viewport towards ISCT1. Koiji adjusted the periscope location on ISCT1 so that the pop beam was well centered.  

J. Kissel, D. Barker

I'll write a more detailed description of what was done later (and what will need to be done at LLO to absorb the changes), but I've *finally* finished the modifications to HTTS screens, and compiled and installed the new monitor model for the voltage readbacks of the HAM-A drivers. I don't claim perfection, but it's certainly good enough to commit to the SVN and release for more broad consumption.

New models:
${userapps}/sus/h1/models/
h1sushtts.mdl
h1susauxasc0
${userapps}/sus/common/models/
HSSS_MASTER.mdl

Tons of new screens:
${userapps}/sus/common/medm/hsss/SUS_CUST_H*.adl

Edited sitemap screen to call new screens:
${userapps}/cds/h1/medm/SITEMAP.adl

New / updated macrofiles:
${userapps}/sus/common/medm/*.txt

After multiple errors were noticed in our change of basis calculations, we have been checking and recalculating all of them carefully. The results are compiled in T1000388. This document shows:
- the ISI and HEPI orientations with respect of the IFO axis
- the instruments locations and orientations
- the math and programs used to calculate the matrices
- the matrices for every set of sensors, and for each of the two possible modules orientation
- where the matrices are saved in the svn and how they are named
- the transfer functions for each type on instrument
- the old naming convention that we changed because it was too confusing

After thorough review, we are now confident with the HAM-ISI, HAM-HEPI and BSC-HEPI set of matrices. The BSC-ISI review is still in progress. 

Today we installed the HAM-ISI, HAM-HEPI and BSC-HEPI programs and mat files in the local directories, and we committed them in the svn. The old matrices have been backed up in "archives" sub-folders.

We have started populating the new (good) matrices in ETMX. In the coming days, the good matrices will have to be populated in other chambers when commissioning activities allow to do so. Safe.snap files will have to be saved accordingly. 

I modifed rtsystab on h1boot and the STATE_WORD overview medm screen to add Jeff's new h1susauxasc0 model. We will add this to the DAQ tomorrow.

Looked at time series and of course suspecting the actual tilting found coherance between the T240 and the HEPI IPS--See first plot.  The Coherence plot is from the tilt period; untilted shows the same coherence--near 1 from 10 to 100mHz.  The power spectra show the increase power in IPS_RY when tilted (ref-brown) relative to the non-tilted IPS and the tilted IPS_RX--we aren't tilting RX.  Like wise the upper right graph shows the elevated noise in X_T240:

The noise in RY IPS becomes noise in the T240 X as the T240 is so very sensitive to tilt.  So HEPI is doing this to the T240 when HEPI tilts.  Why?  Just the large drive from zero?  Remember, this HEPI is not yet commissioned and this tilt is just open loop...

Looked at the HEPI Pump next.  See the second plot below.  This shows a few days where there was some long stretches of either HEPI Tilted or not.  In the two left graphs are the same IPS signal and I've zoomed into the non-tilted and tilted times and seen by the magnitude of the numbers.  The zoom scale is the same and the elevated noise here is apparent.  The two right graphs are the HEPI Pump Station Output Pressure and the controller output to the pump motor.  There are some transistion glitches during the large changes to tilt the HEPI and the control output changes to deal with the different valve position at the Actuators (Maybe?) but otherwise, the pressure and control are not noisier during the tilted HEPI.

Looked at zoomed in time of IPS tilt and the pump control.  See third plot.  I've offset and scaled the curves to get them to show on the same plot.  I'll look at more case of T240 glitches(excursions) but I think this plot suggests a correlation of large fluctuations of the Pump pressure (I know I plotted the control but it is similar) to the excursions of the IPS and ultimately tripping the ISI from T240 triggers.

Attached is a linear response graph of the ETMX OL to convert the QPD signals to uradians.

The calibration numbers are placed into the gain fields:
H1:SUS-ETMX_L3_OPLEV_PIT_GAIN == 76.72
H1:SUS-ETMX_L3_OPLEV_YAW_GAIN == 65.33

These are the open light, offset and gain values for the H1SR2 M2 and M3 AOSEMs. MEDM has been updated with these values. 

Level  Open Light  Gain  Offset
M2UL     25178     1.192   -12589
M2LL     27027     1.110   -13514
M2UR     24949     1.202   -12474
M2LR     25904     1.158   -12952
M3UL     25625     1.171   -12813
M3LL     25512     1.176   -12756
M3UR     24952     1.202   -12476
M3LR     24566     1.221   -12283
 

** The LVEA was in laser hazard all day and remains so now
** Both doors came off HAM4 and went over the X arm manifold to their storage locations.
** Commissioners continued in HAM1
** Mitchell continued his baffling work near the LVEA test stands
** Filiberto etc spent time at EX working on PEM cables
** Sheila went to EX in the afternoon to work on the green laser noise eater status readout
** Dust monitor 9 alarmed a number of times but the particle counts didn't exceed the threshold by much.  The monitor flipped between green and white often in the morning.
** When Kyle was working with GV7 in the afternoon for the craning of the HAM doors, four alarms were generated from HVE:LX_X4144BTORR (PT 144) on the mid station side of GV8.  The readout was bouncing near 2.4e-08 all afternoon and the alarms occurred when the value intermittently rose a small amount above the threshold of 2.5e-08 (for instance 2.69e-08). In each case the alarm condition immediately fell below the threshold.
** Lots of CDS, SEI and SUS work (Jeff B, Andres) in the control room

Kiwamu, Sheila

Today we saw that the power on the als refl PD drops when we misalign the ITM. (ITM misalinged, 13000 counts, ITM alinged, fringing up to 18000 counts).  This would suggest that the ETM has a low reflectivity for green.  

We went out to the end station and measured 34mW going into the chamber, and by misaligning the ETM measured 13mW returning.  According the Keita the TMC efficiency is 90% each way, if this is correct for the polarization we are injecting the ETM reflectivity is 47%.  (or if we assume the etm transmitts 24% of the green, it could mean that the TMS efficiency one way is 70%)  We also measured 10mW rejected by the Faraday and 1.4mW in the hartman path. 

The fringes that we saw in the reflected PD DC output and the signal out of the demod seem consistent with a verry low cavity finesse. 

It may be worth checking the polarization of the light leaving the table.  Keita noted that there was more green light in the IR QPD path this time than in end Y: alog 8705  However, the polarization should only change the efficiency of the TMS, it would not explain the signal on the refl PD. 

According to the coating report that Betsy sent  the ETM transmission at 532 is 24% https://dcc.ligo.org/DocDB/0059/C1103233/002/Coating%20Characterization%20Report_ETM08.pdf

Alexa and stefan measured the polarization at the bottom of the periscope to be spol: 8558

Laser current set to 1.5 amps.

IR output 1.125W (after the laser head), 50.0mW (after Faraday, we're using wave plate to intentionally dump some power), 10mW after PBS (another  attenuation, we can decrease this, or increase this up to 50mW)

With 10mW going to the PLL diode, we have about -3dBm beat note.

green output 22.9mW (right after the laser head), 17.5mW (after the first Faraday), 13.85 (after the second Faraday), 12mW (just before the bottom periscope mirror)

Retroreflection (measured after 10:90 splitter) 0.73mW, this means that the retroreflection is 7.3mW.

Apparent table efficiency is 7.3/12 = 61%.

Aluminum mirror reflectivity is probably not that good (95%-ish if they're good) (turns out that they're silver, not aluminum, coated, thanks Matt for pointing it out, and this means that the reflectivity of these is 98% or so rather than 95), and there are four such mirrors (TMS telescope mirrors), double path, meaning there are 8 reflections. This should amount to 0.98^8 = 85%-ish.

There is a splitter for QPD (5%? I don't remember), again double path, so if it's 5% splitter this removes 10%. 

0.85*0.9 = 77%-ish.