Mitchell, Gerardo, Apollo (Scott, Randy, Tyler), Thomas

We got the suspension and the box into chamber and mounted onto stage-0.  The next steps are:

- Photodiode cabling
- Fine-tune alignment
- Check balance
- Set the eddy current dampening gap
- Wipe down
- Swing Back for first contact removal

• Y axis position: -199.93 mm
  • Target: -200.0 mm
  • Error: +0.07 mm
  • Tolerance: ±1.0 mm
• Z axis position: -79.97 mm
  • Target: -80.0 mm
  • Error: +0.03 mm
  • Tolerance: ±1.0 mm
• Yaw: 6 µrad CCW
  • Target: 0 µrad
  • Error: 6 µrad
  • Tolerance: ±10 µrad

Keita, Kiwamu, Sheila

We cleaned the last of the optics needed for HAM6, a 2 inch HR for 1064 with SN 0984.  There are some small marks that look like scratches on the AR side, a photo is attached.  Keita doesn't think this is a serious problem.  

Insulation removal started in earnest on Tuesday of this week. The vendor is using a soft sided 54 foot trailer to load waste insulation into. Once a day they fill the trailer and take it to the city dump where they have stationed another forklift to help push the insulation off of the trailer.

They are making very good progress - starting at the LVEA they have progressed to the third double door which is ~2400 feet down the arm or ~800 feet per day.

Photos show the work in progress and the end result - a clean beam tube enclosure.

A few pictures of the recent state of our roofing project. The first two photos show the XEND station roof from the backside. The metal trim is in process. This is the first of the trim work.

The other 3 pictures show today's state of the LVEA roof. I expect the membrane on this level to be complete early next week.

I ran the following:

caput HVE-EY:Y1_423BTORR.HIHI 4.77e-08
caput HVE-MY:Y5_246BTORR.HIHI 5.11e-08
caput HVE-MY:Y1_243BTORR.HIHI 3.81e-08
caput HVE-LY:Y4_124BTORR.HIHI 8.47e-08
caput HVE-EX:X1_523BTORR.HIHI 4.08e-08
caput HVE-MX:X5_346BTORR.HIHI 1.48e-08
caput HVE-MX:X1_343BTORR.HIHI 2.12e-08
caput HVE-LX:X4_144BTORR.HIHI 2.69e-08
caput HVE-EY:Y1_423BTORR.HHSV MAJOR
caput HVE-MY:Y5_246BTORR.HHSV MAJOR
caput HVE-MY:Y1_243BTORR.HHSV MAJOR
caput HVE-LY:Y4_124BTORR.HHSV MAJOR
caput HVE-EX:X1_523BTORR.HHSV MAJOR
caput HVE-MX:X5_346BTORR.HHSV MAJOR
caput HVE-MX:X1_343BTORR.HHSV MAJOR
caput HVE-LX:X4_144BTORR.HHSV MAJOR

I looked at the ITMx ACB position for any gross positional errors with respect to the ITMx. Athough the ISI and ITM are on stops the indication from the total station is the ACB will not interfere with the fine alignment of the ITMx. The ITMx rough position looking from the spool is good as far as the optic cap centering goes. I predict that we will need little elevation or lateral adjustment.
We won't know about longitudinal position or pitch and yaw until the ISI and SUS are leveled, TFs are done and the optic is suspended.

I intended to change the channel's alarm level, but accidentally set the value of the channel itself.

HVE-EY:Y1_423BTORR got briefly changed from 4.77394e-09 to 4.77e-08.

A plot of the change is attached.

h1sush34 developed a timing error at 09:45 PDT. I activated the IOP DACKILL and restarted all the models (MC2, PR2, SR2 and IOP), which cleared the problem. The IOP Watchdogs in turn tripped h1seih23 (h1seih45 was already tripped). 

The cause of the timing error is currently unknown. I'm leaving all systems tripped.

From late Wednesday afternoon - After issues were encountered running a Matlab script I looked at the tripleteststand.  Checked the system time and the model time, found them to be as close as can be expected.  Noted that the NDS process was not running, and couldn't be kept running when started.  Killed the daqd process, started the nds process, then restarted the daqd process.  

Checked the ability to get data from _DQ and testpoint channels using dataviewer, all appeared OK.  Jeff Bartlett confirmed that the Matlab script could be run successfully this morning.

I created a new group called BeamTube_Pressure in the vacuum alarm handler configuration file and added the following channels to it:

HVE-LX:X4_144BTORR
HVE-MX:X1_343BTORR
HVE-MX:X5_346BTORR
HVE-EX:X1_523BTORR
HVE-LY:Y4_124BTORR
HVE-MY:Y1_243BTORR
HVE-MY:Y5_246BTORR
HVE-EY:Y1_423BTORR

I committed the changes to subversion.

Jeff B and Andres R

  We have taken and plotted the damped and undamped transfer functions and power spectra for H1-OMC. The results look positive for exiting Phase 1b testing. The plots are attached below.   
   

it seems like the ref cav alignment is still bad.  Trend attached, there was a power glitch 9/30, ever since the ref cav trans power has been dropping although the PMC trans has been steady.  

This is sheila, Sorry I'm logged in as Joesph areeda

Trying to adjust for the misalignment that Jason saw RichM and myself tried to move ETM-X to correct.

Initial Dial Indicator readings:

We tried to make a move 3mm W and 1mm Down. As well as a 940μr rotation CCW, as per Jason. 8126 8116

This may not be as much of a swing west as we need, and the rotation amount was a bit of a guess. Getting another IAS shot at this point will help us to fine tune the alignment. 

Started M0 and R0 undamped ETMX transfer functions

This is an entry that I was supposed to write some time ago but I never did..here it is, "Kissel style".

Problem : Keita  found  a couple of weeks ago that the mode as measured after the REFL WFS telescope in HAM1 was not what expected, and that mode, propagated through the REFL WFS sled, would give 35 degrees Gouy phase separation between the sensors, and even less between the tip-tilts actuators. Very bad. Sheila had to move the tip-tilts to compensate for that. We were puzzled because the mode as reaching HAM1 from HAM2 was not very far off from what expected (Paul's calculations, same entry), the telescope lengths were close to nominal, the sled was built according to the "nominal" design..everything was close to nominal, but somehow we ended up very far from the 90° Gouy phase separation we wanted.

Short version of the story: My best guess, based on the alamode model attached, is that all these "small" variations from nominal are indeed relatively small, but they all add up together to create the badness that we saw. My alamode file is attached.

Long version of the story

*All "nominal" parameters as designed:

Gouy separation between RM1 and RM2 is 66.5778
Gouy separation between WFS is 89.7558°

*Adding as built REFL WFS sled

Gouy separation between RM1 and RM2 is 66.5778°
Gouy separation between WFS is 68.0585°


* Adding as built REFL WFS telescope

Gouy separation between RM1 and RM2 is 56.7438°
Gouy separation between WFS is 66.3777°

*Adding as measured input beam parameters in HAM1, before the REFL telescope

- Horizontal

Gouy separation between RM1 and RM2 is 55.6327°
Gouy separation between WFS is 56.3534°

- Vertical

Gouy separation between RM1 and RM2 is 49.9092°
Gouy separation between WFS is 50.4782°

*This is still not quite as bad as Keita measured, but between the uncertainty on the mode measurement after the TTs and the tolerances on the ROC
of the curved mirrors (it looks like we are indeed sensitive to variations from nominal of the +1.7m mirrors), we might be quite close to explain what we saw.


The message : No major problem, small things add together to make big things, need to measure the beam before and after the telescope to (hope to) get this right. 
 
Additional message : The current REFL WFS telescope gives us 90° Gouy phase separation by having one of the WFS at the waist. I don't think this is really what we want: the beam size on the WFSs is different by a factor of 3, and having one of the WFS at the waist makes us more sensitive to errors in our measurements/calculations. Not a problem in the near future, but we might want to keep this in mind for when HAM1 is open again. I will see if I can find another solution similar to the "design" one.
 

Betsy, Travis

This afternoon, we connected the 5 ETMx SUS cables and the ringheater cable to the inside of the feedthru flange.  We then had issues with signal faults.  We investigated and found the out-of vac cables not plugged in well at the outside of the feedthru.  Apon fixing, all looked well with the signals.  The suspension is still not fully suspended although we pulled out all of the extra teflon stopping brackets and prepped it for full unlock after SEI is done float/balance, after IAS is done figuring out where to put us.

I used thenano scan to measure a beam profile on IOT2L.  near the periscope, the vertical waist diameter is 4411um.  The horizontal beam isnot gaussian, the waist diameter fit is 4007um.  (screen shot is first image attached to this report) This was taken 3 and 1/2" from the bottom periscope mirror, the periscope height is 23 and 1/2 ", and the top periscope mirror is approx 2'8 and1/2" from the viewport.  This data is saved as IOT2L1 on the nanoscan computer.  

I moved the scan head back to  14"  behind the botttom periscope mirror, and measured 4405 um diameter vertical , the horizontal beam still is non gaussian, but the diameter is 4070 um.  (screen shot is second image attached)

This data is now transfered to http://www.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/~sheila.dwyer/NanoScanData/IO/