We really need more section headings.  "IFO and SubSystems" is everything.  We could start with one heading for each major IFO subsystem, as well as a few for common activities (calibration, glitch investigation, data analysis, SciMon, automatic or robo entries, ...).  These should all have different heading colors to aid the eye when scanning for interesting entries.

Matt, Lisa

We spent the afternoon assembling the green QPD sled in the new EY lab.  Our reference design comes from G1100129.

The first picture is of the EY clean lab, in its current disorganized state.  For the record, the particle counter reads 0 except when we are near it, in which case it may reach ~50 particles/CF.

The second picture shows the input green laser (~2mW of green, collimated at w ~ 2mm), arranged to send a beam across the class A sled to the beam scan.  The 2" converging lens (L1, ROC = 154.5mm), the 50/50 beam-splitter, and the first 1" diverging lens (L2, ROC = -25mm) are in place, but the first HR mirror is absent to allow the beam to exit onto the beam scan.

The third picture is of the same setup.  Yes, the laser is on.  Yes, it is visible light.  No, you can't see it on any of the clean optics, or in the air.  Only the dirty fiber collimator shows some light.

While in this configuration, we adjusted the position of L2 until we got something we liked (based on quick beam scanning), and then we took some beam scan data.  In the last 2 columns, I've divided the 36.8% data by sqrt(2) to convert it to beam waist radius, and then taken the mean of these data with the 60.7% data.

The last picture is of the final assembly, with all mirrors, lenses and QPDs in place.  The black glass beam dumps are AWAL.

The simulink library part for the QUADs (used to produce the guts of every QUAD model) was generated from a version of my original model, before I knew that the LED light level voltages were *not* being stored in the DAQ, so today I went in and removed them from the guts of QUAD_MASTER model. Because I had them come in at the top level (as though from an ADC), I needed to then also modify the connections at the top most level of each of the suspension's models that have been built. Further, I had used the LED light level as a term that was watched by the watchdog, so removing them from that meant not only a reworking of the MASTER simulink model, but the generic MEDM screens, *and* the QUAD.c auxiliary watchdog front end code. All effected files have had there functionality re-confirmed, and have subsequently been committed to the cds_users_apps repository in the
${userappshome}/cds_user_apps/trunk/sus/
section (where ${userappshome} for H2 is /opt/rtcds/lho/h2/)

During the process, I had Dave create the same soft-linked "release" folder in the 
/opt/rtcds/lho/h2/core/
directory, which links to whichever RCG release one is *supposed* to be using (which for the time being is the 2.3 branch, not a tag). That way, when we upgrade to any future generations of the RCG, the sysadmin merely updates the softlink, but to the average user, the build directory remains the same.

Further, though ITMX doesn't exist yet, when I recompiled and installed the ITMX model that Rolf and Dave had built on the h2susb478 machine, I generated the OVERVIEW screen for it as well, as linked from the sitemap (which is delightfully easy once you've built a generic screen).

Also, while messing with the models, I tried exploring how to use the cdsFiltCtrl CDS simulink part, run into a bunch of trouble with internal links and library parts, and also learned how generic MEDM screens are in use. Sadly very little science was done, and I'm still confused the blocks are supposed to be used, but at least there's now one more person on the planet that has any clue as to how we're doing things with the newest suite of CDS software (library simulink parts, generic medm screens, RCG 2.3, etc).

9:00- 10:00 moving of squeezer table. Clean room by hams 2 & 3 was moved a few feet from its original position.

9:40 – Michael R. and student working on the H2 PSL to install the acoustic panels.

10:30 - Rick and Gregorio at Mid-X

12-12:30 tour into the control room.

throughout the day: 
quad test stand work in the LVEA


HAM 5 door removal ongoing 

R. Lane, R. McCarthy, B. Bland, T. Sadecki

We attached the BOSEMS for the ITMY to the vacuum feed-through simulator. It took a bit more setup to get the signals on the right channels in the hardware. When we finally saw them we were confused by the fact that we are used to seeing them in the range of 0 to -32000 counts, but we were seeing them railed at +32000. After some debugging by Richard we determined that the hardware seemed to be working. We tried blocking the light in the OSEM, and the signal went to zero. Our conclusion is that the hardware is working in general, and we are getting real signals, although quite large. On the next working day we have plans to compare the control signals in the X1 test stand versus the H2. Richard has a theory that the LED is being driven harder in the H2 hardware (~30mA vs 10mA).

We have a short cut for front end code developers. On the h2build machine as user controls, if you type "core" it will send you to the /opt/rtcds/lho/h2/core/release directory. This directory is a symbolic link to the RCG version we are running H2 at, currently branch-2.3.

Here is a glimpse of the testing done on the ISI BSC8:

Electronic, we changed:
-	1 coil driver
-	1 anti-image chassis
-	1 sensor electronic board (and the sensor that goes with  it)

Instruments:
-	We replaced on coarse CPS sensor (and the electronic board). We stole two sets from unit2. Spares will be shipped from M.I.T in the coming days.
-	We had to open a GS13 can to adjust the 3 main springs holding the moving mass. This mass was resting at the bottom. We should receive replacement GS13 from LLO in about 2 weeks
-	There is a gain of 2 between the front panel and the back panel of the CPS satellite box.

Software:
-	We had a couple of issues with watchdogs tripping when threshold were set up higher than the 2^15 bit (40K for instance). This problem might be coming from the decimation filters from the IOP to the model (64K to 4K). We will investigate later.
-	The Matlab transfer functions measurement program uses the decimate function (8 order Chebychev low pass filters at 0.8 x Nyquist frequency) to downsample the excitation signal.  The decimation filters used to record signals on the frame builder have a corner frequency at ~0.7 x Nyquist frequency (with an order lower than 8). The Transfer functions are strongly affected over 700Hz for the geophones and 300Hz for the CPS. It will be fixed in the coming days.
-	In attachment, you will find a list the (101) channels recorded on the DAQ with their datarate. This list is the minimum required for testing and commissioning. The Overall datarate is 1.4MB/s. The allowed datarate is 2MB/s. 

Main results:
-	Stage1 is closed to a final balance
-	First resonance is at 215Hz on stage 1 (blades resonance? Need to be investigated)
-	First resonance is over 150 Hz on stage 2 (poor quality measurements at high frequency)

I have attached few figures 
-	The ISI with the cabling
-	Powerspectra of the sensors
-	Linearity test
-	Transfer functions (L2L main coupling)

B. Bland, J. Kissel, N. Roberston, T. Sadecki

As discussed yesterday, today in one last bit of effort to understand which the lowest pitch mode frequency is lower than expected, we flipped the M3 dummy mass upside-down, in efforts to change the height of the suspension point between M2 and M3 at that mass ("d4"). The solid works model predicted that this flip would increase d4 from 1 mm above the COM to 2 mm above the center of mass. However, recall from yesterday that a model that best fit the measured data showed that d4 was in fact ~0 +/- 0.1 mm, i.e. dead even with the center of mass.

The attached plot shows the results of the flipped M3. The result is that the pitch frequency did increase, but only by 0.01 Hz up to 0.47 Hz, as opposed to the expected 0.50 Hz. Hence, as with adjusting the M1 blade tip heights, the lowest pitch frequency moved quite a good deal less than expected. Further, a model matching the data shows that d4 had actually increased only from -0.1 mm (GREEN/PURPLE) to 0.4 mm (CYAN/GOLD), a 0.5 mm change, where a 1 mm change (from 1 mm (BLUE) to 2 mm (RED)) was expected.

This concludes our foray into investigating this particular mode, as achieving a 0.48 Hz lowest pitch mode (where the lowest longitudinal mode remains at 0.41 Hz) was a goal, not a requirement. Hence, we will settle for the first pitch mode being at 0.46 Hz, in which the M3 mass is returned right-side up, and the M1 blade tip heights are set to 23.6 mm from the M1 base plate, making that the new baseline.

Because we're going with a M1 lower blade tip height, we must now recalculate the appropriate wire lengths for the stages below M1, to restore the nominal heights of M2 and M2. We will do so, and remeasure the pitch frequency response to ensure that the lowest mode frequency remains *at least* above 0.46 Hz.

(Corey G, Jeff G, Jim W, Mike V)

Yesterday, we focused on subassemblies and getting them installed on the system.

Horizontal Small Actuators

All three of these were installed.  A couple of notes:

1) The bolt on the "Base" (i.e. Magnet Mount) which is closest to the center of the ISI is really in a tough location to get a wrech at.  Yoga poses are needed to tighten this bolt down (a torque wrench will not work back there).

2) The Actuator is pre-assembled with a Tooling Bracket which holes the coil & magnet in an ideal position.  The magnet & coil sides are then carefully bolted down to Stage2 & Stage1 respectively.  Coil/Magnet gaps are measured and then the Tooling is removed.  Repeatedly, when the Tooling is removed, it was observed that the coil would drop on the order of 0.010-0.015"!  Not sure what the trick is here to prevent this.  For two of the Actuators this shift kept the gaps under the NO-GO value (we didn't want to have gaps over 0.115").  But on one, we had a gap of 0.118".  This one had to be removed, Tooling re-attached, and then it was re-installed.  With re-installation, this one fit in like a charm. It's gaps were balanced and no major shift was observed.  It should be noted on this last Actuator that it's Pin Carrier Tooling were left in the Assembly during installation.  perhaps this helped keeping things together.

3) It should also be noted that even with the Tooling, the Actuator gaps weren't always balanced (saw this with the Large Actuators).  I thought this was the point of the Tooling!  Is there a trick to putting these guys together.  Perhaps keeping the Pin Carriers in place during the whole installation process is important.

Here are notes on biggest gap observed after Tooling removed (and also "before" gap measurements):

CORNER 1 Biggest gap (on top) = 0.111 (originally 0.098)

CORNER 2 Biggest gap (on top) = 0.118  (originally 0.109)

-----Reinstalled tooling and was balanced around 0.091"

CORNER 3 Biggest gap (on top) = 0.114 (originally 0.099)

Vertical Small Actuators

Just started installing one of these toward the end of the day.  The Actuator Magnet Mounts (D0902191) were installed early, and it was noticed some of the bolts had somewhat tight fits into their helicoils.  Perhaps these are electro-polished bolt candidates.  Able to get the standard bolts to drop in by jiggling them a bit as you screwed them in.

Large & Small Lockers

The Small Lockers were installed with no issues.  The Large Lockers were installed and then it was noticed that we blocked out access for the Spring Barrel Nuts(!).   So, we had to remove all (3) Large Lockers, slip all Barrel Nuts into their holes, and then re-install the Lockers.

Locker Drawing Bolt NOTE:

So on the Assembly Drawings for both the Large (D1000854) & Small Lockers D(1000855), there are some items which aren't pointed out & are also just wrong.  The issue we had were with bolts---the ones which bolt the Housing Locker Sleeve to the Stage/Plate above it (for both Lockers) and for the Large Lockers, the bolts which clamp Pin Caps down. 

On the Large Actuators it is not pointed out which bolt should be used for the Pin Caps.  By elimination, one would think it was the 3/8-16 x 1.5" bolts, BUT holes aren't tapped deep enough to take these bolts.  So on BSC ISI#1, 1-3/8" bolts were used here.  Unfortunately, the bolts used for Housing Locker Sleeves are also not pointed out in the drawing.  By the process of elimination, we assume the 1-3/8" bolts were used here! (for both Large & Small Lockers).

So on BSC ISI#1, the 1-3/8" bolts were used for the Large/Small Sleeves & also on the Large Pin Caps.  Unfortunately, we had a limited amount of these bolts and this left us short for BSC ISI#2!  This is what we did for #2:

We saw for the Large/Small Housing Sleeves, that the 1-3/8" bolt provide LOTS of thread.  We also saw that the 1-1/4" long bolt also provided plenty of thread as well.  So, 1-1/4" bolts were used here for both Large/Small Lockers on BSCISI#2.  Since the 1.5" bolt didn't work on the Large Locker Pin Cap, we put the 1-3/8" bolt here (as we did on #1).

Drawings changed to note this issue.

Temperatures in the LVEA have fallen dramatically overnight - average temps are ~60F. This is due to a broken wall temperature sensor which was sending back a reading of 256F - as a result the control system has been doing it's best to reduce that one zone temperature.
I have disabled this sensor until it is repaired. Temps should begin to return to normal.

(G. Tellez, E. James, E. Black)

Installation of the X-Y stage for the RX is complete. Both piers are in their final positions, leveled, and ready to be grouted. The laser (red, class II) was tested and the beam diameter will be measured to confirm the expected 2mm spot size. Telescope will not be used for test; opted to use commercial beam expander. A breakout box was built for preliminary tests of the QPD readout. 

R. Lane, A. Ramirez

Testing ITMY (QUAD 2)
Took the Top Mass OSEM Coil Resistances, Photo Diode Voltages, and LED Voltages today. Took measurements at the connection between the octopus cables (D1000234) and the top mass extension cable. The OSEMS meet the requirements.*

Coil Resistances: 39±1Ω
PD Voltages: 1.01±0.05V
LED Voltages: 0.53±0.05V

	Main Chain
OSEM	S/N	Cable	Coil(Ω)	LED(V)	PD(V)
Face 1	481	695	36.3    1.017	0.554
Face 2	638	695	36.0    1.018	0.551
Face 3	501	695	36.4    1.018	0.558
Left	496	695	36.0    1.017	0.551
Right	499	698	36.5    1.018	0.558
Side	445	698	36.7    1.017	0.558

Reaction Chain
OSEM	S/N	Cable	Coil(Ω)	LED(V)	PD(V)
Face 1  471	698	35.9	1.018	0.553
Face 2  484	698	36.4	1.018	0.554
Face 3  472	707	36.9	1.016	0.554
Left    630	707	36.8	1.017	0.562
Right   466	707	36.7	1.019	0.558
Side    415	707	36.0	1.018	0.559

*The requirement for the coil resistance to be 39±1Ω was defined at LLO using "extra long" non final cables. This requirement is not sufficient to determine if the resistance is within standard. I will inquire with the correct authorities to determine what the new value should be for the in-vacuum final cables. However, they do meet the tolerance of ±1Ω. We took the measurement at the octopus cable, not at the vacuum feed through simulator as specified. We did not have the cables available. Although this should not add more than a few tenths of an ohm to the final resistance and would not make up the difference. 

• Chamber cleaning in BSC7
• Squeezer racks moved into position
• Septum window from HAM6 installed in HAM4 for squeezers - table will be moved into place tomorrow
• Patrick moved dust monitor from MY to MX
• Powercycled and restarted H2adcumy
• Pcal box removed at MX

Jonathan Berliner, Rolf Minton, Gerardo Moreno

MichaelR (thanks!) tipped me off this morning that Pcal at MX was in the way of the upcoming BSC removal.  RickS assigned me to remove the Pcal box.  I conferred with DaniA and DougC about locks and tags that were there (none extant).  JohnW was concerned about exposing the viewport window.

Sure enough, the viewport window did not have a viewport protector (see photo), so I called GerardoM over to cover the exposed viewport.  It truly was a 3-person job moving the support structure out due to weight and awkward shapes.

New homes for parts:
- Support structure - metal disposal by Big Red's parking spot
- Clamps, bellows, and assembly - Vacuum shop
- Pcal Box, bolts, fasteners, etc. - LSB Optics Lab.  We blocked the opening of the box with a dump.

The SUS Team

We've found welded repair plugs (by quick visual inspection) in the prism mounting holes of an M2/M3 metal mass (D080368) used in BSFM triple suspensions. 

See attached photos.

Though we replace the lowest stage (M3) of the BSFM's metal mass with fused silica for final in-chamber suspensions, the M2 mass is identical to the M3 mass, and remains in the suspension. In addition, for the H2 OAC, we are to leave FMY's M3 as a metal mass.

Two other masses have been checked for similarly visible repairs and none were found.

Stay tuned for further details. 

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

As was mentioned in Monday's aLOG entry, in order to increase the lowest pitch frequency of the X1 SUS BSFM01, we lowered the M1 Blade Tip heights, such that the measurement between the M1 Base Plate and the Blade Tip break off point is 23.6 mm, (i.e. a d1 = nominal + 3 mm = 4 mm below the COM) as opposed to 26.6 mm ( a d1 = 1 mm below the COM). This *did* increase the pitch frequency, but not as much as predicted by the model -- The pitch frequency moved from 0.44 Hz to 0.46 Hz, where we expect from the model to be at 0.49 Hz.

We are still confused as to why this is the case, and the attachment plots several models with the respect to the two measurements, adjusting parameters to try to explain the pitch transfer function. The conclusion is that, without redesign of the mechanical components of the suspension we cannot increase the lowest pitch frequency to more that 0.46 Hz, which is a reasonable 12% above from the first longitudinal mode at 0.41 Hz. We'll consult with other experts as to whether such a deviation from "requirements" is acceptable (though our first impression is that it is).

------------------------

The story (expanded legend) is as follows:
BLUE - Nominal Model. This is what we expect the M1 P to P transfer function to look like. Note here, the lowest pitch mode is 0.488 Hz. This is what we *expect* a measurement to show if the blade tip heights are set to 26.6 mm, which the SolidWorks model claims sets d1 to the nominal 1 mm.
 
PURPLE - 110620 Measurement, with the blade tip heights set to 26.6 mm. One immediately sees that the lowest pitch frequency is lower than expected, at 0.449 Hz.

GREEN - Modified model, *decreasing* d1 by 3 mm, to 2mm above the center of mass. This implies a blade tip height of 29.6 mm. We see that this model nails the first pitch mode, though fails to precisely predict the upper two pitch modes.

Since the 110620 measurement and model imply that the M1 blade tip heights are too high by 3 mm, we then lowered them by 3 mm, to 23.6 mm, ideally setting d1 back to the nominal 1 mm below the center of mass.

YELLOW - 110621 Measurement, with the blade tip heights set to 23.6 mm. Here, we have increased the lowest pitch mode frequency to 0.461 Hz, and better matched the upper two frequencies to the nominal BLUE model.

Confused as to why we didn't get all the way up to 0.48 Hz by adjusting d1 (the M1 blade tip heights), we began exploring other model parameters that might be different from nominal. Norna explored changing all of the d's:
d0 - the suspension point to M1 connection at M1, 
d2 - the M1 to M2 connection at M2, 
d3 - the M2 to M3 connection at M2, 
and d4 - the M2 to M3 connection at M3.
Note that in reality, only d1 may be adjusted "on the fly," to change the remaining d's would require new mechanical parts. However, varying d4 most accurately replicates what has been measured:

RED - Modified model, *decreasing* d4 by 1 mm, to aligned with the center of mass (i.e. d4 = 0 mm). This model implies the prism height, with respect to the center of mass is incorrect. Joe took some physical measurements, and compared them against the solid works model and respective drawings, and while doing so discovered that the prisms (D080583) are version "F" when the production units should be at version "G". Although this needs to be fixed, the difference between version "F" and "G" is only in the distance to which it protrudes from the M3 mass, and therefore does not effect d4, and consequently would not effect the pitch mode.

Interestingly, if we *increase* the nominal d4 by 1 mm (to 2 mm above the center of mass), the model predicts that we might get a much stiffer first pendulum mode, without effecting the frequency of the upper pitch modes:

CYAN - Modified model, *increasing* d4 by 1 mm. This gets us a particularly stiff lowest pitch mode, without compromising the upper pitch mode frequencies.

It turns out, that *flipping M3 upside down* (rotating 180 degrees about the transverse axis) will accomplish exactly this increase in d4, according to Joe's calculations using the SolidWorks model. Thus, in order to confirm that d4 effects this particular transfer function -- and to get another data point -- we will flip M3 over tomorrow (a reportedly simple task), and remeasure the pitch mode. We have no intention of making this change to the production units, as (we believe, though it has not yet been confirmed) it's too late to make such a change to the glass BSs and/or FMs, and given that the "requirements" for this particular mode are defined in away that is merely to get the first pitch mode away from the first longitudinal mode to simplify local damping.

Stay tuned!!

Note that we have strong evidence against two other "problems" 
(1) The modeled M1 blade spring stiffness is incorrect. We measured a separate M1's 4 blades, and their stiffness matches the model within the uncertainty of the measurement. See sub-entry to follow.
(2) The trim mass distribution of M1 is unbalanced. Joe redistributed the trim mass to be more balanced, and a quick transfer function, and subsequent overnight spectra revealed no change in the lowest pitch frequency.

The ICC Crew today: Mark Layne, Zack Haux, Chris Soike

We started the morning by inspecting the compressors with John W. and Michael L. The ICC crew had noticed moisture in the air hoses attached to the compressors. After checking the hoses and the filters, John was convinced that the moisture was water condensate and not a threat to our work. He did suggest blowing out the lines both before the beginning and end of work each day so that will be added to the procedure. John and Michael were in agreement that work should proceed.

Tasks accomplished today
-West beamtube dust barrier (iLIGO) installed
-Gaps at the top of north and south dust barriers were filled in
-Condition of chamber documented (pix)
-Pre-work particulate samples taken
-Particulate depletion samples taken
-Soft dome cover removed and soft roof retracted
-2 sections of the collar area cleaned
-Soft door/dome covers re-installed
-Hoses blown out at end of work
-Materials consolidated to provide room for HAM 5/6 door lay-down

Leaving GV5 soft-closed