Joe Gleason, Luke Williams, Cheryl Vorvick

Location: HAM 2

We've aligned turning mirrors RH5-6 which steer the PRC MM MON and MC TRANS MON beams to IOT2. We've set the beam separation such that these beams converge at the location of the IOT2 upper periscope mirror.

•	PSL diode room temperatures continuing to fluctuate between 65F and 70F, producing alarms. This has been an ongoing issue since 6DEC. Michael R has 
        made adjustments to the heating units for the room and this should help.

•	0700 Work is ongoing in and around BSC1. Bolts on the dome flange were torqued first thing this morning by Apollo---tripped ITMY SUS watchdogs.

•	0930 Kyle opening GV-1

•	1100 Travis S et al removing First Contact from ITMY---unsurprising SUS watchdog trips.

•	1300 Thomas V and Jax S working on optical lever alignment in LVEA.

•	1330 Bubba craning cleanroom over HAM9 to prep for MC tube inspection.

•	1450 Dave B and Jim B to MX.

•	1500 All LVEA dust monitors went INVALID---Patrick was investigating.

Mark B.

Received word from Bubba that the doors were on BSC1 and personnel were clear, so will be taking TFs on both chains of ITMy from now.

Stage 1 Feedforward (HEPI-L4C to coarse actuators (stage 1)):
Transfer functions from the coarse actuators (Stage 1) to the HEPI L4C were measured to evaluate the "feedback path" (on the HEPI-L4Cs) once the feedforward controller is engaged. Coherence is bad in the [100m;700m]Hz due to a weak drive (needs to be redone). Transfer functions were measured with:
- No HEPI control
- ISI damped  on both stages

In the attached figure H1_ISI_ETMY_TF_FF01_X_2012_11_06.fig, few TFs in the X direction are presented:
- the ground path (HEPI-L4C to ST1 T240) - No drive
- the force paths F11 and F10 (coarse actuators to Stage 1 T240 and coarse actuators to HEPI L4C)
- the feedforward filter (Ground/force + fit filter)
- the "Open loop" - Feedforward filter x Force path (F10)

The force path F11 (coarse actuators to Stage 1 T240) is pretty strong in comparison with the force path F10 (coarse actuators to HEPI L4C). Consequently, the risk of instability is low.  The reference signal (HEPI -L4C) is lightly changed by the feedback loop (F10 x FF). F10 x FF is always far below 1 (The peak at 0.14Hz is due to the low coherence in the initial measurement).
 

Stage 2 Feedfoward (Blend {L4C + T240} to fine actuators (stage 2)):
In a first step, the stage 1 L4C and the Stage 1 T240 are blended at 2Hz (cf H1_ISI_ETMY_TF_Blend_FF_X_2012_11_06.fig in the X direction). Then, some simulations were performed to set the feedforward controller. In attachment H1_ISI_ETMY_TF_FF12_X_2012_11_06.fig, TFs in the X direction are shown:
- the ground path (ST1->ST2) - No drive
- the force paths F22 and F21 (fine actuators to Stage 2 GS13 and fine actuators to the (L4C+HEPI) blend)
- the feedforward filter ((ST1->ST2)/F22 + fit filter)
- The "Open loop" - Feedforward filter x Force path (F21)

The force path F22 is pretty weak in comparison with the force path F21. Consequently, the risk of instability is high. The "Open loop" - Feedforward filter x Force path (F21) shows that the feedfoward controller from stage 1 to stage 2 won't be stable. In this case, the reference signal (stage 1 motion) is too much changed once the FF controller is engaged

To circumvent the problem, the contribution of the stage 1 motion created by the feedforward controller can be evaluated and removed from the reference signal (cf block diagram). The "open loop' becomes (F21-F21 fit) x FF. I fitted the F21 path and re-evaluated the "open loop" in the X direction. With this strategy, the controller is stable in simulations but probably would not be experimentally. This approach seems tricky too implement experimentally.

The testing report for ISI-BSC1 (before closing the chamber) can be found at: E1201086-v1.

After Apollo finished with cleanroom mods and Kyle cycled the gate valves, I entered BSC1 for First Contact removal.  The FC sheets came off the faces of the optics (HR of ITM and AR of CP) with no problems.  I observed what we have come to accept as the standard amount of FC splatter/streaks after removal (~6 per face of various sizes).  I cleaned these spots up with acetone and optics wipes and resuspended both chains.  Awaiting a round of quick TFs to check for rubbing before remounting the door.  I also did a quick sweep of the chamber and removed the remainder of our tools/parts/covers. 

Removed the final (high-pressure) particulate filter from the purge-air supply skid -> Inspected element and replaced (P-SRF 07/25) -> Purge-air supply to LVEA was valved-out for ~3 minutes 

This report is for Friday, 07 Dec 2012. 
On Thursday, 06 Dec, I received a phone call from Janeen, Matt H. and Danny at LLO wrt contamination in the beamtube between LHAM2 and LHAM3. We discussed methods for mitigation and they asked if we could go in and make an inspection of the beamtube between WHAM2 and WHAM3. After a brief discussion with Michael L. at morning meeting, Cheryl and I planned and executed an incursion.

After gathering materials (Stinger, Cheryl's good camera, alcohol, wipes, etc)and garbing, we carefully entered HAM3 since we figured the "cat eye" baffle gave us the best shot at getting into the beamtube without having to remove a baffle. First, we inspected the optical table and its contents. Next, we looked at the bellows convolution and the flange area. Then, we climbed through the baffle aperture and proceeded to "walk the grid" down to HAM2. Cheryl took pix when we found anything interesting (and I'm sure she will attach some when she gets a chance). Once we were at the HAM2 baffle, we looked at the flange area and the baffle surface then turned around. On the way back to HAM3, we paid special attention to the overhead nozzles where conflats are attached. Below is a list of our findings.

-Optical table: particulate contamination on table and optics
-HAM3 bellows convolutions: white speckles, some short white fibers, unknown "dust"
-HAM3/manifold flange: flange surface covered in fine "dust", large piece of glove
-Manifold bottom half from HAM3 to HAM2: white specks and larger white "fluffs", a small "pile" of stuff that looked like baking soda, a couple of short red fibers
-HAM2/manifold flange: flange surface covered in fine "dust", "fluffs" under baffle frame
-Nozzles on manifold top: fine gray patina

We mitigated where we could by wiping up white specks and fluffs along the bottom of the manifold. The HAM3 bellows convolutions were wiped as well. 

We'll continue to investigate the situation but use the H2 manifold for compare/contrast.

out backup server crashed, I have just rebooted it to permit disk-2-disk and disk-2-tape backups to continue.

[Cheryl, Deepak, Luke, Giacomo]

Yesterday morning Cheryl was helping Jodie inspecting the beam tube between HAM2 and HAM3 for (lack of) cleanliness.

Deepak and Luke assembled the viewport replicator using one of the HAM1 doors as a reference.

Using a temporary steering mirror I aligned the visible laser pointer to two iriris previously placed iusing the IR beam (one ~20 cm before IM4 and the other after PRM surrogate, pretty much at the edge of the table). I used it to align all the auxiliary beams (froward and backwards) in transmission of IM4. (note that initially I used two different placements of the laser for the forward and backward beams; later, I found a location from which I could inject the visible laser in the forward direction, use the reflection off of PRM as a backward beam, and align all beam paths at the same time).

After a late lunch, we all worked at refining the beam alignment and optics positions, and aligned the two beams that go towards the HAM2 est door using references on the table. We then moved the viewport replicator from HAM1 to HAM2 and confirmed that the beams go through the right viewport pretty much in the center. Further adjustment left to Joe, that is more familiar with the IO tables and can tweak the exit beams at his will.

Auxiliary beam paths centering as of now:

- MC2 transimitted: aligned

- MC REFL: ok down to the exit of the second periscope. Needs to e pointed to the right viewport from there (using vewport replicator)

- IM1 transmitted: not aligned. Needs to e pointed to the right viewport using vewport replicator

- FI forward rejected: not aligned. Will need to be if the beam dump (currently in C&B) is installed, otherwise we move the steering mirror away and it lands on a SiC baffle.

- IM4 forward transmitted to IO QPD: aligned

- IM4 forward transmitted to ISS PD: aligned down to last optic (ISS PD not on the table)

- IM4 forward transmitted to IOT: aligned (exit point to be tweaked?)

- IM4 backward transmitted to IOT: aligned (exit point to be tweaked?)

- REFL beam: aligned to HAM1/2 septum viewport.

Attached are some photos of the three ISI corners, concentrating on the cabling; Corner & View# in the photo names.

Once we convinced ourselves that the TFs looked acceptable and we could do no more to improve the Cable dressing, we called an end to the fussing.
We covered the ISI with a HAM-ISI cover (made in LLO) and thought it might be large enough to make it to the Chamber Flange.  There is a whole in the top of the ISI cover so we draped a BSC door cover over that hole.  We then pulled the Walking plates out.  The West plate was tight on the West Work Platforms so the Work platform must have shifted East somehow.  Anyway it wasn't too difficult to get it free.
With the Walking Plates out we then were able to get the HAM-ISI cover to the flange of the chamber.  So that is a nice backup to the BSC Dome Tall but we need to confirm that the LHO fabricated model will work--they were sewn by two different houses.
OK, we are ready for the Dome!
So it flies overhead, we pull off the Cleanroom Ceiling, lower the Dome and attach its ceiling to the Cleanroom.  Once things are quiet and the dust settles, we pull the Dome cover off, dwell a bit and then pull away the ISI & Chamber cover.  We then gave one final inspection of the cabling to make sure the soft covers had done no harm.  Lower away!
One problem at the end of this task: the Cleanroom is pushed way North and the HAM3 Cleanroom is right up against it on the South.  So much so that the Cleanroom had to be twisted (West Side to the South) so the Dome Spreader and Clevis Pin don't hang up on the Cleanroom.  That Clevis was installed out-to-in and so was right against the Cleanroom top frame once the Dome was down.  It took some finagling but was extracted.  There is one bolt that needs a nut but all the others are in place and can be torqued first thing Monday.

Richard transitioned to laser safe early this morning; this status remained unchanged throughout the day.
PSL diode room temperatures remain stable near 67 F for a time and then will start fluctuating between 65F and 70F, producing alarms.  Michael R is aware of this.
Hugo locked the HAM3 ISI late this morning for Jodi and Cheryl to do some cleanliness tests.  They finished by lunch; Hugo restored the unlocked state and will launch tests this evening.
Keita is preparing to use a 10mW IR laser in the optics lab.  See his work permit.
LHO/Apollo returned the dome to BSC1 this afternoon.  At the close of the day the bolts are in but not torqued.
ITMY SUS watchdogs were triggered through the early afternoon by the dome restoration.  The actuator watchdog was red throughout. The position watchdog alternated between red and green.  All are green now.  Tha alarm handler shows yellow next to OSEM4.

For the 35W laser.

Changed gear-drive oil -> both Corner Station pumps -> 400CC Krytox 1525 -> routine maintenance

It was noticed yesterday that the Left and Right OSEMs on ITMy MO stage were  noisier than the other OSEMs.  I began to investigate this looking at the signal into the AA chassis and it to exhibited noise but looked like it was missing the - part of the signal.  I was able to trace it back to the Sat box.  I replaced the box and will look into the noise problem on it with a full blown test.  The signal should be okay now.  

Of particular note.  The MEDM screen for the sus did not show this only the IOP at he higher sampling rate saw the noise.

Yesterday, it was mentionned in LHO aLOG 4858 that transfer functions measured on BSC1 were different from what we expected. This morning, I ran some simulations to evaluate if the extra modes seen in the [5-8]Hz frequency band would create some difficulties in the control design.

For the test, I used the BSC6 damping and isolation filters.

The 12 main transfer functions once the ISI is damped:
https://svn.ligo.caltech.edu/svn/seismic/BSC-ISI/H1/ITMY/Data/Figures/Transfer_Functions/Simulations/Damped/

• H1_ISI_ITMY_Damping_TF_MIMO_ST1_ACT_RX_to_ST1_L4C_RX_2012_12_04.fig
• H1_ISI_ITMY_Damping_TF_MIMO_ST1_ACT_RY_to_ST1_L4C_RY_2012_12_04.fig
• H1_ISI_ITMY_Damping_TF_MIMO_ST1_ACT_RZ_to_ST1_L4C_RZ_2012_12_04.fig
• H1_ISI_ITMY_Damping_TF_MIMO_ST1_ACT_X_to_ST1_L4C_X_2012_12_04.fig
• H1_ISI_ITMY_Damping_TF_MIMO_ST1_ACT_Y_to_ST1_L4C_Y_2012_12_04.fig
• H1_ISI_ITMY_Damping_TF_MIMO_ST1_ACT_Z_to_ST1_L4C_Z_2012_12_04.fig
• H1_ISI_ITMY_Damping_TF_MIMO_ST2_ACT_RX_to_ST2_GS13_RX_2012_12_04.fig
• H1_ISI_ITMY_Damping_TF_MIMO_ST2_ACT_RY_to_ST2_GS13_RY_2012_12_04.fig
• H1_ISI_ITMY_Damping_TF_MIMO_ST2_ACT_RZ_to_ST2_GS13_RZ_2012_12_04.fig
• H1_ISI_ITMY_Damping_TF_MIMO_ST2_ACT_X_to_ST2_GS13_X_2012_12_04.fig
• H1_ISI_ITMY_Damping_TF_MIMO_ST2_ACT_Y_to_ST2_GS13_Y_2012_12_04.fig
• H1_ISI_ITMY_Damping_TF_MIMO_ST2_ACT_Z_to_ST2_GS13_Z_2012_12_04.fig

The 12 main SISO TF used for the control design (between every steps, the MIMO response is used) are given below:

https://svn.ligo.caltech.edu/svn/seismic/BSC-ISI/H1/ITMY/Data/Figures/Transfer_Functions/Simulations/Isolated/

• H1_ISI_ITMY_Isolation_Loops_TF_SISO_ST1_ACT_RX_to_ST1_SS_RX_2012_12_04.fig
• H1_ISI_ITMY_Isolation_Loops_TF_SISO_ST1_ACT_RY_to_ST1_SS_RY_2012_12_04.fig
• H1_ISI_ITMY_Isolation_Loops_TF_SISO_ST1_ACT_RZ_to_ST1_SS_RZ_2012_12_04.fig
• H1_ISI_ITMY_Isolation_Loops_TF_SISO_ST1_ACT_X_to_ST1_SS_X_2012_12_04.fig
• H1_ISI_ITMY_Isolation_Loops_TF_SISO_ST1_ACT_Y_to_ST1_SS_Y_2012_12_04.fig
• H1_ISI_ITMY_Isolation_Loops_TF_SISO_ST1_ACT_Z_to_ST1_SS_Z_2012_12_04.fig
• H1_ISI_ITMY_Isolation_Loops_TF_SISO_ST2_ACT_RX_to_ST2_SS_RX_2012_12_04.fig
• H1_ISI_ITMY_Isolation_Loops_TF_SISO_ST2_ACT_RY_to_ST2_SS_RY_2012_12_04.fig
• H1_ISI_ITMY_Isolation_Loops_TF_SISO_ST2_ACT_RZ_to_ST2_SS_RZ_2012_12_04.fig
• H1_ISI_ITMY_Isolation_Loops_TF_SISO_ST2_ACT_X_to_ST2_SS_X_2012_12_04.fig
• H1_ISI_ITMY_Isolation_Loops_TF_SISO_ST2_ACT_Y_to_ST2_SS_Y_2012_12_04.fig
• H1_ISI_ITMY_Isolation_Loops_TF_SISO_ST2_ACT_Z_to_ST2_SS_Z_2012_12_04.fig

Transfer functions and a linearity tests were measured on HAM3-ISI earlier this week.

The linearity tests looks good. Variations in slope are within requirements.

Transfer functions look good too. Concordance with LLO HAM3-ISI are satisfying. Some noise can be seen in high frequencies on the TFs measured with the vertical GS13s. These sensors saturated a bit during the measurement. 

HAM3-ISI has been re-locked, and worked on, since. It is currently locked. We are planning on running a new set of transfer functions, with a slightly lower gain in high frequencies, when HAM3-ISI can be unlocked.

Early this morning, Cheryl check the alignemnt. She found the beam to be:

- good on all three irises before IM1

- misaligned in the FI

- good in the two irises after the faraday (before and after IM4)

All suspension had unchanged offsets wrt yesterday, in particular:

She checked again and more thoroughly mid-morning, with the same conclusion. She took some picture (to be posted soon)

HAM3 ISI was then locked, which did not visibly change the beam reaching HAM2. This allowed David and Luke to torque to spec (100 in lb) all clamps on HAM3 ISI: MC2, PR2, all IO components, cable clamps and ISC breadboard to the table (but not the componenets to the breadboard).

HAM3 ISI was then unlocked (again with no visible shift in the beam) and we proceeded to re-aligning the FI, using IM1 and IM2 (only yaw, as pitvh looked good). Then we used IM3 (again, only yaw) to center the beam on the iris between IM3 and IM4. Finally we centered the beam on PR2 using IM4 in both pitch and yaw (we replaced the PRM surrogate with an AR-AR optic with the same wedge and thickness, to increase the visibility of the transmitted baem). Final offsets:

And it was lunch time...

After lunch, we placed an iris after the PRM surrogate to be used as a reference for the beam out of IM4, and for red laser alignment. We then removed the yaw offset from IM4, and used the pushers to rotate it back untill the beam was centered again on the iris (about 1/4 mm, or less than half a turn). Other miscellana:

- clamp adapeter and clamp placed on the short east side of MC1

- all non-temporary (and a few temporary) clamps torque to spec (100 in lb): MC1, MC3, IM1-4 (at present, with 2 temporary clamps each), MC refl telescopes, IO telescope, IO steering mirrors.

- visble laser set-up ans aligned to the irises. Form now on we can work in laser safe codnition using the red laser.