Dave and Alex,

Using Mark's full list of 64 fast channels which should be acquired
by the DAQ we increased L1QTS.ini from 25 chans to the required 64 chans.

All fast channels are being acquired at 2048Hz.

We attempted to turn on the second and minute trends, but found that starting
minute trends crashed the DAQ. Alex took a look at the code, but was unable
to find the cause. So for now, we are only acquiring full frame and second 
trends. 

I did the math, and figured that with the disk space available we can have:

14 days of second trends
11.5 days of full data

We can extend the second trend look back at the expense of full frames
if this is required. 

The DAQ was restarted many times between 17:30 and 18:30 for this work.

Hugh R., Eric A., Jeff G.

We believe we have found the solution to the odd GS-13 behavior from the transfer function measurements.  After several failed attempts to implement the damping loops, the path from each GS-13 to the feedthrough board was traced to see if any cables had been swapped since unit_1 testing. 

 Hugh and Eric noticed the "clean side" of the feedthrough for H1&V1 had been swapped with H2&V2. Since both GS-13s for each location (i.e. 1 & 2) are on the same cable up to the feedthrough, H1 & V1 were being mistaken for H2 & V2 and vice versa.  After the swap, a quick test from 200-800Hz showed the Horizontals and Verticals were fairly close in magnitude in this bandwidth, similar to unit_1.  Full measurements of the full bandwidth to be posted soon.

Shortly thereafter, the damping loops were implemented successfully with gains of -1.  I will set up long collocated and coordinate Transfer Function measurements for tonight.

We discovered that turning the damping off at the output of the DOF filter bank doesn't give the QUAD a kick (because it is more appropriately placed wrt the integrator).  So, to damp, you turn the input and output switches on, but to turn damping off, you must turn the output switches off first.  Then before running the TF, you turn the input switches off, then the output switches back on.  Coherence looks MUCH improved after a shot of damping in this manor.

A 2k signal swing on pitch appears to be as quiet as it gets (without damping).

Had to restart the DAQ (again) today.  

Modified seiteststand computer to export /cvs, /apps, and /home/controls, restarted nfs.  Changed /etc/hosts entry for 10.11.0.94 to workstation.

Set workstation IP to 10.11.0.94, disabled DHCP, nfs mounted /opt, /apps, /cvs, and /home/controls from seiteststand.  Removed /home/controls/*, ~controls is now nfs mounted from seiteststand.  Added shared library config files to /etc/ld.so.conf.d/, recached shared libraries.  

Note that ssh is still directed to seiteststand, but controls can ssh to workstation for non-front end work.  The user "controls" can log in on the workstation and should have the same environment as on the workstation.  Did not do exhaustive testing, so there may be some more work to do on workstation.

Yesterday, Mark did some tuning of the DOF loop gains.  They now do some damping with the "simple" filter engaged, but more loop tuning is needed.  There signals see a huge kick when the damping is turned off.  This needs investigation.

I'm rebooting the DAQ since DTT is now giving "Test Timed-out" again (done once yesterday as well).

Last night I ran one of the long(~15hr) M2M Plant measurements [vs the 4hr one I ran yesterday].  Overall, there's nothing new with the results--main issue, once again, is the 180deg out of "phaseness" for the Y & RY GS13.

From the 4hr Measurements of yesterday, this is the input I've heard back thus far:

L2L (H1H2 & V1V2 plant magnitudes look bad):
--Possible saturations (Rich M. didn't think so, but Kissel & Rich said we should have a "saturation check" built into our measurement)
--Problem with the Interface Chasis (seems like since we have issues with h1v1 & h2v2, we would have issues with 2 of our 3 chasis)

M2M (180deg phase diff for Y & RY):
--Possible sign issue with the matrices

From an email from Fabrice, it sounds like once we resolve this issue with the GS13's, we should then try to run DAMPING on the system---it should work.

As for this measurement, nothing new is learned, other than we know we can run some really long matlab measurements over a work night with no problem.

Attached the Stage1 Floor Pre-Assembly to the Stage0 Assembly on the Test Stand for LHO Assembly #3.  No issues in this move.
Attached are a couple photos near completion.  JimW EricA MitchR

PS First Image is not related directly to this log but it won't delete--H

Ran the Modal to Modal (i.e. Cartesian) plan measurement.  This measurement was run WITHOUT DAMPING, and most of it took place while activity was minimal (i.e. quiet).

Results Comments (comparing to the Unit#1 Document)
[pdf plots attached]
Horizontal GS13s:
The magnitude of the plant looks fairly identical to the Unit#1.  The oddity here is the phase of Y ::: What's up with it being 180deg out of phase??

Horizontal CPSs:
Looks fairly similar to Unit#1.

Vertical GS13's:
Similar to the horizontal, the magnitude of the plant, but here we have the RY off in phase by 180deg.

Vertical CPS's:
Looks fairly similar to Unit#1.

****Below are the locations of the measurement files (they've been svn-added & committed)***

All files are at [seiteststand svn]: /opt/svncommon/seisvn/seismic/HAM-ISI/X1/

MEASUREMENT FILE LOCATION: [seiteststand svn]/Scripts/DataCollection/unit_2/
FILE NAMES:
TFcollect_100817_M2M_0p05to5Hz.m
TFcollect_100817_M2M_5to200p5Hz.m
TFcollect_100817_M2M_200to800Hz.m

DATA FILE LOCATION: [seiteststand svn]/Data/unit_2/TransferFunctionData/
FILE NAMES:
TFcollect_100817_M2M_0p05to5Hz_test1.mat
TFcollect_100817_M2M_5to200p5Hz_test1.mat
TFcollect_100817_M2M_200to800Hz_test1.mat


PLOTTING/DATA-CONCACENATING FILE LOCATION: [seiteststand svn]/Scripts/DataAnalysis/unit_2/
FILE NAME:
TFanalyze_100817_M2M.m

.pdf & .fig FILE LOCATION: [seiteststand svn]/Data/unit_2/Figures 

This is the first set of Matlab transfer functions run on Unit#2.  This was run via Fabrice's measurement files made for Unit#1.  This is a collocated measurement (i.e. H1 to H1, H2 to H2...V1 to V1, etc. versus X to X, ...RX to RX, etc.).  This measurement was run WITHOUT DAMPING.  

Something Amiss
At a first glance, something looks wrong with the GS13's.  H3 & V3 look noticeably different from H1H2 & V1V2.  But as Hugh noticed, when you look at the same measurement for Unit#1 (seen in this document), the H3 & V3 plants on Unit#2 look like all the plants on Unit#1.  So not really sure what's the issue here.  

The Capacitive Position Sensors look fine at a first glance.Will continue making more plant (transfer function) measurements and keep an eye on the GS13's.

Have attached pdfs of the plants to this elog.(sorry, they're in portrait...I don't know how to print things in landscape on matlab).


****Below are the locations of the measurement files (they've been svn-added & committed)***


All files are at [seiteststand svn]:  /opt/svncommon/seisvn/seismic/HAM-ISI/X1/

MEASUREMENT FILE LOCATION:  [seiteststand svn]/Scripts/DataCollection/unit_2/
FILE NAMES:
TFcollect_100816_L2L_0p05to0p5Hz.m
TFcollect_100816_L2L_0p05to5Hz.m
TFcollect_100816_L2L_5to200p5Hz.m
TFcollect_100816_L2L_200to800Hz.m

DATA FILE LOCATION:  [seiteststand svn]/Data/unit_2/TransferFunctionData/
FILE NAMES:
TFcollect_100816_L2L_0p05to0p5Hz_test1mat.mat
TFcollect_100816_L2L_0p05to5Hz_test1.mat
TFcollect_100816_L2L_5to200p5Hz_test1.mat
TFcollect_100816_L2L_200to800Hz_test1.mat


PLOTTING/DATA-CONCACENATING FILE LOCATION:  [seiteststand svn]/Scripts/DataAnalysis/unit_2/
FILE NAME:
TFanalyze_100816_L2L.m

.pdf & .fig FILE LOCATION:  [seiteststand svn]/Data/unit_2/Figures

This morning, Mark rearranged some +/- signs of gains here and there in an attempt to calibrate the output of Mo signals to motion of magnet repels/attractions.  Originally, we set all settings as per Brett's LASTI medms (E10000078), however this meant that the OSEM naming conventions were set as you viewed each chain face on.  Mark's changes are such that the QUAD is viewed entirely from the reaction side (similar to iLIGO) which makes driving it from an operations stand point a bit easier.  The Ro settings are the same as called out in the LASTI test plan.  On the Mo chain settings needed adjusting to do this. 

Damping appears to be working, but now DTT keeps giving a test timed-out error.  Calling Dave...

Last week, the Test Stand crashed (that's twice since we've been in the Staging Building...not counting the recent power outage).

This morning I
* Opened terminal, ssh-ed into frontend(stormy), ran the "killg1isiham" & then the "killg1x01" scripts
* Opened terminal, ssh-ed into frontend(stormy), typed "sudo reboot"
* Opened terminal, ssh-ed into frontend(stormy), ran "startg1x01" & then "startg1isiham"

Everything appears to look alright, although the Overflow counters on the GDS_TP_Custom screens are counting (but maybe they always do this...due to unconnected L4C's).

Here is the calibrated GS13 Spectra from Unit #2 (note:  These are the "reused" GS13's---they'll be reused from Unit to Unit until we start receiving GS13's which we can keep with a unit.  So these same GS13's were used in Unit#1).  With Jeff Kissel's help, I calibrated the data via DTT.  Here is the DTT Calibration info for the GS13's and the GS13 Interface Board:  

(this is all for the frequencies we look at ~100Hz)

Units:  m/s
Gain:  3.5e-9
Poles:  0,0,50
Zeros:  0.1 1, 10

The plots are for when the Table is locked & unlocked.

Attached are the power spectra for the CPS's when the table was locked & unlocked.  Using the nominal calibration of 30.2e-9 m/count.

(Eric A., Corey G.)

This morning we addressed our Sensors.  Last week we found that the physically measured gap distance for our V3 was smaller than everyone else (it was around 0.074").  Fabrice requested we set this gap to 0.080" and then adjust the pot at the Mini-Rack thus electronically re-zeroing this Sensor to a good gap.

Before this work was done, we disconnected from Flange Feedthroughs and worked with the nice/expensive feedthroughs which were installed on our Interface board (we checked Sensor values after this swap, and there was no noticeable change, so we proceded).

We now have some teflon shims which are 0.080".  We will use these shims for checking that our gaps are at the nominal value of 0.080".  

After V3 was adjusted, went through the Testing Steps referenced in our Testing Document (i.e. T1000329).

Step 4 - Set Up Sensor Gaps
Here are the Sensor values (in counts) obtained with the locked table:  (mean / Std Dev)

V1:  -0.069  / 1.1
H1:  -0.052  / 0.8
V2:  +0.257  / 1.6
H2:  +0.334  / 0.7
V3:  +0.170  / 1.8
H3:  -0.235  / 1.0

*We did not do measurements with one Mini-rack on at a time since we've show that linking the Mini-Racks together has addressed our cross talk issue.

Step 5 - Measure the Sensor Gap
Here we were able to use our 0.080" teflon shim on all of our Sensors.  The shim was a tight fit, but it was consistent and was able to make it in the gap with no problem.  So, we'll say All of our measured Sensor Gaps are 0.080".


Step 6 Check Sensor Gaps After Release
Here are the locked/unlocked Sensor values (counts):  (LOCKED /UNLOCKED in counts)

V1:  -69 / -62
V2:  -52 / -223
V3:  257 / -540
H1:  334 / -93
H2:  170 / -782
H3:  -235 / -830

Step 7 Range of Motion Test #1
Here we had two people push up & push down on the system to its limits, and we noted Sensor (counts) & Dial Indicator values (thousandths of an inch).  We only did this for vertical motions.

SENSORS:  
V1:  20631 / -19327
V2:  18714 / -18139
V3:  19631 / -20730

DIAL INDICATORS:
A:  24 / -23
B:  24 / -24
C:  25 / -23.5
D:  24.5 / -21.5

Step 8 & 9 Position Sensor & GS13 Power Spectra
Went ahead and ran power spectra for our Capacitive Position Sensors & GS13's with the Table locked & unlocked.  This data is saved in the repository at:

/opt/svncommon/seisvn/seismic/HAM-ISI/X1/Data/unit_2/dtt/20100810_lock_unlocksensor_spectra.xml (and also saved GS13 & CPS individual files).

These files have been added & committed to the svn.


Step 11.1 - Actuator Sign
This is a fairly simple test (there's no "requirements" or pass/fail in the document for this).  Regardless, we moved collocated Actuators and their respective Sensors moved with the right sign.

Step 11.1 - Range of Motion Local Drive
Here we put in huge 30,000 count DAMP offsets and watched V & H Sensors.  Here the results (in counts):


V1 (+/-30k count offset)
V1:  20088 / -19439
V2:  -1989 / -353
V3:  -8540 / 8685

V2
V1:  -6256 / 4818
V2:  26420 / -24717
V3:  -8118 / 7165

V3
V1:  6022 / -6601
V2:  -15782 / 152001
V3:  21595 / -22703

H1
H1:  23863 / -24419
H2:  15560 / -17650
H3:  16362 / -17558

H2
H1:  17716 / -16627
H2:  23311 / -24489
H3:  17221 / -16864

H3
H1:  13668 / -13163
H2:  13626 / -13296
H3:  25018 / -25206

Step 12 Vertical Sensor Calibration

Going with +/-20k moves with the Vertical Actuators, we looked at Dial Indicators & Sensors on Dataviewer to calculate the Calibration.  We are given the ADC Sensor Calibration of 1638 counts/V.  Here are averaged values we obtained:

Dial Indicators:  38.1 mil
Sensors:  31753 counts

This yields a vertical sensitivity of:  31753 / 38.1 = 833 counts/mil

or 833 count/mil * 1/1638 V/count = 0.509 V/mil
or 2500 nm/mil * 1/833 mil/count = 30.5 nm/count

In addition to the power spectra, I've also attached part of the document which we completed today, if you wanted to see the actual numbers we wrote.  I'm leaving this with Eric, so he can continue other testing work while I have shifts in the Control Room over the next two days.

(Corey, Hugh, Jim, Mitch)
V3 Sensor Target, V1 Sensor Body swapped, and Gaps Re-set
After what happened with V3, it was decided to inspect the target.  After inspection, Hugh decided to swap the Target out (too many scratches on its surface for use).  While doing the V3 work, a spare Target Body arrived for our V1, so V1 & V3 were both worked on and had their gaps re-set.

Sensor Gaps:  V3 Has Small Gap
Last night I used our teflon shim stock to measure the gap of V1 & V3.  Here's an updated list of our gaps (for other Sensors, using values from yesterday):

V1:  0.081"
H1:  0.083"
V2:  0.082"
H2:  0.083"
V3:  0.072"
H3:  0.083"

So, V3 is obviously different from the bunch.  We'll need to see what to do about this.  I'd imagine possibilities are:  live with it, electronically change the zero for V3 on the Mini-Rack, or swapping the Target out.

Position Sensor Power Spectra
With the table locked, took a few power spectra as we did with Unit#1.  So, Unit#2 is different in that we have "linked" Mini-Racks for the Position Sensors (they are now tied together with a cable); this was needed to get rid of the 0.3Hz crosstalk we saw on Unit#1.  

With both Mini-Racks powered ON we had no 0.3Hz noise.  To follow Testing instructions, I went ahead and ran two more power spectra (where only one rack was powered at a time).  When the Rack#1 (which powers H1V1H2V2) was only powered ON, H1V1H2V2 looked real and H3V3 looked like noise.  When Rack#2 was only powered ON, all the Sensors looked like noise; you could sot of see something from H3 & V3, but it was not very discernable.  As for the H3 & V3 counts, their value went up from a few hundred counts to 4000 counts.  So, it looks like with linked racks, you can't see Rack#2.  (the first attachment shows spectra with BOTH Mini-Racks ON, and with Rack #1 ON....the Rack#2 ON measurement wasn't interesting) 

The second plot I'm posting is the spectra for the Position Sensors & GS13s with the table Locked & Unlocked.

The third plot is a comparison in spectra of the GS13's between Unit#1 & Unit#2.

These data files have been put on the svn at:
/opt/svncommon/seisvn/seismic/HAM-ISI/X1/Data/unit_2/dtt