Yesterday, we managed to fix the model. Renamed the DAC_x names so the first DAC name starts at '0' (DAC_0 and DAC_1), and also renamed the OSEM_OUT to COIL_OUT to be consistent with the quad models.

I am not sure if I fixed it the 'proper' way, but I changed coil output names in the TMTS_MASTER.mdl. I also used all capitals for the _IN and _OUT names. Then in the H2SUSTMSY.mdl I changed the names of the DAC_x blocks (as mentionedin the T080135-v4 (page 42), but left the card_num to 2 and 3 respectivily. I copied the models by changing the name to 'name'_24oct2011, but don't know if or how to upload them to svn or not.

We recompiled and installed the front-end, and all seemed to work. We check the output by setting an offset on one of the output filters (F3 in our case). There is a nice feature, that on the EPICS screen (SUS_CUST_TMTS_OVERVIEW.adl) the last value (just before the grey button to H2SUSTMSY_DAC_MONITOR_0.adl) is 100. But when looking on the H2SUSTMSY_DAC_MONITOR_0.adl (which is the output of the TMS model) the DAC0 OUT value is 99, and further looking on H2IOPSUSB6_DAC_MONITOR_0.adl (which is the IOP model which actually talks to the DAC) DAC2 OUT value is 101!? Go figure.

I tagged this as AOS, but not sure if that does the trick.

Last Friday we (Matt and I) connected the BOSEMs to the CDS system. We mounted the 'test stand' interface plate to the Bosch frame and connected the field cables on one side and the female-female cables from the BOSEM quad-fanout cable to the interface plate (by borrowing two female-female cables from Betsy). The original ~200in cables are being tested.

We rearranged the BOSEMs around to reflect their position on the EPICS screen (F1, F2, F3 and LF), although the RT and SD BOESMs didn't give us any signal. This may be due to the fact that thy are on the second quad-fanout calbe and not connected to the right 9-pin micro-D-sub connector. We used SUS_CUST_TMTS_M1_OSEM_ALIGN.adl (no H2?) to align the BOSEMs w.r.t the flags, this was a bit cumbersome because we didn't have the fancy socket drives:)

We populated the various matixes on SUS_CUST_TMTS_OVERVIEW.adl. We noticed that the monster matrix SUS_CUST_TMTS_M1_DRIVERALIGN.adl has all the elements 'ON' by default, which we may want to set to 'OFF' by deafult. We tried to implement some crued damping filters, but it turned out that the coil outputs didn't go into the DAC (as seen on the EPICS screens, either H2SUSTMSY_DAC_MONITOR_0.adl or H2IOPSUSB6_DAC_MONITOR_0.adl).

We informed Dave, but on the Friday afternoon we left it as is.

- Squeezers at HAM6. After venting, L1 OMC Installation
- PSL will start running overnight
- SEI delivery - Swagelok
- SEI Welders at HAM8, moving to HAM10
- Feedthrus being tested at EY
- Work in H2 electronics building
- Second cleaning at HAM6, cleaning at EY
- Laser Hazard from 1pm.

The B&K hammer impulse response tests were performed last Thursday on the FMY attached to the BSC-ISI with the BSC-ISI "floating" (blade springs allowed to move freely). Tap test locations were the same as those selected previously with the BSC-ISI locked.  There were 5 locations on the lower half of the FMY and 5 locations on the upper half of the structure.  The taps tests were conducted with the M1 Stage damping loops both ON and OFF.  However, during the tap tests on the upper half of the structure with the damping loops ON, the software reported trouble recognising the hammer hardware.  After several reboots, the FrontEnd could still not detect the hammer. It was noticed that the BNC cable connecting the hammer to the FrontEnd had it's shielding stripped with some loose wiring at the hammer end.  This was noticed while performing tap tests on the Upper half of the structure with Damping loops ON. Thus, the M1 Damping loops ON tests are only of the locations on the LOWER half of the structure.  The tap tests with the M1 damping loops OFF were completed for all 10 locations on the upper and lower halves.  


The first pdf has plots of the B&K hammer response on the Lower half of the FMY structure in 5 locations. The Damping loops on the M1 stage were OFF. Second pdf is of the Upper half locations with M1 Damping Loops OFF. Third plot is of the same locations with M1 Damping ON, the fourth of the same Upper half locations.

Comparison Plots:
The fifth, sixth, and seventh plots compare the 5 locations of the LOWER half of the structure separated by degree of freedom.  The degrees of freedom are the X,Y,and Z local coordinates of the accelerometer.

The Advanced LIGO high power laser is now fully set up (but uncharacterized and unstabilized) and will therefore stay turned on over night today.

After Kyle found the leaking ESD style feed-thru on BSC8 (aLOGs 1595,1596,1604) we pulled another out of C&B and it was checked on the leak detector.  KKyle found that to be good.  Since we are flanging BSC6 at this time, it seemed reasonable to check for leaks pre-install.  This feed-thru did not pass and has a 2e-7 Torr-L/sec leak.  So that is two of three feed-thrus that have gone through Clean & Bake that have failed.  We grabbed the one RMcCarthy had in EE and leak checked it as well.  While this unit had not been through clean and bake it too failed at 3e-7Torr-L/sec.  These leaks we've found to be associated with the ceramic portion of the seal rather than the welding.
SO leaking on 3 of 4 units so far--we'll check more certainly soon.
The leaks would not reveal themselves until we put the He source right down in the ceramic zone.  It was not sucked it at the surface near the welds.  Also it only showed up at 1 of the 5 conductors--they are all separate, see image.

The crew finished brushing in BSC-4 today. One drill was used for all the brushing in this chamber (#21) and one drill with a flat brush was used for the fins and the ring (#29).

Decoupled Vertex MTP from isolation valve (10" gate valve).  Will replace gate valve tomorrow.

Summary. The crystal cooling circuit increases the PSL table motion an order of magnitude around 80-90 Hz and in some other bands. Mitigation schemes are discussed.


We measured vibrations on the PSL table shortly after the laser and auxiliary cooling systems were running. The accelerometer and data acquisition system were huddle tested against the LVEA seismometer and the accelerometer was mounted about a meter –X of the crystal box on the PSL table. 

Figure 1a and b show that the full cooling system increased table motion by an order of magnitude in some bands. 

We made several tests to see if a particular part of the system was the biggest problem. This turned out to be the case: when the crystal cooling circuit was bypassed or shut down it was difficult to distinguish the cooling-on and cooling-off spectra even though the blue auxiliary system and all parts of the red system, including the 30W laser system, were running except for the crystal cooling circuit. The culprit crystal cooling circuit is identified in the photo of Figure 2. Figure 3 shows that the excess noise disappears when the crystal circuit is bypassed but all other circuits are running. 

With regard to mitigation, Figure 4 shows that the vibration can be reduced by a factor of 2 by reducing cooling water circulation from 18 liters/minute to 15. However, this reduction may effect the performance of the laser. If a pressure-variation reduction system (pulse filters and hydropneumatic accumulators), such as were installed for the TCS laser cooling system, were installed near the input and output of the crystal cooling circuit, we might reduce vibrations from the purposefully generated turbulence in the crystal circuit. We might also have some success with structural damping: Figure 1a and b show that a sharp peak at about 83 Hz is evident in Y (the short axis of the table) and Z but not X. This would be expected for a rod-like resonator aligned along the X-axis. Candidates include the cable tray that supports the crystal cooling hose and the top stiffening bar of the crystal enclosure, both visible in Figure 2. 

Robert Schofield, Lutz Winkelmann

As of this late last week and this weekend, we have removed the lower structure of the QUAD and set it in the SUS cleanroom.  Alastair has pulled (and profiled) on the order of 10+ fibers, and another batch of storage containers is about ready.

We held a brief meeting this morning to make sure everyone was "on the same page" since this chamber is slightly different than the BSCs that we have already cleaned: there are four tubes attached to BSC4. There was some discussion about the number, type, and location of barriers. As agreed at the meeting, work started with the barriers in all but the north nozzle which is attached by a short spool to HAM9. Working without a barrier at the HAM9 spool preserves access to the chamber cleanroom and precludes any confined space related safety issues. The trade-off is that one extra person is required to be a runner. 

Once brushing started, work went quite smoothly. The guys worked with one drill all day (#21) which was possible because John has given us permission to run a drill until it dies. The collar and upper sections were completed by lunch time. The mid-section and two nozzles were finished by the end of the day. 

Attached are plots of dust counts > .5 microns.

Kyle, Gerardo 

Helium baseline value 3 x 10-10 torr*L/sec at start of testing and 6 x 10-10 torr*L/sec at completion of testing (~3hours).  Large known leaking feed-through shielded via 4 layers of ultra tape.  Helium flow > 1 bubble per second when submerged.  

YBM to be vented on Monday and leaking feed-through flange will be replaced then.  

• Feedthru work in progress at BSC6
• Ongoing H2 PSL installation
• ICC at BSC4
• L1 OMC installation slated for Monday

I added a branch to the vacuum line for the H2 PSL over to ISCT4. I attached it to a model 227B dust monitor there with its internal pump removed. It should be running now at location 1 in the LVEA.

Gray, Warner

We weighed the two main components of the BSC storage container today. The lid weighs ~650 lbs, the base weighs ~2500 lbs for a total of ~3150 lbs. This does not include the 2 base mounting plates (which weigh ~50 lbs a piece, they are currently with clean and bake) or the pile of lid fasteners.

Three weeks ago the PSL team started to install the H2 laser and its stabilization. In summary the 35W front end laser and the 200W high power oscilator (HPL)are running. The HPL is injection locked. The diagnostic breadboard (DBB) is installed and functionable (final calibration still pending). The 35W front end is aligned to the DBB and first modescans and noise measurements were taken. The full PSL DAQ system was tested via a loop back test (inputs connected to outputs at field module location). The four PSL real time models are running.

Some more details:
We have installed the 35W and the 200W laser on the table in the laser area enclosure (LAE), the laser pump diodes in the laser diode room (LDR), the chillers in the chiller room, run pump light fibers between the LDR and LAE. In addition we installed all the PSL electronics in the PSL racks in the LVEA. The CDS system (front end, AA/AI filters) are installed temporarily in a rack in the LVEA (they need to move eventually to the H2 electronics room). All cables are run between the CDS system and the PSL rack, and between the racks and the LAE. Many of the PSL optical components (including PMC, reference cavity, DBB) are on the table. The laser computer control (Beckhoff) was installed and tested. The laser interlock system was tested and the test protocol signed by PSL subsystem lead and LHO laser safety officer. The 35W laser was realigned and tested. The pumplight fibers were tested and the slopes of the four laser diode boxes were taken. After that the fibers were connected to the HPL and the laser resonator, pumplight injection and 4f optics were aligned. (See a different lab book entry for the HPL performance). All optical spares were transfered into the ante room of the LAE. After several alignment itterations the HPL showed a similar good performance as it did in Hannover and the injection locking was initiated. The system locked at the first try and optimization of the combined 35W/HPL system is ongoing.
We installed all required DAQ cables between the field modules and the AA/AI filters. This is a temporal installation on the AA/AI filter side and a final installation on the PSL rack side. We did not connect all the spare cables. This should be done during the final installation (when the CDS rack moves to the H2 electronic room). To test the CDS DAQ chain we run a loop back test (model and scripts were developed by Ryan DeRosa). This send out a 100Hz signal via the DACs, AI filters and cables to the field modules. From here the signal is send via a second cable back to an AA filter, digitized with an AD card and the in-phase and quadrature signals are calculated. We found one broken cable (PMC module AI channel 10) which was fixed.
All software required for the automatic DBB measurements was installed and first DBB measurements were take. The final calibration of the DBB is in progress.

It was found that the sus monitoring systems did not have channel 31 on ADC0 reserved for timing/duotone inputs. After some discussion it was determined that all IO chassis should have the same timing input signals, including all monitoring systems.

The SUS ETM (D1001725-v8) and BS/ITM/FM (D1002741-v4) wiring diagrams were updated to accommodate these signals. This also required updates to the h2susauxb478 and h2susauxb6 models, which were corrected and committed. However, while working on h2susauxb478 I found that there were some discrepancies in the input channel mappings. The wiring seems to be missing mappings for the following channels:

BS Left Slow I (rms)
    BS Left Fast I
    BS Left Volt Mon
    BS Side Slow I (rms)
    BS Side Fast I
    BS Side Volt Mon

The model that was committed is therefore incomplete, and will need to be updated once the wiring diagram has been fixed. NOTICE: neither model was rebuilt or installed.

J. O'Dell, J. Garcia

Continuing with the diagonalization of the FMY M1 OSEMs, mechanical adjustments to the FMY top mass (M1) were made to further decouple the "F1" and "SD" OSEMs from the Yaw DoF.  The same sine wave excitation at 1.4Hz was injected to the "H2:SUS-FMY_M1_TEST_Y_EXC" channel with a 100ct amplitude. The expected contributions to the "Yaw" transfer function should be the "F2" and "F3" OSEMs with desired isolation of the other OSEMs ("F1", "RT","LF", "SD") at ~30dB or less.

Initial measurements indicated the "F1" OSEM to be ~10dB isolated from Yaw, with the other OSEMs at ~30dB isolation. Our reasoning was the "F2" and "F3" OSEMs were not in line with the center-of-mass of M1, causing a slight Pitch that would manifest itself in the "F1" OSEM response.  To lower the COM of M1, a 300g mass was added to the top of M1.  The OSEMs were then realigned to center the flags and the first pdf is the same measurement with this configuration.  The "F1" response is roughly ~20dB lower than "F2" and "F3" and the "SD" response about ~17dB lower.

"fmy_osem_diag_yaw_add_mass_300g_f1align_111005.pdf"

This promising result encouraged us to add more mass to lower the COM further.  A 100g mass was then added to M1. At this time, it was noticed the flag of the M2 LL OSEM was twisted and possibly rubbing against the OSEM photodiode sensor and/or LED source.  The M2 LL OSEM housing was removed, and the subsequent measurement is displayed on the second pdf.  The "F1" isolation is now at ~25dB and the "SD" OSEM now at ~29dB.  

pdf #2 - "fmy_osem_diag_yaw_add_topmass_400g_f1alignm2llosemoff_111005.pdf"

The flag for the M2 LR OSEM was noticed to be twisted as well, and it's OSEM housing was removed.  The current configuration of the FMY is the M2 LL and LR OSEM housings are removed, there is now 400g added mass to the M1, and the M1 LF and RT flags are out of range of their respective OSEM beam paths due to the added mass.