FARO Update

J. Oberling, R. Crouch

Update on FARO progress so far.

Monday, 2/5/2024

On Monday we tried adding a monument to the existing alignment routine, primarily to see how it worked; we used the same alignment from alog 75706, the one where we had changed PSI-1 and PSI-2 to points but kept BTVE-1 and PSI-6 as spheres (the final 2 pictures from the alog).  We used the magnetic nest that we had placed in line with height mark 903 and checked with an autolevel that it was still in line with the height mark (done before the LVEA went Laser Hazard for HAM6 work, nest alignment to height mark was good as found).  The FARO gave us X and Y coordinates for the nest, and we used those to convert the local Z coordinate for 903 into a global Z as described in alog 75706.  The listed local Z for 903 is -79.9mm (from T1100187), which translates to a global Z for the nest of -79.7mm using the following:

Z_G = Z_L + (X_L * 0.0006195) + (Y_L * -0.0000125) = -79.9 + (1082.3 * 0.0006195) + (37455.6 * -0.0000125) = -79.7mm               [1]

Including the mark in the alignment routine was very straightforward: Open the alignment routine, right click in the window listing the objects used in the alignment and select Add Object, and select the desired point from the drop-down menu.  The results of adding this point to the existing alignment routine are shown in the first 2 pictures.  As can be seen some got worse and some got better.  While it's tempting to say the Build/Inspect results are great, there is one caveat.  We checked PSI-6 in the same way we performed the differential height survey between BTVE-1 and PSI-6 in alog 75669 (SMR on the CPN ~1 foot in front of the monument on the vinyl floor, but in line with the X coordinate; we know this isn't exact, but it gives a ballpark) and that found PSI-6 to be -1.1mm from its nominal Z axis coordinate.  Another interesting note, notice the measured Z for 903 in the first picture (2nd column on the annotation).  When incorporating 903 into the alignment routine, the best the FARO can do is get within 3.5mm of the nominal Z axis coordinate; when 903 is out of the alignment routine, the FARO thinks it's ~4.2mm above its nominal Z axis coordinate.  That's... not so good, and an indication of maybe a larger discrepancy in Z coordinates than we initially thought.

Wednesday, 2/7/2024

We did the alignment test noted at the end of alog 75706; use a sphere for BTVE-1 and points for PSI-1, PSI-2, and PSI-6.  We used BTVE-1, PSI-1, and PSI-2 to perform an initial alignment, then moved the FARO to a spot with direct line of sight to PSI-6.  We then probed PSI-6 as a point instead of a sphere and added it to the alignment routine.  The third picture shows the results of the alignment routine.  We did a Build/Inspect to PSI-6, since we were in a location with direct line of sight, and then moved the FARO back out to the West Bay to do Build/Inspect for PSI-1 and PSI-2; we wanted a line of sight to height mark 902, but this put us out of line of sight to BTVE-1 so we did not do a Build/Inspect to it.  The Build/Inspect results are shown in the fourth picture.  That is also not so great, and one of the worse Z axis alignments we've seen.  This was unexpected given the variations we've seen when using the sphere fit rod.

Since we had line of sight to height marks 902 and 903 we used the magnetic nests that we had placed on them to probe them against their nominal coordinates (global Z for 902 was calculated in the same way as we did 903); at this time the LVEA was in Laser Hazard so we were unable to use an autolevel to confirm the magentic nests were still in line with the height marks (903 had been checked on Monday so was likely still good; 902 was last checked roughly a week ago so could have shifted, will check it now that the LVEA is Laser Safe).  The results are shown in the fifth picture.  There is something fishy here, as the FARO thinks both height marks are higher than our listed coordinates would indicate, by 3 to 4 mm, again indicating that we have some discrepancy between the BTVE/PSI Z axis coordinates and those of the height marks.  This was also apparent when we attempted to include both height marks in our Z axis alignment routine.  The sixth picture shows the Build/Inspect results if the height marks are included into the Z axis alignment routine with the BTVE/PSI monuments, and the seventh picture shows the Build/Inspect results with the alignment routine considering only the height marks (the check marks next to Use X and Use Y make no difference here, as this portion of the alignment routine has been constrained to only align the Z axis).  Including the height marks with the BTVE/PSI monuments results in a bad alignment, especially for PSI-6; the FARO still cannot get a good alignment to 902 and 903.  Using only the height marks gets a good alignment to the height marks, but drags the PSI monument way out.  This is a further indication of some discrepancy between our BTVE/PSI monuments and our height marks.

Thursday, 2/8/2024

Seeing this potential discrepancy between our BTVE/PSI Z coordinates and our height marks, we set out to try to see where this comes from.  Recall, per T1100187 the height marks were laid out in the local LVEA coordinate system, all relative to WBSC2 [0,0,0] (which is the origin of the site coordinate system, both the site global and the LVEA local).  The first set of height marks were set using the chamber-side door flange scribe lines; there are 2 scribes on each door flange (one at the 9 o'clock and one at 3 o'clock), for a total of 8 scribe lines per chamber.  The 8 scribe lines for WBSC2 were averaged together to produce the Z axis origin, and the height marks were set relative to this.  The initial chamber placement was done using the BTVE/PSI monuments, thereby linking them to the height marks.  Knowing this, we again used the FARO as an autolevel to perform a differential height measurement between BTVE-1 and height marks 902 and 903.  We set the FARO in a location with line of sight to BTVE-1, PSI-1, PSI-2, and both height marks.  It was oriented to local gravity and we used the Hubbs CPN (with its 2" vertical offset) to measure a Z coordinate for BTVE-1, PSI-1, and PSI-2, corrected in the -Z direction by 50.8mm to account for the vertical offset of the CPN.  These Z coordinates are relative to FARO's initial coordinate system, but since we're doing a differential height survey this doesn't matter.  We then did the same measurement with the height marks, and calculated a measured deltaZ between our height marks (and a repeat of PSI-1 and PSI-2) and BTVE-1.  Results, all units in millimeters:

• Measured heights
  • BTVE-1: -591.2
  • PSI-1: -1416.1
  • PSI-2: -1417.4
  • 902: +406.2
  • 903: +389.3
• Delta Z
  • deltaZ_PSI-1: -824.9
  • deltaZ_PSI-2: -826.2
  • deltaZ₉₀₂: +997.4
  • deltaZ₉₀₃: +980.5

Interesting here is that our deltaZ for PSI-1 and PSI-2 is different than our last measurement in alog 75669, both by +0.2mm.  This is a very small difference so not very worrying, and is likely caused by how the CPN sits in the BTVE punch (since the punch is not directly on the top of the domed monument, the CPN does have a slight wiggle to it; we tested this by wiggling the CPN and watching the measured Z coordinate, it does move but by only a couple tenths of a mm).  The deltaZ between marks 902 and 903 comes out at +16.9 mm w.r.t. 902; the theoretical difference is +17.2mm w.r.t. 902, so pretty close.

Moving on, we can convert our global Z for BTVE-1 into a local Z using the opposite direction cosines used above in [1] (from Section 2 of T0900340 X_L = X_G and Y_L = Y_G).  This looks like:

Z_L = Z_G + (X_G * -0.0006195) + (Y_G * 0.0000125) = -1057.2 + (0.0 * -0.0006195) + (46000.0 * 0.0000125) = -1056.6 mm               [2]

With a local Z for BTVE-1 we can then calculate the theoretical deltaZ to height marks 902 and 903 and compare to our measured (all units in millimeters):

	Theoretical	Measured	Difference
deltaZ902	+993.9	+997.4	+3.5
deltaZ903	+976.7	+980.5	+3.8

So according to the FARO these 2 height marks are several mm higher than our listed coordinates indicate, at least w.r.t. BTVE-1.  As a quick and dirty test we have line of sight to height mark 504, which sits on the north wall of the West Bay, near the main crane parking spot.  We do not have a nest on this mark (would need to glue one, the walls aren't magnetic), but roughly holding the SMR center on the height mark we were able to get a ballpark Z and compare it to BTVE-1.  This indicated that mark 504 is very approximately +2.9mm from where T1100187 says it is.  Combined with the discrepancies measured for 902 and 903, this is worrying.  Where is this coming from?  Several possibilities come immediately to mind:

• WBSC2 was incorrectly placed in Z w.r.t. the BTVE/PSI monuments
• The height marks were incorrectly placed w.r.t. WBSC2 Z=0
• We're seeing years of error stack ups between height marks derived from other height marks derived from other... derived from WBSC2 Z=0
• We're doing something wrong in using the FARO to do this differential height measurement
• Some combination of 2 or more of the above

Our next step is to try to figure out the source of this discrepancy.  The obvious way is to check WBSC2 Z=0 against the existing height marks to see how they register to each other using the 8 door flange scribe lines on WBSC2.  This is much easier said than done, however.  There is a lot of infrastructure blocking lines of sight, including beam tubes and other BSC chambers, electronics racks, TCS/HWS tables, HEPI piers, and cabling that was not present when WBSC2 Z=0 was established during site construction.  So in reality our next step is to figure out how to figure out the source of this discrepancy.  Stay tuned, more to come.

ISI CPS BLRMS noise monitoring- status check

Similarly as in llo (ref llo alog 69495), a comparison of the cps blrms channels vs spectra is attached for the bsc and hams. This is to confirm we can use those channels for automated cps noise monitoring in guardian.

Same observations as for LLO :

1- the blrms channels are all working
2- the threshold of 30nm rms seems like a good number to start with for guardian monitoring
3- some odd behavior on some channels - eg itmy stage 1 - 65_100Hz (p5) where, looking at the spectra, we would expect the v2/green channel to be the highest in the blrms signal. Nathan has some ideas of how to verify this, see alog 69603.

Next step : copy the CPS_NOISEMON state from the LLO DIAG_MAIN to the corresponding LHO guardian

Fri Ops Day Transition

TITLE: 02/09 Day Shift: 16:00-00:00 UTC (08:00-16:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Planned Engineering
OUTGOING OPERATOR: None
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_ENV state: CALM
    Wind: 5mph Gusts, 3mph 5min avg
    Primary useism: 0.02 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.20 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:

With HAM6 work finishing up last night, this morning will focus on HAM6 buttoning up.  EY wind fence will continue weather permitting.  EX pump down + rga wor + BRS work continues.  More FOM work. 

LVEA is laser SAFE.

HAM6 Suspensions Healthy!

Rahul, Austin, Oli

Transfer functions for OM1, OM2, OM3, and OMC were taken today following the rebalancing of the HAM6 ISI. At first we were having trouble getting good data due to the purge air flow entering the chamber, even with the purge air on a low setting, but once turning down the air flow further we were able to get decent TFs.

All four suspensions are looking healthy and HAM6 is ready to be closed up!

2-8 vent vacuum diary

Today's activities:
- EX pumpdown status: ~7.2E-8 Torr
- EX BRS: it is pumping: the roughing was already done, the small aux cart has been already disconnected, now it is only pumping on its own Ion pump
- On BSC8, the last 16.5" feedthru was replaced by a blank. In sum, 5 pcs. of 12" and 3 pcs. of 16.5" 3IFO feedthrus were replaced
- After a leaky calibrated leak was found on HAM8 RGA, it is still pumped now with an aux cart (which also needed some troubleshooting), and a pre-vent scan will be taken next week

HAM6 closeout

(Betsy, Keita, Rahul, Sheila

We finished installing the new square-hole OMC glass shround end panels this morning after a good round of cleaning.

Then we spent most of the day hunting for the OMC Trans Cam beam - we finally found it, aligned it to the viewport door simultor, and were able to launch Jim and Rahul for final SUS/SEI closeout.

We transitioned to Laser Safe (thanks TJ), Closed HAM6, 7 and the HAM5 mini port gatevalve.

A new contam control wafer was laid near the center of the table and cables, tools, interferences, were all checked.  Most signoffs have been complete - Jim and SUS crew checking TFs now and expect to be cleared this eve.  Jim has signed off, Rahul on now.  He'll txt me any issues, so otherwise all good, doors to proceed.

Doors on HAM6 tomorrow morning followed by corner pump down ~Monday hopefully.

HAM6 ISI tfs look ok

Unlocked and did some rebalancing of HAM6 ISI after ISC crew finished. ISI tfs look ok. On attached tfs, red, blue and green tfs are actually HAM3 tfs from last week, brown pink, light blue are all HAM6 tfs from today. Purge was a bit lower today, so there's less tilt, and the whitening states aren't the same between the chambers, so the 10hz + part of these tf shouldn't look the same. HAM6 is good to close.

WP 11669 upgrade the link between sw-msr-core and sw-gc-sysadmin to 10G

As per WP 11669 I upgraded the link between sw-msr-core and sw-gc-sysadmin to a 10G link.

This is done to simplify the configuration of the new core switch when it gets put in later this month, by moving everything to 10G everywhere.

Thurs DAY Ops Summary

TITLE: 02/08 Day Shift: 16:00-00:00 UTC (08:00-16:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Planned Engineering
INCOMING OPERATOR: None
SHIFT SUMMARY:

Today's main activity was closing out HAM6 (more specifically--being able to steer the OMC trans beams out of the chamber (after the installation of the modified OMC shroud plate)---the beam they worked with was very faint and hard to see (most of the LVEA lights needed to be off for this work!).  LVEA was then transitioned to SAFE, and then HAM6 ISI was unlocked and balanced for SUS transfer functions.

There was wind fence work and lots of VAC team work as well.
LOG:

• 1555 LVEA technical cleaning (karen,kim)
  • 1653 karen out, 1700 kim out
• 1628-1638 tcs chiller FAMIS check (corey)
• 1639-1115 Wind Fence work (chris, randy, mitch, jim)
  • 2056-2301 Afternoon work (randy, mitch)
• 1640-1648 purge air measurement (jordan)
• 1657-1955 HAM6 OMC shroud, alignment, and closeout (betsy, rahul, keita)
  • 2104 Resumption for afternoon with sheila joining the above team.
  • This work was mostly complete around 2245!
• 1703-1745 EX rga checks + start BRS pump down (jordan, gerardo)
• 1709 Climbing around EY for fiber CDS network upgrade (fil)
• 1719 Checking out logistics of BSC8 feedthrough (a 3IFO feedthru stored there & to be swapped with a blank eventually) (travis)
  • 1809-1833 Jordan joining
• 1727-1757 Look at SQZ table (daniel.nutsinee)
• 1735 Erik mentioned making changes to Control Room FOMs via work permit over the coming days.
• 1758-1903 MX bathroom lights (ken)
• 1802-1950 FARO work in West Bay (jason)
  • 1819 RyanC joining
  • 2124-2308 Afternoon work (jason) + 2132 ryanC joining
• 1827 FCES cleanroom checks (richard.gerardo)
• 1907-1910 Checking on Top Gun in Cleaning Room (chris)
• 1909-1947 BRS pumpdown check (jordan)
• 1925-1931 Checking HAM6 status and ITM SEI sensor (jim)
• 2002 HAM8 WD trip
• 2036 Cabling work at FCES (ken)
• 2123-2244 Investigating BRS pressure at EX (michael, shoshana, neil, austin)
  • 2256-2330 Returning to EX to check BRS (michael, shoshana, neil, austin
• 2127 Taking VAC photos at HAM7 (gerardo, jordan)
• 2129-2245 EX Mech Fan room (ken)
• 2130-2154 Delivering parts + taking photos (tj)
• 2138-2308 RGA work at FCES (jordan.gerardo)
• 2145-2159 Running battery out to Betsy (travis)
• 2225-2144 Checking up on HAM6 team (richard)
• 2244-2252 Transitioning LVEA to laser SAFE (tj)
• 2256 VAC checks in LVEA (janos, travis)
• 2307 Balancing HAM6 ISI (jim.mitch)
• 2314-2331 Beer garden trip (richard, gerardo)
• NEXT:  Once HAM6 is balanced---> SUS crew (Rahul, Austin, Oli, Ibrahim) will jump on running transfer functions.

 

PEM accelerometer cable being crushed

While Jason and I were doing some FARO surveying we noticed a cable being crushed under a computer rack leg in the bier-garten. Following the cable led to an accelerometer by GV6 on the Y-arm beamtube.

BBSS M1 Transfer Function Comparisons to Model

Oli P,  Ibrahim A, Betsy W

The first transfer functions were taken for the top stage of the BBSS a couple of weeks ago (75211), and we have been working on plotting these transfer functions against their models. We have finally been able to do this (pdf), and what we see is a pretty good match to what we expected to see. Plots 1 - 6 of the pdf (also attached as pngs) are the transfer functions for each individual degree of freedom compared against the model's result for that degree of freedom. Plots 7 - 12 compare the measured and model TFs between dof's that tend to couple into each other. Pages 13 - 18 compare each measured and modeled dof to the OSEMs that make up that dof.
Here are the plots for M1 L to L, M1 T to T, M1 V to V, M1 R to R, M1 P to P, and M1 Y to Y. The results are similar to what we noticed when manually comparing the location of the peaks.

Scripts Used
The original BBSS model is a Mathematica notebook found at $(sussvn)/Common/MathematicaModels/TripleLite2/mark.barton/20211212bbss/production/stdcalc/ASUS3L2ModelCalcPlots.nb.

The default model parameters in Matlab can be found at $(sussvn)/Common/MatlabTools/TripleModel_Production/bbssopt.m. Then, $(sussvn)/BBSS/Common/MatlabTools/plotBBSS_dtttfs_M1.m was run to grab the data from the transfer functions we ran and plot them against the theoretical models.

The results are found in $(sussvn)/BBSS/X1/BS/SAGM1/Results/2024-01-05_1000_X1SUSBS/.

Questions we have:
- Why are the measured magnitudes higher than the model magnitudes?
    After looking over it for around 4 hours and getting some help from Jim and Rahul, we could not figure out whether the discrepency was due to:
    - an incorrect calibration factor (the 1.5404 is a calibration factor that was a remenant from the BSFM script who's values seem to make sense)
    - an issue with the filter units on the test stand or dtt
    - an issue with the model
    - turbulance from cleanrooms
    - something else??
- What's up with Pitch?
    Seems coupled to "V", which should have expected coupling but not in this peak (according to model). Ideas are:
    - issue with model? Were "new wire lengths" added to model params?
    - issue with how we built it? Pitch being off can sometimes indicate an issue with the location of the center of mass
    - something else?
- What's with noisy P to "any other DoF" coupling traces?
    There is terrible coherence.
    - Some mechanical issue? No rubbing from inspection ~month ago
    - Some DTT issue? There are no GDS overflows/railing (which is what caused the problem last time) when running TFs
    - Something else?

Next steps:
- Take many measurements of different parts of the BBSS and make sure they are within their build tolerance, as well as double checking that all updates to the build have been included in the model parameters.
- Make any adjustments to the build or model that are needed.
- Rerun TFs and see if the new results make sense.

Thu CP1 Fill

Thu Feb 08 10:09:10 2024 INFO: Fill completed in 9min 6secs

Gerardo confirmed a good fill curbside.

BRS Remote Mass Adjuster Install

[Michael, Jim, Tony, Shoshana, Neil]

We've spent the week working on installing a remote mass adjusting/balancing system for the End-X BRS. Upon opening the End-X BRS we discovered that it is slightly different than the other BRSs (most likely because it was the first one built, photo 1 below) so we had to get a couple extra parts machined for the parts we brought from UW to fit properly. The hardware has finished being installed (photo 2), and we've run a quick test of the picomotor (Newport  8341-UHV) to make sure it has full range of motion. We've finished closing the BRS up and are now waiting for it to pump down before doing some additional in-vacuum tests. 

We are writing up some installation and balancing instructions as well as leaving another set of parts, so a remote balancing system can be installed on the other BRS. We assume the End-Y BRS should fit the drawings on the dcc (D1800045), so no additional parts should need to be machined. We are also leaving 16 flexures here with Jim.


The pico motor controller chassis was not working, so we are leaving our UW picomotor driver (Newport 8742) here so that the End-X BRS can be adjusted until the chassis is fixed. Once it is fixed the in-air wiring will need to be re-connected to get the motor to the chassis. For now adjusting will have to be done with a laptop at the End-X station, but once hooked up to the chassis, adjustments can be made from the control room.

HVAC Fan Vibrometers FAMIS Check (FAMIS 26266)

For FAMIS #26281:  All looks mostly well for the last week for all site HVAC fans (see attached), EXCEPT a TINY increase for the (lvea) MR FAN3 almost 5-days ago.

PSL Status Report (FAMIS #26230)

For FAMIS 26230:
Laser Status:
    NPRO output power is 1.81W (nominal ~2W)
    AMP1 output power is 67.75W (nominal ~70W)
    AMP2 output power is 136.8W (nominal 135-140W)
    NPRO watchdog is GREEN
    AMP1 watchdog is GREEN
    AMP2 watchdog is GREEN

PMC:
    It has been locked 5 days, 20 hr 2 minutes
    Reflected power = 18.46W
    Transmitted power = 108.3W
    PowerSum = 126.8W

FSS:
    It has been locked for 23 days 0 hr and 30 min
    TPD[V] = 0.6882V

ISS:
    The diffracted power is around 1.8%
    Last saturation event was 23 days 1 hours and 2 minutes ago
Possible Issues:
    PMC reflected power is high
    FSS TPD is low
    ISS diffracted power is low

ITMX cps glitching, forgot to reconnect CPS, temp bypass, need to fix tomorrow

The ITMX cps had started glitching this week, I tried reseating the cards to fix the glitching, but I guess I forgot to reconnect one of the sensors. The St1 h1 sensor is railed, so the watchdogs nominally can't be reset. I've temporarily bypass the st1 cps in the wd (via an epics variable that raises saturation threshold above the adc range), but the bypass will reset, eventually. I'll reconnect the st1 h1 sensor tomorrow morning.

SQZ beam profile measurements after PSAMs offloading

Naoki, Camille, Julian, Rahul

Summary: We measured beam profiles in HAM7 and HAM6 using the SQZ beam, after the PSAMs offloading work from 75677 75709 and the alignment work from 75732. We noticed that there is a lot of astigmatism on the beam in HAM6, but not in the HAM7 location that we were able to reach with the profiler. 

Details:

In HAM6 we measured at three locations marked by the letters a,b,c in the sketch that Julian will attach. The red lines in the sketch show the irises. 

Location 6A is 1.75 inches from the iris, Location 6B is 2 inches from the iris (closer to OM1).  At location 6C we measured the beam in reflection off OM1, 23.25 inches after OM1.  (The fast shutter is further in the -Y direction in chamber than what is shown in the CAD drawing).  We also would like to measure at position 6D, once the second iris is removed. 

We also measured beam profiles on the -X side of the HAM7 table, location 7A is 6.25" in the +X direction (closer to ZM5) from the iris, 7B is 8.25" from the iris in the + X direction, and location 7C is 12" from the iris in the +X direction.  We weren't able to move the profiler further into the chamber without blocking the beam heading towards FC1.

We measured 13.5% widths, with A1 as the vertical axis and A2 as horizontal. 

location	ZM4 PSAMs strain gauge [V] (PZT request [V])	ZM5 PSAMs [V]	A1 Width [um] (standard deviation)	A2 Width [um] (standard deviation)
6B	0.82 (0)	-4.14 (0)	1392 (8.7)	1573 (9.9)
6B	4.38 (100)	-4.14 (0)	1406 (7.3)	1584 (6.3)
7B	4.39 (100)	-4.14 (0)	2001 (6.4)	2017 (6.1)
7B	1.0 (0)	-4.14 (0)	1928 (5.6)	1924 (5.9)
7B	0.98 (0)	-0.52 (100)	2200 (8.2)	2212 (9.4)
7B	4.31 (100)	-0.52 (100)	2276 (9.5)	2303 (9.3)
7B	8.49 (200) *	-0.52 (100)	2363 (11.0)	2412 (13.8)
7B	8.53 (200)	3.57 (200)*	2611 (9.0)	2691 (7.2)
7B	5.74 (100) *	3.59 (200)	2539 (13.7)	2603 (18.1)
7A	5.72 (100) *	0.64 (100)	2387 (13.5)	2446 (13.1)
7C	5.715 (100)*	0.63 (100)	2374 (11.0)	2415 (9.5)
6A	5.7 (100) *	0.625 (100)	2074 (9.9)	1611 (7.4)
6C	5.7 (100)	0.612 (100)	1670 (10.2)	1618 (7.0)

* strain guage still drifting

Stll left to do:

• Measure distance from HAM6 first iris to OM1. 
• Measure distance from HAM7 iris (on -X side of table) to ZM5.
• take a better photo of the beam position on ZM5.
• try to put beam profile in location of iris near OM1 (location 6D).

Useful distances from Don:

Don Griffith sent us some useful distances in HAM7 which are useful for interpreting these measurements, based on the CAD model that he updated in in March 2022 based on the as built photos of HAM7 (D1900365-v1). 

• B:M4 (last optic on VIP) to ZM4 = 1086.36mm
• ZM4 to ZM5 = 1681.23mm
• ZM5 to Beam Diverter + 1183.54mm
• ZM5 to Edge of Table = 1822.70mm
• ZM5 to ZM6 = 4680.61mm

 

Attached are screenshots of the beam profile measurements. The screenshots are labeled to indicate position, ZM4 voltage, and ZM5 voltage.