Thu Jul 03 10:11:40 2025 INFO: Fill completed in 11min 36secs
Sheila, Matt, Elenna
In the midst of trying to diagnose various PI issues, we noticed DCPD sum was slowly increasing, but not from PIs. We eventually figured out it was ETMY violin mode 20. The gain was set to -1. I flipped it to +1 and then mode started being damped down.
Sheila updated the ETMY ring heater again to 1.5 W, and it looks like ETMY mode 20 phase has flipped back, and a damping gain of -1 is working once again.
It appears that gains of both -1 and +1 are not damping the mode now. Corey is trying different phase filters.
Thought I had posted this before, but couldn't find it, so here it is. Attached plots compare L2L measurements of the HAM1 GS13s on May 21 during corner pumpdown before adding the periscope viton and June 6 the afternoon after we added viton. The Q and frequency of the 71.8hz mode is somewhat reduced, but the neighboring 69.9hz mode is sharper now, so I'm not sure we gained much. The June 6 measurement was collected in air, so I would still like to collect a set of in-vac measurements. This could probably be done on a Tuesday if there isn't too much activity around HAM1.
I took 5-200hz matlab tfs this morning to compare to the 2 previous measurements above. It seems that the damping is quite effective now. I will try to look at the effect on the isolation filter design, maybe we can get some of the loop gain back. It would still be better to move these modes up above 100hz if possible.
TITLE: 07/03 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Lock Acquisition
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Oli
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: CALM
Wind: 5mph Gusts, 2mph 3min avg
Primary useism: 0.01 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.07 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:
H1 had (3) ~2-hr locks overnight (looks like no wake-up calls for Oli!). H1 is currently locking (just powered up to 25W). Winds stepped down at about 130amPDT (837utc).
Today is Thurs Commissioning from 8am-12pmPDT (15-19utc). H1 won't be thermalized until about 1030-11amPDT, so no calibration...hopefully H1 short locks won't be an issue for calibration where we need H1 thermalized 3hrs. Robert and Sheila will probably start their work
Just want to add a note that all three locks from last night were nearly the exact same length, 1:51, and the locklosses are all tagged with "PI monitor". A ring heater was changed yesterday, 85514, which may have caused this problem.
Additionally, each of the 3 locklosses were from PI28/29 according to VerbalAlarms (the Ring Heater change yesterday was made to address PI24 which riddled our 7hr lock for the last hour before the ultimate lockloss).
While we have been running PIMON live on nuc25, it appears the data from the lockloss hasn't been saved. The newest file in the /ligo/gitcommon/labutils/pimon/locklosses folder is from December 2024. I'm not sure what's going on. We think our problem is an 80 kHz PI, so this would be useful data to have.
TITLE: 07/03 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 149Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Oli
SHIFT SUMMARY:
Lost lock right as my shift started, and due to the Wind kept H1 from locking until 4:25 UTC.
Dropped from Observing once for Xtreme_PI_Damping at 4:45 UTC, for 3 minutes.
H1 is currently Observing and looks good.
LOG:
Start Time | System | Name | Location | Lazer_Haz | Task | Time End |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
23:47 | VAC | Gerardo | LVEA HAM3 | N | Banging vacuum eqipment together next to HAM3. | 00:00 |
23:54 | ISS | Jennie W | Optics Lab | N | Putting away parts | 00:02 |
TITLE: 07/03 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Lock Acquisition
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Corey
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: CALM
Wind: 35mph Gusts, 20mph 3min avg
Primary useism: 0.11 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.07 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:
Lockloss as soon as my shift started 23:29:48 UTC from a PI 24 Ring up.
Wind is picking up speed.
The Ring heater at ETMX was changed to hopefully help with the PI24 Ring ups.
Running Inital_Alignment now.
TITLE: 07/02 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Lock Acquisition
INCOMING OPERATOR: Tony
SHIFT SUMMARY:
H1's been locked for almost 8hrs (where the initial locking in the morning was almost entirely automatic--except for SQZ work [by Sheila & Matt] to address the issues Oli noted during the OWL shift).
Decent Observing time for most of the shift, but the last hour of the shift was peppered with PI24 ring-ups that dropped us out of Observing and dropped our range. Matt made changes to the ETMy Ring Heater to hopefully address this issue.
LOG:
M. Todd, S. Dwyer, C. Gray, A. Sanchez
We decided to set the ETMY ring heater back to 1W, as we were seeing PI24 having repeated dramatic ring ups. We expect this to set our LG10 y-arm mode to sit at 10490Hz once thermalized (fingers crossed). There are quite a few peaks around this region as well, but hopefully we move far enough away from PI24.
After about a 5.5hr lock, noticed range slowly drifting down over several hours. With H1 out of Observing, took the opportunity to touch up the Squeezer with:
Jennie W, Rahul
Yesterday we made some measurements to calibrate the spot size on the QPD as we scan the beam position across it.
We used a connector Fil made us to plug in the OT301 QPD amplifier into a DC power supply after checking it contained voltage regulators that could cope with a voltage between 12 and 19 V ( as the unit says it expects DC supply but the previous one we were using was AC with a 100mA current rating and was getting too hot so we assume that was the incorrect one). We hooked it up at 16V (this draws about 150mA of current). The QPD readout looks normal and does not have any of the strange sawtooth we saw with the original power cable.
We moved the M2MS beam measurement system out of the way of the translation stage.
To calibrate the QPD we need to change the lateral position of the M1 mirror and lens to change the yaw positioning on the QPD and measure the X and Y voltages from the QPD.
We need to check we are centred first. The QPD bullseye readout shows the beam is off a tiny bit in yaw but this was as good as we could get at centering the beam when we moved the QPD. All 8 PDs are reading about 4.6 V so this means the beam is well centred in the array plane.
We measure 11000 counts on the bullseye qpd readout at this M1 position.
Translation Stage inch |
QPD X (mV ) |
QPD Y (V) |
---|---|---|
4.13 | 239e-3 | -1.77 |
4.14 | 252e-3 | -1.84 |
4.15 | 2.34 | -1.60 |
4.16 | 4.46 | -1.17 |
4.17 | 4.26 | -1.11 |
4.18 | 5.62 | -835e-3 |
4.19 | 7.80 | -600e-3 |
4.20 | 7.81 | -321e-3 |
4.21 | 8.45 | -222e-3 |
4.22 | 8.82 | +70.6e-3 |
4.23 |
9.19 |
771e-3 |
4.24 | 9.28 | 1.12 |
4.25 | 9.37 | 1.88 |
4.26 | 9.36 | 2.36 |
4.27 | 9.37 | 2.38 |
4.28 | 9.44 | 2.71 |
4.29 | 9.47 | 3.10 |
4.30 | 9.50 | 3.41 |
4.31 | 9.49 | 3.35 |
4.32 | 9.51 | 3.72 |
4.33 | 9.55 | 4.27 |
4.34 | 9.58 | 4.55 |
4.35 | 9.62 | 4.86 |
4.36 | 9.66 | 5.44 |
4.37 | 9.65 | 5.31 |
4.38 | 9.63 | 5.60 |
4.39 | 9.69 | 5.75 |
4.40 | 9.69 | 6.00 |
4.41 | 9.70 | 6.15 |
4.42 | 9.70 | 6.16 |
4.43 | 9.71 | 6.33 |
4.44 | 9.71 | 6.50 |
4.45 | 9.72 | 6.72 |
4.46 | 9.74 | 7.09 |
4.47 | 9.73 | 6.87 |
4.48 | 9.74 | 7.40 |
4.49 | 9.75 | 7.46 |
4.50 | 9.74 | 7.46 |
4.51 | 9.76 | 7.75 |
4.52 | 9.74 | 7.67 |
4.53 | 9.73 | 7.82 |
4.54 | 9.74 | 7.96 |
4.55 | 9.73 | 8.08 |
4.56 | 9.72 | 8.33 |
4.57 | 9.71 | 8.43 |
4.58 | 9.70 | 8.50 |
4.13 | 448e-3 | -1.98 |
4.12 | -1.02 | -2.34 |
4,11 | -1.17 | -2.14 |
4.10 | -2.92 | -2.43 |
4.09 | -4.63 | -3.30 |
4.08 | -5.91 | -3.18 |
4.07 | -6.97 | -3.40 |
4.06 | -8.17 | -4.24 |
4.05 | -8.13 | -4.28 |
4.04 | -8.52 | -4.47 |
4.03 | -8.76 | -4.77 |
4.02 | -8.89 | -5.27 |
4.01 | -9.01 | -5.45 |
4.0 | -9.08 | -5.44 |
3.99 | -9.10 | -5.85 |
3.98 | -9.11 | -5.91 |
3.97 | -9.11 | -5.93 |
3.96 | -9.12 | -6.16 |
3.95 | -9.12 | -6.18 |
3.94 | -9.13 | -6.34 |
3.93 | -9.13 | -6.49 |
3.92 | -9.12 | -6.49 |
3.91 | -9.13 | -6.61 |
3.90 | -9.11 | -6.55 |
3.89 | -9.11 | -6.70 |
3.88 | -9.10 | -6.46 |
4.13 | ||
I plotted the data from lowest reading on the translation stage to highest and fitted the linear region using Calibrate_QPD.m which is attached.
Data is shown in attached pdf.
The slop of the linear region in V/inch is 112 V/inch. Which means to if the beam moved 8.93 e-3 inches on the QPD in yaw, the yaw readout would change by 1 Volt.
I altered the code to plot in mm and the constant is 4.4 V/mm.
D'oh I read the scale on the translation stage wrong so the x readings are actually lower by a factor of 10.
This makes the slope 44.1 V/mm which is more in line with the 65.11 V/mm Mayank and Shiva found for the QPD calibration here.
Ours could be different because we have a slightly different beam size and we moved the QPD in its housing to centre it which could have changed X to Y coupling in the QPD readout.
This implies our beam diameter on the QPD is around 0.4mm which makes a lot more sense considering the diode is 3mm!
As a cross-check we used the QPD 'bullseye' readout unit and Rahul changed the translation stage in yaw and we measured the beam dropping from 10400 counts in the middle of the QPP to 100s of counts at the edges.
Translation Stage [inch] | QPD Sum Counts |
---|---|
0.413 | 10400 |
0.365 | 500 |
0.413 | 10400 |
0.49 | 400 |
diode size ~ ((0.49-0.365)*0.0254*1000) = 3.175 mm.
I redid the graphs for the horizontal motion of the input beam to X motion on the QPD with better labels (first attached graph) and did a fit for the Y data on the QPD collected at each horizontal position of the input beam (second attached graph). The third graph attached is comparing both fits on one graph.
If we take into account the input beam horizontal axis is not aligned with the QPD, we can work out the resultant calibration relative to the mirror displacement as:
V change along mirror displacement axis = sqrt((change V in X)^2 + (change V in Y)^2)
Calibration = V change along mirror displacemnt axis/change in mirror position
= 4.644 V/mm.
angle of QPD horizontal axis with mirror displacement axis = tan^-1(Voltage change V in Y/ Voltage change in X) = 38.8 degrees.
I got the above caluclation of the QPD calibration in the horizontal direction wrong as I use the total change in voltage we measured across the whole range of horizontal scan and not just the linear region where the beam is close to centred on the QPD.
The horizontal beam scan calibration is actually:
sqrt(11.8^2 + 44.1^2) = 10.6 V/mm
with an angle of tan^-1(11.8/44.1) = 14.9 degrees to the X direction on the QPD.
TITLE: 07/02 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Lock Acquisition
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Oli
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: CALM
Wind: 15mph Gusts, 8mph 3min avg
Primary useism: 0.01 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.05 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:
Rough night continues after Maintenance Day with rung up violins and input alignment shift.
NOTE: Well, after getting H1 back to 60W, the violins are not rung up and better than how they looked at the end of my shift yesterday.
(Sheila & Todd are now looking at the Squeezer & I returned H1 to be able to "Observe WITH Squeezing".)
I noticed ETMX mode1 has been high ever since coming back from maintenance yesterday and we usually don't damp this mode. I took a high res spectra to confirm that it was this mode and not another close line causing this and it was so I tried to find some damping settings.
Nothing worked all that well, some tentative new settings are FM1+FM2+FM10 G=-50.
WP 12640
ECR E2400330
Drawing D0901284-v5
T2500232
Today we started upgrading the SUS Sat Amps per ECR E2400330. Modification improves the whitening stage to reduce ADC noise from 0.05 to 10 Hz. The following units were replaced with modified units:
Suspension | Old | New |
PRM TOP | S1100067 | S1100168 |
PRM/PR3 | S1000275 | S1100173 |
PR3 | S1100175 | S1100183 |
BS TOP | S1100090 | S1000291 |
BS RT/SD | S1100155 | S1100066 |
SR3 Top | S1000296 | S1000284 |
SR3/SRM | S1100178 | S1000290 |
SRM | S1100136 | S1100068 |
F. Clara, C. Gray, J. Kissel, O. Patane, M.Pirello
Here's the characterization data and fit results for S1100168, assigned to PRM M1's T1T2T3LF OSEMs (what Fil refers to as just "PRM TOP" above). The data was taken per methods described in T080062-v3. The data was processed and fit using ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ plotresponse_S1100168_PRM_M1_T1T2T3LF_20250630.m Explicitly, the fit to the whitening stage zero and pole, the transimpedance feedback resistor, and foton design string are Optic Stage Serial_Number Channel_Number OSEM_Name Zero_Pole_Hz R_TIA_kOhm Foton_Design PRM M1 S1100168 CH1 T1 0.0969 : 5.30 120.10 zpk([5.3],[0.0969],1,"n") CH2 T2 0.0950 : 5.20 120.25 zpk([5.2],[0.095],1,"n") CH3 T3 0.0950 : 5.18 120.25 zpk([5.18],[0.095],1,"n") CH4 LF 0.0940 : 5.15 120.00 zpk([5.15],[0.094],1,"n") The attached plot and machine readable .txt file are also found in ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ Even though I've fit for the transimpedance gain, I've elected *not* to include a gain in the foton design string relative to "ideal," as there are more scale factors in play that determine the overall [(meters)/(ADC cts)] scale in the calibration of the OSEMs (LED light power, PD response, any cable loss, ADC channel gain, etc.). Determining this overall scale is better left to different methods, a la LHO:84548, which we (eventually) anticipate doing for all SUS with ECR E2400330 upgraded satamps.
Here's the characterization data and fit results for S1100173 , assigned to PRM/PR3 M1's RTSD/T1T2 OSEMs (what Fil refers to as just "PRM/PR3" above). The data was taken per methods described in T080062-v3. The data was processed and fit using ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ plotresponse_S1100173_PRMPR3_M1_RTSDT1T2_20250630.m Explicitly, the fit to the whitening stage zero and pole, the transimpedance feedback resistor, and foton design string are Optic Stage Serial_Number Channel_Number OSEM_Name Zero_Pole_Hz R_TIA_kOhm Foton_Design PRMPR3 M1 S1100173 CH1 RT 0.0969 : 5.3 120.00 zpk([5.3],[0.0969],1,"n") CH2 SD 0.0955 : 5.22 120.00 zpk([5.22],[0.0955],1,"n") CH3 T1 0.0975 : 5.35 119.75 zpk([5.35],[0.0975],1,"n") CH4 T2 0.0975 : 5.33 120.25 zpk([5.33],[0.0975],1,"n") The attached plot and machine readable .txt file version of the above table are also found in ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ See above LHO:85504 comment as to why an account of the fit transimpedance was not included in the foton design string gain.
Here's the characterization data and fit results for S1100183 , assigned to PR3 M1's T3LFRTSD OSEMs (what Fil refers to as just "PR3" above). The data was taken per methods described in T080062-v3. The data was processed and fit using ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ plotresponse_S1100183_PR3_M1_T3LFRTSD_20250630.m Explicitly, the fit to the whitening stage zero and pole, the transimpedance feedback resistor, and foton design string are Optic Stage Serial_Number Channel_Number OSEM_Name Zero_Pole_Hz R_TIA_kOhm Foton_Design PR3 M1 S1100183 CH1 T3 0.0950 : 5.19 120 zpk([5.19],[0.095],1,"n") CH2 LF 0.0945 : 5.17 120 zpk([5.17],[0.0945],1,"n") CH3 RT 0.0940 : 5.14 120 zpk([5.14],[0.094],1,"n") CH4 SD 0.0955 : 5.24 120 zpk([5.24],[0.0955],1,"n") The attached plot and machine readable .txt file version of the above table are also found in ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ See above LHO:85504 comment as to why an account of the fit transimpedance was not included in the foton design string gain.
Here's the characterization data and fit results for S1000291 , assigned to BS M1's F1F2F3LF OSEMs (what Fil refers to as just "BS TOP" above). The data was taken per methods described in T080062-v3. The data was processed and fit using ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ plotresponse_S1000291_BS_M1_F1F2F3LF_20250630.m Explicitly, the fit to the whitening stage zero and pole, the transimpedance feedback resistor, and foton design string are Optic Stage Serial_Number Channel_Number OSEM_Name Zero_Pole_Hz R_TIA_kOhm Foton_Design BS M1 S1000291 CH1 F1 0.096 : 5.19 121.50 zpk([5.19],[0.096],1,"n") CH2 F2 0.096 : 5.23 120.75 zpk([5.23],[0.096],1,"n") CH3 F3 0.096 : 5.26 120.00 zpk([5.26],[0.096],1,"n") CH4 LF 0.095 : 5.2 120.00 zpk([5.2],[0.095],1,"n") The attached plot and machine readable .txt file version of the above table are also found in ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ See above LHO:85504 comment as to why an account of the fit transimpedance was not included in the foton design string gain.
Here's the characterization data and fit results for S1100066 , assigned to BS M1's RTSDxxxx OSEMs (with the 2x "xx" representing the unused channels not connected to anything in-vacuum. Fil refers to this as just "BS RT/SD" above). The data was taken per methods described in T080062-v3. The data was processed and fit using ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ plotresponse_S1100066_BS_M1_RTSDxxx_20250630.m Explicitly, the fit to the whitening stage zero and pole, the transimpedance feedback resistor, and foton design string are Optic Stage Serial_Number Channel_Number OSEM_Name Zero_Pole_Hz R_TIA_kOhm Foton_Design BS M1 S1100066 CH1 RT 0.0960 : 5.19 121.50 zpk([5.19],[0.096],1,"n") CH2 SD 0.0940 : 5.11 120.75 zpk([5.11],[0.094],1,"n") CH3 xx 0.0935 : 5.12 120.25 zpk([5.12],[0.0935],1,"n") CH4 xx 0.0965 : 5.26 120.50 zpk([5.26],[0.0965],1,"n") The attached plot and machine readable .txt file version of the above table are also found in ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ See above LHO:85504 comment as to why an account of the fit transimpedance was not included in the foton design string gain.
Here's the characterization data and fit results for S1000284 , assigned to SR3 M1's T1T2T3LF OSEMs (Fil refers to this as just "SR3 Top" above). The data was taken per methods described in T080062-v3. The data was processed and fit using ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ plotresponse_S1000284_SR3_M1_T1T2T3LF_20250630.m Explicitly, the fit to the whitening stage zero and pole, the transimpedance feedback resistor, and foton design string are Optic Stage Serial_Number Channel_Number OSEM_Name Zero_Pole_Hz R_TIA_kOhm Foton_Design SR3 M1 S1000284 CH1 T1 0.0960 : 5.25 120.1 zpk([5.25],[0.096],1,"n") CH2 T2 0.0950 : 5.2 120.1 zpk([5.2],[0.095],1,"n") CH3 T3 0.0960 : 5.27 120.1 zpk([5.27],[0.096],1,"n") CH4 LF 0.0945 : 5.16 120.5 zpk([5.16],[0.0945],1,"n") The attached plot and machine readable .txt file version of the above table are also found in ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ See above LHO:85504 comment as to why an account of the fit transimpedance was not included in the foton design string gain.
Here's the characterization data and fit results for S1000290 , assigned to SR3/SRM M1's RTSD/T1T2 OSEMs (Fil refers to this as just "SR3/SRM" above). The data was taken per methods described in T080062-v3. The data was processed and fit using ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ plotresponse_S1000290_SR3SRM_M1_RTSDT1T2_20250630.m Explicitly, the fit to the whitening stage zero and pole, the transimpedance feedback resistor, and foton design string are Optic Stage Serial_Number Channel_Number OSEM_Name Zero_Pole_Hz R_TIA_kOhm Foton_Design SR3/SRM M1 S1000290 CH1 RD 0.0955 : 5.21 120.1 zpk([5.21],[0.0955],1,"n") CH2 SD 0.0940 : 5.13 120.5 zpk([5.13],[0.094],1,"n") CH3 T1 0.0930 : 5.07 120.5 zpk([5.07],[0.093],1,"n") CH4 T2 0.0950 : 5.2 120.1 zpk([5.2],[0.095],1,"n") The attached plot and machine readable .txt file version of the above table are also found in ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ See above LHO:85504 comment as to why an account of the fit transimpedance was not included in the foton design string gain.
Here's the characterization data and fit results for S1100068 , assigned to SRM M1's T3LFRTSD OSEMs (Fil refers to this as just "SRM" above). The data was taken per methods described in T080062-v3. The data was processed and fit using ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ plotresponse_S1100068_SRM_M1_T3LFRTSD_20250630.m Explicitly, the fit to the whitening stage zero and pole, the transimpedance feedback resistor, and foton design string are Optic Stage Serial_Number Channel_Number OSEM_Name Zero_Pole_Hz R_TIA_kOhm Foton_Design SRM M1 S1100068 CH1 T3 0.094 : 5.14 120.10 zpk([5.14],[0.094],1,"n") CH2 LF 0.095 : 5.18 120.25 zpk([5.18],[0.095],1,"n") CH3 RT 0.096 : 5.23 120.75 zpk([5.23],[0.096],1,"n") CH4 SD 0.096 : 5.29 119.00 zpk([5.29],[0.096],1,"n") The attached plot and machine readable .txt file version of the above table are also found in ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ See above LHO:85504 comment as to why an account of the fit transimpedance was not included in the foton design string gain.
On Friday Jun 27th Francisco and I went to the the PCAL lab and did a PCAL TX module maintenance according to T1600436.
AOM alignment was touched up
Results:
Laser SN05 | |
Date | June-26-2025 |
Laser Shutter Check | Fail |
Max OFS Offset | 7.2V |
95% OFS Offset | 6.84V |
Operating OFS Offset | 3.42V |
Laser Output Power | 1.97W |
Rejected Laser Power | 3.3mW |
AOM Input Power | 1.92W |
Max Diffracted Power | 1.23W |
Un-Diffracted Power | 0.500W |
AOM Diffraction Efficiency | 64% |
AOM Rejected Power | 3.3mW |
TxPD Power | 1.4mW |
OFSPD Power | 1.73mW |
Outer Beam Power | 294mW |
Inner Beam Power | 292mW |
Output Beam Power Ratio | 0.9932 |
OFS Gain | 7.50V |
OFS Phase Margin | 43.7 |
ALOG |
After the maintenance I tweeked the AOM to increase the diffraction efficiency. The nominally, the diffraction should be above 70% efficiency, which translates to 1.34 W from the *Maestro*. My procedure went as follows:
AOM alignment increased the efficiency to 67%, a gain of 3%.
Jim, TJ, Robert
We damped the periscope on ISCT1 by removing the dog clamps one by one and inserting a strip of 1/16" viton between the dog clamp and the base of the periscope before retightening, making sure that the strips crossed the corner of the base. This is not the most effective way of damping the periscope but it was the fastest, safest and most simple damping we could do. Jim measured the Q to be around 1000, so we didn't have to do much to get an improvement. In Jim's first transfer functions after the damping, the peak looked a little wider.
This was HAM1 not ISCT1