aLIGO LHO Logbook

LHO VE - Kyle on site

kyle.ryan@ligo.org — Sat, 04 Dec 2021 15:14:43 -0800

Author: kyle.ryan@ligo.org

Report ID: 60860

I'll be futzing with cables in the FC tube bake area of the North Bay of the LVEA. I expect to be here for 2 hours or so. Chandra R. is my phone buddy. I'll make a comment to this entry when I actually am leaving.

LHO VE - Comment to Switched over to Turbo pumping of the Vertex, YBM and XBM combined volumes

chandra.romel@ligo.org — Sat, 04 Dec 2021 10:04:57 -0800

Author: chandra.romel@ligo.org

Report ID: 60859

Pressure looking good at 4e-6 Torr on PT120B (on BSC2). A few observations/notes:

1. It took 33 hrs to rough out the corner (including manifolds) with one hepta pump. Historically it took about 24 hours with QDP80. If manifolds are valved in we could operate the second hepta to speed up the process. The pump upgrade includes a pneumatic valve on hepta inlet for extra protection in case of a power outage so now we operate the pump unattended overnight.

2. Unlike the iLIGO Seiko Seiki turbo pumps that would spin up at pressures as high as 1 Torr, the new Pfeiffer pumps don't spin up at pressures around 0.5 Torr as Gerardo and Travis discovered Thursday night, so we do need to wait till pressures approach 100 mTorr to spin up the turbo. However, it appears the pump speed of the new turbo is higher at lower pressures.

3. PT170 (on BSC8) is half the value of PT180 (on BSC7) at 3e-6 vs. 6e-6 Torr. These two hot cathode ion gauges typically agree during pump down. We flowed purge air through the y-manifold and OMC. Looks like another data point that drying out the volume with purge flow at the very end is worth the effort and in the future IMC and XBM can be added.

LHO VE - Switched over to Turbo pumping of the Vertex, YBM and XBM combined volumes

kyle.ryan@ligo.org — Fri, 03 Dec 2021 19:40:20 -0800

Author: kyle.ryan@ligo.org

Report ID: 60858

Travis S., Kyle R.

Earlier today, Travis and I valved-in the Vertex Turbo Station and spun up the turbo. Shortly thereafter, we switched over to the scroll pump and shut down the HEPTA.

LHO VE - A+ FC tube bake in LVEA

kyle.ryan@ligo.org — Fri, 03 Dec 2021 19:36:14 -0800

Author: kyle.ryan@ligo.org

Report ID: 60857

The two A+ FC tubes that are being vacuum baked in the North Bay of the LVEA are at 150C. The perhipheral components (valves, RGA, pumps etc.) are not. I plan to come in for awhile this weekend and finish making the needed custom heater cables to get these going. I am able to smell the heated acrylic when in the North Bay but I expect that this will diminish. If this doesn't go away over time, I'll reduce the temperature.

H1 DAQ - h1daqdc0 locked

jonathan.hanks@ligo.org — Fri, 03 Dec 2021 18:52:35 -0800

Author: jonathan.hanks@ligo.org

Report ID: 60856

h1daqdc0 locked up at 4 Dec 2021 00:27 UTC. There were no useful entries in the network syslogs. We power cycled the system and restarted everything and it is running again.

H1 SUS - ZM3 installed and connected in HAM7 and TF results shows it is healthy

rahul.kumar@ligo.org — Fri, 03 Dec 2021 17:04:04 -0800

Author: rahul.kumar@ligo.org

Report ID: 60854

Nidhi, Austin, Betsy, Kissel, Rahul

Today we finished installing HDDS ZM3 (Dither) suspension in HAM7 - see view01, view02 and view03 of HAM7 for reference. ZM3 was also the last suspension to be installed in HAM7 chamber - I am also attaching a picture which shows an empty ISI table (back in Aug) and is now looking all busy, thanks to the efforts of the entire LIGO team.

The picture here shows how the spacer was attached to the suspension (by lying on it's sides). The optic was cleaned by applying first contact, which was later removed (using N2 top gun). I can also confirm that the wave washer was attached and clocked as per D2000011 - page 2.

ZM3 is now suspended and TF results shows it is free of rubbing (I will post plots later). The four BOSEMs attached to ZM3 were found to be saturating (i.e. OLC values greater than 32700) hence Betsy and I took a readout of the output PD voltage at the satellite box (using 9pin breakout board and multimeter, and doc D080276 for reference). Given below are the OLC/offset values/gain for ZM3, and has been captured in the SDF.

HDDS (HAM7 - Dither)
ZM3	OLC at medm screen	V (satelite box)	*OLC (V(2^16/40))**	OFFSET (-OLC/2)	GAIN (30000/OLC)
UL	saturated	22.18	36339.712	-18169.856	0.825543141
LL	saturated	22.45	36782.08	-18391.04	0.81561456
UR	saturated	21.79	35700.736	-17850.368	0.84031881
LR	saturated	22.3	36536.32	-18268.16	0.821100757

BOSEM s/n are as follows (cable /sn is S2100349),

UL - S1900654

LL S1900647

UR S1900679

LR S1900620

The last remaining thing on ZM3 is the dither plate (s/n is 006) which we will attach sometime next week.

Images attached to this report

LHO General - Ops Day Shift Summary

thomas.shaffer@ligo.org — Fri, 03 Dec 2021 16:45:41 -0800

Author: thomas.shaffer@ligo.org

Report ID: 60840

TITLE: 12/04 Day Shift: 16:00-00:00 UTC (08:00-16:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Planned Engineering
SHIFT SUMMARY: The PSL team is still in there working, HAM7 team is done for the day.
LOG:

1545 Karen to LVEA for tech clean
1603 Kim to H2 for tech clean
1605 Rick to PSL
1623 Kim to LVEA
1701 Kim out
1705 HAM4 & 5 SEI brought down for h1seih45 upgrade. I also brought the sus to SAFE, but this was unnecessary and was reverted later
1718 Karen out
1735 Rahul to HAM7 to work on ZM3
1748 Betsy to LVEA to catch up with Rahul
1759 Nidhi to PSL to join Rick
1814 Betsy, Rahul out
1816 Dave to MSR
1819 Travis to LVEA to check on vac things
1820 Jason to PSL
1829 Travis out
1908 Rahul, Austin to LVEA to work on ZM3 and ZM2
2015 Dave out, h1seih45 back in and ready
2123 Rahul, Austin to HAM7 to work on ZM2
2136 Jason, Nidhi, Rick out of PSL
2143 Jim turning on HAM2, 3 isolation and sensor correction
2146 Jim to LVEA to check on Beigarten status
2157 Jim out
2217 Kyle and Travis out of the LVEA. They started the turbo at around 1pm local (21 UTC)
2245 Travis to LVEA to move and hook up dust monitor
2302 Jeff to LVEA to talk to Rahul
2345 Rahul, Austin out
2345 Jason, Rick, Nidhi to PSL

LHO VE - CP1 Overfill Via Script

travis.sadecki@ligo.org — Fri, 03 Dec 2021 16:31:25 -0800

Author: travis.sadecki@ligo.org

Report ID: 60855

I ran the autofill script with the following settings: CP1_Fill_v1.py 100 -100 600, I verifiied the overfill via one of the site cameras. Time to perform the overfill was 205 seconds.

Note from script:

CP1 Fill completed in 205 seconds. Starting CP1 fill. LLCV enabled. LLCV set to manual control. LLCV set to 100% open. Fill completed in 205 seconds. LLCV set back to 38.0% open.

H1 SUS - Comment to HXDS ZM6 TFs

jeffrey.kissel@ligo.org — Fri, 03 Dec 2021 16:18:51 -0800

Author: jeffrey.kissel@ligo.org

Report ID: 60853

This data set is /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HXDS/H1/ZM6/SAGM1/Data/ 2021-11-05_1400_H1SUSZM6_M1_WhiteNoise_L_0p01to50Hz.xml 2021-11-05_1400_H1SUSZM6_M1_WhiteNoise_P_0p01to50Hz.xml 2021-11-05_1400_H1SUSZM6_M1_WhiteNoise_Y_0p01to50Hz.xml for future reference.

LHO VE - FCT cleaning

chandra.romel@ligo.org — Fri, 03 Dec 2021 16:12:09 -0800

Author: chandra.romel@ligo.org

Report ID: 60852

(Tyler, Randy, Chandra)

FCT cleaning for 20ft L tube D1900443-01 SN007

Yesterday I cleaned the outside (including flanges and bolt holes) and then inside with Dawn dish soap and rinsed with room temperature DI water (not pressurized) inside the LVEA high bay/air lock room. I used the telescoping plunger with foam "pig" with a blue micro-fiber cloth that was covered with a cleanroom wiper to scrub the vacuum surface. After several passes I noticed that part of the tube surface still appeared to be oily, similar to what we observed with D1900443-02 & -03 (both SN001 and both currently being vacuum baked). I forgot to collect FTIR samples before cleaning as was recommended by vacuum team at large.

Today the three of us busted out the Hotsy pressure washer and high pressure sprayer apparatus. We utilized the soap siphon on the pressure washer to spray hot, high pressure Liquinox solution. We mixed 16 oz detergent to 5 gallon DI water solution and made four heated passes through tube by manually feeding the sprayer apparatus through tube length. We need to be careful that we don't overheat this solution and breath in toxic fumes mixed with steam. Because the rigid tube on back side of sprayer carriage is only 10' L (we are limited by overall length of high bay), we added a rigid metal rod that safely hooks onto the front of the carriage so we can pull sprayer the remaining 10'. After detergent rinse, we immediately sprayed with hot, high pressure DI water until thoroughly rinsed. I made more passes than likely needed because the heater on the unit kept turning off (and every so often flow stopped). Four complete passes were made with hot water (110F setting on power washer and hot to touch at point of use).

The power washer heater is really sensitive to flow rate, so we need to modify the DI skid. The flow from the skid is not constant, but should be sufficient 5 gpm throughput. We may need to draw directly from the storage tank and let the power washer pump do all the work (DI pump may be interferring). We also want to add an in-line high pressure valve at the end of the 10' rigid pipe for better control of the flow system. We have a high pressure valve at the outlet of power washer which is operated outside.

After all of that I still observed the same water beading symptoms resembling oil coating on part of the vacuum surface.

The tube was craned into LVEA and is drying under large cleanroom in west bay.

Images attached to this report

H1 CDS - Comment to Upgrading h1seih45

david.barker@ligo.org — Fri, 03 Dec 2021 15:23:46 -0800

Author: david.barker@ligo.org

Report ID: 60851

Upgrade completed with no problems.

We are rapidly running out of ethernet ports in the MSR for the IPMI connections to the new computers. I'll schedule the upgrade of the switch sw-msr-h1fe1 from a 24port to a 48port system before we proceed with the rest of the upgrades.

H1 TCS - Comment to TCSy CO2 Laser has only Kicked us out of Observing Twice since Chiller Swap

camilla.compton@ligo.org — Fri, 03 Dec 2021 14:40:20 -0800

Author: camilla.compton@ligo.org

Report ID: 60850

The PZT_SERVO_GAIN OUTPUT is turned off in the CO2 Guardian's DOWN state (well done guardian), running DOWN fixed the problem.

Now the lasers think the set point given to the chillers is 20deg but the chillers are receiving set point request of 22degC. So another issue to solve.

H1 AOS - Comment to ZM1 installed and connected in HAM7 and TF results shows everything is healthy.

jeffrey.kissel@ligo.org — Fri, 03 Dec 2021 12:57:01 -0800

Author: jeffrey.kissel@ligo.org

Report ID: 60848

Amazing pictures -- especially ZM1_HAM7_view01.jpeg thanks Rahul! Tagging EPO. Adding an annotated version of ZM1_HAM7_view02.jpegEPO, ISC, SQZ, SUS

Images attached to this report

H1 SUS - Comment to HAM5 Suspensions trending while pumping down corner

betsy.weaver@ligo.org — Fri, 03 Dec 2021 12:53:02 -0800

Author: betsy.weaver@ligo.org

Report ID: 60849

And here is the plot of the usual ITMs sagging during pumpdown.

Images attached to this report

H1 TCS - Comment to TCS CO2Y chiller temporarily swapped for swap to test the spare.

camilla.compton@ligo.org — Fri, 03 Dec 2021 12:04:32 -0800

Author: camilla.compton@ligo.org

Report ID: 60847

Posting trends of CO2Y chiller 2 days before and after swap. And also CO2X chiller.

The flow is fluctuating more in the spare than the CO2Y original chiller but it looks more stable than the CO2X chiller. There is some worrying low drops to 1.2gpm. Low flows will trip the CO2 if it stays low for a period of time (cannot find documentation on how long).

The temperature is good - stable within +/- 0.1degC.

Images attached to this report

H1 SUS - HAM5 Suspensions trending while pumping down corner

betsy.weaver@ligo.org — Fri, 03 Dec 2021 11:58:46 -0800

Author: betsy.weaver@ligo.org

Report ID: 60846

Started looking at how suspensions are doing with the pump down which started 2 days ago - so far just the ones in HAM4 and HAM5. Immediately we see the ~usual sagging of the SRM and SR2 which manifests in all 6 degrees of freedom (DOFs) due to cross coupling in the suspension mechanics, see first plot attached. Note there have been daily bootfests of various HAM4567 SUS and SEI for the last 3 days which complicates the trending we see (seen as glitches with some dead time about 4 times along the plots). Also, apparenly the pumpdown was halted for a bit in the middle of the night last night which shows up in the SUSes as a flattening of the steep trends. I suspect the SUSes will resume trending to somewhere when pumping resumes maybe later today.

The second plot is the same trend plot set with the pumpdown plot, but of our new ZM6 suspension in HAM5, a small double suspension with now bottom stage actuation, and 4 face/vertically mounted BOSEMs (hence no Roll, Vert, or Trans data).

The thrid plot is of the HLTS SR3 in HAM5.

From the pumpdown of 760 Torr to ~0.1Torr since Wed(according to the plot when zoomed in), we observe the following changes in the 6 DOFs:

DOF shift in (um)	SRM (HSTS)	SR3 (HSTS)	SR2 (HSTS)	ZM6 (HSDS)
PITCH	5*	5***	10*	35
YAW	25	20***	70	50
LONGITUDINAL	20	15	15	30
ROLL	20	130	110	DNE
VERTICAL	30**	10***	45**	DNE
TRANSVERSE	5	15	15	DNE

* Took a 80 um excursion but recovered

** Slowly recovering, trend has slowly turned over

*** Took 20-40 um excursion, still recovering

While Pitch and Yaw tend to be our biggest worry for pointing needs, it is interesting that the Roll shift is largest, but still a very small physical number.

Images attached to this report

H1 TCS - Comment to TCSy CO2 Laser has only Kicked us out of Observing Twice since Chiller Swap

camilla.compton@ligo.org — Fri, 03 Dec 2021 10:07:09 -0800

Author: camilla.compton@ligo.org

Report ID: 60842

The PZT_SERVO_GAIN OUTPUT we turned OFF 2021/11/16 20UTC must have not being svn saved and turned back on on 2021/11/17 22UTC. See attached trend.

The design is to stabilize the laser PZT error signal by controlling the chiller temperature (E1300233p20). When the laser is off this seems to break down and change the have the setpoint given to the chiller (CHILLER_SETPT1) far from the ~20deg setpoint offset H1:TCS-ITM{}_CO2_CHILLER_SET_POINT_OFFSET (seen in TCS CO2 LASER screen). See table below.

TJ and I are looking into these settings. Maybe the matrix gain values or PZT gains are incorrect or the loop should be switched off when the laser is off.

Current values	CHILLER_SET_POINT_OFFSET	PZT_SERVO_GAIN	CHILLER_SETPT1 (setpoint sent to chiller)
CO2X	20.6	-111	16.6*
CO2Y	20.5	55	22.4

*Documentation states it's important not to let the chillers be +/- 5deg from 20deg otherwise there may be condensation formed in the laser. The chillers have limits to shut off if they get outside this range but only compared to the CHILLER_SETPT1 value.

Images attached to this report

LHO VE - Comment to FC-B survey work continues

chandra.romel@ligo.org — Fri, 03 Dec 2021 09:28:20 -0800

Author: chandra.romel@ligo.org

Report ID: 60845

Both the total station and transit square are calibrated before each use.

LHO VE - Comment to FC-B survey work continues

chandra.romel@ligo.org — Fri, 03 Dec 2021 09:27:02 -0800

Author: chandra.romel@ligo.org

Report ID: 60844

I spent a good part of the day with Tyler and Randy yesterday reviewing how the offset line was created and verifying measurements. The transit square was originally set up on LV35 and LV38 line and the offset line was created from these two points (well, LV35 floor dimple point and LV38 scribe line) at -798.5 mm in X-global. The technique used a metal rigid ruler with 1/64" increments. It was squared with the lines in transit and two new points were marked from the ruler and extended along floor ~100'. They checked these values against an aLIGO offset line on other side of YBM that has been used to align the test masses.

Yesterday we set up the transit square on the offset line and using same technique of rulers/straight edges we measured from the offset line to LV35 and LV38. Distance to LV38 is 298.5 mm, so Jason and I will need to revisit our measurements and therefore LV40 coordinates listed in original aLOG may not be valid. When we established LV38, we concluded the scribe line was within 10 arc seconds of true Y-arm parallelism, but neither of use recorded the actual value (see aLOG 60581) . A 10 arc second error would only account for ~1mm at LV41 (near LVEA wall), so we will need to think harder about where these large (~4mm) errors are coming from. LV35 was created with prism which can induce a +/- 2mm error using EDM in total station, but we checked it multiple ways and even set up on LV9 and measured backwards to add confidence to the measurements.

I ordered new steel reel chains because the one we've been using is pretty beat up and may have been stretched over time from pulling too hard (beyond 20N pull spec).

H1 CDS - Upgrading h1seih45

david.barker@ligo.org — Fri, 03 Dec 2021 09:00:31 -0800

Author: david.barker@ligo.org

Report ID: 60843

WP10078

Fil, Marc, Jonathan, Erik, TJ, Dave

We are starting the upgrade of h1seih45 (HPI and ISI HAM4,5).

H1 SUS - Comment to Parasitic Capacitance Between Driver and Coil Plate of HDDS (ZM1 and ZM3) Cable System

jeffrey.kissel@ligo.org — Fri, 03 Dec 2021 08:39:46 -0800

Author: jeffrey.kissel@ligo.org

Report ID: 60841

J. Kissel for R. Abbott I attach a nice diagram Rich has drawn to illustrate the three different versions of parasitic capacitance mentioned in this aLOG. (Sent via email from Jeff to Rich as "Wires.pdf" on Dec 03 2021 @8:32a PST.)

Non-image files attached to this report

2021-12-03_DiagramOfParasiticCapacitanceOptionsInWires.pdf

LHO General - Ops Day Shift Start

thomas.shaffer@ligo.org — Fri, 03 Dec 2021 08:06:46 -0800

Author: thomas.shaffer@ligo.org

Report ID: 60839

TITLE: 12/03 Day Shift: 16:00-00:00 UTC (08:00-16:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Planned Engineering
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_ENV state: CONSTRUCTION
    Wind: 6mph Gusts, 5mph 5min avg
    Primary useism: 0.02 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.34 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:

All SEI and SUS in nominal configurations.
LVEA dust counts okay.
CDS Overview:
- All FEs okay
- EDC reports 358 channel connection errors
- Slow controls banner is red, though I cannot track down exactly why yet.

LHO VE - Comment to Kyle on site -> will make entry when leaving

kyle.ryan@ligo.org — Fri, 03 Dec 2021 02:12:01 -0800

Author: kyle.ryan@ligo.org

Report ID: 60838

0212 hrs. local -> Leaving site now.

LHO VE - Comment to Kyle on site -> will make entry when leaving

kyle.ryan@ligo.org — Fri, 03 Dec 2021 02:11:40 -0800

Author: kyle.ryan@ligo.org

Report ID: 60837

Closed the Vertex Turbo Station's intake gate valve, Safety Valve and the HEPTA pump's intake gate valve -> leaving the exercise of transitioning over to turbo pumping for Gerardo M. and Travis S. to do tomorrow. ***The site's LN2 storage tank GN2 boil-off gas is routed to each building's HEPTA pump's intake and exhaust shaft seal purge connections. This clean gas is always present at the HEPTA pump's intake shaft seals (is solenoid dependent for the exhaust shaft seals). Its purpose is to maintain a positive pressure at the mid-point of the rotor shaft seals to prevent oil vapor from the adjacent lubricated components (rotor drive gears etc.) from being drawn into the pump process flow. Additionally, we adjust this so as to insure that the ultimate pressure at the pump's intake is limited to > 0.08 torr. If the HEPTA pump's ultimate pressure were not held at this artificially high value, then the IFO vacuum volume could be exposed to contamination sources (turbo header/HEPTA) at "transition region" pressures. We don't want the situation of directly exposing the site's vacuum envelope to the foreline/HEPTA surfaces when at non-viscous pressures absent the barrier of a full speed spinning turbo rotor. If this were to occur, contamination could potentially migrate into the IFO vacuum volume. While this system worked tonight as it should, we (I) don't like relying on this for extended periods. Ideally, the turbo should be spun up as soon as the pressure reaches this limit.

LHO VE - Kyle on site -> will make entry when leaving

kyle.ryan@ligo.org — Fri, 03 Dec 2021 01:07:43 -0800

Author: kyle.ryan@ligo.org

Report ID: 60836

LHO VE - Corner Station pump down limited by shaft seal purge gas

kyle.ryan@ligo.org — Fri, 03 Dec 2021 00:31:22 -0800

Author: kyle.ryan@ligo.org

Report ID: 60835

The pressure of the Vetex+YBM+XBM rough pumping is being limited by the GN2 boil-off being used for the HEPTA pump shaft seal purge.

H1 PSL - PMC locking electronics

richard.savage@ligo.org — Thu, 02 Dec 2021 21:12:15 -0800

Author: richard.savage@ligo.org

Report ID: 60834

The two Euro crates for the PSL servo electronics were energized today.

The 35.5 MHz RF level at the LO input to the PMC servo card is 1.65 Vp-p into 50 ohms, slightly above the required ~ 7 dBm (1.4 Vp-p) level.

The 35.5 MHz levels at the input and output of the summation box for the PSL broadband EOM are 2.2 Vp-p.

Note that the Kepco high voltage power supplies for the PMC PZT and FSS Pockel's cell path have NOT YET been energized.

PSL

H1 PSL - PSL Laser Upgrade Progress

jason.oberling@ligo.org — Thu, 02 Dec 2021 18:37:00 -0800

Author: jason.oberling@ligo.org

Report ID: 60831

J. Oberling, N. Patel, R. Savage

Our goal this week is to get the PMC locked to some beam. To that end, Rick worked on getting the PMC electronics turned back on and checked out, and ensuring we had the requisite RF signal for PDH locking the PMC. Nidhi and I worked on recovering Amp#2 after last week's work with Amp#1. I've attached our notes file with the details, here's the short version:

Aligned the beam along the row of holes from M06 to M07 (using M05 and M06)
Rough aligned into Amp#2 with M07 and M08
Re-installed WP03 and tweaked it to maximize Faraday isolator throughput
Re-installed WP04 and used a temp PBSC after M07 to set the polarization for Amp#2 (vertical w.r.t. the table)
Re-installed L03 and L04, tweaked their X/Y positions to maintain our rough alignment into Amp#2
Pre-aligned the beam through Amp#2 using M07 and M08
Powered up Amp#2 using the usual procedure

We did no mode matching work for Amp#2, simply installing lenses L03 and L04 in their previous locations, and achieved 58.4W out of Amp#2 with a 1.5W seed and 8.5A injection current for all 4 pump diodes. Tomorrow we will work on locking the PMC, which we can then use to aid us in optimizing the beam out of Amp#2. We suspect that we have some mode matching adjustments to do, as we are roughly 1W shy of the previous maximum we've achieved out of this amplifier.

We also moved the PD we had planned for monitoring the power out of Amp#2 (PD03) to monitor the power out of Amp#1 (PD02), and aligned the beam transmitted through M05 onto this PD with a turning mirror. To get our power watchdog to work as it's supposed to we need to modify the software (the Settings table for setting our calibrations needs to be modified to accept a value >0 but <1), as currently we have to "fool" the watchdog by using a filter to attenuate the light level on the PD, then turning the watchdog on and removing the filter. The watchdog uses the relation P_outout,0 * WD(set), where P_out is the calibrated power read by the PD, P_out,0 is the output power when the watchdog is enabled, and WD(set) is the number from the settings table. To get the watchdog to function properly we need to be able to set WD(set) in the Settings table to <1, which we currently cannot do (all values in the Settings table currently must be >= 1). As mentioned previously, we use a filter to cut down the light on the PD, and have set WD(set) to 1. We tested this over lunch and the watchdog did not immediately trip as it did on our last test. So as a further test, we have left Amp#1 on overnight with its power watchdog enabled. We'll see if it's still running in the morning. We turned off Amp#2 as we currently do not have watchdog protection for it.

Note: We need to change a resistor in both the old and new PD02, as we do not get much voltage out of it when Amp#1 is fully operational. We currently have a dark voltage of ~0.12V, and a full-light voltage of ~0.35V, so there isn't much response out of this PD and the "calibration" (such as it is right now) only makes sense at the full-light level (i.e. stray light from the NPRO transmitted through the unpumped Amp#1 registers in the software as ~47W, which is obviously not true as we're seeding Amp#1 with only 1.5W).

Non-image files attached to this report

2Dec2021_Amp2_notes.txt

LHO VE - CP1 Overfill Via Script

gerardo.moreno@ligo.org — Thu, 02 Dec 2021 18:36:15 -0800

Author: gerardo.moreno@ligo.org

Report ID: 60833

I ran the autofill script with the following settings: CP1_Fill_v1.py 100 -100 600, I verifiied the overfill via one of the site cameras. Time to perform the overfill was 500 seconds.

Note from script:

CP1 Fill completed in 500 seconds. Starting CP1 fill. LLCV enabled. LLCV set to manual control. LLCV set to 100% open. Fill completed in 500 seconds. LLCV set back to 36.5% open.

Images attached to this report

LHO VE - Comment to Tube bake incremental heat increase

chandra.romel@ligo.org — Thu, 02 Dec 2021 18:32:42 -0800

Author: chandra.romel@ligo.org

Report ID: 60832

At 6:30pm local temperatures from RGA to other end:

113C
125C
108C (from CDS)
106C

The "cool skin" blanket is warm to the touch. No noticeable outgassing odors.

H1 SUS - Parasitic Capacitance Between Driver and Coil Plate of HDDS (ZM1 and ZM3) Cable System

jeffrey.kissel@ligo.org — Thu, 02 Dec 2021 17:56:27 -0800

Author: jeffrey.kissel@ligo.org

Report ID: 60830

R. Abbott, F. Clara, J. Kissel, L. Sanchez We're beginning to think about more complete, integrated, testing of the new DCOIL (dither coil, a no-sensor OSEM) assembly (D2000515) and modified HAM-A driver (D2100489) system. Recall the design intent of the system is for it to drive the bottom (M2) mass of the "dither" flavor of the HAM double suspensions, the HDDSs ZM1 and ZM3 nominally in pitch and yaw at 2 kHz, as a back-up option for alignment control of the beam going into the filter cavity (where the nominal plan is the newer "fast" 105 kHz demodulation of the filter cavity's REFL WFS / QPDs). When driving coils at such a high frequency, coils which have nominal inductance range between ~4-6 mH (where the range depends on the surface to which the coil is mounted), the influence of the system's parasitic capacitance may play a role in the driven frequency response. Three parameters that we think may play a role: (1) the parasitic capacitance between an individual DCOIL's positive and negative twisted pair wire legs of the long ~130 ft cable run. (2) capacitance between the drive wires and and the shield for that same cable run, (3) capacitance between pairs of twisted pairs -- i.e. between the 4 channels of DCOIL driven on the cable. As such, Rich and I concocted an electrical parameter measurement plan for the DCOIL + long cable such that we can put some bounds on reality, and use those parameters to inform future modeling on the system. That plan lives in T2100510, and references the drawing of the full "dither chain," which can be found in D2100030. Fil graciously agreed to execute the first three parts of the four part plan this afternoon. (The fourth part is measuring the in-situ, final, full assembled resistance and inductance, which must be done with a separate measurement set-up.) He used a U1732A Handheld LCR meter in AUTO mode (auto mode such that the return voltage is held constant, giving a more accurate reading), and with a drive frequency of 1 kHz, the closest available drive frequency to the design intent of usage, again 2 kHz. He guesses the accuracy of the measurement is ~+/- 0.05 nF (+/- 50 pF). I attach his raw data, which I summarize here (all values are in nano Farads, and again, assume the uncertainty is +/- 50 pico Farads): ZM1 ZM3 mean std mean std + to - leg 3.70 0.09 3.43 0.08 pin to shield 6.16 0.09 5.39 0.18 chan to chan 2.65 0.12 2.31 0.14 I have no comment yet on if this level of capacitance is appreciable and/or of concern. Please hold, your call is important to us.ISC, SQZ

Non-image files attached to this report

T2100510_LHOResults_2021-12-02.xlsx

H1 ISC - Comment to Power in the interferometer - Pre-O4

craig.cahillane@ligo.org — Thu, 02 Dec 2021 16:51:49 -0800

Author: craig.cahillane@ligo.org

Report ID: 60825

Sheila, Craig In my above post, I assumed carrier PRC losses = 0.5%. This assumption is founded on very little, and matters for what the PRM transmission should be for critically coupling the IFO (not that we want to critically couple the IFO). Sheila made some contour plots of the power in the interferometer (power recycling gain, arm power, and reflected power), vs arm losses on the x-axis and BS losses on the y-axis. Then we compared each of them with the actual measurements made for each of them above. Measurements ============


Input power = 39.2 W
PRG = 57.2
Arm power = 261 kW
Reflected power ratio = 9% of input power

Model ===== Again, the model we used was just a simple coupled cavity (three mirror cavity). We also assumed plane waves, i.e. no mode mismatch between input->prc->arms. In this case, the reflected power, PRG, and arm power give us degenerate information. Unfortunately, all disagree, with the PRG and arm powers giving a 12% difference. Measurement methods =================== Daniel estimated the reflected carrier power: https://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=59058 I verified the PRG: https://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=58327 twice: https://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=52267, and above I reported Varun's arm power measurements. The arm power measurement may be the most accurate here, because it is based on differential power fluctuations in the arms causing the mirrors to move via radiation pressure. Therefore, only TEM00 light in the SRC due to the DARM offset can return to the arms with sufficient efficiency (and in the right quadrature) to actually create motion. PRG is a power ratio measurement between single arm and full ifo, but could be adversely affected by HOMs due to thermalization, i.e. junk light causes us to overestimate the true TEM00 light in reflection or the PRC. Reflected power is also a power ratio estimate, done by changing the RF modulation depths, and should be pretty accurate except for HOMs. Finally, for our arm power estimate models we need in the input power very accurately to infer losses. We don't know our input power very well, because of uncertainty in how much light makes it through the IMC and input optics. For instance, according to our model, if the input power is 12% lower than what we think (34.5 W instead of 39.2 W) then the arm power and PRG measurements agree. The last time input power was calibrated was here: https://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=46577. Future work =========== 1) Verify the input power calibration while the HAMs are open 2) Use 9 MHz to estimate PRC losses (for 9 MHz at any rate, which may not be the same as PRC losses for carrier) 3) Analytic mode matching model between input -> PRC -> arms (could we use some of this SRC -> arms MM stuff going around?) 4) Finesse model of a three mirror cavity Git repo ======== https://git.ligo.org/aligo_commissioning/power_budgetISC

Non-image files attached to this report

prg_contours.pdf

arm_power_contours.pdf

reflected_power_contours.pdf

contour_comparison.pdf

LHO General - Ops Shift Summary

patrick.thomas@ligo.org — Thu, 02 Dec 2021 16:43:57 -0800

Author: patrick.thomas@ligo.org

Report ID: 60829

Thursday, Dec. 2, 2021 Local (UTC) 08:11 (16:11) Karen to LVEA. 08:13 (16:13) Rick to PSL enclosure. 08:30 (16:30) Kim to LVEA. 08:39 (16:39) Raul from Apollo through gate. 08:44 (16:44) Reset ITMY ISI WDs. 09:08 (17:08) Chandra in high bay for beam tube cleaning and LVEA to talk to Randy and Tyler about survey work. 09:15 (17:15) Fil taking oscilloscope to PSL enclosure. 09:24 (17:24) Rahul running TF on ZM1. 09:27 (17:27) Tyler and Randy to LVEA for survey work. 09:33 (17:33) Kim out of LVEA. 09:44 (17:44) Erik starting restart of SUS56. 09:45 (17:45) Cory to LVEA. 09:56 (17:56) Jason to PSL enclosure. 09:56 (17:56) Rahul done transfer functions. 09:59 (17:59) Travis and Gerardo to LVEA to look at connecting thermocouples used in bake out to CDS vacuum rack. 10:04 (18:04) SUS56 Computer off. Fil power cycling chassis. 10:10 (18:10) Nidhi to PSL enclosure. 10:13 (18:13) SUSH56 is back up. Did not fix timing glitch. Leaving optics in safe for future work. 10:14 (18:14) Kim to LVEA to check with Jason about cleaning PSL enclosure. 10:18 (18:18) Betsy, Rahul and Jim to HAM7 to work on ZM1. 10:30 (18:30) Karen to mid Y. 10:50 (18:50) Ken moving tiles in MSR. 10:53 (18:53) Kim done in PSL enclosure. 11:14 (19:14) No more work planned on SUS56. Bringing back optics and seismic. 11:34 (19:34) Kim to mid X. 11:39 (19:39) Karen done at mid Y. 11:57 (19:57) Betsy out of LVEA. 11:58 (19:58) Rahul out of LVEA. 12:07 (20:07) Kim back from mid X. 12:49 (20:49) Fil replacing HAMA coil driver chassis. 13:42 (21:42) Cory to LVEA. 13:48 (21:48) Jason out of PSL enclosure for lunch. 13:52 (21:52) Nidhi out of PSL enclosure for lunch. 14:03 (22:03) Cory out of LVEA. 14:14 (22:14) Rahul to HAM7 to work on ZM3. 14:37 (22:37) Tyler out of LVEA, done surveying for the day. 15:06 (23:06) Jason to PSL enclosure. 15:13 (23:13) Nidhi to PSL enclosure. 15:38 (23:38) Chandra done in LVEA. 15:42 (23:42) Chandra to end Y to check on IP11.

H1 CDS - HDDS M2 (ZM1/ZM3) HAM-A Dither Drivers Installed

filiberto.clara@ligo.org — Thu, 02 Dec 2021 16:42:14 -0800

Author: filiberto.clara@ligo.org

Report ID: 60828

WP 10090

Modified HAM-A Coil Drivers were installed for the ZM1 and ZM3 dither suspensions. Two D1100117 units were converted to D2100489-v2 per E2100380.

D2100489 SN S2001166 (ZM1, Rack SUS-M1 U20)
D2100489 SN S2001169 (ZM3, Rack SUS-M1 U14)

SUS

LHO VE - Tube bake incremental heat increase

chandra.romel@ligo.org — Thu, 02 Dec 2021 16:37:28 -0800

Author: chandra.romel@ligo.org

Report ID: 60827

At 4:20pm local I increased heat trace power by 1 A from 7.27 A to 8.25 A by changing the variac to 46% power (it was set around 42%). I'll log the temperature before leaving the site. We are monitoring a thermocouple remotely on H0:VAC-LX_CP2_TE154_DEWAR_TEMP_LOWER_DEGC channel at about the midway point.

Images attached to this report

LHO VE - IP11 flashing red

chandra.romel@ligo.org — Thu, 02 Dec 2021 16:30:25 -0800

Author: chandra.romel@ligo.org

Report ID: 60826

I noticed the IP11 status was flashing red on MEDM screen. This was due to me changing the scale on pump controller last week (image in 60745) so we could see the current trend from 0-10 on MEDM screen given it has maxed out at 10. Now at 7kV it was almost bottomed out at 0, so I changed it back and its on scale again and red status is gone.

H1 TCS - Flip of Primary ZnSe wedge not trivial - expect some realignment of TCSX in-air UPM

camilla.compton@ligo.org — Thu, 02 Dec 2021 15:45:02 -0800

Author: camilla.compton@ligo.org

Report ID: 60823

Camilla, TJ, Aidan,

I didn't consider the consequences of flipping the primary ZnSe viewport 180° in roll (alog 60642)- done so that the wedge lined up with the drawing rather than the real life view port we had just aligned ...argh!! Discussions about the implications of this today:

Issues we will have:

Now the wedges of the primary and secondary wedges are opposing* some 2x reflected light could cause intensity noise coupling into the IFO. We think this would be much too small to see from the 0.03% reflection of the ZnSe AR coatings but Aidan will do some calculations. *We think the wedges are now opposing as assembled the primary VP narrow edge to +x but have a photo of the secondary VP thick edge towards +x.
We will have to realign the CO2X laser from the outside of BSC3 (originally done in alog 59224 and 59552). This is actually a pretty big alignment change. To keep the same beam path inside the chamber, the beam at the upper perescope mirror (UPM) will have to change by 3.2° and be translated 51mm in -x to offest this change. Math below.

When safe to do so, we will start by turning on the alignment laser and checking the current position of the beam on SM1 and CPx. I apologize for not thinking this through at the time.

Math:

The wedge angle will deflect the beam by about 1.6°. (Should be [n-1]*angle where n[ZnSe] = 2.6 and wedge angle =1°). It’s rotated it will be twice that (should’ve been +1.6° but is now -1.6°). Total change of 3.2°. The distance between UPM and primary viewport is 81.2cm (alog59715), and taking into account that the angle between the beam path and y-axis is 34deg (G2001245p3), to hit the center of the VP with a 3.2° change the UPM will need to be translated 51mm in -x.

Images attached to this report

H1 TCS - TCS Chiller Water Level Top-Off

austin.jennings@ligo.org — Thu, 02 Dec 2021 15:32:52 -0800

Author: austin.jennings@ligo.org

Report ID: 60824

Addressed TCS Chillers (3:00 pm local) and CLOSED FAMIS #18535: - TCSx Chiller: Had level of 29.6 cm. Added 60mL for 30.1cm. - TCSy Chiller: Had level of 8.7 cm. Added 160mL for 10.1cm

H1 AOS - ZM1 installed and connected in HAM7 and TF results shows everything is healthy.

rahul.kumar@ligo.org — Thu, 02 Dec 2021 14:05:04 -0800

Author: rahul.kumar@ligo.org

Report ID: 60822

Nidhi, Betsy, Rahul

The first of the two HDDS i.e. ZM1 (Dither) has been installed in HAM7, as shown in the picture attached below (view01). In view2 you can see all 4 HXDS, FC1 and some parts of OPO suspensions in HAM7 chamber. We also attached BOSEMs and dither plate (and then centered the cosem magnets, Betsy will post more pictures) to the rear of the SUS, while it was in-chamber. The transfer function results shows that the suspension is healthy and free from any rubbing as shown in the L, P and Y dof plots. We took the TF measurements twice, i.e. before and after installing the dither plates and we can confirm that the SUS is all free.

Betsy noted the open light current values of the BOSEM, as given below (and also applied the offsets in the medm screen),

UL 23070 (bosem s/n S1900627)

LL 27188 (bosem s/n S1900658)

UR 28106 (bosem s/n S1900668)

LR 24130 (bosem s/n S1900677)

note: BOSEM cable D2100049 SN/ is S2100347)

Earlier in the Triples lab, Nidhi helped me with the assembly of the suspension, including wire attachment and coarse balancing work, as shown in the picture below. We then wrapped it with several layers of foil and clean room bags for transporting it to the LVEA. In the LVEA, I attached spacer to the SUS by laying it on it's sides, as shown in the picture here. I also cleaned the optic by applying first contact to the HR surface and also cleaning the barrel with solvents and wipes.

Next is ZM3 in line, more update to come later on.

Images attached to this report

H1 CDS - Comment to h1sush56 timing errors on IOP model since yesterday's upgrade

daniel.sigg@ligo.org — Thu, 02 Dec 2021 09:29:49 -0800

Author: daniel.sigg@ligo.org

Report ID: 60821

Looking at the error counters of the timing system, the fiber link is stable, and there were no skipped cycles.

LHO General - Ops Shift Start

patrick.thomas@ligo.org — Thu, 02 Dec 2021 08:41:52 -0800

Author: patrick.thomas@ligo.org

Report ID: 60820

Thursday, Dec. 2, 2021 Local (UTC) 08:11 (16:11) Karen to LVEA. 08:13 (16:13) Rick to PSL enclosure. 08:30 (16:30) Kim to LVEA. 08:39 (16:39) Raul from Apollo through gate.

LHO VE - FC-B survey work continues

chandra.romel@ligo.org — Wed, 01 Dec 2021 19:19:48 -0800

Author: chandra.romel@ligo.org

Report ID: 60819

This morning Tyler and Randy measured the global X value of the newly established A+ FCT offset line and passed on those numbers to me so Jason and I could create new points along that line, labeled LV39, 40, 41, spanning ~100 ft. The measurements were 5524.6, 5524.65, and 5524.75 mm, respectively.

After calibrating the plummet, Jason set up the total station on LV38 and used LV9 as a backshot to measure the angle to LV40. We also pulled a chain from LV38 to LV40 (6899.5 mm) to confirm repeatability of this length from chain measurements we took last time. The X-distance from LV38 to LV40 should have been 798.9 mm based on the offset measurements and LV38 coordinates. However, this induces ~7 mm error in the length from LV38 to LV40. We trust the chain to within 1mm, so we questioned all measurements and new A+ monuments (LV35 & LV38). Long story short, it turns out the X-distance from LV38 to LV40 is more like 797.7 mm as best as we can tell and LV40 global X is 5525.8 mm. Here are the details:

First we remeasured/recalculated LV35-LV38-LV9 triangle to confirm monuments are correct by first using their coordinates and law of cosines to calculate the angle between LV35 and LV9 at LV38 and then compared that value with angle measurement from total station. They agree to within 6" (0.0017 deg). FYI Jason and I made all calculations independently and compared notes to eliminate silly mistakes.

Several scribe lines (tick marks) were cut into the vinyl flooring and painted red when establishing the offset line and luckily one of these tick marks was almost in line with LV38 (similar global Y value). Using a straight edge to extend this line a few inches, we pulled a chain from LV38 to this line and pivoted the tape to establisht the shortest/perpendicular distance yielding 798 mm. Based on total station angle measurements from LV9 to LV40, the X-distance yields 797.7mm, the value we settled on given the chain measurement agreed (to within its limitations for this unconventional technique). Some error is introduced from a) extending offset line on floor and b) pivoting the tape, but because the run is relatively short, we think this is acceptable, given it agrees with total station measurements. I need to confirm that this particular tick mark is valid and part of the final offset line.

After all of these checks and balances, we created a new A+ floor brass momument labeled LV40 with global coordiates [5525.8, 26118.6] mm.

After that we tried to establish coordinates for LV41, near Y-arm termination slab, but found another gross error in chain vs. total station measurement. Chain distance from LV38 to LV40 is 23574 mm (Jason and I pulled twice and swapped ends to confirm repeatability). Note we now have to start at the 30 cm mark given some damage was done to the chain today by me (or start somewhere after the kink in metal). Measuring angle from LV9 to LV41 and calculating the distance using that angle and assuming X-distance from LV38 to LV41 is same as LV40 (they should be if offset line is parallel to y-arm) we came up with 23689.4 mm, a 115.4 mm discrepancy from chain. This means the offset line at LV41 is roughly +4 mm off in x-direction from advertised value.

At this point it was late in the day so we discussed strategy for next round and will continue after Jason is available (PSL work is high priority). We can use LV40 to create a new point on beam center and from that point align the remaining four stands. More details are needed on how the offset line was established and measured.

LHO VE - Comment to Experimental bake of A+ FC tubes in LVEA started (heaters energized)

travis.sadecki@ligo.org — Wed, 01 Dec 2021 18:06:32 -0800

Author: travis.sadecki@ligo.org

Report ID: 60818

LHO VE - Comment to Experimental bake of A+ FC tubes in LVEA started (heaters energized)

travis.sadecki@ligo.org — Wed, 01 Dec 2021 18:06:31 -0800

Author: travis.sadecki@ligo.org

Report ID: 60817

Per Kyle's WP, this entire area along the northwest wall of the LVEA north bay has been cordoned off with yellow caution tape and is therefore is not passable. Please find an alternate route through the north bay/LVEA.

LHO VE - Experimental bake of A+ FC tubes in LVEA started (heaters energized)

kyle.ryan@ligo.org — Wed, 01 Dec 2021 16:44:02 -0800

Author: kyle.ryan@ligo.org

Report ID: 60816

We have two 14' A+ filter cavity tubes bolted together and resting on pipe stands in the North Bay of the LVEA. These two tubes had been washed and rinsed in the High Bay and both had failed their post wash FTIR sampling. We selected these two failed (assumed "dirty") tubes to experiment with hoping to better understand any correlation of pre-bake FTIR data to that of post bake RGA data. The details will be described elsewhere. For tonight, the apparatus is variac-limited to 3 Amps per 14' tube section for the 1/8" wall portion of the tubes. This results in (3A)(3A)(15 ohms) = 135 watts per 14' tube. This initial energization allowed for misc. varifications of the setup. The actual start of the bake will get going tomorrow.

LHO VE - CP1 Overfill Via Script

gerardo.moreno@ligo.org — Wed, 01 Dec 2021 16:29:34 -0800

Author: gerardo.moreno@ligo.org

Report ID: 60815

I ran the autofill script with the following settings: CP1_Fill_v1.py 100 -100 600, I verifiied the overfill via one of the site cameras. Time to perform the overfill was 478 seconds.

Note from script:

CP1 Fill completed in 478 seconds. Starting CP1 fill. LLCV enabled. LLCV set to manual control. LLCV set to 100% open. Fill completed in 478 seconds. LLCV set back to 36.0% open.

LHO General - Wed Operator Summary

corey.gray@ligo.org — Wed, 01 Dec 2021 15:59:51 -0800

Author: corey.gray@ligo.org

Report ID: 60801

TITLE: 12/01 Day Shift: 16:00-00:00 UTC (08:00-16:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Planned Engineering
SHIFT SUMMARY:

Windy first part of the day put a hold on standing up steel supports. Seeing some issues on sus56 after the upgrade work.
LOG:

1540 Survey work for FCT (randy, tyler)
1610-1844 LVEA cleaning/check (karen.kim)
1621 Plumber arrives for OSB work (bubba contacted)
1635-1640 Mechanical room visit to TCS Chiller (camilla)
1715 Due to winds, crew are on hold to stand steel supports for outside FC Tube enclosure work. (Cory)
1812-1846 ZM work outside of chamber (Rahul)
1813-1910 Beginning Corner Station pump-down (gerardo, travis)
- We are pumping down!
1831-1902 Checking on glitching SEI CPS racks and look for hardware (jim)
1839 Work on the FC tube prepping to be baked (chandra)
- 1941-2035 Checking on RGA (chandra, travis)
1844 MY cleaning (karen)
1901 Pumping starts (as reported by Jim & SEI)
1920 Randy noticed EY portapotty got blown out into the driveway!
1950 Dave noticed the frontend sush56 had a timing error flashing roughly every minute on CDS Overview. As 1st option to fix, tried restarting model. This required taking all the related SUS to a SAFE state; the list is: HAM5's (SR3, SRM, OFI, ZM6), HAM6's (OM1, OM2, OM3, OMC), & HAM7's (ZM4 & ZM5).
- Dave did the model restart & this tripped: OM1, OM2, OM3, SR3, SRM, OFI, OMC -and- HAM5 ISI
  - NOTE: ZM4, ZM5, ZM6 did not have watchdog trips.
- UNFORTUNATELY, this model restart did NOT fix the Timing glitches & so a more invasive hardware fix will be needed tomorrow.
- For RECOVERY of SUS & SEI, I'm going to untrip watchdogs, take Guardians back to their prior states & click on the "RESTORE" slider button (to today at 1100amPT) used yesterday.
  - NOTE: For the RESTORE slider button, noticed by eye it changed SRM, OM1, OM2, OM3.
  - ZM4, ZM5, & ZM6 remained at the values Betsy noted.
- I will NOT go through exercise of checking OSEM values (I did this this morning) since we are currently in a non-nominal state until the Timing glitch investigation/fix slated for tomorrow is completed.
2005-2030 Taking down survey equip (Jason)
2110(actually 2147)-2201 ZM3 work continues (rahul)
- 2238-2233 Back out to HAM7 (rahul)
2124-2201 Film work out at HAM7 (fred)
2130-2152 Meeting kyle in lvea (richard)
2132-2150 MY trip (marc)
2204 FCBT Alignment work (jason, chandra)
2230 Out to check on RGA on FC tube (travis)
2256-2319 Adding diagnostics to monitor the timing issue Dave observed for sus56, which will require another model restart (so pretty much the same procedure as above begins at this time; will "RESTORE" sliders to 2:00pm PT).
2330-2348 Incursion onTCS CO2x Table (near BSC3) by Camilla

H1 CDS - h1sush56 timing errors on IOP model since yesterday's upgrade

david.barker@ligo.org — Wed, 01 Dec 2021 15:32:38 -0800

Author: david.barker@ligo.org

Report ID: 60814

We are seeing Timing errors in the h1iopsush56 model since this system was upgraded to W22-front-end/V5-IO-Chassis yesterday. The errors are at random times with a rate of roughly one-per-minute. I've opened FRS21444 for this issue.

I tried a restart of h1iopsush56 which did not fix the problem.

We have loaded the latest gpstime, which required a second restart of all the models, to gather more diagnostics information.

LHO VE - Comment to Started CS Pump Down

chandra.romel@ligo.org — Wed, 01 Dec 2021 13:06:25 -0800

Author: chandra.romel@ligo.org

Report ID: 60812

The detail about this purge blow down that is different from a typical blow down is that yesterday Gerardo and Travis changed the purge configuration by flowing purge air into the main volume from YBM port rather than OMC port where it had been purging and opened the HAM5 door port valve for purge exit to allow for the dry purge air source to flow through the majority of the volume to dry it out overnight with all doors on. This improved the overall wetness of the main volume after many many months of in-chamber work. Blowdowns in the past have measured around -25C dewpoint. This is a big improvement and we should follow this technique for all long vents moving forward.

H1 SUS - Comment to FC1 alignment (IAS) and balancing report

betsy.weaver@ligo.org — Wed, 01 Dec 2021 12:04:00 -0800

Author: betsy.weaver@ligo.org

Report ID: 60811

Indeed, I am leaving the FC1 with Bias slider OPTICALIGN OFFSETs at this pointing in order to give us a clue that this is where we expect FC2 to see the beam.

Y = 0

P = 100

H1 SUS - Comment to FC1 alignment (IAS) and balancing report

jason.oberling@ligo.org — Wed, 01 Dec 2021 11:47:37 -0800

Author: jason.oberling@ligo.org

Report ID: 60810

Final alignment numbers for LHO FC1. Coordinates are the site local coordinates w.r.t. WBSC2 0,0,0; yaw angle is reported as measured from the +Y axis, while yaw direction is reported assuming a top-down plan view of the optic (CW == clockwise, CCW == counterclockwise). We are using the same tolerances for position from the aLIGO install IAS work, but upon seeing the OSEM range available for pitch/yaw correction (off the top of my head it was something like 4mrad in pitch and 12mrad in yaw, but Betsy or Rahul can provide more accurate numbers) and the fact that the FC is much shorter than the arms, decided to widen the pitch/yaw tolerance to +/-150 µrad (150µrad causes an approximately 45mm displacement at FC2 ~300m away, so a little more than half-way between the center and edge of FC2 (~150mm diameter), and is well within the range of the FC1 OSEMs to correct). Our results:

	X Axis (mm)	Y Axis (mm)	Z Axis (mm)	Pitch (µrad)	Yaw (µrad)
Target	3954.6	-18593.5	-101.3	2618 up	3578 CW
Actual	3953.8	-18595.1	-100.8	2748 up	3458 CW
Error	-0.8	-1.6	+0.5	130 up	120 CCW
Tolerance	+/-1.0	+/-3.0	+/-1.0	+/-150	+/-150

Betsy used the pitch/yaw slider to test whether 100µrad on the slider corresponded to 100µrad on the autocollimator; the slider was driven such that FC1 pitched down by 100µrad, and this did indeed cause a 100µrad downward pitch as measured by the autocollimator (autocollimator read a pitch error of 30µrad up after the slider move, vs 130µrad up before). At the time we finished yesterday afternoon Betsy left this 100µrad pitch bias on FC1 (don't know if it has since been removed).

We also took a rough look at roll of FC1 around Center of Mass (COM), even though there is no spec that we knew of (as of yesterday afternoon). I measured this by sighting the center point of each triangular (to my view from the front of FC1) ear prism and recording the zenith angle reported by the total station (the total station reports the "up/down" angle as a zenith angle, with 0° being straight up). The difference between these 2 angles was then used to calculate the height difference between the 2 ear prisms (see attached exaggerated hand drawing); the roll around COM is then +/- half of this height difference. This estimation of course assumes the ear prisms are located directly across from each other and are both colinear with FC1 COM (I'm not sure how the prisms are placed, hence why this is an estimate). In this case, the right ear prism (ear A in the drawing) was directly in line with the center of FC1 (total station zenith angle of 90°9'0", or 90.15°; the total station sits on the FC optical axis, so looks "down" at FC1 from alignment monument LV37), with the left ear prism (ear B) slightly above. The calculated height difference between the ear centers is 2.1mm, giving a roll estimate of +/-1.05mm around FC1 COM.

Images attached to this report

LHO VE - Started CS Pump Down

gerardo.moreno@ligo.org — Wed, 01 Dec 2021 11:40:43 -0800

Author: gerardo.moreno@ligo.org

Report ID: 60809

(Travis S., Gerardo M.)

After completing the pump down checklist at the corner station, the pump down was started.

Dew point measurement at the RAV for HAM5 North door port was measured at -37.0 deg C, half a degree higher than yesterday.

Dew point measurement of the blowdown was done at the purge valve on the YBM, here the dew point measured -39.0 deg C.

H1 AOS - ZM1 was installed in chamber this week by Rahul

betsy.weaver@ligo.org — Wed, 01 Dec 2021 11:40:27 -0800

Author: betsy.weaver@ligo.org

Report ID: 60808

See attached pic, the 4th HDS suspension is in HAM7 from earlier in the week, named ZM1 (an HDDS HAM Dither Double Sus)! Yesterday we cabled it...log coming.

Images attached to this report

H1 SUS - Comment to SUSpension Alignments(?) From HAM5, HAM6, HAM7 AFTER Yesterday's Front End Upgrade Work

betsy.weaver@ligo.org — Wed, 01 Dec 2021 11:08:15 -0800

Author: betsy.weaver@ligo.org

Report ID: 60807

ZM5 alignment Slider Offsets were not reset - not sure if that's because we haven't saved them in the correct place yet or what, but I restored them to what they have been for the last ~month and updated the SDF to accept them in the SAFE file at least.

Namely,

ZM5 PIT = 201

ZM5 YAW = 3200

ZM4 and ZM6 should and currently have both sliders set to 0 - neither have bias on them yet for alignment purposes. I have also Accepted 0 for these settings in SDF. Still looking at other sus changes Corey mentions...

Images attached to this report

H1 SUS - SUSpension Alignments(?) From HAM5, HAM6, HAM7 AFTER Yesterday's Front End Upgrade Work

corey.gray@ligo.org — Wed, 01 Dec 2021 10:26:42 -0800

Author: corey.gray@ligo.org

Report ID: 60806

Preamble: Not clear what are the preferred channels to look at to gauge pointing/alignment of SUSpensions. Decided on looking at OSEM channels of SUS bottom stages after-matrix-transformation (generally looking at "logitudinal", yaw, pit and/or "T" channel readbacks).

Attached are trends of last ~24hrs of each affected SUS showing "before" & "after" values AFTER yesterday's noted:

Front End UPGRADE
And post-slider "RESTORE" (which I believe is not run on ZM4, ZM5, ZM6, & maybe OFI)

RESULTS (see attached individual SUS plots):

GOOD-ish(?): SR3, SRM, OFI, ZM6, OM1, OM2, OM3
BAD-ish(?): OMC, ZM4, ZM5

For the latter (& former for that matter), since I'm not sure I'm looking at the correct channels, I'm going to reduce "hands" on these optics and leave for SUS experts to review & take action (if needed).

CDS, SUS

Images attached to this report

H1 SUS - Comment to FC1 alignment (IAS) and balancing report

betsy.weaver@ligo.org — Wed, 01 Dec 2021 10:13:02 -0800

Author: betsy.weaver@ligo.org

Report ID: 60805

Picture of corner cube assembly clamped square against the FC1 structure front for distance check, attached. After Jason took the distance shot from the IAS monument area down by BSC3 to the corner cube, we used calipers to measure the distance from the cube plate (on center line of cube) to the face of the FC1 optic out near the 3oclock and 9oclock positions. (Used the holes on the plate that are spaced to probe the very edge of the optic.)

Images attached to this report

H1 SUS - FC1 alignment (IAS) and balancing report

rahul.kumar@ligo.org — Wed, 01 Dec 2021 09:58:30 -0800

Author: rahul.kumar@ligo.org

Report ID: 60803

Jason, Betsy, Rahul

Yesterday we re-started the alignment and balancing work on FC1 in HAM7 chamber after the lower wire loop was replaced and TF results were approved by Jeff Kissel (after a thorough investigation - see alog 60791). Jason measured all DoF (pitch, yaw, roll, length and height), while Betsy and I adjusted the weights and position of FC1 as directed, until we got it as per the requirement. A detailed report with numbers will be posted by Jason in another alog.

We started the day with adjusting the movable mass and screw (on the upper mass) to adjusted the pitch by several 100's of micro radians. However later on we changed our strategy and started adjusting the the add-on mass on the Intermediate mass (already existing weights = 284 gram in total, 149g front and 135g back). Later we had to remove 20g from the front and 20g from the back as we were more than 1.4mm lower than the requirement. After shedding 40g we were 0.9mm high but within the requirement of +-1mm. To adjust the pitch we put 7g on the front and then moved 2g forward (pitch changed by few 100s of micro radians). The final numbers on the add-on mass on the IM are as follows, total weight = 244g, front 138g, back 106g).

As we adjusted the add-on mass and movable mass, we also checked the position of the BOSEM flag with respect to the PD/LED. To re-center it we first adjusted the BOSEM itself, however when we ran out of range then we had to move the table cloth on the upper mass. During the day we moved the upper mass table cloth 'up' and 'side' ways to gives us more range for re-centering the flags. Betsy noticed that adjusting the add-on weights on the IM is better than sliding the movable mass (on the upper mass) for pitch adjustment as the BOSEM flags are very sensitive (gets very close the PD/LED very quickly) to the motion of the movable mass. Perhaps the blade springs on the upper mass (where the flags are attached) absorbs some of the pitch motion.

To adjust the yaw we pushed (clockwise or anticlockwise) the suspension with screw/clamp set up. The final fine tuning were done by torquing four clamps attached to FC1. The yaw is very sensitive to the applied torque on the clamps, hence this should not be changed unless required.

After every little adjustment we made on FC1, Betsy took several transfer function measurements for all DoF to check the health of the SUS and rule out any rubbing. We can confirm that FC1 is healthy and we manage to fulfill all the alignment requirements (see Jason's upcoming alog for details).

AOS

LHO General - Comment to Wed Morning Status

corey.gray@ligo.org — Wed, 01 Dec 2021 08:48:31 -0800

Author: corey.gray@ligo.org

Report ID: 60802

Also noticed that the usual Wind Speed ndscope had actually stopped/froze since yesterday (discovered after using my binoculars!). So I have restarted....but now the wait begins for data to fill the 24hr raw data plot.) :(

LHO VE - Corner Station Pump Down Prep Work

gerardo.moreno@ligo.org — Wed, 01 Dec 2021 08:48:15 -0800

Author: gerardo.moreno@ligo.org

Report ID: 60796

(Travis S., Gerardo M.)

To prep for the pump down that will take place today, we started with our check list, notable items to other subsystems are below, and in no particular order:

- Verified that all vacuum envelope ports are covered.

- Completed procedure M1300464 by disabling all pertaining high power supplies and MEDM screen interfaces.

- Hepta pump is ON and running (just getting warmed up).

- Aux carts are connected and pumping down the annulus system for GV1 and GV5.

- Annulus system for HAM4 remains connected to an AUX cart by HAM4.

LHO General - Wed Morning Status

corey.gray@ligo.org — Wed, 01 Dec 2021 08:20:40 -0800

Author: corey.gray@ligo.org

Report ID: 60800

TITLE: 12/01 Day Shift: 16:00-00:00 UTC (08:00-16:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Planned Engineering
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_ENV state: CONSTRUCTION
    Wind: 20mph Gusts, 17mph 5min avg
    Primary useism: 0.06 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.64 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:

LVEA is laser SAFE
ITMy ISI tripped at 1437utc & restored. Minutes later these both tripped again. Leaving as is. (NOTE: current activity in the lvea is the usual survey work and cleaning)
Noticing HAM5 HEPI & ISI tripped (since about 22hrs ago...restoring)
FCT outside work: See steel beams being positioned near slab, as well as lots of tumbleweed handling. Cory mentioned they would like to haul alot of beams and wanted to see wind speeds of the Corner Station in the control room (NDSCOPE on the wall has a legend which requires a telescope to see). So I have put a corner station wind speed up on nuc5 (for this one default ndscope only allowing online data of 60min to display). :(

H1 CDS - Upgrade h1sush56, h1seih16

david.barker@ligo.org — Tue, 30 Nov 2021 21:57:08 -0800

Author: david.barker@ligo.org

Report ID: 60797

WP10052, WP10053

Fil, Jonathan, Erik, Corey, Dave:

Today we upgraded h1sush56 and h1seih16 to W22 front end computers and V5 IO Chassis. The upgrades went smoothly and we did not encounter any of the recently seen issues (e.g. DAQ network port not initially working, DAQ not reconnecting to the new computer).

For the control systems' front-ends we have now upgraded 21 of 23, with h1seih45 and h1asc0 remaining. Beyond that there remains the 7 non-control front-ends (SUS-AUX and PEM-MID).

LHO VE - CP1 Overfill Via Script

gerardo.moreno@ligo.org — Tue, 30 Nov 2021 16:53:13 -0800

Author: gerardo.moreno@ligo.org

Report ID: 60795

I ran the autofill script with the following settings: CP1_Fill_v1.py 100 -100 600, I verifiied the overfill via one of the site cameras. Time to perform the overfill was 455 seconds.

Note from script:

CP1 Fill completed in 455 seconds. Starting CP1 fill. LLCV enabled. LLCV set to manual control. LLCV set to 100% open. Fill completed in 455 seconds. LLCV set back to 36.5% open.

Images attached to this report

LHO General - Tues Operator Summary

corey.gray@ligo.org — Tue, 30 Nov 2021 16:00:33 -0800

Author: corey.gray@ligo.org

Report ID: 60789

TITLE: 11/30 Day Shift: 16:00-00:00 UTC (08:00-16:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Planned Engineering
SHIFT SUMMARY:
LOG:

1545 FC Tube survey work, but ended due to lack of equipment (tyler.randy)
1545-1701 LVEA cleaning (karen)
- 1549-1727 (kim)
1605 Trip to EY complete (chris & floyd)
1615-1632 Trip to EY to check on turbo pump (chandra)
CDS Frontend updgrade work (dave software, fil hardware....summarizing below because it was complicated/overwhelming):
- SUS HAM5 & HAM6
  - Took following SUS (qty 10!) to SAFE:
    - HAM5: SR3, SRM, OFI, ZM6,
    - HAM6: OM1, OM2, OM3, OMC,
    - HAM7(!): ZM4, ZM5 (because they are part of SQZ OUT)
    - Confusing because SQZ Out spans both HAM5 -and- HAM7, so TJ reminded me we needed to take out ZM4&5 for this....no current way to easily know this without looking model. :(
    - For alignment restoration:
      - Restore guardians to ALIGNED,
      - On IFO_ALIGN_COMPACT.adl, click the " ! Restore " button to earlier this morning (i.e. 800amPT) to restore all sliders
      - To confirm alignment is restored afterward, look at OSEMS (stage?) and/or witness channels (bottom stage?)
- SEI HAM1 & HAM6
  - Kept HAM1 & HAM6 HPI/ISI/SEI guardian nodes where they were already at (at Jim's approval)
1744-1830 EX cleaning (kim)
1757 Concrete truck arrival for FC tube infrastructure for pour near HAM Shack & BTE
- Noticed truck leaving FC tube area also at same time, but luckily the xement truck backed up in time.
1801 LN2 truck entered
1803 LVEA entry (chandra)
1806-2055 ZM installation work at HAM7 (rahul)
1814 LVEA equip maintenance work (chris)
1817-2040 Swap spare CO2 chiller with TCSy chiller (camilla, tj)
1830 FC1 surveying (jason, betsy)
1840 Prepping for pumpdown in cor (gerardo, travis)
1845-2005 Beckhoff license in diode room (patrick)
2006 Phone people working on site (richard notified)
2051 Pcal work (rick)
2146 HAM7 ZM install/align afternoon work (rahul, betsy, jason)
2258-2318 Optics lab trip (camilla)
2301 Pumpdown checklist items in the LVEA (travis out @2324, gerardo)
- Went thru picomotor medm screens to check if any were ENABLED. The "HAM6 + HAM5" controller was found to be ENABLED; it was DISABLED.
2340 Begin restoring SUS & SEI (Dave, Fil, Corey)
- SR3, SRM, OFI, ZM6, ZM5, ZM4, OM1, OM2, OM3, OMC watchdogs untripped & Guardians taken from SAFE --> ALIGNED.
- Fil went to turn ON the Anti Alias boards for SEI (to allow restoring SEI)
- HAM1 HEPI watchdog was untripped & kept its Guardian in READY state.
- HAM6 HEPI watchdog was untripped & kept its Guardian in READY state.
- HAM6 ISI watchdog was untripped & kept its SEI Guardian in READY state.
- On IFO_ALIGN_COMPACT.adl, " ! Restore " button to 800amPT this morning to restore sliders.
  - NOTE: It's hard to tell if this is doing ANYTHING when you click RESTORE....after a few seconds I did see sliders moving though (but a better notification/status would be nice).
    - Now ZM4, ZM5, ZM6, aren't on there, so maybe they need to be checked.
    - Also don't see slider for OFI on this screen...only button to Master screen.
- Next: check alignment/pointing of all these optics....will do this tomorrow.

H1 AOS - Comment to H1SUSFC1: Pitch Mode Concerns Alleviated -- Replaced Wire Diameter is 0.005 [inches] not 0.0047 [inches], and that's OK.

jeffrey.kissel@ligo.org — Tue, 30 Nov 2021 15:42:13 -0800

Author: jeffrey.kissel@ligo.org

Report ID: 60794

J. Kissel, L. McCuller I spoke with Lee about this to see if his (always impressive) intuition and random access memory would be bothered by these higher bounce / roll mode frequencies in the filter cavity. In short, after talking ourselves through it, we concur with my above conclusion that it all should be OK, if not fine. I got the biggest of the warm and fuzzy feelings when he showed my Figure 5 of the Filter Cavity's Design/Requirements Document (FC DRD: T1800447-v7). I attach it here for convenience. The as-built design has two SQZ faraday isolators (i.e. 90 dB of suppression of scattered light when coupled with the IFO's Output Faraday). In the O4 configuration (DC readout), that means the HSTSs are required to beat the more-densely-dashed green curve. Between 15 and 30 Hz, the thin, solid black, estimate of total displacement of the HSTS optic using - the Seismic Input modeled from O2's HAM5 ISI (from T1800066, so that means HEPI and ST0 FF L4Cs), - the *nominal* HSTS model (with M2 to M3 wire thickness of 4.7 [thou]), and - assuming 3e-3 [m/m] V to L coupling, is safely a few orders of magnitude below the requirement in broadband -- falling off the lower y-limit of the plot by 20 Hz -- with only the bounce mode poking up at 27.3 Hz. So there's several things here (at least for O4): - Whether the bounce mode frequency is 27.3 or 29.02 Hz doesn't matter (same goes for the frequency of the roll mode). - As usual, we expect the coupling function of the roll mode to be even less than V to L, so Lee doesn't plot it here. - Lee used the 3e-3 [m/m] number from a LLO configuration, which he says "LHO shouldn't have," so the coupling should be even less - If / when we ring up the highest roll modes with filter cavity alignment or length control (he quotes expected 10 Hz UGFs), and they show up in length as we know they can (see LHO:49749), then we can notch them out of the control request. - In fact, because the thicker wire makes the bounce and roll modes a bit *higher* in frequency, notching them will have that much less impact on the phase margin of the 10 Hz UGF loops. - The coupling function of the filter cavity to DARM is all a result of dirt coupling and scattered light, so it's going to be an unpredictable, wandering thing, but hopefully quite small. - Finally, reflecting on my side comment about the newly found X, Y, Z = 23.1, 25.6, 34.7 Hz (LLO:58040) resonances of the external support structure, these resonances will be in that region of the prediction that's "off the lower ylimit of the charts" so even if the HAM7 ISI + ESS is, say, an order of magnitude worse, it still won't come close to the requirements. Very good.

Non-image files attached to this report

T1800447-v7_FC_DRD_Figure5.pdf

H1 AOS - Comment to H1SUSFC1: Pitch Mode Concerns Alleviated -- Replaced Wire Diameter is 0.005 [inches] not 0.0047 [inches], and that's OK.

jeffrey.kissel@ligo.org — Tue, 30 Nov 2021 14:29:31 -0800

Author: jeffrey.kissel@ligo.org

Report ID: 60793

J. Kissel What else does this impact? Sitting on this a bit, I realize another metric that this will impact in terms of systems integration -- the *actual* highest frequency vertical (aka the V3 or "bounce" mode) and roll (R3) modes, nominally at 27.3 Hz and 40.3 Hz, will increase in frequency. In this comment's attachment, triplemodelcomp_2021-11-30_HSTS_r3exploration_SusPoint2M3_VandR.pdf, I show the same 5 models where I've adjusted (only) the r3 parameter from 4.7 [thou] to 5, 6, 8, and 10 [thou], but instead to top (M1) mass to top (M1) mass transfer functions which are important to the local damping loops (and which nominally don't show these V3 or R3 modes as a feature of the mechanical design of LIGO suspensions), I instead show to Suspension Point V or R to optic (M3) stage V or R transmission. One can see (via comparing the orange and red traces) that accepting this 5 [thou] M2 to M3 wire thickness means we accept new/unique bounce and roll modes at 29.02 and 42.89 Hz, respectively. Summarizing the information in tabular form M2 to M3 Wire Thickness [inches] 0.0047 0.0050 M2 to M3 Wire Radius [m] 59.7e-6 63.5e-6 V3 Mode Freq. [Hz] 27.3 29.02 R3 Mode Freq. [Hz] 40.3 42.89 Maybe, given the recent discovery that the HAM7/HAM8 external support structure has high-Q resonances at X, Y, Z = 23.1, 25.6, 34.7 Hz LLO aLOG 58040, this parameter change might be a blessing in disguise, now that the new V3 and R3 mode frequencies a more equally spaced between the support structure. But -- it might serve us well to re-model the expected performance of the filter cavity with all this new knowledge. Also, should we revert FC2 back to the 4.7 [thou] thickness? Or should we run with it, and make the A+ HSTS different in this subtle, easily-forgettable way? To quote me from a Oct 28th 2015 email I sent to Fritschel: "Regarding somehow collectively remembering / capturing the change -- it is very tough indeed. This is why I almost always advocate for a systematic change instead of continued one-off changes [...] when possible / sensible." In that same email I cite that H1SUSPR3's optic has been upside down for all its life, and it hasn't bothered us, and we've since forgotten about it. Turns out it's documented... IIET Ticket 4381, which is CLOSED -- WONTFIX.

Non-image files attached to this report

triplemodelcomp_2021-11-30_HSTS_r3exploration_SusPoint2M3_VandR.pdf

H1 TCS - TCS CO2Y chiller temporarily swapped for swap to test the spare.

camilla.compton@ligo.org — Tue, 30 Nov 2021 14:25:00 -0800

Author: camilla.compton@ligo.org

Report ID: 60792

WP#10080 TJ Shaffer, C Compton. 10:30am -12:30pm

Today we swapped the spare CO2 chiller (S/N 813) with the TCSY chiller (S/N 617). This is to check the spare chiller is functioning correctly so that we have a fully functioning spare going into O4- alog 60547.

Will plan to leave the spare chiller circulating for ~2 weeks before swapping back if no problems are seen. It is expected the spare chiller may have temperature or flow rate fluctuations which is fine for keeping water circulating now but problematic in future when running the CO2 laser.
Steps taken:

Wiped inside of spare chiller with non-lifting cloths.
Turned off and unplugged TCS CO2Y chiller
Flushed spare chiller with lab water (should be done if the chiller is stored for more than 90 days). See instructions below*.
Disconnected TCS CO2Y hose quick connects to remove the chiller from the water system- note on the chiller side these aren’t dry breaks so we used out shorting hose to stop the chiller leaking.
Connected outlet of spare chiller to water line, filled reservoir and connected inlet to water line.
Turned on chiller and returned settings to the nominal “serial communications” = RS235 for MEDM control.
Drained TCSY chiller - this drained very slowly. Have left drain value open. Will be left for 2 weeks max so didn’t vacuum out.

The amount of water drained from each chiller was ~ 2 gallons.

*Chiller flush instructions:

Followed some of the instructions in T1600050 which describe flushing chillers PLUS lines

Shorted process inlet and outlet together with a piece of short pipe (photo).
Filled up reservoir and shorting pipe with lab water (pre-filling prep makes less low pressure alarms as the chiller has water to suck in)
Plugged in and turned on chiller
Changed “serial communications” setting from RS235(?) to OFF temporarily so chiller doesn’t require medm to turn on.
Turned on chiller and let water recirculate for a few minutes though all the pipes (inlet/outlet and internal recirculation pipe) by switching the yellow lever.
Turned chiller off, unplugged.
Drained chiller by opening drain value and directing water with hose into a bucket (photo).
Changed metal mesh diffuser and mesh bag to new ones. The old ones were a little green.

Images attached to this report

H1 AOS - H1SUSFC1: Pitch Mode Concerns Alleviated -- Replaced Wire Diameter is 0.005 [inches] not 0.0047 [inches], and that's OK.

jeffrey.kissel@ligo.org — Tue, 30 Nov 2021 12:30:11 -0800

Author: jeffrey.kissel@ligo.org

Report ID: 60791

J. Kissel, R. Kumar, B. Weaver This aLOG continues, and puts to rest, the investigations as to why the H1SUSFC1 P2 and P3 modes -- and more concerningly the inter-mode zero -- are still high in frequency (see yesterday's LHO:60787 and older LHO:60766), even after the errant M2 to M3 wire thickness was swapped for "nominal" (see LHO:60741). Recall "nominal" thickness / diameter is supposed to be 0.0047 [inches] (i.e. 4.7 [thousandths of an inch] or "[thou]", or a wire radius of 59.7e-6 [m]). After a team huddle this morning, Betsy, Rahul, and I uncovered that when, in LHO:60741, Rahul says "[...] replacing the wire with correct thickness (0.005 inch diameter, verified using calipers) [...]" there was no rounding involved in the statement -- the wires have been replaced with 0.005" thickness wires, not the nominal 0.0047". Surprised that a difference of 0.0003" diameter (3.8e-6 [m]) makes this much of a difference, I've played around with the model to confirm (thanks to a handy-dandy script I wrote in 2012, comparetripleparams.m, and reminding myself of which variable means what with T040072) that: (a) Changing the nominal model's "r3" parameter (the radius of the M2 to M3 wire) from 59.7e-6 [m] to 63.5e-6 [m] (from diameter of 4.7 [thou] to 5 [thou]) indeed moves up the P2 mode and the adjacent zero right with it, exactly on top of the current H1SUSFC1 data. (b) As a quick "will it still work if we don't fix it?" test -- I use a generic set damping loops that come with the production triple model (some old 2012 velocity damping filters from L1 SUS MC2, that might still be in place honestly...), I confirm there's evidence that this level of plant change will cause loss in stability or any less Q reduction in the damping loops with this change. (c) I also recall that these modes are sensitive to the d1 distance between the M1 to M2 blade tip / breakoff point height w.r.t the M1 center of mass -- but importantly, changing this d1 by a lot in either direction only changes the P2 and P3 mode resonances, not the intermode zeros. I would guess that some linear combination of M1 to M2 blade tip height and manufacturers differences in thickness of the M2 to M3 wires would cause the spread that's otherwise seen in the rest of the suspensions see in the whole collection shown in LHO:60787. Conclusion The unintended M2 to M3 wire parameter change of H1SUSFC1 from 4.7 [thou] to 5.0 [thou] diameter is acceptable and will function as any other HSTS does without much extra thought at all. We should and shall carry on as is. Proof is in the Plots I demonstrate (a) with the first attachment, triplemodelcomp_2021-11-30_HSTS_r3exploration_M1_P2P.pdf. Compare nominal solid, thin, orange "nominal" r3 "=" 4.7 [thou] model and solid, thin, maroon r3 "=" 5 [thou] model against the latest measurement of FC1 in solid, thick, red latest H1SUSFC1 measurement. One can see that the latest H1SUSFC1 measurement solid, thin, maroon model, with 5 [thou] agree rather exquisitely, just like the solid, thin, plum r3 "=" 8 [thou] model agreed with the solid, thick, plum measurement of FC1 when it had the corresponding wire thickness. (b) is demonstrated in the same first attachment with the damped versions of dashed, thin, orange "nominal" r3 "=" 4.7 [thou] model and dashed, thin, maroon r3 "=" 5 [thou] models. One can see that the same damping loop filters will do similar things to these similar plants. Makes sense, as this damping loop filter design is *very* generic, with no features that are tuned to these specific mode frequeuncies. Also, while I haven't explicitly looked at the phase margin change between these different plants, I that suspect even a low-noise design, where we push the phase margin harder with more aggressive ~10 Hz low passes would also be fine, given that the highest P3 mode remains relatively unchanged with a 5 [thou] M2 to M3 wire. I demonstrate (c) in the second attachment, triplemodelcomp_2021-11-30_HSTS_d1exploration_M1_P2P.pdf. I see the following from this: (1) There's no change in the intermode zero, regardless of the change in d1. (2) Comparing the change in response in *other* degrees of freedom -- see third and fourth attachments, r3 change -- triplemodelcomp_2021-11-30_HSTS_r3exploration_M1.pdf and d1 change -- triplemodelcomp_2021-11-30_HSTS_d1exploration_M1.pdf the d1 change has *much* more impact on other DOFs than the r3 change, which is consistent with the various FC1 data we have, and (3) Looking at the lowest and highest frequency collection modes we've seen in solid, thick, magenta H1SUSMC1 and solid, thick, cyan H1SUSSR2, they span a range of d1 = nominal + (adjustment, as indicated in the legend) being as low as d1 = 2 + (-3) = -1 [mm] or as high as d1 = 2 + (+4) = 6 [mm]. The story behind 5 [thou] instead of 4.7 [thou] I'm parroting what Rahul told me this morning, but when the materials for building HSTSs for A+ were inventoried, Bartlett and Kumar found the 4.7 [thou] spool of wire that we used for all aLIGO HSTSs, but there was concern that it was old and fragile, having been purchased in 2012. As a result, we went out for quote for 4.7 [thou] wire, but at the time could not find it, and someone made the decision that 5 [thou] was good enough (is there a RODA? an ECR / Resolved IIET? Dunno). As such, here we are today, a few years after the SUS was built circa 2019 (LHO:52425the A+ HSTSs were some of the first A+ SUS built, since "we knew how to build them" and we had the person power during O3), uncovering this lil' nugget. Rahul also recalls that since LLO went out for quote on their A+ SUS HSTS parts ~a year later, they *were* able to push hard on vendors and find the nominal 4.7 [thou] wire thickness. We should confirm this.

Non-image files attached to this report

triplemodelcomp_2021-11-30_HSTS_r3exploration_M1_P2P.pdf

triplemodelcomp_2021-11-30_HSTS_d1exploration_M1_P2P.pdf

triplemodelcomp_2021-11-30_HSTS_r3exploration_M1.pdf

triplemodelcomp_2021-11-30_HSTS_d1exploration_M1.pdf

LHO VE - EY pump down progress

chandra.romel@ligo.org — Tue, 30 Nov 2021 08:50:26 -0800

Author: chandra.romel@ligo.org

Report ID: 60790

Turbo/scroll are humming along at end-Y. Seven day pressure curve attached along with RGA scans. Pressure at turbo inlet is 5.3e-8 Torr. Pressure on top of BSC10 is 6.0e-8 Torr. Turbo is running at 24C (a bit cold) and controller is 32C. Turbo inlet pressure with isolation GV closed is 9e-10 Torr.

Images attached to this report

LHO General - Tues Morning Status

corey.gray@ligo.org — Tue, 30 Nov 2021 08:06:06 -0800

Author: corey.gray@ligo.org

Report ID: 60788

TITLE: 11/30 Day Shift: 16:00-00:00 UTC (08:00-16:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Planned Engineering
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_ENV state: CONSTRUCTION
    Wind: 19mph Gusts, 11mph 5min avg
    Primary useism: 0.03 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.26 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:

LVEA is Laser SAFE
Survey work & cleaning in lvea have already started
No new/active alarms overnight
Phone company planning to be on-site at around noon
Dave phoned in with a heads up to SEI & SUS front ends as well as some DAQ work by Jonathan

H1 SUS - H1SUSFC1: After Lower Mass Wire Swap, P to P TF Still Has Concerningly High Frequency 2nd and 3rd Pitch Modes (and inter-mode Zero)

jeffrey.kissel@ligo.org — Mon, 29 Nov 2021 17:41:19 -0800

Author: jeffrey.kissel@ligo.org

Report ID: 60787

J. Kissel Continuing the study from last week (LHO:60766), I've gathered all the best and most recent data for all HSTSs ever built and measured under vacuum*** and compared them against the latest H1SUSFC1 (LHO:60741). I attach the one DOF of concern -- the (top mass) Pitch to (top mass) Pitch transfer function. Recall that we recently identified that H1SUSFC1 had the wrong M2 to M3 wire thickness after swapping in the optic, and the data I use here (again, LHO:60766) is from *after* the wire has been swapped out for the assembly spec'd thickness/diameter of 0.0047". So -- let's look at the attachment. Among the 15 SUS plotted, I highlight the outliers in - Magenta: H1SUSMC1 -- lowest combination of 3.21 Hz P2 mode and (nominally ~3.41 Hz ) zero, though it sits in the middle of the pack for the 3.78 Hz P3 mode. - Cyan: H1SUSSR2 -- middle of the pack P2 and P3 modes, but its 3.41 Hz zero is the highest aside from H1SUSFC1 at 3.5 Hz. - Royal Blue: L1SUSSRM -- Aside from H1SUSFC1, the highest P2 and P3 resonances at 3.26 and 3.87 Hz, respectively, but its 3.41 Hz zero is in the middle of the pack - Red: H1SUSFC1 -- by far the highest P2 mode and 3.41 Hz zero coming in at 3.34 Hz and 3.59 Hz, where the P2 mode is surrounded by several substantial cross-coupling peaks, and finally it has a high P3 mode roughly equal to that of H1SUSSRM. I don't want saturate you with plots, so I won't show you other DOFs, but if you'll take my word for it, all other DOFs transfer functions show no other abnormal behavior -- FC1 does is not the outlier, and the spread for other DOFs is not this large. Here're the actions from here: - Talk with the assembly team if there are any remaining issues with the assembly. It's ringing a bell that something went pearshaped with optic's prisms. And there's also the open issue of quite irregular balancing (though this was before the wire change, and may not still be in play). - Try a few guesses at some parameters that might only affect pitch and noodle them in the model to see if I can *quickly* reproduce the response, and if not - Try to resurrect Brett's fitting code he'd used to originally identify the previous "M2 to M3 wire's the wrong thickness" smoking gun from LLO aLOG 4766. - Take a look at the phase, and compare against the various damping loop designs out there, to see if having this high a zero and P3 mode will seriously impact the damping look design / function. *** As I right this, I should also say that for HSTSs we never see any shift in these modes between air vs. vacuum. While they're different from SUS to SUS, each SUS stays consistent between air and vacuum.CSWG, ISC, SQZ, SUS

Non-image files attached to this report

allhstss_2021-11-29_H1SUSHSTS_PitchModeCheck_P-P_TF.pdf

LHO VE - CP1 Overfill Via Script

gerardo.moreno@ligo.org — Mon, 29 Nov 2021 16:55:04 -0800

Author: gerardo.moreno@ligo.org

Report ID: 60786

I ran the autofill script with the following settings: CP1_Fill_v1.py 100 -100 600, I verifiied the overfill via one of the site cameras. Time to perform the overfill was 223 seconds.

Note from script:

CP1 Fill completed in 223 seconds. Starting CP1 fill. LLCV enabled. LLCV set to manual control. LLCV set to 100% open. Fill completed in 223 seconds. LLCV set back to 35.65% open.

Images attached to this report

H1 SUS - Comment to All H1SUSSRM, and H1SUSSR3 M1 SD OSEMs Recentered

jeffrey.kissel@ligo.org — Mon, 29 Nov 2021 16:29:53 -0800

Author: jeffrey.kissel@ligo.org

Report ID: 60785

Just prior to this recentering, I took a health check of the SUS in air with the ISI locked, using data from templates marked with the time stamp 2021-11-08_2000. Attached are the post-processed results. Nothing alarming here, just posting for comparison of data we *after* this change to the top mass OSEMS. (Well, not *change*, but re-centering as best we could around the in-observation alignment.)

Non-image files attached to this report

2021-11-08_2000_H1SUSSRM_M1_ALL_TFs.pdf

allhstss_2021-11-08_2000_H1SUSSRM_Phase3a_UnDamped_M1_ALL_TFs.pdf

allhstss_2021-11-08_2000_H1SUSSRM_Phase3a_UnDamped_M1_ALL_ZOOMED_TFs.pdf

H1 SUS - Comment to Health check - triple sus: PRM, SR2, SRM and MC1

jeffrey.kissel@ligo.org — Mon, 29 Nov 2021 16:26:30 -0800

Author: jeffrey.kissel@ligo.org

Report ID: 60784

J. Kissel And to complete the analysis of this collection of data, I've processed the 2020-04-14_2000 data for H1SUSSRM. Individual data and comparison against its past and one other sus of the same type attached. I concur that the SUS is healthy and unchanged at this time. (The cross-coupling of the Second, 2.2 Hz Roll Mode in to the transverse DOF that appears in the 2019 and 2020 measurements is not alarming: these T and R DOFs are fundamentally cross-coupled, and this "extra" feature goes away when the SUS is damped. I see no other issues.)

Non-image files attached to this report

2020-04-14_2000_H1SUSSRM_M1_ALL_TFs.pdf

allhstss_2020-04-14_2000_H1SUSSRM_Phase3b_UnDamped_M1_ALL_TFs.pdf

allhstss_2020-04-14_2000_H1SUSSRM_Phase3b_UnDamped_M1_ALL_ZOOMED_TFs.pdf

LHO General - Mon Operator Summary

corey.gray@ligo.org — Mon, 29 Nov 2021 16:05:47 -0800

Author: corey.gray@ligo.org

Report ID: 60769

TITLE: 11/29 Day Shift: 16:00-00:00 UTC (08:00-16:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Planned Engineering
SHIFT SUMMARY:

LOG:

1550 LVEA cleaning (Karen)
- 1555 Kim to LVEA
1611 single trailer truck arrives with shipment of metal for FC Tube
1652-1838 EY cleaning (karen)
1801-1900 Checking annulus ion pumps for BSC1/3 (Gerardo)
1817-1823 Parts to lvea (camilla)
1820-1955 ZM1&3 install prep work & measurements (Rahul)
1825-1857 swapping in new hardhats in the lvea (Cory)
- 1857 same for End Stations
1917-2024 Install bellows at bsc3 (camilla)
2033-2320 PCal Lab (rick)
2040-2100 Isolating HAM4 Ion Pump....ended up turning off instead. (gerardo)
2038-2104 running to MY (camilla)
2216 Setting up survey equipment near HAM7/BSC3 (jason)
2217-2359 Back to HAM7 work on ZM1/3 (Rahul)
2244 Received RO (reverse osmosis) water alarm. Bubba contacted.
2354 Disconnecting Aux Carts from BSC1/3 AIPs & checking on HAM4 Ion Pump. (gerardo)

H1 AOS - Comment to Filter Cavity Tube Baffles Installed Into The Tube Section Named FC-B #1 (15.31')

corey.gray@ligo.org — Mon, 29 Nov 2021 16:02:03 -0800

Author: corey.gray@ligo.org

Report ID: 60783

FC-B #1 Assembly Load link in ICS has been updated to:

https://ics.ligo-la.caltech.edu/JIRA/browse/ASSY-D1900443-B-01

(the link noted above [https://ics.ligo-la.caltech.edu/JIRA/browse/ASSY-D1900443-FC-B1] is now a broken link!)

H1 AOS - Comment to Filter Cavity Tube Baffles Installed Into The Tube Section Named FC-A #2

corey.gray@ligo.org — Mon, 29 Nov 2021 16:00:08 -0800

Author: corey.gray@ligo.org

Report ID: 60782

FC-A #2 Assembly Load in ICS has been updated to:

https://ics.ligo-la.caltech.edu/JIRA/browse/ASSY-D1900443-A-02

(the link in entry above [https://ics.ligo-la.caltech.edu/JIRA/browse/ASSY-D1900443-FC-A2] is now a broken link!)

H1 AOS - Comment to Filter Cavity Tube Baffles Installed Into H1's First Filter Cavity Tube

corey.gray@ligo.org — Mon, 29 Nov 2021 15:57:48 -0800

Author: corey.gray@ligo.org

Report ID: 60781

Because of my OCD, I changed the Serial Numbers for the ICS Assembly Loads for the Filter Cavity Tubes to better match the numbering from the spreadsheet of Q2100007. So the NEW Assy Load for FC-A #1 is now:

https://ics.ligo-la.caltech.edu/JIRA/browse/ASSY-D1900443-A-01

(link in original entry above [https://ics.ligo-la.caltech.edu/JIRA/browse/ASSY-D1900443-FC-A1] is now broken!)

H1 SUS - Comment to SR2 Closeout cleaning and TFs

jeffrey.kissel@ligo.org — Mon, 29 Nov 2021 15:43:27 -0800

Author: jeffrey.kissel@ligo.org

Report ID: 60780

It took a bit of fudging, because the frequency vector for V to V data was left with a BW of 0.02 Hz, whereas the rest were 0.03 Hz, but here's the fully processed version of these 2021-11-18_1913 transfer functions. We've later confirmed that the SUS is healthy in a quiet, albiet in air, environment with the doors on (see LHO:60755), but I post these here as an instructive comparison of how much we read through the tea leaves when we run quick TFs "to see if the SUS looks healthy before the doors go on." As such, the comparison shows the last few (only recently processed) TFs during O2 and leading up to O3A prior to this vent, then this measurement, and then after this measurement in the quiet environment.

Non-image files attached to this report

2021-11-18_1913_H1SUSSR2_M1_ALL_TFs.pdf

allhstss_2021-11-23_1530_H1SUSSR2_Phase3ab_UnDamped_M1_Addendum_ALL_TFs.pdf

allhstss_2021-11-23_1530_H1SUSSR2_Phase3ab_UnDamped_M1_Addendum_ALL_ZOOMED_TFs.pdf

H1 SUS - Comment to Health check - triple sus: PRM, SR2, SRM and MC1

jeffrey.kissel@ligo.org — Mon, 29 Nov 2021 15:37:48 -0800

Author: jeffrey.kissel@ligo.org

Report ID: 60779

Finally processing these 2020-04-14_1800 measurements for H1 SUS SR2. Only posting individual measurements here. Look for "2021-11-23_1530" for comparison against other measurements (spoiler: SR2 has looked healthy at least 2018-05-02!).

Non-image files attached to this report

2020-04-14_1800_H1SUSSR2_M1_ALL_TFs.pdf

H1 SUS - Comment to HAM2 sus (MC1, MC3, PRM, PR3) Top to Top TF looks healthy.

jeffrey.kissel@ligo.org — Mon, 29 Nov 2021 13:54:36 -0800

Author: jeffrey.kissel@ligo.org

Report ID: 60778

Finally processing this 2020-10-19_1600 data for H1SUSPRM. As usual -- individual comparison of measurement against model is posted, as well as comparison against previous measurements of the same sus, and a few other examples of SUS of the same type. I agree with the assessment that the suspension continues to look healthy!

Non-image files attached to this report

2020-10-29_1600_H1SUSPRM_M1_ALL_TFs.pdf

allhstss_2020-10-29_1600_H1SUSPRM_Phase3b_UnDamped_M1_ALL_TFs.pdf

allhstss_2020-10-29_1600_H1SUSPRM_Phase3b_UnDamped_M1_ALL_ZOOMED_TFs.pdf

H1 TCS - TCS CO2X viewport bellow replaced

camilla.compton@ligo.org — Mon, 29 Nov 2021 13:50:20 -0800

Author: camilla.compton@ligo.org

Report ID: 60776

After replacing ZnSe in TCS viewport assembly (alog 60642), I removed the yellow viewport cover and replaced the metal bellow between the BSC3-E C0G5 viewport and TCS CO2 X table. It is a metal bellow attached using worm drive clamps - same as used in O3. Closes WP#10081. The Secondary clear viewport had a few specks on that wouldn't blow off with the LN2 top gun. The secondary ZnSe had some wipe like markings, maybe from a previous or original cleaning but otherwise looked good as this is the secondary VP it should be fine. Photos attached.

Images attached to this report

H1 SUS - Comment to Health check - triple sus: PRM, SR2, SRM and MC1

jeffrey.kissel@ligo.org — Mon, 29 Nov 2021 13:49:09 -0800

Author: jeffrey.kissel@ligo.org

Report ID: 60777

Finally processing this 2020-04-14_1500 data (as well as some 2018-06_07_1648 data that had been taken but never aLOGed) for H1SUSPRM. Note that both 2018-01-03_2138 and 2018-06_07_1648 data sets suffered from the confusion about accidentally leaving the misalignment offset calibration gains of 1.875 and 2.681 ON in the TEST P and TEST Y filter banks, hence the confusion leading in to the 2020-04-14_1500 data that tripped up Cheryl and Rahul mentioned in the above comment LHO:55920. As such -- although they report a healthy suspension otherwise, I don't show those errant data sets in the collection of PRM measurements attached here. The collection *does* however include a future measurement from 2020-10-29_1600 (LHO:57155) which is also healthy. PRM has been good for quite some time! Excellent!

Non-image files attached to this report

2018-06-07_1648_H1SUSPRM_M1_ALL_TFs.pdf

2020-04-14_1500_H1SUSPRM_M1_ALL_TFs.pdf

allhstss_2020-10-29_1600_H1SUSPRM_Phase3b_UnDamped_M1_ALL_TFs.pdf

allhstss_2020-10-29_1600_H1SUSPRM_Phase3b_UnDamped_M1_ALL_ZOOMED_TFs.pdf

H1 CDS - Comment to Updated TCS Corner PLC

aidan.brooks@ligo.org — Mon, 29 Nov 2021 13:25:25 -0800

Author: aidan.brooks@ligo.org

Report ID: 60775

Description of channels is given in aLOG 60693.

H1 AOS - Comment to Another Round of FC1 IAS

betsy.weaver@ligo.org — Mon, 29 Nov 2021 12:04:02 -0800

Author: betsy.weaver@ligo.org

Report ID: 60774

Note, the X,Y,Z coordinate nominals are found at https://dcc.ligo.org/D1900364-v5

H1 SUS - Comment to Health check - triple sus - HLTS (PR3, SR3) and HSTS (PR2)

jeffrey.kissel@ligo.org — Mon, 29 Nov 2021 11:54:04 -0800

Author: jeffrey.kissel@ligo.org

Report ID: 60773

Finally processed this data (as well as the preceding 2018-06-07 data, which was never aLOGged). I concur that PR2 looks healthy during these measurements.

Non-image files attached to this report

2020-04-13_2200_H1SUSPR2_M1_ALL_TFs.pdf

allhstss_2020-04-13_2200_H1SUSPR2_Phase3b_UnDamped_M1_ALL_TFs.pdf

allhstss_2020-04-13_2200_H1SUSPR2_Phase3b_UnDamped_M1_ALL_ZOOMED_TFs.pdf

H1 SEI - H1 BSC/HAM ISI CPS Sensor Noise Spectra Check (FAMIS task, #17222)

corey.gray@ligo.org — Mon, 29 Nov 2021 10:04:47 -0800

Author: corey.gray@ligo.org

Report ID: 60772

[Measurements attached]

BSC CPS: Looks OK.

HAM CPS: Looks mostly OK; HAM6 is LOCKED due to in-chamber work.

SEI

Images attached to this report

LHO FMCS - Comment to Reviewing Alarm Handler Alarms

chandra.romel@ligo.org — Mon, 29 Nov 2021 09:00:26 -0800

Author: chandra.romel@ligo.org

Report ID: 60771

Thanks for noting these vacuum alarms, Corey. All are expected due to vents and such.

LHO FMCS - Reviewing Alarm Handler Alarms

corey.gray@ligo.org — Mon, 29 Nov 2021 08:50:19 -0800

Author: corey.gray@ligo.org

Report ID: 60770

Since it's been a few weeks since I've been in the chair, also looking over any active Alarm Handler Alarms.

FMCS:

One alarm for H0:FMC-EX_AH_COOLTEMP_2_DEGF (HIGH and MAJOR). This temperature is RED on the medm screen as a static 572degF, BUT it's been like this since Aug 31, 2021. Acknowledged and it remains RED/active. (see attached trend)

Vacuum:

LVEA PRESS: All four alarms elated to vent work (for gauges at BSC2, HAM6, BSC8, BSC7). Acknowledged and they remain HIHI & MAJOR).
EY PRESS: Guessing this is from recent vent/pumpdown. Acknowledged and remains in HIGH & Minor). (see attached trend)
Cryopump1: Assuming this is due to CP1's issue which requires overfills. Acknowledged & it remains LOLO and MAJOR.

Images attached to this report

LHO General - Monday Morning Status

corey.gray@ligo.org — Mon, 29 Nov 2021 08:09:23 -0800

Author: corey.gray@ligo.org

Report ID: 60768

TITLE: 11/29 Day Shift: 16:00-00:00 UTC (08:00-16:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Planned Engineering
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_ENV state: CONSTRUCTION
    Wind: 8mph Gusts, 6mph 5min avg
    Primary useism: 0.05 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.45 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:

Looking over VERBAL, see some WDs tripped (below) & random earthquakes.
- 11/25 ITMx stage 1&2 (reset)
- 11/26 BS stage 1&2 (reset)
Powered on most of the wall TV Monitors (probably off for energy conservation over the break).
Seeing a handful of people out back working on the Filter Cavity infrastructure.
LVEA is laser SAFE