[gautam, johannes, lydia]

We decided to try some different approaches on minimizing the ETMY bounce coupling today, since the peak height in the previously attched spectrum was  higher than the previously recorded levels in 2011 for all but the LR OSEM.

• We recoreded a coarse reference spectrum with the light door off and the HEPA filter on. 
• We attempted to match UL, UR and LL orientation to their apparent position in photos takes before the OSEMs were initially removed. We found that every OSEM showed a stronger bounce coupling, including those that had not been moved. We repeated the spectrum a few times, damping the optic and then turning the damping back off between each data set. The effect persisted, so we decided to move them back to where they started today (the final posiitons of our earlier optimization attempt). 
• The peaks returned to approximately their reference levels for all except LL. UL was still the worst overall, so we attempted to more finely tune its angle without success: we saw increases in the peak height in both directions again (when turned approx. 3-4 degrees). 
• We then turned the UL OSEM by 90 degrees. (See Attachment 1). Surprisingly, the 16.4 Hz peak height was greatly reduced (by a factor of 7-9). We took another spectrum to confirm and the peak was significantly lower than the reference yet again. We decided to leave the OSEM in this configuration in order to take a finer spectrum (See Attachment 2). However, this means that while the magnet looks well centered in the OSEM, the sideways range of motion is reduced and there are no earthquake stops preventing string side to side swings, so care should be taken in the ETMY chamber. 
• Before starting, we had discussed a possilbe mechanism for bounce coupling that could potentially be minimized by turning the OSEM so that the nominal beam direction was horizontal. This would be possible if the beam of light inside the OSEM were directed toward the front or back, i.e. if it had some component parallel to the POS axis. Then, if the component of the beam in the plane of the optic's surface is oriented vertically, the bounce mode will move the edge of the magnet's shadow in and out of the center of the beam, allowing for strong coupling (proportional to the size of the angle). Turning the OSEM by 90 degrees would eliminate this kind of coupling. 
• It's also true that (regardless of the mechanism) minimizing bounce couling for an OSEM maximizes the side coupling. The side coupling values of the pre-vent diagonalization matrices might be useful to compare to what we see now, to find out if the minimization we do in fact increases the side coupling (if not, maybe we are not truly minimizing the bounce coupling but observing some other effect, or our measurement method is too inconsistent.) Thoughts on this are welcome. 
• Now that this improvement has been found, we should do a more thorough investigation to see where the true optimum position is (no small steps have been taken around this new position, and the minimum could also be at some angle in between).
• In the interest of finishing the vent, should we try to find out exactly why the optimal angles seem so different than expected, or should we just try to minimize as best we can and move on to setting up the Y arm cavity?