40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log  Not logged in ELOG logo
Message ID: 99     Entry time: Wed Nov 14 07:48:38 2007
Author: norna 
Type: Omnistructure 
Category: OMC 
Subject: OMC Cable dressing 
[Snipped from an email]

1) Last Friday Pinkesh and I set the OMC up with only the top three OSEMs and took a vertical transfer function. We had removed the other OSEMs due to difficulty of aligning all OSEMs with the weight of the bench etc bringing the top mass lower than the tablecloth can accommodate. See attached TF.Clearly there are extra peaks (we only expect two with a zero in between) and my belief is that at least some of them are coupling of other degrees of freedom caused by the electrical wiring. Pinkesh and I also noticed the difficulty of maintaining alignment if cables got touched and moved around. So.....

2) Yesterday Dennis and I took a look at how much moving a cable bundle around (with the peak shielding) changed the DC alignment. In a not too precise experiment ( using HeNe laser reflecting off the bench onto a surface ~ 1 metre away) we saw that we could reposition the beam one or two mm in yaw and pitch. This corresponds to ~ one or two mrad which is ~ the range of the OSEM DC alignment. We discussed possibility of removing the cabling from the middle mass, removing the peak and taking it from the bench directly to the structure above. I asked Chub if he could make an equivalent bundle of wires as those from the two preamps to see what happens if we repeat the "moving bundle" experiment. So...

3) Today Chub removed the cabling going to the preamps and we replaced it with a mock up of wire bundle going directly from the preamps to the structure above. See attached picture. The wires are only attached to the preamp boxes weighted down with masses but the bundle is clamped at the top. We repeated the "wiggle the bundle" test and couldnt see any apparent movement ( so maybe it is at most sub-mm). The cable bundle feels softer.

The next thing Chub did was to remove the second bundle ( from photodiodes, heater, pzt) from its attachment to the middle mass and strip off the peek. It is now also going to the top of the structure directly. The whole suspension now appears freer. We discussed with Dennis the "dressing " of the wires. There are some minor difficulties about how to take wires from the bright side to the dark side, but in general it looks like that the wires forming the second "bundle" could be brought to the "terminal block" mounted on the dark side and from there looped up to the top of the structure. We would have to try all this of course to see the wiring doesnt get in the way of other things (e.g. the L and R OSEMs). However this might be the way forward. So...

4) Tomorrow Pinkesh and I will check the alignment and then repeat the vertical transfer function measurement with the two bundles as they are going from bench to top of structure. We might even do a horizontal one if the middle mass is now within range of the tablecloth.
We can then remove preamp cables completely and lay the second bundle of cables on the optical bench and repeat the TFs.

The next thing will be to weigh the bench plus cables. This will allow us to
a) work out what counterbalance weights are needed - and then get them manufactured
b) firm up on how to handle the extra mass in terms of getting the masses at the correct height.

And in parallel Chub will work on the revised layout of cabling.

Looking a little further ahead we can also get some stiffness measurements made on the revised bundle design ( using Bob's method which Alejandro also used) and fold into Dennis's model to get some sanity check the isolation.

I think that's it for now. Comments etc are of course welcome.

Norna
Attachment 1: OMC-11-13-07_011.jpg  1.548 MB  | Hide | Hide all
OMC-11-13-07_011.jpg
Attachment 2: VerticalTrans.pdf  52 kB  | Hide | Hide all
VerticalTrans.pdf VerticalTrans.pdf VerticalTrans.pdf VerticalTrans.pdf
ELOG V3.1.3-