We can get as much, if not more, attenuation of the 1F line in the mixer output that we get from the post-mixer LPF from using the following passive filter between the PD and mixer RF input:
There should still be some kind of LPF after the mixer, but I haven't yet determined what it should be; this will determine how much phase the PDH loop wins. At most, this should win around 25 degrees at 10kHz.
The filter was designed by referencing the "Handbook of Filter Synthesis" by Zverev, looking for an elliptic filter for matched source and load impedences, 40dB min attenuation in the stopband, a stopband frequency that starts at twice the corner frequency, and minimizing the VSWR between the PD and filter in the passband.
In terms of the tables in the book, this means: n=5, rho=2%, theta=30deg, K**2 = 1.0. The dimensionless component values were scaled by the corner frequency of 200kHz, and reference impedence of 50 Ohm. (The corner is a little lower than the real modulation frequency, since the nonzero resistance of the inductors pushes the frequency up a bit)
The ideal capactior values do not correspond to things we have in hand, so I checked our stock and chose the closest value to each one.Unsurprisingly, due to these component substitutions, and the fact that the coilcraft inductors have a resistance of about 7 Ohms, the predicted TF of the realizable filter does not match the design filter exactly. However, the predicition still looks like it will meet the requirement of 40dB of supression of the 2F line in the PD signal. (Since we have tunable inductors, I've used the ideal inductor values in generating the TF. In practice I'll inspect the TF while I tune them)
[In this TF plot, I've multiplied the real response by 2 to account for the voltage division that occurs with ideal 50 Ohm impedance matching, to make 0dB the reference for proper matching]
The filter's phase delay at the modulation frequency is just about 180, which as a time delay of 5usec works out to 9 degrees of phase loss at 10kHz in the PDH loop. According to some old measurements, the current LPF costs something like 35 degrees at 10k, so this wins at most around 25 degrees, depedent on what LPF we put after the mixer.
LISO source both traces is attached!
We took an OLG measurement of the green PDH loop. It seems consistent with past measurements. I've added a trace for the the post-mixer lowpass, to show its contribution to the phase loss. (EDIT: updated with measured LPF TF)
I used this measured OLG and the datasheet laser PZT conversion factor to calibrate the control signal monitor into the AUX laser frequency noise, it looks consistent with the frequency noise measured via the PSL PLL (300 Hz/rtHz @ 100Hz). Above a few tens of kHz, the control signal measurement is all analyzer noise floor, due to the fourth order 70kHz lowpass after the mixer (the peaks change height significantly depending on the analyzer input range, so I don't think they're on the laser). Gautam will follow up with more detailed measurements of both the error and control signals as he noisebudgets, this was just intended as a quick consistency check.
This morning I poked around with the green layout a bit. I found that the iris immediately preceding the viewport was clipping the ingoing green beam too much, opening it up allowed for better coupling to the arm. I also tweaked the positions of the mode matching lenses and did some alignment, and have since been able to achieve GTRX values of around 0.5.
I also removed the 20db attenuator after the mixer, and turned the servo gain way down and was able to lock easily. I then adjusted the gain while measuring the CLG, and set it where the maximum gain peaking was 6dB, which worked out to be a UGF of around 8kHz. On the input monitor, the PDH horn-to-horn voltage going into the VGA is 2.44V, which shouldn't saturate the G=4 preamp stage of the AD8336, which seems ok.
The ALS sensitivity is now approaching the good nominal state:
There remains some things to be done, including comprehensive dumping of all beams at the end table (especially the reflections off of the viewport) and the new filters to replace the current post-mixer LPF, but things look pretty good.
I've build the filter, and it seems to have the desired TF shape.
I also re-purposed the 70k lowass to a ~120k lowpass by changing the 68nF caps to 22nF caps, since we still want some post-mixer rolloff.
However, putting the ELPF in the chain caused some weird shapes in the OLG. I still need to get to the bottom of it. However, just with the post-mixer LPF modification, here's what the OLG looks like:
As Rana surmises, we definitely still add a boost and maintain a 10k UGF. I still need to look into the state of the remote boost....
As I was looking at filter designs, it seemed difficult to get 40dB of supression at 2F with a bandpass without going to a pretty high order, which would mean a fair number of lossy inductors.
I'll keep working on it. Maybe we don't need 40dB...
ALSX noise is solidly within past acceptable performance levels. The DRFPMI was locked on four out of six attempts.
Some housekeeping was done:
The recombination of the QPD signals to common / differential is imperfect, and limited how well we could keep the interferometer aligned, since the QPD at X has changed. This needs some daytime work.
Some sensing matrix measurements were made, to be meditated upon for how to 1F the DRMI.
As an aside, Gautam and I noticed numerous green beams coming from inside the vacuum system onto the PSL table. They exist only when green is locked to the arms. Some of them come out at very non-level angles and shine in many places. This doesn't make me feel very happy; I suppose we've been living with it for some time.
Our last RGA scan is from February 14, 2016 We had a power outage on the 15th
Gautom has not succeded reseting it. The old c0rga computer looks dead. Q may resurrect it, if he can?
The c0rga computer was off, I turned it on via front panel button. After running RGAset.py, RGAlogger.py seems to run. However, there are error messages in the output of the plotrgascan MATLAB script; evidiently there are some negative/bogus values in the output.
I'll look into it more tomorrow.
I did a quick measurement of the ITMX oplev loops, both pitch and yaw have about the same upper UGF as previous measurements with the previous laser; about 4 Hz.
I think you should use the current actual PRC & SRC cavity lengths as measured, as it would be simplest to simply replace the folding mirror optics without changing the macroscopic lengths / optic positions. (EDIT: Gautam rightly points out that we have to move things around regardless, since our current lengths include propagation through the folding mirror subtrates)
Moreover, the recycling cavity lengths you posted are not the right "ideal" lengths to use, as they do not account for the complex reflectivities of the sidebands off of the arm cavities (I have made this mistake myself). See this 40m wiki page for details.
In short, given our current modulation frequency, the ideal lengths to use would be:
These are the lengths that the recycling cavity optics were positioned for (though we did not achieve them perfectly). If you do a finer PRC/SRC length scan around the DRFPMI resonance of your model, you would presumably see some undesired sideband splitting.
WFS locking point seemed degraded; I hand aligned and reset the WFS offsets as usual.
ITMX oplev recentered. While doing so, I noticed an ETMX excursion rear its head for the first time in a long while :
There was no active length control on ETMX, only OSEM damping + oplevs. Afterwards, its still moving around with only local damping on. I'm leaving the oplevs off for now.
I've been futzing with the common mode servo, trying to engage the AO path with POY for high bandwidth control of a single arm lock. I'm able to pull in the crossover and get a nice loop shape, but keep getting tripped up by the offset glitches from the CM board gain steps, so can't get much more than a 1kHz UGF.
As yutaro measured, these can be especially nasty at the major carrier transitions (i.e. something like 0111->1000). This happens at the +15->+16dB input gain step; the offset step is ~200x larger than the in-loop error signal RMS, so obviously there is no hope of keeping the loop engaged when recieving this kind of kick. Neither of the CM board inputs are immune from this, as I have empirically discovered. I can turn down the initial input gain to try and avoid this step occuring anywhere in the sequence, but then the SNR at high frequencies get terrible and I inject all kinds of crud into the mode cleaner, making the PC drive furious.
I think we're able to escape this when locking the full IFO because the voltages coming out of REFL11 are so much larger than the puny POY signals so the input-referred glitches aren't as bad. I think in the past, we used AS55 with a misaligned ITMX for this kind of single arm thing, which probably gives better SNR, but the whole point of this is to keep the X arm aligned and lock it to the Y-arm stabilized PSL.
I used a Eurocard extension board to peek at the inputs and outputs of each of the gain-ladder AD829s on input B of the CM board in the +31dB configuration with the input terminated. (i.e with the following stages active in this order: +16dB, +8dB, +4dB, +2dB, +1dB).
The voltages I observed imply that the +8dB stage has an input voltage offset of -2mV, whereas all the other positive gain stages show around +-0.5mV. This could explain the shift observed at the +15->+16 transition. (However, since both input channels show a jump here, maybe its something more systemic about the board...)
In any case, it should be simple enough to swap out a new AD829 in place of U9B and see if it improves things, before getting too deep into the muck. (In principle, the AD829 has offset nulling pins, but I'm not sure how to do it in a non-hacky way since the board doesn't have any pads for it.)
I replaced some of the AD829s with other AD829s, but the offset situation didn't improve.
However, I figured that we don't really need the ~100MHZ bandwidth of the AD829, since the IMC loop limits us to a ~10kHz CARM bandwidth. Also, since we don't routinely use IN2 for anything, I felt free to try something else.
Specifically, I replaced all of the positive gain AD829s in the input 2 gain ladder with OP27s (U8B->U12B on D1500308), which should have input offset voltages ~30x lower than the AD829s.
Here is a comparison of the outputs these configurations perform, normalized to the output at the +0dB gain setting - where all of the op amps in the gain ladder are bypassed.
So, most of the transitions now result in an output offset change of less than 0.5mV, which is nice.
The exception seems to be where the +8dB stage is switched in or out. I may try replacing this one, as these transitions cause a lock loss now when trying to lock the arm with high bandwidth using POY.
Some CDS related things:
Keith Thorne has told us about a potential fix for our framebuilder woes. Jamie is going to be at the 40m next week to implement this, which could interfere with normal interferometer operation - so plan accordingly.
I spent a little time doing some plumbing in the realtime models for Varun's audio processing work. Specifically, I tried to spin up a new model (C1DAF), running on the c1lsc machine. This included:
The simple DAFI model compiled and installed without complaint, but doesn't succesfully start. For some reason, the frontend never takes the CPU offline. Jamie will help with this next week. Since things aren't working, these changes have not been commited to the userapps svn.
Barring objections, starting tomorrow morning, Jamie will be testing the new FB code. The IFO will not be available for other use while this is ongoing.
ETMX has been jumping around again lately. Just now, I zeroed the ETMX alignment offsets in the SUS model, and centered the ETMX oplev spot via slow machine sliders. OSEM damping is on, oplev damping is off. Let's see how it moves around in the next day or so.
UTC: Jun 10 2016 23:18:26
Within two hours, it was already all over the place.
I have installed a ZFL-500LN on the RF output of POY11. This should reduce the effect of the CM board voltage offsets by increasing the size of the error signal coming into the board. Checking with an oscilloscope at the LSC rack, the single arm PDH peak to peak voltage was something like 4mV, now it is something like 80mV.
The setup is similar to the REFL165 situation, but with the amplifier in proximity with the PD, instead of at the end of a long cable at the LSC rack.
The PD RF output is T'd between an 11MHz minicircuits bandpass filter and a 50 Ohm terminator (which makes sure that signals outside of the filter's passband don't get reflected back into the PD). The output of the filter is connected directly to the input of the ZFL-500LN, which is powered (temporarily) by picking off the +15V from the PD interface cable via Dsub15 breakout. (I say temporarily, as Koji is going to pick out some fancy pi-filter feedthrough which we can use to make a permanent power terminal on the PD housing.)
The max current draw of this amplifier is 60mA. Gazing at the LSC interface (D990543), I think the +15V on the DSUB cable is being passed from the eurocard crate; I don't see any 15V regulator, so maybe this is ok...
The free swinging PDH signal looked clean enough on a scope. Jamie is doing stuff with the framebuilder, so I can't look at spectra right now. However, turning the POY whitening gain down to +18dB from +45dB lets the Y arm lock on POY with all other settings nominal, which is about what we expect from the nominal +23dB gain of the amplifier.
I would see CM board offsets of ~5mV before, which was more a little more than a linewidth before this change. Now it will be 5% of that, and hopefully more manageable.
With the newly amplified POY signal, locking the mode cleaner to the Y arm at ~30kHz bandwidth was quite straightforward. The offset jumps still happen, and are visible in POY11_I_ERR, but are never big enough to cause much power degradation in TRY (except when turning on CM board boosts, but its still not enough to lose lock). The script which accomplishes this is at scripts/YARM, and is in the svn. The MC2/AO crossover is at about 150Hz with 40deg margin.
For now, I'm using IN1 of the CM board, because I haven't removed the op27s that I put into IN2's gain stages. I believe the slew rate limitations of these prevent them from working completely during the offset jumps. I'll put AD829s back soon.
At first, I had ITMX misalgined to use AS55 as an out of loop sensor, then I aligned and locked the X arm on POX to compare.
Weirdly enough, locking the mode cleaner to the Y arm with 30kHz UGF and two boosts on make no real visible difference in the X arm control signal. This is strange, as the whole point of this affair was to remove the presumably large influence of frequency noise on the X arm signals... Maybe this is injecting too much POY sensor noise?
The workstations' .bashrc is a symbolic link to /users/controls/.bashrc
In it, someone commented out the critical line:
I uncommented it. medm (and all of the other things like cdsutils) work again.
I blame jamie.
I spent some time this afternoon reviving some of my CESAR/ESCOBAR shenanigans on the Y arm. I found it neccesary to adjust a few things.
Afterwards, ALSY noise levels were good.
I've gone through the SOS suspension document (E970037) and some old elogs to get an idea of all the accesories we need for the process of suspending, aside from the tower itself, which Steve has already put together. Gautam and I have laid our eyes upon most of the critical pieces. Some other objects are unknown, and perhaps not strictly neccesary.
Confirmed to exist:
In addition, I am told that we have a long ribbon cable that can run from the X end to the clean room to enable OSEM damping control while we do the pitch alignment.
Things mentioned in the procedure I have not found:
Some other tasks and their status:
I have updated the vent prep checklist on the wiki. Gautam and I did the following things from it:
Reduce input power to no more than 100mW by adjusting wave plate+PBS setup on the PSL table BEFORE the PMC. (Using the WP + PBS that already exist after the laser.)
The following bullets have not yet been executed:
Check crane functionality & cleanliness
Steve has ordered some teflon parts to take the place of the metal parts in his acetone-soaking jig. They should arrive tomorrow.
So, we will be begin the venting process tomorrow. Doors to come off on Tuesday.
Here are some plans / rough procedures for this week's vent. It is unlikely that I have though of everything, but this should be a reasonable starting point.
The mode cleaner still hasn't been locked in air, we may not want to touch the Y arm optics until we are able to lock to the Y arm and dither align, so we are sure to keep the input pointing from drifting away too much.
For $optic in [ITMX, ITMY, ETMY]:
Rough summary of today's progress:
I didn't really see anything out of the ordinary on the ETMX suspension. Earthquake stops had clearance, OSEMS were secure, no visible glue degredation on face magnets. Inspection with green LED flashlight didn't reveal any obscene dirtieness on either face, just a few particles here and there. The top of the opic barrel unsurprisingly has a good amount of particulate. The wire grooves are way too small to resolve anything at this point, other than that they exist.
The suspension footprint is already marked, tomorrow we can move the suspension closer to the door to get an even closer look at it, before removing it from the chamber.
One glitch was seen to occur without a change in the output voltage monitors in ELOG 11744
It may be advantageous to look at the coil output data from when the OSEM damping is on, to try and reproduce the real output signal amplitude that gets sent to the coils.
Based on Koji's observation of a flat TF, it seems more likely the Vmon channels are looking at the path I've highlighted in green (named "EPICS V Mon"), rather than the path in red (named "DAQ Mon") that Koji initially suspected. This path still lacks any AA for the 16Hz EPICS sampling.
ETMX is currently in the clean room, the barrel is the tiniest bit submerged in acetone that will remove a guide rod, standoff, and side OSEM.
Additional inpsection of the standoffs on the flow bench did not provide any insight, pictures are in picasa. Here is a cropped version of a picture we took:
We should look at them under a microscope.
The magnet, guide rod, and standoff came off without too much force. However, some epoxy residue remains on the barrel. I didn't really want to scrape it off, so I've opted for more soaking. Much of the acetone had evaporated already, so I put some more - just to the point where the residue is submerged.
I was hoping to glue a standoff and guide rod today, but some problems have reared their heads. Story follows:
Upon first placng the optic into the standoff gluing fixture, I was presented with a geometric problem. In the assembly procedure, one glues the rods before the magnets, which prevents a situation like this:
When what you want to do is this:
So, I spun the optic around such that the magnet is on the far side of the scribe line from the side arm, and instead of extending the side arm past the scribe line, will bring it back towards the near side. I also swapped the arms of the fixture such that the guide rod will be glued on the opposite side of the optic than the side magnet, so the side magnet won't get in the way when doing the pitch adjustment of the second standoff.
Then, I found the scribed ruby rods, and took a look at one under a microscope. The groove looks nice and sharp. I placed the standoff in the side arm of the fixture.
However, the fact that the groove does not go all the way around the standoff leads to problem #1: when adjusting the position of the side arm, the standoff seems to roll around unpredictably, making it hard to deterministically position it while keeping the groove facing outwards.
Problem #2 is not too surprising give Steve's finding about the guide rod holding arm in ELOG 12264. Given that the tip is banged up, the guide rod does not sit straight in the arm, making it crooked. This would lead to the second standoff's groove not being well aligned to the suspension wire.
I will meditate on solutions to these problems... I have covered the optic and fixture with the same foil hut Koji made on Friday.
Also, I peeked at the aluminum standoffs under the microscope. Since the groove goes all the way around, we don't really know where the wire was seated before. Still, there are some places where the groove looks kind of worn:
For some reason, all of the non-IOP models on the vertex frontends had crashed.
To get all of the bits green, I ended up restarting all models on all frontends. (This means Gautam's coil tests have been interrupted.)
It took a little time, but I relocked the IMC and realigned to the point where the PRC is flashing, visible on REFL and AS, and tiny flashes are visible in TRY.
I found a note on Steve's desk that R. Abbott left yesterday afternoon about an unidentified slippery substance being present on the floor by cabinet S12, along the X arm. (Steve is away this week)
Just now, I found no trace of the substance in the vicinity of that cabinent (which is one of the cabinets for clean objects). Maybe the janitor cleaned it already?
We have positioned and applied epoxy to one ruby standoff on ETMX, for overnight curing according to the SOS standoff gluing procedure. This included:
Instead of trying to fix up a way of gluing the guiderod with the proper alignment, we chose to be more conservative and glue the standoff today, then switch the gluing fixture's arms tomorrow to glue the guide rod with the good fixture arm.
Additionally, we chose to glue one of the more assymetric standoffs on this first side. What I mean by this is: We have 3 ruby standoffs with grooves. Two of them have the groove about 1/8th of the way along their length, and one has it about 1/4 of the way. Since the second standoff is going to be glued while suspended, after pitch balancing, we figure that we want to use the more centered groove on that side, meaning we used one of the 1/8th standoffs today.
Unfortunately, we neglected to take any pictures :/
The new ETMX ruby guide rods are slightly thicker than the old aluminum ones; specifically 1.27mm vs 1.0mm.
Since we did not change the guide rod location in response to this fact, the vertical position of the suspension point changes, which in turn changes the dynamics of the suspension. Specifically, since the standoff is placed below the guide rod, the suspension point is lowered, which makes the pitch mode softer. I crunched a few numbers and have determined that this effect should not be a problem.
Given the wiki's value of the ETMX pitch resonance frequency of 0.829 Hz, I predict a the new pitch resonance frequency of 0.800 Hz.
(wiki link: https://wiki-40m.ligo.caltech.edu/Suspensions/Mechanical_Resonances)
A useful document about the dynamics of our suspension can be found at T000134
From this document, one will find that the effect of changing the suspension point height over the optic center of mass,`b`, on the pitch resonance frequency (while keeping all other dimensions equal) to be:
The top of the standoff is fixed by the guide rod, so let's say that b' is given by the position of the center of the Ruby standoff. This is then smaller than the previous b by the differences in the radii of the standoffs:
The nominal value of b is 0.985mm. Thus, the pitch resonance frequency is changed by factor of 0.965, i.e. 3.5% smaller. Then, taking the wiki value of 0.829 Hz results in 0.800Hz, a 30mHz decrease.
One step forward, two steps back...
While attempting to suspend ETMX, I broke off a side magnet
It is now gluing
(This is *not* the one that was previously glued. I.e., now both ETMX side magnets have been reglued)
When Koji and I were gluing magnets to ETMY, we decided to position the side magnet based on the empirically observed offsets from the standoff groove seen at other side magnet locations. Specifically, we figured that the magnet should be glued 1.25mm closer to the HR surface than the wire groove.
However, Steve has told me that he believed that this distance should be something like 0.5mm.
I used the 1.25mm figure when gluing the ETMX side magnets, which now do not align well to their OSEM mounts. While it is certainly possible that I made an error when shimming the fixture, I think it is also possible that this figure was incorrect.
Sadly, after poring through the DCC and various elogs, I have not been able to come up with a definitive answer on what this offset should actually be.
One approach is to examine the suspension tower dimensions. I.e. when subject only to gravity, the wire loop should lie in the plane of the back face of the top block of the suspension, as it is constrained by the clamps. Thus, the standoff grooves also lie in this plane. The center of the side OSEM mounting holes are about 1.64mm in front of this plane, which is larger than the 1.25mm figure that Koji and I came up with. Examining the picture Gautam posted of the marginal magnet/OSEM alignement, we see that this figure would in fact move the magnet in the wrong direction...
ELOGs in which the intitial side magnet gluing and fixture shimming are detailed do not reference the absolute position of the side magnet, nor do they include any pictures of their fixture setup. (Some links for the curious: 2652 2654 2668)
The DCC isn't much help either, as it is not clear what version of the gluing fixture we actually have. There is a drawing for a 40m specific version, but it includes swappable side-magnet-pickle-picker-slots to achieve different positions for different (circa 2001) optics; this is not the kind of fixture we currently have in our possesion. (https://dcc.ligo.org/D010131) I have discovered that some versions of this fixture (https://dcc.ligo.org/d990168) include an assumed 0.5deg wedge angle and thus position the two side slots differently. Although the fixture we have has no identifying marks on it whatsoever (naturally), I measured the two side slots to be different in axial position by roughly 0.6mm, which is consistent with a 0.5deg wedge. Furthermore, the sign of this difference indicates that this fixture ring is designed for the opposite wedge orientation than our ETMs, which have a 2.5deg wedge, making this fixture wrong by 3deg (which is ~4mm over the diameter of the optic).
We did not account for this for either ETMX or ETMY, so this is another source of error, but this does not give us much guidance on what the real absolute magnet position should be.
(Full resolution versions of the photos in this ELOG are on picasa)
The OSEM gender changers were not in the box labelled as such, we need these to be able to use the OSEMS to see just how bad the side magnet alignment is, and to do any kind of damping for the fine pitch balancing. The hunt is on.
In the meantime, Gautam and I checked out the standoff seating, and alignment of the face OSEMS (after slightly adjusting the wire length - I guess some sagging is still happening).
With a bit of poking, we convinced ourselves that we sat the standoff in contact with the optic's barrel. Amazingly, we were able to maintain the coarse pitch balance of the optic.
We then partially inserted the face OSEMS, to check their magnet alignment. ("partially" means that the OSEM is not actually enclosing the magnet, we don't want to knock anything off) They seem ok, but not perfect. These magnets were not removed or reglued, so presumably their alignments should be unchanged.
c1susaux (which controls watchdogs and alignments for all non-ETM optics) was down, the last BURT was done yesterday around 2PM.
I restarted via keying the crate. I restored the BURT snapshot from yesterday.
Brief summary, some pictures and such follow in the daytime.
The epoxy needs at least 12 hours of room temperature air curing, so no touchy until 3:30PM on Jul 28!
Tonight's progress on ETMX:
Since the air bake oven we had been using is out of commision, we're not sure where to do our EP30 test runs. If we are fortunate, we can get the fine pitch balance done tomorrow while Bob is still around, so he can help us quickly bake the test dots, so we can do the standoff gluing.
The question arose whether we can get good enough data to diagonize our OSEM sensing matrices in air.
I just took a look at the BS spectra over the last six hours (~10PM-4AM), and the SNR looks good. The BS diagonalization itself doesn't seem so great; the POS is hugely coupled into pitch and yaw, and the angular motions are themselves coupled to each other at around 10%.
NB: use a flat-top window when you really care about peak heights that don't fall exactly on an FFT bin.
I would've liked to check this for the PRM and SRM too, but one of the PRM sensors continues to be dark, and I just noticed that all of the SRM OSEM signals are dark. ughhhh
We have indeed seen numerous tarnished/rusty points along the wires, and just tried to choose lengths free of any of these. I wonder if this can explain the brittleness/ease with which we've been breaking it. My feeling is that we should use the newer wire if feasible.
I turned off the air bake oven at 8:45AM. I'll leave the optics alone for a bit while it cools.
We've seen for some time now that one of the PRM OSEM signals has been gone, and all of the SRM signals seem dark. We had tried squishing various cables to no avail.
Today I played some "musical satellite boxes," in an attempt to see if the problems are in the chambers or in the signal chains. That is, I swapped the OSEM cables from the vacuum feedthroughs between the satellite boxes, and observed what happened.
It seems clear that something is up with SRM inside the chamber. For PRM, it's not so clear...
Somehow, issues with the LR channel follow both the PRM OSEMs and the PRM satellite box.
PRM LR first went dark on Jul 2nd, after the IFO was vented, but before we took any doors off (which happened on the 5th). I'm not sure what may have caused this.
SRM OSEMS first went dark on the evening of Jul 18, the day before ELOG 12310, when ITMY was moved in the same chamber. Maybe this ELOG was written about work the day before, but the sensors show disturbances over the course of hours. I think we need to double check the connections in chamber.
We do indeed have a box of clean spare OSEMs, it should be out with all of the other boxes of clean stuff we had for the suspension building. You could also try swapping in a different satellite box, to see if the circuit powering the OSEM PD is to blame.
ITMX is free, OSEM signals all rougly centered.
This was accomplished by rocking the static alignment (i.e. slow controls) pitch and yaw offsets until the optic broke free. This took a few volts back and forth. At this point, I tried to find a point where the optic seemed to freely swing, and hopefully have signals in all 5 OSEMS. It seemed to be free sometimes but mostly settling into two different stationary states. I realized that it was becoming torqued enough in pitch to be leaning on the top-front or top-back EQ stops. So, I slowly adjusted the pitch from one of these states until it seemed to be swinging a bit on the camera, and three OSEM signals were showing real motion. Then, I slowly adjusted the pitch and yaw alignments to get all OSEMS signals roughly centered at half of their max voltage.
[ericq, Lydia, Teng]
Brief summary of this afternoon's activities:
Addendum: I had a suspicion that the alignment had moved so much, we were missing the TRX PDs. I misaligned the Y arm, and used AS110 as a proxy for X arm power, as we've done in the past for this kind of thing. Indeed, I could maximize the signal and lock a TM00 mode. Both the high gain PD and QPD in the TRX path are totally dark. This needs realignment on the end table.