MCRefl is absent, it is under investigation. I removed a bunch of hardware and note all spare optics along the edges.
Till RIN measurement noise eater is off on 2W laser. The inno 1W has no noise eater.
2010 power v current table is below.
Koji and Kevin measured the output power vs injection current for the Innolight 2W laser.
The threshold current is 0.75 A.
The following data was taken with the laser crystal temperature at 25.04ºC (dial setting: 0.12).
Earth quake M5.3 2018-04-05 19:29:16UTC Santa Cruz Island, CA
Satellite amplifiers labeled with date. Old labels left on.
I've been looking into recovering the seismic BLRMs for the BS Trillium seismometer. It looks like the problem is probably in the anti-aliasing board. There's some heavy stuff sitting on top of it in the rack, so I'll take a look at it later when someone can give me a hand getting it out.
In detail, after verifying that there are signals coming directly out of the seismometer, I tried to inject a signal into the AA board and see it appear in one of the seismometer channels.
ETMX table layout uploaded with beam paths to the wiki.
The pdf file is uploaded into the wiki.
Gautam and Steve,
We have calibrated the load cells. The support beams height monitoring is almost ready.
The danger of this measurment that the beams height changes can put shear and torsional forces on this formed (thin walled) bellow
They are designed for mainly axial motion.
The plan is to limit height change to 0.020" max
0, center oplev at X arm locked
1, check that jack screws are carrying full loads and set height indicator dials to zero ( meaning: Stacis is bypassed )
2, raise beam height with aux leveling wedge by 0.010" on all 3 support point and than raise it an other 0.005"
3, replace levelling wedge with load cell that is centered and shimmed. Dennis Coyne pointed out that the Stacis foot has to be loaded at the center of the foot and formed bellow can shear at their limits.
4, lower the support beam by 0.005" ......now full load on the cells
Note: jack screw heights will not be adjusted or touched.......so the present condition will be recovered
We could use similar load cells to make the actual weight measurement on the Stacis legs. This seems practical in our case.
I have had bad experience with pneumatic Barry isolators.
Our approximate max compression loads are 1500 lbs on 2 feet and 2500 lbs on the 3rd one.
[ Dennis Coyne' precision answer ]
Differential Height between Isolators
According to a note on the bellows drawing (D990577-x0/A), the design life of the bellows at ± 20 minutes rotational stroke is 10,000 cycles. A 20 minute angular (torsional) rotation of the bellows corresponds to 0.186" differential height change across the 32" span between the chamber support beams (see isolator bracket, D000187-x0/B).
Another consideration regarding the bellows is the lateral shear stress introduced by the vertical translation. The notes on the bellows drawing do not give lateral shear limits. According to MDC's web page for formed bellows in this size range the lateral deflection limit is approximately 10% of the "live length" (aka "active length", or length of the convoluted section). According to the bellows drawing the active length is 3.5", so the maximum allowable lateral deflection should be ~0.35".
Of course when imposing a differential height change both torsional and lateral shear is introduced at the same time. Considering both limits together, the maximum differential height change should be < 0.12".
One final consideration is the initial stress to which the bellows are currently subjected due to a non-centered support beam from tolerances in the assembly and initial installation. Although we do not know this de-centering, we can guess that it may be of the order of ~ 0.04". So the final allowable differential height adjustment from the perspective of bellows stress is < 0.08". Steve: accumulated initial stress is unknown. We used to adjust the original jack screws for IFO aligment in the early days of ~1999. This kind of adjustment was stopped when we realized how dangereous it can be. The fact is that there must be unknown amount of accumulated initial stress. This is my main worry but I'm confident that 0.020" change is safe.
So, with regard to bellows stress alone, your procedure to limit the differential height change to <0.020" is safe and prudent.
However, a more stringent consideration is the coplanarity requirement (TMC Stacis 2000 User's Manual, Doc. No. SERV 04-98-1, May 6, 1991, Rev. 1), section 2, "Installation",which stipulates < 0.010"/ft, or < 0.027" differential height across the 32" span between the chamber support beams. Again, your procedure to limit the differential height change to < 0.02" is safe.
Centered Load on the STACIS Isolators
According to the TMC Stacis 2000 User's Manual (Document No. SERV 04-98-1, May 6, 1991, Rev. 1), section 2, "Installation", typical installations (Figure 2-3) are with one payload interface plate which spans the entire set of 3 or 4 STACIS actuators. Our payload interface is unique.
Section 2.3.1, "Installation Steps": "5. Verify that the top of each isolator is fully under the payload/interface plate; this is essential to ensure proper support and leveling. The payload or interface plate should cover the entire top surface of the Isolator or the entire contact area of the optional jack."
section 2.3.2, "Payload/STACIS Interface": "... or if the supporting points do not completely cover the top surface of each Isolator, an interface plate will be needed."
The sketch in Figure 2-2 indicates an optional leveling jack which appears to have a larger contact surface area than the jacks currently installed in the 40m Lab. Of course this is just a non-dimensioned sketch. Are the jacks used by the 40m Lab provided by TMC, or did we (LIGO) choose them? I beleive Larry Jones purchased them.
A load centering requirement is not explicitly stated, but I think the stipulation to cover the entire top surface of each actuator is not so much to reduce the contact stress but to entire a centered load so that the PZT stack does not have a reaction moment.
From one of the photos in the 40m elog entry (specifically jack_screw.jpg), it appears that at least some isolators have the load off center. You should use this measurement of the load as an opportunity to re-center the loads on the Isolators.
In section 2.3.3, "Earthquake Restraints" restraints are suggested to prevent damage from earth tremors. Does the 40m Lab have EQ restraints? Yes, it has
Screw Jack Location
I could not tell where all of the screw jacks will be placed from the sketch included in the 40m elog entry which outlines the proposed procedure.
Load Cell Locations
The sketch indicates that the load cells will be placed on the center of the tops of the Isolators. This is good. However while discussing the procedure with Gautam he said that he was under the impression that the load cell woudl be placed next to the leveling jack, off-center. This condition may damage the PZT stack. I suggest that the leveling jack be removed and replaced (temporarily) with the load cell, plus any spacer required to make up the height difference. Yes
If you have any further question, just let me know.
Chief Engineer, LIGO Laboratory
California Institute of Technology
MC 100-36, 1200 E. California Blvd.
20180508 4:49am Cabazon earth quake 4.5M at 79 miles away. ETMX is in load cell measurment condition.
There was an earthquake, all watchdogs were tripped, ITMX was stuck, and c1psl was dead so MCautolocker was stuck.
Watchdogs were reset (except ETMX which remains shutdown until we finish with the stack weight measurement), ITMX was unstuck using the usual jiggling technique, and the c1psl crate was keyed.
Pooja and Keirthana received 40m specific basic safety training.
The final set-up of stack measurment with 3 load cells and 4 leveling wedge mounts as Atm 1
Sensor voltages BEFORE and AFTER this attempt.
Chris replaced some air condition filters and ordered some replacement filter today.
Yesterday morning was dusty. I wonder why?
The PRM sus damping was restored this morning.
Yesterday afternoon at 4 the dust count peaked 70,000 counts
Manasa's alergy was bad at the X-end yesterday. What is going on?
There was no wind and CES neighbors did not do anything.
Air cond filters checked by Chris. The 400 days plot show 3 bad peaks at 1-20, 2-5 & 2-19
Koji's collection of Yend components put away. I cleaned up the Xend bench today.
Loadcells, leveling wedge mounts and related items placed under flowbench cabinet next to Guralp staff.
We have 6 of these boards now in cabinet E7
I wired all 32 channels going to the AA board directly to the ADC as described in the previous log. However, instead of using the old AA board and bypassing the whole circuit, I just used a breakout board as is shown in the first attachment. I put the board back in the rack and reconnected all of the cables.
The seismic BLRMs appear to be working again. A PSD of the BS seismometers is shown in attachment 2. Tomorrow I'll look at how much the ADC alone is suppressing the common mode 60 Hz noise on each of the channels.
Steve: 5 of ADC DAC In Line Test Boards [ D060124 ] ordered. They should be here within 10 days.
The cabeling was cleaned up a little bit yesterday morning. The upper back side is still massy.
Oplev sums of 240 days.
Since there have been various software/hardware activity going on (stack weighing, AUX laser PLL, computing timing errors etc etc), I decided to do a check on the state of the IFO.
You should wipe off the table cover before you take it off next time.
It is important to turn up the PSL encloure HEPA Variac voltage if you are working in there. It takes less than 10 minutes to reach lab condition.
Lab air count normal. It is not logged. I have a notebook of particle count on the SP table next to the Met One counter.
We may lost the UL magnet or LED
Furthermore, I believe we are losing more than 10% of the light due to this BS. The ASDC (which is derived from AS55 PD) level is down at ~110cts as the Michelson is fringing, while it used to be ~200 cts. I will update with a power measurement shortly. But I think we should move ahead with the plan to combine the beam into the IFO's AS mode as discussed at the meeting last week.
Is the 10% specified for P-Pol or for UNP? I contacted CVI about beamsplitters, since their website doesn't list a BS1-1064-90-... option on the website. They say a R=90% beamsplitter would be a custom job. The closest stock item they got is BS1-1064-95-2025-45UNP specified at R=95% for UNPolarized beams. They were kind enough to sent me the measured transmission curves for a recent lot of these, which is attached was uploaded to the wiki [Elog Police K: NO PROPRIETARY DOCUMENTS ON THE ELOG, which is public. Put it on our wiki and put the link here]. The figure is not labeled, but according to the contact Red is S-Pol and Blue is P-Pol, which means that this one actually has R=~90% for P, pretty much what we want. We'll need to buy two of these to make the swap in the setup.
Back to your original point: There's only a BS1-1064-10-2025-45UNP on the website, so unless we got these as custom items, the R for P-Pol is probably NOT actually 10%, just somewhere between 0% and 20%
4 std cataloge item fused silica BS1-1064-95-2025-45UNP
ordered today. They will arrive no later than July 13, 2018
The fardest I can go back on channel C1: Vac_N2pres is 320 days
C1:Vac-CC1_Hornet Presuure gauge started logging Feb. 23, 2018
Did you update the " low N2 message" email addresses?
I moved the N2 check script and the disk usage checking script from the (sudo) crontab of nodus to the controls user crontab on megatron .
Shruti and Sandrine received 40m specific basic safety training this morning.
This bad connection is coming back
We are getting ready to vent.
Steve and Aaron,
6 hrs vent is reaching equlibrium to room air. It took 3 and a half instrument grade air cilynders [ AI UZ300 as labelled ] at 10 psi pressure. Average vent speed ~ 2 Torr/min
Valve configuration: IFO at atm and RGA is pumped through VM2 by TP1 maglev.
Precondition: 4 days at atm. Atm5
HEPA tent used during the vent at ETMY It reduced partical count 10 fold of 0.5 and 0.3 micron particals. Atm6
New items in vacuum: Clean manual gate valve [Cetec made] from John Worden with 6" id....as it came from Hanford... [ Throttle able gate valve- TGV ] Atm3
( note: we have 3 more identical in the lab. The original intention was to use them for purging gates )
Optiform Au plated reflector , Induceramics heating elements, similar as existing Cooner cables and related lenses, hardwear. see 14078
OMC related item : none......... 14,110
The pumpdown is at 510 mTorr with RP1 & RP3 still pumping. Koji will shut it down the roughing later tonight. Tomorrow morning I will start the pumping by switching over to TP1 maglev.
Thanks for Koji and Gautam' help of the installation of the manual gate valve. Atm4 This will allow us to control the load on our Varian foreline D70 turbo TP3
The manual gate valve scan was clean. Atm1 TP1 was pumping on it overnight.
Pumpdown continued to hand over the pumping to TP1 maglev turbo
V1 was opened at P1 400 mTorr with manual gate at 3/4 turn open position as Magev at 560 Hz rotation.
Two aux fans on to hold tubo temps TP1 & TP3 . Atm3
This is the first time we pumping down from atm with ONE small "beer can" turbo and throttled gate valve to control load on small turbo forepump
The 70 l/s turbo is operating at 50k RPM, 0.7 A and 31 C, pumping speed ~ 44 mTorr/h at 200-400 mTorr range with aux drypump in the foreline of TP3
Watching foreline pressures and current one can keep opening gate valve little by little the so the load is optimized. It is working but not fast.
Let's keep small turbo at 0.8 Amp and 32 C max at this pumpdown.
The P1 pressure is 380mTorr. I allowed Gautam to use the full PSL power (~1W).
IFO P1 6e-4 Torr, manual gate valve is fully open
The annuloses will be pumped down tomorrow.
Valve configuration: vacuum normal, RGA and annuloses are not pumped
This is the first time we pumping down from atm with one small "beer can" turbo and throttled gate to control load on small turbo forepump
The 70 l/s turbo is operating at 50k RPM, 0.7 A and 31 C, pumping speed ~ 44 mTorr/h at 200-400 mTorr range.
Cold cathode gauge just turned on.
Roughing down the annuloses required closing V1 for 13 minutes
IFO is 2.2e-5 Torr
New optical quality BK-7 windows in 2001 [4 substrates ] AR coated R<0.75 % for 630-1064nm " Azury BLue" broadband : TRX, TRY, ITMY-Oplev & ITMX-Oplev viewports.
The BS-Oplev and PRM-Oplev 10" CF with 5.38" diameter view was coated the same way. The window here is Corning 7056 Borosilicate
5 more BK-7 substrates were coated R <0.1% of 1064 nm "Golden Orange" Their location: IMC-IN, IFO-REF and OMC The next vent we have to confirm optical quality window locations.
All other conflat flange viewports are 7056 Kovar sealed .
Technical notes of 2001 40m upgrade can be seen at LIGO-T010115- 00- R ....page 14
Yesterday I inspected this BS oplev viewport. The heavy connector tube was shorting to table so It was moved back towards the chamber. The connection is air tight with kapton tape temporarly.
The beam paths are well centered. The viewport is dusty on the inside.
The motivation was to improve the oplev noise.
I 've just found this time capsule note from Nov. 26, 2000 by Kip Thorne: LIGO will discover gravitational waves by Dec.31, 2007
what is next?
Atm 3, Ron Drever could not celebrate with us because of health issues.
Here is an other big one
A brief follow-up on this since we discussed this at the meeting yesterday: the attached DV screenshot shows the full 2k data for a period of 2 seconds starting just before the watchdog tripped. It is clear that the timescale of the glitch in the UL channel is much faster (~50 ms) compared to the (presumably mechanical) timescale seen in the other channels of ~250 ms, with the step also being much smaller (a few counts as opposed to the few thousand counts seen in the UL channel, and I guess 1 OSEM count ~ 1 um). All this supports the hypothesis that the problem is electrical and not mechanical (i.e. I think we can rule out the Acromag sending a glitchy signal to the coil and kicking the optic). The watchdog itself gets tripped because the tripping condition is the RMS of the shadow sensor outputs, which presumably exceeds the set threshold when UL glitches by a few thousand counts.
The manufacturer of a vacuum pump supplies a chart for each pump showing pumping speed (volume in unit time) vs pressure. The example, for a fictitious pump, shows the pumping speed is substantially constant over a large pressure range.
By multiplying pumping speed by pressure at which that pumping speed occurs, we get a measure called pump throughput. We can tabulate those results, as shown in the table below, or plot them as a graph of pressure vs pump throughput. As is clear from the chart, pump throughput (which might also be called mass flow) decreases proportionally with PRESSURE, at least over the pressure range where pumping speed is constant.
The roughing pump speed actually will reach 0 l/s at it's ultimate pressure performance.
Our roughing pump pumping speed will slowly drop as chamber pressure drops. Below 10 Torr this decrease is accelerated and bottoms out. This where the Root pump can help. See NASA evaluation of dry rough pumps...What is a root pump
We have been operating succsessfully with a narrow margin. The danger is that the Maglev forline peaks at 4 Torr. This puts load on the small turbo TP2, TP3 & large TP1
The temperature of these TP2 & 3 70 l/s drag turbos go up to 38 C and their rotation speed slow to 45K rpm from 50K rpm because of the large volume 33,000 liters
Either high temp or low rotation speed of drag turbo or long time of overloading can shut down the small turbo pumps......meaning: stop pumping, wait till they cool down
The manual gate valve installed helped to lower peak temp to 32C It just took too long.
We have been running with 2 external fans [one on TP1 & one on TP3] for cooling and one aux drypump to help lowering the foreline pressure of TP2 & 3
The vacuum control upgrade should include adding root pump into the zero pumping speed range.
Atm1, Pump speed chart: TP1 turbo -red, root pump -blue and mechanical pump green. Note green color here representing an oily rotory pump. Our small drypumps [SH-100] typically run above 100 mTorr
They are the forepump of TP2 & 3 Our pumpdown procedure: Oily Leybold rotory pumps ( with safety orifice 350 mT to atm ) rough to 500 mTorr
Here we switch over to TP2 & 3 running at 50k RPM with drypumps SH-100 plus Aux Triscroll
TP1- Maglev rotating full speed when V1 is opened at full volume at 500 mTorr
History: the original design of the early 1990s had no dry scroll pumps. Oil free dry scrools replaced the oily forepumps of TP2 & TP3 in ~2002 at the cost of degrading the forline pressure somewhat.
We had 2 temperature related Maglev failers in 2005 Aug 8 and 2006 April 5 Osaka advised us to use AUX fan to cool TP1 This helped.
Atm2, Wanted Root pump - Leybold EcoDry 65 plus
Atm3, Typical 8 hrs pumpdown from 2007 with TP2 & 3
Atm4, Last pumpdown zoomed in from 400 mT to 1mT with throttled gate valve took 9 hrs The foreline pressure of TP1 peaked at 290 mT, TP3 temperature peaked at 32C
This technic is workable, but 9 hrs is too long.
Atm5, The lowest pressure achived in the 40m Vacuum Envelope 5e-7 Torr with pumps Maglev ~300 l/s, Cryo 1500 l/s and 3 ion pumps of 500 l/s [ in April 2002 at pumpdown 53 day 7 ] with annuloses at ~ 10 mTorr
Atm6, Osaka TG390MCAB Throughput with screen ~300 L/s at 12 cfm backing pump
6.2M Bandon, OR did not trip any sus
Glitch, small amplitude, 350 counts & no trip.
The second big glich trips ETMX sus. There were small earth quakes around the glitches. It's damping recovered.
Small earth quakes and suspensions. Which one is the most free and most sensitive: ITMX
The rat is cut by mechanical trap and it was removed from ITMX south west location.
A nagy kover patkanyt a fogo elkapta es megolte.
All suspension tripped. Their damping restored. The MC is locked.
ITMX-UL & side magnets are stuck.