40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
 40m Log, Page 53 of 341 Not logged in
ID Date Author Type Category Subject
14117   Mon Jul 30 16:11:54 2018 gautamUpdateSUSTrillium interface box is broken

[koji, steve, gautam]

We debugged this in the following way:

1. Disconnect all fuses in the terminal blocks coming from the +/- 20 VDC Sorensens.
2. Check that they are indeed isolated using DMM.
3. Test blocks of fuses in order to identify where the problem is happening (i.e. plug fuses in, turn up Sorensen voltage knobs, look for current overload). We did things in the following order:
• MC suspensions
• BS, PRM and SRM
• ITMY
• ITMX
• Trillium interface box.
4. Turns out that the Trillium box is the culprit.
5. Confirmed that the problem is in the trillium interface box and not in the seismometer itself by unplugging all cables leading out of the interface box, and checking that the problem persists when the box is powered on.

So for now, the power cable to the box is disconnected on the back end. We have to pull it out and debug it at some point.

Apart from this, megatron was un-sshable so I had to hard reboot it, and restart the MCautolocker, FSSslowPy and nds2 processes on it. I also restarted the modbusIOC processes for the PSL channels on c1auxex (for which the physical Acromag units sit in 1X5 and hence were affected by our work), mainly so that the FSS_RMTEMP channel worked again. Now, IMC autolocker is working fine, arms are locked (we can recover TRX and TRY~1.0), and everything seems to be back to a nominal state. Phew.

14118   Mon Jul 30 18:19:03 2018 KojiUpdateSUSTrillium interface box was fixed and reinstalled

The trillium interface box was removed from the rack.

The problem was the incorrect use of an under-spec TVS (Transient Voltage Suppression) diodes (~ semiconductor fuse) for the protection circuit.
The TVS diodes we had had the breakdown voltages lower than the supplied voltages of +/-20V. This over-voltage eventually caused the catastrophic breakdown of one of the diodes.

I don't find any particular reason to have these diodes during the laboratory use of the interface. Therefore, I've removed the TVS diodes and left them unreplaced. The circuit was tested on the bench and returned to the rack. All the cables are hooked up, and now the BRLMs look as usual.

Details

- The board version was found to be D1000749-v2

- There was an obvious sign of burning or thermal history around the components D17 and D14. The solder of the D17 was so brittle that just a finger touch was enough to remove the component.

- These D components are TVS diodes (Transient Voltage Suppression Diodes) manufactured by Littelfuse Inc. It is sort of a surge/overvoltage protector to protect rest of the circuit to be exposed to excess voltage. The specified component for D17/D14 was 5.0SMMDJ20A with reverse standoff voltage (~operating voltage) of 20V and the breakdown voltage of 22.20V(min)~24.50V(max). However, the spec sheet told that the marking of the proper component must be "5BEW" rather than "DEM," which is visible on the component. Some search revealed that the used component was SMDJ15A, which has the breakdown voltage of 16.70V~18.50V. This spec is way too low compared to the supplied voltage of +/-20V.

Attachment 1: P_20180730_173134.jpg
Attachment 2: P_20180730_180151.jpg
14119   Tue Jul 31 08:17:55 2018 SteveUpdateSUSTrillium interface box was fixed,reinstalled & working

Attachment 1: all_OK.png
14129   Fri Aug 3 15:53:25 2018 gautamUpdateSUSLow noise bias path idea

Summary:

The idea we are going with to push the coil driver noise contribution down is to simply increase the series resistance between the coil driver board output and the OSEM coil. But there are two paths, one for fast actuation and one that provides a DC current for global alignment. I think the simplest way to reduce the noise contribution of the latter, while preserving reasonable actuation range, is to implement a precision DC high-voltage source. A candidate that I pulled off an LT application note is shown in Attachment #1.

Requirements:

• The series resistance in the bias path should be $10 k\Omega$, such that the noise from this stage is dominated by the Johnson noise of said resistor, and hence, the current noise contribution is negligible compared to the series resistance in the fast actuation path ($4.5 k\Omega$).
• Since we only really need this for the test masses, what actuation range do we want?
• Currently, ETMY has a series resistance of $400\Omega$ and has a pitch DC bias voltage of -4 V.
• This corresponds to 10 mA of DC current.
• To drive this current through $10 k\Omega$, we need 100 V.
• I'm assuming we can manually correct for yaw misalignments such that 10mA of DC current will be sufficient for any sort of corrective alignment.
• So +/- 120 V DC should be sufficient.
• The current noise of this stage should be negligible at 100 Hz.
• The noise of the transistors and the HV supply should be suppressed by the feedback loop and so shouldn't be a significant contribution (I'll model to confirm).
• The input noise of the LT1055 is ~20nV/rtHz at 100 Hz, while the Johnson noise of $10 k\Omega$ is ~13nV/rtHz so maybe the low-passing needs to be tuned, but I think if it comes to it, we can implement a passive RC network at the output to achieve additional filtering.
• To implement this circuit, we need +/- 125V DC.
• At EX and EY, we have a KEPCO HV supply meant to be used for the Green Steering PZTs.
• I'm not sure if these can do bipolar outputs, if not, for temporary testing, we can transport the unit at EY to EX.

If all this seems reasonable, I'd like to prototype this circuit and test it with ETMX, which already has the high series resistance for the fast path. So I will ask Steve to order the OpAmp and transistors.

Attachment 1: LT1055_precOpAmp.pdf
14130   Fri Aug 3 16:27:40 2018 ranaUpdateSUSLow noise bias path idea

Bah! Too complex.

14131   Fri Aug 3 18:54:58 2018 gautamUpdateSUSGlitchy MC1

The wall StripTool indicated that the IMC wasn't too happy when I came in today. Specifically:

• MC1 watchdog was tripped.
• Even in the tripped state, MC REFL spot on the camera showed spot motion that was too large to be explained as normal seismic driven motion (i.e. with local damping supposedly disabled).
• Strange excursions were observed in the MC1 shadow sensor signal levels as well, see Attachment #1 - negative values don't make any sense for this readout.

The last time this happened, it was due to the Sorensens not spitting out the correct voltages. This time, there were no indications on the Sorensens that anything was funky. So I just disabled the MCautolocker and figured I'd debug later in the evening.

However, around 5pm, the shadow sensor values looked nominal again, and when I re-enabled the local damping, the MC REFL spot suggested that the local damping was working just fine. I re-enabled the MCautolocker, MC re-locked almost immediately. To re-iterate, I did nothing to the electronics inside the VEA. Anyways, this enabled us to work on the X arm ASS (next elog).

Attachment 1: MC1_sensorAnomaly.png
14134   Sun Aug 5 13:45:00 2018 gautamUpdateSUSETMX tripped

Independent from the problems the vertex machine has been having (I think, unless it's something happening over the shared memory network), I noticed on Friday that the ETMX watchdog was tripped. Today, once again, the ETMX watchdog was tripped. There is no evidence of any abnormal seismic activity around that time, and anyways, none of the other watchdogs tripped. Attachment #1 shows that this happened ~838am PT today morning. Attachment #2 shows the 2k sensor data around the time of the trip. If the latter is to be believed, there was a big impulse in the UL shadow sensor signal which may have triggered the trip. I'll squish cables and see if that helps - Steve and I did work at the EX electronics rack (1X9) on Friday but this problem precedes our working there...

Attachment 1: ETMX_tripped.png
Attachment 2: ETMX_tripped_zoom.png
14135   Sun Aug 5 15:43:50 2018 gautamUpdateSUSAnother low noise bias path idea

• Attachment #1 shows the proposed schematic.
• It consists of a second order section with Gain x10 to map the +/-10V DC range of the DAC to +/- 100V DC such that we preserve roughly the same amount of DC actuation range.
• Corner frequency of the SOS is set to ~0.7 Hz. In hindsight, maybe this is more aggressive than necessary, we can tune this.
• DC gain is 20 dB (typo in the text where I say the DC gain is x15, though we could go with this option as well I think if we want a larger series resistance).
• A first order passive low-pass stage is added to filter out the voltage noise of the PA91, which dominates the output voltage noise (next bullet).
• Attachment #2 shows the transfer function from input to output
• The two traces compare having just a single SOS filtering stage vs the current topology of having two SOS stages.
• The passive output RC network is necessary in either case to filter the voltage noise of the PA91 OpAmp.
• For the DAC noise, I just assumed a flat noise level of $5 \mu V / \sqrt{\mathrm{Hz}}$, I don't actually know what this is for the Acromag DACs.
• Attachments #3 shows a breakdown of the top 5 noise contributions.
• The PA91 datasheet doesn't give current noise information so I just assumed $1 fA / \sqrt{\mathrm{Hz}}$, which was what was used for the PA85 in the existing opamp.lib file.
• The voltage noise is modelled as $4.5 \sqrt{1+\frac{80}{f}} nV / \sqrt{\mathrm{Hz}}$, which seems to line up okay with the plot on Pg4 of the datasheet.
• So the model suggests we will be dominated by the voltage noise of the PA91.
• Attachment #4 translates the noise into current noise seen by the actuator.
• I add the Johnson noise contribution of the series resistance for this path, which is assumed to be $10 k \Omega$.
• For comparison, I add the filtered DAC noise contribution, and Johnson noise of the proposed series resistance in the fast path.
• For the bias path, we are dominated by the Johnson noise of the series resistor from ~60 Hz upwards.
• It's not quite fair to say that the Johnson noise of the resistance in the fast path dominates, the quadrature sum of fast and bais paths will be ~1.2 times of the former alone.
• Bottom line: we will be in the regime of total current noise of ~2.2 pA/rtHz, where I think Kevin's modeling suggests we can see some squeezing.

The question still remains of how to combine the fast and bias paths in this proposed scheme. I think the following approach works for prototyping at least:

• Remove the series resistance on the existing coil driver boards' bias path, hence isolating this from the coil.
• Route the DB15 output connector from the coil driver board (which is now just the fast actuation signals) into a sub-sattelite box housing the bias path electronics.
• Sum the two signals as it is done now, by simply having a conductor (PCB trace) merge the two paths after their respective series resistances.

In the longer term, perhaps the Satellite Box revamp can accommodate a bias voltage summation connector.

 Quote: Bah! Too complex.

I have neglected many practical concerns. Some things that come to mind:

1. Is it necessary to protect the upstream DAC from some potential failure of the PA91 in which the high voltage appears at the input?
2. What is the correct OpAmp for this purpose? This chart on Apex's page suggests that PA15, PA85, PA91 and PA98 are all comparable in terms of drive capability, and the spec sheets don't suggest any dramatic differences. Some LIGO circuits use PA85, some use PA90, but I can't find any that use PA91. Perhaps Rana/Koji can comment about this.
3. What kind of protection is necessary for the PA91 power?
4. What is the correct way to do heat management? Presumably we need heatsinks, and in fact, there is a variant of the packaging style that has "formed" legs, which from what I can figure out, allow the heat sink plane on the PA91 to be parallel to the PCB surface. But I think the heat-sink wisdom suggests vertical fins are the most efficient (not sure if this holds if the PCB is inside a box though). What about the PCB itself? Are some kind of special traces needed?
5. Can we use the current-limiting resistor feature on the PA91? The datasheet seems to advice against it for G>10 configurations, which is what we need, although our requirement is only at DC so I don't know if that table is applicable to this circuit.
6. Are 3W resistors sufficient? I think we require only 10mA maximum current to preserve the current actuation range, so 100 V * 10mA = 1W, so 3W leaves some safety margin.
7. All capacitors should be rated for 500 V per the datasheet.
Attachment 1: HV_Bias_schematic.pdf
Attachment 2: TF.pdf
Attachment 3: bias.pdf
Attachment 4: HVbias_currentNoise.pdf
14147   Wed Aug 8 23:06:59 2018 gautamUpdateSUSAnother low noise bias path idea

Today while Rich Abbott was here, Koji and I had a brief discussion with him about the HV amplifier idea for the coil driver bias path. He gave us some useful tips, perhaps most useful being a topology that he used and tested for an aLIGO ITM ESD driver which we can adapt to our application. It uses a PA95 high voltage amplifier which differs from the PA91 mainly in the output voltage range (up to 900V for the former, "only" 400V for the former. He agrees with the overall design idea of

• Having a LN opamp with the HV amp inside the feedback loop for better voltage noise at low frequencies.
• Having a passive RC network at the output of the HV amp to filter out noise at high frequencies.

He also gave some useful suggestions like

• Using the front panel of the box that as a heatsink for the HV amps.
• Testing the stability of the nested opamp loop by "pinging" the output of the opamp with some pulses from a function generator and monitoring the response to this perturbation on a scope.

I am going to work on making a prototype version of this box for 5 channels that we can test with ETMX. I have been told that the coupling from side coil to longitudinal motion is of the order of 1/30, in which case maybe we only need 4 channels.

14150   Thu Aug 9 12:40:14 2018 gautamUpdateSUSETMX trip follow-up

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.

Attachment 1: ETMXglitch.png
14156   Mon Aug 13 09:56:23 2018 SteveUpdateSUSETMX trip follow-up

Here is an other big one

 Quote: 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.

Attachment 1: ETMXglitch.png
Attachment 2: ETMXgltch.png
14165   Wed Aug 15 19:18:07 2018 gautamUpdateSUSAnother low noise bias path idea

I took another pass at this. Here is what I have now:

Attachment #1: Composite amplifier design to suppress voltage noise of PA91 at low frequencies.

Attachment #2: Transfer function from input to output.

Attachment #3: Top 5 voltage noise contributions for this topology.

Attachment #4: Current noises for this topology, comparison to current noise from fast path and slow DAC noise.

Attachment #5: LISO file for this topology.

Looks like this will do the job. I'm going to run this by Rich and get his input on whether this will work (this design has a few differences from Rich's design), and also on how to best protect from HV incidents.

Attachment 1: HV_Bias.pdf
Attachment 2: HVamp_TF.pdf
Attachment 3: HVamp_noises.pdf
Attachment 4: currentNoises.pdf
Attachment 5: HVamp.fil.zip
14169   Thu Aug 16 23:06:50 2018 gautamUpdateSUSAnother low noise bias path idea

I had a very fruitful discussion with Rich about this circuit today. He agreed with the overall architecture, but made the following suggestions (Attachment #1 shows the circuit with these suggestions incorporated):

1. Use an Op27 instead of LT1128, as it is a more friendly part especially in these composite amplifier topologies. I confirmed that this doesn't affect the output voltage noise at 100 Hz, we will still limited by Johnson noise of the 15kohm series resistor.
2. Take care of voltage distribution in the HV feedback path
• I overlooked the fact that the passive filtering stage means that the DC current we can drive in the configuration I posted earlier is 150V / 25kohm = 6mA, whereas we'd like to be able to drive at least 10 mA, and probably want the ability to do 12 mA to leave some headroom.
• At the same time, the feedback resistance shouldn't be too small such that the PA91 has to drive a significant current in the feedback path (we'd like to save that for the coil).
• Changing the supply voltage of the PA91 from 150 V to 320 V, and changing the gain to x30 instead of x15 (by changing the feedback resistor from 14kohm to 29kohm), we can still drive 12 mA through the 25 kohms of series resistance. This will require getting new HV power supplies, as the KEPCO ones we have cannot handle these numbers.
• The current limiting resistor is chosen to be 25ohms such that the PA91 is limited to ~26 mA. Of this, 300V / 30kohm ~ 10 mA will flow in the feedback path, which means under normal operation, 12 mA can safely flow through the coils.
• Rich recommended using metal film resistors in the high voltage feedback path. However, these have a power rating, and also a voltage rating. By using 6x 5kohm resistors, the max power dissipated in each resistor is 50^2 / 5000 ~ 0.5 W, so we can get 0.6 W (or 1W?)  rated resistors which should do the job. I think the S102K or S104K series will do the job.
3. Add a voltage monitoring capability.
• This is implemented via a resistive voltage divider at the output of the PA91.
• We can use an amplifier stage with whitening if necessary, but I think simply reading off the voltage across the terminating resistor in the ladder will be sufficient since this circuit will only have DC authority.
4. Make a Spice model instead of LISO, to simulate transient effects.
• I've made the model, investigating transients now.
5. High voltage precautions:
• When doing PCB layout, ensure the HV points have more than the default clearance. Rich recommends 100 mils.
• Use a dual-diode (Schottky) as input protection for the Op27 (not yet implemented in Spice model).
• Use a TVS diode for the moniotring circuit (not yet implemented in Spice model).
• Make sure resistors and capacitors that see high voltage are rated with some safety margin.
6. Consider using the PA95 (which Rich has tested and approves of) instead of the PA91. Does anyone have any opinions on this?

If all this sounds okay, I'd like to start making the PCB layout (with 5 such channels) so we can get a couple of trial boards and try this out in a couple of weeks. Per the current threat matrix and noises calculated, coil driver noise is still projected to be the main technical noise contribution in the 40m PonderSqueeze NB (more on this in a separate elog).

 Quote: Looks like this will do the job. I'm going to run this by Rich and get his input on whether this will work (this design has a few differences from Rich's design), and also on how to best protect from HV incidents.
Attachment 1: HVamp_schem.PDF
Attachment 2: Hvamp.zip
14178   Thu Aug 23 08:24:38 2018 SteveUpdateSUSETMX trip follow-up

Glitch, small amplitude, 350 counts  &  no trip.

Quote:

Here is an other big one

 Quote: 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.

Attachment 1: ETMX-UL_glitch.png
Attachment 2: PEM_4d.png
14184   Fri Aug 24 14:58:30 2018 SteveUpdateSUSETMX trips again

The second big glich trips ETMX sus. There were small earth quakes around the glitches. It's damping recovered.

Quote:

Glitch, small amplitude, 350 counts  &  no trip.

Quote:

Here is an other big one

 Quote: 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.

Attachment 1: glitches.png
14188   Wed Aug 29 09:20:27 2018 SteveUpdateSUSlocal 4.4M earth quake

All suspension tripped. Their damping restored. The MC is locked.

ITMX-UL & side magnets are stuck.

Attachment 1: 4.4_La_Verne.png
Attachment 2: 3.4_&_4.4M_EQ.png
14190   Wed Aug 29 11:46:27 2018 JonUpdateSUSlocal 4.4M earth quake

I freed ITMX and coarsely realigned the IFO using the OPLEVs. All the alignments were a bit off from overnight.

The IFO is still only able to lock in MICH mode currently, which was the situation before the earthquake. This morning I additionally tried restoring the burt state of the four machines that had been rebooted in the last week (c1iscaux, c1aux, c1psl, c1lsc) but that did not solve it.

 Quote: All suspension tripped. Their damping restored. The MC is locked. ITMX-UL & side magnets are stuck.

14201   Thu Sep 20 08:17:14 2018 SteveUpdateSUSlocal 3.4M earth quake

M3.4 Colton shake did not trip sus.

Attachment 1: local_3.4M.png
14223   Mon Oct 1 22:20:42 2018 gautamUpdateSUSPrototyping HV Bias Circuit

Summary:

I've been plugging away at Altium prototyping the high-voltage bias idea, this is meant to be a progress update.

Details:

I need to get footprints for some of the more uncommon parts (e.g. PA95) from Rich before actually laying this out on a PCB, but in the meantime, I'd like feedback on (but not restricted to) the following:

1. The top-level diagram: this is meant to show how all this fits into the coil driver electronics chain.
• The way I'm imagining it now, this (2U) chassis will perform the summing of the fast coil driver output to the slow bias signal using some Dsub connectors (existing slow path series resistance would simply be removed).
• The overall output connector (DB15) will go to the breakout board which sums in the bias voltage for the OSEM PDs and then to the satellite box.
• The obvious flaw in summing in the two paths using a piece of conducting PCB track is that if the coil itself gets disconnected (e.g. we disconnect cable at the vacuum flange), then the full HV appears at TP3 (see pg2 of schematic). This gets divided down by the ratio of the series resistance in the fast path to slow path, but there is still the possibility of damaging the fast-path electronics. I don't know of an elegant design to protect against this.
2. Ground loops: I asked Johannes about the Acromag DACs, and apparently they are single ended. Hopefully, because the Sorensens power Acromags, and also the eurocrates, we won't have any problems with ground loops between this unit and the fast path.
3. High-voltage precautons: I think I've taken the necessary precautions in protecting against HV damage to the components / interfaced electronics using dual-diodes and TVSs, but someone more knowledgable should check this. Furthermore, I wonder if a Molex connector is the best way to bring in the +/- HV supply onto the board. I'd have liked to use an SHV connector but can't find a comaptible board-mountable connector.
4.  Choice of HV OpAmp: I've chosen to stick with the PA95, but I think the PA91 has the same footprint so this shouldn't be a big deal.
5.  Power regulation: I've adapted the power regulation scheme Rich used in D1600122 - note that the HV supply voltage doesn't undergo any regulation on the board, though there are decoupling caps close to the power pins of the PA95. Since the PA95 is inside a feedback loop, the PSRR should not be an issue, but I'll confirm with LTspice model anyways just in case.
6. Cost:
• ​​Each of the metal film resistors that Rich recommended costs ~$15. • The voltage rating on these demand that we have 6 per channel, and if this works well, we need to make this board for 4 optics. • The PA95 is ~$150 each, and presumably the high voltage handling resistors and capacitors won't be cheap.
• Steve will update about his HV supply investigations (on a secure platform, NOT the elog), but it looks like even switching supplies cost north of 1200. • However, as I will detail in a separate elog, my modeling suggests that among the various technical noises I've modeled so far, coil driver noise is still the largest contribution which actually seems to exceed the unsqueezed shot noise of ~ 8e-19 m/rtHz for 1W input power and PRG 40 with 20ppm RT arm losses, by a smidge (~9e-19 m/rtHz, once we take into account the fast and slow path noises, and the fact that we are not exactly Johnson noise limited). I also don't have a good idea of what the PCB layer structure (2 layers? 3 layers? or more?) should be for this kind of circuit, I'll try and get some input from Rich. *Updated with current noise (Attachment #2) at the output for this topology of series resistance of 25 kohm in this path. Modeling was done (in LTspice) with a noiseless 25kohm resistor, and then I included the Johnson noise contribution of the 25k in quadrature. For this choice, we are below 1pA/rtHz from this path in the band we care about. I've also tried to estimate (Attachment #3) the contribution due to (assumed flat in ASD) ripple in the HV power supply (i.e. voltage rails of the PA95) to the output current noise, seems totally negligible for any reasonable power supply spec I've seen, switching or linear. Attachment 1: CoilDriverBias.pdf Attachment 2: currentNoise.pdf Attachment 3: PSRR.pdf 14261 Thu Oct 18 00:27:37 2018 KojiUpdateSUSSUS PD Whitening board inspection [Gautam, Koji] As a part of the preparation for the replacement of c1susaux with Acromag, I made inspection of the coil-osem transfer function measurements for the vertex SUSs. The TFs showed typical f^-2 with the whitening on except for ITMY UL (Attachment 1). Gautam told me that this is a known issue for ~5 years. We made a thorough inspection/replacement of the components and identified the mechanism of the problem. It turned out that the inputs to MAX333s are as listed below.  Whitening ON Whitening OFF UL ~12V ~8.6V LL 0V 15V UR 0V 15V LR 0V 15V SD 0V 15V The switching voltage for UL is obviously incorrect. We thought this comes from the broken BIO board and thus swapped the corresponding board. But the issue remained. There are 4 BIO boards in total on c1sus, so maybe we have replaced a wrong board? Initially, we thought that the BIO can't drive the pull-up resistor of 5KOhm from 15V to 0V (=3mA of current). So I have replaced the pull-up resistor to be 30KOhm. But this did not help. These 30Ks are left on the board. Attachment 1: 43.png 14319 Mon Nov 26 17:16:27 2018 gautamUpdateSUSEY chamber work [steve, rana, gautam] • PSL and EY 1064nm laser (physical) shutters on the head were closed so that we and sundance crew could work without laser safety goggles. EY oplev laser was also turned off. • Cylindrical heater setup removed: • heater wiring meant the heater itself couldn't be easily removed from the chamber • two lenses and Al foil cylinder removed from chamber, now placed on the mini-cleanroom table. • Parabolic heater is untouched for now. We can re-insert it once the test mass is back in, so that we can be better informed about the clipping situation. • ETMY removed from chamber. • EQ stops were engaged. • Pictures were taken • OSEMs were removed from cage, placed in foil holders. • Cage clamps were removed after checking that marker clamps were in place. • Optic was moved first to NW corner of table, then out of the vacuum onto the mini-cleanroom desk Chub and I had setup last week. • Hoepfully there isn't an earthquake. EY has been marked as off-limits to avoid accidental bumping / catasrophic wire/magnet/optic breaking. • We sealed up the mini cleanroom with tape. F.C. cleaning tomorrow or at another opportune moment. • Light door was put back on for the evening. Rana pointed out that the OSEM cabling, because of lack of a plastic shielding, is grounded directly to the table on which it is resting. A glass baking dish at the base of the seismic stack prevents electrical shorting to the chamber. However, there are some LEMO/BNC cables as well on the east side of the stack, whose BNC ends are just lying on the base of the stack. We should use this opportunity to think about whether anything needs to be done / what the influence of this kind of grounding is (if any) on actuator noise. Steve also pointed out that we should replace the rubber pads which the vacuum chamber is resting on (Attachment #1, not from this vent, but just to indicate what's what). These serve the purpose of relieving small amounts of strain the chamber may experience relative to the beam tube, thus helping preserve the vacuum joints b/w chamber and tube. But after (~20?) years of being under compression, Steve thinks that the rubber no longer has any elasticity, and so should be replaced. Attachment 1: IMG_5251.JPG 14399 Tue Jan 15 10:52:38 2019 gautamUpdateSUSEY door opened [chub, bob, gautam] We took the heavy door off the EY chamber at ~930am. Chamber work: • ETMY suspension cage was returned to its nominal position. • Unused hardware from the annular heater setup was removed. • The unused heater had its leads snipped close to the heater crimp point, and the exposed part of the bare wires was covered with Kapton tape (we should remove the source leads as well in air to avoid any accidental shorting) Waiting for the table to level off now. Plan for later today / tomorrow is as follows: 1. Lock the Y arm, recover good cavity alignment. 2. Position parabolic heater such that clipping issue is resolved. 3. Move optic to edge of table for FC cleaning 4. Clean optic 5. Return suspension cage to nominal position. 14401 Tue Jan 15 15:49:47 2019 gautamUpdateSUSEY door opened While restoring OSEMs on ETMY, I noticed that the open voltages for the UR and LL OSEMs had significantly (>30%) changed from their values from ~2 years ago. The fact that it only occurred in 2 coils seemed to rule out gradual wear and tear, so I looked up the trends from Nov 25 - Nov 28 (Sundance visited on Nov 26 which is when we removed the cage). Not surprisingly, these are the exact two OSEMs that show a decrease in sensor voltage when the OSEMs were pulled out. I suspect that when I placed them in their little Al foil boats, I shorted out some contacts on the rear (this is reminiscent of the problem we had on PRM in 2016). I hope the problem is with the current buffer IC in the satellite box and not the physical diode, I'll test with the tester box and evaluate the problem further. Chamber work by Chub and gautam: 1. Table leveling was checked with a clean spirit level • Leveling was substantially off in two orthogonal directions, along the beam axis as well as perpendicular to it. • We moved almost all the weights available on the table. • Managed to get the leveling correct to within 1 tick on the level. • We are not too worried about this for now, the final leveling will be after heater repositioning, ETMY cleaning etc. 2. ETMY OSEM re-insertion • OSEMs were re-inserted till their mean voltage was ~ half the open values. • Local damping seems to work just fine. Attachment 1: EY_OSEMs.png 14403 Wed Jan 16 16:25:25 2019 gautamUpdateSUSYarm locked [chub, gautam] Summary: Y arm was locked at low power in air. Details: 1. ITMY chamber door was removed at ~10am with Bob's help. 2. ETMY table leveling was found to have drifted significantly (3 ticks on the spirit level, while it was more or less level yesterday, should look up the calib of the spirit level into mrad). Chub moved some weights around on the table, we will check the leveling again tomorrow. 3. IMC was locked. 4. TT2 and brass alignemnt tool was used to center beam on ETMY. 5. TT1 and brass alignment tool was used to center beam on ITMY. We had to do a c1susaux reboot to be able to move ITMY. Usual precautions were taken to avoid ITMX getting stuck. 6. ETMY was used to make return beam from the ETM overlap with the in-going beam near ITMY, using a holey IR card. 7. At this point, I was confident we would see IR flashes so I decided to do the fine alignment in the control room. We are operating with 1/10th the input power we normally have, so we expect the IR transmission of the Y arm to max out at 1 when well aligned. However, it is hovering around 0.05 right now, and the dominant source of instability is the angular motion of ETMY due to the Oplev loop being non-functional. I am hesitant to do in-chamber work without an extra pair of eyes/hands around, so I'll defer that for tomorrow morning when Chub gets in. With the cavity axis well defined, I plan to align the green beam to this axis, and use the two to confirm that we are well clear of the Parabola. * Paola, our vertex laptop, and indeed, most of the laptops inside the VEA, are not ideal to work on this kind of alignmment procedure, it would be good to set up some workstations on which we can easily interact with multiple MEDM screens, Attachment 1: Yarm_locked.png 14407 Fri Jan 18 21:34:18 2019 gautamUpdateSUSUnused optic on EY table Does anyone know what the purpose of the indicated optic in Attachment #1 is? Can we remove it? It will allow a little more space around the elliptical reflector... Attachment 1: IMG_5408.JPG 14408 Sat Jan 19 05:07:45 2019 KojiUpdateSUSUnused optic on EY table I don't think it was used. It is not on the diagram too. You can remove it. 14409 Sat Jan 19 15:33:18 2019 gautamUpdateSUSETMY OSEMs faulty After diagnosis with the tester box, as I suspected, the fully open DC voltages on the two problematic channels, LL and UR, were restored once I replaced the LM6321 ICs in those two channel paths. However, I've been puzzled by the inability to turn on the Oplev loops on ETMY. Furthermore, the DC bias voltages required to get ETMY to line up with the cavity axis seemed excessively large, particularly since we seemed to have improved the table levelling. I suspected that the problem with the OSEMs hasn't been fully resolved, so on Thursday night, I turned off the ETMY watchdog, kicked the optic, and let it ringdown. Then I looked at the time-series (Attachment #1) and spectra (Attachment #2) of the ringdowns. Clearly, the LL channel seems to saturate at the lower end at ~440 counts. Moreover, in the time domain, it looks like the other channels see the ringdown cleanly, but I don't see the various suspension eigenmodes in any of the sensor signals. I confirmed that all the magnets are still attached to the optic, and that the EQ stops are well clear of the optic, so I'm inclined to think that this behavior is due to an electrical fault rather than a mechanical one. For now, I'll start by repeating the ringdown with a switched out Satellite Box (SRM) and see if that fixes the problem.  Quote: While restoring OSEMs on ETMY, I noticed that the open voltages for the UR and LL OSEMs had significantly (>30%) changed from their values from ~2 years ago. The fact that it only occurred in 2 coils seemed to rule out gradual wear and tear, so I looked up the trends from Nov 25 - Nov 28 (Sundance visited on Nov 26 which is when we removed the cage). Not surprisingly, these are the exact two OSEMs that show a decrease in sensor voltage when the OSEMs were pulled out. I suspect that when I placed them in their little Al foil boats, I shorted out some contacts on the rear (this is reminiscent of the problem we had on PRM in 2016). I hope the problem is with the current buffer IC in the satellite box and not the physical diode, I'll test with the tester box and evaluate the problem further. Attachment 1: Screen_Shot_2019-01-19_at_3.32.35_PM.png Attachment 2: ETMY_sensors_1231832635.pdf 14411 Tue Jan 22 20:36:53 2019 gautamUpdateSUSETMY OSEMs faulty Short update on latest Satellite box woes. 1. I checked the resistance of all 5 OSEM coils on ETMY using a DB25 breakout board and a multimeter - all were between 16-17 ohms (mesured from the cable to the Vacuum flange), which I think is consistent with the expected value. 2. Checked the bias voltage (aka slow path) from the coil driver board was reaching the coils • The voltages were indeed being sent out of the coil driver board - I confirmed by driving a slow sine wave and measuring at the output of the coil driver board, with all the fast outputs disabled. • The voltage is arriving at the 64 pin IDC connector at the Satellite box - Chub and I verified this using some mini-grabbers and leads from wirewound resistors (we don't have a breakout board for this kind of connector, would be handy to get some!) • However, the voltages are not being sent out through the DB25 connectors on the side of the Satellite box, at least for the LL and UR channels. UL seems to work okay. • This behavior is consistent with the observation that we had to apply way larger bias voltages to get the cavity axis to line up than was the nominal values - if one or more coils weren't getting their signals, it would also explain the large PIT->YAW coupling I observed using the Oplev spot and the slow bias alignment EPICS sliders. • This behavior is puzzling - the Sat box is just supposed to be a feed-through for the coil driver signals, and we measured resistances between the 64 pin IDC connector and the corresponding DB25 pins, and measured in the range of 0.2-0.3 ohms. However, the voltage fails to make it through - not sure what's going on here.. We will investigate further on the electronics bench. What's more - I did some Sat box switcheroo, swapping the SRM and ETM boxes back and forth in combination with the tester box. In the process, I seem to have broken the SRM sat box - all the shadow sensors are reporting close to 0 volts, and this was confirmed to be an electronic problem as opposed to some magnet skullduggery using the tester box. Once we get to the bottom of the ETMY sat box, we will look at SRM. This is more or less the last thing to look at for this vent - once we are happy the cavity axis can be recovered reliably, we can freeze the position of the elliptical reflector and begin the F.C.ing. 14413 Wed Jan 23 12:39:18 2019 gautamUpdateSUSEY chamber work While Chub is making new cables for the EY satellite box... 1. I removed the unused optic on the NW corner of the EY table. It is stored in a clean Al-foil lined plastic box, and will be moved to the clean hardware section of the lab (along the South arm, south of MC2 chamber). 2. Checked table leveling - Attachment #1, looked good, and has been stable over the weekend. 3. I moved the two oversized washers on the reflector, which I believe are only used because the screw is long and wouldn't go in all the way otherwise. As shown in Attachment #2, this reduces the risk of clipping the main IFO beam axis. 4. Yesterday, I pulled up the 40m CAD drawing, and played around with a rectangular box that approximates the extents of the elliptical reflector, to see what would be a good place to put it. I chose to go ahead with Attachment #3. Also shown is the eventually realized layout. Note that we'd actually like the dimension marked ~7.6 inches to be more like 7.1 inches, so the optic is actually ~0.5 inch ahead of the second focus of the ellipse, but I think this is good enough. 5. Attachment #4 shows the view of the optic as seen from the aperture on the back of the elliptical reflector. Looks good to me. 6. Having positioned the reflector, I then inserted the heater into the aperture such that it is ~2/3rds the way in, which was the best position found by Annalisa last summer. I then ran 0.9 A of current through the heater for ~ 5 minutes. Attachment #5 shows the optic as seen with the FLIR with no heating, and after 5 minutes of heating. I'd say this is pretty unambiguous evidence that we are indeed heating the mirror. The gradient shown is significantly less pronounced than in Annalisa's simulations (~3K as opposed to 10K), but maybe the FLIR calibration isn't so great. 7. For completeness, Attachment #6 shows the leveling of the table after this work. Nothing has chanegd significantly. While the position of the reflector could possibly be optimized further, since we are already seeing a temperature gradient on the optic, I propose pushing on with other vent activities. I'm almost certain the current positioning places the optic closer to the second focus, and we already saw shifts of the HOM resonances with the old configuration, so I'd say we run with this and revisit if needed. If Chub gives the Sat. Box the green flag, we will work on F.C.ing the mirrors in the evening, with the aim of closing up tomorrow/Friday. All raw images in this elog have been uploaded to the 40m google photos. Attachment 1: leveling.pdf Attachment 2: IMG_5930.jpg Attachment 3: Ellipse_layout.pdf Attachment 4: IMG_5932.jpg Attachment 5: hotMirror.pdf Attachment 6: EY_leveling_after.pdf 14415 Wed Jan 23 23:12:44 2019 gautamUpdateSUSPrep for FC cleaning In preparation for the FC cleaning, I did the following: 1. Set up mini-cleanroom at EY - this consists of the mobile HEPA unit put up against the chamber door, with films draped around the setup. 2. After double-checking the table leveling, I EQ-stopped ETMY and moved it to the NE corner of the EY table, where it will be cleaned. 3. Checked leveling of IY table - see Attachment #1. 4. Took pictures of IY table, OSEM arrangement on ITMY. 5. EQ-stopped ITMY and SRM. 6. Removed the face OSEMs from ITMY (this required clipping off the copper wire used to hold the OSEM wires against the suspension cage). The side OSEM has not yet been removed because I left the allen key that is compatible with that particular screw inside the EY chamber. 7. To position ITMY at the edge of the IY table where we can easily clean it, we will need to move the OSEM cabling tower as we did last time. I've taken photos of its current position for now. Tomorrow, I will start with the cleaning of ETMY HR. While the FC is drying, I will position ITMY at the edge of the IY cable for cleaning (Chub will setup the mini-cleanroom at the IY table). The plan is to clean both HR surfaces and have the optics back in place by tomorrow evening. By my count, we have done everything listed in the IY and EY chambers. I'd like to minimize the time between cleaning and pumpdown, so if all goes well (Sat Box problems notwithstanding), we will check the table leveling on Friday morning, and put on the heavy doors and at least rough the main volume down to 1 torr on Friday. Attachment 1: IY_level_before.pdf 14416 Thu Jan 24 15:32:31 2019 gautamUpdateSUSY arm cavity side first contact applied EY: • A clean cart was setup adjacent to the HEPA-enclosed mini cleanroom area (it cannot be inside the mini cleanroom, because of lack of space). • The FC tools (first contact, acetone, beakers, brushes, PEEK mesh, clean scissors, clean tweezers, Canon camera, green flashlight) were laid out on this cart for easy access. • I inspected the optic - the barrel had a few specks of dust, and the outer 1.5" annular region of the HR face looked to have some streak marks • I was advised not to pre-wipe the HR side with any solvents • The FC was only applied to the centran ~1-1.5" of the optic • After applying the FC, I spent a few minutes inspecting the status of the OSEMs • Three out of the four face OSEMs, as well as the side OSEM, did not have a filter in • I inserted filters into them. • Closed up the chamber with light door, left HEPA unit on and the mini cleanroom setup intact for now. We will dismantle everything after the pumpdown. IY: • Similar setup to EY was implemented • Removed side OSEM from ITMY. • Double-checked that EQ stops were engaged. • Moved the OSEM cable tower to free up some space for accommodating ITMY. • Undid the clamps of ITMY, moved it to the NE corner of the IY table. • Inspected the optic - it was much cleaner than the 2016 inspection, although the barrel did have some specks of dust. • Once again, I applied first contact to the central ~1.5" of the HR surface. • Checked status of filters on OSEMs - this time, only the UL coil required a filter. • Attachment #3 shows the sensor voltage DC level before and after the insertion of the filter. There is ~0.1% change. • The filters were found in a box that suggests they were made in 2002 - but Steve tells me that it is just stored in a box with that label, and that since there are >100 filters inside that box, he thinks they are the new ones we procured in 2016. The coating specs and type of glass used are different between the two versions. The attached photo shows the two optics with FC applied. My original plan was to attempt to close up tomorrow. However, we are still struggling with Satellite box issues. So rather than rush it, we will attempt to recover the Y arm cavity alignment on Monday, satellite box permitting. The main motivation is to reduce the deadtime between peeling off the F.C and starting the pumpdown. We will start working on recovering the cavity alignment once the Sat box issues are solved. Attachment 1: Yarm_FC.pdf Attachment 2: OSEMfilter.png 14422 Tue Jan 29 22:12:40 2019 gautamUpdateSUSAlignment prep Since we may want to close up tomorrow, I did the following prep work: 1. Cleaned up Y-end suspension eleoctronics setup, connected the Sat Box back to the flange • The OSEMs are just sitting on the table right now, so they are just seeing the fully open voltage • Post filter insertion, the four face OSEMs report ~3-4% lower open-voltage values compared to before, which is compatible with the transmission spec for the filters (T>95%) • The side OSEM is reporting ~10% lower - perhaps I just didn't put the filter on right, something to be looked at inside the chamber 2. Suspension watchdog restoration • I'd shutdown all the watchdogs during the Satellite box debacle • However, I left ITMY, ETMY and SRM tripped as these optics are EQ-stopped / don't have the OSEMs inserted. 3. Checked IMC alignment • After some hand-alignment of the IMC, it was locked, transmission is ~1200 counts which is what I remember it being 4. Checked X-arm alignment • Strictly speaking, this has to be done after setting the Y-arm alignment as that dictates the input pointing of the IMC transmission to the IFO, but I decided to have a quick look nevertheless • Surprisingly, ITMX damping isn't working very well it seems - the optic is clearly swinging around a lot, and the shadow sensor RMS voltage is ~10s of mV, whereas for all the other optics, it is ~1mV. • I'll try the usual cable squishing voodoo Rather than try and rush and close up tomorrow, I propose spending the day tomorrow cleaning the peripheral areas of the optic, suspension cage, and chamber. Then on Thursday morning, we can replace the Y-arm optics, try and recover the cavity alignment, and then aim for a Thursday afternoon pumpdown. The main motivation is to reduce the time the optics spend in air after F.C. peeling and going to vacuum. 14423 Wed Jan 30 11:54:24 2019 gautamUpdateSUSMore alignment prep [chub, gautam] 1. ETMY cage was wiped down • Targeted potential areas where dust could drift off from and get attracted to a charged HR surface • These areas were surprisingly dusty, even left a grey mark on the wipe [Attachment #1] - we think we did a sufficiently thorough job, but unclear if this helps the loss numbers • More pictures are on gPhoto 2. Filters on SD and LR OSEMs were replaced - the open shadow sensor voltages with filters in/out are consistent with the T>95% coating spec. 3. IPANG beam position was checked • It is already too high, missing the first steering optic by ~0.5 inch, not the greatest photo but conclusion holds [Attachment #2]. • I think we shouldn't worry about it for this pumpdown, we can fix it when we put in the new PR3. 4. Cage wiping procedure was repeated on ITMY • The cage was much dustier than ETMY • However, the optic itself (barrel and edge of HR face) was cleaner • All accessible areas were wiped with isopropanol • Before/after pics are on gPhoto (even after cleaning, there are some marks on the suspension that looks like dust, but these are machining marks) Procedure tomorrow [comments / suggestions welcome]: 1. Start with IY chamber • Peel first contact with TopGun jet flowing • Inspect optic face with green flashlight to check for residual First Contact • Replace ITMY suspension cage in its position, clamp it down • Release ITMY from its EQ stops • Replace OSEMs in ITMY cage, best effort to recover previous alignment of OSEMs in their holders (I have a photo before removal of OSEMs), which supposedly minimized the coupling of the B-R modes into the shadow sensor signals • Best effort to have shadow sensor PD outputs at half their fully open voltages (with DC bias voltage applied) • Quick check that we are hitting the center of the ITM with the alignment tool • Check that the Oplev HeNe is reasonably centered on steering mirrors • Tie down OSEM cabling to the ITMY cage with clean copper wire • Replace the OSEM wiring tower • Release the SRM from its EQ stops • Check table leveling • Take pictures of everything, check that we have not left any tools inside the chamber • Heavy doors on 2. Next, EY chamber • Repeat first seven bullets from the IY chamber, :%s/ITMY/ETMY/g • Confirm sufficient clearance between IFO beam axis and the elliptical reflector • Check Oplev beam path • Check table leveling • Take pictures of everything, check that we have not left any tools inside the chamber • Heavy doors on 3. IFO alignment checks - basically follow the wiki, we want to be able to lock both arms (or at least see TEM00 resonances), and see that the PRC and SRC mode flashes look reasonable. 4. Tighten all heavy doors up 5. Pump down All photos have been uploaded to google photos. Attachment 1: IMG_5958.JPG Attachment 2: IMG_5962.JPG 14424 Wed Jan 30 19:25:40 2019 gautamUpdateSUSXarm cavity alignment Squishing cables at the ITMX satellite box seems to have fixed the wandering ITM that I observed yesterday - the sooner we are rid of these evil connectors the better. I had changed the input pointing of the green injection from EX to mark a "good" alignment of the cavity axis, so I used the green beam to try and recover the X arm alignment. After some tweaking of the ITM and ETM angle bias voltages, I was able to get good GTRX values [Attachment #1], and also see clear evidence of (admittedly weak) IR resonances in TRX [Attachment #2]. I can't see the reflection from ITMX on the AS camera, but I suspect this is because the ITMY cage is in the way. This will likely have to be redone tomorrow after setting the input pointing for the Y arm cavity axis, but hopefully things will converge faster and we can close up sooner. Closing the PSL shutter for now... I also rebooted the unresponsive c1susaux to facilitate the alignment work tomorrow. Attachment 1: Xarm.png Attachment 2: Xarm_IR.png 14425 Fri Feb 1 01:24:06 2019 gautamUpdateSUSAlmost ready for pumpdown tomorrow [koji, chub, jon, rana, gautam] Full story tomorrow, but we went through most of the required pre close-up checks/tasks (i.e. both arms were locked, PRC and SRC cavity flashes were observed). Tomorrow, it remains to 1. Confirm clearance between elliptical reflector and ETMY 2. Confirm leveling of ETMY table 3. Take pics of ETMY table 4. Put heavy door on ETMY chamber 5. Pump down The ETMY suspension chain needs to be re-characterized (neither the old settings, nor a +/- 1 gain setting worked well for us tonight), but this can be done once we are back under vacuum. 14426 Fri Feb 1 13:16:50 2019 gautamUpdateSUSPumpdown 83 underway [chub, bob, gautam] 1. Steps described in previous elog were carried out 2. EY heavy door was put on at about 1130am. 3. Pumpdown commenced at ~noon. We are going down at ~3 torr/min. 14427 Fri Feb 1 14:44:14 2019 gautamUpdateSUSY arm FC cleaning and reinstall [Attachment #1]: ITMY HR face after cleaning. I determined this to be sufficiently clean and re-installed the optic. [Attachment #2]: ETMY HR face after cleaning. This is what the HR face looks like after 3 rounds of First-Contact application. After the first round, we noticed some arc-shaped lines near the center of the optic's clear aperture. We were worried this was a scratch, but we now believe it to be First-Contact residue, because we were able to remove it after drag wiping with acetone and isopropanol. However, we mistrust the quality of the solvents used - they are not any special dehydrated kind, and we are looking into acquiring some dehydrated solvents for future cleaning efforts. [Attachment #3]: Top view of ETMY cage meant to show increased clearance between the IFO axis and the elliptical reflector. Many more photos (including table leveling checks) on the google-photos page for this vent. The estimated time between F.C. peeling and pumpdown is ~24 hours for ITMY and ~15 hours for ETMY, but for the former, the heavy doors were put on ~1 hour after the peeling. The first task is to fix the damping of ETMY. Attachment 1: IMG_5974.JPG Attachment 2: IMG_5986.JPG Attachment 3: IMG_5992.JPG 14428 Fri Feb 1 21:52:57 2019 gautamUpdateSUSPumpdown 83 underway [jon, koji, gautam] 1. IFO is at ~1 mtorr, but pressure is slowly rising because of outgassing presumably (we valved off the turbos from the main volume) 2. Everything went smooth - • 760 torr to 500 mtorr took ~7 hours (we deliberately kept a slow pump rate) • TP3 current was found to rise above 1 A easily as we opened RV2 during the turbo pumping phase, particularly in going from 500 mtorr to 10 mtorr, so we just ran TP2 more aggressively rather than change the interlock condition. • The pumpspool is isolated from the main volume - TP1-3 are running (TP2 and TP3 are on Standby mode) but are only exposed to the small pumpspool volume and RGA volume). • RP1 and RP3 were turned off, and the manual roughing line was disconnected. • We will resume the pumping on Monday. I'm leaving all suspension watchdogs tripped over the weekend as part of the suspension diagonalization campaign... 14433 Mon Feb 4 20:13:39 2019 gautamUpdateSUSETMY suspension oddness I looked at the free-swinging sensor data from two nights ago, and am struggling with the interpretation. [Attachment #1] - Fine resolution spectral densities of the 5 shadow sensor signals (y-axis assumes 1ct ~1um). The puzzling feature is that there are only 3 resonant peaks visible around the 1 Hz region, whereas we would expect 4 (PIT, YAW, POS and SIDE). afaik, Lydia looked into the ETMY suspension diagonalization last, in 2016. Compared to her plots (which are in the Euler basis while mine are in the OSEM basis), the ~0.73 Hz peak is nowhere to be seen. I also think the frequency resolution (<1 mHz) is good enough to be able to resolve two closely spaced peaks, so it looks like due to some reason (mechanical or otherwise), there are only 3 independent modes being sensed around 1 Hz. [Attachment #2] - Koji arrived and we looked at some transfer functions to see if we could make sense of all this. During this investigation, we also think that the UL coil actuator electronics chain has some problem. This test was done by driving the individual coils and looking for the 1/f^2 pendulum transfer function shape in the Oplev error signals. The ~ 4dB difference between UR/LL and LR is due to a gain imbalance in the coil output filter bank, once we have solved the other problems, we can reset the individual coil balancing using this measurement technique. [Attachment #3] - Downsampled time-series of the data used to make Attachment #1. The ringdown looks pretty clean, I don't see any evidence of any stuck magnets looking at these signals. The X-axis is in kilo-seconds. We found that the POS and SIDE local damping loops do not result in instability building up. So one option is to use only Oplevs for angular control, while using shadow-sensor damping for POS and SIDE. Attachment 1: ETMY_sensors_1_Feb_2019_2230_PST.pdf Attachment 2: ETMY_UL.pdf Attachment 3: ETMY_sensors_timeDomain.pdf 14441 Thu Feb 7 19:34:18 2019 gautamUpdateSUSETMY suspension oddness I did some tests of the electronics chain today. 1. Drove a sine-wave using awggui to the UL-EXC channel, and monitored using an o'scope and a DB25 breakout board at J1 of the satellite box, with the flange cable disconnected - while driving 3000 cts amplitude signal, I saw a 2 Vpp signal on the scope, which is consistent with expectations. 2. Checked resistances of the pin pairs corresponding to the OSEMs at the flange end using a breakout board - all 5 pairs read out ~16-17 ohms. 3. Rana pointed out that the inductance is the unambiguous FoM here: all coils measured between 3.19 and 3.3 mH according to the LCR meter... Hypothesising a bad connection between the sat box output J1 and the flange connection cable. Indeed, measuring the OSEM inductance from the DSUB end at the coil-driver board, the UL coil pins showed no inductance reading on the LCR meter, whereas the other 4 coils showed numbers between 3.2-3.3 mH. Suspecting the satellite box, I swapped it out for the spare (S/N 100). This seemed to do the trick, all 5 coil channels read out ~3.3 mH on the LCR meter when measured from the Coil driver board end. What's more, the damping behavior seemed more predictable - in fact, Rana found that all the loops were heavily overdamped. For our suspensions, I guess we want the damping to be critically damped - overdamping imparts excess displacement noise to the optic, while underdamping doesn't work either - in past elogs, I've seen a directive to aim for Q~5 for the pendulum resonances, so when someone does a systematic investigation of the suspensions, this will be something to look out for.. These flaky connectors are proving pretty troublesome, let's start testing out some prototype new Sat Boxes with a better connector solution - I think it's equally important to have a properly thought out monitoring connector scheme, so that we don't have to frequently plug-unplug connectors in the main electronics chain, which may lead to wear and tear. The input and output matrices were reset to their "naive" values - unfortunately, two eigenmodes still seem to be degenerate to within 1 mHz, as can be seen from the below spectra (Attachment #1). Next step is to identify which modes these peaks actually correspond to, but if I can lock the arm cavities in a stable way and run the dither alignment, I may prioritize measurement of the loss. At least all the coils show the expected 1/f**2 response at the Oplev error point now. The coil output filter gains varied by ~ factor of 2 among the 4 coils, but after balancing the gains, they show identical responses in the Oplev - Attachment #2. Attachment 1: ETMY_sensors.pdf Attachment 2: postDiag.pdf 14443 Fri Feb 8 02:00:34 2019 gautamUpdateSUSITMY has tendency of getting stuck As it turns out, now ITMY has a tendency to get stuck. I found it MUCH more difficult to release the optic using the bias jiggling technique, it took me ~ 2 hours. Best to avoid c1susaux reboots, and if it has to be done, take precautions that were listed for ITMX - better yet, let's swap out the new Acromag chassis ASAP. I will do the arm locking tests tomorrow. Attachment 1: Screenshot_from_2019-02-08_02-04-22.png 14470 Mon Feb 25 20:20:07 2019 KojiUpdateSUSDIN 41612 (96pin) shrouds installed to vertex SUS coil drivers The forthcoming Acromag c1susaux is supposed to use the backplane connectors of the sus euro card modules. However, the backplane connectors of the vertex sus coil drivers were already used by the fast switches (dewhitening) of c1sus. Our plan is to connect the Acromag cables to the upper connectors, while the switch channels are wired to the lower connector by soldering jumper wires between the upper and lower connectors on board. To make the lower 96pin DIN connector available for this, we needed DIN 41612 (96pin) shroud. Tyco Electronics 535074-2 is the correct component for this purpose. The shrouds have been installed to the backplane pins of the coil driver circuit D010001. The shroud has the 180deg rotation dof. The direction of the shroud was matched with the ones on the upper connectors. Attachment 1: P_20190222_175058.jpg 14499 Thu Mar 28 23:29:00 2019 KojiUpdateSUSSuspension PD whitening and I/F boards modified for susaux replacement Now the sus PD whitening bards are ready to move the back plane connectoresto the lower row and to plug the acromag interface board to the upper low. Sus PD whitening boards on 1X5 rack (D000210-A1) had slow and fast channels mix in a single DIN96 connector. As we are going to use the rear-side backplane connector for Acromag access, we wanted to migrate the fast channel somewhere. For this purpose, the boards were modified to duplicate the fast signals to the lower DIN96 connector. The modification was done on the back layer of the board (Attachment 1). The 28A~32A and 28C~32C of P1 are connected to the corresponding pins of P2 (Attachment 2). The connections were thouroughly checked by a multimeter. After the modification the boards were returned to the same place of the crate. The cables, which had been identified and noted before disconnection, were returned to the connectors. The functionarity of the 40 (8sus*5ch) whitening switches were confimred using DTT one by one by looking at the transfer functions between SUS LSC EXC to the PD input filter IN1. All the switches showed the proper whitening in the measurments. The PD slow mon (like C1:SUS-XXX_xxPDMon) channels were also checked and they returned to the values before the modification, except for the BS UL PD. As the fast version of the signal returned to the previous value, the monitor circuit was suspicious. Therefore the opamp of the monitor channels (LT1125) were replaced and the value came back to the previous value (attachment 3). Attachment 1: IMG_7474.JPG Attachment 2: D000210_backplane.pdf Attachment 3: Screenshot_from_2019-03-28_23-28-23.png 14536 Thu Apr 11 12:04:43 2019 JonUpdateSUSStarting some scripted SUS tests on ITMY Will advise when I'm finished, will be by 1 pm for ALS work to begin. 14538 Thu Apr 11 12:57:48 2019 JonUpdateSUSStarting some scripted SUS tests on ITMY Testing is finished.  Quote: Will advise when I'm finished, will be by 1 pm for ALS work to begin. 14539 Thu Apr 11 17:30:45 2019 JonUpdateSUSAutomated suspension testing with susPython ### Summary In anticipation of needing to test hundreds of suspension signals after the c1susaux upgrade, I've started developing a Python package to automate these tests: susPython https://git.ligo.org/40m/suspython The core of this package is not any particular test, but a general framework within which any scripted test can be "nested." Built into this framework is extensive signal trapping and exception handling, allowing actuation tests to be performed safely. Namely it protects against crashes of the test scripts that would otherwise leave the suspensions in an arbitrary state (e.g., might destroy alignment). ### Usage The package is designed to be used as a standalone from the command line. From within the root directory, it is executed with a single positional argument specifying the suspension to test:  python -m suspython ITMY

Currently the package requires Python 2 due to its dependence on the cdsutils package, which does not yet exist for Python 3.

### Scripted Tests

So far I've implemented a cross-consistency test between the DC-bias outputs to the coils and the shadow sensor readbacks. The suspension is actuated in pitch, then in yaw, and the changes in PDMon signals are measured. The expected sign of the change in each coil's PDMon is inferred from the output filter matrix coefficients. I believe this test is sensitive to two types of signal-routing errors: no change in PDMon response (actuator is not connected), incorrect sign in either pitch or yaw response, or in both (two actuators are cross-wired).

The next test I plan to implement is a test of the slow system using the fast system. My idea is to inject a 3-8 Hz excitation into the coil output filter modules (either bandlimited noise or a sine wave), with all coil outputs initially disabled. One coil at a time will be enabled and the change in all VMon signals monitored, to verify the correct coil readback senses the excitation. In this way, a signal injected from the independent and unchanged fast system provides an absolute reference for the slow system.

I'm also aware of ideas for more advanced tests, which go beyond testing the basic signal routing. These too can be added over time within the susPython framework.

14551   Thu Apr 18 22:35:23 2019 gautamUpdateSUSETMY actuator diagnosis

[rana, gautam]

Rana did a checkout of my story about oddness of the ETMY suspension. Today, we focused on the actuators - the goal was to find the correct coefficients on the 4 face coils that would result in diagonal actuation (i.e. if we actuate on PIT, it only truly moves the PIT DoF, as witnessed by the Oplev, and so on for the other DoFs). Here are the details:

1. Ramp times for filter modules:
• All the filter modules in the output matrix did not have ramp times set.
• We used python, cdsutils and ezca to script the writing of a 3 second ramp to all the elements of the 5x6 output matrix.
• The script lives at /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/cds/addRampTimes.py, can be used to implement similar scripts to initialize large numbers of channels (limiters, ramp times etc).
2. Bounce mode checkout:
• ​The motivation here was to check if there is anomalously large coupling of the bounce mode to any of the other DoFs for ETMY relative to the other optics
• The ITMs have a different (~15.9 Hz) bounce mode frequency compared to the ETMs (~16.2 Hz).
• I hypothesize that this is because the ETMs were re-suspended in 2016 using new suspension wire.
• We should check out specs of the wires, look for either thickness differences or alloying composition variation (Steve has already documented some of this in the elog linked above). Possibly also check out the bounce mode for a 250g load on the table top.
3. Step responses for PIT and YAW
• With the Oplevs disabled (but other local damping loops engaged), we applied a step of 100 DAC counts to the PIT and YAW DoFs from the realtime system (one at a time)
• We saw significant cross-coupling of the YAW step coupling to PIT, at the level of 50%.
4. OSEM coil coefficient balancing
• I had done this a couple of months ago looking at the DC gain of the 1/f^2 pendulum response.
• Rana suggested an alternate methodology
• we used the lock-in amplifier infrastructure on the SUS screens to drive a sine wave
• Frequencies were chosen to be ~10.5 Hz and ~13.5 Hz, to be outside the Oplev loop bandwidth
• Tests were done with the Oplev loop engaged. The Oplev error signal was used as a diagnostic to investigate the PIT/YAW cross coupling.
• In the initial tests, we saw coupling at the 20% level. If the Oplev head is rotated by 0.05 rad relative to the "true" horizontal-vertical coordinate system, we'd expect 5% cross coupling. So this was already a red flag (i.e. it is hard to believe that Oplev QPD shenanigans are responsible for our observations). We decided to re-diagonalize the actuation.
• The output matrix elements for the lock-in-amplifier oscillator signals were adjusted by adding some amount of YAW to the PIT elements (script lives at /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/SUS/stepOutMat.py), and vice versa, and we tried to reduce the height of the cross-coupled peaks (viewed on DTT using exponential weighting, 4 avgs, 0.1 Hz BW - note that the DTT cursor menu has a peak find option!). DTT Template saved at /users/Templates/SUS/ETMY-actDiag.xml
• This worked really well for minimizing PIT response while driving YAW, not as well for minimizing YAW in PIT.
• Next, we added some YAW to a POS drive to minimize the any signal at this drive frequency in the Oplev YAW error signal. Once that was done, we minimized the peak in the Oplev PIT error signal by adding some amount of PIT actuation.
• So we now have matrices that minimize the cross coupling between these DoFs - the idea is to back out the actuation coefficients for the 4 OSEM coils that gives us the most diagonal actuation, at least at AC.
5. Next steps:
• All of our tests tonight were at AC - once the coil balancing has been done at AC, we have to check the cross coupling at DC. If everything is working correctly, the response should also be fairly well decoupled at DC, but if not, we have to come up with a hypothesis as to why the AC and DC responses are different.
• Can we gain any additional info from driving the pringle mode and minimizing it in the Oplev error signals? Or is the problem overconstrained?
• After the output matrix diagonalization is done, drive the optic in POS, PIT and YAW, and construct the input matrix this way (i.e. transfer function), as an alternative to the usual free-swinging ringdown method. Look at what kind of an input matrix we get.
• Repeat the free-swinging ringdown with the ETMY bias voltage adjusted such that all the OSEM PDmons report ~100 um different position from the "nominal" position (i.e. when the Y arm cavity is aligned). Investigate whether the resulting eigenmode frequencies / Qs are radically different. I'm setting the optic free-swinging on my way out tonight. Optic kicked at 1239690286.
14554   Fri Apr 19 11:36:23 2019 gautamUpdateSUSNo consistent solution for output matrix

Ther isn't a consistent set of OSEM coil gains that explains the best actuation vectors we determined yesterday. Here are the explicit matrices:

1. POS (tuned to minimize excitation at ~13.5 Hz in the Oplev PIT and YAW error signals): $\begin{bmatrix} \text{UL} & \text{UR} & \text{LL} & \text{LR} \end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix} 0.98 \\ 0.96 \\ 1.04 \\ 1.02 \\ \end{bmatrix}$
2. PIT (tuned to minimize cross coupled peak in the Oplev YAW error signal at ~10.5 Hz): ​$\begin{bmatrix} \text{UL} & \text{UR} & \text{LL} & \text{LR} \end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix} 0.64 \\ 1.12 \\ -1.12 \\ -0.64 \\ \end{bmatrix}$
3. YAW (tuned to minimize cross coupled peak in the Oplev PIT error signal at ~13.5 Hz): $\begin{bmatrix} \text{UL} & \text{UR} & \text{LL} & \text{LR} \end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix} 1.5 \\ -0.5 \\ 0.5 \\ -1.5 \\ \end{bmatrix}$

There isn't a solution to the matrix equation $\begin{bmatrix} \alpha_1 & \alpha_2 & \alpha_3 & \alpha_4 \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 1 & 1 \\ 1 & 1 & -1 \\ 1 & -1 & 1 \\ 1 & -1 & -1 \end{bmatrix} =\begin{bmatrix} 0.98 & 0.64 & 1.5 \\ 0.96 & 1.12 & -0.5 \\ 1.04 & -1.12 & 0.5 \\ 1.02 & -0.64 & -1.5 \end{bmatrix}$, i.e. we cannot simply redistribute the actuation vectors we found as gains to the coils and preserve the naive actuation matrix. What this means is that in the OSEM coil basis, the actuation eigenvectors aren't the naive ones we would think for PIT and YAW and POS. Instead, we can put these custom eigenvectors into the output matrix, but I'm struggling to think of what the physical implication is. I.e. what does it mean for the actuation vectors for PIT, YAW and POS to not only be scaled, but also non-orthogonal (but still linearly independent) at ~10 Hz, which is well above the resonant frequencies of the pendulum? The PIT and YAW eigenvectors are the least orthogonal, with the angle between them ~40 degrees rather than the expected 90 degrees.

 Quote: So we now have matrices that minimize the cross coupling between these DoFs - the idea is to back out the actuation coefficients for the 4 OSEM coils that gives us the most diagonal actuation, at least at AC.
14557   Fri Apr 19 15:13:38 2019 ranaUpdateSUSNo consistent solution for output matrix

let us have 3 by 4, nevermore

so that the number of columns is no less

and no more

than the number of rows

so that forevermore we live as 4 by 4

 Quote: I'm struggling to think
14558   Fri Apr 19 16:19:42 2019 gautamUpdateSUSActuation matrix still not orthogonal

I repeated the exercise from yesterday, this time driving the butterfly mode [+1 -1 -1 +1] and adding the tuned PIT and YAW vectors from yesterday to it to minimize appearance in the Oplev error signals.

The measured output matrix is $\begin{bmatrix} 0.98 & 0.64 & 1.5 & 1.037 \\ 0.96 & 1.12 & -0.5 & -0.998 \\ 1.04 & -1.12 & 0.5 & -1.002 \\ 1.02 & -0.64 & -1.5 & 0.963 \end{bmatrix}$, where rows are the coils in the order [UL,UR,LL,LR] and columns are the DOFs in the order [POS,PIT,YAW,Butterfly]. The conclusions from my previous elog still hold though - the orthogonality between PIT and YAW is poor, so this output matrix cannot be realized by a simple gain scaling of the coil output gains. The "adjustment matrix", i.e. the 4x4 matrix that we must multiply the "ideal" output matrix by to get the measured output matrix has a condition number of 134 (1 is a good condition number, signifies closeness to the identity matrix).

 Quote: let us have 3 by 4, nevermore so that the number of columns is no less and no more than the number of rows so that forevermore we live as 4 by 4
ELOG V3.1.3-