40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
 40m Log, Page 40 of 330 Not logged in
ID Date Author Type Category Subject
14655   Tue Jun 4 23:41:13 2019 gautamUpdateCamerasSteps to interact with GigE

caget/caput probably does the job.

 Quote: Still not sure about how to modify the exposure time (other than using the pylon app, the only technique I know so far is to adjust the exposure manually on the medm screen and then run the scripts as described in the previous elog).
14654   Tue Jun 4 22:24:45 2019 MilindUpdateCamerasSteps to interact with GigE

Figured out how to get/grab frames by looking at the pypylon documenation as that turned out to be easier than modifying Jon's code. Still not sure about how to modify the exposure time (other than using the pylon app, the only technique I know so far is to adjust the exposure manually on the medm screen and then run the scripts as described in the previous elog). I will figure that out tomorrow and make a script suitable for Kruthi's usage (obtain a bunch of images with different exposure times). I will also try and integrate the video saving and streaming code into this and have a neat little script set up asap.

 Quote: Upcoming updates: Automatic script to run the above steps. Pre-determining the time duration of the recorded video. Obtaining snapshots.
14653   Tue Jun 4 10:56:31 2019 gautamUpdateIOOIMC diagnostics

I briefly managed to lock the IMC today - it stayed locked for ~10 minutes. Attachment #1 shows spectra of a few error and control signals for today's lock, and from a stretch yesterday before the problems surfaced*. The 60 Hz lines are much bigger, and MC_F signals broadband excess noise above a few Hz. I suspect a problem somewhere in the electronics.

*I confess the comparison isn't entirely valid because I had to tweak the FSS FAST gain from its nominal value of 22 to 25 in order to get the PC drive RMS down to the ~1.5V level. At the nominal gain setting, with the laser frequency locked to the cavity length, the PC Drive RMS was ~4 V. Still, indicative of something being off in the electronics.

Attachment 1: IMCdiag.pdf
14652   Tue Jun 4 00:17:15 2019 gautamUpdateBHDPreliminary BHD calculations

​Summary:

Attachment #1 shows the RIN and phase noise requirements for the 40m BHD for measuring Ponderomotive squeezing.

Some details:

1. The interferometer topology is not systematically optimized - I just picked values which are likely close to what we will eventually choose. Namely, $P_{\mathrm{PRM}} = 8\,\mathrm{W}$$\phi_{\mathrm{SRC}} = 0.275 ^{\circ}$$\zeta_{\mathrm{homodyne}} = 88 ^{\circ}$$\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{rt}}^{\mathrm{arm}} = 30\, \mathrm{ppm}$$G_{\mathrm{PRC}}\approx 40$. Nevertheless, I think these requirements will not change by more than 30% for changes to the interferometer config.
2. The requirements are evaluated using the following criterion: assuming that the dominant noises are (i) coil driver at mid-frequencies and (ii) quantum noise at high frequencies, what do the RIN and phase noise on the LO have to be such that the equivalent displacement noise is a factor of 10 below? I opted for a safety factor of 10, this can be relaxed.
3. An unknown is how much contrast defect light we will end up having due to the mismatch between arms. I assumed a few representative values.
4. The calculations were done analytically. This paper provides a good summary of the relations - although my RIN requirement is more stringent because of the safety factor of 10, and phase noise requirement is less stringent (despite the same safety factor) because we plan to read out at nearly the amplitude quadrature.
5. Since we are discussing the possibility of delivering the LO field using a fiber-coupled pickoff of the laser prior to RF sidebands being added, these requirements do not benefit from passive filtering from the cavity transfer functions. Consequently, the requirements are pretty challenging I think.

Conclusions:

1. The RIN requirement looks very challenging - we will need a shot noise limited ISS with 100 mW DC sensing light, and will likely have to relax the safety factor depending on how much contrast defect light we end up having. This actually sets some requirement on the amount of filtering we need from the OMC (next step).
2. The phase noise requirement also looks very challenging - I need to look up what is possible with the double-pass through fiber technique.

Next steps:

1. Evaluate the pointing stability requirement on the LO field (IFO output is filtered by the OMC).
2. We still need to think of a control scheme for the LO phase - likely, I think we will need a suspended optic between the fiber collimator delivering the light to the BHD setup with some kind of length actuation capability.
3. Numerical validation of this analytic study. I believe Finesse is still missing some capabilities that allow us to calculate these couplings, but I'll ask the experts to be sure.
4. Build up the requirements on the OMC cavity:
• Backscatter requirement (related = OFI isolation requirement, relative length noise between SRM and OMC, OFI and SRM). Does the OFI also have to be suspended?
• Filtering requirement
• Pointing stability requirement
• Length noise requirement
Attachment 1: LOreqs.pdf
14651   Tue Jun 4 00:11:45 2019 KruthiUpdateCamerasGigE setup

Chub and I are trying to figure out a way to co-mount GigE into the existing cylindrical enclosure. I'm attaching a picture of the current setup that is being used for imaging MC2. As of now, I have thought of 3 possible setups (schematics attached); but I don't know how feasible they are. Let us know if you have any other ideas.

Update: The setup 3 would require us to use the 52cm long enclosure. It has a long breadboard welded to it, which makes it very convienient, but the whole setup becomes quite heavy and it's not that safe to install such heavy enclosure on top of the vaccuum system. Also, aligning its components would be more complicated than other setups.

I decided to start with the simple one, therefore, I tried implementing setup 1. Fitting in the analog camera horizontally alongside the telescope turned out to be tricky. Though I did manage to fit it in, it didn't leave any room to change the orientation of the beamsplitter. Like Koji suggested, I'll be trying the setup 2.

Attachment 1: MC2.pdf
Attachment 2: Setup_3.png
Attachment 3: Setup_1.png
Attachment 4: Setup_2.png
14650   Mon Jun 3 23:18:59 2019 MilindUpdateComputer Scripts / Programsupdating bashrc

I was working with the git repo in the SnapPy_pypylon folder (/cvs/cds/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/GigE/SnapPy_pypylon) and needed to create a branch. To avoid any confusion, I modified the PS1 variable and that alone in the bashrc file to reflect the git branch so that the prompt now displays the git branch if you enter a repository. This is just an update.

14649   Mon Jun 3 21:03:54 2019 MilindUpdateCamerasSteps to interact with GigE

The following steps summarize the steps to setting up and interacting with a GigE camera.

Launching the PylonViewerApp:

1. Open a new terminal using Ctrl + Alt + T on the keyboard.
2. Launch the app using the command pylon.

Using setup python scripts to interact with the GigE (a summary of the steps listed here and here)

1. Connect the GigE camera to the ethernet cable and record its IP address. If the IP address is not printed on the GigE, launch the PylonViewerApp and navigate to the "Tools" dropdown menu and select "pylon IP configurator" to be presented with a list of all connected cameras and their IP addresses.
2. To simply observe the camera feed, open a new terminal and run the following commands:
1. cd /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/GigE/SnapPy_pypylon
2. python camera_server.py -c C1-CAM-ETMX.ini  (only one config file is present currently and more will be added as more cameras are set up. The "Camera IP" in the  .ini file must match that determined in step 1). This starts the camera server.
3. Open a new tab (Ctrl + Shift + T on the keyboard) in the terminal. You should still be in the same directory as navigated to in step 2.1. Run the following command.
1. python camera_client.py -c C1-CAM-ETMX.ini
4. This should bring up a feed from the camera. Close at will.
5. To record a video file, repeat steps 1 and 2. Open a new tab as described in step 3. Then run the following command:
1. python camera_client_movie.py -c C1-CAM-ETMX.ini
6. Enter the full path to the file where you wish to save the movie in the prompt that appears. Use ./your_file_name_here.avi to save the the video in the working directory. Press Ctrl + C to stop recording. The recording can be played by navigating to the location where the recording is stored and running vlc your_file_name_here.avi.
7. To adjust the exposure setting of the camera, open a new terminal and run the command sitemap . This should bring up the medm display in Attachment #1. Click on the Video/Lights button highlighted in red and select GigE. Adjust the exposure value in the next window using the slider before starting the server in step 1. Adjusting the slider once the server is started causes the program to freeze. Also set the Snapshot channel C1:CAM-ETMX_SNAP to off as mentioned in elog 14037.

1. Automatic script to run the above steps.
2. Pre-determining the time duration of the recorded video.
3. Obtaining snapshots.

Attachment 1: sitemap.pdf
14647   Mon Jun 3 16:46:31 2019 gautamUpdateIOOIMC not locking

Since ~ 2 hours ago, the IMC autolocker has not been able to keep the IMC locked. I don't see any obvious trends in the wall StripTool that may point to what's going on. For the brief periods in which a TEM00 mode is locked, the PC Drive RMS level is ~5x what the nominal level is, and while the autolocker is trying to lock the IMC, the PC drive RMS level is hovering around 4V DC, which is high. The PMC Error and Control signal spectra show huge 60 Hz (and harmonics) peaks, and indeed this is visible in the time domain signals as well (on ndscope or on the oscilloscope on the PSL table), but this is not a new feature in the last two hours. Usually, this kind of problem signals that either/both the c1psl or c1iool0 slow machines need to be power-cycled, but I confirmed that both machines are online and telnet-able. Possibilities: (i) some card in the c1psl / c1ioo crates have failed or (ii) something in the MC/FSS electronics chain has failed or (iii) there is a huge amount of excess high-frequency noise from the NPRO.

I am leaving the PSL shutter closed.

Attachment 1: PCdrive_RMS.png
14646   Mon Jun 3 16:40:48 2019 ranaUpdateCamerasTelescope

no BMP files

14645   Fri May 31 15:55:16 2019 gautamUpdateALSPSL + X beat restored

Coupling into the fast axis of the fiber:

The PM couplers I bought require that the light is coupled to the fast axis. The Thorlabs part that Andrew ordered, and which Anjali was using for the MZ experiment, was the opposite configuration, and so the input coupler K6XS mount was rotated to accommodate this polarization. The HWP was also rotated to cut the power into the fiber. I undid these changes. Mode-matching is ~65% (2.42mW/3.70mW) which isn't stellar, but good enough. The PER is ~15dB (ratio of power in fast axis to slow axis is ~40), which I verified using another collimator at the output, and a PBS + two photodiodes. Again isn't stellar but good enough.

Rana adjusted the temperature of the main laser to 30.61 C. According to the calibration, the EX laser temperature needed to be ~32.8 C. It was ~31.2 C. I made the change by rotating the dial on the front panel of the EX laser controller. Fine adjustment was done using the temperature slider on the ALS screen. With an offset of ~+610 counts, I found a beat at ~80 MHz.

First look at PM beamsplitters:

From my initial test, the beat amplitude was stable to my moving of the fibers . The NF1611 DC monitor reports 2.6 V DC with only the EX light, and 3.15 V DC with only the PSL light. So I should probably cut the PSL power a little to improve the contrast. Assuming the 10 kohm DC transimpedance spec can be believed, this means the expected signal level is 4*sqrt(260uA * 315uA)*700V/A ~0.8 Vpp, and I see ~0.9 Vpp, so roughly things add up (this is actually more consistent with an RF transimpedance of 800V/A, which is maybe not unreasonable). The RF amps for routing this signal to the delay line has been borrowed for the 2um frequency noise experiemnt - I will reacquire it today and check the ALS noise performance.

So overall, I am happy with the performance of the current iteration of the BeatMouth.

14644   Fri May 31 01:38:21 2019 KruthiUpdateCamerasTelescope

[Kruthi, Milind]

Yesterday, we were able to capture some images of objects at a distane of approx 60cm (see the attachment), with the GigE mounted onto the telescope. I think, Johannes had used it earlier to image the ETMX (https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8081/40m/13375). His elog entry doesn't say anything about the focal length of the lenses that he had used. The link to the python code he had used to calculate the lens solution wasn't working. After Gautam fixed it, I took a look at it. He has used 150mm (front lens) and 250mm (back lens) as the focal length of lenses for the calculation. Using the lens formula and an image of a nearby light source, with a very rough measurement, I found the focal lengths to be around 14 cm and 23 cm. So, I'm assuming that the lenses in the telescope are of same focal lengths as in his code, i.e 150mm and 250mm.

Attachment 1: telescope_mug_image.pdf
14643   Wed May 29 18:13:25 2019 gautamUpdateALSFiber beam-splitters are now PM

To maintain PM fibers all the way through to the photodiode, I had ordered some PM versions of the 50/50 fiber beamsplitters from AFW technologies. They arrived some days ago, and today I installed them in the BeatMouth. Before installation, I checked that the ends of the fibers were clean with the fiber microscope. I also did a little cleanup of the NW corner of the PSL table, where the 1um MZ setup was completely disassembled. We now have 4 non-PM fiber beamsplitters which may be useful for non polarizaiton sensitive applications - they are stored in the glass-door cabinet slightly east of the IY chamber along the Y arm, together with all the other fiber-related hardware.

Anjali had changed the coupling of the beam to the slow axis for her experiment but I ordered beamsplitters which have the slow axis blocked (because that was the original config). I need to revert to this config, and then make a measurement of the ALS noise - if things look good, I'll also patch up the Y arm ALS. We made several changes to the proposed timeline for the summer but I'd like to see this ALS thing through to the end while I still have some momentum before embarking on the BHD project. More to follow later in the eve.

 Quote: Get a fiber BS that is capable of maintaining the beam polarization all the way through to the beat photodiode. I've asked AFW technologies (the company that made our existing fiber BS parts) if they supply such a device, and Andrew is looking into a similar component from Thorlabs.
14642   Tue May 28 17:41:13 2019 gautamUpdateGeneralIFO status

[chub, gautam]

Today, we tried to resuscitate the c1iscaux2 channels by swapping the existing, failed VME crate with the newly freed up crate from c1susaux. In summary, the crate gets power, and the EPICS server gets satrted, but I am unable to switch the whitening gain on the whitening boards. I belive that this has to do with the FAIL LEDs that are on for the XVME-220 units. We were careful to preserve the location of the various cards in the VME crates during the swap. Rather than do a detailed debugging with custom RJ45 cables and terminal emulators, I think we should just focus the efforts on getting the Acromag system up and running.

Our work must have bumped a cable to the c1lsc expansion chassis in the same rack - the c1lsc FE had crashed. I rebooted it using the script - everything came back gracefully.

Attachment 1: IMG_7444.JPG
14641   Tue May 28 09:51:33 2019 gautamUpdateVACc1vac hard-rebooted

The vacuum itself was fine - CC1 gauge reported a pressure of 1.3e-5 torr. Note to self: the C1:Vac-CC1_HORNET_PRESSURE channel, which is the analog readback of the Hornet gauge and which is hooked up to an Acromag ADC in the c1auxex chassis, is independent of the status of the c1vac machine, and so can serve as a diagnostic.

However, I was unable to interact with c1vac in any way, the monitor hooked up directly to it was showing a frozen display. So I hard-rebooted the system. It took a few minutes to come back online - but even after 10 minutes of waiting, still no display. In the process of the reboot, several valves were closed off - when the EPICS processes restart, there are momentary instances where the readback channels get an "undefined" value, which prompts the main interlock process to transition to a "SAFE" state.

Running df -h, I saw that the /var partition was completely full. Maybe this was somehow interfering with the machine running smoothly? Two files in particular, daemon.log and daemon.log.1 were ~1GB each. The contents of these files seemed to be just the readbacks for the caget and caput commands. So I cleared both these files, and now the /var partition usage is only 26%. I also got the display back up and running on the physical monitor hooked up to the c1vac machine's VGA port. Let's see if this has improved the stability situation. The CPU load is still high (~6-7), with most of this coming from the modbus process. Why is this so high? c1susaux has more Acromag units but claims a much lower load of 0.71. Is the CPU of the c1vac machine somehow inferior?

In the meantime, I ssh-ed into c1vac and restored the "Vacuum normal" valve config. During this little escapade, the main volume pressure rose to ~6e-5 torr. It's coming back down smoothly.

Unrelated to this work: we had turned the RGA off for the vent, I powered it back on and re-initialized it this morning.

Attachment 1: Screen_Shot_2019-05-31_at_12.44.54_PM.png
14640   Mon May 27 11:37:13 2019 gautamUpdateVACc1vac is unresponsive

I've been monitoring the status of the pumpdown remotely with ndscope lookbacks of C1:Vac-CC1_pressure. Today morning, I saw that the channel was putting out a constant value (signature of EPICS server being frozen). caget did not work either. Then I tried ssh-ing into c1vac to see if there were any issues but I was unable to. The machine isn't responding to ping either. The EPICS value has been frozen since ~1030pm PDT 26 May 2019.

I will try and head to campus later today to check on it. Isn't an email alert or soemthing supposed to be sent out in such an event?

14639   Sun May 26 21:47:07 2019 KruthiUpdateCamerasCCD Calibration

On Friday, I tried calibrating the CCD with the following setup. Here, I present the expected values of scattered power (Ps) at $\theta$s = 45°, where $\theta$s is scattering angle (refer figure). The LED box has a hole with an aperture of 5mm and the LED is placed at approximately 7mm from the hole. Thus the aperture angle is 2*tan-1(2.5/7) ≈ 40° approx. Using this, the spot size of the LED light at a distance 'd' was estimated. The width of the LED holder/stand (approx 4") puts a constraint on the lowest possible $\theta$s. At this lowest possible $\theta$s, the distance of CCD/Ophir from the screen is given by $\dpi{80} \sqrt{d^2 + (2'')^2}$. This was taken as the imaging distance for other angles also.

In the table below, Pi is taken to be 1.5mW, and Ps and $\Omega$ were calculated using the following equations:

$\dpi{80} \Omega = \frac{CCD \ sensor \ area}{(Imaging \ distance)^2}$            $\dpi{80} P_{s} = \frac{1 }{\pi} * P_{i} *\Omega *cos(45^{\circ})$

 d (cm) Estimated spot diameter (cm) Lowest possible $\theta$s  (in degrees) Distance of CCD/Ophir from the screen (in cm) $\Omega$ (in sr) Expected Ps at   $\theta$s = 45° (in µW) 1.0 1.2 78.86 5.2 0.1036 34.98 2.0 2.0 68.51 5.5 0.0259 8.74 3.0 2.7 59.44 5.9 0.0115 3.88 4.0 3.4 51.78 6.5 0.0065 2.19 5.0 4.1 45.45 7.1 0.0041 1.38 6.0 4.9 40.25 7.9 0.0029 0.98 7.0 5.6 35.97 8.6 0.0021 0.71 8.0 6.3 32.42 9.5 0.0016 0.54 9.0 7.1 29.44 10.3 0.0013 0.44 10.0 7.8 26.93 11.2 0.0010 0.34

On measuring the scattered power (Ps) using the ophir power meter, I got values of the same order as that of  expected values given the above table. Like Gautam suggested, we could use a photodiode to detect the scattered power as it will offer us better precision or we could calibrate the power meter using the method mentioned in Johannes's post: https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8081/40m/13391.

Attachment 1: CCD_calibration_setup.png
14638   Sat May 25 20:29:08 2019 MilindUpdateCamerasSimulation enhancements and performance of contour detection
1. I used the same motion as defined in the previous elog. I gradually added noise to the images. Noise added was uniform random noise - a 2 dimensinoal array of random numbers between 0 and a predetermined maximum (noise_amp). The previous elog provides the variation of the y coordinate. In this, I am also uploading the effect of noise on the error in the prediction of the x coordinate. As a reminder, the motion of the beam spot center was purely vertical. Attachement #1  is the error for noise_amp = 0, #2 for noise_amp = 20 and #3  for noise_amp = 40. While Attachment #3 does provide the impression of there being a large error, this is not really the case as without normalization, each peak corresponds to a deviation of one pixel about the central value, see Attachement #4 for reference.
2. While the error does increase marginally, adding noise has no significant effect on the prediction of the y coordinate of the centroid as Attachment #5 shows at noise_amp = 40.
3. I am currently running an experiment to obtain the variation of mean square error with different noise amplitudes and will put up the plots soon. Further, I shall vary the resolution of the image frames and the the standard deviation of the Gaussain beam with time and try to obtain simulations very close to the real data available and then determine the performance of the algorithm.
4. The following videos will serve as a quick reference for what the videos and detection look like at
1. noise_amp = 20
2. noise_amp = 40
5. I also performed a quick experiment to see how low the amplitude of motion could be before the algorithm falied to detect the motion and found it to occur at 2 orders of magnitude below the values used in the previous post. This is a line of thought I intend to pursue more carefully and I am looking into how opencv and python handle images with floats as coordinates and will provide more details about the previous trial soon. This should give us an idea of what the smallest motion of the beam spot that can be resolved is.
 Quote: Implemented image level noise for simulation. Added only uniform random noise. Implemented addition of uniform random noise to any sinusoidal motion of beam spot. Implemented motion along y axis according to data in "power_spectrum" file. Impelemented simulation of random motion of beam spot in both x and y directions (done previously by Pooja, but a cleaner version). Created a video file for 10s with motion of beam spot along the y direction as given by Attachment #1. This was created by mixing four sinusoids at different amplitudes (frequencies (0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.8) Hz Amplitudes as fractions of N = 64 (0.1 0.09 0.08 0.09). FPS = 10. Total number of frames = 100 for the sake of convenience.  See Attachment #5. Following this, I used the thresholding (threshold = 127, chosen arbitrarily), contour detection and centroid computation sequence (see Attachment #6 for results) to obtain the plot in Attachment 2 for the predicted motion of the y coordinate. As is evident, the centering and scale of values obtained are off and I still haven't figured out how to precisely convert from one to another. Consequently, as a workaround, I simply normalised the values corresponding to each plot by subtracting the mean in each case and dividing the resulting series of values by their maximum. This resulted in the plots in Attachments 3 and 4 which show the normalised values of y coordinate variation and the error between the actual and predicted values between 0 and 1 respectively. Things yet to be done: Simulation: I will implement the mean square error function to compute the relativer performance as conditions change. I will add noise both to the image and to the motion (meaning introduce some randomness in the motion) to see how the performance, determined by both the curves such as the ones below and the mean square error, changes. Following this, I will vary the standard deviation of the beam spot along X and Y directions and try to obtain beam spot motion similar to the video in Attachment #2 of elog post 14632. Currently, I have made no effort to carefully tune the parameters associated with contour detection and threshold and have simply used the popular defaults. While this has worked admirably in the case of the simple simulated videos, I suspect much more tweaking will be needed before I can use this on real data. It is an easy step to determine the performance of the algorithm for random, circular and other motions of the beam spot. However, I will defer this till later as I do not see any immediate value in this. Determine noise threshold. In simulation or with real data: obtain a video where the beam spot is ideally motionless (easy to do with simulated data) and then apply the above approach to the video and study the resulting predicted motion. In simulation, I expect the predictions for a motionless beam spot video (without noise) to be constant. Therefore, I shall add some noise to the video and study the prediction of the algorithm. NOTE: the above approach relies on some previous knowledge of what the video data will look like. This is useful in determining which contours to ignore, if any like the four bright regions at the corners in this video. Real data: Obtaining real data and evaluate if the algorithm is succesful in determining contours which can be used to track the beam spot. Once the kind of video feed this will be used on is decided, use the data generated from such a feed to determine what the best settings of hyperparameters are and detect the beam spot motion. Synchronization of data stream regarding beam spot motion and video. Determine the calibration: anglular motion of the optic to beam spot motion on the camera sensor to video to pixel mapping in the frames being processed. Other approaches: Review work done by Gabriele with CNNs, implement it and then compare performance with the above method.

Attachment 1: residue_normalised_x.pdf
Attachment 2: residue_normalised_x.pdf
Attachment 3: residue_normalised_x.pdf
Attachment 4: predicted_motion_x.pdf
Attachment 5: normalised_comparison_y.pdf
14637   Fri May 24 17:50:19 2019 gautamUpdateIOOIFO recovery

At ~4pm, the main volume pressure (CC1) was reported to be ~5e-5 torr. So I replaced the HR mirror in the MC REFL path with the usual 10% beamsplitter, and aligned the beam onto MCREFL photodiode. I also replaced the ND filter on the AS port camera, and in front of the IPPOS QPD.

Then I turned up the power by HWP rotation - at the input to the IMC, I now measured 960 mW with the Coherent power meter, so the NPRO power has certainly decayed by ~10% from 2018 July. Normal high-power IMC autolocker script was re-enabled on megatron (and the slow servo enable threshold raised from 1000 cts to 8000cts). IMC was readily locked, after some hand alignment, I got a maximum of 14500 cts transmission. I was then able to lock the Y-arm. The dither alignment servo did not work with the nominal settings, but by hand alignment, I was able to get TRY up to 0.6 (I didn't try too hard to optimize this in any systematic way). X arm was also locked.

AUX drypump valved off and shutdown at ~610pm. I also switched both TP2 and TP3 to their lower rotation "standby" mode. So overall no major mishaps this time around. I am leaving the PSL shutter open over the long weekend. For in-air vs vacuum suspension spectra comparison, I kicked the ETMY optic at Fri May 24 18:26:10 PDT 2019.

14636   Fri May 24 11:47:15 2019 gautamUpdateVACIFO is almost at nominal vacuum

[chub, gautam]

Overnight, the pressure of the main volume only rose by 10 mtorr, so there was no need to run the roughing pumps again. So we went straight to the turbos - hooked up the AUX drypump and set it up to back TP2. Initially, we tried having both TP2 and TP3 act as backing pumps for TP1, but the wimpy TP3 current was always passing the interlock threshold. So we decided to pump down with TP3 valved off, only TP2 backing TP1. This went smooth - we had to keep an eye on P2, to make sure it stayed below 1 torr. It took ~ 1 hour to go from 500 mtorr to 100 mtorr, but after that, I could almost immediately open up RV2 completely. A safe setting to run at seems to be to have RV2 open by between 0.5 and 1 turn (out of the full range of 7 turns) until the pressure drops to ~100 mtorr. Then we can crank it open. We are, at the time of writing, at ~8e-5 torr and the pressure is coming down steadily.

I had to manually clear the IG error on the CC1 gauge, and re-enabled the High Voltage, so that we have a readback of the main volume pressure in that range. I made a script to do this (enable the HV, the IG error still has to be cleared by pushing the appropriate buttons on the Hornet), it lives at /opt/target/python/serial/turnHornetON.py. I guess it'll take a few days to hit 8e-6 torr, but I don't see any reason to not leave the turbos running over the weekend.

Remaining tasks are (i) disconnect the roughing pump line and (ii) pump down the annuli, which will be done later today. Both were done at ~2pm, now we are in the vacuum normal config. I'll turn the two small turbos to run on "Standby Mode" before I head home today. I think TP3 may be close to end-of-life - the TP3 current went up to 1A even while evacuating the small volume of the annular line (which was already at 1 torr) with the AUX drypump backing it. The interlock condition is set to trip at 1.2A, and this pump is nominally supposed to be able to back TP1 during the pumpdown of the main volume from 500 mtorr, which it wasn't able to do.

Attachment 1: pumpdown_20190524.png
14635   Thu May 23 15:37:30 2019 MilindUpdateCamerasSimulation enhancements and performance of contour detection
1. Implemented image level noise for simulation. Added only uniform random noise.
2. Implemented addition of uniform random noise to any sinusoidal motion of beam spot.
3. Implemented motion along y axis according to data in "power_spectrum" file.
4. Impelemented simulation of random motion of beam spot in both x and y directions (done previously by Pooja, but a cleaner version).
5. Created a video file for 10s with motion of beam spot along the y direction as given by Attachment #1. This was created by mixing four sinusoids at different amplitudes (frequencies (0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.8) Hz Amplitudes as fractions of N = 64 (0.1 0.09 0.08 0.09). FPS = 10. Total number of frames = 100 for the sake of convenience.  See Attachment #5.
6. Following this, I used the thresholding (threshold = 127, chosen arbitrarily), contour detection and centroid computation sequence (see Attachment #6 for results) to obtain the plot in Attachment 2 for the predicted motion of the y coordinate. As is evident, the centering and scale of values obtained are off and I still haven't figured out how to precisely convert from one to another.
7. Consequently, as a workaround, I simply normalised the values corresponding to each plot by subtracting the mean in each case and dividing the resulting series of values by their maximum. This resulted in the plots in Attachments 3 and 4 which show the normalised values of y coordinate variation and the error between the actual and predicted values between 0 and 1 respectively.

Things yet to be done:

Simulation:

1. I will implement the mean square error function to compute the relativer performance as conditions change.
2. I will add noise both to the image and to the motion (meaning introduce some randomness in the motion) to see how the performance, determined by both the curves such as the ones below and the mean square error, changes.
3. Following this, I will vary the standard deviation of the beam spot along X and Y directions and try to obtain beam spot motion similar to the video in Attachment #2 of elog post 14632.
4. Currently, I have made no effort to carefully tune the parameters associated with contour detection and threshold and have simply used the popular defaults. While this has worked admirably in the case of the simple simulated videos, I suspect much more tweaking will be needed before I can use this on real data.
5. It is an easy step to determine the performance of the algorithm for random, circular and other motions of the beam spot. However, I will defer this till later as I do not see any immediate value in this.
6. Determine noise threshold. In simulation or with real data: obtain a video where the beam spot is ideally motionless (easy to do with simulated data) and then apply the above approach to the video and study the resulting predicted motion. In simulation, I expect the predictions for a motionless beam spot video (without noise) to be constant. Therefore, I shall add some noise to the video and study the prediction of the algorithm.
7. NOTE: the above approach relies on some previous knowledge of what the video data will look like. This is useful in determining which contours to ignore, if any like the four bright regions at the corners in this video.

Real data:

1. Obtaining real data and evaluate if the algorithm is succesful in determining contours which can be used to track the beam spot.
2. Once the kind of video feed this will be used on is decided, use the data generated from such a feed to determine what the best settings of hyperparameters are and detect the beam spot motion.
3. Synchronization of data stream regarding beam spot motion and video.
4. Determine the calibration: anglular motion of the optic to beam spot motion on the camera sensor to video to pixel mapping in the frames being processed.

Other approaches:

1. Review work done by Gabriele with CNNs, implement it and then compare performance with the above method.
Attachment 1: actual_motion.pdf
Attachment 2: predicted_motion.pdf
Attachment 3: normalised_comparison.pdf
Attachment 4: residue_normalised.pdf
Attachment 5: simulated_motion1.mp4
Attachment 6: elog_22may_contours.mp4
14634   Thu May 23 15:30:56 2019 gautamUpdateVACPumpdown underway - so far so good!

[chub, koji, gautam]

1. We executed the pre-pumpdown tasks per the checklist - heavy doors were on by ~1030am.
2. We were thwarted by the display of c1vac becoming unresponsive - the mouse cursor moves, but we could not interact with any screens. Connecting to c1vac by ssh with the -X option, we could interact with everything. Using top, we saw that the load average was reporting ~8 - this is pretty high! The most demanding processes were the modbus IOC and some python processes, presumably connected with the interlocks. We tried stopping the interlock systemctl process, kill -9ing the heavy processes, but to no avail. Next, we tried killing the X display proces, but this also did not fix the problem. Finally, we did a soft reboot of c1vac - the machine came back up, but still no interactivity. So we moved asia, the EY laptop, to the vacuum station for this pumpdown. We will fix the situation once the vacuum is in the nominal state.
3. The actual pumpdown commenced by first evacuating the EY and IY annular volumes with the roughing pump. There is an interlock condition that prevents V6 from being opened if the PRP gauge reports < 0.25 torr (this is to protect against oil backstreaming from the roughing pumps I believe). To get around this, we gave the roughing pumps some work by exposing the annular line to the atmospheric pressure of the EY and IY annuli. In a few minutes, both of these reported < 1 torr.
4. Main volume pumping started around noon - we have been going down in pressure steadily at ~3 torr/min (Koji has a nice python utility made that calculates the rate from the pressure channel).
5. At the time of writing, after ~3.5 hrs of pumping, we are at 25 torr. I will keep going till ~1 torr, and then valve off the main volume until tomorrow, when Chub and I will work on getting the turbo pumps exposed to the main volume. Pausing at 355pm while I go for the colloquium. Resumed later in the evening, stopping for today at 500 mtorr.
6. In preparation for the increased load on TP2 and TP3, I spun them up to the "high RPM mode" from their nominal "Standby mode".

Close up photos of the EY and IY chambers may be found here.

Update on the display manager of c1vac: I was able to get it working again by running sudo systemctl restart display-manager. Now I can interact with the MEDM screens on c1vac. It is a bit annoying that this machine doesn't have the users directory so I don't have access to the many convenient StripTool templates though - maybe I'll make local copies tomorrow for the pumpdown.

Attachment 1: pumpdownPres.png
14633   Thu May 23 10:18:39 2019 KruthiUpdateCamerasCCD calibration

On Tuesday, I tried reproducing Pooja's measurements (https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8081/40m/13986). The table below shows the values I got. Pictures of LED circuit, schematic and the setup are attached. The powermeter readings fluctuated quite a bit for input volatges (Vcc) > 8V, therefore, I expect a maximum uncertainity of 50µW to be on a safer side. Though the readings at lower input voltages didn't vary much over time (variation < 2µW), I don't know how relaible the Ophir powermeter is at such low power levels. The optical power output of LED was linear for input voltages 10V to 20V. I'll proceed with the CCD calibration soon.

 Input Voltage (Vcc) in volts Optical power 0 (dark reading) 1.6 nW 2 55.4 µW 4 215.9 µW 6 0.398 mW 8 0.585 mW 10 0.769 mW 12 0.929 mW 14 1.065 mW 16 1.216 mW 18 1.330 mW 20 1.437 mW 22 1.484 mW 24 1.565 mW 26 1.644 mW 28 1.678 mW

Attachment 1: setup.jpeg
Attachment 2: led_circuit.jpeg
Attachment 3: led_schematic.pdf
14632   Thu May 23 08:51:30 2019 MilindUpdateCamerasSetting up beam spot simulation

I have done the following thus far since elog #14626:

Simulation:

1. Cleaned up Pooja's code for simulating the beam spot. Added extensive comments and made the code modular. Simulated the Gaussian beam spot to exhibit
1. Horizontal motion
2. Vertical motion
3. motion along both x and y directions:
2. The motion exhibited in any direction in the above videos is the combination of four sinusoids at the frequencies: 0.2, 0.4, 0.1, 0.3 Hz with amplitudes that can be found as defaults in the script ((0.1, 0.04, 0.05, 0.08)*64 for these simulations.). The variation looks as shown in Attachment 1. For the sake of convenience I have created the above video files with only a hundred frames (fps = 10, total time ~ 10s) and this took around 2.4s to write. Longer files need much longer. As I wish to simply perform image processing on these frames immediately, I don't see the need to obtain long video files right away.
3. I have yet to add noise at the image level and randomness to the motion itself.  I intend to do that right away. Currently video 3 will show you that even though the time variation of the coordinates of the center of the beam is sinusoidal, the motion of the beam spot itself is along a line as both x and y motions have the same phase. I intend to add the feature of phase between the motion of x and y coordinates of the center of the beam, but it doesn't seem all too important to me right now. The white margins in the videos generated are annoying and make tracking the beam spot itself slightly difficult as they introduce offset (see below). I shall fix them later if simple cropping doesn't do the trick.
4. I have yet to push the code to git. I will do that once I've incorporated the changes in (3).

Circle detection:

1. If the beam spot intensity variation is indeed Gaussian (as it definitely is in the simulation), then the contours are circular. Consequently, centroid detection of the beam spot reduces to detecting these contours and then finding their centroid (center). I tried this for a simulated video I found in elog post 14005. It was a quick implementation of the following sequence of operations: threshold (arbritrarily set to 127), contour detection (video dependent and needs to be done manually), centroid determination from the required contour.  Its evident that the beam spot is being tracked (green circle in the video). Check #Attachment 2 for the results. However, no other quantitative claims can be made in the absence of other data.
2. Following this, Gautam pointed me to a capture in elog post 13908. Again, the steps mentioned in (1) were followed and the results are presented below in Attachment #3. However, this time the contour is no longer circular but distorted. I didn't pursue this further. This test was just done to check that this approach does extend (even if not seamlessly) to real data. I'm really looking forward to trying this with this real data.
3. So far, the problem has been that there is no source data to compare the tracked centroid with. That ought to be resolved with the use of simulated data that I've generated above. As mentioned before, some matplotlib features such as saving with margins introduce offsets in the tracked beam position. However, I expect to still be able to see the same sinusoidal motion. As a quick test, I'll obtain the fft of the centroid position time series data and check if the expected frequencies are present.

I will wrap up the simulation code today and proceed to going through Gabriele's repo. I will also test if the contour detection method works with the simulated data. During our meeting, it was pointed out that when working with real data, care has to be taken to synchronize the data with the video obtained. However, I wish to put off working on that till later in the pipeline as I think it doesn't affect the algorithm being used. I hope that's alright (?).

Attachment 1: variation.pdf
Attachment 2: contours_simulated.mp4
Attachment 3: contours_real.mp4
14631   Wed May 22 22:50:13 2019 gautamUpdateVACPumpdown prep

I did the following:

1. Checked the ETMY OSEM sensing matrix and OSEM actuation matrix - more on this later, but everything seems much more reasonable than it was prior to this vent.
2. Checked that the IMC could be locked with the low-power beam
3. Aligned the Y-arm cavity using the green beam. Then tweaked the TT1/TT2 alignment until I saw IR flashes in TRY.
4. Repeated #2 for the X arm, using the BS to control the beam pointing.
5. Confirmed that the AS beam makes it out of the vacuum. It is only ~30uW in a large (~1cm dia) beam, so not the clearest spot on an IR card, but looks pretty clean, no evidence of clipping. I removed an ND filter on the AS port camera in order to better see the beam on the CRT monitor, this should be re-installed prior to ramping the input power to the IMC again.
6. With the PRM aligned, I confirmed that I could see resonant flashes in the POP QPD.
7. With the SRM aligned, I confirmed that I could see SRC cavity flashes on the AS camera.

I think this completes the pre-pumpdown alignment checks we usually do. The detailed plan for tomorrow is here: please have a look and lmk if I missed something.

14630   Wed May 22 11:53:50 2019 gautamUpdateSUSETMY EQ stops backed out

Yesterday we noticed that the POS and SIDE eigenmodes were degenerate (with 1mHz spectral resolution). Moreover, the YAW peak had shifted down by ~500 mHz compared to earlier this week, although there was still good separation between PIT and YAW in the Oplev error signals. Ideas were (i) check if EQ stops were not backed out sufficiently, and (ii) look for any fibers/other constraints in the system. Today morning, I inspected the optic again. I felt the EQ stop viton tips were a bit close to the optic, so I backed them out further. Apart from this, I adjusted the LR and SIDE OSEM position in their respective holders to make the sensor voltages closer to half-light. Kicked the optic again just now, let's see if there is any change.

1. Check EY table leveling.
2. Check EY actuation matrix diagonality using this technique.
3. Check that IR resonances are seen (and all the usual pre-pumpdown alignment checks).
4. Take close out pictures.
5. Heavy doors on, pump down.

If everything goes smoothly, I think we should plan for the heavy doors going back on and commencing the pumpdown tomorrow. After discussion with Koji, we came to the conclusion that it isn't necessary to investigate IPANG (high likelihood of it falling off the steering optics during the pumpdown) / AS beam clipping (no strong evidence that this is a problem) for this vent.

Update 1235: Indeed, the eigenmodes are back to their positions from earlier this week. Indeed, the POS and SIDE modes are actually better separated! So, the OSEM/magnet and EQstop/optic interactions are non-negligible in the analysis of the dynamics of the pendulum.

Attachment 1: ETMY_eigenmodes.pdf
14629   Tue May 21 21:33:27 2019 gautamUpdateSUSETMY HR face cleaned

[koji, gautam]

We executed this plan. Photos are here. Summary:

1. Optic was EQ-stopped (face stops only)., with the OSEMs in situ. We tried to do this as evenly as possible to avoid any magnets getting stuck on OSEMs.
2. We used the specially procured acetone from Chub to drag wipe the HR face. This was a definite improvement, we should always get the correct grade of solvents when we attempt cleaning optics.
3. It was observed that drag-wiping did not really have the desired cleaning effect. So Koji went in with hemostat / lens tissue soaked in acetone and wiped the HR face. This improved the situation.
4. Applied a layer of F.C. Waited for it to dry, and then peeled it off. Under the green flashlight, the optic still looks horrific - but we decided against further drag-wiping/first-contacting. If the loss is truly 50 ppm, this is totally not a show-stopper for now.
5. Suspension cage was replaced. EQ stops were released. Bias voltages were adjusted to bring the Oplev spot back to the center of the QPD. Now a free-swinging data collection is ongoing...
The following optics were kicked:
ETMY
Tue May 21 22:58:18 PDT 2019
1242539916

So if nothing, we got to practise this new wiping technique with OSEMs in situ successfully.

 Quote: Prepare ETMY for first contact cleaning to remove the residual piece.  Drag wipe the HR surface with dehydrated acetone  Apply F.C. as usual, inspect the HR face after peeling for improvement if any. This will give us a chance to practise the F.C.ing with the optic EQ-stopped (moving cage etc).
14628   Tue May 21 00:15:21 2019 gautamUpdateSUSMain objectives of vent achieved (?)

Summary:

1. ETMY now shows four suspension eigenmodes, with sensible phasing between signals for the angular DoFs. However, the eigenfrequencies have shifted by ~10% compared to 16 May 2019.
2. PIT and YAW for ETMY as witnessed by the Oplev are now much better separated.
3. ITMY can have its bias voltage set to zero and back to nominal alignment without it getting stuck.
4. The sensing matrix for ETMY that I get doesn't make much sense to me. Nevertheless, the optic damps even with the "naive" input matrix.

So the primary vent objectives have been achieved, I think.

Details:

1. ETMY free-swinging data after adjusting LL and SIDE coils such that these were closer to half-light values
• Attachment #1 - oplev witnessing the angular motion of the optic. PIT and YAW are well decoupled.
• Attachment #2 - complex TF between the suspension coils. There is still considerable imbalance between coils, but at least the phasing of the signals make sense for PIT and YAW now.
• Attachment #3 - DoFs sensed using the naive and optimized sensing matrices.
• Attachment #4 - sensing matrix that the free swinging data tells me to implement. If the local damping works with the naive input matrix but we get better diagonality in the actuation matrix, I think we may as well stick to the naive input matrix.
2. BR mode coupling minimization:
• As alluded to in my previous elog, I tried to reduce the bounce mode coupling into the shadow sensor by rotating the OSEM in its holder.
• However, I saw negligible change in the coupling, even going through a full pi radian rotation. I imagine the coupling will change smoothly so we should have seen some change in one of the ~15 positions I sampled in between, but I saw none.
• The anomalously high coupling of the bounce mode to the shadow sensor readout is telling us something - I'm just not sure what yet.
3. ITMY:
• The offender was the LL OSEM, whose rotational orientation was causing the magnet to get stuck to the teflon part of the OSEM coil when the bias voltage was changed by a sufficiently large amount.
• I rectified this (required adjustment of all 5 OSEMs to get everything back to half light again).
• After this, I was able to zero the bias voltage to the PIT/YAW DoFs and not have the optic get stuck - huzzah 😀
• While I have the chance, I'm collecting the free-swinging data to see what kind of sensing matrix this optic yields.

Tomorrow and later this week:

1. Prepare ETMY for first contact cleaning to remove the residual piece.
• Drag wipe the HR surface with dehydrated acetone
• Apply F.C. as usual, inspect the HR face after peeling for improvement if any.
• This will give us a chance to practise the F.C.ing with the optic EQ-stopped (moving cage etc).
2. Confirm ETMY actuation makes sense.
• Use the green beam for an ASS proxy implementation?
3. High quality close out pictures of OSEMs and general chamber layout.
4. Anything else? Any other tests we can do to convince ourselves the suspensions are well-behaved?

While we have the chance:

1. Fix the IPANG alignment? Because the TT drift/hysteresis problem is still of unknown cause.
2. Check that the AS beam is centered on OMs 1-6?
3. Recover the 70% AS light that is being diverted to the OMC?

Unrelated to this work: megatron is responding to ping but isn't ssh-able. I also noticed earlier to day that the IMC autolocker blinky wasn't blinking. So it probably requries a hard reboot. I left the lab for tonight so I'll reboot it tomorrow, but no nds data access in the meantime...

Attachment 1: etmy_oplevs_20190520.pdf
Attachment 2: ETMY_cplxTF.pdf
Attachment 3: ETMY_diagComp.pdf
Attachment 4: Screen_Shot_2019-05-21_at_12.37.08_AM.png
14627   Mon May 20 22:06:07 2019 gautamUpdateSUSITMY also kicked

For good measure:

The following optics were kicked:
ITMY
Mon May 20 22:05:01 PDT 2019
1242450319
14626   Mon May 20 21:45:20 2019 MilindUpdate Traditional cv for beam spot motion

Went through all of Pooja's elog posts, her report and am currently cleaning up her code and working on setting up the simulations of spot motion from her work last year. I've also just begun to look at some material sent by Gautam on resonators.

This week, I plan to do the following:

1) Review Gabriele's CNN work for beam spot tracking and get his code running.

2) Since the relation between the angular motion of the optic and beam spot motion can be determined theoretically, I think a neural network is not mandatory for the tracking of beam spot motion. I strongly believe that a more traditional approach such as thresholding, followed by a hough transform ought to do the trick as the contours of the beam spot are circles. I did try a quick and dirty implementation today using opencv and ran into the problem of no detection or detection of spurious circles (the number of which decreased with the increased application of median blur). I will defer a more careful analysis of this until step (1) is done as Gautam has advised.

3) Clean up Pooja's code on beam tracking and obtain the simulated data.

4) Also data like this  (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VbXcPTfC9GH2ttZNWM7Lg0RqD7qiCZuA/view) is incredibly noisy. I will look up some standard techniques for cleaning such data though I'm not sure if the impact of that can be measured until I figure out an algorithm to track the beam spot.

A more interesting question Gautam raised was the validity of using the beam spot motion for detection of angular motion in the presence of other factors such as surface irregularities. Another question is the relevance of using the beam spot motion when the oplevs are already in place. It is not immediately obvious to me how I can ascertain this and I will put more thought into this.

Following the observation that the response in the LL shadow sensor was lower than that of the others, I decided to pull it out a little to move the signal level with nominal DC bias voltage applied was closer to half the open-voltage. I also chose to rotate the SIDE OSEM by ~20 degrees CCW in its holder (viewed from the south side of the EY chamber), to match more closely its position from a photo prior to the haphazhard vent of the summer of 2018. For the SIDE OSEM, the theoretical "best" alignment in order to be insensitive to POS motion is the shadow sensor beam being horizontal - but without some shimming of the OSEM in the holder, I can't get the magnet clear of the teflon inside the OSEM.

While I was inside the chamber, I attempted to minimize the Bounce/Roll mode coupling to the LL and SIDE OSEM channels, by rotating the Coil inside the holder while keeping the shadow sensor voltage at half-light. To monitor the coupling "live", I set up DTT with 0.3 Hz bandwidth and 3 exponentially weighted averages. For the LL coil, I went through pi radians of rotation either side of the equilibrium, but saw no significant change in the coupling - I don't understand why.

In any case, this wasn't the most important objective so I pushed ahead with recovering half-light levels for all the shadow sensors and closed up with the light doors. I kicked the optic again at 1712:14 PDT, let's see what the matrix looks like now.

before starting this work, i had to key the unresponsive c1auxey VME crate.

14624   Mon May 20 13:16:57 2019 gautamSummaryComputersnew laptop setup: ASIA - ndscope and diaggui

Following instructions here, I installed ndscope on this machine. DTT still could not be be run from this machine, and I want to use this today - so I ran the following commands from the K. Thorne setup instructions.

yum clean metadata
yum update
yum install cds-workstation pcaspy subversion redhat-lsb  gnuradio google-chrome-stable xorg-x11-drv-nvidia epel-release redhat-lsb

Now diaggui can be opened, and spectra can be made. I'm moving this laptop to its new home at EY.

 Quote: now running 'yum install gds-all' to see if we need more local libraries to run GDS from the shared disks...
14623   Mon May 20 11:33:46 2019 gautamUpdateSUSITMY inspection

With Chub providing illumination via the camera viewport, I was able to take photos of ITMY this morning. All the magnets look well clear of the OSEMs, with the possible exception of UR. I will adjust the position of this OSEM slightly. To test if this fix is effective, I will then cycle the bias voltage to the ITM between 0 and the maximum allowed, and check if the optic gets stuck.

14621   Sat May 18 12:19:36 2019 KruthiUpdate CCD calibration and telescope design

I went through all the elog entries related to CCD calibration. I was wondering if we can use Spectralon diffuse reflectance standards (https://www.labsphere.com/labsphere-products-solutions/materials-coatings-2/targets-standards/diffuse-reflectance-standards/diffuse-reflectance-standards/) instead of a white paper as they would be a better approximation to a Lambertian scatterer.

Telescope design:
On calculating the accessible u-v ranges and the % error in magnification (more precisely, %deviation), I got %deviation of order 10 and in some cases of order 100 (attachments 1 to 4), which matches with Pooja's calculations. But I'm not able reproduce Jigyasa's %error calculations where the %error is of order 10^-1. I couldn't find the code that she had used for these calculations and I even mailed her about the same. We can still image with 150-250 mm combination as proposed by Jigyasa, but I don't think it ensures maximum usage of pixel array. Also for this combination the resulting conjugate ratio will be greater than 5. So, use of plano-convex lenses will reduce spherical aberrations. I also explored other focal length combinations such as 250-500 mm and 500-500mm. In these cases, both the lenses will have f-numbers greater than 5. But the conjugate ratios will be less than 5, so biconvex lenses will be a better choice.

Constraints: available lens tube length (max value of d) = 3" ; object distances range (u) = 70 cm to 150 cm ; available cylindrical enclosures (max value of d+v) are 52cm and 20cm long (https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8081/40m/13000).

I calculated the resultant image distance (v) and the required distance between lenses (d), for fixed magnifications (i.e. m = -0.06089 and m = -0.1826 for imaging test masses and beam spot respectively) and different values of 'u'. This way we can ensure that no pixels are wasted. The focal length combinations - 300-300mm (for imaging beam spot), and 100-125mm (for imaging test masses) - were the only combinations that gave all positive values for 'd' and 'v', for given range of 'u' (attachments 5-6). But here 'd' ranges from 0 to 30cm in first case, which exceeds the available lens tube length. Also, in the second case the f-numbers will be less than 5 for 2" lenses and thus may result in spherical aberration.

All this fuss about f-numbers, conjugate ratios, and plano-convex/biconvex lenses is to reduce spherical aberrations. But how much will spherical aberrations affect our readings?

We have two 2" biconvex lenses of 150mm focal length and one 2" biconvex lens of focal length 250mm in stock. I'll start off with these and once I have a metric to quantify spherical aberrations we can further decide upon lenses to improve the telescopic lens system.

Attachment 1: 15-25.png
Attachment 2: 25-25.png
Attachment 3: 25-50.png
Attachment 4: 50-50.png
Attachment 5: 30-30_for_1%22.png
Attachment 6: 10-12.5_for_3%22.png
14620   Fri May 17 17:01:08 2019 gautamUpdateSUSETMY suspension characterization

To investigate my mapping of the eigenfrequencies to eigenmodes, I checked the Oplev spectra for the last few hours, when the Oplev spot has been on the QPD (but the optic is undamped).

1. Based on Attachment #1, I can't figure out which peak corresponds to what motion.
• The most prominent peak (judged by peak height) is at 0.771 Hz for both PITCH and YAW
• Assuming the peak at 0.92 Hz is the other angular mode, the PIT/YAW decoupling is poor in both peaks, only ~factor of 2 in both cases.
2. Why are the POS and SIDE resonances sensed so asymmetrically in the PIT and YAW channels? There's a factor of 10 difference there...

So, while I conclude that my first-contact residue removal removed a constraint from the system (hence the pendulum dynamics are accurate and there are 6 eigenmodes), more thought is needed in judging what is the appropriate course of action.

Attachment 1: etmy_oplevs.pdf
14618   Fri May 17 16:07:25 2019 gautamSummaryEquipment loanBorrowed component

ZHL-3A (2 units) —-> QIL

 Quote: I borrowed one Marconi (2023 B) from 40 m lab to QIL lab.
14617   Fri May 17 10:57:01 2019 gautamUpdateSUSIY chamber opened

At ~930am, I vented the IY annulus by opening VAEV. I checked the particle count, seemed within the guidelines to allow door opening so I went ahead and loosened the bolts on the ITMY chamber.

Chub and I took the heavy door off with the vertex crane at ~1015am, and put the light door on.

Diagnosis plan is mainly inspection for now: take pictures of all OSEM/magnet positionings. Once we analyze those, we can decide which OSEMs we want to adjust in the holders (if any). I shut down the ITMY and SRM watchdogs in anticipation of in-chamber work.

Not related to this work: Since the annuli aren't being pumped on, the pressure has been slowly rising over the week. The unopened annuli are still at <1 torr, and the PAN region is at ~2 mtorr.

14616   Fri May 17 10:12:07 2019 AnjaliSummaryEquipment loanBorrowed component

I borrowed one Marconi (2023 B) from 40 m lab to QIL lab.

14615   Thu May 16 23:31:55 2019 gautamUpdateSUSETMY suspension characterization

Here is my analysis. I think there are still some problems with this suspension.

Attachment #1: Time domain plots of the ringdown. The LL coil has peak response ~half of the other face OSEMs. I checked that the signal isn't being railed, the lowest level is > 100 cts.

Attachment #2: Complex TF from UL to the other coils. While there are four peaks now, looking at the phase information, it isn't possible to clearly disentangle PIT or YAW motion - in fact, for all peaks, there are at least three face shadow sensors which report the same phase. The gains are also pretty poorly balanced - e.g. for the 0.77 Hz peak, the magnitude of UR->UL is ~0.3, while LR->UL is ~3. Is it reasonable that there is a factor of 10 imbalance?

Attachment #3: Nevertheless, I assumed the following mapping of the peaks (quoted f0 is from a lorentzian fit) and attempted to find the input matrix that best convers the Sensor basis into the Euler basis.

DoF f0 [Hz]
POS 1.004
PIT 0.771
YAW 0.920
SIDE 0.967

Unsurprisingly, the elements of this matrix are very different from unity (I have to fix the normalization of the rows).

Attachment #4: Pre and post diagonalization spectra. The null stream certainly looks cleaner, but then again, this is by design so I'm not sure if this matrix is useful to implement.

Next steps:

1. Repeat the actuator diagnonality test detailed here.
2. ???

In case anyone wants to repeat the analysis, the suspension was kicked at 1828 PDT today and this analysis uses 15000 seconds of data from then onwards.

​Update 18 May 3pm:  Attachment #5 better presentation of the data shown in Attachment #2, the remark about the odd phasing of the coils is more clearly seen in this zoomed in view.  Attachment #6 shows Lorentzian fits to the peaks - the Qs are comparable to that seen for the other optics, although the Q for the 0.77 Hz peak is rather low.

Attachment 1: ETMY_sensors_timeDomain.pdf
Attachment 2: ETMY_cplxTF.pdf
Attachment 3: matrixDiag.png
Attachment 4: ETMY_diagComp.pdf
Attachment 5: ETMY_cplxTF.pdf
Attachment 6: ETMY_pkFitNaive.pdf
14614   Thu May 16 22:58:25 2019 gautamUpdateASSIn air ASS test with green?

We were wondering yesterday if we can somehow test the ASS system in air. Though the arm cavity can be locked with the low power IMC transmission, I think the dither would render the POY lock unstable. But I wonder if we can use the green beam for a test. The steering PZTs installed by Yuki can serve the role of TT1/TT2 and we can dither the arm cavity mirrors while the green TEM00 mode is locked to the arm no problem. This would at least give us confidence that the actuation of ETMY/ITMY are okay (in addition to the other suspension tests). Then on the sensing side, after pumping down, the only thing we'd be foiled by is in-vacuum clipping or some major gunk on ETMY - everything else should be de-buggable even after pumping down?

I think most of the CDS infrastructure for this is already in place.

14613   Thu May 16 13:07:14 2019 gautamUpdateSUSFirst contact residue removal

I  used a pair of tweezers to remove the stray fiber of first contact. As Koji predicted, this was rather dry and so it didn't have the usual elasticity, so while I was able to pull most of it off, there is a small spot remaining on the HR surface of the ETM. We will remove this with a fresh application of a small patch of FC.

I the meantime, I'm curious if this has actually fixed the suspension woes, so yet another round of freeswinging data collection is ongoing. From the first 5 mins, looks positive, I see 4 peaks around 1Hz !

The following optics were kicked:
ETMY
Thu May 16 13:06:39 PDT 2019
1242072418

Update 730pm: There are now four well-defined peaks around 1 Hz. Together with the Bounce and Roll modes, that makes six. The peak at 0.92 Hz, which I believe corresponds to the Yaw eigenmode, is significantly lower than the other three. I want to get some info about the input matrix but there was some NDS dropout and large segments of data aren't available using the python nds fetch method, so I am trying again, kicked ETMY at 1828 PDT. It may be that we could benefit from some adjustment of the OSEM positions, the coupling of bounce mode to LL is high. Also the SIDE/POS resonances aren't obviously deconvolved. The stray first contact has to be removed too. But overall I think it was a successful removal, and the suspension characteristics are more in line with what is "expected".

Attachment 1: etmy_sensors.pdf
Attachment 2: etmy_BRmode.pdf
14612   Wed May 15 19:36:29 2019 KojiUpdateSUSETMY instepction

A pair of tweezer is OK as long as there is no magnets around. You need to (somewhat) constrain the mirror with the EQ stops so that you can pull the fiber without dragging the mirror.

14611   Wed May 15 17:46:24 2019 gautamUpdateSUSETMY inspection

I setup the usual mini-cleanroom setup around the ETMY chamber. Then I carried out the investigative plan outlined here.

Main finding: I saw a fiber of what looks like first contact on the bottom left (as viewed from HR side) of ETMY, connecting the optic to the cage. See Attachment #1. I don't know that this can explain the problem with the missing eigenmode, it's not a hard constraint.  Seems like something that should be addressed in any case. How do we want to remove this? Just use a tweezer and pull it off, or apply a larger FC patch and then pull it off? I'm pretty sure it's first contact and not a piece of PEEK mesh because I can see it is adhered to the HR side of the optic, but couldn't capture that detail in a photo.

There weren't any obvious problem with the magnet positioning inside the OSEM, or the suspension wire. All the EQ stop tips were >3mm away from the optic.

I also backed out the bottom EQ stops on the far (south side) of the optic by ~2 full turns of the screw. Taking another free-swinging dataset now to see if anything has changed. I will upload all the photos I took, with annotations, to the gPhotos later today eve. Light doors back on at ~1730.

Update 10pm: the photos have been uploaded. I've added a "description" to each photo which should convey the message of that particualr shot, it shows up in my browser on the bottom left of the photo but can also be accessed by clicking the "info" icon. Please have a look and comment if something sticks out as odd / requires correction.

Update 1045pm: I looked at the freeswinging data from earlier today. Still only 3 peaks around 1 Hz.

The following optics were kicked:
ETMY
Wed May 15 17:45:51 PDT 2019
1242002769
Attachment 1: firstContactFiber.JPG
Attachment 2: ETMY_sensorSpectra.pdf
14610   Wed May 15 10:57:57 2019 gautamUpdateSUSEY chamber opened

[chub, gautam]

1. Vented the EE annulus.
2. Took the heavy door off, put it on the wooden rack, put a light door on at ~11am.
14609   Wed May 15 10:56:47 2019 gautamUpdatePSLPSL turned ON again

To test the hypothesis that the fan replacement had any effect on the NPRO shutoff phenomena, I turned the HEPA on the PSL table down to the nominal 30% setting at ~10am.

Tomorrow I will revert the laser crystal temperature to whatever the nominal value was. If the NPRO runs in that configuration (i.e. the only change from March 2019 are the diode TEC setpoints and the new fan on the back of the controller), then hurray.

14608   Wed May 15 00:40:19 2019 gautamUpdateSUSETMY diagnosis plan

I collected some free-swinging data from earlier today evening. There are still only 3 peaks visible in the ASDs, see Attachment #1.

Plan for tomorrow:

TBH, I don't have any clear ideas as to what we are supposed to do to to fix the problem (or even what the problem is). So here is my plan for now:

1. Take pictures of relative position of magnet and OSEM coil for all five coils
2. Inspect positions of all EQ stops - back them well out if any look suspiciously close
3. Inspect suspension wire for any kinks
4. Inspect position of suspension wire in standoff

I anticipate that these will throw up some more clues

Attachment 1: ETMY_sensorSpectra.pdf
14607   Tue May 14 10:35:58 2019 gautamUpdateGeneralVent underway
1. PSL had stayed on overnight. There was an EQ (M 4.6 near Costa Rica) which showed up on the Seis BLRMS, and I noticed that several optics were reporting Oplev spots off their QPDs (I had just centered these yesterday). So I did a quick alignment check:
• After moving test mass bias sliders to bring Oplev spots back to the center, the EX and EY green beams were readily locked to a TEM00 mode
• IR flashes could be seen in TRX and TRY (though their levels are low, since we are operating with 1/10th the nominal power
• The IP-POS QPD channels were reporting a "segmentation fault" so I keyed the c1iscaux crate and they came back. Still the QPD was reporting a low SUM value, but this too is because of the lower power. Conveniently, there was an ND2.0 filter in the beam path on a flip mount which I just flipped out of the way for the low-power tracking.
• Then, PSL and green shutters were closed and Oplev loops were disengaged.
2. Checked that we have an RGA scan from today
3. During the walkthrough to check the jam nuts, Chub noticed that the outer nuts on the bellows between the OMC chamber and the IMC chamber were loose to the finger! He is tightening them now and checking the remaining jam nuts. AFAIK, Steve made it sound like this was always a formality. Should we be concerned? The other jam nuts are fine according to Chub.
4. We valved off the pumpspool from the main volume and annuli, and started letting Nitrogen into the main volume at ~1045am.
5. Started letting instrument grade air into the main volume at ~1130am. We are aiming for a pressure increase of 3 torr/min
6. 4 cylinders of dry air were exhausted by ~330pm. It actually looks like we over-pressured the main volume by ~20torr - this is bad, we should've stopped the air inletting at 700 psi and then let it equilibriate to lab air pressure.
7. At some point during the vent, the main volume pressure exceeded the working range of the cold cathode gauge CC1. It reports "Current Fail" on its LED display, which I'm assuming meant it auto-shutoff its HV to protect itself, Jon tells me the vacuum code isn't responsible for initiating any manual shutoff.
8. A new vacuum state was added to reflect these conditions (pumpspool under vacuum, main volume at atmosphere).
9. The annuli remain under vacuum for now. Tomorrow, when we remove the EY door, we will vent the EY annulus.

IMC was locked, MC2T ~ 1200cts after some alginment touch ups. The test mass oplevs indicate some drift, ~100urad. I didn't realign them.

The EY door removal will only be done tomorrow. I will take some free-swinging ETMY data today (suspension was kicked at 1241919438) to see if anything has changed (it shouldn't have). I need to think up a systematic debugging plan in the meantime.

Attachment 1: vent.png
Attachment 2: Screenshot_from_2019-05-14_16-35-16.png
14606   Mon May 13 18:48:32 2019 gautamUpdateGeneralVent prep
1. c1auxey and c1aux VME crates were keyed.
2. EX and EY NPROs were turned on.
3. Y arm was aligned to the IR - best effort TRY ~0.75.
4. EY green was aligned to the Y arm cavity. The spot is on the lower right quadrant on the CCD monitor, but GTRY ~0.35.
5. #3 and #4 were repeated for XARM.
6. All beams were centerd on Oplev and IP POS QPDs with this reference alignment - see Attachment #1. SOS Optic and TT DC bias positions were saved to burt snap files.
7. I've never really used it but I updated all the SUS "driftmon" values - Attachment #2.
8. Power going into the IMC was cut from 945 mW to 100 mW (both numbers measured with FieldMate power meter) by rotating the HWP installed last time for this purpose from 244 degrees (OLD) to 208 degrees (NEW). There was no beam dump for the reflected port of the PBS used to cut power, so I installed one, see Attachment #4.
9. The T=90% BeamSplitter in the MC REFL path was replaced with a 2" HR mirror as is the norm for the low power IMC locking. Alignment of the MC REFL beam onto the MC REFL PD was tweaked.
10. init.d file was edited and MCautolocker initctl process was restarted on Megatron to adopt the low power settings. It was locked, MCT ~1350 counts, see Attachment #3. Also adjusted the threshold level above which to have the slow PID offloading of FSS PZT voltage from 10000 to 1000.

I believe this completes the non-Chub portions of the pre-vent checklist, we will start letting air into the main volume ASAP tomorrow morning after crossing off the remaining items.

Main goal of this vent is to investigate the oddness of the YARM suspensions. I leave the PSL NPRO on overnight in the interest of data gathering, it's been running ~10 hrs now - I suspect it'll turn itself off before we are ready to vent in the AM.

Attachment 1: ventPrep_20190514.png
Attachment 2: driftMon_20190514.png
Attachment 3: lowPowIMC.png
Attachment 4: IMG_7434.JPG
14605   Mon May 13 10:45:38 2019 gautamUpdatePSLPSL turned ON again

I used some double-sided tape to attach a San Ace 60 9S0612H4011 to the Innolight controller (Attachment #1). This particular fan is rated to run with up to 13.8V, but I'm using a +15V Sorensen output - at best, this shortens the lifespan of the fan, but I don't have a better solution for now. Then I turned the laser on again (~1040 local time), using the same settings Rana configured earlier in this thread. PMC was locked, and the IMC also could be locked but I closed the shutter for now while the laser frequency/intensity stabilizes after startup. The purpose is to facilitate completion of the pre-vent alignment checklist in prep for the planned vent tomorrow. PMC Trans reports 0.63 after alignment was optimized, which is ~15% lower than in Oct 2016.

Attachment 1: IMG_7431.JPG
14604   Sat May 11 11:48:54 2019 JonUpdatePSLSome work on/around PSL table

I took a look at the error being encountered by the modbusPSL service. The problem is that the /run/modbusPSL.pid file is not being generated by procServ, even though the -p flag controlling this is correctly set. I don't know the reason for this, but it was also a problem on c1vac and c1susaux. The solution is to remove the custom kill command (ExecStop=...) and just allow systemd to stop it via its default internal kill method.

 ● modbusPSL.service - ModbusIOC Service via procServ    Loaded: loaded (/etc/systemd/system/modbusPSL.service; disabled)    Active: active (running) since Fri 2019-05-10 13:17:54 PDT; 2h 13min ago   Process: 8824 ExecStop=/bin/kill -9  cat /run/modbusPSL.pid (code=exited, status=1/FAILURE)  Main PID: 8841 (procServ)    CGroup: /system.slice/modbusPSL.service            ├─8841 /usr/bin/procServ -f -L /home/controls/modbusPSL.log -p /run/modbusPSL.pid 8009 /cvs/cds/rtapps/epics-3.14.12.2_long/module...            ├─8842 /cvs/cds/rtapps/epics-3.14.12.2_long/modules/modbus/bin/linux-x86_64/modbusApp /cvs/cds/caltech/target/c1psl2/npro_config.c...            └─8870 caRepeater May 10 13:17:54 c1auxex systemd[1]: Started ModbusIOC Service via procServ.
14603   Fri May 10 18:24:29 2019 gautamUpdateNoiseBudgetaligoNB

I pulled the aligoNB git repo to /ligo/GIT/aligoNB/aligoNB. There isn't a reqs.txt file in the repo so installing the dependencies on individual workstations to get this running is a bit of a pain. I found the easiest thing to do was to setup a virtual environment for the python3 stuff, this way we can run python2 for the cdsutils package (hopefully that gets updated soon). I'm setting up a C1 directory in there, plan is to budget some subsystems like Oplev, ALS for now, and develop the code for the eventual IFO locking. As a test, I ran the H1 noise budget (./aligonb H1), works, so looks like I got all the dependencies...

ELOG V3.1.3-