This elog is meant to summarize my numerical simulations for looking into the effects of curvature on the RC mirrors. I've tried to go through my reasoning (which may or may not be correct) and once this gets a bit more refined, I will put all of this into a technical note.
Summary of roundtable meeting yesterday between EricG, EricQ, Koji and Gautam:
We identified two possible courses of action.
I have done some calculations to evaluate the first alternative.
Something else that came up in yesterdays meeting was if we should go in for 1" optics rather than 2", seeing as the beam spot is only ~3mm on these. It is not clear what (if any) advantages this will offer us (indeed, for the same RoC, the sag is smaller for a 1" optic than a 2").
Attachment #1: Mode-matching maps between PRX and Xarm cavities, PRY and Yarm cavities with some contours overlaid.
Attachment #2: Mode-matching maps between SRX and Xarm cavities, SRY and Yarm cavities with some contours overlaid.
Attachment #3: Gouy phase calculations for the PRC
Attachment #3: Gouy phase calculations for the SRC
Here are the results for case 2: (flat PR3/SR3, for purpose of simulation, I've used a concave mirror with RoC in the range 5-15km, and concave PR2/SR2 - I've looked at the RoC range 300m-4km).
Attachment #1: Mode matching between PRC cavities and arm cavities with some contour plots
Attachment #2: Mode matching between SRC cavities and arm cavities with some contour plots
Attachment #3: Gouy phase and TMS for the PRC. I've plotted two sets of curves, one for a PR3 with RoC 5km, and the other for a PR3 with RoC 15km
Attachment #4: Gouy phase and TMS for the SRC. Two sets of curves plotted, as above.
Hopefully EricG will have some information with regards to what is practical to spec at tomorrow's meeting.
EDIT: Added 9pm, 16 Aug 2016
A useful number to have is the designed one-way Gouy phase and TMS for the various cavities. To calculate these, I assume flat folding mirrors, and that the PRM has an RoC of 115.5m, SRM has an RoC of 148m (numbers taken from the wiki). The results may be summarized as:
So, there are regions in parameter space for both options (i.e. keep current G&H mirrors, or order two new sets of folding mirrors) that get us close to the design numbers...
Keeping these design numbers in mind, here are a few possible scenarios. The "designed" TMS numbers from my previous elog are above for quick reference.
Case 1: Keep existing G&H mirror, flip it back the right way, and order new PR3/SR3.
Case 2: Order two new sets of folding mirrors
At first glance, it looks like the tolerances are much larger for Case 2, but we also have to keep in mind that for such large RoCs in the km range, it may be impractical to specify as tight tolerances as in the 100s of metres range. So these are a set of numbers to keep in mind, that we can re-iterate once we hear back from vendors as to what they can do.
For consolidation purposes, here are the aLIGO requirements for the coatings on the RC folding mirrors: PR2, PR3, SR2, SR3
For the given range of the PR3/SR3 RoCs for both cases, all the resulting numbers such as TMSs/mode matching ratios look reasonable to me.
Following up on the discussion from last week's Wednesday meeting, two points were raised:
With regards to the coating on the AR side, I've put in R<300ppm@1064nm and R<1000ppm@532nm on the AR side. On the HR side, we have T>97% @ 532nm (copied from the current PR3/SR3 spec), and T<50ppm @1064nm. What are the ghost beams we need to be worried about?
So in conclusion, with the specs as they are now, I don't think the ALS noise performance is adversely affected. I have updated the spec to have the following numbers now.
HR side: T < 50ppm @1064nm, T>99.9% @532nm
AR side: R < 100ppm @1064nm and @532nm
As for the POP question, if we want to extract a stronger POP beam, we will have to relax the requirement on the transmission @1064nm on the HR side. But recall that the approach we are now considering is to replace only PR3, and flip PR2 back the right way around. Currently, POP is extracted at PR2, so if we want to stick with the idea of getting a new PR3 and extracting a stronger POP beam, there needs to be a major optical layout reshuffle in the BS/PRM chamber. Koji suggested that in the interest of keeping things moving along, we don't worry about POP for the time being...
Alternatively, if it turns out that the vendor can meet the specs for our second requirement (which requires 1.5% of lambda @632nm measurement precision to meet the 10+/-5km RoC tolerance on PR3), then we can ast for T<1000ppm @1064nm for the HR coating on PR2, and keep the coating specs on PR3 as above.
Attached is a pdf with the specs updated to reflect all the above considerations...
I've now made a DCC page for the mirror specifications, all revisions should be reflected there.
Over the last couple of days, I've been playing around with Rana's coating optimization code to come up with a coating design that will work for us. The basic idea is a to use MATLAB's particle swarm constrained optimization tool to minimize an error function that is a composite of four penalties:
On the AR side, I only considered 2 and 3. The weighting of these four components were set somewhat arbitrarily, but I seem to be able to get reasonable results so I am going with this for now.
From my first pass at it, the numbers I've been able to get, for 19 layer pairs, are (along with some plots):
(in this picture, the substrate is to the right of layer 38)
(substrate to the right of layer 38)
These numbers are already matching the specs we have on the DCC page currently. I am not sure how much better we can get the specs on the HR side keeping with 19 layer pairs...
All of this data, plus the code used to generate them, is on the gitlab coatings page...
Rana suggested including some additional terms to the cost function to penalize high sensitivity to deviations in the layer thickness (L). So the list of terms contributing to the cost function now reads:
I did not include other sensitivity terms, like sensitivity to the refractive index values for the low and high index materials (which are just taken from GWINC).
There is still some arbitrariness in how I chose to weight the relative contributions to the cost function, but after some playing around, I think I have a solution that I think will work. Here are the spectral reflectivity and layer thickness plots for the HR and AR sides respectively.
HR side: for a 1% increase in the thickness of all layers, the transmission changes by 5% @ 1064nm p-pol and 0.5% @ 532nm s and p-pol
AR side: for a 1% change in the thickness of all layers, the transmission changes by <0.5% @ 532nm s and p-pol
(substrate to the right of layer 38)
I've also checked that we need 19 layer pairs to meet the spec requirements, running the code with fewer layer pairs leads to (in particular) large deviations from the target value of 50ppm @ 1064nm p-pol.
Do these look reasonable?
Koji and I have been going over these calculations again before we send a list of revised requirements to Ramin. I've uploaded v3 of the specs to the DCC page. Here is a summary of important changes.
If there are no objections, I would like to send this version of the specs to Ramin and get his feedback. Specifically, I have assumed values for the refractive indices of SiO2 and Ta2O5 from google, Garilynn tells me that we should get these values from Ramin. Then we can run the code again if necessary, but these MC studies already suggest this coating design is robust to small changes in assumed values of the parameters...
Hiro Yamamoto has updated SIS (Static Interferometer Simulation) to allow us to do the MCMC based inference of the 40m arm cavity mirror maps.
The latest version is in git.ligo.org: IFOsim/SIS/
In the examples directory I have put 3 files:
Attached is the plots and the data. The first attached plot is a low resolution one: 200 scans of 100 frequency points each. Second plot is 200 scans of 300 points each.
The run was done assuming perfect LIGO arm params with a random set of Zernike perturbations for each run. The amplitude of each Zernike was chosen from a Normal distribution with a standard deviation of 10 nm.
We need to come up with a better guess for the initial distribution from which to sample, and also to use the more smart sampling that one does using the MCMC Hammer.
For operating the SRC in the "Signal-Recycled" tuning, the SRC macroscopic length needs to be ~4.04m (compared to the current value of ~5.399m), assuming we don't do anything fancy like change the modulation frequencies and not transmit through the IMC. We're putting together a notebook with all the calculations, but today I was thinking about what the signal extraction path should be, specifically which chamber the SRM should be in. Just noting down the thoughts I had here while they're fresh in my head, all this has to be fleshed out, maybe I'm making this out to be more of a problem than it actually is.
It looks like we can have a stable SRC of length 4.044 m without getting any new mirrors, so this is an option to consider in the short-term.
gautam 245pm: Koji pointed out that the G&H mirrors are coated for normal incidence, but looking at the measurement, it looks like the optic has T~75ppm at 45 degree incidence, which is maybe still okay. Alternatively, we could use the -600m SR3 as the single folding mirror in the SRC, at the expense of slightly reduced mode-matching between the arm cavity and SRC.
With Chub's help, I've setup a mini cleanroom at EY - Attachment #1. The HEPA unit is running on high now. All surfaces were wiped with isopropanol, we can wipe everything down again on Monday and replace the foil.
GariLynn worked on the measurement of E1800089 mirrros.
The result of the data analysis, as well as the data and the codes, have been summarized here:
ITMU01 / ITMU02 as well as the five E1800089 mirrors came back to the 40m. Instead, the two ETM spares (ETMU06 / ETMU08) were delivered to GariLynn.
Jordan worked on transportation.
Note that the E1800089 mirrors are together with the ITM container in the precious optics cabinet.
The two ITM spares and two ETM spares are together stored in the optic storage (B110) at Downs. c/o Liyuan and GariLynn
For the sake of future users, I have decided to periodically add tips and tricks in using COMSOL that I have figured out, most probably after hours of circuitous efforts. They will always be listed under the new COMSOL Tips category.
Today's topic: Intrusions
COMSOL has a very user-friendly interface for taking objects from 2D to 3D using the "extrusion" feature. But suppose one wants to design an object which contains screw holes or some other indentation. I've found that creating "punctures" in COMSOL is either impossible or very complicated.
Instead, COMSOL encourages users to always "add" to the object. In other words, one must form the lowest level first, then build layers sequentially on top using new work plane and boolean difference operators. This will probably be a bit clearer with an example:
1) First, create the planar projection in a work plane:
2) Extrude the first layer only in the regular fashion:
3) Add a new work plane which is offset in the z-direction to the deepest point of the intrusion.
4) Now, create the shape of the intrusion in this new work plane.
5) Use the Boolean "Difference" to let COMSOL know that, on this plane, the object has a hole.
6) Extrude once more from the second work plane to complete the intrusion.
An entry on the 40m wiki page might serve you better, and be easier to sift through once all is said and done
The attached pictures give a brief overview of my transfer function measurement procedure in COMSOL. For more details, please see the Wiki.
For the past couple of days, Jan and I have been discussing a major issue in COMSOL involving modeling both oscillatory and non-oscillatory forces simultaneously while using FDA. It turns out that he and I had run into the same problem at different times and with different projects. After discussing with an expert, Jan had decided in the past that this simple task was impossible via direct means.
The issue could still be resolved if there was a way for us to work on the Weak Form of the differential equations describing the system:
According to current documentation however, Weak Form analysis is not yet possible in COMSOL 4.0. Jan suggested moving my work over to ANSYS or waiting for the 4.0 upgrade, but there's probably not enough time left in my SURF for either of these options. I suggested attempting a backwards-compatibility test to COMSOL 3.5; Jan and I will be exploring this option some time next week.
I added COMSOL example files to the 40m svn to demonstrate how to make transfer function measurements in COMSOL.
The directory also contains an (incomplete) explanation of the method in a PDF file.
I studied the eigenfrequencies of a mirror support using COMSOL.
I studied the eigenfrequencies of a mirror mount designed with COMSOL.
I imposed fixed constraints for the base screws and for the screw connecting the base with the pedestal. Note that the central screw is connected to the base only for a small thickness, and the pedestal touches the base only with a thin annulus. This is in way to make a better model of the actual stress.
Shown in fig. 2 is the lowest eigenfrequency of the mount.
I' going to change the base and study the way the eigenfrequency vary, in way to find the configuration which minimizes the lowest eigenfrequency.
I made a Simulation with COMSOL for the Yend table. Mainly, I tried to see how the lower eigenmode changes with the number and the size of the posts inside.
The lateral frame is just sitting on the table, it is fixed by its weight. I also put a couple of screws to fix it better, but the resulting eigenfrequency didn't change so much (less than 1 Hz).
In Fig. 1 I didn't put any post. Of course, the lowest eigenfrequency is very low (around 80 Hz).
Then I added 2 posts, one per side (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3), with different diameter.
In some cases posts don't have a base, but they are fixed to the table only by a screw. It is just a condition to keep them fixed to the table
Eventually I put 4 posts, 2 per side.
The lowest eigenfrequency is always increasing.
At the end I also put a simulation for 4 1.6 inch diameter posts without base, and the eigenfrequency is slightly higher. I want to check it again, because I would expect that the configuration shown in Fig.5a could be more stable.
P.S.: All the post are stainless steel.
I went to 40m yesterday at around 2:30 pm and Koji showed me how to acquire lock in different arms and for different lasers. Finally, we took a preliminary measurement of shaking the ETMX at some discrete frequencies and looking at the beatnote frequency spectrum of X-end laser's fiber-coupled IR and Main laser's IR pick-off.
We verified that we can send discrete frequency excitation signals to ETMX actuators directly and see a corresponding peak in the spectrum of beatnote frequency between fiber-coupled X-end IR laser and main laser IR pickoff.
If full interferometer had been locked, we could have used the DARM error signal output to calibrate it against this measurement.
This morning, I spent some time restoring the jupyter notebook server running in allegra. This server was first set up by Anchal to be able to use the latest nds python API tools which is handy for the calibration stuff. The process to restore the environment was to run "source ~/bashrc.d/*" to restore some of the aliases, variables, paths, etc... that made the nds server work. I then ran ssh -N -f -L localhost:8888:localhost:8888 controls@allegra from pianosa and carry on with the experiment.
[paco, hang, tega]
We started a notebook under /users/paco/20210906_XARM_Cal/XARM_Cal.ipynb on which the first part was doing the following;
Estimation of open loop gain:
Here are some plots from analyzing the C1:LSC-XARM calibration. The experiment is done with the XARM (POX) locked, a single line is injected at C1:LSC-XARM_EXC at f0 with some amplitude determined empirically using diaggui and awggui tools. For the analysis detailed in this post, f0 = 19 Hz, amp = 1 count, and gain = 300 (anything larger in amplitude would break the lock, and anything lower in frequency would not show up because of loop supression). Clearly, from Attachment #3 below, the calibration line can be detected with SNR > 1.
We read the test point right after the excitation C1:LSC-XARM_IN2 which, in a simplified loop will carry the excitation suppressed by 1 - OLTF, the open loop transfer function. The line is on for 5 minutes, and then we read for another 5 minutes but with the excitation off to have a reference. Both the calibration and reference signal time series are shown in Attachment #1 (decimated by 8). The corresponding ASDs are shown in Attachment #2. Then, we demodulate at 19 Hz and a 30 Hz, 4th-order butterworth LPF, and get an I and Q timeseries (shown in Attachment #3). Even though they look similar, the Q is centered about 0.2 counts, while the I is centered about 0.0. From this time series, we can of course show the noise ASDs in Attachment #3.
The ASD uncertainty bands in the last plot are statistical estimates and depend on the number of segments used in estimating the PSD. A thing to note is that the noise features surrounding the signal ASD around f0 are translated into the ASD in the demodulated signals, but now around dc. I guess from Attachment #3 there is no difference in the noise spectra around the calibration line with and without the excitation. This is what I would have expected from a linear system. If there was a systematic contribution, I would expect it to show at very low frequencies.
I would expect to see some lower frequency effects. i.e. we should look at the timeseries of the demod with the excitation on and off.
I would guess tat the exc on should show us the variations in the optical gain below 3 Hz, whereas the exc off would not show it.
Maybe you should do some low pass filtering on the time series you have to see the ~DC effects? Also, reconsider your AA filter design: how do you quantitatively choose the cutoff frequency and stopband depth?
Here is a demonstration of the methods leading to the single (X)arm calibration with its budget uncertainty. The steps towards this measurement are the following:
** Note: We ran the same procedure using dtt (diaggui) to validate our estimates at every point, as well as check our SNR in b and d before taking the ~3.5 hours of data.
We repeated the same procedure as before, but with 3 different lines at 55.511, 154.11, and 1071.11 Hz. We overlay the OLTF magnitudes and phases with our latest model (which we have updated with Koji's help) and include the rms uncertainties as errorbars in Attachment #1.
We also plot the noise ASDs of calibrated OLTF magnitudes at the line frequencies in Attachment #2. These curves are created by calculating power spectral density of timeseries of OLTF values at the line frequencies generated by demodulated XARM_IN and ETMX_LSC_OUT signals. We have overlayed the TRX noise spectrum here as an attempt to see if we can budget the noise measured in values of G to the fluctuation in optical gain due to changing power in the arms. We multiplied the the transmission ASD with the value of OLTF at those frequencies as the transfger function from normalized optical gain to the total transfer function value.
It is weird that the fluctuations in transmission power at 1 mHz always crosses the total noise in the OLTF value in all calibration lines. This could be an artificat of our data analysis though.
Even if the contribution of the fluctuating power is correct, there is remaining excess noise in the OLTF to be budgeted.
What: Anchal and I measured the XARM OLTF last Thursday.
Goal: 1. measure the 2 zeros and 2 poles in the analog whitening filter, and potentially constrain the cavity pole and an overall gain.
2. Compare the parameter distribution obtained from measurements and that estimated analytically from the Fisher matrix calculation.
3. Obtain the optimized excitation spectrum for future measurements.
How: we inject at C1:SUS-ETMX_LSC_EXC so that each digital count should be directly proportional to the force applied to the suspension. We read out the signal at C1:SUS-ETMX_LSC_OUT_DQ. We use an approximately white excitation in the 50-300 Hz band, and intentionally choose the coherence to be only slightly above 0.9 so that we can get some statistical error to be compared with the Fisher matrix's prediction. For each measurement, we use a bandwidth of 0.25 Hz and 10 averages (no overlapping between adjacent segments).
The 2 zeros and 2 poles in the analog whitening filter and an overall gain are treated as free parameters to be fitted, while the rest are taken from the model by Anchal and Paco (elog:16363). The optical response of the arm cavity seems missing in that model, and thus we additionally include a real pole (for the cavity pole) in the model we fit. Thus in total, our model has 6 free parameters, 2 zeros, 3 poles, and 1 overall gain.
The analysis codes are pushed to the 40m/sysID repo.
Fig. 1 shows one measurement. The gray trace is the data and the olive one is the maximum likelihood estimation. The uncertainty for each frequency bin is shown in the shaded region. Note that the SNR is related to the coherence as
SNR^2 = [coherence / (1-coherence)] * (# of average),
and for a complex TF written as G = A * exp[1j*Phi], one can show the uncertainty is given by
\Delta A / A = 1/SNR, \Delta \Phi = 1/SNR [rad].
Fig. 2. The gray contours show the 1- and 2-sigma levels of the model parameters using the Fisher matrix calculation. We repeated the measurement shown in Fig. 1 three times, and the best-fit parameters for each measurement are indicated in the red-crosses. Although we only did a small number of experiments, the amount of scattering is consistent with the Fisher matrix's prediction, giving us some confidence in our analytical calculation.
One thing to note though is that in order to fit the measured data, we would need an additional pole at around 1,500 Hz. This seems a bit low for the cavity pole frequency. For aLIGO w/ 4km arms, the single-arm pole is about 40-50 Hz. The arm is 100 times shorter here and I would naively expect the cavity pole to be at 3k-4k Hz if the test masses are similar.
Fig. 3. We then follow the algorithm outlined in Pintelon & Schoukens, sec. 184.108.40.206, to calculate how we should change the excitation spectrum. Note that here we are fixing the rms of the force applied to the suspension constant.
Fig. 4 then shows how the expected error changes as we optimize the excitation. It seems in this case a white-ish excitation is already decent (as the TF itself is quite flat in the range of interest), and we only get some mild improvement as we iterate the excitation spectra (note we use the color gray, olive, and purple for the results after the 0th, 1st, and 2nd iteration; same color-coding as in Fig. 3).
We did a few quick XARM oltf measurements. We excited C1:LSC-ETMX_EXC with a broadband white noise upto 4 kHz. The timestamps for the measurements are: 1318199043 (start) - 1318199427 (end).
We will process the measurement to compute the cavity pole and analog filter poles & zeros later.
SN 46,795 of 2003 is back.
Just a quick note for now: I've repopulated C1CAL with a limited set of lockin oscillators/demodulators, informed by the aLIGO common LSC model. Screens are updated too.
Rather than trying to do the whole magnitude phase decompostion, it just does the demodulation of the RFPD signals online; everything beyond that is up to the user to do offline.
Briefly testing with PRMI, it seems to work as expected. There is some beating evident from the fact that the MICH and PRCL oscillation frequencies are only 2Hz apart; the demod low pass is currently at an arbitrary 1Hz, so it doesn't filter the beat much.
Screens, models, etc. all svn'd.
After adjusting the alignment of the two beams onto the PD, I managed to recover a stronger beatnote of ~ -10dBm. I managed to take some measurements with the PLL locked, and will put up a more detailed post later in the evening. I turned the IMC autolocker off, turned the 11MHz Marconi output off, and closed the PSL shutter for the duration of my work, but have reverted these to their nominal state now. The are a few extra cables running from the PSL table to the area near the IOO rack where I was doing the measurements from, I've left these as is for now in case I need to take some more data later in the evening...I
Innolight 1W 1064nm, sn 1634 was purchased in 9-18-2006 at CIT. It came to the 40m around 2010
It's diodes should be replaced, based on it's age and performance.
RIN and noise eater bad. I will get a quote on this job.
The Innolight Manual frequency noise plot is the same as Lightwave' elog 11956
Diagnoses from Glasglow:
“So far we have analyzed the laser. The pump diode is degraded. Next we would replace it with a new diode. We would realign the diode output beam into the laser crystal. We check all the relevant laser parameters over the whole tuning range. Parameters include single direction operation of the ring resonator, single frequency operation, beam profile and others. If one of them is out of spec, then we would take actions accordingly. We would also monitor the output power stability over one night. Then we repackage and ship the laser.”
1W Innolight is NOT getting Noise Eater as it was decided yesterday at the 40m meeting. Corrected 3-25-2016
Repair quote with adding noise eater is in 40m wiki
The laser is back. Test report is in the 40m wiki as New Pump Diode Mephisto 1000
It will go on the PSL table.
I brought a bunch of SR560s over for repair from Bridge labs. This unit, picture attached (SN 49698), appears to still not be retaining charge. I’ve brought it back.
I made some rough measurements, using the setup I had used for CCD calibration, to get an idea of how good of a Lambertian scatterer the white paper is. Following are the values I got:
Note: All the measurements are just rough ones and are prone to larger errors than estimated.
I also measured the transmittance of the white paper sample being used (it consists of 2 white papers wrapped together). It was around 0.002
Summary: I calibrated MC2 pitch and yaw offsets to spot position in mm. Here's what I did:
Results: In the pitch/yaw vs pitch_offset/yaw_offset graph attached,
I have been working on analyzing the seismic data obtained from the 3 seismometers present in the lab. I noticed while looking at the combined time series and the gain plots of the 3 seismometers that there is some error in the calibration of the BS seismometer. The EX and the EY seismometers seem to be well-calibrated as opposed to the BS seismometer.
The calibration factors have been determined to be :
The seismometers each have 3 channels i.e X, Y, and Z for measuring the displacements in all the 3 directions. The X channels of the three seismometers should more or less be coherent in the absence of any seismic excitation with the gain amongst all the similar channels being 1. So is the case with the Y and Z channels. After analyzing multiple datasets, it was observed that the values of all the three channels of the BS seismometer differed very significantly from their corresponding channels in the EX and the EY seismometers and they were not calibrated in the region that they were found to be coherent as well.
Note: All the frequency domain plots that have been calculated are for a sampling rate of 32 Hz. The plots were found to be extremely coherent in a certain frequency range i.e ~0.1 Hz to 2 Hz so this frequency range is used to understand the relative calibration errors. The spread around the function is because of the error caused by coherence values differing from unity and the averages performed for the Welch function. 9 averages have been performed for the following analysis keeping in mind the needed frequency resolution(~0.01Hz) and the accuracy of the power calculated at every frequency.
The gain in the given frequency range is ~3. The phase plotting also shows a 180-degree phase as opposed to 0 so a negative sign would also be required in the calibration factor. Thus the calibration factor for the Y channel of the BS seismometer should be around ~3.
The mean value of the gain in the given frequency range is the desired calibration factor and the error would be the mean of the error for the gain dataset chosen which is caused due to factors mentioned above.
Note: The standard error envelope plotted in the attached graphs is calculated as follows :
1. Divide the data into n segments according to the resolution wanted for the Welch averaging to be performed later.
2. Calculate PSD for every segment (no averaging).
3. Calculate the standard error for every value in the data segment by looking at distribution formed by the n number values we obtain by taking that respective value from every segment.
The BS seismometer is a different model than the EX and the EY seismometers which might be a major cause as to why we need special calibration for the BS seismometer while EX and EY are fine. The sign flip in the BS-Y seismometer may cause a lot of errors in future data acquisitions. The time series plots in Attachment #4 shows an evident DC offset present in the data. All of the information mentioned above indicates that there is some electrical or mechanical defect present in the seismometer and may require a reset. Kindly let me know if and when the seismometer is reset so that I can calibrate it again.